A rich theoretical literature argues that, in contradiction to Duverger’s law, the plurality voting rule can fail to produce two-party system when voters do not share their common information about the electoral situation. We present an empirical operationalization and a series of tests of this informational hypothesis in the case of India using constituency- and individual-level data. In highly illiterate constituencies where access to information and information sharing among voters is low, voters often fail to coordinate on the two most viable parties. In highly literate constituencies, voters are far more successful at avoiding vote-wasting—in line with the informational hypothesis. At a microlevel, these aggregate-level patterns are driven by the interaction of individual information and the informational context: In dense informational environments, even low-information voters can successfully identify viable parties and vote for them, but in sparse informational environments, individual access to information is essential for successful strategic voting.
AbramsS.IversenT.SoskiceD. (2010). Informal social networks and rational voting. British Journal of Political Science, 41, 229-257.
2.
AidtT.GoldenM. A.TiwariD. (2014). Criminality in the Indian national legislature. Unpublished manuscript, Mimeo, University of California, Los Angeles.
3.
AlvarezR. M.BoehmkeF. J.NaglerJ. (2006). Strategic voting in British elections. Electoral Studies, 25, 1-19.
4.
AnandS. A.JenkinsC. J. (2004). Exit polls: Debating freedom or fairness. Economic & Political Weekly, 39, 4971-4973.
5.
BlackJ. H. (1978). The multicandidate calculus of voting: Application to Canadian federal elections. American Journal of Political Science, 22, 609-638.
6.
BrassP. R. (1980). The politicization of the peasantry in a North Indian State: I. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 7, 395-426.
7.
CainB. E. (1978). Strategic voting in Britain. American Journal of Political Science, 22, 639-655.
8.
CallanderS. (2005). Duverger’s hypothesis, the run-off rule, and electoral competition. Political Analysis, 13, 209-232.
9.
CarterD. B.SignorinoC. S. (2010). Back to the future: Modeling time dependence in binary data. Political Analysis, 18, 271-292.
10.
CattH. (1989). Tactical voting in Britain. Parliamentary Affairs, 42, 548-559.
11.
ChandraK. (2004). Why ethnic parties succeed: Patronage and ethnic head counts in India. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
12.
ChandraK.WilkinsonS. I. (2008). Measuring the effect of “ethnicity.”Comparative Political Studies, 41, 515-563.
13.
ChhibberP.KollmanK. (2004). The formation of national party systems: Federalism and party competition in Canada, Great Britain, India, and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
14.
ChhibberP.MuraliG. (2006). Duvergerian dynamics in the Indian states: Federalism and the number of parties in the State assembly elections. Party Politics, 12, 5-34.
15.
ChhibberP.NooruddinI. (2004). Do party systems count? The number of parties and government performance in the Indian states. Comparative Political Studies, 37, 152-187.
16.
ChoiJ. (2009). Strategic voting in India: Its extent and determinants in the 2004 general election. Asian Survey, 49, 609-624.
CloughE. (2007a). Strategic voting under conditions of uncertainty: A re-evaluation of Duverger’s law. British Journal of Political Science, 37, 313-332.
19.
CloughE. (2007b). Talking locally and voting globally Duverger’s law and homogeneous discussion networks. Political Research Quarterly, 60, 531-540.
20.
CodyF. (2011). Echoes of the teashop in a Tamil newspaper. Language & Communication, 31, 243-254.
21.
CoxG. W. (1994). Strategic voting equilibria under the single nontransferable vote. American Political Science Review, 88, 608-621.
22.
CoxG. W. (1997). Making votes count. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
23.
CrispB. F.OlivellaS.PotterJ. D. (2012). Electoral contexts that impede voter coordination. Electoral Studies, 31, 143-158.
24.
Delli CarpiniM. X. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
25.
DeutschK. (1961). Social mobilization and political development. American Political Science Review, 55, 493-514.
26.
DiwakarR. (2007). Duverger’s law and the size of the Indian party system. Party Politics, 13, 539-561.
27.
DiwakarR. (2010). Party aggregation in India: A state level analysis. Party Politics, 16, 477-496.
28.
DuvergerM. (1954). Political parties. New York, NY: Wiley.
29.
