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:

Ben Reilly wrote:If I could just interrupt the sidetrack for a second, this thread is really about whether tactical voting is a good thing or not.

I argue that if it's inevitable that, for example, the United States will elect a new president, and that this person will have a lot of power over the lives of millions of people, it's irresponsible to vote for someone who has no chance of winning when the two people who do have a chance to win are unequally bad.

In that case, the only choice, logically and morally, is to choose the better candidate, even if they're not as appealing to you as someone who is polling at less than 1 percent.

It's about choosing the option that is a combination of best and most realistic, which is a solid way to make every decision.

It's immoral to not vote for the person that you think will  e the best person for the job.  

eddie wrote:

eddie wrote:

No, me neither.

Why wouldn’t you?

Don’t think you saw this.

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Explain to me who is being destroyed and how?

On more time.  

Should the women that slept with Bill be destroyed?

phildidge wrote:

eddie wrote:

eddie wrote:

No, me neither.

Why wouldn’t you?

Don’t think you saw this.

Indeed Eddie

What is the point in tactical voting?
I live in a safe Conservative seat but would rather a Liberal win
If people place their own values second to ensuring the worst people obtain power

As happened in nazi germany. Then they have no idea on history

eddie wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Indeed Eddie

What is the point in tactical voting?
I live in a safe Conservative seat but would rather a Liberal win
If people place their own values second to ensuring the worst people obtain power

As happened in nazi germany. Then they have no idea on history

For me, it’s about voting for the party I want not a party that will remove the “enemy”

I have to vote from the heart.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It's immoral to not vote for the person that you think will  e the best person for the job.  

You have to take the action that results in the greatest good for the greatest number of people, no?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It's immoral to not vote for the person that you think will  e the best person for the job.  

You have to take the action that results in the greatest good for the greatest number of people, no?

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

On more time.  

Should the women that slept with Bill be destroyed?

One more time

How many times are you going to dodge every single point and question posed to you

Define destroyed?

Then answer why you believe only men should be destroyed based on your interpretation

Are you going to answer the many points I made

Or be like Quill?

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It's immoral to not vote for the person that you think will  e the best person for the job.  

You have to take the action that results in the greatest good for the greatest number of people, no?

No.

Stop acting like your vote is somehow saving the damn world.  

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

You have to take the action that results in the greatest good for the greatest number of people, no?

No.

Stop acting like your vote is somehow saving the damn world.  

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

No.

Stop acting like your vote is somehow saving the damn world.  

My vote is the single most powerful thing I own toward achieving the goal of saving the damn world.

I don't toss it aside and pretend that both major parties are as bad as one another.

Then again, I also don't carry water for rich greedy bastards who try to brainwash people into believing that if we were to do away with all regulations on business, we'd all be as rich as they are.

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

No.

Stop acting like your vote is somehow saving the damn world.  

How is your view any different?

As you claim its immoral, based off no actual reason. To not vote for the best person that you percieve will be the best person for the job

Again many people thought Hitler was the best person for the Job

Wou;ld you claim it wa immoral to not vote for him, not based in hindisght?

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

One more time

How many times are you going to dodge every single point and question posed to you

Define destroyed?

Then answer why you believe only men should be destroyed based on your interpretation

Are you going to answer the many points I made

Or be like Quill?

"According to journalist Michael Isikoff, the Clinton campaign in 1992 spent $100,000 on private-detective work related to women. The approach, when rumors first popped up, was to get affidavits from women denying affairs — the reflex of most women is to avoid exposure — and, failing that, to use any discrediting tool at hand.

Hillary was fully on board. When a rock groupie told Penthouse in late 1991 that a state trooper approached her on Gov. Clinton’s behalf, Hillary said “we have to destroy her story.”"


Ask Hillary what it means. It's her words, not mine.

Ben Reilly wrote:And I'd also argue that if you're making a decision that you know won't result in the greatest good for the greatest number of people, you can't possibly call it moral.

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

How is your view any different?

