Regarding the relation between voter and electoral candidate, best practice for solidarity and practicality?

Question

The voter's choice candidate has been predicted beyond
all odds to lose the race to one of the major parties
candidate. Should the voter cast their vote with the
candidate they have sided with based on their judgement
of competency or should the voter vote for one of the other
candidates, the lesser of the evils so to speak, because
their candidate appears not to have a chance for winning
the election?
For example, Candidate A, Candidate B, and Candidate C
are all running for office and a voter has evaluated
Candidate A to be the most competent, but the majority
of the population has been forecasted to vote for
Candidate B and Candidate C. Considering that
Candidate A appears to be unable to win the race
should the voter vote for one of the less competent
candidates instead?

If the voter should always vote for only the "potential"
winning candidates then what implications does that
have on the opportunity for any new parties to enter
the election race?

Wouldn't that practice eliminate any
potentially appropriate representation
of the segment of the population who
favors the alignment of the new party?

Can the interests of all the
denominations within a democracy
be accounted for in the absence of
solidarity with the candidate
who is the most appropriate
representative of some of those
denominations?

Answer 1

A voter should always vote his/her conscience. Rather than look at what polls say, should a voter actually investigate and research the candidate? I think so. I never vote the way "I am expected to vote." I always vote the way I feel is correct for the future of the nation as a whole.

I base my vote on several criteria. No. 1, has this candidate presented a positive platform of what they feel they can do to best represent this nation to the world, or the state they represent and all of its people. No. 2. Has this candidate engaged only in politics or personal destruction and never presented a positive platform of what "she/he" can do.

If 1, the candidate is worth considering. If 2, I discard any thought of voting for the candidate.

If a candidate has nothing more substantial to offer than the destruction of another person's character, then they have nothing substantial to offer this nation or the citizens of the nation.

Answer 2

You vote after your conscience be it popular or not.

"By liberty I mean the assurance that every man shall be protected in doing what he believes is his duty against the influence of authority and majorities, custom
and opinion." -- Lord Acton [John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton] (1834-1902), First Baron Acton of Aldenham Source: The History of Freedom in Antiquity, 1877

Answer 3

I think that you should vote for whomever best represents your views and morality regardless of who is projected to win.