To tactical vote or not?

[34064 Fighter Command]

Spoil your ballot paper.

Write a long message about what you think of what is wrong with the electoral system in this country ( it helps if you have a postal vote as you have plenty of time to do this at your leisure ).

All parties take note of spoilt ballot papers in marginal seats, so your message may well be read by one of the the Lab / Con candidates.

 

[KZNSeagull]

He won because most people voted for him....I want Cameron as PM but Norman as our MP.....Why ? because he gets involved with constituents and helps when he can..I know he was anti Amex etc but No polititian agrees with me on everything.

I have heard that he is decent MP - I just seem to remember that there was a huge campaign in Lewes to vote him in as the Labour party would never get anywhere near winning and they wanted to Tory out. So they voted Lib Dem, not because he was Lib Dem, but because he was not a Conservative. So tactical voting can work.

 

[ATFC Seagull]

I guess I will have to campaign for electoral change to clear my conscience!


Firstly that assumes people would have voted the same - my example proves they wouldn't. Secondly how can it be right that a party that gains 23% of the vote only get 8% of the seats (using the lib dems at the last election as an example). Who's to say we wouldn't have had a lab/lib coalition under PR?

Edit: having just looked at the Green candidate's offering, he only seems to talk about Lewes, not mentioning Newhaven or Seaford, which seems a bit daft.

That's quite a conservative example as well. The Greens this year look likely to get around 6% of the vote yet 0.002% of the seats (1). UKIP, as much as I don't like them personally, are predicted by some polls to get the same (0.002%) on the back of 15% of the vote!

 

[ATFC Seagull]

I'm no expert, I read the article on the ERS website, it goes over my head to a degree, but it does seem there is little to be gained from changing from the system we have now. Despite every permutation of PR applied to the result of the 2010 election (PR, AV, AV+, STV) we would still have ended up with a ConDem coalition government according to the Electoral Reform Society. Seems like the FPTP and PR systems will always favour the major parties, would it make a difference lower down the parties?

The overall outcome in terms of who forms the government isn't necessarily what this is about - in fact amongst most electoral reform supporters it's accepted that a strong and stable majority government is still desirable, and as you rightly point out the actual winners wouldn't necessarily be impacted by something like AMS. However, it means votes for the smaller parties aren't wasted, and offers representation in parliament to their supporters. It also means tactical voting needn't exist, as under most of those systems I would have some sort of leeway for my vote for my preferred major party to be considered as well as/instead of the smaller one.

 

[nwgull]

Spoil your ballot paper.

Write a long message about what you think of what is wrong with the electoral system in this country ( it helps if you have a postal vote as you have plenty of time to do this at your leisure ).

All parties take note of spoilt ballot papers in marginal seats, so your message may well be read by one of the the Lab / Con candidates.

Don't bother with a long message. Just draw a large cock and balls on your ballot paper. In the event of a count being as tight as a gnat's chuff, this will actually be assessed at the count as to whether or not it indicates a preference to any particular candidate - ie if the bell-end points to a particular box, or if the jizz spurt lands on someone's name.

I'm 39, but still do this on local council election ballot papers.

 

[glasfryn]

Eastbourne is at the moment LD but I think the tories stand some chance here, so my vote will go to UKIP who also stand a good chance.
as a socialist I am loathed to vote for any right wing party but a vote for UKIP might just keep the tories out, Stephen Lloyd is not a bad bloke(LD and I have met him a couple of times) and would not be to miffed if he got in.
I feel my vote for UKIP might just shake things up a bit and maybe cause a political tsunami in our politics
the nearest party to my politics would be the Greens but they stand no chance in Eastbourne so would be a wasted vote.
if I still lived in Brighton my vote would go to Caroline Lucus.

 

[sir albion]

Only vote for the party and policies you like....why give other parties a free vote

 

[Wrong-Direction]

Apologies for another general election thread. Genuinely interested to hear NSC's views and this must apply to many more on here.

I (like I'd imagine more people than ever before at a general election) find myself mostly attracted to one of the more minor parties. However, they haven't a chance of winning my constituency which is a key Labour/Conservative marginal. Whilst I prefer the smaller party, I also (again like most people I'd imagine) have quite a strong opinion on who I'd prefer in No. 10 out of Miliband and Cameron. Do I vote with my conscience and know that, beyond being a statistic in any future debate on electoral reform, I am not in any way influencing the outcome of this election, or do I vote for the major party I prefer, knowing that in doing so I am perpetuating the system that discriminates against the party I most support?

(Of course there are many other considerations, not least the local candidates themselves).

Poll to follow.

It really doesn't matter mate, worry about something else

 

[Hotchilidog]

Eastbourne is at the moment LD but I think the tories stand some chance here, so my vote will go to UKIP who also stand a good chance.
as a socialist I am loathed to vote for any right wing party but a vote for UKIP might just keep the tories out, Stephen Lloyd is not a bad bloke(LD and I have met him a couple of times) and would not be to miffed if he got in.
I feel my vote for UKIP might just shake things up a bit and maybe cause a political tsunami in our politics
the nearest party to my politics would be the Greens but they stand no chance in Eastbourne so would be a wasted vote.
if I still lived in Brighton my vote would go to Caroline Lucus.

