Tactical voting: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(Condorcet strategy result: added methods of each category.) |
m (Fixed empty infobox error) |
||
| Line 135: | Line 135: | ||
== Definitions == |
== Definitions == |
||
{{ |
{{see also|Bullet voting}} |
||
}} |
|||
'''Frontrunner/viable candidate''': A candidate expected to have a significant chance of winning. |
'''Frontrunner/viable candidate''': A candidate expected to have a significant chance of winning. |
||
| Line 162: | Line 161: | ||
=== Voting for the lesser of two evils === |
=== Voting for the lesser of two evils === |
||
{{ |
{{see also|Lesser of two evils}} |
||
}} |
|||
Much voting strategy revolves around a voter deciding whether to back one of the frontrunners or not; this often reduces further to deciding which of 2 frontrunners to back, which results in essentially a [[head-to-head matchup]] between the two. This is often referred to as deciding whether to "vote for the lesser of two evils or waste your vote". One of the goals of voting reform is to allow voters to be able to be as sincere as possible in expressing their preference for nonviable candidates. |
Much voting strategy revolves around a voter deciding whether to back one of the frontrunners or not; this often reduces further to deciding which of 2 frontrunners to back, which results in essentially a [[head-to-head matchup]] between the two. This is often referred to as deciding whether to "vote for the lesser of two evils or waste your vote". One of the goals of voting reform is to allow voters to be able to be as sincere as possible in expressing their preference for nonviable candidates. |
||