We have a by – election coming up.

The ward I live in is a traditionally a labour seat but in the current climate I fear with the right turnout (wrong turnout?) UKIP could get in.

I’m a lib dem voter but there’s no chance of them getting in.

So do I abandon my political beliefs and vote labour or stick by my principles and vote lib dem.

I don’t like the idea of tactical voting but equally don’t like the idea of a UKIP MP!

I’m in a very similar position to you; lifelong LD voter but voted Labour to keep UKIP out last time round (Middleton & Heywood).

It’s a shame we don’t have a better electoral system like STV or AV+…

It’s not about you, it’s about the collective will of the people. If you don’t get the person you want then unfortunately that is tough. The ‘wrong’ person only gets in if not enough people turn up to vote so you don’t get a representative picture with the votes cast, or if enough people decide to tactically vote and again you get skewed and manipulated vote. What makes you think your opinion counts more than anyone else such that you should attempt to manipulate the outcome in your favour?

That’s democracy. It’s not about getting what you want, it’s far from perfect but its the least imperfect system out there.

What makes you think you should attempt to manipulate the outcome in your favour?

err,…

That’s democracy

it’s what a vote does

its the least imperfect system out there.

it’s really not – not even the most democratic – look at the ratio of votes cast nationally to seats gained; the system’s already fixed and that’s why tactical voting sometimes happens

Is the UKIP candidate the best person for the local constituency, I know its localism but sometimes you have to go for the best person for the job even though you may not agree with their politics?

Tactical voting makes PERFECT sense within the frankly awful system that we currently have. There’s absolutely no chance of your LD vote amounting to anything, so you may as well stick it behind the candidate that is most aligned with your values. To do anything else would be a complete waste of your vote.

I agree with v8ninety, how you vote is entirely your choice and tactical voting can make sound sense.

Sad fact is I rarely have a clear idea what politician I want to vote for but sometimes I know exactly who I don’t want

Sounds like a realistic approach to me. Democracy isn’t just about blindly supporting a lost cause – effectively your vote is wasted. Use it to influence the outcome in the direction that you, as a voter, want.

I did the same in 2010 as a usual labour voter. Labour had no chance here and the lib deems seemed to have momentum and a chance of defeating the Tory. Doh!

Saying that, I’d do it in your case to stop ukip getting in.

All voting is tactical to a certain extent. Otherwise we would have 60 million MPs.

What you need to do OP is clone yourself 20000 times and get them all to vote the way YOU want them to vote.

Hope that helps.

I wouldn’t bother about it. Your vote is worthless in the current system we have.

its the least imperfect system out there.

it’s really not[/quote]
What scaredypants said.

I’ve never resorted to tactical voting but if it was a case of keeping UKIP out I would seriously consider it.

I think tactical voting is a bit silly as I’d much rather vote for what I want but I suppose I sort do tactically vote. I tend to vote green, not because I’d like to see a green government as that won’t happen anytime soon but because it shows whoever does get in that there is a level of support for green issues that they shouldn’t ignore. We also seem to be creeping towards a critical mass here in my constituency with the greens finishing second last time around. I think the whole “I wanted X but voted Y because” is part of the reason we have this current shower in

I’m a lib dem voter

abandon my political beliefs

stick by my principles

There’s a coalition joke in there somewhere.

If you’re a black-and-white “This is what I want and everything else is WORTHLESS” type then I can see why tactical voting wouldn’t make sense to you. But I think everyone else understands it even if they don’t do it. If your candidate can’t win then you’re effectively voting for the bin, it makes more sense to vote for the candidate you most approve of, from the short list of potential winners. It’s the same concept that underpins STV and the like- you don’t love one candidate, and hate all the others equally.

I think last general election was the first time in my life I’ve ever had the “luxury” of having a choice of 2 parties I’d have liked to vote for, who had any chance. That’s fptp for you. I hadn’t even really given it much thought, and you know what? It’s shit. Really really really shit. The illusion of democratic choice.

But tactical does mess things up too, because if you have enough people going “my candidate can’t win, I’ll vote for someone else”, you can end up with perception basically sidelining a candidate who without tactical voting could have been in contention. This happens a lot in Scotland, historically- until recently the anti-tory vote often went to Labour and there were a lot of seats where the SNP could have been in contention, had so many potential voters not gone “don’t risk it”. My seat included! So as soon as winning a seat is perceived by the public as possible, you gain votes. That was one of the contributing factors to the landslide in the last general election- it wasn’t just voters switching allegience, it was also voters ditching their tactical vote. (more or less what’s happening to Bernie Sanders in the states; many people who’d support him have been convinced he can’t win the election, despite evidence to the contrary)

So the obvious problem is; if people become convinced a candidate can’t win, that can be the factor that stops them winning. That’s FPTP for you too.

If your candidate can’t win then you’re effectively voting for the bin, it makes more sense to vote for the candidate you most approve of, from the short list of potential winners.

Your third paragraph explains pretty well why this isn’t true. Change is very slow but it can and does happen.

The trouble is, both statements are true.

Wot NorthWind says.

In your situation I’d be voting labour.

But imagine that 80% of your constituency are closet LD voters all convinced that they don’t stand a chance and would be throwing their vote away voting for the LD candidate 😈

If only someone had attempted to get the STV in during the last parliament 👿

All candidates are placed tactically anyway by their parties. I stopped supporting the Lib Dums as they consistently failed to provide a candidate or fielded no hopers with no local interest, purely for the experience, as we’re a safe Tory seat.

Slightly irritating as we were a safe Labour seat but boundary changes took away some of the more working class residential areas and added rich Yorkshire farmlands.

Idealistically, I would like to say I would go with the best candidate for the job. I vote tactical vote now.

Sometimes you vote for what you want, sometimes you vote to avoid what you don’t want. If your anti UKIP views are strong and they might win you should vote Labour.

I think that in this case you should definitely vote Labour

Not only will you strengthen Corbyn, making sure that Labour keep him as leader into the next general election, which the Tories desparetly want, but you will also weaken UKIP, who pose the biggest threat to the Tories through loss of the core vote.

Full of win!

If only someone had attempted to get the STV in during the last parliament

If only someone had put together a sensible campaign.