Incubator escapee wiki

List of elections involving vote splitting

Article Discussion

Template:Short description Template:Distinguish Template:Voting Vote splitting is an electoral effect in which the distribution of votes among multiple similar candidates reduces the chance of winning for any of the similar candidates, and increases the chance of winning for a dissimilar candidate. This is commonly known as the spoiler effect, which can discourage minor party candidacies.

Vote splitting most easily occurs in plurality voting (also called first-past-the-post) in which each voter indicates a single choice and the candidate with the most votes wins, even if the winner does not have majority support.<ref name="Sen-2017">Template:Cite news</ref> For example, if candidate A1 receives 30% of the votes, similar candidate A2 receives another 30% of the votes, and dissimilar candidate B receives the remaining 40% of the votes, plurality voting declares candidate B as the winner, even though 60% of the voters prefer either candidate A1 or A2.

OccurrenceEdit

One of the main functions of political parties is to mitigate the effect of spoiler-prone voting methods by winnowing on a local level the contenders before the election. Each party nominates at most one candidate per office since each party expects to lose if they nominate more than one.<ref group="n">For example, if the Democrats had nominated both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for U.S. President in 2008, it would have allowed the Republican candidate (John McCain) to easily win; the voters who preferred both Clinton and Obama over McCain could not have been relied on to solve the strategy coordination problem on their own.</ref> This means empirical observations of the frequency of spoiled elections may not be a good measure, because they exclude relevant information from candidates who chose not to run.

Vote splitting occurs when candidates or ballot questions<ref group="n">Examples are the first past the post electoral system and in single transferable vote or similar systems with a first-preference votes winning percentage.</ref> have similar ideologies. A spoiler candidate can draw votes from a major candidate with similar politics, thereby causing a strong opponent of both or several to win.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref><ref>Template:Cite book</ref><ref name="Borgers2">Template:Cite book</ref><ref>Template:Cite book</ref> The minor candidates causing this effect are referred to as spoilers.<ref group="n">A term designed to appeal to a wider section of the public as a result of the widespread, often national support of political parties.</ref>

The problem also exists in two-round system<ref name=":3">Template:Cite news</ref> and instant-runoff voting,<ref name="Borgers2" /><ref name=":5">Template:Cite book</ref> though it is reduced, because weaker spoilers are eliminated.Template:Cn All ranked-choice systems suffer from variations of the spoiler effect, according to Arrow's impossibility theorem.Template:Cn However, a candidate that can win head-to-head against all rivals (called a Condorcet winner) can still lose from third place in a 3-way vote split, a phenomenon known as a center squeeze. This occurred in the 2009 Burlington Vermont mayoral election and the 2022 Alaska's at-large congressional district special election.Template:Citation needed

List of systems designed to reduce vote splittingEdit

Election examples by countryEdit

AustraliaEdit

In Australia, the 1918 Swan by-election saw the conservative vote split between the Country Party and Nationalist Party, which allowed the Australian Labor Party to win the seat. That led the Nationalist government to implement preferential voting in federal elections to allow Country and Nationalist voters to transfer preferences to the other party and to avoid vote splitting.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> Today, the Liberal Party and National Party rarely run candidates in the same seats, which are known as three-cornered contests. When three-cornered contests do occur the Labor Party would usually direct preferences to the Liberals ahead of the Nationals as they considered the Liberal Party to be less conservative than the Nationals. The 1996 Southern Highlands state by-election in New South Wales is an example of this when the Nationals candidate Katrina Hodgkinson won the primary vote but was defeated after preferences to Liberal candidate Peta Seaton when Seaton received Labor Party preferences.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

BulgariaEdit

Template:Expand section In 2001, the former tsar of Bulgaria Simeon II founded the NDSV. The NDSV won exactly 50% of the seats (120 out of 240 seats) thus barely missing an outright majority. Similarly named parties "Simeon II" Coalition, "National Union for Tsar Simeon II", "National Union Tsar Kiro" Coalition and "National Movement for New Era" (NDNE) got 3.44%, 1.70%, 0.60% and 0.05% respectively.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

In Bulgaria, the so-called "blue parties"<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> or "urban right"<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> which include SDS, DSB, Yes, Bulgaria!, DBG, ENP, Coalition For you Bulgaria and Blue Unity frequently get just above or below the electoral threshold depending on formation of electoral alliances: In the EP election 2007, DSB (4.74%) and SDS (4.35%) were campaigning separately and both fell below the natural electoral of around 5 percent. In 2009 Bulgarian parliamentary election, DSB and SDS ran together as Blue Coalition gaining 6.76 percent. In 2013 Bulgarian parliamentary election, campaigning separately DGB received 3.25 percent, DSB 2.93 percent, SDS 1.37 percent and ENP 0.17 percent, thus all of them failed to cross the threshold this even led to a tie between the former opposition and the parties right of the centre. In the EP election 2014, SDS, DSB and DBG ran as Reformist Bloc gaining 6.45 percent and crossing the electoral threshold, while Blue Unity campaigned separately and did not cross the electoral threshold. In 2017 Bulgarian parliamentary election, SDS and DBG ran as Reformist Bloc gaining 3.14 percent, "Yes, Bulgaria!" received 2.96 percent, DSB 2.54 percent, thus all of them failed to cross the electoral threshold. In the EP election 2019, "Yes, Bulgaria!" and DBG ran together as Democratic Bulgaria and crossed the electoral threshold with 6.15 percent. In November 2021, electoral alliance Democratic Bulgaria crossed electoral threshold with 6.37 percent.Template:Citation needed

Template:Nowrap
Parties 2005 EP 2007 EP 2009 2009 2013 EP 2014 2014 2017 EP 2019 April 2021 July 2021 November 2021 2022
Votes Seats Votes Seats Votes Seats Votes Seats Votes Seats Votes Seats Votes Seats Votes Seats Votes Seats Votes Seats Votes Seats Votes Seats Votes Seats
style="background:Template:Party color;"| DBG colspan=16 Template:N/A 115,190 3.25 0 0.00 144,532 6.45 1 5.88 291,806 8.89 23 9.58 107,407 3.14 0 0.00 colspan=20 Template:N/A
style="background:Template:Party color;"| ODS/SDS 280,323 7.68 20 8.33 91,871 4.74 0 0.00 204,817 7.95 1 5.88 285,662 6.76 15 7.18<ref name="PR" group="n">proportional seats</ref> 48,681 1.37 0 0.00 colspan=20 Template:N/A
style="background:Template:Party color;"| DSB 234,788 6.44 17 7.08 84,350 4.35 0 0.00 103,638 2.93 0 0.00 86,984 2.54 0 0.00 118,484 6.06 1 5.88 302,280 9.45 27 11.25 345,331 12.64 34 14.17 166,968 6.37 16 6.66 186,528 7.45 20 8.33
style="background:Template:Party color;"| DB colspan=28 Template:N/A 101,177 2.96 0 0.00
style="background:Template:Party color;"| ENP colspan=16 Template:N/A 6,143 0.17 0 0.00 colspan=4 Template:N/A 7,234 0.22 0 0.00 colspan=4 Template:N/A 1,855 0.09 0 0.00 colspan=16 Template:N/A
Blue Unity colspan=20 Template:N/A 10,786 0.48 0 0.00 colspan=24 Template:N/A
Template:Tooltip colspan=36 Template:N/A 4,788 0.15 0 0.00 colspan=8 Template:N/A 5,097 0.20 0 0.00
Total 515,111 14.12 37 15.42 176,221 9.09 0 0.00 204,817 7.95 1 5.88 285,662 6.76 15 7.18<ref name="PR" group="n"/> 382,699 10.08 0 0.00 155,318 6.93 1 5.88 299,040 9.10 23 9.58 295,568 8.62 0 0.00 120,339 6.15 1 5.88 307,068 9.60 27 11.25 345,331 12.64 34 14.17 166,968 6.37 16 6.66 191,625 7.65 20 8.33
Source: CIK CIK CIK CIK CIK CIK CIK CIK CIK CIK CIK CIK CIK

CanadaEdit

When the cities of Fort William and Port Arthur merged and (in 1969) voted on a name for the new town, the vote was split between the popular choices of "Lakehead" and "The Lakehead", allowing the third option to win, creating the town of Thunder Bay, Ontario.<ref>About Thunder Bay, pp. 2. Retrieved 2 September 2007.</ref>

From 1993 to 2004, the conservative vote in Canada was split between the Progressive Conservatives and the Reform (later the Alliance) Party. That allowed the Liberal Party to win almost all seats in Ontario and to win three successive majority governments.

