Prior research has shown that institutions affect parties’ incentives to coordinate within elections or compete on their own. However, no study to date has examined with institutional effects when parties coordinate in the most important of electoral contests: the presidential race. In this article, we explain which institutions encourage parties to run as part of pre-electoral coalitions (PECs) or shun them and run on their own in the race for the presidency. Using an original dataset of over 1400 parties that sponsored a candidate on their own or ran as part of an alliance in presidential elections across 23 democracies in Europe and South America from 1975 to 2009, we find that the powers of the presidential office, electoral rules and multi-level governance determine when parties decide to enter the race on their own or form an alliance. Our findings have important implications for understanding party competition in semi-presidential and presidential systems.
Amorim NetoOCoxGW (1997) Electoral institutions, cleavage structures, and the number of parties. American Journal of Political Science41(1): 149–174.
2.
BirchS (2009) Full Participation: A Comparative Study of Compulsory Voting. New York: United Nations University Press.
3.
BlaisAIndridasonI (2007) Making candidates count: The logic of electoral alliances in two-round legislative elections. Journal of Politics69(1): 193–205.
CarrollRCoxGW (2007) The logic of Gamson's law: Pre-election coalitions and portfolio allocations. American Journal of Political Science51(2): 300–313.
6.
CheibubJAPrzeworskiASaieghSM (2004) Government coalitions and legislative success under presidentialism and parliamentarism. British Journal of Political Science34(4): 565–587.
7.
ChhibberPKKollmanK (1998) Party aggregation and the number of parties in India and the United States. American Political Science Review92(2): 329–342.
8.
ChhibberPKKollmanK (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.
ClarkWRGolderM (2006) Rehabilitating Duverger’s theory: Testing the mechanical strategic modifying effects of electoral laws. Comparative Political Studies39(6): 679–708.
10.
CoxGW (1997) Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
11.
DuvergerM (1954) Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. New York: Wiley.
12.
ElgieRMoestrupS (eds) (2008) Semi-Presidentialism in Central and Eastern Europe. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
13.
FerejohnJCalvertR (1984) Presidential coat-tails in historical perspective. American Journal of Political Science28(1): 127–146.
14.
FerraraFHerronE (2005) Going it alone? Strategic entry under mixed electoral rules. American Journal of Political Science49(1): 16–31.
15.
GolderM (2006) Presidential coattails and legislative fragmentation. American Journal of Political Science50(1): 34–48.
16.
GolderSN (2006) The Logic of Pre-Electoral Coalition Formation. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
17.
HardarsonÓ (1997) Iceland. European Journal of Political Research32: 391–398.
HickenA (2009) Building Party Systems in Developing Democracies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
20.
HickenAStollH (2008) Electoral rules and the size of the prize: How political institutions shape presidential party systems. Journal of Politics70(4): 1109–1127.
21.
HuntingtonSP (1990) The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
22.
JonesMP (1994) Presidential election laws and multipartism in Latin America. Political Research Quarterly47(1): 41–57.
23.
JonesMP (1997) Federalism and the number of parties in Argentine congressional elections. Journal of Politics59: 538–549.
24.
JonesMP (1999) Electoral laws and the effective number of candidates in presidential elections. Journal of Politics61(1): 171–184.
25.
JonesMP (2004) Electoral institutions, social cleavages, and candidate competition in presidential elections. Electoral Studies23(1): 73–106.
26.
KellamM (2011) Credible coalitions? Pre-electoral agreements and post-electoral governments in presidential systems. Paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
27.
LijphartA (1999) Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Democracies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
28.
MachadoA (2009) Minimum winning electoral coalitions under presidentialism: Reality or fiction? The case of Brazil. Latin American Politics and Society51(3): 87–110.
29.
MainwaringSShugartMS (1997) Presidentialism and democracy in Latin America: Rethinking the terms of the debate. In: MainwaringSShugartMS (eds) Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30.
MorenoE (2003) Subnational determinants of national multipartism in Latin America. Legislative Studies Quarterly28(2): 179–201.
31.
NicolauJ (2004) The October 2002 elections in Brazil. Electoral Studies23: 338–345.
32.
PoierK (2010) Austria. In: NohlenDStöverP (eds) Elections in Europe: A Data Handbook. Baden Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
33.
RoperSD (2002) Are all semipresidential regimes the same? A comparison of premier-presidential regimes. Comparative Politics34(3): 252–272.
34.
SamuelsDJ (2000) The gubernatorial coattails effect: Federalism and Congressional elections in Brazil. Journal of Politics62(1): 240–254.
35.
SamuelsDJ (2003) Ambition, Federalism and Legislative Politics in Brazil. New York: Cambridge University Press.
36.
SamuelsDJ (2008) Brazilian democracy under Lula and the PT. In: DominguezJShifterM (eds) Constructing Democratic Governance in Latin America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
37.
SamuelsDJShugartMS (2010) Presidents, Parties and Prime Ministers: How the Separation of Powers Affects Party Organization and Behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.
38.
ShugartMSCareyJ (1992) Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
39.
SpoonJ (2007) The evolution of new parties: From electoral outsiders to Downsian players – Evidence from the French Greens. French Politics5(2): 121–143.
40.
StrømK (1990) A behavioral theory of competitive political parties. American Journal of Political Science34(2): 565–598.
41.
TaageperaRShugartMS (1989) Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
42.
WestKJSpoonJ (2012) Credibility vs. competition: The impact of party size on decisions to enter presidential elections in South America and Europe. Comparative Political Studies. DOI 10.1177/0010414012445752.
