FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Tactical voting
Tactical voting
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *ee Viante OP Woman
over a year ago
Somewhere in North Norfolk |
I'm torn.
On one hand I want to vote for a candidate who, probably, has no chance of winning this seat.
On the other hand, the best chance of keeping the party I least want in power from winning this seat is to vote for a party I also don't want in power.
Now, if everyone voted for what they want, rather than tactically, my preferred candidate may have a chance. But if I go that way and most vote tactically, I've actually strengthened the chance of the candidate I least want winning here.
For the first time ever, I have no idea who I'm going to vote for. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Same. Torn between voting with my heart with a party I believe have the correct ideology but will not get in and voting with my Brain for a party that are just about sensible.
Never known such an insipid general election. It's lacking real personality. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
This is the problem with FPTP.
No one but Labour will win in Manchester Central but I'll still go and cast my vote even though it won't affect the outcome.
I don't know what to say VV - it's a tough situation to be in. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ee Viante OP Woman
over a year ago
Somewhere in North Norfolk |
"I always vote for who I want regardless if they are likely to win or want.
I see it as a show of support for what they stand for. "
That's a great ideology and I agree to an extent.
However, on this occasion I really do not want to do anything that will help a particular party gain seats. And this time voting with my heart could well do that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ee Viante OP Woman
over a year ago
Somewhere in North Norfolk |
"Not sure if a swingers forum is the place to get anything worthwhile on this one, but it could be fun to hear the replies."
Oh I don't know. Swingers are part of the general population and many have _iews on politics. It has been known for intelligent discussions on serious subjects to occur on here  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I always vote for who I want regardless if they are likely to win or want.
I see it as a show of support for what they stand for.
That's a great ideology and I agree to an extent.
However, on this occasion I really do not want to do anything that will help a particular party gain seats. And this time voting with my heart could well do that."
How much do you dislike the party that's the main contender to those you don't want? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ee Viante OP Woman
over a year ago
Somewhere in North Norfolk |
"A lot of people that tactically voted at the last election found themselves mightily pissed off. I'm one of them."
I voted for the candidate I thought would be best for my area last time, and still ended up mightily pissed off. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ee Viante OP Woman
over a year ago
Somewhere in North Norfolk |
"I always vote for who I want regardless if they are likely to win or want.
I see it as a show of support for what they stand for.
That's a great ideology and I agree to an extent.
However, on this occasion I really do not want to do anything that will help a particular party gain seats. And this time voting with my heart could well do that.
How much do you dislike the party that's the main contender to those you don't want?"
Party A I 100% do not want to win this seat or to get into power.
Party B is the next most popular option and seems the only realistic option to stop Party A getting in. I don't mind if Party B wins this seat but I do not want them in power.
Party C is my preferred option but they have virtually no chance of winning this seat or of getting into power.
I'd like to support Party C, as others have said, as a show of support to their policies and ideology. However, there's a real risk that voting C will give A a better chance of winning the seat. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I will always vote for which MP I'd actually want representing me, even though where I live that's always a meaningless vote unless it's the Labour candidate. I can't bring myself to tactically vote and it often doesn't work anyway.
In a FPTP system my vote might not feel like it counts as a result, but if someone is building a coalition or there's a minority government, % of the public vote can help give it some legitimacy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I have never voted tactically and never will. I always vote for the candidate that I want to represent me.
I really don't understand why anyone would do otherwise. It just doesn't make sense to me. It's probably as a result of years of scaremongering by politicians trying to get us to vote against the other guy and influence our choices.
Don't be fooled by it.
It's YOUR vote - not theirs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"A lot of people that tactically voted at the last election found themselves mightily pissed off. I'm one of them.
I voted for the candidate I thought would be best for my area last time, and still ended up mightily pissed off."
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ee Viante OP Woman
over a year ago
Somewhere in North Norfolk |
"I will always vote for which MP I'd actually want representing me, even though where I live that's always a meaningless vote unless it's the Labour candidate. I can't bring myself to tactically vote and it often doesn't work anyway.