The 2015 provincial election in Alberta saw the left-wing New Democratic Party win 62% of the seats with 40.6% of the province's popular vote after a division within the right-wing Progressive Conservative Party, which left it with only 27.8% of the vote, and its breakaway movement, the Wildrose Party, with 24.2% of the vote. In 2008, the last election in which the Progressive Conservative Party had been unified, it won 52.72% of the popular vote. The Progressive Conservatives had won every provincial election since the 1971 election, making them the longest-serving provincial government in Canadian history—being in office for 44 years. This was only the fourth change of government in Alberta since Alberta became a province in 1905, and one of the worst defeats a provincial government has suffered in Canada. It also marked the first time in almost 80 years that a left-of-centre political party had formed government in Alberta since the defeat of the United Farmers of Alberta in 1935 and the Depression-era radical monetary reform policies of William Aberhart's Social Credit government. During the 2021 Canadian federal election, it is speculated that the People's Party of Canada might have coast the CPC up to 24 seats.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

In Canada, vote splits between the two major left-of-centre parties (Liberals and NDP) assisted the Conservative Party in winning the 2006, 2008, and 2011 federal elections, despite most of the popular vote going to left-wing parties in each race. During the 2022 Ontario General Election, Progressive Conservative Doug Ford won a second term as Premier of the Province of Ontario. The Progressive Conservatives won several ridings due to vote splitting.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> ONDP and Liberal Party voters combined for 47.8% of votes, whereas Ford emerged victorious with only 40.82% of total votes.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

Czech RepublicEdit

In 2021, Přísaha (4.68%), ČSSD (4.65%) and KSČM (3.60%) all failed to cross the 5 percent threshold, thus allowing a coalition of Spolu and PaS. This was also the first time that neither ČSSD nor KSČM had representation in parliament since 1992.Template:Citation needed

FranceEdit

In France, the 2002 presidential elections have been cited as a case of the spoiler effect: the numerous left-wing candidates, such as Christiane Taubira and Jean-Pierre Chevènement, both from political parties allied to the French Socialist Party, or the three candidates from Trotskyist parties, which altogether totalled around 20%, have been charged with making Lionel Jospin, the Socialist Party candidate, lose the two-round election in the first round to the benefit of Jean-Marie Le Pen, who was separated from Jospin by only 0.68%. Some also cite the case of some districts in which the moderate right and the far right had more than half of the votes together, but the left still won the election; they accuse the left of profiting from the split. Also in the presidential elections 1969 (with five left-wing candidates which combined had 32%), in 2017 (split between four candidates which had 27% combined) and in 2022 (six left-wing candidates with 32% combined), the left failed to reach the run-off which may be traced back the amount of left-of-centre candidates. Similarly in the 1993 parliamentary election, where the green parties ran against the parties of the presidential majority. This led to many right-wing run-offs and the most right-wing dominated parliament since 1968.Template:Citation needed

Template:Nowrap
1969
Party Candidate Votes %
style="background:Template:Party color;"| UDR Georges Pompidou 10,051,783 44.47
Left style="background:Template:Party color;"| PCF Jacques Duclos 4,808,285 21.27
style="background:Template:Party color;"| SFIO Gaston Defferre 1,133,222 5.01
style="background:Template:Party color;"| PSU Michel Rocard 816,470 3.61
style="background:Template:Party color;"| DVG Louis Ducatel 286,447 1.27
style="background:Template:Party color;"| LC Alain Krivine 239,104 1.06
Total 7,283,528 32.22
style="background:Template:Party color;"| CD Alain Poher 5,268,613 23.31
Source: Constitutional Council
2002
Party Candidate Votes %
Left style="background:Template:Party color;"| PS Lionel Jospin 4,610,113 16.18
style="background:Template:Party color;"| LO Arlette Laguiller 1,630,045 5.72
style="background:Template:Party color;"| MDC Jean-Pierre Chevènement 1,518,528 5.33
style="background:Template:Party color;"| LV Noël Mamère 1,495,724 5.25
style="background:Template:Party color;"| LC Olivier Besancenot 1,210,562 4.25
style="background:Template:Party color;"| PCF Robert Hue 960,480 3.37
style="background:Template:Party color;"| PRG Christiane Taubira 660,447 2.32
style="background:Template:Party color;"| PT Daniel Gluckstein 132,686 0.47
Total 12,218,585 42.87
style="background:Template:Party color;"| RPR Jacques Chirac 5,665,855 19.88
style="background:Template:Party color;"| FN Jean-Marie Le Pen 4,804,713 16.86
Source: Constitutional Council
2017
Party Candidate Votes %
Left style="background:Template:Party color;"| LFI Jean-Luc Mélenchon 7,059,951 19.58
style="background:Template:Party color;"| PS Benoît Hamon 2,291,288 6.36
style="background:Template:Party color;"| NPA Philippe Poutou 394,505 1.09
style="background:Template:Party color;"| LO Nathalie Arthaud 232,384 0.64
Total 9,978,128 27.67
style="background:Template:Party color;"| LREM Emmanuel Macron 8,656,346 24.01
style="background:Template:Party color;"| FN Marine Le Pen 7,678,491 21.30
style="background:Template:Party color;"| LR François Fillon 7,212,995 20.01
Source: Constitutional Council
2022
Party Candidate Votes %
Left style="background:Template:Party color;"| LFI Jean-Luc Mélenchon 7,712,520 21.95
style="background:Template:Party color;"| EELV Yannick Jadot 1,627,853 4.63
style="background:Template:Party color;"| PCF Fabien Roussel 802,422 2.28
style="background:Template:Party color;"| PS Anne Hidalgo 616,478 1.75
style="background:Template:Party color;"| NPA Philippe Poutou 268,904 0.77
style="background:Template:Party color;"| LO Nathalie Arthaud 197,094 0.56
Total 11,225,271 31.95
style="background:Template:Party color;"| LREM Emmanuel Macron 9,783,058 27.85
style="background:Template:Party color;"| RN Marine Le Pen 8,133,828 23.15
Source: Minister of the Interior

