to vote tactically

[redskyatnight]

Just had long heated discussion with DH about this.

We live in a Labour/Conservative marginal. No one else has any remote chance of getting in. I am therefore planning to vote either Labour or Conservative as I consider my vote to be wasted if I vote for anyone else.

DH says I should vote for the person/party who I want to represent me, regardless of whether they have any chance of winning, which is what he is planning to do. He feels strongly that this is a matter of principle.

I can see both sides of the argument but obviously think he is wrong

I live in Surrey if you don't want conservative then you have to vote tactically but it's simply to prove a point the gap is sooooooooooooooooooooooooo huge.

I couldn't vote for a person/party that had beliefs (party or personal) that were against mine so I agree with both of you to a point

I can see both sides too but, I suppose, it depends how strongly you feel about either Labour or the tories winning in your constituency. I know that's a bit stating the obvious but...

I live an a tory/Lib Dem marginal so have to (I feel) vote tactically as well.

Your DH is right I am afraid.

You really should should should vote for what you believe in.

One reason is that your vote, even if it doesn't affect the result where you live, counts towards that party's share of the popular vote. Do you really want the Labour party to claim your support if you don't really give it?

The other reason is, well, idealogical. Even if the BNP would otherwise get in where I lived, I could never vote Tory. It would really be wrong (for me).

Idealogical? I think I mean ideological!

I can see both sides too, but under the system we have, sometimes tactical voting is the right thing to do imho. I live in a tory safe seat so I'll vote with my principles. But if I lived in a marginal seat, for me the right thing to do would be to vote to keep the tories out.

Yes, a BNP/UKIP/Tory split would be a horrible dilemma

I don't think there is anything wrong with a tactical vote. It's up to you how you vote, and a vote to keep someone from power is just as valid a reason as voting to put someone in power, if that makes sense!

Well I think I am going to vote tactfully so as not to upset anyone.

Actually, no it wouldn't. You would then be free to vote for who you wanted.

Orm

YANBU, If your party of choice has no chance of getting the majority in your constituency then voting for the next best option to keep party X out of power is fine, esp if you are totally against party X.

in other words what Molesworth said.

I have voted tactically in the past because to vote for the canditate I really wanted would have been a wasted vote, but a vote for an alternative candidate could mean that they might win over my least favoured choice. I have also deliberately spoilt my paper. I believe turning out for the election is important, but my gut feeling is not always what I put on paper.

It's your vote to use as you choose! No right or wrong. What you describe makes sense. (So long as you don't vote Labour of course, how could anyone vote for another five years of these numpties )

DH has done this, and I meant to, right up to entering the polling booth, but I just couldn't in the end put my cross against anything other the the name I actually supported.

But yes, I think it is a function of our electoral system. Which I would like to see reformed.

I am voting Lib Dems, wasted vote no doubt but sod it, I can't stand GB and DC talks the talk but I doubt he can walk the walk.

YANBU. I'm doing my dissertation on voting methods and I've come to the conclusion its all a load of bollocks.

And if you think about it, voting tactically you are still voting according to your conscience as you are voting to achieve a preferable outcome.

Sorry pressed post to quick...so my point there is that I agree with your DH you should vote for the person/party who you want to represent you, regardless of whether they have any chance of winning (as I will be doing).

FallenMadonna, what system would you like instead? Out of academic interest you see

*too quickly..fuck it I'm tired.

STV

STV is still susceptible to strategy though.

Any voting system that has the property that for any pair of candidates A and B, all voters prefer A to B then the election result has A ranked higher than B is unfortunately susceptible to strategy. All the theorems in my dissertation have depressing outcomes like this which make you realise that whatever system we have, there is always going to be some complaints. It is never, ever going to be fair.

I didn;t say it would be perfect. I do think it would be better. But then I support a smaller party...

I agree that it would give smaller parties more of a chance.

I quite like the Borda Count method but it is even more susceptible to tactical voting. It does give more weight to parties that people are ambivalent about and so candidates for the Lib Dems etc are more likely to get seats under this method compared to first past the post. The guy who came up with it called it the honest man's system.

Even more I like what is called the Condorcet Method. This is where you compare each candidate against all other candidates in pairs. The winner is the person who doesn't lose any head-to-heads. Unfortunately, this method doesn't always generate a winner. Can't win them all, eh?

Can;t see that last one doing much for voter turnout either TBH!

Why not? (Except the not guaranteed a winner thing obviously) I like Condorcet because it satisfies more 'fairness' criteria than other methods. It isn't any more complicated for the voter to fill out the ballot paper than STV. In fact it uses exactly the same information.

I have a new idea, perhaps we should rank all the candidates, perform a whole bunch of voting methods on the data then select as winner who ever wins the most times. Might give the returning officers a heart attack though.