Vote splitting is key to how hyperpartisan candidates get elected. This phenomenon gives them an advantage in key races like primaries, where many candidates share similar views.

How? It is essentially a strategy of "lowering the bar."

When the ingredients for vote splitting are present—three or more candidates, one seat to win, and voters only can make one choice—every new candidate that enters the race will chip away support from the others. In a two-person race, each candidate may get around 50% of the vote. In a four-person field, the average for each candidate may drop to 25%. In a 10-way race, one can win with as little as 10% of the vote. Every new candidate "lowers the bar" on how many voters you need to win.

Vote splitting then becomes a key part of hyperpartisan candidates' strategies. If just 15% of people hold extreme views but unite behind one candidate, they can win a 10-candidate election. These campaigns focus on energizing their small base of support, rather than broadening their appeal. Candidates then spout whatever inflammatory rhetoric will turn out "their" voters, even if it contradicts majority opinion.

This "lowering the bar" strategy is the main way hyperpartisan candidates can win. Place that same small faction's leader in a head-to-head race with a mainstream figure, and they lose handily. To end hyperpartisanship, we must end vote splitting as a viable path to office.

To end hyperpartisanship, we must end vote splitting. To end vote splitting, we must change the formula to make it impossible. We can do this by giving voters more than one choice through approval voting.