Duverger’s Law doesn't hold up outside the US

[NobleSavage]

I've had Duverger’s Law explained in at least in 3 classes: Poly Sci 101, Political Parties, and Comparative Politics. The Political Parties prof was quite sharp and he didn't seem that impressed with the "Law". Personally, I think there are advantages to having a two party system. I'm not saying it's better than multi-party, just not worse.

Anyhow, this is an interesting article:

Political science has very few ‘laws’, perhaps explaining why the discipline has so stubbornly clung onto Maurice Duverger’s famous claim that countries using first-past-the-post voting systems will always have two party politics. It is no exaggeration to say that this proposition still underpins whole fields of research. Yet Patrick Dunleavy explains that modern theory and better evidence now show that the alleged ‘Law’ has lost all credibility.

Any physical scientist looking at these three charts could tell straight away that we are looking at three radically different systems. The idea that parties or voters are behaving in the same ways across them is deeply unlikely. The factors leading to perfect two party politics in the USA cannot be general to all plurality rule systems – they must instead be specific to the American political context. Incidentally perfect two-party systems like this are now found almost nowhere outside the USA, except for a few small Caribbean nations. In particular, all the major Westminster system countries have shown strong trends towards multi-partism.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/duvergers-law-dead-parrot-dunleavy/

 

[untermensche]

It's total bullshit.

In the US the two parties work together, using the media, to exclude third parties.

Ralph Nader is excluded from the presidential debates. He is shunned by the media and his positions are not known.

But the media is used to ridicule his low poll numbers after it is used to assure they are low.

It can never be forgotten that the US corporate press is a major obstacle in the democratic process.

 

[Jayjay]

Rest of the world is doing it wrong.

 

[Axulus]

It's total bullshit.

In the US the two parties work together, using the media, to exclude third parties.

Ralph Nader is excluded from the presidential debates. He is shunned by the media and his positions are not known.

But the media is used to ridicule his low poll numbers after it is used to assure they are low.

It can never be forgotten that the US corporate press is a major obstacle in the democratic process.

How should debate invitation be determined? There are several dozens of candidates from all sorts of third parties. Gain enough popularity (like Ross Perot) and they do get invited. It would not be productive to have several dozen people trying to debate.

 

[NobleSavage]

It's total bullshit.

In the US the two parties work together, using the media, to exclude third parties.

Ralph Nader is excluded from the presidential debates. He is shunned by the media and his positions are not known.

But the media is used to ridicule his low poll numbers after it is used to assure they are low.

It can never be forgotten that the US corporate press is a major obstacle in the democratic process.

You have to have some kind of funnel/filter system otherwise someone like you would waste everyones time. The primary point of this thread is that Duverger’s Law hast lost credibility. You skipped right over that and just went into a typical untermensche rant.

 

[Terrell]

I don't think it really matters whether or not Duverger was right when it comes to how the U.S. electoral system works, especially at the Presidential level. It's not first past the post in the popular vote, but first past the post in each state for it's electoral votes, and a requirement to reach a majority in the electoral college (270 EV) or the election is decided in the House of Representatives, by Democrats & Republicans. The last time a 3rd party candidate got even a single electoral vote was George Wallace in 1968, he got the most votes in a few Southern states.

 

[Bomb#20]

I don't think it really matters whether or not Duverger was right when it comes to how the U.S. electoral system works, especially at the Presidential level. It's not first past the post in the popular vote, but first past the post in each state for it's electoral votes, and a requirement to reach a majority in the electoral college (270 EV) or the election is decided in the House of Representatives, by Democrats & Republicans. The last time a 3rd party candidate got even a single electoral vote was George Wallace in 1968, he got the most votes in a few Southern states.

But this doesn't apply only at the presidential level. There's no electoral college for Congress or governorships; but all we got out it was Bernie Sanders and Jesse Ventura. How come it's a rarity for anyone but Republican or Democrat to ever win anything in the U.S. when Canada can manage an NDP and Britain can manage a LibDem party?

