Why It’s Rational to Write In Warriors

Some people voting in the Marquette nickname poll may be inclined to cast votes for two of the names on the University approved list, and not bother to write-in Warriors since they don’t want to “throw away one of their votes.”

In fact, casting a write-in vote for Warriors is a highly rational thing to do.

In the first place, the University had claimed that it won’t tabulate “Warrior” votes, nor other votes that they don’t like (anything with “war,” “Jumping Jesuits” etc.).

But lately, we have a slightly different story. According to the Journal-Sentinel:

Advantage Research is tabulating all votes, [University spokeswoman Brigid] O’Brien said, including votes for Warriors. Even though the school will not consider a vote for Warriors to be a valid vote, O’Brien said the total number of votes cast for Warriors might be disclosed.

Might be disclosed?

Under what conditions would the number be disclosed? If the number is relatively small, and not enough to embarrass Marquette.

No doubt, if there are a large number of write-in votes for Warriors, the University will staunchly refuse to say how many there were. And that’s good. It will send the message that Warriors was what the alumni and students really wanted. Their silence, in other words, will be . . . uh . . . “golden.”

In the second place, if somebody has a clear favorite among the ten approved nicknames, voting for that one and then writing in Warriors is a dandy thing to do.

If somebody votes for their favorite among the ten approved nicknames, and then votes for their second choice among the ten, they are risking casting a vote that may allow their second choice nickname to edge out their favorite.

Put another way, if somebody really, really likes (say) “Hilltoppers,” it would not be rational to vote for any name on the official list besides “Hilltoppers.”

But this would leave one with another free vote, which would be best used by writing in “Warriors.”