Tactical Voter

April 22, 2005 5:34 PM

Tactical Voter has resurfaced just in time for next month's British general election. Thanks of the large number of elected representatives in the UK (659), vote swapping promises to have a more widespread effect on the contest than similar exchange networks did in the the last two US Presidential Elections. Indeed, most political analysts believe that, during the last General Election in 2001, vote swapping accounted for the demise of at least two Conservative Members of Parliament. Other vote swapping sites want to sack Blair, while musicians Billy Bragg and Brian Eno (the latter previously posted) are waging tactical voting campaigns of their own. What is this type of activity going to do to the future of elections? Is this type of activity restricted to the UK and USA? And are there any historical ancendents to online vote swapping?
posted by MrMerlot (27 comments total)

Well Tactical Voter has got my seat wrong. They say that in the last election the gap between Labour and the LibDems (who were second) is too wide to allow tactical voting. They don't take into consideration however that the existing MP (Chris Smith) is standing down and being replaced by an non-entity - I may have felt bad about voting against Smith but I couldn't care less about his replacement. I'm sure a lot of people here feel the same. It also doesn't help Labour that in my seat the Tories don't stand any chance so people see no risk in switching their votes to LibDem.

It would be nice to see Oliver Letwin kicked out - good luck to the people of Dorset on that one!
posted by dodgygeezer at 3:08 AM on April 23, 2005

Conspiring to subvert a country's established democratic processes is totally wrong - this applies whether you're George Bush, Billy Bragg or the effing mafia.
posted by runkelfinker at 4:48 AM on April 23, 2005

We are subverting the inadequate first past the post system in order to get a result more nearly in accordance with what we want. With luck it will lead this time to the establishment of a formal system of proportional representation.
posted by apodo at 5:31 AM on April 23, 2005

Who are you to decide that the first past the post system is inadequate?
posted by runkelfinker at 6:02 AM on April 23, 2005

Just a citizen of a free country who thinks that the composition of the legislature should accurately reflect the will of the people
posted by apodo at 6:17 AM on April 23, 2005

Given that the politicians themselves are subverting the country's democratic process it seems a little hard to condemn the ordinary citizen who tries her hand at the same game.
posted by TimothyMason at 6:34 AM on April 23, 2005

The Labour Party's flagrant abuse of the postal voting system doesn't justify the ordinary voter in manipulating the system herself. Besides, it's arrogant of apodo to presume to know "the will of the people" when (s)he doesn't even live in the UK.
posted by runkelfinker at 6:44 AM on April 23, 2005

runkelfinker: This isn't "subverting the democratic process", it's simply choosing to vote against a party rather than for a party. People have used much worse methods of deciding who to vote for, such as who has the nicest hair. You keep linking to examples of illegal behaviour as if tactical voting websites are doing the same thing - they're not. You imply that they're illegal or immoral - they're not.

We all have a vote and are free to use it as we chose. If you don't like what others do with their vote then that's just too bad. Welcome to democracy!
posted by dodgygeezer at 8:36 AM on April 23, 2005

Others are voting for the only ...possible Prime Minister who can be relied upon not to involve Britain in another imperialist war: Tony Blair. He can be relied upon, because no one will ever trust him again. ... Vote for the party of imperialism, of crony capitalism, of attacks on civil liberties. Vote for the party of lies and spin. Vote for the man of blood. Vote for peace. Vote Labour!

I think i would vote LibDem if i were British, tho--i couldn't bring myself to reward Labor for lying for Bush and all the Iraq stuff. I guess it depends what issues are most important to each of you.
posted by amberglow at 9:05 AM on April 23, 2005

Ironically, amberglow, the Iraq war is receiving no play from the LibDems, even though they were the only major party to oppose it, because there are many more juicy government failures to be flown on the pole.

That's not to say it's a wise choice, however.

[looks uncomfortably partisan]
posted by NinjaPirate at 9:27 AM on April 23, 2005

That's weird, Ninja, i'd totally be running on Labor doing Iraq and neglecting whatever real problems there were at home. And i'd mock Blair at every opportunity.
posted by amberglow at 9:39 AM on April 23, 2005

amberglow - funny, but I'd disagree up to a point. I think any calls for war by any political leader are going to have to be much better justified. Politicans will be scared of "doing a Blair" and will want better justification. The electorate's trust in politicians (which was hardly steller to begin with) is much lower requiring better proof.

I hope, I really, really hope that we won't be hearing about "pre-emptive" war again for a long time to come.

