What is it called when someone votes for an option that's not their first choice?Why isn't a Condorcet method used?Voting strategy when you can vote for multiple candidates?What is the term for the idea that everyone should vote according to their own best interests?What can UK citizens do to replace first past the post with a proportional representation voting system?
Why can't the Brexit deadlock in the UK parliament be solved with a plurality vote?
Which was the first story featuring espers?
The IT department bottlenecks progress, how should I handle this?
When were female captains banned from Starfleet?
Why should universal income be universal?
Birthday Problem Paraphrased
What is the duration of the spell Creation when used to create non-precious metals?
What is the English pronunciation of "pain au chocolat"?
What are these little yellow boxes at German pedestrian crossings?
How can ping know if my host is down
What is the difference between lands and mana?
risk of flooding in petra in november
Can I say "fingers" when referring to toes?
Why does a simple loop result in ASYNC_NETWORK_IO waits?
Does Doodling or Improvising on the Piano Have Any Benefits?
Is it allowed to activate the ability of multiple planeswalkers in a single turn?
Refactor a hash table solution to twoSum
Mimic lecturing on blackboard, facing audience
"It doesn't matter" or "it won't matter"?
What (the heck) is a Super Worm Equinox Moon?
What is going on with gets(stdin) on the site coderbyte?
How would you translate "more" for use as an interface button?
Pre-mixing cryogenic fuels and using only one fuel tank
How to explain what's wrong with this application of the chain rule?
What is it called when someone votes for an option that's not their first choice?
Why isn't a Condorcet method used?Voting strategy when you can vote for multiple candidates?What is the term for the idea that everyone should vote according to their own best interests?What can UK citizens do to replace first past the post with a proportional representation voting system?
Say we have three candidates: A, B, and C.
Say, a voter wants to vote for C. However, he knows that C can’t win and hence choose A instead.
Hence, in a sense, the voter is “dishonest”. He doesn’t pick his most preferred candidate but strategically chooses the preferred outcome.
What would be the term for that?
I looked for voters dishonesty on Google and couldn’t find it.
voting-systems terminology
edited Mar 18 at 13:33
Nat
1,6061621
asked Mar 17 at 7:46
user4951user4951
1,40221224
|
show 3 more comments
Say we have three candidates: A, B, and C.
Say, a voter wants to vote for C. However, he knows that C can’t win and hence choose A instead.
Hence, in a sense, the voter is “dishonest”. He doesn’t pick his most preferred candidate but strategically chooses the preferred outcome.
What would be the term for that?
I looked for voters dishonesty on Google and couldn’t find it.
voting-systems terminology
edited Mar 18 at 13:33
Nat
1,6061621
asked Mar 17 at 7:46
user4951user4951
1,40221224
1
It depends on the voting system. Where I live we have preferential voting. If my preferred candidate gets too few votes to progress, my second choice is promoted and so on until only two candidates remain. The one with the majority of the preferential votes is elected. I don't like any of the candidates and I know in advance which two will be the final two. So I put them last, knowing my vote will still reach one of them. This is a form of protest vote. I know my first eight preferences won't count, only numbers nine and ten. In this system it is not dishonest behaviour.
– CJ Dennis
Mar 19 at 2:41
1
There are a lot of comments and answers about tactical voting but there's another issue that you might want to consider. In the US where there are primary votes to determine which two candidates will go forward there is a possibility that I would consider fittingly labelled dishonest which hopefully is not widespread. A voter who fully supports party A and will vote for party A in the main election registers (if necessary) as a member of party B and in the primary votes for the candidate they think will lose to the party A candidate.
– Eric Nolan
Mar 19 at 10:50
1
"I looked for voters dishonesty on Google and couldn’t find it." It's simple strategic voting, isn't it. Nothing really dishonest about it.
– Trilarion
2 days ago
3
Dishonest voting would be fraudulent, such as voting in an election you're not entitled to vote in, or voting for another person. Simply picking a candidate based on criteria other people might not agree with is not and cannot be dishonest.
– barbecue
2 days ago
1
Calling that dishonest would even be a somewhat evil since it puts the blame on the voter while it's often the voting system that practically forces voters to do that: in many of them your vote is simply lost if you vote for an unlikely candidate.
– Hans-Peter Störr
6 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
Say we have three candidates: A, B, and C.
Say, a voter wants to vote for C. However, he knows that C can’t win and hence choose A instead.
Hence, in a sense, the voter is “dishonest”. He doesn’t pick his most preferred candidate but strategically chooses the preferred outcome.
What would be the term for that?
I looked for voters dishonesty on Google and couldn’t find it.
voting-systems terminology
edited Mar 18 at 13:33
Nat
1,6061621
asked Mar 17 at 7:46
user4951user4951
1,40221224
Say we have three candidates: A, B, and C.
Say, a voter wants to vote for C. However, he knows that C can’t win and hence choose A instead.
Hence, in a sense, the voter is “dishonest”. He doesn’t pick his most preferred candidate but strategically chooses the preferred outcome.
What would be the term for that?
I looked for voters dishonesty on Google and couldn’t find it.
voting-systems terminology
voting-systems terminology
edited Mar 18 at 13:33
Nat
1,6061621
asked Mar 17 at 7:46
user4951user4951
1,40221224
edited Mar 18 at 13:33
Nat
1,6061621
asked Mar 17 at 7:46
user4951user4951
1,40221224
edited Mar 18 at 13:33
Nat
1,6061621
edited Mar 18 at 13:33
Nat
1,6061621
edited Mar 18 at 13:33
Nat
1,6061621
1,6061621
asked Mar 17 at 7:46
user4951user4951
1,40221224
asked Mar 17 at 7:46
user4951user4951
1,40221224
asked Mar 17 at 7:46
user4951user4951
1,40221224
1,40221224
1
It depends on the voting system. Where I live we have preferential voting. If my preferred candidate gets too few votes to progress, my second choice is promoted and so on until only two candidates remain. The one with the majority of the preferential votes is elected. I don't like any of the candidates and I know in advance which two will be the final two. So I put them last, knowing my vote will still reach one of them. This is a form of protest vote. I know my first eight preferences won't count, only numbers nine and ten. In this system it is not dishonest behaviour.
– CJ Dennis
Mar 19 at 2:41
1
There are a lot of comments and answers about tactical voting but there's another issue that you might want to consider. In the US where there are primary votes to determine which two candidates will go forward there is a possibility that I would consider fittingly labelled dishonest which hopefully is not widespread. A voter who fully supports party A and will vote for party A in the main election registers (if necessary) as a member of party B and in the primary votes for the candidate they think will lose to the party A candidate.
– Eric Nolan
Mar 19 at 10:50
1
"I looked for voters dishonesty on Google and couldn’t find it." It's simple strategic voting, isn't it. Nothing really dishonest about it.
– Trilarion
2 days ago
3
Dishonest voting would be fraudulent, such as voting in an election you're not entitled to vote in, or voting for another person. Simply picking a candidate based on criteria other people might not agree with is not and cannot be dishonest.
