View source for User:Braganza/SandboxAustria

'''Vote splitting''' is an [[election|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 [[Vote splitting#Spoiler effect and center-squeeze effect|spoiler effect]], which can discourage [[minor party]] candidacies.

Vote splitting most easily occurs in [[plurality voting]] (also called [[first-past-the-post election system|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">{{cite news|url=https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/maskin/files/the_new_york_review_of_books_-_a_better_way_to_choose_presidents_e._maskin_a._sen_.pdf|title=A Better Way to Choose Presidents|last1=Sen|first1=Amartya|date=2017-06-08|access-date=2019-07-20|last2=Maskin|first2=Eric|journal=New York Review of Books|language=en|issn=0028-7504|quote=plurality-rule voting is seriously vulnerable to vote-splitting ... runoff voting ... as French history shows, it too is highly subject to vote-splitting. ... [Condorcet] majority rule avoids such vote-splitting debacles because it allows voters to rank the candidates and candidates are compared pairwise}}</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.

==By electoral system==

Different [[electoral system]]s have different levels of vulnerability to vote splitting. All voting systems have some degree of inherent susceptibility to [[strategic nomination]] considerations. Strategic nomination takes advantage of vote splitting to defeat a popular candidate by supporting another similar candidate. Vote splitting is one possible cause for an [[electoral system]] failing the [[independence of clones]] or [[independence of irrelevant alternatives]] fairness criteria.

Plurality-runoff voting methods (like [[exhaustive ballot]], [[two-round system]]/[[nonpartisan blanket primary|top-two primary]],<ref name="Sen-2017" /> [[instant-runoff voting]],<ref name="Poundstone, William.-2013">{{Cite book |last=Poundstone, William. |title=Gaming the vote : why elections aren't fair (and what we can do about it) |date=2013 |publisher=Farrar, Straus and Giroux |isbn=9781429957649 |pages=168, 197, 234 |oclc=872601019 |quote=IRV is subject to something called the "center squeeze." A popular moderate can receive relatively few first-place votes through no fault of her own but because of vote splitting from candidates to the right and left.  ... Approval voting thus appears to solve the problem of vote splitting simply and elegantly. ... Range voting solves the problems of spoilers and vote splitting}}</ref> [[supplementary vote]], and [[contingent vote]]) still suffer from vote-splitting in each round, but can somewhat reduce its effects compared to single-round plurality voting.<ref name="fobes2006">[https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0963222120 Ending The Hidden Unfairness In U.S. Elections] explains why plurality and runoff voting methods are vulnerable to vote splitting.</ref> because the ballots gather only the least bad preference of the voter.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.electionscience.org/voting-methods/top-5-ways-plurality-voting-fails|title=Top 5 Ways Plurality Voting Fails|date=2015-03-30|work=The Center for Election Science|access-date=2017-10-07|language=en|quote=You likely have opinions about all those candidates. And yet, you only get a say about one.}}</ref> In the United States vote splitting commonly occurs in [[primary elections]].<ref name="fobes2006" /> The purpose of primary elections is to eliminate vote splitting among candidates in the same party before the [[general election]]. If primary elections or party nominations are not used to identify a single candidate from each party, the party that has more candidates is more likely to lose because of vote splitting among the candidates from the same party. Primary elections occur only within each party and so vote splitting can still occur between parties in the secondary election. In [[open primaries]], vote splitting occurs between all candidates.

In addition to applying to single-winner voting systems (such as used in the [[United Kingdom]], the [[United States]] and [[Canada]]), a '''split vote''' can occur in [[party-list proportional representation|proportional representation]] methods that use [[election threshold]]s, such as in [[Germany]], [[New Zealand]] and [[Turkey]]. In those cases, "fringe" parties that do not meet the threshold can take away votes from larger{{Clarify|date=November 2009}} parties with similar ideologies.

[[Cardinal voting]] methods are immune to vote splitting if it is assumed that voters rate candidates individually and independently of knowing the available alternatives in the election, using their own absolute scale, since each candidate is rated independently of each other.<ref name="Poundstone, William.-2013" /> This assumption implies that some voters having meaningful preferences in an election with only two alternatives will necessarily cast a vote which has little or no voting power, or necessarily abstain. If it is assumed to be at least possible that any voter having preferences might not abstain, or vote their favorite and least favorite candidates at the top and bottom ratings respectively, then these systems are not immune to vote splitting. An alternative interpretation for the cardinal case is that the ballots themselves are immune to vote splitting (i.e. altering the ballot after they have been cast), but not the internal voter preferences (i.e. changing the context in which the ballots were created).<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Richard H. |last2=Diener |first2=Ed |last3=Wedell |first3=Douglas H. |title=Intrapersonal and Social Comparison Determinants of Happiness: A Range-Frequency Analysis |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |date=1989 |volume=56 |issue=3 |pages=317–325 |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.56.3.317 |pmid=2926632 |url=https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1989-18931-001}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Van de Stadt|first1=Huib|last2=Kapteyn|first2=Arie|last3=van de Geer|first3=Sara|title=The relativity of utility: evidence from panel data |journal=Review of Economics and Statistics |date=1985 |volume=57 |issue=2 |pages=179–187}}</ref> The three primary methods are [[approval voting]], with a range between 0–1, [[score voting]] with an arbitrary range, and [[STAR voting]].

When [[ranked voting systems|ranked ballots]] are used, voters can vote for a minor party candidate as their first choice and indicate their order of preference for the remaining candidates, without regard to whether a candidate is in a major political party. For example, voters who support a very conservative candidate can select a somewhat-conservative candidate as their second choice, thus minimizing the chance that their vote will result in the election of a liberal candidate. [[Exhaustive ballot|Runoff voting]] is less vulnerable to vote splitting than is plurality voting, but vote splitting can occur in any round of runoff voting. Vote splitting rarely occurs when the chosen [[electoral system]] uses [[ranked ballots]] and a pairwise-counting method, such as a [[Condorcet method]].<ref name="fobes2006" /> Pairwise counting methods do not involve distributing each voter's vote between the candidates. Instead, pairwise counting methods separately consider each possible pair of candidates for all possible pairs. For each pair of candidates, there is a count for how many voters prefer the first candidate (in the pair) to the second candidate and how many voters have the opposite preference. The resulting table of pairwise counts eliminates the step-by-step distribution of votes, which facilitates vote splitting in other voting methods. Voting methods that are vulnerable to [[strategic nomination]], especially those that fail [[independence of clones]], are vulnerable to vote splitting. Vote splitting also can occur in situations that do not involve strategic nomination, such as talent contests (such as ''[[American Idol]]'') in which earlier rounds of voting determine the current contestants.

[[Vote pairing]] (also called vote swapping, co-voting or peer to peer voting) can mitigate the effect, but it requires two voters in different districts to agree, and identifying probabilities of candidates winning in those districts.  A vote swap effectively preserves the total support for each party but moved it to where it is most effective.  It is legal and practiced in US,<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Derfner |first1=Jeremy |date=2 November 2000 |title=Is Vote-Swapping Legal? |url=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2000/11/is-vote-swapping-legal.html |journal=Slate}}</ref> Canadian<ref>{{cite web |date=17 September 2008 |title=Online vote-swapping legal but voter beware, Elections Canada warns |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/online-vote-swapping-legal-but-voter-beware-elections-canada-warns-1.715876 |website=[[CBC News]]}}</ref> and especially UK elections,<ref>{{Cite web |last=Harris |first=Sarah Ann |date=6 June 2017 |title=Why Vote Swapping Could Make Your Ballot Count Even if You Live in a Safe Seat |url=https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/vote-swapping-uk-how-tactical-voting-in-a-pair_uk_5912da4ce4b0a58297e0da25 |website=[[HuffPost]]}}</ref> as well as in some [[Australia]]n state elections. Pairwise-counting [[Condorcet method]]s minimize vote splitting effects.<ref name="fobes2006" /><ref name="Sen-2017" />

==Election examples by country==

=== Australia ===
In Australia, seats where vote splitting occurs are called "three-corned contests". While the vote is split in a three-cornered contest, it is not always a disadvantage as Australia uses [[preferential voting]]. However, depending on the level of government it can still act as a disadvantage due to the different forms of preferential voting used in Australia; [[full preferential voting]] (FPV) is used on a federal level and in some states and territories while [[optional preferential voting]] (OPV) is used in [[New South Wales]]. Due to this, three-cornered contests are rare in New South Wales (on both a state and federal level) as well as in the federal [[Australian Senate|Senate]].

Three-cornered contests generally occur with the centre-right [[Liberal Party of Australia|Liberal]]-[[National Party of Australia|National]] [[Coalition (Australia)|Coalition]]. However, the frequency of these contests varies in different states and it does not occur in the [[Queensland]], [[Tasmania]] or the two territories, due to the fact that the Nationals do not exist in the [[Australian Capital Territory]] (ACT) and they do not currently contest elections in Tasmania, while in Queensland and the [[Northern Territory]] the two Coalition parties merged to become the [[Liberal National Party of Queensland|Liberal National Party]] (LNP) and the [[Country Liberal Party|CLP]], respectively. While they are rare in New South Wales, three-cornered contests do often occur in [[Victoria (state)|Victoria]], [[Western Australia]] and [[South Australia]].

