A blog post from Prof Patrick Dunleavy at the LSE on the Australian election results points out that, for the first time in history, every key Westminster Model country – the UK, India, Canada, Australia and New Zealand – has a hung parliament.
For the first time in history, the Australian outcome means that every key ‘Westminster model’ country in the world now has a hung Parliament. These are the former British empire countries that according to decades of political science orthodoxy are supposed to produce strong, single party government. Following Duverger’s Law their allegedly ‘majoritarian’ electoral systems (first past the post and AV) will typically produce reinforced majorities for one of the top two parties.
Dunleavy, who lectured me on political systems when I was an undergraduate at the LSE rather longer ago – I suspect – than either of us would care to remember, wonders whether
For the UK’s forthcoming referendum on adopting the Alternative Vote, this recognition that the world as a whole is changing towards more complex and multi-party politics may sway some more voters and politicians towards backing reform.
…or whether all these coalitions will lead people to reject reform as they hanker after the sort of strong, decisive government we saw under prime ministers like Major and Brown.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
AM
Ben Wood
Ed Sanderson
Jack
8 Comments
Um, while I always love to see Duverger’s Law quoted, I do think Dunelavy’s losing it. Duverger specifically, explicitly, refers to first past the post elections.
It doesn’t really apply to AV (Aus lower house), cannot apply to STV (Aus upper house) and most certainly does not and cannot apply to AMS (New Zealand).
He also seems to think that Supplemental Vote is a form of AV.
I hope his conclusion is right, and yes, it is good that there are plural politics in most countries now, but lumping all the Westminster systems together and analysing them as if they still all use FPTP is a bit off.
This is astrology. One confluence of events does not demonstrate a rule.
Canada and India are both federal states, which changes the dynamic when voting for the national legislature. Canada has the appearance of Prairie Conservatism in the Prairie Provinces which has skewed the system. India is a patchwork of different and often competing cultural groups.
The cause of the impasse in Australia is, as I discuss here, traceable to the Protocols of the Elders of Capel Seion (notably the Barry-born Julia Gillard).
I’m unsure about the role of the Elders in New Zealand. My nose can pick out a Welsh from a hundred yards, but… hey… it’s only New Zealand. Why bother?
~alec
You owe me a new keyboard, Sir! LOL.
NZ is holding a referendum on its voting system in 2011. Currently MMP (as in Wales/Scotland). One of the options is to go back to FPTP.
http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/survey-shows-changes-wanted-voting-system-3688300
Isnt it arguable that the UK is Federation too, with 4,5 or 6 different political set-ups ?
With the greatest respect to the authors this makes no sense at all. What constitutes a “key” country? Why does the definition exclude the world’s sixth most popular country: Pakistan but include the tiny island of New Zealand (population considerably smaller than the East Midlands)? Also India does not have a hung parliament – the UPA has an outright majority – and New Zealand has PR.
Also this seems to be declaring Duverger’s law dead based upon:
One country (the UK) where the two main parties hold 564/649 seats
One country (India) where one party has an absolute majority
One country (Australia) where the two main parties look set to hold 145/150 seats
One country (New Zealand) which has PR so Duverger’s doesn’t apply
and Canada
So basicly this seems declaring Duverger’s law dead solely on the basis of one election in Canada?
Apologies – populous not popular.
I also don’t follow the second piece of logic which effectively says “For the UK’s forthcoming referendum on adopting the Alternative Vote, this recognition that AV and First Past the Post systems no longer perform adequately may sway some more voters and politicians towards backing AV”