This is opinion. So read it as such. But consider it please.
Obviously if you read this based on the title. I assume you oppose the Tories.
But if you are wondering why labour are so keen to manage expectations. There is a reason.
Campaign funding wise the Tories are estimated to be 19m ahead of labour. But honestly at the moment they are not spending a huge amount more.
We know the Tories are skilled at election manipulation. So there is genuine fear that the Tories plan to launch a campaign within the last few days.
I.E. when there is less time and funding to ensure fact checking is effective.
They know Starmer is more publicity aware then Corbyn was. He is able to play it in a way that dose not scare traditional Conservative voters.
They also know thanks to Boris, that the courts are unable to punish them for outright lies during any political campaign. And that Rishi is prepared to lie about and accuse civil servants of lying when challenged.
As huge as polling is against the Tories. All it would take is some dramatic claim against the party or Starmer. To convince Tory traditional voters to bite their tongue and vote Tory. While convincing left wing voters not to vote or to switch to 3rd party in seats where labour are the 1st or 2nd party.
The fact we know they have a huge amount of money unspent. Makes it clear they plan to launch something nearer the end of the election. And the only advantage of leaving it so late. Is it will limit the ability of the party to effectively react. Or fact checkers to be able to prove and distribute evidence of lies.
Please be prepared for this.
Everyone, just please go and vote if you are able to. It's very little time out of your day and it's only once every few years. Remember that you do need photo ID this time
If you are interested in tactical voting, something our electoral system unfortunately incentivises, then there is https://stopthetories.vote/ to vote against the Conservatives
duverger's law is not actually a law at all, but a tautology. it has no actual predictive power, and hand-waves away evidence of instances where it has not turned out to be true.
Nobody, including Duverger, thinks that it's an ironclad thing. That's actually discussed in the link. It does appear to be a pretty accurate predictor of the behaviour of British elections though. The fact that there's even an outside possibility that the Conservatives might not be one of the two biggest parties after this election is noteworthy.
I'm not sure I understand why you're calling it a tautology. It doesn't seem to fit any of the definitions I know of that word. It doesn't fit the formal logic one since there are clearly imaginable scenarios in which it isn't true (a parliamentary system in which more than two parties consistently emerge as the largest), and it doesn't fit the literary one because it's not a repeat of the same thing twice. Could you explain what you mean here?
it's a critical rationalist examination that would label it tautological: it's true and it's always true because of how weasley the wording is. "people tend to do the right thing" is a tautological claim because every example of people not doing the right thing is already covered in theassive loophole opened with the term "tend". there is no way to set up a test to disprove it.
Since there is a finite number of FPTP electoral systems, we can indeed test to disprove it by seeing how many of them are dominated by two parties. However woolly the wording "tend to" may be, if no FPTP systems were dominated by two parties then it'd be untrue. So that just leaves the question of what proportion should count for "tends to". In my opinion, that'd be more than half at a minimum, but there will be different positions on that
what is the rate at which consolidation if parties occurs? if a fptp system exists with more than two parties, what reason do we have to believe it will consolidate, and when?
I don't know, though I would be interested to read. Taagepera and Grofman's 1985 work examined the elections of western Europe, the Anglosphere, and a couple of others across 1945-1980. They found that of the seven single-winner sytems, only France had a reliable third party (and of course, France does not use regular FPTP), and of the 15 multi-winner systems only Austria and Ireland did not have at least three. That is, of course, only correlation, and the authors have some other interesting points about major political issues within a country, but they do come down in favour of Duverger's approach.
Some of the papers I've read on it have mentioned that particularly young democracies (such as Nigeria after re-establishing democracy in the late 90s, and I think the paper using that example was from the 2010s) do not appear to have settled into this pattern. On the other hand, in an older system like the UK, we see examples like the 1922 general election. The Liberals performed very badly in the prior election, Labour outperformed them in 1922, and the Liberals have never risen above third place since.
If Duverger's law is completely off base, why do you think that the UK has such a strong two party donination? No party outside the top two has won a general election for a century, and prior to that it was the same story with one of the top two swapped out.
I didn't say he's off base. I said it's useless. he's not actually making a claim that I can use to predict anything.
Yes, he is. It's that you can usually expect FPTP elections to produce a winner from one of the two dominant parties. Since your vote does not count for anything if your candidate didn't win in UK elections, you can use this information to instead pick your favourite of the two candidates that are likely to win and maximise your chances of seeing your preferred of the two win, as opposed to voting third party and achieving nothing. You don't need to know how quickly a two party system entrenches itself for this to be useful. You just need to know if it already has and which parties are the dominant ones in your constituency.