Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Negative representation and instability in democratic elections

Abstract

The challenge of understanding the collective behaviours of social systems can benefit from methods and concepts from physics1,2,3,4,5,6, not because humans are similar to electrons, but because certain large-scale behaviours can be understood without an understanding of the small-scale details7, in much the same way that sound waves can be understood without an understanding of atoms. Democratic elections are one such behaviour. Over the past few decades, physicists have explored scaling patterns in voting and the dynamics of political opinion formation (for example, see refs. 8,9,10,11,12,13). Here, we define the concepts of negative representation, in which a shift in electorate opinions produces a shift in the election outcome in the opposite direction, and electoral instability, in which an arbitrarily small change in electorate opinions can dramatically swing the election outcome, and prove that unstable elections necessarily contain negatively represented opinions. Furthermore, in the presence of low voter turnout, increasing polarization of the electorate can drive elections through a transition from a stable to an unstable regime, analogous to the phase transition by which some materials become ferromagnetic below their critical temperatures. Empirical data suggest that the United States’ presidential elections underwent such a phase transition in the 1970s and have since become increasingly unstable.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Unstable elections.
Fig. 2: Negative representation.
Fig. 3: The stability of elections depends on the degree of electorate polarization.
Fig. 4: Polarization in presidential elections in the United States.

Data availability

The data used in Fig. 4 are displayed in the figures of ref. 41 and are available from the authors upon reasonable request.

References

  1. 1.

    The subtle success of a complex mindset. Nat. Phys.14, 1149 (2018).

  2. 2.

    Savit, R., Manuca, R. & Riolo, R. Adaptive competition, market efficiency and phase transitions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2203–2206 (1999).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Stauffer, D. Social applications of two-dimensional Ising models. Am. J. Phys. 76, 470–473 (2008).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Castellano, C., Fortunato, S. & Loreto, V. Statistical physics of social dynamics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 591–646 (2009).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Kitsak, M. et al. Identification of influential spreaders in complex networks. Nat. Phys. 6, 888–893 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Ratkiewicz, J., Fortunato, S., Flammini, A., Menczer, F. & Vespignani, A. Characterizing and modeling the dynamics of online popularity. Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 158701 (2010).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Bar-Yam, Y. From big data to important information. Complexity 21, 73–98 (2016).

    ADS  MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Fortunato, S. & Castellano, C. Scaling and universality in proportional elections. Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 138701 (2007).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Galam, S. Sociophysics: a review of Galam models. Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 19, 409–440 (2008).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Borghesi, C. & Bouchaud, J.-P. Spatial correlations in vote statistics: a diffusive field model for decision-making. Eur. Phys. J. B 75, 395–404 (2010).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Chatterjee, A., Mitrović, M. & Fortunato, S. Universality in voting behavior: an empirical analysis. Sci. Rep. 3, 1049 (2013).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Fernández-Gracia, J., Suchecki, K., Ramasco, J. J., San Miguel, M. & Eguíluz, V. M. Is the voter model a model for voters? Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 158701 (2014).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Braha, D. & de Aguiar, M. A. Voting contagion: modeling and analysis of a century of US presidential elections. PloS One 12, e0177970 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Kadanoff, L. P. More is the same; phase transitions and mean field theories. J. Stat. Phys. 137, 777 (2009).

    ADS  MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Napel, S. & Widgrén, M. Power measurement as sensitivity analysis: a unified approach. J. Theor. Polit. 16, 517–538 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Banks, J. S. & Duggan, J. in Social Choice and Strategic Decisions (eds Austen-Smith, D. & Duggan, J.) 15–56 (Springer, 2005).

  17. 17.

    Black, D. On the rationale of group decision-making. J. Polit. Econ. 56, 23–34 (1948).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Hinich, M. J., Ledyard, J. O. & Ordeshook, P. C. et al. Nonvoting and the existence of equilibrium under majority rule. J. Econ. Theory 4, 144–153 (1972).