==== Federal politics ====
[[File:Coalition candidates 2022.png|250px|right|thumb|[[Coalition (Australia)|Coalition]] candidates by party (i.e. [[Liberal Party of Australia|Liberal]], [[National Party of Australia|National]], [[Liberal National Party of Queensland|LNP]], [[Country Liberal Party|CLP]] or Liberal and National) in each federal division at the [[2022 Australian federal election]].]]
Federally, three-cornered contests are uncommon in most seats. However, they do occur in certain regional seats. At the [[2022 Australian federal election|2022 federal election]], both Coalition parties ran candidates in four seats; two in Victoria ([[Division of Indi]], [[Division of Nicholls|Nicholls]]), one in Western Australia ([[Division of Durack|Durack]]) and one in South Australia ([[Division of Barker|Barker]]). The number of federal seats with three-cornered contests has dropped over the years. In fact, there was a significantly low number of three-cornered contests in 2022, even when compared to [[2019 Australian federal election|the previous federal election]], which was held in 2019. In that election, both Coalition parties ran candidates in ten seats; two in New South Wales ([[Division of Eden-Monaro|Eden-Monaro]] and [[Division of Gilmore|Gilmore]]), two in Victoria (Indi and [[Division of Mallee|Mallee]]), two in Western Australia (Durack and [[Division of O'Connor|O'Connor]]), one in South Australia (Barker) and three in Tasmania ([[Division of Bass|Bass]], [[Division of Braddon|Braddon]] and [[Division of Lyons|Lyons]]).

==== State politics ====
In New South Wales (the only state where the Coalition has never been broken), three-cornered contests are rare as most Coalition voters exhaust their preferences (meaning they only number one candidate, thus being a disadvantage except in conservative strongholds on the [[Mid North Coast (New South Wales)|Mid North Coast]] and in central and western parts of the state). However, at the [[2023 New South Wales state election|2023 state election]], this phenomenon did occur in two regional seats: [[electoral district of Port Macquarie|Port Macquarie]] (a conservative seat held by National-turned-Liberal MP [[Leslie Williams (politician)|Leslie Williams]]) and [[Electoral district of Wagga Wagga|Wagga Wagga]] (a traditionally conservative seat, despite being held by [[independent politician|independent]] MP [[Joe McGirr]]). In Port Macquarie, Williams was the Liberal candidate and Peta Pinson, the Mayor of the [[Port Macquarie-Hastings Council]], was the Nationals candidate. Williams won the seat, which despite having a three-cornered contest remained a safe seat on both [[two-candidate-preferred]] (TCP) and [[two-party-preferred]] (TPP) margin. In Wagga Wagga, the Nationals candidate was Adrianna Benjamin and the Liberal candidate was Julia Ham. McGirr retained the seat with an increased TCP margin against Benjamin, although the Nationals still won the TPP count. It is unlikely that a three-cornered contest will occur in either of these seats at the [[2027 New South Wales state election|next state election]], which will be held in 2027.

In Victoria, three-cornered contests occur in some seats, despite the Coalition existing in Victoria (although it has previously been broken). At the [[2022 Victorian state election|2022 state election]], both Coalition parties ran candidates in five seats ([[electoral district of Bass|Bass]], [[electoral district of Euroa|Euroa]], [[electoral district of Mildura|Mildura]], [[electoral district of Morwell|Morwell]] and [[electoral district of Shepparton|Shepparton]]). The Nationals intended to run a candidate in the [[electoral district of Narracan|Narracan]], but the candidate they preselected died before the election, forcing [[2023 Narracan state by-election|a supplementary by-election]] in that seat, in which the Liberal candidate was re-elected and the Nationals did not run a candidate.

In Western Australia, three-cornered contests do commonly occur. This is due to the fact that the Coalition agreement is different in that both parties are independent of each other and each party can vote differently if they believe that their decision it is in the best interests of the people and areas they represent. The Nationals can also opt-out of Cabinet and when a Coalition government is elected, the leader of the Liberal Party becomes the state [[Premier of Western Australia|Premier]], but the leader of the Nationals does not always become the [[Deputy Premier of Western Australia|Deputy Premier]], unlike in New South Wales and Victoria where in the event of a Coalition government, the Liberal leader becomes the Premier and the Nationals leader becomes the Deputy Premier. For example, following the [[2008 Western Australian state election|2008 state election]], which saw a Coalition government elected, the Liberal leader ([[Colin Barnett]]) became the Premier, but the Nationals leader ([[Brendon Grylls]]) did not become the Deputy Premier, an office that the deputy Liberal leader ([[Kim Hames]]) was given instead.

In South Australia, three-cornered-contests do occur in some seats, due to the absence of the Coalition. In most states, the Liberal Party holds seats in cities while the Nationals hold seats in regional, rural and remote areas, but in South Australia and Tasmania, the Nationals have limited activity and thus the Liberals hold both metropolitan and non-metropolitan seats in these states. At the [[2022 South Australian state election|2022 state election]], both the Liberals and the Nationals ran candidates in eight seats ([[electoral district of Chaffey|Chaffey]], [[electoral district of Finniss|Finniss]], [[electoral district of Flinders|Flinders]], [[electoral district of Frome|Frome]], [[electoral district of Hammond|Hammond]], [[electoral district of MacKillop|MacKillop]], [[electoral district of Narungga|Narungga]] and [[electoral district of Schubert|Schubert]]). Due to the limited activity of the party, the Nationals finished last or close-to-last in all of these seats, even being outvoted by some minor parties and winning a statewide vote of just 0.48%, the lowest in the country on a state level (excluding states the party does not contest elections in).

In Australia, the [[1918 Swan by-election]] saw the conservative vote split between the [[National Party of Australia|Country Party]] and [[Nationalist Party (Australia)|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>{{cite book |last=Reilly |first=Benjamin |title=Democracy in Divided Societies: Electoral Engineering for Conflict Management |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2001 |location=Cambridge |pages=36 |id=2007-07-01}}</ref> Today, the [[Liberal Party of Australia|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>{{cite web |date=13 April 2007 |title=2007 New South Wales Election. Goulburn Electorate Profile |url=https://www.abc.net.au/elections/nsw/2007/guide/goul.htm |website=[[Australian Broadcasting Corporation]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Cootamundra and Blacktown by-elections - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/cootamundra-by-election-2017/ |website=[[Australian Broadcasting Corporation]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Green |first=Antony |url=https://www.abc.net.au/elections/archive/nsw/NSW2005_Byelections.pdf |title=New South Wales By-elections, 1965 - 2005 |date=September 2005 |publisher=New South Wales Parliamentary Library |isbn=0-7313-1786-6}}</ref>

=== Bosnia and Herzegovina ===
In [[2006 Bosnian general election|2006]], the [[Croatian Democratic Union 1990|HDZ 1990]] broke away from the [[Croatian Democratic Union of Bosnia and Herzegovina|HDZ BiH]] this allowed [[Željko Komšić]] to gain the Croat membership in the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina with less than 40% which mainly came from Bosniak areas.{{Citation needed|date=June 2023}}

=== Bulgaria ===
{{expand section|with=Nationalists 2021}}
In [[2001 Bulgarian parliamentary election|2001]], the former tsar of Bulgaria [[Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha|Simeon II]] founded the [[National Movement for Stability and Progress|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>{{cite web|url=https://bsp.bg/news/view/2-parlamentarni_izbori_2001_g.html|title=Парламентарни избори 2001 г|date=5 January 2005|access-date=26 March 2024|lang=bg|website=[[Bulgarian Socialist Party]]}}</ref>

In Bulgaria, the so-called "blue parties"<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.weser-kurier.de/politik/prowestliche-parteien-sind-bulgariens-grosse-wahlverlierer-doc7e49jadmko08guyr1g6-amp.html |title=Prowestliche Parteien sind Bulgariens große Wahlverlierer |date=28 March 2017 |website=Weser-Kurier |access-date=15 October 2022}}</ref> or "urban right"<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.euronews.com/2022/09/30/bulgaria-election-all-you-need-to-know-about-countrys-fourth-vote-in-just-18-months |title= Bulgaria election: All you need to know about country's fourth vote in just 18 months Access to the comments |website=[[Euronews]] |date=2 October 2022|access-date=15 October 2022}}</ref> which include [[Union of Democratic Forces (Bulgaria)|SDS]], [[Democrats for a Strong Bulgaria|DSB]], [[Yes, Bulgaria!]], [[Bulgaria for Citizens Movement|DBG]], [[United People's Party (Bulgaria)|ENP]], Coalition For you Bulgaria and Blue Unity frequently get just above or below the electoral threshold depending on formation of [[electoral alliance]]s: In the [[2007 European Parliament election in Bulgaria|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 [[2014 European Parliament election in Bulgaria|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 [[2019 European Parliament election in Bulgaria|EP election 2019]], "Yes, Bulgaria!" and DBG ran together as [[Democratic Bulgaria]] and crossed the electoral threshold with 6.15 percent. In [[2021 Bulgarian general election|November 2021]], electoral alliance Democratic Bulgaria crossed electoral threshold with 6.37 percent.

