Tag Archives: election

Tactical Voting.

Is the parties approach fair to voters?

I’ve noticed that the news media conflate Tactical Voting, with what I will call Tactical Candidature.  So let me begin with my definitions:

Tactical Voting: Is where an elector, a person chooses to cast their vote to someone other than their preferred candidate. The aim being to deny the most likely candidate a win, when the voter’s preferred candidate has little chance.

Tactical Candidature: Is when political parties collude, some parties not putting up candidates in particular constituencies. The aim being to re-direct their electors votes to another particular candidate.

I have no objection to any voter casting their own vote in what they consider to be a tactical manner. It is in fact a duty for each of us to consider how best to use our vote. It is also perfectly reasonable for the campaigning parties to urge us to vote tactically, for another candidate. That does not limit choice.

I am a bit uneasy about what I have called Tactical Candidature. In Tactical Candidature a elector’s ability to vote for their preferred candidate, or to tactically vote for a different candidate, is artificially restricted. The parties have colluded to remove voters choice. Instead of an elector choosing to vote tactically, it is forced upon them. Is this fair to the electorate? Is it properly democratic?

Half A Member Of Parliament

Should MPs be able to job share?

Two people who tried to stand on a job share basis to be candidates as Members of Parliament, are are seeking a judicial review of a ban on job sharing by MPs. Their names, their party and the outcome of the review (which is not yet decided) is not relevant to this opinion. However for more details, I have put a link at the end of this article.

I foresee problems with job sharing the position of an MP. For example when I vote for my MP, I vote for him or her on the basis of their opinions and principals. Any two people will always at some time have some area of disagreement, which I would not want between two people supposedly representing my interests as a voter.

For consistency they would both need exactly the same information on any particular subject, however such information is acquired and weather it be written or oral. There is a danger that in passing of oral information between themselves, one might be overly influenced by the other’s opinion, especially if one has a stronger character, or that a third party might not impart or express in the same way information to both sharers.

What might happen in the situation where the pair disagree on a vote in parliament? It was suggested that, in that situation, they should both abstain from voting. This too I do not agree with. I have no objection to a single MP abstaining on principal. I do not want two to abstain because they can not agree between themselves. Or worse, they disagree and one, because of particulary strong conviction on a topic, votes against the wishes of the other, or one of a pair abstains, what then? Even those who might support the basic idea of job sharing MPs must consider the implications of these questions.

When I cast my vote to elect a member of parliament, I want someone who will vote on their conscience and on principal. I do not want two people who may not agree and so abstain. In a parliament like we have now, where the majority is fairly slim, it can have a disproportionate effect, especially if there were multiple instances of MPs job sharing.

I would never vote for job sharing MPs, regardless of their political allegiance, whatever the decision of the review..

Green party pair challenge ban on MP job sharing.