Hcfyk

Is honey really a supersaturated solution? Does heating to un-crystalize redissolve it or melt it?

How can we expose a lightning web component on a Mobile app?

Running file with some extension

Do I need to be arrogant to get ahead?

Unnormalized Log Probability - RNN

A diagram about partial derivatives of f(x,y)

Project Manager asking me learn different languages very frequently

How to explain that I do not want to visit a country due to personal safety concern?

Does multi-classing into Fighter give you heavy armor proficiency?

Why do passenger jet manufacturers design their planes with stall prevention systems?

Bash - pair each line of file

What are substitutions for coconut in curry?

How to generate binary array whose elements with values 1 are randomly drawn

How to make healing in an exploration game interesting

Calculate the frequency of characters in a string

Can I use USB data pins as a power source?

Understanding minimizing cost correctly

Different outputs for `w`, `who`, `whoami` and `id`

Matrix using tikz package

What favor did Moody owe Dumbledore?

What's the meaning of a knight fighting a snail in medieval book illustrations?

Does .bashrc contain syntax errors?

Should Stotras and Mantras be recited aloud?

Replacing Claris FD 2400 with R2000

What is the term when voters “dishonestly” choose something that they do not want to choose?

What are the most known examples of weighed voting that are practiced in democratic countries?When and how did the term “liberal” acquire a leftist/socialist meaning in the US?Is there an equivalent to Arrow's Impossibility Theorem that applies to systems where voters can give multiple candidates the same ranking?What is the name of the tactic that politicians use to bury people with torrent of words?In Australia, what does the term “Big polluters” mean?Why not give representatives as many votes as they received in the election?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?What is the term for the polisci problem of having to vote for a single individual holding many beliefs?Term for the trend where a political party does worse in State elections when holding power Federally

10

Say we have three candidates: Al Gore, Bush, and Nader. Nader is far left.

Say, a voter wants to vote for Nader. However, he knows that Nader can’t win and hence choose Al Gore 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

share|improve this question

edited 3 hours ago

Wrzlprmft

264112

asked 7 hours ago

user4951user4951

1,24621023

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Nader? Far left? Really?
  
  – Michael Harvey
  4 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @MichaelHarvey perhaps not far far left, but pretty far for US standards.
  
  – Robert Columbia
  3 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

10

Say we have three candidates: Al Gore, Bush, and Nader. Nader is far left.

Say, a voter wants to vote for Nader. However, he knows that Nader can’t win and hence choose Al Gore 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

share|improve this question

edited 3 hours ago

Wrzlprmft

264112

asked 7 hours ago

user4951user4951

1,24621023

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Nader? Far left? Really?
  
  – Michael Harvey
  4 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @MichaelHarvey perhaps not far far left, but pretty far for US standards.
  
  – Robert Columbia
  3 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

Say we have three candidates: Al Gore, Bush, and Nader. Nader is far left.

Say, a voter wants to vote for Nader. However, he knows that Nader can’t win and hence choose Al Gore 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

share|improve this question

edited 3 hours ago

Wrzlprmft

264112

asked 7 hours ago

user4951user4951

1,24621023

share|improve this question

edited 3 hours ago

Wrzlprmft

264112

asked 7 hours ago

user4951user4951

1,24621023

share|improve this question

edited 3 hours ago

Wrzlprmft

264112

asked 7 hours ago

user4951user4951

1,24621023

edited 3 hours ago

Wrzlprmft

264112

edited 3 hours ago

Wrzlprmft

264112

asked 7 hours ago

user4951user4951

1,24621023

asked 7 hours ago

user4951user4951

1,24621023

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

27

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.

share|improve this answer

answered 7 hours ago

Andrew GrimmAndrew Grimm

5,41832582

add a comment | 

16

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.

share|improve this answer

edited 5 hours ago

Wrzlprmft

264112

answered 7 hours ago

AlexeiAlexei

17.2k2296176

• 
  
  
  

  
  5
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Even though I am a member of the UK Labour party, I have voted Liberal Democrat in a seat with the aim of keeping the Tory candidate out, with the explicit encouragement of the Labour Party. Nothing dishonest about that. This is quite normal in UK politics. Political leaders who stand to benefit from it call it e.g. "putting principles before party loyalty".
  
  – Michael Harvey
  4 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I agree with you about the word "dishonest" being harsh. Another way to put it would be: "In the year 2000, lots of Republican voters had not voted for Bush in their state primaries. But once he had the party nomination sewn up, they felt they should vote for him in November even though they would have preferred someone else be on the ballot." That doesn't mean those voters were "dishonest" when they voted the party ticket on Election Day. It just means they were trying to make the best of the situation, if they couldn't have their original first choice as President.
  
  – Lorendiac
  4 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Not dishonest? Candidates A, B, C will get 40, 30, 30%. So A will win. But wait, C realizes he can't win and asks his voters to vote for B. And B wins. The top candidate loses. Looks quite dishonest to me.
  
  – Fermi paradox
  2 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Fermiparadox it is OK if you want to call it dishonest, but it is not. A is running on a genocide platform. If A is elected, then A will kill the majority of the 60% who favor B and C. Candidates B and C both oppose genocide but differ on the proper orientation of toilet paper in government facilities. If you were among the 60% targeted for genocide would you feel bad about voting for B when you prefer C as a "dishonest" measure to prevent your own genocide?
  