As you claim its immoral, based off no actual reason. To not vote for the best person that you percieve will be the best person for the job

Again many people thought Hitler was the best person for the Job

Wou;ld you claim it wa immoral to not vote for him, not based in hindisght?

You wouldn't like my reasons.

That's how opinions work sometimes.

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

"According to journalist Michael Isikoff, the Clinton campaign in 1992 spent $100,000 on private-detective work related to women. The approach, when rumors first popped up, was to get affidavits from women denying affairs — the reflex of most women is to avoid exposure — and, failing that, to use any discrediting tool at hand.

Hillary was fully on board. When a rock groupie told Penthouse in late 1991 that a state trooper approached her on Gov. Clinton’s behalf, Hillary said “we have to destroy her story.”"


Ask Hillary what it means. It's her words, not mine.

So you are happy to expose men and not women for infidelity?
Why is it okay to expose Clinton and not this woman that slept with him?
If its wrong to expose, why do you think its wrong to destroy her and not Clinton

Do you see how badly your argument falls down

Frankly I dont give a fuck about th whole situation

When you fuck a president, behind the first ladies back. Do you not think she is going to be pissed like any woman scorned?

You think this should offer her some protection?

Both Bill and the woman he slept with, knew what they were doing

I have zero sympathy for either of them

When caught this is the reality they will face and yet you seem to want to shield one side here

Your argument is so warped its hilarious

Again knowing what Clinton did and if he was then destroyed. Would you have batted an eyelid or made an argument about his life being destroyed?

Or do you hold some unequal value here?

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You wouldn't like my reasons.

That's how opinions work sometimes.

It does not matter whether I like them or not

You clearly are dodging buddy

As what matters here and what you failed to apply in your argument is what is fair

You are happy for Bill to be destroyed but not the woman that fucked him regularly

Either its wrong to destroy both, or its okay to expose both

So which is it?

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

So you are happy to expose men and not women for infidelity?
Why is it okay to expose Clinton and not this woman that slept with him?
If its wrong to expose, why do you think its wrong to destroy her and not Clinton

Do you see how badly your argument falls down

Frankly I dont give a fuck about th whole situation

When you fuck a president, behind the first ladies back. Do you not think she is going to be pissed like any woman scorned?

You think this should offer her some protection?

Both Bill and the woman he slept with, knew what they were doing

I have zero sympathy for either of them

When caught this is the reality they will face and yet you seem to want to shield one side here

Your argument is so warped its hilarious

Again knowing what Clinton did and if he was then destroyed. Would you have batted an eyelid or made an argument about his life being destroyed?

Or do you hold some unequal value here?

This is why your view is so fucked up


I'm not trying to shield either side.

That is what Hillary did when attacking and trying to destroy the women that slept with her husband.

She used her considerable power and influence against mostly powerless women.      

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

It does not matter whether I like them or not

You clearly are dodging buddy

As what matters here and what you failed to apply in your argument is what is fair

You are happy for Bill to be destroyed but not the woman that fucked him regularly

Either its wrong to destroy both, or its okay to expose both

So which is it?

Who gets to decide what is fair?

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

So you are happy to expose men and not women for infidelity?
Why is it okay to expose Clinton and not this woman that slept with him?
If its wrong to expose, why do you think its wrong to destroy her and not Clinton

Do you see how badly your argument falls down

Frankly I dont give a fuck about th whole situation

When you fuck a president, behind the first ladies back. Do you not think she is going to be pissed like any woman scorned?

You think this should offer her some protection?

Both Bill and the woman he slept with, knew what they were doing

I have zero sympathy for either of them

When caught this is the reality they will face and yet you seem to want to shield one side here

Your argument is so warped its hilarious

Again knowing what Clinton did and if he was then destroyed. Would you have batted an eyelid or made an argument about his life being destroyed?

Or do you hold some unequal value here?

I'm not trying to shield either side.

That is what Hillary did when attacking and trying to destroy the women that slept with her husband.

