Comments on: Why tactical voting is rubbish http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/2005/02/19/why-tactical-voting-is-rubbish/ Because all the other domain names were taken Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:53:48 +0000 hourly 1 By: Alexander http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/2005/02/19/why-tactical-voting-is-rubbish/comment-page-1/#comment-727 Alexander Mon, 07 Mar 2005 14:19:10 +0000 #comment-727 Plus, Tacti-voters are in hock to New Labour. It would not surprise me that most tactical voting is either a New Labour front or at least has tacit approval from the Supreme Emperor Bliar and his slimebag mates. Whether Labour or the Lib Dems win a seat, it all helps Tony dig in even more. Plus, 'keeping the tories out at all costs' is too short-sighted a worldview. It's one thing to hate one load of Tories - but is that hatred justification for keeping an even bigger Tory in 10 Downing Street? Tacti-voters really need to ask themselves that question before they play the same silly game they did in '97 and '01. Plus, Tacti-voters are in hock to New Labour. It would not surprise me that most tactical voting is either a New Labour front or at least has tacit approval from the Supreme Emperor Bliar and his slimebag mates. Whether Labour or the Lib Dems win a seat, it all helps Tony dig in even more. Plus, ‘keeping the tories out at all costs’ is too short-sighted a worldview. It’s one thing to hate one load of Tories – but is that hatred justification for keeping an even bigger Tory in 10 Downing Street? Tacti-voters really need to ask themselves that question before they play the same silly game they did in ’97 and ’01.

]]> By: Otis http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/2005/02/19/why-tactical-voting-is-rubbish/comment-page-1/#comment-711 Otis Mon, 21 Feb 2005 20:45:04 +0000 #comment-711 I don't understand how a DoS attack could possibly be the same as the site being taken down due to a complaint about it. <br /> <br />One is a site being forced down by deliberate action by an outside party, the other is a site being taken down willingly, by the webhosts. <br /> <br />Or do I just have a feeble grasp of internet workings? I don’t understand how a DoS attack could possibly be the same as the site being taken down due to a complaint about it.

One is a site being forced down by deliberate action by an outside party, the other is a site being taken down willingly, by the webhosts.

Or do I just have a feeble grasp of internet workings?

]]> By: Jim Doyle http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/2005/02/19/why-tactical-voting-is-rubbish/comment-page-1/#comment-710 Jim Doyle Mon, 21 Feb 2005 14:10:44 +0000 #comment-710 Labour is already running scared of blogs. Here the satirical Backing Blair campaign details a New Labour inspired Denial of Service attack on its site: <br />http://www.backingblair.co.uk/2005/02/denial-of-service-attack.html <br />I'm organising a real world protest to get to the bottom of that: <br />http://defendbackingblair.blogspot.com/2005/02/backing-blair-hit-by-denial-of-service.html <br />The Backing Blair campaign started as just anti-Iraq, but we have widened our remit to bring down the Unions: <br />http://defendbackingblair.blogspot.com/2005/02/backing-blair-not-just-iraq-fighting.html Labour is already running scared of blogs. Here the satirical Backing Blair campaign details a New Labour inspired Denial of Service attack on its site:

http://www.backingblair.co.uk/2005/02/denial-of-service-attack.html

I’m organising a real world protest to get to the bottom of that:

http://defendbackingblair.blogspot.com/2005/02/backing-blair-hit-by-denial-of-service.html

The Backing Blair campaign started as just anti-Iraq, but we have widened our remit to bring down the Unions:

http://defendbackingblair.blogspot.com/2005/02/backing-blair-not-just-iraq-fighting.html

]]> By: DK http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/2005/02/19/why-tactical-voting-is-rubbish/comment-page-1/#comment-709 DK Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:35:06 +0000 #comment-709 If people were really allowed to vote for who they wanted we need a 'none of the above' box on the ballot paper. <br />Maybe we should take into account of all those who didn't vote when deciding how big a government's mandate is. <br /> <br />BTW I will be voting, and no I won't tell you who for. If people were really allowed to vote for who they wanted we need a ‘none of the above’ box on the ballot paper.

Maybe we should take into account of all those who didn’t vote when deciding how big a government’s mandate is.

BTW I will be voting, and no I won’t tell you who for.

]]> By: Otis http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/2005/02/19/why-tactical-voting-is-rubbish/comment-page-1/#comment-708 Otis Sun, 20 Feb 2005 19:07:43 +0000 #comment-708 Tactical voting on this kind of scale worries me. What's next? "Hey lets vote for the BNP so we can get rid of Labour in this constituency!" No thanks. <br /> <br />I will only ever vote for who I'm actually willing to see and support in power, and I don't understand why people would do the opposite. Fair enough, switch your vote if you don't think your party has much chance of being elected, but at least know who you're voting for. Don't just do it because you don't like whoever's in power. That's just wrong, and it sets so many alarm bells off in my head. Tactical voting on this kind of scale worries me. What’s next? “Hey lets vote for the BNP so we can get rid of Labour in this constituency!” No thanks.

I will only ever vote for who I’m actually willing to see and support in power, and I don’t understand why people would do the opposite. Fair enough, switch your vote if you don’t think your party has much chance of being elected, but at least know who you’re voting for. Don’t just do it because you don’t like whoever’s in power. That’s just wrong, and it sets so many alarm bells off in my head.

]]>