Strategic Voting
When voters choose a candidate not as their first preference but to prevent an undesirable candidate from winning.
Updated April 23, 2026
How It Works in Practice
Strategic voting occurs when voters cast their ballots not for their favorite candidate, but for a less preferred candidate who has a better chance of winning against someone they strongly oppose. Instead of voting sincerely for their top choice, voters weigh the likelihood of each candidate's success and choose the one most capable of preventing an undesirable outcome. This behavior often emerges in electoral systems where only one winner is chosen, such as first-past-the-post systems, where splitting votes among similar candidates can lead to the election of a less favored candidate.
Why It Matters
Strategic voting significantly influences election outcomes and can shape political landscapes. It often leads to a concentration of votes around major parties, marginalizing smaller or third-party candidates despite their potential appeal. This dynamic can reduce political diversity and limit voter expression. Understanding strategic voting helps explain why some seemingly popular candidates fail to win and why certain electoral reforms, like ranked-choice voting, aim to reduce the need for voters to vote strategically.
Strategic Voting vs. Tactical Voting
The terms "strategic voting" and "tactical voting" are often used interchangeably, but some scholars distinguish between them. Strategic voting broadly refers to any vote cast to influence the outcome favorably, including supporting a less preferred viable candidate. Tactical voting may specifically imply voting to maximize the impact of one's vote, such as in coalition-building contexts or to send a political signal. However, in everyday usage, both describe the practice of voting against one's first preference to prevent an unwanted candidate's victory.
Real-World Examples
A classic example of strategic voting occurred in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, where some voters who preferred third-party candidates voted for either the Democratic or Republican candidate to avoid "wasting" their vote. Similarly, in the United Kingdom's first-past-the-post system, voters often choose between the two main parties, even if they prefer smaller parties, to prevent their least favored major party from winning. In Canada, strategic voting campaigns encourage supporters of smaller parties to vote for the major party candidate most likely to defeat a disliked opponent.
Common Misconceptions
One misconception is that strategic voting is always a sign of an unhealthy democracy. While it can reflect limitations in the electoral system, strategic voting can also be seen as a rational response by voters to maximize their influence. Another misunderstanding is that strategic voting always suppresses smaller parties; in some cases, it can increase voter engagement by encouraging coordination. Additionally, some believe strategic voting requires complex calculations, but often voters use simple heuristics, like backing the "lesser evil."
Example
In the 2019 UK general election, many voters chose the Labour Party over their preferred smaller parties to prevent the Conservative Party from winning a majority.