[slackline]

Baffled by this asumption that the Tories would win a majority in a second election. Surely all the LD voters who were hoping for a lib-lab colaition (a big chunk I supect) would shift to Labour?

Why would a Liberal Democrat voter, or anyone else with strong allegiance to a given party, vote for anyone other than the one they support? 

The sort of logic irrational thinking that you're suggesting underpins the bullshit of tactical voting and has allowed a two-party system to perpetuate for far too long.  Vote for policies that you support, not for the muppet leaders who spout the party line, and certainly not tactically as you are suggesting. 

[Johnny Brown]

The tories would have got a majority for the same reason they got most seats in the election that did happen. We had had 13 years of labour, including an illegal war and an enormous economic crash.

The longer a government stay in the greater the inevitability of a swing against them. That's another reason why I'd like to see permanent coalition government with significant continuity across elections. Not this 'blame the last lot' bullshit.

[Stu Littlefair]

Slackers - it's not irrational at all. You prefer LD policies so you vote LD, but you're left leaning, so you hope for a LD/Labour coalition. It's trivially simple.

The reason I won't be voting LD is not the broken promises, it's that the coalition revealed how prominent the right leaning, "orange book" movement was within the party.  Anyone listening to them campaign in 2010 would be forgiven for thinking they were a left of centre party.

In coalition they went above and beyond the coalition agreement to support a radical, right wing reforming Tory party with no mandate. It made me aware they aren't the party I thought they were. 

[slackline]

Slackers - it's not irrational at all. You prefer LD policies so you vote LD, but you're left leaning, so you hope for a LD/Labour coalition. It's trivially simple.

Which you would achieve by voting LD, not switching your vote to Labour.

If people switched their vote en mass as its being suggested then its quite possible you wouldn't get a LD/Labour coalition, you'd get a Labour majority!

[Stu Littlefair]

Are you intentionally being obtuse to get a rise?

If you want a LD/Labour coalition, but it is clear you won't achieve that, how should you vote? Especially if a conservative government of any stripe is the worst case scenario for you?

It isn't ridiculous to vote tactically. If I wanted a Ferrari, but can only afford a Fiesta, would you suggest I buy neither and instead walk to work?

[slackline]

No, as I wrote, I think that the mindset of tactical voting has done this country no favours as it only serves to perpetuate a two party system.

The mentality of "I like party X, but in the polls its Y and Z who are close winning in this constituency, so if I vote for X thats a waste, so which of Y and Z should I vote for" means that X will never have a chance of getting anywhere near the required number to give a majority within any given constituency.

How any minority party ever expected to make any headway under a First Past the Post system (which we're unfortunately stuck with unless theres another referendum on the horizon) ever expected to become established with that sort of thinking?  Thus tactical voting perpetuates a two party system.  This does no one any favours since polciies swing from "left" to "right" extremes as the party in power switches back and forth and they waste time undoing what the other has just spent time doing.

Yes you should walk to work, its better for you and the environment

[T_B]

Hmm, it will be interesting to see how many votes the Cons candidate in Sheffield Hallam gets. Not many would be my guess. I had at least 2 leaflets from 'previous Tory candidates' urging you to vote LD.

[Johnny Brown]

In coalition they went above and beyond the coalition agreement to support a radical, right wing reforming Tory party with no mandate. It made me aware they aren't the party I thought they were.

Wow.

They had 56 seats to the tories' 306. Inevitably that meant the tories set the agenda, which unsurprisingly was right-wing. The alternative, as I keep saying, was to back out, force a re-election and almost certainly get a tory majority. Which, to any intelligent leftie, would be worse. The yellow thorn in the blue may not have been massively effective but it was better than nothing.

[dave]

Hmm, it will be interesting to see how many votes the Cons candidate in Sheffield Hallam gets. Not many would be my guess. I had at least 2 leaflets from 'previous Tory candidates' urging you to vote LD.

I'd be amazed if he gets his deposit back.

[Stu Littlefair]

In coalition they went above and beyond the coalition agreement to support a radical, right wing reforming Tory party with no mandate. It made me aware they aren't the party I thought they were.

Wow.

They had 56 seats to the tories' 306. Inevitably that meant the tories set the agenda, which unsurprisingly was right-wing. The alternative, as I keep saying, was to back out, force a re-election and almost certainly get a tory majority. Which, to any intelligent leftie, would be worse. The yellow thorn in the blue may not have been massively effective but it was better than nothing.

Johnny - I think you're responding to what you think I wrote, not what I actually wrote. I supported the coalition, and had they been "less willing" partners than they were I would still be voting LD. Until the conservatives shafted them over electoral reform though, as I said, they went beyond what was agreed in the coalition agreement and supported right wing reform for which there was no mandate - e.g they could have abstained from voting on the health and social care act but they didn't, because the Orange book LDs support shit like that.