– barbecue
2 days ago
1
Calling that dishonest would even be a somewhat evil since it puts the blame on the voter while it's often the voting system that practically forces voters to do that: in many of them your vote is simply lost if you vote for an unlikely candidate.
– Hans-Peter Störr
6 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
1
It depends on the voting system. Where I live we have preferential voting. If my preferred candidate gets too few votes to progress, my second choice is promoted and so on until only two candidates remain. The one with the majority of the preferential votes is elected. I don't like any of the candidates and I know in advance which two will be the final two. So I put them last, knowing my vote will still reach one of them. This is a form of protest vote. I know my first eight preferences won't count, only numbers nine and ten. In this system it is not dishonest behaviour.
– CJ Dennis
Mar 19 at 2:41
1
There are a lot of comments and answers about tactical voting but there's another issue that you might want to consider. In the US where there are primary votes to determine which two candidates will go forward there is a possibility that I would consider fittingly labelled dishonest which hopefully is not widespread. A voter who fully supports party A and will vote for party A in the main election registers (if necessary) as a member of party B and in the primary votes for the candidate they think will lose to the party A candidate.
– Eric Nolan
Mar 19 at 10:50
1
"I looked for voters dishonesty on Google and couldn’t find it." It's simple strategic voting, isn't it. Nothing really dishonest about it.
– Trilarion
2 days ago
3
Dishonest voting would be fraudulent, such as voting in an election you're not entitled to vote in, or voting for another person. Simply picking a candidate based on criteria other people might not agree with is not and cannot be dishonest.
– barbecue
2 days ago
1
Calling that dishonest would even be a somewhat evil since it puts the blame on the voter while it's often the voting system that practically forces voters to do that: in many of them your vote is simply lost if you vote for an unlikely candidate.
– Hans-Peter Störr
6 hours ago
1
1
It depends on the voting system. Where I live we have preferential voting. If my preferred candidate gets too few votes to progress, my second choice is promoted and so on until only two candidates remain. The one with the majority of the preferential votes is elected. I don't like any of the candidates and I know in advance which two will be the final two. So I put them last, knowing my vote will still reach one of them. This is a form of protest vote. I know my first eight preferences won't count, only numbers nine and ten. In this system it is not dishonest behaviour.
– CJ Dennis
Mar 19 at 2:41
It depends on the voting system. Where I live we have preferential voting. If my preferred candidate gets too few votes to progress, my second choice is promoted and so on until only two candidates remain. The one with the majority of the preferential votes is elected. I don't like any of the candidates and I know in advance which two will be the final two. So I put them last, knowing my vote will still reach one of them. This is a form of protest vote. I know my first eight preferences won't count, only numbers nine and ten. In this system it is not dishonest behaviour.
– CJ Dennis
Mar 19 at 2:41
1
1
There are a lot of comments and answers about tactical voting but there's another issue that you might want to consider. In the US where there are primary votes to determine which two candidates will go forward there is a possibility that I would consider fittingly labelled dishonest which hopefully is not widespread. A voter who fully supports party A and will vote for party A in the main election registers (if necessary) as a member of party B and in the primary votes for the candidate they think will lose to the party A candidate.
– Eric Nolan
Mar 19 at 10:50
There are a lot of comments and answers about tactical voting but there's another issue that you might want to consider. In the US where there are primary votes to determine which two candidates will go forward there is a possibility that I would consider fittingly labelled dishonest which hopefully is not widespread. A voter who fully supports party A and will vote for party A in the main election registers (if necessary) as a member of party B and in the primary votes for the candidate they think will lose to the party A candidate.
– Eric Nolan
Mar 19 at 10:50
1
1
"I looked for voters dishonesty on Google and couldn’t find it." It's simple strategic voting, isn't it. Nothing really dishonest about it.
– Trilarion
2 days ago
"I looked for voters dishonesty on Google and couldn’t find it." It's simple strategic voting, isn't it. Nothing really dishonest about it.
– Trilarion
2 days ago
3
3
Dishonest voting would be fraudulent, such as voting in an election you're not entitled to vote in, or voting for another person. Simply picking a candidate based on criteria other people might not agree with is not and cannot be dishonest.
– barbecue
2 days ago
Dishonest voting would be fraudulent, such as voting in an election you're not entitled to vote in, or voting for another person. Simply picking a candidate based on criteria other people might not agree with is not and cannot be dishonest.
– barbecue
2 days ago
1
1
Calling that dishonest would even be a somewhat evil since it puts the blame on the voter while it's often the voting system that practically forces voters to do that: in many of them your vote is simply lost if you vote for an unlikely candidate.
– Hans-Peter Störr
6 hours ago
Calling that dishonest would even be a somewhat evil since it puts the blame on the voter while it's often the voting system that practically forces voters to do that: in many of them your vote is simply lost if you vote for an unlikely candidate.
– Hans-Peter Störr
6 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
It’s called tactical voting.
From Wikipedia:
In voting methods, tactical voting (or strategic voting or sophisticated voting or insincere voting) occurs, in elections with more than two candidates, when a voter supports another candidate more strongly than their sincere preference in order to prevent an undesirable outcome.
edited Mar 17 at 16:45
WELZ
2111213
answered Mar 17 at 7:57
Andrew GrimmAndrew Grimm
5,84842582
9
I like how it can be called tactical or strategic, considering the two are basically opposite ends of the spectrum.
– David Grinberg
Mar 18 at 1:50
27
@DavidGrinberg Well, "tactical" and "strategic" mean the same thing to most people. Most people aren't too good at distinguishing short-term and long-term planning, if they even do much planning in the first place.
– Luaan
Mar 18 at 10:22
24
@Luaan They are the same thing, varying only in connotation, subjective to the contextual level of abstraction. This is, all strategies are tactics (for achieving grander strategies), and all tactics are strategies (effected by more primitive tactics). Whether this type of voting is tactical or strategic depends on if you see it as a specific action done to effect a strategy, or if you see it as the strategy itself for achieving some goal. This may matter in context, or either may fit.
– Nat
Mar 18 at 15:51
4
"Well, tactical and strategic mean the same thing to most people." Sadly true, but in general shouldn't we follow the commonly agreed upon terms when it comes to topics like stratetic bombing or tactical advantage? It is the people who are wrong ;)
– NikoNyrh
Mar 18 at 21:54
3
all tactical bombing is strategic bombing. All tactical advantage is strategic advantage. Again tactics are just small scale strategies. In programming, all functions call another subroutines that call another subroutines. They are all subroutines
– user4951
Mar 19 at 7:50
|
show 3 more comments
As Andrew Grimm correctly pointed out it is tactical voting you are looking for. However, I would avoid harsh terms such as dishonest since Wikipedia also mentioned that:
It has been shown by the Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem that any
single-winner ranked voting method which is not dictatorial must be
susceptible to tactical voting
More details are provided by the dedicated Wikipedia page:
(..) with deterministic ordinal electoral systems that choose a single
winner. It states that for every voting rule, one of the following
three things must hold:
- The rule is dictatorial, i.e. there exists a distinguished voter who can choose the winner; or
- The rule limits the possible outcomes to two alternatives only; or
- The rule is susceptible to tactical voting: in certain conditions some voter's sincere ballot may not defend their opinion best.
edited Mar 17 at 9:40
Wrzlprmft
264112
answered Mar 17 at 8:04
AlexeiAlexei
17.4k2297176
13
@BlueRaja-DannyPflughoeft Two-round systems certainly are susceptible to tactical voting. See French presidential elections, where the left has so many different parties that two right-wing candidates (far-right and centre-right) make it to the second round. So in the first round, people may tactically support the leftist candidate most likely to reach the second round, even if they support another leftist candidate.
