Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish · 5 days agoDefensive Votinglocklemmy.blahaj.zoneimagemessage-square428linkfedilinkarrow-up1717arrow-down159cross-posted to: 196@lemmy.world
arrow-up1658arrow-down1imageDefensive Votinglocklemmy.blahaj.zoneUriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish · 5 days agomessage-square428linkfedilinkcross-posted to: 196@lemmy.world
minus-squarecommie@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4arrow-down2·4 days agoduverger’s “law” is literally a tautology and has no predictive power at all
minus-squareSeptimaeus@infosec.publinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·4 days ago duverger’s “law” The name is a historical artifact of his 1950s phrasing. It’s a tendency theorem with scope conditions. literally a tautology Cox, Riker, Lijphart, and Clark+Golder have all reformulated the law as a conditional strategic-equilibrium claim. that’s a lot of ink spilled for “literally a tautology”
duverger’s “law” is literally a tautology and has no predictive power at all
The name is a historical artifact of his 1950s phrasing. It’s a tendency theorem with scope conditions.
Cox, Riker, Lijphart, and Clark+Golder have all reformulated the law as a conditional strategic-equilibrium claim.
that’s a lot of ink spilled for “literally a tautology”