Strategic complications

For those relying on Vote for Environment's final riding projects as their basis for strategic voting, let's take a moment to note a prime example of how dangerous it may be to rely on third-party projections.

In the B.C. riding of Newton-North Delta, Vote for Environment projects a three-way photofinish, with the Cons, Libs and New Democrats all finishing within 700 votes of each other. Which surely has to make it a worthwhile effort to try to encourage either of the challengers to take down Con candidate Sandeep Pandher.

But by relying solely on the assumption that its projected third-place finisher is nothing more than a source of votes for the projected second-place finisher, Vote for Environment simply suggests throwing all votes toward the Libs - risking the possibility of undermining the position of the party which is actually best positioned to take down the Cons. And that danger is particularly obvious when one considers that Vote for Environment's projection may itself be off: for example, democraticSPACE projects the NDP to finish second with a 2-point advantage over the Libs.

Which means that voters who follow Vote for Environment's advice by voting Lib rather than NDP in Newton-North Delta may only wind up helping the Cons to sneak up the middle. And given the obvious opportunity for an NDP pickup as well, voters who have a real preference between the New Democrats and the Libs are surely best off voting for their actual preferred party - not blindly following what looks to be a potentially disastrious combination of an uncertain projection and unduly strong advice.

Correction: fixed Con candidate name.