Why tactical voting could change the course of history

At first glance, the decision of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and, for once, a majority in the House of Commons to go for an election on 12 December was rather inexplicable.

Elections are held, we usually believe, to choose a government, not as an alternative to a referendum on Britain’s future relationship with the EU. And the choice in Britain is pretty stark: on the one hand, a Brexit-fixated Johnson, and on the other, a far-Left Corbyn who wants to renationalise most of Britain and drag it back to the 1970s.

Johnson would like to see the electorate give him a majority which reflects current polls, which put him at a considerable advantage over his Labour opponent; get rid of the socalled Remainers and doubters within his Conservative party (deselected by the local committees); and allow him to get his Brexit deal through parliament.

The 37 per cent who voted against Britian leaving the EU thus appear to have nowhere to turn. The only alternative to Johnson’s Brexit is a vote for Labour in its most extreme form. Many Remainers do not want to go there.

But the British political system is a flawed one (as are all others) and the chinks in the system may allow a different outcome.

The British first-past-the-post system could theoretically mean that Party A which gets just 600+ votes more than Party B, gets all the seats in parliament while Party B gets nothing.

So the activists and the Remainers are working hard on a proposal which, at least theoretically, could ensure the defeat of Brexit and Britain remaining in the EU. It is a tentative proposal which may probably not work, but it’s worth having a close look at.

According to current predictions, without tactical voting, the Conservatives would get a majority of 44, taking 364 seats to Labour’s 189.

But if just a third of anti-Brexit voters in England and Wales were to switch their votes tactically, Johnson would fail to get a majority. The Conservatives would get 309 seats, Labour 233, the Lib Dems 34, Plaid Cymru four and the Greens one. When the SNP and DUP are factored in, the pro-Remain parties will have a majority of three.

If 40 per cent of Remain voters choose to vote tactically, the Conservatives would get 277 seats, Labour will get 254 and the Lib Dems 44, securing a Remain majority of 36. In both scenarios, the SNP would win 52 seats.

Will this happen? Those proposing such tactical voting say that in reality only some 20% of the British electorate cannot be persuaded to vote tactically.

So if 30 per cent of pro-Remain voters were to be persuaded to hold their noses and vote for a party they don’t usually vote for, it is possible to get over the magic 320 figure to form a government.

Best for Britain has launched GetVoting.org to give tactical voting advice based on postcode. Naomi Smith, the organisation’s chief executive, said:

“If we vote tactically, we can stop a Boris Johnson majority and return a parliament that much more accurately reflects the state of country’s views on the issue of Europe, which is now a majority pro-European country and we need a majority pro-European parliament.”

Independent MP Dominc Grieve, who lost the Conservative whip (i.e. was kicked out of the party) for trying to block a no-deal Brexit said the Lib Dem candidate in his constituency of Beaconsfield had decided not to contest to give him a better chance of winning.

But, in most cases, there is no need for candidates to stand down to give others a better chance of winning.

We in Malta are no strangers to tactical voting. It was 1962 and there was a need to stop Dom Mintoff. So the other parties came together and organized their tactical voting. As usual, Mintoff had the dialectical advantage and he called the other parties “Ta’ taħt l-umbrella” and the stigma stuck.

But it worked. ngrima@independent.com.mt