A Laboratory Experiment for Analyzing Electors' Strategic Behavior in a First-Past-the-Post System

As it is well acknowledged that the electoral system is one of the fundamental rocks of our modern society, the behavior of electors engaged in a voting system is of the utmost importance. In this context, the goal of the study is to model the behavior of voters in a first-past-the-post system and to analyze its consequences on a party system. Among the assumptions of this study is Duverger’s law, which states that first-past-the-post systems favor a two-party system as the voters engage in tactical voting, choosing to vote in favor of a less preferred candidate who has better odds of winning. In order to test this assumption and to better analyze the occurrence of the strategic behavior, a laboratory experiment was created. A total of 120 persons participated in the study. An asymmetrical payoff function was created to value the voters’ preference intensity. As a result, it was observed that as voters got used to the voting system, they engaged in more tactical voting behavior in order to either maximize the gain or minimize the loss of their choice. Moreover, the iterations where voters started displaying tactical behavior featured a clustering around two main choices. The obtained results are consistent with both the empirical results of real-life elections and Duverger’s law. A further discussion regarding the change in voters’ choice completes the analysis on the strategic behavior.

[1]  T. Palfrey,et al.  Turnout and Power Sharing , 2014 .

[2]  Margit Tavits,et al.  Beliefs and Voting Decisions: A Test of the Pivotal Voter Model , 2008 .

[3]  Henriqueta Nóvoa,et al.  An innovative approach for planning and execution of pre-experimental runs for Design of Experiments , 2016 .

[4]  Arthur Schram,et al.  Voter turnout as a participation game: An experimental investigation , 1996 .

[5]  Marno Verbeek,et al.  The optimal choice of controls and pre-experimental observations , 1992 .

[6]  Muhammad Rakib Ehsan What Matters? Non-Electoral Youth Political Participation in Austerity Britain , 2018, Societies.

[7]  Feng Li,et al.  Transparent, Auditable, and Stepwise Verifiable Online E-Voting Enabling an Open and Fair Election , 2017, Cryptogr..

[8]  Pavel Maškarinec The 2016 Electoral Reform in Mongolia: From Mixed System and Multiparty Competition to FPTP and One-Party Dominance , 2018 .

[9]  Thomas R. Palfrey,et al.  Voter Participation and Strategic Uncertainty , 1985, American Political Science Review.

[10]  T. Rich Duverger's Law in mixed legislative systems: the impact of national electoral rules on district competition , 2015 .

[11]  F. U. Pappi,et al.  Strategic voting in German constituencies , 2008 .

[12]  P. Norton The case for First‐Past‐The‐Post , 1997 .

[13]  Rami Zeedan The 2016 US Presidential Elections: What Went Wrong in Pre-Election Polls? Demographics Help to Explain , 2019, J.

[14]  André Blais,et al.  To vote or to abstain? An experimental test of rational calculus in first past the post and PR elections , 2014 .

[15]  Miguel Martínez-Panero,et al.  A New Quota Approach to Electoral Disproportionality , 2019, Economies.

[16]  Tatsuyoshi Saijo,et al.  Voting on Behalf of a Future Generation: A Laboratory Experiment , 2019, Sustainability.

[17]  A. Zhirnov Decision period and Duverger's psychological effect in FPTP elections: Evidence from India , 2019, Electoral Studies.

[18]  Y. Hizen Does a Least-Preferred Candidate Win a Seat? A Comparison of Three Electoral Systems , 2015 .

[19]  Aron Kiss Identifying strategic voting in two-round elections , 2015 .

[20]  Raylin Tso,et al.  Distributed E-Voting and E-Bidding Systems Based on Smart Contract , 2019, Electronics.

[21]  Jacopo Bizzotto,et al.  Electoral Competition with Strategic Disclosure , 2019, Games.

[22]  R. Moser,et al.  Social Diversity Affects the Number of Parties Even Under First-Past-the-Post Rules , 2018 .

[23]  Jack Thompson A Review of the Popular and Scholarly Accounts of Donald Trump’s White Working-Class Support in the 2016 US Presidential Election , 2019, Societies.

[24]  James W. Endersby,et al.  Strategic Voting in Plurality Elections: A Simulation of Duverger's Law , 2009, PS: Political Science & Politics.

[25]  Xavier Boyen,et al.  Forward-Secure Linkable Ring Signatures from Bilinear Maps , 2018, Cryptogr..

[26]  J. Sonnemans,et al.  Why people vote: experimental evidence , 1996 .

[27]  David K. Levine,et al.  The Paradox of Voter Participation? A Laboratory Study , 2007, American Political Science Review.

[28]  Thomas Fujiwara A Regression Discontinuity Test of Strategic Voting and Duverger's Law ∗ , 2011 .

[29]  Yann Rébillé Representations of preferences with pseudolinear utility functions , 2019, Journal of Mathematical Psychology.

[30]  R. Potthoff,et al.  Three Bizarre Presidential-Election Scenarios: The Perils of Simplism , 2019, Social Sciences.

[31]  D. Bochsler The strategic effect of the plurality vote at the district level , 2017 .

[32]  Daniel P. Stevens,et al.  The UK's electoral reform referendum of May 2011 , 2013 .

[33]  Arend Lijphart Democracies: Forms, performance, and constitutional engineering , 1994 .

[34]  A. Downs An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy , 1957, Journal of Political Economy.

[35]  B. De Baets,et al.  Chronicle of a Failure Foretold: 2017 Rector Election at Ghent University , 2019, Economies.

[36]  Jonathan Nagler,et al.  Strategic Voting In British Elections , 2006 .

[37]  Matt Golder,et al.  Rehabilitating Duverger’s Theory , 2006 .

[38]  Ching-Ter Chang,et al.  The roles of aspirations, coefficients and utility functions in multiple objective decision making , 2019, Comput. Ind. Eng..