On the last-but-one thread, the hoary old topic of "tactical voting on the regional list" came up again. I'm almost sick to death of discussing this subject, because every time I explain my reasons for saying that attempts at "tactical voting" are likely to backfire, I just get a chorus of people telling me that I'm too stupid to understand some killer point, or that I'm putting party advantage above the pursuit of independence, or even : "But you haven't explained properly, James. We all want to hear your proper explanation."
The reality is that some people have fallen head over heels in love with the idea of victory next year being won on a pan-Yes basis (as opposed to the SNP doing it on their own), and are demanding that the arithmetic must yield to that ideal. Surely there must be some risk-free, cost-free way for SNP supporters to vote Green on the list, so that we get both an SNP majority government and a pro-independence opposition? Answer : no, there isn't. There just isn't. But that isn't the message people want to hear, and so they question the motivations behind it, or insist that it must be wrong. I'm not sure I can face another whole year of having this circular discussion, but I also have a horrible feeling that I've got very little choice.
When I said pretty much what I've just said on the earlier thread, the commenter "Muscleguysblog" reacted in the following extraordinary way -
"In 2011 the SNP won so many constituency contests that iirc they only got one MSP off the list. So my party vote for the Greens was in no way wasted and did not hurt the SNP. IF a party gets more constituencies than it is 'entitled' to on the list they don't get taken off them.
I respectfully suggest it is you who are out of touch and arithmetically challenged. You also mistake the campaign which is firstly to urge a constituency vote for the SNP and only then vote Green or SSP. Unless the SNP think they will lose seats en mass in 2016 this cannot hurt them."
In other words, he seriously believes that because I don't think that tactical voting on the list is possible, I must not be aware of even the most basic details of how the AMS voting system works, or what the nature of the proposed tactical voting "strategy" is. It's difficult to know whether to laugh or cry when people say things like that.
On a more positive note, though, I do think it's helpful that the comparison with 2011 has been made by someone who split his ballot in that election (and he certainly wasn't alone in doing that). Let's go through the results region by region, and see whether it's really true that "tactical voting" for the Greens in 2011 either "worked" or did no harm. Bear in mind that list votes for the SNP can only be said to have been wasted if the party failed to take any list seats at all in a given region (due to having won too many constituency seats). As you'll see, that was not the case in seven out of eight regions, in spite of the SNP landslide.
North-East Scotland : The SNP took one list seat (in spite of having won every single constituency) and the Greens failed to take any. "Tactical votes" for the Greens were therefore utterly wasted, and ran the risk of reducing the number of pro-independence MSPs.
Central Scotland : The SNP took three list seats, and the Greens failed to take any. "Tactical votes" for the Greens were therefore utterly wasted, and ran the risk of reducing the number of pro-independence MSPs.
Highlands and Islands : The SNP took three list seats, and the Greens failed to take any. "Tactical votes" for the Greens were therefore utterly wasted, and ran the risk of reducing the number of pro-independence MSPs.
Mid-Scotland and Fife : The SNP took one list seat, and the Greens failed to take any. "Tactical votes" for the Greens were therefore utterly wasted, and ran the risk of reducing the number of pro-independence MSPs.
South Scotland : The SNP took four list seats, and the Greens failed to take any. "Tactical votes" for the Greens were therefore utterly wasted, and ran the risk of reducing the number of pro-independence MSPs.
West Scotland : The SNP took two list seats, and the Greens failed to take any. "Tactical votes" for the Greens were therefore utterly wasted, and ran the risk of reducing the number of pro-independence MSPs.
Glasgow : The SNP took two list seats, and the Greens took one. "Tactical votes" for the Greens therefore did no harm, but it's debatable whether they did any real good. You could make the technical case that Green votes were more efficient than SNP votes because of the d'Hondt calculation, but for that to make a difference you'd have to believe that the Greens were genuinely in danger of failing to hold their one seat (they were certainly nowhere near taking a second).
Lothian : The SNP failed to take a list seat, and the Greens took one. "Tactical votes" for the Greens therefore had a beneficial effect.
Now, doubtless the true believers will point to the fact that tactical voting "only" backfired in three-quarters of the regions, and say : "You see? It can work." But that's not actually good enough, because you also have to consider whether SNP supporters in Lothian had any rational basis for believing that switching to the Greens on the list was a good idea. If anything, the opposite was true - Lothian was a region where you would have put money on the SNP taking at least one list seat, because the constituencies looked so tough. In the end, there were a number of narrow and unexpected constituency gains, which means that "tactical voters" did the equivalent of rolling the dice and getting very lucky. Is that really our strategy for winning a second pro-independence majority in Holyrood next year?
I know some people will insist that 2016 will definitely be different to 2011, and that the Greens are a much more formidable force these days - well, if they are, recent Holyrood opinion polls have stubbornly refused to show any sign of it. Don't forget that the polls significantly overstated Green support on the list in both 2007 and 2011, so unless they're polling a lot higher by next May, there's no reason at all to assume they'll be taking list seats in most regions.
Tactical voting can work - but only in single-member constituency elections. For it to work reliably on the regional list, you'd need a detailed level of foreknowledge of the result not only on the list, but also in every single constituency seat in the region. That is never going to be available.
* * *
UPDATE : A further post on the same subject can be found HERE.
0 Comments