Electoral laws, parties, and party systems in Latin America

Annual Review of Political Science

Volumn 10, Issue , 2007, Pages 143-168

  Morgenstern, Scott ^a   Vázquez D'Elía, Javier ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

Contextual variables; District magnitude; Institutions

Indexed keywords

EID: 34347338642     PISSN: 10942939     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.081205.094050     Document Type: Review

References (72)

1. American Political Science Association, Committee on Political Parties. 1950. Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System. New York: Rinehart
2. Ames B. 2001. The Deadlock of Democracy in Brazil. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
3. Amorim Neto O. 2002. The puzzle of party discipline in Brazil. Latin Am. Politics Soc. 44:127-44
4. Amorim Neto O, Cox G. 1997. Electoral institutions, cleavage structures, and the number of parties. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 41(1):149-74
5. Auyero J. 2000. Poor People's Politics. Peronist Survival Networks and the Legacy of Evita. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
6. Caramani D. 2000. Elections in Western Europe since 1815: Electoral Results by Constituencies. London: MacMillan Reference
7. Caramani D. 2004. The Nationalization of Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
8. Carey JM. 1998. Term Limits and Legislative Representation. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
9. Carey JM. 2002. Parties, coalitions, and the Chilean Congress in the 1990s. In Legislative Politics in Latin America, ed. S Morgenstern, B Nacif, pp. 222-53. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
10. Carey JM, Shugart MS. 1995. Incentives to cultivate a personal vote: a rank ordering of electoral formulas. Elect. Stud. 14:417-39
11. Chhibber P, Kollman K. 1998. Party aggregation and the number of parties in India and the United States. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 92.2:329-42
12. Chhibber P, Kollman K. 2004. The Formation of National Party Systems: Federalism and Party Competition in Canada, Great Britain, India, and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
13. Clark WR, Golder M. 2006. Rehabilitating Duverger's theory. Testing the mechanical and strategic modifying effects of electoral laws. Comp. Polit. Stud. 39.6:679-708
14. Coppedge M. 1994. Strong Parties and Lame Ducks. Presidential Partyarchy and Factionalism in Venezuela. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
15. Coppedge M. 1997. District magnitude, economic performance, and party-system fragmentation in five Latin American countries. Comp. Polit. Stud. 3(2):156-72
16. Coppedge M. 2001. Political Darwinism in Latin America's lost decade. In Political Porties and Democracy, ed. L Diamond, R Gunther, pp. 173-206. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press
17. Cox GW. 1997. Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral Systems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
18. Crisp BF. 2000. Democratic Institutional Design: The Powers and Incentives of Venezuelan Politicians and Interest Groups. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
19. Crisp BF, Johnson GB. 2003. Mandates, powers and policies. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 471:128-42
20. Duverger M. 1954. Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. New York: Wiley
21. Duverger M. 1986. Duverger's Law thirty years later. In Electoral Laws and their Political Consequences, ed. B Grofman, A Lijphart, pp. 69-84. New York: Agathon
22. Figueiredo AC, Limongi F. 2000. Presidential power, legislative organization, and party behavior in Brazil. Comp. Polit. 32.2:151-70
23. Hallerberg M, Marier P. 2004. Executive authority, the personal vote, and budget discipline in Latin American countries. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 48:3 571-87
24. Jones MP. 1995. Electoral Laws and the Survival of Presidential Democracies. Notre Dame, IN: Univ. Notre Dame Press
25. Jones MP. 1997. Federalism and the number of parties in Argentine congressional elections. J. Polit. 59:538-49
26. Jones MP. 2002. Explaining the high level of party discipline in the Argentine Congress. In Legislative Politics in Latin America, ed. S Morgenstern, B Nacif, pp. 147-84. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
27. Jones MP, Saiegh S, Spiller PT, Tomassi M. 2002. Amateur legislators, professional politicians: the consequences of party-centered electoral rules in a federal system. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 46(3):656-69
28. Jones MP, Mainwaring S. 2003. The nationalization of parties and party systems: an empirical measure and an application to the Americas. Party Politics 9:139-66
29. Kellam M, Alemán E. 2004. The nationalization of electoral change in the Americas. Presented at Annu. Meet. Midwest Polit. Sci. Assoc., Chicago
30. Kitschelt H, Wilkinson S. 2007. Patrons, Clients and Policies: Patterns of Democratic Accountability and Competition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press. In press
31. Kulischek MR, Crisp B. 2003. The legislative consequences of MMP electoral rules in Venezuela. In Mixed-Member Electoral Systems. The Best of Both Worlds?, ed. MS Shugart, MP Wattenberg, pp. 404-31. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
32. Levitsky S. 2001. Organization and labor-based party adaptation. The transformation of Argentine Peronism in comparative perspective. World Polit. 54:27-56
33. Levitsky S. 2003. Transforming Labor-Based Parties in Latin America. Argentine Peronism in Comparative Perspective. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
