The hidden power of third parties

Wordcount: circa 2000

AI disclosure: No generative AI was used in the writing, correcting, or reviewing any component of this essay, and neither was used in assisting research.

Assumptions:

• Elections are won on razor thin margins
• Political parties do not care less for the vote of non voters
• Third parties have no hope on winning due to the spoiler effect

I hope we can agree on those terms, otherwise, I doubt we share a common understanding on reality.

Lets simplify an election, two major candidates, the Kill Some Puppies (KSP) party has policies that will hurt you or you strongly disagree with , but the other party, the Kill Most Puppies (KSP) party is without a doubt, way worse. But there is a third part Kill No Puppies (KNP). The KNP has no chance on winning because of the spoiler effect.

Why do they support those policies? because the cat euthaniser lobby funds the campaigns of both KSP and KMP, So whoever winds, they get richer. But given the outcry the grassroots KNP arose which represent no lobbying influence.

These are the possible outcomes:

VOTE KSP NO MATTER WHO

Vote KSP and wins

You are dissatisfied, whether or not you get your cat euthanised, is up to luck or privilege, but you will definitely know people who will lose their pets due to KSP policies. However you might have some relief knowing that if KMP would have won it would have been even worse. This was the lesser evil.

However, next election round, KSP begins to campaign killing a bit more puppies, or even apply those policies to kitties. KMP is still worse, by a lot, promising to just go ahead and kill all puppies and kitties.

That isn’t because the parties changed people or ideas, that is because they shifted the Overton window to kill more puppies. And given that they realized they can get away with it, they might as well continue and get more corrupted and accept more material aid from lobbying.

As this repeats each election things keep getting worse and worse. You might actually give up your vote or consider switching parties. As you lost faith in the system, and with learn hopelessness you can give up on some topics that mattered a lot to you.

Vote KSP and KMP wins

Things are bad, you would have to lucky or very privileged to have kept your puppy. Telling yourself that you did not vote for this is little to no comfort. You watch in horror at your social media feed as you see the killings on your screen. But next elections arrive.

KSP, the party you reluctantly voted for, now seems more palatable even though their policies are less puppy friendly than previous election cycle, they are still better than now. KMP now pushes that puppies apply to all ages, and other 4 legged mammals.

KSP can push itself further to puppy killing because they know people are desperate. And KMP want to increase their cruelty.

Vote KSP and KNP wins

Given the assumptions, we defined KSP as the third party, and therefore by definition, this option does not exist.

If voting changed anything they would make it illegal

Don’t vote, either KSP or KMP win

You refuse to participate in the system. Both KSP and KMP now know you do not vote, that you have disenfranchised yourself (whether or not you vote is public record in the US, and otherwise, would be seen in polls). All because you really cared about the life of puppies.

Next election arrives. Both KSP and KMP see that people who care for puppies are less likely to vote, therefore there will be less resistance to having more puppy killing policies. And if we consider intersectionality, every other issue you care about will have less weight in any major party’s mind.

Perhaps this is a secret strategy that favours KSP and KMP, perhaps it is unintentional, as the more disenfranchised people there are, the more those parties can get away with.

KNP, hopeless underdog

Vote KNP and KSP wins

Per our assumptions, we have to respect the spoiler effect, so this option is not possible.

Vote KNP and KMP wins

We predicted this will happen in the assumptions, the immediate consequences are bad, we already commented on that. But this time you have yourself to blame.

There is however, two key major differences:

• You did not disenfranchise yourself
• The “No Puppy Killing” policy is the key to your vote

Because next election arrives, KSP will want your vote, and know exactly how to get it.

I don’t mean they know how to encourage you to vote for them, but to actually get your vote. Because they know that now there choices are:

• KSP: With new policies that will practically completely ban killing puppies
• KMP: Which is now promising militarized police to hunt for puppies.
• KNP: Who now supports reparations, and a ban on puppy killing.

They also know for a fact the number of voters that cared about puppies, by getting those votes, even if KNP policies which included reparations were better, all you cared about was not killing puppies, so you would have to be really stupid to not vote for KSP.

