Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 7,773
- Location
- Under the Hill
can somebody explain tactical voting?
Alternative Vote Referendum - May 5th 2011
- Thread starter [TW]Fox
- Start date
It is generally when you vote for Candidate B to stop Candidate A, even though you really want Candidate C.
Basically some people would rather any other party wins than one they really hate. So voting Lib Dem to prevent Labour getting a seat even if you personally want Conservatives to win.
Basically some people would rather any other party wins than one they really hate. So voting Lib Dem to prevent Labour getting a seat even if you personally want Conservatives to win.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 10,138
- Location
- Burscough
+1
I also think that the government instead ought to spend this time thinking of ways to make the rest of the population that didn't vote in the last general election actually vote in the next one.
This is true and I don't understand how people think AV will be more tactical, in the definition above voting tactically is of no calculable benefit as you cannot predict the distribution of 2nd, 3rd etc preferences.
For this along with reasons Dolph gave I will be voting for a move to AV.
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 902
- Location
- Calgary
As I said in another thread..
Ed Milliband got voted as Labour leader on a form of AV, he didn't come first until the very last round of vote counting. That looks to me to be one of the biggest flaws of AV right there.
On a more serious note, I will be voting No to AV. Regardless of the result I doubt we will see much in the way of further electoral reform so whatever system we get out of this will be the one we are stuck with for quite a while.
AV is not proportional and even has the chance of being less propotional than FPTP.
AV rewards people who backed the wrong horse as it were with additional chances to vote whilst depriving those who backed the favourite the same.
You could have a situation where the order of elimination matters more than what second preferences were given.
As far as national elections go it is only used by 3 nations worldwide and one of those is considering dropping it.
In the words of one of AVs greatest supporters, it seems to be a "grubby little compromise".
The Labour leader selection isn't a good example of a voting system - in fact it's bloody awful! The unions, party members and MPs each as a whole get a third of the vote, meaning some votes are worth more than others. Also, although I'm not sure on this one, but I think people could get a vote for every union they were a part of, plus one for being a party member (and another if they were an MP).
That's my concern too, anything giving Lib Dems more seats has to be a bad thing
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 902
- Location
- Calgary
This. It's not possible to vote tactically in AV.
Yes to AV here. FPTP is meant to be one person, one vote but it simply doesn't mean that. I am one person with 0.595 of a vote due to my constituency. Many are much worse off than me.
Admittedly AV isn't the ideal solution, but it is better than FPTP and therefore worth voting for. A no vote based on the principle that 'AV isn't ideal' means that we'll get nothing better than AV for a generation. A yes vote could well be a vote for progression. Even if it's not, we're still better off.
My main reason though for wanting AV is it that it groups ideologies rather than parties. I can essentially use my vote to vote for 'Somewhere to the left', rather than Party allegiance.
Admittedly AV isn't the ideal solution, but it is better than FPTP and therefore worth voting for. A no vote based on the principle that 'AV isn't ideal' means that we'll get nothing better than AV for a generation. A yes vote could well be a vote for progression. Even if it's not, we're still better off.
My main reason though for wanting AV is it that it groups ideologies rather than parties. I can essentially use my vote to vote for 'Somewhere to the left', rather than Party allegiance.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 4,080
- Location
- London
Voting 'no'. Weak governments and flimsy coalitions (where someone or other is always threatening to run to the 'other' party) make for slow reacting, expensive governments that react slowly to events and get very little done. Thats exactly, precisely why they put PR into Germany after WW2. only, purely, because they wanted slow reacting, pretty incapable government.
The idea of the party that gets most votes being the official 'government', but beaten in perhaps all house votes from the day they enter the house by other parties forming huge, condition-ridden voting blocks and coalitions (that take hours of the MPs tax-paid time to work out the fine detail to, and leave NO party with exactly what they promised the electorate) is - well, it's just horrible. How conservatives that are supposed to be ANTI-beaurocracy can support such a notion is, well, mighty interesting.
