Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-mwwwr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-03T16:16:39.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stability and Coordination in Duverger's Law: A Formal Model of Preelection Polls and Strategic Voting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Mark Fey
Mark Fey*
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper investigates the dynamics of the “wasted vote” phenomenon and Duverger's Law. I construct a theoretical model in order to consider how preelection polls serve to inform the electorate about the relative chances of the candidates and how that information acts over time to decrease the support of the trailing candidate. The results shed light on how public opinion polls can aggregate information in the electorate and coordinate voters on the viable candidates in the election. Specifically, I show that in a Bayesian game model of strategic voting there exist non-Duvergerian equilibria in which all three candidates receive votes (in the limit). These equilibria require extreme coordination, however, and any variation in beliefs leads voters away from them to one of the Duvergerian equilibria. Thus, non-Duvergerian equilibria are unstable, while two-party equilibria are not. In addition, I describe how preelection polls provide information to voters about the viability of candidates and can thus be used by voters to coordinate on a Duvergerian outcome.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 91 , Issue 1 , March 1997 , pp. 135 - 147
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1997

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Abramson, Paul R., Aldrich, John H., Paolino, Phil, and Rohde, David W.. 1995. “Third-Party and Independent Candidates in American Politics: Wallace, Anderson, and Perot.” Political Science Quarterly 110 (3):349–67.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John H. 1980. Before the Convention: Strategies and Choices in Presidential Nomination Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Argersinger, Peter H. 1980. “‘A Place on the Ballot’: Fusion Politics and Antifusion Laws.” American Historical Review 85 (04): 287–306.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1988. Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Black, Jerome H. 1978. “The Multicandidate Calculus of Voting: Application to Canadian Federal Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 22 (08):609–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, Henry. 1996. “Knowledge, Strategy, and Momentum in Presidential Primaries.” Political Analysis 5:1–38.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W. 1987. “Duverger's Law and Strategic Voting.” University of Texas. Typescript.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W. 1991. “Duverger's Law: An Interpretive Review of Research.” University of California, San Diego. Typescript.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W. 1994. “Strategic Voting Equilibria under the Single Non-Transferable Vote.” American Political Science Review 88 (09):608–21.Google Scholar
Cukierman, Alex. 1991. “Asymmetric Information and the Electoral Momentum of Public Opinion Polls.” Public Choice 70 (05): 181–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Duverger, Maurice. 1954. Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. Trans. Barbara, and North, Robert. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Duverger, Maurice. 1986. “Duverger's Law: Forty Years Later.” In Electoral Laws and Their Political Consequences, ed. Grofman, Bernard and Lijphart, Arend. New York: Agathon Press. Pp. 69–84.Google Scholar
Feddersen, Timothy J. 1992. “A Voting Model Implying Duverger's Law and Positive Turnout.” American Journal of Political Science 36 (4):938–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fey, Mark. 1995. “Information, Polls, and Campaign Dynamics in Multicandidate Elections.” Princeton University. Typescript.Google Scholar
Forsythe, Robert, Myerson, Roger B., Rietz, Thomas A., and Weber, Robert J.. 1993. “An Experiment on Coordination in Multicandidate Elections: The Importance of Polls and Election Histories.” Social Choice and Welfare 10 (07):223–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutowski, William E., and Georges, John P.. 1993. “Optimal Sophisticated Voting Strategies in Single Ballot Elections Involving Three Candidates.” Public Choice 11 (10):225–47.Google Scholar
Harsanyi, John C. 1967–1968. “Games of Incomplete Information Played by Bayesian Players, Parts (I, II, and III).” Management Science 14 (11): 159–82, (January): 320–34, (March): 486–502.Google Scholar
Ledyard, John O. 1984. “The Pure Theory of Large Two Candidate Elections.” Public Choice 44 (1):7–41.Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1994. Electoral Systems and Party Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McKelvey, Richard D., and Ordeshook, Peter C.. 1972. “A General Theory of the Calculus of Voting.” In Mathematical Applications in Political Science, ed. Herndon, J. F. and Bernd, J. L.. Vol. 6. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.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 (06):55–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myerson, Roger B., and Weber, Robert J.. 1993. “A Theory of Voting Equilibria.” American Political Science Review 87 (03): 102–14.Google Scholar
Palfrey, Thomas R. 1989. “A Mathematical Proof of Duverger's Law.” In Models of Strategic Choice in Politics, ed. Ordeshook, Peter C.. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Pp. 69–92.Google Scholar
Palfrey, Thomas R., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1991. “Testing Game-Theoretic Models of Free Riding: New Evidence on Probability Bias and Learning.” In Laboratory Research in Political Economy, ed. Palfrey, Thomas R.. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Pp. 239–68.Google Scholar
Rae, Douglas. 1967. The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Riker, William H. 1976. “The Number of Political Parties: A Reexamination of Duverger's Law.” Comparative Politics 9 (10):93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riker, William H. 1982a. Liberalism against Populism: A Confrontation between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
Riker, William H. 1982b. “The Two-Party System and Duverger's Law: An Essay on the History of Political Science.” American Political Science Review 76 (12):753–66.Google Scholar
Riker, William H. 1986. “Duverger's Law Revisited.” In Electoral Laws and Their Political Consequences, ed. Grofman, Bernard and Lijphart, Arend. New York: Agathon Press. Pp. 19–42.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, E. E. 1942. Party Government. New York: Farrar and Rinehart.Google Scholar
Simon, Herbert A. 1954. “Bandwagon and Underdog Effects of Election Predictions.” Public Opinion Quarterly 18 (Fall):245–53.Google Scholar
Smith, Tom W. 1990. “The First Straw? A Study of the Origins of Election Polls.” Public Opinion Quarterly 54 (Spring):21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taagepera, Rein, and Shugart, Matthew S.. 1989. Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
West, Darrell M. 1991. “Polling Effects in Election Campaigns.” Political Behavior 13 (2):151–63.Google Scholar
Wright, Stephen G., and Riker, William H.. 1989. “Plurality and Runoff Systems and Numbers of Candidates.” Public Choice 60 (02): 155–75.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.