7 ms·

The Democratic candidate came in 3rd place with only 19%. I believe that makes the Democrats the "spoiler" in that election. To not recognize it as such is to p

The Democratic candidate came in 3rd place with only 19%. I believe that makes the Democrats the "spoiler" in that election. To not recognize it as such is to prop up the 2-party system.

kevlar1818 10y ago
Fair enough, but I think you're kind of splitting hairs. You're referring to the 2010 election, I think. The 2014 election has the Democratic candidate take ~43% if I'm correct.
- kevlar1818 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_gubernatorial_election,_2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_gubernatorial_election,_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_gubernatorial_election,_2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_gubernatorial_election,_...
- tanderson92 10y ago
  How is it splitting hairs to correct the (implicit, through use of the phrase "The Spoiler Effect") blaming of third party candidates when it wasn't a third party candidate who was at fault whatsoever? In fact that's the central point of this ballot proposition: so that we can vote for better candidates than the Democrats are willing to put up without fear of your blame if we don't reach enough to defeat the other side. Even worse, your post is just factually wrong. By placing the fact that a 3rd party candidate split the vote once in a sentence where you mentioned the governor failed to reach a majority twice, you conflated the two in a manner that almost looks willful. And yes, I was referring to the 2010 election because the plurality for LePage was much less convincing then.
  - kevlar1818 10y ago
    Look, I agree with you. I am thrilled that RCV was voted-for by the people of Maine. It's a step away from the two-party system, and that's great. The Spoiler Effect happened one way or another. I was not intentionally trying to bash any of the candidates who were involved in the Spoiler Effect, and I think it's petty and inflammatory to assign blame either way. I'll update my post to be more clear in this regard.
  - ClayShentrup 10y ago
    I'm a co-founder of the Center for Election Science. This was the spoiler effect. It doesn't really matter which candidate was the spoiler. It matters that the wrong candidate won. We did some analysis on this election here. http://scorevoting.net/Maine2014Exit.html http://scorevoting.net/Maine2014Exit.html
    - tanderson92 10y ago
      Of course it was the spoiler effect! I never claimed otherwise! I only said that if you are going to use that language then in 2010 it is clear that the Democrats were the spoilers and the independent deserves none of the blame assigned by kevlar1818 in the original wording of the post.
    - RobAtticus 10y ago
      tanderson92's point was that by implying that the independent candidate was the spoiler, it is tacitly supporting the two-party system.
      - Tobani 10y ago
        I don't think that was the implication. The original post just said that the democrats and independents split the vote (spoiler effect). There was no implication as to which was the spoiler.
        tanderson92 10y ago
        It was the implication present in the original post before it was edited to remove that implication (after much of this discussion had occurred). See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12951169 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12951169, and the edit note in the edited-edited-original post.
        pessimizer 10y ago
        You can't really say "spoiler effect" without implying it. A "spoiler" is a minor candidate that is substantially similar to one of the major candidates. Just because the Democratic candidate lost to the spoiler doesn't make the spoiler less of a spoiler; the Democratic candidate would have been more likely to win if they weren't there. It's not a "spoiler effect"; maybe a split constituency is a better term. Spoiler implies that somebody has something, and someone else steps in and ruins it. These are all equal people running for the same office.
  - hx87 10y ago
    You're reading a lot into Kevlar1818's posts that isn't necessarily there. It's possible to blame a phenomenon (the Spoiler Effect) without blaming its players (Democrats & third party candidates).
    - kevlar1818 10y ago
      In his/her defense, I edited my comment to show I did not mean to blame anyone.
veidr 10y ago
Sure, the Democrat was the spoiler there. But your characterization of kevlar1818's comment doesn't make sense. Advocating RCV is the exact opposite of propping up the two party system. And the terminology itself is neutral -- it's only because the American democracy has suffered under (or, as some would now say, outright failed due to) the two party system that you associate "the spoiler effect" with a third party candidate.
- tanderson92 10y ago
  No, my characterization did make sense because at the time I commented (kevlar1818 has since edited -- read the whole thread), kevlar1818 explicitly blamed an independent candidate for splitting the Democrats' votes, as if they owned them.
  - kevlar1818 10y ago
    Once again, any blame was not intentional. I don't know why you are insisting that I'm an opponent of third parties in elections.
chapium 10y ago
Just an observation here, I dont think there was an implication that the independants were a spoiler. Parent implied that democrat and independent candidates were similar in ideology and therefore a spoiler effect was present.
odonnellryan 10y ago
Good news for Maine: preferential voting will really help with the two party system.
- pessimizer 10y ago
  The two-party system doesn't need any help. Preferential voting will give people the opportunity to vote for the candidates they prefer in the order they prefer them, rather than participating in the (media-driven) Keynesian beauty contest that the institutional parties force us into.
Ph0X 10y ago
While that may be true, either of the two could've been the actual winner if real ranked voting was used. People usually flock to the candidate who has the best mix of "likely to win" and "shares my values". Preferably, only the latter should count. It's also important to note that First-Past-The-Vote forces candidates to try to differentiate themselves as much as possible from each other, and that also includes popular 3rd parties. They will say more extreme things that they often don't really believe in. So that too would skew the results. All in all, ranked voting will completely change how the whole process happens.
- _samihasan_ 10y ago
  I'm wondering why doesn't the US implement a system like "Two-round system" as a part of electoral reforms because as I see it the current system in place is not fair for the electorate or even the candidates themselves.
  - koenigdavidmj 10y ago
    Washington kind of has this for federal offices (other than president) and state offices. The top two winners of the primary make it to the final election, regardless of party affiliation. We had one state race between a Democrat and a Libertarian, and my congressional district had a choice between two Democrats (though one was 'normal' and the other was a self-proclaimed socialist).
  - sidlls 10y ago
    For basically all offices but POTUS that's what California effectively has. Except it is implemented badly as a "top-two primary" system. This virtually guarantees that most partisan elections will exclude anyone outside the two biggest parties. It is not very healthy.
    - labster 10y ago
      Or outside the one biggest party. Jerry Brown recently vetoed an STV elections bill, calling it "too confusing for voters". Having met some actual voters, I'm growing more inclined to agree with him, but STV has worked very well in my university's elections for more than a decade.
r00fus 10y ago
Fine. Whatever. Spoiler effect is much less of an issue with ranked voting, so good to know that Maine will be going IND (likely) next cycle unless GOP steps up their game and caters to the middle. A win for lefties in either way.
dcosson 10y ago
We can debate all day about whether voting 3rd party under simple majority voting is taking a stand or being irresponsible (by causing a split vote and letting the worst candidate win). I think there are legitimate arguments on both sides. The only real way to stop propping up a 2-party system is to switch to something like ranked choice voting, so good on them for doing it.