And if a vote looks set to be mighty, mighty close -- of COURSE a coalition or voting block will go to the BNP asking what the BNP wants them to 'also' add to the bill to get the BNPs 6 votes on the issue .... how marvellous :/
The idea of the party that gets most votes being the official 'government', but beaten in perhaps all house votes from the day they enter the house by other parties forming huge, condition-ridden voting blocks and coalitions (that take hours of the MPs tax-paid time to work out the fine detail to, and leave NO party with exactly what they promised the electorate) is - well, it's just horrible. How conservatives that are supposed to be ANTI-beaurocracy can support such a notion is, well, mighty interesting.
And if a vote looks set to be mighty, mighty close -- of COURSE a coalition or voting block will go to the BNP asking what the BNP wants them to 'also' add to the bill to get the BNPs 6 votes on the issue .... how marvellous :/
Last edited:
Ill be voting no, the majority of people don't have a clue about the party they vote for currently so why is it a good thing to let them have multiple preferences when they won't bother to read multiple manifestos anyway? As far as im concerned either stick with FPTP or move to mix member PR, none of this half way house rubbish. There is a reason only 3 countries use AV with 1 looking like they are going to drop it in the near furture
Given that most people who disagree with the government are complaining they are moving too fast and doing too much, I find this manner of criticism strange.... Not to mention that the conservatives don't actually support the switch to AV...
Im voting Yes and very proudly! (aka getting as many people as I can find to do the same) for one sensible reason, there will be a mandatory 50% of a constituency's support to get the seat. In all NI constituency's this will lead to the end of extreme politics to get the most moderate outcome (basically voting for terrorists ensures peace).
In the mainland it means an end to safe seats and tactical voting in the way we have now. There will be an end of either not voting as one guy will always win, voting based on deference of they have always had our seat and its not been too bad and an end to seats where the uninformed majority can dominate just through some people having more time to pressure people into using their single vote.
From the political philosophy angle it also ensures that politics becomes more participatory and less of a I know that party name set up as the electorate is required to engage more with the politicians. More importantly politicians would actually have to engage with the electorate instead of reading off the party script (which pleases me more)
I wish I could give you an award for the most sensible NI person on the internet, there's a few on here and all others have lost for not having such a clear cut sensible answer
The exact opposite will happen, thankfully. Though the nut job voters for those 3 parties will have their other preferences counted so on one hand more peoples views are included as part of the majority consensus, which is sort of good
In the mainland it means an end to safe seats and tactical voting in the way we have now. There will be an end of either not voting as one guy will always win, voting based on deference of they have always had our seat and its not been too bad and an end to seats where the uninformed majority can dominate just through some people having more time to pressure people into using their single vote.
From the political philosophy angle it also ensures that politics becomes more participatory and less of a I know that party name set up as the electorate is required to engage more with the politicians. More importantly politicians would actually have to engage with the electorate instead of reading off the party script (which pleases me more)
I wish I could give you an award for the most sensible NI person on the internet, there's a few on here and all others have lost for not having such a clear cut sensible answer
The exact opposite will happen, thankfully. Though the nut job voters for those 3 parties will have their other preferences counted so on one hand more peoples views are included as part of the majority consensus, which is sort of good
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 4,080
- Location
- London
This new voting system will probably be in place for 100 years. Anyone that votes to make all future governments weaker and less capable of action (and more likely to trade votes with groups like the BNP) based on a current governments strategy, after being in power for less than a year, frankly needs their brain tested.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 4,080
- Location
- London
Originally Posted by ~~#M-Bizzle#~~
Anything that gets the BNP, SNP or UKIP more votes is fine with me though.
You are joking I presume, it's fairly common knowledge that
1) The BNP will get a lot more seats
2) The government will be a lot weaker therefore it will be a lot easier for all the other parties to 'gang up' on them and form condition-ridden 'voting blocks'.
