Redirect to:
A spoiler campaign (or a spoiler candidate) is one that cannot realistically win but can still determine the outcome by splitting votes with a more competitive candidate.[1] The spoiler effect is most prevalent in two-party systems (like the one in the United States) created by first-past-the-post voting and less so in many proportional representation systems. Approval voting is considered one of the most spoiler-resistant voting systems, followed by ranked-choice voting.
The two major parties have regularly won 98% of all state and federal seats.[2] The US presidential elections most consistently cited as having been spoiled by third-party candidates are 1844[3] and 2000,[4][5][6][3] while 2016 impact is often discussed but more disputed as to whether it altered the outcome.[7][8][9] For the 2024 presidential election, Republican lawyers and operatives have fought to keep right-leaning third-parties like the Constitution Party off of swing state ballots[10] while working to get Cornel West on battleground ballots.[11] Democrats have helped some right-leaning third-parties gain ballot access while challenging ballot access of left-leaning third-parties like the Green Party.[12]
Third party candidates are always controversial because almost anyone could play spoiler.[13][14] This is especially true in close elections where the chances of a spoiler effect increase.[15] Strategic voting, especially prevalent during high stakes elections with high political polarization, often leads to a third-party that underperforms its poll numbers with voters wanting to make sure their least favorite candidate is not in power.[16][17][2] Third-party campaigns are more likely to result in the candidate a third party voter least wants in the White House.[14] Third-party candidates prefer to focus on their platform than on their impact on the frontrunners.[14]
Perot was running what is commonly referred to as a "spoiler campaign," a campaign that cannot win the election but still impacts its outcome.
The perception that Johnson and Stein 'stole' the 2016 presidential election from Clinton is widespread...Our analysis indicates that Johnson and Stein did not deprive Clinton of an Electoral College majority, nor Trump the legitimacy of winning the national popular vote.
Four years ago, the Green Party candidate played a significant role in several crucial battleground states, drawing a vote total in three of them — Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — that exceeded the margin between Donald J. Trump and Hillary Clinton.
Republicans and Democrats view third-party candidates as a threat to siphon critical support from their nominees, especially considering that Pennsylvania was decided by margins of tens of thousands of votes both in 2020 for Democrat Joe Biden and in 2016 for Trump.
there are signs across the country that groups are trying to affect the outcome by using deceptive means — and in most cases in ways that would benefit Republican Donald Trump. Their aim is to whittle away President Joe Biden's standing with the Democratic Party's base by offering left-leaning, third-party alternatives who could siphon off a few thousand protest votes in close swing state contests...Legal experts say elections will continue to be susceptible to dirty tricks and chicanery unless the more states adopt different methods of casting a ballot, like ranked choice voting, which allows voters to weight their candidate preferences.
And despite the contenders' claims that the nation deserves an alternative to two unpopular major party choices, the reality, experts say, is that these back-of-the-pack candidates may well cement the election of the candidate they least want in the White House.