|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Jun 17, 2024 20:49:13 GMT
of course the need for Tactical Voting vanishes overnight under a fair voting system...the solution for those who dont like it is simple  Unfortunately nobody has ever come up with a fair tactical voting free system, I do like your optimism though. |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jun 17, 2024 20:55:03 GMT
of course the need for Tactical Voting vanishes overnight under a fair voting system...the solution for those who dont like it is simple Unfortunately nobody has ever come up with a fair tactical voting free system, I do like your optimism though. And there is of course a reason for that: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jun 17, 2024 21:19:48 GMT
of course the need for Tactical Voting vanishes overnight under a fair voting system...the solution for those who dont like it is simple Unfortunately nobody has ever come up with a fair tactical voting free system, I do like your optimism though. There are always going to be some edge cases where tactical voting can make a difference. But both preferential and list-based systems eliminate the vast majority of tactical voting. In preferential voting systems the circumstances where you would want to not first preference your actual favourite party are fairly niche. And putting your lower preferences in a different order in a way that makes a difference usually requires an unrealistic amount of information about how other people are voting.In list-based voting systems, it only works if the last seat is closely contested and if it isn't done on a large enough scale that your preferred party drops down to below the threshold for that last seat. So pretty much all the major PR systems either significantly reduce the need for tactical voting or actively penalise large scale tactical voting in a way that FPTP doesn't.
|
|
hengog
Conservative
Posts: 1,414
|
Post by hengog on Jun 17, 2024 21:44:28 GMT
It would be fun to see how many of the PR advocates of five years ago have now seen the light! Also what has happened to all those devoted members of the Corbyn cult? They were the majority , or certainly seemed so, and had to be tricked (not to be fair, a difficult task) in order to make Labour a serious alternative again; have they left the Party? Or been converted to accepting sensible conservative policies? Or lying low waiting for opportunities to make trouble?
|
|
|
|
Post by noorderling on Jun 18, 2024 5:57:04 GMT
of course the need for Tactical Voting vanishes overnight under a fair voting system...the solution for those who dont like it is simple Even in a strictly PR election people will vote tactically. Voters of the right and the left flocking to the party of the right or the left that has the biggest chance of becoming the largest party in Parliament. Because that party will get a first chance of forming a government and, if successful, will deliver the Prime Minister, our just to defeat the candidate from the other side. In 1977 PvdA Prime Minister Den Uyl ate up all the smaller left wing parties, because those voters did not want CDA leader Van Agt to become PM. Until 2010 the right wing tactical vote supported CDA in the race against PvdA. In that year Rutte passed CDA and VVD became the default choice. With the temporary demise of PvdA, tactical voting has come less salient, although in 2023 especially Partij voor de Dieren unexpectedly lost votes to GL-PvdA, in an attempt to make Timmermans PM. |
|
aargauer
Conservative
Posts: 5,979
Member is Online
|
Post by aargauer on Jun 18, 2024 8:36:38 GMT
of course the need for Tactical Voting vanishes overnight under a fair voting system...the solution for those who dont like it is simple Even in a strictly PR election people will vote tactically. Voters of the right and the left flocking to the party of the right or the left that has the biggest chance of becoming the largest party in Parliament. Because that party will get a first chance of forming a government and, if successful, will deliver the Prime Minister, our just to defeat the candidate from the other side. In 1977 PvdA Prime Minister Den Uyl ate up all the smaller left wing parties, because those voters did not want CDA leader Van Agt to become PM. Until 2010 the right wing tactical vote supported CDA in the race against PvdA. In that year Rutte passed CDA and VVD became the default choice. With the temporary demise of PvdA, tactical voting has come less salient, although in 2023 especially Partij voor de Dieren unexpectedly lost votes to GL-PvdA, in an attempt to make Timmermans PM. At least you have the choice. Many of us have no party representing even approximately what we believe in. |
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,842 
|
Post by Crimson King on Jun 18, 2024 9:35:35 GMT
Even in a strictly PR election people will vote tactically. Voters of the right and the left flocking to the party of the right or the left that has the biggest chance of becoming the largest party in Parliament. Because that party will get a first chance of forming a government and, if successful, will deliver the Prime Minister, our just to defeat the candidate from the other side. In 1977 PvdA Prime Minister Den Uyl ate up all the smaller left wing parties, because those voters did not want CDA leader Van Agt to become PM. Until 2010 the right wing tactical vote supported CDA in the race against PvdA. In that year Rutte passed CDA and VVD became the default choice. With the temporary demise of PvdA, tactical voting has come less salient, although in 2023 especially Partij voor de Dieren unexpectedly lost votes to GL-PvdA, in an attempt to make Timmermans PM. At least you have the choice. Many of us have no party representing even approximately what we believe in. if there were that many of you, you would |
|
jdc
Non-Aligned
Posts: 96
|
Post by jdc on Jun 18, 2024 10:06:49 GMT
At least you have the choice. Many of us have no party representing even approximately what we believe in. if there were that many of you, you would I'm not sure that's true - or at least not inherently true for all given political beliefs. For example, "moderately socially right-wing, moderately economically left-wing", is probably the most populated area of the quadrant (caricatured by metropolitan liberal twitter as "fund the NHS and hang the paedos") but has no mainstream party which consistently believes that, whereas the other three quadrants have often had a mainstream party each albeit the Lib Dems move around.
