Mdtryhht

Does the attack bonus from a Masterwork weapon stack with the attack bonus from Masterwork ammunition?

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

Is it correct to say "which country do you like the most?"

Suggestions on how to spend Shaabath (constructively) alone

How is the partial sum of a geometric sequence calculated?

Do I need to consider instance restrictions when showing a language is in P?

Worshiping one God at a time?

Do US professors/group leaders only get a salary, but no group budget?

Is there a term for accumulated dirt on the outside of your hands and feet?

What does "Four-F." mean?

Fewest number of steps to reach 200 using special calculator

What are substitutions for coconut in curry?

Can a wizard cast a spell during their first turn of combat if they initiated combat by releasing a readied spell?

Is it true that good novels will automatically sell themselves on Amazon (and so on) and there is no need for one to waste time promoting?

How can an organ that provides biological immortality be unable to regenerate?

Generic TVP tradeoffs?

Calculate the frequency of characters in a string

Light propagating through a sound wave

Optimising a list searching algorithm

Hausdorff dimension of the boundary of fibres of Lipschitz maps

My friend is being a hypocrite

Violin - Can double stops be played when the strings are not next to each other?

How does one measure the Fourier components of a signal?

Describing a chess game in a novel

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

13

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

edited 11 hours ago

Wrzlprmft

264112

asked 15 hours ago

user4951user4951

1,26121024

• 
  
  
  

  
  6
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

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

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

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

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I think you're looking at elections wrong - instead of picking your most liked to win, pick the least hated
  
  – Xen2050
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I thought you're supposed to pick the one with the most ads on the street?
  
  – Aganju
  5 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Aganju no no no, you pick the one who's most attractive.
  
  – tox123
  9 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

13

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

edited 11 hours ago

Wrzlprmft

264112

asked 15 hours ago

user4951user4951

1,26121024

• 
  
  
  

  
  6
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

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

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

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

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I think you're looking at elections wrong - instead of picking your most liked to win, pick the least hated
  
  – Xen2050
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I thought you're supposed to pick the one with the most ads on the street?
  
  – Aganju
  5 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Aganju no no no, you pick the one who's most attractive.
  
  – tox123
  9 mins 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

edited 11 hours ago

Wrzlprmft

264112

asked 15 hours ago

user4951user4951

1,26121024

share

edited 11 hours ago

Wrzlprmft

264112

asked 15 hours ago

user4951user4951

1,26121024

share

edited 11 hours ago

Wrzlprmft

264112

asked 15 hours ago

user4951user4951

1,26121024

edited 11 hours ago

Wrzlprmft

264112

edited 11 hours ago

Wrzlprmft

264112

asked 15 hours ago

user4951user4951

1,26121024

asked 15 hours ago

user4951user4951

1,26121024

3 Answers
3

active

oldest

votes

45

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

edited 6 hours ago

WELZ

2111213

answered 15 hours ago

Andrew GrimmAndrew Grimm

5,41832582

add a comment | 

23

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 13 hours ago

Wrzlprmft

264112

answered 15 hours ago

AlexeiAlexei

17.2k2296176

• 
  
  
  

  
  13
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  12 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  12 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

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

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Fermiparadox In your example, unless B and C have absolutely no overlapping plans or opinions, it's more likely that A's support is in the minority. If we go further with your example, let's say you have 1 candidate who's politically conservative, and 5 that are flavors of liberal. You could be in a situation where 20% of the vote goes to the conservative and the liberals each have between 14% and 18%. Now you're in a situation where the "winner" is supported by 1/5th of the country. That seems a hell of a lot more "dishonest" to me.
  
  – Clay07g
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  A's support is in the minority: 40-60. The fact that they "win" by having more votes (40-30) is why the United States has only two parties: a third party literally cannot compete and that's why First Past The Post as a voting system is flawed. Nothing about the outcomes here are dishonest, regardless of what the voters do: its the system that's broken.
  
  – Draco18s
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 8 more comments

0

Also referred to as insincere or strategic voting.

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

merrymerry

1

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 | 

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

45

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

edited 6 hours ago

WELZ

2111213

answered 15 hours ago

Andrew GrimmAndrew Grimm

5,41832582

add a comment | 

45

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

edited 6 hours ago

WELZ

2111213

answered 15 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

edited 6 hours ago

WELZ

2111213

answered 15 hours ago

Andrew GrimmAndrew Grimm

5,41832582

share|improve this answer

edited 6 hours ago

WELZ

2111213

answered 15 hours ago

Andrew GrimmAndrew Grimm

5,41832582

edited 6 hours ago

WELZ

2111213

edited 6 hours ago

WELZ

2111213

answered 15 hours ago

Andrew GrimmAndrew Grimm

5,41832582

answered 15 hours ago

Andrew GrimmAndrew Grimm

5,41832582

23

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 13 hours ago

Wrzlprmft

264112

answered 15 hours ago

AlexeiAlexei

17.2k2296176

• 
  
  
  

  
  13
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  12 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  12 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

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

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Fermiparadox In your example, unless B and C have absolutely no overlapping plans or opinions, it's more likely that A's support is in the minority. If we go further with your example, let's say you have 1 candidate who's politically conservative, and 5 that are flavors of liberal. You could be in a situation where 20% of the vote goes to the conservative and the liberals each have between 14% and 18%. Now you're in a situation where the "winner" is supported by 1/5th of the country. That seems a hell of a lot more "dishonest" to me.
  
  – Clay07g
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  A's support is in the minority: 40-60. The fact that they "win" by having more votes (40-30) is why the United States has only two parties: a third party literally cannot compete and that's why First Past The Post as a voting system is flawed. Nothing about the outcomes here are dishonest, regardless of what the voters do: its the system that's broken.
  
  – Draco18s
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 8 more comments

23

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 13 hours ago

Wrzlprmft

264112

answered 15 hours ago

AlexeiAlexei

17.2k2296176

• 
  
  
  

  
  13
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  12 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  12 hours ago
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

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

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Fermiparadox In your example, unless B and C have absolutely no overlapping plans or opinions, it's more likely that A's support is in the minority. If we go further with your example, let's say you have 1 candidate who's politically conservative, and 5 that are flavors of liberal. You could be in a situation where 20% of the vote goes to the conservative and the liberals each have between 14% and 18%. Now you're in a situation where the "winner" is supported by 1/5th of the country. That seems a hell of a lot more "dishonest" to me.
  
  – Clay07g
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  A's support is in the minority: 40-60. The fact that they "win" by having more votes (40-30) is why the United States has only two parties: a third party literally cannot compete and that's why First Past The Post as a voting system is flawed. Nothing about the outcomes here are dishonest, regardless of what the voters do: its the system that's broken.
  
  – Draco18s
  7 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 8 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 13 hours ago

Wrzlprmft

264112

answered 15 hours ago

AlexeiAlexei

17.2k2296176

share|improve this answer

edited 13 hours ago

Wrzlprmft

264112

answered 15 hours ago

AlexeiAlexei

17.2k2296176

edited 13 hours ago

Wrzlprmft

264112

edited 13 hours ago

Wrzlprmft

264112

answered 15 hours ago

AlexeiAlexei

17.2k2296176

answered 15 hours ago

AlexeiAlexei

17.2k2296176

0

Also referred to as insincere or strategic voting.

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

merrymerry

1

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 | 

0

Also referred to as insincere or strategic voting.

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

merrymerry

1

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.

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

merrymerry

1

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

answered 2 hours ago

merrymerry

1

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 2 hours ago

merrymerry

1

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 2 hours ago

merrymerry

1