[Stu Littlefair]

Slackers - the key point you're missing is I'm talking about switching votes in a second election. By all means vote for your heart the first time round. As a lifelong LD voter you hardly need tell me that.

But tactical voting makes sense, and especially so once you've actually held an election and know where the country stands.

[slackline]

I'm not convinced its useful then either as it would then be conditional on everyone else doing the same thing and not voting for the other one.   This is a completely unknown quantity.  If Y and Z are very close and former X  voters split 50:50 between them it makes no difference, endless variations abound where it would make no difference or the world of difference, but no one will know until after all the votes are counted.

[jwi]

I voted tactically in well half of the elections I had voting rights for. (In a country with a multi-party system)

Btw, “mandate” is pure bullshit, there is not such thing as a mandate, as everyone with interest in political science well knows.

[Stu Littlefair]

Haha. Just because a mandate can be hard to infer, it's harsh to call it pure bullshit.

If you campaign expressly ruling out reform X and then get into power and enact reform X, I think it's fair to say you've no mandate for it

[Stu Littlefair]

Slackers - I take your point, but your preferred behaviour is also conditional on the behaviour of everyone else.

You're relying on *some* people switching their vote or else the election had exactly the same result.

[Oldmanmatt]

Slackers - I take your point, but your preferred behaviour is also conditional on the behaviour of everyone else.

You're relying on *some* people switching their vote or else the election had exactly the same result.

Actually, I think Slackers argument infers a distinct Left/Right split, or that the middle ground people would split evenly to the extremes.
I don't think that is true.
I would expect (hunch only), that those on the middle ground would fall to the left.
Being in the middle tends to imply a sense of fairness and justice and a general aversion to extremes.
Given Labour's significant shift to Centrist politics, from the extreme Left of the 70's and early 80's; they might have been more appealing to the moderates than you are allowing.

The Con's are still, unabashedly, right of everything bar UKIP/BNP and perhaps far more scary to a moderate than Labour.

Me?

I'm sick of the left/right lurch.

History favours neither extreme, yet somehow we, as a people, never learn.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Johnny Brown]

I supported the coalition, and had they been "less willing" partners than they were I would still be voting LD

Seems a tad ironic though, that by getting into power they've lost you life-long vote. I guess that's what happens though.

I would expect (hunch only), that those on the middle ground would fall to the left.

Call me a cynic, but I would expect those in the middle to fall away from whoever has pissed them off most recently.

[tc]

Can we have the German system next time please?

"Every voter gets two votes. The first allows voters to choose their candidate of choice in their district. The second is for the party they support. Every candidate who wins in one of the country's 299 districts -- based on voters' first votes -- automatically gets a seat in parliament. This means that every district sends a lawmaker to Berlin.

The rest of the Bundestag's base number of 598 seats is allocated based on the percentage of the vote received nationwide -- based on voters' second votes."

This is much fairer, I reckon.

[dave]

I supported the coalition, and had they been "less willing" partners than they were I would still be voting LD

Seems a tad ironic though, that by getting into power they've lost you life-long vote. I guess that's what happens though

It's like when your favourite underground rapper has a breakthrough single, gets a 5-album deal off the back of it and they all end up being shit due to loss of creative control.

As for which direct the middle voters favour, I suspect middle would rather go left than right, but then that's coming from being brought up in an ex-mining town in South Yorkshire where being a Tory would make you less popular than Jimmy Savile and Stuart Hall judging an under-tens beauty pageant.

[mrjonathanr]

Are you Richard Littlejohn?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3068131/Trust-Labour-d-trust-Jimmy-Savile-babysit-writes-RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN.html

I held my nose and voted tactically. In a 2 horse race in my constituency, I am very clear about who I do not want.

[nai]

I held my nose and voted tactically. In a 2 horse race in my constituency, I am very clear about who I do not want.

Pretty much what I did, in a bit of a mood about it not being worth voting for who I wanted to and have just realised that it's my seventh vote in a General Election but only the first time that the seat has been competitive, so six times voting for who I wanted knowing it'd make no difference and once voting against my beliefs to try and make a difference. Shit System.

[jfdm]

Just voted, on here and in the official booth.
The poll here, so far, shows that the majority of fellow ukb's have their heart in the right place.

[a dense loner]

Just what does that mean? You mean they've voted the way you wanted them to vote?

[Oldmanmatt]

Just what does that mean? You mean they've voted the way you wanted them to vote?

Ummm...

That seems like a pretty standard political/human opinion.

Don't most people feel more comfortable within groups of similarly minded people?




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jfdm]

Just what does that mean? You mean they've voted the way you wanted them to vote?

The Green's/Lab seem in front - policies they have in the main are good ones - my opinion. And when I looked this was reflected in the poll.
I was trying to be upbeat?

Anyway off topic