Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Spoiler effect

The spoiler effect is a phenomenon observed in plurality voting systems, such as first-past-the-post, where a candidate with minimal chance of victory draws sufficient votes from a ideologically similar frontrunner, thereby enabling an ideologically dissimilar opponent to secure the win despite broader voter preferences against them.^[1] This occurs because plurality rules award victory to the candidate with the most votes regardless of majority support, allowing vote splitting among like-minded voters to disadvantage their preferred side without the minor candidate gaining the top position.^[1]^[2] Theoretically rooted in the mechanics of non-proportional representation, the spoiler effect incentivizes strategic voter behavior and discourages third-party candidacies, contributing to two-party dominance as predicted by Duverger's law, though empirical deviations occur in multi-member districts or varying turnout contexts.^[1] Notable historical instances include the 1912 U.S. presidential election, where Progressive Theodore Roosevelt's entry split the Republican vote, aiding Democrat Woodrow Wilson's plurality victory, and the 2000 election, where Green Party candidate Ralph Nader's participation in key states like Florida correlated with Democrat Al Gore's narrow loss to Republican George W. Bush.^[1] Similar patterns have been documented in non-U.S. contexts, such as Polish parliamentary elections from 1991 to 2015, where multiple spoiler types fragmented support in single-winner races.^[3] Proponents of electoral reform argue the effect undermines representative democracy by distorting voter intent and suppressing ideological diversity, prompting adoption of alternatives like ranked-choice voting or approval voting, which aim to mitigate vote splitting through preference aggregation or non-exclusive support.^[2] However, analyses of these systems reveal persistent vulnerabilities, including non-monotonicity or incomplete spoiler resistance, as seen in single transferable vote implementations where additional candidates can still invert preferred outcomes.^[4] Empirically, the effect's causality in specific races remains debated, with challenges in isolating voter migration absent counterfactual data, though simulations and historical vote reallocations consistently demonstrate its plausibility under plurality rules.^[1]^[3]

Conceptual Foundations

Definition and Mechanisms

The spoiler effect refers to a situation in electoral systems where the participation of a non-viable candidate alters the outcome by siphoning votes primarily from a ideologically similar viable candidate, thereby allowing an otherwise losing opponent to win.^[5] This occurs because the minor candidate's voters, who would otherwise support the major candidate as their second preference, divide the vote share in a manner that prevents the major candidate from securing a plurality or majority.^[6] In social choice theory, the effect manifests as a violation of the independence of irrelevant alternatives criterion, where the relative ranking of major candidates changes due to the entry of a third option irrelevant to pairwise preferences between the majors.^[7] The primary mechanism operates in single-winner plurality systems like first-past-the-post (FPTP), where victory requires only the highest vote count, not an absolute majority, enabling fragmented support to tip results unexpectedly.^[5] Voters expressing sincere preferences for the spoiler—often due to dissatisfaction with the major candidate's compromises—reduce the major's tally below the opponent's, even if a majority prefers the major over the opponent in aggregate or pairwise terms.^[8] This vote-splitting dynamic arises causally from the absence of vote transfer or ranking mechanisms, forcing binary-like choices in multi-candidate fields and amplifying the impact of minor candidacies with concentrated appeal.^[4] Empirical patterns show spoilers typically emerge from the same ideological flank, such as left-leaning independents drawing from progressive majors or right-leaning ones from conservatives, as overlapping voter utility functions direct support away from the shared major.^[6] While strategic abstention or lesser-evil voting can mitigate it, incomplete voter information about viability—often signaled by polls or funding—sustains the effect, as risk-averse voters may still back spoilers hoping for momentum.^[5] In theoretical models, this leads to equilibria where expected utility calculations favor coordination failures, perpetuating two-party dominance in FPTP despite broader preference diversity.^[7]

Underlying Voter Dynamics

In plurality voting systems, the spoiler effect emerges from voters' rational anticipation of vote splitting among ideologically proximate candidates, prompting strategic defection to more viable alternatives to avert an undesired winner. Voters with sincere preferences for minor candidates assess the pivotal probability of their vote—typically low in multi-candidate fields—and reallocate support to the major-party contender closest to their ideal point, treating the contest as effectively dichotomous despite multiple options. This dynamic, modeled in game-theoretic frameworks, yields equilibria where coordinated voting suppresses third-party viability, as uncoordinated sincere voting risks fragmenting the preferred ideological bloc and elevating a distant rival.^[9]^[10] Empirical patterns reinforce this: in U.S. House elections from 1992–2002, entry of third-party or independent candidates correlated with 2–5% vote shifts from major parties, often ideological allies, altering outcomes in close races by diluting the structural vote share without proportional policy influence. Voter surveys indicate that pre-election polling and historical precedents inform this coordination, with "wasted vote" fears—exacerbated by winner-take-all mechanics—driving 10–20% of respondents in simulated plurality scenarios to abandon third preferences when polls signal non-viability. Uncertainty in voter expectations can disrupt full coordination, permitting sporadic spoilers, as seen in analyses where incomplete information leads to persistent multi-candidate fragmentation despite incentives for herding.^[11]^[12] These dynamics align with Duverger's psychological mechanism, wherein iterative learning from past elections fosters preemptive two-party convergence: voters, recognizing spoilers' zero-sum harm, progressively desert fringe entrants, though entry barriers and ideological polarization can sustain splits in polarized environments. Causal realism underscores that this is not mere randomness but a direct consequence of single-member districts amplifying marginal vote impacts, incentivizing risk-averse behavior over expressive voting. Peer-reviewed models confirm that without such strategic adaptation, multi-party equilibria would prevail, but plurality's structure enforces bipolarity through endogenous voter response.^[13]

Historical and Empirical Context

Early Historical Examples

In the 1844 United States presidential election, Liberty Party candidate James G. Birney, running on an abolitionist platform, garnered 62,300 votes nationally (2.3% of the popular vote), drawing primarily from Whig nominee Henry Clay's anti-slavery supporters in key Northern states.^[14] In New York, Birney received approximately 15,800 votes, exceeding by more than three times the 5,106-vote margin by which Democrat James K. Polk defeated Clay; historical analyses argue that reallocating even a portion of Birney's New York votes to Clay would have flipped the state's 36 electoral votes, awarding Clay the presidency instead of Polk, who won with 49.5% of the national popular vote.^[15] This instance exemplifies early vote splitting in a plurality system, where Birney's candidacy fragmented opposition to Polk without Birney himself contending for victory.^[16] A similar dynamic occurred in the 1848 election, where Free Soil Party nominee Martin Van Buren, a former Democratic president opposing the expansion of slavery, secured 10.1% of the national vote (291,501 ballots), splitting the Democratic base and enabling Whig Zachary Taylor to win with 47.3% against Democrat Lewis Cass's 41.9%.^[14] Van Buren's intervention particularly impacted states like New York and Pennsylvania, where his votes narrowed Democratic margins sufficiently to tip electoral outcomes toward Taylor, demonstrating how third-party challenges on specific issues could undermine major-party coalitions in the absence of runoff mechanisms.^[14] The 1860 election provided another prominent case, as the Democratic Party fractured over slavery, fielding Northern nominee Stephen A. Douglas (29.5% popular vote) and Southern nominee John C. Breckinridge (18.2%), whose combined 47.7% failed to coalesce against Republican Abraham Lincoln, who prevailed with 39.8% and no Southern votes.^[17] This intra-party split, exacerbated by Constitutional Union candidate John Bell's 12.6%, prevented Democrats from mounting a unified front; analyses contend that a single Democratic ticket akin to Douglas's platform might have secured enough states to block Lincoln's 180 electoral votes, averting his victory and potentially altering the path to secession.^[18] These pre-1900 examples, drawn from the era's winner-take-all electoral structure, illustrate the spoiler effect's recurrence in multi-candidate races under first-past-the-post rules, often amplifying sectional divides without majority support for winners.^[14]

