Talk:Spoiler effect

message: IRV is free from the spoiler effect, if implemented correctly, because it meets the Independence of Clones Criterion (ICC). See:  
--
I've read many other places that IRV only stops the spoiler effect when the third party is weak. In the scenario where the third party becomes almost an equal, the spoiler effect can come back into play. For example if Nader was looking like he might be almost an equal with Bush and Kerry, and we were under IRV, liberals might be afraid to vote for Nader because if it was a runoff between Bush and Nader it would seem more likely that those who ranked Kerry first instead of Nader would put Bush second.
----
IRV isn't free from the spoiler effect at all.  In order to be "free" from the spoiler effect, it would have to be free from Independence from Irrelevant Alternatives Criterion (IIAC).  It's not.  It's not even compliant with relaxed versions of IIAC, such as Local IIAC.  --- RobLa 03:51, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  IRV & Spoiler Effect 

message: I think that the "spoiler effect" is better understood as sensitivity to irrelevant alternatives rather than sensitivity to clones in the form of vote splitting. Given that, Condorcet methods reduce the spoiler effect by only being sensitive to IA's when there is no CW, and approval arguably eliminates the spoiler effect under certain assumptions. --Hermitage 06:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, it seems to me that violations of IIA can be broken into two distinct scenarios: the "spoiler effect" and the "center squeeze" effect. As the article states, the "spoiler effect" is typically reserved for irrelevant alternatives with weak core support (few number of first choices), as in the Nader scenario. The "center squeeze" occurs when the irrelevant alternative has strong core support (large number of first choices). That's why IRV is typically said to eliminate the "spoiler effect" but not the "center squeeze". Would it be better to say that the "spoiler effect" corresponds to violations of the mutual majority criterion? That is, a "spoiler" is an irrelevant alternative who is partitioned into the "mutual minority" by a majority of voters? The difficulty here is that "spoiler effect" is quite a colloquial term, a possible "neologism" as suggested below, and tough to assign a mathematical definition to. --Progressnerd (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have two criticisms of Progressnerd's points above. (1) If "spoiler effect" and "center squeeze" are the only ways to violate IIA, which of those classifications covers the Borda clone effect? With Borda, x will win when enough similar inferior alternatives are also nominated, since Borda will give x extra points from all voters and only give its competitor y extra points from the voters who prefer y over x. I wouldn't call this spoiling because the voters who rank the extra candidates over y prefer the new winner x over y. It's clearly not some kind of "vote splitting." (2) It's easy to construct a "center squeeze" example where IRV defeats a candidate with the greatest "core" support: 5 candidates FarLeft, Left, Center, Right, and FarRight. IRV eliminates FarLeft and FarRight first and second, and then counts FarLeft's core support for Left and counts FarRight's core support for Right, so that IRV eliminates Center third.) I also note that core support can't be measured by votes alone, since it depends on info not in the votes, such as which candidates chose not to compete. IRV will count the "core" supporters of candidates who didn't compete for candidates who do compete. Also, core support itself may depend on the voting method: After decades in which plurality rule and top two runoff have caused politicians to avoid taking compromise positions in order to avoid being squeezed into defeat--see the model in which there are only two candidates and both know a third candidate can enter the race and would enter if s/he can take a winning position--voters who follow have been led away from compromise positions they might prefer the most, and they could be led back. SEppley (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Another thought. IIA says that the addition of a candidate that does not win should not be able to change the winner, but that's not exactly what "spoiler" means colloquially. "Spoiler" refers to someone who does not have a chance of winning. Clearly, in the "center squeeze" scenario of IRV, the two candidates with the most first choices are better positioned than anyone to win. The addition of one of those candidates may change the outcome even though that candidate loses, but I don't think that candidate can be considered a "spoiler", because s/he had a legitimate chance at winning. Moreover, it would be silly not to consider Condorcet as eliminating the "spoiler effect" even though it technically does not satisfy IIA. Given that, which irrelevant alternatives are "spoilers" and which are not? --Progressnerd (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whether or not spoiling has a colloquial meaning shouldn't deter us from generalizing it to cover voting methods with which people have little experience, since its colloquial meaning would surely evolve after people gain experience with other voting methods. The interpretation that spoiler refers only to a candidate who has no chance to win has been induced by our use of "vote-for-one" plurality rule, which causes most voters who prefer a third candidate to abandon their support of the third candidate when they expect only two other candidates have a chance to win. Abandonment is a good strategy when voters can't coordinate their preferences into a winning coalition, but an abandoned candidate, made a "sure loser" by plurality rule, may actually be preferred over the winner by a majority of the voters. Also, the term is often used in a different way to describe candidates who choose not to compete because they don't want to spoil the election. Consider John McCain in 2000 after the Republicans nominated Bush. When asked whether he would run as an independent, he said that would help Gore win and he didn't want to be a spoiler. If McCain had run and changed the winner to Gore, would you call McCain a spoiler? I don't think he fits the "sure loser" description. McCain might have beaten Gore if Bush hadn't competed, so in that sense he did have a chance to win, and with another voting method he might have won (neglecting the important effect that another voting method could have led to different candidates competing, and candidates taking different positions than they actually did). McCain and his supporters thought he would have beaten Gore if Bush hadn't been nominated. So did Rod Kiwiet of Caltech when I suggested to him in 2004 that McCain was probably a Condorcet winner in 2000: Rod agreed that most Bush supporters preferred McCain over Gore, most Gore supporters preferred McCain over Bush, and McCain would have been ranked over both Bush and Gore by many Republicans and "swing voters." SEppley (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of Mathematical Definition 

