Editing Strategic voting (section)

== Examples in real elections ==
=== Canada ===
The observed effect of [[Duverger's law]] in Canada is weaker than in other countries.<ref name="Duverger2">Duverger's Law of Plurality Voting The Logic of Party Competition in Canada, India, the United Kingdom and the United States, 2009, André Blais, Bernard Grofman, Shaun Bowler</ref> In the [[1999 Ontario general election|1999 Ontario provincial election]], strategic voting was encouraged by opponents of the [[Ontario Progressive Conservative Party|Progressive Conservative]] government of [[Mike Harris]]. This failed to unseat Harris but succeeded in suppressing the [[Ontario New Democratic Party]] vote to a historic low.

In the [[2004 Canadian federal election|2004 federal election]], and to a lesser extent in the [[2006 Canadian federal election|2006 election]], strategic voting was a concern for the federal [[New Democratic Party]] (NDP). In the 2004 election, the governing Liberal Party was able to convince many New Democratic voters to vote Liberal to avoid a Conservative government.{{citation needed|date=January 2013}} In the 2006 elections, the Liberal Party attempted the same strategy, with Prime Minister [[Paul Martin]] asking New Democrats and Greens to vote for the Liberal Party to prevent a Conservative win. The New Democratic Party leader [[Jack Layton]] responded by asking voters to "lend" their votes to his party, suggesting that the Liberal Party was bound to lose the election regardless of strategic voting.{{Cn|date=May 2024}} This failed to prevent the Conservatives from winning the election, although they did not win a majority of seats.{{Cn|date=May 2024}}

During the [[2015 Canadian federal election|2015 federal election]], strategic voting was used extensively against the [[Conservative Party of Canada|Conservative]] government of [[Stephen Harper]], which had benefited from [[vote splitting]] among centrist and left-leaning parties in the [[2011 Canadian federal election|2011 election]].<ref>{{cite web |date=18 October 2015 |title=Strategic Voting Must Include Casting Your Ballot for the Green Party |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/ken-wu/strategetic-voting-green_b_8305938.html |newspaper=The Huffington Post}}</ref><ref>{{cite AV media |url=http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-october-15-2015-1.3271954/federal-election-2015-strategic-voters-challenge-democracy-1.3271971 |title=Federal Election 2015: Strategic voters challenge democracy |date=15 October 2015 |medium=Radio broadcast |publisher=[[CBC Radio]] |first1=Anna Maria |last1=Tremonti}}</ref> Following the landslide victory of the [[Liberal Party of Canada|Liberals]] led by [[Justin Trudeau]] over Harper's Conservatives, experts argued that this dramatic increase in support for the Liberals at the expense of the NDP and [[Green Party of Canada|Green Party]] was partially due to strategic voting for Liberal candidates.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Press |first1=Jordan |date=20 October 2015 |title=Canada Election Result Numbers Show Canadians Voted Strategically: Experts |newspaper=Huffington Post |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/20/canada-election-results-strategic-voting_n_8343104.html}}</ref> In three weeks, 1.4 million voters switched from NDP to Liberal. In at least two closely-contested ridings, strategic voting websites obtained enough pledges to account for the victory margin of the Liberal candidate.<ref>{{cite news |first1=Ali |last1=Kashani |title=Proof That Trudeau Won Because Strategic Voting Works |date=22 October 2015 |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/ali-kashani/strategic-voting-justin-trudeau_b_8351796.html}}</ref>

=== France ===
The [[two-round system]] in France shows strategic voting in the first round, due to considerations which candidate will reach the second round.<ref>[https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/france-s-election-strategic-voting-among-montreal-s-french-citizens-1.5855627 France's election: 'strategic' voting among Montreal's French citizens, CTV News]</ref>
[[File:Anti-Macron_stencil_2.jpg|right|thumb|Stenciling on a Parisian sidewalk ahead of the first round of the [[2017 French presidential election]] invoking "{{Lang|fr|votez utile}}" (strategic voting) as a reason for voters to vote for [[François Fillon]] instead of [[Emmanuel Macron]]]]

=== Germany ===
The [[mixed-member proportional representation]] allows to estimate the share of strategic voters in [[first-past-the-post voting]] due to the separate votes for party-lists and local single-winner electoral district candidates. The vote for party-lists is considered sincere if the party vote share is significantly above the 5% electoral threshold in Germany. In Germany the share of strategic voters was found around 30%, which decreased to 9% if only non-allied party candidates were contenders for the electoral district winner.<ref>[https://www.bu.edu/econ/files/2013/03/May-4-Spenkuch.pdf On the Extent of Strategic Voting, Jorg L. Spenkuch, 2012]</ref> In a contentious election year the share of strategic voters increased to around 45%.