34. Levitsky S. 2005. Argentina: democratic survival amidst economic failure. In The Third Wave of Democratization in Latin America. Advances and Setbacks, ed. F Hagopian, S Mainwaring, pp. 63-89. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
35. Londregan J. 2002. Appointment, reelection, and autonomy in the senate of Chile. In Legislative Politics in Latin America, ed. S Morgenstern, B Nacif, pp. 341-76. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
36. Lyne MM. 2005. Parties as programmatic agents: a test of institutional theory in Brazil. Party Polit. 11.2:193-216
37. Mainwaring S. 1999. Rethinking Party Systems in the Third Wave of Democratization. The Case of Brazil. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
38. Mainwaring S, Pérez-Líñan A. 1997. Party discipline in the Brazilian Constitutional Congress. Legis. Stud. Q. 22.4:453-83
39. Mainwaring S, Scully TR. 1995. Building democratic institutions. Party Systems in Latin America. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
40. Mainwaring S, Shugart M. 1997. Presidentialism and the party system. In Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin America, pp. 394-439. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
41. Mainwaring S, Torcal M. 2005. Party system institutionalization and party system theory after the third wave of demoralization. Work. Pap. Ser., Kellogg Inst. Int. Stud., Univ. Notre Dame
42. Milesi-Ferreti GM, Perotti R, Rostagno M. 2002. Electoral systems and public spending. Q. J. Econ. 117(2):609-57
43. Moreno E. 2005. Whither the Colombian two-party system? An assessment of political reforms and their limits. Elect. Stud. 24(3):485-509
44. Morgenstern S. 2001. Organized factions and disorganized parties. Electoral incentives in Uruguay. Party Polit. 7(2):235-56
45. Morgenstern S. 2004. Patterns of Legislative Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
46. Morgenstern S, Swindle S, Castagnola A. 2006. Party nationalization and institutions. Presented at Annu. Meet. Midwest Polit. Sci. Assoc., Chicago
47. Nacif B. 2002. Understanding party discipline in the Mexican Chamber of Deputies: the centralized party model. In Legislative Politics in Latin America, ed. S Morgenstern, B Nacif, pp. 254-86. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
48. Nielson DL. 2003. Supplying trade reform: political institutions and liberalization in middle-income presidential democracies. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 47:3 470-91
49. Norris P. 2004. Electoral Engineering. Voting Rules and Political Behavior. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
50. Ordeshook P, Shvetsova O. 1994. Ethnic homogeneity, district magnitude, and the number of parties. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 38:100-23
51. Payne MJ, Carillo F, Zovatto FD. 2002. Democracies in Development. Washington, DC: Inter-Am. Dev. Bank
52. Pérez-Liñán A, Wills Otero L. 2005. La evolución de los sistemas electorales en América: 1990-2004. Colección XI(16)-47-82
53. Persson T, Roland G, Tabellini G. 2000. Comparative politics and public finance. J. Polit. Econ. 108(6): 1121-61
54. Persson T, Tabellini G. 2003. The Economic Effects of Constitutions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
55. Persson T, Tabellini G, Trebbi F. 2003. Electoral rules and corruption. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 1:958-89
56. Rice R, Van Cott DL. 2006. The emergence and performance of indigenous peoples' parties in Latin America. Comp. Polit. Stud. 39:709-32
57. Roberts K, Wibbels E. 1999. Party systems and electoral volatility in Latin America: a test of economic, institutional, and structural explanations. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 93(3):575-90
58. Rosas G. 2005. The ideological organization of Latin American legislative parties. Comp. Polit. Stud. 38.7:824-49
59. Samuels D. 1997. "Legislative Liliputians?" Towards a theory of party cohesion in the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies. Presented at Meet. Latin Am. Stud. Assoc., Guadalajara, Mex.
60. Samuels D, 2000. Concurrent elections, discordant results: presidentialism, federalism, and governance in Brazil. Comp. Polit. 33(1):1-20
61. Sartori G. 1976. Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
62. Sartori G. 1994. Comparative Constitutional Engineering: An Inquiry into Structures, Incentives, and Outcomes. New York: NY Univ. Press
63. Sartori G. 1997. Comparative Constitutional Engineering. An Inquiry into Structures, Incentives and Outcomes. New York: NY Univ. Press
64. Sartori G. 2001. The party effects of electoral systems. In Political Parties and Democracy, ed. L Diamond, R Gunther, pp. 90-108. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press
65. Schattschneider EE. 1960. The Semisovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America. New York: Rinehart & Winston
66. Seddon Wallack J, Gaviria A, Panizza U, Stein E. 2003. Particularism around the world. World Bank Econ. Rev. 17.1:133-43
67. Shugart MS. 1995. The electoral cycle and institutional sources of divided presidential government. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 89:327-43
68. Shugart MS, Carey JM. 1992. Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ, Press
69. Siavelis P. 1997. Continuity and change in the Chilean party system: on the transformational effects of electoral reform. Comp. Polit. Stud. 30:651-75
70. Siavelis PM. 2000. The President and Congress in Postauthoritarian Chile. Institutional Constraints to Democratic Consolidation. University Park, PA: Penn. State Univ. Press
71. Siavelis PM. 2005. Electoral system, coalitional disintegration, and the future of Chile's Concertación. Latin Am. Res. Rev. 40:56-82
72. Strom K. 1985. Party goals and government performance in parliamentary democracies. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 79:738-54