|
|
Post by dance2drop on Apr 24, 2015 9:40:10 GMT
Is it just me, or does anybody else get a bit miffed when people (some of them friends of mine) say that although they voted for UKIP in the European and Council elections, in the General Election, they will be voting for the Tories as a vote for UKIP will be wasted and it will let labour in. This is called tactical voting and I am not happy with it.
Vote where your heart is and what you want for this country, that is what voting is all about. Don't however moan peeps if you get a party in you don't want. You only have yourself to blame.
|
|
|
|
Post by Teddy Bear on Apr 24, 2015 12:48:59 GMT
I think the term is 'the lesser of two evils'.
The solution might be to have a system where you have a primary and secondary vote. In those cases where your primary politician doesn't get enough to be elected then the secondary option is counted. At least that way one can better determine the direction one wants their vote to go to.
|
|
|
|
Post by charmbrights on Apr 26, 2015 8:55:31 GMT
... The solution might be to have a system where you have a primary and secondary vote. In those cases where your primary politician doesn't get enough to be elected then the secondary option is counted. At least that way one can better determine the direction one wants their vote to go to. Only if there are two separate voting days with minor candidates eliminated; perhaps all candidates whose combined votes do not add up to the number cast for the winner in the first round. Even then it has the major flaw of the single transferable vote. The essence of STV is where each voter ranks the candidates, and the candidate who has the least of the first choice votes is eliminated and the second choice of those voters is taken into account. When a candidate gets 50% of the votes plus one (s)he has won. Since the basis of democracy is that the voters will chose the best person, this means that the voters who got it most wrong get a second vote, and if a voter is sufficiently wrong their vote will be reallocated in every round. However, the voters who votes for the candidate who came second get neither the candidate they wanted, nor any of their other choices taken into account. Also if there are many candidates (as we get nowadays) and almost everybody puts the same candidate as their number 2 choice but almost nobody puts that candidate as number one, then that candidate will be eliminated in the first round. As Professor Jay Gould has pointed out there is no fair way to pick a representative from a group of candidates. ALL the voting systems have flaws when considered mathematically. As for a coalition, that is inevitably a compromise on policies - and a compromise means everybody gets what nobody wanted. |
|
