Sentences with phrase «tactical voting does»

This leads us onto the point that tactical voting doesn't vanish or even diminish; it just shifts to all being about how you tactically distribute your preferences so tactical voting does not diminish; it just moves to being somewhere else.

You've also claimed that tactical voting does not diminish, but again not substantiated this claim.

Yet it is worth remembering that tactical voting does not only take one form.

Looking at the numbers, reinforced by today's Survation poll, her optimism about the powers of tactical voting don't look very realistic.

Not exact matches

More broadly, it means the possibility always exists that it's in a voter's interest to vote in a way that doesn't reflect their true preferences; in other words, tactical voting is always a factor in elections.

Is this open for intentional gaming (via tactical voting) or unintentional skewing of the results towards a film or location, where the winning result does not match most people's preferences?

Since 1992 about 8 % of voters have been doing this kind of tactical voting.

These polls typically do not show much sign of switching between general and constituency specific vote intention, except in Liberal Democrat seats where it is unclear whether the switching is tactical or due to the personal popularity of the sitting MP.

But tactical voting of the old - fashioned, not very organised kind - backing not your preferred party, but the one most likely to keep out the candidate you don't want - has been critical in the last three elections.

I don't put much store in opinion polls, but if true it would only indicate roughly what you would expect to happen at this point in the parliament - 32 % isn't that much lower than Labour got in the 2005 General Election and all it would suggest is that the Liberal Democrats are having a reversal - tactical voting could see them holding onto many of their current seats, indeed it is even possible that if they got 17 % of the vote that if it focused in an area that they could actually end up with more seats, where the switches in support are occuring is crucial - if they are focused then if the Conservative Party were to get 39 % then it might still result in them getting fewer seats than Labour or in extremis winning a 150 seat majority or so?

Generally speaking, the party's vote is fairly dispersed; it does not yet have the local infrastructure, targeting experience and tactical nous to mount successful constituency campaigns.

The next election will see a big turnout by Labour and Conservative supporters and where Liberal Democrat MP's do survive it will be solely due to tactical voting, UKIP could even make a breakthrough in a couple of seats but I think Labour will still win, so it will be more strongly toward a 2 party system but with the strongest 4th party performance in UK history.

[46] James Green - Armytage tested four ranked - choice methods, and found the alternative vote to be the second - most - resistant to tactical voting, though it was beaten by a class of AV - Condorcet hybrids, and did not resist strategic withdrawal by candidates well.

Cable did not say whether he would push for a progressive alliance at the next general election, but as a former Labour councillor many expect he would be keen on the idea of tactical voting to help Lib Dem, Labour and Green candidates to oust Tory MPs.

I deliberately excluded that from my answer for tactical reasons (I didn't want to hurt an extensive answer by downvotes from many P.SE users who vote on pure partisan lines), but there's enough evidence to post a separate answer showing that Trump has a strong basis for claiming there may be fraud - how impactful, if of course impossible to quantify at the moment.

So while Tim Farron would be delighted to receive tactical votes from Labour supporters in marginal seats, he wants nothing to do with any electoral pact or «progressive alliance» that formally associates his party with Corbyn.

In 2015, the two big parties received only 67 %; in 2010 it was only 60 %; and many who currently vote Labour or Conservative do so for tactical reasons.

Not only did tactical voting take place during the Labour leadership election (held under AV) but it was actively encouraged by all campaigns I would presume.

If at a General Election the national figures were Conservative 44 % Labour 26 % Liberal Democrat 17 % then I rather suspect that actually the majority would be of over 150 - the Liberal Democrats might manage to hold onto as many as 40 seats, Labour would go way down though below 200 seats, the Conservatives would probably break through 400 seats, it does depend a lot on tactical voting, however the likliehood of a such a result in the next 10 years is virtually nil, in the longer term I would say it was quite probable at some stage in the future once the Labour government finally collapses.

And it isn't as though Compass isn't able to organise a quick ballot — it did so during the election campaign on tactical voting, but that's another story.

In summary, Brake retained quite a lot of tactical votes from naturally Labour areas, and many of those he didn't retain went over to UKIP, with UKIP also sapping some Tory votes from the leafier areas.

This time around I expect much of the Labour tactical vote to return to the Lib Dems as a) more people actually realise the Lib Dems actually did a good job holding the Tories in check during the Coalition and because Labour is doing so badly so wavering Labourites will once again vote Tom to stop the Tories here.

I don't believe that IRV is any less susceptible to tactical voting than plurality voting.

However a lot has been made of the fact that while both polls had an effort to take account of people's personal and tactical voting behaviour in their own constituency, they did so in different ways — Ashcroft asks a two stage question, asking people their national preference and then how they will vote thinking about the candidates and parties in their own constituency; ICM asked people the voting intention question including the names of the candidates standing in Sheffield Hallam.

This is a somewhat artifical question of course, in real life people can and do vote for parties other than the main two, but provides a useful pointer as to which direction tactical voting might work in come the next general election.

One thing a close poll won't do is encourage tactical voting — while voters in a general election may switch allegiance to a third party to block another, that can't happen in a referendum.

One thing a close poll won't do is encourage tactical voting — while in a general election voters may switch allegiance to a third party to block another, that can't happen in a referendum.