Due to electoral threshold in [[party-list proportional representation]] one party asked in several elections their voters to vote for another allied party to help this party cross the electoral threshold.<ref>[https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2013-09/FDP-Leihstimme-Bundestagswahl-CDU Als die CDU noch Leihstimmen zu vergeben hatte, Christopher Pramstaller, 2013 (German)]</ref>

=== Hong Kong ===
In [[Hong Kong]], with its [[party-list proportional representation]] using [[largest remainder method]] with the [[Hare quota]], voters supporting candidates of the [[pro-democracy camp]] often organize to divide their votes across different tickets, avoiding the concentration of votes on one or a few candidates.<ref>{{cite web |title='Legislative Council Election Exit Poll Analysis Article Series' No. 2 |url=http://hkupop.hku.hk/english/columns/columns56.html}}</ref>{{Unreliable source?|date=February 2024}}{{Dubious|date=February 2024}} In [[2016 Hong Kong legislative election|2016 Hong Kong Legislative Election]], the practices of strategic voting were expanded by [[Benny Tai]]'s Project ThunderGo.{{Cn|date=February 2024}} The anti-establishment camp gained 29 seats, a historical record.

=== Hungary ===
In [[Hungary]], during the [[2018 Hungarian parliamentary election]], several websites, such as taktikaiszavazas.hu<ref>taktikaiszavazas.hu</ref> (meaning "strategic voting"), promoted the idea to vote for opposition candidates with the highest probability of winning a given seat. About a quarter of opposition voters adopted this behavior, resulting in a total of 498,000 extra votes gained by opposition parties. A total of 14 extra single seats were taken by several parties and independent candidates.

=== Lithuania ===
In [[Lithuania]], which has a [[parallel voting]] system at parliamentary and district levels, most of strategic voting takes place in single-member constituencies (or districts in mayoral elections). These constituencies have two-round system when no candidate wins more than 50 per cent of the votes in the first round. A notable example of strategic voting at the parliamentary level could be the 10th [[Naujoji Vilnia]] constituency in [[2016 Lithuanian parliamentary election]]. To prevent independent candidate [[Algirdas Paleckis]]' victory, the [[Liberal Movement (Lithuania)|Liberal Movement's]], the [[Lithuanian Farmers and Greens Union]]'s and the [[Social Democratic Party of Lithuania|Social Democratic Party]]'s candidates endorsed their supporters to vote for the [[Homeland Union]]'s candidate [[Monika Navickienė]] (who came in second place). Monika Navickienė eventually won the constituency by around 900 votes.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Frontas prieš A.Paleckį Naujojoje Vilnioje: Konservatorę M.Navickienę remia net ideologiniai priešai |url=https://www.15min.lt/naujiena/aktualu/lietuva/frontas-pries-a-palecki-naujojoje-vilnioje-konservatore-m-navickiene-remia-net-ideologiniai-priesai-56-696257}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=2016 m. Seimo rinkimų rezultatai – VRK.lt |url=https://www.vrk.lt/2016-seimo/rezultatai?srcUrl=/rinkimai/102/2/1306/rezultatai/lt/rezultataiVienmRpg_rpgId-18960.html}}</ref> At a district level, an example could be Kėdainiai district's mayoral election in the 2015 municipal elections. In the first round, the [[Labour Party (Lithuania)|Labour Party]] won 13 seats of 26 seats in district council and was just one seat short of absolute majority. Nijolė Naujokienė (candidate to the district's mayoral seat from the Labour Party) came short by 0.68 per cent in the mayoral election. Her opponent, Saulius Grinkevičius, had a 22 per cent gap to overcome.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Balsavimo rezultatai |url=https://www.vrk.lt/statiniai/puslapiai/2015_savivaldybiu_tarybu_rinkimai/output_lt/rezultatai_daugiamand_apygardose/apygardos_rezultatai7779.html}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Kėdainiai baigia atsikvošėti nuo Viktoro Uspaskicho kerų? |url=https://www.15min.lt/rinkimai/naujiena/savivaldybiu-tarybu-rinkimai/kedainiai-atsikvosi-nuo-viktoro-uspaskicho-keru-847-490454}}</ref> In the second round, Saulius Grinkevičius won by around 8 per cent (and 1,600 votes).<ref>{{Cite web |title=Sensacija: Darbo partija prarado Kėdainius |url=https://www.delfi.lt/news/daily/lithuania/sensacija-darbo-partija-prarado-kedainius.d?id=67435534}}</ref>

