籌碼

There is, of course, an entirely logical reason why our council representative preferred to defer and declined to tell his intention - even though he might have made up his mind right from the beginning.

There could be two layers of applying the same principle. To take the aggressive mode, this is a classical use of the strategy that uncertainty generates bargaining power. In other words, by declaring that one has not decided, one invites lobbying from both side (yes, including the side that one intended to support anyway, because they are not sure of you intention), so that one could gain support from other corners in return should there be other controversial items coming up for discussion in the near future - notably those topics that protect our professional right, or, monopoly if you like, but are against the interest of the general public.

I don't think I need to cite an example here.

How about the defensive side? To say the least, one could show to those on the other side of the trench, or river if you prefer, that it is not your own intention to vote for the, to them, unpleasant side - but the group decision of the whole profession.

PS. Do not jump to the conclusion that politics is dirty and why should anyone consider that much before taking a move. There is good evidence from modern psychology research that human brain tends to focus on moral matters and neglect options that, in the long run, could benefit more people to a greater extend.

On the other hand, unfotunately, the strategy of using uncertainty as the bargaining chip is also somewhat outdated. It is now clear from studies in game theory (on repetitive games) that it is less likely to generate antagonist in the long run by behaving predictably.