Man if only there wasn’t literal research and political science theories on the topic of how certain voting systems devolve into 2 party lesser evils voting
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger’s_law
But but but! It’s always been the Democrats and Republicans fault. Even though it’s always been this way. Even before recent changes in both parties. Even though it was this way before those parties even existed! /s
(Repeating my reply from above, to a similar comment.)
This so-called ‘law’ is a myth. Look at the legislatures of other countries that use FPTP, and count the parties that get, say, more than 5 seats. The UK has 6, Canada 4, Russia 5 and India, my country, 11. You certainly can have more than two parties.
Duverger’s Law is a tautology because, from a critical rationalist perspective, a tautological statement is one that cannot be empirically tested or falsified—it’s true by definition. Duverger’s Law states that a plurality-rule election system tends to favor a two-party system. However, if this law is framed in such a way that any outcome can be rationalized within its parameters, then it becomes unfalsifiable.
For example, if a country with a plurality-rule system has more than two parties, one might argue that the system still “tends to” favor two parties, and the current state is an exception or transition phase. This kind of reasoning makes the law immune to counterexamples, and thus, it operates more as a tautological statement than an empirical hypothesis. The critical rationalist critique of marginalist economics, which relies on ceteris paribus (all else being equal) conditions, suggests any similarly structured law should be viewed with skepticism. For Duverger’s Law to be more than a tautology, it would need to be stated in a way that allows for clear empirical testing and potential falsification, without the possibility of explaining away any contradictory evidence. This would make it a substantive theory that can contribute to our understanding of political systems rather than a mere tautology.
small parties are disincentivized to form because they have great difficulty winning seats or representation
The Green Party of Canada is another example; the party received about 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 receiving 19% of the popular vote.
This is an empirically testable claim that has come true.
Only one of the four countries I listed does not use pure FPTP - Russia uses a mix of FPTP and party-list voting. But even if you only count the FPTP seats, and despite stuff like ballot-stuffing committed by the ruling party, 3 parties got >5 seats.
The five electoral systems used are: the single member plurality system (first-past-the-post), the multi-member plurality, the single transferable vote, the additional member system, and the supplementary vote.
Although several parties are typically represented in parliament, Canada has historically had two dominant political parties: the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, which was preceded by the Progressive Conservative Party and the Conservative Party (1867–1942). Every government since Confederation has been either Liberal or Conservative with the exception of the Unionist government during World War I, which was a coalition of Conservatives and Liberals.
Russia and India are also fairly recent democracies or “democracy” in russias case, not having the time to have devolved from a multiparty system into a duopoly through FPTP, and Russia has a whole host of problems with oligarchy, corruption and putin changing the rules so he’s the one who’s been in constant power for like 20 years.
Man if only there wasn’t literal research and political science theories on the topic of how certain voting systems devolve into 2 party lesser evils voting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger’s_law
But but but! It’s always been the Democrats and Republicans fault. Even though it’s always been this way. Even before recent changes in both parties. Even though it was this way before those parties even existed! /s
(Repeating my reply from above, to a similar comment.)
This so-called ‘law’ is a myth. Look at the legislatures of other countries that use FPTP, and count the parties that get, say, more than 5 seats. The UK has 6, Canada 4, Russia 5 and India, my country, 11. You certainly can have more than two parties.
You didn’t even read that link on Duverger’s law. It already addresses quite a bit of what you’ve brought up.
Duverger’s Law is a tautology because, from a critical rationalist perspective, a tautological statement is one that cannot be empirically tested or falsified—it’s true by definition. Duverger’s Law states that a plurality-rule election system tends to favor a two-party system. However, if this law is framed in such a way that any outcome can be rationalized within its parameters, then it becomes unfalsifiable.
For example, if a country with a plurality-rule system has more than two parties, one might argue that the system still “tends to” favor two parties, and the current state is an exception or transition phase. This kind of reasoning makes the law immune to counterexamples, and thus, it operates more as a tautological statement than an empirical hypothesis. The critical rationalist critique of marginalist economics, which relies on ceteris paribus (all else being equal) conditions, suggests any similarly structured law should be viewed with skepticism. For Duverger’s Law to be more than a tautology, it would need to be stated in a way that allows for clear empirical testing and potential falsification, without the possibility of explaining away any contradictory evidence. This would make it a substantive theory that can contribute to our understanding of political systems rather than a mere tautology.
This is an empirically testable claim that has come true.
All of those nations implement other forms of voting and mixed members representation in their various elections.
Only one of the four countries I listed does not use pure FPTP - Russia uses a mix of FPTP and party-list voting. But even if you only count the FPTP seats, and despite stuff like ballot-stuffing committed by the ruling party, 3 parties got >5 seats.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_United_Kingdom
The five electoral systems used are: the single member plurality system (first-past-the-post), the multi-member plurality, the single transferable vote, the additional member system, and the supplementary vote.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Canada
Although several parties are typically represented in parliament, Canada has historically had two dominant political parties: the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, which was preceded by the Progressive Conservative Party and the Conservative Party (1867–1942). Every government since Confederation has been either Liberal or Conservative with the exception of the Unionist government during World War I, which was a coalition of Conservatives and Liberals.
Russia and India are also fairly recent democracies or “democracy” in russias case, not having the time to have devolved from a multiparty system into a duopoly through FPTP, and Russia has a whole host of problems with oligarchy, corruption and putin changing the rules so he’s the one who’s been in constant power for like 20 years.