Key U.S. Electoral Instances

In the 1912 presidential election, the Republican vote split between incumbent President William Howard Taft and former President Theodore Roosevelt, who ran under the Progressive (Bull Moose) Party banner after challenging Taft's nomination. Roosevelt secured 4,122,721 popular votes (27.4 percent), while Taft received 3,486,242 (23.2 percent), allowing Democrat Woodrow Wilson to prevail with 6,296,284 votes (41.8 percent) and 435 electoral votes. This division of conservative and progressive Republican support is widely regarded as a classic spoiler instance, as Roosevelt's candidacy drew voters who otherwise might have backed Taft, handing Wilson the presidency despite the combined Republican total exceeding Wilson's share.^[19] The 2000 presidential election featured Green Party candidate Ralph Nader as a spoiler for Democrat Al Gore in Florida, where Republican George W. Bush won by 537 votes out of nearly 6 million cast. Nader received 97,488 votes in the state, exceeding Bush's margin; exit polls indicated that a majority of Nader voters preferred Gore over Bush as their second choice. Without Nader on the ballot, analyses suggest Gore likely would have carried Florida's 25 electoral votes, potentially securing the presidency. Nader's national total of 2.88 percent amplified perceptions of the spoiler effect in plurality systems, though some Nader supporters disputed the characterization, arguing their votes reflected principled opposition to both majors.^[20]^[21] In the 2016 presidential election, third-party candidates Gary Johnson (Libertarian) and Jill Stein (Green) collectively drew votes that contributed to Republican Donald Trump's narrow victories in key Rust Belt states against Democrat Hillary Clinton. In Michigan, Trump won by 10,704 votes while Stein received 51,463; in Wisconsin, Trump's 22,748-vote margin contrasted with 31,072 for Johnson and 31,072 for Stein; and in Pennsylvania, Trump's 44,292 edge followed 146,595 combined third-party votes. Voter surveys showed disproportionate third-party support among left-leaning demographics likely to favor Clinton absent alternatives, enabling Trump's Electoral College win despite Clinton's popular vote plurality. Critics of the spoiler attribution noted that not all third-party voters would have participated or supported Clinton, but the margins underscore the effect's empirical impact in close races.^[22]^[23]

International Observations

In the 2002 French presidential election's first round on April 21, incumbent President Jacques Chirac of the Rally for the Republic garnered 19.88% of the vote, while Socialist Prime Minister Lionel Jospin received 16.18%; however, fragmentation among leftist candidates—including communists, greens, and Trotskyists—diluted the progressive vote, enabling National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen to secure 16.86% and advance to the runoff against Chirac.^[24] This outcome exemplified the spoiler effect in France's two-round system, where multiple ideologically proximate challengers on the left prevented a unified front, propelling an unintended far-right contender forward despite Le Pen's subsequent landslide defeat by Chirac (82% to 18%) in the May 5 runoff.^[25] Canada's first-past-the-post federal elections have repeatedly illustrated vote splitting on the centre-right. In the November 27, 2000, contest, the Liberal Party won 172 of 301 seats with 40.8% of the popular vote, while the Canadian Alliance obtained 66 seats on 25.5% and the Progressive Conservative Party (PCs) 12 seats on 12.2%; the division of conservative-leaning support between the Alliance (successor to the Reform Party) and PCs allowed Liberals to secure a majority despite limited national backing, a dynamic that persisted from the 1990s and fueled the 2003 merger forming the modern Conservative Party.^[26] Similar splits occurred in prior cycles, such as 1997, where combined right-of-centre votes exceeded the Liberals' but yielded fewer seats due to geographic dispersion and intra-right competition.^[27] The United Kingdom's 2015 general election on May 7 demonstrated the spoiler effect under first-past-the-post, with the UK Independence Party (UKIP) capturing 12.6% of the national vote—primarily from Conservative-leaning voters—but translating to just one seat; in key marginal constituencies, UKIP's candidacy split the right-wing vote, enabling Labour to retain or gain seats it might otherwise have lost, contributing to the Conservatives' narrow 12-seat majority despite UKIP's disproportionate impact on tactical dynamics.^[28] Analyses indicated UKIP siphoned more votes from Tories than Labour in England, exacerbating inefficiencies in the system where third-party surges amplify disproportionality without proportional representation.^[29] In contrast, Australia's use of instant-runoff voting (preferential ballot) since 1918 has largely mitigated spoiler effects in House of Representatives elections by allowing voters to rank candidates, redistributing preferences from eliminated ones; for instance, minor parties like the Greens or One Nation rarely act as spoilers, as second preferences often flow to major parties without nullifying first choices, though critics note residual two-party dominance persists due to compulsory voting and ballot exhaustion rules.^[30] This system design underscores how ranked-choice mechanisms can reduce vote splitting compared to plurality rules prevalent in other Westminster-derived systems.

Systemic Variations

Plurality and First-Past-The-Post Systems

In plurality voting systems, commonly implemented as first-past-the-post (FPTP) in single-member districts, the spoiler effect emerges when a minor candidate siphons votes primarily from a ideologically proximate major candidate, enabling an ideologically distant opponent to secure victory with a plurality rather than a majority. This dynamic stems from the system's rule that the candidate receiving the most votes wins outright, without provisions for vote transfers, runoffs, or preference rankings, which concentrates the incentive on vote consolidation among frontrunners. Empirical analyses confirm that spoilers typically draw disproportionate support from one major party's base, as measured by ideological proximity and voter surveys, leading to outcomes where the spoiler's elimination would reverse the winner in a significant fraction of cases.^[31]^[6] Historical U.S. elections under FPTP illustrate this mechanism with quantifiable impacts. In Florida during the 2000 presidential election, Green Party candidate Ralph Nader received 97,488 votes, exceeding the 537-vote margin by which Republican George W. Bush (2,912,790 votes) defeated Democrat Al Gore (2,912,253 votes); a study of voter behavior estimated that 59% of Nader's supporters would have selected Gore as their alternative, sufficient to flip the result and alter the national outcome via the Electoral College.^[32]^[33] Similarly, the 1912 presidential election saw Progressive Theodore Roosevelt capture 4,122,721 votes (27.4% of the popular vote), splitting Republican support from incumbent William Howard Taft's 3,486,242 votes (23.2%) and allowing Democrat Woodrow Wilson to prevail with 6,296,284 votes (41.8%); the aggregated Republican total of 50.6% surpassed Wilson's share, underscoring how intra-party fragmentation favored the opposition.^[34] Broader evidence from FPTP systems highlights the effect's prevalence, though its magnitude varies with third-party viability and voter turnout. A analysis of over 5,600 U.S. primary elections—conducted under plurality rules akin to FPTP—identified vote-splitting in 11.9% of contests, where minor candidates influenced winners by dividing aligned voter blocs.^[35] In congressional races, third-party entries remain infrequent due to structural barriers, but when occurring, they correlate with reduced major-party vote shares in districts with ideological overlap, as third candidates capture 1-5% of votes that polls indicate would otherwise consolidate behind the similar major contender. This pattern aligns with causal models positing that FPTP's winner-take-all nature amplifies spoilers' leverage, particularly in close races, though counterfactuals rely on assumptions about abstention rates among non-transferring voters.^[36]^[37]

