Aibu to disagree with tactical voting?

[MsMarvel]

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!

When you vote for your MSP in the Scottish elections, your vote will have the effect you want even if you vote Green, because of the 'top up' proportional representation that the Scottish Parliament uses.

But when you vote for an MP (even in Scotland) you are voting on the 'First Past The Post' system. If 10% of the electorate in each consituency voted Green, there would still be zero Green MPs, because there is exactly one MP per constituency and you'd need an actual majority within that constituency to get them in.

Thank you lemon and gingham :)

YABU - it can really depend on what is going on in your electorate.

I'd much prefer a proportional representation style system where the % of the population who voted Green, would be represented in parliament.

I'm usually a Lib Dem voter. The ward I vote in is true blue Tory. In the European elections it still went Conservative but with a very strong. UKip showing. In my shoes would you vote Lib Dem / Labour and waste your vote or Conservative (who I loath in many ways but who I'm v likely to get anyway) to fend off a strong challenge from the odious UKip?

I'm actually not sure how I'll vote but I'd kick myself if I didn't vote Conservative and we got UKip...

There is an excellent voting system resource here which explains most of the voting systems used in the UK - it's only Westminster which uses FPTP. Other systems in use in the UK are Additional Member System, Closed Party List, Single Transferable Vote and Supplemental Vote.

www.parliament.uk/education/teaching-resources-lesson-plans/voting-systems/

The reason I am forced to consider tactical voting? FPTP hugely skews results in favour of the Labour and Conservative Parties

A couple of facts and figures to consider:

At the 2010 General Election the Lib Dems received 23% of all votes cast. That won them only 8.8% of the seats in Westminster? Fair?

At the 1951 General Election, Labour polled more votes than the Tories overall - about 200,000 more votes in total. But they lost the election as the Tories won more seats and an overall majority. (It happened in reverse in February 1974 but that resulted in a hung Parliament) Fair?

Until we have some form of proportional representation (I like the AMS as it maintains constituency links but then reflects overall % by appointing regional members as well) then my vote will always be wasted. That is why I am forced into playing games every General Election to try and work out if there is ANY way my area won't return another Tory for the millionth time.

Here's an example OP, I am curious to hear your answer.

In Maine (I know it's a long way but bear with me) today there is a vote for state governor.

If people vote with the heart but not tactically (ie for the Independent candidate who cannot win and who is taking votes from the Democrat) they will most likely end up re-electing LePage (the Tea Party Republican), who is responsible right now for 70,000 people having no healthcare.

If they vote tactically (ie for the Democrat candidate, who is the only candidate with a chance of beating LePage) they will most likely elect Mike Michaud who will almost immediately change the law to give those 70,000 people healthcare.

If you were one of those people with no healthcare, would you vote tactically or with your heart?

If only people weren't so scared of change and had voted for PR.

The problem with the referendum in 2011 was that it offered Alternative Vote. That's less obviously majoritarian than FPTP but still skews results against smaller parties (2nd and subsequent parties never get counted.) It was not a good option either - it can't strictly be called Proportional (it's just a bit further along the continuum than FPTP)

STV or AMS would have been infinitely preferable.

Sorry, should have read, 2nd and subsequent votes for smaller parties never get counted (the reason being, party with lowest number of 1st choices gets eliminated with each round)

I believe that tactical voting is a flawed idea. The sense that certain parties have no chance in certain areas has been proved wrong on so many occasions and increasingly there is no such thing as a "safe seat". In a certain Brighton constituency in 2010, the Greens discovered that they outnumbered the other voters and won the seat. Conventional wisdom might have suggested that Green voters were obvious candidates for "tactical voting". Time and time again, a seat which was "safe" for one party has changed hands and eventually appeared to be "safe" for another party until it changes again.

"Tactical voting" panders to those who are not prepared to admit that they support a particular party. There can be a case for tactical voting, such as when the Front National made it through to the second round of the French presidential elections and French Socialists and Communists found themselves voting for Jacques Chirac to prevent Jean-Marie Le Pen becoming president of France.

On the whole though, tactical voting or no tactical voting, the party more people vote for tends to win elections and I prefer to see people voting for the party they believe in.