This article draws on a comprehensive data set from the 1993-1999 Russian regional legislative elections to estimate the consequences of different plurality or majority rules, as well as their combinations with proportional representation (PR), for party formation in the country. The results of multiple regression analysis indicate that the system of single-member plurality does not support party formation. Mixed electoral systems involve PR support parties in two ways: first, mechanically, by excluding independents from party list competition, and second, as a result of contamination effects across these systems' components. Counterintuitively, the analysis reveals that the systems of multimember plurality and two-round majority tend to be relatively supportive of party formation. The article explains this phenomenon by developing a model that incorporates these systems' ability to set lower effective thresholds and to enhance the information value of party labels, thus facilitating the entry of party candidates and their electoral success.
Aldrich, J. H. (1995). Why parties? The origin and transformation of political parties in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2.
Amorim-Neto, O. , & Cox, G. W. (1997). Electoral institutions, cleavage structures, and the number of parties. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 149-174.
3.
Benoit, K. (2001). District magnitude, electoral formula, and the number of parties. European Journal of Political Research, 39, 203-224.
4.
Brader, T. , & Tucker, J. (2001). The emergence of mass partisanship in Russia, 1993-1996. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 69-83.
5.
Carey, J. M. , & Shugart, M. S. (1995). Incentives to cultivate a personal vote: A rank ordering of electoral formulas. Electoral Studies, 14, 417-439.
6.
Colton, T. J. (2000). Transitional citizens: Voters and what influences them in the new Russia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.
Colton, T. J. , & McFaul, M. (2000). Reinventing Russia's party of power: “Unity” and the 1999 Duma elections. Post-Soviet Affairs, 16, 201-225.
8.
Cox, Gary W. (1997). Making votes count: Strategic coordination in the world's electoral systems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
9.
Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
10.
Duverger, M. (1963). Political parties: Their organization and activity in the modern state.New York: Wiley.
11.
Fish, M. S. (1995). The advent of multipartism in Russia. Post-Soviet Affairs, 11, 340-383.
12.
Gel'man, V. , & Golosov, G. V. (1998). Regional party system formation in Russia: The deviant case of Sverdlovsk oblast. Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 14, 31-53.
13.
Golosov, G. V. (1997). Russian political parties and the “bosses”: Evidence from the 1994 provincial elections in Western Siberia. Party Politics, 3, 5-21.
14.
Golosov, G. V. (1998). Who survives? Party origins, organizational development and electoral performance in post-communist Russia. Political Studies, 46, 511-543.
15.
Golosov, G. V. (1999). From Adygeya to Yaroslavl: Factors of party development in the regions of Russia, 1995-1998. Europe-Asia Studies, 51, 1333-1365.
16.
Golosov, G. V. (2001). Political parties, electoral systems and women's representation in the regional legislative assemblies of Russia, 1995-1998. Party Politics, 7, 45-68.
17.
Golosov, G. V. (2002). Party support or personal resources? Factors of success in the plurality portion of the 1999 national legislative elections in Russia. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 35, 23-38.
18.
Golosov, G. V. , & Yargomskaya, N. (1999). The impact of Russia's electoral system on the competitive strategies of political actors in the Duma elections. In V. Gel'man & G. V. Golosov (Eds.), Elections in Russia, 1993-1996: Analyses, documents and data (pp. 150-171). Berlin, Germany: Edition Sigma.
19.
Herron, E. S. , & Nishikawa, M. (2001). Contamination effects and the number of parties in mixed-superposition electoral systems. Electoral Studies, 20, 63-86.
20.
Huntington, S. (1965). Political development and political decay. World Politics, 17, 386-430.
21.
Katz, R. S. (1980). A theory of parties and electoral systems. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
22.
Lijphart, A. (1975). The comparable-cases strategy in comparative research. Comparative Political Studies, 8, 158-177.
23.
Lijphart, A. (1994). Electoral systems and party systems: A study of twenty-seven democracies, 1945-1990. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
24.
Lijphart, A. , López Pintor, R., & Sone, Y. (1986). The limited vote and the single nontransferable vote: Lessons from the Japanese and Spanish examples. In B. Grofman & A. Lijphart (Eds.), Electoral laws and their political consequences (pp. 154-169). New York: Agathon Press.
25.
Lipset, S. M. (2000). The indispensability of parties. Journal of Democracy, 11, 48-55.
26.
Mainwaring, S. P. (1999). Rethinking party systems in the third wave of democratization: The case of Brazil. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
27.
Massicotte, L. , & Blais, A. (1999). Mixed electoral systems: A conceptual and empirical survey. Electoral Studies, 18, 341-366.
28.
McFaul, M. (2001). Explaining party formation and nonformation in Russia: Actors, institutions, and chance. Comparative Political Studies, 34, 1159-1187.
29.
Moser, R. G. (1997). The impact of parliamentary electoral systems in Russia. Post-Soviet Affairs, 13, 284-302.
30.
Moser, R. G. (1999). Independents and party formation: Elite partisanship as an intervening variable in Russian politics. Comparative Politics, 31, 147-165.
31.
Rae, D. W. (1967). The political consequences of electoral laws. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
32.
Rae, D. W. , Hanby, V. J., & Loosemore, J. (1971). Thresholds of representation and thresholds of exclusion: An analytic note on electoral systems. Comparative Political Studies, 3, 479-488.
33.
Remington, T. F. (2000). The evolution of executive-legislative relations in Russia since 1993. Slavic Review, 59, 499-520.
34.
Rose, R. , Munro, N., & White, S. (2001). Voting in a floating party system: The 1999 Duma election. Europe-Asia Studies, 53, 419-443.
35.
Ross, C. (2000). Federalism and democratization in Russia. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 33, 403-420.
36.
Sartori, G. (1976). Parties and party systems: A framework for analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
37.
Shevchenko, I. , & Golosov, G. V. (2001). Legislative activism of Russian Duma deputies, 1996-1999. Europe-Asia Studies, 53, 239-261.
38.
Shugart, M. S. , & Wattenberg, M. P. (Eds.). (2001). Mixed-member electoral systems: The best of both worlds?Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
39.
Slider, D. (1996). Elections to Russia's regional assemblies. Post-Soviet Affairs, 12, 243-264.
40.
Solnick, S. L. (1998). Gubernatorial elections in Russia, 1996-1997. Post-Soviet Affairs, 14, 48-80.
41.
Stoner-Weiss, K. (2002). Central governing incapacity and the weakness of political parties: Russian democracy in disarray. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 32, 1-22.
42.
Taagepera, R. , & Shugart, M. S. (1989). Seats and votes: The effects and determinants of electoral systems. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
43.
Weaver, L. (1984). Semi-proportional and proportional representation systems in the United States. In A. Lijphart & B. Grofman (Eds.), Choosing an electoral system: Issues and alternatives (pp. 191-206). New York: Praeger.