KSP not only will win next election, but will also include a ban on puppy killing, which is a better result than voting for KSP initially.

This is not an alternative theory to or related to accelerationism, although similar in outcome.

Vote KNP and you win?

Am I suggesting to ignore the assumptions? and say that KNP wins? No, but almost, KNP will lose. There is one way you can actually win.

Elections have regular polling. As elections are usually very close (as per assumptions), if KNP gets eve a few percentage points of the polls. Both parties will try to appease that percentage to gain their vote back. KSP might even adopt the no killing puppies policies. And if they do, well, there is absolutely no point to risk voting third party. It is possible for KMP to try to adopt some policies, but given this example, I doubt it.

You might consider, maybe it is enough to bluff, so the polls and anyone you know, think you will vote for KNP, but when the election arrives you vote for KSP even if they did not adopt any policy, because KMP winning is still worse. Then not only the same thing that we talked about when you Voted KSP. But this time worse. Because they will know that KNP being in the polls is meaningless. And KNP would need a much higher polling number to influence KSP at all. Therefore entrenching puppy killing further into politics.

Voting for KNP will not make them win, but they will make their policies win. And on top of that, if the “no killing puppies” was controversial and away of the Overton window, now they are by definition within it. Which might result in the general public reconsider their opinions, no longer making them fringe and perhaps entrenching said idea into as a national value.

Psyops?

I don’t mean that there is any conspiracy I can point to. Just how the media works, corporations (including media) donates to those parties to favour them over the public welfare. So they directly benefit from KSP or KMP winning. Do they prefer KSP or KMP? they don’t care, they never lose.

And given how powerful voting third party is, they do not want you to know that. As they are at risk of losing their influence if the public learns the truth.

This is not evidence, but they promote the importance of the “two party system”, and the dangers of “throwing away your vote” by voting third party. Given how both statements are factually incorrect, and plainly undemocratic. It cant be just one media company making those mistakes, these are orders from executives who understand this game.

Example: Brexit referendum

Note, I did not agree with the result of Brexit, however this is likely the best example on how voting third party in a first pass the post system is so powerful.

The whole notion of Brexit was still far to the right in the Overton window. No way anyone would have considered it even a possibility. But a tiny few did. But instead of protesting and asking one of the major two parties to adopt those unpopular policies (they would have gone right wing with the Tories, but they were also in favour of retaining EU membership). The galvanized around a third party the UK independent party (UKIP). If you check the polls, you will see that both major parties were neck to neck, and UKIP (although still undoubtably projected to lose) held a significant vote share AND had clear policies that could be adopted. So nearing the elections, Tories promised a referendum on Brexit and immediately absorbed those votes, and securing the win, not just “improving their odds”, but increasing their share so much it was no longer a close race. And the Tories performed really well at the polls.

The concept of leaving was still a minority opinion, so perhaps said referendum was meant as a symbolic gesture, they assumed the vote would go as polled. However by having a referendum on Brexit, Brexit was no longer on the right of the Overton window. Brexit was the Overton Window. Forcing every voter to reconsider their opinions. Resulting in Brexit.

The aftermath included a few Tories stepping down (Including PM David Cameron), and many politicians from most parties, becoming pro Brexit. Pushing ideas like “a second referendum” way beyond the Overton window. Making Brexit a core national idea,

The UKIP might have lost the election in any technical sense. But their policies became the nation.

Final word

As voters we should never be coerced into voting for a lesser evil. You will be complicit with the consequences of your vote. And there are consequences to voting. Anyone who has experienced the past few years knows that too clearly (I fear this quote will be timeless, but I hope it ages poorly). But relying in lesserevilism will have severe consequences, worse even than letting the “bad” party win, not a matter of if, but when.

Imagine if we could use that power, on our issues, end wars, end hunger, end climate change, and police brutality… all those ideas are currently far to the left of the Overton window. But all it takes is a few percentage votes to change the soul of the nation and make them core values. And the more we use this tool the better it will be, as more people will be encouraged to vote for what they actually believe in. However I would like to assume that this technique would be used to end the first past the post system making voting for third parties trivial and risk free.

I write this with hope. We can win.