(12-30-2014, 09:04 PM)Unibot Wrote: For example, let's imagine a vote where there are three candidates: Mr. Orange, Ms. Pink and Mrs. Yellow.

You hate Mr. Orange - he's a pompous git. Ms. Pink is tolerable, if not "capable", but generally lacks vision and personality. Mrs. Yellow is a sweetheart and really just wonderful, but not viewed as a viable candidate because Mr. Orange is popular and experienced and Ms. Pink has the credibility (years serving in cabinet).

You'd like to cast your vote for Mrs. Yellow even if this means you "waste your ballot", so long as it isn't a close run against Mr. Orange and Ms. Pink - and your ballot could help  that prick Mr. Orange win.

Under an open first-past-the-post system like we have now, you can vote Mrs. Yellow conscientiously - knowing if the Ms. Pink - Mr. Orange race gets close, you can always switch your vote to Ms. Pink at the last minute and stop that orange douchebag. 

However, in your "closed" first-past-the-post system, you just go into the election knowing Ms. Pink and Mr. Orange are fairly popular and it's expected to be a close fight. So you vote for Ms. Pink instead of Mrs. Yellow - because god knows, the risks are too high if that citrus scumbag wins.

The result is that your system has the opposite effect that you're proposing, provided voters have an idea as to who the perceived "frontrunners" are.