In the 2023 French Polynesian legislative election, the anti-separatist A here ia Porinetia did not form an alliance with the Tāpura Huiraʻatira allowing the separatist Tāvini Huiraʻatira to win the run-off with just 44%.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

In the 2009 European Parliament election, two right-wing sovereignist lists Libertas France and Debout la République (DLR) competed against each other.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref>Template:Cite interview</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> Libertas and DLR failed to cross 5% threshold in all but one constituency.<ref name=FP>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> Similar vote splitting happened between the two (post-)Trotskyist parties New Anticapitalist Party and Lutte Ouvrière.<ref name=FP/> A similar scenario happened in 2019, when after failed negotiations<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> Debout la France–CNIP (the former previously known as DLR), Popular Republican Union (UPR) and The Patriots ran independently and gained 3.5%, 1.2% and 0.6% respectively thus falling below the newly introduced national threshold of 5%.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

GermanyEdit

In the German presidential election of 1925, Communist Ernst Thälmann refused to withdraw his candidacy although it was extremely unlikely that he would have won, and the leadership of the Communist International urged him not to run. In the second (and final) round of balloting, Thälmann shared 1,931,151 votes (6.4%). Centre Party candidate Wilhelm Marx, backed by pro-republican parties, won 13,751,605 (45.3%). The right-wing candidate Paul von Hindenburg won 14,655,641 votes (48.3%).<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> If most of Thälmann's supporters had voted for Marx, he likely would have won the election. That election had great significance because after 1930, Hindenburg increasingly favoured authoritarian means of government, and in 1933, he was persuaded by Von Papen to appoint Adolf Hitler to the chancellorship. Hindenburg's death the following year gave Hitler unchecked control of the German government.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

In the 1990 German federal election, the Western Greens did not meet the threshold, which was applied separately for former East and West Germany. The Greens could not take advantage of this, because the "Alliance 90" (which had absorbed the East German Greens) ran separately from "The Greens" in the West. Together, they would have narrowly passed the 5.0 percent threshold (West: 4.8%, East: 6.2%). The Western Greens returned to the Bundestag in 1994.

The post-communist PDS and its successor Die Linke often hovered around the 5 percent threshold: In 1994, it won only 4.4 percent of the party list vote, but won four districts in East Berlin, which saved it, earning 30 MPs in total. In 2002, it achieved only 4.0 percent of the party list vote, and won just two districts, this time excluding the party from proportional representation. This resulted in a narrow red-green majority and a second term for Gerhard Schröder, which would not have been possible had the PDS won a third constituency. In 2021, it won only 4.9 percent of the party list vote, but won the bare minimum of three districts (Berlin-Lichtenberg, Berlin-Treptow-Köpenick, and Leipzig II), salvaging the party, which received 39 MPs.

