Comparing The Two-Party System And Duverger's Law

The Two-Party System and Duverger’s Law: An Essay on the History of Political Science

The question of political science being an actual science has been asked many times over. William H. Riker ([1940] 1993) in his article “The Two-Party System and Duverger’s Law: An Essay on the History of Political Science,” attempts to explore this question. He provides a definition of science stating that it is the “accumulation of knowledge” in the form of more or less verifiable propositions about the natural world” (Riker [1940] 1993, 345). He uses Duverger’s law to showcase the gradual “accumulation of knowledge” in political science. He traces the history of the idea through the creation of Duverger’s law where it was clarified further. He discusses

how the law was revised to include some of the counterexamples like Canada and India. Also, he looks at the reasoning behind Duverger’s law creating new and tested hypothesis about rational choice of individuals considering the creation of a new party, and of individuals engaging in sophisticated voting. These hypothises about rational choice and sophistacted voting are the causal link between the two-party system and the simple-majority single-ballot. Evidence supporting or not supporting these causal links provides support or takes away support from Duverger’s law, adding to the knowledge (Riker [1940] 1993).
Evaluation
Riker’s thorough analysis of the history of Duverger’s law in political science provided, in my opinion, clear and compelling evidence of the “accumulation of knowledge” within political science. He used each section of the article to highlight different forms of accumulation. The idea moving to law and beyond the law emphasized how the concepts became clearer. Terminology throughout the history changed from the system favoring or discriminating against two party systems and became that the system “brings about and maintains two-party competition” (Riker [1940] 1993, 354). Beyond clarifying the law, revisions were made to incorporate phenomena that were not explained by the law, in effect adding to the knowledge about the law and strengthening it (Riker [1940] 1993). By the end of the article, I agreed that there was “accumulation of knowledge”.
However, I am not convinced that the “accumulation of knowledge” answers the bigger question, the author posed, of political science being a science (Riker [1940] 1993).

I am not sure that political scientists, or the American public, would be convinced that the “accumulation of knowledge” alone constitutes science. In my opinion, this is exemplified by the terms hard and soft science. Hard and soft science rely on the scientific method and the “accumulation of knowledge.” The difference between the two lies in precision and objectivity. Political science does use the scientific method and has seen improvements in methodology which has increased precision in the field. Yet, I am not sure that it is possible for the political scientist to divorce themselves completely from their biases. These biases can affect the objectivity of the study. Political science being a so called soft science makes me rethink the idea that political science is a science. Soft science seems to be a lesser science, or maybe even a non-science. In reality, I think that political science is absolutely scientific, but I am not sold on the concept that it is science. I would have liked to have seen Riker ([1940] 1993) address these concerns more fully as this seems to be a more difficult question with bigger implications for how the field is viewed, than the simple idea of the “accumulation of

knowledge.”
Comparison
Biases was a common theme in History and Discipline Political Science in the United States.

It was especially discussed as being relevant to the professionalization of the field. Professionalism in the field has been seen to have positive and negative consequences (Farr and Siedelman 1993). For example, in the article “Political Science Mid-Century,” Leonard D. White (White [1950] 1993) discusses professionalization throughout the 1900 through 1950. Stating that through this process political science gained a multitude of more individuals invested in the subject and including themselves in the field of political science. Additionally, it led to the emergence of political science associations which allowed for professionals to come together to work on political issues (White [1950] 1993). However, in the article “The Bias of American Political Science”, Benjamin E. Lippencott ([1940] 1993) discusses the hierarchy of the new professional field of political science as hindering political scientists. They are, in his opinion, tied to career and funding opportunities that may cause them to be hyper conscious of what they publish, and how much they publish. Political scientists had to be careful to not publish controversial work at times as it could lead to them becoming unemployable. Also, they had to be mindful of meet publishing quotas which could potentially decrease the quality of the work (Lippincott [1940] 1993). This relates back to Riker’s article, because the question

of if political science is a science is affected by how objective the field is and can be (Riker [1940] 1993). Professionalization in some ways proved that political science deserves to be its own discipline, yet in other ways allowed for less objectivity. Political scientists will have to be mindful of their biases in order to publish quality work and at a minimum add to the validity of the field as a whole.