How does a party’s size affect its decision to run a candidate for president? Consistent with the literature, the authors posit that environmental factors influence the likelihood that a party enters the presidential race. However, the authors argue that the effects of these factors are conditional on party size. Large parties are influenced by factors that increase their chances at being competitive, whereas small parties are influenced by factors that allow them to build their credibility. To evaluate the conditional effects of party size, the authors use an original data set of more than 2,400 party-level observations in 23 democracies across South America and Europe from 1975 to 2009. They find that small and large parties respond differently to several environmental conditions, namely, the presence of an incumbent, “crowded” plurality elections, and federalism. The findings have important implications for understanding party strategy and the factors that alter the competition for the most important of political offices.
AdamsJ.ClarkM.EzrowL.GlasgowG. (2006). Are niche parties fundamentally different from mainstream parties? The causes and the electoral consequences of Western European parties’ policy shifts, 1976–1998. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 513-529.
2.
Amorim NetoO. (2006). The presidential calculus: Executive policy making and cabinet formation in the Americas. Comparative Political Studies, 39, 415-440.
3.
Amorim NetoO.CoxG. W. (1997). Electoral institutions, cleavage structures, and the number of parties. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 149-174.
4.
BirchS. (2009). Full participation: A comparative study of compulsory voting. New York, NY: United Nations University Press.
5.
BolleyerN. (2007). Small parties: From party pledges to government policy. West European Politics, 30, 121—147.
BruhnK. (1997). Taking on goliath: The emergence of a new left party and the struggle for democracy in Mexico. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
8.
ChandraK. (2004). Why ethnic parties succeed: Patronage and ethnic head counts in India. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
9.
CheibubJ. A.PrzeworskiA.SaieghS. (2004). Government coalitions and legislative success under presidentialism and parliamentarism. British Journal of Political Science, 34, 565-587.
10.
ChhibberP. K.KollmanK. (1998). Party aggregation and the number of parties in India and the United States. American Political Science Review, 92, 329-342.
11.
ChhibberP. K.KollmanK. (2004). The formation of national party systems: Federalism and party competition in Canada, Great Britain, India, and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
12.
ClarkW. R.GolderM. (2006). Rehabilitating Duverger’s theory: Testing the mechanical strategic modifying effects of electoral laws. Comparative Political Studies, 39, 679-708.
13.
CoxG. W. (1997). Making votes count: Strategic coordination in the world’s electoral systems. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
14.
DawishaK.DeetsS. (2006). Political learning in post-communist elections. East European Politics and Society, 20, 691-728.
15.
de SwaanA. (1973). Coalition theories and cabinet formations: A study of formal theories of coalition formation applied to nine European parliaments after 1918. New York, NY: Elsevier.
16.
DicksonE. S.ScheveK. (2010). Social identity, electoral institutions and the number of candidates. British Journal of Political Science, 40, 349-375.
17.
DominguezJ.PoiréA. (1999). Toward Mexico’s democratization: Parties’ campaigns, elections and public opinion. New York, NY: Routledge.
18.
DownsA. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
19.
DumontP.BäckH. (2006). Why so few, and why so late? Green parties and the question of governmental participation. European Journal of Political Research, 45, 35-67.
20.
DuvergerM. (1954). Political parties: Their organization and activity in the modern state. New York, NY: John Wiley.
21.
EpsteinL. (1967). Political parties in Western democracies. New York, NY: Praeger.
22.
EzrowL.de VriesC. E.SteenbergenM.EdwardsE. E. (2011). Mean voter representation versus partisan constituency representation: Do parties respond to the mean voter position or to their supporters?Party Politics, 17, 275-301.
23.
FairR. C. (2002). Predicting presidential elections and other things. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
24.
FeddersenT.SenedI.WrightS. G. (1990). Rational voting and candidate entry under plurality rule. American Journal of Political Science, 34, 1005-1016.
25.
FerejohnJ.CalvertR. (1984). Presidential coattails in historical perspective. American Journal of Political Science, 28, 127-146.
26.
FerraraF.HerronE. (2005). Going it alone? Strategic entry under mixed electoral rules. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 16—31.
27.
FiorinaM. P. (1981). Retrospective voting in American national elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
28.
GolderM. (2006). Presidential coattails and legislative fragmentation. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 34-48.
29.
GreenbergJ.ShepsleK. (1987). The effect of electoral rewards in a multiparty competition with entry. American Political Science Review, 81, 525—537.
30.
HardarsonÓ. (1997). Iceland. European Journal of Political Research, 32, 391-398.
31.
HarmelR.JandaK. (1994). An integrated theory of party goals and party change. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 6, 259-287.
32.
HellerW. (2002). Regional parties and national politics in Europe: Spain’s Estado de las Autonomías, 1993–2000. Comparative Political Studies, 35, 657-685.
HerzogH. (1987). Minor parties: The relevancy perspective. Comparative Politics, 19, 317-329.
35.
HickenA. (2009). Building party systems in developing democracies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
36.
HickenA.StollH. (2008). Electoral rules and the size of the prize: How political institutions shape presidential party systems. Journal of Politics, 70, 1109-1127.
37.
HuntingtonS. P. (1990). The third wave: Democratization in the late twentieth century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
38.
JandaK. (1967). Retrieving information for a comparative study of political parties. In CrottyW. J. (Ed.), Approaches to the study of party organization (pp. 159-215). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
39.
