Strategic Voting Quotes

Don't buy a single vote more than necessary. I'll be damned if I'm going to pay for a landslide.

Donald Trump has not yet earned my vote. And I'm not simply going to say 'never,' because I do not want to empower Hillary Clinton.

You don’t go for a vote in the Security Council unless you know that you have the votes to win.

I am supporting David Cameron purely out of cynical self-interest.

The Liberal Party of Canada, heading into an election, at the last minute they always stand up and they say: We know there's people out there that want to vote NDP and God love you. But if you vote for them you're throwing your vote away.

If Dems don't stick together, we're going to lose.

We'll vote when we have the votes.

The thinking person's case for Romney, murmured by many of his backers, amounts to this: Vote for Mitt, you know he doesn't believe a word he says.

There's only one problem that bothers me. And that's something my theorem [ of Impossibility] really doesn't cover. In my theorem I was assuming people vote sincerely. The trouble with methods where you have three or four classes, I think if people vote sincerely they may well be very satisfactory. The problem is the incentive to misrepresent your vote may be high.

AV does not bring you greater proportionality - and there is a tendency for parties to gang up on one of the major ones to run an 'anyone but' campaign.

The opportunism of electoral politics makes people lie to each other.

Sometimes you have to hold your nose and vote for the person who is going to do the least damage or who is maybe going to pull you back from the brink.

(The Weakest Link) is fascinating program. They ask a bunch of people questions and they keep getting rid of the dumbest person, so just the smartest person is left. It is kind of the opposite way we elect a president.

There's a terrible danger in voting for the lesser of two evils because the parties can set it up that way.

During my time as a political strategist, one of the most vexing problems was figuring out why so many people vote against their perceived interests.

All I want is for Remain United to lift the fog so that people who oppose Farage - and his chilling authoritarian vision for our country - can deploy their votes strategically and effectively.

A ballot is like a bullet. You don't throw your ballots until you see a target, and if that target is not within your reach, keep your ballot in your pocket.

If Hillary can't win the nomination - and it's clearly very, very hard for her - she's basically a stalking horse for McCain. She's preparing the demographic ground for McCain, by getting white working-class Democrats used to (if you will) not voting for Obama.

I love reality TV shows like 'Big Brother' where it's smart game to vote off the strong competitors, especially early on to give the other people a fighting chance. From a game stance, it's totally acceptable.

It was obvious after the '97 election that as long as there were two small-c conservative parties trying to destroy each other, the Liberals would win every election.

Alliance is not to show individual strength, but win over the opposition by pooling in all the votes of like-minded parties and ensuring that they are not scattered.

You will vote for first choice candidate whether or not you think he'll win. But I'm saying you may find yourself for a candidate, a middling candidate, a candidate you don't think very well of, really. And you really don't like to avoid a catastrophe. Well, maybe that's a good thing. You can argue that back and forth.

A wasted vote is voting for someone that you don't believe in

I feel like this idea of strategic voting has not allowed people to dream big.

I think the words 'vote strategically' translates in the human brain to: 'Oh I can't vote for what I want.' And that's discouraging.