Skip to main content

Measuring Duvergerian Effects of the French Majority Runoff System with Laboratory Experiments: Duverger’s Laws Under the Microscope

The Contribution of Laboratory Experiments to the Study of the Psychological Effects of Voting Systems

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
In Situ and Laboratory Experiments on Electoral Law Reform

Part of the book series: Studies in Public Choice ((SIPC,volume 25))

  • 326 Accesses

Abstract

The study of the effects of voting systems started before Maurice Duverger, but the credit goes to him for systematizing the analysis (Riker 1986) and for stating firmly the “laws”, which are still used by contemporary political scientists to describe the relationships between election rules and party system: the plurality system favours bipartism (Duverger 1951, p. 306); the runoff system and proportional representation tend to favour a multiparty system (Duverger 1951, p. 331). He can also be credited for bringing into light the theoretical foundations on which these “laws” are based, by making a clear distinction between the “mechanical effects” of voting systems, i.e., the conversion of votes into seats, and the “psychological effects” of voting systems, i.e., the tendency of voters to anticipate the mechanical effects of electoral rules and to adapt their behaviours to the chances of winning of the various parties running, to maximize the utility of their votes (Duverger 1951, p. 315). In this case, we talk about “strategic voting” (Downs 1957; Cain 1978; Cox 1994, 1997) of “sophisticated voting” (Banks 1985; Shepsle and Weingast 1984; Abramson et al. 1992) or even of “tactical voting” (Johnston and Pattie 1991; Niemi et al. 1992) or, in France, of “vote utile” (Parodi 2002).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The protocol was jointly established by several researchers: A Blais (Université de Montréal), B. Dolez (Université de Paris 13 – CERAPS), E. Dubois (CERAPS – University of Lille 2), J.-F. Laslier (Laboratoire d’économétrie – Ecole Polytechnique, Paris), A. Laurent (CERAPS – University of Lille 2), Michael Lewis-Beck (University of Iowa), N. Sauger (CEE, Paris) et K. Van des Straeten (GREMAQ, Toulouse).

  2. 2.

    See Appendix.

  3. 3.

    In every group, there were nevertheless “equidistant” participants: the participants on position 8, exactly halfway between candidate B (position 6) and candidate C (position 10), and the participants on position 12, exactly halfway between candidate C and candidate D (position 14). If we assume that equidistant participants (on position 8 and 12) randomly divided themselves between the two candidates which were the closest to their positions, it can be estimated that, in every group, 21.5% of the participants were “closer to” B and D and 19% “closer to” C.

  4. 4.

    Thirteen spoiled ballot papers on the first round, 12 on the second round and 2 with the proportional voting system had to be eliminated.

  5. 5.

    Development made at the CERAPS (Centre d’études et de recherches administratives, politiques et socials), a research laboratory of the CNRS (National Center for Scientific Research), University of Lille 2.

  6. 6.

    D = (1 ∕ 2)[V i P i ] in which V i is the % of votes gathered by party i and P i the % of participants “close to” i.

  7. 7.

    This index is traditionally used to measure the deviations from votes to seats (Laasko and Taagepera 1979). Here, we have “twisted” it to our advantage to measure the deviation between the votes and the preferences by applying the formula: ENP = 1 ∕ Σv i in which v i is the % of votes gathered by party i.

  8. 8.

    To calculate the levels of sincere voting, we have removed from the analysis the answers of the participants situated in positions 8 and 12, in other words the participants who were, respectively, equidistant from either B and C or C and D.

  9. 9.

    For a discussion of laboratory experiments about coalitions see e.g., Gschwend and Hooghe (2007).

  10. 10.

    For an opposite point of view, see Seiler (2006).

Acknowledgment

With the financial support of the support of the Agence national pour la recherché (ANR).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bernard Dolez .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dolez, B., Laurent, A. (2011). Measuring Duvergerian Effects of the French Majority Runoff System with Laboratory Experiments: Duverger’s Laws Under the Microscope. In: Dolez, B., Grofman, B., Laurent, A. (eds) In Situ and Laboratory Experiments on Electoral Law Reform. Studies in Public Choice, vol 25. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7539-3_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics