Thats not right. This is why ppl say a vote for z is the same as voting x or y.
100 votes, 2 options, no wrote ins, chicken wins.
Then those same 100 heads vote with write ins allowed. his time fish wins because some voters want to draw attention to the fact it has only been fish vs chicken for so many flights and want to establish the idea of serving duck as a dish to be offered on the next flight's menu (for the sake of brevity, duck is the only write in that clears established threshold t). Not only is the winner changed, a statement on the available choices is voiced.
Addendum... lets go deeper and more specific, and reflect here on the Cons utional electoral college requirements. We will assume electoral=popular votes for simplicity. Now we establish that one option needs 45 votes minimum to be chosen, and no one option succeeds. The 18th century solution is giving a tiny yet proportionate section of LAST flight's voters the decision, which obviously favors the majority decision from then. This is why a 3rd party is universally considered a vote stealing campaign without legitimacy no matter what policies it supports or opposes. And this leads to today's inescapable duo of echo chambers.
Ps ty baseline bum for pointing this out for me during the primary.

Reply With Quote