=== New Zealand ===
Since New Zealand moved to [[mixed-member proportional representation]] voting in 1996, the [[electoral system of New Zealand]] has seen strategic voting<ref>{{cite news |last1=Smith |first1=Phil |date=28 August 2017 |title=Give your vote more oomph- Strategic voting |url=https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/election17-backgrounders/story/201856361/election17-give-your-vote-more-oomph-strategic-voting-101 |publisher=[[RNZ]] }}</ref> regularly occur in several elections, including one party explicitly or implicitly encouraging voters to vote for a candidate other than theirs. This happened first in 1996 in the [[Wellington Central (New Zealand electorate)|Wellington Central]], and then in 1999 in the [[Coromandel (New Zealand electorate)|Coromandel]]. From 1996 until 2005, it was a regular feature in the [[Ohariu-Belmont (New Zealand electorate)|Ohariu-Belmont]] electorate,<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-11-08 |title=Increase in split votes, election figures show |url=https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/increase-in-split-votes-election-figures-show/BWLL6BR2OJNFH5NN2GY5Q4SD7E/ |access-date=2023-11-08 |website=[[The New Zealand Herald]] |language=en-NZ}}</ref> which was won by [[Peter Dunne]] throughout its existence and from 2005 in the [[Epsom (New Zealand electorate)|Epsom]] electorate which has been won solely by the [[ACT New Zealand|ACT]] party since 2005.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-11-08 |title=Labour gets tactical with Epsom |url=https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/labour-gets-tactical-with-epsom/QMFTACJYUW7SXU6ULP6EHUPUYY/ |access-date=2023-11-08 |website=[[The New Zealand Herald]] |language=en-NZ}}</ref>

=== Poland ===
In the [[2023 Polish parliamentary election]], websites like pogonimypis.pl<ref>{{cite web |date=14 October 2023 |title=Pogonimy PiS! |url=http://pogonimypis.pl |access-date=16 October 2023 |website=pogonimypis.pl |language=pl}}</ref> (meaning "We'll chase the PiS") gave information for which voters should vote for in their constituency in order to maximize the chance of the opposition winning the extra seat. The campaign was a success, with [[Law and Justice (Poland)|PiS]] losing the majority in the [[Sejm]]. At the same time, a [[2023 Polish referendum|referendum]] with the questions asked in a persuasive way took place, with the oppositing recommending to not take the referendal card.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Przyborska |first1=Katarzyna |date=12 October 2023 |title=Co zrobić z kartą do referendum? Najlepiej nie brać |url=https://krytykapolityczna.pl/kraj/wybory-2023-co-zrobic-z-karta-do-referendum/ |work=KrytykaPolityczna.pl |language=pl-PL}}</ref> The voter turnout of the referendum is 40%, making it non-binding and merely a suggestion for all the future governments.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Tilles |first1=Daniel |date=15 October 2023 |title=Exit poll: Polish government's referendum invalidated by low turnout |url=https://notesfrompoland.com/2023/10/15/exit-poll-polish-governments-referendum-invalidated-by-low-turnout/ |work=Notes From Poland |language=en}}</ref>

=== Slovenia ===
According to some media, in the [[2011 Slovenian parliamentary election]], 30% of voters voted tactically. Public polls predicted an easy win for [[Janez Janša]], the candidate of the [[Slovenian Democratic Party]]; however, his opponent [[Zoran Janković (politician)|Zoran Janković]], the candidate of [[Positive Slovenia]], won. Prominent Slovenian public opinion researchers claimed that such proportions of strategic voting had not been recorded anywhere else before.<ref>{{cite web |date=12 December 2011 |title=Raziskovalci o anketah: zmagalo taktično glasovanje |trans-title=Researchers on the Polls: Tactical Voting Won |url=http://www.times.si/slovenija/raziskovalci-o-anketah-zmagalo-takticno-glasovanje--eba9dab4dd-6810500f55.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120425082526/http://www.times.si/slovenija/raziskovalci-o-anketah-zmagalo-takticno-glasovanje--eba9dab4dd-6810500f55.html |archive-date=25 April 2012 |publisher=Delo.si |language=sl}}</ref>