Runoff and Elimination Methods

Runoff voting systems require a candidate to achieve a majority of votes to win, with a second round held between top candidates if necessary in traditional implementations, or simulated through vote transfers in instant runoff variants. In two-round runoff systems, used in countries like France and Brazil, the first round employs plurality voting, and if no candidate exceeds 50%, the top two advance to a second round where voters choose between them. This structure mitigates the spoiler effect relative to single-round plurality by ensuring the winner garners majority support, as minor candidates' votes in the first round do not directly spoil a similar major candidate's path unless they prevent advancement to the runoff. However, spoilers can still influence outcomes by diluting support in the initial round, potentially excluding a preferred candidate from the final pairing.^[38] Instant runoff voting (IRV), also known as ranked-choice voting in single-winner contexts, extends elimination principles by having voters rank candidates and iteratively eliminating the lowest-polling option while redistributing votes to next preferences until a majority is reached. This method theoretically resists the spoiler effect because a minor candidate similar to a major one (a "clone") is likely eliminated early, transferring its supporters' votes back to the major candidate, preserving the overall preference order without vote splitting harming the frontrunner. Proponents argue this simulates multiple pairwise runoffs, avoiding the plurality dilemma where two ideologically proximate candidates divide votes to the benefit of a distant rival.^[39]^[40] Empirical analyses of IRV implementations, such as in Australian federal elections since 1918 and U.S. local races like those in San Francisco and Minneapolis, show reduced instances of vote splitting compared to plurality systems, with winners consistently achieving effective majority support after transfers. A 2023 study in Public Choice examined ranked-choice systems and found they diminish spoiler vulnerability by incentivizing fuller preference expression, though outcomes depend on voter ranking completeness. In contrast, traditional two-round systems, as in France's 2002 presidential election, have exhibited residual spoiler dynamics, where fragmented left-wing votes in the first round elevated a far-right candidate to the runoff against incumbent Jacques Chirac.^[41]^[42] Despite these advantages, neither runoff nor elimination methods fully eradicate the spoiler effect. IRV can encounter scenarios where inconsistent rankings or strategic truncation allow a candidate to inadvertently spoil by altering elimination order, as demonstrated in theoretical models and rare multi-candidate simulations. Critics, including advocates of alternative systems like approval voting, note that IRV fails certain independence criteria, potentially permitting spoilers if voters do not rank clones consistently below their primary choice. In practice, low ballot exhaustion rates in IRV jurisdictions (typically under 5%) support its robustness, but empirical data remains limited by few large-scale adoptions, with simulations indicating spoiler risks persist at lower levels than in first-past-the-post.^[4]^[31]

Pairwise and Condorcet Approaches

In pairwise voting systems, outcomes are derived from majority preferences in every possible head-to-head matchup between candidates, typically using ranked ballots to count how many voters prefer one over the other in each pair. This approach contrasts with single-vote methods by capturing transitive and intransitive preference structures across the electorate. The Condorcet winner—the candidate who prevails in all pairwise contests—emerges as the ideal outcome when such a candidate exists, as proposed by Nicolas de Condorcet in 1785.^[43] Condorcet methods, which guarantee the election of the Condorcet winner if one is present, mitigate the spoiler effect by focusing on comprehensive pairwise dominance rather than fragmented first-preference tallies. In plurality systems, a spoiler can siphon votes from a similar frontrunner, inverting the collective preference; however, under Condorcet rules, a potential spoiler must defeat or tie the frontrunner in their direct matchup to influence the result meaningfully, which clone-like candidates rarely achieve given voter rankings that typically favor the stronger contender over the weaker analog. This pairwise aggregation effectively simulates all runoff scenarios simultaneously, preventing minor entrants from disproportionately altering the winner unless they command genuine cross-pairwise support.^[44] When cycles prevent a clear Condorcet winner—such as A beats B, B beats C, and C beats A—completion algorithms resolve the paradox while preserving resistance to spoilers. Methods like Schulze (using path strengths in pairwise graphs) or Copeland (scoring candidates by net pairwise victories) maintain stability against irrelevant additions. For example, Copeland's rule demonstrated unique robustness to local independence of irrelevant alternatives violations—where adding a non-winning candidate flips the outcome—in comparative analyses of voting rules.^[45] Similarly, Split Cycle voting achieves Condorcet consistency alongside explicit immunity to certain spoiler manipulations by enforcing cycle-breaking criteria that prioritize broad pairwise strengths.^[46] Empirical simulations and theoretical evaluations affirm that these approaches reduce spoiler vulnerability, particularly in ideological spectra where preferences are single-peaked, though full independence of irrelevant alternatives remains unattainable per Arrow's impossibility theorem. Adoption in non-partisan contexts, such as academic or organizational elections, has shown practical efficacy in avoiding vote-splitting disruptions without requiring voter coordination.^[47]

Cardinal Voting Systems

Cardinal voting systems, such as approval voting and range (or score) voting, permit voters to express preferences through numerical ratings or approvals rather than rankings, allowing for the quantification of support intensity across multiple candidates. In approval voting, voters select all candidates they deem acceptable, with the winner determined by the highest number of approvals; range voting extends this by assigning scores typically from 0 to a maximum value (e.g., 0-5 or 0-10) to each candidate, and the candidate with the highest average or total score prevails.^[48]^[49] These systems resist the spoiler effect inherent in plurality voting because a voter's expression of support for their preferred candidate is not diluted by similar entrants; voters can fully endorse their top choice while also supporting or neutrally rating alternatives without strategic abstention or splitting. For example, in approval voting, if a spoiler candidate appeals to a subset of a major candidate's supporters, those voters can approve both without reducing the primary candidate's approval count, preventing the vote division that elects an opponent in first-past-the-post systems. Theoretical models and simulations demonstrate that approval voting satisfies criteria like independence from irrelevant alternatives in dichotomous preference settings, where adding a low-support candidate does not invert pairwise preferences between frontrunners.^[31]^[50] Empirical evidence from implemented trials supports this resistance: Fargo, North Dakota, adopted approval voting for municipal elections in 2018, with subsequent analyses showing no instances of spoilers altering outcomes between similar candidates, as voters approved multiple options freely, leading to winners with broader acceptability. Range voting similarly mitigates spoilers by incentivizing honest scoring over tactical minimization, as evidenced by mathematical proofs that strategic manipulation requires coordinated, improbable voter shifts to introduce spoilers, unlike the ease in ordinal systems.^[31]^[49] However, cardinal systems are not entirely immune; in range voting, a highly polarizing spoiler could lower a favorite's average score if some voters assign it partial points that drag down the mean without benefiting the spoiler enough to win, though this requires non-dichotomous preferences and is rarer than in ranked systems. Advocates argue this vulnerability is minimal compared to plurality, with simulations using real election data (e.g., U.S. presidential contests) showing cardinal methods electing Condorcet winners over 90% of the time without spoiler interference.^[49]^[51]

