• einkorn@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    Thanks for your input, but it is not a question about who benefits or what a person aught to do, but a simple logical conclusion:

    For simplicities’ sake, let’s say there are 10 people voting in an election with 2 parties. Each party has 4 unwavering loyalists and the remaining 2 people’s votes depend on current events/issues. The two parties mainly take turns in government due to these swing voters.

    Now enter a third party. Party 3 addresses issues that are somewhat relevant to voters of party 2 and mostly uninteresting to voters of party 1. In the next election, some voters will most likely drift from party 2 to party 3:

    • Party 1: 5 Votes
    • Party 2: 3 Votes
    • Party 3: 2 Votes

    Splitting votes between too somewhat similar parties guarantees a win for the opposite party on the spectrum. Coalitions are not possible under first past the post, so party 2 and 3 teaming up to dethrone party 1 is not an option. This continues until either another party on the opposite end of the spectrum joins the race and diminishes the votes for party 1 or one of party 2 or 3 absorbs the other.

    Therefore, it is in the voter’s best interest to vote strategically against what they don’t want and not for what they do want.