  – emory
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @emory "Genocide platform" and "orientation of toilet paper"? That's a Just In Case Fallacy (please see Example #1)
  
  – Fermi paradox
  1 hour ago
  
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 3 more comments

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39505%2fwhat-is-the-term-when-voters-dishonestly-choose-something-that-they-do-not-wan%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

27

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.

share|improve this answer

answered 7 hours ago

Andrew GrimmAndrew Grimm

5,41832582

add a comment | 

27

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.

share|improve this answer

answered 7 hours ago

Andrew GrimmAndrew Grimm

5,41832582

add a comment | 

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.

share|improve this answer

answered 7 hours ago

Andrew GrimmAndrew Grimm

5,41832582

share|improve this answer

answered 7 hours ago

Andrew GrimmAndrew Grimm

5,41832582

answered 7 hours ago

Andrew GrimmAndrew Grimm

5,41832582

answered 7 hours ago

Andrew GrimmAndrew Grimm

5,41832582

16

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.

share|improve this answer

edited 5 hours ago

Wrzlprmft

264112

answered 7 hours ago

AlexeiAlexei

17.2k2296176

• 
  
  
  

  
  5
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Even though I am a member of the UK Labour party, I have voted Liberal Democrat in a seat with the aim of keeping the Tory candidate out, with the explicit encouragement of the Labour Party. Nothing dishonest about that. This is quite normal in UK politics. Political leaders who stand to benefit from it call it e.g. "putting principles before party loyalty".
  
  – Michael Harvey
  4 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I agree with you about the word "dishonest" being harsh. Another way to put it would be: "In the year 2000, lots of Republican voters had not voted for Bush in their state primaries. But once he had the party nomination sewn up, they felt they should vote for him in November even though they would have preferred someone else be on the ballot." That doesn't mean those voters were "dishonest" when they voted the party ticket on Election Day. It just means they were trying to make the best of the situation, if they couldn't have their original first choice as President.
  
  – Lorendiac
  4 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Not dishonest? Candidates A, B, C will get 40, 30, 30%. So A will win. But wait, C realizes he can't win and asks his voters to vote for B. And B wins. The top candidate loses. Looks quite dishonest to me.
  
  – Fermi paradox
  2 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Fermiparadox it is OK if you want to call it dishonest, but it is not. A is running on a genocide platform. If A is elected, then A will kill the majority of the 60% who favor B and C. Candidates B and C both oppose genocide but differ on the proper orientation of toilet paper in government facilities. If you were among the 60% targeted for genocide would you feel bad about voting for B when you prefer C as a "dishonest" measure to prevent your own genocide?
  
  – emory
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @emory "Genocide platform" and "orientation of toilet paper"? That's a Just In Case Fallacy (please see Example #1)
  
  – Fermi paradox
  1 hour ago
  
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 3 more comments

16

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.

share|improve this answer

edited 5 hours ago

Wrzlprmft

264112

answered 7 hours ago

AlexeiAlexei

17.2k2296176

• 
  
  
  

  
  5
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Even though I am a member of the UK Labour party, I have voted Liberal Democrat in a seat with the aim of keeping the Tory candidate out, with the explicit encouragement of the Labour Party. Nothing dishonest about that. This is quite normal in UK politics. Political leaders who stand to benefit from it call it e.g. "putting principles before party loyalty".
  
  – Michael Harvey
  4 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I agree with you about the word "dishonest" being harsh. Another way to put it would be: "In the year 2000, lots of Republican voters had not voted for Bush in their state primaries. But once he had the party nomination sewn up, they felt they should vote for him in November even though they would have preferred someone else be on the ballot." That doesn't mean those voters were "dishonest" when they voted the party ticket on Election Day. It just means they were trying to make the best of the situation, if they couldn't have their original first choice as President.
  
  – Lorendiac
  4 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Not dishonest? Candidates A, B, C will get 40, 30, 30%. So A will win. But wait, C realizes he can't win and asks his voters to vote for B. And B wins. The top candidate loses. Looks quite dishonest to me.
  
  – Fermi paradox
  2 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Fermiparadox it is OK if you want to call it dishonest, but it is not. A is running on a genocide platform. If A is elected, then A will kill the majority of the 60% who favor B and C. Candidates B and C both oppose genocide but differ on the proper orientation of toilet paper in government facilities. If you were among the 60% targeted for genocide would you feel bad about voting for B when you prefer C as a "dishonest" measure to prevent your own genocide?
  
  – emory
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @emory "Genocide platform" and "orientation of toilet paper"? That's a Just In Case Fallacy (please see Example #1)
  
  – Fermi paradox
  1 hour ago
  
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
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.

share|improve this answer

edited 5 hours ago

Wrzlprmft

264112

answered 7 hours ago

AlexeiAlexei

17.2k2296176

share|improve this answer

edited 5 hours ago

Wrzlprmft

264112

answered 7 hours ago

AlexeiAlexei

17.2k2296176

edited 5 hours ago

Wrzlprmft

264112

edited 5 hours ago

Wrzlprmft

264112

answered 7 hours ago

AlexeiAlexei

17.2k2296176

answered 7 hours ago

AlexeiAlexei

17.2k2296176