– gerrit
Mar 18 at 9:37
9
@BlueRaja-DannyPflughoeft Two-round systems are even worse. People may vote for a candidate they really dislike, and not only for a lesser evil. To take the example of French presidential elections people may vote e.g. for a far left candidate in the first round, hoping to ensure a victory for the candidate they support by having an "easier opponent" in the second round. Similarly people might vote for a bad candidate in open primaries in the US (I believe there were some such accusations last time). Obviously this tactic might backfire spectacularly.
– Hans Olsson
Mar 18 at 12:44
8
@BlueRaja-DannyPflughoeft Two-round systems are even worse than FPTP because they mislead people into thinking it's safe to vote honestly for your favorite in the first round, which then suffers terribly from vote-splitting and leads to unrepresentative outcomes. Having a runoff does guarantee that the worst candidate won't be elected, but that doesn't mean much, since they can still elect the second-worst candidate.
– endolith
Mar 18 at 15:05
8
I'd add that, at least to some ethicists, non-tactical voting is immoral: “The purpose of voting is not to express your fidelity to a worldview. It’s not to wave a flag or paint your face in team colors; it’s to produce outcomes,”
– TemporalWolf
Mar 18 at 17:30
2
Full preferential voting is by far the best choice. Each round eliminating the least popular candidate until only one remains. This way people get their "best choice" candidate at every stage. The French election problem wouldn't have happened with full preferential voting, because presumably the small number of votes for each left wing candidate would eventually have rolled up into a large number of votes or one or two left wing candidates.
– Stephen
Mar 19 at 1:24
|
show 5 more comments
Also referred to as insincere or strategic voting.
answered Mar 17 at 20:49
merrymerry
271
New contributor
merry is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
In a game theory context, this is kingmaking. The player's goal is to elect C, but once the player starts to lose, the voter influences the outcome of the game (in this case the election).
This is a common problem with three-player and beyond games. For example, if I were playing UNO and I was losing badly (I had maybe half the deck in my hand), I could start to always change the color to, say, red.
The problem arises when players' ability to influence the game does not vary directly with their distance from their goals. In some games, the closer you are to losing, the less ability to affect the eventual winner you have, like Monopoly (which has a whole host of other problems of its own, but we'll ignore that).
Another example would be in many kinds of online games, where you might realise your character doesn't have enough time left to reach some checkpoint, so you go try to knock other characters around and prevent them from reaching the checkpoint.
answered Mar 18 at 2:42
user45266user45266
1173
New contributor
user45266 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
3
I'd only call it kingmaking if the votes that would have gone to C actually decide the election. If C-voters all vote for A, and A still loses, they haven't done any kingmaking, likewise if A wins and would have won without the C votes. I don't follow your Uno example of kingmaking, as you're not making any decision about which other player you'd like to win (unless you know that someone's last card is not red).
– Nuclear Wang
Mar 18 at 12:57
@NuclearWang Actually, I meant if maybe you knew that someone's last card was red.
– user45266
Mar 18 at 15:01
@NuclearWang An attempt at kingmaking is still kingmaking (it describes the activity, not the outcome).
– Polygnome
Mar 18 at 22:18
It's not really kingmaking if the voter has a second choice. To say voting for your second choice is kingmaking is a contradiction in terms.
– djechlin
Mar 19 at 0:48
add a comment |
Dishonesty isn't really the best term. More like 'choosing the lesser of two evils'.
It happens all the time. No candidate is likely to meet all of an individual's criteria, so they choose the one that meets the most.
On the other hand, if more people would choose candidate C, they might win. Or, they might draw enough attention to mount a serious challenge in the next election.
answered Mar 18 at 9:31
tj1000tj1000
7,122627
5
This is an opinion, and does not answer the question.
– MSalters
Mar 18 at 16:54
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of_two_evils_principle
– Alexan
Mar 18 at 18:31
add a comment |
protected by Philipp♦ Mar 18 at 15:36
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
It’s called tactical voting.
From Wikipedia:
In voting methods, tactical voting (or strategic voting or sophisticated voting or insincere voting) occurs, in elections with more than two candidates, when a voter supports another candidate more strongly than their sincere preference in order to prevent an undesirable outcome.
edited Mar 17 at 16:45
WELZ
2111213
answered Mar 17 at 7:57
Andrew GrimmAndrew Grimm
5,84842582
9
I like how it can be called tactical or strategic, considering the two are basically opposite ends of the spectrum.
– David Grinberg
Mar 18 at 1:50
27
@DavidGrinberg Well, "tactical" and "strategic" mean the same thing to most people. Most people aren't too good at distinguishing short-term and long-term planning, if they even do much planning in the first place.
– Luaan
Mar 18 at 10:22
24
@Luaan They are the same thing, varying only in connotation, subjective to the contextual level of abstraction. This is, all strategies are tactics (for achieving grander strategies), and all tactics are strategies (effected by more primitive tactics). Whether this type of voting is tactical or strategic depends on if you see it as a specific action done to effect a strategy, or if you see it as the strategy itself for achieving some goal. This may matter in context, or either may fit.
– Nat
Mar 18 at 15:51
4
"Well, tactical and strategic mean the same thing to most people." Sadly true, but in general shouldn't we follow the commonly agreed upon terms when it comes to topics like stratetic bombing or tactical advantage? It is the people who are wrong ;)
– NikoNyrh
Mar 18 at 21:54
3
all tactical bombing is strategic bombing. All tactical advantage is strategic advantage. Again tactics are just small scale strategies. In programming, all functions call another subroutines that call another subroutines. They are all subroutines
– user4951
Mar 19 at 7:50
|
show 3 more comments
It’s called tactical voting.
From Wikipedia:
In voting methods, tactical voting (or strategic voting or sophisticated voting or insincere voting) occurs, in elections with more than two candidates, when a voter supports another candidate more strongly than their sincere preference in order to prevent an undesirable outcome.
edited Mar 17 at 16:45
WELZ
2111213
answered Mar 17 at 7:57
Andrew GrimmAndrew Grimm
5,84842582
9
I like how it can be called tactical or strategic, considering the two are basically opposite ends of the spectrum.
– David Grinberg
Mar 18 at 1:50
27
@DavidGrinberg Well, "tactical" and "strategic" mean the same thing to most people. Most people aren't too good at distinguishing short-term and long-term planning, if they even do much planning in the first place.
– Luaan
Mar 18 at 10:22
24
@Luaan They are the same thing, varying only in connotation, subjective to the contextual level of abstraction. This is, all strategies are tactics (for achieving grander strategies), and all tactics are strategies (effected by more primitive tactics). Whether this type of voting is tactical or strategic depends on if you see it as a specific action done to effect a strategy, or if you see it as the strategy itself for achieving some goal. This may matter in context, or either may fit.
