Under the Murray plan, seats held by the Conservatives in which the governing party received less than 50 per cent of the vote would be targeted for co-operation.
She would blend the 2008 and 2011 results, to eliminate any onetime anomalies. One such anomaly, she said, was the Jack Layton-led 2011 NDP conquest of Quebec.Now, one of the main criticisms of strategic voting schemes has been their inevitable reliance on re-fighting the last war - with results ranging from ineffective to downright counterproductive.
But Murray apparently isn't satisfied with even that well-established level of failure. Instead, she's going a step further into the past, seeking to incorporate yet another layer of past (and outdated) data from the 2008 election in order to try to make her proposal palatable among supporters who apparently want to live in denial that the most recent federal election actually happened.
Moreover, she's explicitly declaring that a plan nominally aimed at expanding the number of progressive seats in Parliament will operate on the assumption that the largest actual grouping of such seats is an irrelevant "anomaly". (Not that the NDP's success in winning Quebec ridings from the Cons and Bloc would be subject to her cooperation plan in the first place - as in another familiar failing of strategic voting schemes, Murray doesn't seem to recognize that a viable coalition needs to hold and build on the seats it actually holds rather than simply assuming the rest of the election will proceed exactly like the previous one.)
Again, I normally wouldn't wade into another party's leadership campaign. But a candidate trying to run on cross-party cooperation can't expect to avoid questions as to whether her plan represents a slap in the face rather than an outstretched hand. And Murray's desire to dismiss the 2011 election and the enduring growth of the NDP falls squarely into the former category - meaning that anybody seeking a standard-bearer for a progressive coalition needs to look elsewhere.