Final answer:
The Pepsi candidate wins due to vote splitting among the four (option 1) Coca-Cola candidates, a situation where similar votes are divided, reducing their overall impact.
Step-by-step explanation:
The scenario presented suggests a phenomenon in voting behavior known as 'vote splitting', where multiple candidates from the same faction (in this case, the Coca-Cola party) compete against each other for the same pool of votes, while a single candidate (from the Pepsi party) consolidates their base.
This means that, even though there may be a majority preference for Coca-Cola products, the split in votes among the four Coca-Cola candidates dilutes their overall strength, allowing the single Pepsi candidate to win with a plurality.
This is an example illustrating how electoral systems can yield results that do not necessarily reflect the majority's preference when a vote is fragmented among similar options.