{| class="wikitable unsortable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="font-size:80%;line-height:14px;"
|+ {{nowrap|Results of blue parties}}
!rowspan=2 colspan=2|Parties
!colspan=4|[[2005 Bulgarian parliamentary election|2005]]
!colspan=4|[[2007 European Parliament election in Bulgaria|EP 2007]]
!colspan=4|[[2009 European Parliament election in Bulgaria|EP 2009]]
!colspan=4|[[2009 Bulgarian parliamentary election|2009]]
!colspan=4|[[2013 Bulgarian parliamentary election|2013]]
!colspan=4|[[2014 European Parliament election in Bulgaria|EP 2014]]
!colspan=4|[[2014 Bulgarian parliamentary election|2014]]
!colspan=4|[[2017 Bulgarian parliamentary election|2017]]
!colspan=4|[[2019 European Parliament election in Bulgaria|EP 2019]]
!colspan=4|[[April 2021 Bulgarian parliamentary election|April 2021]]
!colspan=4|[[July 2021 Bulgarian parliamentary election|July 2021]]
!colspan=4|[[2021 Bulgarian general election|November 2021]]
!colspan=4|[[2022 Bulgarian parliamentary election|2022]]
|-
!colspan=2|Votes
!colspan=2|Seats
!colspan=2|Votes
!colspan=2|Seats
!colspan=2|Votes
!colspan=2|Seats
!colspan=2|Votes
!colspan=2|Seats
!colspan=2|Votes
!colspan=2|Seats
!colspan=2|Votes
!colspan=2|Seats
!colspan=2|Votes
!colspan=2|Seats
!colspan=2|Votes
!colspan=2|Seats
!colspan=2|Votes
!colspan=2|Seats
!colspan=2|Votes
!colspan=2|Seats
!colspan=2|Votes
!colspan=2|Seats
!colspan=2|Votes
!colspan=2|Seats
!colspan=2|Votes
!colspan=2|Seats
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Bulgaria for Citizens Movement}};"|
|[[Bulgaria for Citizens Movement|DBG]]
|colspan=16 {{N/A}}
|115,190 || 3.25 || 0 || 0.00
|rowspan=3|144,532 ||rowspan=3| 6.45 || rowspan=3|1 || rowspan=3|5.88
|rowspan=3|291,806 || rowspan=3|8.89 || rowspan=3|23 || rowspan=3|9.58
|rowspan=2|107,407 || rowspan=2|3.14 || rowspan=2|0 || rowspan=2|0.00
|colspan=20 {{N/A}}
|-
|style="background:{{party color|United Democratic Forces}};"|
|[[United Democratic Forces (Bulgaria)|ODS]]/[[Union of Democratic Forces (Bulgaria)|SDS]]
|280,323 || 7.68 || 20 || 8.33
|91,871 || 4.74 || 0 || 0.00
|rowspan=2| 204,817 || rowspan=2|7.95 || rowspan=2|1 || rowspan=2|5.88
|rowspan=2|285,662 || rowspan=2|6.76 || rowspan=2|15 || rowspan=2|7.18{{efn|name=PR|proportional seats}}
|48,681 || 1.37 || 0 || 0.00
|colspan=20 {{N/A}}
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Democrats for a Strong Bulgaria}};"|
|[[Democrats for a Strong Bulgaria|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
|rowspan=2|118,484 || rowspan=2|6.06 || rowspan=2|1 || rowspan=2|5.88
|rowspan=2|302,280 || rowspan=2|9.45 || rowspan=2| 27 || rowspan=2|11.25
|rowspan=2|345,331 || rowspan=2|12.64 || rowspan=2| 34 || rowspan=2|14.17
|rowspan=2|166,968 || rowspan=2|6.37 || rowspan=2| 16 || rowspan=2|6.66
|rowspan=2|186,528  || rowspan=2|7.45 || rowspan=2| 20 || rowspan=2|8.33
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Yes, Bulgaria!}};"|
|[[Yes, Bulgaria!|DB]]
|colspan=28 {{N/A}}
|101,177 || 2.96 || 0 || 0.00
|-
|style="background:{{party color|United People's Party (Bulgaria)}};"|
|[[United People's Party (Bulgaria)|ENP]]
|colspan=16 {{N/A}}
|6,143 || 0.17 || 0 || 0.00
|colspan=4 {{N/A}}
|rowspan=2|7,234||rowspan=2|0.22||rowspan=2|0||rowspan=2|0.00
|colspan=4 {{N/A}}
|1,855 || 0.09 || 0 || 0.00
|colspan=16 {{N/A}}
|-
|style="background:blue;"|
|Blue Unity
|colspan=20 {{N/A}}
|10,786 || 0.48 || 0 || 0.00
|colspan=24 {{N/A}}
|-
|style="background:#5F9EA0;"|
|{{tooltip|2=Coalition For you Bulgaria|KtB}}
|colspan=36 {{N/A}}
|4,788 || 0.15 || 0 || 0.00
|colspan=8 {{N/A}}
|5,097 || 0.20 || 0 || 0.00
|-
|colspan=2|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{{efn|name=PR}}
|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
|-
|colspan=2|Source:
|colspan=4|[https://pi2005.cik.bg/results/ CIK]
|colspan=4|[https://web.archive.org/web/20070928081322/http://www.izbori2007.eu/results/index.html CIK]
|colspan=4|[https://ep2009.cik.bg/results/ CIK]
|colspan=4|[https://pi2009.cik.bg/results/proportional/index.html CIK]
|colspan=4|[https://results.cik.bg/pi2013/rezultati/index.html CIK]
|colspan=4|[https://results.cik.bg/ep2014/rezultati/ CIK]
|colspan=4|[https://results.cik.bg/pi2014/rezultati/ CIK]
|colspan=4|[https://results.cik.bg/pi2017/rezultati/index.html CIK]
|colspan=4|[https://results.cik.bg/ep2019/rezultati/index.html CIK]
|colspan=4|[https://results.cik.bg/pi2021/rezultati/index.html CIK]
|colspan=4|[https://results.cik.bg/pi2021_07/rezultati/index.html CIK]
|colspan=4|[https://results.cik.bg/pvrns2021/tur1/rezultati/index.html CIK]
|colspan=4|[https://results.cik.bg/ns2022/rezultati/index.html CIK]
|}

=== Canada ===
When the cities of [[Fort William, Ontario|Fort William]] and [[Port Arthur, Ontario|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>[https://web.archive.org/web/20070809121412/http://www.thunderbay.ca/docs/business/1012.pdf About Thunder Bay], pp. 2. Retrieved 2 September 2007.</ref>

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

The [[2015 Alberta general election|2015 provincial election]] in [[Alberta]] saw the left-wing [[Alberta New Democratic Party|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 Association of Alberta|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>{{cite web |date=Sep 20, 2021 |title=People's Party makes vote gains but doesn't win a seat |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/peoples-party-election-2021-1.6182680 |access-date=12 February 2023 |website=[[CBC News]]}}</ref>

In Canada, vote splits between the two major left-of-centre parties ([[Liberal Party of Canada|Liberals]] and [[New Democratic Party|NDP]]) assisted the [[Conservative Party of Canada|Conservative Party]] in winning the [[2006 Canadian federal election|2006]], [[2008 Canadian federal election|2008]], and [[2011 Canadian federal election|2011]] federal elections, despite most of the popular vote going to left-wing parties in each race. During the [[2022 Ontario general election|2022 Ontario General Election]], [[Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario|Progressive Conservative]] [[Doug Ford]] won a second term as Premier of the [[Ontario|Province of Ontario]]. The Progressive Conservatives won several ridings due to vote splitting.<ref>{{cite web |date=3 June 2022 |title=Who voted for Doug Ford? Here's the breakdown |url=https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/who-voted-for-doug-ford-here-s-the-breakdown-1.5932178}}</ref> [[Ontario New Democratic Party|ONDP]] and [[Ontario Liberal Party|Liberal Party]] voters combined for 47.8% of votes, whereas Ford emerged victorious with only 40.82% of total votes.<ref>{{cite web |title=Province-Wide Election Night Results /Résultats du soir de l'élection à l'echelle provinciale |url=https://www.elections.on.ca/en/election-results/provincial-results.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220603065551/https://www.elections.on.ca/en/election-results/provincial-results.html |archive-date=3 June 2022 |website=Elections Ontario}}</ref>

Similarly, in [[Quebec]], it is argued that the success of the [[Bloc Québécois]] in elections from 1993 to 2008 was because of the federalist vote being split between the Liberals and the Conservatives.{{Citation needed|date=June 2023}}

=== Czech Republic ===
In [[2021 Czech legislative election|2021]], [[Přísaha]] (4.68%), [[Czech Social Democratic Party|ČSSD]] (4.65%) and [[Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia|KSČM]] (3.60%) all failed to cross the 5 percent threshold, thus allowing a coalition of [[Spolu (Czech Republic)|Spolu]] and [[Pirates and Mayors|PaS]]. This was also the first time that neither ČSSD nor KSČM had representation in parliament since [[1992 Czech legislative election|1992]].

=== Egypt ===
In the [[2012 Egyptian presidential election]], the two candidates who qualified for the runoff election, Freedom and Justice Party candidate Mohamed Morsi (24.8%) and the independent candidate Ahmed Shafik (23.7%), each received more votes than any other candidate, but they failed to get enough votes to prove that each winning candidate was actually more popular than the Dignity Party candidate Hamdeen Sabahi (20.7%), the independent candidate Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh (17.5%), or the independent candidate Amr Moussa (11.1%).{{Citation needed|date=June 2023}}

=== France ===
In France, the [[2002 French presidential election|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 (1902)|French Socialist Party]], or the three candidates from [[Trotskyism|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 French presidential election|1969]] (with five left-wing candidates which combined had 32%), in [[2017 French presidential election|2017]] (split between four candidates which had 27% combined) and in [[2022 French presidential election|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 French legislative election|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 French legislative election|1968]].

