Are Structures The Only Factors In Shaping A Party System

Submitted By kylebtree
Words: 1165
Pages: 5
Open Document
1. Duverger's law and hypothesis clearly demonstrates how the type of party system a nation has is highly dependent upon the electoral rules that they follow. Explain both the law and the hypothesis. In addition to the simple distinction between PR and SMD systems, what other structural factors have demonstrable effects on a nation's party system? Are structures the only factors in shaping a party system? What other things have influence?
In democracies, there are commonly two different methods to elect legislature or parliament, which often results in who get to run the government as the executive branch (but not always, as seen in the US). The two ways are the single member district (SMD) aka plurality method and proportional representation. the French political scientist Maurice Duverger proposed a law and a hypothesis about the relationship between the number of parties in a country and its electoral system. The law was that ‘the simple majority, single ballot system favours the two-party system’; the hypothesis was that ‘both the simple-majority system with second ballot and proportional representation favour multi-partism’. The division of these two statements into one law and one hypothesis is due to Riker, who claims that the first is a generalization which can be backed by formal reasoning, whereas the second is an easily falsifiable contingent generalization about the cases actually studied by Duverger. The law is driven by the idea that in the long run rational politicians and voters will realize that it is hopeless to have more than two parties competing at national level. Although three parties may remain in contention for a few years, a party which begins to slide will rapidly disappear as everybody comes to realize that it will win no seats at all if its support is evenly dispersed. By contrast, the number of parties in a proportional electoral system may be determined more by social forces than by the system's opportunities to split without penalty: Austria and Germany are well-known examples of countries with PR but only three or four parties.

The reasoning behind Duverger's law seems good, so why has three-party competition been so hardy in Britain? Because the Liberals (now Liberal Democrats) have some local fortresses, they have never been entirely wiped out, so that votes for them are not always obviously wasted. A similar pattern of competition between two locally strong parties, which might be different parties in different parts of the country, persists in Canada. One view voiced by G. Tullock is that ‘Duverger's Law is true, but it may take 200 years to work itself out’.
The first one, SMD, is not too common among democracies, but it is present in big countries like the US, the UK and Canada. The essence of this method is that a country divides itself into several political districts, often referred to as constituencies, and then the inhabitants in each of the constituencies vote for the one they want to be represented by and the one who wins goes to the parliament/legislature. A person only need the most votes to win, not the majority of the votes.
For instance, person A could get 40% of the votes, person B 35% of the votes and person C the last 25% of the votes. Even though person A didn't get the majority of the votes, she got the plurality of the votes and therefore wins the election of that constituency. The other persons lose and get nothing. Thus this method is sometimes referred to as the "first-past-the-post" method. Person A wins even though the majority didn't want her to represent them, they wanted someone else to represent them. Not very democratic, is it? Also, the votes for person B and C get thrown away. This often results in that supporters of minority parties can't be bothered with voting in their constituencies when they know that their vote won't mean a thing. If party A consistently has won the election in a certain constituency, what is the point of voting for party B when
Show More

Related Documents: Are Structures The Only Factors In Shaping A Party System

Democracy In Athenian Democracy

Democracy: a government system designed so that the citizens can take part in the decisions being made in their nation. Oligarchy, the government system which Sparta favoured, meant power was limited to a small group of people and the citizens had little say. Athenian citizens wanted a say in events going on around them, so they created a system in which they did just that. The right to vote was limited to citizens, but any citizen had the ability to vote, as shown by this quotation. “Country gentlemen…

Words 272 - Pages 2

Democracy: Democracy and Ancient Greek Democracy Essay

Democracy has universal appeal. The principle that people should have a say about how they are being governed is one of the few stable features in a rapidly changing world.‟ Do you think this statement is accurate? Your answer must be supported by a clear and well researched justification. As a governing principle democracy encompasses the right to vote with that of an elective government, a vote by the people for the people. This thinking that a society can determine the way in which its governed…

Words 1898 - Pages 8

Essay Democracy and Modern Democracy

Lieberman 6864217 University of Ottawa January 30th 2013 Wikileaks: A Reformation of Modern Democracy Democracy, in theory, is quite straightforward and very effective. However, in practice democracy can become very complex and can be open to an array of interpretations and translations. Former President of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt, once declared a clear translation of democracy: “Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and…

Words 766 - Pages 4

Democracy Vs Athenian Democracy

Should the people rule? What is democracy? Democracy is a system of government by the whole parliament or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. I think that a democracy is a fair system of government because everyone has an equal say. What is the difference between Athens and Sparta? Sparta was an oligarchy with the ruling government being a military government, but Athens, on the other side of Greece, had a democratic government. I think that Athens…

Words 320 - Pages 2

Greek Democracy And Divisions In Greek Democracy

Greek democracy was able to co-exist with military needs and divisions in social class by their same ideas, the agreement on solutions for multiple situations, and learning from each other's decisions, choices, and even mistakes. The Greek democracy could help support the military needs or different social classes. They could set examples for them and teach them things from their own experience, and even vice versa. The exchanging of ideas really helped each other out multiple times depending on…

Words 625 - Pages 3

Democracy: Democracy and New Zealand Essay

What are the main features of a democracy? Explain why New Zealand is considerable to be a democracy? This essay will define democracy and identify its main features. It will then examine democracy practise in New Zealand against these features before reaching a conclusion that New Zealand is a democracy country. Democracy has been defined by Heywood “rule by the people”. He points out that this definition “implies both popular participation and government in the public interest and can take a wide…

Words 758 - Pages 4

Democracy: Democracy and United States Essay

Democracy in America Democracy is a unique type of government, and the purpose of this essay is to illustrate the strengths and weaknesses that a democratic government provides. I will detail that many components of this type of society are both strengths and weakness as each component has beneficial aspects as well as unavoidable pitfalls. A democracy is a government by the people, in which the power is vested in the people themselves. The people then elect representatives who conduct their power…

Words 2244 - Pages 9

Democracy: Ancient Rome and Democracy Essay

decision making procedures. Democracy is a type of a government in which people have the right to select their leaders and to grasp their leaders answerable for their plans and their behavior in office. The people choose who will epitomize them in the legislature, and who will head the administration at the countrywide and indigenous levels. They do so by selecting between contending parties in systematic, fair and open elections. The important role of people in a democracy is to contribute in the communal…

Words 514 - Pages 3

Comparison Of Direct Democracy And Representative Democracy

When it comes to democracy, there are three different approaches. A direct democracy allows for the people to vote on issues directly, whereas a representative democracy allows voters to elect officials to govern and pass laws. In a constitutional democracy, the government puts limits on those in power and the people’s voices are heard fairly through frequent election. In America, we use all three forms throughout both state and federal powers (Magleby, Light, Nemacheck, 2015). Most people recognize…

Words 268 - Pages 2

Difference Between Democracy And Jacksonian Democracy

There is a difference between Jackson the person and Jacksonian Democracy as an idea which was a feature in this era. Jackson set out his views for presidency in his inaugural address. He was a powerful, strong person and power hungry. He believed in the common man having more say in the government; therefore, he gave the people control over who gets elected to government offices. In every presidency, there are ups and downs, in Jackson’s, the Bank of the United States and the Indian Removal Act…

Words 882 - Pages 4