Strategic voting facts for kids

Kids Encyclopedia Facts

Strategic voting is when people vote in a special way to get a better result, even if it means not voting for their absolute favorite candidate or party. It's like playing a game where you choose a move that helps you win, even if it's not the most obvious one.

Imagine you have three favorite ice cream flavors: chocolate, vanilla, and strawberry. Chocolate is your top choice. But you know that if you vote for chocolate, vanilla might win, and you really dislike vanilla. So, you might vote for strawberry instead, because you like strawberry more than vanilla, and strawberry has a better chance of beating vanilla. That's strategic voting!

Experts say that almost all voting systems where only one person wins can make people vote strategically. This happens unless there are only two choices, or if one person decides everything (like a dictator).

Why Do People Vote Strategically?

People vote strategically to try and stop an outcome they really don't want. They might vote for someone they like less, but who has a better chance of winning against a candidate they dislike even more.

Different Ways to Vote Smart

Compromising (or "Useful Vote"): This is when you vote for a candidate who isn't your top choice, but who you think has a better chance of winning. You do this to help defeat a candidate you really don't want to win.

Example: In an election where only one person wins, you might like a small party, but you know they probably won't win. So, you vote for a bigger party that is similar to your small party, just to help them beat the party you dislike most.

Burying: This is when you rank a candidate you dislike very low, even if they are not your absolute least favorite. You do this to make sure they don't win, especially if they are a strong opponent to your favorite.

Example: If you use a system where you rank candidates (like 1st, 2nd, 3rd), you might put a strong opponent way down at the bottom of your list, even if you don't hate them, just to hurt their chances.

Push-over: This is a tricky one! You might vote for a candidate you think is weak, hoping your favorite candidate will easily beat them later. This often happens in elections with two rounds.

Example: In some elections, if no one wins enough votes in the first round, there's a second round. You might vote for a weak candidate in the first round, hoping they make it to the second round against your favorite. Then, your favorite can easily win against the weak candidate.

Bullet Voting: This is when you only vote for one candidate, even if you could vote for more. You do this to give all your support to your favorite and not help any of their rivals.

Example: If you can vote for multiple people, you might just vote for your one favorite. This makes sure your vote only helps them and doesn't get "split" among other candidates.

How Voters Work Together

Sometimes, people vote strategically on their own. Other times, groups or parties might ask their supporters to vote strategically.

Working Together to Win

Voters Decide Alone: People might look at the candidates and decide for themselves who to vote for to get the best outcome.

Example: In a UK election in 2022, some voters who usually supported the Labour Party voted for the Liberal Democrats instead. They did this because the Liberal Democrats had a better chance of beating the Conservative Party in that area.

Parties Ask for Strategic Votes: Less often, a political party might tell its own supporters not to vote for their party's candidate, but for another party that has a better chance of beating a common opponent.

Example: In a UK election in 1906, the Liberal Party and the new Labour Party made a deal. In some areas, Liberals stepped aside so Labour candidates could win. This was to make sure the Conservative Party didn't win because the anti-Conservative vote was split.

Non-Party Groups Help Coordinate: Sometimes, groups that aren't tied to any party try to help people vote strategically. They often want to defeat a specific party.

Example: In Canada, there was a campaign called "Anything But Conservative" that tried to get people to vote strategically against the Conservative Party in 2008 and 2015.

Real-Life Examples of Strategic Voting

Canada

In Canada, strategic voting often happens to stop one party from winning.

In the 1999 Ontario election, people tried to vote strategically against the Progressive Conservative government, but it didn't work.
In 2004 and 2006, the Liberal Party asked voters who supported the New Democratic Party (NDP) to vote Liberal instead, to prevent the Conservative Party from winning.
In the 2015 election, many people voted for the Liberal Party to stop the Conservative government. This helped the Liberals win a lot of seats.

France

France uses a two-round election system. This means strategic voting often happens in the first round to decide which candidates will make it to the second round.

A message on a Parisian sidewalk before the 2017 French presidential election, encouraging "votez utile" (strategic voting) to vote for François Fillon instead of Emmanuel Macron.

Germany

Germany has a voting system where you vote for a party and also for a local candidate. People sometimes vote strategically for a smaller allied party to help it get enough votes to enter parliament.

Hong Kong

In Hong Kong, voters who support democracy often work together to spread their votes among different candidates. This helps them win more seats, especially when there are many candidates and few seats. In 2016, a project called "Project ThunderGo" helped organize this, leading to a record number of seats for the pro-democracy side.

Hungary

In the 2018 Hungarian election, websites encouraged people to vote for opposition candidates who had the best chance of winning in their area. About a quarter of opposition voters did this, which helped opposition parties win 14 extra seats.

