A tactical vote is a vote for a candidate who is not the voter's first preference but has a bette... more A tactical vote is a vote for a candidate who is not the voter's first preference but has a better chance of winning. The individual voter thereby gets value for a vote that is otherwise wasted on a candidate from a minor party. This note is a brief exploration of the potential for tactical voting by groups of voters; group tactical voting as opposed to individual tactical voting. Whereas individuals vote tactically with misgivings, regretting the power of major parties and the polarisation of politics, groups can vote tactically with purpose, aiming to elect governments that deal with issues on their merits, are more moderate, more purposeful and less partisan. The parties to a group tactical vote forego their first preference and vote instead for an agreed slate of candidates. This requires simultaneous voting in some form, ensuring there is no prospect of reneging after others have voted. For example, group voters could apply for postal votes but return them to the electoral authorities via a trusted agent who checks for compliance with group voting agreements. Better still, electoral reforms could remove doubts about the legitimacy of group voting, discourage abuses and minimise cost. For simultaneous voting, the electoral authorities could accept a group postal vote from any group of eligible voters, in respect of the electorates in which those voters are eligible to vote. Voters from opposing parties could then enter into voting agreements with each other, with confidence and at little expense. Why would voters from opposing parties come together in voting agreements? Consider the simplest group; two voters, one in each two electorates. One votes Left and the other votes Right but their candidates are Extreme Left and the Extreme Right and both voters know that their particular candidates are polarising influences. Their concerns are such that both have considered whether to vote for a minor party or otherwise protest, or to disengage and not vote at all. Both are happy to vote for their party if their particular candidates were more moderate, from the Moderate Left and the Moderate Right respectively. Group voting is the idea that, where it happens that the preferred pair of moderate candidates is actually available, but in each other's electorate, this 'group' of two voters can cross-vote for their preferred candidates by agreement. Thus, the Right voter votes Moderate Left and the Left voter votes Moderate Right, such that the party vote is unchanged but switched to moderate candidates. The trick is to leave the balance of the parties undisturbed but promote the shared political and policy values of the group. Note the double pay-off. Not only does each voter find a better match in the agreed candidate from their own party but also a better match in the agreed candidate from the opposing party. The larger the group the larger the payoff; the parties to voting agreements are better matched with candidates in multiple electorates, and from both sides of politics. Many voters may regard group tactical voting as a desperate or even bizarre tactic. But it is less desperate and more effective than protest voting and non-voting. Plausibly, electoral outcomes could be significantly altered if five percent of voters were prepared to look critically at the factions within their party and resolve to direct their support to the best that their party has to offer. If that requires group voting with like-minded voters from the opposing party, so be it. It is useful to reflect that group voting is both ethical and as old as politics, essential in fact. Politics would be unworkable without deals of the kind … you vote for my proposals/candidates and I will vote for your proposals/candidates. Such agreements are also the stuff of everyday work and family life. The absence of group voting machinery for ordinary voters is the anomaly; a deal-making desert outside cities of deal-making that encompasses everything from the evening meal to global war. If politics-as-usual is often grossly inefficient, unstable, unfair, acrimonious and infuriating, maybe this deficiency is part of the problem.
A tactical vote is a vote for a candidate who is not the voter's first preference but has a bette... more A tactical vote is a vote for a candidate who is not the voter's first preference but has a better chance of winning. The individual voter thereby gets value for a vote that is otherwise wasted on a candidate from a minor party. This note is a brief exploration of the potential for tactical voting by groups of voters; group tactical voting as opposed to individual tactical voting. Whereas individuals vote tactically with misgivings, regretting the power of major parties and the polarisation of politics, groups can vote tactically with purpose, aiming to elect governments that deal with issues on their merits, are more moderate, more purposeful and less partisan. The parties to a group tactical vote forego their first preference and vote instead for an agreed slate of candidates. This requires simultaneous voting in some form, ensuring there is no prospect of reneging after others have voted. For example, group voters could apply for postal votes but return them to the electoral authorities via a trusted agent who checks for compliance with group voting agreements. Better still, electoral reforms could remove doubts about the legitimacy of group voting, discourage abuses and minimise cost. For simultaneous voting, the electoral authorities could accept a group postal vote from any group of eligible voters, in respect of the electorates in which those voters are eligible to vote. Voters from opposing parties could then enter into voting agreements with each other, with confidence and at little expense. Why would voters from opposing parties come together in voting agreements? Consider the simplest group; two voters, one in each two electorates. One votes Left and the other votes Right but their candidates are Extreme Left and the Extreme Right and both voters know that their particular candidates are polarising influences. Their concerns are such that both have considered whether to vote for a minor party or otherwise protest, or to disengage and not vote at all. Both are happy to vote for their party if their particular candidates were more moderate, from the Moderate Left and the Moderate Right respectively. Group voting is the idea that, where it happens that the preferred pair of moderate candidates is actually available, but in each other's electorate, this 'group' of two voters can cross-vote for their preferred candidates by agreement. Thus, the Right voter votes Moderate Left and the Left voter votes Moderate Right, such that the party vote is unchanged but switched to moderate candidates. The trick is to leave the balance of the parties undisturbed but promote the shared political and policy values of the group. Note the double pay-off. Not only does each voter find a better match in the agreed candidate from their own party but also a better match in the agreed candidate from the opposing party. The larger the group the larger the payoff; the parties to voting agreements are better matched with candidates in multiple electorates, and from both sides of politics. Many voters may regard group tactical voting as a desperate or even bizarre tactic. But it is less desperate and more effective than protest voting and non-voting. Plausibly, electoral outcomes could be significantly altered if five percent of voters were prepared to look critically at the factions within their party and resolve to direct their support to the best that their party has to offer. If that requires group voting with like-minded voters from the opposing party, so be it. It is useful to reflect that group voting is both ethical and as old as politics, essential in fact. Politics would be unworkable without deals of the kind … you vote for my proposals/candidates and I will vote for your proposals/candidates. Such agreements are also the stuff of everyday work and family life. The absence of group voting machinery for ordinary voters is the anomaly; a deal-making desert outside cities of deal-making that encompasses everything from the evening meal to global war. If politics-as-usual is often grossly inefficient, unstable, unfair, acrimonious and infuriating, maybe this deficiency is part of the problem.
Uploads
Papers by Peter Dempster