=== Spain ===
In the 2016 General Election in Spain, the incentives for voting tactically were much larger than usual, following the rise of the Podemos and Ciudadanos and following the economic crisis and election in 2015.<ref>Stephenson, Laura B., et al., editors. ''The Many Faces of Strategic Voting: Tactical Behavior in Electoral Systems Around the World''. University of Michigan Press, {{JSTOR|j.ctvh4zhzr}}</ref> The strategic voters successfully influenced the outcome of the election, despite a record low turnout of 66.5%. In a natural experiment in Andalusia 9% voted strategically when having opportunity, strategic behavior did not increase with time, and did not affect surrounding electoral areas, under the assumption that strategic voting happens only for [[district magnitude]] above 5.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Lago |first1=Ignacio |year=2012 |title=Strategic voting in proportional representation systems |url=https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068810389638 |journal=Party Politics |volume=18 |issue=5 |pages=653–665 |doi=10.1177/1354068810389638 |s2cid=143798201 |hdl-access=free |hdl=10230/48115}}</ref>

=== Taiwan ===
In the [[1995 Taiwanese legislative election|1995 Legislative Yuan election]], strategic voting was implemented by the opposition parties, such as the [[Democratic Progressive Party]]<ref name="立委選舉中民進黨的「聯合競選策略」： 以北高兩市為例2">{{cite journal |author1=林長志 |title=立委選舉中民進黨的「聯合競選策略」： 以北高兩市為例 |journal=台灣政治學刊 |language=zh |volume=13 |issue=1 |pages=58–60}}</ref> and the [[New Party (Taiwan)|New Party]].<ref>{{cite web |author1=TVBS |date=2018-08-15 |title=民進黨「懷柔喊話」配票算計高嘉瑜！憂姚文智帶衰議員選舉也垮？少康戰情室 20180815 |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9SGBy9DuYE&t=3s |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190614065747/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9SGBy9DuYE&t=3s |archive-date=2019-06-14 |access-date=2018-08-15 |website=[[YouTube]] |language=zh}}</ref> As the members were elected in multi-member districts, the parties urged their supporters to vote for a party-nominated candidate according to criteria, such as the last digit of the voter's [[National identification card (Taiwan)|National Identification Card Number]] or the voter's birth month. This maximized the opposition's seat gains and resulted in the ruling [[Kuomintang]] losing 10 seats, receiving the lowest share of seats in history at the time.

=== United Kingdom ===<!--In the [[1997 United Kingdom general election]] in [[Winchester]], [[Mark Oaten]] ([[Liberal Democrats|Liberal Democrat]]) beat the incumbent [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative]] MP [[Gerry Malone]] with a majority of 2 votes. Malone successfully challenged the election in the High Court, which declared it void. A [[1997 Winchester by-election|by-election]] was held which returned [[Mark Oaten]] as MP, this time with a larger majority of 21,556. This was due to the majority of Labour voters voting Liberal in the by-election.-->
In the [[1997 United Kingdom general election|1997 UK general election]], [[Democratic Left (United Kingdom)|Democratic Left]] helped [[Bruce Kent]] set up GROT (Get Rid Of Them) a strategic voter campaign whose aim was to help prevent the Conservative Party from gaining a 5th term in office. This coalition was drawn from individuals in all the main opposition parties, and many who were not aligned with any party. While it is hard to prove that GROT swung the election itself, it did attract significant media attention and brought strategic voting into the mainstream for the first time in UK politics. In 2001, the Democratic Left's successor organisation, the [[New Politics Network]], organised a similar campaign. Since then strategic voting has become a consideration in British politics as is reflected in by-elections and by the growth in sites such as tacticalvote.co.uk, who encourage strategic voting as a way of defusing the two party system and empowering the individual voter. For the [[2015 United Kingdom general election|2015 UK general election]], voteswap.org attempted to prevent the Conservative Party staying in government by encouraging Green Party supporters to tactically vote for the Labour Party in listed marginal seats. In 2017 swapmyvote.uk was formed to help supporters of all parties swap their votes with people in other constituencies.

