Duverger’s
Law, which states that “the effective number of parties in any electoral
district is a function of the electoral rules: Single Member District plurality
(SMDP) rules produce two effective parties, while proportional representation
rules allow for more, depending on whether or not there are multiple social
cleavages,”[1] holds
true in democratic countries, including Germany. Germany has multiple effective parties and
its electoral rules allow for this.
First off, it
needs to be established that Germany has a multi-party system, which can be
proven by calculating the effective number of parties. In the
2005 election in Germany, the Social Democratic Party received 34.2% of the
vote and 222 seats, the Christian Democratic Union received 27.8% and 180
seats, the Free Democratic Party received 9.8% of the vote and 61 seats, the
Left Party received 8.7% of the vote and 54 seats, the Green party received
8.1% of the vote and 51 seats, and the Christian Social Union of Bavaria
received 7.4% and 46 seats.[2]
Using this information, by taking the percent of seats won by different
parties, squaring each percent, adding the squared percents together, and then
dividing one by the sum of the percents we can calculate the number of
effective parties. It turns out that Germany has four effective parties.
However, Germany
is not either a Proportional Representation (PR) system or an SMDP system, but
rather is a hybrid of the two. There are
299 constituencies in Germany, and each constituency has one representative in
the Bundestag.[3] This accounts for 299 of the 598 directly
elected seats. These 299 seats are
elected by plurality. This means that,
in every election, each voter has two votes, one of which is a vote for whom
should win one of these 299 seats.[4] The voter chooses from a list of candidates
who they want to vote for. For the rest
of the 598 seats, they are distributed based on a PR system.[5] There is a list of parties voters can choose
from and the seats are distributed based on the number of votes each party
receives in each of the 16 multi-member constituencies.[6] However, the threshold parties must pass in
order for their votes to count and to win any seats is 5%.[7] If a party does not receive at least 5% of
the national votes then they receive no seats in the Bundestag. The list of candidates for each party, for
this part of the election, is a nonpreferential list.[8] This means that the voters have no say in the
order of the party member candidates on the list and that they party officials
choose the order.
However, despite
Germany having four parties, it is apparent from the aforementioned statistics
that there are two dominant parties: the Christian Democratic Union and the
Social Democratic Union.
All in all, the
case of Germany reinforces Duverger’s law.
Germany, as predicted, is a multi-party system that has multiple
effective parties because of its hybrid PR, SMDP electoral system.
[1]
Hawkins, Kirk. Syllabus. Blog 7: Duverger’s Law.
[2] "IPU Parline Database: Germany (Deutscher
Bundestag), Elections in 2005." IPU Parline Database: Germany
(Deutscher Bundestag), Elections in 2005. Inter-Parliamentary Union, 12
Sept. 2012. Web. 01 Nov. 2012. <http://www.ipu.org/parline-e/reports/arc/2121_05.htm>.
[3] "IPU Parline Database: Germany (Deutscher
Bundestag), General Information." IPU Parline Database: Germany
(Deutscher Bundestag), Electoral System. N.p., 12 Sept. 2012. Web. 01 Nov.
2012. <http://www.ipu.org/parline-e/reports/2121_A.htm>.
[8] Class
lecture. 31 Oct. 2012.
I thought it was pretty well-written. I was a little confused because at the beginning you mentioned that there were 4 effective parties, but then later clarified that there were two. But besides that I thought it was pretty concise. Good job!
ReplyDeleteGood evidence to support!
ReplyDeleteI thought you did a good job and it was easy to understand
ReplyDeleteSimilar to Japan, which also has a mixed system but still supports Duverger's Law. I guess that's why they call it a law and not a theory
ReplyDeleteYou did a great job supporting what you said and explained things well.
ReplyDelete