The duopole is not a law of nature. It is a psychological effect that the DNC and Reps keep pushing, so you never dare to think outside that box. It is the same like with stock market hypes and crashes. Everybody keeps repeating how they think the system inadvertly works, even though it has not to. Everybody that is not a fascist genocidal mass murderer could agree on one third Party and kick the DNC and Reps asses. But thanks to people telling them it is impossible, you believe it to be impossible. You are gaslighting yourself thanks to your political leaders sucessfully gaslighting you.
This generation of Americans will go down in history with failures like Chamberlain and his appeasement policies. Sucking up to whoever they can, devoid of any will to improve things or demand dignity.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Man if only there was some alternative to the British Crown taking all the taxes in the Colonies and some sort of self determination for the people.
You have your souls crushed like the people in Sovjet Russia. The system has no alternative. Obey the system. Stop dreaming. Stop demanding a better future. The system has no alternative. Obey the system.
Oh, I’m sorry, here I didn’t realize “Don’t let fascism immediately win in this election because numerous possibilities and LIVES are extinguished by fascism” was the denial of all work towards other possibilities.
So what was the last election? And what was the election before that? This is the third time now i’m hearing. “This is the election where democracy is on the line. Otherwise we get fascism. Now is not the time to look outside the system…” And you will hear the exact same thing next election again. And then again and then again. All the while the DNC will move to whatever the Reps stood for the cycle before. Remember all the fuzz about Trumps Wall? Well Biden is building it. You think all the stuff about Trans people or the whole nonsense about furries or whatever will be exclusive to the Reps? The Dems will blow into the same horn in a few years, because enough of their white middle class voter base will have been eroded by their economic policies and need a scapegoat.
We see the same shit with “center” and “center left” all over the world becoming more and more fascist. And the Dems already started far right with some gay rights sprinkled in between. But please lets have the same argument in four years, with the goalposts being moved about what we should just accept as the “lesser” evil.
“This is the election where democracy is on the line. Otherwise we get fascism. Now is not the time to look outside the system…”
Yes, it turns out that if you don’t work on things between each election, you get the same issue that you had to deal with last election. But sure - vote in fascism this time! That way you won’t have to worry about having this little conundrum next election. :)
All the while the DNC will move to whatever the Reps stood for the cycle before.
Are you fucking serious.
Please compare the 2012 and 2024 Dem platforms, and get back to me.
Remember all the fuzz about Trumps Wall? Well Biden is building it.
lol
10$ says this is the “The money and legislation had already been pushed through but Biden didn’t use the power he didn’t have to unilaterally stop it” incident.
You think all the stuff about Trans people or the whole nonsense about furries or whatever will be exclusive to the Reps? The Dems will blow into the same horn in a few years, because enough of their white middle class voter base will have been eroded by their economic policies and need a scapegoat.
Do you…
do you not remember what the Dem Party was like on trans rights before the modern day
Fuck’s sake.
We see the same shit with “center” and “center left” all over the world becoming more and more fascist. And the Dems already started far right with some gay rights sprinkled in between. But please lets have the same argument in four years, with the goalposts being moved about what we should just accept as the “lesser” evil.
Cool. Your proposed solution, for this situation, right now, without resorting to “Everyone will magically convert to my ideology in the next six months”?
Cool. Your proposed solution, for this situation, right now, without resorting to “Everyone will magically convert to my ideology in the next six months”?
So you are saying, that the American people are by their heart genocidal mass murderers and colonialists, who enjoy not having healthcare and being crushed by rising costs of living while wages stagnate? That is what you are implying with claiming being against that is “ideological” and again you do exactly what the DNC, Reps and their rich “donors” aka corrupters want. You fight to maintain your own oppression instead of fighting against your oppressors.
I slightly misspoke, how certain voting systems devolve into lesser evil voting. FPTP always devolves a 2 party system but something like STV or Ranked Choice open up the field to many more options with little downside.
Everybody that is not a fascist genocidal mass murderer could agree on one third Party and kick the DNC and Reps asses.