– Nat
Mar 18 at 15:51
4
"Well, tactical and strategic mean the same thing to most people." Sadly true, but in general shouldn't we follow the commonly agreed upon terms when it comes to topics like stratetic bombing or tactical advantage? It is the people who are wrong ;)
– NikoNyrh
Mar 18 at 21:54
3
all tactical bombing is strategic bombing. All tactical advantage is strategic advantage. Again tactics are just small scale strategies. In programming, all functions call another subroutines that call another subroutines. They are all subroutines
– user4951
Mar 19 at 7:50
|
show 3 more comments
It’s called tactical voting.
From Wikipedia:
In voting methods, tactical voting (or strategic voting or sophisticated voting or insincere voting) occurs, in elections with more than two candidates, when a voter supports another candidate more strongly than their sincere preference in order to prevent an undesirable outcome.
edited Mar 17 at 16:45
WELZ
2111213
answered Mar 17 at 7:57
Andrew GrimmAndrew Grimm
5,84842582
It’s called tactical voting.
From Wikipedia:
In voting methods, tactical voting (or strategic voting or sophisticated voting or insincere voting) occurs, in elections with more than two candidates, when a voter supports another candidate more strongly than their sincere preference in order to prevent an undesirable outcome.
edited Mar 17 at 16:45
WELZ
2111213
answered Mar 17 at 7:57
Andrew GrimmAndrew Grimm
5,84842582
edited Mar 17 at 16:45
WELZ
2111213
edited Mar 17 at 16:45
WELZ
2111213
edited Mar 17 at 16:45
WELZ
2111213
2111213
answered Mar 17 at 7:57
Andrew GrimmAndrew Grimm
5,84842582
answered Mar 17 at 7:57
Andrew GrimmAndrew Grimm
5,84842582
answered Mar 17 at 7:57
Andrew GrimmAndrew Grimm
5,84842582
5,84842582
9
I like how it can be called tactical or strategic, considering the two are basically opposite ends of the spectrum.
– David Grinberg
Mar 18 at 1:50
27
@DavidGrinberg Well, "tactical" and "strategic" mean the same thing to most people. Most people aren't too good at distinguishing short-term and long-term planning, if they even do much planning in the first place.
– Luaan
Mar 18 at 10:22
24
@Luaan They are the same thing, varying only in connotation, subjective to the contextual level of abstraction. This is, all strategies are tactics (for achieving grander strategies), and all tactics are strategies (effected by more primitive tactics). Whether this type of voting is tactical or strategic depends on if you see it as a specific action done to effect a strategy, or if you see it as the strategy itself for achieving some goal. This may matter in context, or either may fit.
– Nat
Mar 18 at 15:51
4
"Well, tactical and strategic mean the same thing to most people." Sadly true, but in general shouldn't we follow the commonly agreed upon terms when it comes to topics like stratetic bombing or tactical advantage? It is the people who are wrong ;)
– NikoNyrh
Mar 18 at 21:54
3
all tactical bombing is strategic bombing. All tactical advantage is strategic advantage. Again tactics are just small scale strategies. In programming, all functions call another subroutines that call another subroutines. They are all subroutines
– user4951
Mar 19 at 7:50
|
show 3 more comments
9
I like how it can be called tactical or strategic, considering the two are basically opposite ends of the spectrum.
– David Grinberg
Mar 18 at 1:50
27
@DavidGrinberg Well, "tactical" and "strategic" mean the same thing to most people. Most people aren't too good at distinguishing short-term and long-term planning, if they even do much planning in the first place.
– Luaan
Mar 18 at 10:22
24
@Luaan They are the same thing, varying only in connotation, subjective to the contextual level of abstraction. This is, all strategies are tactics (for achieving grander strategies), and all tactics are strategies (effected by more primitive tactics). Whether this type of voting is tactical or strategic depends on if you see it as a specific action done to effect a strategy, or if you see it as the strategy itself for achieving some goal. This may matter in context, or either may fit.
– Nat
Mar 18 at 15:51
4
"Well, tactical and strategic mean the same thing to most people." Sadly true, but in general shouldn't we follow the commonly agreed upon terms when it comes to topics like stratetic bombing or tactical advantage? It is the people who are wrong ;)
– NikoNyrh
Mar 18 at 21:54
3
all tactical bombing is strategic bombing. All tactical advantage is strategic advantage. Again tactics are just small scale strategies. In programming, all functions call another subroutines that call another subroutines. They are all subroutines
– user4951
Mar 19 at 7:50
9
9
I like how it can be called tactical or strategic, considering the two are basically opposite ends of the spectrum.
– David Grinberg
Mar 18 at 1:50
I like how it can be called tactical or strategic, considering the two are basically opposite ends of the spectrum.
– David Grinberg
Mar 18 at 1:50
27
27
@DavidGrinberg Well, "tactical" and "strategic" mean the same thing to most people. Most people aren't too good at distinguishing short-term and long-term planning, if they even do much planning in the first place.
– Luaan
Mar 18 at 10:22
@DavidGrinberg Well, "tactical" and "strategic" mean the same thing to most people. Most people aren't too good at distinguishing short-term and long-term planning, if they even do much planning in the first place.
– Luaan
Mar 18 at 10:22
24
24
@Luaan They are the same thing, varying only in connotation, subjective to the contextual level of abstraction. This is, all strategies are tactics (for achieving grander strategies), and all tactics are strategies (effected by more primitive tactics). Whether this type of voting is tactical or strategic depends on if you see it as a specific action done to effect a strategy, or if you see it as the strategy itself for achieving some goal. This may matter in context, or either may fit.
– Nat
Mar 18 at 15:51
@Luaan They are the same thing, varying only in connotation, subjective to the contextual level of abstraction. This is, all strategies are tactics (for achieving grander strategies), and all tactics are strategies (effected by more primitive tactics). Whether this type of voting is tactical or strategic depends on if you see it as a specific action done to effect a strategy, or if you see it as the strategy itself for achieving some goal. This may matter in context, or either may fit.