In a FPTP system my vote might not feel like it counts as a result, but if someone is building a coalition or there's a minority government, % of the public vote can help give it some legitimacy. "
I did this last time and voted for the candidate I wanted.
His party didn't win outright but then formed the coalition. The candidate then abandoned everything he'd said, voting with his party, sometimes in absolute opposition to things he'd stated (and his party had stated) during campaigning.
Parties doing total about turns, for example on tuition fees, just to have a chance at a sliver of power has damaged my already thin faith in politicians and our political system. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ee Viante OP Woman
over a year ago
Somewhere in North Norfolk |
"I have never voted tactically and never will. I always vote for the candidate that I want to represent me.
I really don't understand why anyone would do otherwise. It just doesn't make sense to me. It's probably as a result of years of scaremongering by politicians trying to get us to vote against the other guy and influence our choices.
Don't be fooled by it.
It's YOUR vote - not theirs."
I know previous supporters of Party A will never vote C. That means C will probably be taking votes from B. If the opposition is divided, A may get the most votes.
I believe it's a real risk. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Same. Torn between voting with my heart with a party I believe have the correct ideology but will not get in and voting with my Brain for a party that are just about sensible.
Never known such an insipid general election. It's lacking real personality. "
Its not about personalities its about who will be fairer to vulnerable and less well off folk plus for me nhs biggest issue and only one party has its interests at heart and it aint tory ukip or libdems. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"Same. Torn between voting with my heart with a party I believe have the correct ideology but will not get in and voting with my Brain for a party that are just about sensible.
Never known such an insipid general election. It's lacking real personality. "
Seems to me it's become all about personality - not policy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I will always vote for which MP I'd actually want representing me, even though where I live that's always a meaningless vote unless it's the Labour candidate. I can't bring myself to tactically vote and it often doesn't work anyway.
In a FPTP system my vote might not feel like it counts as a result, but if someone is building a coalition or there's a minority government, % of the public vote can help give it some legitimacy.
I did this last time and voted for the candidate I wanted.
His party didn't win outright but then formed the coalition. The candidate then abandoned everything he'd said, voting with his party, sometimes in absolute opposition to things he'd stated (and his party had stated) during campaigning.
Parties doing total about turns, for example on tuition fees, just to have a chance at a sliver of power has damaged my already thin faith in politicians and our political system."
Don't forget that in a coalition, all parties will have to make what seem like u-turns, because they have to compromise.
That's an even bigger problem when 2 parties are as ideologically opposed as the Tories & Lib Dems.
No one wins in a coalition, and that's a hard pill to swallow if you've voted for a coalition party you feel has let you down in yielding, to too many compromises or too easily. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ee Viante OP Woman
over a year ago
Somewhere in North Norfolk |
"I will always vote for which MP I'd actually want representing me, even though where I live that's always a meaningless vote unless it's the Labour candidate. I can't bring myself to tactically vote and it often doesn't work anyway.
In a FPTP system my vote might not feel like it counts as a result, but if someone is building a coalition or there's a minority government, % of the public vote can help give it some legitimacy.
I did this last time and voted for the candidate I wanted.
His party didn't win outright but then formed the coalition. The candidate then abandoned everything he'd said, voting with his party, sometimes in absolute opposition to things he'd stated (and his party had stated) during campaigning.
Parties doing total about turns, for example on tuition fees, just to have a chance at a sliver of power has damaged my already thin faith in politicians and our political system.
Don't forget that in a coalition, all parties will have to make what seem like u-turns, because they have to compromise.
That's an even bigger problem when 2 parties are as ideologically opposed as the Tories & Lib Dems.
No one wins in a coalition, and that's a hard pill to swallow if you've voted for a coalition party you feel has let you down in yielding, to too many compromises or too easily. "
They don't seem like U-turns, they are U-turns.