Oh, was it that easy all along? Cool, which third party are Democrats and Republicans going to agree on? After all, the voters secretly agree on all the issues, it’s just the mean ol’ representatives stopping us from coming together and singing kumbaya. 😊
“duopoly is not a law of nature”, is very, very incorrect. It is simply human nature. Market at work. Same Reason there are two “sodas” in any given area with anything else an also ran. Two big players. Just how it works when unregulated.
Voting third party also denies the reality of Fitrst Past the Post, and perpetual and well documented trend and reinforcement of duopolies.
Panel 2 appears to be a third party voter.
The duopole is not a law of nature. It is a psychological effect that the DNC and Reps keep pushing, so you never dare to think outside that box. It is the same like with stock market hypes and crashes. Everybody keeps repeating how they think the system inadvertly works, even though it has not to. Everybody that is not a fascist genocidal mass murderer could agree on one third Party and kick the DNC and Reps asses. But thanks to people telling them it is impossible, you believe it to be impossible. You are gaslighting yourself thanks to your political leaders sucessfully gaslighting you.
This generation of Americans will go down in history with failures like Chamberlain and his appeasement policies. Sucking up to whoever they can, devoid of any will to improve things or demand dignity.
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
Science is a liberal lie, True Leftists™ only trust their GUT.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
you don’t seem to understand that the problem is that the rule is immune to counterexamples. it’s storytelling.
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
Man if only there was some alternative to the British Crown taking all the taxes in the Colonies and some sort of self determination for the people.
You have your souls crushed like the people in Sovjet Russia. The system has no alternative. Obey the system. Stop dreaming. Stop demanding a better future. The system has no alternative. Obey the system.
Oh, I’m sorry, here I didn’t realize “Don’t let fascism immediately win in this election because numerous possibilities and LIVES are extinguished by fascism” was the denial of all work towards other possibilities.
So what was the last election? And what was the election before that? This is the third time now i’m hearing. “This is the election where democracy is on the line. Otherwise we get fascism. Now is not the time to look outside the system…” And you will hear the exact same thing next election again. And then again and then again. All the while the DNC will move to whatever the Reps stood for the cycle before. Remember all the fuzz about Trumps Wall? Well Biden is building it. You think all the stuff about Trans people or the whole nonsense about furries or whatever will be exclusive to the Reps? The Dems will blow into the same horn in a few years, because enough of their white middle class voter base will have been eroded by their economic policies and need a scapegoat.
We see the same shit with “center” and “center left” all over the world becoming more and more fascist. And the Dems already started far right with some gay rights sprinkled in between. But please lets have the same argument in four years, with the goalposts being moved about what we should just accept as the “lesser” evil.
Yes, it turns out that if you don’t work on things between each election, you get the same issue that you had to deal with last election. But sure - vote in fascism this time! That way you won’t have to worry about having this little conundrum next election. :)
Are you fucking serious.
Please compare the 2012 and 2024 Dem platforms, and get back to me.
lol
10$ says this is the “The money and legislation had already been pushed through but Biden didn’t use the power he didn’t have to unilaterally stop it” incident.
Do you…
do you not remember what the Dem Party was like on trans rights before the modern day
Fuck’s sake.
Cool. Your proposed solution, for this situation, right now, without resorting to “Everyone will magically convert to my ideology in the next six months”?
So you are saying, that the American people are by their heart genocidal mass murderers and colonialists, who enjoy not having healthcare and being crushed by rising costs of living while wages stagnate? That is what you are implying with claiming being against that is “ideological” and again you do exactly what the DNC, Reps and their rich “donors” aka corrupters want. You fight to maintain your own oppression instead of fighting against your oppressors.
I slightly misspoke, how certain voting systems devolve into lesser evil voting. FPTP always devolves a 2 party system but something like STV or Ranked Choice open up the field to many more options with little downside.
Oh, was it that easy all along? Cool, which third party are Democrats and Republicans going to agree on? After all, the voters secretly agree on all the issues, it’s just the mean ol’ representatives stopping us from coming together and singing kumbaya. 😊
“duopoly is not a law of nature”, is very, very incorrect. It is simply human nature. Market at work. Same Reason there are two “sodas” in any given area with anything else an also ran. Two big players. Just how it works when unregulated.
And the FPTP system is a law of nature? God decided in the US there can only be FPTP, while other countries have different voting systems?