(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] ci5rod.livejournal.com at 01:23am on 10/05/2005
Actually no, I'm convinced that most people vote against a party rather than for one. Tactical voting is probably the most invidious effect of First Past The Post, because where there are more than two contenders in the vote the whole business becomes one of affecting the voters' perception of who might win. "Only I can beat the Wombat Party candidate" is (with appropriate substitutions) a very common rallying cry, and it doesn't matter if it's untrue; if enough voters believe that it is true, then it becomes true.
[parent entry] [link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] atreic.livejournal.com at 07:37am on 10/05/2005
Of course, this could be countered by actually letting people vote against a party. Say "you can either have a yes vote or a no vote" and add up the number of yeses and subtract the number of Nos. It's a bit depressing to think we have a country that would vote against rather than for, but as it happens anyway, this would take away the squew of "guessing who the second candidate will be"
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] fluffymormegil.livejournal.com at 09:31am on 10/05/2005
In the last election, every constituency in the country had at least one candidate worth voting against.
[link] [parent] [reply]

October

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
      1
 
 2
 
 3
 
 4
 
5
 
 6
 
 7
 
 8
 
 9
 
 10
 
 11
 
12
 
 13
 
 14
 
 15
 
 16
 
 17
 
 18
 
19
 
 20
 
 21
 
 22
 
 23
 
 24
 
 25
1
26
 
 27
 
 28
 
 29
 
 30
 
 31