FAQ
From Voteswap Canada
[edit] Voteswap.ca FAQ
The following is a draft. Edit it as per instructions on how to edit. It is intended to answer general questions about vote swapping and be widely copied to other projects under the CC-by-nc-sa license [see notes on copyright (all nonprofit projects can use it without limit, for-profit ones require permission).
[edit] Q. What is vote swapping?
A. You agree to swap your vote with someone else in a different constituency. On election day, you cast a vote for their party, and they cast a vote for yours. By agreeing to vote swap you are agreeing to vote. It is a peer to peer agreement with no central enforcement and minimal central coordination and advice. Who to swap with is up to you, but voteswap.ca intends to enable several ways to do it, none of which under our sole control.
[edit] Q. Why would I vote swap?
A. Many votes in Canada are ineffective - that is, they count for literally nothing. In 2008 a million votes were cast for the Green Party, for instance, with zero members of parliament elected. Meanwhile the Bloc regularly elects 2/3 of Quebec's MPs without a lot more support - the Greens even beat them in some polls. Conservatives in Toronto, Liberals in Alberta, also, are typically shut out completely despite having significant support - this cripples those parties in those regions and encourages both regionalism and not voting at all. Thus there are good individual and also collective reasons to take whatever measures are required to improve this unfair and undemocratic and destructive situation.
[edit] Q. Who might typically choose to vote swap?
A. If you don't require the agreement of another person to assure you that your first choice party will be supported, then, arguably, vote swapping is not really necessary. If you support a large party, it is likely that your first choice party will benefit in other constituencies from others who are also voting tactically. Vote swapping is most useful for those who support small parties (Green especially) or wish to work co-operatively with others to defeat the government. For these small parties, that probability of reciprocal support is much lower, and so you should prefer to swap.
Imagine you are an NDP supporter, but they have little chance of winning in your constituency. You can agree to swap your vote with a Green or Liberal supporter in another constituency where the NDP has a good chance. You'd need to be comfortable with voting for their party who may be your second choice. There are websites set up to pair suitable partners.
[edit] Q. What actual vote swapping services can help me?
Facebook was used to swap over 1500 votes in 2008. However the future of the groups and activists that did this are uncertain, they seem not to be planning a 2011 effort.
Voteswap.ca intends to provide a common database that many advocates can use to arrange vote swaps for a specific purpose, such as defeating a given bill or a cabinet minister or electing more women to office. It would not be restricted to any one interface but would have a facebook app, mobile app and web form that third parties can use to promote these purposes.
As of March 9, 2011, there are no services accepting proposed swaps for a 2011 federal election.
[edit] Q. Who has run successful vote swapping efforts before?
A: Peter Martin argues that David Cameron in the 2010 UK election was kept to a minority by tactical voting and swapping. [1]. In Canada in 2008 about 6,000 votes were offered for swap in various anti-Harper groups – of which 1500 were formally swapped – which constituted half the margin of victory in one riding (Keith Martin’s) and a quarter or the margin in another – helping to prevent a Harper majority. Most experts think discussing or offering swaps resulted in many more tactical votes cast than otherwise (people deciding they did not need to be motivated by an offer to cast a vote for their own first choice). While the 2004 US effort to elect John Kerry with Nader votes was not successful, it arguably helped to reduce G. W. Bush's lead to the point where (court proven and criminal) electoral fraud was required to rig the vote in Ohio in order to re-select himself as the President in 2004. Vote swapping will be a major factor in Canada 2011.
[edit] Q. Is this an electoral reform? How does it affect electoral reform?
A. Systematic vote swapping is a form of electoral reform but is not considered a long term replacement for an improved electoral system like BSTV+C+L, STV, MMP or 123. See "the frustrated voter" for a detailed comparison of a wide variety of types of balloting systems with illustrations. Vote swapping and even a 123 ballot is considered by most advocates of reform to be an interim solution. Some disdain it for this reason, but a bad or false majority government is a very high price to pay to make an ideological point.
Advocates of any electoral reform can feel comfortable promoting vote-swapping as it does not bias voters towards any particular system. Advocates of no reform who like FPTP may see it as a pressure relief for those voters whose votes count for nothing over very many elections.
[edit] Q. Is vote-swapping a form of “strategic voting”?
A. No. While a failed or cheated vote swapper could be said to have strategically voted, making a graceful degradation (one effective vote rather than two), this isn't the normal case and (see notes on cheating below) not a phenomena to worry much about.
So-called “strategic voting” robs small parties of total popular vote, reduces the incentive to vote (because one is voting for a second or even third choice candidate), requires deference to or belief in a small number of pollsters or opinion leaders, and reliably fails. Vote swapping is a tactic or form of tactical voting that does none of these things:
- Popular vote total of small parties is preserved so they get the same per-vote public funds.
- Two persons commit to each other to vote, so conscience prods them to ensure they do so.
- Vote swappers defy party staff and leaders and can trust any media or pollsters they choose.
[edit] Q. I am told "strategic voting" has bad effects. Who is right?
