Strategic voting - does it make sense?

Strategic voting is a concept that is often discussed among voters, especially in federal elections. But how useful is it really to deviate from your actual preference in order to support certain parties or coalitions?

Prof Dr Lukas Stötzer is an expert in election forecasting at Witten/Herdecke University (UW/H). He explains that strategic voting can make sense in certain cases: "If you opt for a smaller party that will definitely not pass the 5 per cent hurdle, you are giving away your vote. In such a case, it can make sense to switch to a larger party to ensure that your vote carries any weight in parliament and for government majorities."

Such strategic voting decisions can have a noticeable impact on the outcome of the election in certain cases. Particularly in the race for the strongest party, larger parties such as the SPD or CDU can gain up to 3 percentage points before the election.

Vote splitting is becoming less important

According to Stötzer, vote splitting, where voters split their first and second votes between different parties, is becoming less important. In 2021, 24.9 per cent of voters still used it, but the electoral law reform could make it problematic this time.

This means that direct mandates no longer automatically guarantee a seat in the Bundestag. The second vote is also decisive: a party can only win as many direct seats as its share of the second vote. So if you cast your second vote differently to your first vote, you could inadvertently contribute to your own party's direct candidates in the constituency not entering parliament, even though they have the most first votes.

If a party achieves around 20 seats in a German federal state but has won 25 constituencies, only the candidates with the best results will enter parliament. Stötzer therefore sees a clear "incentive" for supporters of larger parties to cast both votes together.