(I upvoted your comment because it was an original contribution made in the spirit of curiosity, even though I doubt its suggestions.)
In my experience watching people comment on political strategies that bring terms like āhackingā to mind, most donāt see it as especially ācoolā.
Iāve seen people react skeptically even to ideas like āvote pairingā, which is used to get around the oft-derided kludge of the U.S. electoral college and doesnāt necessarily harm any particular party or interest. Voting in the leadership election if one isnāt an active Labour supporter seems like an effort to dilute the values of active Labour supporters, which I donāt see as very appealing toā¦ active Labour supporters.
I agree with Haydn that this seems like a reasonable thing to do if you actively want Labour to have more influence and you think the cost is worth it (though I donāt have an opinion on the cost/ābenefit model in the post), but Iām with Greg on this not seeming very ethical if you arenāt a āsincere supporterā.
(I upvoted your comment because it was an original contribution made in the spirit of curiosity, even though I doubt its suggestions.)
In my experience watching people comment on political strategies that bring terms like āhackingā to mind, most donāt see it as especially ācoolā.
Iāve seen people react skeptically even to ideas like āvote pairingā, which is used to get around the oft-derided kludge of the U.S. electoral college and doesnāt necessarily harm any particular party or interest. Voting in the leadership election if one isnāt an active Labour supporter seems like an effort to dilute the values of active Labour supporters, which I donāt see as very appealing toā¦ active Labour supporters.
I agree with Haydn that this seems like a reasonable thing to do if you actively want Labour to have more influence and you think the cost is worth it (though I donāt have an opinion on the cost/ābenefit model in the post), but Iām with Greg on this not seeming very ethical if you arenāt a āsincere supporterā.