Endorsing a tactical choice

While there are many less than satisfactory features in the British first-past-the-post system, one virtue is that it invariably finds a conclusive winner.

An inevitable consequence of a winner-takes-all contest is so-called tactical voting.

Under our system, there is no electoral potential in finishing a creditable but distant third in a parliamentary constituency. It is understandable that those of us who cherish our democratic duty wish to make our vote as significant as possible. As such, it is perfectly reasonable for us to vote for a second-choice candidate if the first-choice is perceived as having no hope of victory.

There are those who denounce tactical voting. But what right has anyone to question freedom of choice in a secret ballot? It is the very essence of democracy.

On Thursday, we are electing a government. The General Election is not an opinion poll.

In putting a cross next to a candidate, very few of us agree with every single policy on which he or she is seeking election. It does not amount to a blanket endorsement

Tactical voting is simply an extension of that process of compromise and, like it or not, part and parcel of our electoral system.

The only way it can be eradicated is by adopting a system of proportion representation where support for parties is accurately reflected in the number of seats they receive; where every vote cast has equal significance. But that will invariably create an inconclusive result and a coalition government.

Those who condemn tactical voting will encourage, perhaps unwittingly, the campaign for proportional representation.

They will also risk persuading people to stay at home on Thursday rather than bother to cast a "wasted" vote.

Those who denounce tactical voting will be better employed encouraging people to turn out and vote. The clearest indication of the strength of our democracy on Thursday will be how many people vote, not how they vote.