The support in the general population for Green party policies is above 20%; if everyone who supported Green policies voted for the Green party, they would win several seats. But this will not happen, because in British elections, many people believe that they are being cunning in refusing to vote for the party whose policies they support. They call it “tactical voting”. The argument is that if you vote for good, rather than indifferent, the field will be left open for pure evil.
In my view these well-intentioned people have been hoodwinked by a conspiracy between the large parties and their supporters in the media aimed at squeezing out the smaller ones. In most cases I believe tactical voting is illogical and misguided and this post I will try to explain why.
To me it is simple; one should always publicly support what one thinks is right, however overwhelming the opposition. It is not a matter of intellectual effort; it is a matter of conscience. It is important to realise that a party does not have to win in order to be able to influence the debate; even a “single issue” party can raise national awareness and can move the policies of all parties it it gains enough support. If you believe (as I do) that some issues are of overwhelming importance, (perhaps global warming, global war or global famine), you must surely add your voice to the party that will confront the issue most effectively; to vote any other way is to fiddle whilst Rome burns. One should never do nothing because one can only do a little. But even if you do not believe in any existential threat, there are solid rational grounds to reject tactical voting.
(For the sake of example, I will assume that our voter really supports the Greens, but thinks that at any rate Labour would be better than Conservatives. If this is not your voting preference – you may change the parties accordingly.)
Some arguments for tactical voting are easily dismissed because of the nature of our voting system. Many people confuse national with constituency victories. For example, suppose that nationally, it is a tie between Labour and the Conservatives. Our voter may reason that voting Green makes it more likely that the Tories will win; but this depends entirely on their local constituency. It obviously makes no sense at all for our voter to vote Labour to keep out the Tories if they happen to live in a seat in which Green are in the lead and Labour are a poor fourth.
Similarly the argument that a vote is wasted unless you vote for a party that can win is obviously false; following that line of argument, if you live in a secure Tory stronghold, logically everyone should vote Tory, irrespective of their views, because only the Tories can win. Clearly there is a mistake here.
More generally, if you live in a safe seat, “tactical” voting makes no sense, because your vote will not affect the outcome, and voting for your second best deprives your preferred party of the encouragement (and funds) they need to gain a higher national profile, and to influence the debate. A vote for a party that cannot win in your constituency, and that you do not even support, is surely the definition of a wasted vote.
So tactical voting can only make any sense at all if our voter lives in a constituency in which the Greens have no chance, and where either Labour or the Tories might win, and where no single issue is so important that it overrides all other considerations. But even then, voting tactically is usually the wrong thing to do. In fact I would say that in a marginal constituency it is particularly important to vote for your convictions; because in a marginal seat both parties will move to try to take over the minority vote, and this is the way the balance shifts in your preferred direction. Politicians should choose the policies that we want, not the other way about; and elections happen only once in four years. If on that occasion you give the politicians no guidance as to the policies you favour, how can you hope to influence the direction they take? We have seen recently that a party like UKIP can have a profound effect on the political discourse without winning any seats at all.
A tactical vote places the short term above the long term. All parties start small, and get bigger. No party will win an election in the first year that it is established – it takes time to change the tide. To achieve change you need to think beyond the current election to the one after, or the one after that. By voting for the party you support you are sending a clear message to politicians and the voting public. As the voter base of a party grows, it gains more media coverage, more credibility, more funding. The other parties will be forced to move in the direction of the newcomer. In contrast, a tactical vote is a vote for defeatism. By refusing to vote for the policies you advocate, you are abandoning hope of changing the political balance now or at any time in the future.
The only exception is when one party intends to do something so completely catastrophic or immoral (such as a criminal attack on another country) that it must be prevented at any cost, and the other main party unconditionally rejects it. But this should be the exception not the rule – because by voting tactically you may win the battle – but you give up any hope of winning the war.