3 ms·
tanderson92's point was that by implying that the independent candidate was the spoiler, it is tacitly supporting the two-party system.
by 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 agoI 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 agoIt 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 agoYou 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.
- tanderson92 10y agoThis IMO gets it completely wrong. An independent candidate who comes within 2% of a plurality and victory and performs >15% better than the Democrat does not deserve to be called a spoiler. Why does the Democrat deserve the win regardless of what voters evidently want? If anyone is a spoiler, it must be the Democratic candidate. Your reasoning may be well-intentioned, but it is yet more 3rd-party-blaming.