March 09, 2004
Third Party Spoilers
I revised my Third Party Spoiler Proof by generalizing and splitting it out. It is now SpoilersUndermineDemocraticIntent.First, the definition:
The "Third Party Spoiler" is a type of candidate (referred to herein as a "spoiler") that can make one winnable candidate lose to another, when it might otherwise beat the other. Not all candidates are spoilers. Not all third party candidates are spoilers. A spoiler will not definitely affect an election in this way; it's only a possible outcome.
We define a spoiler as a candidate that fits all the below required criteria.
- The spoiler is running
- The spoiler is running against other candidates who do have a clear shot at winning ("winnable candidates")
- The spoiler is clearly ideologically closer to one of the winnable candidates than the other(s), in terms of voter support
- The spoiler is participating in an election that does not allow the spoiler's supporters to register preference between the other winnable candidates.
Reasoning:
A spoiler gets support from a variety of supporters. We define a "preferenced supporter" as a supporter of the spoiler, that also has a preference among the winnable candidiates. This means that if the spoiler wasn't running, the spoiler's supporters would vote for that other winnable candidate.
Since the spoiler is ideologically closer to one party, some of the spoiler's support would come from preferenced supporters of that party's candidate. The spoiler would also have more preferenced supporters from that candidate than from another.
If so, then if the spoiler loses, a winnable candidate could then lose to another winnable candidate, even if the population as a whole preferred the losing winnable candidate to the winner.
Parent: NaderShouldNotRun
The conclusion:
If a ThirdPartySpoiler exists, then it is possible that an otherwise winnable candidate can lose even when the population prefers that winnable candidate overall.
ProtectingDemocraticIntent proves that a ThirdPartySpoiler that cannot win democratically undermines DemocraticIntent.
DemocraticIntent must be protected to keep a race Democratic.
Therefore, if DemocraticIntent is to be protected, a ThirdPartySpoiler that cannot win should not run.
Parent: NaderShouldNotRun
And the definition it depends on:
The Democratic Intent of the voters can be defined as the candidate that the population prefers overall, among a group of candidates. In a group of two candidates, the majority preference is the Democratic Intent.
This is actually pretty hard because there are some hidden issues. Like, a third party candidate can be a spoiler even if they do have a shot at winning. I wouldn't want to argue that a third party candidate that has a shot at winning shouldn't run. So what is the distinction, exactly? In other words, by the same standards, a spoiler with a shot at winning also undermines democratic intent. But I'm in favor of them running then.
Posted by: tunesmith at March 9, 2004 08:21 PM