What role do small parties play in new democracies? Although some research has posited that these parties developed to promote policies that the major parties were not addressing, we argue that they are as opportunistic as their larger party competitors. To test our argument, we examine the legislative electoral alliances between the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) and the Ecological Green Party of Mexico (PVEM) in single member districts from 2006 to 2015. In alliance districts, the parties distribute the districts between them: those in which the candidate is from the PRI and those in which the candidate is from the PVEM. There is then a second dynamic in these electoral alliances: Many of the PVEM candidates are former PRI politicians, whom we refer to as “watermelon” candidates, as they are green on the outside and red on the inside. We argue that the parties will select the alliance strategy that will be most electorally beneficial—running a PRI, PVEM, or watermelon candidate. We find that running a PRI or watermelon candidate increases the alliance’s probability of winning. Our findings have important implications for understanding Mexican party politics as well as the role of small parties and party competition in developing democracies.
AdamsJClarkMEzrowL, et al. (2006) Are niche parties fundamentally different from mainstream parties? The causes and the electoral consequences of Western European parties’ policy shifts. American Political Science Review50(3): 513–529.
AlemánETsebelisG (2011) Political parties and government coalitions in the Americas. Journal of Politics in Latin America3(1): 3–28.
5.
AllernEHAylottN (2009) Overcoming the fear of commitment: pre-electoral coalitions in Norway and Sweden. Acta Politica44(3): 259–285.
6.
AshworthSBueno de MesquitaE (2008) Electoral selection, strategic challenger entry, and the incumbency advantage. The Journal of Politics70(4): 1006–1025.
7.
BeckNKatzJN (1995) What to do (and not to do) with time-series-cross-section data. American Political Science Review89(3): 634–647.
8.
BlaisAIndridasonI (2007) Making candidates count: the logic of electoral alliances in two-round legislative elections. Journal of Politics69(1): 193–205.
9.
BruhnK (1997) Taking on Goliath: The Emergence of a New Left Party and the Struggle for Democracy in Mexico. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press.
CareyJMSiavelisPM (2005) Insurance for good losers and the survival of Chile’s concertación. Latin American Politics and Society47(2): 1–22.
13.
CedilloR (2007) Organización y estrategias de los partidos políticos emergentes en México: partido verde ecologista de méxico, partido del trabajo y convergencia. Espacios Públicos10(19): 110–126.
14.
ChasquettiD (2001) Democracia, Multipartidismo y Coaliciones en América Latina: Evaluando la Difícil Combinación. Clacso.
15.
CoxGW (1997) Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16.
De RemesA (2006) Democratization and dispersion of power: new scenarios in Mexican federalism. Mexican Studies22(1): 175–204.
17.
DesposatoS (2006) Parties for rent? Ambition, ideology, and party switching in Brazil’s chamber of deputies. American Journal of Political Science50(1): 62–80.
18.
DominguezJIPoiréA (eds) (1999) Toward Mexico’s Democratization: Parties Campaigns, Elections and Public Opinion. New York: Routledge.
19.
DownsA (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
20.
EzrowLDe VriesCESteenbergenM, et al. (2010) Mean voter representation and partisan constituency representation: do parties respond to the mean voter position or to their supporters?Party Politics17(3): 275–301.
21.
FerraraFHerronES (2005) Going it alone? Strategic entry under mixed electoral rules. American Journal of Political Science49(1): 16–31.
22.
GallagherMMarshM (eds) (1988) Candidate Selection in Comparative Perspective. The Secret Garden of Politics. London: Sage.
23.
GolderSN (2006) The Logic of Pre-Electoral Coalition Formation. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
24.
GreeneKenneth (2007) Why Dominant Parties Lose: Mexico’s Democratization in Comparative Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
25.
HellerW (2002) Regional parties and national politics in Europe: Spain’s Estado de las Autonomías, 1993–2000. Comparative Political Studies35: 657–685.
26.
HellerWBMershonC (2005) Party switching in the Italian chamber of deputies, 1996–2001. Journal of Politics67(2): 536–559.
27.
