Presidential elections with few candidates held in temporal proximity to legislative elections are believed to promote the nationalization and consolidation of the legislative party system. However, contrary to the existing literature, the authors argue here that the shadow presidential elections cast over legislative elections is contingent on the relative powers of the president vis-à-vis the legislature. Specifically, the authors find that proximate presidential elections with few presidential candidates promote the nationalization and consolidation of the legislative party system only when the president is neither very weak nor very powerful. They also find that proximate presidential elections with many presidential candidates promote the denationalization and fragmentation of the legislative party system only when the president is at least reasonably powerful.
BrancatiD. (2008). The origins and strengths of regional parties. British Journal of Political Science, 38, 135-159.
6.
CaramaniD. (2004). The nationalization of politics: The formation of national electorates and party systems in Western Europe. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
7.
ChhibberP.KollmanK. (1998). Party aggregation and the number of parties in India and the United States. American Political Science Review, 92, 329-342.
8.
ChhibberP.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.
9.
ClarkW.GolderM. (2006). Rehabilitating Duverger’s theory: Testing the mechanical and strategic modifying effect of electoral laws. Comparative Political Studies, 39, 679-708.
10.
CoxG. (1997). Making votes count: Strategic coordination in the world’s electoral systems. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
11.
CoxG.KnollJ. (2003, August). Ethnes, fiscs and electoral rules: The determinants of party system inflation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA.
12.
FearonJ. (2003). Ethnic structure and cultural diversity by country. Journal of Economic Growth, 8, 195-222.
13.
FryeT.HellmanJ.TuckerJ. (2000). Data base on political institutions in the post-communist world. Unpublished data set, Ohio State University, Columbus.
14.
GolderM. (2005). Democratic electoral systems around the world, 1946–2000. Electoral Studies, 24, 103-121.
15.
GolderM. (2006). Presidential coattails and legislative fragmentation. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 34-48.
16.
HazanR. (1996). Presidential parliamentarism: Direct popular election of the prime minister, Israel’s new electoral and political system. Electoral Studies, 15, 21-37.
17.
HazanR.RahatG. (2000). Representation, electoral reform, and democracy. Comparative Political Studies, 33, 1310-1336.
18.
HickenA. (2009). Building party systems in developing democracies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
19.
HickenA.StollH. (2008). Electoral rules and the size of the prize: How political institutions shape presidential party systems. Journal of Politics, 70, 1-19.
20.
HickenA.StollH. (2011). Presidents and parties: How presidential elections shape coordination in legislative elections. Comparative Political Studies, 44, 854-884.
21.
JonesM. (1994). Presidential election laws and multipartism in Latin America. Political Research Quarterly, 47, 41-57.
22.
JonesM. (1999). Electoral laws and the effective number of candidates in presidential elections. Journal of Politics, 61, 171-184.
23.
KezdiG. (2004). Robust standard error estimation in fixed-effects panel models. Hungarian Statistical Review, Special English, 9, 95-116.
24.
LaaksoM.TaageperaR. (1979). Effective number of parties: A measure with application to Western Europe. Comparative Political Studies, 12, 3-27.
25.
LinzJ. (1994). Presidential or parliamentary: Does it make a difference? In LinzJ.ValenzuelaA. (Eds.), The failure of presidential democracy (Vol. 1, pp. 3-90). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
26.
MainwaringS.ShugartM. (1997). Conclusion: Presidentialism and the party system. In MainwaringS.ShugartM. (Eds.), Presidentialism and democracy in Latin America (pp. 394-437). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
27.
MetcalfLee Kendall (2000). Measuring Presidential Power. Comparative Political Studies33(4), 660-685.
28.
MorgensternS.PotthoffR. (2004). The components of elections: District heterogeneity, district-time effects, and volatility. Electoral Studies, 24, 17-40.
29.
MoserR. (1998). The electoral effects of presidentialism in post-Soviet Russia. Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 14, 54-75.
30.
NeweyW. K.WestK. D. (1987). A simple, positive-definite, heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent covariance matrix. Econometrica, 55, 703-708.
31.
SamuelsD. (2003). Careerism and its consequences: Federalism, elections, and policy making in Brazil. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
32.
SamuelsD.ShugartM. (2010). Presidents, parties, and prime ministers: How the separation of powers affects party organization and behavior. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
33.
ShugartM. (1995). The electoral cycle and institutional sources of divided presidential government. American Political Science Review, 89, 327-343.
34.
ShugartM.CareyJ. (1992). Presidents and assemblies: Constitutional design and electoral dynamics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
35.
SuleimanE. N. (1994). Presidentialism and political stability in France. In LinzJ.ValenzuelaA. (Eds.), The failure of presidential democracy (Vol. 1, pp. 137-162). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
36.
TsebelisG. (1995). Decision making in political systems: Veto players in presidentialism, parliamentarism, multicameralism and multipartyism. British Journal of Political Science, 25, 289-325.