If a party says they will/will not do something and then doesn't/does because it's what the other party in the coalition want, that is a U-turn. It's letting down the people who voted for them and completely abandoning their principles. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A lot of people that tactically voted at the last election found themselves mightily pissed off. I'm one of them."
Exactly...to vote tactically would require everyone else to vote tactically in the same direction...which can't happen...so I would say vote for who you want, not against who you don't want. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
They don't seem like U-turns, they are U-turns.
If a party says they will/will not do something and then doesn't/does because it's what the other party in the coalition want, that is a U-turn. It's letting down the people who voted for them and completely abandoning their principles."
Then what's the difference between a u-turn and a compromise? You can still believe in something but not have the resources or votes to do it at that particular time.
The Tories were talking of tuition fees up to £15,000 - the Lib Dems wanted to abolish tuition fees but the money wasn't there so they agreed on £9,000.
No party can have their full manifesto in a coalition, and as we're now probably going to be seeing coalition governments as routine then u-turns/compromises will happen in every party. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ee Viante OP Woman
over a year ago
Somewhere in North Norfolk |
"
They don't seem like U-turns, they are U-turns.
If a party says they will/will not do something and then doesn't/does because it's what the other party in the coalition want, that is a U-turn. It's letting down the people who voted for them and completely abandoning their principles.
Then what's the difference between a u-turn and a compromise? You can still believe in something but not have the resources or votes to do it at that particular time.
The Tories were talking of tuition fees up to £15,000 - the Lib Dems wanted to abolish tuition fees but the money wasn't there so they agreed on £9,000.
No party can have their full manifesto in a coalition, and as we're now probably going to be seeing coalition governments as routine then u-turns/compromises will happen in every party. "
You need me to explain what a U-turn is? Really?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
They don't seem like U-turns, they are U-turns.
If a party says they will/will not do something and then doesn't/does because it's what the other party in the coalition want, that is a U-turn. It's letting down the people who voted for them and completely abandoning their principles.
Then what's the difference between a u-turn and a compromise? You can still believe in something but not have the resources or votes to do it at that particular time.
The Tories were talking of tuition fees up to £15,000 - the Lib Dems wanted to abolish tuition fees but the money wasn't there so they agreed on £9,000.
No party can have their full manifesto in a coalition, and as we're now probably going to be seeing coalition governments as routine then u-turns/compromises will happen in every party.
You need me to explain what a U-turn is? Really? "
I make a distinction when it comes to the reality of coalition working. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I always vote in the local elections for the candidate that actually lives in my area..... Whos kinda affected by the same local issues as i am....i voted by post a while ago and noticed most of the "local" candidates lived miles away...one of them actually lives in london & probably couldnt even find bristol on a map.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ee Viante OP Woman
over a year ago
Somewhere in North Norfolk |
"
They don't seem like U-turns, they are U-turns.
If a party says they will/will not do something and then doesn't/does because it's what the other party in the coalition want, that is a U-turn. It's letting down the people who voted for them and completely abandoning their principles.
Then what's the difference between a u-turn and a compromise? You can still believe in something but not have the resources or votes to do it at that particular time.
The Tories were talking of tuition fees up to £15,000 - the Lib Dems wanted to abolish tuition fees but the money wasn't there so they agreed on £9,000.
No party can have their full manifesto in a coalition, and as we're now probably going to be seeing coalition governments as routine then u-turns/compromises will happen in every party.
You need me to explain what a U-turn is? Really?
I make a distinction when it comes to the reality of coalition working."
It sounded like an excuse for letting down voters and abandoning principles to me.
A U-turn is a U-turn.
We won't do this... oh, actually, we will (for the chance of a sniff at power we know we won't get otherwise). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
They don't seem like U-turns, they are U-turns.
If a party says they will/will not do something and then doesn't/does because it's what the other party in the coalition want, that is a U-turn. It's letting down the people who voted for them and completely abandoning their principles.
Then what's the difference between a u-turn and a compromise? You can still believe in something but not have the resources or votes to do it at that particular time.
