Tactical voting means I don’t actually know what party I would vote for if I had complete freedom of choice

[TRexPhilbo]

It’s just occurred to me that I’ve no idea which party I should vote for in an election. What I mean by this is that, while I’ve voted, it’s always been tactical in the sense that I voted for the party with the best chance of voting those in power (whose policies I’ve taken issue with since 2010) out of office. I’ve never actually knowingly voted for the party I actually prefer. I’ve actually got no idea which party that actually is because I’ve never really needed to evaluate a party’s position other than “likely to get enough votes to vote the current party out”. 

[Euna]

Sounds like the U.S... except here, it's the lesser of only two weevils...

 

Local politics is more fun and equally depressing.  Not only do you not know who anyone is, but you have to deduce what party they really represent.

[Sally]

You've got an entirely different system of voting in the UK than we do in the US -- we vote for the individual who will serve for a certain number of years, you vote for a party which might lose a vote of confidence and another party would then have to form a government.  The two really can't be compared.

[Ortac]

4 hours ago, Philbo Penten said:

It’s just occurred to me that I’ve no idea which party I should vote for in an election. What I mean by this is that, while I’ve voted, it’s always been tactical in the sense that I voted for the party with the best chance of voting those in power (whose policies I’ve taken issue with since 2010) out of office. I’ve never actually knowingly voted for the party I actually prefer. I’ve actually got no idea which party that actually is because I’ve never really needed to evaluate a party’s position other than “likely to get enough votes to vote the current party out”. 

What you say illustrates perfectly how ludicrous and unfair the "first past the post" voting system used in the UK is. I would even go as far as saying it is not truly democratic. A candidate can be declared elected with only a small percentage of total votes. The UK is the ONLY country in Europe which uses this system. Most countries in Europe have a form of proportional representation. In France, all elections use a two round system. 

 

What the UK system means is that voters are effectively forced to consider the two main political parties (ie. Conservative and Labour) and vote for which ever one they dislike the least, to hopefully keep the one they dislike the most out of power. A vote for any minor political party is effectively a wasted vote, as you just increase the likelihood of the main party you dislike the most getting into power. 

 

Contrast that with the French system, where a first round of voting is held, and then the two candidates with the greatest number of votes pass to the second round, and people then vote again. This means that voters can vote for the candidate or party that they really want to in the first round without fear of wasting their vote, because if that candidate does not make it to the second round, the voter can vote in the second round for the candidate they dislike the least. 

 

In France, we had President Macron come to power with his brand new political party which pushed out the main parties which had dominated politics in France for decades. This can never happen in the UK until you change your voting system. Until then, you are stuck with alternating between Conservative and Labour governments every few years.

[Skycaptain]

British politics is simple. They all promise to give you everything, without worrying whose going to pay for it, and ultimately keep it all for themselves 

[iff]

9 hours ago, Ortac said:

What you say illustrates perfectly how ludicrous and unfair the "first past the post" voting system used in the UK is. I would even go as far as saying it is not truly democratic. A candidate can be declared elected with only a small percentage of total votes. The UK is the ONLY country in Europe which uses this system. Most countries in Europe have a form of proportional representation. In France, all elections use a two round system.

ireland has a pretty unique system, we have a proportional representation vote but also use a transferable vote. On our ballot paper, you put numbers beside each in order of preference. I had 16 candidates on my ballot paper in 2016 and went and marked numbers beside 10 of the candidates.  (in 2011, i went to 15 out of 16 but that was as i disliked immensely one candidate (and still do) )

 

my own constituency is a five seater meaning that a candidate can be elected with 16.67% of the vote (this is 100% divided by (no of seats + 1 so 6) + 1 vote). once a candidate is elected, their surplus from the round they got elected is distributed in order of voters preferences.

 

and because of the multiple seats in each constituency, parties will stand multiple candidates so not only are you choosing between parties themselves but party candidate. so vote preference can take 3 different variables - 1) personal vote for candidate 2) vote for party 3) vote for local candidate. so in deciding on my no 2 preference in 2016, i voted for a candidate i felt was strong on disability issues rather than her party colleague (who i think i went for no. 3)

 

an instance of this, in first preferences in one constituency (this one a three seater) maureen o'sullivan was 7th in the first count out of 15 candidates and then got elected on the eleventh count.

what is also an important factor is the order of candidate.