Proportional Representation Frameworks

In proportional representation (PR) systems, seats in multi-member districts or nationwide lists are allocated based on the proportion of votes each party or candidate grouping receives, using formulas such as the d'Hondt method or largest remainder approach. This structure contrasts with single-winner plurality voting by distributing representation across multiple winners, thereby diminishing the spoiler effect's impact; votes for smaller or ideologically similar parties contribute to seat gains rather than solely enabling an opponent's victory through vote splitting. Party-list PR, employed in countries like Israel and the Netherlands, compiles votes by party and applies thresholds (often 3-5% of the national vote) to qualify for seats, which can prevent extreme fragmentation but may still induce spoiler dynamics if allied parties fail to coordinate and cross the threshold, effectively wasting their combined support. For instance, in Germany's mixed-member PR system since 1953, a 5% hurdle has occasionally led to vote dilution among smaller conservative or liberal factions, reducing their parliamentary presence without altering the overall proportional outcome as severely as in plurality systems. Empirical analysis of eight Polish parliamentary elections from 1991 to 2015 under open-list PR revealed instances of strategic spoilers, including "fake parties" that siphoned votes from larger rivals, causing seat losses equivalent to 1-3% of total allocation in affected districts, though these effects were localized and less decisive than in single-seat contests.^[52]^[3] Single transferable vote (STV), a preference-based PR variant used in Ireland and Malta since the early 20th century, allows voters to rank candidates, with surplus votes transferred iteratively until quotas are met, theoretically neutralizing spoilers by reallocating preferences away from eliminated or over-quota candidates. Simulations and real-world data indicate STV reduces classic spoilers—where a minor candidate's entry flips the winner—by up to 80% compared to plurality, as voter rankings enable expressive balloting without fear of waste; however, multi-winner STV elections can exhibit residual spoiler effects if rankings cluster imperfectly, such as a fringe candidate drawing first preferences from a viable similar option before transfers occur.^[53] A 2024 study of STV mechanics found that while it satisfies independence of irrelevant alternatives in single-winner analogs, multi-seat implementations permit "participation spoilers" in approximately 5-10% of simulated scenarios with fragmented fields, underscoring that PR frameworks mitigate but do not eradicate the phenomenon.^[53]^[54]

Strategic and Political Dimensions

Intentional Spoiler Tactics

Intentional spoiler tactics refer to strategies where political actors, often affiliated with one major party or interest, deliberately promote or fund candidates ideologically aligned with an opponent's base to fragment their vote share in plurality voting systems. This approach leverages the spoiler effect by design, aiming to prevent the targeted candidate from securing a plurality while the instigator's preferred option consolidates support. Such maneuvers typically involve recruiting independents or third-party contenders who appeal to subsets of the opponent's voters, such as emphasizing shared policy positions on issues like immigration or fiscal conservatism to draw away margins in close races. These tactics are rare due to legal risks under campaign finance regulations prohibiting coordination between parties, but they exploit gaps in disclosure rules for independent expenditures.^[55] A documented instance occurred during the 2024 U.S. House elections, where the Patriots Run Project, a group with ties to Democratic donors and consulting firms, recruited supporters of former President Donald Trump to run as independent or third-party candidates in competitive Republican-held districts. The initiative targeted races with narrow margins, such as Iowa's 3rd Congressional District, where retiree Joe Wiederien, a Trump backer, was persuaded to enter as an independent against incumbent Republican Zach Nunn; Wiederien later claimed he was misled about the group's intentions and withdrew his candidacy. Similar recruitment efforts appeared in Minnesota's 2nd District and other battlegrounds, with the group providing guidance on ballot access and messaging to mimic Republican rhetoric. On September 17, 2024, the conservative American Action Network filed a Federal Election Commission complaint alleging the project violated laws against undisclosed coordination and corporate funding of candidates, estimating involvement in at least five races.^[55]^[56]^[57] Proponents of such tactics argue they counter asymmetric voter turnout or punish intra-party divisions, but critics, including affected candidates, contend they undermine electoral integrity by deceiving voters and circumventing contribution limits—Wiederien reported receiving no direct funds but benefited from the group's logistical support. The FEC has not ruled on the complaint as of late 2024, though similar past allegations, like those in state-level races, have prompted investigations into anonymous donor networks. Empirical analysis of close races shows that even modest vote splits (1-3%) can flip outcomes, as simulated in plurality systems where third candidates capture 5-10% from the right-leaning electorate without broad appeal.^[58]^[59] Historical precedents are scarcer and often contested, with few verifiably intentional cases beyond intra-party fractures, underscoring that overt spoiler engineering remains exceptional and legally fraught in established democracies.^[31]

Unintentional Spoiler Occurrences

Unintentional spoiler occurrences typically manifest when ideologically proximate candidates compete without prior coordination, leading to fragmented voter support that disadvantages a shared major-party frontrunner in plurality systems. Unlike deliberate tactics, these instances stem from genuine candidacies aimed at promoting distinct platforms or mobilizing overlooked constituencies, yet result in sincere votes diverting from the candidate most aligned with those voters' second preferences. Empirical analyses of voter surveys and ballot data reveal that such splitting can flip outcomes in close races, as minor candidates capture 5-20% of votes that would otherwise consolidate behind the major contender against an opponent. This effect underscores the non-monotonicity of plurality voting, where adding a candidate can paradoxically harm similar rivals, as demonstrated in theoretical models and historical simulations.^[31] In the 2000 U.S. presidential election, Green Party nominee Ralph Nader's independent bid exemplified this dynamic in Florida, where he secured 97,488 votes amid a 1,783-vote margin separating George W. Bush (2,912,790 votes) from Al Gore (2,912,253 votes). Ballot-level studies indicate that 20-50% of Nader's Florida supporters ranked Gore above Bush in pairwise preferences, suggesting his entry drew sufficient votes from Gore's base to enable Bush's victory and, by extension, the national outcome. Nader's campaign focused on achieving 5% for federal matching funds and critiquing corporate influence, without evidence of intent to bolster Bush, though Democrats attributed the loss to this vote split. Counteranalyses, however, estimate that up to 40% of Nader voters might have shifted to Bush or abstained absent Nader, mitigating claims of unambiguous causation.^[60]^[61] The 1992 U.S. presidential contest provides another case, with independent Ross Perot capturing 19.9 million votes (18.9% nationally), contributing to Bill Clinton's plurality win over George H.W. Bush despite Bush's 37.4% share. Reallocation simulations from exit polls show Perot disproportionately attracting voters who preferred Bush over Clinton by margins of 2:1 in key states like Ohio, where Perot's 13% exceeded Bush's 38.7%-to-Clinton's 40.2% deficit. Perot's platform emphasized deficit reduction and trade skepticism, drawing from disaffected conservatives without explicit aim to undermine Bush, yet empirical voter preference data links his presence to narrowed Republican margins in at least six states totaling 82 electoral votes. Debates persist, as some models suggest Perot mobilized non-voters or drew evenly, but aggregated evidence supports incidental spoiling of Bush's reelection.^[62]^[63]

Notable Case Studies

In the 1912 United States presidential election held on November 5, former president Theodore Roosevelt, running as the Progressive Party nominee after challenging incumbent Republican William Howard Taft in the primaries, split the conservative vote, enabling Democrat Woodrow Wilson to secure a plurality victory.^[34] Wilson received 6,296,284 popular votes (41.8%) and 435 electoral votes, while Roosevelt garnered 4,122,721 votes (27.4%) and 88 electoral votes, and Taft obtained 3,486,242 votes (23.2%) and 8 electoral votes.^[64] Without the Progressive split, a unified Republican ticket of Roosevelt and Taft would have commanded approximately 50.6% of the popular vote, exceeding Wilson's share and likely altering the electoral outcome in key states. This case exemplifies vote splitting in a plurality system, where ideologically proximate candidates divide support from their shared base, as Roosevelt's progressive conservatism overlapped significantly with Taft's traditional Republicanism.^[65] The 2000 United States presidential election, particularly in Florida, provides a modern instance where Green Party candidate Ralph Nader's participation drew votes primarily from Democrat Al Gore, contributing to Republican George W. Bush's narrow win in the state and thus the presidency. Bush received 2,912,790 votes (48.85%) in Florida, Gore 2,912,253 (48.84%), and Nader 97,488 (1.63%), with Bush prevailing by 537 votes after recounts.^[66] Nader's statewide total exceeded the margin by over 180 times, and precinct-level data indicate his support correlated with Gore's, suggesting many Nader voters were drawn from Gore's potential base due to left-leaning ideological overlap on environmental and social issues.^[20] However, ballot-level ecological inference models reveal that in a hypothetical Nader-free scenario, at least 40% of his Florida voters would have supported Bush rather than Gore, with others potentially abstaining, implying Bush might still have won albeit by a wider margin; this challenges the pure spoiler narrative by highlighting heterogeneous motivations among Nader's electorate, including anti-Gore sentiment.^[67]^[60] Exit polling and voter surveys post-election corroborated that Nader's candidacy suppressed turnout or redirected votes in ways that net benefited Bush in pivotal precincts, underscoring the spoiler effect's sensitivity to voter preference intensity in close races.^[37]