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Hinich, M. J. Some evidence on non-voting models in the spatial theory of electoral competition. Public Choice 33, 83–102 (1978).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Southwell, P. L. The politics of alienation: nonvoting and support for third-party candidates among 18–30-year-olds. Soc. Sci. J. 40, 99–107 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Plane, D. L. & Gershtenson, J. Candidates’ ideological locations, abstention and turnout in US midterm senate elections. Polit. Behav. 26, 69–93 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Adams, J., Dow, J. & Merrill, S. The political consequences of alienation-based and indifference-based voter abstention: applications to presidential elections. Polit. Behav. 28, 65–86 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Bar-Yam, Y. Dynamics of Complex Systems (Addison-Wesley, 1997).

  24. 24.

    Michard, Q. & Bouchaud, J.-P. Theory of collective opinion shifts: from smooth trends to abrupt swings. Eur. Phys. J. B 47, 151–159 (2005).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Grabowski, A. & Kosiński, R. Ising-based model of opinion formation in a complex network of interpersonal interactions. Phys. A Stat. Mech. Appl. 361, 651–664 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Sornette, D. Physics and financial economics (1776–2014): puzzles, Ising and agent-based models. Rep. Prog. Phys. 77, 062001 (2014).

    ADS  MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    May, R. M., Levin, S. A. & Sugihara, G. Complex systems: ecology for bankers. Nature 451, 893–894 (2008).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Scheffer, M. et al. Early-warning signals for critical transitions. Nature 461, 53–59 (2009).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Mora, T. & Bialek, W. Are biological systems poised at criticality? J. Stat. Phys. 144, 268–302 (2011).

    ADS  MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Bouchaud, J.-P. Crises and collective socio-economic phenomena: simple models and challenges. J. Stat. Phys. 151, 567–606 (2013).

    ADS  MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Harmon, D. et al. Anticipating economic market crises using measures of collective panic. PloS One 10, e0131871 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Bray, A. J. Theory of phase-ordering kinetics. Adv. Phys. 51, 481–587 (2002).

    ADS  MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Desilver, D. Electorally Competitive Counties have Grown Scarcer in Recent Decades (Pew Research Center, 2016); pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/30/electorally-competitive-counties-have-grown-scarcer-in-recent-decades/

  34. 34.

    Berelson, B. R., Lazarsfeld, P. F., McPhee, W. N. & McPhee, W. N. Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign (Univ. Chicago Press, 1954).

  35. 35.

    McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L. & Cook, J. M. Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Ann. Rev. Sociol. 27, 415–444 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Borghesi, C., Raynal, J.-C. & Bouchaud, J.-P. Election turnout statistics in many countries: similarities, differences and a diffusive field model for decision-making. PloS One 7, e36289 (2012).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Political Polarization in the American Public (Pew Research Center, 2014); http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/

  38. 38.

    McDonald, M. P. National General Election VEP Turnout Rates, 1789–Present (United States Election Project, 2019); electproject.org/national-1789-present

  39. 39.

    Gerber, E. R. & Lewis, J. B. Beyond the median: voter preferences, district heterogeneity and political representation. J. Polit. Econ. 112, 1364–1383 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Coughlin, P. & Nitzan, S. Electoral outcomes with probabilistic voting and Nash social welfare maxima. J. Public Econ. 15, 113–121 (1981).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Jordan, S., Webb, C. M. & Wood, B. D. The president, polarization and the party platforms. The Forum 12, 169–189 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Poole, K. T. & Rosenthal, H. A spatial model for legislative roll call analysis. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 29, 357–384 (1985).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Kardar, M. Statistical Physics of Fields (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under grant no. 1122374 and the Hertz Foundation. We thank B. D. Wood for sharing the data from his paper on the polarization of party platforms41 and I. Epstein and M. Kardar for helpful feedback.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

A.F.S. and Y.B.-Y. developed the concepts, performed the analyses and wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander F. Siegenfeld.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Physics thanks Robert Erikson, Soren Jordan and Vittorio Loreto for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary text, figure, and references.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Siegenfeld, A.F., Bar-Yam, Y. Negative representation and instability in democratic elections. Nat. Phys. 16, 186–190 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-019-0739-6

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing