Tactical voting: Difference between revisions
→Notes
(→Notes) |
|||
Line 110:
== Notes ==
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.
It's important to differentiate between ''coordinated'' strategy, and ''uncoordinated'' strategy, as well as informed strategy vs. uninformed strategy. For example, [[Approval voting]] and [[Score voting]] guarantee that at least half of the voters can force their preferred candidates to tie or win, and force their dispreferred candidates to tie or lose. However, this crucially hinges on these half of the voters of voters knowing a) that they all prefer those candidates, and b) that they all plan to use the strategy. Otherwise, those who attempt the strategy may either fail to support all of the candidates supported by the group of voters, resulting in the strategy not always working, or they may do it while not everyone else in the group does, which potentially weakens their own vote's ability to influence who wins among the candidates not maximally preferred by that half of the voters. So strategy comes in difficulty levels of execution.
| |||