Critiques, Evidence, and Reforms

Debates on Existence and Magnitude

The spoiler effect's existence in plurality voting systems is theoretically established through social choice theory, where sincere voting by supporters of ideologically proximate candidates can fragment the vote, enabling a less preferred candidate to prevail. Empirical verification, however, requires assessing counterfactual scenarios—whether absent the third candidate, their voters would have sufficiently supported the similar major candidate to alter the outcome—which poses methodological challenges due to unobserved preferences. Studies employing ballot-level data from concurrent races or surveys to proxy transfers find mixed results, with some instances confirming vote splitting but others revealing that third-party voters often harbor preferences for the opposing major candidate, reducing causal attribution.^[68] A prominent example is the 2000 U.S. presidential election in Florida, where Green Party candidate Ralph Nader received 97,488 votes, exceeding Republican George W. Bush's 537-vote margin over Democrat Al Gore. Ballot-level analysis of voter behavior in simultaneous gubernatorial and senatorial contests indicated that at least 40% of Nader supporters preferred Republican candidates over Democrats in those races, suggesting a substantial portion would have backed Bush rather than Gore or abstained in Nader's absence, thereby undermining claims of Nader as a decisive spoiler. This finding aligns with broader debates questioning the effect's reliability, as exit polls and ecological inference models in other third-party interventions, such as Ross Perot's 19% share in 1992, similarly show non-transferable votes distributed across abstention or the rival major party.^[68]^[60] Regarding magnitude, quantitative assessments remain sparse and contested, with no consensus on frequency across elections. Historical reviews of U.S. contests reveal that while theoretical models predict spoiler vulnerability in multi-candidate fields, observed close races—where margins fall below third-party totals—are infrequent, comprising fewer than 5% of presidential or gubernatorial elections since 1900, and even then, strategic anticipation by voters often preempts splitting via Duvergerian coordination toward viable contenders. Simulations of plurality outcomes under varied candidate entry underscore potential for disruption in polarized environments but estimate actual incidence as low due to endogenous candidate withdrawal and voter tactical shifting, with effects amplified in low-information local races rather than national ones. Critics of reform proposals argue this rarity indicates overstatement for advocacy purposes, while proponents cite residual risks in unstrategic voter subsets.^[69]^[41]

Empirical Data and Simulations

In plurality voting systems, direct empirical quantification of the spoiler effect remains challenging, as it necessitates counterfactual analysis of voter behavior absent the third candidate, which cannot be directly observed in historical elections. Researchers thus approximate its occurrence through statistical inference from vote shares and ideological alignments, but such methods yield inconclusive results due to confounding factors like strategic voting and turnout effects. Simulations grounded in real-world preference data provide a more controlled means to assess its prevalence and impact.^[69] A comprehensive agent-based simulation by Mathematica Policy Research modeled over 500,000 U.S. Senate elections using voter preference distributions derived from American National Election Studies (ANES) data. Under plurality rules, the system frequently violated the local independence of irrelevant alternatives criterion—a formal measure of spoiler susceptibility—electing winners who lacked majority support due to vote splitting among similar candidates. Plurality performed worst among eight evaluated methods, highlighting its proneness to misrepresenting collective preferences when minor candidates fragment major-party blocs.^[45] Further simulations employing spatial models of voter ideology confirm the spoiler effect's mechanics in plurality voting. In one analysis using Java-based Monte Carlo methods to generate preference profiles across ideological spectra, a unified 40% bloc defeated a fragmented 60% (split as 35% and 25% for ideologically proximate candidates), demonstrating how third entrants can invert outcomes despite aggregate inferiority. These runs, varying candidate counts and voter distributions, showed spoilers altering results in scenarios mirroring multiparty contests, with plurality exhibiting higher susceptibility than cardinal systems like approval voting.^[70] Such computational evidence underscores that, under assumptions of sincere voting and diverse preferences, the spoiler effect manifests non-negligibly in plurality systems, incentivizing strategic entry deterrence and reinforcing duopolistic tendencies. While exact real-world frequencies elude precise measurement, simulations calibrated to empirical preference surveys indicate it contributes to outcome distortions in contests with viable third options.^[45]^[70]

Evaluation of Proposed Mitigations

Ranked-choice voting (RCV), also known as instant-runoff voting, addresses the spoiler effect by allowing voters to rank candidates in order of preference, with votes from eliminated candidates redistributed to higher-ranked alternatives until a majority winner emerges. Theoretical analyses under impartial culture models demonstrate that RCV is less susceptible to spoilers than plurality voting, as voters can support third-party candidates without wasting their vote on a non-viable option. Simulations across random and single-peaked preference models further confirm reduced spoiler incidence, with empirical data from U.S. RCV elections showing superior performance relative to plurality systems in avoiding outcome-altering third candidates. However, RCV is not immune; "center squeeze" scenarios can eliminate moderate frontrunners early, enabling spoilers to indirectly influence results, as observed in Alaska's 2022 House special election where a Condorcet winner was defeated.^[5] Empirical implementations, such as Australia's long-standing use since 1918 and U.S. locales like Minneapolis and San Francisco, indicate fewer reported spoiler complaints and higher minor-party participation without derailing major outcomes, though exhausted ballots (up to 15% in New York City's 2021 primary) can dilute preferences and mimic partial spoilers. International runoff systems akin to RCV, in Italy and Brazil, correlate with less strategic desertion of preferred candidates and more moderate platforms, per studies of electoral behavior. Critiques highlight non-monotonicity—where increasing support for a candidate can cause their loss—and simulations showing RCV winners diverging ideologically from the median voter by up to 43% more than Condorcet methods, potentially exacerbating polarization rather than purely mitigating spoilers.^[71]^[71]^[71]^[5] Approval voting mitigates spoilers theoretically by permitting voters to approve multiple candidates, enabling support for both a favorite and a similar "backup" without splitting votes that would favor an opponent under plurality. Under dichotomous preference models, this eliminates the classic spoiler dynamic, as adding a similar candidate does not dilute approvals for the primary choice but may consolidate them. Simulations and game-theoretic analyses affirm its resistance, with no equilibrium incentives for spoiler candidacies akin to plurality. Empirical evidence remains sparse due to limited adoption in large public elections; small-scale uses in professional societies and local boards, such as Fargo's 2018-2020 score voting trials (a variant), report no spoiler disruptions, though strategic "bullet voting" (approving only one) persists in some cases.^[31]^[50]^[72] Score or range voting, where voters assign numerical scores to candidates, extends approval's logic with finer granularity, theoretically further reducing spoilers by rewarding broad acceptability over narrow first preferences. Evaluations via simulations indicate high robustness, but real-world data is confined to niche applications like the Mathematical Association of America's elections, where no spoilers materialized despite multi-candidate fields. Overall, while these cardinal systems show promise in models assuming sincere scoring, critics note potential for strategic extremism—over-scoring allies and under-scoring opponents—and lack of majority guarantees, with empirical gaps hindering definitive claims of superiority over RCV in practice. Both RCV and approval variants introduce complexities like voter education costs and ballot exhaustion, which can undermine mitigation if adoption leads to higher error rates (e.g., 5-10% invalid ballots in early RCV trials), underscoring that no reform fully eradicates strategic incentives but substantially diminishes spoiler risks compared to baseline plurality.^[73]^[74]

