I disagree with that. In that situation, I, in conjuction with some other people, have prevented another candidate, who I really didn't want to see get in, from winning. For example, I might want a Green MP, but I'd vote Tory in a Tory/Labour marginal to keep Labour from getting another term. If, along, with enough other people who would rather vote for a minority party but voted Tory, had voted for their first preference, then Labour might have got the seat and that would have been my least favoured outcome. It is a negative way of voting but there is a logic in it.

I'd like to see a single transferable vote. You would vote for a first and second preference and if no candidate got more than 50% on the first prefs, all but the two top candidates would drop out and their second pref votes would be added. I'd use the first pref votes to form the the House of Lords on a party list system strictly proportional to the national first prefs vote. That way you get a strictly representative revising chamber (with the power to alter bad legislation) with a Commons where there was still a chance of a single party forming a government without all the coalition building that can lead to weak administrations.

Under that system, I'd vote Green then Tory in that order, so I'd hopefully get a strong environmental voice in the Lords to scrutinise bills coupled with the ejection of the Labour administration.

joe.e>unless the candidate won by a majority of one then your vote still didn't achieve anything

Since our elections never seem to be won with a majority of one, all voting is wasted. Notwithstanding this self-evident truth I have voted in every possible election and my candidate has always lost by a very large margin. Why do I persist?

Posted By: biffvernonjoe.e>unless the candidate won by a majority of one then your vote still didn't achieve anything

Since our elections never seem to be won with a majority of one, all voting is wasted. Notwithstanding this self-evident truth I have voted in every possible election and my candidate has always lost by a very large margin. Why do I persist?

Yes, I always vote as well. What I was arguing against is the idea that if your chosen candidate is certain not to win, you should vote for someone else who might, my point being that actually you're equally unlikely to have a measurable effect on the outcome. The whole point of democracy is that we agree to accept the majority opinion. In a multi-party situation with low turnouts, that means that most of the people, most of the time, will live with a government they didn't vote for. But that's ok, because that's democracy, and it's better than the alternatives. So I go ahead and vote for the person I'd like to get elected, regardless of what chance they have of winning. I'm stating my opinion, not betting on a horse race.

Greenman. That's the reason I stood for the greens. You can't vote for a party if they don't put up a candidate for election.

Well perhaps 'policies' was overstating it then - let's just say that they are aware that they all have to try to 'appear' to be environmentally aware (even if it is all for show)! 'Green issues' are now in mainstream politics, where previously they were the preserve of the Green Party and the 'fringe' elements.

Yes, quite a lot of folk in the environmental movement just don't get it about Peak Oil. The conjuction of energy security and climate change is the big issue from now on.