Political strategy used in elections 'tactical coordination'
The political strategy you are describing is most commonly referred to as tactical coordination (or strategic coordination). When candidates intentionally drop out at the last minute to clear the path for a single preferred candidate, it is also frequently called a coordinated withdrawal or strategic consolidation. Political scientists and strategists use several terms to describe this behavior, depending on the exact context:
Key Political Terms
• Strategic Coordination / Consolidation: This occurs when a political party or internal faction coordinates behind the scenes to avoid vote splitting. If five like-minded candidates stay in the race, they will divide the vote share amongst themselves, allowing an opposing candidate to win. By forcing four to drop out, they consolidate 100% of their faction's votes behind the remaining candidate. [1] • Clearing the Field: This is the common political idiom for when a party establishment or a dominant faction pressures multiple candidates to withdraw or choose not to run so that their preferred candidate faces no internal competition. • Controlled Primary (or "Rigging" the Primary): While not a formal technical term, voters and critics often use this to describe backroom collusion where party elites dictate who gets to stay on the ballot, stripping voters of an actual choice.
Why Parties Do This
This strategy is highly effective in certain election formats. For instance, in jungle primaries or nonpartisan blanket primaries (like those used in California or Washington), the top two vote-getters advance to the general election regardless of party. If one party runs too many candidates, they risk splitting their party's total vote so thin that two candidates from the opposing party squeeze into the top two slots. Parties use coordinated withdrawals right before the ballot is finalized to prevent this exact nightmare scenario. [2, 3]