What is tactical voting and why is it bad for democracy?

Tactical voting is not likely to disappear any time soon. As the country remains more divided than ever over Brexit, there has been an increase in tactical voting websites to help voters make their decisions. Yet the difficulty in predicting how people plan to vote, has meant that different tactical voting websites have made different recommendations. Its high time that we resolve this broken system of voting.

How can we change this?

We need an electoral system that works for voters, not one that voters have to try to workaround. Under a proportional system, the need for of tactical voting massively drops. That’s because, as there is more than one winner in each area, unless you decide to vote for a tiny fringe party there is a high chance you will get someone elected to represent you. The Single Transferable Vote (STV) form of proportional representation is even better as you can write down back up choices in case your first choice doesn’t get enough votes. STV gives people the chance to vote for their preferred candidate without the fear that their vote will go to waste.

It is now more important than ever, that the public is involved in decisions being made for the future of our country. With a voting system that allows people’s voices to be heard, we can introduce a fairer democracy.

Maddog wrote:Tactical voting is hypocritical.

Vote for what you believe, and let the chips fall where they may.

Maddog wrote:Tactical voting is hypocritical.

Vote for what you believe, and let the chips fall where they may.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:Tactical voting is hypocritical.

Vote for what you believe, and let the chips fall where they may.

Tactical voting is simply trying to get most of what you want.

If I agree with Jill Stein 98 percent and Hillary Clinton 92 percent, and Donald Trump 23 percent, but Stein has no chance of winning, then voting for Clinton gives me a chance of having 92 percent of what I want rather than 23 percent.

I'd be a fool to quibble so much over that six percentage points of disagreement that I don't do anything to keep Trump out of office.

I'm can't be an idealist or a perfectionist when millions of people's health care is at stake.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:Tactical voting is hypocritical.

Vote for what you believe, and let the chips fall where they may.

Tactical voting is simply trying to get most of what you want.

If I agree with Jill Stein 98 percent and Hillary Clinton 92 percent, and Donald Trump 23 percent, but Stein has no chance of winning, then voting for Clinton gives me a chance of having 92 percent of what I want rather than 23 percent.

I'd be a fool to quibble so much over that six percentage points of disagreement that I don't do anything to keep Trump out of office.

I'm can't be an idealist or a perfectionist when millions of people's health care is at stake.

It's rewarding those that don't represent you best, with your vote.

I would say that 98-92 is so close that I would  pick the person who's the least shitty of a human, which would mean Jill Stein.  

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It's rewarding those that don't represent you best, with your vote.

I would say that 98-92 is so close that I would  pick the person who's the least shitty of a human, which would mean Jill Stein.  

I don't know what makes Stein a less-shitty human being than Hilary Clinton -- what makes you say that?

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It's rewarding those that don't represent you best, with your vote.

I would say that 98-92 is so close that I would  pick the person who's the least shitty of a human, which would mean Jill Stein.  

I don't know what makes Stein a less-shitty human being than Hilary Clinton -- what makes you say that?

Jesus you're biased. Even most of the people I know that voted for her think she is a shitty human being.

Let's just leave it at that.  

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Jesus you're biased. Even most of the people I know that voted for her think she is a shitty human being.

Let's just leave it at that.  

Most of the people you know means two things, Jack and shit, and Jack's left town.

I want reasons, not an appeal to popular opinion.

Jules wrote:All manner of tactical tricks are being played by the politicians themselves. Very cynical, they are in no position to preach at us.

Donors and financial backers like to call the shots and dictate T's & C's of how their money should be spent. They focus on marginal seats & pump all the money there. All sorts of deals are being cut, if the stories coming thru are true.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Jesus you're biased. Even most of the people I know that voted for her think she is a shitty human being.

Let's just leave it at that.  

Most of the people you know means two things, Jack and shit, and Jack's left town.

I want reasons, not an appeal to popular opinion.

Try using Google. There are plenty of articles that explain why she is so disliked and touch on her behavior that creates that extreme dislike.  

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Try using Google. There are plenty of articles that explain why she is so disliked and touch on her behavior that creates that extreme dislike.  

I know she stayed with Bill when he cheated on her. I know she was investigated by the Republicans for decades but never charged with a crime. What else is there?

Jules wrote:All manner of tactical tricks are being played by the politicians themselves. Very cynical, they are in no position to preach at us.

Donors and financial backers like to call the shots and dictate T's & C's of how their money should be spent. They focus on marginal seats & pump all the money there. All sorts of deals are being cut, if the stories coming thru are true.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Try using Google. There are plenty of articles that explain why she is so disliked and touch on her behavior that creates that extreme dislike.  

I know she stayed with Bill when he cheated on her. I know she was investigated by the Republicans for decades but never charged with a crime. What else is there?

