I don’t understand the concept of « losing your vote » or « perdre ses �lections ». I hear people say this all the time, even intelligent people, and it always makes me impatient. You don’t vote to win (even though you can hope to). You vote to express a choice. If we voted to win, we would all vote for the same party, which would take away the need to have multiple parties. Nice vision of democracy.
It doesn’t matter if you know for sure that the party or the candidate you choose will not be elected. You go out to vote to say what your vision of your country/province/municipality corresponds to. Sometimes, most of the times, you have to make compromises on that vision, as no party seems to quit fit (or at least the system these parties have to deal with doesn’t). Hell, you can even choose to cancel your vote – that’s one way to express a vision. If the election isn’t rigged, your vote won’t be lost even if you don’t « win ».
I used to share my life with a man who believed in anarchy. Every election we would have the same discussions. I couldn’t believe he didn’t go out to vote. He couldn’t believe I « participated » in such a corrupted system. I kept trying to convince him to at least go to the polls and put the anarchy sign on his ballot, or something like that. If you don’t get out of your house (unless 99% of the population does the same for ideological reasons), then they won’t know what your absence means. (Especially if you’re not an active anarchist, involved in some kind of protest.)
Don’t tell me you’re not planning on voting because you know you won’t win, or even because you know you will. It just doesn’t make sense. As Kate says it well on her blog today: « Don’t think the winners will ignore a growing popular vote in favour of the NDP or the Green Party: they know that means support for environmental issues or for more equitable governance, and they will have to act accordingly. » Same thing with the Bloc qu�b�cois.
Me, an idealist? How could I be, when I know I’m going to lose my vote tonight? ;-)
