1

In a First Past The Post electoral system, has anyone ever created or significantly supported a political party they profoundly disagree with in order to split the opposition vote?

Additional background: this question about history was born out of some musings about current politics in the United Kingdom. Suppose hypothetically that the outcome of Brexit all came down to anti-Brexit MPs winning a general election. Suppose also that someone extremely rich wanted to swing the outcome against Brexit as much as they possibly could. One hypothetical possibility is that instead of supporting an anti-Brexit party, they could actually found a new, pro-Brexit party standing in all 650 seats. Let us call this party the "Moderate Right". Suppose it supports a moderately soft Brexit but otherwise has policies very similar to the incumbent Conservative party, and policies as different as it can from all parties in the Remain Alliance. Then, possibly, it may split the pro-right wing and pro-Brexit vote between the Conservatives, Brexit Party, and Moderate Right, paving the way for a Remain Alliance victory in a First Past the Post electoral system.

Has something of this nature ever been attempted at some point in history anywhere in the world?

Improve this question
11
  • 2
    Welcome to History:SE. What has your research shown you so far? Where have you already searched? What did you find? Please help us to help you. You might find it helpful to review the site tour and Help Centre and, in particular, How to Ask.
    – sempaiscuba
    Aug 26, 2019 at 10:27
  • 2
    What would it cost to set up a party in 650 seats? I suspect that the same amount of resources devoted to a media campaign would split the vote more effectively. I'd even suspect that such a media campaign would be an essential pre-requisite to the strategy you suggest. Furthermore I suggest that it would be impossible to distinguish this strategy from coopting a sincere but underfunded existing party (q.v the Bush/Gore election or the Scottish Referendum). I think the question is interesting but unanswerable. (I'd be happy to be wrong).
    – MCW ♦
    Aug 26, 2019 at 10:43
  • 1
    @PieterGeerkens - is that worth an answer? How could you distinguish between a true false flag movement and covert sponsorship of a sincere movement? (An interesting question that bridges the line between politics and history). Personally when I see the words "conspiracy" or "globalist", my skeptic filters engage, and my requirements for evidence (quality and quantity) ratchet upwards.
    – MCW ♦
    Aug 26, 2019 at 11:13
  • 1
    @MarkC.Wallace To stand as an MP in the UK requires a deposit of £500 when submitting the nomination papers. That is returned if the candidate receives over 5% of the total votes cast in the constituency (the figure was much lower in the past). Registering the party costs just £150. It would thus cost at least £325,150 to have a party with a candidate in every seat in the UK. Of course, as you suggest, the costs of campaigning would be significantly higher.
    – sempaiscuba
    Aug 26, 2019 at 11:19
  • 1
    I estimate that the costs of running an effective political false flag operation will be at least 10x the listed registration costs. To effectively split the vote, you're going to need not just to register, but to create an organization in each riding/constituency. I wonder if there is a way to estimate how much of the constituency you'd need to sway? (That would be an interesting question for politics or project management, but is a hypothetical, not appropriate for History). I will submit that an effort of that size would generate historical records.
    – MCW ♦
    Aug 26, 2019 at 11:39

0

Reset to default

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.