Math setting realistic expectations and providing a ray of hope in the two-party system
As a swing state, Georgians know very well the entrenched voting battle that is our two-party system. Aside from the anomalous example of Ross Perot in the 90s, third party votes are extremely rare. When we consider the amount of “choice” we have, many of us feel our democracy is a bit bleak, even when we are casting our ballots. Such disillusionment appears to be a factor that is driving young voters away from the polls.
A piece of frequently repeated advice regarding voting outside of the two reigning parties has been that you would be “throwing your vote away”. This means that, knowing that a third-party candidate is so unlikely to win, a vote for them is considered a missed opportunity to indicate which of the two-party candidates you prefer. Or in some cases, this is a missed opportunity to prevent a feared candidate from taking office. And as a result, many complain of feeling stuck with repeatedly “voting for the lesser of two evils”, which is not an inspiring thought. Hence, disillusionment.
Strategic Voting
This whole mindset is called strategic voting. It means voting based on knowledge of who is most likely to win from last time. And the political parties are the way that this memory is carried from one election to the next, bestowing the chosen next party candidates with what feels like an instant 50-50 shot at winning. Just imagine how different the voting decision might feel next time if these parties were gone, and all the candidates hadn’t run before. Imagine everyone choosing based purely on what they really want.
Voting as IF/THEN Statement
Unfortunately, strategic voting isn’t a myth we are tricked by, but a real effect arising from pure mathematics itself. Duverger’s law essentially is an IF THEN statement.
IF
The IF is the conditions under which Duverger’s law holds. These conditions are essentially that IF the election system is electing a single leader, and that each of us gets to cast a single vote, and that each of us only writes down one name, and that vote indicates no further information about our preferences.
THEN
The THEN statement is that the vast majority of votes will eventually be repeatedly given to just two parties. And that mathematically we will be unable to escape those parties through conventional voting. Mathematically it seems that we, the voters, are unable to have enough harmony, coordination, and trust to synchronize and break free of the two parties and give any third party a chance of winning.
So IF we have a simple voting system like that in the US presidency, THEN we will be stuck with two parties which can essentially do whatever they want. And we will not be able to escape them.
The strategic voting advice is true, because we all tend to do it.
Even in the anomalous case of Ross Perot, his support didn’t last. This exhibits the other side of Duverger’s law: in which even without strategic voting, another effect can keep us stuck with these two parties. For ease, let’s call this effect “strategic campaigning”. Essentially, the candidates running can either shift their platforms to outmaneuver their most popular competitors, or they can exert pressure on one another to drop out of the race and effectively consolidate voter groups. These familiar sounding factors also tend to preserve our two-party systems.
Should we Give Up?
Of course not. There are many ways out of Duverger’s law:
- Change the voting systems. While you may have harsh opinions about the electoral college, the bigger issue according to Duverger’s law is that each of us is only able to indicate a single candidate preference on our ballots. Ranked choice voting represents the most obvious way out of this. Read about it here.
- Ban or limit political parties and the structures that fund them. These parties are the way our election system holds the memory of previous success that guides our strategic voting.
- Change the very structure of the government. It is known that third party candidates appear to do better in parliamentary systems where the overall leader is elected indirectly by the elected representatives. Proportional representation systems also allow for votes to not be “wasted”. It is unclear how much these options increase the level of choice we have, as entrenched hierarchies with two parties at the top, still tend to form.
Option one appears to have the greatest chance for impact, coupled with the least upheaval in the system.
Assumptions
It is also important to notice that Duverger’s law may be proved mathematically, but that mathematical proof requires assumptions. These assumptions are quite general, and so the proof still holds power. However, humans are much more complex and diverse than any simplified model. Some suggestive possibilities include:
- A charismatic individual. The most likely third-party candidates who could break Duverger’s law capture something that both candidates are missing. Some level of popular resonance that can leap outside of our worries about the likely party winners and push a social trend of popularity. This is hard, but apparently not accounted for, in the mathematical proofs.
- Even when third party votes haven’t got a chance of influencing the winner, they can influence future elections. While it may seem painful, the voters may use the abandonment of a party to make a statement in the hopes of influencing future “strategic campaigning”. This strategy appears to be supported by math and also the phenomenon of Ross Perot, whose surprising voter turnout influenced future campaigns. However, how far this pressure can take us is unclear.
- Societal collapse, violent revolution, and civil war are also not accounted for in the mathematical proofs. Which is okay. We don’t want that to happen.
Make an Impact: Vote Local
Don’t forget, Duverger’s law holds most strongly in the largest voting races. Therefore, the phrase “all politics is local” is very relevant here. Your local elections are both only underappreciated avenues of democracy but also the best routes to effect real change.