You make it sound like being the consistent second choice means he doesn't deserve to win, when the opposite is true. Consider a hypothetical country in which 33% of the population is religion X, 33% is religion Y, and 34% is religion Z. Candidate 1 wants the country to be a religion X theocracy, candidate 2 wants the country to be a religion Y theocracy, candidate 3 wants the country to be a religion Z theocracy, and candidate 4 wants the country to have freedom of religion. (Assume all voters would love a theocracy of their own religion, be okay with freedom of religion, and hate a theocracy of a different religion.) Do you want an election system where candidate 3 wins instead of candidate 4?
Assuming absurd scenarios can get you any result you want.
Because in your scenario, all of those people have to prefer gaining their religious theocracy to such the degree that they're willing to lose practicing their religion at all to get it.
