The standard model of political party density emphasizing the interaction of social cleavages and district magnitude (M) is incomplete in accounting for number of parties in cases of high values of M in an arbitrary way. We explore an alternative model for such cases emphasizing the slack in the issue agenda available to parties with which to construct viable identities or niches they can employ to mobilize cognitively-limited voters. The model is tested with time series data and event history analysis on the sizes of the public policy agenda and the political party system in the Netherlands, an extreme case of large district magnitude given its single national district. Change in the slack of the issue agenda influences the births and deaths of political parties, a result that may also have implications for cases of lower district magnitude.
AartsKeesMacdonaldStuart ElaineRabinowitzGeorge (1999) ‘Issues and Party Competition in the Netherlands', Comparative Political Studies32: 63–97.
2.
AlbrightJeremy J. (2010) ‘The Multidimentional Nature of Party Competition’, Party Politics16(6): 699–719.
3.
AldrichJohn H. (1995) Why Parties?Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
4.
AndewegRudy B.IrwinGalen A. (2005) Governance and Politics of the Netherlands, 2nd edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
5.
BaleTim (2003) ‘Cinderella and Her Ugly Sisters: The Mainstream and Extreme Right in Europe’s Bipolarising Party System’, West European Politics26: 67–90.
6.
BaumJoel A. C.OliverChristine (1996) ‘Toward and Institutional Ecology of Organization Founding’, Academyof Management Journal39(5): 1378–427.
7.
BaumgartnerFrank R.JonesBryan D. (1993) Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
8.
BelangerEricAartsKees (2006) ‘Explaining the Rise of the LPF: Issues, Discontent, and the 2002 Dutch Election’, Acta Politica41: 4–20.
BreemanGerhardLoweryDavidPoppelaarsCaelestaResodihardjoSandraTimmermansArcoVriesJouke de (2009) ‘Political Attention in a Coalition System: Analyzing Queen’s Speeches in the Netherlands 1947–2006’, Acta Politica44(1): 1–27.
11.
BreemanGerardTimmermansArcoLoweryDavidPoppelaarsCaelestaResodihardjoSandra (2008) ‘De Politieke Aandachtcyclus voor Openbaar Bestuur en Democratie’ [The Cycle of Political Attention for Public Administration and Democracy], Beleid, Politiek en Maatschappij35(3): 172–89.
12.
CanonBradley C. (1978) ‘Factionalism in the South: A Test of Theory and a Revisitation of V. O. Key’, American Journal of Political Science22(4): 833–48.
13.
ConversePhilip E. (1964) ‘The Nature of Mass Belief Systems in Mass Public’, in ApterDavid E (ed.) Ideology and Discontent, pp. 206–61. New York: Free Press.
14.
CoxGary W. (1997) Making Votes Count. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.
CoxGary W. (2006) ‘How Electoral Reform Might Affect the Number of Political Parties in The Netherlands', Acta Politica41: 133–45.
16.
DaalderHans (1984) ‘In Search of the Center of European Party Systems', American Political Science Review78: 1.
17.
CarpiniDelliMichaelX.KeeterScott (1996) What Americans Know About Politics and why it Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
18.
DownsAnthony (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
19.
DuvergerMaurice (1954) Political Parties. Trans. Barbara North and Robert North. New York: Wiley.
20.
GrummJ. G. (1958) ‘Theories of Electoral Systems', Midwest Journal of Political Science2: 357–76.
21.
HannanMichael T.CarrollGlenn R. (1992) Dynamics of Organizational Populations: Density, Competition, and Legitimation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22.
HannanMichael T.FreemanJohn (1977) ‘The Population Ecology of Organizations', American Journal of Sociology82(5): 929–64.
23.
HannanMichael T.PólosLászlóCarrollGlenn R. (2007) Logics of Organization Theory: Audiences, Codes, and Ecologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
24.
JaenschDean (1983) The Australian Party System. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
25.
JonesBryan D.BaumgartnerFrank R. (2005) The Politics of Attention. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
26.
KeyV. O (1949) Southern Politics. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
27.
KooleRuud (1996) Politieke Partijen in Nederland: Ontstaan en Ontwikkeling van Partijen enPartijstelsel[Political Parties in the Netherlands: Origin and Development of Parties and the Party System]. Utrecht: Het Spectrum.
28.
KriesiHanspeterGrandeEdgarLachtRomainDolezalMartin (2008) West European Politics in the Age of Globalization. Oxford: University Press.
29.
KrouwelAndreLucardiePaul (2008) ‘Waiting in the Wings: New Parties in the Netherlands', Acta Politica43: 278–307.
30.
LijphartArend (1990) ‘The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws, 1945–85’, American Political Science Review84(2): 481–496.
31.
LipsetSeymour MartinRokkanStein (1967) Party Systems and Voter Alignments. New York: Free Press.
32.