Contemporary Relevance

Recent U.S. Elections (2020-2025)

In the 2020 presidential election, third-party candidates collectively received approximately 1.8% of the national popular vote, with the Libertarian Party's Jo Jorgensen securing 1.2% (about 1.87 million votes) and the Green Party's Howie Hawkins obtaining 0.3%.^[75] Analyses suggested potential spoiler effects in narrow swing states, where Jorgensen's vote totals exceeded Joe Biden's margins over Donald Trump: in Arizona, her 51,465 votes surpassed the 10,457-vote margin; in Georgia, 42,060 votes exceeded the 11,779-vote margin.^[76] However, causal attribution remains debated, as Libertarian voters often held anti-Trump views and might not have supported him even absent Jorgensen, with surveys indicating Biden captured 57% of 2016 third-party voters who participated in 2020.^[77] Larger margins in Pennsylvania (80,555 votes) and Michigan (154,188 votes) rendered third-party impacts non-decisive there.^[78] The 2022 midterm elections featured limited documented spoiler instances amid hundreds of races, with plurality voting in congressional districts occasionally amplifying third-party or independent candidacies but no widespread empirical evidence of outcome-altering effects at the national level. Voter turnout and partisan polarization dominated analyses, overshadowing vote-splitting concerns.^[79] In the 2024 presidential election, third-party candidates garnered under 2% nationally, with Jill Stein (Green Party) receiving 0.4% (over 628,000 votes); Robert F. Kennedy Jr. suspended his independent bid on August 23, 2024, endorsing Trump thereafter.^[80] Pre-election concerns focused on Stein potentially spoiling for Kamala Harris in Michigan due to protest votes over foreign policy, yet post-election fact-checks found no flip: Trump's margins exceeded third-party totals in key states (e.g., Wisconsin's 28,000-vote Trump win outpaced Stein's ~8,000 votes), and hypothetical transfers ignored voter preferences, as Stein supporters often opposed Harris independently.^[81] ^[82] Trump's decisive Electoral College victory (312-226) and popular vote edge (49.9% to 48.3%) mitigated spoiler risks empirically.^[83]

Broader Implications for Electoral Design

The spoiler effect in first-past-the-post (FPTP) systems exemplifies a core flaw in electoral design, as it incentivizes strategic voting and reinforces Duverger's law, whereby single-member plurality districts foster two-party dominance by penalizing vote splits among similar candidates.^[84]^[85] This dynamic discourages third-party entry and voter expression of diverse preferences, as the presence of a minor candidate can inadvertently determine the winner between major contenders, undermining the system's ability to reflect true majority will.^[8] Designers seeking to counteract this must evaluate alternatives that better satisfy criteria like independence of irrelevant alternatives, though Arrow's impossibility theorem demonstrates no method can fully reconcile all normative desiderata such as non-dictatorship and Pareto efficiency.^[53] Preference aggregation methods, including instant-runoff voting (IRV), address spoilers by enabling vote transfers from eliminated candidates, ensuring winners garner majority support after eliminations.^[71] In Alaska's 2022 U.S. Senate election, IRV allowed incumbent Republican Lisa Murkowski to prevail over a challenger by redistributing preferences, circumventing a classic spoiler scenario.^[5] Similarly, multiwinner single transferable vote (STV) systems exhibit resilience against spoilers in simulations across random utility models and empirical data from Scottish elections, outperforming plurality-based alternatives like single non-transferable vote, though STV remains vulnerable to winner-set alterations upon removing fringe candidates.^[53] Proportional representation (PR) in multi-member districts further mitigates spoilers by allocating seats via vote shares, promoting multiparty systems observed in countries like those in Western Europe, where Duverger's mechanical and psychological effects yield broader ideological representation.^[40] Despite these mitigations, proposed reforms introduce trade-offs: IRV can elect non-Condorcet winners—candidates not pairwise preferred by majorities—and may exacerbate polarization by favoring extremes over centrists, as evidenced in simulations of U.S. states where IRV outcomes deviated 38% from mean voter positions.^[5] Approval voting, by contrast, resists spoilers through non-exclusive candidate support but risks underrepresenting nuanced preferences.^[31] Electoral engineers thus prioritize empirical testing via simulations and pilots, balancing spoiler resistance with monotonicity (where increased support does not harm a candidate) and administrative feasibility, as no system proves universally superior across diverse electorates.^[53]^[86]

