Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2012 October 10

= October 10 =

Mathematical Analysis of the Electoral College
Let us consider the specific voting system used in electing the American president. Following the adage "Republicans are the problem but democrats are not the solution" my goal is to vote in such a way that the probability of the republican candidate becoming the president is minimized. As far as I can tell, there are three strategies for me. I can just not vote at all. I can vote for the democrats. I can vote for yet another third party. I don't care which party wins as long as it isn't the grand old party. The question is, out of the three strategies I posed, which one is the best strategy to achieve my goal? Is there a better strategy perhaps than these three? In a popular voting system, it is easier to analyze and I think any of the three strategies are equivalent and would be fine. Taking votes away from republicans will work (I think...comments welcome, of course). But the electoral college with its nuisances like the winners taking an entire state (in most states) and voters from different states having different voting powers makes the electoral college a bit tricky. So I am hoping someone who is better familiar with the mathematics of voting systems can give some insight. I am also assuming that the electors vote the way voters do. Otherwise, it is completely out of the voters' hands. It is the election year after all ;-) and we were all just waiting for such a question, right? 75.166.140.82 (talk) 01:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If your sole goal is to prevent the Republicans from winning, then the best strategy is to vote for whatever opposing party (or independent candidate) has the best chance of winning, in each election. In the US, with it's two party system, that this will almost always be the Democratic Party.  However, there may be a few races where a candidate from another party, or no party at all, has the better chance of winning, in which case, you should vote for them.  Now, this is all with respect to the general election.  As for voting in primaries, then you can get the "sabotage" strategy, where you could vote for the Republican candidate least likely to win the general election.  But, of course, this is risky, as they might win both the primary and the general election, and you then you may have helped elect the worst possible choice, from your POV.


 * As for not voting at all, that strategy would only apply if a certain minimum number of votes was required for a decision to be made (a quorum). This doesn't apply to electing Electoral College members.  StuRat (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

So is it detrimental to vote for a third party instead of voting for the democrats? It seems to me that in the electoral college it would be because if I vote for a third party, then I think of it as taking a vote away from the Republicans AND the Democrats but being a two party system one of them will win so it is as if I never voted at all. My vote is wasted if I vote for a third party (unless a significant group votes like me for the third party). And also, for a popular vote (like congressmen) either of the three strategies will work, right? Or only the last two strategies (voting democrat or voting third party) are good and the third one (not voting at all) not so good? Thanks. 75.166.140.82 (talk) 20:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * In the general election:


 * 1) Not voting at all never helps to defeat the Republican.


 * 2) Voting for the Democratic candidate helps to defeat the Republican, provided the Democratic candidate has a better chance of beating the Republican than a third party candidate (this is often the case).


 * 3) Voting for a third party candidate helps to defeat the Republican, provided the third party candidate has a better chance of beating the Republican than the Democrat (this is rarely the case). StuRat (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)