To only vote for dominant parties, such as Labour or Conservative, makes democracy suffer from ‘tunnel vision’. Even though it may feel that voting for a minor party, such as the Green Party, is throwing away a vote, one should always vote for one’s preferred party. Whether one votes because of the universal agreement that one ought to, namely Rule Utilitarian theory, or whether one votes as a way to confirm one’s political sentiments, namely Expressive theory, the moral obligation to vote is widespread and strongly held. It follows that one should vote for their preferred party, even if they have no realistic chance of winning. Otherwise, this would be an insincere expression of our values. Moreover, if everyone voted in this way then third parties would have a better chance of gaining long-term support, even if short-term success does not occur. One can be a constitutive part of a cause of some outcome without one’s action making a critical difference to the overall outcome. And so, people have moral responsibility to contribute to their preferred party. One vote may have little effect and feel pointless, however if only dominant parties were considered then *true* democracy suffers.

**TL;DR Tactical voting is better than always voting for your preferred political party as it is more effective in creating the political change that you want to see. By using your vote as a stand against the party that you do not want in power (rather than voting for your preferred party) your vote makes more of a change in the ‘first-past-the-post’ voting system, which is largely unrepresentative of the widespread votes of individuals and is only concerned with geographic majorities.** I find that tactical voting is better for creating actual political change than for voting for your preferred party. Although this method may have its issues in the fact that you might not be voting for the party that you are most passionate about, you are more likely to make change in electing one of the major political parties into power over another main political party that you might not agree with. In swing counties/states tactical voting is particularly effective. For example, in the UK's 2019 election, 49% of tactical voters said they would vote for a party which was not their first choice in the hope of stopping a party whose views they opposed. [1] This created some positive outcomes in the 'make or break' counties, where voters supported another candidate more strongly than their sincere preference in order to prevent an undesirable outcome. The *Best of Britain* site claims that tactical voting, in the case where people who did not want the Conservatives in power voted for Labour (regardless of whether Labour was their preferred party in the first place), caused Labour to win at least six new seats that would have likely gone to the Conservative party. [2] Tactical voting clearly has its benefits in creating change in the first-past-the-post voting system, which has its flaws in ensuring that every vote has equal importance. [3] Despite the issues of tactical voting, as the individual might not be voting for the party they truly want to get into power, the benefits of having an increased likelihood of creating strong political change outweighs this. The tunnel vision of politics does not look like it is going to go away anytime soon, and in the meantime voting strategically might be the best bet to create the political change you want to see. Instead of voting for you party you want in power, tactical voting still allows you to vote against the party that you do not want in power effectively. [1] ‘Who’s tactically voting, and why?’, (https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/10/whos-tactically-voting-and-why) [2] ‘Tactical Voting Impact on the 2019 UK General Election’, (https://www.bestforbritain.org/2019electionimpact) [3] ‘First-past-the-post voting’, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#:~:text=Members%20of%20Congress%20are%20elected,win%20no%20representation%20at%20all.)