You say it would be a wasted vote, but as you appear to be voting to dilute the tory vote what difference does it make by voting UKIP and not Green All you would be doing would be making a small contribution to the UKIP share of the vote, rather than than your first choice party. I would argue the Greens need every vote they can get to shore up their share of the vote nationally. Even if it would be of only a notional value in Eastbourne, nationally it could be important, especially given the weight ofcom and the broadcasters give to national vote share.

I fail to see how a UKIP inspired political tsunami would be beneficial to our politics, other than driving it ever further towards the right margins.

As a general point, I think in this election every vote does have more significance as the traditional two party system starts to break. If you do support UKIP, The Greens or any of the other non-big three parties then make you voice heard and get that vote share up to let the establishment know that the tide is turning against them.

 

[knocky1]

That's quite a conservative example as well. The Greens this year look likely to get around 6% of the vote yet 0.002% of the seats (1). UKIP, as much as I don't like them personally, are predicted by some polls to get the same (0.002%) on the back of 15% of the vote!

0.1548% of the seats is 1 seat. Assuming there are 646 seats up for grabs. I am enjoying the thread.

 

[Don Quixote]

It is not a presidential election.

 

[Loadicus Trux]

I'm not a Miliband supporter at all, but if Labour were to get in, I just hope it's with a majority.

I hope and pray that we don't have Shrek and Princess Fiona from north of the border having any say in what goes on at Westminster, because that is what we'll have if it's a narrow Labour win.

 

[glasfryn]

You say it would be a wasted vote, but as you appear to be voting to dilute the tory vote what difference does it make by voting UKIP and not Green All you would be doing would be making a small contribution to the UKIP share of the vote, rather than than your first choice party. I would argue the Greens need every vote they can get to shore up their share of the vote nationally. Even if it would be of only a notional value in Eastbourne, nationally it could be important, especially given the weight ofcom and the broadcasters give to national vote share.

I fail to see how a UKIP inspired political tsunami would be beneficial to our politics, other than driving it ever further towards the right margins.

because it might shake up the big two, so rather than beating one another over the head about past problems they might just start working for the ordinary people of this country
UKIP with just a little clout might make whoever is in power bring forward a vote on whether or not we should still be in Europe, that done they will have done their work and will whither on the vine.
then maybe I can consentrate on voting for who I think is best for the country

 

[spring hall convert]

I understand why in the past people might have tactically voted, as the difference between Thatcher or Foot (for instance) would have made a HUGE difference to people's lives.

The difference between Milliband and Cameron on the big issues (Austerity, Europe...) are fairly negligable - vote for what represents you. When I look at politics today, I think we've fallen for what Chomsky was warning against here;

"“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....”

 

[Hotchilidog]

because it might shake up the big two, so rather than beating one another over the head about past problems they might just start working for the ordinary people of this country
UKIP with just a little clout might make whoever is in power bring forward a vote on whether or not we should still be in Europe, that done they will have done their work and will whither on the vine.
then maybe I can consentrate on voting for who I think is best for the country

Ok, fair enough. We can agree to disagree.

I just do not share your view that UKIP would bring a positive influence to bear on either of the two parties, other than have have them pander to tabloid prejudices even more so than they do now. The Labour party is already full of people quite happy to join with the scapegoating of immigrants, they even have a commemorative mug!

The Green Party also offer a referendum on Europe, if that is what you would like to see. I would rather the main parties get shocked by a progressive party and have them concerned about winning back voters from the non-UKIP end of the political spectrum.

 

[ATFC Seagull]

0.1548% of the seats is 1 seat. Assuming there are 646 seats up for grabs. I am enjoying the thread.

You are right. I did the right sum but then didn't times by 100! I thought it looked too low...

 

[Bold Seagull]

NEVER tacticly vote. It is just wrong and simply works to perpetuate the current screwed up system. Vote for who you feel represents you the best.
Tactical voting is worse than not bothering to vote.

Got to disagree.

Some people will have an ideology that none of the parties truly represent. For example, a socialist minded person may feel that neither Labour, Greens, Lib Dems or A.N. Other represent their politics, however they are certain they don't want to be ruled by a party from the right. Therefore a tactical vote to prevent a candidate representing the right winning their seat would be an appropriate representation of their political aims, and a considered political choice for them.

 

[SweatyMexican]

Why not change the voting system instead? God knows what made the British public, in all its infinite wisdom, vote 'No' in the AV referendum back in 2011.

 

[beorhthelm]

Well that is how i feel as labour, lib dems and conservatives are all right wing. I refuse to vote tactically and so may spoil.
There should really be a none of the above option.

absolutly. the problem with tactical voting is that its not clear what propotion have voted this way, so the politicans can brush it aside. same with abstention. if there's an option to register discontent with the candidates on offer, it might make the politicans take more note.

 

[Trevor]

Really difficult question.

If you vote for a party that you know won't be elected( as I probably have for 6 of the last 7general elections , does that mean that you are just not taking responsibility)

My plan is to vote as I believe again this time - suspect I won't be voting for the party with the most seats or my local constituency - but hopefully the votes cast will be reflected in whatever deal is cobbled together

(I need to mention that this is my private opinion and not reflective of my employer)