Why support Candidate A over Candidate B?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I absolutely despise Romney's views on social issues, but I remembered that no President ever really legislates on social issues. Bush could've overturned Roe v. Wade or passed a Constitutional ban on gay marriage, but he didn't. Obama could've legalized gay marriage or made pot legal or whatever, but he didn't.

That isn't true.

How so?

Even with majorities in both houses, modifying the constitution (in whatever direction) is near-impossible nowadays. Bush didn't stand a chance at passing a constitutional ban, nor did Obama stand a chance as passing an amendment forcing States to recognize gay marriage.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Strategic voting is a disease. Avoid it. When faced with a candidate who closely mirrors your political views and another one who's more likely to win, vote for the one who's closer to you. Otherwise you're not being true to your political beliefs.

That's a prisoner's dilemma : the best option on a collective standpoint is for everybody to vote for their conviction. However, for a single individual who has a realistic notion of probabilities, switching to a slightly less liked candidate with much more chances to win is clearly profitable. The sum of individual preferences is what generate stable two-party systems. Since two parties constantly get more votes than everybody else, the single individual has no interest in voting for a smaller party, even though if taken as a whole voters might actually prefer minor parties.

The real problem, in the end, is the voting system.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Strategic voting is a disease. Avoid it. When faced with a candidate who closely mirrors your political views and another one who's more likely to win, vote for the one who's closer to you. Otherwise you're not being true to your political beliefs.

So you'd want me to vote Liberal in a really tight NDP-Tory marginal where the Liberals poll 1-3%?

Sure. Stay true to your convictions. Why choose the "lesser of the two evils" when you have someone you fully agree with, or agree with the most?

Why ? Because it is more useful.

Yours seems not to be a very rational way to view things.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Strategic voting is a disease. Avoid it. When faced with a candidate who closely mirrors your political views and another one who's more likely to win, vote for the one who's closer to you. Otherwise you're not being true to your political beliefs.

So you'd want me to vote Liberal in a really tight NDP-Tory marginal where the Liberals poll 1-3%?

Sure. Stay true to your convictions. Why choose the "lesser of the two evils" when you have someone you fully agree with, or agree with the most?

Why ? Because it is more useful.

Yours seems not to be a very rational way to view things.

Really? Reeaaally? I'd be the one voting for who I really want to and you'd be voting for someone or a party you probably dislike, only because it's a "close race", and you call be irrational. At least I'd be satisfied with my choice. I guess that's more important to me.

How so ? Voting is about trying to elect someone, not about asserting your political views. You assert your views during debates, but shouting in the streets, by joining a party, by whatever you want. The goal of voting is to choose among the options the one which you want to win. When a candidate really has no chance of winning, discarding him is a perfectly sound and logical choice. Especially when the race between the frontrunners is legitimately open and your vote might actually make a difference.

Voting rationally means maximizing the probability that your vote matters.