-
Yes. But if everyone voted for what they do want instead of against what they don't politics would be more representative. I know it's a product of fptp but, like negative campaigning, tactical voting is anti democratic.
Agreed.
But it's more democratic then FPTP. Which is super fucked-up.
The only reasonable democracy is one where every vote is represented in Westminster, i.e. full proportional representation.
80% of OECD countries have that, only huge notable exceptions are UK and US... look which ones have become more divisive.
The path to PR:
- Tactical voting: The voters vote against someone, without consent of the parties
- Progressive alliances: The parties work together against someone
- Progressive coalitions: Parties embrace coalitions and work to achieve them
- Electoral transformation: PR introduced to preserve strengths of coalitions
The first is the only one we can fully be involved in, and it's so important right now to be so to stop the Tories.
No other party has the numbers to stop them, but tactical voting can weaken them enough to slow them down significantly. And if there is enough of a swing, tactical voting could deliver a non-Tory coalition.
- Tactical voting: The voters vote against someone, without consent of the parties
You are reading a single comment by @Velocio and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Velocio
Yes. But if everyone voted for what they do want instead of against what they don't politics would be more representative. I know it's a product of fptp but, like negative campaigning, tactical voting is anti democratic.
Tim Farron showed himself to be a negative campaigner last night, more concerned about slagging off JC and TM than promoting his own policies. He's also the [arguable] homophobe leader of a party that colluded with the Tories.
So the lib dems can go ahead and hop right into the sea for now and the foreseeable future and take their middle class guilt with them.