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?

Are hand made posters acceptable in Academia?

What (if any) is the reason to buy in small local stores?

Why doesn't the fusion process of the sun speed up?

Determine voltage drop over 10G resistors with cheap multimeter

How to test the sharpness of a knife?

Did Nintendo change its mind about 68000 SNES?

Do native speakers use "ultima" and "proxima" frequently in spoken English?

Gauss brackets with double vertical lines

Jem'Hadar, something strange about their life expectancy

What is it called when someone votes for an option that's not their first choice?

How to find the largest number(s) in a list of elements, possibly non-unique?

Have any astronauts/cosmonauts died in space?

Nested Dynamic SOQL Query

How are passwords stolen from companies if they only store hashes?

Hot air balloons as primitive bombers

Air travel with refrigerated insulin

When did hardware antialiasing start being available?

Unfrosted light bulb

Knife as defense against stray dogs

Output visual diagram of picture

I got the following comment from a reputed math journal. What does it mean?

is this saw blade faulty?

PTIJ: Which Dr. Seuss books should one obtain?

UK Tourist Visa- Enquiry



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?













30















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.










share|improve this question
























  • 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
    2 hours ago















30















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.










share|improve this question
























  • 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
    2 hours ago













30












30








30


1






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.










share|improve this question
















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






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 16 hours ago









Nat

1,6061621




1,6061621










asked yesterday









user4951user4951

1,34921224




1,34921224












  • 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
    2 hours ago

















  • 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
    2 hours ago
















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
2 hours ago





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
2 hours ago










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















85














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




















  • 4





    I like how it can be called tactical or strategic, considering the two are basically opposite ends of the spectrum.

    – David Grinberg
    yesterday






  • 17





    @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
    19 hours ago






  • 12





    @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
    13 hours ago







  • 3





    "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
    7 hours ago


















44














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




















  • 1





    I thought two-round systems of voting weren't susceptible to tactical voting, since you can always vote for your favorite candidate in the first round?

    – BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
    yesterday






  • 10





    @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
    20 hours ago






  • 7





    @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
    16 hours ago







  • 6





    @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
    14 hours ago







  • 4





    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
    12 hours ago


















0














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.






share|improve this answer








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.




















  • 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
    16 hours ago











  • @NuclearWang Actually, I meant if maybe you knew that someone's last card was red.

    – user45266
    14 hours ago











  • @NuclearWang An attempt at kingmaking is still kingmaking (it describes the activity, not the outcome).

    – Polygnome
    7 hours ago











  • 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
    4 hours ago


















0














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.






share|improve this answer


















  • 1





    This is an opinion, and does not answer the question.

    – MSalters
    12 hours ago











  • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of_two_evils_principle

    – Alexan
    11 hours ago


















-1














Also referred to as insincere or strategic voting.






share|improve this answer








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.


















    protected by Philipp 14 hours ago



    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









    85














    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




















    • 4





      I like how it can be called tactical or strategic, considering the two are basically opposite ends of the spectrum.

      – David Grinberg
      yesterday






    • 17





      @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
      19 hours ago






    • 12





      @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
      13 hours ago







    • 3





      "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
      7 hours ago















    85














    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




















    • 4





      I like how it can be called tactical or strategic, considering the two are basically opposite ends of the spectrum.

      – David Grinberg
      yesterday






    • 17





      @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
      19 hours ago






    • 12





      @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
      13 hours ago







    • 3





      "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
      7 hours ago













    85












    85








    85







    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















    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














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited yesterday









    WELZ

    2111213




    2111213










    answered yesterday









    Andrew GrimmAndrew Grimm

    5,63832582




    5,63832582







    • 4





      I like how it can be called tactical or strategic, considering the two are basically opposite ends of the spectrum.

      – David Grinberg
      yesterday






    • 17





      @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
      19 hours ago






    • 12





      @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
      13 hours ago







    • 3





      "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
      7 hours ago












    • 4





      I like how it can be called tactical or strategic, considering the two are basically opposite ends of the spectrum.

      – David Grinberg
      yesterday






    • 17





      @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
      19 hours ago






    • 12





      @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
      13 hours ago







    • 3





      "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
      7 hours ago







    4




    4





    I like how it can be called tactical or strategic, considering the two are basically opposite ends of the spectrum.

    – David Grinberg
    yesterday





    I like how it can be called tactical or strategic, considering the two are basically opposite ends of the spectrum.

    – David Grinberg
    yesterday




    17




    17





    @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
    19 hours ago





    @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
    19 hours ago




    12




    12





    @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
    13 hours ago






    @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
    13 hours ago





    3




    3





    "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
    7 hours ago





    "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
    7 hours ago











    44














    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




















    • 1





      I thought two-round systems of voting weren't susceptible to tactical voting, since you can always vote for your favorite candidate in the first round?

      – BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
      yesterday






    • 10





      @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
      20 hours ago






    • 7





      @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
      16 hours ago







    • 6





      @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
      14 hours ago







    • 4





      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
      12 hours ago















    44














    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




















    • 1





      I thought two-round systems of voting weren't susceptible to tactical voting, since you can always vote for your favorite candidate in the first round?

      – BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
      yesterday






    • 10





      @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
      20 hours ago






    • 7





      @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
      16 hours ago







    • 6





      @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
      14 hours ago







    • 4





      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
      12 hours ago













    44












    44








    44







    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















    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














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited yesterday









    Wrzlprmft

    264112




    264112










    answered yesterday









    AlexeiAlexei

    17.3k2297176




    17.3k2297176







    • 1





      I thought two-round systems of voting weren't susceptible to tactical voting, since you can always vote for your favorite candidate in the first round?

      – BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
      yesterday






    • 10





      @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
      20 hours ago






    • 7





      @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
      16 hours ago







    • 6





      @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
      14 hours ago







    • 4





      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
      12 hours ago












    • 1





      I thought two-round systems of voting weren't susceptible to tactical voting, since you can always vote for your favorite candidate in the first round?

      – BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
      yesterday






    • 10





      @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
      20 hours ago






    • 7





      @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
      16 hours ago







    • 6





      @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
      14 hours ago







    • 4





      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
      12 hours ago







    1




    1





    I thought two-round systems of voting weren't susceptible to tactical voting, since you can always vote for your favorite candidate in the first round?

    – BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
    yesterday





    I thought two-round systems of voting weren't susceptible to tactical voting, since you can always vote for your favorite candidate in the first round?

    – BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
    yesterday




    10




    10





    @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
    20 hours ago





    @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
    20 hours ago




    7




    7





    @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
    16 hours ago






    @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
    16 hours ago





    6




    6





    @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
    14 hours ago






    @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
    14 hours ago





    4




    4





    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
    12 hours ago





    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
    12 hours ago











    0














    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.






    share|improve this answer








    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.




















    • 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
      16 hours ago











    • @NuclearWang Actually, I meant if maybe you knew that someone's last card was red.

      – user45266
      14 hours ago











    • @NuclearWang An attempt at kingmaking is still kingmaking (it describes the activity, not the outcome).

      – Polygnome
      7 hours ago











    • 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
      4 hours ago















    0














    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.






    share|improve this answer








    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.




















    • 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
      16 hours ago











    • @NuclearWang Actually, I meant if maybe you knew that someone's last card was red.

      – user45266
      14 hours ago











    • @NuclearWang An attempt at kingmaking is still kingmaking (it describes the activity, not the outcome).

      – Polygnome
      7 hours ago











    • 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
      4 hours ago













    0












    0








    0







    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.






    share|improve this answer








    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.







    share|improve this answer








    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.









    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer






    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 yesterday









    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.












    • 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
      16 hours ago











    • @NuclearWang Actually, I meant if maybe you knew that someone's last card was red.

      – user45266
      14 hours ago











    • @NuclearWang An attempt at kingmaking is still kingmaking (it describes the activity, not the outcome).

      – Polygnome
      7 hours ago











    • 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
      4 hours ago

















    • 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
      16 hours ago











    • @NuclearWang Actually, I meant if maybe you knew that someone's last card was red.

      – user45266
      14 hours ago











    • @NuclearWang An attempt at kingmaking is still kingmaking (it describes the activity, not the outcome).

      – Polygnome
      7 hours ago











    • 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
      4 hours ago
















    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
    16 hours ago





    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
    16 hours ago













    @NuclearWang Actually, I meant if maybe you knew that someone's last card was red.

    – user45266
    14 hours ago





    @NuclearWang Actually, I meant if maybe you knew that someone's last card was red.

    – user45266
    14 hours ago













    @NuclearWang An attempt at kingmaking is still kingmaking (it describes the activity, not the outcome).

    – Polygnome
    7 hours ago





    @NuclearWang An attempt at kingmaking is still kingmaking (it describes the activity, not the outcome).

    – Polygnome
    7 hours ago













    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
    4 hours ago





    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
    4 hours ago











    0














    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.






    share|improve this answer


















    • 1





      This is an opinion, and does not answer the question.

      – MSalters
      12 hours ago











    • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of_two_evils_principle

      – Alexan
      11 hours ago















    0














    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.






    share|improve this answer


















    • 1





      This is an opinion, and does not answer the question.

      – MSalters
      12 hours ago











    • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of_two_evils_principle

      – Alexan
      11 hours ago













    0












    0








    0







    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.






    share|improve this answer













    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.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 20 hours ago









    tj1000tj1000

    7,140627




    7,140627







    • 1





      This is an opinion, and does not answer the question.

      – MSalters
      12 hours ago











    • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of_two_evils_principle

      – Alexan
      11 hours ago












    • 1





      This is an opinion, and does not answer the question.

      – MSalters
      12 hours ago











    • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of_two_evils_principle

      – Alexan
      11 hours ago







    1




    1





    This is an opinion, and does not answer the question.

    – MSalters
    12 hours ago





    This is an opinion, and does not answer the question.

    – MSalters
    12 hours ago













    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of_two_evils_principle

    – Alexan
    11 hours ago





    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of_two_evils_principle

    – Alexan
    11 hours ago











    -1














    Also referred to as insincere or strategic voting.






    share|improve this answer








    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.
























      -1














      Also referred to as insincere or strategic voting.






      share|improve this answer








      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.






















        -1












        -1








        -1







        Also referred to as insincere or strategic voting.






        share|improve this answer








        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.







        share|improve this answer








        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.









        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer






        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 yesterday









        merrymerry

        9




        9




        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.















            protected by Philipp 14 hours ago



            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?



            Popular posts from this blog

            Sum ergo cogito? 1 nng

            三茅街道4182Guuntc Dn precexpngmageondP