See https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2015/09/msg00016.html for the message to second if you choose to do that. Rationale copied below.
As I discussed, in Andreas's resolution, I think that the strategic voting fix introduces more problems than it serves. INstead, I propose that we don't fix that, but trust ourselves to propose ballot options that are statement-of-the-day-like ballot options not requiring a super-majority when doing so is wise. I think that doing so is generally a good idea when you have a super-majority option and its opposite on the same ballot--when there is substantial contraversy about whether to move in the direction of the super-majority option or some other option on the same ballot. I have chosen to retain the preference for the default option in the TC. If four members of the TC really cannot live with an option, we're better off with more discussion or taking it to a GR. Even in the Init system discussion, which I think is the most controversial decision to come before the TC, several of the TC members who preferred options that did not win explained what changes would need to be made for them to consider options similar to the one that won to be acceptable (ranked above FD). As it happened, four TC members didn't think no decision was better than the decision we got: if four members had ranked the winning option below FD, the chair would not have had the opportunity to use his casting vote. We also have some strong evidence from emails where some TC members explained their balloting decisions including what they ranked above FD that the tactical voting people were afraid of didn't happen. We're actually quite good at deciding whether another round of painful discussion is worth the cost or not, and when people we've appointed to make these decision decide that it is, I'd rather not second guess them.