Influence of Voting System On Tactical Voting
Tactical voting is highly dependent on the voting system being used. A tactical vote which improves a voter's satisfaction under one system could make no change or lead to a less-satisfying result under another system.
Moreover, although by the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem no deterministic single-winner voting system is immune to tactical voting in all cases, some systems' results are more resistant to tactical voting than others'. M. Badinski and R. Laraki, the inventors of the majority judgment system, performed an initial investigation of this question using a set of Monte Carlo simulated elections based on the results from a poll of the 2007 French presidential election which they had carried out using rated ballots. Comparing range voting, Borda count, plurality voting, approval voting with two different absolute approval thresholds, Condorcet voting, and majority judgment, they found that range voting had the highest (worst) strategic vulnerability, while their own system majority judgment had the lowest (best). Further investigation would be needed to be sure that this result remained true with different sets of candidates.
Read more about this topic: Tactical Voting
Famous quotes containing the words influence of, influence, voting and/or system:
“... so long as the serpent continues to crawl on the ground, the primary influence of woman will be indirect ...”
—Ellen Glasgow (1873–1945)
“Standing armies can never consist of resolute robust men; they may be well-disciplined machines, but they will seldom contain men under the influence of strong passions, or with very vigorous faculties.”
—Mary Wollstonecraft (1759–1797)
“It’s not the voting that’s democracy, it’s the counting.”
—Tom Stoppard (b. 1937)
“... the yearly expenses of the existing religious system ... exceed in these United States twenty millions of dollars. Twenty millions! For teaching what? Things unseen and causes unknown!... Twenty millions would more than suffice to make us wise; and alas! do they not more than suffice to make us foolish?”
—Frances Wright (1795–1852)