Spoiler effect: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 2:
In some sense, much of [[Voting theory|voting theory]] is really just an attempt to mitigate the effects of various things that might be considered "spoiler effects". For example, [[Condorcet method|Condorcet methods]] and many [[Rated method|rated methods]] attempt to elect a candidate who can beat all other candidates in a [[Pairwise counting|head-to-head matchup]] (assuming voters cast the same ballots no matter which candidates are in the race); this arguably reduces the ability of losing candidates to drop out to impact the race.
The situation where there are only two or fewer candidates competing for a single seat i.e. to be the single winner (or more generally, any time there are N + 1 or fewer candidates competing for N seats) is often compared to the situation where there are more than two (or more than N + 1) candidates when discussing the spoiler effect. For example, [[Majority rule|majority rule]] guarantees a winner or a tie when there are two or fewer candidates, but when there are three or more, it is possible not to have a "majority winner" for any straightforward generalization of majority rule (i.e. maybe no candidate has a majority of 1st choices, or no candidate is a [[Condorcet cycle|beats-all Condorcet winner]], etc.), and moreover, in the event of a [[Condorcet cycle]], if certain candidates in the cycle drop out, the winner can change.
[[Category:Election scenarios]]
| |||