good if applied nation-wide. For similar reasons parties resist suggestions to
refrain from nominating candidates in constituencies where they have no
chance of winning, thereby perhaps aiding the chances of another party
defeating the incumbent candidate, because of the symbolic defeatist message
this would convey to party workers and supporters. Centre parties, such as the
Liberal Democrats, which are most often going to be in the position of
benefiting from tactical voting are also particularly at risk: they cannot let
their own voters act tactically precisely because they need to maximize their
total vote to show potential supporters that a vote for them would not be
wasted. The British general elections of 1997 and 2001, however, certainly saw
an increase in the impact of tactical voting, as an the number of voters
determined to deprive the Conservatives of parliamentary seats increased,
the principal benificiaries being the Liberal Democrats (seeLiberal Party).
There are some electoral systems where tactical voting certainly exists, and
has a strong impact. Typical is the French case where elections are often held in
two stages. In presidential elections only two candidates may proceed from the
first to thesecond ballot, and in National Assembly elections only those with
more than 12.5% of the votes in the first round may proceed (in practice
candidates with more votes than this often withdraw, acknowledging that they
cannot win). The unsuccessful candidates from the first round may then urge
their supporters to vote for the candidate among those who remain that they
most favour. Although this sometimes rebounds and their voters go elsewhere,
it allows for tactical alliances either at the constituency level or nation-wide
which can have a profound electoral impact. Tactical voting is mainly restricted
to simple plurality systems, because it has no obvious analogue in an effective
proportional representationsystem. There are halfway houses, however,
the he obvious case being Germany where voters cast two votes, one for a party
list in an overall national count, and one for a single member in plurality-
counted constituencies. Casting both votes for the same party is only one
option a voter may exercise to maximize his interests.
Taliban
The Taliban were, from the mid-1990s until late 2001, the ruling force in
Afghanistan, having defeated theMujahidinwarriors who had fought Soviet
occupation, although at no time did they succeed in controlling all of the
country. Although their power in the parts of Afghanistan they control was
absolute, by no means all the population, or even a large majority, were
necessarily strong supporters. Relatively few people were actually members
of the movement, which saw itself as a religious, military and revolutionary
e ́lite. The Taliban’s members were also ethnically distinct from many Afghans,
being mostly Pashtuns, from Kandahar in the south, observing the Sunni
Taliban