Strategic voting has reared it's ugly head again this election, and I wanted to reiterate that I'm opposed to strategic voting of any kind. Each voter should vote for whom they think is the best candidate and/or for which party they think has the best platform.

The first problem is this - although the media like to portray the Liberals, NDP and Greens as all being "left-of-centre," the reality is that all three are left only in comparison to the Conservatives. A more accurate picture is that NDP policies are left of centre, Liberal policies are mostly centrist, and Green social policies are left of centre, while their economic policies are right of centre. Each party has a distinct platform that will appeal to a different set of voters.

Setting aside the finer points of policy, the bigger problem with strategic voting arguments is that their advocates are usually promoting tactical voting, not strategic voting. In general, tactical voting advocates are trying to figure out a way to win a single riding and/or overcome the short-term problem of a possible Conservative majority. The tactics would have to be repeated each election, since these problems will always exist.

The actual long-term strategy for non-Green supporters advocating tactical voting is to encourage the Green Party to drop out of the federal political scene so their preferred party can win. Here is a website that offers a good perspective on that strategy:

http://www.voteforenvironment.ca/

Despite polling at over 10% for months, the Greens are offered 1 seat in the tactical voting alliance, while the Liberals get an extra 41 seats and the NDP get an extra 16 seats.

Let's consider an alternative and more visionary strategy that I think will have a better long-term chance of implementing policies where Liberal and NDP goals align with Green Party goals: implementing proportional representation. In a proportional system the Green's support of over 10% would earn them 30+ seats in Parliament. The NDP, Liberal and Green caucuses would almost certainly be able to form long-term coalitions that could pass progressive policies where their policies overlap, while still allowing each party to pursue policies that are unique to their platform. Also, no more time would be wasted on tactical voting campaigns to stop the Conservatives.

The problem is that the leadership (and many supporters) of the Liberals and NDP want to have their cake and eat it too. They know that if proportional representation comes in their influence in Parliament will be permanently diminished. So no steps are taken to make it a reality, and the arguments for tactical voting live on.

Ultimately, the best strategy for Green supporters to achieve proportional representation is to continue to vote for who you believe in. The necessary changes will come if and when the Greens remain grossly underrepresented in Parliament and the electorate - in particular, supporters of other parties - realizes that the electoral system is flawed and needs to be changed if they want a fair system in which sound social and environmental policies can be implemented. This election has already shown that such things are possible, since it was supporters of the Conservatives and NDP that rose up and demanded that Elizabeth May be allowed in the Leaders' debate.

There is no guarantee that such a change will happen in the short term, but it certainly has more of a chance to fix long-term problems than electing a Liberal or NDP minority. There are actually a lot of parallels between the half-hearted, failed attempts to "fix" (as one example) climate change problems and the haphazard, failed attempts to "fix" the electoral system by having voters vote for their second or third choice.

Vote with your head and your heart if you want to see real change.