She used her considerable power and influence against mostly powerless women.      

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:


I'm not trying to shield either side.

That is what Hillary did when attacking and trying to destroy the women that slept with her husband.

She used her considerable power and influence against mostly powerless women.      

See what I mean?

To you is only about what Hilary did

Not the fact she found out her husband was fucking another woman

The world went against Bill on this, when they found out

Did you cry over this spilt milk and yet you want to defend a woman who jumped into bed with him fucking him?

Frankly again i do noit care who they all fuck

But your view to target Hilary here, when she was the victim to Bills infidelity, because she acted in anger.

Is not me defending her acts, but at least understanding how a woman scorned might act

The reality is you place more blame on hilary being a victim and reacting to knowing her husband was fucking another woman

You are basically ignoring how she felt and saying she basically has to suck it up

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:And I'd also argue that if you're making a decision that you know won't result in the greatest good for the greatest number of people, you can't possibly call it moral.

Watch me.

It's moral to vote for the person who you feel is the best person for the job.

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

See what I mean?

To you is only about what Hilary did

Not the fact she found out her husband was fucking another woman

The world went against Bill on this, when they found out

Did you cry over this spilt milk and yet you want to defend a woman who jumped into bed with him fucking him?

Frankly again i do noit care who they all fuck

But your view to target Hilary here, when she was the victim to Bills infidelity, because she acted in anger.

Is not me defending her acts, but at least understanding how a woman scorned might act

The reality is you place more blame on hilary being a victim and reacting to knowing her husband was fucking another woman

You are basically ignoring how she felt and saying she basically has to suck it up

She doesn't have to accept it.

But she doesn't get to use her power and influence to fuck over women that Bill was sleeping with, to protect Bill.

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

She doesn't have to accept it.

But she doesn't get to use her power and influence to fuck over women that Bill was sleeping with, to protect Bill.

Oh I see but the media has the power to fuck over a President, when he fucks around

I am sorry, but you seem to being arguing the most fucked up imbalanced view point here

Wnat to rethink your argument

If its wrong to fuck over people when they are unfaithful, why do you only make allowances on one of the parties here?

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:


Watch me.

It's moral to vote for the person who you feel is the best person for the job.

Well that’s how I feel too but I don’t think you can call someone “immoral” for their voting choice.

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:


Oh I see but the media has the power to fuck over a President, when he fucks around

I am sorry, but you seem to being arguing the most fucked up imbalanced view point here

Wnat to rethink your argument

If its wrong to fuck over people when they are unfaithful, why do you only make allowances on one of the parties here?

Politicians are in a different class that the general public.

phildidge wrote:

eddie wrote:

Well that’s how I feel too but I don’t think you can call someone “immoral” for their voting choice.

And that is how Hitler came to power Eddie, as the German people felt he was the best person for the job
Just as the Italians did with Mussolini
Maddog thinks its moral to vote for a person who they feel is the best person for the job and that is what the German people doid for the time
Maybe Maddog can explain the morality in this choice?

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:


Oh I see but the media has the power to fuck over a President, when he fucks around

I am sorry, but you seem to being arguing the most fucked up imbalanced view point here

Wnat to rethink your argument

If its wrong to fuck over people when they are unfaithful, why do you only make allowances on one of the parties here?

Politicians are in a different class that the general public.

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Politicians are in a different class that the general public.

So you do not believe in equality then?

You think its fair game to destroy people if they hold a certain positon in life?
I would love for you to explain the morality on this, because that you place such an emphasis on morality?

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Politicians are in a different class that the general public.

Are they? Or have you decided they are?
So your whole argument falls down
That you do not mind people being destroyed when its based on a subjective standard that you hold?
Correct
So you really are not bothered about people being destroyed but to use them as victims to make just about the most pettiest and childish argument against a scorned woman

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:


So you do not believe in equality then?

You think its fair game to destroy people if they hold a certain positon in life?
I would love for you to explain the morality on this, because that you place such an emphasis on morality?