3) There will be a lot of coalitions, making 'trading' for the BNPs votes on issues they care little about a VERY likely occurrance. Of course the BNP will want their bits and pieces added to legislation in return. What a wonderful country we'll have.
In a twist of irony, AV is most likely to mean the party with the most votes country wide ends up with effectively no power at all as voting blocks and coalitions are formed. Which obviously turns the whole voting gig into a bit of a farce. Still, the BNP will have masses more power including the power to shift legislation somewhat - so that's ok then.
Anything that gets the BNP, SNP or UKIP more votes is fine with me though.
You are joking I presume, it's fairly common knowledge that
1) The BNP will get a lot more seats
2) The government will be a lot weaker therefore it will be a lot easier for all the other parties to 'gang up' on them and form condition-ridden 'voting blocks'.
3) There will be a lot of coalitions, making 'trading' for the BNPs votes on issues they care little about a VERY likely occurrance. Of course the BNP will want their bits and pieces added to legislation in return. What a wonderful country we'll have.
In a twist of irony, AV is most likely to mean the party with the most votes country wide ends up with effectively no power at all as voting blocks and coalitions are formed. Which obviously turns the whole voting gig into a bit of a farce. Still, the BNP will have masses more power including the power to shift legislation somewhat - so that's ok then.
Last edited:
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
If the BNP stand to to gain so much, why are they supporting the 'No' vote?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 4,080
- Location
- London
[TW]Fox;18794235 said:
Because weak, sterile government is dead-against one of their founding principles.
The BNP won't get a lot more seats.
They will - more often than not - get knocked out in the first few rounds of voting. The will of course have some first place votes. But very few lower placed votes. As people who do not wish to see BNP get seats will chose not to mark them of put them very low on their ballot paper.
They will - more often than not - get knocked out in the first few rounds of voting. The will of course have some first place votes. But very few lower placed votes. As people who do not wish to see BNP get seats will chose not to mark them of put them very low on their ballot paper.
1)The BNP will remain at 0 seats. To obtain a seat they will require 50% of the entire electorate in that constituency who voted. Granted if only bnp nuts go out there and vote... But seeing as they haven't had anything like that in the last few elections I hardly see it happen now.
2)The weakness or strength of the government isnt dictated by how the seat is gained. Its dictated by its policies, competence of those in government and so on. This WILL NOT CREATE A PROPORTIONAL PARLIAMENT (needs to be stressed). All it does is ensures the candidate for each constituency represents 50% (at a minimum) of those who turned out to vote. Government will have the same level of power.
3)Point 2 with more drooling. The BNP and UKIP will NOT hold the balance of power, or even a seat.
The reason the parties are divided on this (main stream ones) are because of what they will/wont gain from it.
Lib Dems will win more seats in theory from it
Labour want PR in parliament and see this as a side distraction (fair point but pr is a ball ache anyway)
Conservatives will loose several safe seats, St Albans being a primary example (where I am now) as the local Tory seat is able to hold out against a divided Labour Lib Dem vote.
The fringe parties either want to keep what we have now so come their Reich they can abuse it or want PR to get silly top up seats or something.
I suppose it depends what you want from the government and the state. As someone who wants massive constitutional limits on the activities of government, governments that have to compromise sound much better to me than those who can bulldoze through any old crap through sheer weight of numbers that isn't reflective of the actual public opinion (see Labour's 13 years, or indeed Thatcher's reign. The coalition is the first government in a long time that can claim majority support based on voting, although far too many people voted Liberal without actually doing their research or because the thought the party was just full of lost labour people)
All this talk of AV and PR is a big red herring.
We have a very strange democracy in this country, one whereby we elect a person to be our MP and from then on, in all likelihood they will vote how they are told too by their respective party leaders without ever considering the wishes of the people they are meant to represent.
Is that really democracy?
We have a very strange democracy in this country, one whereby we elect a person to be our MP and from then on, in all likelihood they will vote how they are told too by their respective party leaders without ever considering the wishes of the people they are meant to represent.
Is that really democracy?