World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Duverger's law

Article Id: WHEBN0000037553
Reproduction Date:

Title: Duverger's law  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Tactical voting, First-past-the-post voting, Two-party system, Opposition (parliamentary), William H. Riker
Collection:
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Publication
Date:
 

Duverger's law

In political science, Duverger's law is a principle that asserts that plurality rule elections structured within single-member districts tend to favor a two-party system. This is one of two hypotheses proposed by Duverger, the second stating that "the double ballot majority system and proportional representation tend to multipartism."[1]

The discovery of this tendency is attributed to Maurice Duverger, a French sociologist who observed the effect and recorded it in several papers published in the 1950s and 1960s. In the course of further research, other political scientists began calling the effect a "law" or principle. Duverger's law suggests a nexus or synthesis between a party system and an electoral system: a proportional representation (PR) system creates the electoral conditions necessary to foster party development while a plurality system marginalizes many smaller political parties, resulting in what is known as a two-party system.

Mechanism

A two-party system often develops in a plurality voting system. In this system, voters have a single vote, which they can cast for a single candidate in their district, in which only one legislative seat is available. In plurality voting (i.e. first past the post), in which the winner of the seat is determined purely by the candidate with the most votes, several characteristics can serve to discourage the development of third parties and reward the two major parties.

Duverger suggests two reasons this voting system favors a two-party system. One is the result of the "fusion" (or an alliance very much like fusion) of the weak parties, and the other is the "elimination" of weak parties by the voters, by which he means that voters gradually desert the weak parties on the grounds that they have no chance of winning.[2][3]

A prominent restrictive feature unique to this system is purely statistical. Because the system gives only the winner in each district a seat, a party which consistently comes third in every district will not gain any seats in the legislature, even if it receives a significant proportion of the vote. This puts geographically thinly spread parties at a significant disadvantage. An example of this is the Liberal Democrats in the United Kingdom, whose proportion of seats in the legislature is significantly less than their proportion of the national vote. The Green Party of Canada is also a good example. The party received approximately 5% of the popular vote from 2004 to 2011 but had only won one seat (out of 308) in the House of Commons in the same span of time. Another example was seen in the 1992 U.S. presidential election, when Ross Perot's candidacy received zero electoral votes despite getting 19% of the popular vote. Gerrymandering is sometimes used to counteract such geographic difficulties in local politics but is controversial on a large scale. These numerical disadvantages can create an artificial limit on the level at which a third party can engage in the political process.

The second unique problem is both statistical and tactical. Duverger suggested an election in which 100,000 moderate voters and 80,000 radical voters are voting for a single official. If two moderate parties ran candidates and one radical candidate were to run, the radical candidate would win unless one of the moderate candidates gathered fewer than 20,000 votes. Observing this, moderate voters would be more likely to vote for the candidate most likely to gain more votes, with the goal of defeating the radical candidate. Either the two parties must merge, or one moderate party must fail, as the voters gravitate to the two strong parties, a trend Duverger called polarization.[4]

A third party can enter the arena only if it can exploit the mistakes of a pre-existing major party, ultimately at that party's expense. For example, the political chaos in the United States immediately preceding the Civil War allowed the Republican Party to replace the Whig Party as the progressive half of the American political landscape. Loosely united on a platform of country-wide economic reform and federally funded industrialization, the decentralized Whig leadership failed to take a decisive stance on the slavery issue, effectively splitting the party along the Mason-Dixon Line. Southern rural planters, initially lured by the prospect of federal infrastructure and schools, quickly aligned themselves with the pro-slavery Democrats, while urban laborers and professionals in the northern states, threatened by the sudden shift in political and economic power and losing faith in the failing Whig candidates, flocked to the increasingly vocal anti-slavery Republican Party.

In countries that use proportional representation (PR), and especially in countries such as Israel where the whole country forms a single constituency, the electoral rules discourage a two-party system. The number of votes received for a party determines the number of seats won, and new parties can thus develop an immediate electoral niche. Duverger identified that the use of PR would make a two-party system less likely. However, other systems do not guarantee new parties access to the system: Malta provides an example of a stable two-party system using the single transferable vote, although it is worth noting that its presidential elections are won by a plurality, which may put a greater two-party bias in the system than in a purely proportional system.

