Friday, September 18, 2015

How Liberal Leaners Can Vote Strategically To Stop A Con In British Columbia.


This is a first pass, and like our earlier post for Liberal leaning folks looking to vote strategically, it leans heavily on Eric Grenier's riding projections (and as we've discussed previously, I know that there are inherent problems with his methodology). I'll update it as more riding-specific polls are done.

Essentially, the key to this stuff is figuring out which ridings are in doubt where your party of choice's candidate CAN'T WIN.

That way you can vote for another non-Con party with a clear conscience (and be fairly certain that you are helping ensure that the majority of Canadians who want a change in government get it).

Here goes...

Cariboo-Prince George: Leaning Con, Liberal has no chance but the Dipper does...So, Liberal leaners can make a big difference in Con-stopping.

Central OK Similkameen Nicola: Strong Con, Dipper clear second but would need significant Lib and Green votes to win.

Coquitlam-PoCo:  Leaning Con, Liberal has no chance but the Dipper does...So, Liberal leaners can make a big difference in Con-stopping.

Courtenay Alberni: Leaning Dipper, Lib has no chance but Con in the running...So Liberal leaners can make a really, really big difference to ensure a non-Con win.

Cowichan Malahat Langford:  Leaning Dipper, Lib has no chance but Con in the running...So Liberal leaners can make a really, really big difference to ensure a non-Con win.

Esquimalt Saanich Sooke: This is NOT Elizabeth May's riding...Here Dipper is solid with Con in distant second...The problem here, as is the case with all South VanIsle ridings that are not a non-Con lock, is the potential for significant misguided Green bleed...Thus Liberal leaning votes sent the NDP's way could make sure nothing disastrous happens in this riding.

Kamloops Thompson Cariboo: Dipper and Con may be neck-and-neck here...Importantly, the Lib cannot, I repeat, CANNOT win this riding.... Thus, any Liberal votes that go to the NDP could be extremely useful, especially given that the Green vote is relatively weak here (compared to VanIsle at least).

Kootenay-Columbia: Like Kamloops the Dipper and Con may be neck-and-neck and the Lib  CANNOT win here.... Thus, any Liberal votes that go to the NDP would be extremely useful for Con-stopping purposes.

Mission-Matsqui-Fraser Craneyon: Leaning Con, strong Dipper and Lib has no chance...So, Liberal leaners can make a big difference to stop Cons.

Nanaimo Ladysmith: Sure, this is strong Dipper territory...But given the potential for Green votes sliding up to the mid-Island, I would strongly suggest that Lib leaners ensure that the Con, who might have as much as 30 percent support, doesn't come up the middle, especially given that your Liberal candidate cannot win here.

North OK Shushwap: Leaning Con with clear 2nd place Dipper...Votes from Liberal leaners and a few Greens might just flip it.

Pit Meadows Maple Ridge: Con and Dipper running neck-and-neck...A solid block of votes from Liberal leaners could easily stop the Con here.

Prince George Peace River NorthernRockpile: With the Con so far ahead this is kinda pie-in-the-sky by the Dipper looks to be solid second...So, if I were a dreamer I would hope that all Liberal and Green voters would go orange here....Just don't pinch me!

South OK West Kootenay: Pretty strong Dipper with Con in second...The potential for Green hiving scares the heck out of me though...So, again, Liberal folks...Your candidate cannot win...Therefore, please do your best to ensure a solid Con-stopping.

Every other B.C. riding, at least as far as I can tell, either has a lock for somebody such that switching even half of the Liberal vote wouldn't help...There are two exceptions though, where the uncertainty makes it really hard and/or impossible to tell who the heck is in first or even second for sure...Both are 'new' ridings...Delta and Vancouver Granville.
I've already done one of these kinda/sorta for Greeniacs who want to Strat-Vote to stop a Con...It's here.
One for Dipper voters will soon follow.



North Van's Grumps said...

Thanks for the breakdown on where the ridings might go, however where is the information on WHO the candidate is. The point of an election is supposed to be voting for the PERSON who would best represent your interests in Ottawa.

RossK said...


Normally, I would agree.

However, for this one, in my opinion at least, the only thing that matters is stopping Cons.


Anonymous said...

I say, ultimately, we vote for the party. That is the way our system works in Canada. It is not for the member.

Anonymous said...

There should only be three Parties? not four country wide,

Quebec being unique has a choice of six

Members of Parliament before the 2015 election

162 Conservative Party of Canada
94 New Democratic Party
36 Liberal Party of Canada
2 Green Party of Canada
2 Bloc Quebecois of Quebec only
2 Forces et Democratie of Quebec Only

Mr. Beer N. Hockey said...