{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"
|+ {{nowrap|Cases of left-wing vote splitting}}
|
{| class="wikitable unsortable" style="font-size:90%;line-height:14px;"
|+[[1969 French presidential election|1969]]
!colspan=4|Party
!Candidate
!Votes
!%
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Union of Democrats for the Republic}};"|
|colspan=3|[[Union of Democrats for the Republic|UDR]]
|[[Georges Pompidou]]
|10,051,783
|44.47
|-
|rowspan=6 style="background:red;"|
|rowspan=6|Left
|style="background:{{party color|French Communist Party}};"|
|[[French Communist Party|PCF]]
|[[Jacques Duclos]]
|4,808,285
|21.27
|-
|style="background:{{party color|French Section of the Workers' International}};"|
|[[French Section of the Workers' International|SFIO]]
|[[Gaston Defferre]]
|1,133,222
|5.01
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Unified Socialist Party (France)}};"|
|[[Unified Socialist Party (France)|PSU]]
|[[Michel Rocard]]
|816,470
|3.61
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Miscellaneous left}};"|
|[[Miscellaneous left|DVG]]
|[[Louis Ducatel]]
|286,447
|1.27
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Revolutionary Communist League (France)}};"|
|[[Revolutionary Communist League (France)|LC]]
|[[Alain Krivine]]
|239,104
|1.06
|-
|colspan=3|''Total''
|''7,283,528''
|''32.22''
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Democratic Centre (France)}};"|
|colspan=3|[[Democratic Centre (France)|CD]]
|[[Alain Poher]]
|5,268,613
|23.31
|-
|colspan=7|Source: [https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/decision/1969/6920PDR.htm Constitutional Council]
|}
|
{| class="wikitable unsortable" style="font-size:90%;line-height:14px;"
|+[[2002 French presidential election|2002]]
!colspan=4|Party
!Candidate
!Votes
!%
|-
|rowspan=9 style="background:red;"|
|rowspan=9|Left
|style="background:{{party color|Socialist Party (France)}};"|
|[[Socialist Party (France)|PS]]
|[[Lionel Jospin]]
|4,610,113
|16.18
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Lutte Ouvrière}};"|
|[[Lutte Ouvrière|LO]]
|[[Arlette Laguiller]]
|1,630,045
|5.72
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Citizen and Republican Movement}};"|
|[[Citizen and Republican Movement|MDC]]
|[[Jean-Pierre Chevènement]]
|1,518,528
|5.33
|-
|style="background:{{party color|The Greens (France)}};"|
|[[The Greens (France)|LV]]
|[[Noël Mamère]]
|1,495,724
|5.25
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Revolutionary Communist League (France)}};"|
|[[Revolutionary Communist League (France)|LC]]
|[[Olivier Besancenot]]
|1,210,562
|4.25
|-
|style="background:{{party color|French Communist Party}};"|
|[[French Communist Party|PCF]]
|[[Robert Hue]]
|960,480
|3.37
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Radical Party of the Left}};"|
|[[Radical Party of the Left|PRG]]
|[[Christiane Taubira]]
|660,447
|2.32
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Workers' Party (France)}};"|
|[[Workers' Party (France)|PT]]
|[[Daniel Gluckstein]]
|132,686
|0.47
|-
|colspan=3|''Total''
|''12,218,585''
|''42.87''
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Rally for the Republic}};"|
|colspan=3|[[Rally for the Republic|RPR]]
|[[Jacques Chirac]]
|5,665,855
|19.88
|-
|style="background:{{party color|National Rally}};"|
|colspan=3|[[National Rally|FN]]
|[[Jean-Marie Le Pen]]
|4,804,713
|16.86
|-
|colspan=7|Source: [https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/decision/2002/2002109PDR.htm Constitutional Council]
|}
|
{| class="wikitable unsortable" style="font-size:90%;line-height:14px;"
|+[[2017 French presidential election|2017]]
!colspan=4|Party
!Candidate
!Votes
!%
|-
|rowspan=5 style="background:red;"|
|rowspan=5|Left
|style="background:{{party color|La France Insoumise}};"|
|[[La France Insoumise|LFI]]
|[[Jean-Luc Mélenchon]]
|7,059,951
|19.58
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Socialist Party (France)}};"|
|[[Socialist Party (France)|PS]]
|[[Benoît Hamon]]
|2,291,288
|6.36
|-
|style="background:{{party color|New Anticapitalist Party}};"|
|[[New Anticapitalist Party|NPA]]
|[[Philippe Poutou]]
|394,505
|1.09
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Lutte Ouvrière}};"|
|[[Lutte Ouvrière|LO]]
|[[Nathalie Arthaud]]
|232,384
|0.64
|-
|colspan=3|''Total''
|''9,978,128''
|''27.67''
|-
|style="background:{{party color|La République En Marche!}};"|
|colspan=3|[[La République En Marche!|LREM]]
|[[Emmanuel Macron]]
|8,656,346
|24.01
|-
|style="background:{{party color|National Rally}};"|
|colspan=3|[[National Rally|FN]]
|[[Marine Le Pen]]
|7,678,491
|21.30
|-
|style="background:{{party color|The Republicans (France)}};"|
|colspan=3|[[The Republicans (France)|LR]]
|[[François Fillon]]
|7,212,995
|20.01
|-
|colspan=7|Source: [https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/decision/2017/2017169PDR.htm Constitutional Council]
|}
|
{| class="wikitable unsortable" style="font-size:90%;line-height:14px;"
|+[[2022 French presidential election|2022]]
!colspan=4|Party
!Candidate
!Votes
!%
|-
|rowspan=7 style="background:red;"|
|rowspan=7|Left
|style="background:{{party color|La France Insoumise}};"|
|[[La France Insoumise|LFI]]
|[[Jean-Luc Mélenchon]]
|7,712,520
|21.95
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Europe Ecology – The Greens}};"|
|[[Europe Ecology – The Greens|EELV]]
|[[Yannick Jadot]]
|1,627,853
|4.63
|-
|style="background:{{party color|French Communist Party}};"|
|[[French Communist Party|PCF]]
|[[Fabien Roussel]]
|802,422
|2.28
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Socialist Party (France)}};"|
|[[Socialist Party (France)|PS]]
|[[Anne Hidalgo]]
|616,478
|1.75
|-
|style="background:{{party color|New Anticapitalist Party}};"|
|[[New Anticapitalist Party|NPA]]
|[[Philippe Poutou]]
|268,904
|0.77
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Lutte Ouvrière}};"|
|[[Lutte Ouvrière|LO]]
|[[Nathalie Arthaud]]
|197,094
|0.56
|-
|colspan=3|''Total''
|''11,225,271''
|''31.95''
|-
|style="background:{{party color|La République En Marche!}};"|
|colspan=3|[[La République En Marche!|LREM]]
|[[Emmanuel Macron]]
|9,783,058
|27.85
|-
|style="background:{{party color|National Rally}};"|
|colspan=3|[[National Rally|RN]]
|[[Marine Le Pen]]
|8,133,828
|23.15
|-
|colspan=7|Source: [https://www.archives-resultats-elections.interieur.gouv.fr/resultats/presidentielle-2022/FE.php 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>{{cite web|url=https://thediplomat.com/2023/05/french-polynesias-new-pro-independence-leadership/|title= French Polynesia’s New Pro-Independence Leadership |date=10 May 2023|access-date=17 January 2024|author=Paco Milhiet|work=[[The Diplomat]]}}</ref>

In the [[2009 European Parliament election in France|2009 European Parliament election]], two [[Sovereign Right (French politics)|right-wing sovereignist]] lists [[Libertas France]] and [[Debout la République]] (DLR) competed against each other.<ref>{{cite journal|url=https://www.cairn.info/revue-les-cahiers-irice-2009-2-page-113.htm|title= Les difficultés d'implantation d'un parti souverainiste en France (1992-2009) |journal= Les cahiers Irice|pages=113–128|year=2009|volume=2|access-date=9 February 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite interview|url=https://www.20minutes.fr/politique/315027-20090326-dupont-aignan-veut-supprimer-commission-europeenne-fustige-clowns-allies-a-villiers|title=Dupont-Aignan veut supprimer la Commission européenne et fustige les «clowns» alliés à Villiers|date=26 March 2009|access-date=9 February 2024|interviewer=Emile Josselin|subject-link=Nicolas Dupont-Aignan|work=[[20 minutes (France)|20 minutes]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.liberation.fr/france/2008/10/28/villiers-et-dupont-aignan-deux-souverainistes-autonomes_156019/?outputtype=amp|title=Villiers et Dupont-Aignan, deux souverainistes autonomes|author=Christophe Forcari|date=28 October 2008|access-date=9 February 2024|work=[[Libération]]}}</ref> Libertas and DLR failed to cross 5% threshold in all but one constituency.<ref name=FP>{{cite web|url=https://www.france-politique.fr/elections-europeennes-2009-france.htm|title= Élections européennes 2009|access-date=28 February 2024|website=france-politique.fr}}</ref> Similar vote splitting happened betweeb the two (post-)Trotskyist parties [[New Anticapitalist Party]] and [[Lutte Ouvrière]].<ref name=FP/> A similar scenario happened in [[2019 European Parliament election in France|2019]], when after failed negotiations<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.huffingtonpost.fr/politique/article/philippot-a-propose-a-asselineau-une-alliance-aux-europeennes-moyennant-300-000-euros_144397.html|title=Philippot a proposé à Asselineau une alliance aux européennes moyennant 300.000 euros|author=Claire Digiacomi|date=7 May 2019|access-date=28 February 2024|work=[[HuffPost]]}}</ref> [[Debout la France]]–[[National Centre of Independents and Peasants|CNIP]] (the former previously known as DLR), [[Popular Republican Union (2007)|Popular Republican Union]] (UPR) and [[The Patriots (France)|The Patriots]] ran independetly and gained 3.5%, 1.2% and 0.6% respectively thus falling below the newly introduced national threshold of 5%.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.leparisien.fr/elections/europeennes/europeennes-les-souverainistes-dupont-aignan-asselineau-et-philippot-au-coeur-du-jeu-16-02-2024-MHHERPBNC5DCRNC35OR4GOAYRU.php|title=Européennes : les souverainistes Dupont-Aignan, Asselineau et Philippot au cœur du jeu ?|author=Quentin Laurent |date=16 February 2024|access-date=28 February 2024|work=[[Le Parisien]]}}</ref>

=== Germany ===
In the [[1925 German presidential election|German presidential election of 1925]], [[Communist Party of Germany|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 (Germany)|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>{{cite web | url=http://www.gonschior.de/weimar/Deutschland/Praesidenten.html| title=Die Präsidenten des Deutschen Reiches 1919 – 1934 | access-date=8 November 2018}}</ref> If most of Thälmann's supporters had voted for Marx, Marx 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 appointed [[Adolf Hitler]] as [[chancellor of Germany|chancellor]]. Hindenburg's death the following year gave Hitler unchecked control of the German government.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Carlson|first1=Cody K.|title=This week in history: Hindenburg elected German president|url=https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865627566/This-week-in-history-Hindenburg-elected-German-president.html|website=Deseret News|access-date=8 November 2018|date=2015-04-30}}</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 [[Party of Democratic Socialism (Germany)|PDS]] and its successor [[Die Linke]] often hovered around the 5 percent threshold: [[1994 German federal election|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 German federal election|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 [[Schröder Cabinet II|second term for Gerhard Schröder]], which would not have been possible had the PDS won a third constituency. In [[2021 German federal election|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 [[Free Democratic Party (Germany)|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 [[Alternative for Germany|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 [[Social Democratic Party of Germany|SPD]]. 

