Tactical Voting in the next UK General Election (May 2010 ?)
Our aim is to provide information, in an independent and non-partisan way, on how to make the most of your vote. Starting with the next UK general election in 2010
Q. What is tactical voting?
A. Any vote not cast for the voter’s first preference candidate can be described as a tactical vote.
Q. What is the likely reason for voting this way?
A. It is a method of reducing the unfairness of voting methods such as the UK’s so called “first past the post” system. Just why the post is placed as it is, is not usually explained. It really means that the winner is decided on the first choices of the voters.
Q. Why is FPTP unfair?
A. If there are only two candidates the system is perfectly fair. Either candidate needs a majority of votes to win. As the number of candidates increases, so does the unfairness. For example if there are 5 candidates, a winner could have just 20% of the vote plus one.
Q. But surely this never happens, does it?
A. Not quite as bad as this. However, in the last UK general election, in 2005, most candidates won on a minority vote. Usually in the 40-50% region, but there were many constituencies where the winner received far fewer. The lowest being 32.3% for the SDLP candidate, Allastair Mc Donnell, in Belfast South; and 33.6% for the Labour candidate, Claire Ward, in Watford.
Q. How do I decide whether a tactical vote is likely to be effective? Doesn’t this just mean voting for either the Conservative or Labour candidates?
A. Not always. It can be different choices. Such as: Conservative v Liberal Democrat, Labour v Scottish Nationalist etc. This will vary according to your constituency and you will need to check out the table below.
Q. Do politicians know the UK voting system is unfair?
A They certainly do. For internal elections within their own political parties, it is never used.
Q. What can I do about it?
A. In the longer term, you can campaign for a fairer system. The simplest way to improve it would be to give voters the option of listing the candidates in order of their preference. This works well in many countries, such as in Australia.
Q. And in the short term?
A. You could consider tactical voting. There is no need to overcomplicate matters. At its simplest, this means deciding the likely two main candidates and choosing one of them. A secondary consideration might involve a desire for no single party to achieve overall control. If so, vote for the minority parties such as the Lib Dems, SNP, PC etc whenever they have a genuine chance of winning in your constituency. If the tactical vote in your constituency is between Labour and Conservative choose the one who is behind in national opinion polls.
Q. What if I don’t care who wins, but I would just like to support my chosen party?
A. That is, of course, fair enough. Vote according to your choice.
Q. Is a vote for a minor candidate a wasted vote?
A. That is for everyone to decide for themselves.
Q What is vote swapping?
A. You agree to swap your vote with someone else in a different constituency. For instance, you may be a Lib Dem supporter, but they have little chance of winning in your constituency. You can agree to swap your vote with a Conservative or a Labour supporter in another constituency where the LIb Dems have a good chance. You'd need to be comfortable with voting for their party who may be your second choice. There are websites set up to pair suitable partners. We may be able to help too, nearer to the time of the election. Vote swapping is not necessary. It is very likely that your first choice party will be benefitting in other constituencies from others who are also voting tactically.
Q. Why is there no recommendation for a tactical vote in my constituency below?
A. In the 2005 general election, many winning candidates did achieve a majority , or a near majority, of votes. There is little or no point voting tactically unless there is a reasonable chance of it being effective. For instance the Conservative candidate in Sutton Coldfield will almost certainly win a majority of votes. The Conservatives don’t need tactical votes, at least in Sutton Coldfield, and tactical votes won’t give the Labour Party any chance of winning there either. On the other hand, you could take the view that the result of the 05 election was itself heavily influenced by tactical voting. If so just vote for one of the two leading candidates, or rather their parties, from that election.
Q. What if the two leading candidates in 2010 turn out to be from different parties than in 2005?
A. This is quite possible. However it is more likely that they will be the same. For tactical voting to work there probably does need to be a ‘rule’ established to cover this point. Another possibility would be to look at local opinion polls nearer the time and modify the ‘Tactical Vote’ suggestion accordingly.
Q What about any swing from one party to another?
A. If there is a swing away from Labour of , say, 5% then 5% will need to be subtracted from the Labour vote in 2005. Up to 5%, possibly, should also be added to the other main candidate. This may vary depending on the other's party. Some local knowledge will be required to judge this correctly.
-0-
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment