What is tactical voting? 

It may be just me but I think he really sounded like Daniel Radcliffe there

That's a good punchline of sorts and it rather speaks to most of us !

We said it at the same time!

"Can you really blame the major parties..." YES!!! "...for doing their..." Oh there's more? But still YES!!!!

I can surely blame them. They're immoral, and horrible. But I'm not naive enough to expect them to willingly give up their stranglehold.

For posterity's sake, I'll explain partly why it happened: half the people who voted against it only did so to spite the guy who wanted it and would profit most from it (Nick Clegg of the Lib Dems) since he reneged on some of his biggest electoral promises (in exchange for securing the AV-referendum) when he formed the coalition with the Conservatives-which he only did because he thought it was worth it in the long run to accept some bad policies as long as he could get AV passed. Spoiler alert: he couldn't, it wasn't, and the Lib Dems have never recovered.

@@nevereasier Nick Clegg really was one of the most idiotic politicians of our age. Remember Cleggmania? I was a student living in Sheffield Central at the time and that guy positively *hounded* us for our votes with the tuition fees line. And there he was supporting precisely the opposite policy months later.

Yeah pretty much that entire leaflet was the usual political propaganda baloney scaremongering The most ironic thing, is that #5 on there is “no one wants it, not even the yes voters”, which has got to be one the dumbest things I’ve ever read! 😂

Ikr

The first point is also one that is so wrong. You still have one vote, however how many times it needs to be counted. Even then, a system that counts some votes only once seems not like a stable one, since we are not free of failure.

luckily for the tories, most british people dont travel. at least not outside europe. so they end up just believing whatever the news tells them.

"We plan to cut all homeless people in half by 2025" - Conservatives UPDATE: it was satire and not produced by the UK conservative party

I don't know anyone who opposes it here in Australia. Not even one politician on T.V or one article on the web. I guess lying and scaremongering is part of the political kit in all countries.

Though it has still lead to a two-party system.

I Don't Agree to Page Terms Well democracy needs constant tinkering, AV is a sure sight better than FPP. The two-party system is mostly because of media coverage of elections, an external progagator of the spoiler affect. When the elections come up it's treated as absolute certainty that either of the two major parties will form government. Voters (the poor dearies) only see political bitching and slogans (specifically major polticians dismissing 3rd parites). They never see a comprehensive comparison of independent's/party policy. This is mostly because media conglomerates want to report the elections as digestible, dramatic and sensational to attract viewers (as well as avoid offending their advertisers). It might be best to hold media companies to a standard during something as important as their main coverage of elections. Outside of that standard they can go hog wild with sensational stories. It's not helped that companies are allowed to donate large sums of money to politicians to run election ads. Why bother investing in new parties when the control they have over the current ones are so ubiquitous?

Australia's upper house uses STV, a proportional system, and it not so dominated. The issue is that AV, although somewhat better than FPTP, still enforces two-party domination and tactical voting. This is because, despite what proponents often claim, it arguably doesn't eliminate the spoiler effect, it just changes it some. Under AV, your compromise can be eliminated before its considered, and cause your least favorite to win, where if you had strategically put your compromise first, ahead of your true favorite, you could at least get your compromise. So under AV, it's still best to put your preferred front-runner first. In fact if I remember correctly, third parties in Australia aren't too happy about AV, and want to use proportional voting in both houses. But there are single-winner systems that don't have this problem, like Score Voting, Approval Voting, and arguably Condorcet Voting.

Skyval Ream That's not correct. It doesn't matter what order you put two parties in if one gets elemintated. Watch CGP Grey's video on STV for a more mathematical understand of the system.

@CadenACo US problems are what CGP Grey is for :b

That’s because people like to say “We don’t get taught about this stuff in school” but then never bother to try and learn it as an adult.

To quote Ian Hislop, "If this is Justice, then I'm a banana"

*Than the UK

😎 It's because most of his supporters in the UK feel compelled to subscribe to The Tim Traveller instead. 🤩

A lot of people voted against it simply because it wasn't the particular system they wanted, which was incredibly short sighted. Yes, maybe it wasn't PR, but it was the only chance at reforming the system that the Government were prepared to offer! There is a saying that goes 'Don't let perfect be the enemy of good'

now this is a British comment.

@@Inkyminkyzizwoz so ironically they should have voted tactically for a system that would allow them to vote how they feel lmao

This is the most British thing I've ever read

@@Ryan-ct3rv Yes. Because up until it reforms, it's the only option to vote those out of power who least represent you.

Hello from the future 😂

Oh no you've predicted the future

yun i mean, there was a snap skeleton in 2017 too 😜

Oh, snap!

I have come from the even further future after another snap election

It's been 8 months but I was thinking the same. Not being aware of the exact circumstances of the country since I'm not from the UK, I can safely say that at least 3 of those 5 points are invalid or simply dumb, disregarding the fact that point 1 and 2 are essentially the same, basically 1.1 and 1.2. Point 3 - it's a valid point up to when they say it's a long, complicated process. But that's not the main argument. The main argument they use is that it will "cost the taxpayer millions". Not "millions of taxpayer pounds", or something of the sort. No, it will cost the INDIVIDUAL taxpayer millions. Sounds a lot scarier than it is. Plus, if that didn't make it invalid enough, it's a textbook slippery slope fallacy. The argument's strength is totally based on a ficticious hypothetical scenario. "x is complicated, which COULD mean y, which causes z." x is the real scenario. From that they deduce that y might happen. And then they attack y (not x) by saying that z (bad) might happen. Point 4 - no proof is given. Pretty sure that's a fallacy as well but I'm no philosopher so I don't fucking know all of them. Possibly appeal to authority or false authority. Basically it's source: "trust me bro". Point 5 - plain hypocritical. "No one wants it, it's just a convenient tool to get what's closer to what they really want" is exactly what the current form of voting represents. Wanting x but voting something closer to x because x can't possibly win is the whole point of this video. And let's not mention that the 3rd image, the one with the baby, is a textbook appeal to emotion fallacy with a little bit of hypocrisy sprinkled on top. "This baby will FUCKING DIE if you vote for this." Will the baby get those 250 million that it needs if you don't vote for it? Well, probably not, but hey, what matters is we didn't waste them on doing that particular thing. God I'm actually proper mad that people fall for these bullshit propaganda tactics.

Same with Brexit, people are ignorant and are happy to be told what to think, because doing one's own research on the claims is far too much cognitive effort. It comes down to who shouts the loudest.

Adam Lea AV is objectively better than FPTP. Brexit is a complicated issue with no objective answer. It's not comparable

@@adamlea6339 Yes. The mainstream media told people to vote to remain, and so many listened. Fortunately, there are enough thinking people in this country who saw through their lies.

@@ChrisMelville Didn't see past the blatantly false posters and such (eg the infamous buses) though.

There used to be, but nowadays its name has been shortened to Limping Meme. There's a Map Men video about how that happened.

Upon Thames

@@SgtPeppersLonelyHeartsClubBand Upon Avon

🥰 Sounds like at least you live in a place where both major parties could win. Imagine being a Republican in Brookline, MA or Provo, UT. 😎

Well I live in a place called Maine, where there are rivers of milk and honey and ranked choice voting! Yay!

That’s why revolutions exist. They don’t have to be violent, mind you.

@@WillCanSnortIt *raises Moxie* Here here!

OTOH, voting for a candidate that surely won't win is a way to signal to whoever does win that you exist and don't actually agree with their policies, and may actually influence them to shift their policies towards those of whomever you voted for. I voted for Jo Jorgenson in 2020, not because I thought she had a snowball's chance in hell of winning, but because I liked the idea of showing Democrats and Republicans alike that real people are out there who can't stand either of them. In addition, I couldn't stomach the idea of voting for Trump or Biden as individuals irrespective of their party affiliations. Not only do I disagree with both of them on serious political issues like gun control and immigration (I'm a pro-gun, pro-immigration, pro-abortion, pro-military unicorn), they're both frankly senile and incoherent. Only ~2.5% of people voted for Jorgenson, but that's 2.5% of the vote that the two mainline parties are desperate to have for themselves.

tories lying to get their way? who'da thunk it

I’m an Aussie and I approve this message

All five of those reasons are bollocks.