– Nat
Mar 18 at 15:51
4
4
"Well, tactical and strategic mean the same thing to most people." Sadly true, but in general shouldn't we follow the commonly agreed upon terms when it comes to topics like stratetic bombing or tactical advantage? It is the people who are wrong ;)
– NikoNyrh
Mar 18 at 21:54
"Well, tactical and strategic mean the same thing to most people." Sadly true, but in general shouldn't we follow the commonly agreed upon terms when it comes to topics like stratetic bombing or tactical advantage? It is the people who are wrong ;)
– NikoNyrh
Mar 18 at 21:54
3
3
all tactical bombing is strategic bombing. All tactical advantage is strategic advantage. Again tactics are just small scale strategies. In programming, all functions call another subroutines that call another subroutines. They are all subroutines
– user4951
Mar 19 at 7:50
all tactical bombing is strategic bombing. All tactical advantage is strategic advantage. Again tactics are just small scale strategies. In programming, all functions call another subroutines that call another subroutines. They are all subroutines
– user4951
Mar 19 at 7:50
|
show 3 more comments
As Andrew Grimm correctly pointed out it is tactical voting you are looking for. However, I would avoid harsh terms such as dishonest since Wikipedia also mentioned that:
It has been shown by the Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem that any
single-winner ranked voting method which is not dictatorial must be
susceptible to tactical voting
More details are provided by the dedicated Wikipedia page:
(..) with deterministic ordinal electoral systems that choose a single
winner. It states that for every voting rule, one of the following
three things must hold:
- The rule is dictatorial, i.e. there exists a distinguished voter who can choose the winner; or
- The rule limits the possible outcomes to two alternatives only; or
- The rule is susceptible to tactical voting: in certain conditions some voter's sincere ballot may not defend their opinion best.
edited Mar 17 at 9:40
Wrzlprmft
264112
answered Mar 17 at 8:04
AlexeiAlexei
17.4k2297176
13
@BlueRaja-DannyPflughoeft Two-round systems certainly are susceptible to tactical voting. See French presidential elections, where the left has so many different parties that two right-wing candidates (far-right and centre-right) make it to the second round. So in the first round, people may tactically support the leftist candidate most likely to reach the second round, even if they support another leftist candidate.
– gerrit
Mar 18 at 9:37
9
@BlueRaja-DannyPflughoeft Two-round systems are even worse. People may vote for a candidate they really dislike, and not only for a lesser evil. To take the example of French presidential elections people may vote e.g. for a far left candidate in the first round, hoping to ensure a victory for the candidate they support by having an "easier opponent" in the second round. Similarly people might vote for a bad candidate in open primaries in the US (I believe there were some such accusations last time). Obviously this tactic might backfire spectacularly.
– Hans Olsson
Mar 18 at 12:44
8
@BlueRaja-DannyPflughoeft Two-round systems are even worse than FPTP because they mislead people into thinking it's safe to vote honestly for your favorite in the first round, which then suffers terribly from vote-splitting and leads to unrepresentative outcomes. Having a runoff does guarantee that the worst candidate won't be elected, but that doesn't mean much, since they can still elect the second-worst candidate.
– endolith
Mar 18 at 15:05
8
I'd add that, at least to some ethicists, non-tactical voting is immoral: “The purpose of voting is not to express your fidelity to a worldview. It’s not to wave a flag or paint your face in team colors; it’s to produce outcomes,”
– TemporalWolf
Mar 18 at 17:30
2
Full preferential voting is by far the best choice. Each round eliminating the least popular candidate until only one remains. This way people get their "best choice" candidate at every stage. The French election problem wouldn't have happened with full preferential voting, because presumably the small number of votes for each left wing candidate would eventually have rolled up into a large number of votes or one or two left wing candidates.
– Stephen
Mar 19 at 1:24
|
show 5 more comments
As Andrew Grimm correctly pointed out it is tactical voting you are looking for. However, I would avoid harsh terms such as dishonest since Wikipedia also mentioned that:
It has been shown by the Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem that any
single-winner ranked voting method which is not dictatorial must be
susceptible to tactical voting
More details are provided by the dedicated Wikipedia page:
(..) with deterministic ordinal electoral systems that choose a single
winner. It states that for every voting rule, one of the following
three things must hold:
- The rule is dictatorial, i.e. there exists a distinguished voter who can choose the winner; or
- The rule limits the possible outcomes to two alternatives only; or
- The rule is susceptible to tactical voting: in certain conditions some voter's sincere ballot may not defend their opinion best.
edited Mar 17 at 9:40
Wrzlprmft
264112
answered Mar 17 at 8:04
AlexeiAlexei
17.4k2297176
13
@BlueRaja-DannyPflughoeft Two-round systems certainly are susceptible to tactical voting. See French presidential elections, where the left has so many different parties that two right-wing candidates (far-right and centre-right) make it to the second round. So in the first round, people may tactically support the leftist candidate most likely to reach the second round, even if they support another leftist candidate.
– gerrit
Mar 18 at 9:37
9
@BlueRaja-DannyPflughoeft Two-round systems are even worse. People may vote for a candidate they really dislike, and not only for a lesser evil. To take the example of French presidential elections people may vote e.g. for a far left candidate in the first round, hoping to ensure a victory for the candidate they support by having an "easier opponent" in the second round. Similarly people might vote for a bad candidate in open primaries in the US (I believe there were some such accusations last time). Obviously this tactic might backfire spectacularly.
– Hans Olsson
Mar 18 at 12:44
8
@BlueRaja-DannyPflughoeft Two-round systems are even worse than FPTP because they mislead people into thinking it's safe to vote honestly for your favorite in the first round, which then suffers terribly from vote-splitting and leads to unrepresentative outcomes. Having a runoff does guarantee that the worst candidate won't be elected, but that doesn't mean much, since they can still elect the second-worst candidate.
– endolith
Mar 18 at 15:05
8
I'd add that, at least to some ethicists, non-tactical voting is immoral: “The purpose of voting is not to express your fidelity to a worldview. It’s not to wave a flag or paint your face in team colors; it’s to produce outcomes,”
– TemporalWolf
Mar 18 at 17:30
2
Full preferential voting is by far the best choice. Each round eliminating the least popular candidate until only one remains. This way people get their "best choice" candidate at every stage. The French election problem wouldn't have happened with full preferential voting, because presumably the small number of votes for each left wing candidate would eventually have rolled up into a large number of votes or one or two left wing candidates.
– Stephen
Mar 19 at 1:24
|
show 5 more comments
As Andrew Grimm correctly pointed out it is tactical voting you are looking for. However, I would avoid harsh terms such as dishonest since Wikipedia also mentioned that:
It has been shown by the Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem that any
single-winner ranked voting method which is not dictatorial must be
susceptible to tactical voting
More details are provided by the dedicated Wikipedia page:
(..) with deterministic ordinal electoral systems that choose a single
winner. It states that for every voting rule, one of the following
three things must hold:
- The rule is dictatorial, i.e. there exists a distinguished voter who can choose the winner; or
- The rule limits the possible outcomes to two alternatives only; or
- The rule is susceptible to tactical voting: in certain conditions some voter's sincere ballot may not defend their opinion best.
edited Mar 17 at 9:40
Wrzlprmft
264112
answered Mar 17 at 8:04
AlexeiAlexei
17.4k2297176
As Andrew Grimm correctly pointed out it is tactical voting you are looking for. However, I would avoid harsh terms such as dishonest since Wikipedia also mentioned that:
It has been shown by the Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem that any
single-winner ranked voting method which is not dictatorial must be
susceptible to tactical voting
More details are provided by the dedicated Wikipedia page:
(..) with deterministic ordinal electoral systems that choose a single
winner. It states that for every voting rule, one of the following
three things must hold:
- The rule is dictatorial, i.e. there exists a distinguished voter who can choose the winner; or
- The rule limits the possible outcomes to two alternatives only; or
- The rule is susceptible to tactical voting: in certain conditions some voter's sincere ballot may not defend their opinion best.
edited Mar 17 at 9:40
Wrzlprmft
264112
answered Mar 17 at 8:04
AlexeiAlexei
17.4k2297176
edited Mar 17 at 9:40
Wrzlprmft
264112
edited Mar 17 at 9:40
Wrzlprmft
264112
edited Mar 17 at 9:40
Wrzlprmft
264112
264112
answered Mar 17 at 8:04
AlexeiAlexei
17.4k2297176
answered Mar 17 at 8:04
AlexeiAlexei
17.4k2297176
answered Mar 17 at 8:04
AlexeiAlexei
17.4k2297176
17.4k2297176
13
@BlueRaja-DannyPflughoeft Two-round systems certainly are susceptible to tactical voting. See French presidential elections, where the left has so many different parties that two right-wing candidates (far-right and centre-right) make it to the second round. So in the first round, people may tactically support the leftist candidate most likely to reach the second round, even if they support another leftist candidate.