The Tories were talking of tuition fees up to £15,000 - the Lib Dems wanted to abolish tuition fees but the money wasn't there so they agreed on £9,000.
No party can have their full manifesto in a coalition, and as we're now probably going to be seeing coalition governments as routine then u-turns/compromises will happen in every party.
You need me to explain what a U-turn is? Really?
I make a distinction when it comes to the reality of coalition working.
It sounded like an excuse for letting down voters and abandoning principles to me.
A U-turn is a U-turn.
We won't do this... oh, actually, we will (for the chance of a sniff at power we know we won't get otherwise)."
It stinks, but that's politics.
Although the SNP seem the type to dig their heels in deep so maybe we'll see a change. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"
They don't seem like U-turns, they are U-turns.
If a party says they will/will not do something and then doesn't/does because it's what the other party in the coalition want, that is a U-turn. It's letting down the people who voted for them and completely abandoning their principles.
Then what's the difference between a u-turn and a compromise? You can still believe in something but not have the resources or votes to do it at that particular time.
The Tories were talking of tuition fees up to £15,000 - the Lib Dems wanted to abolish tuition fees but the money wasn't there so they agreed on £9,000.
No party can have their full manifesto in a coalition, and as we're now probably going to be seeing coalition governments as routine then u-turns/compromises will happen in every party.
You need me to explain what a U-turn is? Really?
I make a distinction when it comes to the reality of coalition working.
It sounded like an excuse for letting down voters and abandoning principles to me.
A U-turn is a U-turn.
We won't do this... oh, actually, we will (for the chance of a sniff at power we know we won't get otherwise).
It stinks, but that's politics.
Although the SNP seem the type to dig their heels in deep so maybe we'll see a change. "
The Nats were only too quick to drop their opposition to NATO membership when it was politically expedient. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
They don't seem like U-turns, they are U-turns.
If a party says they will/will not do something and then doesn't/does because it's what the other party in the coalition want, that is a U-turn. It's letting down the people who voted for them and completely abandoning their principles.
Then what's the difference between a u-turn and a compromise? You can still believe in something but not have the resources or votes to do it at that particular time.
The Tories were talking of tuition fees up to £15,000 - the Lib Dems wanted to abolish tuition fees but the money wasn't there so they agreed on £9,000.
No party can have their full manifesto in a coalition, and as we're now probably going to be seeing coalition governments as routine then u-turns/compromises will happen in every party.
You need me to explain what a U-turn is? Really?
I make a distinction when it comes to the reality of coalition working.
It sounded like an excuse for letting down voters and abandoning principles to me.
A U-turn is a U-turn.
We won't do this... oh, actually, we will (for the chance of a sniff at power we know we won't get otherwise)."
Was ever thus, Yes Minister nailed it. It's politics, we all practice politics,make compromises, work with people we don't like, make decisions that are hasty, wrong, well intentioned, break promises
Our party politics are no longer ideologically driven it's now about choosing which management group can deliver on the wide range of issues contemporary society demands.
As for the all the single issue parties they can promise the world in the certain knowledge they are unlikely to be ever responsible for them, and believe me they are as capable of being 'political' as other parties for all their ethical stances
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just dont vote. I never have, i dont want to vote for anyone who promises things and never carries them out or changes their mind. Cant trust any of them"
Then you will get the government you deserve |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just dont vote. I never have, i dont want to vote for anyone who promises things and never carries them out or changes their mind. Cant trust any of them
Then you will get the government you deserve"
If you've moved to next week can you not tell us who's won? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just dont vote. I never have, i dont want to vote for anyone who promises things and never carries them out or changes their mind. Cant trust any of them
Then you will get the government you deserve
If you've moved to next week can you not tell us who's won? "
it will affect the value of my spread bet  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *quirrelMan
over a year ago
East Manchester |
"I will always vote for which MP I'd actually want representing me, even though where I live that's always a meaningless vote unless it's the Labour candidate. I can't bring myself to tactically vote and it often doesn't work anyway.