🏳️‍🌈and🇳🇿hate 1st past the post

***** also rifle-led coercion, television phone-in and it's a knock-out, which would also be great

Rhys Beard They actually used a lottery system for choosing people for office in Ancient Greece.

Matthew Law How would those work?

hasan kamran I guess disproportional representation would be proportional representation but with the proportions

QuixoticQuaver It would result in fewer seats for Labour and the Conservatives, so they had a large incentive to make it look bad.

Alsiexmon The public fell for it in droves. Why any member of the public wants to support a two party system is baffling to me.

QuixoticQuaver It wasn't far enough. We needed STV.

QuixoticQuaver The real reason, sadly, is because it was seen as Nick Clegg's idea, and he wasn't popular at the time. Referendums are unfortunately treated as protest votes just like European and local elections, even if referendums are more important.

I agree, proportional representation is better than alternative vote. But alternative vote is still better than the current system in place. The Labs and Cons fear oversight, being responsible and answering to the public (as any politician does when they're guilty of something), so the only way they can hold onto their position is by buying up the political market through the media. Fair play to them, they wouldn't be in that position if their minds didn't work like that. It's up to the public to educate themselves to see through the bullshit and find facts instead of being impressed by emotions.

Which country would that be, may I ask?

Eight-Three-Eight Denmark.

***** I envy you guys and your delicious proportional representation...

Eight-Three-Eight Yeah, proportional representation isn't perfect either (I doubt there is such a thing as a perfect democratic system), but I would definitely take that over first past the post any day of the week.

The main problem with PR is that constituencies in more sparsely populated parts of the country will either end up covering massive areas (thus making them harder to get round) or only have one or two MPs (thus effectively defeating the object of the system in the first place!) It wouldn't be an issue if the population was spread more evenly

"It's a knock-out!"

Thanks Joe, 5 years later you have completed the list!

@@mcbain23 Yw.

Rifle-led coercion😂

Hope this drops soon

In germany we call it "taktisches bäuerchen" bäuerchen is a word that descripes the burbs of a baby and i thing thats beautiful

Tactical vomiting is less fun than it sounds...

Mungus

humongous wot?

were you labs won in the 1920s? I was under the impression that pre-coalition and coalition governments had been in power from 1917-1929 (Hughes, Bruce)

Robinson Jones, you are correct that the Nationalist party was in power from 1917 to 1929, Roxor128 seems to have simplified some things, unfortunately to the point where some errors have crept in. Preferential Voting was actually established in 1918 (a little before the 20's, but not far off) and was a reaction to Labor wins (both federally and at the state level), in electorates that had been considered safe. Not to the point of actually changing the federal government, but enough of a shake up that the Nationalists didn't feel safe continuing with the status quo.

well now they are the basicly the same party so it dont really matter anymore.

I'm watching it after. It pains me more

@@Xapper0 yeah. Conservatives won because there wasn't enough tactical voting

When the tactical vote is for Jeremy Corbyn, I guess there wasn't much option...

@@tpmiranda Jeremy Corbyn actually cares about people, unlike boris

@@rockypower5168 Lol look at the Corbynista wanks xD

Asweh I see you in literally every comment section on RU-vid

Finally food in the ussr

@@masudaahmed7990 its a spice and a food? must be a luxary good, ill trade you a beat and a unpainted lada.. okay 2 beats and i paint over the rust spots..

шнy аге u еveгушнеге?

All the candidates have to play bingo. The prize is the seat.

Every vote equals one ticket, after every one is done voting one ticket is selected randomly. More votes give you a higher chance at winning but even a guy that got only one vote could be elected.

