As working out the effect of potential tactical voting is causing some interest today, here's another example to understand the phenomenon.
In 2017, Survation polled the constituency of Bath, on behalf of the local Labour party.
In 2017, Survation polled the constituency of Bath, on behalf of the local Labour party.
Asked simply: If the General Election was tomorrow, which party would you vote for in your Bath constituency? Headline results were:
CON 32%
LAB 17%
LD 46%
AP 5%
CON 32%
LAB 17%
LD 46%
AP 5%
However when we asked:
Now please imagine that at the next General Election the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats all have an equal chance of winning in your Bath constituency. Which party would you vote for in that situation? We found:
CON 30%
LAB 36%
LD 30%
AP 4%
Now please imagine that at the next General Election the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats all have an equal chance of winning in your Bath constituency. Which party would you vote for in that situation? We found:
CON 30%
LAB 36%
LD 30%
AP 4%
So, If none of the voters of Bath voted tactically, and simply voted for their favourite party, Bath would have likely been a Labour seat at the last General Election.
And in a final step, if the voters of Bath (those not then voting for either CON or LAB) were asked that if they believed at some point Labour "had the best chance of preventing the Conservative Party from winning" those voters "squeezed" 2:1 in Labour's favour over the Lib Dems.
Tables (from our website) are here: survation.com/wp-content/upl…
Proportional representation anyone?
Proportional representation anyone?