[[Klimaliste]] has been accused of splitting the vote which would have gone to [[Alliance 90/The Greens]].<ref>{{Cite news|last=Alberti|first=Stefan|date=2021-06-19|title=Neue Klima-Partei: Die Sache mit der 5-Prozent-Hürde|language=de|work=Die Tageszeitung: taz|url=https://taz.de/!5777187/|access-date=2022-02-06|issn=0931-9085}}</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>{{Cite news|last=Schulte|first=Ulrich|date=2021-03-15|title=Wahlausgang in Baden-Württemberg: Debatte um Folgen von Klimaliste|language=de|work=Die Tageszeitung: taz|url=https://taz.de/!5758008/|access-date=2022-02-06|issn=0931-9085}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Kammerer|first=Kathrin|title=Hat die Klimaliste grün-rot verhindert? Der Reutlinger Kandidat bezieht Stellung - Reutlingen - Reutlinger General-Anzeiger|url=https://www.gea.de/reutlingen_artikel,-hat-die-klimaliste-gr%C3%BCn-rot-verhindert-der-reutlinger-kandidat-bezieht-stellung-_arid,6410041.html|access-date=2022-02-06|website=gea.de|language=de}}</ref>

=== Greece ===
In [[Greece]], [[Antonis Samaras]] was the [[Minister for Foreign Affairs (Greece)|Minister for Foreign Affairs]] for the [[Liberal conservatism|liberal conservative]] government of [[New Democracy (Greece)|New Democracy]] under [[Prime Minister of Greece|Prime Minister]] [[Konstantinos Mitsotakis]] but ended up leaving and founding the [[national conservatism|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>{{Cite web | url=https://meta.mk/en/mitsotakis-samaras-misleshe-deka-mozhe-da-stane-aleksandar-veliki/ | title=Mitsotakis: Samaras thought he can become Alexander the Great }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web | url=https://www.kathimerini.gr/29136/opinion/epikairothta/politikh/an-den-epefte-h-kyvernhsh-mhtsotakh | title=Αν δεν έπεφτε η κυβέρνηση Μητσοτάκη &#124; Η ΚΑΘΗΜΕΡΙΝΗ }}</ref>

=== Guatemala ===
In [[2019 Guatemalan general election|2019]] the different parties to the left of [[National Unity of Hope]] ([[Semilla (political party)|Semilla]], [[Winaq]], [[Movement for the Liberation of Peoples|MLP]], [[Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unity|URNG]], [[Encuentro por Guatemala|EG]], [[Convergence (Guatemala)|CPO-CRD]] and [[Libre (Guatemala)|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>{{Cite web | url=https://www.plazapublica.com.gt/content/mejoro-la-izquierda-o-el-voto-contra-el-establishment-o-que | title=¿Mejoró la izquierda o el voto contra el «establishment» o qué?|date=3 July 2019|author=Alicia Álvarez|work=Plaza Pública}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web | url=https://www.nodal.am/2019/06/reflexiones-iniciales-sobre-las-elecciones-en-guatemala-preguntas-despues-de-la-resaca-electoral-por-carlos-figueroa-ibarra-y-mario-sosa/ | title= Reflexiones iniciales sobre las elecciones en Guatemala {{!}} Preguntas después de la resaca electoral – Por Carlos Figueroa Ibarra y Mario Sosa |date=26 June 2019|work=Noticias de América Latina y el Caribe}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web | url=https://prensacomunitaria.org/2023/06/una-alianza-tactica-para-sobrevivir/ | title= Una alianza táctica para sobrevivir |date=2 June 2023|work=Prensa Comunitaria}}</ref> A similar scenario happened in the [[2023 Guatemalan general election|2023 election]], in which four right-of-centre candidates ([[Manuel Conde]], [[Armando Castillo (politician)|Armando Castillo]], [[Edmond Mulet]] and [[Zury Ríos]]) gained just below 11% each, all behind Semilla's candidate [[Bernardo Arévalo]] with around 16%.

=== Hong Kong ===
In [[Hong Kong]], vote splitting is very common for the [[pro-democracy camp (Hong Kong)|pro-democracy camp]], which caused it to suffer greatly in many elections, including the [[2016 Hong Kong legislative election]] and the [[2015 Hong Kong local elections]]. Pro-democracy supporters typically have different ideologies and suffer from factional disputes that are exacerbated after the advent of [[localist camp]]. However, many have wider aggregate support fewer seats are earned than the [[pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong)|pro-Beijing camp]], an example being in Kowloon East in which pro-democracy parties got over 55% of cast ballots but won only 2 seats out of 5.{{Citation needed|date=June 2023}}

=== Israel ===
In [[April 2019 Israeli legislative election|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 (Israel)|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 2019 Israeli legislative election|September]].

=== Italy ===
Sicily is traditionally dominated by the [[centre-right coalition (Italy)|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 coalition (Italy)|centre-left]] [[Rosario Crocetta]] to win the election with just 30.5%.{{Citation needed|date=June 2023}}

=== New Zealand ===
In New Zealand, there have been two notable cases of the spoiler effect. In the [[1984 New Zealand general election|1984 general election]], the free-market [[New Zealand Party]] deliberately ran for office to weaken support former Prime Minister [[Robert Muldoon]], the incumbent. The [[1993 New Zealand general election|1993 general election]] saw the [[New Zealand Labour Party]]'s vote split by [[Alliance (New Zealand political party)|The Alliance]], which has been attributed to the vagaries of the [[plurality vote]]. In response to these problems, New Zealand has since adopted [[mixed-member proportional representation]].{{Citation needed|date=June 2023}}

While [[New Zealand First]] received only 4.07 percent in the [[2008 New Zealand general election]] of the list vote (so it was not returned to parliament), [[ACT New Zealand]] won 3.65 percent of the list vote, but its leader won an electorate seat ([[Epsom (NZ electorate)|Epsom]]), which entitled the party to list seats (4). In the [[2011 New Zealand general election|2011 election]], leaders of the [[New Zealand National Party|National Party]] and ACT had tea together before the press to promote the implicit alliance (see [[tea tape scandal]]). After their victories, the Nationals passed a [[confidence and supply]] agreement with ACT to form the [[Fifth National Government of New Zealand]].

=== Nicaragua ===
Before the [[2006 Nicaraguan general election|2006 Nicaraguan presidential election]], the [[Nicaraguan Liberal Alliance]] broke away from the [[Constitutionalist Liberal Party]]. This allowed [[Daniel Ortega]] to win the election with 38%, his two liberal opponents got 51% combined.{{Citation needed|date=June 2023}}

=== Norway ===
In [[2009 Norwegian parliamentary election|2009]], the [[Liberal Party (Norway)|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 [[2013 Norwegian parliamentary election|following election]] with 5.2 percent.

=== Paraguay ===
In the [[2008 Paraguayan general election|2008 Paraguayan presidential election]], the candidate of the [[Patriotic Alliance for Change|opposition alliance]] [[Fernando Lugo]] won the election with just 42% because [[Lino Oviedo]] ran on his own. The two right-wing candidates had 54% together but due to the split of the [[Colorado Party (Paraguay)|Colorado Party]] went into opposition for the first time since 1947.{{Citation needed|date=June 2023}}

=== Poland ===
In [[2015 Polish parliamentary election|2015]], the [[United Left (Poland)|United Left]] achieved 7.55 percent, which is below the 8 percent threshold for multi-party coalitions. Furthermore, [[Liberty (Poland)|KORWiN]] only reached 4.76 percent, narrowly missing the 5 percent threshold for individual parties. This allowed the victorious [[Law and Justice|PiS]] to obtain a majority of seats with 37 percent of the vote. This was the first parliament without left-wing parties represented.

=== Philippines ===
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 [[Hello Garci scandal|vote-rigging]].

=== Romania ===
In 2000, the different candidates of the incumbent government got in the [[2000 Romanian general election|Romanian presidential election]] 11.8% ([[Theodor Stolojan|Stolojan]]), 9.5% ([[Mugur Isărescu|Isărescu]]), 6.2% ([[György Frunda|Frunda]]) and 3.0% ([[Petre Roman|Roman]]) respectively. Combined they had more than [[Corneliu Vadim Tudor]] of the [[Greater Romania Party]], who got 28.3% in the first round.