@Jacob L Still better than FPTP.

Tombola is bingo just imagine that

I'm even more interested in the one after that - rifle led coersion

Too bad he's really dumb in everything else.

@@DaDARKPass your not so smart yourself

@@someguynamedsteve203 Sorry but when asked why he doesn't like Jazz music, he called music "a way to manipulate the mind" WTF? IT'S MUSIC, NOT A PSYCHOACTRIC TREATMENT!

@@DaDARKPass Think about it Music brings Emotions Emotions Are a part of the mind There for they manipulate the mind

@@someguynamedsteve203 YOU'RE FUCKING INSANE TOO! STOP ANALYSING MUSIC AS IF IT'S A PSYCH STATE! IT'S SOMETHING TO ENJOY, NOT TO ANALYSE.

Michael Banin Get on with your work!

+Jay Foreman Do you have plans to do any videos on the American Election next year. If you want to talk low voting turnout. Check out our mid-term elections last year, check out this map! www.electionproject.org/2014g

As an Aussie I think our system is ok but the MMP system of New Zealand is better.

@@danzk could u explain that to me?

You should see North Greater Mitherington St Strafulous by the Tide Central. They're fantastic.

is it a bad thing that i instantly recognized the exact song

The electoral college is based on how much power a state has in the legislative branch. Each state has a semi proportional vote. It's actually brilliant considering it gives rural areas which normally don't have any power a bit of attention

@@lincolnshynider6788 True, but surely if most people vote for one person and the other one gets the presidency that isn't very good. I'd say people probably matter more than land when it comes to democracy.

@@cammarc Yeah. If we're electing the NATIONAL leader, why is the deciding vote a STATES issue?

@@stitchfinger7678 In the US, the national government is federal, i.e., governs the federation of the states. Since the states have a degree of sovereignty (hence "states" not "provinces"), the design of the federal government probably has to acknowledge them. The alternative to the EC was just as likely to something like how the presidency of the European Commission is elected, than it was to be a pure popular vote. That said, I agree the result sucks, democratically speaking. If you're not familiar, check out the National Popular Vote compact for one way that (mostly-left-leaning) states are trying to bodge the Electoral College into a de facto popular vote without rewriting the constitution.

@@lincolnshynider6788 But it means that all the rallies happen in no more than about 10 states, leaving the "safe" ones unvisited and taken for granted. If the presidential election were changed to be a national popular vote then that would end, and candidates would have to fight for every vote everywhere.

Sounds like IRV is broken too. Need to switch to something else, like Approval Voting. (Incidentally, who's to blame for assigning the acronym AV to a voting system other than Approval Voting?)

that actually made my day to hear that

The latter is one of several animal kingdom videos talking about election systems.

His name's Paul Kendler. He co-wrote, directed, held the camera for, and has a cameo in several videos on this channel.

that'l be where then. thank you for your prompt response, consider yourself subbed my good man!

@@JayForeman jay foreman hello lol

More fodder to shit on the natural foe of your people?

voters buy shirts based on the opinions they're wearing

a coalition government comes to mind

I thought it was obvious, the voice, skin colour, hair colour the only thing different is the hair and that was probably done on purpose

1987 Michael Jackson - Bad 1992 Whitney Houston - I Will Always Love You 1997 Radiohead - No Surprises 2001 Kylie Minogue - Can't Get You Out of My Head 2005 James Blunt - You're Beautiful 2010 Katy Perry - California Gurls 2015 Hozier - Take Me to Church

You're missing 2:20 "Cluck You".

For 2017 would you do Rockabye or "Shape or you"? Maybe Despactio even if it's not even targeted at the glorious Anglo-Saxon market.

Marylandbrony shape or you? Don’t you mean shape of you ? Great song

@@JayForeman thank you

We don't use PR in the House of Representatives, we use electorates, in which we have 150, each of which vote for 1 MP (so basically, the same as the UK). We do use STV, PR in the Senate though