Labour asking people to perform tactical voting

[llamatron]

I guess it all points to the fact that our voting system is majorly flawed. I can't vote for the party I want to vote for so my only choice is tactical voting or not bothering. The fact that a party is suggesting not voting for them to help them stay in overall power seems very worrying:loopy:

 

I also don't get proportional representation. I think its a better idea but surely it would prevent us voting for local mps as the numbers wouldn't neccessarily add up! So what is the libdem stance what are they proposing instead of local mps?

[Stoatwobbler]

That is palpably not true. If I live in a constituency where only the Labour and the Lib-Dems have any hope of winning, and I want to see a Tory government, then my best hope of helping to achieve that aim is to vote Lib-Dem and try to reduce the number of Labour seats. The same holds if I want to see a Labour government and live in a seat that only the Tories and Lib-Dems have any chance of winning; indeed, it was unseating Tories from such seats that helped bring a Labour government to power in 1997. To those who believed that New Labour was the best available government, it clearly was a good idea to vote for their 2nd-best party in those seats.

 

But then you end up with an MP who you will probably not rate very highly, voting for things that you don't agree with.

 

The only way to send a clear message about what you actually want from government is to vote for the best candidate with the best policies. If you don't then you'll never get a government that does want you need it to. The best candidates will never win unless you vote for them.

[Grandad.Malky]

The fact that a party is suggesting not voting for them to help them stay in overall power seems very worrying:loopy:

 

 

I think you are missing the point; it all comes down to the number of seats won and if your chosen party isn’t going to win the local seat what is wrong with using your vote wisely.

[HeadingNorth]

But then you end up with an MP who you will probably not rate very highly, voting for things that you don't agree with.

 

True, but he will be outnumbered by MPs I do rate highly, forcing through things that I do agree with. That's a good thing in my book.

[HeadingNorth]

I also don't get proportional representation. I think its a better idea but surely it would prevent us voting for local mps as the numbers wouldn't neccessarily add up! So what is the libdem stance what are they proposing instead of local mps?

 

There are a lot of different voting systems that fall under the catch-all phrase "proportional representation."

 

One simple-ish one is to have the five Sheffield constituencies merged into a single constituency which returns five MPs; you get to cast five votes instead of just one. This system is used in European elections, or at least, it was at the last European election. Variations on the theme can ensure that only the specific candidates you choose can be elected, or that the party which wins three seats can choose any three people to fill them.

 

A system which retains the current constituencies, but forces a candidate to secure 50% of the votes, is also possible. Single Transferable Vote is one such system. Under STV, suppose that the result of the election is Fred Bloggs 15,000 votes, Joe Soap 10,000 votes, Jane Doe 8,000 votes. Nobody has an overall majority, so Jane Doe is eliminated and the 8,000 people who voted for her as their first choice, instead have their second choice counted. If all 8,000 of them picked Joe Soap as their second choice, he would win the seat by 18,000-15,000.

[Forumosaurus]

Is this a last desparate act by labour, and does anyone else think party members telling people to do this is morally wrong?

 

What about Conservatives sending contracts out to people making them promise to vote for them?

 

You're just a bias pathetic little saddo really aren't you? Highlighting opposition party tactics and not those of the one your supporting.

[Grandad.Malky]

What about Conservatives sending contracts out to people making them promise to vote for them?

 

You're just a bias pathetic little saddo really aren't you? Highlighting opposition party tactics and not those of the one your supporting.

 

Don’t want to get involved in your spat but just saw your sig, top marks I hate those “my bold comments” as if we need telling.

[Berberis]

Is this a last desparate act by labour, and does anyone else think party members telling people to do this is morally wrong?

 

I agree. Failing to vote for your preferred candidate, distorts the polls to the point where the candidates are no longer representative of their support.

 

Voting for who you want as your candidate gives the eventual winner a clear indication of his or her support which means they can work better to gain more support in the future or redress some of their aims to be more representative.

 

I will not be voting tactically even if there is little chance of my preferred candidate to win and I find it disrespectful towards our political system for a party such as Labour to so openly back this form of voting rigging.

 

Labour are dead, they know it, we know it, one day soon Gordon Brown will know it.

[llamatron]

Labour are dead, they know it, we know it, one day soon Gordon Brown will know it.

 

Although it sounds like the postal votes will disagree with you:hihi:

[mj.scuba]

maybe morally is the wrong word. I don't think its wrong for voters to do tactical voting, thats up to them. I can't help thinking there is something wrong in a party doing it

 

Nothing morally wrong with it. If a person chooses to vote tactically, that is their choice. I think it is quite unsavoury for politicians themselves to be encouraging it though, smacks of desperation and just shows how low they will stoop. What about the local candidates of their own party they are undermining? No surprise it is a red wrag (The Mirror) that has published a list of constituancies instructing their readers to vote tactically in.