Duverger's Principle (a.k.a. "Duverger's Law")
Posted: Thu May 26, 2011 11:28 am
Pseudolus has raised the thought-provoking subject of “Duverger's law”. Though this is often called a “law”, it is actually a theory. For an explanation, read this Wiki article. According to that article: “A two-party system often develops from the single-member district plurality voting system (SMDP). In an SMDP 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. The winner of the seat is determined by the candidate with the most votes. This means that the SMDP system has several qualities that can serve to discourage the development of third parties and reward the two major parties.”
While I am aware of this theory, I have not studied it nor am I familiar with whatever body of evidence may support or refute this theory; therefore, others are encouraged to provide additional insights relative to this.
Regardless of Duverger’s theory, I am convinced that if our congressional districts were much smaller then two-party control of our government would end. I make these arguments in “Taking Back Our Republic”, particularly in Section 6 of that pamphlet.
It is my belief that Duvenger’s theory is predicated upon the existence of massive electoral districts such as we have had in our country for over a century. In other words, this theory may become “law” at larger district levels, but breaks down at much smaller district sizes. It would be great if someone could test that hypothesis.
Allow me to offer a thought experiment to make my point: Imagine if we had a district size of 10 people. You and 9 neighbors elect your Rep. Do you think a two-party system would be inevitable? I don’t. You and your neighbors would simply pick the best qualified (or most willing) among you, and you wouldn’t give a damn about someone’s party affiliation. (In fact, it may turn you off.) Instead, you’re simply picking Joe or Joanne on the basis of their personal views and integrity. In a smaller electoral community, you are likely to be familiar with the candidates, or have only one or two degrees of separation from them. In any case, any candidate who really wishes to win election will need to make himself personally available to the voters (in contrast to what happens today in 700,000-person congressional districts).
Moreover, I believe this holds true if the district size is 100, 1,000, 10,000, and possibly 100,000. How do we test for this? That is, at what district size does Duvenger’s theory possibly become “law”? That is an interesting question, as knowing the answer would further bolster the argument for smaller districts.
By the way, and perhaps a little bit of a tangent, I believe there should be run-off elections whenever any of the candidates fail to receive 50% of the vote. It makes me nervous that any candidate can win office with 40% of the vote, especially given some disastrous historical examples of such. And I suspect this could help mitigate the Duverger effect to some extent.
While I am aware of this theory, I have not studied it nor am I familiar with whatever body of evidence may support or refute this theory; therefore, others are encouraged to provide additional insights relative to this.
Regardless of Duverger’s theory, I am convinced that if our congressional districts were much smaller then two-party control of our government would end. I make these arguments in “Taking Back Our Republic”, particularly in Section 6 of that pamphlet.
It is my belief that Duvenger’s theory is predicated upon the existence of massive electoral districts such as we have had in our country for over a century. In other words, this theory may become “law” at larger district levels, but breaks down at much smaller district sizes. It would be great if someone could test that hypothesis.
Allow me to offer a thought experiment to make my point: Imagine if we had a district size of 10 people. You and 9 neighbors elect your Rep. Do you think a two-party system would be inevitable? I don’t. You and your neighbors would simply pick the best qualified (or most willing) among you, and you wouldn’t give a damn about someone’s party affiliation. (In fact, it may turn you off.) Instead, you’re simply picking Joe or Joanne on the basis of their personal views and integrity. In a smaller electoral community, you are likely to be familiar with the candidates, or have only one or two degrees of separation from them. In any case, any candidate who really wishes to win election will need to make himself personally available to the voters (in contrast to what happens today in 700,000-person congressional districts).
Moreover, I believe this holds true if the district size is 100, 1,000, 10,000, and possibly 100,000. How do we test for this? That is, at what district size does Duvenger’s theory possibly become “law”? That is an interesting question, as knowing the answer would further bolster the argument for smaller districts.
By the way, and perhaps a little bit of a tangent, I believe there should be run-off elections whenever any of the candidates fail to receive 50% of the vote. It makes me nervous that any candidate can win office with 40% of the vote, especially given some disastrous historical examples of such. And I suspect this could help mitigate the Duverger effect to some extent.