In the 2013 German federal election, the FDP, in Parliament since 1949, received only 4.8 percent of the list vote, and won no single district, excluding the party altogether. This, along with the failure of the right-wing eurosceptic party AfD (4.7%), gave a left-wing majority in Parliament despite a center-right majority of votes (CDU/CSU itself fell short of an absolute majority by just 5 seats). As a result, Merkel's CDU/CSU formed a grand coalition with the SPD.

Klimaliste has been accused of splitting the vote which would have gone to Alliance 90/The Greens.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> For example, in the 2021 Baden-Württemberg state election a Red-Green coalition was just a single seat short of a majority while Klimaliste missed the threshold with receiving 0.9% of the vote.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

GreeceEdit

In Greece, Antonis Samaras was the Minister for Foreign Affairs for the liberal conservative government of New Democracy under Prime Minister Konstantinos Mitsotakis but ended up leaving and founding the national conservative Political Spring in response to the Macedonia naming dispute, resulting in the 1993 Greek legislative election where PASOK won with its leader Andreas Papandreou making a successful political comeback, which was considered to be responsible for the Greek government debt crisis.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

GuatemalaEdit

In 2019 the different parties to the left of National Unity of Hope (Semilla, Winaq, MLP, URNG, EG, CPO-CRD and Libre) ran with their own lists and presidential candidates. Their highest candidates Thelma Cabrera and Manuel Villacorta archived 10.3% and 5.2% respectively, combined stronger than the main conservative candidate Alejandro Giammattei 13.9% (who was elected in the run-off). If they ran together there wont have been any conservative candidate in the run-off.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> A similar scenario happened in the 2023 election, in which four right-of-centre candidates (Manuel Conde, Armando Castillo, Edmond Mulet and Zury Ríos) gained just below 11% each, all behind Semilla's candidate Bernardo Arévalo with around 16%.Template:Citation needed

IsraelEdit

In April 2019, among the 3 lists representing right-wing to far-right Zionism and supportive of Netanyahu, only one crossed the threshold the right-wing government had increased to 3.25 percent: the Union of the Right-Wing Parties with 3.70 percent, while future Prime Minister Bennett's New Right narrowly failed at 3.22 percent, and Zehut only 2.74 percent, destroying Netanyahu's chances of another majority, and leading to snap elections in September and a political gridlock lasting three years.Template:Citation needed

ItalyEdit

Sicily is traditionally dominated by the centre-right but in the 2012 Sicilian regional election the centre-right was split between Nello Musumeci, Gianfranco Micciché, Mariano Ferro and Cateno De Luca allowing the centre-left Rosario Crocetta to win the election with just 30.5%.Template:Citation needed

The Italian Left often struggled to meet thresholds after the formation of the Democratic Party, in 2008 most left-wing parties ran on the Rainbow Left list which got 3.08% but other left-wing parties, the Workers' Communist Party (PCL) with 0.57%, the Critical Left with 0.46% and the Communist Alternative Party (PdAC) with 0.01%, still split enough votes from them to fall below the 4% threshold.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> In 2009 three different left-wing lists competed against each other. The Federation of the Left got 3.39%, Left and Freedom got 3.13% and the PCL got 0.54%, thus all fell short of the 4% threshold.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> Similarly in 2019, Green Europe got 2.32% and The Left got 1.75%.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

NorwayEdit

In 2009, the Liberal Party received 3.9 percent of the votes, below the 4 percent threshold for leveling seats, although still winning two seats. Hence, while right-wing opposition parties won more votes between them than the parties in the governing coalition, the narrow failure of the Liberal Party to cross the threshold kept the governing coalition in power. It crossed the threshold again at the following election with 5.2 percent.Template:Citation needed

PolandEdit

In 2015, the United Left achieved 7.55 percent, which is below the 8 percent threshold for multi-party coalitions. Furthermore, KORWiN only reached 4.76 percent, narrowly missing the 5 percent threshold for individual parties. This allowed the victorious PiS to obtain a majority of seats with 37 percent of the vote. This was the first parliament without left-wing parties represented.Template:Citation needed

PhilippinesEdit

In the 2004 Philippine presidential election, those who were opposed to Gloria Macapagal Arroyo's presidency had their vote split into the four candidates, thereby allowing Arroyo to win. The opposition had film actor Fernando Poe, Jr. as its candidate, but Panfilo Lacson refused to give way and ran as a candidate of a breakaway faction of the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino. Arroyo was later accused of vote-rigging.Template:Citation needed

