Sophisticated Voting

Also known as strategic voting, sophisticated voting occurs when voters cast ballots they think will help the candidate they prefer, even if it means voting for one of the opponents. In a three-way race, for example, Democrats may vote for the independent candidate if it appears that the independent has no chance of winning but could split the Republican vote.

Sincere voters, on the other hand, do not take into consideration the strategic consequences of their ballots. They simply vote for the candidates who are their first choice for the elective office at stake.

The plurality system of American elections fosters sophisticated voting, particularly in multicandidate races, such as a primary election for a political party nomination. Usually the candidate who receives the largest share of the vote is the winner, even if it is not a majority share (more than 50 percent). There seldom is any incentive for strategic voting in a two-way race because a crossover vote could help elect the candidate the voter wants to defeat. Exceptions might be cases where a majority vote is required and the voter wants to ensure a runoff election between the two candidates, or the voter is lukewarm about his or her first choice and does not want to “waste” a vote on a likely loser. (See Thermometer ratings.)

Open primaries, in which registered voters of one party can vote for the candidate of another party, offer particularly inviting opportunities for strategic voters. In the 2000 New Hampshire primary, exit polls showed that Democratic and independent voters provided critical support for John McCain. The Arizona senator won the primary even though he apparently garnered fewer Republican votes than Texas governor George W. Bush. Although many non-Republicans liked McCain because of his independent stands, it appeared that some voted for him to weaken Bush, who was the front-runner.

Winner-take-all elections also lend themselves to sophisticated voting. In presidential nominating contests, the Democratic Party has banned winner-take-all primaries in favor of proportional representation, in which convention delegates are distributed to candidates in proportion to their share of the vote above a certain threshold for qualification. The Republican Party in some states, however, still permits winner-take-all primaries.

[Page p451]In presidential elections, the winner-take-all nature of the electoral college system can lead to strategic voting on election day if there are more than two major candidates. To be elected president, a candidate must receive an absolute majority of the 538 electoral votes. If no candidate receives 270 electoral votes (half of the total plus one) the election devolves to the House of Representatives for decision.

Because the presidential candidate who receives a plurality in a state receives all of its electoral votes, some voters may engage in strategic voting to gain an advantage for their candidate. They may try to use their individual votes to try to split the vote between the perceived strongest opponent and the one who poses the least threat to their preferred candidate.

Political scientists Paul R. Abramson, John H. Aldrich, and David W. Rohde believe that strategic voting took place in the 1992 presidential race of incumbent Republican George Bush, Democrat Bill Clinton, and independent Ross Perot. In their book Change and Continuity in the 1992 Elections, they say that “the results strongly suggest that at least some voters who preferred Perot strategically voted for Clinton or Bush.”

...