Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-19T22:41:14.883Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Duverger's Hypothesis, the Run-Off Rule, and Electoral Competition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Steven Callander
Steven Callander*
Affiliation:
Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208. e-mail: scal@kellogg.northwestern.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I analyze a model of electoral competition with entry under the run-off rule. I consider both two- and multiple-party systems. The principal result is that two-party systems may prove stable under the run-off rule: I show that a continuum of equilibria exists in which only two parties enter and subsequent entry is deterred. This finding conflicts with the accepted wisdom on the run-off rule encapsulated by Duverger's Hypothesis. The results of the model are then reconciled with Duverger's Hypothesis and a more precise formulation is proposed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , Summer 2005 , pp. 209 - 232
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology 

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

Adams, James. 2001. Party Competition and Responsible Party Government. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, and Nagler, Jonathan. 2000. “A New Approach for Modelling Strategic Voting in Multiparty Elections.” British Journal of Political Science 30: 57–75.Google Scholar
Aragones, Enriqueta, and Palfrey, Thomas R. 2004. “The Effect of Candidate Quality on Electoral Equilibrium: An Experimental Study.” American Political Science Review 98: 77–90.Google Scholar
Austen-Smith, David. 1981. “Party Policy and Campaign Costs in a Multi-Constituency Model Electoral Competition.” Public Choice 37: 389–402.Google Scholar
Austen-Smith, David. 1984. “Two-Party Competition with Many Constituencies.” Mathematical Social Sciences 7: 177–198.Google Scholar
Callander, Steven. 2001. “Voting and Electoral Competition.” PhD dissertation, California Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Callander, Steven. Forthcoming. “Electoral Competition in Heterogeneous Districts.” Journal of Political Economy.Google Scholar
Canon, Bradley C. 1978. “Factionalism in the South: A Test of Theory and a Revisitation of V.O. Key.” American Journal of Political Science 22: 833–848.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary. 1997. Making Votes Count. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Duverger, Maurice. 1954. Political Parties. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Feddersen, Timothy J., Sened, Itai, and Wright, Stephen G. 1990. “Rational Voting and Candidate Entry under Plurality Rule.” American Journal of Political Science 34: 1005–1016.Google Scholar
Fey, Mark. 1997. “Stability and Coordination in Duverger's Law: A Formal Model of Preelection Polls and Strategic Voting.” American Political Science Review 91: 135–147.Google Scholar
Goot, Murray. 2004. “Party Convergence Reconsidered.” Australian Journal of Political Science 39: 49–73.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph, and Shepsle, Kenneth. 1987. “The Effect of Electoral Rewards in Multiparty Competition with Entry.” American Political Science Review 81: 525–537.Google Scholar
Hinich, Melvin J., and Ordeshook, Peter C. 1974. “The Electoral College: A Spatial Analysis.” Political Methodology 1: 1–29.Google Scholar
Holcombe, A. N. 1911. “Direct Primaries and the Second Ballot.” American Political Science Review 5: 535–552.Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1994. Electoral Systems and Party Systems. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowell, A. L. 1896. Government and Politics in Continental Europe. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
McKelvey, Richard D., and Ordeshook, Peter C. 1985. “Elections with Limited Information: A Fulfilled Expectations Model Using Contemporaneous Poll and Endorsement Data as Information Sources.” Journal of Economic Theory 36: 55–85.Google Scholar
Morton, Rebecca B. 1993. “Incomplete Information and Ideological Explanations of Platform Divergence.” American Political Science Review 87: 382–392.Google Scholar
Morton, Rebecca B., and Rietz, Thomas A. 2004. “Majority Requirements and Voter Coordination.” Working paper.Google Scholar
Myerson, Roger B. 1993. “Incentives to Cultivate Favored Minorities under Alternative Electoral Systems.” American Political Science Review 87: 856–869.Google Scholar
Nanson, E. J. 1900. The Real Value of a Vote and How to Get It at the Coming Federal Elections. Melbourne, Australia: J. T. Picken.Google Scholar
Osborne, Martin J., and Slivinski, Al. 1996. “A Model of Political Competition with Citizen-Candidates.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 111: 65–96.Google Scholar
Palfrey, Thomas R. 1984. “Spatial Equilibrium with Entry.” Review of Economic Studies 51: 139–156.Google Scholar
Riker, William H. 1982. “The Two-Party System and Duverger's Law: An Essay on the History of Political Science.” American Political Science Review 76: 753–766.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, Joseph A., and Schlesinger, Mildred. 1990. “The Reaffirmation of a Multi-Party System in France.” American Political Science Review 84: 1077–1101.Google Scholar
Shugart, Matthew S., and Taagepera, Rein. 1994. “Plurality versus Majority Election of Presidents.” Comparative Political Studies 27: 323–348.Google Scholar
Shvetsova, Olga. 1995. Design of Political Institutions in Divided Societies. PhD dissertation, California Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Snyder, James M. 1994. “Safe Seats, Marginal Seats, and Party Platforms: The Logic of Platform Differentiation.” Economics and Politics 6: 201–213.Google Scholar
Snyder, James M., and Ting, Michael M. 2002. “An Informational Rationale for Political Parties.” American Journal of Political Science 46: 90–110.Google Scholar
Wright, Jack F. H. 1986. “Australian Experience with Majority-Preferential and Quota-Preferential Systems.” In Electoral Laws and their Political Consequences, eds. Grofman, Bernard and Lijphart, Arend. New York: Agathon Press.Google Scholar
Wright, Stephen G. Riker, William H. 1989. “Plurality and Runoff Systems and Numbers of Candidates.” Public Choice 60: 155–175.Google Scholar