In the 2006 local elections in London, strategic voting was promoted by sites such as London Strategic Voter in a response to national and international issues.<ref>{{Cite web |last=andrew |date=2006-04-04 |title=Strategic Voters target New Labour wipe-out in 4th May London local elections |url=https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2006/04/strategic_voter_1/ |access-date=2025-03-20 |website=Craig Murray |language=en-GB}}</ref>

In Northern Ireland, it is believed that (predominantly Protestant) Unionist voters in Nationalist strongholds have voted for the [[Social Democratic and Labour Party]] (SDLP) to prevent [[Sinn Féin]] from capturing such seats. This conclusion was reached by comparing results to the demographics of constituencies and polling districts.{{fact|date=June 2024}}

In the [[2017 United Kingdom general election|2017 general election]], it is estimated that 6.5 million people (more than 20% of voters) voted tactically<ref name="sky.com2">{{cite web |title=General Election 2017: 6.5 million voted tactically on 8 June |url=https://news.sky.com/story/general-election-2017-65-million-voted-tactically-on-8-june-10998890 |access-date=5 April 2018 |website=sky.com}}</ref> either as a way of preventing a "hard Brexit" or preventing another Conservative government led by the Tactical2017 campaign.<ref name="sky.com2" /> Many Green Party candidates withdrew from the race in order to help the Labour Party<ref>{{cite web |date=25 April 2017 |title=Green Party pulls out of crucial general election seat to help Labour beat the Tories |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/green-party-pulls-general-election-seat-ealing-help-labour-beat-tories-rupa-huq-a7701081.html |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220526/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/green-party-pulls-general-election-seat-ealing-help-labour-beat-tories-rupa-huq-a7701081.html |archive-date=26 May 2022 |access-date=5 April 2018 |website=independent.co.uk}}</ref> secure closely fought seats against the Conservatives. This ultimately led to the Conservatives losing seats in the election even though they increased their overall vote share.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Cartwright |first1=James |last2=Smith |first2=Lilly |date=6 May 2018 |title=Flipping the Script |url=https://designobserver.com/feature/flipping-the-script/39852 |work=Design Observer}}</ref>

In the [[2019 Conservative Party leadership election]] to determine the final two candidates for the party vote, it was suggested that front-runner Boris Johnson's campaign encouraged some of its MPs to back [[Jeremy Hunt]] instead of Johnson, so that Hunt{{snd}}seen as "a lower-energy challenger"{{snd}}would finish in second place, allowing an easier defeat in the party vote.<ref>{{cite web |date=20 June 2019 |title=Did Boris's dirty tricks help Hunt over Gove? |url=https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/06/jeremy-hunt-and-boris-johnson-through-to-the-final-two/ |access-date=12 December 2019 |website=Coffee House}}</ref> Strategic voting was expected to play a major role in the [[2019 United Kingdom general election|2019 General Election]], with a [[YouGov]] poll suggesting that 19% of voters would be doing so tactically. 49% of strategic voters said they would do so in the hope of stopping a party whose views they opposed.<ref>{{cite news |title=Who's tactically voting, and why? {{!}} YouGov |url=https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/10/whos-tactically-voting-and-why |access-date=12 December 2019 |work=yougov.co.uk |language=en-gb}}</ref>

According to a 2020 study, older voters in the UK vote strategically more than younger voters, and richer voters vote more strategically than poorer voters.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Eggers |first1=Andrew C. |last2=Vivyan |first2=Nick |date=2020 |title=Who Votes More Strategically? |journal=American Political Science Review |language=en |volume=114 |issue=2 |pages=470–485 |doi=10.1017/S0003055419000820 |issn=0003-0554 |s2cid=210896040 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

In an example of individuals voting tactically, [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour]] voters in the [[2022 Tiverton and Honiton by-election]] in the UK tactically supported the [[Liberal Democrats (UK)|Liberal Democrat]] candidate in order to ensure the defeat of the [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservatives]].<ref>{{Cite news |last=Cecil |first=Nicholas |date=24 June 2022 |title=Sir John Curtice: Tories in trouble but Keir Starmer still missing crucial spark |url=https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/sir-john-curtice-analysis-by-election-results-wakefield-tiverton-honiton-keir-starmer-labour-boris-johnson-b1008172.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220624122332/https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/sir-john-curtice-analysis-by-election-results-wakefield-tiverton-honiton-keir-starmer-labour-boris-johnson-b1008172.html |archive-date=24 June 2022 |access-date=24 June 2022 |work=[[Evening Standard]] |quote=Sir John Curtice, Professor of Politics at Strathclyde University, [...] highlighted how many Labour voters switched to the Liberal Democrats in the Tiverton and Honiton by-election, to topple a Tory majority of 24,000. [...] 'Labour and Liberal Democrat voters are ganging up against the Tories, voting tactically,' he said.}}</ref> This resulted in the Liberal Democrats winning what had previously been a Conservative [[safe seat]].

