the claim that fptp must force a two-party frame ignores the persistent reality of canada, india, the united kingdom, belgium before 1899, botswana, and papua new guinea. these nations maintain multi-party systems despite winner-take-all rules, proving that social cleavages and regional identity can easily override the supposed mechanical pressure of the ballot box.
i know what duverger’s law actually says. duverger’s law is a hollow tautology because it defines “success” by the very outcome it predicts; it survives only by dismissing every counter-example as an “incomplete transition” or a “hidden coalition.” if a law is unfalsifiable and relies on shifting definitions of significance to remain true, it explains everything while revealing nothing.
duverger’s law doesn’t say fptp causes a two party system to emerge, and if it did, it would be easy to disprove by pointing at any fptp system with more than two parties.
Duverger’s law holds that in political systems with single-member districts and the first-past-the-post voting system, as in, for example, the United States and United Kingdom, only two powerful political parties tend to control power.
Point to a single member district, FPTP system with more than two parties that hold any significant number of seats.
more than two parties that hold any significant number of seats.
duverger’s law doesn’t say anything about a significant number of seats. you’re setting up a no true scotsman, but i know of a half a dozen places that fit your demands. if you don’t, it’s likely because you havent even looked.
Removed by mod
the claim that fptp must force a two-party frame ignores the persistent reality of canada, india, the united kingdom, belgium before 1899, botswana, and papua new guinea. these nations maintain multi-party systems despite winner-take-all rules, proving that social cleavages and regional identity can easily override the supposed mechanical pressure of the ballot box.
i know what duverger’s law actually says. duverger’s law is a hollow tautology because it defines “success” by the very outcome it predicts; it survives only by dismissing every counter-example as an “incomplete transition” or a “hidden coalition.” if a law is unfalsifiable and relies on shifting definitions of significance to remain true, it explains everything while revealing nothing.
So it’s only by overcoming Duverger’s law that they manage to do so.
It’s like saying rockets disprove gravity.
no, it proves that ducergers law is not actually predictive
Removed by mod
that’s just not true
Care to provide any reasoning besides “Nuh-uh”?
I’ve provided exactly as much evidence as you
When did you provide a well-established and consistently observed political science phenomenon?
duverger’s law doesn’t say fptp causes a two party system to emerge, and if it did, it would be easy to disprove by pointing at any fptp system with more than two parties.
Point to a single member district, FPTP system with more than two parties that hold any significant number of seats.
duverger’s law doesn’t say anything about a significant number of seats. you’re setting up a no true scotsman, but i know of a half a dozen places that fit your demands. if you don’t, it’s likely because you havent even looked.
That’s what “tend to control power” means. 1-2% of representatives being third party does not negate the overall trend.
If you can’t provide an example, why are you bothering?