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

First topic message reminder :

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.

”It is a damning indictment of an electoral system that it makes its voters change their behaviour to work around its failings”

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/what-is-tactical-voting-and-why-is-it-bad-for-democracy/

I understand why people do it, but for me, I would never, ever, vote tactically. I have to stay true to what I believe.

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Please teach me about women.

Maybe you should listen to women

Have you tried this?

I got you man. No need.

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

How is that me claiming she is innocent?

She is being punished for what she did to other women, not for simply sticking by Bill.

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Maybe you should listen to women

Have you tried this?

I got you man. No need.

I very much doubt it when you center on the victim of the adultery, because you only center on the husband being a slave to his dick and not how she feels

So again maybe you should listen to women

Just saying

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:





How is that me claiming she is innocent?

She is being punished for what she did to other women, not for simply sticking by Bill.  

So she is being blamed for what her husband did?

What did ashe do to other women then?

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I got you man. No need.

I very much doubt it when you center on the victim of the adultery, because you only center on the husband being a slave to his dick and not how she feels

So again maybe you should listen to women

Just saying

I got you man. No need.

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

I very much doubt it when you center on the victim of the adultery, because you only center on the husband being a slave to his dick and not how she feels

So again maybe you should listen to women

Just saying

I got you man. No need.

Hence closeminded I guess

Its not about getting me bro or any male

That is that you fail to understand

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I got you man. No need.

Hence closeminded I guess

Its not about getting me bro or any male

That is that you fail to understand

I'm really trying to understand women. I'm fortunate to have an expert like you to converse with.

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

She is being punished for what she did to other women, not for simply sticking by Bill.  

So she is being blamed for what her husband did?

What did ashe do to other women then?

Read the link I posted.

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".

No. That isn’t what I said. I’m not saying she was professing to be part of a sisterhood. I just think she either loved too much (and stupidly) or she was ambitious.

I actually don’t think it’s wise to surmise what someone thinks. I go by her actions...and I don’t like them. So I don’t trust her instincts or her intentions.

eddie 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".

No. That isn’t what I said. I’m not saying she was professing to be part of a sisterhood. I just think she either loved too much (and stupidly) or she was ambitious.

I actually don’t think it’s wise to surmise what someone thinks. I go by her actions...and I don’t like them. So I don’t trust her instincts or her intentions.

And you know what kind of woman she is by her actions.

And as a woman, you have better insight into other women.

Same as I have better insight into a shady dude.

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.

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Hence closeminded I guess

Its not about getting me bro or any male

That is that you fail to understand

I'm really trying to understand women. I'm fortunate to have an expert like you to converse with.  

Are you? Or are you acting like a a two year old pulling on your dick?

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

So she is being blamed for what her husband did?

What did ashe do to other women then?

Read the link I posted.

Again what did she do to other women which was not based on their outdated religious views?

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I'm really trying to understand women. I'm fortunate to have an expert like you to converse with.  

Are you? Or are you acting like a a two year old pulling on your dick?

Is that something the women like seeing their men do?

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Read the link I posted.

Again what did she do to other women which was not based on their outdated religious views?

What does religion have to do with Hillary being an enabler for her predatory husband?

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Are you? Or are you acting like a a two year old pulling on your dick?

Is that something the women like seeing their men do?

Are you even listening to women or simple reading biased media sources?

You come from the south with a heavily religious influened bias

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Again what did she do to other women which was not based on their outdated religious views?

What does religion have to do with Hillary being an enabler for her predatory husband?    

How is she an enabler to her husband being a sex pest?

Do you even understand the amount of women fallen onto the spell of their husbands through love
Or even husbands to their wives.
Its just about the most dumbest claim you have made

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Is that something the women like seeing their men do?

Are you even listening to women or simple reading biased media sources?

You come from the south with a heavily religious influened bias

I cant get women to talk to me. How can I listen to them?

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

What does religion have to do with Hillary being an enabler for her predatory husband?    

How is she an enabler to her husband being a sex pest?

Do you even understand the amount of women fallen onto the spell of their husbands through love
Or even husbands to their wives.
Its just about the most dumbest claim you have made

The claim is not mine. It's a pretty widely held belief amongst quite a few people.


"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.”"

I guess a good question is, "did the women who made the mistake of sleeping with Hillary's husband, deserve to have their names ruined in defense of Bill?"

I would say no, but I'm not the forum expert on women.

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

How is she an enabler to her husband being a sex pest?

Do you even understand the amount of women fallen onto the spell of their husbands through love
Or even husbands to their wives.
Its just about the most dumbest claim you have made

The claim is not mine. It's a pretty widely held belief amongst quite a few people.

