Are you going to vote tactically?

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 07 Apr 2010, 18:05

Here's a nice summary of the parties from Seize the Day

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAHXg8sau48

the_lyniezian · Post by **the_lyniezian** » 07 Apr 2010, 18:18

No. I'd rather vote for a party I largely agree on, and/or someone I can trust than someone who doesn't. By voting, you are essentially endorsing their right to rule. Lesser of two evils is still evil. No chance. Besides, most of the people likely to get in are from the main parties which have proved themselves untrustworthy, and as and evangelical Christian I don't know if I even want to vote for someone who is 'of the world'. You may think me mad if you wish.

Essentially though I don't see the logic- if everyone who voted tactically didn't, maybe the person they really wouldhave wanted in might stand a better chance, though possibly not.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 07 Apr 2010, 18:43

the_lyniezian wrote:, and as and evangelical Christian I don't know if I even want to vote for someone who is 'of the world'.

You can't vote for God.

2 As and a B · Post by **2 As and a B** » 07 Apr 2010, 19:01

...not since Blair stood down.

Grizzly Mouse · Post by **Grizzly Mouse** » 08 Apr 2010, 08:29

Tactical voting and lesser evilism is what has allowed the two main corrupt parties to hang on to power despite repeatedly going back on there election promises, and having the most unpopular policies of all parties when people are polled on policies instead of parties.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 08 Apr 2010, 10:38

Grizzly Mouse wrote:Tactical voting and lesser evilism is what has allowed the two main corrupt parties to hang on to power despite repeatedly going back on there election promises, and having the most unpopular policies of all parties when people are polled on policies instead of parties.

Not necessarily.

If you are a liberal voter in an unsafe labour-held marginal which the tories hope to take at the next election then there is currently a powerful incentive to vote labour. Every labour scalp they save makes it more likely that the liberals will end up as part of the new government.

Adam1 · Post by **Adam1** » 11 Apr 2010, 23:16

I think I've changed my mind, partly because of the front page article in today's Observer pointing out that a coalition government would be less divisive than a slim majority government during a period when some very unpopular decisions will be taken. I've always thought that a government of national unity would be better than a partisan one during the difficult years ahead. If a PR system gets introduced, the dynamic will change because consensus will more likely emerge from electoral contests.

Maybe it is more realistic to vote accepting that any government at this point will still try to pursue the impossible dream of continued BAU/economic growth. To vote for a party closer to the ideal will end up producing a less desirable outcome.

I'm not sure I agree with you Grizzy Mouse when you say tactical voting has kept the con-lab bunch in power. Tactical voting has increased the number of Lib Dem MPs in recent years and may help Caroline Lucas in Brighton.

The main practical criticism I see is that it's very hard to predict the outcome of tactical voting because you don't know what other potential tactical voters are going to do in your constituency.

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 12 Apr 2010, 05:41

I know which party I won't be voting for ....

Adam1 · Post by **Adam1** » 13 Apr 2010, 17:39

Am swinging away from tactical voting today and am undecided again.

Are most Powerswitchers too disengaged in the election to care about whether or not to vote tactically?

2 As and a B · Post by **2 As and a B** » 13 Apr 2010, 18:23

Well I am going to be voting very tactically this week - voting NOT to adopt a Green candidate in our area, but to send our deposit and any time people would put in down to Brighton to support Caroline Lucas's campaign there. No idea what the others will do but as a three persons and a dog kind of local Party (and not too sure about the dog's allegiance) a Green candidate standing here would only, I believe, spoil the Lib Dem vote and give the Tory a clearer run. As it is, the Conservative vote is likely to be crippled (extent unknowable as yet) by the UKIP candidate. A Lib Dem win here would be truly momentous, but not as momentous as a Green win in Brighton.

marknorthfield · Post by **marknorthfield** » 14 Apr 2010, 11:19

goslow wrote: The greens are being quite focused aren't they, no green candidate here either. I hope it works for them.

Nationally, the Greens will probably be standing over a half slate of candidates this time (325+) which will be more than they've ever done before. This is despite a hefty focus on action and financial assistance in Brighton, Norwich and Lewisham.

Here in East Berkshire, we're standing Green candidates in all four constituencies (Bracknell, Windsor, Maidenhead, Slough) because we really want people to have the Green choice on the ballot paper, even though the Tories will romp home (except in Slough). It is disheartening that it costs so much to stand in the GE, even before leaflet costs are taken into account, and I can understand in some places that they feel the money would be better spent elsewhere. Nevertheless, various local members from here have supported the Brighton campaign both financially and on WE action days (no point having the money to print stuff if you can't then deliver it). It's good exercise delivering newspapers on those hilly streets!

As far as I'm concerned, tactical voting is mostly a con to ensure that nothing much ever changes, usually being a vote for another mainstream BAU party candidate to beat the incumbent. I'd rather vote for something as closely aligned to my thinking as possible, whatever the circumstances. How others choose to vote is not my responsibility.

Interesting that the electoralcalculus site gives Caroline Lucas a 0.1% chance of winning in Brighton Pavilion. Think I'll take that with an even bigger pinch of salt than the dodgy Kindle/Argus poll back in February...

Post by **clv101** » 14 Apr 2010, 11:42

I'd say Lucas has a pretty good chance of winning Brighton Pavilion, more likely than not in fact.

I haven't decided who to vote for yet. The first past the post means each MP elected won more votes than any other candidate in the constituency. This is a good approach, if and only if, people vote for the individual on their merit rather than their party.

The first past the post system doesn't work if most people vote for the party rather than the individual - I bet most people don't even know the names let alone the opinions of their half down candidates.

If we can't get people to vote for the individual, then proportional representation is better.

Next month I may vote for a candidate I like, who represents a party I don't

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 14 Apr 2010, 11:51

I'm getting confused. Searching online shows that I'm in a constituency with a Plaid Cymru MP, but the only leaflet I've had so far is from the adjoining constituency with a Lib Dem MP

. There's been some boundary changes, so I wonder if anyone knows! Maybe I'll have to decide when I turn up at the polling station and see the list of candidates on the ballot paper.

I don't think there is a Green candidate in either constituency, so it will have to be the party with the best chance of winning that isn't Tory or Labour!

snow hope · Post by **snow hope** » 14 Apr 2010, 13:46

The last time I voted, I gave the Green Party my vote for the first time.

I will do what I do with every election, read the literature and come to a conclusion who I think will do the most "good" if elected - as defined by my opinions on what good is.

I expect it is likely I will vote Green again.

the_lyniezian · Post by **the_lyniezian** » 14 Apr 2010, 15:37

UndercoverElephant wrote:
the_lyniezian wrote:, and as and evangelical Christian I don't know if I even want to vote for someone who is 'of the world'.
You can't vote for God.

Not what I meant. (Since God has overall control of the universe anyway, He doesn't need and cannot be voted in or out by definition). What I meant was (very human) candidates who I know are going to honour God rather than following the same old corrupt path, or seeking to follow moral viewpoints &c. which are purely the result of human thinking without reference to divine revelation. Usually that would have to imply saved, born-again believers.