Andrew Oakley ([info]aoakley) wrote,
@ 2009-06-08 10:29:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
(B)allot (N)ot (P)rotest
Nick Robinson's blog points out what I've been saying until I was blue in the face in the lead-up to the Euro election:

  • The BNP won two Euro MP seats despite getting fewer votes than the last Euro election because
  • people defected from Labour to either not voting at all, or voting for minor parties

    In particular, it appears that in Yorkshire, around ten thousand people switched from Labour to the Greens (2009, 2004).

    If the protest voters had stuck with Labour, or switched to another major party such as the Conservatives, UKIP or the Lib Dems, the BNP wouldn't have got in.

    • (5 comments) - (Post a new comment)


    [info]liz_lowlife
    2009-06-08 09:44 am UTC (link)
    How were people to know this would happen though?
    Strategic voting is the safe direction to take but I think the nation is so desperate as a whole for change that they took a risk this time around. It paid off badly, clearly, but that is clearly the state of the hive mind right now...desperate for change...

    (Reply to this) (Thread)

    [info]aoakley
    2009-06-08 10:00 am UTC (link)
    Strategic voting is the safe direction to take

    The maths and the result clearly demonstrate that this is incorrect. The wonder of arithmetic enabled everyone to work this out before the event.

    If people want change, they should aim for achievable change. If you want a new house, you should aim for something that you can afford, not a billionaire's mansion.

    There is absolutely no point in voting for a party that stands no chance of gaining power. Pick from the parties which do stand a chance, and pick the one that suits you best. If that means the lesser of several evils, then that's real life, sorry; stop moaning and just fscking cope.

    In Brighton, a vote for the Greens was probably an achievable goal. In Yorkshire, though, the numbers from the 2004 election clearly showed that it would be not only a wasted vote, but would predictably help the BNP.

    (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

    [info]liz_lowlife
    2009-06-08 10:08 am UTC (link)
    We already have a Green party in one of our wards, but like the rest of the country, there were votes for the BNP even here.
    If I did not live in Brighton I would take strategic voting far more seriously as I did when I was in London but down here, if you vote Green there is a real chance of them getting in. It is probably the only place in Britain where you can say that with some level of confidence.

    (Reply to this) (Parent)

    [info]aoakley
    2009-06-08 12:35 pm UTC (link)
    There is a valid point that the complex system of proportional representation makes strategic voting far more dangerous in the Euro elections than it is in the national first-past-the-post election.

    People may not have even been aware of the complexities.

    (Reply to this) (Parent)

    [info]the_axel
    2009-06-08 04:04 pm UTC (link)
    I think that analysis is oversimplistic.

    Overall the vote was down 22%.

    While Labour lost the most (42%) but the Tories were also down 17% and the LibDems down 30% and all the parties who scored less than the greens were down 27% which suggests that the BNP's victory wasn't from traditional Labout voters in particular but supporters of all the major parties and people who made protest votes in the past.

    The Greens had 5000 votes less than the BNP and therefore a seat so voting for them seems reasonable.

    In conclusion - if the major parties MP's hadn't done such a good job of disgusting the electorate then the BNP wouldn't have got in.

    (Reply to this)

    (5 comments) - (Post a new comment)

    Create an Account
    Forgot your login or password?
    Login w/ OpenID
    English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…