Our voting system is set up to, hopefully, mediate a complex decision process. In the mountain scenario, you’re suggesting an educated compromise as a manner of mediating a decision. I think your compromise is more analogous to our vote process than it is to manipulating our vote process.

Two asides….

One: our votes are cast for others to take action on our behalf (those elected). In the mountain scenario, we’re taking action ourselves. We can take direct responsibility and argue with one another over what we will do. In an election that possibility is somewhat removed because we’re relying on the will and actions of others.

The gap between what I want and what the politicians claim they’ll do or how they’ll represent me, opens a door to influence by other actors.

Two: Polls are notoriously not unanimous in what they represent (just look at the many polls running in this election – none agree). These polls are also potentially influenced by those paying for them and in the manner in which they’re conducted. Basing your choice on the shifting target of polls will not even alllow for the consideration of how your vote swapping might be affecting them. It’s as though you’re outsmarting yourself. Basing a vote swap on previous election results is worse, as things and opinions can change dramatically between elections.

Anyway, fortunately I’m not related to Goldilocks–I remain unbothered by evil bears.

So then imagine that the three of you decide that sitting on the mountain is no good, and that you should be trying to escape. what’s more you all decide that you’re going to decide the direction according to vote.

The guy on your left shoulder wants to walk up the mountain, and the guy on your right shoulder wants to follow a nearby stream. You’ve got a good sense of direction, and you think that if you walk along the side of the mountain, you’ll come across a road. As far as you’re concerned, they’re both crazy. As far as they’re concerned, you’re wrong. But night is falling and you have to get walking.

So someone’s gotta concede.
you reason that, if you walk up the mountain, it might be harder going, and it might not even be in the right direction, but at least a good view will open up. maybe if you and your companions could get a good look at the land, you could convince them to walk towards the road.

on the other hand, if you walk down the mountain, you might end up in an uninhabited valley. also, you’ll surely get lost in the woods.

So what’s wrong with “voting strategically”? it’s not true that there are only two directions to walk, but it IS true that there are only two directions YOUR COMPANIONS want to walk. and if no one concedes, then no one will get anywhere.