Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T04:05:22.551Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Two-party System and Duverger's Law: An Essay on the History of Political Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 1982

William H. Riker
William H. Riker*
Affiliation:
University of Rochester
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Science involves the accumulation of knowledge, which means not only the formulation of new sentences about discoveries but also the reformulation of empirically falsified or theoretically discredited old sentences. Science has therefore a history that is mainly a chronicle and interpretation of a series of reformulations. It is often asserted that political science has no history. Although this assertion is perhaps motivated by a desire to identify politics with belles lettres, it may also have a reasonable foundation, in that political institutions may change faster than knowledge can be accumulated. To investigate whether propositions about evanescent institutions can be scientifically falsified and reformulated, I examine in this essay the history of the recent and not wholly accepted revisions of the propositions collectively called Duverger's law: that the plurality rule for selecting the winner of elections favors the two-party system. The body of the essay presents the discovery, revision, testing, and reformulation of sentences in this series in order to demonstrate that in at least one instance in political science, knowledge has been accumulated and a history exists.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 76 , Issue 4 , December 1982 , pp. 753 - 766
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1982

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

Aldrich, J. H. 1976. Some problems in testing two rational models of participation. American Journal of Political Science 20:713–33.10.2307/2110568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashworth, T. R., and Ashworth, H. P. C. 1901. Proportional representation applied to party government: a new electoral system. London: Swan Sonnenschein.Google Scholar
Beck, N. 1975. The paradox of minimax regret. American Political Science Review 69:918.10.2307/1958403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bensel, R. F., and Sanders, E. 1979. The effect of electoral rules on voting behavior: the electoral college and shift voting. Public Choice 34:69–85.10.1007/BF00125754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, J. H. 1978. The multicandidate calculus of voting: application to Canadian federal elections. American Journal of Political Science 22:609–38.10.2307/2110464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, J. H. 1980. The probability-choice perspective in voter decision making models. Public Choice 35: 565–74.10.1007/BF00140086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cain, B. E. 1978. Strategic voting in Britain. American Journal of Political Science 22:639–55.10.2307/2110465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canon, B. C. 1978. Factionalism in the South: a test of theory and a revisitation of V. O. Key. American Journal of Political Science 22:833–48.10.2307/2110593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstairs, A. M. 1980. A short history of electoral systems in Western Europe. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Downs, A. 1957. An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper & Bros.Google Scholar
Droop, H. R. 1871. On the political and social effects of different methods of electing representatives. Papers, 1863–70. London: Juridical Society, 3: 469–507.Google Scholar
Droop, H. R. 1881. On methods of electing representatives. Journal of the Statistical Society 44:2.Google Scholar
Duverger, M. 1963. Political parties: their organization and activity in the modern state, North, B. and North, R., tr. New York: Wiley, Science Ed.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, J. A., and Fiorina, M. P. 1974. The paradox of not voting: a decision theoretic analysis. American Political Science Review 68:525–36.10.2307/1959502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferejohn, J. A. 1975. Closeness counts only in horseshoes and dancing. American Political Science Review 69: 920–25.10.2307/1958405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finer, H. 1924, Rev. 1935. The case against proportional representation, Fabian Tract No. 211. London: Fabian Society.Google Scholar
Fisher, S. L. 1974. A test of Anthony Downs' wasted vote thesis: West German evidence. Unpublished paper prepared for the Public Choice Society, New Haven, Conn.10.2307/421245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedrich, C. J. 1937. Constitutional government and politics: nature and development. New York: Harper & Bros.Google Scholar
Grumm, J. 1958. Theories of electoral systems. Midwest Journal of Political Science 2:357–76.10.2307/2108721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansard's, Parliamentary Debates, Third Series 1867, 1885. vol. 188, 294.Google Scholar
Hare, T. 1859. The election of representatives, parliamentary and municipal. London: Longmans Green.Google Scholar
Hermens, F. 1941. Democracy or anarchy: a study of proportional representation. Notre Dame, Indiana: Review of Politics.Google Scholar
Holcombe, A. 1911. Direct primaries and the second ballot. American Political Science Review 5:535–52.10.2307/1945022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, R. S. 1980. A theory of parties and electoral systems. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Key, V. O. Jr. 1949. Southern politics. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions; 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lemieux, P. 1977. The liberal party and British political change: 1955–1974. Ph.D. dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Leys, C. 1959. Models, theories, and the theory of political parties. Political Studies 8:127–46.10.1111/j.1467-9248.1959.tb01896.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowell, A. L. 1896. Government and politics of continental Europe, 2 vols. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
MacDonald, J. R. 1909. Socialism and government. London: Independent Labour Party.Google Scholar
MacMahon, A. W. 1933. Political parties, United States. Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, ed. Johnson, A., 6:596–601. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Mayer, L. and Good, I. J. 1975. Is minimax regret applicable to voting decision? American Political Science Review 69:916–17.10.2307/1958402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meehl, P. E. 1977. The selfish voter paradox and the thrown-away vote argument. American Political Science Review 61:11–30.10.2307/1956951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellen, S. L. W. 1943. The German people and the post-war world. American Political Science Review 37:607–25.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. 1861. Considerations on representative government. In Utilitarianism, liberty, and representative government, ed. Lindsay, A. D.. London: J. M. Dent (Everyman Ed. 1910).Google Scholar
Munro, W. B. 1919. The government of the United States. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Nanson, E. J. 1882. Transactions, Melbourne: Proceedings of Royal Society of Victoria. 19:197–240.Google Scholar
O'Leary, C. 1961. The Irish Republic and its experiment with proportional representation. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
O'Leary, C. 1979. Irish elections 1918–77: parties, voters and proportional representation. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Ostrogorski, M. 1908. Democracy and the organization of political parties, 2 vols. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Polyzoides, A. 1927. Greece's experiment with proportional representation. American Political Science Review 21:123–28.10.2307/1945544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. 1963. Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge. London: Routledge and Paul.Google Scholar
Rae, D. W. 1971. The political consequences of electoral laws, rev. ed. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Riker, W. H. 1976. The number of political parties: a reexamination of Duverger's law. Comparative Politics 9:93–106.10.2307/421293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riker, W. H. 1977. The future of a science of politics. American Behavioral Scientist 21:11–38.10.1177/000276427702100102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riker, W. H. and Ordeshook, P. C. 1968. A theory of the calculus of voting. American Political Science Review 62:25–42.10.2307/1953324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royal Commission Appointed to Enquire into Electoral Systems. 1910. Report. London.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, E. E. 1942. Party government. New York: Farrar and Rinehart.Google Scholar
Shively, W. P. 1970. The elusive psychological factor: a test for the impact of electoral systems on voters' behavior. Comparative Politics 3:115–25.10.2307/421504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spafford, D. 1972. Electoral systems and voters' behavior: comment and a further test. Comparative Politics 5:129–34.10.2307/421357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprague, J. 1980. On Duverger's sociological law: the connection between electoral laws and party systems. Political Science Paper No. 48. Xeroxed. St. Louis: Washington University.Google Scholar
Tufte, E. R. 1973. The relation between seats and votes in two-party systems. American Political Science Review 67:540–54.10.2307/1958782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiner, M. 1957. Party politics in India: the development of a multiparty system. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400878413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. F. 1918. The reform of representation. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.