=== Serbia ===
In Serbia, there are often quite a few [[Serbian nationalism|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 Serbian parliamentary election|2014]], none of the nationalist lists ([[Democratic Party of Serbia|DSS]], SRS, [[Dveri]], [[Third Serbia]], "Patriotic Front" and the [[Russian Party (Serbia)|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>{{cite web|lang=sr|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140325225328/http://www.rik.parlament.gov.rs/cirilica/Rezultati/Izbori2014Karte.pdf|url=http://www.rik.parlament.gov.rs/cirilica/Rezultati/Izbori2014Karte.pdf|work=Republican Electoral Commission|title=Парламентарни избори 16. март 2014. године – Република Србија|archive-date=25 March 2014|access-date=18 December 2023}}</ref> and in [[2020 Serbian parliamentary election|2020]], the [[Movement for the Restoration of the Kingdom of Serbia|POKS]] (2.7%), [[Enough is Enough (party)|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 [[United Opposition of Serbia|main opposition alliance]] called for a boycott.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.mdr.de/nachrichten/welt/osteuropa/politik/serbien-parlamentswahl-vucic-100.html|title=Serbien: Ein Volk, ein Staat, ein Vučić|date=21 June 2020|work=[[Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk]]|access-date=6 January 2023|lang=de}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nzz.ch/international/aleksandar-vucic-serbien-wird-zur-one-man-show-ld.1562521|title=Serbien wird endgültig zur One-Man-Show|author=Volker Pabst|date=22 June 2020|work=[[Neue Zürcher Zeitung]]|access-date=6 January 2023|lang=de}}</ref> Only the [[Serbian Patriotic Alliance]] gained 3.8% in their first and only election.<ref name=RS2020>{{cite web|url=https://www.rik.parlament.gov.rs/extfile/sr/10857/G20206003.pdf|work=Republican Electoral Commission|page=9|title=ИЗБОРИ ЗА НАРОДНЕ ПОСЛАНИКЕ НАРОДНЕ СКУПШТИНЕ РЕПУБЛИКЕ СРБИЈЕ|date=June 2020|access-date=18 December 2023|lang=sr}}</ref>
{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"
|+ {{nowrap|Results of nationalist parties in Serbia after 2008}}
|
{| class="wikitable unsortable" style="font-size:90%;line-height:14px;"
|+[[2012 Serbian parliamentary election|2012]]
!colspan=2|Party
!Votes
!%
!Seats
!%
|-
|style="background:{{party color|New Democratic Party of Serbia}};"|
|[[Democratic Party of Serbia|Democratic Party]]
|273,532
|6.99
|style="text-align:center;|21
|8.40
|-
|colspan=6|''5% threshold''
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Serbian Radical Party}};"|
|[[Serbian Radical Party]]
|180,558
|4.61
|colspan=2 rowspan=2  {{N/A}}
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Dveri}};"|
|[[Dveri]]
|169,590
|4.33
|-
|colspan=2|''Total''
|623,680
|15.95
|style="text-align:center;|21
|8.40
|-
|colspan=6|Source: [https://web.archive.org/web/20230813014747/https://arhiva.rik.parlament.gov.rs/doc/arhiva/poslanici/2012/3.%202012%20np%20rzs.pdf Republican Electoral Commission]
|}
|
{| class="wikitable unsortable" style="font-size:90%;line-height:14px;"
|+[[2014 Serbian parliamentary election|2014]]
!colspan=2|Party
!Votes
!%
!Seats
!%
|-
|colspan=6|''5% threshold''
|-
|style="background:{{party color|New Democratic Party of Serbia}};"|
|[[Democratic Party of Serbia|Democratic Party]]
|152,436
|4.24
|colspan=2 rowspan=6  {{N/A}}
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Dveri}};"|
|[[Dveri]]
|128,458
|3.58
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Serbian Radical Party}};"|
|[[Serbian Radical Party]]
|72,303
|2.01
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Third Serbia – Rich Serbia}};"|
|[[Third Serbia]]
|16,206
|0.45
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Russian Party (Serbia)}};"|
|[[Russian Party (Serbia)|Russian Party]]
|6,547
|0.18
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Serbian Party Oathkeepers}};"|
|Patriotic Front ([[Council of Serbian Unity|SSJ]]–[[Serbian Party Oathkeepers|SSZ]])
|4,514
|0.13
|-
|colspan=2|''Total''
|380,464
|10.59
|style="text-align:center;|0
|0.00
|-
|colspan=6|Source: [https://web.archive.org/web/20230813014747/https://arhiva.rik.parlament.gov.rs/doc/arhiva/poslanici/2012/3.%202012%20np%20rzs.pdf Republican Electoral Commission]
|}
|
{| class="wikitable unsortable" style="font-size:90%;line-height:14px;"
|+[[2016 Serbian parliamentary election|2016]]
!colspan=2|Party
!Votes
!%
!Seats
!%
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Serbian Radical Party}};"|
|[[Serbian Radical Party]]
|306,052
|8.10
|style="text-align:center;|22
|8.80
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Dveri}};"|
|[[Dveri]]–[[Democratic Party of Serbia|DSS]]
|190,530
|5.04
|style="text-align:center;|13
|5.20
|-
|colspan=6|''5% threshold''
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Serbian Party Oathkeepers}};"|
|[[Serbian Party Oathkeepers]]
|27,690
|0.73
|colspan=2 rowspan=5  {{N/A}}
|-
|style="background:{{party color|National Network (Serbia)}};"|
|National Alliance ([[National Network (Serbia)|NM]]–[[Third Serbia|TS]])
|17,528
|0.46
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Russian Party (Serbia)}};"|
|[[Russian Party (Serbia)|Russian Party]]
|13,777
|0.36
|-
|style="background:black;"|
|For Serbia's Revival
|13,260
|0.35
|-
|style="background:darkblue;"|
|Serbo-Russian Movement
|10,016
|0.27
|-
|colspan=2|''Total''
|578,853
|15.32
|style="text-align:center;|35
|14.00
|-
|colspan=6|Source: [https://web.archive.org/web/20170516182651/http://www.rik.parlament.gov.rs/doc/izbori-2016/rezultati/1.%20Zbirni_rezultati.pdf Republican Electoral Commission]
|}
|-
|
{| class="wikitable unsortable" style="font-size:90%;line-height:14px;"
|+[[2020 Serbian parliamentary election|2020]]
!colspan=2|Party
!Votes
!%
!Seats
!%
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Serbian Patriotic Alliance}};"|
|[[Serbian Patriotic Alliance]]
|123,393
|3.83
|style="text-align:center;|11
|4.40
|-
|colspan=6|''3% threshold''
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Movement for the Restoration of the Kingdom of Serbia}};"|
|[[Movement for the Restoration of the Kingdom of Serbia|POKS]]
|85,888
|2.67
|colspan=2 rowspan=9 {{N/A}}
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Enough is Enough (party)}};"|
|[[Enough is Enough (party)|Enough is Enough]]
|73,953
|2.30
|-
|style="background:{{party color|New Democratic Party of Serbia}};"|
|BROOM 2020 ([[Democratic Party of Serbia|DSS]]–[[People's Strong Serbia|NJS]])
|72,085
|2.24
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Serbian Radical Party}};"|
|[[Serbian Radical Party]]
|65,954
|2.05
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Serbian Party Oathkeepers}};"|
|[[Serbian Party Oathkeepers]]
|45,950
|1.43
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Healthy Serbia}};"|
|Health for the Victory ([[Healthy Serbia|ZS]]–[[Better Serbia|BS]])
|33,435
|1.04
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Leviathan Movement}};"|
|[[Leviathan Movement]]
|22,691
|0.70
|-
|style="background:{{party color|New Serbia (political party)}};"|
|People's Bloc ([[New Serbia (political party)|NS]]–[[People's Freedom Movement (Serbia)|NSP]])
|7,873
|0.24
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Russian Party (Serbia)}};"|
|[[Russian Party (Serbia)|Russian Party]]
|6,295
|0.20
|-
|colspan=2|''Total''
|537,517
|16.70
|style="text-align:center;|11
|4.40
|-
|colspan=6|Source: [https://www.rik.parlament.gov.rs/extfile/sr/10857/G20206003.pdf Republican Electoral Commission]
|}
|
{| class="wikitable unsortable" style="font-size:90%;line-height:14px;"
|+[[2022 Serbian parliamentary election|2022]]
!colspan=2|Party
!Votes
!%
!Seats
!%
|-
|style="background:{{party color|National Democratic Alternative (Serbia)}};"|
|[[National Democratic Alternative (Serbia)|NADA]] ([[Democratic Party of Serbia|NDSS]]–[[Movement for the Restoration of the Kingdom of Serbia|POKS]])
|204,444
|5.37
|style="text-align:center;|15
|6.00
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Dveri}};"|
|[[Dveri]]–[[Movement for the Restoration of the Kingdom of Serbia|POKS]]
|144,762
|3.80
|style="text-align:center;|10
|4.00
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Serbian Party Oathkeepers}};"|
|[[Serbian Party Oathkeepers]]
|141,227
|3.71
|style="text-align:center;|10
|4.00
|-
|colspan=6|''3% threshold''
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Sovereignists (Serbia)}};"|
|[[Sovereignists (Serbia)|Sovereignists]] ([[Enough is Enough (party)|DJB]]–[[Healthy Serbia|ZS]]–[[I live for Serbia|ZzS]])
|86,362
|2.27
|colspan=2 rowspan=4 {{N/A}}
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Serbian Radical Party}};"|
|[[Serbian Radical Party]]
|82,066
|2.16
|-
|style="background:black;"|
|Stolen Babies
|31,196
|0.82
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Leviathan Movement}};"|
|[[Leviathan Movement|Russian Minority Alliance]]
|9,569
|0.25
|-
|colspan=2|''Total''
|699,626
|18.38
|style="text-align:center;|35
|14.00
|-
|colspan=6|Source: [https://publikacije.stat.gov.rs/G2022/Pdf/G20226010.pdf Republican Electoral Commission]
|}
|
{| class="wikitable unsortable" style="font-size:90%;line-height:14px;"
|+[[2023 Serbian parliamentary election|2023]]
!colspan=2|Party
!Votes
!%
!Seats
!%
|-
|style="background:{{party color|National Democratic Alternative (Serbia)}};"|
|[[National Democratic Alternative (Serbia)|NADA]] ([[Democratic Party of Serbia|NDSS]]–[[Movement for the Restoration of the Kingdom of Serbia|POKS]])
|191,431
|5.02
|style="text-align:center;|13
|5.20
|-
|style="background:{{party color|We–The Voice from the People}};"|
|[[We–The Voice from the People]]
|178,830
|4.69
|style="text-align:center;|13
|5.20
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Russian Party (Serbia)}};"|
|[[Russian Party (Serbia)|Russian Party]]
|11,369
|0.30
|style="text-align:center;|1
|0.40
|-
|colspan=6|''3% threshold''
|-
|style="background:{{party color|National Gathering (Serbia)}};"|
|[[National Gathering (Serbia)|National Gathering]] ([[Dveri]]–[[Serbian Party Oathkeepers|SSZ]])
|105,165
|2.76
|colspan=2 rowspan=4 {{N/A}}
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Serbian Radical Party}};"|
|[[Serbian Radical Party]]
|55,782
|1.46
|-
|style="background:{{party color|Good Morning Serbia}};"|
|[[Good Morning Serbia]] ([[Enough is Enough (party)|DJB]]–OBAP)
|45,079
|1.18
|-
|style="background:{{party color|People's Party (Serbia, 2017)}};"|
|[[People's Party (Serbia, 2017)|People's Party]]
|33,388
|0.88
|-
|colspan=2|''Total''
|621,044
|16.25
|style="text-align:center;|27
|10.80
|-
|colspan=6|Source: [https://www.rik.parlament.gov.rs/extfile/sr/files/additionalDocuments/564/458/UKUPAN%20IZVESTAJ.pdf Republican Electoral Commission]
|}
|}

=== Slovakia ===
{{expand section|with=Hungarians}}
[[2002 Slovak parliamentary election|2002]]. The [[True Slovak National Party]] (PSNS) split from [[Slovak National Party]] (SNS), and [[Movement for Democracy (Slovakia)|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.

