Well i wanna find out if its worth voting for who im going to vote for or its better to vote somone else with a higher majority so i can keep X party out even though that party isnt my choice. Anyone know where i can obtain info ?
Tatical Voting.
- Thread starter RadoX
- Start date
This will give you constituency voting information/history:
http://www.justsolutions.eu/Marginals/startmarginals.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_Parliament_constituencies
Why don’t you just vote for the party you support?
http://www.justsolutions.eu/Marginals/startmarginals.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_Parliament_constituencies
Why don’t you just vote for the party you support?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
True but tactical voting is inherently quite risky, it only tends to work in seats that are already marginal and they may well already be swayed in a way that the voter isn't predicting.
Surely most 'marginal' seats are only between two parties, with the other parties not in contention. This leaves people who support neither of those two parties with a choice to either vote for the party they do support, and effectively 'waste' their vote unless there is an unprecedented swing. Or, they vote 'tactically' and vote for the one of the contending two parties to stop the 'worst' one from winning.
Personally I think people should always vote for the party and policies that they support. But I can understand why people end up voting tactically. It's one of the many flaws in the current system.
I know the feeling, the dread of a single unionist candidate nearly made me not want to vote here in south belfast... (thankfully that hasnt happened so i dont have to consider wasting a vote on some **** from uni)
All i can see is the desperation on Labour's behalf trying to get people to tactical vote. Which in my opinion is a crude way of "vote rigging". A party should only ask you to vote for themselves, not for someone else to try and aid your position.
It just goes to show how low and sneaky Labour really are becoming.
I support an electrol reform, i don't see why a party with 28% should get more seats than a party with 35%. Thats NOT preportional representation
It just goes to show how low and sneaky Labour really are becoming.
I support an electrol reform, i don't see why a party with 28% should get more seats than a party with 35%. Thats NOT preportional representation
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
UNfortunately my area is so labour that voting for Tories, or tactically is pointless, Labour have such a huge majority and people are so stupid they just vote like they've always done.
This is the problem for me, far too high a portion of the population simply vote for who they've always voted for, no matter how good or bad the current leadership is, even if Labour changed around to BNP policies, you'd get millions upon millions voting Labour, because they and their families always have, its nuts.
Likewise I know a bunch of people who vote labour who have NO CLUE what policies they support, and if questioned you'd see they were far more Lib Dem or Tory than Labour even after being told that, explaining the policies and showing they actually agree with another party most would STILL vote Labour, because they always have.
Our country is full of morons(as are most) and elections are really decided by an incredibly small number of people who change their votes from one election to another.
Look at the states, Bush was widely hated, even by republican supporters, Obama won quite easily and still didn't get a huge portion of the vote, 2-3% at most seems to change from one election to another with half the country voting the same no matter what.
Either way, don't tactically vote, its purely LIb Dem and Labour desparately trying to have some semblance of power.
WHen parties talk about proportional representation, tactical voting and coalition governments, its because largely speaking they know they aren't winning. Coalition governments/proportional representation would be as bad as a hung parliament, no one party in charge nothing gets done. Labour, BNP, Tories, whoever on their own would get more done for the country than any mix of the parties together due to all the fighting and BS that would go on.
This is the problem for me, far too high a portion of the population simply vote for who they've always voted for, no matter how good or bad the current leadership is, even if Labour changed around to BNP policies, you'd get millions upon millions voting Labour, because they and their families always have, its nuts.
Likewise I know a bunch of people who vote labour who have NO CLUE what policies they support, and if questioned you'd see they were far more Lib Dem or Tory than Labour even after being told that, explaining the policies and showing they actually agree with another party most would STILL vote Labour, because they always have.
Our country is full of morons(as are most) and elections are really decided by an incredibly small number of people who change their votes from one election to another.
Look at the states, Bush was widely hated, even by republican supporters, Obama won quite easily and still didn't get a huge portion of the vote, 2-3% at most seems to change from one election to another with half the country voting the same no matter what.
Either way, don't tactically vote, its purely LIb Dem and Labour desparately trying to have some semblance of power.
WHen parties talk about proportional representation, tactical voting and coalition governments, its because largely speaking they know they aren't winning. Coalition governments/proportional representation would be as bad as a hung parliament, no one party in charge nothing gets done. Labour, BNP, Tories, whoever on their own would get more done for the country than any mix of the parties together due to all the fighting and BS that would go on.
+1 Good post.