In a Facebook post to his Councillor page today, Councillor Kingstone stated he’s going to assist you in how to vote:
How very nice of him. Or is it? This is yet another disillusioned Tory Councillor who left the controlling group on the pretence that he was going to be kicked out anyway. He quit believing there to be corruption between the then Council leader and his wife in respect of a housing development Cllr Michelle Cook carried out work for as part of her private business. It appears there was no appetite to kick him out of the group, so he left having told everyone who would listen that the whole group were as bad as eachother
Kingstone has seemingly since made his peace with the Cooks despite them being allegedly so corrupt.
It seems this man is apparently the golden boy in his local area, despite having many times taken credit for things he has had no involvement in. Or coming up with bizzare ideas that there is a rule that Councillors cannot deal with residents enquiries from other areas and stating this as fact. Depsite their being no such rule. People lap it up.
So now we can look forward to 10 posts of Richard telling you how you should vote in each ward, because apparently you’re too stupid to think for yourselves and should absolutely rely on the words of a former bitter Councillor with his own agenda.
It seems his ideas will revolve around tactical voting. Will this work? Well let’s see.
Tactical voting is the practice of voting for a candidate or party that is not your first choice, but rather one that is more likely to defeat another candidate or party that you oppose. The effectiveness of tactical voting can depend on a number of factors, including the electoral system in use, the specific candidates or parties involved, and the level of support for each candidate or party.
In some electoral systems, such as first-past-the-post, tactical voting can be effective in preventing the election of a candidate or party that is strongly opposed by a majority of voters. For example, if two candidates with similar views are running and splitting the vote, a third candidate with different views might win with less than 50% of the vote. In this case, tactical voting by supporters of the two similar candidates to consolidate their votes behind one of them could prevent the third candidate from winning.
However, tactical voting can also have unintended consequences, such as empowering a candidate or party that is only marginally preferred over another. Additionally, tactical voting may not be effective in some electoral systems, such as proportional representation, where the number of seats won by each party is directly proportional to the number of votes received.
Ultimately, the effectiveness of tactical voting depends on a complex interplay of factors, and there is no universal answer as to whether it “works” or not. It is up to individual voters to assess the specific circumstances of their election and decide whether tactical voting is a viable strategy for achieving their desired outcome.