HellerWBMershonC (2008) Dealing in discipline: party switching and legislative voting in the Italian chamber of deputies, 1988–2000. American Journal of Political Science52(4): 910–925.
28.
HickenAStollH (2008) Electoral rules and the size of the prize: how political institutions shape presidential party systems. Journal of Politics70(4): 1109–1127.
JensenCSpoonJJ (2010) Thinking locally, acting supranationally: niche party behaviour in the European Parliament. European Journal of Political Research49(2): 174–201.
32.
KellamM (2015) Why pre-electoral coalitions in presidential systems?British Journal of Political Science47: 391–411.
33.
KitscheltH (1988) Organization and strategy of Belgian and West German ecology parties: a new dynamic of party politics in Western Europe?Comparative Politics20(2): 127–154.
34.
KitscheltH (2000) Linkages between citizens and politicians in democratic polities. Comparative Political Studies33(6–7): 845–879.
35.
KitscheltHWilkinsonSI (2007) Patrons, Clients and Policies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
36.
LangstonJ (2003) Rising from the ashes? Reorganizing and unifying the PRI’s state party organizations after electoral defeat. Comparative Political Studies36(3): 293–318.
37.
LevitskyS (2001) An organised disorganisation: informal organisation and the persistence of local party structure in Argentina Peronism. Journal of Latin America Studies33(1): 29–65.
38.
LunaJP (2014) Segmented Representation: Political Party Strategies in Unequal Democracies. New York: Oxford University Press.
39.
LupuN (2013) Party brands and partisanship: theory with evidence from a survey experiment in Argentina. American Journal of Political Science57(1): 49–64.
40.
MadridRL (2005) Ethnic cleavages and electoral volatility in Latin America. Comparative Politics38: 1–20.
41.
MainwaringSScullyTR (1995) Conclusion: Parties and democracy in Latin America—different patterns, common challenges. In: ScottMScullyTR (eds) Building Democratic Institutions in Latin America. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 459–476.
42.
O’BrienDZShomerY (2013) A cross-national analysis of party switching. Legislative Studies Quarterly38(1): 111–141.
43.
O’DonnellG (1994) Delegative democracy. Journal of Democracy5: 55–69.
44.
OlveraA (2010) The elusive democracy: political parties, democratic institutions and civil society in Mexico. Latin American Research Review45: 79–107.
45.
RikerWH (1962) The Theory of Political Coalitions. New Haven: Yale University Press.
46.
SerraG (2016) Vote buying with illegal resources: manifestation of a weak rule of law in Mexico. Journal of Politics in Latin America8(1): 129–150.
47.
SpoonJJ (2011) Political Survival of Small Parties in Europe. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
48.
SpoonJJPulidoA (2017) Unusual bedfellows? PRI–PVEM electoral alliances in Mexican legislative elections. Journal of Politics in Latin America9(2): 63–92.
49.
SpoonJJWestKJ (2015a) Alone or together? How institutions affect party entry in presidential elections in Europe and South America. Party Politics21(3): 393–403.
50.
SpoonJJWestKJ (2015b) Bottoms up: how subnational elections predict parties’ decisions to run in presidential elections in Europe and Latin America. Research & Politics2(3): 1–8.
51.
StokesS (2005) Perverse accountability: a formal model of machine politics with evidence from Argentina. American Political Science Review99(3): 315–325.
52.
StrømK (1990) A behavioral theory of competitive parties. American Journal of Political Science34(2): 565–598.
53.
ThachilT (2014) Elite parties and poor voters: theory and evidence from India. American Political Science Review108(2): 454–477.
54.
Van CottDL (2005) From Movements to Parties in Latin America: The Evolution of Ethnic Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
55.
WeldonJA (2001) The consequences of Mexico’s mixed-member electoral system, 1988–1997. In: MatthewSSWattenbergMP (eds) Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds?New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 447–476.
56.
WestKJ (2011) Programmatic or personalistic? Pachakutik strategies in Ecuador’s 2006 elections. The Latin Americanist55(1): 49–68.
57.
WestKJSpoonJJ (2013) Credibility versus competition: the impact of party size on decisions to enter presidential elections in South America and Europe. Comparative Political Studies46(4): 513–539.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
