andrewducker | (Reply)

From:

Sort of. the main difference is there are multiple elections at multiple levels of governance.

For a party to have a chance in election at level X, unless X is the only level it contests and it has a very strong support base, you can look at how well it's done in the same area as X for elections at level Y & Z. In Scotland you have 4 levels, and electoral success will be similar in all those levels (locals, Scottish, EU and Westminster).

The Lib Dems, across the UK, have done well in building up their MPs at Westminster by first doing well in the local elections in the same area, building up a support base and campaign infrastructure in those areas.

In my area, locally, the Greens are, for the first time, running a full slate for the council elections, this is unheard of. But at the last General Election they got less than 2% and lost their deposit, despite their candidate being arguably the best of the bunch (my candidate definitely thought so, I disagreed). Voting Greens for Westminster, locally, almost certainly helps ensure the incumbent useless bigotted hypocritical Tory gets re-elected. But I'd understand, completely, anyone voting Greens at the local level, if they built up their infrastructure then they'd be in with a chance at Westminster.

UKIP, as a contrast, built up their support base first in the EU elections, but as the results for those are reported district-by-district, they know, in theory, where their best chances are for Westminster.

However, in the long term, what you end up left with is a two-party system where you don't _ever_ get change. If you want long term change then you need to make it look feasible that your preferred party can win. And the only way to do that is to vote for them.

Duverger's Law in action, but Duverger was never as clear cut as many of his fans and detractors say, it's a district-by-district crystallisation, and there can be periods of realignment. This is almost certainly the most interesting election since 1983, probably, if the polls are to be belived, a lot more interesting than 1983, and I strongly suspect the fracture lines it shows will resolidify into new party alignments over the next decade.

(the US is a weird case because, in many instances, minor parties endorse major parties and their votes are counted as such—there were votes for John Kerry in some states that counted directly for Kerry but were for a different party, I forget which, some leftist splinter faction. Plus you have top-of-the-line bias where the top two parties from last time are at the top of the ballot, etc, it's deliberately entrenching. Oh, and single district elections where only one guy can win encourage two party systems. the US presidential election is effectively the largest simple plurality election in the world, Duverger applies to that)