FeyM. (1997). Stability and coordination in Duverger’s law: A formal model of preelection polls and strategic voting. American Political Science Review, 91(1), 135-147.
30.
ForsytheR.MyersonR. B.RietzT. A.WeberR. J. (1993). An experiment on coordination in multi-candidate elections: The importance of polls and election histories. Social Choice and Welfare, 10, 223-247.
31.
FranklinM.NiemiR.WhittenG. (1994). The two faces of tactical voting. British Journal of Political Science, 24, 549-557.
32.
GainesB. J. (1999). Duverger’s law and the meaning of Canadian exceptionalism. Comparative Political Studies, 32, 835-861.
33.
GainesB. J. (2009). Does the United Kingdom obey Duverger’s law? In GrofmanB.BlaisA.BowlerS. (Eds.), Duverger’s law of plurality voting (pp. 115-134). New York, NY: Springer.
34.
GelmanA.HillJ. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
GolosovG. V. (2010). The effective number of parties. Party Politics, 16, 171-192.
37.
GrofmanB.BowlerS.BlaisA. (2009). Introduction: Evidence for Duverger’s law from four countries. In GrofmanB.BlaisA.BowlerS. (Eds.), Duverger’s law of plurality voting (pp. 1-11). New York, NY: Springer.
38.
HightonB. (2009). Revisiting the relationship between educational attainment and political sophistication. The Journal of Politics, 71, 1564-1576.
39.
HuntingtonS. P. (1968). Political order in changing societies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
40.
JeffreyR. (2000). India’s newspaper revolution: Capitalism, politics and the Indian-language press, 1977-99. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
41.
JenningsM. K. (1996). Political knowledge over time and across generations. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 228-252.
42.
KapurD.MehtaP. B. (1998). India in 1998: The travails of political fragmentation. Asian Survey, 39, 163-176.
43.
KapurD.MehtaP. B. (Eds.). (2007). Public institutions in India: Performance and design. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
44.
KaranK. (2009). Political communication in India. In WillnatL.AwA. (Eds.), Political communication in Asia (pp. 191-215). New York, NY: Routledge.
45.
KollmanK.HickenA.CaramaniD.BackerD. (2013). Constituency-level elections archive. Ann Arbor: Center for Political Studies, University of Michigan.
46.
LaaksoM.TaageperaR. (1979). Effective number of parties: A measure with application to West Europe. Comparative Political Studies, 12, 3-27.
47.
LijphartA. (1994). Electoral systems and party systems: A study of twenty-seven democracies 1945-1990. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
48.
ManorJ. (1996). “Ethnicity” and politics in India. International Affairs, 72, 459-475.
49.
McKelveyR. D.OrdeshookP. C. (1985). Elections with limited information: A fulfilled expectations model using contemporaneous poll and endorsement data as information sources. Journal of Economic Theory, 36, 55-85.
50.
McMillanA. (2012). The election commission of India and the regulation and administration of electoral politics. Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy, 11, 187-201.
51.
MolinarJ. (1991). Counting the number of parties: An alternative index. American Political Science Review, 85, 1383-1391.
52.
MoserR. (1999). Electoral systems and the number of parties in postcommunist states. World Politics, 51, 359-384.
53.
MukherjeeS. (1994). The social role of a caste association. Indian Economic & Social History Review, 31, 89-100.
54.
MyattD. P. (2007). On the theory of strategic voting. Review of Economic Studies, 74, 255-281.
55.
MyersonR. B.WeberR. J. (1993). A theory of voting equilibria. American Political Science Review, 87, 102-114.
56.
NairR. R. (1998). Role of village libraries in social and political reform in Kerala. In Panduranga ReddyS. (Ed.), Library and Information Science (pp. 173-182). Hyderabad: Vaibhav.
57.
NiemiR. G.WhittenG.FranklinM. N. (1992). Constituency characteristics, individual characteristics and tactical voting in the 1987 British general election. British Journal of Political Science, 22, 229-240.
58.
NinanS. (2007). Headlines from the heartland: Reinventing the Hindi public sphere. New Delhi, India: Sage.
59.
NooruddinI.ChhibberP. (2008). Unstable politics fiscal space and electoral volatility in the Indian states. Comparative Political Studies, 41, 1069-1091.
