How does game theory analyze strategic voting?

Game theory analyzes strategic voting by examining the strategic choices made by individuals in voting situations where their preferences and beliefs are taken into account. Strategic voting refers to the act of voting for a candidate or option that is not the individual's preferred choice, but rather a strategic choice made to maximize their own utility or achieve a desired outcome.

In game theory, strategic voting is often analyzed using models such as the spatial model or the Downsian model. These models assume that voters have preferences over different policy positions or candidates and aim to maximize their own utility. Strategic voting occurs when voters strategically deviate from their sincere preferences to influence the outcome of the election or achieve a desired policy outcome.

One common example of strategic voting is the "lesser of two evils" scenario, where voters strategically vote for a candidate who is not their first choice but has a higher chance of winning or aligns more closely with their preferences compared to the other candidates. This strategic choice is made to prevent a worse outcome from occurring.

Game theory also analyzes strategic voting in situations where there are multiple rounds of voting, such as in runoff elections or sequential voting systems. In these cases, voters strategically consider the potential outcomes of each round and adjust their voting behavior accordingly.

Overall, game theory provides a framework to analyze strategic voting by considering the incentives and strategic choices made by individuals in voting situations. It helps to understand how individuals strategically deviate from their sincere preferences to achieve their desired outcomes or influence the election results.