message: Just letting y'all know: I removed the redirect from "Split Vote", since that and "vote splitting" aren't the same thing, though they might sound similar. --DewiMorgan 04:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed redirect from "Split Vote" 

message: Spoiler (sports) redirects here.  There is nothing said about sports. 141.151.79.241 22:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler (sports) 

message: Somebody added the note "does not represent a worldwide view".  I disagree.  The Bush/Gore example is from the U.S., but there's also a South Korean example.  I would vote to remove the note.
Jrvz (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worldwide View 

message: In the 1912, Theodore Roosevelt had a much better chance than William Taft. Couldn't it be argued that Taft had the spoiler effect? I know that the Progressive, or "Bull-Moose" party was considered more of a third party than Taft's Republican party, but still, I don't agree with how it looks now.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.15.32 (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  TR or Taft? 

message: I've partially completed copy-editing the article.  I've tried to use language that's more readily understood by a lay-person.  I've reformatted the list into a table.  I added some references where I could find them.  I removed a quote attributed to Ralph Nader, because it had no reference and I could not find any source online for it, so it is unverifiable material and has to be removed per WP:BLP guidelines.  I will finish copy-editing it later today. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy edit 

message: Where is Perot?  He won Clinton the White House in two consecutive terms then disappeared forever.  Where is the discussion on candidates planting a spoiler to ensure their win (as Clinton obviously did with Perot)? 198.209.0.252 (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I also wondered why there was no mention of Ross Perot when I read this article.  To add him, you would need a reliable source describing him as a spoiler or claiming that he cost Bush the election (all the candidates from that election are still alive).  here is an article by Dan Quayle in which he claims Perot gave Clinton the election.  here is another article claiming that Perot voters would have split evenly between Clinton and Bush, but without out any reference to a poll to back up the claim, though this may have been a further result from exit polls by Voter Research and Surveys mentioned earlier in the article.  (Both articles are referenced in the Wikipedia article on Ross Perot's 1992 campaign.)  Not really enough evidence for me to add Perot to the list of spoilers, though better evidence may exist.--Wikimedes (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nader must be a Millennial thing because Perot was a much more significant force, in the elections of the last 59 years.  However, the whole concept of a spoiler is an antidemocratic conspiracy that demands the electorate vote for candidates who identify within the binary party system which has evolved to today's Republicans and Democrats.  To say that any spoiler exists is to say that the two party system is threatened by voters who insist on their right to vote for whom they choose.  Oh the humanity!  CredibleSources (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

text: The frequent "Perot spoiler" claims are always funny because in 1992, Perot was the only candidate who wasn't a spoiler. Perot was the majority-winner (as he would have beat either Clinton or HW in a one-on-one election), so HW was a spoiler. (If he'd dropped out, Perot would've defeated Clinton.) Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perot? 

