I care more about who doesn't get in at this election than ever before. Our local council saw a political change for the first time in 20 years and while I won't strike over travel expenses the changes to the services and costs to users have left me feeling somewhat militant against the party which now rules our little county.
Here's my question, to vote for the party that most appeals to me may mean an increased likelihood of the party I least want to get in being successful. Part of me thinks that if anything is going to change politically we HAVE to vote positively for those we want in, but at the same time, realistically, this time, the reality is it's a 2 party choice. I can't reason out which makes more sense, a positive but unsuccessful vote or a vote which is more likely to succeed in keeping one group out but at the same time supporting my second choice rather than first.
I don't really want to talk about the parties, I'm sure we'll all do that to some extent in various places. It's tactical voting that has my brain stumped.
Would you tactically vote? What rational do you have to do so or not?
(If you favour a top 2 party - pretending is fine by me, hypothetical is all good!).
A dilemma shared by many, I am sure. I have to admit that for many years I have cast a vote on the grounds of keeping out the candidate I liked the least. Mine is only one vote but I strongly suspect many are doing the same thing.Originally Posted by Floppit
Churchill said that democracy was the worst form of government until you have tried all the others. I think he was right on many levels.
Your point illustrates one of the major problems with our voting system - which no doubt is an important contributory factor to low voter turnout. Something Needs To Be Done.
However, I don't agree with you that we only have a "two party choice". Only two parties could potentially form a government, but there seems a distinct possibility that no party will have an overall majority this time. In which case politics could get interesting...
Without proportional representation it is difficult to feel your vote counts. Unless you are in a marginal seat, the result is pretty well preordained.
How far would you take tactical voting. Say for example the only candidate in a realistic position to unseat the encumbent was a BNP member. If you did vote for the fascist, it would not significantly affect their chances of influencing policy, so one could claim that it was just a protest vote. Nevertheless it is used as evidence of support for their policies strenghtening their mandate.
What is true of the lunatics also holds for the other parties. All votes for them are used as evidence of unfettered support for whatever they believe in. So I would propose it is only rational to vote for a party that you could live with if they were in power (independents excepted).
All this underlines the flaws in our democracy. Surely the basis of democracy is to vote FOR something. Problem being the tactical 'get someone out/stop someone else' reality is inevitable. Add to that the fact that the choice of candidates is often very limited. I can often find little to support in ANY candidate's views.
Proportional representation seems a logical step forward to me.
Less than satisfactory, but perhaps a move in the right direction....
No I wouldn't vote for the BNP, regardless of tactical advantage I agree there is a side to voting that is about encouragement and evidence of support, without that there'd be no dilema, no plausible reason to even consider a tactical vote.How far would you take tactical voting. Say for example the only candidate in a realistic position to unseat the encumbent was a BNP member. If you did vote for the fascist, it would not significantly affect their chances of influencing policy, so one could claim that it was just a protest vote. Nevertheless it is used as evidence of support for their policies strenghtening their mandate.
What is true of the lunatics also holds for the other parties. All votes for them are used as evidence of unfettered support for whatever they believe in. So I would propose it is only rational to vote for a party that you could live with if they were in power (independents excepted).
Where I live I do feel the outcome is uncertain, but only between the top 2 parties. We had a change after 20 stable years in local government and while I think this pre taster hasn't done the new lot any favours it surely means the big one is well and truly up for grabs.
I think where I get stuck is that lots of people I speak to want to vote for the 3rd party but won't for tactical reasons, wanting to make their vote count. If they did I reckon it really could be an option and I wish we could all decide to do so. That's the thing I think it's 'right' to vote for the best candidate, but perhaps rational to vote to keep the worst out.
Not sure I understand the British voting system.
Here it's preferential voting. You vote for ALL candidates, in order of your preferences. The effect is a party can (and just has in my state) form a government in its own right with less than 50% of the primary vote.
I vote against the biggest shower of venal incompetents looking for a chance fuck up my country. [in the lower house.] I always vote for an independent or minority party in the Senate as I don't like the idea of any government having a majority in both houses. Such a situation is uncommon but it was the case with our erstwhile conservative government. They used the power to pass some truly draconian legislation.
I want a humg parliament! People talk about it as if it's a bad thing but I don't see why. I don't think much of the proposals of either of the two main parties but if there was a coalition, it ought to moderate some of the sillier ideas.
