It’s all about holding the Tories to account not getting Labour in.
Under FPTP there is no way to do one without the other. As others have said. Its a reality bias. FPTP will always lead to a 2 party system. Honestly the current UK system is way better then most. And shows how darn stubborn UK voters can be. As the maths very rarely works for voting outside the 2 largest parties. Without giving an advantage to what each voter considers the larger evil.
The only reason tactical voting sites like this exist. Is to try and minimise the harm 3rd party voting can do to non Tory voters. By informing them of constituencies where those parties are actually likely to win.
People complaining about bias. Truly fail to understand the point of tactical voting. As a non biased system would not need it to prevent spiting of opposition votes.
Yes you can’t really do one without doing the other but that point presupposes that you care who the other party is. Lots of people honestly don’t. If the Lib Dems were in the position that Labour are in I don’t think there would be that much difference in voting intention, except that all the people who intend to vote for Labour would be voting for the Lib Dems except for any constituencies where Labour were more likely to beat a Tory.
People are not voting for Labour because of their revolutionary ideas (unless you count basic competence as revolutionary, and even then it’s only theoretical). People who are voting tactically are doing so against the incumbent, not for any particular opposition. They will vote for whichever party has the highest chance of dethroning a sitting Conservative.
Ultimately there is no reason to recommend Labour over any other party unless they were Labor party members. Tactical voting is always against the incumbent, not for anyone. You can’t tactically vote for a party, except to just vote for them. But you can tactically vote against a party. So the original accusation that both OP made and in the linked subreddit is both nonsensical and utterly without evidence.
Not OP and basically agree with you.
But honestly.
Under FPTP there is no way to do one without the other. As others have said. Its a reality bias. FPTP will always lead to a 2 party system. Honestly the current UK system is way better then most. And shows how darn stubborn UK voters can be. As the maths very rarely works for voting outside the 2 largest parties. Without giving an advantage to what each voter considers the larger evil.
The only reason tactical voting sites like this exist. Is to try and minimise the harm 3rd party voting can do to non Tory voters. By informing them of constituencies where those parties are actually likely to win.
People complaining about bias. Truly fail to understand the point of tactical voting. As a non biased system would not need it to prevent spiting of opposition votes.
Yes you can’t really do one without doing the other but that point presupposes that you care who the other party is. Lots of people honestly don’t. If the Lib Dems were in the position that Labour are in I don’t think there would be that much difference in voting intention, except that all the people who intend to vote for Labour would be voting for the Lib Dems except for any constituencies where Labour were more likely to beat a Tory.
People are not voting for Labour because of their revolutionary ideas (unless you count basic competence as revolutionary, and even then it’s only theoretical). People who are voting tactically are doing so against the incumbent, not for any particular opposition. They will vote for whichever party has the highest chance of dethroning a sitting Conservative.
Ultimately there is no reason to recommend Labour over any other party unless they were Labor party members. Tactical voting is always against the incumbent, not for anyone. You can’t tactically vote for a party, except to just vote for them. But you can tactically vote against a party. So the original accusation that both OP made and in the linked subreddit is both nonsensical and utterly without evidence.