Oh, and the LibDems are being wise in not going on and on about Iraq. Firstly, the LibDem position on Iraq is already well known and understood. Secondly, they're a party with policies and if they kept pushing themselves as the protest vote party then they will appear to be single issue - and that's bad news. Finally, while Iraq might seem important now, people tend to be more swayed by issues closer to home.
posted by dodgygeezer at 10:00 AM on April 23, 2005

ahh. Is anyone there talking about Iran as a campaign issue? What are the biggest issues? immigration? economy? healthcare?
posted by amberglow at 10:15 AM on April 23, 2005

Health, Immigration, Education, and Crime are the big ones according to a MORI poll. The economy is 7th on the list. Iran doesn't figure into it at all.
posted by Boo! at 10:29 AM on April 23, 2005

thanks Boo!
posted by amberglow at 10:41 AM on April 23, 2005

Here's Kennedy on Iraq. And although the war does not figure high in the polls, it keeps coming up on the doorstep.
posted by TimothyMason at 10:56 AM on April 23, 2005

dodgygeezer, whatever. I just find the idea of Web sites where supporters of a ruling party work with the third largest party to keep the main opposition party out of power slightly sinister...
posted by runkelfinker at 11:04 AM on April 23, 2005

Nothing outlandishly sinister about it; politics is full of such games, whether within the parties, within the representative bodies, or among the electors themselves. What is new is that the means used in this particular instance are fully out in the public view, on the internet. Although it would be fatuous to hail this as a sign that the internet is taking politics to a new and more democratic place, it is probably slightly less Machiavellian if it's out there than if it's kept within corridors of power.
posted by TimothyMason at 11:57 AM on April 23, 2005

Anyway, thanks for the link MrMerlot. Perhaps my vote won't be wasted after all.
posted by Boo! at 12:23 PM on April 23, 2005

I am a UK citizen eligible to vote, and in that capacity I talk of the electorate as 'we'. I am not engaging in electoral fraud, or encouraging others to do so. In fact if anyone is behaving with bad intent it is the government, which may disenfranchise me without a shred of justification.

There being no written constitution in the UK, working the system in this sort of way is perfectly legitimate. In fact all the extensions and improvements to the franchise since at least 1832 have been in response to civic activism, AFAIK.

After all freedom, by its nature, can only be taken, not given
posted by apodo at 12:40 PM on April 23, 2005

BTW, as you ask for precedents - and I think there are many - what do you think of parliamentary pairing?
posted by TimothyMason at 1:12 PM on April 23, 2005

Having said all that...
posted by NinjaPirate at 6:55 AM on April 24, 2005

Parliamentary pairing seems an equally rational system to vote swapping. It would be something if the MPs could work outside the whip system, but as it is, it's a pragmatic approach
posted by MrMerlot at 3:20 PM on April 24, 2005

Tactical voting really came of age in 1997 in Britain where the overwhealming sentiment was the ejection from power of a discredited government. This isn't the driving sentiment in 2005 - most of the core vote want to give Mr Blair a bloody nose but emphatically don't want a Tory government. As such tactical voting doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. There's also a much less marked willingness for Labour and the LibDems to work together. In 97 it made sense with Blair dangling a cabinet post in front of Ashdown - Charlie has ruled out any possible form of coalition; again there's little reason for Labour and LibDem voters to co-operate in this way again; turkey's don't vote for Christmas after all.

The only people I can see this working for a leftie Tories of a Ken Clark mould who could bear to vote Lib Dem swapping with Peel Group, right wing Lib Dems who would be prepred to vote Tory. Both groups are vanishingly small - don't expect to see this idea get much play this time round.

It would be something if the MPs could work outside the whip system.

Interesting idea. The only way this could work would be if MPs votes were anonymised. Wither accountability. Perhaps if voting records were confidential and then released upon the dissolution of Parliament?
posted by dmt at 3:31 PM on April 24, 2005

Goldsmith told Blair 'war could be illegal'--...Tony Blair was at the centre of a fresh row last night over the legality of the war in Iraq, as a new report claimed the Prime Minister was warned that the conflict breached international law.

As opposition politicians and senior Labour figures intensified pressure on Mr Blair to publish in full the advice given by the Attorney General, the issue of the war in Iraq was propelled to the centre stage of the election campaign after a Sunday newspaper alleged that he was told the military action could be ruled illegal.

Today's Mail on Sunday claims to list six "caveats" that were stripped from a summary of the advice published 10 days later on the eve of a crucial parliamentary debate on the war. ...
posted by amberglow at 3:40 PM on April 24, 2005

Was browsing in a Central London WHSmith today. Both the Labour Party election manifesto and the Conservative Party election manifesto were on sale. Curious to note that the Conservative manifesto had nearly sold out, yet the Labour manifestos were piled up with no takers. It would be fantastic if there were some country-wide stats on manifesto sales - a good election result predictor?
posted by drewlondon at 6:19 PM on April 24, 2005

Perhaps if voting records were confidential and then released upon the dissolution of Parliament?

That sounds like a fabulous idea, although it would make checking up on what your MP is doing with his privilege a 1 month per 4 years task.

If only politicians stood for what they believed in or, better yet, what the majority of the people they represent belive in. Whips are a very ugly addition to the idea of electing someone to be your representative.
posted by NinjaPirate at 2:21 AM on April 25, 2005