References

[1]
Mathematics of Voting
Most of the reading is from the book Gaming The Vote: Why Elections Aren't Fair, by William Poundstone. This handout covers some preliminary information that ...
[2]
[PDF] Single-Winner Voting with Alliances: Avoiding the Spoiler Effect
May 6, 2024 · How- ever, we do not assume that candidates from the same alliance are necessarily adjacent in voters' rankings. In such a case, every clas-.
[3]
evidence from eight Polish parliamentary elections, 1991–2015
Author(s): Kaminski, Marek M | Abstract: I consider a model of multiple winner elections with several types of spoilers. In single-office elections, ...
[4]
The Spoiler Effect in Multiwinner Ranked-Choice Elections - arXiv
Mar 3, 2024 · We investigate how susceptible STV is to the spoiler effect in multiwinner elections, where the output of the voting method is a committee of ...
[5]
[PDF] BEYOND THE SPOILER EFFECT: CAN RANKED-CHOICE VOTING ...
Nov 19, 2024 · BEYOND THE SPOILER EFFECT: CAN. RANKED-CHOICE VOTING SOLVE THE. PROBLEM OF POLITICAL POLARIZATION? Nathan Atkinson*. Edward Foley**. Scott C.
[6]
A DEFENSE OF SPOILER VOTING - ResearchGate
Aug 7, 2025 · We choose a definition of the term “spoiler effect” based on a survey of the popular discourse surrounding ranked-choice elections and examine ...
[7]
Mathematics of Social Choice | 3. Election Spoilers - SIAM.org
Can a winner selection method be designed to guarantee that this sort of spoiler effect will never occur? ... social choice theory · theory of voting methods ...
[8]
[PDF] Spoilers and Signatures: Ballot Access and Third Party Performance
Using county-level results for the 2016 presidential election, where both major party candidates were historically unpopular, my analysis studying the third- ...
[9]
[PDF] Political Competition and Strategic Voting in Multi-Candidate ...
Feb 6, 2024 · If the centrist is top ranked by a plurality of partisan and expressive voters, then there is a unique pure coalitional voting equilibrium. In ...<|separator|>
[10]
[PDF] VOTING AS A RATIONAL CHOICE - Columbia University
As the stakes and importance of the election increase (say, because candidates are farther apart on the issues or because it is a presidential election), more ...
[11]
(PDF) Voter uncertainty and failure of Duverger's Law: an empirical ...
Aug 7, 2025 · PDF | Real-world simple plurality elections rarely bear out the strong Duvergerian prediction that, in equilibrium, only two competitors ...
[12]
[PDF] Politics Transformed? How Ranked Choice Voting Shapes Electoral ...
Apr 6, 2022 · With three or more candidates, the winner under plurality may fail to win a majority—the so-called “spoiler effect.” In making its case for ...
[13]
[PDF] Political Competition and Strategic Voting in Multi-Candidate Elections
Sep 1, 2023 · If the centrist is preferred by a plurality of partisan and expressive voters, then there is a unique pure strategy equilibrium, and in this ...
[14]
To the Spoilers Belong the Victors - FairVote
Aug 30, 2007 · A FairVote Innovative Analysis. Facts in the Spotlight. Presidential elections wrongly decided due to plurality voting rules and “spoiler” ...Missing: 1900 | Show results with:1900
[15]
Teaching Our Journal: Partisanship in the Antislavery Press
Abolitionist James Birney played spoiler in this election; some argue that he siphoned antislavery votes from Whig Henry Clay in several northern states ...Missing: effect | Show results with:effect
[16]
Third Party Voting and the 1844 Election - We're History
Jun 2, 2016 · It saw a campaign filled with vicious personal attacks that often overshadowed the issues at stake. And it ended with popular vote totals so ...Missing: spoiler | Show results with:spoiler
[17]
U.S. Presidential Election of 1860 | Abraham Lincoln vs. John C ...
Oct 2, 2025 · The electoral split between Northern and Southern Democrats was emblematic of the severe sectional split, particularly over slavery, and in the ...
[18]
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB120433100737804387
[19]
Theodore Roosevelt Spoils It for the Republicans: The Election of ...
Sep 17, 2024 · President Theodore Roosevelt hand-picked his successor William Howard Taft in 1908. However, he later turned against him, and ran as a third-party candidate in ...Missing: spoiler effect
[20]
What is the “spoiler effect” and how do we solve it? - RepresentUs
May 13, 2022 · Perhaps the most well-known example is the 2000 Presidential Election. In Florida and New Hampshire, Green Party nominee Ralph Nader received ...
[21]
Did Ralph Nader Spoil Al Gore's Presidential Bid? A Ballot-Level ...
Downloadable! The 2000 presidential race included two major party candidates – Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore – and two prominent ...
[22]
How Gary Johnson and Jill Stein helped elect Donald Trump - CNN
Nov 10, 2016 · Neither Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson nor the Green Party's Jill Stein managed to make a dent in the Electoral College, but they did post a ...
[23]
Spoiler alert: Did third-party voters hand Wisconsin to Trump?
Nov 11, 2016 · Donald Trump sealed his presidential victory by edging out Hillary Clinton by 27359 votes in Wisconsin. But more than 150000 people voted ...
[24]
The fatal flaw in France's -- and America's -- voting system - CNN
May 3, 2002 · ... presidential election system. Consider, for example, this disturbing fact about the French system: As French citizens go to the polls this ...
[25]
Instant Runoff Voting, Monotonicity Failure, and Spoiler Effects
Obviously the 2002 French Presidential election was interesting on its own terms, but it is also helpful in thinking about possible reforms in the U.S. ...
[26]
The Progressive Conservative party's perspective - Policy Options
Jul 1, 2001 · Now here we are, almost two years later and another federal election behind us that re-elected a Liberal government, arguably by default, and ...
[27]
[PDF] The Unite the Right Movement and the Brokerage of Social ...
' The author concludes that by deliberately declaring socially conservative issues beyond the scope of party policy, the new conservative party has been able to ...
[28]
FactCheck: Farage takes credit for Conservative election win in 2015
Nov 1, 2019 · “It was the UKIP vote that disproportionately hurt the Labour party in the 2015 General Election, and there wouldn't have been a ...
[29]
The 2015 General Election: A Voting System in Crisis
Jul 26, 2015 · By Katie Ghose, CEO, Electoral Reform Society. Katie Ghose May 7th 2015 was, to say the least, an unpredictable result.
[30]
Does Australia use First Past the Post? - Electoral Reform Society
May 17, 2019 · Australian elections are world-renowned for their beloved 'Democracy Sausages' and the fact that voting is compulsory. What fewer people might ...
[31]
What is the Spoiler Effect - The Center for Election Science
Jun 11, 2024 · A “spoiler” is a non-winning candidate whose presence on the ballot affects which candidate wins. This one negative outcome of ...Missing: peer- | Show results with:peer-
[32]
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2000&fips=12&f=0&off=0&elect=0
[33]
Nader voters in the 2000 Presidential Election: what would they ...
This research estimates the likely voting behavior of Nader voters if he had not been a candidate in the presidential race.
[34]
1912 | The American Presidency Project
Electoral Vote, Popular Vote. Presidential, Vice Presidential. Democratic, election party winner, Woodrow Wilson, Thomas R. Marshall, 435, 81.9%, 6,294,327 ...
[35]
[PDF] America (Mis)Represented: 2022 Election Report - Maryland
Approximately 11.9% of the 5,662 national primary elections (state legislative, statewide office, and congressional races) involved vote splitting.<|separator|>
[36]
A DEFENSE OF SPOILER VOTING - jstor
We argue that voting for minor party candidates will sometimes be the best strategic option for voters with non-mainstream ideologies. Major parties, as ...
[37]
Three's a crowd? The Nader vote in the 2000 presidential, election ...
This research examines Ralph Nader's “urban strategy” to win 5% of the vote for president and the bases of his electoral support.
[38]
Ranked Choice Voting in Practice: Implementation Considerations ...
RCV combines the general election and the runoff by letting voters select—or “rank”—the candidates in order of preference ...<|separator|>
[39]
Instant runoff voting | MIT Election Lab
Apr 25, 2023 · Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is a type of voting method in single-winner elections where voters rank candidates and one winner is chosen.Missing: empirical | Show results with:empirical
[40]
[PDF] Addressing Concerns About Instant Runoff Voting
Oct 2, 2024 · Does IRV solve the spoiler effect that is observed in plural- ity? ... Strategic voting is the act of a voter not voting their honest opin ...
[41]
Ranked-choice voting and the spoiler effect - IDEAS/RePEc
We choose a definition of the term “spoiler effect” based on a survey of the popular discourse surrounding ranked-choice elections and examine whether ranked- ...
[42]
Running toward rankings: Ranked choice voting's impact on ...
Sep 9, 2024 · Some empirical research supports this claim, though ... Reducing worries of a spoiler effect encourages candidates from the same voting ...<|separator|>
[43]
Full article: A Simple Condorcet Voting Method for Final Four Elections
1. Condorcet (1785) suggested what is now known as the Condorcet criterion for elections in which voters can rank the candidates: if a candidate A beats ...<|separator|>
[44]
