Voting Strategies for Sussy Swap Simulator

How Voting Works

After discussion time ends, players have 15-120 seconds (depending on game settings) to cast one vote. You can vote for any player including yourself, or choose to skip voting. The player receiving the most votes is eliminated from the game.

Ties result in no elimination - if two players each receive three votes, nobody is ejected. This tie mechanic is crucial for strategic voting and can be exploited by both crewmates and impostors depending on the situation.

Vote Counting and Majorities

Understanding vote mathematics determines winning strategies. With 9 players alive, you need 5 votes for absolute majority. With 7 players, you need 4 votes. Always calculate required votes before meetings to understand if consensus is achievable.

When voting is split among multiple suspects, impostors can manipulate outcomes by voting strategically. Three innocents each receiving two votes means no elimination, wasting precious meeting opportunities. Coordinated voting prevents this problem.

Skip Voting Explained

Skip voting (choosing not to vote anyone out) is a legitimate strategy, not cowardice. Skip when evidence is insufficient, when you are unsure between multiple suspects, or when voting incorrectly would lose the game. Professional players skip frequently - it is smart play.

However, excessive skipping helps impostors by giving them more kill opportunities. Balance caution with action. If you have skipped 2-3 meetings already and no impostors have been eliminated, the next vote must be decisive or crewmates will lose through attrition.

Identifying Impostor Voting Behavior

Impostors vote differently than crewmates in subtle but detectable ways. They rarely lead accusations, preferring to support existing suspicions. They skip votes more frequently when their partner is suspected. They vote with majorities even when evidence is weak, prioritizing survival over justice.

Track who votes for whom across multiple meetings. Impostors often vote together or avoid voting for each other entirely. If Blue and Red never suspect each other across five meetings despite everyone else being accused, they are likely partners.

The Skip Vote Analysis

Who skips and when reveals information. Crewmates skip when genuinely unsure. Impostors skip when voting would expose them or their partner. If someone consistently skips when their suspected partner faces votes, investigate that relationship.

Mass skip votes (5+ players skipping) indicate insufficient evidence. This is healthy in early game but dangerous late game. If most players skip in the final rounds, crewmates are not collaborating effectively and impostors will win through kills.

Vote Timing Tells

When someone votes reveals their confidence. Instant votes suggest strong conviction or pre-planned strategy (often impostor votes). Very late votes often indicate following the bandwagon rather than independent judgment. Mid-timing suggests careful consideration.

Changed votes are highly significant. If someone switches votes last-second, they are either reacting to new information or manipulating outcomes. Question vote changes: "Why did you switch from Blue to Red?" Legitimate answers are detailed; suspicious answers are vague.

Voting Against Confirmed Innocents

Players who vote for confirmed innocents (those who did visual tasks) are highly suspicious. There is no legitimate reason to vote someone confirmed innocent. This voting pattern strongly indicates impostor attempting to eliminate threats.

Similarly, voting for people with strong alibis or witnessed innocence reveals either ignorance or malicious intent. In organized play, these votes instantly mark someone for investigation next round.

Advanced Pattern Recognition

The Flip-Flop Pattern: Players who constantly change positions between meetings are often impostors testing which narratives stick. They accuse Blue one meeting, defend Blue the next, then ignore Blue completely. This inconsistency reveals manipulation.

The Silent Voter: Players who do not contribute to discussion but always vote with the majority are suspicious. Impostors use this strategy to appear participatory while avoiding scrutiny. Challenge silent voters to explain their reasoning.

The Aggressive Accuser: Someone pushing hard for votes on weak evidence might be impostor trying to eliminate threats. However, they might also be an inexperienced crewmate. Context and track record matter in this analysis.

The Strategic Skipper: Players who skip most votes but vote decisively on obvious impostors are likely experienced crewmates playing correctly. Excessive skipping without eventual action suggests impostor avoiding commitment.