A. Voteswap.ca rejects any argument that swapping is equivalent to efforts that try to tell people how to vote centrally - vote swapping is a peer to peer project and any advice regarding who to swap with and why is advisory, and hopefully minimal.
Those who dismiss vote swapping as a form of “strategic” voting are wrong: Two people may or may not have a common strategic outcome in mind and may or may not believe a common data source or poll, that’s irrelevant. Many strategies can be simultaneously served by swaps just as in the public markets – people can have all kinds of motives for making a trade, they need not have any shared goal whatsoever.
When vote-swapping is motivated by a widely shared goal (see below) it might fairly be called “strategic” but voteswap.ca prefers not to do so because of the confusion with poorly organized or conflicted vote-as-I-say plans. A common problem in Canada is that Liberals tell everyone, across the country, to "vote strategically" even in those districts where the actual effective vote is for another party (usually the NDP). For these reasons "strategic voting" has a deserved bad reputation. Vote swappers however are generally far better informed and draw on more information to make their decisions. At least two people, obviously, have to be convinced that both of two votes will be effective, and discuss it explicitly, which reduces the danger of errors.
[edit] Q. What is tactical voting?
A. Any vote not cast for the voter’s first preference candidate can be described as a tactical vote. Canadians usually call this "strategic" voting but the UK term is more correct – it’s a tactic one takes to achieve a local result in two ridings. There is certainly no way to guarantee any particular country-wide “strategic” outcome. Most “strategic” efforts fall down due to just that, the fact that no combination of polls and projections can actually provide much certainty on results.
[edit] Q. What is “strategic” voting?
A. Any vote not cast for the voter’s first preference candidate can also be described as a “strategic” vote, which in the UK is more honestly called "tactical voting". Voteswap.ca prefers the term “tactical voting” to emphasize the uncertainty of any “strategic” outcome and the lack of any single “strategic” goal by all participants in a given swapping forum (very unlike “strategic” forums).
Voteswap.ca refers to poorly organized, corrupt, conflicted, party-run or otherwise overly centralized “strategic” voting as a “vote as I say” effort. Voteswap.ca does not advise voters how to vote or who to trade with, at any time, though it facilitates third parties that the voters themselves trust to actually match up votes.
[edit] Q. What is the likely reason for “strategic”/”vote as I say” or tactical voting?
A. By whatever name, these tactics attempt to reduce unfairness of voting methods that provide no way to express second choice votes - nor any guarantee to reflect party popular vote in seat count – nor express any preference for the eventual leader of the country (the Prime Minister) who is selected (in our system) by the House.
Most of the rest of this FAQ is devoted to tactical/strategic voting and how it fails to solve the problems of the Canadian federal system, and why you should prefer vote swapping instead.
[edit] Q. How does the Canadian federal system work?
A. Canada uses the “first past the post” (FPTP) system. In this system, the winner is decided only on the first choices of the voters, with no way to either indicate or tally second choice votes. This results in many "orphan" votes that count in the popular vote but do not elect an MP. Adding up the popular vote across the country reveals the gross unfairness of a result that allocates the Greens zero seats, under-represents the NDP and heavily rewards the BQ/Bloc.
[edit] Q. Why is FPTP “unfair”?
A. If there are only two candidates the system is perfectly fair: Either candidate needs a majority of votes to win. As the number of candidates increases, so does the unfairness. For example if there are 5 candidates, a winner could have just 20% of the vote plus one. With five federal parties in Canada, this system is a sad joke. It also heavily rewards regional parties.
[edit] Q. But surely this never happens, does it?
A. Few candidates actually win with under 30%, but often do without 40% - in 2000 Jean Chretien formed a majority government with only 37% popular support. In Canada’s 2008 elections, most winning candidates got under 50%. The UK’s worst in 2005 were: 31.4% for Gordon Banks (Labour, Ochil and South Perthshire), 32.3% for Allastair Mc Donnell (SDLP, Belfast South); 33.2% for Nigel Griffiths (Labour, Edinburgh South), 33.6% for Claire Ward (Labour, Watford).
[edit] Q. How do I decide whether my tactical vote is likely to be effective? Doesn’t this just mean voting for either the Conservative or Liberal candidate?
A. No. In Canada, there are many ridings where the NDP or Bloc are one of the first two choices. For instance in Toronto Liberal and NDP candidates compete, in the suburbs of Montreal the Liberals compete with the Bloc, and many Western ridings swap between Conservative and NDP. However, it is probably true that if a thousand voters randomly scattered across the country chose to vote tactically, they would generally tend to cast fewer NDP votes and far fewer Green votes than otherwise. This will vary according to your constituency - you will need to check out the table below and fill out the form to get more personalized updates during a campaign.
[edit] Q. Do politicians know the Canadian voting system is unfair??
A. They certainly do. For internal elections within their own political parties, it is never used. The Conservative and Green Parties of Canada use ranked ballots from all members to select their leader. The Liberal Party of Canada uses multiple rounds of runoff voting at a live convention. No one uses single round first past the post voting. Their own members would revolt because the leader would be elected with more proven opposition than support, something politically sophisticated people would never tolerate. Unlike the poor sucker public!