Counterexamples

While there are indeed many plurality systems with two parties, there are counterexamples:

  • In the United Kingdom, the Liberal party/Alliance/Liberal Democrats have, since the February 1974 General Election, usually obtained between 15% and 25% of the vote forming a "third party" and creating a three-party system.[5] This may be explained with an exception to the law in constituencies where the centrist party is in first or second position (Taagepera 2010). Moreover, despite gathering around a fifth of votes consistently for over twenty years, their share of seats in parliament has not been more than a tenth in that time.[6]
  • More than three parties have won constituencies recently (8 other parties), but they are either elected outside of England, where the British FPTP system is used in parallel to the national (Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish) PR-multiparty democracy, or through by-elections (such as the Respect Coalition).
  • In Canada, there are five political parties represented in Parliament. However there is an incentive to vote for a party that elects no candidate, as it may reach the threshold for public financing, though this is changing. As a result of policy change at the hands of the Conservative government, after this federal election, there will be no more subsidy for votes given to smaller parties. That doesn't alter the fact that most governments are one-party majority governments.[7]
  • In India, there are thirty-eight political parties represented in the Parliament. Like the UK and Canada, India has a winner-takes-all system.[8]
  • In the Philippines since 1987, no party has been able to control the House of Representatives; although the party of the president usually has the plurality of seats, it still has to seek coalition partners to command a majority of seats. Currently, there are six major political parties, with the ruling Liberal Party controlling less than one-third of the seats.[9] The party situation in the 24-member Senate has fragmented into five parties having at least 2 seats, with the largest party only controlling five seats.[10] Only the president's party has been able to run at majority of the districts in the House of Representatives, while no party has completed a 12-person electoral slate for the Senate since 1998 without inviting other non-party members, allowing for multiple parties to win seats. About 80% of the seats in the House of Representatives are elected via FPTP, while the senators are elected via plurality-at-large voting (essentially a multi-member variation of FPTP).[11] However, Senate elections in the Philippines have (generally) been a contest between two slates, and the average number of candidates in the 2013 House of Representatives elections in every district is 2.69.

Duverger himself did not regard his principle as absolute. Instead he suggested that plurality would act to delay the emergence of a new political force and would accelerate the elimination of a weakening force[12] — PR would have the opposite effect.

These counterexamples are partly due to the effect of smaller parties that have the majority of their support concentrated in a small number of electorates rather than diluted across many electorates. Malta has a single transferable vote (STV) system and (what seems to be) stable two-party politics.

In the Australian Senate, there is proportional voting but even though smaller parties have been able to win seats, there is still a trend towards the major parties, whose dominance in the lower house effectively promotes their upper house candidates.

Some systems are even more likely to lead to a two-party outcome: for example, elections in Gibraltar use a partial block vote system (which is classified as majoritarian) in a single constituency, so the third most popular party is unlikely to win any seats.

In recent years some researchers have modified Duverger's Law by suggesting that electoral systems are an effect of party systems rather than a cause.[13] It has been shown that changes from a plurality system to a proportional system are typically preceded by the emergence of more than two effective parties, and are typically not followed by a substantial increase in the effective number of parties.[14]

See also

References

  1. ^ Sartori, Giovanni, Comparative Constitutional Engineering, An Inquiry into Structures, Incentives and Outcomes.
  2. ^ Schlesinger, Joseph A; Schlesinger, Mildred S (2006). "Maurice Duverger and the Study of Political Parties". French Politics 4: 58.  
  3. ^ The Japanese election system: three ... - Junichiro Wada - Google Books
  4. ^ Maurice Duverger, "Factors in a Two-Party and Multiparty System," in Party Politics and Pressure Groups (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1972), pp. 23-32. http://janda.org/c24/Readings/Duverger/Duverger.htm
  5. ^ See references in United Kingdom general elections, 1974 to 2010.
  6. ^ Liberal Democrats#Electoral results
  7. ^ House of Commons of Canada
  8. ^ Lok Sabha
  9. ^ House of Representatives of the Philippines
  10. ^ Senate of the Philippines
  11. ^ Congress of the Philippines
  12. ^ Crowell, Thomas Y. (1972). "Factors in a Two-Party and Multiparty System - The Technical Factor: The Electoral System". Party Politics and Pressure Groups: 23–32. 
  13. ^ Benoit, Kenneth (June 2007). "Electoral Laws as Political Consequences: Explaining the Origins and Change of Electoral Institutions". Annual Review of Political Science 10 (1): 363–390.  
  14. ^  

Bibliography

  • William H. Riker, "The Two-party System and Duverger's Law: An Essay on the History of Political Science" American Political Science Review, 76 (December 1982), pp. 753–766. (This link is only accessible to individuals with access to JSTOR through a university, a corporation or another organization, or to those who have registered for a free MyJSTOR account.)
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 


Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.