AlbatrossLoverIs the other politician an incumbent
yes, although not strictly relevant who isn't running for reelection?
no And the second candidate shares a name with him, making people mistakenly vote for him?
but this is certainly the logic behind the solutionTreborI suspect AlbatrossLover may have hit on it, but in case not: is the third person someone who holds a greater office than the one the other two are running for?
It's a yope to 'greater office',
but this state of being greater is relevantEarnestIf it so, maybe the name of the third candidate was barred with an X by way of example to show people how to vote?
no I mean, had people mistaken only the two names it would have been not necessarily winner the candidate C (it could also have been candidate B with the same name) right?
Not sure I understand the question, sorry So maybe there is a reason why between two coincidental names people voted the second one...
see aboveDisclaimer: I'm quite unwell at the moment, so maybe my brain isn't firing on all cylinders. Hopefully the other answers have shed some more light on the possibilities.DorianaAre there two more relevant politicians? I.e. the third one on the ballot and the one who shares a name with the second one?
Correct - there are no other relevant parties, and the first is relevant only insofar as they ended up winning If so, does the second one share a name with a more well-known politician, people mistake him for the well-known politician, and vote for candidate #3 because they think he has a higher chance of defeating #2?
And there it is!***** SPOILER *****
They were candidates standing for an electorate in a general election. The first man was narrowly defeated by a third candidate. The second man was a low-ranking member of a minor party who happened to share a name with the party leader. He received a disproportionately high number of votes, leading analysts to believe that people voted for him in the mistaken belief that he was the leader (who was much more accomplished, recognised and popular).
Because the two men's parties had similar politics and shared a voting base, the second man's gain was the first man's loss, and these excess votes were enough to tip the scales in favour of candidate #3.Congratulations to all of you on the solution, and thank you everyone for playing. This is a true story based on the outcome of the Whangarei electorate in NZ's 2020 general election - but we have to wait for the special votes to be counted to see if:
- The ACT candidate caused the National candidate to lose his set
- The ACT candidate almost caused the National candidate to lose his seat, or
- The Labour candidate would have won anyway, but the ACT candidate gave them a bigger margin than expected.
Right now, the National candidate is ahead by 164 votes, which is more than enough to get erased by the specials, which tend to favour the left.