The Conclave Bandwagon

If there is one thing that papal prognosticators seem to agree on — and nothing about this week’s conclave seems at all certain — it’s that the conclave will be short, likely two days, three at most. There will be an initial vote on Wednesday evening when the cardinal-electors first enter the Sistine Chapel and then two in the morning and two in the afternoon each day until they reach a two-thirds majority, or 89 votes out of 133 cardinal-electors. So a new pope Thursday afternoon or Friday morning. So they say.

It’s surprising to hear this prediction of a speedy conclave stated with such confidence given all the other uncertainties. But if history is any guide those forecasting a quick decision may be vindicated. The seven conclaves since 1939 have averaged one or two days in length; the longest was the 1958 conclave that lasted three days.

The smoke chimney is installed on the roof of the Sistine Chapel on May 4 in anticipation of the conclave on Wednesday, May 7. (Photo: Vatican Media)

Why is that? Purists would like to tell you it’s the power of the Holy Spirit. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, later elected Pope Benedict XVI, had a characteristically sensible view when asked whether the Holy Spirit picks the new pope:

“[T]he Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined…There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked!”

Social scientists have another theory, which could basically be summarized as “the bandwagon effect.”

There aren’t many studies on this and conclave secrecy complicates efforts to dig deeper. But a 2006 study by an Australian researcher, J.T. Toman who analyzed the voting patterns from seven conclaves in the 20th century found that cardinals who changed their minds did so principally because they saw the votes tipping toward a single candidate and they went with the expected winner.

Toman, an expert in econometrics at the University of Sydney and author of the paper, “The Papal Conclave: How do Cardinals Divine the Will of God?”, called these “strategic” voters as opposed to “sincere” voters who backed the same person through each ballot to the bitter end. So “the observed vote tallies” proved to be “the dominant force” in rallying the cardinals around a single candidate rather than politicking, as I wrote in a 2013 story about her study for Religion News Service.

Other researchers have also studied conclaves as an example of what is called “social choice theory” — the study of how large groups come to decisions — and agree that the requirement of a two-thirds majority to win plus the bandwagon effect helps cardinals come to a speedy decision.

“Two thirds forces the conclave to reject anyone who has a strong opposition in the beginning and look for a compromise, and the fact that you’re locked in leads to a compromise because you can’t take all the time in the world,” Iain McLean, a professor of politics at Oxford, and co-author of a paper, “Electing Popes: Approval Balloting and Qualified-Majority Rule,” told the Los Angeles Times.

In his 2004 book, Heirs of the Fisherman, the former Vatican diplomat and papal historian, John-Peter Pham, wrote that conclaves increasingly seem to be proving the social science theory that the larger the group, the greater the possibility of a little momentum carrying the entire group in one direction. As a Spanish cardinal, Vicente Enrique y Tarancón, told an interviewer in 1984: “You know that your vote is important, but it is one, and you feel a little dominated by the blocs.”

That dynamic seems to be playing out in this conclave as there are more cardinal-electors than ever — 133 versus a previous high of 115 — and they are from more different countries and do not know each other well. Church sources and news reports have indicated that in fact many cardinals from far-flung countries — especially those who don’t know Rome or Italian — are looking for any familiar face to advise them, or to be a person they would vote for.

Pham predicted that dynamic more than 20 years ago:

“In many respects,” Pham writes, “the equality of the electoral franchise with the College of Cardinals, coupled with the expansion of its membership, risks turning the venerable body into the ecclesiastical equivalent of the United Nations General Assembly: All are theoretically equal, but some enjoy greater ‘equality’ than others.”

There are also dynamics particular to the Catholic Church that tend to push for a quick conclave. For one thing, you are electing a pope who will have complete authority over your career. It behooves a cardinal to get on board as the votes start moving toward a winner. Yes, the balloting is secret. But secrecy is more a guideline than a rule and cardinals always tend to find out which way you voted.

The cardinals also put an enormous premium of unity, or at least the appearance of unity. For all the arguing and gossiping and dissension that can precede a conclave, you want to rally around the winner and make it appear you are all rowing together in the same direction behind the new pope. Post-conclave bickering makes everyone’s life more difficult, especially if you have a new pope who may bring some baggage, like Ratzinger in 2005. “If it was to be Ratzinger, it must be quick and clear-cut. Otherwise the reception would be disastrous,” Canadian Cardinal Marc Ouellet said in explaining the thinking of Benedict’s supporters in the 2005 conclave.

The papal fisherman’s seal is destroyed during the General Congregation of the College of Cardinals on Tuesday, May 6, 2025. (Photo: Vatican Media)

The other wrinkle to the papal conclave is that it is preceded by the so-called General Congregations, the pre-conclave discussions that can help the electors sort and sift the best candidates. There is little real politicking inside the Sistine Chapel so if they have narrowed the field from over 100 to perhaps a half dozen then they can move fairly quickly to second and third choices.

As the late Chicago Cardinal Francis George told reporters after the initial General Congregation in 2005:

“Someone quoted St. Thomas of Aquinas, who said you should be slow in deliberation and quick in decision-making. So, decision-making is the conclave, and deliberation is the General Congregations.”

But every conclave is different. In 2025? Yes, I predict it will be quick. Unless it’s not. Then it’s anybody’s guess.

Facebook Tweet LinkedIn Email