Help abolish tactical voting: vote tactically tomorrow to keep the Tories out

[ciphergoth]

Please vote tactically to keep the Tories out.

This is what I want to say to everyone before you vote tomorrow, but it's aimed especially at Liberal Democrat supporters in Lab/Con marginal seats. I'm not a Liberal Democrat but I would like you to do as well as possible tomorrow because there's an awful lot of your agenda I want heard - especially voting reform.

Looking at the betting odds, it's pretty clear that the only plausible outcomes are a hung parliament or a Tory majority; there's no chance of a Labour majority.

In the event of a hung parliament, the Liberal Democrats will likely wield many votes and have considerable power to advance their agenda, power they've never had before. In particular, there's every chance they'll finally be able to force through the voting reform we've all waited for for so long; voting reform that will mean that the party finally gets the voice that its popular support would warrant. What we're calling a Liberal Democrat "moment" could be a lasting Liberal Democrat revolution.

In the event of a Tory majority, even a slim one, exactly the opposite will happen. Just like George W Bush in 2000, they're singing a centrist song now, but will rule to their own agenda once they have power. They won't reform voting - their 10% seat cut is no reform and could unbalance things further.

There hasn't been a hung parliament for (ISTR) 35 years, so opportunities like this don't come often. Of course plugging hard at length is an important part of winning, but so is seizing opportunities to break barriers that you might not get another chance to break for a very long time. And that means voting Labour where they are the only candidate who can beat the Tory.

I'm talking here about the consequences of your vote. There's a temptation to choose your vote based on whether you'll enjoy telling people about it. I know not everyone feels this way, but to me one action is better than another if it brings about better consequences. I'm asking you to choose yours on the basis of what might actually happen as a result. We can do away with the ridiculous problem with our voting system that means I have to ask you this. But it means voting whatever way you need to vote tomorrow to prevent a Tory majority.

Guardian guide to tactical voting

Comments

[valkyriekaren.livejournal.com]

Not only will they not reform voting, they also won't reform the Lords, or marriage law, or outlaw male-preference primogeniture.

[babysimon]

If the odds on Labour /.Conservative were the other way round, would you be asking people to vote Conservative to keep Labour out?

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

No, but I can imagine voting Conservative to keep the BNP out if the right circumstances arose. Thankfully we're a long way from those circumstances anywhere.

[seph-hazard.livejournal.com]

Oh Jesus. I suppose I would too. What a horrible thought :-/

[djm4]

I don't entirely disagree, so take these as quibbles:

What's considered a safe seat, and what swing is needed to make it unsafe, is based on the vote in the last election. The better consequences to me of voting Lib Dem is that at the next election, they'll have a bigger base to start from, and be a more credible force. That's a big part of how we got to where we are today.

If you view the timescales of your consequences differently, that's fine by me. But it's not a simple as solely considering the consequences at this election.

Labour had 13 years to change the voting system, and didn't. I would be (pleasantly) surprised if anything short of a Lib Dem majority brought about electoral reform, and am not expecting to see it in the next term of government. Labour and the Conservatives will always have enough MPs to block it, and quite probably will.

Oh, and BetFair really just tells you what people are betting on. It took me £20 to move the Lib Dems (briefly) from fourth to first in Poplar and Limehouse (if Jonathan wins I'm going to do rather well out of it ;-). I don't have the resources to throw at Betfair to make that stick, but Labour and especially the Tories do (wouldn't show up on election expenses, either). I think you're probably correct that the only party who might get a majority is the Tories, but Betfair isn't the evidence you need for that IMO.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

He's back down to between 1/34 and 1/44 now (wish they used percentage odds). http://sports.betfair.com/?mi=100604217 I still think you're overoptimistic on that one; we'll find out tomorrow.

I'm not solely considering the next election. Voting reform will affect all future elections; it's worth seizing this chance.

[djm4]

Well, I still have unmatched bets at 1/43, so I'm a bit surprised that he got to 1/44 again without someone matching those. The point is, though, that the long-odds bets are very shallow in terms of money. You don't have to spend much to make them disappear. Of course, you have to be prepared to lose the money, which I'm not for any substantial amount - I was really just seeing how much I could affect the odds. Obviously the odds for the overall result - with more people betting on it - are going to be harder to affect by putting money on them, but I still wouldn't rely on them too much.

