11 MPs currently have majorities of less than 100

[Freespeecher]

I've seen lots of posts from GC posters agonising over who to vote for.

With so many seats going down to the wire in the last GE, large numbers of women not turning out / spoiling their ballots has the potential to make quite a difference.

I wonder which party will be the first to do the electoral maths and adjust their policies accordingly.

We surely know who those MPs are so they could be targeted. All it would take would be 100 or fewer women telling them 'nope, not voting for you unless you make clear your lack of support for the GRA amendments'. Can we do that? Not my constituency though: very safe Labour seat.

Mine too. I'm jealous of those who can make a difference!

I think its less than 1,000?

There are 10 with a majority below 100 (although the 11th only has a majority of 104)

They are here

commonslibrary.parliament.uk/parliament-and-elections/elections-elections/ge2017-marginal-seats-and-turnout/

Well I know who one of them is and I'm not going to target because that sounds like harassment to me.

I'm sure they are all well aware of the spoil vote because of Brexit. It was only 25,000, not enough to make a difference to the overall result, in this case. However, in a constituency where every vote matters during a general election, it does, especially if those disaffected will not step up and help out.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016

I'm in one of the most marginal. Have written to my MP twice. Got a superior-toned, judgey cut and paste response to the first letter and nothing to the second.

I've wondered whether to pursue it, but suspect it's not worth it. MP (labour) seems a bit of a damp squib, so I doubt there'll be a second term.

I live in one of the top five safest seats. So.

Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary with ultimate responsibility for gender legislation, has a majority of 346. It might be foolish to hand this seat over to the Labour party, given their current stance.

Ok Elendon, you don't like my choice of verb. You equate it with harassment, which I don't.

Is this better: if I were in one of those marginal constituencies I would see if I could find some people who agree with me on the inadvisibility of passing the GRA amendments, and let the sitting MP know our feelings on the matter. Plus they wouldn't get our vote if they didn't speak against the amendments.

I'm not sure that in constituencies like, say Oxford West & Abingdon, having a rabid TRA as a candidate is a handicap (LDs there overturned a 10,000 vote majority for the Conservative Christian candidate Nicola Blackwood)

Why harassment to let an MP know your views and encourage others to do the same?