A belief held by people?

I rest my case based religiously then

Maddog wrote:I guess a good question is, "did the women who made the mistake of sleeping with Hillary's husband, deserve to have their names ruined in defense of Bill?"

I would say no, but I'm not the forum expert on women.

neither of us are experts on women, which is the point

Again is the belief based in rationality or more so politically?

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:I guess a good question is, "did the women who made the mistake of sleeping with Hillary's husband, deserve to have their names ruined in defense of Bill?"

I would say no, but I'm not the forum expert on women.

neither of us are experts on women, which is the point

Again is the belief based in rationality or more so politically?

Is that a yes or a no?

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The claim is not mine. It's a pretty widely held belief amongst quite a few people.

A belief held by people?

I rest my case based religiously then

People believe all sorts of things independent of religion.

I believe that Jimmy Carter is a better human than Bill Clinton. That belief is not based on religion or politics.

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

neither of us are experts on women, which is the point

Again is the belief based in rationality or more so politically?

Is that a yes or a no?

Yes as she was culpable

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

A belief held by people?

I rest my case based religiously then

People believe all sorts of things independent of religion.  

I believe that Jimmy Carter is a better human than Bill Clinton. That belief is not based on religion or politics.  

Carter is a vile antisemite

Bill Clinton any day of the week over that Islamist appeaser

I'm an expert on Women, the words "yes dear" solve all problems !

nicko wrote:I'm an expert on Women, the words "yes dear" solve all problems !

You're a wise man.

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:


Is that a yes or a no?

Yes as she was culpable

So women who sleep with a powerful and married men should be destroyed by the wife of the married man?

OK. To each their own.

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Yes as she was culpable

So women who sleep with a powerful and married men should be destroyed by the wife of the married man?

OK.  To each their own.  

A woman or a man. It does not matter. They would be culpable

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

So women who sleep with a powerful and married men should be destroyed by the wife of the married man?

OK.  To each their own.  

A woman or a man. It does not matter. They would be culpable

And they should be destroyed. Gotcha.

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

A woman or a man. It does not matter. They would be culpable

And they should be destroyed.  Gotcha.  

How are they being destroyed?

You seem to hold a really perverse and unequal view point here that only Bill clinton should be seen in a bad light for sleeping around.
Why should she not receive the same media aspect that he did?
Seems to me you hold a very unequal view here to protect one party, just as Hilary attempted to do with her husband.
If people are in the wrong, why do you wish to censur one side?

I will add and what I truely believe in. If people want to sleep with other people that is their choice and yet people make decisions based off the infidelity of people.

I mean what does it really matter, if people fall foul of love and find comfort and love with someone else?

Its really nobodies buisness, but you make a point that only one side should be expoised on this?

Where is your values on this?

Frankly I do not care if Bill Clinton or the woman he slept with fucked a hundred thousand people. If he is dishonest to his wife, then the person he slept with, is also party to this dishonesty. Hence both are in the wrong

Its as simple as that. If a person is willing to jump into bed with someone based in such high station in society. Then its par to the course when found out. You seem to think there should be some warped imbalance here and only Bill suffer for his actions. When the woman that fucked him, knew exactly what she was getting into for her own personal gain

To me, such people are never to be trusted and yet you hold a view to shield her

Like i said, they can do as they please, but your arguments clearly come from the backward school of treating women as inferior and not equal to men, based on the acts they have done..Did you object to people trying to destroy Bill Clinton over this? So why are you kicking up a fuss over his wife trying to destroy her?

Either you think both parties are in the wrong or you hold a very warped unequal view point here to only Clinton

Either both are in the wrong or neither are in the wrong-

So which is it?

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.

Just for you maddog:

"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. No one is angrier than a woman who has been rejected in love."

Was Hilary wrong to center her anger on the person that took the man she loved away from her?

When people blindly love or are swayed by politics. They will sadly look to take their anger not on the person they should do to. Their cheating husbands, but to them. They view the woman that tempted them to cheat. never knowing it was their husbands that instigated this and were the players. Sometimes women or men no matter if cheated. When blindly in love or like here politically. Will fail to blame their partners, when they should and go after those they slept with.

Its a poor self defense mechanism. Because they fail to or want to recognise any fault in their partners and believe they were enticed away from them.

Granted Hilary is naive, but you really do not understand women or males, when it coimes to being scorned and when they are truely in love. They simple refuse to believe that their husbands do not love them and will centre their anger onto those they believe are the cause of their relationship breakdown. never questioning themselves or their own partners. They seel to deflect their anger onto their rival

That is an evolunationary nature mate

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.