JensenC. B.SpoonJ. (2010). Thinking locally, acting supranationally: Niche party behaviour in the European Parliament. European Journal of Political Research, 49, 174-201.
40.
JonesM. P. (1994). Presidential election laws and multipartism in Latin America. Political Research Quarterly, 47, 41-57.
41.
JonesM. P. (1999). Electoral laws and the effective number of candidates in presidential elections. Journal of Politics, 61, 171-184.
42.
JonesM. P. (2004). Electoral institutions, social cleavages, and candidate competition in presidential elections. Electoral Studies, 23, 73-106.
43.
KamC. D.FranzeseR. J.Jr. (2007). Modeling and interpreting interactive hypotheses in regression analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
44.
KirchheimerO. (1966). The transformation of the Western European party systems. In LaPalombaraJ.WeinerM. (Eds.), Political parties and political development (pp. 177-200). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
45.
KitscheltH. (1989). The logics of party formation: Ecological politics in Belgium and West Germany. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
46.
LaaksoM.TaageperaR. (1979). Effective number of parties: A measure with application to Western Europe. Comparative Political Studies, 12, 3-27.
47.
LaverM. (1998). Models of government coordination. Annual Review of Political Science, 1, 1-25.
48.
LeysC. (1959). Models, theories and the theory of political parties. Political Studies, 7, 127-146.
49.
LijphartA. (1994). Electoral and party systems: A study of twenty-seven democracies, 1945–1990. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
50.
LipsetS. M.RokkanS. (1967). Party systems and voter alignments: Cross national perspectives. New York, NY: Free Press.
51.
MadridR. L. (2005). Ethnic cleavages and electoral volatility in Latin America. Comparative Politics, 38, 1-20.
52.
MainwaringS.ShugartM. S. (1997). Conclusion: Presidentialism and the party system. In MainwaringS.ShugartM. S. (Eds.), Presidentialism and democracy in Latin America (pp. 394-439). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
53.
MairP. (1997). Party system change: Approaches and interpretations. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
54.
MartinL. W.StevensonR. (2001). Government formation in parliamentary democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 33-50.
55.
MayhewD. R. (2008). Incumbency advantage in U.S. presidential elections: The historical record. Political Science Quarterly, 123, 201-228.
56.
MeguidB. M. (2005). Competition between unequals: The role of mainstream party strategy in niche party success. American Political Science Review, 99, 347-359.
57.
MeguidB. M. (2008). Party competition between unequals: Strategies and electoral fortunes in Western Europe. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
58.
MorenoE. (2003). Subnational determinants of national multipartism in Latin America. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 28, 179-201.
59.
MorenoE. (2005). Whither the Colombian two-party system? An assessment of political reforms and their limits. Electoral Studies, 24, 485-509.
60.
MozaffarS.ScarrittJ. R.GalaichG. (2003). Electoral institutions, ethnopolitical cleavages and party systems in Africa’s emerging democracies. American Political Science Review, 97, 379-390.
61.
MüllerW.StrØmK. (Eds.). (1999). Policy, office or votes? How political parties in Western Europe make hard decisions. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
62.
Müller-RommelF.PridhamG. (1991). Small parties in Western Europe: Comparative and national perspectives. London, UK: Sage.
63.
Nadenichek GolderS. (2006). Pre-electoral coalition formation in parliamentary democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 36, 193-212.
64.
OrdeshookP.ShvetsovaO. (1994). Ethnic heterogeneity, district magnitude, and the number of parties. American Journal of Political Science, 38, 100-123.
65.
PalfreyT. (1984). Spatial equilibrium with entry. Review of Economic Studies, 51, 139-156.
66.
PowerT. J. (2010). Optimism, pessimism, and coalitional presidentialism: Debating the institutional design of Brazilian democracy. Bulletin of Latin American Research, 29, 18-33.
67.
PrzeworskiA.SpragueJ. (1986). Paper stones: A history of electoral socialism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
68.
RikerW. H. (1982). The two-party system and Duverger’s law: An essay on the history of political science. American Political Science Review, 76, 753-766.
69.
RoseR.UrwinD. (1970). Persistence and change in Western party systems since 1945. Political Studies, 18, 287-319.
70.
SamuelsD. J. (2002). Presidentialized parties. Comparative Political Studies, 35, 461-483.
71.
SamuelsD. J. (2003). Ambition, federalism and legislative politics in Brazil. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
72.
SamuelsD. J. (2004). Presidentialism and accountability for the economy in comparative perspective. American Political Science Review, 98, 425-36.
73.
SartoriG. (1976). Parties and party systems: A framework for analysis. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
74.
ShugartM. S.CareyJ. (1992). Presidents and assemblies: Constitutional design and electoral dynamics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
75.
SpoonJ. (2011). Political survival of small parties in Europe. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
76.
StrØmK. (1990). A behavioral theory of competitive political parties. American Journal of Political Science, 34, 565-598.
77.
WeisbergH. F. (2002). Partisanship and incumbency in presidential elections. Political Behavior, 24, 339-360.
78.
WildavskyA. (1959). A methodological critique of Duverger’sPolitical Parties. Journal of Politics, 21, 303-318.
79.
WilsonJ. Q. (1973). Political organizations. New York, NY: Basic Books.