In a FPTP system my vote might not feel like it counts as a result, but if someone is building a coalition or there's a minority government, % of the public vote can help give it some legitimacy. "
Absolutely the right thing to do, At the end of the election process the total number of votes cast for each political party is counted both as as a check on the results being accurate, and to give an indication to the incoming government as to the way the public is thinking. It helps form strategy for the next election by introducing popular legislation needed to retain power in the next election. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I will always vote for which MP I'd actually want representing me, even though where I live that's always a meaningless vote unless it's the Labour candidate. I can't bring myself to tactically vote and it often doesn't work anyway.
In a FPTP system my vote might not feel like it counts as a result, but if someone is building a coalition or there's a minority government, % of the public vote can help give it some legitimacy.
Absolutely the right thing to do, At the end of the election process the total number of votes cast for each political party is counted both as as a check on the results being accurate, and to give an indication to the incoming government as to the way the public is thinking. It helps form strategy for the next election by introducing popular legislation needed to retain power in the next election."
On the one hand, it would offend every fibre of my body to tactically vote for the party that can prevent the present incumbent being re-elected. However, the present incumbent is David Tredinnick and I can think of few more odious men that are currently active in politics (outside the leaders of all the main political parties and Keith Vaz!) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm torn.
On one hand I want to vote for a candidate who, probably, has no chance of winning this seat.
On the other hand, the best chance of keeping the party I least want in power from winning this seat is to vote for a party I also don't want in power.
Now, if everyone voted for what they want, rather than tactically, my preferred candidate may have a chance. But if I go that way and most vote tactically, I've actually strengthened the chance of the candidate I least want winning here.
For the first time ever, I have no idea who I'm going to vote for."
Vote with your heart. Please. The status quo will never be removed without US bringing it about. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Can anyone explain to me how Keith Vaz ended up on the ethics committee?"
The first question on the application form was; 'Are you a cunt that no one likes?'
All the applicants put yes but Vaz stood out. If George Best was the footballer's footballer, Keith Vaz is the cunt's cunt! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm torn.
On one hand I want to vote for a candidate who, probably, has no chance of winning this seat.
On the other hand, the best chance of keeping the party I least want in power from winning this seat is to vote for a party I also don't want in power.
Now, if everyone voted for what they want, rather than tactically, my preferred candidate may have a chance. But if I go that way and most vote tactically, I've actually strengthened the chance of the candidate I least want winning here.
For the first time ever, I have no idea who I'm going to vote for.
Vote with your heart. Please. The status quo will never be removed without US bringing it about."
This is the UK.. history tells us that who ever is voted in soon become the status quo |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I have never voted tactically and never will. I always vote for the candidate that I want to represent me.
I really don't understand why anyone would do otherwise. It just doesn't make sense to me. It's probably as a result of years of scaremongering by politicians trying to get us to vote against the other guy and influence our choices.
Don't be fooled by it.
It's YOUR vote - not theirs."
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *horltzMan
over a year ago
heysham |
I vote for whichever local MP I think will serve the area best , the trouble with our voting system is that the election is indirect .
For example you may not like the Tories , but your local torque MP is the bee's knee's , so what do you do ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Can anyone explain to me how Keith Vaz ended up on the ethics committee?
The first question on the application form was; 'Are you a cunt that no one likes?'
All the applicants put yes but Vaz stood out. If George Best was the footballer's footballer, Keith Vaz is the cunt's cunt!"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It would seem that labour in Scotland are embracing the tactical vote.
Jim Murphy's deputy Kezia Dugdale sent an e-mail to Nicola Sturgeon inviting her to be a volunteer on labours campaign team on election day.
unsurprisingly, Sturgeon declined saying "I think i'm busy that day" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I always vote for who I want regardless if they are likely to win or want.
I see it as a show of support for what they stand for. "
The tory has his vote weighed not counted down here so my 1 vote is even more of a drop in the ocean but I still vote for the candidate I want rather than fudge about tactically |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I always vote for who I want regardless if they are likely to win or want.