I don't think you've correctly judged my levels of optimism there, by the way, I don't think he's a shoe-in, but I think it's a fairly close four-way marginal and that he has a way better than 1/44 chance of winning. (And that's likely to be very hard to tell from the result tomorrow, as we won't be able to examine all the parallel universes where a few small changes led to a different vote share for everyone).

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

I understand - you're not saying you expect to win the bet, just that your subjective odds are shorter than the ones they offer.

Obviously the odds for the overall result - with more people betting on it - are going to be harder to affect by putting money on them, but I still wouldn't rely on them too much.

I put a lot more faith in markets where there is more money than where there is less - I've even cautioned about this on Twitter when talking about Poplar and Limehouse.

[djm4]

I understand - you're not saying you expect to win the bet, just that your subjective odds are shorter than the ones they offer.

Yes, and with only one throw of the dice, the chances are still that I won't win, even if my expected winnings are mathematically good.

In any case, just to be clear, I was specifically betting on this to see how much even a small amount could change the odds. (Had I won - which I clearly haven't - I'd have donated the proceeds to BiCon's helping hand fund ;-).

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

Labour had 13 years to change the voting system, and didn't. I would be (pleasantly) surprised if anything short of a Lib Dem majority brought about electoral reform, and am not expecting to see it in the next term of government. Labour and the Conservatives will always have enough MPs to block it, and quite probably will.

MTE.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_lj_sucks_/]

This.

If the Tories get in, it'll be because of the broken electoral system. The only way to fix the problem, is to fix the broken electoral system. The same broken electoral system that kept the Tories in power for decades even as their vote dwindled.

Labour would rather see 20 years of Tory misrule than fix the electoral system and consequently not get as much power themselves when it's "their turn". Fuck them. The only solution is electoral reform, and there's only one way to vote that will get that to happen.

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

*sigh*

That's very true. The fact is, there's so much incentive for any party in power not to change the system, because once one gets into power, one is more likely to get into power again. Self-interest triumphs.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_lj_sucks_/]

However, I think the LibDems must realize that if they got in and didn't in fact enact electoral reform, it would finish them forever as a party.

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

I seriously hope so, although as part of a coalition government, they may lack the power to push too hard. Wait and see, I guess *crosses all available digits*

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

As you say, when they're in power, Labour want electoral reform later, just not yet. They'll only do it when they're forced to, for example as a condition of an alliance with the LDs. I don't see it coming about in this country any other way.

[lizw.livejournal.com]

Paul - by all means tell people to vote tactically because you want to avoid a Tory Government, but please stop acting like you're saying it to help the Lib Dems. We don't want that kind of help. Leave it to us to decide what's best for our party and how it can best achieve its goals. I actually agree with you for the most part about evaluating actions according to their likely consequences - but there are not only different assessments of what the likely consequences are, but also several different types of consequences to consider.

(And not that it really matters, but the last hung parliament was 1996-1997, when Major led a minority Tory Government - although 35 years is about right if you mean that 1974 was the last one that immediately followed a general election).

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the correction on hung parliaments!

If I get time, I'll try to make it clearer that I don't say this out of some sort of generosity towards the LDs, but as a means to advance those parts of my agenda that overlap with the LD agenda, like voting reform. Obviously I won't necessarily take the LD leadership's word for it on what will serve those goals.

[ergotia.livejournal.com]

I find this extraordinary.

[owdbetts.livejournal.com]

You may be right, I really don't know.

ObDisclaimer: I'm a LibDem party member, though not an active one. I don't claim to know the party's position and I certainly don't speak for it.

It's important to bear in mind that the percentage of the vote that we get is going to be an important factor in making the argument for electoral reform. The scenario that, shortly after the first leaders' debate looked not beyond the realms of possibility, of us coming first in popular vote yet (almost inevitably) last in terms of Commons representation, were it to come to pass would be a powerful argument indeed for electoral reform. Coming second in popular vote is still not beyond the realms of possibility (although the last few days' polls certainly aren't with us there) and that would still be powerful, I think.

I think there's almost certainly a significant consituency of natural LibDem supporters who don't vote for us because they ‘know’ that we have no chance of winning; I get the impression the occasional ‘would you vote LibDem if you thought they had a real chance of winning?’ question in polls supports this hypothesis—and for that reason, too, I'm disinclined to regard any suggestion that our natural supporters should vote for another party to be constructive to the cause.

