Political parties face a fundamental dilemma between compromising in order to enter coalitions or staying true to their ideological positions. What considerations shape citizen’s view of this dilemma inherent to multiparty parliamentarism? Do they want political parties to seek as much influence as possible or do they rather prefer parties to stay closely to their own position though it may imply limited political influence? Previous research has shown that when asked about compromise generally and in the abstract, citizens tend to prefer parties that are willing and able to compromise, but it remains unclear whether this extends to a less abstract context with inherent trade-offs and whether this preference is strong enough to impact actual vote choice. Furthermore, theories of coalition-directed strategic voting suggest that citizens are primarily concerned about maximizing the changes of their preferred government. If citizens expected parties to commit to their prime minister preference ahead of the election, this prevents parties from being open towards different coalition formations and can potentially severely undermine their bargaining position. Do citizens wish to constrain the parties in this way or do they trust their party of choice to reach the best deal possible? Using conjoint analysis, we test how voters handle trade-offs between ideological proximity, prime ministerial endorsements, willingness to compromise, and the party's prospects of passing the electoral treshold.