I see it as a show of support for what they stand for.
That's a great ideology and I agree to an extent.
However, on this occasion I really do not want to do anything that will help a particular party gain seats. And this time voting with my heart could well do that."
My green vote isn't going to change anything in my constituency nor Westminster, but the bigger parties look and see the support and hopefully some green policies are picked up on and make their way into the mainstream. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Whoever I vote for will make no difference to the overall result as my constituency is a 'safe seat' and everyone knows already who will be returned as MP |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I've not made my mind up yet and just heard of vote swapping, a form of tactical voting. Plenty of time left to sort it I'm sure. It's a pity that our first past the post info the trough means so many of us can fee like voting is almost pointless in seats with safe incumbents. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *arry247Couple
over a year ago
Wakefield |
The coalition despite their faults were a good government for the country.
Neither party got what they wanted, both compromised but that is what happens in the grown up world.
They put the country first and made the best of a poor situation |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ee Viante OP Woman
over a year ago
Somewhere in North Norfolk |
"The coalition despite their faults were a good government for the country.
Neither party got what they wanted, both compromised but that is what happens in the grown up world.
They put the country first and made the best of a poor situation"
They put the country first???! You are having a laugh?! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I'm voting Greens again. They didn't do well last time, and i would like them to run the country, doubt it'll happen. But i don't see the point in voting in someone i don't support just to keep a party out. I want to be part of a change to the whole system.
If the Tories get back in and make my life even harder i'm just gonna have to do more to make my life easier. I don't care how i do this either. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Already voted,
the main 3 parties have all had plenty of chances to get things right.
certainly wouldnt vote for the green party with there current manifesto especially locally.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *gNeMan
over a year ago
Harrogate |
I had same dilemma. Essential a choice between a wasted vote for the party I genuinely believe in, or voting for the purposes of 'damage limitation'.
I have come to the conclusion that what ever manifestation of government we end up with, the next 4 years will be a near total disaster. So I am going to show support for the party I think could ultimately start to elicit meaningful change. The more votes they receive this time, the higher their profile is raised, the stronger their position will be next time around. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ee Viante OP Woman
over a year ago
Somewhere in North Norfolk |
I know polling data can be very unreliable but this is the current data for my constituency:
Cons: 34% (2010: 40.6%)
Lab: 35% (2010: 31.4%)
LD: 5% (2010: 18.3%)
UKIP: 16% (2010: 4.4%)
Green: 10% (2010: 2.9%)
Other: 0% (2010: 2.4%) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I know polling data can be very unreliable but this is the current data for my constituency:
Cons: 34% (2010: 40.6%)
Lab: 35% (2010: 31.4%)
LD: 5% (2010: 18.3%)
UKIP: 16% (2010: 4.4%)
Green: 10% (2010: 2.9%)
Other: 0% (2010: 2.4%)"
The Tories would be well ahead if UKIP weren't splitting their vote in a big way I think. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
This really is why we should have PR shame we stupidly had a referendum of the AV system rather than the PR System. PR would have had an easy victory as it's easy to understand and fair to the electorates eyes.
AV was complicated and seen as unfair but then that's why it was offered it was an easy lose |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
In 2010 the tory polled mid 20,000 votes, second was the libdem with 7 or 9k, my vote will make sod all difference but it will still be going to the greens. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ynecplCouple
over a year ago
Newcastle upon Tyne |
Vote with your heart, it is not a wasted voted regardless of who gets in as it is exercising your democratic right.
If you vote and your party doesn't get in at least you can moan about it whereas if you don't vote shut up going on about how this country is going too the dogs you forfeited your right to by not voting. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *gNeMan
over a year ago
Harrogate |
"I know polling data can be very unreliable but this is the current data for my constituency:
Cons: 34% (2010: 40.6%)
Lab: 35% (2010: 31.4%)
LD: 5% (2010: 18.3%)
UKIP: 16% (2010: 4.4%)
Green: 10% (2010: 2.9%)
Other: 0% (2010: 2.4%)
The Tories would be well ahead if UKIP weren't splitting their vote in a big way I think. "
Could say the same about labour and Green.