Various parties dip into that voting pool (Johnson, Farage, and indeed Miliband in the Blue Labour era, have all tried it to some extent or another) but all of them are tactically trying to get the votes, and those micro-parties which go some way in that direction (arguably, say, the contemporary SDP) come with a side order of bonkers and are starting from so far back they're not likely to start enough of a snowball to collect those voters.
Many of those people are probably UKIP 2015, Corbyn (maybe), 2017, Tory 2019, Labour 2024, voters.
|
|
jdc
Non-Aligned
Posts: 96
|
Post by jdc on Jun 18, 2024 10:08:10 GMT
of course the need for Tactical Voting vanishes overnight under a fair voting system...the solution for those who dont like it is simple Unfortunately nobody has ever come up with a fair tactical voting free system, I do like your optimism though. The Single Stochastic Vote is both objectively fair and makes tactical voting pointless, at the cost of introducing random probability which may make people feel it is subjectively unfair. |
|
aargauer
Conservative
Posts: 5,979
Member is Online
|
Post by aargauer on Jun 18, 2024 10:21:35 GMT
At least you have the choice. Many of us have no party representing even approximately what we believe in. if there were that many of you, you would I'm not under the illusion my views are particularly popular. However, under a PR system, they needn't be to get representation. Certainly, I think a right liberal party could comfortably secure 5% of the vote. In Switzerland we have all of the following that might be attractive for say a 2019 Conservative voter: - A Christian fundamentalist party - A reform style nativist party - A one nation style party - A liberal right party - A right of centre green party (!!) - A socially conservative evangelical economically left of centre party - Localist nativist parties in Geneva, Ticino That's choice. Doubtless, some people would still claim they don't have representation. But they are people unwilling to compromise. I have a mind willing to compromise, but everything is a massive compromise. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Jun 18, 2024 10:29:28 GMT
It would be fun to see how many of the PR advocates of five years ago have now seen the light! Also what has happened to all those devoted members of the Corbyn cult? They were the majority , or certainly seemed so, and had to be tricked (not to be fair, a difficult task) in order to make Labour a serious alternative again; have they left the Party? Or been converted to accepting sensible conservative policies? Or lying low waiting for opportunities to make trouble? Well, assuming that the above questions are not merely rhetorical and you want a serious answer the truth is (as is often the case) a bit complicated. Quite a few have left the party (as we can clearly see looking at the defections threads in recent years) so if they ever were the majority - which is actually doubtful, it would be a category error to assume all those who voted for him in 2015 and 2016 were hardened Corbynites - they pretty definitely aren't now. But equally a fair number *have* remained, including most of those with a sense of history who know the left's time in the party has come before Corbyn and could well do so again. And still others have actually evolved their politics in response to Labour's major electoral reverse at the last GE in particular, and become to at least a degree Starmer-sympathetic. Whatever happens, it is clear that explicitly left and anti-leadership MPs will be a small minority of Labour's ranks come next month - as was the case after 1997. But as then, that does not mean the leadership will always find managing things easy or that there will not be things the left can find allies over if they play their cards right. As for PR, most people who supported it 5 years ago still support it now - and if Labour *do* get a massive majority with 40% of the vote or thereabouts, it is clearly not going to go away. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 18, 2024 10:30:04 GMT
if there were that many of you, you would I'm not under the illusion my views are particularly popular. However, under a PR system, they needn't be to get representation. Certainly, I think a right liberal party could comfortably secure 5% of the vote. In Switzerland we have all of the following that might be attractive for say a 2019 Conservative voter: - A Christian fundamentalist party - A reform style nativist party - A one nation style party - A liberal right party - A right of centre green party (!!) - A socially conservative evangelical economically left of centre party - Localist nativist parties in Geneva, Ticino That's choice. Doubtless, some people would still claim they don't have representation. But they are people unwilling to compromise. I have a mind willing to compromise, but everything is a massive compromise. Well, that's fine and dandy if what you want is a smorgasbord of options on your ballot paper.