Glad I live in a place where the party I like to party with is the only viable option to the Blue Magoos. I would have to have quite a few drinks in me to vote Liberal to prevent the Unthinkable. Same could probably be said for Liberals voting NDP to do the same. Could turn out our Election Day may be more like New Year's Eve than usual.

Anonymous said...


Yesterday. South Okanagan West Kootenay, Green candidate announced:

Anonymous said...

South Okanagan—West Kootenay Liberal candidate Connie Denesiuk sold out to the BC Liberals when she was the head of the BC School Trustees, then - true to form - the BC Liberals stabbed her in the back.

It is going to be an easy choice to make in the booth next month.

RossK said...


I can't disagree with you overall re: importance of party vote, especially this time.

NVG, however, is in a tough place because he feels the specific Green Party candidate in his riding is the best choice.


Seems to me the real issue is the first-past-the-post thingy.

If not for that, the 70% of us who want our country back could stop worrying about being ruled by the crackpot vote that believes up is down and the Straussians actually have their best interests at heart.



Are you suggesting that we could solve this entire thing by getting everybody together for a Sudbury Saturday night or four between now and October 19th?


SH and Anon-Directly Above--

If the Con wins there by less than five....Aaaaarrrrggghhhh!


paul said...

Spent a few days in Courtenay-Alberni last weekend. The 13-year-old grandboy said his first choice would be Green, but he would actually vote - if allowed - NDP because he thought it more important to change the party in power.

RossK said...


Now that is a kid who is paying attention!


RossK said...

And, for the record--

If your grandson could vote, according to the recent riding-specific poll from Insights West for the Dogwood Initiative he very much would be helping to stop the Con if he went Green to Dipper (same would be true of Lib leaning switch as noted above)....Kicker in that riding...It just may be closer (Dip v. Con) than people originally thought.


scotty on denman said...

This is really helpful stuff, Ross, exactly what's needed to parse some of these tight races---at least as they're presented. It bears fairly close attention since, IMHO, anyway, there might be some consequential jockeying down the home stretch.

To Grumps: normally I wouldn't challenge your sage opinion, but here I have to emphasize the uniqueness of the situation, and what's at stake for everyone if Harper gets back in---and I should think there's a lot at stake for the Green Party too: I think risking split-vote Con wins is not worth bearing---this is the best opportunity to move toward electoral reform the Greens ever had, and it'll be gone if Harper's Cons are reelected. But I'm sure you've heard that already. Perhaps, if you can hold your nose and vote strategically, you'll sooner have the chance to cast a pro-rep vote for a candidate that represents more closely your interests. Maybe you could look at it this way, just for the time being: the election is a cooperative exercise to represent the constituency as a whole---that voters vote collectively to represent collective, not individual, interests. With all due respect to your democratic ideals.

RossK said...


Oh, I think we'll get electoral 'reform' if the Cons win, in name at least.

Of course, it will most likely be exactly the opposite in actuality (see so-called 'Fair Elections Act', for example).


Hey!...What did you find out about your cable ferry?


North Van's Grumps said...

And then there's 'Peeping Tom' Harrington, Director for CBC MarketPlace who gave Stephen Harper the idea that it would be best not to have someone who has incontinence on his team. Sure it was crass on the part of 'Jerry' but how was he to know that he was being secretly filmed, AND, why oh why was Harrington permitted to broadcast that personal information in the first place when CBC has strict protocols especially when it comes to personal health. Demonizing someone just because he had to pee! must have helped the ratings for CBC.

For candidates (NOT CONSERVATIVES) who are still looking for votes, there's the 'untapped' group where 8.3 million people, voters, suffer from incontinence... but what does Canada's Prime Minister do, he send a clear message Don't do it my coffee cup, do it the bathroom ... yeah? yeah?! Harrington had that room wired too for his personal pleasure.

Excuse my Rant here RossK, but if CBC and Harper tag-teams are so down on people with incontinence I would hazard a guess that those same news people/press and Ministers don't have the bxxxs to state where they stand when it comes to prostatitis, one step away from ... incontinence... .

RossK said...


Watch out.

Don't give them any ideas....Because I could see a sudden FedCon pivot to try and slice and dice that vote also.

Maybe massive subsidies or even free cranberry juice for all of us guys over 40?


North Van's Grumps said...

Did Jim Flaherty get to stay in office to almost the last minute by not disclosing his illness to the press or Harper?

Anonymous said...


On a positive note, a staunch, highly principled human being, deep thinker and quiet force in my community, has gone Orange, at least for this election. Has, signage, even!