The Democratic candidate came in 3rd place with only 19%. I believe that makes the Democrats the "spoiler" in that election. To not recognize it as such is to prop up the 2-party system.

kevlar1818 10y ago

Fair enough, but I think you're kind of splitting hairs. You're referring to the 2010 election, I think. The 2014 election has the Democratic candidate take ~43% if I'm correct.

kevlar1818 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_gubernatorial_election,_2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_gubernatorial_election,_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_gubernatorial_election,_2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_gubernatorial_election,_...
tanderson92 10y ago
How is it splitting hairs to correct the (implicit, through use of the phrase "The Spoiler Effect") blaming of third party candidates when it wasn't a third party candidate who was at fault whatsoever? In fact that's the central point of this ballot proposition: so that we can vote for better candidates than the Democrats are willing to put up without fear of your blame if we don't reach enough to defeat the other side. Even worse, your post is just factually wrong. By placing the fact that a 3rd party candidate split the vote once in a sentence where you mentioned the governor failed to reach a majority twice, you conflated the two in a manner that almost looks willful. And yes, I was referring to the 2010 election because the plurality for LePage was much less convincing then.
- kevlar1818 10y ago
  Look, I agree with you. I am thrilled that RCV was voted-for by the people of Maine. It's a step away from the two-party system, and that's great. The Spoiler Effect happened one way or another. I was not intentionally trying to bash any of the candidates who were involved in the Spoiler Effect, and I think it's petty and inflammatory to assign blame either way. I'll update my post to be more clear in this regard.
- ClayShentrup 10y ago
  I'm a co-founder of the Center for Election Science. This was the spoiler effect. It doesn't really matter which candidate was the spoiler. It matters that the wrong candidate won. We did some analysis on this election here. http://scorevoting.net/Maine2014Exit.html http://scorevoting.net/Maine2014Exit.html
  - tanderson92 10y ago
    Of course it was the spoiler effect! I never claimed otherwise! I only said that if you are going to use that language then in 2010 it is clear that the Democrats were the spoilers and the independent deserves none of the blame assigned by kevlar1818 in the original wording of the post.
  - RobAtticus 10y ago
    tanderson92's point was that by implying that the independent candidate was the spoiler, it is tacitly supporting the two-party system.
    - Tobani 10y ago
      I don't think that was the implication. The original post just said that the democrats and independents split the vote (spoiler effect). There was no implication as to which was the spoiler.
      - tanderson92 10y ago
        It was the implication present in the original post before it was edited to remove that implication (after much of this discussion had occurred). See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12951169 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12951169, and the edit note in the edited-edited-original post.
      - pessimizer 10y ago
        You can't really say "spoiler effect" without implying it. A "spoiler" is a minor candidate that is substantially similar to one of the major candidates. Just because the Democratic candidate lost to the spoiler doesn't make the spoiler less of a spoiler; the Democratic candidate would have been more likely to win if they weren't there. It's not a "spoiler effect"; maybe a split constituency is a better term. Spoiler implies that somebody has something, and someone else steps in and ruins it. These are all equal people running for the same office.
- hx87 10y ago
  You're reading a lot into Kevlar1818's posts that isn't necessarily there. It's possible to blame a phenomenon (the Spoiler Effect) without blaming its players (Democrats & third party candidates).
  - kevlar1818 10y ago
    In his/her defense, I edited my comment to show I did not mean to blame anyone.