But consider a Swiss voter who doesn't like the government and wants to eject it from office. How, in the Swiss system, does he or she do that?
|
|
hengog
Conservative
Posts: 1,414
|
Post by hengog on Jun 18, 2024 10:48:59 GMT
It would be fun to see how many of the PR advocates of five years ago have now seen the light! Also what has happened to all those devoted members of the Corbyn cult? They were the majority , or certainly seemed so, and had to be tricked (not to be fair, a difficult task) in order to make Labour a serious alternative again; have they left the Party? Or been converted to accepting sensible conservative policies? Or lying low waiting for opportunities to make trouble? Well, assuming that the above questions are not merely rhetorical and you want a serious answer the truth is (as is often the case) a bit complicated. Quite a few have left the party (as we can clearly see looking at the defections threads in recent years) so if they ever were the majority - which is actually doubtful, it would be a category error to assume all those who voted for him in 2015 and 2016 were hardened Corbynites - they pretty definitely aren't now. But quite a few *have* stayed, including most of those with a sense of history who know the left's time in the party has come before Corbyn and could well do so again. And still others have actually evolved their politics in response to Labour's major electoral reverse at the last GE in particular, and become to at least a degree Starmer-sympathetic. Whatever happens, it is clear that explicitly left and anti-leadership MPs will be a small minority of Labour's ranks come next month - as was the case after 1997. But as then, that does not mean the leadership will always find managing things easy or that there will not be things the left can find allies over if they play their cards right. As for PR, most people who supported it 5 years ago still support it now - and if Labour *do* get a massive majority with 40% of the vote or thereabouts, it is clearly not going to go away. Thank you for that - it was a genuine question , only slightly tongue in cheek ( which I guess is what you meant by ‘ rhetorical’). I was thinking more of the membership than the MPs. Labour was fortunate really that the left , when in charge , seems to have been organisationally incompetent in securing its position- in sharp contrast to what happened next! There have of course always been what in my youth were called Butskellites in both parties. If , as seems quite likely , the Conservative Party is fatally wounded those within it at present - the “Cameroons” , would be very comfortable within a Starmer Labour Party, while the other wing could merge easily with Reform , possibly retaining the name of the older Party. Whether that’s a good thing for the country is another matter. |
|
aargauer
Conservative
Posts: 5,979
Member is Online
|
Post by aargauer on Jun 18, 2024 10:57:10 GMT
I'm not under the illusion my views are particularly popular. However, under a PR system, they needn't be to get representation. Certainly, I think a right liberal party could comfortably secure 5% of the vote. In Switzerland we have all of the following that might be attractive for say a 2019 Conservative voter: - A Christian fundamentalist party - A reform style nativist party - A one nation style party - A liberal right party - A right of centre green party (!!) - A socially conservative evangelical economically left of centre party - Localist nativist parties in Geneva, Ticino That's choice. Doubtless, some people would still claim they don't have representation. But they are people unwilling to compromise. I have a mind willing to compromise, but everything is a massive compromise. Well, that's fine and dandy if what you want is a smorgasbord of options on your ballot paper.
But consider a Swiss voter who doesn't like the government and wants to eject it from office. How, in the Swiss system, does he or she do that?
That's not an inherent feature of PR. Most countries with PR don't have a perma-government. It is unlikely the UK would, as that level of compromise isn't in our political culture. Their only option is to take the government on issue by issue via referendums. That's effectively the socialist tactics. Oppose the government whilst being in government. If the government falls, it will be the socialists deciding they don't want to be in a permanently right wing majority government. That, or vote EDU, EVP, Green or Green liberal. |
|
|
|
Post by lackeroftalent on Jun 18, 2024 11:10:02 GMT
if there were that many of you, you would I'm not under the illusion my views are particularly popular. However, under a PR system, they needn't be to get representation. Certainly, I think a right liberal party could comfortably secure 5% of the vote. In Switzerland we have all of the following that might be attractive for say a 2019 Conservative voter: - A Christian fundamentalist party - A reform style nativist party - A one nation style party - A liberal right party - A right of centre green party (!!)- A socially conservative evangelical economically left of centre party - Localist nativist parties in Geneva, Ticino A right of centre green party like this? theclimate.party/ |
|
jdc
Non-Aligned
Posts: 96
|
Post by jdc on Jun 18, 2024 11:16:54 GMT
I'm not under the illusion my views are particularly popular. However, under a PR system, they needn't be to get representation. Certainly, I think a right liberal party could comfortably secure 5% of the vote. In Switzerland we have all of the following that might be attractive for say a 2019 Conservative voter: - A Christian fundamentalist party - A reform style nativist party - A one nation style party - A liberal right party - A right of centre green party (!!)- A socially conservative evangelical economically left of centre party - Localist nativist parties in Geneva, Ticino A right of centre green party like this? theclimate.party/Amateurs: greenpolitics.fandom.com/wiki/Libertarian_National_Socialist_Green_Party |
|
aargauer
Conservative
Posts: 5,979
Member is Online
|
Post by aargauer on Jun 18, 2024 11:32:42 GMT
I'm not under the illusion my views are particularly popular. However, under a PR system, they needn't be to get representation. Certainly, I think a right liberal party could comfortably secure 5% of the vote. In Switzerland we have all of the following that might be attractive for say a 2019 Conservative voter: - A Christian fundamentalist party - A reform style nativist party - A one nation style party - A liberal right party - A right of centre green party (!!)- A socially conservative evangelical economically left of centre party - Localist nativist parties in Geneva, Ticino A right of centre green party like this? theclimate.party/"We will bring forward Britain’s carbon zero target to 2030." That's absolute fantasy. If they said 2040 it could be treated seriously. Nevertheless, still looks interesting (they aren't standing where I vote though). |
|
