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

Comments

[watervole]

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]

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]

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!