If my neighbor is inclined to love me, I should hope that ...

So, in a local election in a corrupt city, a "reform" candidate appears and syphons away 2.5% of the vote. By a smaller margin than the "reform" candidate's total, the primary (corrupt) candidate does not get a clear majority, and the election is forced into a run-off. To effectively compete in the run-off, the (corrupt) candidate raises another million dollars, and ends up owing even more (corrupt) favors to her backers. The net result of the reform candidate's campaign is a degradation of the quality of life for the community, as a new set of favors is called in from the (corrupt) candidate. Should the reform candidate have precipitated a sequence of events that everyone knew would make things worse? Debate, discuss.