• emergencyfood
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    (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.

    • blackbelt352@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      All of those nations implement other forms of voting and mixed members representation in their various elections.

      • emergencyfood
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • blackbelt352@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          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.

          • emergencyfood
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            The five electoral systems used are …

            I was talking about Parliamentary elections in those countries, since the original discussion was about the US Presidential elections. The House of Commons is elected by FPTP. Local elections use a variety of systems.

            Every government since Confederation has been either Liberal or Conservative with the exception of the Unionist government during World War I

            True. At the same time, the NDP and the BQ have been able to hold their ground and consistently return several MPs. They have also enjoyed much greater success at the provincial level (in BC and Quebec). How many US states have a third-party governor or House majority?

            Russia and India are also fairly recent democracies

            In the first four parliamentary elections in India, the number of parties winning over 10 seats were 3, 3, 5 and 8. In the latest four, it was 10, 11, 8 and 9. So, if anything, support is moving away from the biggest parties over time.

    • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      You didn’t even read that link on Duverger’s law. It already addresses quite a bit of what you’ve brought up.

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        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.

        • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          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.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            you don’t seem to understand that the problem is that the rule is immune to counterexamples. it’s storytelling.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            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