Advanced search

Aibu to disagree with tactical voting?

(36 Posts)
MsMarvel Tue 04-Nov-14 16:18:46

I will acknowledge just now that I for really know much about how elections work in terms of vote counting and areas etc.

But if everyone just voted for no they wanted to vote for surely it would be fairer?

I've seen a lot of people on here and on Facebook etc saying that they would like to vote greens (for example) but because they don't want Tories to get in, they are going to vote labour.

I understand the logic behind it, but surely if lots of people are thinking this then if they all voted greens then it would be representative for what people actually want?

Not sure I'm explaining myself very well!

SauvignonBlanche Tue 04-Nov-14 16:21:27

YABU, I'm just glad if people use their vote.

PurpleSwift Tue 04-Nov-14 16:23:42

I see your point but people can choose to vote how they like unfortunately

thornrose Tue 04-Nov-14 16:24:52

A tactical vote is better than a wasted vote.

Muskey Tue 04-Nov-14 16:29:36

I live in an area where the party I support don't stand a pig in a pokes chance of getting in. Therefore I choose to vote for the party which is nearest to who I wanted to vote for

MsMarvel Tue 04-Nov-14 16:30:26

I agree that a tactical vote is better than no vote, but surely the ideal is everyone votes, and votes for who they want to vote for, irrelevant of what they think everyone else is going to vote for?

YesMudder Tue 04-Nov-14 16:31:35

But not a lot of people want to vote Green - even if everyone who wanted to vote green voted green, they STILL wouldn't get in in many seats. In a FPTP system, tactical voting is logical.

BackOnlyBriefly Tue 04-Nov-14 16:32:34

It helps them get the government they want which after all is the point of voting.

MrsTerrorPratchett Tue 04-Nov-14 16:33:05

You really do need to understand the electoral system to understand tactical voting. In a first past the post system, tactical voting is what you do. If we had proportional representation, you would be right.

YesMudder Tue 04-Nov-14 16:33:17

I don't think most people are dead set on a single party - someone might like a lot of what the greens say, some of what labour say, a little of the tories and none of UKIP. So they're not voting for someone they dislike, just selecting the realistic option they like best.

TarkaTheOtter Tue 04-Nov-14 16:34:55

It's the electoral system that's unfair. Tactical voting is just making the best of a bad system.

MsMarvel Tue 04-Nov-14 16:35:32

I know that the Scottish system is different, which is were I am. Does this make a difference?

3bunnies Tue 04-Nov-14 16:35:33

Where we live a vote for the labour party would be a lost vote as they barely keep their deposit. If you wanted to remove the current MP you would have to vote for the second party though not sure whether I could vote UKIP to do that. That's why PR would be fairer and give everyone a voice but the country didn't want that.

SauvignonBlanche Tue 04-Nov-14 16:36:29

I think you don't understand our 'first past the post' system OP.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine Tue 04-Nov-14 16:38:56

In the Scottish elections definitely vote for the party you actually want for your second vote, you may want to consider voting tactically for your first vote. In General elections, because it is first pass the post if your preference is for a very small party, you should vote tactically or your vote will be utterly pointless.

amicissimma Tue 04-Nov-14 16:41:21

I think you are. The great thing about a democracy is that each of us has the opportunity to express our preference, no matter how much other people dislike our view or our reasons for voting the way we do.

I think the FPTP system is considered less likely to produce hung and coalition parliaments, which means that the government of the day can actually get things done. That can be a disadvantage to those who don't want them to do those things.

So I do have some sympathy with Dick Tuck's view: "The people have spoken, the bastards."

BackOnlyBriefly Tue 04-Nov-14 16:43:29

We need a better system where each vote does count. There are several suggestions, but how about this.

Everyone who gets more than a minimum number of votes gets in (is there a downside to two MPs in one constituency?), but their vote in parliament is worth more if they got more votes.

So if Fred gets 100k votes he has twice the voting power while in parliament of Joe who got in with 50k votes.

When MPs voted for something they'd count up those votes and you could see something like this:

For: 27,030,351
Against 27,030,350

And you'd know your one vote tipped the balance.

Raininginnovember Tue 04-Nov-14 16:45:57

Can I ask what an FPTP is? smile

LemonDrizzleTwunt Tue 04-Nov-14 16:48:41

My degree is in politics, and whilst I would say I understand the FPTP system, I will always vote with my heart rather than my head. I know my voting green is not going to make a difference in my constituency, but I'm going to damn well do it anyway. I think something that is forgotten in this process is that every vote is counted, and whilst waiting for results the media loves to poke holes in FPTP, and enjoy doing this with cumulative figures from the nation as a whole.

I'm not going to vote based on how I think others are going to vote, and therefore vote strategically in order to wield maximum political clout; I'm going to stand by my morals and vote for the people I believe are least likely to disappoint me ideologically. What if ok so this is never going to happen absolutely nobody turned out to vote, except you? You'd look like a right twat voting for someone who you don't want in power in order to get one over on the party that you reallllllly don't want in power. You had the chance to make a difference and you lost it. I know this is hypothetical, but its true!

Going further with this, how do we ever expect parties to make progress in government if plenty of their votes come from those employing tactics against incumbent parties? It's hardly a mandate for the winners, meaning they'll be met with even more opposition than usual from the electorate, and an air of discontent before they've even got their foot in the door. Hardly a recipe for success.

LemonDrizzleTwunt Tue 04-Nov-14 16:49:33

FPTP is 'first past the post', which is the voting system we use in the UK.

ginghamcricketbox Tue 04-Nov-14 16:50:03

First past the post

HedgehogsDontBite Tue 04-Nov-14 16:50:03


Your argument only stands up if every vote actually counted. Unfortunately for the majority of voters this isn't the case. Elections are effectively decided by a minority of voters in a few marginal seats.

We had the opportunity to bring about much needed electoral reform a few years ago but it seems that most people misread the referendum question as 'Do you like Nick Clegg?' rather than 'Do you want your vote to count in future elections?'.

AlmaMartyr Tue 04-Nov-14 16:50:37

I agree with you, I don't like tactical voting either. That said, it's the system we've got. I live in a deeply Conservative area and so a vote for Labour is largely wasted. They don't even really bother campaigning. The Lib Dems have a slim chance so that's a better vote if you don't want a Tory government.

TrevaronGirl Tue 04-Nov-14 16:51:29

I have to admit I have not voted for a candidate in a long time, always against by voting tactically. sad

ItsAllGoingToBeFine Tue 04-Nov-14 16:53:18

FPTP is 'first past the post', which is the voting system we use in the UK.

To elect the Westminster government. Sxotland/Wales /NI elect their governments differently.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: