This "Law" assumes there are two distinct parties with two different ideologies. There aren't, There are two right wing (traditionalist for a start) factions of a one party (American exceptionalist ideology) state.
Besides: 231,556,622 eligible voters 46.9% didn't vote 25.6% voted Clinton 25.5% voted Trump Nobody is president. Simple, elegant. A workaround for "Duverger's Law" whoeverthefuck Duverger is/was. Rr On 11/09/2016 01:01 PM, jim bell wrote: > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Shawn K. Quinn <skqu...@rushpost.com> > 2. As a result of #1, a vote for any candidate who finishes below second > place is effectively the same as voting for the eventual winner. Put > another way, it robs the second place candidate of the votes needed to > win. > > This is called "Duverger's Law". See: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law > "In political science > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_science>, *Duverger's > law* holds that plurality-rule > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting_system> elections > (such as /first past the post > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_past_the_post>/) structured > within single-member districts > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-member_districts> tend to favor > a two-party system > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system> and that "the double > ballot majority system > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-round_system>and proportional > representation > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation> tend to > favor multipartism."^[1] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law#cite_note-1> ^[2] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law#cite_note-2> The > discovery of this tendency is attributed to Maurice Duverger > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Duverger>, a French sociologist > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociologist> who observed the effect > and recorded it in several papers published in the 1950s and 1960s. In > the course of further research, other political scientists > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_scientist> began calling the > effect a "law <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law>" or principle. > Duverger's law suggests a nexus or synthesis between a party system > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_system> and an electoral system: > a proportional representation > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation> (PR) > system creates the electoral conditions necessary to foster party > development while a plurality system marginalizes many smaller > political parties, resulting in what is known as a two-party system. > While a principle of political science, in practice most countries > with plurality voting have more than two parties. While the United > States is very much a two-party system, the United Kingdom, Canada and > India have consistently had multiparty parliaments.^[3] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law#cite_note-3> ^[4] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law#cite_note-4> Eric > Dickson and Ken Scheve argue that there is a counter force to > Duverger's Law, that on the national level a plurality system > encourages two parties, but in the individual constituencies > supermajorities will lead to the vote fracturing.^[5] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law#cite_note-5> > > "So... in Texas, Trump won. That means voting for Gary Johnson was the > same as voting for Trump. Voting for Jill Stein was the same as voting > for Trump. Voting for Evan McMullin was the same as voting for Trump. > If everyone in Texas who had voted just for Gary Johnson had voted for > Hillary instead, we'd be having an entirely different discussion because > Trump would not have won." > > This development is, in general, very good for Libertarians such as > myself. It means that we are going to be consistently influencing > elections, probably from here on in. And that means that the two > major candidates will have to start listening to libertarians. > > >I will say this: at least Jill Stein or Evan McMullin couldn't have been > >any worse than Trump. But the system as it stands now doesn't even give > >them, or others who run outside of the two major parties, a realistic > >chance to win the presidency. This sucks, but it is what it is. > > My proposed solution is to give each candidate for a Congressional > office influence in voting, proportionate to the vote totals in the > election. If there are three candidates, A, B, and C, with 50%, 45%, > and 5% of the vote, the minority candidate gets an office elsewhere, > and can neutralize part of the vote of the majority-vote candidate, if > he wishes. > If the majority-vote candidate is voting on something that is > uncontroversial, agreed with by the minority-vote candidates, his vote > will get an influence of 100%. If the minority candidates choose the > opposite position, the net result will be 50-45-5=0: There will be no > net vote from that state. > > Jim Bell > > >