Ranked Choice Voting - Karl Sims
This page describes alternative voting systems for single-winner elections in which voters are given more than just a single choice vote.
[45]
A Head-to-Head Comparison of Alternative Voting Rules
Sep 30, 2025 · The Copeland voting rule was the only rule robust to spoiler effects (violations of the Local Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives principle) ...
[46]
Split Cycle: a new Condorcet-consistent voting method independent ...
Aug 29, 2023 · ... Condorcet consistency, non-negative responsiveness, and immunity ... One way to avoid a spoiler effect of the kind identified in immunity ...
[47]
[PDF] Are Condorcet and Minimax Voting Systems the Best?1
If ballots use ranks or rating scales, election managers can use the ballots to run a two-way race between each pair of candidates. If a candidate wins all ...
[48]
What is Approval Voting? - The Center for Election Science
Approval voting is a method in which voters are allowed to select any number of candidates they approve of, rather than just one. In essence, it offers ...
[49]
RangeVoting.org - Center for Range Voting - front page
"Approval voting" improves over those systems by allowing voters to vote for ... VOTING MACHINES CAN HANDLE RANGE VOTING: That can't be said of IRV and ...Missing: cardinal | Show results with:cardinal
[50]
Approval voting under dichotomous preferences - ScienceDirect.com
Consistency is known to be the driving force in many characterizations of scoring-based rules in social choice theory (see, e.g., Young, 1975; Young and ...<|separator|>
[51]
[PDF] Untitled - 愛知学院大学
voting would eliminate the spoiler effect by letting voters cast votes for more ... the standard plurality model and approval voting, from systems that allow a.
[52]
Spoiler effects in proportional representation systems: evid
Various strategic spoilers, such as fake parties, are possible as well. I look for spoilers in eight Polish parliamentary elections that have taken place since ...
[53]
[2403.03228] Multiwinner Elections and the Spoiler Effect - arXiv
Mar 3, 2024 · In the popular debate over the use of ranked-choice voting, it is often claimed that the method of single transferable vote (STV) is immune or ...
[54]
[PDF] UCSB ECE 594BB, Fall 2024 Lecture 9 Vote-Splitting, Spoiler ...
The spoiler effect also occurs in electoral systems using proportional ... Proportional representation can mitigate the impact of gerrymandering, as it.
[55]
Conservative group asks FEC to probe effort to promote spoiler ...
Sep 17, 2024 · A secretive group that recruited Donald Trump supporters to run as third-party spoiler candidates in some of the nation's most competitive ...
[56]
Democratic-linked group accused of recruiting, bankrolling GOP ...
Sep 23, 2024 · A group with ties to Democrats deceptively recruited third-party candidates to draw votes away from Republicans in pivotal House races, ...
[57]
FEC Complaint Accuses Group Of Putting Up GOP Spoiler Candidates
Sep 22, 2024 · Joe Wiederien, of rural Scranton, tells iHeartMedia News that he was recruited by the Patriots Run Project to run against Iowa 3rd District U.S. ...
[58]
GOP: Investigate group accused of recruiting spoilers to run for House
Sep 20, 2024 · Joe Wiederien, who says he was recruited to seek office as an independent candidate in Iowa's 3rd Congressional District, is calling for an ...
[59]
Shadowy group propped up by Democrat money accused of 'dirty ...
Sep 19, 2024 · A shadowy political group linked to Democratic consulting firms is being accused of "dirty tricks" as it works to register candidates ...
[60]
Did Ralph Nader Spoil Al Gore's Presidential Bid? A Ballot-Level ...
Aug 9, 2025 · We show that at least 40% of Nader voters in the key state of Florida would have voted for Bush, as opposed to Gore, had they turned out in a Nader-less ...
[61]
Ralph Nader's Campaign Strategy in the 2000 U.S. Presidential ...
Those observing the 2000 presidential campaign agreed that Ralph Nader could not win the presidency but disagreed about his actual strategy.<|separator|>
[62]
Examining Ross Perot's Impact on the 1992 Presidential Election ...
Apr 1, 2023 · Respondents could choose between Clinton, Bush, or other. We excluded those voters who would not have voted had Perot not been a candidate. Next ...
[63]
We Don't Know Whether Perot Cost Bush in 1992
Jul 10, 2019 · ... President George Herbert Walker Bush the 1992 election. The best ... Presidential candidates Gov Bill Clinton (L), Ross Perot (C), and ...
[64]
United States presidential election of 1912 | Taft, Roosevelt, Wilson ...
Sep 20, 2025 · American presidential election held on November 5, 1912, in which Democrat Woodrow Wilson defeated Bull Moose (Progressive) candidate and former Republican ...Missing: spoiler | Show results with:spoiler
[65]
Savior or Spoiler: Teddy Roosevelt as a Third Party Candidate in 1912
Roosevelt hand-picked his Secretary of War and close friend William Howard Taft to succeed him as the Republican candidate in 1908.
[66]
The 2000 Presidential Election: Why Gore Lost
Democrat Albert Gore won the most votes, a half million more than his Republican opponent George W. Bush, but lost the presidency in the electoral college.
[67]
[PDF] Did Ralph Nader Spoil a Gore Presidency? A Ballot-Level Study of ...
Apr 24, 2006 · When asked if Green party candidate Ralph Nader spoiled the 2000 presidential election for then Vice-President Al Gore, prominent Democratic ...
[68]
Did Ralph Nader Spoil Al Gore's Presidential Bid? A Ballot-Level ...
Aug 13, 2007 · A Ballot-Level Study of Green and Reform Party Voters in the 2000 Presidential Election", Quarterly Journal of Political Science: Vol. 2: No ...
[69]
[PDF] EXHIBIT A - Princeton Election Consortium
... electoral manipulation. It is an empirical question, however, as to how prevalent the RCV spoiler effect is relative to the plurality spoiler effect. A ...
[70]
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/openps-2021-0021/html
[71]
Ranked-Choice Voting - Center for Effective Government
Apr 30, 2024 · By reducing the spoiler effect found in plurality elections, RCV encourages candidates to enter and voters to vote more sincerely. Voters who ...
[72]
The Responsiveness of Approval Voting to Political Circumstances
Nov 25, 2022 · Approval voting is a voting system for multicandidate elections in which a voter may vote for as many candidates as he or she wishes. The ...
[73]
APPROVAL VOTING: Some Recent Empirical Evidence
Approval voting has been offered by a number of formal theorists, notably Steven Brams and Peter Fishburn (1983), as a solution to problems occasioned by ...
[74]
(PDF) Approval Voting - ResearchGate
Aug 10, 2025 · When voters vote strategically, perverse outcomes possible under other rules cannot arise at equilibrium under approval voting. Well-known ' ...Missing: evidence | Show results with:evidence
[75]
[PDF] Federal Elections 2020 - FEC
A. Summary Tables. • Table: 2020 Presidential Popular Vote Summary. 5. • Table: 2020 Presidential Electoral and Popular Vote.
[76]
How the Libertarian Party (maybe) helped shift the presidential race
Nov 13, 2020 · A Pennsylvania ballot with some of the selections for president: Joseph R. Biden, Donald J. Trump, and Libertarian candidate Jo Jorgensen ...
[77]
Battleground State and County Analysis: A Third-Party Presidential ...
Jan 20, 2023 · Nationwide, Joe Biden won an estimated 57 percent of 2016 third-party voters who cast a ballot in the 2020 presidential election, while Trump ...
[78]
Presidential Election Results and Electoral Map 2020 - CNN
Pennsylvania's 20 electoral votes put native son Joe Biden above the 270 needed to become the 46th President of the United States.
[79]
Takeaways from the 2022 midterms: a relief, surprise | Stanford Report
Nov 10, 2022 · While votes from the U.S. midterm elections are still being counted and the full results of various state races are not entirely certain, ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[80]
How much of the vote did Jill Stein receive? - NewsNation
Nov 6, 2024 · The Green Party candidate garnered 0.4% of the national vote and collected just more than 628000 votes from Americans.
[81]
Posts misleadingly blame third-party votes for Republican victory
Nov 18, 2024 · Donald Trump secured a clear victory in the 2024 presidential election, but some online posts claimed Kamala Harris would have won several ...<|separator|>
[82]
No, Kamala Harris wouldn't have won Wisconsin with Jill Stein's votes
Nov 8, 2024 · Even if the votes that went to Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein in Wisconsin would have gone to Democratic presidential nominee and Vice President ...
[83]
The size of Donald Trump's 2024 election victory, explained in 5 charts
Nov 24, 2024 · Trump won both the Electoral College and the popular vote; in fact, Trump this year became only the second Republican to win the popular vote since 1988.
[84]
[PDF] Choosing a Better Voting System
Feb 2, 2019 · The most cited and intuitive advantage of RCV is its ability to counter the “spoiler effect,” the name ... known as Duverger's Law. Because voters ...<|separator|>
[85]
[PDF] THE IMPACT OF RANKED CHOICE VOTING ON ELECTORAL ...
Dec 11, 2024 · ... political science literature as. First-Past-the-Post (FPTP). Simply put, under FPTP systems, the candidate who receives a plurality of the ...
[86]
Evaluating elections with computer aided simulations - De Gruyter
Duverger's Law states that in single ballot plurality elections, with ... SPOILER EFFECT : Candidates who support dogs are in green, cats in yellow.