In a score voting system you may over score a candidate you don’t really like that much to raise awareness of a specific issue. Lets say there is a single issue party/candidate who is unlikely to win a seat. You can safely give them a max score since you know they will not win. You may decide to give them a full score just to bring awareness to the issue. This will result in more people paying attention to the single issue upon looking at election results even though the candidate did not win. Is this bad? It is clearly strategic voting.
I think it’s our best bet to get 3rd parties up in the polls when cardinal methods are enacted in real places. So long as they are not totally repugnant, I think supporting a 3rd party you don’t even particularly like to the max to get them off the ground is the right move.
There should be no problems with strategic voting if it doesn’t affect the winner. And if such a candidate actually won off these protest votes… At least the issue is going to get taken care of? But maybe it is pertinent to think twice once that candidate is a little higher in the polls, or to score only a little higher than usual if you don’t have polling.
This is something that is especially pertinent with Approval, because you can’t show less than full support for a candidate with a decent idea.
I think it’s good. If the electorate intended to send a message that a particular issue is important to them by giving a decent rating to a single issue candidate, the winner will have a harder time claiming they have a “mandate” to do the opposite.
It is not really the same thing. If you do not like the candidate, technically this is strategically bad, albeit with a very small chance of actually hurting you.
I think the title is a little misleading – a “protest” vote seems more like an all-zero vote or only scoring no-hopers.