 

[Terrell]

I don't think it really matters whether or not Duverger was right when it comes to how the U.S. electoral system works, especially at the Presidential level. It's not first past the post in the popular vote, but first past the post in each state for it's electoral votes, and a requirement to reach a majority in the electoral college (270 EV) or the election is decided in the House of Representatives, by Democrats & Republicans. The last time a 3rd party candidate got even a single electoral vote was George Wallace in 1968, he got the most votes in a few Southern states.

But this doesn't apply only at the presidential level. There's no electoral college for Congress or governorships; but all we got out it was Bernie Sanders and Jesse Ventura. How come it's a rarity for anyone but Republican or Democrat to ever win anything in the U.S. when Canada can manage an NDP and Britain can manage a LibDem party?

I know that it doesn't, I mentioned the presidency because it's commonly the office that comes up in these debates here. The point of those of us who don't think it makes sense to vote 3rd party, in the United States is that they usually have no shot at winning. In a close election it may end up being more beneficial, or at least less detrimental to the policies you prefer if the major party candidate closer to your point of view wins, even if they aren't your first choice.

In Bernie's case I don't think that the Democrats run anyone against him, since there's virtually no chance whatsoever that he'll caucus with the Republicans in the Senate. Not splitting liberal votes between him and a Democrat in Vermont means that seat is much more likely to remain in control of someone who will caucus with the Democrats. A 3 way race may increase the possibility of a Republican senator from Vermont. A Republican Senator from Vermont is an almost sure vote for Mitch McConnell to be Majority Leader.

In Ventura's case I, can't say for sure, but I think it was a combination of name recognition, and that he was openly conservative on fiscal issues, and openly liberal on social issues.

Who controls the chamber determines whether or not a specific policy comes up in the first place. Personally I'm pro-choice on abortion, but I won't vote for a Republican politician for any legislative seat, even if he was pro choice, and the Democrat was pro-life. My reason for this is that a pro-choice Republican is still highly likely to vote for Republican control of the chamber, and the Republican leadership may not agree with the pro-choice Republican on this issue. (switch the parties for the pro-life Democrat). The possibility of voting 3rd party, may make it easier for the Republican to get that seat.

I think it's more complex than just the first past the post voting format when it comes to the other seats, but in a different way than the presidency. How control of the legislature is determined likely plays a part, and the political climate may as well. I don't know if that will change in the U.S. I'm not so sure that it can easily be summed up.

I suspect that there are other differences involved here, but I don't know the political landscape of the U.K. or Canada well enough to say for sure.

 

[untermensche]

It's total bullshit.

In the US the two parties work together, using the media, to exclude third parties.

Ralph Nader is excluded from the presidential debates. He is shunned by the media and his positions are not known.

But the media is used to ridicule his low poll numbers after it is used to assure they are low.

It can never be forgotten that the US corporate press is a major obstacle in the democratic process.

How should debate invitation be determined? There are several dozens of candidates from all sorts of third parties. Gain enough popularity (like Ross Perot) and they do get invited. It would not be productive to have several dozen people trying to debate.

The question you should be asking is who decides?

When did you give the Parties and the corporate media the power to decide?

I never did. I don't recall them ever holding an election where the people decided they should have this power.

 

[untermensche]

It's total bullshit.

In the US the two parties work together, using the media, to exclude third parties.

Ralph Nader is excluded from the presidential debates. He is shunned by the media and his positions are not known.

But the media is used to ridicule his low poll numbers after it is used to assure they are low.

It can never be forgotten that the US corporate press is a major obstacle in the democratic process.

You have to have some kind of funnel/filter system otherwise someone like you would waste everyones time. The primary point of this thread is that Duverger’s Law hast lost credibility. You skipped right over that and just went into a typical untermensche rant.

I didn't skip anything.

I tried to explain to those with brains that the Parties and the media work very hard to exclude a third party.

The fact that the US does not have a strong third or forth or fifth party is because of the work by the two parties in collusion with the media to crush any third party movement.

The Tea Party only has traction because it has billionaires supporting and promoting it.

 

[Axulus]

How should debate invitation be determined? There are several dozens of candidates from all sorts of third parties. Gain enough popularity (like Ross Perot) and they do get invited. It would not be productive to have several dozen people trying to debate.

The question you should be asking is who decides?

When did you give the Parties and the corporate media the power to decide?

I never did. I don't recall them ever holding an election where the people decided they should have this power.

