Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:52:33.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Updating Duverger's Law*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2009

W. M. Dobell
W. M. Dobell
Affiliation:
University of Western Ontario
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This note traces the reasoning behind Riker's addenda to Duverger's law, which exempts Canada and India from its general determinism. Characteristics common to Canada and India, but not to other countries using the plurality electoral system, are examined. The study finds that the uniqueness of those two federal nations employing the simple-majority system lies in the dominance of one national party, the weakness of the conventional alternative governing party, and the persistence of ideological parties of the left.

Résumé

Cette note fait ressortir la logique qui amène Riker à reformuler la loi de Duverger en excluant du déterminisme de cette dernière le Canada et l'Inde. On examine ici les particularités communes à ces deux pays par rapport aux autres pays qui utilisent un système électoral avec scrutin uninominal. L'auteur estime que ces deux fédérations où l'on a adopté un système fondé sur la majorité relative des votes se distinguent des autres par la prépondérance d'un parti « national », la faiblesse de l'autre « grand » parti traditionnel et la persistance de partis idéologiques de gauche.

Type
Notes
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , September 1986 , pp. 585 - 595
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Weiner, Myron, India at the Polls, 1980 (Washington: American Enterprise Institute, 1983), 146Google Scholar.

2 Butler, David, Penniman, H. R. and Ranney, Austin (eds.), Democracy at the Polls (Washington: American Enterprise Institute, 1981), 3Google Scholar.

3 Riker, William H., “The Two-party System and Duverger's Law,” American Political Science Review 76 (1982), 753–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Duverger, Maurice, Political Parties, trans, by B. and R. North (London: Methuen, 1954), 217Google Scholar.

5 Ibid., 223.

6 Duverger, Maurice. Political Parties, trans, by B. and R. North (rev. ed.: London: Methuen, 1964), 223Google Scholar.

7 Rae, Douglas W., The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws (rev. ed.; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971), 94Google Scholar.

8 Rae, , The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws, 95Google Scholar.

9 Riker, William H., “The Future of the Science of Politics,” American Behavioral Scientist 12 (1977), 26Google Scholar.

10 Spafford, Duff, “Electoral Systems and Voters’ Behavior,” Comparative Politics 5 (1972), 129–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Riker, William H., “The Number of Political Parties,” Comparative Politics 9 (1976), 94CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Tufte, E. R., “The Relation Between Seats and Votes in Two-party Systems,” American Political Science Review 67 (1973), 540–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 J. Sprague, “On Duverger's Sociological Law: The Connection Between Electoral Laws and Party Systems,” Washington University, St. Louis, 1980, Political Science Paper No. 48, 1–36.

14 Riker, , “The Two-party System and Duverger's Law,” 761–62Google Scholar.

15 Black, Jerome H., “The Multicandidate Calculus of Voting: Application to Canadian Federal Elections,” American Journal of Political Science 22 (1978), 609–38;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and “The Probability-Choice Perspective in Voter Decision Making Models,” Public Choice 35 (1980), 565–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Riker, , “The Two-party System and Duverger's Law,” 764Google Scholar.

17 Weiner, Myron, Party Politics in India (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957), 262CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Riker, , “The Number of Political Parties,” 105Google Scholar.

19 Ibid., 104–05.

20 Riker, , “The Future of the Science of Politics,” 26Google Scholar.

21 Riker, , “The Two-party System and Duverger's Law,” 761Google Scholar.

22 The Quebec members of the Social Credit Party of Canada comprised 26 of the 265 MPs elected in 1962. In September 1963 the Quebec wing withdrew from the national party and called itself the Ralliement des Créditistes.

23 In 1967 there were 25 members elected by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, three by Akali Dal and three by the Muslim League. Ignoring independents and parties returning only one member, this comprises 31 seats in a Lok Sabha of 520. The addition of the 35 Jan Sangh members would bring the total to 66 seats, somewhat over the 10 per cent figure. Since India is an overwhelmingly Hindu nation, albeit officially secular, it would seem inappropriate to treat Jan Sangh as an expression of pluralism.

24 Riker, William H., The Theory of Political Coalitions (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962), 185Google Scholar.

25 Goyal, O. P., “Politics of Consensus, Counter Consensus and Ideological Continuum,” in S. C. Kashyap (ed.), Indian Parties and Politics (Delhi: Institute of Constitutional and Parliamentary Studies, 1972), 79Google Scholar.

26 Riker, , “The Number of Political Parties,” 93–106Google Scholar.

27 Swatantra won 44 seats and became the official opposition, but was relatively unsuccessful in coalition-building.

28 Congress (0) (the opponents of Mrs. Gandhi), Jan Sangh, Swatantra and Bharatiya Lok Dal ran on a co-operative programme and became the official opposition with 53 seats.

29 The electoral alliance known as the Janata party formed the government with 298 seats.

30 Bharatiya Lok Dal left Janata and became the official opposition with 41 seats. Janata was reduced to 31 seats.

31 Krishna, G., “One Party Dominance—Development and Trends,” Party Systems and Election Studies (New Delhi: Allied Publishers, for the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, 1967), 54Google Scholar.

32 Riker, , “The Two-party System and Duverger's Law,” 761Google Scholar.

33 Congress had greater success in straight fights than in multiple-candidacy contests in the first four general elections, though not in 1971. For a discussion of the Splinter Factor, the effect of the number of candidates in a constituency on the prospects of the Congress candidate, see Palmer, Norman D., Elections and Political Development: The South Asian Experience (Durham: Duke University Press, 1975), 40–42Google Scholar.

34 1957–1963 and 1979–1980.

35 A majority in 1940, pluralities in 1935, 1945, 1949, 1953, 1957, 1963, 1965, 1968, 1972, 1974, 1979, 1980, and second place in 1958 and 1962. On the two occasions it lost power, 1957 and 1979, it enjoyed a plurality in the popular vote of 2 and 4 per cent, respectively, despite its loss of seats.

36 38.9 per cent in 1957, 37.3 per cent in 1962, 35 per cent in 1972, 35.4 per cent in 1974, 35.9 percent in 1979.

37 Pinard, Maurice, The Rise of a Third Party (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1971), 64Google Scholar.

38 Venkatarangaiya, M., “The Impact of Political Partieson Indian Federalism,” Indian Parties and Politics (Delhi: Research Publications for Institute of Constitutional and Parliamentary Studies, 1972), 25–35Google Scholar.

39 Riker, William H., Federalism: Origin, Operation, Significance (Boston: Little, Brown, 1964), 113–14Google Scholar.

40 Note Palmer's reserved comment about “politics where non-political factors and considerations seem to be so important” (Palmer, Elections and Political Development, 306, footnote 7).

41 Riker, , “The Two-party System and Duverger's Law,” 762Google Scholar.

42 Pammett, Jon H., LeDuc, Lawrence, Jenson, Jane and Clarke, Harold D., “The Perceptions and Impact of Issues in the 1974 Federal Election,” this JOURNAL 10 (1977), 93–126Google Scholar.

43 A Social Credit provincial premier advocated a new national party of the right, in effect a Progressive Conservative-Social Credit merger. See Manning, E. C., Political Realignment: A Challenge to Thoughtful Canadians (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1967)Google Scholar.