Tactical voting
May. 13th, 2019 01:09 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackI think I'm sufficiently decided about the euro elections, but I had some left over thoughts.
D'Hondt method
Have I understood this right?
Suppose there's 7 seats available for a number of parties. Then every party whose vote share exceeds 1/7 of the votes, is guaranteed at least as many seats as they have whole sevenths of the vote share? That'd accord with what I'd do so far.
But if I were running it, then I'd say, give the remaining seats to the parties who are closest to one more seat than they already have (whether that's 6 seats but nearly 7 seats, or no seats but nearly 1 seat). But D'Hondt counts your remainder more, in proportion to how many seats you already have?
Why on earth is it like that? Is it supposed to avoid niche parties? Or is it just that it's longstanding and superficially reasonable, so when the voting method was chosen they chose the most FPTP like proportional system they could get away with?
East of England
There were several helpful "tactical voting guides" going around, but several seemed to concentrate more than I'd originally realised on "trust our subjective judgements without asking too many questions" rather than on providing data.
My natural choice would be Lib Dem or Green, mostly as a clear "Remain" vote. Which I prefer depends on circumstance, but I was also trying to figure out if it would make a difference if I wanted to increase the chance of either winning a seat.
Previously Lib Dem have held about 15% of the vote and I think got an MEP, although last euro elections they were at a lower point. The greens have previously been lower, but have been creeping up over time, especially if people are finally starting to pay SOME attention to mitigating climate change.
So it sounds like I'm right, if lib dem are around 15% and greens are lower it would be worth voting lib dem to make sure to push them up over the 1/7 boundary? But if lib dem were already higher than that and green were approaching it, it would be better to vote green to get *them* closer to a seat (unless lib dem were doing so well they were close to 30%).
But that's sufficiently precise it's almost pointless to try to predict, so I should go for whichever I prefer, or whichever I think has the highest support?
D'Hondt method
Have I understood this right?
Suppose there's 7 seats available for a number of parties. Then every party whose vote share exceeds 1/7 of the votes, is guaranteed at least as many seats as they have whole sevenths of the vote share? That'd accord with what I'd do so far.
But if I were running it, then I'd say, give the remaining seats to the parties who are closest to one more seat than they already have (whether that's 6 seats but nearly 7 seats, or no seats but nearly 1 seat). But D'Hondt counts your remainder more, in proportion to how many seats you already have?
Why on earth is it like that? Is it supposed to avoid niche parties? Or is it just that it's longstanding and superficially reasonable, so when the voting method was chosen they chose the most FPTP like proportional system they could get away with?
East of England
There were several helpful "tactical voting guides" going around, but several seemed to concentrate more than I'd originally realised on "trust our subjective judgements without asking too many questions" rather than on providing data.
My natural choice would be Lib Dem or Green, mostly as a clear "Remain" vote. Which I prefer depends on circumstance, but I was also trying to figure out if it would make a difference if I wanted to increase the chance of either winning a seat.
Previously Lib Dem have held about 15% of the vote and I think got an MEP, although last euro elections they were at a lower point. The greens have previously been lower, but have been creeping up over time, especially if people are finally starting to pay SOME attention to mitigating climate change.
So it sounds like I'm right, if lib dem are around 15% and greens are lower it would be worth voting lib dem to make sure to push them up over the 1/7 boundary? But if lib dem were already higher than that and green were approaching it, it would be better to vote green to get *them* closer to a seat (unless lib dem were doing so well they were close to 30%).
But that's sufficiently precise it's almost pointless to try to predict, so I should go for whichever I prefer, or whichever I think has the highest support?
no subject
Date: 2019-05-20 10:25 am (UTC)I'm not sure I know enough to pick a *right* voting system. If I had the choice I think I would prefer something more like highest remainder, but I'm not certain. I would definitely choose something more STV-ish than the current system if I could, but I don't know exactly what. I guess it would be worth having a single right answer people in favour of reform could all push behind, but it feels like a mess having to choose when most things would be an improvement over the status quo (although the voting reform referendum showed how that goes wrong).
I decided with all of the pros and cons, both in terms of how much I liked them and tactically, green beat out lib dem just slightly, but I wasn't very sure. I think it probably didn't make that much difference. I forgot TIG/CUK were standing, but I don't think that would have been any better.