Is Larry King not part of the corporate media? Is Carlos Slim, the richest person in Mexico, not part of the Oligarch? Larry King's network, funded by Carlos Slim, broadcasted a third party debate in 2012, moderated by Larry King himself. Did you miss it?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0vE5CTTSFI[/youtube]

 

[untermensche]

The question you should be asking is who decides?

When did you give the Parties and the corporate media the power to decide?

I never did. I don't recall them ever holding an election where the people decided they should have this power.

Is Larry King not part of the corporate media? Is Carlos Slim, the richest person in Mexico, not part of the Oligarch? Larry King's network, funded by Carlos Slim, broadcasted a third party debate in 2012, moderated by Larry King himself. Did you miss it?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0vE5CTTSFI[/youtube]

Total strawman.

Why waste my time?

Why are the Democrats and Republicans so special that the media covers them, even total idiots like Trump, 99% of the time?

Why is the media excluding other candidates and ideas 99% of the time?

 

[untermensche]

The question you should be asking is who decides?

When did you give the Parties and the corporate media the power to decide?

I never did. I don't recall them ever holding an election where the people decided they should have this power.

Is Larry King not part of the corporate media? Is Carlos Slim, the richest person in Mexico, not part of the Oligarch? Larry King's network, funded by Carlos Slim, broadcasted a third party debate in 2012, moderated by Larry King himself. Did you miss it?

What does 1% of total coverage tell us?

The media is filtering out ideas and filtering out alternatives.

Appearing once on Larry King is a drop in the ocean compared to how much coverage a complete idiot like GW Bush got.

Why the media fascination with GW Bush?

How does such an absurd situation arise? There isn't a person who's opinion is more ill informed yet his every utterance was transmitted by all the media as if it were manna from heaven.

If a person can't see this is Wonderland they have no eyes.

 

[Axulus]

Is Larry King not part of the corporate media? Is Carlos Slim, the richest person in Mexico, not part of the Oligarch? Larry King's network, funded by Carlos Slim, broadcasted a third party debate in 2012, moderated by Larry King himself. Did you miss it?

What does 1% of total coverage tell us?

The media is filtering out ideas and filtering out alternatives.

Appearing once on Larry King is a drop in the ocean compared to how much coverage a complete idiot like GW Bush got.

Why the media fascination with GW Bush?

How does such an absurd situation arise? There isn't a person who's opinion is more ill informed yet his every utterance was transmitted by all the media as if it were manna from heaven.

If a person can't see this is Wonderland they have no eyes.

Why the media fascination with Kim Kardashian? Why the media fascination with the NFL? People tune in and are entertained and like cheering for their team and booing the other team.

Don't let that fool you into believing that entertainment can't also inform:

“For almost five decades, studies have confirmed the power of presidential debates to increase voter knowledge, and 2008 was no exception,” they write. “The debates’ two-sided clash of competing ideas, unmediated by interpretation from reporters, spiked voter knowledge."

http://journalistsresource.org/stud...effects-research-roundup#sthash.5DMjdr0G.dpuf

 

[untermensche]

What does 1% of total coverage tell us?

The media is filtering out ideas and filtering out alternatives.

Appearing once on Larry King is a drop in the ocean compared to how much coverage a complete idiot like GW Bush got.

Why the media fascination with GW Bush?

How does such an absurd situation arise? There isn't a person who's opinion is more ill informed yet his every utterance was transmitted by all the media as if it were manna from heaven.

If a person can't see this is Wonderland they have no eyes.

Why the media fascination with Kim Kardashian? Why the media fascination with the NFL? People tune in and are entertained and like cheering for their team and booing the other team.

I tend to think there should be a difference in the way elections are covered and entertainment.

When elections are nothing but entertainment democracy is long lost.

 

[Axulus]

Why the media fascination with Kim Kardashian? Why the media fascination with the NFL? People tune in and are entertained and like cheering for their team and booing the other team.

I tend to think there should be a difference in the way elections are covered and entertainment.

When elections are nothing but entertainment democracy is long lost.

Where did I say it was _only_ entertainment? Something can be both entertaining AND informative.

