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

[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.