Prospective voting looks forward. Voters compare expected policies, competence, character, and governing priorities. Platforms, debates, prior records, endorsements, and party labels help them forecast. A promise's appeal and credibility both matter: a preferred proposal may be valued less if the candidate lacks authority, coalition support, or a plausible path to enactment. Past performance can supply evidence for a future forecast, so the time direction of the conclusion determines the label.

Rational-choice voting places those judgments inside a broader comparison. A voter selects the available option expected to produce the most valued outcome at an acceptable cost. Value can include policy, economic well-being, group interests, identity, civic duty, or expressive satisfaction. Rationality does not require selfishness, perfect information, or a written calculation. Party labels and trusted endorsements can reduce information costs; they are shortcuts whose usefulness depends on how reliably they signal candidate behavior.

Strategic voting shows how institutions enter the calculation. A voter may prefer a minor-party candidate but choose a viable major-party candidate to reduce the chance of the least-preferred result. A runoff or ranked-choice rule could change that cost. Participation itself can be analyzed through time, information, and access costs alongside civic duty, habit, social approval, and expressive benefit. One citizen can use all three models: punish past failure, compare future plans, and choose the viable package with the greatest expected value. The stem's evidence, not the final candidate choice, identifies the reasoning.

Video lesson: How Voters Decide: Crash Course Government and Politics #38