I've had this discussion before, and I vehemently disagree. I acknowledge and understand why people tactically vote, but I could never do it unless I honestly supported the party I voted for. Tactical voting always serves a short-term purpose yet consolidates the existence of a two-party system, because you'll always having people voting Team B to keep Team A out, or vice versa. The idea of 'if you vote for Team C, you essentially voted for Team A' discourages people from ever considering third parties.
I don't see a third party vote as an expression of contentment with keeping things the same. If anything, I consider it the absolute opposite because it's a middle finger to both main parties, and that's how you get a fairer system because, over time, the big parties will realise they can't rely on getting votes solely because 'we're blue party and everyone always votes blue party'. Tactical voting, meanwhile, boils down to "I have to vote Team B because they're slightly less shit". In my eyes, it serves no long-term benefit.
Do you really think the tories are going to give you "a fairer system"? Even when people voted for Team C (lib dems) and they fought for a better system, the Tories sabotaged it.
Idealism doesn't work.
The tories are working really hard to make stuff worse, we have to be pragmatic now, not idealistic in the hope that in a few decades the Tories (and centrists who align with them on austerity/fiscal conservatism/economic liberalism) throw you a bone.
Eh, no vote is useless. That's the kind of mentality that stops people voting and making a difference in the first place. I live in a Labour stronghold and that's because most people here, myself included, use our votes to keep it that way. If I lived in a Tory stronghold I would still vote Labour because although I won't make that difference alone, my vote still counts.
But isn't waiting for a bone to be thrown exactly what tactical voting does? You already admitted you're not the biggest fan of Corbyn, yet you've boxed yourself into the corner of 'I have to vote A or B, I have to vote A or B, I have to vote A or B'; you find yourself waiting for opportunities and people to present themselves, rather than searching for them yourself.
I don't think Conservatives want a fairer system, which is why I can't see them ever supporting a change to FPTP, but I also don't think refusal to subject to tactical voting should reduced to mere 'idealism'. Until Corbyn came along, Labour had spent years being a watered down Tory party, and then huzzah we had this new ray of hope in Jeremy Corbyn. Except Corbyn then turned out to be in a believer of speaking only when spoken to, rather than actively speaking out. Corbyn is a weak politician and a weak leader with ideas that I would very much like to get behind, but I think it would be less pragmatic to place your faith in this man and hope that, one day, he becomes competent. I don't really want either, and the response to that should never be "but come onnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn pick one of them pleaseeeeeee".
People oppose FPTP yet then turn to tactical voting and don't realise that behaviour like that only strengthens the position of FPTP in British politics. As long as you tactically vote, it will always be beneficial to the Tories & Labour to keep FPTP implemented in order to make majority victories for them that much easier, because they know very few people will vote third party. I don't actually disagree with some of the core tenets of conservatism, but I despise the Tory execution, just like how I favour some Labour policies & beliefs but I worry the execution will be just as poor. I can tell you believe that tactical voting is a necessity, and perhaps it is, but it must be acknowledged that tactical voting creates a two-party state, and that's something I would very much like to avoid at all costs.
I don't think any disagrees. The simple fact of the matter doesn't change though. If you don't vote for Labour, you only assist in empowering the Tories.
We can roundabout the point all day. It's entirely valid, and the situation is fucking stupid, but your valiant, powerful vote inarguably means precious little on election day unless you're voting tactically.
Your efforts should go towards organising and protest, whatever other means you can do. Write your MP, direct action, I dunno. As good as it is to make a political statement with your vote, the harsh reality means your valiant effort only gives us more Tory. It absolutely is idealism. And yeah, it sucks.
I don't see tactical voting as "waiting for a bone to be thrown" I see it as a proactive effort against austerity and other unfavourable tory policies. Stopping the tories is the only way to stop austerity, the longer they are in power the more damage they do, the longer people suffer and the longer it'll take the country to recover.
For the "rather than searching for [opportunities] yourself" I have no idea what you mean. We're talking politics, I'm 28 with no political background and a social media account full of me looking silly. I will NEVER be in politics, I vote for politicians to do stuff. It's unrealistic to think I, myself, can stop austerity. Did I misunderstand you here?
You don't like it but it is literally a case of pick one of them. We will either have a Tory or a Labour PM, that's the reality. By not supporting the one you find favourable you're making the unfavourable outcome more likely. Sad that its binary but its reality and voting for someone else isn't going to change it.
I will continue to vote tactically because me not voting tactically will change nothing. They don't want FPTP, FPTP is dead and buried. Sad but true. It is unrealistic to think you voting green or Lib Dem or whatever is going to somehow bring it back. It's a shitty situation and shitty system but its how it is and we gotta work with it.
As for the no vote thing, I wasn't advocating not voting, I was advocating for voting for 3rd parties if you live in a stronghold area eg I've voted Green because I live in a Labour area and am confident Labour would win anyway - so I can have my cake and eat it. But voting for green in a contested area is risking Tories getting in. On a macro scale it sort of allies to Lib Dems or these new "centrists" I feel like those parties will just end up being enablers for the Tories like they were in 2010s.
Disclaimer: FPTP is the system we currently have. Boy do I wish it were dead.
And yeah, I must admit even I think I worded "rather than searching for opportunities yourself" super weirdly. What I meant to say was that I believe your method encourages just waiting and hoping that either Party A or B rolls out a candidate that you like for the most part, rather than going out of your way to find - not literally - said candidate, regardless of which party they are attached to.
As aforementioned, I understand the 'appeal' behind tactical voting, and I definitely don't blame people for considering it necessary, especially considering the modern Conservatives aren't even good at pretending to be moderate, but I personally cannot support doing it myself, because I believe weakens the value of democracy from 'vote for what you want' to 'vote for who you dislike the least'. Just as you will continue to vote tactically, I will continue to vote solely for the candidate that I wholly support, even if that means they are in a party that gets a collective 15 votes each election. You can dislike me for it, but I don't see my stance on the matter changing, purely because of my own personal moral views.
I appreciate your reasoning, I just don't think it's very pragmatic. I value the real world consequences more than making a point of principle. I'm not try to imply you're okay with it, but people are suffering, and I'd like to minimise that as best I can.
It would have been nice if the last chance we had at changing the system wasn't such a wet fart.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1097924742995197953?s=21
Labour Party has decreased 12% from this newest poll!
6% behind is not bad at all imo, it was 20% or more when the snap was called and that considered a huge success for Labour. The polls don't mean shit until the middle of a election.
10%.
Still, off.
8%*
Tories saw 7% loss, before any Tories have joined them too.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1097985547610583040
It ain't a party till a Tory joins, then it might be a big problem for people
Including the IG in voting intention polls seems kind of meaningless given they currently only exist in 8 constituencies and we're not really sure whether they're going to become a political party or what the deal is
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-independent-group-tory-split-14024411
Three Conservative MPs has joined their group.
Another Labour defection, although he has no plans to join TIG because I think he's not as keen on stopping Brexit as the rest of them
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47330079
now stand as an independent and split the vote. sheer brilliance.
Do the quitters think they can win back their seats next election or something? Some of them are from long-time Labour safe seats and strongholds, they'd be deluded to think they were elected on their own merits instead of the Labour manifesto. Come next election they'll be losing their jobs.
Holy shit these people are pure shit. Shame on the media for furthering their lies, shame on the assholes in charge of the media for peddling this lie for political gain.
Labour is better off without these tossers. We are years off the election and the Tories are destined for self destruction, it's best we cut the rot out now and be done with it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