Most of the UKIP vote aren't cons becoming more right wing. They are sun readers who don't have a clue about the politics. As such i'd warrant a lot of the UKIP vote are actually coming from labour as well. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think one should vote - even if it's a deliberately spoiled paper, which goes on the stats.
Normally I'd vote, based on policies, for the party that best represents my _iews. However I think there is a time for tactical voting.
This time, as my seat is now a marginal, I'll be voting against the party I don't want to win the seat.
This is the problem with FPTP. I've always been in favour of PR as whilst it has it's problems as a system, ultimately it results in a fairer democracy. Under PR, we could all vote for the party we wanted, knowing that every single vote counted towards the make-up of the government. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It's a shame there isn't a 'none of the above' option on the ballot paper.... And the number of votes it received were also counted and shared with the public! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ee Viante OP Woman
over a year ago
Somewhere in North Norfolk |
"It's a shame there isn't a 'none of the above' option on the ballot paper.... And the number of votes it received were also counted and shared with the public! "
None of the Above would definitely get my vote! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's a shame there isn't a 'none of the above' option on the ballot paper.... And the number of votes it received were also counted and shared with the public!
None of the Above would definitely get my vote!"
There is. It's called a spoiled paper and the results are shared with the public.
I've deliberately spoiled my paper many times. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's a shame there isn't a 'none of the above' option on the ballot paper.... And the number of votes it received were also counted and shared with the public!
None of the Above would definitely get my vote!
There is. It's called a spoiled paper and the results are shared with the public.
I've deliberately spoiled my paper many times."
How many did 'none of the above' get last time...?
Also, an explicit box would make a stronger statement, I feel.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ee Viante OP Woman
over a year ago
Somewhere in North Norfolk |
"It's a shame there isn't a 'none of the above' option on the ballot paper.... And the number of votes it received were also counted and shared with the public!
None of the Above would definitely get my vote!
There is. It's called a spoiled paper and the results are shared with the public.
I've deliberately spoiled my paper many times.
How many did 'none of the above' get last time...?
Also, an explicit box would make a stronger statement, I feel.
"
It would. Some of the spoiled ballots are spoiled unintentionally by people too dim to vote. They're not all political statements. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ee Viante OP Woman
over a year ago
Somewhere in North Norfolk |
"It's a shame there isn't a 'none of the above' option on the ballot paper.... And the number of votes it received were also counted and shared with the public!
None of the Above would definitely get my vote!
There is. It's called a spoiled paper and the results are shared with the public.
I've deliberately spoiled my paper many times.
How many did 'none of the above' get last time...?
Also, an explicit box would make a stronger statement, I feel.
It would. Some of the spoiled ballots are spoiled unintentionally by people too dim to vote. They're not all political statements."
Spoilt ballots for the whole UK in the 2005 election totalled 81 868 (0.28% of ballots). Over a quarter of those were rejected because the voter had voted for more than one candidate.
I haven't found 2010 figures yet, just a comment that the % of spoilt ballots was similar to 2005. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's a shame there isn't a 'none of the above' option on the ballot paper.... And the number of votes it received were also counted and shared with the public!
None of the Above would definitely get my vote!
There is. It's called a spoiled paper and the results are shared with the public.
I've deliberately spoiled my paper many times.
How many did 'none of the above' get last time...?
Also, an explicit box would make a stronger statement, I feel.
It would. Some of the spoiled ballots are spoiled unintentionally by people too dim to vote. They're not all political statements.
Spoilt ballots for the whole UK in the 2005 election totalled 81 868 (0.28% of ballots). Over a quarter of those were rejected because the voter had voted for more than one candidate.
I haven't found 2010 figures yet, just a comment that the % of spoilt ballots was similar to 2005."
I'm working on the election count and we're preparing for LOTS of spoilt/doubtful ballots this time around. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
) 