Lithuania

Lithuania also has a two-round system for some elections. In 2016, to stop a specific independent candidate from winning, candidates from other parties asked their supporters to vote for a different candidate who had a better chance. This helped that candidate win by a small number of votes.

New Zealand

Since 1996, New Zealand has seen strategic voting regularly. Parties sometimes even tell their supporters to vote for another party's candidate if it helps their overall goals. This happened in several elections, like in 1996, 1999, and often between 2002 and 2017.

Slovenia

In the 2011 Slovenian election, about 30% of voters voted strategically. Even though polls predicted an easy win for one candidate, his opponent won. This was a very high number of strategic voters.

Spain

In the 2016 Spanish election, strategic voting was very important because new parties had emerged. Even with low voter turnout, strategic voters changed the outcome.

Taiwan

In the 1995 Legislative Yuan elections in Taiwan, opposition parties used strategic voting. They asked their supporters to vote for specific candidates based on things like their ID number or birth month. This helped the opposition win more seats and caused the ruling party to lose seats.

United Kingdom

Strategic voting has become a big part of UK politics.

In the 1997 election, a campaign called GROT (Get Rid Of Them) encouraged strategic voting to stop the Conservative Party from winning a fifth term. This brought strategic voting into the public eye.
In 2015, websites helped Green Party supporters vote for the Labour Party in close races to prevent the Conservatives from staying in power.
In the 2017 election, it's thought that over 6.5 million people voted strategically, often to prevent a "hard Brexit" or another Conservative government. Some Green Party candidates even stepped aside to help Labour win against the Conservatives.
In 2019, strategic voting was expected to be very important. A poll showed that 19% of voters planned to vote strategically, mostly to stop a party they didn't like.
A 2020 study found that older and richer voters in the UK tend to vote strategically more often.

United States

In the US, strategic voting often leads to a two-party system.

A famous example was the 2002 California governor's election. In the Republican primary, some people thought supporters of the Democratic governor voted for a weaker Republican candidate (Bill Simon) because they believed he would be easier for their governor to beat in the main election. Simon won the primary but lost to the Democratic governor.

Puerto Rico

The 2004 elections in Puerto Rico were also affected by strategic voting. To stop an unpopular candidate from winning, people from other groups supported a different party's candidate. This led to a very close election and a lot of confusion.

How Voting Methods Affect Strategy

The way an election is set up (the "voting method") really changes how people vote strategically. A strategic vote that works well in one system might not work at all in another.

Common Voting Methods and Strategy

First-Past-the-Post Voting: This is where the candidate with the most votes wins, even if they don't get more than half. Strategic voting is very common here. People often vote for one of the top two candidates, even if they like a third candidate more. This is why this system often leads to two main parties.

Party-List Proportional Representation: In this system, parties get seats based on the percentage of votes they receive. However, there's often a "threshold" (like 5% of votes) that a party must reach to get any seats.

Strategy: Voters might vote for a slightly different party than their favorite if they think their favorite party won't reach the threshold. This ensures their vote helps a similar party get seats. Example: In the 2013 German election, the Free Democratic Party got 4.8% of the votes, just below the 5% threshold. This meant they got no seats, and their allies had to form a coalition with a rival party.

Approval Voting: In this system, you can vote for (or "approve" of) as many candidates as you like.

Strategy: You have to decide where to draw the line – which candidates to approve and which not to. You might approve your top few choices, but not others, to help your favorites win.

Instant Runoff Voting (IRV): In IRV, you rank candidates. If no one gets over 50%, the last-place candidate is removed, and their votes go to the next choice on those ballots. This continues until someone has over 50%.

Strategy: IRV is less likely to make you vote for someone you dislike more than your favorite. However, it can still be affected by "push-over" or "compromising" strategies.

Borda Count: In this system, you rank candidates, and points are given based on their rank (e.g., 1st gets 3 points, 2nd gets 2, 3rd gets 1).

Strategy: This system can encourage both "compromising" and "burying." You might rank your favorite very high and a strong opponent very low to maximize the difference.

Condorcet Methods: These methods try to find a candidate who would win against every other candidate in a head-to-head match.

Strategy: These methods are less likely to make you "compromise," but they can still be affected by "burying" strategies (ranking a strong opponent very low).

Single Transferable Vote (STV): This is a multi-winner system where you rank candidates. If your top choice gets too many votes or too few, your vote can transfer to your next choice.

Strategy: STV is generally more resistant to strategic voting than single-winner systems. However, sometimes voters might "free ride" by ranking a candidate they think will definitely win lower, to help another candidate.

Images for kids

A message on a Parisian sidewalk before the 2017 French presidential election, encouraging "votez utile" (strategic voting) to vote for François Fillon instead of Emmanuel Macron.