  We extend our previous work on two-party election competition [Lin, Lu & Chen
2021] to the setting of three or more parties. An election campaign among two
or more parties is viewed as a game of two or more players. Each of them has
its own candidates as the pure strategies to play. People, as voters, comprise
supporters for each party, and a candidate brings utility for the the
supporters of each party. Each player nominates exactly one of its candidates
to compete against the other party's. A candidate is assumed to win the
election with higher odds if it brings more utility for all the people. The
payoff of each player is the expected utility its supporters get. The game is
egoistic if every candidate benefits her party's supporters more than any
candidate from the competing party does. In this work, we first argue that the
election game always has a pure Nash equilibrium when the winner is chosen by
the hardmax function, while there exist game instances in the three-party
election game such that no pure Nash equilibrium exists even the game is
egoistic. Next, we propose two sufficient conditions for the egoistic election
game to have a pure Nash equilibrium. Based on these conditions, we propose a
fixed-parameter tractable algorithm to compute a pure Nash equilibrium of the
egoistic election game. Finally, perhaps surprisingly, we show that the price
of anarchy of the egoistic election game is upper bounded by the number of
parties. Our findings suggest that the election becomes unpredictable when more
than two parties are involved and, moreover, the social welfare deteriorates
with the number of participating parties in terms of possibly increasing price
of anarchy. This work alternatively explains why the two-party system is
prevalent in democratic countries.