But OTOH I can't fault the logic that a Tory government would be the death of probably the best opportunity for electoral reform within our lifetimes. I'm not sure a Tory majority is particularly likely, but a workable Tory minority government, supported by the UUP, if they have any electoral success, or maybe the DUP? Yes, it's a danger.

Of course, I wish we had a voting system which didn't require us to make decisions like these. (Actually, I don't really like any of the voting systems that are plausibly on offer -- even traditional STV has too many flaws -- but it's an order of magnitude better than what we've got.)

-roy

If your vote doesn't matter...

[hairyears.livejournal.com]

Slipping fifty or a hundred quid to UKIP in selected marginals would be a useful contribution to Conservative defeat in the election.

Two hundred quid's an extra leaflet drop, or a minibus and driver to get out the housebound and the elderly on polling day: another fifty votes. A well-spent thousand pounds can swing a marginal constituency.

A bit late now, but file it away for future reference.

Re: If your vote doesn't matter...

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

I did consider it, but it's a dangerous strategy. Labour are well established no matter how you vote, but every leg up makes a real difference to UKIP. If you can donate specifically to their campaign in a particular constituency, it could be tempting.

Since I spent this election campaign rather poor, it didn't arise :-)

Re: If your vote doesn't matter...

[palmer1984.livejournal.com]

What? Did I read this right? You'd consider contributing to the middle class BNP to keep the Tories out?

Re: If your vote doesn't matter...

[damerell.livejournal.com]

"Let's you and him fight" worked for the Byzantine Empire for centuries. :-)

Re: If your vote doesn't matter...

[palmer1984.livejournal.com]

ARGH, no, you can't think that. Giving UKIP a larger share of the vote is just a bad idea.

Re: If your vote doesn't matter...

[green-badger.livejournal.com]

Agreed. Dreadful idea.

Re: If your vote doesn't matter...

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Certainly I think it would take a pretty bizarre confluence of events for the payoffs to outweigh the costs.

Re: If your vote doesn't matter...

[palmer1984.livejournal.com]

Surely if UKIP got a seat from the Tories they'd just go into coalition with the Tories in a hung parliament.

Re: If your vote doesn't matter...

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

It would be crazy to do if there was any danger of UKIP winning the seat. You'd only do it if their defeat was certain, but there was a chance they'd leech enough votes off the Tories to deny them the seat.

Re: If your vote doesn't matter...

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Even then, it would be pretty rare circumstances where it was worth the downsides.

[green-badger.livejournal.com]

I have indeed voted tactically. I swapped my vote on line. xxx

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Hooray! Go you xxx

[purplerabbits.livejournal.com]

Aaargh, The Gaurdian are telling me to consider voting Labour, but I really CANNOT bring myself to vote for Alistair Darling, nor really believe that his seat is marginal. Am I kidding myself?

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

I don't think so. It's a bit of a case of "this way, madness lies". I'd vote in the final analysis for what I could live with, and if Darling is something you can't live with, then don't. For all you know, lots of other people in your constituency feel the same.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Here's the market: http://sports.betfair.com/?mi=100603656 currently has the Tories on between an 19% and 32% chance of winning.

One cost of not voting Labour is that it makes a Tory win in that seat that much more likely. One cost of voting Labour is that as you indicate you might not feel good about it. How do you prioritize these costs?

[green-badger.livejournal.com]

This is why I swapped my vote. I can feel good about it because someone else cast my Lib Dem vote for me. :) xxx

[owdbetts.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure how much you should read into these markets. They don't appear to have much market depth, and in any case I'm not sure it's an efficient market. By and large, all anyone participating in these markets has to go on is the polls, with all the empirical fudges that go into producing them, and the uniform national swing model, which is itself an empirical fudge.

No one knows how or if any of this machinery will work in a three-horse race. I think there's a fair chance that this will be one of those elections where all the polsters (including the exit polls) get it absolutely dreadfully wrong, requiring new empirical methodological fudges in future polling (think 1992). Of course, I have no idea in which direction they will be wrong.

-roy

[green-badger.livejournal.com]

If it makes you feel better, he was quite a good constituency MP when I lived in Edinburgh, very helpful when I wrote to him.