Michael Moore's movies are entertaining to his target demographic and draw in much bigger numbers than your typical political documentary due to the entertainment factor (which incorporates a liberal dose of good story telling and humor). Would you also claim that his movies are only entertainment?

How do you think the success would compare to a dry documentary full of only statistics and facts and academic argumentation?

In fact, we should want the process to be entertaining if you want to draw in more people into the process. Hate it or not, but a significant portion of humans find politics otherwise boring and want to spend their free time being entertained. Those of us who participate on boards like this are a very tiny minority of the overall population.

 

[untermensche]

I tend to think there should be a difference in the way elections are covered and entertainment.

When elections are nothing but entertainment democracy is long lost.

Where did I say it was _only_ entertainment? Something can be both entertaining AND informative.

Michael Moore's movies are entertaining and draw in much bigger numbers due to the entertainment factor. Would you also claim that his movies are only entertainment?

Please try to tie this to what rational people would desire in coverage of elections.

It isn't 99% coverage of The Donald. It isn't an expose on his every fart.

 

[Axulus]

Where did I say it was _only_ entertainment? Something can be both entertaining AND informative.

Michael Moore's movies are entertaining and draw in much bigger numbers due to the entertainment factor. Would you also claim that his movies are only entertainment?

Please try to tie this to what rational people would desire in coverage of elections.

It isn't 99% coverage of The Donald. It isn't an expose on his every fart.

The Donald is drawing in lots of additional eyeballs compared to other political cycles. Remove the Donald from this election cycle and you don't suddenly have those eyeballs reading and watching other less entertaining political stories. You have them seeking other forms of entertainment instead.

The political junkies that exist still read and watch lots of other political stories that have nothing to do with the Donald. The presence of all these Donald stories doesn't make them stop seeking out other political stories of interest to them.

 

[untermensche]

Please try to tie this to what rational people would desire in coverage of elections.

It isn't 99% coverage of The Donald. It isn't an expose on his every fart.

The Donald is drawing in lots of additional eyeballs compared to other politicians. Remove the Donald from this election cycle and you don't suddenly have those eyeballs reading and watching other less entertaining political stories. You have them seeking other forms of entertainment instead.

The political junkies that exist still read and watch lots of political stories that have nothing to do with the Donald. The presence of all these Donald stories doesn't make them stop seeking out other political stories of interest to them.

Whatever excuses you want to apply it is still the media corrupting the process and excluding rational alternatives.

 

[Axulus]

The Donald is drawing in lots of additional eyeballs compared to other politicians. Remove the Donald from this election cycle and you don't suddenly have those eyeballs reading and watching other less entertaining political stories. You have them seeking other forms of entertainment instead.

The political junkies that exist still read and watch lots of political stories that have nothing to do with the Donald. The presence of all these Donald stories doesn't make them stop seeking out other political stories of interest to them.

Whatever excuses you want to apply it is still the media corrupting the process and excluding rational alternatives.

In what way does running stories that draw in the maximum number of eyeballs corrupt anything? In a free society, people want to watch, listen to and read what they want, and the media companies will provide.

Dominating TV, Donald Trump a ratings draw

Opinion polls are one thing, but Nielsen numbers speak more loudly to television executives: Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump's ability to pull in viewers makes him catnip for news programs and wins a level of coverage that feeds on itself.

NBC's "Meet the Press" had its biggest audience in more than a year for its Trump interview on Aug. 16, leading that show's biggest competitors — ABC's "This Week" and CBS' "Face the Nation" — to feature phone interviews with the New York businessman this past Sunday.

After CNN turned Jake Tapper's interview with Trump into a prime-time special last week and earned its best ratings at that hour in a month, the network repeated it two nights later. Two Trump interviews on Sean Hannity's Fox News Channel show this month both brought in around 2.2 million viewers, well above his typical audience.

Trump is generally considered the biggest reason why Fox reached a startling 24 million people for the first GOP presidential debate earlier this month — the most watched program in Fox News history. That instantly made him a big "get" for TV producers, and the media savvy ex-reality show host has eagerly played along.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a471...e74bd/dominating-tv-donald-trump-ratings-draw

In this day and age, there has never before been this many sources of news and political information available in the history of the world, accessible at any moment in nearly every home in the US.