Why do people vote tactically in elections instead of with their consciences when in truth their one ?

Question

"tactical" vote is not going to make a difference to the result? Why do they not vote positively for who they do want, even if they lose?

Answer 1

Because although i want to marry samla hayek, realistically i will have to settle for a fat girl that can cook.  

  

Answer 2

I vote for who I want even though they have no chance of winning. I don't see the point of anything else, but not many people seem to see it that way.

Answer 3

Two party politics - that is why, it results in a very negative result for the electorate.

Answer 4

its the oldest and dullest trick in the book. tell the brainless that any vote outside of the main three is a wasted vote so that if they have a serious gripe at least the vote will stay within the main concept. its a con....and it keeps you down among the pigs squealing and feeding from the government trough. its just designed to keep out party's like the green party or the anti EU parties the British National Party etc. it makes a total sham of the democratic proccess because it completely obscures the truth. follow Proud Walkers lead and allways vote with your heart. that way the country is in no doubt where its people stand. goodness knows that after eleven years of the labour party we could do with some truth and honesty thrown into the agenda. how long is it since weve seen any of that from labour???

Answer 5

Because everyone likes to be on the winning side.

Answer 6

Actually tactical voting is an immensely powerful tool.  The First Past the Post system means that you don't need an overall majority to win a constituency election - merely more than the next largest candidate.  So feasibly, you could win an election on, say, 26% as the Liberal Democrats did in Inverness in 1994.  The remaining 74% was divided among the Tories, Labour, and Scottish Nationalists.

In this situation, all it would take to defeat the Liberal Democrats is a 2% to any other party, possibly.  But say in another constituency, one candidate got 48%, and the remaining 52% was divided between, say, two parties.

Now, in tactical voting, voters would make a conscious choice to choose one of the opposing parties, regardless of their political leanings, in order to specifically defeat the candidate, or to prevent that candidate from winning the election.  This was easy for voters to do 1997-2005, as the Tories were still pariahs, and Labour and the Liberal Democrats had shared goals and were both still relatively well thought of among the voters.

The vote of one of the other smaller parties collapses; the vote of the other smaller party absorbs the remainder, and possibly, a small portion of the last winner's vote will haemhorrage over too; so they could get 51% against 49%, or something.

That's what tactical voting does, and it only really works when there's a single party which is almost universally hated.

Answer 7

Desperation, No matter want no canidate will match each and every person personals views...so you gotta go for the canidate that is the most...