[edit] Q. What can I do about unfair electoral systems?
A. In the longer term, you can campaign for a fairer electoral system. The simplest way to improve it would be to give voters the option of listing the candidates in order of their preference. This works well in Australia for instance. No provincial electoral reform referendum in Canada has ever offered a simple ranked ballot. Even Stephen Harper, while in Opposition, indicated he could support such a reform with existing single-member districts. Such simple reform would end vote-splitting but would not elect small party leaders. Thus small parties oppose it “in principle”, but their preferred solutions (such as “mixed-member proportional”) are proven unpopular with the public. Accordingly in 2011 Canadians should just try to get ranked ballots at the municipal level. With that accomplished, they can argue that they should be used for provincial and then federal elections. The small parties would then be forced to accept the ranked ballot based systems (such as STV) which do not put parties in charge of who goes to the legislature, which will probably be accepted by the public after they understand (and have used) the ranked ballot themselves a few times in municipal elections.
[edit] Q. And in the short term?
A. You could consider tactical voting. This means deciding the likely two main candidates and choosing one of them. You can use facilities at voteswap.ca to make that decision without making any commitment to anyone else (no “swap”), but the same facilities make it easy to co-operate with fellow citizens and swap your vote, which has fewer problems than tactical votes. One more time:
[edit] Q: What are the advantages of vote swapping over less organized tactical or “strategic” voting?
A: At least four advantages:
- Total popular vote for small parties, on which their funding depends, is preserved - if all votes pair one for one then the total funding and popular vote is undistorted. This helps motivate small party voters to participate, knowing that by doing so they guarantee a vote for their party but can also help elect an MP that is tolerable (i.e. not repugnant) to them.
- Citizens co-operate as peers with each other. They do not obey directions from media or parties about what would be the "most strategic" tactical vote or what would violate the "principles" of a party. Centralized power structures are therefore reduced, and two citizens make a handshake deal that each trusts the other to enforce. No matter the outcome, this is positive for citizenship.
- Citizens who make a commitment to each other to vote are much more likely to do so than those who have begrudgingly accepted that their best vote is a tactical one for someone they don’t “really” support. Also, direct communication with someone who makes a case for that party can also motivate the effort.
- Some records of who swapped and why are possible to compile after the fact. This makes it easier for parties to assess:
- how they would fare under reforms that counted second-choice votes
- who they would seek those second-choice votes from
- what concessions those voters would want to rank them as number 2.
More co-operative coalition-type politics could likely emerge from this, as candidates would know much more about motives of their supporters, including which policies convinced them to vote swap for them.
[edit] Q. What if I don’t care who wins, but I would just like to support my chosen party?
A. Obviously you may vote according to your choice of priorities, feelings or whatever reasoning. Keep in mind that the government elected may do so much damage you regret your symbolic vote. If you believe more long-term good is done by sending your chosen party a signal of support, keep in mind also that vote swapping doesn't reduce overall support. Treating a vote as if it is a religious duty also tends to lead to regional or ethnic based parties – and therefore to regionalism and racism – this is obvious to many immigrants, refugees and travelers.
[edit] Q. Is a vote for a minor candidate a wasted vote?
A. That is for everyone to decide for themselves. If you consider a symbolic vote important, keep in mind that vote swapping will cast that vote in another place. You have the option of publicizing the fact that you swapped your vote, so that the regional and riding support for your preferred party can also be more accurately seen.
[edit] Q. How do I vote for minority government?
A. A minority government (or "hung parliament") means that no single party has an overall majority and that at least two parties will have to co-operate to some extent to form a government. Vote for the minority parties such as the NDP or Greens whenever they have a genuine chance of winning in your constituency. If you live in Quebec you should consider the Bloc. If the tactical vote in your constituency is between Liberal and Conservative choose the one who is behind in national opinion polls to increase the likelihood of a minority. In the UK there were active campaigns in 2010 to get voters to elect the first postwar minority government [?http://hang-em.com/ http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/03/labour-brown-british-britain] which did succeed.
[edit] Q. I have more questions about this site, this election, or want to be more involved...
A. We have six additional FAQs:
- federal 2011 FAQ about the specific circumstances of a 2011 federal election and how voteswap.ca will respond to it, dealing also with what happened in 2008 and what could improve - this addresses questions of cheating specific to that election and its specific parties/players
- a FAQ for canvassing which is intended to assist people on the phone or door to door to convince doubters that voteswapping is an effective solution to some voters' problems and should be considered, especially by those who are turned off by no-incentive "strategic voting" projects
- this may develop into a cheat FAQ listing literally every known means of cheating vote swapping and pairing and how they are minimized, or why they don't matter, or aren't likely to matter in a given election
- party-specific materials:
Contact info@voteswap.ca if you want to offer more help. If you can contribute to facebook apps, databases, web forms or mobile app development, or have done mass social media outreach before, that would be especially welcome.