Well there is a simple reason why tactical voting is poor
As when you allign yourself with another party. You have to jump into bed with them and like the Liberals did under the Tories coalition governement. Its spelt their doom for many years

The reality is, even the Liberals do not want to do buisness with the far left with a Corbyn based leadership. This is evident as they could have brought this about with a vote. They never did, because even the liberals do not trust corbyn. They dont trust Boris either, but they see him as the lesser evil

Have you ever voted tactically, didge?

eddie wrote:Have you ever voted tactically, didge?

Nope

phildidge wrote:

eddie wrote:Have you ever voted tactically, didge?

Nope

No, me neither.

Why wouldn’t you?

phildidge 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.

Well there is a simple reason why tactical voting is poor
As when you allign yourself with another party. You have to jump into bed with them and like the Liberals did under the Tories coalition governement. Its spelt their doom for many years

The reality is, even the Liberals do not want to do buisness with the far left with a Corbyn based leadership. This is evident as they could have brought this about with a vote. They never did, because even the liberals do not trust corbyn. They dont trust Boris either, but they see him as the lesser evil

Yeah, the American government doesn't have coalitions. We have two parties at one another's throats. We have 638 people in Congress; 636 of them are either Democrats or Republicans, and two are independent (which is not a party).

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

And they should be destroyed.  Gotcha.  

How are they being destroyed?

You seem to hold a really perverse and unequal view point here that only Bill clinton should be seen in a bad light for sleeping around.
Why should she not receive the same media aspect that he did?
Seems to me you hold a very unequal view here to protect one party, just as Hilary attempted to do with her husband.
If people are in the wrong, why do you wish to censur one side?

Should they be destroyed?

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Well there is a simple reason why tactical voting is poor
As when you allign yourself with another party. You have to jump into bed with them and like the Liberals did under the Tories coalition governement. Its spelt their doom for many years

The reality is, even the Liberals do not want to do buisness with the far left with a Corbyn based leadership. This is evident as they could have brought this about with a vote. They never did, because even the liberals do not trust corbyn. They dont trust Boris either, but they see him as the lesser evil

Yeah, the American government doesn't have coalitions. We have two parties at one another's throats. We have 638 people in Congress; 636 of them are either Democrats or Republicans, and two are independent (which is not a party).

Weel maybe this is the issue here. In times of war Colaition goverments work very well, because there is a greater and worse threat. It allows dividing lines to be bridged

In fact the Europeans have been better at this than the Uk or the US when it comes to coalition Governments. As most cast aside their differences on important issues to do what is best for the people. In the US and UK they continually fail at this. Its basically polarising opposites

However, IfJeremy Corbyhn came to power. I would most definately leave this country, as would the majority of Jews

I stand against the Far right and far left and Corbyn is the latter

I will vote Liberal in the coming election

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

How are they being destroyed?

You seem to hold a really perverse and unequal view point here that only Bill clinton should be seen in a bad light for sleeping around.
Why should she not receive the same media aspect that he did?
Seems to me you hold a very unequal view here to protect one party, just as Hilary attempted to do with her husband.
If people are in the wrong, why do you wish to censur one side?

Should they be destroyed?

Explain to me who is being destroyed and how?

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.

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Should they be destroyed?

Explain to me who is being destroyed and how?

On more time.

Should the women that slept with Bill be destroyed?

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?

Okay should people before a trial be destroyed by media?

What is your view on Epstein?

Or do you only think destroying males is acceptable by media?

This is not me defending him either

So I ask again, how was she destroyed?

First you need to explain how and what destroyed means

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.  

That has to be the dumbest thing you have said
Th best person maybe led by a multitude of idiots who can only make decisions based off their votes
So how is voting in the best person for the job immoral, when they are back by people who litteraly control their decisions through a majority?

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

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

That has to be the dumbest thing you have said
Th best person maybe led by a multitude of idiots who can only make decisions based off their votes
So how is voting in the best person for the job immoral, when they are back by people who litteraly control their decisions through a majority?

You do realise the best person for the job is based on a subjective point of view?
In Germany, people believe in a minority that Hitler was the best person for the job with over 40%
So based on your reasoning and the majority of people that voted in nazism. There view would be that I would be immoral for not voting him in, because their subjective view. Was he was the best person for the job

Sorry mate you just made yourself look an abolsute dick on this

eddie wrote:

phildidge wrote:

eddie wrote:Have you ever voted tactically, didge?

Nope

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?

Define destroyed?

Explain why people tried to destroy him and why she should be exempt based off this