Voting tactics

Why is it that only people in a jurisdiction where they use a broken voting system (such as, say, first past the post or instant-runoff) know about 'tactical voting'? Frankly, I'd be surprised if anyone in my family even knew what it means to vote 'tactically'.

For reference, Belgium uses proportional representation throughout. In fact, it was a Belgian guy who invented proportional representation.

oh well.

name <> concept

I'd expect because the concept is discussed only in countries that have non-standard systems.

As to belgians, they may not know the name, but they certainly know the concept. After all, Belgium is the country where some French-speaking Brusselaers (inhabitants of Brussels) vote for a random dutch-speaking "democratic party" just to offset the Vlaamse Blok^W^WVlaams Belang. If that's not tactical voting, I don't know what is.

They do it because it won't impact the French/Dutch speaking balance in parliament (hardcoded in constitution).

Comment by lmamane (lmamane in the debian.org domain) Wed Aug 8 11:38:12 2007
IRV broken?
How is instant run-off broken for party-free board elections? It's recommended in Robert's Rules for mail votes, reportedly.
Comment by MJ Ray (mjr@phonecoop.coop) Wed Aug 8 12:34:27 2007
Tactical Voting
Proportional representation as used in Belgium but also in The Netherlands doesn't preclude tactical voting, although the influence is no doubt less. In recent elections for the Second Chamber (parliament) reportedly many people had voted 'tactially' for the PvdA instead of smaller left-wing parties they may have preferred. Their tactics are meant to influence not the chamber itself but the cabinet formation after that. A large PvdA would make a strong partner for the CDA, so a right-wing government was less feasible. They feared that distribution of left votes over a set of parties would make a CDA+VVD government more likely.
Comment by Thijs Kinkhorst (thijs@debian.org) Wed Aug 8 14:59:32 2007