RomaniaEdit

In 2000, the different candidates of the incumbent government got in the Romanian presidential election 11.8% (Stolojan), 9.5% (Isărescu), 6.2% (Frunda) and 3.0% (Roman) respectively. Combined they had more than Corneliu Vadim Tudor of the Greater Romania Party, who got 28.3% in the first round.Template:Citation needed

SerbiaEdit

In Serbia, there are often quite a few nationalist and right-wing parties, which compete independently. Since the rise of Aleksandar Vučić's Serbian Progressive Party, which broke away from the Serbian Radical Party in 2008, vote splitting became common among them. The most extreme cases of vote splitting were in 2014, none of the nationalist lists (DSS, SRS, Dveri, Third Serbia, "Patriotic Front" and the Russian Party, a nominally Russian minority party) made it above 4.2% thus neither of them won seats despite having a total of 10.6%.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> and in 2020, the POKS (2.7%), DJB (2.3%), the DSS (2.2%) and the SRS (2.1%) alongside smaller parties all ended up below the 3% threshold,<ref name=RS2020/> which was introduced to make it easier for parties after the main opposition alliance called for a boycott.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref>Template:Cite news</ref> Only the Serbian Patriotic Alliance gained 3.8% in their first and only election.<ref name=RS2020>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

Template:Nowrap
2012
Party Votes % Seats %
style="background:Template:Party color;"| Democratic Party 273,532 6.99 21 8.40
5% threshold
style="background:Template:Party color;"| Serbian Radical Party 180,558 4.61 colspan=2 rowspan=2 Template:N/A
style="background:Template:Party color;"| Dveri 169,590 4.33
Total 623,680 15.95 21 8.40
Source: Republican Electoral Commission
2014
Party Votes % Seats %
5% threshold
style="background:Template:Party color;"| Democratic Party 152,436 4.24 colspan=2 rowspan=6 Template:N/A
style="background:Template:Party color;"| Dveri 128,458 3.58
style="background:Template:Party color;"| Serbian Radical Party 72,303 2.01
style="background:Template:Party color;"| Third Serbia 16,206 0.45
style="background:Template:Party color;"| Russian Party 6,547 0.18
style="background:Template:Party color;"| Patriotic Front (SSJ–SSZ) 4,514 0.13
Total 380,464 10.59 0 0.00
Source: Republican Electoral Commission
2016
Party Votes % Seats %
style="background:Template:Party color;"| Serbian Radical Party 306,052 8.10 22 8.80
style="background:Template:Party color;"| Dveri–DSS 190,530 5.04 13 5.20
5% threshold
style="background:Template:Party color;"| Serbian Party Oathkeepers 27,690 0.73 colspan=2 rowspan=5 Template:N/A
style="background:Template:Party color;"| National Alliance (NM–TS) 17,528 0.46
style="background:Template:Party color;"| Russian Party 13,777 0.36
For Serbia's Revival 13,260 0.35
Serbo-Russian Movement 10,016 0.27
Total 578,853 15.32 35 14.00
Source: Republican Electoral Commission
2020
Party Votes % Seats %
style="background:Template:Party color;"| Serbian Patriotic Alliance 123,393 3.83 11 4.40
3% threshold
style="background:Template:Party color;"| POKS 85,888 2.67 colspan=2 rowspan=9 Template:N/A
style="background:Template:Party color;"| Enough is Enough 73,953 2.30
style="background:Template:Party color;"| BROOM 2020 (DSS–NJS) 72,085 2.24
style="background:Template:Party color;"| Serbian Radical Party 65,954 2.05
style="background:Template:Party color;"| Serbian Party Oathkeepers 45,950 1.43
style="background:Template:Party color;"| Health for the Victory (ZS–BS) 33,435 1.04
style="background:Template:Party color;"| Leviathan Movement 22,691 0.70
style="background:Template:Party color;"| People's Bloc (NS–NSP) 7,873 0.24
style="background:Template:Party color;"| Russian Party 6,295 0.20
Total 537,517 16.70 11 4.40
Source: Republican Electoral Commission
2022
Party Votes % Seats %
style="background:Template:Party color;"| NADA (NDSS–POKS) 204,444 5.37 15 6.00
style="background:Template:Party color;"| Dveri–POKS 144,762 3.80 10 4.00
style="background:Template:Party color;"| Serbian Party Oathkeepers 141,227 3.71 10 4.00
3% threshold
style="background:Template:Party color;"| Sovereignists (DJB–ZS–ZzS) 86,362 2.27 colspan=2 rowspan=4 Template:N/A
style="background:Template:Party color;"| Serbian Radical Party 82,066 2.16
Stolen Babies 31,196 0.82
style="background:Template:Party color;"| Russian Minority Alliance 9,569 0.25
Total 699,626 18.38 35 14.00
Source: Republican Electoral Commission
2023
Party Votes % Seats %
style="background:Template:Party color;"| NADA (NDSS–POKS) 191,431 5.02 13 5.20
style="background:Template:Party color;"| We–The Voice from the People 178,830 4.69 13 5.20
style="background:Template:Party color;"| Russian Party 11,369 0.30 1 0.40
3% threshold
style="background:Template:Party color;"| National Gathering (Dveri–SSZ) 105,165 2.76 colspan=2 rowspan=4 Template:N/A
style="background:Template:Party color;"| Serbian Radical Party 55,782 1.46
style="background:Template:Party color;"| Good Morning Serbia (DJB–OBAP) 45,079 1.18
style="background:Template:Party color;"| People's Party 33,388 0.88
Total 621,044 16.25 27 10.80
Source: Republican Electoral Commission