 

in local elections, we have consitutuencies that could be between 6 and 10 seaters. in my consitutency for it, there were 18 candidates for 6 seats (so target vote is 14.%), 9 of which were from 3 parties. in another where there was 10 seats, there were 21 candidates (13 candidates from 4 parties)

it tends in ireland that tactical voting comes from the parties rather than the voters

 

does any one understand any of the previous 5 paragraphs?

the only part i do is that the end result being i can misuse my vote so many times, it could go to so many candidates with so little chance of being elected.

 

i think for national elections, it is only us and malta that use it but it is used in some regional elections  like northern ireland, scotland. etc etc

 

when the opening poster writes " I’ve never actually knowingly voted for the party I actually prefer. ", we are forced to rank the candidates in order of our own preference.

 

Quote

 

Contrast that with the French system, where a first round of voting is held, and then the two candidates with the greatest number of votes pass to the second round, and people then vote again. This means that voters can vote for the candidate or party that they really want to in the first round without fear of wasting their vote, because if that candidate does not make it to the second round, the voter can vote in the second round for the candidate they dislike the least. 

 

In France, we had President Macron come to power with his brand new political party which pushed out the main parties which had dominated politics in France for decades. This can never happen in the UK until you change your voting system. Until then, you are stuck with alternating between Conservative and Labour governments every few years.

would there still be a small element of tactical voting?

 

if a voter had a concern that the second round that it would be le pen v melenchon, then they may choose rather than voting for hamon, they may have felt better voting for macron in the first round to avoid melenchon and le pen.

[Sally]

4 hours ago, iff said:

ireland has a pretty unique system, we have a proportional representation vote but also use a transferable vote. On our ballot paper, you put numbers beside each in order of preference. I had 16 candidates on my ballot paper in 2016 and went and marked numbers beside 10 of the candidates.  (in 2011, i went to 15 out of 16 but that was as i disliked immensely one candidate (and still do) )

 

my own constituency is a five seater meaning that a candidate can be elected with 16.67% of the vote (this is 100% divided by (no of seats + 1 so 6) + 1 vote). once a candidate is elected, their surplus from the round they got elected is distributed in order of voters preferences.

 

and because of the multiple seats in each constituency, parties will stand multiple candidates so not only are you choosing between parties themselves but party candidate. so vote preference can take 3 different variables - 1) personal vote for candidate 2) vote for party 3) vote for local candidate. so in deciding on my no 2 preference in 2016, i voted for a candidate i felt was strong on disability issues rather than her party colleague (who i think i went for no. 3)

 

an instance of this, in first preferences in one constituency (this one a three seater) maureen o'sullivan was 7th in the first count out of 15 candidates and then got elected on the eleventh count.

what is also an important factor is the order of candidate.

 

in local elections, we have consitutuencies that could be between 6 and 10 seaters. in my consitutency for it, there were 18 candidates for 6 seats (so target vote is 14.%), 9 of which were from 3 parties. in another where there was 10 seats, there were 21 candidates (13 candidates from 4 parties)

it tends in ireland that tactical voting comes from the parties rather than the voters

 

does any one understand any of the previous 5 paragraphs?

the only part i do is that the end result being i can misuse my vote so many times, it could go to so many candidates with so little chance of being elected.

 

i think for national elections, it is only us and malta that use it but it is used in some regional elections  like northern ireland, scotland. etc etc

 

when the opening poster writes " I’ve never actually knowingly voted for the party I actually prefer. ", we are forced to rank the candidates in order of our own preference.

 

would there still be a small element of tactical voting?

 

if a voter had a concern that the second round that it would be le pen v melenchon, then they may choose rather than voting for hamon, they may have felt better voting for macron in the first round to avoid melenchon and le pen.

That is the most complicated process I've ever encountered.  

[iff]

3 minutes ago, Sally said:

That is the most complicated process I've ever encountered.  

yes it is

 

for example this was one constituency for our parliament, 5 seats, 21 candidates and 16 counts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_South-West_(Dáil_Éireann_constituency)#2016_general_election

[TRexPhilbo]

14 hours ago, Sally said:

You've got an entirely different system of voting in the UK than we do in the US -- we vote for the individual who will serve for a certain number of years, you vote for a party which might lose a vote of confidence and another party would then have to form a government.  The two really can't be compared.

I never compared them.