• Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    That is based on the assumption that a 3rd party voter would vote for a right wing duopoly party to begin with if there were no 3rd party options.

    Not really. It’s the subset of voters that have an effect on the votes of the doupoly candidates, and 3rd party voters who would never vote for the doupoly candidates by definition aren’t in that subset to begin with.

    Zooming out/accounting for voters abstaining doesn’t actually change anything:

    Election report for election "Plurality 2 Candidates"
    Total people: 1047
    11% of people supported the winner.
    
    Kruger - 112 votes - WINNER
    Sahl - 111 votes
    

    Election report for election "Plurality 3 Candidates"
    Total people: 1047
    10% of people supported the winner.
    
    Sahl - 109 votes - WINNER
    Kruger - 93 votes
    Maikol - 91 votes
    

    The overwhelming majority of Maikol’s votes came from voters who didn’t vote for the preexisting duopoly. However Maikol’s entrance into the race was enough to split the vote with Kruger, causing the election to be won by Sahl.

    The math is the same math, it still shows the spoiler effect.

      • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        That just kicks the can down the road instead of actually solving it. The spoiler effect is still there.

        And you should be especially motivated to remove the spoiler effect from our electoral systems, since it is in large part what is stopping your 3rd party from being successful. Everybody should be able to vote for who they most like, without having to worry about the spoiler effect.