Thread by @Lidsville

This is that time in the election when we have smaller parties (& their members) railing against "strategic voting." This is in their self-interest, of course. But it makes the electorate materially stupider about how the First Pasts the Post electoral system works. #argh #elxn44

Under First Past the Post, all voting is really "strategic voting" unless your favourite party is leading in your riding. It's baked in. People seem to intuitively know this (eg voting to keep the Conservatives out) but they don't seem to get that this only happens under FPTP...

What bugs me is it's smaller parties (who BTW remain smaller precisely due to FPTP) who when we're not in elections often push for #ProportionalRepresentation (where strategic voting doesn't apply) but who, during FPTP elxns, confuse ppl by telling them not to vote strategically

Under FPTP, your non-strategic vote ("voting your heart") may provide us with some data on how people are thinking (and we can get that info in other ways), but it doesn't have the desired effect on election results. Your non-strategic vote can go to your foe, plain and simple.

First Past the Post is an unfair, undemocratic system in our modern multi-party context. You will not get representation in parliament *unless your fave party wins*. 4 years without representation, over & over. You'll have an MP to rep your riding, but that's not political rep'n.

Having said all this, if you ask me, don't give the Liberals a majority. The panic strategic voting that FPTP actively encourages benefits the faux "centre" parties. Take a really close look at your riding, make sure the conservative has no chance, and figure out who does.

This is the best explanation I've seen of what's wrong with First Past the Post. Interestingly it comes from someone who's right of centre (Red Tory?). Andrew Coyne @acoyne on how broken FPTP is in a modern multi-party context: facebook.com/voteprbc/video… #elxn44 #cdnpoli