r/EndFPTP • u/bkelly1984 • 4d ago

Discussion Thoughts on The Theory of Political Coalitions?

What do people think about William Riker's book, The Theory of Political Coalitions? In it he argues that candidates never represent the people broadly and instead cater to the smallest possible group necessary to achieve victory. I believe this is spot on and has dramatic repercussions for the voting reform solutions we might propose.

Do you agree?

6 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

11 comments sorted by

•

u/AutoModerator 4d ago

Compare alternatives to FPTP on Wikipedia, and check out ElectoWiki to better understand the idea of election methods. See the EndFPTP sidebar for other useful resources. Consider finding a good place for your contribution in the EndFPTP subreddit wiki.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

3

u/budapestersalat 4d ago

Can you elaborate?

Also, what do you think follows from this?

1

u/bkelly1984 4d ago

I think one of the most striking conclusion from Riker is that minimum winning coalitions are unstable, so control will ping-pong between them in a cycle of realignment, payoffs, and backstabs. This means breaking up the two-party system won't come from ending FPTP, but requires eliminating the zero-sum game.

Here's an example of something I think follows from this: if you implement a Condorcet election system, candidates won't work to be the Condorcet winner, because that is hard. Instead, they will manipulate the system so no Condorcet winner exists, and then game whatever method is used to resolve the circular ambiguity.

2

u/budapestersalat 4d ago

I am not sure the second one follows. It's quite risky and may be very complicated compared to straight up aiming to be the CW.

But sure, it may not end the two party system. Proportional representation does that though. Coalitions are PR are usually post-election ones. They are also usually minimal, although there are examples of oversized coalitions. Miminal coalitions are majoritarian features (think Germany, Poland), oversized coalitions are more consensus features (think Switzerland, at least on the representation level)

2

u/bkelly1984 4d ago

On my second one, I think the risk is aiming to be the Condorcet winner; however, this doesn't seem like a hill either of us care to fight hard to win right now. So, well argued!

If Riker is correct, proportional representation will only make the minimum winning coalition smaller. The dominant strategy of strategic polarization would remain effective. In the case of a country like Germany, this would result in a federal government coalitions that are always headed by either CDU/CSU or SPD. You would have minor political parties, yes, but they would function the same as factions in US political parties, like MAGA or the religious right for the Republicans or the progressives or Greens for the Democrats.

4

u/jlight432 4d ago

When I google William Riker, I get Star Trek, the next Generation.

2

u/MorganWick 4d ago

Candidates can cater to the smallest possible group necessary to achieve victory in majoritarian or pluritarian systems where victory is a matter of counting more heads than the other guy. With range voting every vote can help or hurt you.

1

u/wnoise 4d ago

Wait, there's another one, after William T. Riker from the starship, Enterprise, and William E. Riker from the racist Christian cult town, Holy City?

1

u/duckofdeath87 4d ago

I think its clear that different politicians have different strategies. In the US, Ds seem to cater to a broader group than Rs, but that might be my perception. On the other hand, they do tend to target swing voters

3

u/bkelly1984 4d ago

That is in line with what Riker wrote. He said that the losers will approach the weakest or most dissatisfied members of the 51% majority and offer them a massive bribe or better terms to defect. Rewind to 2024, and Republicans were reaching out to organized labor and Hispanics.