The rule for anyone in the public sphere are much different. Courts have ruled that time and time again.

That's why many people stay out of politics. They lose the privacy and some of the rights they enjoy as citizens.

It's why we treat the families of politicians differently than the politician themselves.  

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:


Are they? Or have you decided they are?
So your whole argument falls down
That you do not mind people being destroyed when its based on a subjective standard that you hold?
Correct
So you really are not bothered about people being destroyed but to use them as victims to make just about the most pettiest and childish argument against a scorned woman

The courts have.

Good night princess.


You're not much fun when you get worked up like this.

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:


And that is how Hitler came to power Eddie, as the German people felt he was the best person for the job
Just as the Italians did with Mussolini
Maddog thinks its moral to vote for a person who they feel is the best person for the job and that is what the German people doid for the time
Maybe Maddog can explain the morality in this choice?

What is the moral way to vote, old wise one?

Jules wrote:Many other things apart from tactical voting - affect democracy.
A monetary advantage helps. In theory it shouldn't cos there's a limit to how much can be donated to a party for an election campaign. The MP's get around this rule in various ways.

It galling when the donations come from people living outside the country, too.

The gov't also occasionally changes county boundaries - in a seemingly  random way - at least it looks random to my layman eyes.

Jules wrote:

Jules wrote:Many other things apart from tactical voting - affect democracy.
A monetary advantage helps. In theory it shouldn't cos there's a limit to how much can be donated to a party for an election campaign. The MP's get around this rule in various ways.

It galling when the donations come from people living outside the country, too.

The gov't also occasionally changes county boundaries - in a seemingly  random way - at least it looks random to my layman eyes.

I have quoted my own post here, to give some examples of how the political parties themselves damage democracy.  

I don't want to go offtopic but in a thread about how democracy gets damaged, the true culprits should be blamed, not the voters.

phildidge wrote:

What is wrong with democracy is only one issue

Hate is wrong and why I will never vote now for Labour or Tory

Jules wrote:So here are three examples of politicians trying to cheat the democratic process:

1. The RW parties are now infighting amongst themselves and Farage is angrily threatening to report Boris for illegal activities and corruption, as peerages are being offered to rivals to stand down.    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/general-election-nigel-farage-threatens-20885677#ICID=Android_TMNewsApp_AppShare

2. The electoral commission ruled that Boris had overspent during the EU referendum after he funnelled £675,000  through to another political party to avoid spending limits". https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/02/boris-johnson-vote-leave-overspend-eu-referendum-labour-mp-ian-lucas

3. There is also the issue of possible Russian interference. Not yet proven but investigations are pending.

Jules wrote:

phildidge wrote:

What is wrong with democracy is only one issue

Hate is wrong and why I will never vote now for Labour or Tory

I hear you, Didge.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It's immoral to not vote for the person that you think will  e the best person for the job.  

You have to take the action that results in the greatest good for the greatest number of people, no?

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:


Watch me.

It's moral to vote for the person who you feel is the best person for the job.

Well that’s how I feel too but I don’t think you can call someone “immoral” for their voting choice.

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:And I'd also argue that if you're making a decision that you know won't result in the greatest good for the greatest number of people, you can't possibly call it moral.

Watch me.

It's moral to vote for the person who you feel is the best person for the job.

Well that’s how I feel too but I don’t think you can call someone “immoral” for their voting choice.

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:

Well that’s how I feel too but I don’t think you can call someone “immoral” for their voting choice.

If you vote for someone who clearly intends to enact immoral policies, you are immoral and I will call you that.

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:And I'd also argue that if you're making a decision that you know won't result in the greatest good for the greatest number of people, you can't possibly call it moral.

Watch me.

It's moral to vote for the person who you feel is the best person for the job.

Well that’s how I feel too but I don’t think you can call someone “immoral” for their voting choice.

If you vote for someone who clearly intends to enact immoral policies, you are immoral and I will call you that.

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