Lunch time poll: Voting Dilema

[cdave]

In my local seat the two parties who most stand a chance of winning there have:

• A rebellious incumbent MP who votes against his party (usually in the direction I'd want), but whose party I don't want in power.
• A local councillor for the party I'd like to see in, who doesn't really impress me with his literature, and website (and hasn't replied to an email from 5 days ago asking why I should vote for him).

[Poll #1553873]

Comments

[offensive-mango.livejournal.com]

You say "chance of winning." I say vote for whomever you prefer, based on their own personal voting behavior, whether they have a chance of winning or not.

[jon-a-five.livejournal.com]

I'm in this exact position too! I decided to vote for Stella, the Labour candidate and just hope the Lib Dems win overall.

[makyo.livejournal.com]

I'd be inclined to vote for the rebellious incumbent MP with a track record of independent thought and doing mostly what you'd like him to, rather than the lacklustre candidate who can't reply to email and just happens to be a member of the party you like.

[coth.livejournal.com]

I test my local votes against my national priorities. Nationally, even another Labour government is preferable to a Tory one, so I will vote Labour rather than let a Tory in. Choice is easy as I live in a Labour safe seat (9,000 majority over Conservatives last time), and there isn't a LibDem candidate. A different candidate might tempt me to vote Green, but the candidate is personally flaky. (My only other option is UKIP, and Paul Wiffen is bad news even by UKIP standards).

(Besides, I like my local Labour MP, despite disagreeing with him on a number of political issues.)

Locally, my past and prospective Labour local councillors have ranged from ok to impressive, and neither LibDems nor Tories impress at all. And I have no minority party candidates.

Why do I get the impression that people are not politically active in this constituency and ward?

[dougs.livejournal.com]

My own existing MP, who represents my party-of-choice in a very safe seat, is standing down. None of the candidates this time round, including the new candidate for my party-of-choice, have made any particular effort to persuade me of anything at all, and none of them are people I've met or have heard of.

So while I've ticked "Candidate", above, I'll probably end up voting for the party.

[watervole.livejournal.com]

I looked up the voting record of my local MP. As I agree with her voting record, I will support her. It is fortunate that she is also a member of the party of my choice.

[tanngrisnir.livejournal.com]

I don't have a violent objection to tactical voting, given the fist past the post system it can be the only way the electorate can try to achieve a desired goal, and there's nothing wrong with voting for your party of preference, but I think if you have a sitting MP, of whatever party, who has demonstrated independence of spirit and some ability to think for themselves, and who tends to vote in a manner you approve of, that trumps everything: that's the sort of MP I think we actually need.

[sarahdotcom.livejournal.com]

Of course, if this was New Zealand, you could vote for both of them. The proportional representation system gives you two votes:

1. For the candidate you want in your local seat
2. For the party you want to win overall

There are "list" seats in Parliament that are not filled from constituencies but from party lists published before the election. The proportion of party votes each party gets determines the total number of seats they will get in Parliament. So the constituency seats are filled first, then the gaps are filled with list MPs to make up the totals. Get it?

It's a great system, and since they brought it in just over a decade ago it has worked very well. I'll be voting for the party most likely to push for electoral reform, regardless of what I think of the local candidates... then maybe in the next election I can vote the way I really want to!