• Fedizen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    It should be pointed out Duverger’s law really only applies to the US because the electoral college system make it fragile to third parties. Many countries with FPTP still have large 3rd parties (such as Canada)

    • drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      It’s the combination of FPTP voting and the presidential government structure.

      In a parliamentary system third parties are more viable because they can act as “king maker” to one of the two larger parties.

      Of course a proportional voting system like STV is even better for party diversity.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Many countries with FPTP still have large 3rd parties

      The “law” says that 2 main parties tend to emerge. In Canada only once has the prime minister ever come from a party other than the Liberals or the Conservatives. That was in 1917 when the main issue was conscription, and the pro-conscription “Union” party won over the anti-conscription Liberals. It’s pretty clear that in Canadian politics there are 2 main parties, and a few other parties that cling to survival.

      Occasionally one of the parties ends up imploding, but Duverger’s Law is so strong that normally it’s only a short time before the duopoly is re-established. In Canada, Brian Mulroney and his party were so unpopular that it caused the Reform Party to form from disaffected conservatives. That meant that in the 1993 election the “Progressive Conservative” party managed only 2 seats in the federal election. But, 10 years later, the rift was healed and once again the Conservative party was the main opposition. Then the Liberals self-destructed and very briefly the NDP was the official opposition, but a few years later Justin Trudeau took the Liberals to a huge victory.

      Sure, it’s better to have a third party with a few seats than it is to have no third party at all. But, I’d hardly say that events in Canada disprove Duverger’s law. In fact, they tend to support it. In more than 150 years, despite everything, the two main parties are essentially the two main parties from 150 years ago.

      • Fedizen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Canada disproves Duverger’s outright. The law doesn’t say ‘there will only be two parties that negotiate a PM position’. The 3 parties of canada all have regional strongholds and a variety of powerful positions.

        • Auli@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          The only powerful position the NDP had was since the last election when they had to form a minority government. Other then they even the opposition has no power.

        • merc@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          The only powerful position in a parliamentary system is to be in the party in power. No third party has ever been in power. At best, they’ve been a part of a minority coalition, and even those are relatively rare. Canada definitely supports Duverger’s law.