She helped and covered for Bill, when other women accused him of his "indiscretions" too.

She knew Bill treated his "Bimbos" like shit and she helped cover for him.

She treated everyone around her like a piece of shit because they were beneath her.

Again, do some research on her with an open mind.

Or don't.

eddie wrote:Ben...Trouble is, if a person has a chaotic, troubled and shitty personal life, it generally seems to follow that they’re a chaotic, troubled and shitty person.

You wouldn’t marry a shitty person if they acted shitty at work - which is the other way round to your thinking.

And going by that thinking, people should stop attacking Trump for his personal life, non?

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Try using Google. There are plenty of articles that explain why she is so disliked and touch on her behavior that creates that extreme dislike.  

I know she stayed with Bill when he cheated on her. I know she was investigated by the Republicans for decades but never charged with a crime. What else is there?

She helped and covered for Bill, when other women accused him of his "indiscretions" too.

She knew Bill treated his "Bimbos" like shit and she helped cover for him.

She treated everyone around her like a piece of shit because they were beneath her.

Again, do some research on her with an open mind.

Or don't.

eddie wrote:“ unless they're hypocrites, of course, and actually ran on being a stand-up person when they're really not.”

And therein, lies the rub.
Some people don’t think Hilary Clinton is a stand-up person.

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:“ unless they're hypocrites, of course, and actually ran on being a stand-up person when they're really not.”

And therein, lies the rub.
Some people don’t think Hilary Clinton is a stand-up person.

But she never ran on being some sort of moral pillar -- her campaign was focused on her ideas for the future of America, which I liked and which was why I voted for her without hesitation.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

She helped and covered for Bill, when other women accused him of his "indiscretions" too.

She knew Bill treated his "Bimbos" like shit and she helped cover for him.

She treated everyone around her like a piece of shit because they were beneath her.

Again, do some research on her with an open mind.

Or don't.

I would honestly say that I don't give a shit about any of that, full stop.

I look at electing a president the way a bank looks at hiring a manager. I don't care if his or her personal life is a complete mess, I want to know if he or she is qualified to do the job I need done.

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:“ unless they're hypocrites, of course, and actually ran on being a stand-up person when they're really not.”

And therein, lies the rub.
Some people don’t think Hilary Clinton is a stand-up person.

But she never ran on being some sort of moral pillar -- her campaign was focused on her ideas for the future of America, which I liked and which was why I voted for her without hesitation.

No, I will be fair, you did show me a link to her proposed policies and I did like some of them, not gonna lie.
I just don’t like her.

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

But she never ran on being some sort of moral pillar -- her campaign was focused on her ideas for the future of America, which I liked and which was why I voted for her without hesitation.

No, I will be fair, you did show me a link to her proposed policies and I did like some of them, not gonna lie.
I just don’t like her.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

She helped and covered for Bill, when other women accused him of his "indiscretions" too.

She knew Bill treated his "Bimbos" like shit and she helped cover for him.

She treated everyone around her like a piece of shit because they were beneath her.

Again, do some research on her with an open mind.

Or don't.

I would honestly say that I don't give a shit about any of that, full stop.

I look at electing a president the way a bank looks at hiring a manager. I don't care if his or her personal life is a complete mess, I want to know if he or she is qualified to do the job I need done.

You asked what made Jill Stein a less shitty human being than Hillary. I showed you, then you said it doesn't matter.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

But she never ran on being some sort of moral pillar -- her campaign was focused on her ideas for the future of America, which I liked and which was why I voted for her without hesitation.

No, I will be fair, you did show me a link to her proposed policies and I did like some of them, not gonna lie.
I just don’t like her.

You're like a lot of women. You know what kind of women she is and she would walk all over you to get ahead, while professing to be a part of the "sisterhood".

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You're like a lot of women. You know what kind of women she is and she would walk all over you to get ahead, while professing to be a part of the "sisterhood".

What do you mean, she's like a lot of women?

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Most of the people you know means two things, Jack and shit, and Jack's left town.

I want reasons, not an appeal to popular opinion.

Try using Google. There are plenty of articles that explain why she is so disliked and touch on her behavior that creates that extreme dislike.  

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

What do you mean, she's like a lot of women?

Women are better at judging other women. They know a nasty bitch when they see one.

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Women are better at judging other women. They know a nasty bitch when they see one.

Really? How?

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Try using Google. There are plenty of articles that explain why she is so disliked and touch on her behavior that creates that extreme dislike.  

Explain to me why she should be held accountable for the sexual abuses of her husband?

The dislikes of her are based on her being loyal to her husband

I have never understood this.

Have you been faithful?

The vast majority of people have not been faithful in the US

She has been punished for simple stikcing by the person she loves

Is oit wrong to still love someone, when they abused your love?

Are now we to judge how she should act on this?