60.
NunaS. C. (1989). Spatial fragmentation of political behaviour in India: A geographical perspective on parliamentary elections. New Delhi, India: Mittal Publications.
61.
OrdeshookP. C.ShvetsovaO. V. (1994). Ethnic heterogeneity, district magnitude, and the number of parties. American Journal of Political Science, 38, 100-123.
62.
OsborneM. J.RubinsteinA. (2003). Sampling equilibrium, with an application to strategic voting. Games and Economic Behavior, 45, 434-441.
63.
PaiS. (1996). Transformation of the Indian party system: The 1996 Lok Sabha elections. Asian Survey, 36, 1170-1183.
64.
PalfreyT. R. (1989). A mathematical proof of Duverger’s law. In OrdeshookP. C. (Ed.), Models of strategic choice in politics (pp. 69-92). Ann Arbor; New York, NY: University of Michigan Press.
65.
PetersonM. A. (2010). “But it is my habit to read the times”: Metaculture and practice in the reading of Indian newspapers. In BirgitB.PostillJ. (Eds.), Theorising media and practice (pp. 127-146). New York, NY: Berghahn Books.
66.
PowellG. B.VanbergG. S. (2000). Election laws, disproportionality and median correspondence: Implications for two visions of democracy. British Journal of Political Science, 30, 383-411.
67.
RaoM. S. A. (1968). Political elite and caste association. Economic and Political Weekly, 3(20), 779-782.
68.
RikerW. (1982). The two-party system and Duverger’s law: An essay on the history of political science. American Political Science Review, 76, 733-766.
69.
RosenstoneS.HansenJ. M. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New York, NY: Macmillan.
70.
RoyS. (2011). Television news and democratic change in India. Media, Culture & Society, 33, 761-777.
71.
RozenasA. (2011). Constituency size and stability of two-party systems. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 23, 344-358.
72.
RozenasA. (2012a). ocomposition: Regression for rank-indexed compositional data (R package version 1.1.). New York University. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ocomposition
73.
RozenasA. (2012b). A statistical model for party systems analysis. Political Analysis, 2(20), 235-247.
74.
RudolphL. I.RudolphS. H. (1960). The political role of India’s caste associations. Pacific Affairs, 33, 5-22.
75.
SadanandanA. (2012). Bridling central tyranny in India: How regional parties restrain the federal government. Asian Survey, 52, 247-269.
76.
SaezL.SinhaA. (2010). Political cycles, political institutions and public expenditure in India, 1980–2000. British Journal of Political Science, 40, 91-113.
77.
SartoriG. (1968). Political development and political engineering. In MontgomeryJ. D.HirschmanA. O. (Eds.), Public policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
78.
SelbP. (2012). Strategic adaptation to new electoral systems. European Journal of Political Research, 51, 583-606.
79.
SingerM. M. (2013). Was Duverger correct? Single-member district election outcomes in fifty-three countries. British Journal of Political Science, 76, 753-766.
80.
SridharanE. (2002). The fragmentation of the Indian party system, 1952-1999: Seven competing explanations. In HasanZ. (Ed.), Parties and party politics in India (pp. 475-503). New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.
81.
TavitsM.AnnusT. (2006). Learning to make votes count: The role of democratic experience. Electoral Studies, 25, 72-90.
82.
ThachilT.TeitelbaumE. (2015). Ethnic parties and public spending: New theory and evidence from the Indian states. Comparative Political Studies, 48, 1389-1420.
83.
UppalY. (2009). The disadvantaged incumbents: Estimating incumbency effects in Indian state legislatures. Public Choice, 138, 9-27.
84.
WallaceP. (1980). Plebiscitary politics in India’s 1980 Parliamentary elections: Punjab and Haryana. Asian Survey, 20, 617-633.
85.
WolfingerR. E.RosenstoneS. J. (1980). Who votes? (Vol. 22). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
86.
WoodS. N. (2006). Generalized additive models: An introduction with R (Vol. 66). Boca Raton: CRC Press.
87.
WyattA. (2010). Party system change in South India: Political entrepreneurs, patterns and processes. London, England: Routledge.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
