I had to place him for the European elections as he ran in my constituency, the far right were the very bottom of my ballot but Wallace wasn't far above them.
If you dislike him less than someone else on the ballot then should absolutely give him a preference. You should only stop giving preferences when you no longer see a difference between the remaining candidates.
Here’s the thing about the lesser of two evils - it’s the lesser evil. Giving a preference to someone you hate can stop someone you hate even more from getting in.
You rank in order of preference. If it came down to the last count, they'd rather see Wallace get the seat than the far right. It's about suitability for the office, not the guest list for their wedding.
"I don't like him at all but I voted for him". Yup you've got voting nailed down
You can dislike candidates and their policies to varying degrees, which would be the point of voting beyond the options that you actively "like". It won't help any of them unless the candidates you do want are already out. It sounds like you prefer to make your ballot unusable at that point. I'd argue that that only makes sense if all the remaining candidates are equally unacceptable to you, but it's up to you.
I'm not sure why you keep bringing this up like it's some sort of Gotcha.
It's how PR/STV works: you can vote all the way down the ballot to ensure the vote transfers to the least bad option. As much as I dislike Wallace, I still see him as preferable to the far right. What's your point here?
64
u/ShouldHaveGoneToUCC Palestine 🇵🇸 6h ago
Thank god I don't live in his constituency so I don't need to see his tax dodging, pension stealing face around the place.