– gerrit
Mar 18 at 9:37
9
@BlueRaja-DannyPflughoeft Two-round systems are even worse. People may vote for a candidate they really dislike, and not only for a lesser evil. To take the example of French presidential elections people may vote e.g. for a far left candidate in the first round, hoping to ensure a victory for the candidate they support by having an "easier opponent" in the second round. Similarly people might vote for a bad candidate in open primaries in the US (I believe there were some such accusations last time). Obviously this tactic might backfire spectacularly.
– Hans Olsson
Mar 18 at 12:44
8
@BlueRaja-DannyPflughoeft Two-round systems are even worse than FPTP because they mislead people into thinking it's safe to vote honestly for your favorite in the first round, which then suffers terribly from vote-splitting and leads to unrepresentative outcomes. Having a runoff does guarantee that the worst candidate won't be elected, but that doesn't mean much, since they can still elect the second-worst candidate.
– endolith
Mar 18 at 15:05
8
I'd add that, at least to some ethicists, non-tactical voting is immoral: “The purpose of voting is not to express your fidelity to a worldview. It’s not to wave a flag or paint your face in team colors; it’s to produce outcomes,”
– TemporalWolf
Mar 18 at 17:30
2
Full preferential voting is by far the best choice. Each round eliminating the least popular candidate until only one remains. This way people get their "best choice" candidate at every stage. The French election problem wouldn't have happened with full preferential voting, because presumably the small number of votes for each left wing candidate would eventually have rolled up into a large number of votes or one or two left wing candidates.
– Stephen
Mar 19 at 1:24
|
show 5 more comments
13
@BlueRaja-DannyPflughoeft Two-round systems certainly are susceptible to tactical voting. See French presidential elections, where the left has so many different parties that two right-wing candidates (far-right and centre-right) make it to the second round. So in the first round, people may tactically support the leftist candidate most likely to reach the second round, even if they support another leftist candidate.
– gerrit
Mar 18 at 9:37
9
@BlueRaja-DannyPflughoeft Two-round systems are even worse. People may vote for a candidate they really dislike, and not only for a lesser evil. To take the example of French presidential elections people may vote e.g. for a far left candidate in the first round, hoping to ensure a victory for the candidate they support by having an "easier opponent" in the second round. Similarly people might vote for a bad candidate in open primaries in the US (I believe there were some such accusations last time). Obviously this tactic might backfire spectacularly.
– Hans Olsson
Mar 18 at 12:44
8
@BlueRaja-DannyPflughoeft Two-round systems are even worse than FPTP because they mislead people into thinking it's safe to vote honestly for your favorite in the first round, which then suffers terribly from vote-splitting and leads to unrepresentative outcomes. Having a runoff does guarantee that the worst candidate won't be elected, but that doesn't mean much, since they can still elect the second-worst candidate.
– endolith
Mar 18 at 15:05
8
I'd add that, at least to some ethicists, non-tactical voting is immoral: “The purpose of voting is not to express your fidelity to a worldview. It’s not to wave a flag or paint your face in team colors; it’s to produce outcomes,”
– TemporalWolf
Mar 18 at 17:30
2
Full preferential voting is by far the best choice. Each round eliminating the least popular candidate until only one remains. This way people get their "best choice" candidate at every stage. The French election problem wouldn't have happened with full preferential voting, because presumably the small number of votes for each left wing candidate would eventually have rolled up into a large number of votes or one or two left wing candidates.
– Stephen
Mar 19 at 1:24
13
13
@BlueRaja-DannyPflughoeft Two-round systems certainly are susceptible to tactical voting. See French presidential elections, where the left has so many different parties that two right-wing candidates (far-right and centre-right) make it to the second round. So in the first round, people may tactically support the leftist candidate most likely to reach the second round, even if they support another leftist candidate.
– gerrit
Mar 18 at 9:37
@BlueRaja-DannyPflughoeft Two-round systems certainly are susceptible to tactical voting. See French presidential elections, where the left has so many different parties that two right-wing candidates (far-right and centre-right) make it to the second round. So in the first round, people may tactically support the leftist candidate most likely to reach the second round, even if they support another leftist candidate.
– gerrit
Mar 18 at 9:37
9
9
@BlueRaja-DannyPflughoeft Two-round systems are even worse. People may vote for a candidate they really dislike, and not only for a lesser evil. To take the example of French presidential elections people may vote e.g. for a far left candidate in the first round, hoping to ensure a victory for the candidate they support by having an "easier opponent" in the second round. Similarly people might vote for a bad candidate in open primaries in the US (I believe there were some such accusations last time). Obviously this tactic might backfire spectacularly.
– Hans Olsson
Mar 18 at 12:44
@BlueRaja-DannyPflughoeft Two-round systems are even worse. People may vote for a candidate they really dislike, and not only for a lesser evil. To take the example of French presidential elections people may vote e.g. for a far left candidate in the first round, hoping to ensure a victory for the candidate they support by having an "easier opponent" in the second round. Similarly people might vote for a bad candidate in open primaries in the US (I believe there were some such accusations last time). Obviously this tactic might backfire spectacularly.
– Hans Olsson
Mar 18 at 12:44
8
8
@BlueRaja-DannyPflughoeft Two-round systems are even worse than FPTP because they mislead people into thinking it's safe to vote honestly for your favorite in the first round, which then suffers terribly from vote-splitting and leads to unrepresentative outcomes. Having a runoff does guarantee that the worst candidate won't be elected, but that doesn't mean much, since they can still elect the second-worst candidate.
– endolith
Mar 18 at 15:05
@BlueRaja-DannyPflughoeft Two-round systems are even worse than FPTP because they mislead people into thinking it's safe to vote honestly for your favorite in the first round, which then suffers terribly from vote-splitting and leads to unrepresentative outcomes. Having a runoff does guarantee that the worst candidate won't be elected, but that doesn't mean much, since they can still elect the second-worst candidate.