As for Blue signs, well, they just don't fair well outside of captivity...and the rare, captive ones, well, they are where you'd expect them to be. Still thinking about what that all means...strategy or happenstance ???

Anonymous said...


..."strategy or happenstance" re absence of signs...

scotty on denman said...

Cable ferry is said to have been experiencing some engineering problem, which is why it hasn't been whipping through its trials as fast as it said it would. When I asked, "How long you figure the self-powered ferry will remain in service?" it was quietly understood that the severances offered and accepted by a substantial number of crew do not happen so long's they're needed on the real ferry, and the planned promotion to full time for many of the remainder (most of whom are currently working off their average fifteen-year probatory period --- i.e., for those who choose to stay in the community, and don't work on other runs in the system) when the cable-ferry takes over.

As usual, it's a mess--- lookin' more like an intentional waste of money than the prudent business decision it billed itself as---and absolutely nobody here ever believed. In my view, it's a neo-right political project to beggar public enterprise, reward cronies, and smash public sector labour unions. Evidence for that is, among other things, the second fiddle engineering appears to have taken when presented with unexplored physics: the cable is very, very long, twice as long as the next longest which, importantly, is in fresh, not salt, water. Issues are dead-weight physics, and the dynamics of ocean waves and wind, and corrosion/wear of the cable (BTW, its lightness has been a matter of much conjecture around here, at least anybody's ever seen it coiled up in Buckley Bay); the federal concern of course is safety---as you know, the stated aim is to get rid of three of the six current deck hands, and to lower the qualifications---and therefore the remuneration---of these remaining three because, it's argued by BCFS Inc., certified seamanship isn't required on a tethered craft. Maintaining local jobs is not valued by the bogus, "privatized"--- and privatizing---BCFS Inc., The publicly-owned cloaking device that hides the books of the 100% publicly-owned ferry system from its shareholders.

So, I heard the cable-coating is getting chewed up in the drive pulleys, most likely because the dead-weight of its superlative length has been under-engineered (this during the most benign weather). Probably not insurmountable, but, no doubt, costly enough to achieve the intended bankrupting goal, at least. The planned savings has been considered complete bullshit around here, but that's a BC Liberal government for you, dys-management for ulterior motive not in the public interest---or, in other words, massive breach of public trust.

Looks like we'll have the real ferry for a while more yet. In nearly three decades here, I recall it missing a run due to weather only once. In fact, I was on that ferry when the unforgettable storm of December 2006 hit: while hundreds of utility structures, and thousands of mature trees were being smashed to the ground during a fifteen minute blow, and boats in the little harbour were pulling their anchors towards the moulinex of churning logs and foam eating the shore, the ferry made a rather mundane crossing, no problem. It sure doesn't look like the cable ferry will ply anything remotely like that, and will log a lot of missed runs---probably the norm in winter.

I mean, if it gets running at all. All British Columbians should be concerned about this fiasco because that's what it really is.

RossK said...


Thanks scotty.

Of course, one of the things that jumps out at me is the following:

"...the stated aim is to get rid of three of the six current deck hands, and to lower the qualifications---and therefore the remuneration---of these remaining three because, it's argued by BCFS Inc., certified seamanship isn't required on a tethered craft..."

And what happens in the event that, say, the craft were to become 'untethered'?


scotty on denman said...

Disaster scenarios abound, Ross. One is that the real ferry will have to stay as permanent back-up, so the run, assiduously described as "money-losing" by BCFS Inc., will have two ferries to maintain instead of one. This is just one of the reasons everybody around here suspects the cable-ferry project is ulteriorly motivated: it keeps walking like a boondoggle, and talking like a boondoggle.

As to un-tethering: all depends which way the wind's blowing. But it's noteworthy that just a couple months ago the real ferry saved a kayaker in trouble: they spotted her at a distance, way out in the middle of the sound, swamped in the cold water, and simply changed course to pick her up---and save her life---something a cable-ferry can't do, tethered or not.

Another limitation of the cable-ferry is appreciated when, on occasion, the Denman slip is damaged or in some way unusable: the real ferry can still service the two islands (including Hornby which is linked to Denman) by sailing around the south end to the Gravelly Bay slip, or even right over to Hornby. Cable-ferry can't do that, naturally. Nor can it be recommissioned to any other run, nor can self-propelled boats from any other run substitute the cable ferry---at least not at the new cable-ferry slip---neither end has a breakwater and both receive our usual SE winds directly across the beam, unsheltered.

Despite the long list of highly vocal concerns from customers, BCFS Inc.'s mind was made up even before any of their pretend consultation meetings happened. You could fill a book with the litany of protest.