Support the most conservative candidate who can actually win.
William F. Buckley Jr. gave the advice in the 1960s, when conservative Republicans were debating whether to back ideologically pure candidates or electable ones. It has been cited in American primary contests ever since, with its wording shifting between the most conservative and the rightward-most viable candidate.
In practice
- A primary voter picks the moderate who polls well against the other party over the purist who does not.
- A committee backs the reform with a chance of passing over the one it prefers.
- Possible explanations
- One explanation is that elections reward coalitions, so a candidate who cannot win delivers none of their positions. Another is that viability is itself a judgement, which lets voters trade purity against probability.
- In its favour
- A general rule of strategic voting that applies to every side, consistent with spatial models of elections.
- Against it
- Viability is hard to judge in advance, and candidates judged unviable have repeatedly won. Critics argue the rule entrenches party establishments.
- Standing
- Compare base mobilization versus persuasion.
- Subject
- Law & Politics
- Essay
- Rules that restrain power, and advice on using it