SingaporeEdit

Since Singapore gained independence, many contests had straight fights against one opposition party and multi-cornered contests are less frequent in every election (except in 1968 and 2006), with talks from several opposition parties to avoid such fights in risk of splitting their votes and ensuing People's Action Party's (PAP) winning the constituency, and the risk of losing their election deposit (for not garnering at least one-eighth (12.5%) of the valid votes cast).<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> Below here are some notable scenarios where vote splits are seen among contests:

  • 1963 election: All but one of the 51 constituencies had multi-cornered fights, with most of them being the Barisan Sosialis (BS) party and at least one other opposition party. The PAP however, won 37 seats while 92 candidates had their deposits forfeited.<ref name=meninwhite>Template:Cite book</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=web }}</ref>

  • 1972 election: All but eight of the 65 seats were contested, with 24 being three-way contests with either the BS or Workers' Party (WP) or both, after both parties undergo party renewals. However, all of the contests were won by PAP and 22 candidates had lost their deposits.<ref>Parliamentary general election 1972 Singapore Elections</ref>
  • 1992 and 2013 by-elections: Both by-elections saw a four-way contest between the incumbent PAP, one larger opposition party at the time, and two other smaller parties.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> In both cases, the two smaller parties garnered less than 2% of the votes and subsequently lost their deposits.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref>
  • 2011 Presidential election: In another notable scenario of vote splitting, the final results were suggested to be heavily divided between the four presidential candidates, with possibility of vote splitting towards two of the PAP-affiliated candidates (Tan Cheng Bock and Tony Tan), an opposition-affiliated candidate (Tan Jee Say) and a candidate making his political debut (Tan Kin Lian).<ref name="coe">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref name="nominate">PE Four-cornered fight for presidential race Template:Webarchive. Channel NewsAsia (17 August 2011). Retrieved on 28 August 2011.</ref> The results were reportedly close due to a recount,<ref>Template:Cite newsTemplate:Dead link</ref> but Tony Tan ultimately won the election at a narrow margin by plurality (under First-past-the-post voting),<ref name="Channel NewsAsia">Template:Cite newsTemplate:Dead link</ref> while Kin Lian had lost his election deposit.<ref>Template:Cite newsTemplate:Dead link</ref>

|CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

|CitationClass=web }}</ref>

  • 2025 election: Five constituencies saw multi-cornered contests (since 1991) with Tampines GRC having a four-cornered contest being the most notable.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=web }}</ref> A total of 27 candidates, including two parties of five members from both Tampines<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref name="Tampines GRC CNA results">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> and Ang Mo Kio GRC,<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> had forfeited their election deposit, the most since post-independence.<ref name="13.5K">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref name="CNA lookback">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

SlovakiaEdit

Template:Expand section 2002. The True Slovak National Party (PSNS) split from Slovak National Party (SNS), and Movement for Democracy (HZD) split from the previously dominant People's Party – Movement for a Democratic Slovakia. All of them failed to cross the 5 percent threshold with PSNS having 3.65 percent, SNS 3.33 percent and HZD 3.26 percent respectively, thus allowing a center-right coalition despite having less than 43 percent of the vote.Template:Citation needed

In 2016, the Christian Democratic Movement achieved 4.94 percent missing only 0.06 percent votes to reach the threshold after #SIEŤ split from KDH which meant the first absence of the party since the Velvet Revolution and the first democratic elections in 1990.Template:Citation needed

