With the general election seemingly far behind us, many will ignore the drama that unfurled on July 4. To recap; Labour won by a historical landslide, the Tories became the official Opposition, and Reform gained over 4 million votes — and five seats, including one for Nigel Farage, in Parliament.
And how was all this possible? The answer is, largely, tactical voting. How did it affect the election and is it a solution to the dreaded ‘wasted’ vote? Could it also be seen as a declaration of political neutrality? Let’s explore.
Unpacking Tactical Voting
The Cambridge Dictionary defines tactical voting as: ‘an occasion in which you vote for a political party or person that you would not usually support in order to prevent another party or person from winning.’ The tactical vote is one known way of getting around the UK’s controversial first-past-the-post electoral system. This way, a party can win a constituency seat with a minority, as long as the rest of the votes are spread out across their competitors.
Tactical voting is most common in constituencies with an obvious party stronghold that can only be turned by a mass number of voters swinging to one particular side. In practice, this means voting for a party you don’t necessarily like or support. Better know as the ‘least worst’ option or choosing the lesser of two evils — as some like to frame it.
However, one obvious consequence of voting tactically rather than with conviction, is that voters start to feel politically powerless in a system that leaves them no option but to choose the second or third-best option. This also results in a dissatisfied electorate once the results are called.
Understanding the Election Results
Tactical voting has always existed but tends to be most noticeable during by-elections, rather than general elections. This happened in 2021, when the North Shropshire Liberal Democrats overturned a 23,000 Tory majority with Labour voters swinging tactically to their side.
Tactical voting has produced some shocking general election results in the past. Most notably, this happened during the 1997 General Election when Conservative Cabinet Minister Michael Portillo lost his safe seat after Liberal Democrat voters chose to tactically vote for Labour.
This election was arguably all about removing the Tories from their seat of power. A poll by Best for Britain revealed that four out of ten voters (40 per cent) were prepared to vote tactically to remove a Conservative MP.
Looking at the results, the impact of tactical voting is clear. Labour benefited most, with 29 per cent of their votes seen as tactical. The Liberal Democrats are another big tactical voter group, with 85 per cent believed to vote for a second-choice party to keep the Conservatives out. Smaller parties certainly missed out with 30 per cent of tactical voters preferring to vote Green if they didn’t have to vote tactically. Interestingly, 18 per cent said they would like to vote for some other party that was not part of the main five. Here we can see quite clearly how tactically voting both spoils democracy but also allows voters to at least vote out a party they feel strongly against.
There are a few grey areas. Looking at the raw percentages of votes received, Reform gained a substantial share of total votes — 14 per cent — but only won 1 per cent of the seats in Parliament. Whether this result reflects genuine support for the far-right or protest voting against the Conservatives, what is evident is that Reform received millions of votes in constituencies that they were not likely to win — perhaps the antithesis to classic tactical voting strategy and a reminder that no voting method is perfect.
To Vote? Not Vote? Or Tactically Vote?
One central criticism of tactical voting is that people vote for the sake of change rather than their fundamental political beliefs. This is less the fault of the individual and more of our questionable voting system. With only one seat in each constituency available, all votes distributed to the ‘losers’ are seen as wasted, no matter how minor the victory.
A tactical vote does not mean voters are stupid, unprincipled, or politically weak. At the end of the day, we can vote for anyone we choose. But the obvious traps of our first-past-the-post system reveal a fundamental flaw in our democratic process that needs addressing.
Forcing millions of people to vote with their heads instead of their hearts is not the way to secure a stable political environment. With this election producing the lowest voter turnout since 1928, it is clear that the country feels trapped by the lack of viable options and appears to be mired in continuing political disillusionment. Judging by the evidence, Britain has a long way to go before it can call itself a fully functioning democracy.
DISCLAIMER: The articles on our website are not endorsed by, or the opinions of Shout Out UK (SOUK), but exclusively the views of the author.
