Who are you voting for Mayor?

[MetroMan]

On October 25th, we'll be electing David Miller's successor. Who are you voting for Mayor?

(I'm very surprised we haven't done a poll yet)

 

[nfitz]

I don't see the option "If Rob Ford might still win, whoever is running second in the last major pre-election poll".

 

[MetroMan]

I guess you can abstain for now nfitz. This thread will be a great place to discuss strategic voting.

However, I think it'll be too late to have a significant effect on the election by then. One person is one vote, unless they roll up their sleeves weeks before the election and volunteer for a candidate and help them collect support. I volunteered for Joe but when it became obvious that he wouldn't break 20%, I jumped on the Smitherman bandwagon.

I'm waiting for the next poll to volunteer and donate to Smitherman, and from what I've seen inside Pantalone's campaign, so are many others.

 

[spider]

I volunteered for Joe but when it became obvious that he wouldn't break 20%, I jumped on the Smitherman bandwagon.

Are you telling us that a candidates platform is meaningless to you? If he is not polling well you are justified in jumping ship to another candidate because he is more likely to win and after all backing a winner is most important to you.

That is sad.

 

[nfitz]

Are you telling us that a candidates platform is meaningless to you? If he is not polling well you are justified in jumping ship to another candidate because he is more likely to win and after all backing a winner is most important to you.

Within limits. One might think Pantalone or Rossi are the best person for the job; but if it's clear from the polling that the winner will be either Smitherman or Ford - and one despises either Smitherman and Ford, I don't see why one wouldn't then vote for the one of two candidates that may win.

 

[spider]

Within limits. One might think Pantalone or Rossi are the best person for the job; but if it's clear from the polling that the winner will be either Smitherman or Ford - and one despises either Smitherman and Ford, I don't see why one wouldn't then vote for the one of two candidates that may win.

Equally sad.

 

[MetroMan]

Are you telling us that a candidates platform is meaningless to you? If he is not polling well you are justified in jumping ship to another candidate because he is more likely to win and after all backing a winner is most important to you.

That is sad.

When I decided to back Joe, I did so because I'd rather the status quo, than any of the other leading candidates according to the knowledge I had of them at the time. When the race began and until recently, the candidate who's platform I liked the most was Sarah Thomson's. I spoke with her about her campaign, and researched and I didn't see the kind of organization that I believed would propel her to the Mayor's office and it was just a matter of time before she ran out of money and dropped out.

I'm not jumping on to a winner for the sake of voting for a winner. I'm doing so because in an election, the top 2 polling candidates are your choices for Mayor. When voting for anybody else, your vote, as principled as it is, will be ceremonial. You'll still be doing the same as me because you're limiting your choice to the top 5 and you choose which one best represents your views. Being a principled voter would be best demonstrated if you were voting for one of the fringe candidates.

Look, not one person running for Mayor represents your views 100%. You look at the top polling candidates and choose one. Your threshold is the top 5. Mine is the top 2. Out of the 2 likely Mayors, which one represents my views best? George Smitherman.

 

[jn_12]

Equally sad.

The only sad thing about it is that our electoral system forces people to think in this way.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Are you telling us that a candidates platform is meaningless to you? If he is not polling well you are justified in jumping ship to another candidate because he is more likely to win and after all backing a winner is most important to you.

That is sad.

i think he's voting in a way which would prevent the most destructive candidate (obviously a subjective view which differs from person to person) from becoming mayor. there's nothing wrong with that. though the person he votes for may not have the platform he agrees most with, it is far better then voting in a way in which the person whose platform he disagrees with more would profit from. he sees rob ford as a threat to the city and if voting for smitherman who he thinks is better than rob ford while abandoning pantalone which he thinks is better than smitherman can prevent a rob for mayoralty, then voting for smitherman it is.

also, what you said makes no sense. if metroman was interested in backing the candidate that the polls show as in the lead, wouldn't he be voting for rob ford?

 

[MetroMan]

^ Exactly.

Leaving Joe was motivated by a series of reasons. Joe hasn't performed to the level at which he can be competitive in a Mayor's race. Smitherman and Rossi are the only candidates that have impressed me in their speaking and debating skills. Rossi, like Joe however, won't get to the top 2. Smitherman is solidifying his position there.

Like I said, you were given a slate of 5 candidates by the media and you're making your choice based on your favourite from the top 5. In the end though, the top 2 are the ones that are going to be competing for the job. You can participate in choosing the one who best represents you or you can choose to have your vote become a percentaage in a future Wikipedia entry.

 

[spider]

Imagine there were no polls, strategic voting would not exist and electors would be reduced to voting for candidates/platforms that most closely mirrored their opinions, there would be no provision for voting against a candidate/platform that you don't agree with, that is not the way it was intended to work. You would vote your convictions instead of your prejudices and accept that if your views were not the most popular (read winners) at least they were recorded as honest principled votes.

 

[MetroMan]

But there are polls. What's your point?

 

[archanfel]

When I decided to back Joe, I did so because I'd rather the status quo, than any of the other leading candidates according to the knowledge I had of them at the time. When the race began and until recently, the candidate who's platform I liked the most was Sarah Thomson's. I spoke with her about her campaign, and researched and I didn't see the kind of organization that I believed would propel her to the Mayor's office and it was just a matter of time before she ran out of money and dropped out.

I'm not jumping on to a winner for the sake of voting for a winner. I'm doing so because in an election, the top 2 polling candidates are your choices for Mayor. When voting for anybody else, your vote, as principled as it is, will be ceremonial. You'll still be doing the same as me because you're limiting your choice to the top 5 and you choose which one best represents your views. Being a principled voter would be best demonstrated if you were voting for one of the fringe candidates.

Look, not one person running for Mayor represents your views 100%. You look at the top polling candidates and choose one. Your threshold is the top 5. Mine is the top 2. Out of the 2 likely Mayors, which one represents my views best? George Smitherman.

In other words, polls are self-fulfilling prophecy.

"All hail, President Kang."
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos."

 

[spider]

But there are polls. What's your point?

The point is that it is grow-up time, you are not voting for the grade 9 class president where teen-age immaturity is acceptable.

 

[MetroMan]

^ You were making sense until now.