Sentences with phrase «tactical voting in some seats»

There was evidence of tactical voting in some seats - Labour held threatened London seats Islington South and Westminster North by increasing its share of the vote at the expense of the Liberal Democrats.

Not exact matches

Possibly one of the last seats to come in is also one of the test cases for the progressive tactical voting.

The group has around 2,000 supporters on Facebook and says it is planning to begin door - knocking in seats where it thinks tactical voting could make a difference.

We are hoping our tactical voting wheel will be effective in the vast majority of seats.

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.

In both seats there appears to have been significant tactical voting, with the Liberal Democrats likely benefiting from Conservative defectors.

They took a smaller share of the vote than at the previous election, but they managed to more than double their representation in parliament, [31] winning 46 seats, [28] through tactical voting and concentrating resources in winnable seats.

He saw his vote drop by 18 % as the Conservative chris Davies took the seat, with Labour also well up as the tradition of tactical voting in Brecon and Radnorshire broke down.

However, I'm always slightly wary of constituency polls in Liberal Democrat held seats — the effect of incumbency and tactical voting is far higher for Lib Dem MPs, and when you ask a generic voting intention I think many people give their national preference, rather than how they would actually vote in their own constituency.

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?

Moving on there were some interesting bits of data about tactical voting, particularly in the first Populus poll, back in November 2004, which was conducted in 160 Conservative target seats and included some questions on tactical voting behaviour.

In contrast to Lib Dem voters, when Labour voters in such seats were asked about tactical voting were still far more likely to vote Lib Dem to keep out the Tories than vice-versIn contrast to Lib Dem voters, when Labour voters in such seats were asked about tactical voting were still far more likely to vote Lib Dem to keep out the Tories than vice-versin such seats were asked about tactical voting were still far more likely to vote Lib Dem to keep out the Tories than vice-versa.

While the scheme would retain the first - past - the - post principle, and still calls for tactical voting, it would ensure a fairer distribution of seats in relation to parties» shares of the vote.

Anyway, this two stage voting intention appears to pick up tactical and incumbency effects, so in Labour held seats it tends to slightly increase the reported level of Labour support, in seats the Conservatives are defending it marginally boosts Conservative support.

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.

One is the decline of the Liberal Democrats and tactical voting — one of the reasons the electoral system had worked against the Tories in recent decades was that Labour and Lib Dem voters had been prepared to vote tactically against the Tories, and the Lib Dems have held lots of seats in areas that would otherwise be Tory.

These sorts of distortion can be caused by several factors, including tactical voting (as perhaps in Birmingham), electoral pacts (as perhaps in North East Lincolnshire), one party piling up votes in safe seats but losing out in marginals (as in Leeds), or turnout being particularly low in one party's safe seats (as in Sefton).

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.

The reason for the difference is most likely tactical considerations — people answer Labour to a normal voting intention question because that's the party they really support, but know that they happen to live in a seat where Labour could never win, so actually vote Liberal Democrat.

This is something that was first used in the big PoliticsHome polls of marginal seats back before the last election — it makes hardly any difference when you ask people in most seats, but makes the world of difference when you ask people living in seats where the Lib Dems are in contention, presumably picking up tactical voting considerations.

Then, in 2020, there could be dozens of seats in which the «wasted vote» argument for sticking to the two big parties won't apply, and tactical voting could help Ukip and the Greens.

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.

With 4,770 Liberal Democrat votes «wasted», we are working to secure a tactical vote in order to gain the seat.

In turn, these swing seats see a huge amount of tactical voting based on who might beat the «greater of two evils».

On a uniform swing this level of support would still leave the Conservatives 9 seats short of an overall majority, though in practice it is likely that such a reverse in the positions of the parties would be accompanied by changes in the pattern of tactical voting, meaning that the Conservatives might well get an overall majority.