– endolith
Mar 18 at 15:05
8
8
I'd add that, at least to some ethicists, non-tactical voting is immoral: “The purpose of voting is not to express your fidelity to a worldview. It’s not to wave a flag or paint your face in team colors; it’s to produce outcomes,”
– TemporalWolf
Mar 18 at 17:30
I'd add that, at least to some ethicists, non-tactical voting is immoral: “The purpose of voting is not to express your fidelity to a worldview. It’s not to wave a flag or paint your face in team colors; it’s to produce outcomes,”
– TemporalWolf
Mar 18 at 17:30
2
2
Full preferential voting is by far the best choice. Each round eliminating the least popular candidate until only one remains. This way people get their "best choice" candidate at every stage. The French election problem wouldn't have happened with full preferential voting, because presumably the small number of votes for each left wing candidate would eventually have rolled up into a large number of votes or one or two left wing candidates.
– Stephen
Mar 19 at 1:24
Full preferential voting is by far the best choice. Each round eliminating the least popular candidate until only one remains. This way people get their "best choice" candidate at every stage. The French election problem wouldn't have happened with full preferential voting, because presumably the small number of votes for each left wing candidate would eventually have rolled up into a large number of votes or one or two left wing candidates.
– Stephen
Mar 19 at 1:24
|
show 5 more comments
Also referred to as insincere or strategic voting.
answered Mar 17 at 20:49
merrymerry
271
New contributor
merry is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Also referred to as insincere or strategic voting.
answered Mar 17 at 20:49
merrymerry
271
New contributor
merry is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Also referred to as insincere or strategic voting.
answered Mar 17 at 20:49
merrymerry
271
New contributor
merry is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Also referred to as insincere or strategic voting.
answered Mar 17 at 20:49
merrymerry
271
New contributor
merry is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Mar 17 at 20:49
merrymerry
271
New contributor
merry is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Mar 17 at 20:49
merrymerry
271
answered Mar 17 at 20:49
merrymerry
271
271
New contributor
merry is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
merry is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
merry is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
In a game theory context, this is kingmaking. The player's goal is to elect C, but once the player starts to lose, the voter influences the outcome of the game (in this case the election).
This is a common problem with three-player and beyond games. For example, if I were playing UNO and I was losing badly (I had maybe half the deck in my hand), I could start to always change the color to, say, red.
The problem arises when players' ability to influence the game does not vary directly with their distance from their goals. In some games, the closer you are to losing, the less ability to affect the eventual winner you have, like Monopoly (which has a whole host of other problems of its own, but we'll ignore that).
Another example would be in many kinds of online games, where you might realise your character doesn't have enough time left to reach some checkpoint, so you go try to knock other characters around and prevent them from reaching the checkpoint.
answered Mar 18 at 2:42
user45266user45266
1173
New contributor
user45266 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
3
I'd only call it kingmaking if the votes that would have gone to C actually decide the election. If C-voters all vote for A, and A still loses, they haven't done any kingmaking, likewise if A wins and would have won without the C votes. I don't follow your Uno example of kingmaking, as you're not making any decision about which other player you'd like to win (unless you know that someone's last card is not red).
– Nuclear Wang
Mar 18 at 12:57
@NuclearWang Actually, I meant if maybe you knew that someone's last card was red.
– user45266
Mar 18 at 15:01
@NuclearWang An attempt at kingmaking is still kingmaking (it describes the activity, not the outcome).
– Polygnome
Mar 18 at 22:18
It's not really kingmaking if the voter has a second choice. To say voting for your second choice is kingmaking is a contradiction in terms.
– djechlin
Mar 19 at 0:48
add a comment |
In a game theory context, this is kingmaking. The player's goal is to elect C, but once the player starts to lose, the voter influences the outcome of the game (in this case the election).
This is a common problem with three-player and beyond games. For example, if I were playing UNO and I was losing badly (I had maybe half the deck in my hand), I could start to always change the color to, say, red.
The problem arises when players' ability to influence the game does not vary directly with their distance from their goals. In some games, the closer you are to losing, the less ability to affect the eventual winner you have, like Monopoly (which has a whole host of other problems of its own, but we'll ignore that).
Another example would be in many kinds of online games, where you might realise your character doesn't have enough time left to reach some checkpoint, so you go try to knock other characters around and prevent them from reaching the checkpoint.
answered Mar 18 at 2:42
user45266user45266
1173
New contributor
user45266 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
3
I'd only call it kingmaking if the votes that would have gone to C actually decide the election. If C-voters all vote for A, and A still loses, they haven't done any kingmaking, likewise if A wins and would have won without the C votes. I don't follow your Uno example of kingmaking, as you're not making any decision about which other player you'd like to win (unless you know that someone's last card is not red).
– Nuclear Wang
Mar 18 at 12:57
@NuclearWang Actually, I meant if maybe you knew that someone's last card was red.
– user45266
Mar 18 at 15:01
@NuclearWang An attempt at kingmaking is still kingmaking (it describes the activity, not the outcome).
– Polygnome
Mar 18 at 22:18
It's not really kingmaking if the voter has a second choice. To say voting for your second choice is kingmaking is a contradiction in terms.
– djechlin
Mar 19 at 0:48
add a comment |
In a game theory context, this is kingmaking. The player's goal is to elect C, but once the player starts to lose, the voter influences the outcome of the game (in this case the election).
This is a common problem with three-player and beyond games. For example, if I were playing UNO and I was losing badly (I had maybe half the deck in my hand), I could start to always change the color to, say, red.
The problem arises when players' ability to influence the game does not vary directly with their distance from their goals. In some games, the closer you are to losing, the less ability to affect the eventual winner you have, like Monopoly (which has a whole host of other problems of its own, but we'll ignore that).
Another example would be in many kinds of online games, where you might realise your character doesn't have enough time left to reach some checkpoint, so you go try to knock other characters around and prevent them from reaching the checkpoint.
answered Mar 18 at 2:42
user45266user45266
1173
New contributor
user45266 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
In a game theory context, this is kingmaking. The player's goal is to elect C, but once the player starts to lose, the voter influences the outcome of the game (in this case the election).
This is a common problem with three-player and beyond games. For example, if I were playing UNO and I was losing badly (I had maybe half the deck in my hand), I could start to always change the color to, say, red.
The problem arises when players' ability to influence the game does not vary directly with their distance from their goals. In some games, the closer you are to losing, the less ability to affect the eventual winner you have, like Monopoly (which has a whole host of other problems of its own, but we'll ignore that).
Another example would be in many kinds of online games, where you might realise your character doesn't have enough time left to reach some checkpoint, so you go try to knock other characters around and prevent them from reaching the checkpoint.
answered Mar 18 at 2:42
user45266user45266
1173
New contributor
user45266 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Mar 18 at 2:42
user45266user45266
1173
New contributor
user45266 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Mar 18 at 2:42
user45266user45266
1173
answered Mar 18 at 2:42
user45266user45266
1173
1173
New contributor
user45266 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
user45266 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
user45266 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
3
I'd only call it kingmaking if the votes that would have gone to C actually decide the election. If C-voters all vote for A, and A still loses, they haven't done any kingmaking, likewise if A wins and would have won without the C votes. I don't follow your Uno example of kingmaking, as you're not making any decision about which other player you'd like to win (unless you know that someone's last card is not red).
– Nuclear Wang
Mar 18 at 12:57
@NuclearWang Actually, I meant if maybe you knew that someone's last card was red.
