-In one most extreme case, you write-in the option you most wish (even if, as far as you know, no one else has ever heard of it).
-In the other most extreme case, you vote where you most expect to create a swing.
-In the iterated case, your vote is also a signalling mechanism which influences the next vote. Does that change things?
-Is the answer necessarily one of the two extremes? Does it make sense to have a “middle ground” option?
-I think the extreme case “Vote where you most expect to create a swing in your favor” strategy is at least reasonable if not ideal. Can anyone give a reason why the other extreme, “write in your favorite option even if no one has heard of it”, is not completely impractical?
My own current thought is that you should use the extremist “wherever the swing is” vote pattern in the non-iterated case/ For the iterated case, a “middle ground” option for signalling purposes, since your vote is unlikely to change the outcome anyway in most cases but guaranteed to generate signal.
TL:DR: In the iterated case, the ideal voting strategy is situation-dependent. When one clear winner exists, voting carries more importance as a signal than it does as an actual vote...so if you support a strong 3rd party, you should signal support for them. You probably shouldn’t bother voting for your favorite-but-completely-obscure 23rd party unless you think your vote has a chance of pulling them out of obscurity. However, if you estimate the vote is clearly very close to swing, then you should switch strategies and sacrifice the chance to signal in exchange for the chance to swing the vote.
Assumption: Vote, with one winner.
-In one most extreme case, you write-in the option you most wish (even if, as far as you know, no one else has ever heard of it).
-In the other most extreme case, you vote where you most expect to create a swing.
-In the iterated case, your vote is also a signalling mechanism which influences the next vote. Does that change things?
-Is the answer necessarily one of the two extremes? Does it make sense to have a “middle ground” option?
-I think the extreme case “Vote where you most expect to create a swing in your favor” strategy is at least reasonable if not ideal. Can anyone give a reason why the other extreme, “write in your favorite option even if no one has heard of it”, is not completely impractical?
My own current thought is that you should use the extremist “wherever the swing is” vote pattern in the non-iterated case/ For the iterated case, a “middle ground” option for signalling purposes, since your vote is unlikely to change the outcome anyway in most cases but guaranteed to generate signal.
TL:DR: In the iterated case, the ideal voting strategy is situation-dependent. When one clear winner exists, voting carries more importance as a signal than it does as an actual vote...so if you support a strong 3rd party, you should signal support for them. You probably shouldn’t bother voting for your favorite-but-completely-obscure 23rd party unless you think your vote has a chance of pulling them out of obscurity. However, if you estimate the vote is clearly very close to swing, then you should switch strategies and sacrifice the chance to signal in exchange for the chance to swing the vote.
That’s not how you TL;DR.
TL;DR: It depends, obviously.