LoweryDavidOtjesSimonGherghinaSergiuWitteloosstuijnArjen vanPéliGáborBrasherHolly (2010) ‘Unpacking LogM: Toward a More General Theory of Party System Density’, American Journal of Political Science54(4): 921–35.
33.
LuskinRobert C. (2002) ‘From Denial to Extenuation (and Finally Beyond): Political Sophistication and Citizen Performance’, in KuklinskiJames H. (ed.) Thinking about Political Psychology, pp. 281–305. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34.
MacdonaldStuart ElaineRabinowitzGeorgeListhaugOlaf (1998) ‘On Attempting to Rehabilitate the Proximity Model: Sometimes the Patient Just Can’t Be Helped’, Journal of Politics60: 653–90.
35.
MairPeter (1997) Party System Change: Approaches and Interpretations. Oxford: Clarendon.
36.
MairPeter (1999) ‘New Political Parties in Established Political Systems: How Successful are They?’, in BeukelE.KlausenK. K.MouritzenP. E. (eds) Elites, Parties, and Democracy, pp. 207–24. Odense: Odense University Press.
37.
MeguidBonnie M. (2005) ‘Competition Between Unequals: The Role of Mainstream Party Strategy in Niche Party Success', American Political Science Review99(3): 347–59.
38.
MeiselJohn (1974) Cleavages, Parties, and Values in Canada. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
39.
NetoOctavio AmorimCoxGary W. (1997) ‘Electoral Institutions, Cleavage Structures, and the Number of Parties', American Journal of Political Science4: 149–174.
40.
OrdeshookPeter C.ShvetsovaOlga V. (1994) ‘Ethnic Heterogeneity, District Magnitude, and the Number of Parties', American Journal of Political Science38(1): 100–23.
41.
PéliGáborNooteboomBart (1999) ‘Market Partitioning and the Geometry of the Resource Space’, American Journal of Sociology104: 1132–53.
42.
PéliGáborWitteloostuijnArjen van (2009) ‘Optimal Monopoly Market Area Spanning in Multidimensional Commodity Spaces', Managerial and Decision Economics30: 1–14.
43.
PellikaanH.de LangeS. L.van der MeerT. (2007) ‘Fortuyn’s Legacy: Party System Change in the Netherlands', Comparative European Politics5: 282–302.
44.
PimmStuart L. H. Lee JonesDiamondJared (1988) ‘On the Risk of Extinction’, American Naturalist132(6): 757–8.
45.
PowellG. Bingham. 1982. Contemporary Democracies: Participation, Stability and Violence. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
46.
PowellG. Bingham (1986) ‘Extremist Parties and Political Turmoil: Two Puzzles', American Journal of Political Science30(2): 357–78.
47.
RabinowitzGeorgeMacdonaldStuart Elaine (1989) ‘A Directional Theory of Voting’, American Political Science Review83(1): 93–121.
48.
RaupDavid M. (1991) Extinction: Bad Luck or Bad Genes?New York: W. W. Norton.
49.
RikerWilliam H. (1982) ‘The Two-Party System and Duverger’s Law: An Essay on the History of Political Science’, American Political Science Review76(4): 753–766.
50.
RohrschneiderRobert (1993) ‘New Party versus Old Left Realignments: Environmental Attitudes, Party Policies, and Partisan Affiliations in Four West European Countries', Journal of Politics55(3): 682–701.
51.
SartoriGiovanni (1986) ‘The Influence of Electoral Systems: Faulty Laws or Faulty Method?’, in GrofmanBernardLijphartArend (eds) Electoral Laws and Their Political Consequences, pp. 43–68. New York: Agathon Press.
52.
SchlesingerJoseph A. (1984) ‘On the Theory of Party Organization’, Journal of Politics46: 369–400.
53.
TaageperaReinGrofmanBernard (1985) ‘Rethinking Duverger’s Law: Predicting the Effective Number of Parties in Plurality and PR systems – Parties Minus Issues Equals One’, European Journal of Political Research13: 341–52.
54.
TaageperaReinShugartMathew Soberg (1993) ‘Predicting the Number of Parties: A Quantitative Model of Duverger’s Mechanical Effect’, American Political Science Review87: 455–64.
55.
TavitsMargrit (2006) ‘Party System Change: Testing a Model of New Party Entry’, Party Politics12: 99–119.
56.
TavitsMargit (2007) ‘Party Systems in the Making: The Emergence and Success of New Parties in Democracies', British Journal of Political Science38: 113–33.
57.
TavitsMargit (2008) ‘Policy Positions, Issue Importance, and Party Competition in New Democracies', Comparative Political Studies41: 48–72.
58.
WalgraveS. F. VaroneDumontP. (2006) ‘Policy With or Without Parties? A Comparative Analysis of Policy Priorities and Policy Change in Belgium, 1991 to 2000’, Journal of European Public Policy13: 1021–38.
