Voting for a party you don't want to get in

Post Reply New Topic

Anyone done this and what do you think of this?

I have recently voted for a party it don't want to get in. I don't see eye to eye with the leader, and wouldn't sign up as a member.

I did so for the following reasons:

1. I had no reason to vote positively in this election. The choice was lackluster, I didn't even want this 'snap' election so soon after the last, which also had a lackluster choice. I am not fan of long campaigns but this took the piss. It was always going to be tactical and I didn't have a great choice.
2. This is a safe seat, and locally at least I prefer the status quo, although the candidates aren't all that different I have been reasonably happy. The current candidate and previous candidate (there was a by election) aren't as extreme as the leader of the party.
3. I value effective opposition and the third party failed to provide this previously. I wanted to weaken the ruling party, becuase thing strong leadership is not as important limits to power and paramilitary debate. It means were are going to get a good mix in the chamber meaning as shity as politician can be there is more change of MP being held to account.
4. For politcal reasons I want to divide the party I voted for, the leader is a divisive figure and I hope that this will cause a split as there are two distinct positions. This happened in the 80s, unfortunately this merged with a party with a long history and weakened them.
5. Hung Parliaments aren't all that bad and it is become the norm and besides we aren't going to avoid them till we have a credible choice. Schism and shakeups are necessary, they need to put forward and select less piss poor candidates first.

It was a gamble, I wasn't expecting them to do as well, it was bit too close for comfort. However that gamble has payed off. It was never going to be a super satisfying result but about a good as I can hope for under the circumstances.

What do you think of this? Do you think I was irresponsible/reckless or do you think it was an acceptable risk. Personally I think it is more logical then fence sitters that the by into the last minute campaign literature with the same predicable crap. I've never been a fan of the manifesto politics, anyway. I am not represented well by a party currently, and of course I felt a weight of responsibility on me but I had to make the best of the situation.

A lot of elections are like that. They may have a crowded field, plurality takes all, no way to vote against someone, and you have to play games with what to do with your ballot. If you have anyone pushing Ranked Choice Voting (aka, Instant Runoff), please support them. For more info: http://www.fairvote.org/rcv#rcvbenefits

I'm not sure how voting Labour increases the chances of a split. All it does is suggest that you like Corbyn and their socialist manifesto, which has caused a good portion of the centre-left to rally behind him.

In a safe seat, it makes sense to vote for the party you think represents you best because you don't need to worry about being a spoiler. In your seat, I agree that both recent Labour candidates have been strong. I think you had a strong Lib Dem candidate too (a barrister).

It wasn't at all irresponsible for you to vote Labour but it maybe wasn't the best possible use of your vote to achieve your stated aims of providing strong opposition to both the Tories and Corbyn. Voting for any of the three other parties would have been a better option for you, imo. Of course, if Labour really does represent your views best despite Corbyn, then it was still sensible to vote for them.

I was expecting my seat to be safe Conservative. I would slightly prefer Labour to the Conservatives but strongly prefer the Lib Dems to either. I thought this election would be about who came second in this seat, who would then be well-positioned to compete in the next one. Also, in the worst case, there was a chance the Lib Dems would lose their deposit. I voted LD. Surprisingly, Labour won outright.

I have voted Green in local elections before but I'm not sure I will do so again. I think I believe in saying "this is what I stand for, if you want my vote you have to do better than this lot". Having said that, if it were a position of importance, there was a chance of my vote making a difference, and there was clear daylight between the two leading candidates, I would obviously back the "good but not ideal" one. I would probably have voted for Sadiq Khan for London Mayor.

How you vote is entirely up to you.

Have you guessed my constituency?

That wasn't really the question.

The lib dems didn't provide effective opposition last time.

Also like i say I want the Labour party to split. I would like Classical Liberal, Social Democrat parties separate from the Labour party.

You voted in a London seat that had a by-election between 2015 and 2017. It's not exactly a long list.


By "last time" do you mean 2010-2015 or 2015-2017? From 2010-15 they provided very effective opposition that not only forced the Tories to drop a lot of policies, but also got a lot of their own policies implemented. Of course 2015-17 was difficult but I'd argue that they were ultimately no less successful than Labour in opposing the Tories, primarily in the Lords.

It's all well and good to ask for a socially democratic + classically liberal party to split from the socialist wing of Labour, but that won't happen if you vote for Corbyn's Labour. In any case, we already have a Liberal Democratic party which hoovers up those people. The liberals in Labour are the socialists. The socdems are generally authoritarian (see the Blair years).

Never have.

But supposedly many folks do. In the US half of the folks who voted for Perot did so out of protest of the two main parties, and not because they really wanted Perot in office. Many Trump voters were probably of the same motivation (some on WP even said as much-that they just wanted to throw a bomb at the establishment, and didn't really want Trump to win). And for decades France's Communist party supposedly acted as a permanent "Ross Perot" in France for angry voters to use to give the establishment the finger, even though many who voted Communist in those moments of anger would have shitted bricks if the Communists had actually won.

In some states in the US they have open primaries - that allow anyone of either party to vote for candidates in either party. And in those open primaries presumably many folks purposely vote for the weakest candidate in the party opposite of their own party to purposely sabotage that party (much like you did).