veidr 10y ago

Sure, the Democrat was the spoiler there. But your characterization of kevlar1818's comment doesn't make sense. Advocating RCV is the exact opposite of propping up the two party system. And the terminology itself is neutral -- it's only because the American democracy has suffered under (or, as some would now say, outright failed due to) the two party system that you associate "the spoiler effect" with a third party candidate.

tanderson92 10y ago
No, my characterization did make sense because at the time I commented (kevlar1818 has since edited -- read the whole thread), kevlar1818 explicitly blamed an independent candidate for splitting the Democrats' votes, as if they owned them.
- kevlar1818 10y ago
  Once again, any blame was not intentional. I don't know why you are insisting that I'm an opponent of third parties in elections.

chapium 10y ago

Just an observation here, I dont think there was an implication that the independants were a spoiler. Parent implied that democrat and independent candidates were similar in ideology and therefore a spoiler effect was present.

odonnellryan 10y ago

Good news for Maine: preferential voting will really help with the two party system.

pessimizer 10y ago
The two-party system doesn't need any help. Preferential voting will give people the opportunity to vote for the candidates they prefer in the order they prefer them, rather than participating in the (media-driven) Keynesian beauty contest that the institutional parties force us into.

Ph0X 10y ago

While that may be true, either of the two could've been the actual winner if real ranked voting was used. People usually flock to the candidate who has the best mix of "likely to win" and "shares my values". Preferably, only the latter should count. It's also important to note that First-Past-The-Vote forces candidates to try to differentiate themselves as much as possible from each other, and that also includes popular 3rd parties. They will say more extreme things that they often don't really believe in. So that too would skew the results. All in all, ranked voting will completely change how the whole process happens.

_samihasan_ 10y ago
I'm wondering why doesn't the US implement a system like "Two-round system" as a part of electoral reforms because as I see it the current system in place is not fair for the electorate or even the candidates themselves.
- koenigdavidmj 10y ago
  Washington kind of has this for federal offices (other than president) and state offices. The top two winners of the primary make it to the final election, regardless of party affiliation. We had one state race between a Democrat and a Libertarian, and my congressional district had a choice between two Democrats (though one was 'normal' and the other was a self-proclaimed socialist).
- sidlls 10y ago
  For basically all offices but POTUS that's what California effectively has. Except it is implemented badly as a "top-two primary" system. This virtually guarantees that most partisan elections will exclude anyone outside the two biggest parties. It is not very healthy.
  - labster 10y ago
    Or outside the one biggest party. Jerry Brown recently vetoed an STV elections bill, calling it "too confusing for voters". Having met some actual voters, I'm growing more inclined to agree with him, but STV has worked very well in my university's elections for more than a decade.

r00fus 10y ago

Fine. Whatever. Spoiler effect is much less of an issue with ranked voting, so good to know that Maine will be going IND (likely) next cycle unless GOP steps up their game and caters to the middle. A win for lefties in either way.

dcosson 10y ago

We can debate all day about whether voting 3rd party under simple majority voting is taking a stand or being irresponsible (by causing a split vote and letting the worst candidate win). I think there are legitimate arguments on both sides. The only real way to stop propping up a 2-party system is to switch to something like ranked choice voting, so good on them for doing it.