Neither does denying it. "Both sides"ing Democrats in general elections helps MAGA, that is a simple fact. It would sure be nice to have an alternative electoral system where it makes sense, but we don’t, and it doesn’t. Ignoring reality for idealism turns people into useful idiots.
The electrical opinions of someone who doesn’t know what a circuit breaker is are worthless. Likewise, the electoral opinions of someone who doesn’t understand Duverger’s Law are worthless.
Educate yourself before making a fool of yourself.
duvergers “law” is more of a tautology. it doesn’t describe any actual natural phenomenon like gravity does
duverger’s law is a tautology because, from a critical rationalist perspective, a tautological statement cannot be empirically tested or falsified. it’s true by definition. duverger’s law states that a plurality-rule election system tends to favor a two-party system. however, if this law is framed in such a way that any outcome can be rationalized within its parameters, then it becomes unfalsifiable.
for example, if a country with a plurality-rule system has more than two parties, one might argue that the system still “tends to” favor two parties, and the current state is an exception or transition phase. this kind of reasoning makes the law immune to counterexamples, and thus, it operates more as a tautological statement than an empirical hypothesis.
the critical rationalist critique of marginalist economics, which relies on ceteris paribus (all else being equal) conditions, suggests any similarly structured law should be viewed with skepticism. for duverger’s law to be more than a tautology, it would need to be stated in a way that allows for clear empirical testing and potential falsification, without the possibility of explaining away any contradictory evidence. this would make it a substantive theory that can contribute to our understanding of political systems rather than a mere tautology.
Neither does denying it. "Both sides"ing Democrats in general elections helps MAGA, that is a simple fact. It would sure be nice to have an alternative electoral system where it makes sense, but we don’t, and it doesn’t. Ignoring reality for idealism turns people into useful idiots.
wrong
Nope, I’m right, this is a fact, not an opinion.
The electrical opinions of someone who doesn’t know what a circuit breaker is are worthless. Likewise, the electoral opinions of someone who doesn’t understand Duverger’s Law are worthless.
Educate yourself before making a fool of yourself.
duvergers “law” is more of a tautology. it doesn’t describe any actual natural phenomenon like gravity does
duverger’s law is a tautology because, from a critical rationalist perspective, a tautological statement cannot be empirically tested or falsified. it’s true by definition. duverger’s law states that a plurality-rule election system tends to favor a two-party system. however, if this law is framed in such a way that any outcome can be rationalized within its parameters, then it becomes unfalsifiable.
for example, if a country with a plurality-rule system has more than two parties, one might argue that the system still “tends to” favor two parties, and the current state is an exception or transition phase. this kind of reasoning makes the law immune to counterexamples, and thus, it operates more as a tautological statement than an empirical hypothesis.
the critical rationalist critique of marginalist economics, which relies on ceteris paribus (all else being equal) conditions, suggests any similarly structured law should be viewed with skepticism. for duverger’s law to be more than a tautology, it would need to be stated in a way that allows for clear empirical testing and potential falsification, without the possibility of explaining away any contradictory evidence. this would make it a substantive theory that can contribute to our understanding of political systems rather than a mere tautology.