In her position we would all act different, but we are not her and yet the nation acts as if they can decide

It shows they have no clue of love

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Really? How?

Estrogen?

Breasts?

Vaginas?

The real reason is that most men tend to be less hard on women, and treat them differently. That results in men and women often coming to different conclusions about a woman, and her antics.

The most common example is in child rearing. Daughters will generally steer clear of mama when thy are trying to get away with something. Dad's an easier target. That doesn't change as they age.    

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You asked what made Jill Stein a less shitty human being than Hillary. I showed you, then you said it doesn't matter.

I thought you would bring up a difference that mattered to me, that's all. Do you hire people, and if so, do you do character checks on them?

Because that's not very freedom-loving, is it? To say that because someone has a victimless moral failing in your opinion, that they're not qualified for a job that has nothing to do with their personal life?

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Estrogen?

Breasts?

Vaginas?

The real reason is that most men tend to be less hard on women, and treat them differently. That results in men and women often coming to different conclusions about a woman, and her antics.

The most common example is in child rearing. Daughters will generally steer clear of mama when thy are trying to get away with something. Dad's an easier target. That doesn't change as they age.    

So you are saying males with breasts based on estrogen drugs can judge females?

I mean WTF

I will ask again how can females being females judge females based on their sex, based on your argument?

You do realise you are presenting the most unscientific unbiologically load of bullshit known to human history?

All you are doing is going off a perceived view of women, based off by some women

When in reality you knowledge of women is so small. It amounts to double figures out of hundreds of millions and yet you have the gall to say. Women know other women. When they only know the small number they have met in life?

Do you noty see how these kind of sterotypes have been formed against blacks, females, gays etc in history. With your kind of thining?

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Explain to me why she should be held accountable for the sexual abuses of her husband?

The dislikes of her are based on her being loyal to her husband

I have never understood this.

Have you been faithful?

The vast majority of people have not been faithful in the US

She has been punished for simple stikcing by the person she loves

Is oit wrong to still love someone, when they abused your love?

Are now we to judge how she should act on this?

In her position we would all act different, but we are not her and yet the nation acts as if they can decide

It shows they have no clue of love

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/yes-hillary-was-an-enabler-213919

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:


https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/yes-hillary-was-an-enabler-213919

How in fact does that answer any of my points above?

That is a political opinion

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

So you are saying males with breasts based on estrogen drugs can judge females?

I mean WTF

I will ask again how can females being females judge females based on their sex, based on your argument?

You do realise you are presenting the most unscientific unbiologically load of bullshit known to human history?

All you are doing is going off a perceived view of women, based off by some women

When in reality you knowledge of women is so small. It amounts to double figures out of hundreds of millions and yet you have the gall to say. Women know other women. When they only know the small number they have met in life?

Do you noty see how these kind of sterotypes have been formed against blacks, females, gays etc in history. With your kind of thining?

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

How in fact does that answer any of my points above?

That is a political opinion

It explains that Hillary was not some innocent victim here. She did contribute to other women becoming victims.

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You made the view made, so own it

If you want to run away with your tail between your legs when you make unscientific views on sterotypes and even worse use estrogen
You then make the view that males on this can judge women
Is that what you are claiming?
because the reality is you are never treating males and females equally based on their mental attributes
We all know we are phsyically different and we all know that men are more prone to violence. We also know females are more prone to nature instincts. But and its a big but. This is not science. Its based on stats
You just fucked all over women with your views as a male. Based on your views as a male

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It explains that Hillary was not some innocent victim here. She did contribute to other women becoming victims.

In any view did i claim she was innocent?

Phil wrote:    She has been punished for simple stikcing by the person she loves      

Maddog wrote:"Hillary was always with the sisterhood, except when one of the sisters piped up about Bill having sex with her or grossly mistreating her, in which case Hillary was with the patriarchy — i.e., her powerful, entitled husband — all the way.

It wasn’t a Clinton enemy that came up with the phrase “bimbo eruption,” but an ally and friend, Betsey Wright. The word “bimbo,” by the way, says it all about the contempt Clinton World had for women with the poor judgment to succumb to Bill’s wiles."

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:"Hillary was always with the sisterhood, except when one of the sisters piped up about Bill having sex with her or grossly mistreating her, in which case Hillary was with the patriarchy — i.e., her powerful, entitled husband — all the way.

It wasn’t a Clinton enemy that came up with the phrase “bimbo eruption,” but an ally and friend, Betsey Wright. The word “bimbo,” by the way, says it all about the contempt Clinton World had for women with the poor judgment to succumb to Bill’s wiles."

You really have no idea about women infactuated do you?

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

In any view did i claim she was innocent?

Phil wrote:    She has been punished for simple stikcing by the person she loves      

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

You really have no idea about women infactuated do you?

Please teach me about women.