<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" ><channel><title>Kai Arzheimer &#187; mirror</title> <atom:link href="http://www.kai-arzheimer.com/blog/tag/mirror/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.kai-arzheimer.com/blog</link> <description>A political science blog</description> <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Jan 2012 19:06:37 +0000</lastBuildDate> <language>en</language> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator> <item><title>Is this Political Science gone mad? Tactical voting and the tabloids</title><link>http://www.kai-arzheimer.com/blog/is-this-political-science-gone-mad-tactical-voting-and-the-tabloids/</link> <comments>http://www.kai-arzheimer.com/blog/is-this-political-science-gone-mad-tactical-voting-and-the-tabloids/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Tue, 04 May 2010 19:39:08 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>kai</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[Political Science]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category> <category><![CDATA[2010]]></category> <category><![CDATA[general election]]></category> <category><![CDATA[guide]]></category> <category><![CDATA[libdems]]></category> <category><![CDATA[mirror]]></category> <category><![CDATA[tactical voting]]></category> <category><![CDATA[uk]]></category><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kai-arzheimer.com/blog/?p=400</guid> <description><![CDATA[Being a political scientist is not considered an exciting occupation by people who have a life, and  as party conversation topics go, electoral systems are pretty lousy. But with LibDem support somewhere in the high 20s (if the polls are to be believed), normal people start to wonder why 26% of the vote should give [...]]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Being a political scientist is not considered an exciting occupation by people who have a life, and  as party conversation topics go, <a class="zem_slink" title="Voting system" rel="wikipedia" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system">electoral systems</a> are pretty lousy. But with LibDem support somewhere in the high 20s (if the polls are to be believed), normal people start to wonder why 26% of the vote should give them 12% of the seats, while 28% of the vote for Labour would amount to just under 40% of the seats (you can fiddle with the numbers at the wonderful <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8609989.stm" target="_blank">BBC&#8217;s election pages</a>).</p><div class="zemanta-img zemanta-action-dragged" style="margin: 1em; display: block;"><span id="more-400"></span></p><div><dl class="wp-caption alignright" style="width: 310px;"><dt class="wp-caption-dt"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SDP-Liberal_Alliance.png"><img title="Logo of the SDP-Liberal Alliance" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7f/SDP-Liberal_Alliance.png/300px-SDP-Liberal_Alliance.png" alt="300px SDP Liberal Alliance Is this Political Science gone mad? Tactical voting and the tabloids" width="300" height="300" /></a></dt><dd class="wp-caption-dd zemanta-img-attribution" style="font-size: 0.8em;">Image via <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SDP-Liberal_Alliance.png">Wikipedia</a></dd></dl></div></div><p>So it is perhaps unsurprising that the hitherto pretty arcane idea of <a class="zem_slink" title="Tactical voting" rel="wikipedia" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_voting">tactical voting</a> (voting against your favourite party to support them) is now making headlines in the tabloids: Enter the <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/05/04/general-election-tactical-voting-guide-how-you-can-save-britain-from-a-tory-nightmare-115875-22231573/" target="_blank">Mirror&#8217;s guide to tactical voting for Labour and LibDem supporters</a>. The information looks valid and may well be part of Labours last-ditch strategy to save what might be saved.</p><div class="zemanta-pixie" style="margin-top: 10px; height: 15px;"><a class="zemanta-pixie-a" title="Reblog this post [with Zemanta]" href="http://reblog.zemanta.com/zemified/26f82fc0-2e0f-4c68-b5b6-7452ed7a6840/"><img class="zemanta-pixie-img" style="border: medium none; float: right;" src="http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=26f82fc0-2e0f-4c68-b5b6-7452ed7a6840" alt=" Is this Political Science gone mad? Tactical voting and the tabloids"  title="Is this Political Science gone mad? Tactical voting and the tabloids photo" /></a><span class="zem-script more-related pretty-attribution"><script src="http://static.zemanta.com/readside/loader.js" type="text/javascript"></script></span></div><div class="su-linkbox" id="post-400-linkbox"><div class="su-linkbox-label">Link to this post!</div><div class="su-linkbox-field"><input type="text" value="&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kai-arzheimer.com/blog/is-this-political-science-gone-mad-tactical-voting-and-the-tabloids/&quot;&gt;Is this Political Science gone mad? Tactical voting and the tabloids&lt;/a&gt;" onclick="javascript:this.select()" readonly="readonly" style="width: 100%;" /></div></div>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.kai-arzheimer.com/blog/is-this-political-science-gone-mad-tactical-voting-and-the-tabloids/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>3</slash:comments> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Database Caching using disk: basic
Object Caching 737/800 objects using disk: basic

Served from: www.kai-arzheimer.com @ 2012-02-07 10:30:30 -->
