3 ms·

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 implicat

• 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.
  • tanderson92 10y ago
    This 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.