In 2020, Velvet Revolution in which no party of the Hungarian minority crossed the 5 percent threshold. The vote was split between Hungarian Community Togetherness with 3.9% and Most–Híd with 2.1%.Template:Citation needed

Before the 2024, Republic broke away from the People's Party Our Slovakia (ĽSNS). Republic received 4.75% and the ĽSNS 0.84%.Template:Citation needed

South KoreaEdit

In 1987, Roh Tae-woo won the South Korean presidential election with just under 36% of the popular vote because his two main liberal rivals split the vote. A similar scenario happened when in 1997 won by just Kim Dae-jung 40.3% because his two main conservative rivals split the vote.Template:Citation needed

TaiwanEdit

In the 2000 presidential election in Taiwan, James Soong left Kuomintang (KMT) party and ran as an independent against KMT's candidate Lien Chan. This caused vote-splitting among KMT voters and resulted in victory for Democratic Progressive Party's candidate, Chen Shui-bian. It is the first time in Taiwan history that the KMT did not win a presidential election, and it became the opposition party.Template:Citation needed

A similar scenario happened in 2024, when after the opposition candidates Hou Yu-ih (KMT) and Ko Wen-je (Taiwan People's Party) failed to reached an agreement,<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> Lai Ching-te (DPP) won with just 40 % of the vote.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

TurkeyEdit

Regular military coups in the second half of the 20th century led to a situation, where two similar centre-left kemalist parties, the Republican People's Party (CHP) and the Democratic Left Party (DSP), and centre-right kemalist parties, the True Path Party (DYP) and Motherland Party (ANAP), competed against another. In the 2002 general election, the centre-left (CHP, DSP, NTP) got 21.76% and the centre-right (DYP, ANAP, YP, LDP) got 15.89% but because of the split only the CHP and the new Justice and Development Party (AKP) made it above the 10% threshold with the AKP having 66% of the seats with just 34.28% of the vote. Attempts to merge ANAP and DYP before the 2007 election failed and the Democrat Party (the successor of DYP) only won 5.4%.

United KingdomEdit

In the 1994 European Elections, Richard Huggett stood as a "Literal Democrat" candidate for the Devon and East Plymouth seat, with the name playing on that of the much larger Liberal Democrats. Huggett took over 10,000 votes, and the Liberal Democrats lost by 700 votes to the Conservative Party. The Registration of Political Parties Act 1998, brought in after the election, introduced a register of political parties and ended the practice of deliberately confusing party descriptions.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

In the run up to 2019 UK General Election, the Brexit Party, led by former UKIP leader Nigel Farage, initially put up candidates in 600 seats after a strong showing for the newly formed party in the 2019 European Elections, but days later, he reversed his position after Conservative British Prime Minister Boris Johnson stated that he would not consider an electoral pact with the Brexit Party. That was seen as benefiting the Conservative Party and disadvantaging the Labour Party.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> Farage later encouraged voters not to vote for the Labour Party in areas that traditionally favoured it but voted to leave in the 2016 EU Membership Referendum but instead to vote tactically.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> After the Conservatives' decisive victory, it was suggested by some media outlets and political analysts that Farage had acted as "kingmaker" and stalking horse and effectively won the election for the Tories, as Farage's decision avoided splitting the vote.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref>Template:Cite news</ref>

United StatesEdit

Since 1990, the Republican Party's presidential ticket, according to the research cited below, has benefited most from the spoiler effect of the plurality voting system that chooses electors for the electoral college. The year 2000 was an especially clear case when Al Gore would likely have won without vote splitting by one or more of the third-party tickets on the ballot.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> Which party benefits from a third-party ticket depends on the election and the candidates.

President (since 1990)Edit

|CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

|CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

|CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref>Template:Cite news</ref>

President (before 1970)Edit

|CitationClass=web }}</ref>Template:Better source needed

Other racesEdit

  • An analysis of 2006 to 2012 general election races in the U.S. found 1.5% were spoiled by third-party candidates, according to Philip Bump.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation

|CitationClass=web }}</ref>

|CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

See alsoEdit

Template:Portal

NotesEdit

Template:Reflist Template:Noteslist

ReferencesEdit

Template:Reflist

Retrieved from "https://zalansite.site/mediawiki/index.php?title=List_of_elections_involving_vote_splitting&oldid=329924"