Tactical voting isn't as simple as "vote for the party in second place".
Many seats need 30%+ of voters to vote tactically to beat the Tories. Huge numbers! Difficult but not impossible.
But we can't ignore the Meatloaf problem. ("I'd do anything for love, but I won't do that."
Many seats need 30%+ of voters to vote tactically to beat the Tories. Huge numbers! Difficult but not impossible.
But we can't ignore the Meatloaf problem. ("I'd do anything for love, but I won't do that."
Tory Remainers won't vote for Labour, no matter what. (It's a waste of time moaning about it - live with it!)
But many *would* vote LibDem as a last ditch option to stop Boris Johnson's brand of Brexit.
Why? LD politics are "closer" than Labour's, no Corbyn, past coalition.
But many *would* vote LibDem as a last ditch option to stop Boris Johnson's brand of Brexit.
Why? LD politics are "closer" than Labour's, no Corbyn, past coalition.
So in seats with big Tory numbers the canny tactical vote is the LibDems because they have more potential voters to draw from.
Say...
Tory 45%
Labour 30%
LibDems 22%
Labour can persuade up to 22% of voters (need 15%+)
LD can persuade up to 75% of voters (need 23%+)
Say...
Tory 45%
Labour 30%
LibDems 22%
Labour can persuade up to 22% of voters (need 15%+)
LD can persuade up to 75% of voters (need 23%+)
Which is harder?
- Get 15% out of 22% ie convert 2/3 of Libdem voters.
- Get 23% out of 75% ie convert 1/3 of Tories and Labour voters.
Put in those terms, it's *obvious* that LibDems are the right tactical choice because of the huge pool of latent votes sitting with the Tories.
- Get 15% out of 22% ie convert 2/3 of Libdem voters.
- Get 23% out of 75% ie convert 1/3 of Tories and Labour voters.
Put in those terms, it's *obvious* that LibDems are the right tactical choice because of the huge pool of latent votes sitting with the Tories.
