Moncloa boosts Alvise to curb Vox's 20% support

Alvise Pérez seen as potential torpedo to Vox's 20%

Why does Alvise Pérez appear everywhere just before the general elections? Some argue in the debate that Moncloa is giving media visibility to SALF (Se Acabó La Fiesta) to take seats away from Vox and facilitate a new government under Pedro Sánchez. This thesis isn't new, but it has gained traction recently due to the surge in coverage of the candidate. A circulating calculation suggests that one million votes for Alvise would not secure him any MPs, yet it would subtract several from Vox via the seat allocation method, first benefiting the PSOE and then the PP.

Antiestéticar that Alvise will siphon votes from Vox

Some claim that voting for Alvise in the general election is like voting for Frente Obrero or Falange: a wasted vote that actually harms the right-wing bloc. The argument is that 99% of Vox's and SALF's platforms are identical, so splitting the vote only benefits the left. Counter-arguments state that Alvise is working hard in the European Parliament and that his oversight role is useful.

Vox's 20% threshold and seat transfers

The central concern is whether Vox will reach 20% in the polls. It is argued that the PPSOE strategy is to promote Iustitia Europa and Alvise so that Vox fails to meet this threshold, and that this tactic will work. The most repeated forecast is that there will be a notable transfer of seats from Vox to the PSOE caused by these candidacies. The conclusion drawn is that voting for Alvise is equivalent to voting for the PSOE.

Useful vote and D'Hondt law

The debate on the "useful vote" runs throughout the discussion. It is argued that the D'Hondt electoral system heavily penalizes minor parties running in all constituencies, and that a vote for the leading party is not the same as a vote for the third. The conclusion is that voters should choose the least bad option with the highest chance of winning seats. Others maintain that the Vox-PP bloc reaches 177 seats even if twenty Alvise candidates run, and that the only thing saving Sánchez is a more severe version of the 11-M attacks.

Chat Control controversy and internal conflict

The discussion shifted to the controversy over whether Alvise voted in favor of Chat Control. Some claim it was a hoax by Vox, spread by an influencer and a controlled dissident, arguing that Alvise voted in favor of holding a vote, not in favor of Chat Control itself. Opponents assert that Alvise voted against rejecting the extension of Chat Control 1.0, which they say is not a hoax. The debate remains open.

---

With these elements, the question is not whether Alvise is a fraud or a useful overseer. The question is how many votes he can take away and from whom. And at this point, nobody knows.