• anticolonialist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months 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. We would likely leave that box empty and vote down ballot or simply not vote at all.

    • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months 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.