In [[2016 Slovak parliamentary election|2016]], the [[Christian Democratic Movement]] achieved 4.94 percent missing only 0.06 percent votes to reach the threshold after [[NETWORK (Slovak party)|#SIEŤ]] split from KDH which meant the first absence of the party since the [[Velvet Revolution]] and the first democratic elections in [[1990 Slovak parliamentary election|1990]].

In [[2020 Slovak parliamentary election|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%.

Before the [[2024 Slovak parliamentary election|2024]], [[Republic (Slovakia)|Republic]] broke away from the [[People's Party Our Slovakia]] (ĽSNS). Republic received 4.75% and the ĽSNS 0.84%.

=== South Korea ===
In 1987, [[Roh Tae-woo]] won the [[1987 South Korean presidential election|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 South Korean presidential election|1997]] won by just [[Kim Dae-jung]] 40.3% because his two main conservative rivals split the vote.

=== Taiwan ===
In the [[2000 Republic of China presidential election|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]].

A similar scenario happened in [[2024 Taiwanese presidential election|2024]], when after the opposition candidates [[Hou Yu-ih]] (KMT) and [[Ko Wen-je]] ([[Taiwan People's Party]]) failed to reached an agreement,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.derstandard.de/story/3000000196581/taiwans-opposition-suchte-geeinte-front-und-zerstritt-sich-dabei-live-im-tv|title=Taiwans Opposition suchte geeinte Front und zerstritt sich dabei live im TV|author=Anna Sawerthal|date=24 November 2023|access-date=13 January 2024|work=[[Der Standard]]|lang=de}}</ref> [[Lai Ching-te]] (DPP) won with just 40 % of the vote.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.taiwanplus.com/taiwan-election-2024/results|title=Taiwan President Election: Live Results 2024|date=13 January 2024|access-date=13 January 2024|work=[[TaiwanPlus]]}}</ref>

=== Turkey ===
[[Turkish coup d'état|Regular military coups in the second half of the 20th century]] led to a situation, where two similar [[Left of Center (Turkey)|centre-left kemalist]] parties, the [[Republican People's Party]] (CHP) and the [[Democratic Left Party (Turkey)|Democratic Left Party]] (DSP), and centre-right kemalist parties, the [[True Path Party]] (DYP) and [[Motherland Party (Turkey)|Motherland Party]] (ANAP), competed against another. In the [[2002 Turkish general election|2002 general election]], the centre-left (CHP, DSP, [[New Turkey Party (2002)|NTP]]) got 21.76% and the centre-right (DYP, ANAP, [[Homeland Party (Turkey)|YP]], [[Liberal Democratic Party (Turkey)|LDP]]) got 15.89% but because of the split only the CHP and the new [[Justice and Development Party (Turkey)|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 Turkish general election|2007 election]] failed and the [[Democrat Party (Turkey, current)|Democrat Party]] (the successor of DYP) only won 5.4%.

=== United Kingdom ===
In the [[1994 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom|1994 European Elections]], [[Richard Huggett]] stood as a "Literal Democrat" candidate for the [[Devon and East Plymouth (European Parliament constituency)|Devon and East Plymouth]] seat, with the name playing on that of the much larger [[Liberal Democrats (UK)|Liberal Democrats]]. Huggett took over 10,000 votes, and the Liberal Democrats lost by 700 votes to the [[Conservative Party (UK)|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>{{Cite web |url=http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=172702005 |title=The Scotsman: Challenger could spell ballot paper trouble for Tories' Davis, 21 February 2005 |access-date=20 May 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060110142235/http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=172702005 |archive-date=10 January 2006 |url-status=dead |df=dmy-all }}</ref>

In the run up to [[2019 United Kingdom general election|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 Parliament election|2019 European Elections]], but days later, he reversed his position after [[Conservative Party (UK)|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 (UK)|Labour Party]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/general-election-2019-nigel-farages-brexit-party-to-stand-down-candidates-in-toryheld-seats-a4283991.html|title=Farage's Brexit Party to stand down candidates in Tory-held seats|date=2019-11-11|website=Evening Standard|language=en|access-date=2019-12-17}}</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 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum|2016 EU Membership Referendum]] but instead to vote tactically.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50726556|title=Farage in last-ditch appeal to Leave supporters|date=2019-12-10|access-date=2019-12-17|language=en-GB}}</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>{{Cite web|url=https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/ge2019-brexit-party-impact/|title=Was Farage the midwife delivering Johnson's victory? The Brexit Party and the size of the Conservative majority|date=2019-12-16|website=British Politics and Policy at LSE|language=en-US|access-date=2019-12-17|first=Pippa|last=Norris}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/13/brexit-party-nigel-farage-boris-johnson-labour-leavers|title=The Brexit party folded, but make no mistake: Farage won it for Johnson {{!}} Darren Loucaides|last=Loucaides|first=Darren|date=2019-12-13|work=The Guardian|access-date=2019-12-17|language=en-GB|issn=0261-3077}}</ref>

=== United States ===

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>{{Cite web |last=Kuhn |first=David Paul |date=27 July 2004 |title=Nader to Crash Dems' Party? |url=http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nader-to-crash-dems-party/ |website=[[CBS News]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Burden |first=Barry C. |date=September 2005 |title=Ralph Nader's Campaign Strategy in the 2000 U.S. Presidential Election |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1532673x04272431 |journal=[[American Politics Research]] |volume=33 |issue=5 |pages=672–699 |doi=10.1177/1532673x04272431 |issn=1532-673X}}</ref> Which party benefits from a third-party ticket depends on the election and the candidates.

==== President (since 1990) ====

* For the [[2016 United States presidential election]] and [[2020 United States presidential election]], some analyses have found the impact of third party candidates only on the margin of victory.<ref>Haberman, Maggie et al (September 22, 2020) [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/22/us/politics/green-party-republicans-hawkins.html?searchResultPosition=1 "How Republicans Are Trying to Use the Green Party to Their Advantage."] ''New York Times.'' (Retrieved September 24, 2020.)</ref><ref name="The Hill vote splitting2">{{cite news |last1=Aldrich |first1=John |date=10 November 2020 |title=Does Joe Biden owe his win to Jo Jorgensen? |work=The Hill |url=https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/525321-does-joe-biden-owe-his-win-to-jo-jorgensen |access-date=15 December 2020}}</ref><ref name="Guardian vote splitting2">{{cite news |last1=Bekiempis |first1=Victoria |date=8 November 2020 |title=Was Libertarian candidate Jo Jorgensen a 'spoiler' for Trump? |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/08/libertarian-jo-jorgensen-donald-trump-joe-biden |access-date=15 December 2020}}</ref> Some attribute Biden’s election in 2020 to the lack of vote splitting, with studies of 2016 third-party voters showing them much more likely to vote for Biden in 2020.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Nadeem |first=Reem |date=2021-06-30 |title=Behind Biden’s 2020 Victory |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/06/30/behind-bidens-2020-victory/ |access-date=2023-10-07 |website=Pew Research Center - U.S. Politics & Policy |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Welch |first=Matt |date=2020-11-11 |title=Trump Lost in Part Because 2016 Third-Party Voters Heavily Preferred Biden |url=https://reason.com/2020/11/11/trump-lost-in-part-because-2016-third-party-voters-heavily-preferred-biden/ |access-date=2023-10-07 |website=Reason.com |language=en-US}}</ref>
* In [[2000 U.S. presidential election|2000]], [[Al Gore]], the Democratic candidate, lost to [[George W. Bush]] due to a difference of 537 votes in the state of [[Florida]].<ref>{{cite news |last=Scher |first=Bill |date=May 31, 2016 |title=Nader Elected Bush: Why We Shouldn't Forget |work=[[RealClearPolitics]] |url=https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/05/31/nader_elected_bush_why_we_shouldnt_forget_130715.html |access-date=2017-11-26}}</ref> [[Green Party (United States)|Green Party]] candidate and progressive [[Ralph Nader]] received 97,421 votes in Florida on a platform most similar to Gore's.<ref>{{cite news |last=Rosenbaum |first=David E. |date=February 24, 2004 |title=Relax, Nader Advises Alarmed Democrats, but the 2000 Math Counsels Otherwise |newspaper=The New York Times |location=New York |url=https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B03E4D6173CF937A15751C0A9629C8B63 |access-date=August 30, 2010}}</ref> Exit polling and surveys have estimated that around 47% of Nader supporters said they would have voted for Gore if Nader didn't run (21% Bush and 32% neither).<ref name=":6">{{cite news |last=Roberts |first=Joel |date=July 27, 2004 |title=Nader to crash Dems' party? |work=[[CBS News]] |url=http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nader-to-crash-dems-party/}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Magee |first=Christopher S. P. |date=2003 |title=Third-Party Candidates and the 2000 Presidential Election |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/42955889 |journal=Social Science Quarterly |volume=84 |issue=3 |pages=574–595 |issn=0038-4941}}</ref> Vote splitting has also been called the "Nader Effect" as a result.<ref>{{cite magazine |last1=Bacon |first1=Perry Jr. |last2=Tumulty |first2=Karen |date=May 31, 2004 |title=The Nader Effect |url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,994287,00.html |url-status=dead |magazine=Time |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080302162928/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,994287,00.html |archive-date=March 2, 2008 |access-date=August 30, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Kuhn |first=David Paul |date=February 23, 2004 |title=The Nader Effect |url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/23/politics/main601802.shtml |access-date=August 30, 2010 |work=CBS News}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Cook |first=Charlie |date=March 9, 2004 |title=The Next Nader Effect |newspaper=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/09/opinion/the-next-nader-effect.html |access-date=August 30, 2010}}</ref>
* Analysis of surveys and exit poll data from the [[1992 United States presidential election|1992 presidential election]] predicts [[Bill Clinton]] winning regardless of [[Ross Perot 1992 presidential campaign|Ross Perot's campaign]] but disagreements remain on which candidate lost more votes to Perot.<ref name="auto2">{{cite news |last=Holmes |first=Steven A. |date=November 5, 1992 |title=THE 1992 ELECTIONS: DISAPPOINTMENT -- NEWS ANALYSIS An Eccentric but No Joke; Perot's Strong Showing Raises Questions On What Might Have Been, and Might Be |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/05/us/1992-elections-disappointment-analysis-eccentric-but-no-joke-perot-s-strong.html}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |author=E.J. Dionne Jr. |date=1992-11-08 |title=Perot Seen Not Affecting Vote Outcome |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1992/11/08/perot-seen-not-affecting-vote-outcome/27500538-cee8-4f4f-8e7f-f3ee9f2325d1/ |access-date=2016-08-18}}</ref><ref name=":4">{{Cite journal |last=Lacy |first=Dean |last2=Burden |first2=Barry C. |date=1999 |title=The Vote-Stealing and Turnout Effects of Ross Perot in the 1992 U.S. Presidential Election |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2991792 |journal=[[American Journal of Political Science]] |volume=43 |issue=1 |page=251 |pages= |doi=10.2307/2991792 |issn=0092-5853}}</ref>

