Lynette Lewis
PL SC 150 – Hawkins
Blog 7 – Duverger’s Law
When
considering the electoral system of a state, one correlation between electoral
rules and effective number of parties is in Duverger’s law. This states that the effective number of
parties in any electoral district is a function of the electoral rules and
Single-member-district plurality rules produce two effective parties, while
proportional representation leads to more.
We can test this law by looking at the example of the United Kingdom to
see that this rule does not always hold true.
In the case
of the UK we see an example of a single-member-district plurality system
(Parline), which I will refer to as SMDP for the remainder of this paper. An SMDP system is an electoral system in
which “the state is divided into a set of districts, usually having roughly
equal populations. One representative is
elected from each district to be a member of the legislative body of the state,
and whoever gets a plurality of the votes wins the seat”(Shively, 231).
The House of Commons is selected by voting on
representatives from their 650 single-member constituencies (Parline). Generally, a first-past-the-post system is
found “in places that are, or once were, British colonies” (ERS), but two years
ago we saw a shift in the House of Commons.
After a vote in February 2010 the House of Commons now uses an
Alternative Votes System (Praline). This
system has “voters rank candidates
in order of preference. A candidate obtaining more than 50 percent of the first
choice votes is declared elected. If no candidate secures more than 50 percent
of the votes, the candidate with the fewest number of votes is eliminated and
voters' second choices are allocated to the remaining candidates. This process
continues until a winner emerges” (Praline).
While this system is less obvious than some to be an SMDP, it is a vote
based on districts to represent the people and the vote is similar to a
plurality.
If this law
holds true then because the UK has an SMDP system we should see two effective
parties. In the 2011 election we find
the Labour Party at the top with approximately 36% of the vote and Conservative
and Liberal Democrats receiving 52% of the remaining vote and the other 12%
being split between a large number of parties (Wikipedia¹). Based off the information on the past
election we can calculate the effective parties in the UK by finding the sum of
the percentage of seats in the house for each party squared, and take the
inverse. By doing this we find the UK to
have 3.7 effective parties. We also find
that there is no voter threshold as parties with as little as .1% may receive
some representation, like Independent-Sylvia Hermon who earned .1% of the vote
and received .2% of the seats (Wikipedia¹).
We may think that this exception to
Duverger’s law is due to the electoral system change in 2010, however the UK
has appeared to have 3 effective parties for a number of years. We can do the same calculation and find that
in the 2005 election there were 3.6 effective parties, based on election
results from that year (Wikipedia²).
Based on this information we can infer
that while Duverger’s Law may hold true most of the time, there is an exception
in the example of the United Kingdom, where despite being mainly an SMDP
electoral system there are more than two effective parties.
Works Cited
"IPU PARLINE
Database: UNITED KINGDOM (House of Commons)." IPU PARLINE Database: UNITED KINGDOM
(House of Commons). Inter-Parliamentary Union, 2009. Web. 2 Nov. 2012. <http://www.ipu.org/parline-e/reports/CtrlParlementaire/2336_F.htm>.
Shively, W.
Phillips. "Elections." Power and Choice: An
Introduction to Political Science. 13th ed. New York [etc.: McGraw-Hill, 1993.
230-31. Print.
“Voting Systems Made Simple: First-Past-the-Post.” Electoral Reform Society. n.d. Web. 02 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/first-past-the-post>.
¹Wikipedia Contributors. “United Kingdom General Election,
2005.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.
28 Oct 2012. Web. 2 Nov. 2012
²Wikipedia Contributors. “United Kingdom General Election,
2010.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.
28 Oct 2012. Web. 2 Nov. 2012
A really solid article. The level of research was impressive, though citing wikipedia is always accompanied by a bit of a wince. I would have liked some sort of graphical representation, and maybe a little more speculation on your part. Having established yourself as something of an authority thanks to all the research, you should use it and say something interesting! Why are they moving away from it?
ReplyDeleteAndrew Muhlestein