In 2024, tactical voting was again advocated for the [[2024 United Kingdom general election|2024 general election]], as a means to defeat Conservative candidates in seats with traditional large Conservative majorities.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Walker |first=Peter |date=2024-06-17 |title=Tactical voting could defeat Tories in once safe seats, campaigners say |url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/17/tactical-voting-guide-tories-once-safe-seats |access-date=2024-06-17 |work=[[The Guardian]] |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref>{{Update inline|date=August 2024}}

=== United States ===
Strategic voting in the US's [[first-past-the-post voting]] and [[presidential system]] contributes to a two-party system, where the observed effect of [[Duverger's law]] is stronger than in most countries.<ref name="Duverger2" />

In 2000, 2016, and 2024, a significant number of voters in the Presidential elections opted to use [[vote swapping]] to increase Democratic turnout in swing states and third-party turnout in safe states.<ref name=Schneider2024>{{Cite news |last=Schneider |first=Aliya |date=2024-11-03 |title=Not sold on Harris over Gaza yet anti-Trump, some Pa. activists are asking blue-state voters to cast protest ballots on their behalf |newspaper=[[The Philadelphia Inquirer]] |url=https://www.inquirer.com/politics/election/vote-swapping-pro-palestinian-protest-harris-trump-20241103.html}}</ref>

One high-profile example of strategic voting was the [[2002 California gubernatorial election]]. During the Republican primaries, Republicans [[Richard Riordan]] (former mayor of [[Los Angeles]]) and [[Bill Simon (politician)|Bill Simon]] (a self-financed businessman) vied for a chance to compete against the unpopular incumbent Democratic [[Governor of California]], [[Gray Davis]]. Polls predicted that Riordan would defeat Davis, while Simon would not. At that time, the Republican primaries were partially closed primaries in which non-partisans and registered Republicans<ref>{{Cite web |title=Voting in a Primary Election |url=https://cavotes.org/voting-in-primary-election/ |access-date=2024-11-28 |website=League of Women Voters of California {{!}} Education Fund |language=en-US}}</ref> could vote regardless of their party affiliation. Davis supporters (those were eligible to vote in the Republican primary) were rumored to have voted for Simon because Riordan was perceived as a greater threat to Davis; this, combined with a negative advertising campaign by Davis describing Riordan as a "big-city liberal", allowed Simon to win the primary despite a last-minute business [[scandal]]. The strategy to nominate Simon (if in fact it was a reality), was successful, as he lost in the general election against Davis. However, it resulted in the lowest gubernatorial general election turnout in modern California political history, thus requiring fewer signatures to qualify a [[2003 California gubernatorial recall election|recall that ultimately ousted Davis]].

Similarly, in 2012, [[Claire McCaskill]] boosted [[Todd Akin]] in the [[2012 United States Senate election in Missouri|2012 US Senate election in Missouri]]. In addition to running ads highlighting Akin's conservative stances, McCaskill also directed messages to surrogates to tell Akin to run ads which would increase his primary polling.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Mccaskill |first=Sen Claire |date=2015-08-11 |title=How I Helped Todd Akin Win – So I Could Beat Him Later |url=http://politi.co/2Dz1clW |access-date=2024-02-03 |website=Politico Magazine |language=en}}</ref>

==== Puerto Rico ====
[[Puerto Rico]]'s 2004 elections were affected by strategic voting. Pedro Rosselló, the [[New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico|New Progressive Party]]'s candidate of that year, was unpopular across much of the territory due to large corruption schemes and the privatization of public corporations. To prevent Rossell from winning, other factions supported the [[Popular Democratic Party (Puerto Rico)|Partido Popular Democratico]]'s candidate. The elections were close; statehood advocates won a seat in the U.S. house of representatives and majorities in both legislative branches, but lost governance to [[Aníbal Acevedo Vilá]]. (Puerto Ricans have the chance to vote by party or by candidate. Separatists voted under their ideology but for the center party's candidate, which caused major turmoil.) After a recount and a trial, Acevedo Vilá was certified as governor of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.