Smug ALVISE voters, take note
A calculation circulating on X claims that 2% of the vote for Alvise in Madrid costs Vox a seat and hands it to the PSOE, with Alvise winning no representation. We explain the arithmetic.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
A calculation circulating on X claims that, with 2% of the vote for Alvise in Madrid, Vox loses a seat that goes to the PSOE while Alvise wins none. The figure is a seat-distribution hypothesis, not an election result.
The arithmetic spreading on social media is not a forecast, it is a simulation exercise. A message circulating on X claims that, in the Madrid constituency, a **2%** vote for Alvise is enough to snatch a seat from Vox and hand it to the PSOE, and that in that scenario Alvise wins no representation. The key lies in the largest-remainder allocation system: a handful of votes shifting from one party to another can change the last seat assigned without the new party reaching the required threshold.
## The 3% threshold and seat allocation
Madrid elects **37 deputies** to Congress, the largest constituency in Spain. Spain's electoral law requires a minimum of **3%** of valid votes to take part in the allocation. Below that barrier, votes become wasted paper for those who cast them. The circulating calculation assumes Alvise lands exactly on that **2%**, below the threshold, and that his votes elect no one.
## The tactical voting hypothesis
The message goes further and poses a counterfactual scenario: if that **2%** had gone to Vox, not only would Vox regain the seat lost to the PSOE, but Podemos could be left without representation in Madrid. The text itself admits that "I know it doesn't work that way", because voters do not transfer in blocs. It is an illustration of so-called tactical voting, not a prediction.
## What can and cannot be concluded
The simulation depends on an assumption that cannot be verified: that this specific **2%** would have chosen Vox in Alvise's absence. Vote-transfer studies show that voters of new parties are not reassigned mechanically. The figure helps to understand how seat allocation works, not to anticipate a result. Any voting decision is best made with the electoral law in front of you and a healthy distrust of social media simulations.
The arithmetic spreading on social media is not a forecast, it is a simulation exercise. A message circulating on X claims that, in the Madrid constituency, a **2%** vote for Alvise is enough to snatch a seat from Vox and hand it to the PSOE, and that in that scenario Alvise wins no representation. The key lies in the largest-remainder allocation system: a handful of votes shifting from one party to another can change the last seat assigned without the new party reaching the required threshold.
## The 3% threshold and seat allocation
Madrid elects **37 deputies** to Congress, the largest constituency in Spain. Spain's electoral law requires a minimum of **3%** of valid votes to take part in the allocation. Below that barrier, votes become wasted paper for those who cast them. The circulating calculation assumes Alvise lands exactly on that **2%**, below the threshold, and that his votes elect no one.
## The tactical voting hypothesis
The message goes further and poses a counterfactual scenario: if that **2%** had gone to Vox, not only would Vox regain the seat lost to the PSOE, but Podemos could be left without representation in Madrid. The text itself admits that "I know it doesn't work that way", because voters do not transfer in blocs. It is an illustration of so-called tactical voting, not a prediction.
## What can and cannot be concluded
The simulation depends on an assumption that cannot be verified: that this specific **2%** would have chosen Vox in Alvise's absence. Vote-transfer studies show that voters of new parties are not reassigned mechanically. The figure helps to understand how seat allocation works, not to anticipate a result. Any voting decision is best made with the electoral law in front of you and a healthy distrust of social media simulations.
Also available in: Deutsch
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (5 replies).
More summaries
-
Archbishop of Canterbury and the Photo Sparking Controversy
The Hubert Walter Award ceremony, featuring the Archbishop of Canterbury and a Pakistani cleric, reignites debates on religion, women, and double standards.
-
The New 10 Commandments for the Punting Era: Burbuja.info Debates Prices and GFE
80 euros for half an hour, cold Colombian escorts and nostalgia for the old pesetas. The debate on Burbuja.info, Spain's leading forum, over the new punting commandments. Is it a market inflation or
-
Ceuta and Melilla: Morocco never seized these Spanish enclaves
Marking the Green March's 50th anniversary, debate resurfaces on Spain's North African enclaves. Morocco has never taken a fortified Spanish plaza.
-
Spain's 'La bola negra' sparks culture war with €4.7M opening
'La bola negra' grosses €4.7 million in its first weekend and divides Spain between critical praise and accusations of propaganda and historical sectarianism.
-
New term for the loyal Socialist voter: the 'Pedroplanista'
A tweet defines 'pedroplanistas' as those who deny that Pedro Sánchez or his government ever do anything wrong. The term is spreading as a political label on social media.
-
Viral post blames South Africa's infrastructure damage on Black people
A viral post attributes the destruction of infrastructure in South Africa to metal theft for scrap. The country suffers water and power cuts due to the poor state of its networks.