The following are some of the issues with strategic voting:
- It is difficult to gauge whether strategic voting efforts successfully alter individual voter behaviour
- In some cases, strategic voting efforts have backfired – voting against a candidate with momentum and resulting in a split vote anyways
- Strategic voting in Canada has meant voting Liberal in districts where the Liberals and Conservatives are competitive, but New Democrats are weak (leading to a two-party system)
- Many voters in Canada interpret “strategic voting” to mean “vote Liberal”. In ridings where Conservatives and New Democrats are traditionally the main contenders, such messages create confusion
- Progressive organizations such as Unions often don’t agree on which candidate is best positioned to be the strategic candidate in a riding
- Candidates may proclaim themselves as the strategic choice even when mainstream of strategic voting efforts support other choices
- Strategic voting campaigns have difficulty adjusting to changes in party support mid-campaign that can change the dynamic in local races
To be most useful a strategic voting campaign should address these potential issues and take actions that will address them.
The question of the effect of strategic voting campaigns is not simple to answer. While voters may appear to vote strategically for their own reasons, there a lack of evidence that campaigns trying to organize a strategic vote work (cause change in voter behavior).
To test if campaigns work, something along these lines would need to be done: sufficient voters would need to be reached by a campaign to be aware of it, and then polled after the voting is complete, in sufficient numbers to answer questions about how they voted and the impact of the campaign. A comparable voter population that did not hear about the campaign would also have to be polled to find out how they voted.
Sources:
Does Strategic Voting Actually Work? | The Tyee
Canadian election 2021: Do strategic voting campaigns actually work?