==== President (before 1970) ====

* In [[1968 United States presidential election|1968]], [[George Wallace]] ran for president as the [[American Independent Party]]'s nominee and was the most recent third-party candidate to win a state.
* In [[1912 United States presidential election|1912]], [[Progressive Party (United States, 1912)|Progressive Party]] candidate [[Theodore Roosevelt]] won almost 700,000 votes more than did the Republican incumbent, [[William Howard Taft]].<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |title=United States presidential election of 1912 |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia Britannica |url=https://www.britannica.com/event/United-States-presidential-election-of-1912 |access-date=10 May 2017}}</ref> Republicans, who, after [[Woodrow Wilson]] won the 1912 election, became concerned that Roosevelt might return to split the Republican vote again.<ref>{{cite web |author=Nilsson, Jeff |date=5 May 2016 |title=100 Years Ago: Fear of a Republican Spoiler |url=http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2016/05/05/history/post-perspective/100-years-ago-fear-republican-spoiler.html |access-date=10 May 2017 |work=Saturday Evening Post}}</ref>
* In the [[1884 United States presidential election|1884 presidential election]], the Prohibition Party's presidential nominee, former Republican Governor [[John St. John (American politician)|John St. John]], took 147,482 votes, with 25,006 votes coming from [[1884 United States presidential election in New York|New York]], where Grover Cleveland defeated James G. Blaine by just 1,149 votes, allowing Cleveland to defeat Blaine in a very close contest (219-182 in the electoral college and a margin of 0.57% in the popular vote). Republicans were so angered by St. John's party switch, which caused their first presidential election defeat since 1856, that on November 27, 1884, an effigy of St. John was burned in Topeka, Kansas in front of a crowd of three thousand people.<ref>{{cite news |date=7 September 1916 |title=John P. St. John Is Gone |page=2 |work=The Garnett Review |url=https://www.newspapers.com/clip/40627955/the_garnett_review/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191216002041/https://www.newspapers.com/clip/40627955/the_garnett_review/ |archive-date=16 December 2019 |via=[[Newspapers.com]]}}</ref>

==== Other races ====
* In the [[1934 Oregon gubernatorial election]], Republican [[Peter C. Zimmerman|Peter Zimmerman]] ran as an independent, receiving 31.7% of the vote compared to Democratic victor [[Charles Martin (Oregon politician)|Charles Martin]]'s 38.6% and Republican nominee Joe Dunne's 28.7%. Altogether, the Republicans received 60.4% of the vote.{{Citation needed|date=July 2023}}
*In the special [[2003 California recall election|2003 California gubernatorial race]] won by Republican [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]], which did not involve a primary election and which listed 135 candidates on the ballot, concerns about vote splitting caused the Democrats to withdraw all but one of their major candidates and the Republicans to withdraw most of their candidates. Likewise, many supporters of Republican [[Tom McClintock]] changed their mind at the last minute and voted for Schwarzenegger for fear of the Democratic candidate, [[Cruz Bustamante]], winning.{{Citation needed|date=July 2023}}
*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>{{cite web |author=Bump, Philip |date=8 October 2014 |title=How often do third-party candidates actually spoil elections? Almost never. |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/08/how-often-do-third-party-candidates-actually-spoil-elections-not-very/ |access-date=17 May 2017 |work=The Fix |publisher=[[The Washington Post]]}}</ref>
* In [[United States Senate election in Minnesota, 2008|2008]], Democrat [[Al Franken]] was elected the junior senator from [[Minnesota]], defeating [[Norm Coleman]] by only 0.1%. Independent candidate [[Dean Barkley]] received over 15% of the vote, and a 2014 analysis by ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'' found that without Barkley in the race, Franken would have lost the election to Coleman.<ref>{{Cite magazine |last1=Wilson |first1=Chris |last2=Ho |first2=Alexander |date=3 November 2014 |title=The Surprisingly Low Impact of Libertarian Candidates |url=http://time.com/libertarian-spoiler-candidates/ |magazine=Time}}</ref>
* As a result of the [[2011 Wisconsin protests]] and subsequent [[recall election]]s, the [[Wisconsin Republican Party]] has encouraged spoiler candidates to run in the recall elections on the Democrat ticket in order to force the Democrats into a [[primary election]]. Republicans argued that this would even the playing field in the recalls, as incumbents facing recall did not have the time to campaign due to their work load in the [[Wisconsin State Senate|state senate]].<ref name="WGBSC">{{cite news |title=Wisconsin GOP backs spoiler candidates in recall elections |newspaper=The Wall Street Journal |url=http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/elections/article_df8f9e60-9056-11e0-8101-001cc4c03286.html}}</ref>
* In Maine's [[2010 Maine gubernatorial election|2010]] and [[2014 Maine gubernatorial election|2014]] gubernatorial elections, [[Eliot Cutler]] ran as a left-wing independent. In the 2010 election [[Paul LePage]] narrowly defeated him with 218,065 votes to 208,270 votes with the Democratic nominee [[Libby Mitchell]] receiving 109,387 votes and possibly spoiling the election for Cutler. However, in 2014 Cutler performed worse and only received 51,518 votes, but it was still greater than the difference between LePage and [[Mike Michaud]] causing a possible spoiler effect. These elections lead to an increase support in [[Ranked voting|ranked choice voting]] leading to Maine adopting the voting system due to LePage's unpopularity and him winning twice only with pluralities.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Cutler |first1=Eliot |date=2010-11-17 |title=Who Stole Election Day? |newspaper=The Wall Street Journal |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703326204575616890895700112 |access-date=26 January 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Jacobs |first1=Ben |date=2014-08-21 |title=Could Maine Re-Elect Its Wingnut Governor Paul LePage? |newspaper=The Daily Beast |publisher=The Daily Beast Company |url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/21/maine-governor-paul-lepage-to-be-rescued-by-third-party-rival.html |access-date=26 January 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Fallows |first1=James |date=2014-08-21 |title=Third-Party Watch in Maine |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/third-party-watch-in-maine/378893/ |access-date=26 January 2015 |website=The Atlantic |publisher=The Atlantic Monthly Group}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Nemitz |first1=Bill |date=2014-05-09 |title=Eliot Cutler facing up to 'spoiler' label |url=http://www.pressherald.com/2014/05/09/bill_nemitz__eliot_cutler_facing_up_to__spoiler__label_/ |access-date=26 January 2015 |website=Portland Press Herald |publisher=MaineToday Media, Inc.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Halkias |first1=Telly |title=Eliot Cutler and the Myth of Election Spoilers |url=http://www.portlanddailysun.me/index.php/opinion/columns/13249-eliot-cutler-and-the-myth-of-election-spoilers |access-date=26 January 2015 |website=Portland Daily Sun |publisher=Portland Daily Sun}}</ref>
* In both the [[2013 Virginia gubernatorial election]] and the [[2014 United States Senate election in Virginia|2014 Virginia US Senate Election]], Libertarian [[Robert Sarvis]] received a number of votes greater than the difference between the Republican and Democratic candidates.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Bycoffe |first=Aaron |date=2013-11-05 |title=2013 Elections: Virginia Governor And More (LIVE RESULTS) |url=http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2013/results |access-date=2015-06-07 |website=The Huffington Post}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Virginia Election Results 2014: Senate Map by County, Live Midterm Voting Updates |url=http://www.politico.com/2014-election/results/map/senate/virginia/#.VXOi4bxVK1E |access-date=2015-06-07 |website=POLITICO}}</ref>
* Several races in the 2014 election cycle were allegedly influenced by spoiler candidates, most notably [[2014 Hawaii gubernatorial election|Hawaii's gubernatorial elections]] and the [[United States Senate election in Kansas, 2014|Kansas senatorial]] race. In the [[United States Senate election in Mississippi, 2014|Mississippi senatorial]] Republican primary, a [[paper candidate]], Thomas Carey, who received less than two percent of the vote prevented both top contenders, incumbent [[Thad Cochran]] and challenger [[Chris McDaniel]], from avoiding a runoff. Had Carey not run, the race between McDaniel and Cochran would have avoided a runoff.{{Citation needed|date=July 2023}}