A Vote For a Candidate That Can't Win

Have you heard this?

A vote for a candidate that has no chance of winning is a vote for the majority.

— Facebook Comment

I am not convinced that a vote for a candidate that can't win is a vote for the leader (a.k.a. "majority"). I've decided to run the numbers.


Let's imagine that there are 10,000 voters, not including you:

  • 4500 are voting for Candidate Clam Chowder
  • 4000 are voting for Kandidate Ketchup
  • 1500 are voting for Candidate Creamy Cool Whip

You are a supporter of Candidate Creamy Cool Whip, and you strongly distaste Cadidate Clam Chowder. You're not a fan of Kandidate Ketchup, but "Ketchup is a bit better than Clam Chowder", you tell yourself.

Election day is coming up, and the Ketchuppers say that if you don't vote for Kandidate Ketchup, you're voting for Candidate Clam Chowder.

Here are the two scenarios:

  1. You give in the demands, and cast your vote for Ketchup
  • Clam Chowder: 4500 votes
  • Ketchup: 4001 votes
  • Creamy Cool Whip: 1500 votes
  1. You say "deal with it!" to the Ketchuppers, and you stand with your fellow Cool Whippers
  • Clam Chowder: 4500 votes
  • Ketchup: 4000 votes
  • Creamy Cool Whip: 1501 votes

As you can see, I just ran the numbers; feel free to double-check them. In each scenarios, Clam Chowder had the same number of votes: 4500. It is clear that a vote for Creamy Cool Whip was not a vote for Clam Chowder. You know what is a vote for Clam Chowder? Voting for Clam Chowder.

The Ketchuppers are attempting to get your vote. Are you comprimising your morals if you give it to them?