– user45266
Mar 18 at 15:01
@NuclearWang An attempt at kingmaking is still kingmaking (it describes the activity, not the outcome).
– Polygnome
Mar 18 at 22:18
It's not really kingmaking if the voter has a second choice. To say voting for your second choice is kingmaking is a contradiction in terms.
– djechlin
Mar 19 at 0:48
add a comment |
3
I'd only call it kingmaking if the votes that would have gone to C actually decide the election. If C-voters all vote for A, and A still loses, they haven't done any kingmaking, likewise if A wins and would have won without the C votes. I don't follow your Uno example of kingmaking, as you're not making any decision about which other player you'd like to win (unless you know that someone's last card is not red).
– Nuclear Wang
Mar 18 at 12:57
@NuclearWang Actually, I meant if maybe you knew that someone's last card was red.
– user45266
Mar 18 at 15:01
@NuclearWang An attempt at kingmaking is still kingmaking (it describes the activity, not the outcome).
– Polygnome
Mar 18 at 22:18
It's not really kingmaking if the voter has a second choice. To say voting for your second choice is kingmaking is a contradiction in terms.
– djechlin
Mar 19 at 0:48
3
3
I'd only call it kingmaking if the votes that would have gone to C actually decide the election. If C-voters all vote for A, and A still loses, they haven't done any kingmaking, likewise if A wins and would have won without the C votes. I don't follow your Uno example of kingmaking, as you're not making any decision about which other player you'd like to win (unless you know that someone's last card is not red).
– Nuclear Wang
Mar 18 at 12:57
I'd only call it kingmaking if the votes that would have gone to C actually decide the election. If C-voters all vote for A, and A still loses, they haven't done any kingmaking, likewise if A wins and would have won without the C votes. I don't follow your Uno example of kingmaking, as you're not making any decision about which other player you'd like to win (unless you know that someone's last card is not red).
– Nuclear Wang
Mar 18 at 12:57
@NuclearWang Actually, I meant if maybe you knew that someone's last card was red.
– user45266
Mar 18 at 15:01
@NuclearWang Actually, I meant if maybe you knew that someone's last card was red.
– user45266
Mar 18 at 15:01
@NuclearWang An attempt at kingmaking is still kingmaking (it describes the activity, not the outcome).
– Polygnome
Mar 18 at 22:18
@NuclearWang An attempt at kingmaking is still kingmaking (it describes the activity, not the outcome).
– Polygnome
Mar 18 at 22:18
It's not really kingmaking if the voter has a second choice. To say voting for your second choice is kingmaking is a contradiction in terms.
– djechlin
Mar 19 at 0:48
It's not really kingmaking if the voter has a second choice. To say voting for your second choice is kingmaking is a contradiction in terms.
– djechlin
Mar 19 at 0:48
add a comment |
Dishonesty isn't really the best term. More like 'choosing the lesser of two evils'.
It happens all the time. No candidate is likely to meet all of an individual's criteria, so they choose the one that meets the most.
On the other hand, if more people would choose candidate C, they might win. Or, they might draw enough attention to mount a serious challenge in the next election.
answered Mar 18 at 9:31
tj1000tj1000
7,122627
5
This is an opinion, and does not answer the question.
– MSalters
Mar 18 at 16:54
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of_two_evils_principle
– Alexan
Mar 18 at 18:31
add a comment |
Dishonesty isn't really the best term. More like 'choosing the lesser of two evils'.
It happens all the time. No candidate is likely to meet all of an individual's criteria, so they choose the one that meets the most.
On the other hand, if more people would choose candidate C, they might win. Or, they might draw enough attention to mount a serious challenge in the next election.
answered Mar 18 at 9:31
tj1000tj1000
7,122627
5
This is an opinion, and does not answer the question.
– MSalters
Mar 18 at 16:54
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of_two_evils_principle
– Alexan
Mar 18 at 18:31
add a comment |
Dishonesty isn't really the best term. More like 'choosing the lesser of two evils'.
It happens all the time. No candidate is likely to meet all of an individual's criteria, so they choose the one that meets the most.
On the other hand, if more people would choose candidate C, they might win. Or, they might draw enough attention to mount a serious challenge in the next election.
answered Mar 18 at 9:31
tj1000tj1000
7,122627
Dishonesty isn't really the best term. More like 'choosing the lesser of two evils'.
It happens all the time. No candidate is likely to meet all of an individual's criteria, so they choose the one that meets the most.
On the other hand, if more people would choose candidate C, they might win. Or, they might draw enough attention to mount a serious challenge in the next election.
answered Mar 18 at 9:31
tj1000tj1000
7,122627
answered Mar 18 at 9:31
tj1000tj1000
7,122627
answered Mar 18 at 9:31
tj1000tj1000
7,122627
answered Mar 18 at 9:31
tj1000tj1000
7,122627
7,122627
5
This is an opinion, and does not answer the question.
– MSalters
Mar 18 at 16:54
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of_two_evils_principle
– Alexan
Mar 18 at 18:31
add a comment |
5
This is an opinion, and does not answer the question.
– MSalters
Mar 18 at 16:54
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of_two_evils_principle
– Alexan
Mar 18 at 18:31
5
5
This is an opinion, and does not answer the question.
– MSalters
Mar 18 at 16:54
This is an opinion, and does not answer the question.
– MSalters
Mar 18 at 16:54
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of_two_evils_principle
– Alexan
Mar 18 at 18:31
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of_two_evils_principle
– Alexan
Mar 18 at 18:31
add a comment |
protected by Philipp♦ Mar 18 at 15:36
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
1
It depends on the voting system. Where I live we have preferential voting. If my preferred candidate gets too few votes to progress, my second choice is promoted and so on until only two candidates remain. The one with the majority of the preferential votes is elected. I don't like any of the candidates and I know in advance which two will be the final two. So I put them last, knowing my vote will still reach one of them. This is a form of protest vote. I know my first eight preferences won't count, only numbers nine and ten. In this system it is not dishonest behaviour.
– CJ Dennis
Mar 19 at 2:41
1
There are a lot of comments and answers about tactical voting but there's another issue that you might want to consider. In the US where there are primary votes to determine which two candidates will go forward there is a possibility that I would consider fittingly labelled dishonest which hopefully is not widespread. A voter who fully supports party A and will vote for party A in the main election registers (if necessary) as a member of party B and in the primary votes for the candidate they think will lose to the party A candidate.
– Eric Nolan
Mar 19 at 10:50
1
"I looked for voters dishonesty on Google and couldn’t find it." It's simple strategic voting, isn't it. Nothing really dishonest about it.
– Trilarion
2 days ago
3
Dishonest voting would be fraudulent, such as voting in an election you're not entitled to vote in, or voting for another person. Simply picking a candidate based on criteria other people might not agree with is not and cannot be dishonest.
– barbecue
2 days ago
1
Calling that dishonest would even be a somewhat evil since it puts the blame on the voter while it's often the voting system that practically forces voters to do that: in many of them your vote is simply lost if you vote for an unlikely candidate.
– Hans-Peter Störr
6 hours ago