Weaponization of the spoiler effect

^{Narrated by Chad Fox}

I have spoken about the spoiler effect in some of my other writings, but this election cycle it has been displayed in the most vivid way imaginable. Perhaps beaten only by the 2000 election between Bush and Gore, where the spoiler effect was in full swing and “a shift of merely a quarter of 1 percent of state votes—an infinitesimal national total of 17,000 ballots nationally-—would have reversed 55 electoral votes from five states (Florida, Iowa, New Mexico, Oregon, and Wisconsin).”¹

In the 2000 race, much like today, we had a strongly divided nation and an elected president that half of the country questioned the legitimacy of. But, it didn’t have to be this way; the spoiler effect played a major role in the electoral win for Bush. When you look at the state of Florida, you can see a strong example: “If Nader had not been on the ballot, Gore would have carried Florida and all of the other close states easily, giving him a comfortable electoral total of at least 292.”¹ It is clear that the reason we had President George W. Bush was because of the spoiler effect. History has shown us that with First Preference Plurality (FPP), also known as first-past-the-post, it is too easy to see the winner of an election carried by a minority of the vote. This is the system in which most of our elections exist, including the popular vote for president in almost every state. While the electoral college elects the president with a majority vote, the people, in the modern system, choose the electors from each state to represent them. But FPP is how most of these electors are selected today, and this system is terribly susceptible to the spoiler effect. As shown above, the spoiler effect played a defining role in the 2000 election, and this was not the first time (nor will it be the last time) that this flaw in the system will change the outcome of the election — against democracy.

Fast forward to this election cycle. As we start to look at the current electoral landscape, there are a lot of factors in this race that call for examination. One of these is the move by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to suspend his campaign and withdraw from the ballot in places he might be a spoiler. This was a clear weaponization of the spoiler effect, and was done in a very tactical way to support Donald Trump. 

Before we look at how RFK is attempting to use our system to help Trump get elected, we first need to understand the difference between suspending a campaign — which RFK chose to do — versus withdrawing. This is a key difference that enables RFK to attempt to withdraw from some states but not others. There are several facets to this; “(T)he Federal Election Commission, in fact, doesn't consider a campaign completely over until its debts are paid off, loans are settled, and its cash has been transferred into other accounts.”² This means that almost every finished campaign is said to have been suspended. 

Another facet is that a suspended campaign “continues to raise money beyond what’s needed to retire their campaign debts.” A suspended campaign could also be restarted if the race conditions change, as they keep their already-won delegates, typically in the case of a primary election. If a candidate does the formal paperwork to withdraw from the election, they usually must “forfeit certain delegates and are limited in how they can raise future funds.”²

This is not an article to support one candidate or another, but rather to shine a light on a flaw in our system. After all, many of us disagree on parts of our government or legal systems, but may still take advantage of the benefits that those parts might create, and this move by RFK is no different. RFK is smart to approach the system this way if his goal is to support Trump, and using the spoiler effect allows him to take steps beyond calling it quits and throwing his support behind Trump on his way out the door.

Since endorsing Trump, RFK has made moves to remove himself from competitive states in which his presence on the ballot would negatively impact the likelihood of Trump getting elected, admitting: “Polling consistently showed that by staying on the ballot in the battleground states, I would likely hand the election over to the Democrats, with whom I disagree on the most existential issues.”³ These battleground states include Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin. Outside of these states, he plans to remain on the ballot. This deliberate decision is important, because it shows his willful weaponization of the spoiler effect.

The part that RFK isn’t saying out loud is that by staying on the ballot in states where it would help Trump, he is trying to do for Trump what Nader did for Bush. His intent to sway the election is clear; the states in which RFK has decided to stay on the ballot are direct evidence of his effort to spoil the election. It becomes even more clear when you take into consideration the events in New York. In the Big Apple, we saw a court ruling that removed RFK from the ballot for breaking the rules regarding his listed address. RFK in turn filed an appeal, and asked the higher courts to return his name to the ballot. If RFK had still been in the race to win, this would have made sense; however, “Robert F. Kennedy Jr. asked the Supreme Court on Monday [September 23, 2024] to keep his name on New York’s presidential ballot, even though he suspended his campaign in August and backed former President Donald Trump.”⁴

It is also important to note that some of the states in which RFK has attempted to remove himself from the ballot have rejected his request in accordance with their election rules. These rejections will make his attempt to use the system to support Trump less effective, but the fact that this situation exists should be a giant red flag to anyone who loves democracy. While, in this case, the effectiveness of RFK’s attempt is questionable, the point is that FPP has a clear weakness which bad actors can exploit, making U.S. elections less democratic. 

Bryan Verhei graduated with a degree in Political Science from Eastern Washington University and is currently a small business owner in real estate.

Sources

1. The 2000 Presidential Election: Why Gore Lost. (2001). Political Science Quarterly, Summer 2001, volume 116, issue 2, 201. Retrieved from https://www.uvm.edu/~dguber/POLS125/articles/pomper.htm
2. Corley, B. E. (n.d.). Suspending a Campaign vs. Withdrawing. Retrieved from Pasco Votes: https://www.pascovotes.gov/Portals/Pasco/Documents/Suspending%20a%20Campaign%20vs%20Withdrawing%20notice.pdf?ver=WQ_HQWJiHwcQuzHJrs_F8A%3D%3D 
3. Caitlin Yilek, A. N. (2024, September 6). RFK Jr. wants off the ballot in 10 states. Some battlegrounds are saying no. Retrieved from cbsnews.com: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rfk-jr-ballot-battleground-states/ 
4. John Fritze, C. (2024, 09 27). CNN Politics. Retrieved from CNN.com: https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/23/politics/rfk-jr-asks-supreme-court-to-keep-his-name-on-new-york-ballot/index.html