FVC Anita Nicholson (writing as independent blogger in 2016) said PR means no need for both types of strategic voting.
Strategic voting type 1
under FPTP you like a third party candidate but feel you must vote for one of top two to ensure your vote is used to elect someone. you pick the least-objectionable candidate.
Anita noted that "The good news is: All proportional systems on the table for Canada end that kind of strategic voting."
Strategic voting type 2
happens whenever a voter votes for a candidate or party that is not the voter's first choice.
Anita says this broader type does happen under PR.
she shows when it happened under MMP in Scotland, under list PR in Sweden, and under STV in
list PR means high proportion of votes are used to elect someone, no matter if you vote for a "third party" candidate. votes for smallest parties (as measured overall, in multi-district regions (MMP) or multi-seat districts (most uses of list PR)) will be ignored though.
Anita says the broader "strategic voting type 2" does happen under list PR in Sweden in two circumstances:
1) Their preferred party is too small and not likely to meet the 4% threshold and they don't want to "waste their vote" (similar to reasons people vote strategically in winner-take-all systems)
2) They hope for a certain coalition and want to ensure that a smaller party partner in the coalition meets the threshold so that coalition happens (what Freden calls "threshold insurance voting")
Anita said "This second kind of strategic voting was quite successful in the 2010 Swedish election."
Sweden uses open list regional list PR.
Anita analysed strategic voting in MMP in Scotland, New Zealand and Germany
Despite the use of "strategic voting type 1" under MMP, Anita notes:
However, [MMP] is a proportional system and the objectives of moderate PR are met: Governments are usually formed by parties representing a majority of voters, or closer to it than we see in Canada, and most voters are able to cast a vote that helps elect representation from the party of their choice.
Anita analysed strategic voting type 1 in list PR in Sweden
Anita analysed strategic voting type 1 in STV.
She says STV was used in Ireland and three Australian territories
(when actually it is also used in Malta nationally, and in the national-level upper house, and upper houses in four states, and lower houses in 2 Australian states and 1 territory (only Queensland (unicameral/IRV) and Northern Territory (unicameral/IRV) does not use STV.)
STV-PR means high proportion of votes are used to elect someone, no matter if you vote for a "third party" candidate. Votes for smallest and small parties will be transferred to preferred candidates running under labels of medium and large parties.
Anita observes that "it's pretty hard to vote strategically or plan a coordinated strategic voting campaign with PR-STV" and gives links to articles that discuss that point.
[as well, there are two methods of strategic voting - concentrea your vote on one main one and lte the sur;pus cascade down on others of same paty
spread your votes out evenly over candidates of the party, thus saving them from elimination.
As these two strategies are opposite, it seems no way is all powerful. That is what we want in a fair system - no clear way to game the system.]
Anita provides these links on STV
As these articles point out, it's pretty hard to vote strategically or plan a coordinated strategic voting campaign with PR-STV:
==============
Anita's conclusion is
"In general, any proportional system for Canada means the end of strategic voting as we know it
- having to plug your nose and vote for someone you don't want, to prevent a party you dislike from forming a majority government."
In the blog Anita gave a good analogy for FPTP voting --
"First-past-the-post is a pretty blunt instrument for electing a government. For the voter, it's a bit like swinging a hammer in the air and hoping you hit something. Most of us don't."
As under PR you are more likely to hit something no matter how you swing, you don't need to target your vote. not as much as under FPTP anyway.
============================
Comments