Voting Theory: Insincere Voting / Strategic Voting

This video discusses insincere or strategic voting and how it can affect the outcome of an election.
Site: mathispower4u.com

[@samlair3342]

Since American politics has become so irresponsibly partisan, it is probably wise to not allow either party to dominate. I, therefore, will split my ticket in the following manner: 1)Republican for upper legislative bodies 2)Democrat for lower legislative bodies 3)For Executive offices, whichever candidates are more able and willing to sustain bipartisanship, especially in regards to global warming and immigration control 4)For all other offices, whichever candidates best recognize both the danger of ‘global warming’ and of ‘open borders’. Note: In the event that a particular individual candidate that meets the above criteria is too reprehensible to vote for, then I’ll either support the other party’s candidate for that office, a third party candidate, or do a write in vote. To help narrow the field of choices, begin by first searching: ‘voter guide (?) county’ Note: This is an attempt to help bring reason and balance into governance.

[@clarekuehn4372]

too much examples and semantics and Who'd ever call this "insincere" voting ???? ( inaccurate and negative term) " Strategic or Tactical is much much better. Your explaining that instant run off makes tactical voting much more difficult or impossible ? was interesting and helpful

[@Mathispower4u]

Clare Kuehn If you are curious the content in the video came from the following openly licensed book. It is also documented on the slides.www.opentextbookstore.com/mathinsociety/

[@Ggdivhjkjl]

It's called "insincere" because the system is designed with the assumption that everyone preferences their candidates in the order they sincerely believe best reflects who represents their own ideas. So by not preferencing candidates in that order, one is not sincerely recording who thinks most like oneself.

[@jumpinjohnnyruss]

I find your use of the word "negative" to be negative. Remove it immediately. Sorry you don't like the word "insincere", but it doesn't have a value judgement attached to it. When you're not representing your preferences accurately, you're voting insincerely. Can you justify this claim that "insincere" is "inaccurate"? I doubt it. You probably just want to feel good about being an establishment goon.

[@jumpinjohnnyruss]

A rational person wouldn't need IRV to vote sincerely in an election of more than several voters because of the minuscule probability that his or her vote will be pivotal. In such an election, the valid reason to vote is to provide an incentive for the elected to consider the desires of the electorate, which can only happen if they're accurately registering those desires. But most people (idiots) use their vote to provide an incentive for the elected to consider the desires of those who supply and direct the spotlight that convinces the electorate to ignore the rest of the stage. Sadly, people aren't rational, so the only hope for the proliferation of sincere voting is probably some fluke that results in the election of a government that implements a system of voting that makes it more obvious that sincere voting is incentive-compatible, like IRV.