message: The article says the following: For example, voters for a very left-wing candidate might select a moderately left-wing candidate as their second choice, thus minimizing the chances that their vote will result in the election of a right-wing candidate. Seems to me there are scenarios in which, depending on the voting method, minimizing the chance that the right-wing candidate will be elected requires ranking a more centrist candidate ahead of the moderately left-wing candidate. Consider an example with 4 candidates: VeryLeft, Left, Center, and Right. Abbreviate VL, L, C and R. Assume the voting method is Instant Runoff. The article stipulated that VL is a very minor candidate, so we assume Instant Runoff eliminates VL immediately. Then C can easily be sandwiched between L and R, so we'll assume Instant Runoff eliminates C next. R will have a much better chance in the final count against L than against C, since the votes that had been counted for C are likely to split between R and L, whereas L's votes would mostly go to C if L were deleted instead of C. So, the claim about minimizing R's chance seems bogus. It should be rewritten or deleted. SEppley (talk) 01:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erroneous claim that ranking moderately left-wing candidate second will minimize chance of electing right-wing candidate? 

message: Currently this article focuses on spoiler candidates in cross-party (especially U.S. "general") elections (where each party offers only one candidate), and excludes -- in the opening definition -- U.S. primary elections (where all the candidates are from the same party) and non-partisan elections (where the candidates are not associated with parties).  Vote-splitting in U.S. primary elections happens far more often than in U.S. general elections.  (After all, the reason primary elections arose is to eliminate vote splitting and spoiler candidates in general elections, and that shifted the vote-splitting/spoiler problem to primary elections.)  Also, other countries that do not use primary and "general" elections also have spoiler candidates in (some of) their elections.  VoteFair (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers also occur in primary elections & non-partisan elections 

message: There is no mathematical way that Gary Johnson could have spoiled the election for Mitt Romney due to the Electoral College. I am taking the initiative and removing his name.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.123.72 (talk) 08:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gary Johnson 

message: Why is the reasoning for Jill Stein being on the list not in the article? What is the reasoning? jrun (talk) 03:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasoning for Stein on the list? 

message: I have removed the table of alleged spoilers from the article for reasons stated below.  The solution for putting such information back in the article is also stated below.   But first, here is the deleted table for easy reference
Spoiler candidate     	Election	"Denied victory" to	Winning candidate
James Birney          	1844    	Henry Clay         	James Knox Polk
Martin van Buren      	1848    	Lewis Cass         	Zachary Taylor
John St. John         	1884    	James G. Blaine    	Grover Cleveland
James B. Weaver       	1892    	Benjamin Harrison  	Grover Cleveland
William Howard Taft   	1912    	Theodore Roosevelt 	Woodrow Wilson
Ralph Nader           	2000    	Al Gore            	George W. Bush
Gary JohnsonJill Stein	2016    	Hillary Clinton    	Donald Trump
There are two problems with this table.  The first is that the table lacks citation to reliable sources.  The second is that the table declares frequently disputed facts in WP:Wikivoice.  Before restoring this table, it needs to pass both WP:Verification and WP:Neutrality and the best way to do this is to WP:Attribute the analysis and conclusion to the person or group the RS says is making the analysis or conclusion.   We'd also need to include disputing viewpoints found in the RSs.  Once we do all that, it becomes dubious that a simple table is really capable of passing muster, but I'll reserve judgment until some tweaks are proposed. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of alleged spoilers 

message: write here  — Preceding unsigned comment added by T Magierowski (talk • contribs) 19:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot base anything only on "I think". You have to back it up with a source. On Thurmond I could not find anything on him being a spoiler candidate on the Republicans and Gabbard... wait until after November 3rd 2020 and a try finding a source that states that. And I really don't understand what World War III, Mitt Romney, Bloomberg, the Democrat 2020 lot, Buchanan, Johnson or early 20th US politics have to do with whether or not Gabbard and Thurmond are spoiler candidates. Let's stay on topic. Tomasz Magierowski (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Once again, nothing to do with Strom Thurmond being a spoiler candidate for the Republicans. Tomasz Magierowski (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

text: I need a source that says that Thurmond took votes away from Dewey. That's what a spoiler candidate is, and the 1948 election is the only event we should be discussing, not Trump, not Pence, they don't factor into the equation in any meaningful way. The only thing that is important is once again, did Thurmond take votes away from Dewey and ruin his chances of winning... I cannot find anything that says this. Current politics, Taft isn't at all important here Tomasz Magierowski (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strom Thurmond and Tulsi Gabbard