Minority govt.s were the rule in Ireland for a long time, my recollection is that this either ended up with money being stuffed into a few independents constituencies, or the smaller party being rejected by the voters at the susbequent election. The reason for the latter, was that the smaller party wrung huge concessions at the beginning of the period of office, which every one had forgotten by the end, while appearing to sell out their core supporters throughout the rest of the parliment.
Other than incompetence coupled with inertia I cannot remember significant characteristics.
Hmm...I'd like to see most of them hung...
I think the problem with a hung parliament is it gives undue influence to minority parties. Hardly very democratic in the literal sense.
Moderating ideas is what has happened anyway. They are all so similar, fighting over the middle ground. Sometimes tough decisions (read 'unpopular') need to be made. They are all too afraid to make them as the system favours those that claim the middle ground.
You are looking at one case. Looking more widely, many Western countries use proportional representation which almost inevitably leads to coalitions. Many of these countries are doing rather better economically than the UK.
Let's suppose we get a hung parliament and neither Labour or the Tories have a majority of seats. It's almost certain that a coalition of either the Lib Dems and Labour or the Lib Dems and the Tories would both represent a much larger percentage of the population than the Labour vote does now. Indeed, Lib Dem voters would finally get some influence on power after being ignored for decades. Sounds reasonable to me.
Last edited by Harryprice; 7th April 2010 at 03:18 PM.
I don't know Harry, I'm not sure of my ground here but I think if it is a hung parliment who gets to be PM depends on heavyweight internal politics, something I suspect my least favoured leader would be better at than the other guy. From what I've understood it places the power over what happens next more firmly with the career politicians than the people, right now that's not something I relish.
Considering that the power currently resides with one man - the Prime Minister - who in the previous incarnation demonstrated his ability to take the country to war against the wishes of the majority of the country (and even of his party), I think almost anything would be an improvement.
When I worked in local government many moons ago I worked for two local authorities which had hung councils. In the first case, it was clearly an unstable outcome and regarded by the two major parties as a temporary glitch to be overcome as quickly as possible, so it led to constant in-fighting and a failure to cooperate. Definitely a bad outcome. In the second case, there were some major long-term shifts in voting patterns which left three big parties, with no prospect of any one of them getting overall control in the foreseeable future. The three parties learned to live with this; they settled down and started to cooperate, so much so that in the Committee I attended (as an officer) there were rarely even any votes - issues were mostly decided by consensus. That was a brilliant outcome.
So whether or not hung bodies work really does depend on the circumstances. Unfortunately, given our current voting system, a hung parliament would certainly be regarded as a temporary glitch to be overcome as quickly as possible. To make coalitions work in a stable way (the most desirable outcome IMO) would require a change in the voting system. There is no perfect system - just a wide range of options with different pros and cons. If you're interested, these are explained here: http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/v...s/systems2.htm
I don't vote tactically. I vote on issues. With luck whoever ends up in power will pay attention to which issues are vote winners.
Furthermore even if I have no hope of electing my chosen candidate to the lead even getting them to second place may unlock the power of the tactical voters who will see them as the prefered opposition candidate in future elections.
Yes. I would, and have, voted tactically.
I think it makes perfect sense to vote tactically if, say, you love PartyA, don't mind PartyB and hate PartyC, but in your constituency it is a straight fight between the candidates from B and C. Then a vote for A is a wasted vote.
My constituency is Croydon Central. In 2005 the Tory, Andrew Pelling, took it from Labour by 75 votes. It would be fairly safe Tory this time around except that... the Tories have expelled Pelling and he is standing as an independent. So we have both an official Conservative and the sitting independent Conservative. This might give it to the Labour candidate, although he is such a fuckwit that he'll probably still lose. Lib Dems fight it out with the Monster Raving Loonies to see who can get over 100 votes in Croydon.
We've seen an increase in tactical voting in the last few elections leading to a larger number of Lib Dems getting elected. I think that this is healthy, if only because it shows that significant numbers of the elctorate are paying attention and thinking. Counters some of that "I'm voting Tory because Mrs Cameron is pregnant" type crap.
On the subject of hung Parliaments. I think it could be healthy. Especially if the Lib Dems are involved. But the last time we had a hung Parliament was actually in the mid-1990s when Major was a seat or two down on an absolute majority. He relied on the Unionists which lead to some dreadful decisions and the peace process in Northern Ireland being knocked backwards five years.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks