WTF won't Labour, Lib Dems (& potentially the Greens) endorse tactical voting?

Me too.
As an aside, the amount of people who seem to imagine Labour will fix all those issues mentioned just as soon as they’re elected is astounding. So, so naive.

We need online voting rather than polling booths. That would up the numbers dramatically.

Also we had a FPTP vote a few years ago. Less then 30% turn out of voters...

Women's and girls' rights are incredibly important to me, yes. If that makes me a 'weird fucker' then that's fine.

This. Many times over.

Because it’s a pretty basic tenet of political parties that you want people to vote for you, not elsewhere.

Your goal may be to get the conservatives out, but their goal is to build their parties and to get people to vote for them.

Strengthening other parties by getting your own supporters to vote for other parties, is not in their interests. And it may mean the popularity of your party ends up being superseded by the growing popularity of a previously smaller party you persuaded your own supporters to vote for.

Is it just because it favours your politics though

Wouldn’t you prefer everyone was asked what they wanted?

Democracy is a good way to go don’t you think

I've been a Labour party member have been for the best part of 5 decades and I have no idea why tactical voting in 2-way marginals isn't endorsed.

I live in a Con/LD marginal. The Labour party puts up a candidate, but we don't campaign here, we go off and work in one of the two nearest Tory-held marginals where Labour has a chance of winning. Privately, every member here that I've ever discussed it with votes tactically for the LDs. Publically, not so much.

I've voted in, I think, 13 GEs, in 5 different constituencies. I've only ever voted for the winning candidate 4 times, and that was when I voted tactically. My vote would never have counted otherwise!

Constituencies change though. Three of the constituencies I've lived in now have Labour MPs, having formerly been pretty safe Tory seats. I guess the trick is knowing when to switch to voting with your heart.

The most obvious counter to that argument is that FPTP instead delivered us a Tory government who did UKIPs job for them. I always thought it was one of the advantages of FPTP that extremists were kept at bay, but in the last few years that's clearly not been true.

Well said

I am aware of that, and actually, although UKIP is as far from my political home as I can think, I still think that if that proportion of the country wanted UKIP, then democratically, that is what should have happened.
It was a nonsense that something like 53 SNP MPs were in parliament when so few people actually voted for them.
Plus, of course, if there were a chance that your vote would actually decide the proportion of MPs sitting in the House, then a lot of people who don't vote in safe seats, or those who try to vote tactically might actually vote for different parties than those they currently vote for - or of course the huge swathes of people that don't vote, might choose to vote, if they felt their vote counted.

There's nothing to say PR couldn't then be reversed by a subsequent government if passed by a coalition, of course. Because of the system we have.

Mandatory voting is a terrible idea. For one, it should be everyone's right to not give a shit, and two, mandatory voting would mean that people who can't be arsed to learn anything about any of the candidates would be obliged to pick someone.

That could be overcome by having a "none of the above" option on the ballot paper.

And maybe an "I don't give a shit" option.

I don’t know how I’d vote on PR yet I haven’t heard the arguments: Small parties are not just left wing anyway.

But yes I think if it goes through without a referendum people will find a way to push back if unhappy.

Asking people is simple and if those who want it believe in it they can have faith they’ll succeed. With a mandate.

A mandate is always better. Unless you’re on the side of hoodwinking people and reducing their involvement for political gain.

There's a difference between things one wants and things one thinks might happen. I don't want the Tories to drag this out to the bitter end, but I still think they will. Or pretty close, anyway.

I don't think others are speaking from bias any more than you are, but the facts in the UK system is the manifesto is a convention with limited weight now due to weakened HoL powers.

I'll leave it there @SunnyEgg and wish you a good day.

Not really they are posting from their own bias. And I’m countering that because it’s hypocritical and undemocratic

It would be a referendum btw not the GE system.

Do you find that undemocratic too?

How is everyone accepting something you want just because it’s you any better?

I want various things too but it’s even more important to get a mandate and a vote first

If it doesn’t go my way then that’s life, I might not like it but it’s the best way to decide what to do.

It is to this poster though. You decide what’s important to you. As does everyone else.

That’s the beauty of democracy.

The UK system is known as an 'elected dictatorship' - that's the system we have. I didn't choose it, and no one was asked if this is the system we want.

People are just trying to explain the reality to you.

I don’t mind so much if parties want to say X candidate has no chance here, if you want to avoid this outcome then you need to vote this way. But I don’t agree with choice being taken away from the voters by parties forcing tactical voting. It seems undemocratic.

if the Lib Dem’s want to officially support labour then they either need to merge or withdraw candidates. What is the point of the public voting Lib Dem, for a Lib Dem manifesto, when you know it is going to be overturned. It’s one thing for the third party to accidentally end-up king maker and needing to negotiate on their manifesto to form a coalition as in 2010. It’s completely different to actively seek and expect that outcome but not be upfront about what parts of the manifesto will be dropped in the upcoming pact.

It could be reversed democratically anyway.

So ok to use a democratic system to reverse it but not install it.

Why wouldn’t you want it agreed democratically in the first place?

But they would have increased democratic power, so could reverse anything that way.

The reality is a manifesto is not required for this type of change under our system.

Did I write violence?

Of course there are other ways to push back. If you ignore people they tend to not like that and find other routes to show dissatisfaction. Brexit is a good example

You’re right to point this out. People may or may not be fine with this, that’s up to them.

Ask first don’t just put systems on people. If political pundits think they can get a system to go their way and haven’t thought about how people react as a push back - see Brexit

What do you mean by 'push back in other ways'?
Are you suggesting violence will result from a move to PR? I think that is very unlikely.

It could be reversed democratically anyway.

Because there was a lot of dirty dealing going on during the leadership elections. As soon as Braverman was out of the race she started a smear campaign, joined by Badenoch. Mordaunt only just missed the final two and the field will be smaller next time, the rate at which they run through PMs has left them with few credible candidates.

I’ll vote tactically for whoever has the best chance of ousting the Tories. I’d vote for the devil if I thought it would get rid of them.