Prior studies have shown that electoral rules fail to determine the number of parties in new democracies due to the uncertainty of voters and politicians about which parties are viable. Latin American democracies, where electoral volatility has generally remained high and party institutionalization low, have been a primary example of this phenomenon. We argue that even in shifting political environments the fragmentation of the party system is likely to become consistent with the permissiveness of electoral rules and the level of social diversity as voters and party leaders accumulate experience with elections and the rate of electoral regime change declines. We find support for these propositions analyzing an original dataset on Latin American democratic elections. This article contributes to research on electoral systems and political parties by identifying the conditions under which equilibrium electoral outcomes can be expected after a transition to democracy in unstable institutional settings.
BenoitKHaydenJ (2004) Institutional change and persistence: the evolution of Poland’s electoral system, 1989-2001. The Journal of Politics66(2): 396–427.
2.
BoixCMillerMRosatoS (2013) A complete data set of political regimes, 1800–2007. Comparative Political Studies46(12): 1523–1554.
3.
BunkerKNegrettoG (2023) “Replication data for: The party system effects of unstable electoral rules in Latin America”. Harvard Dataverse. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/QPA1T3.
4.
CalvoENegrettoGL (2020) When (electoral) opportunity knocks. In: BrinksDLevitskySMurilloMV (eds). The Politics of Institutional Weakness in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 41–60.
5.
CareyA (2017) Electoral system design in new democracies. In: HerronESPekkanenRJShugartMS (eds). Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems. Oxford University Press, 85–112.
6.
ClarkWRGolderM (2006) Rehabilitating duverger's theory. Comparative Political Studies39(6): 679–708.
7.
ColomerJM (2004) The Handbook of Electoral System Choice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
8.
ConversePE (1969) Of time and partisan stability. Comparative Political Studies2(2): 139–171.
9.
CoppedgeM (1997) District magnitude, economic performance, and party-system fragmentation in five Latin American countries. Comparative Political Studies30(2): 156–185.
10.
CoxGW (1997) Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems. New York: Cambridge University Press.
DuvergerM (1954) Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. New York: Methuen & Co.
13.
ElgieRBucurCDolezB, et al. (2014) Proximity, candidates, and presidential power: How directly elected presidents shape the legislative party system. Political Research Quarterly67(3): 467–477.
14.
FearonJD (2003) Ethnic and cultural diversity by country. Journal of Economic Growth8: 195–222.
15.
FerreeKEBingham PowellGScheinerE (2014) Context, Electoral Rules, and Party Systems. Annual Review of Political Science17: 429–439.
16.
GolderM (2006) Presidential Coattails and Legislative Fragmentation. American Journal of Political Science50(1): 34–48.
17.
JonesMP (1993) The political consequences of electoral laws in Latin America and the Caribbean. Electoral Studies12(1): 59–75.
18.
KatzRS (2005) Why are there so many (or so few) electoral reforms? In: GallagherMMitchellP (eds), The Politics of Electoral Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 57–77.
19.
LaaksoMTaageperaR (1979) “Effective” number of parties. Comparative Political Studies12(1): 3–27.
LiYShugartMS (2016) The seat product model of the effective number of parties: A case for applied political science. Electoral Studies41: 23–34.
22.
LijphartA (1990) The political consequences of electoral laws, 1945-85. American Political Science Review84(2): 481–496.
23.
LijphartA (1994) Electoral Systems and Party Systems. A Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies, 1945–1900. New York: Oxford University Press.
24.
MainwaringSSuY-P (2021) Electoral volatility in Latin America, 1932-2018. Studies in Comparative International Development56: 271–296.
25.
MorgensternSVázquez-D’ElíaJ (2007) Electoral laws, parties, and party systems in Latin America. Annual Review of Political Science10: 143–168.
26.
MoserRG (1999) Electoral systems and the number of parties in postcommunist states. World Politics51(3): 359–384.
27.
MoserRGScheinerE (2012) Electoral Systems and Political Context: How the Effects of Rules Vary across New and Established Democracies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
28.
NegrettoGL (2013) Making Constitutions: Presidents, Parties, and Institutional Choice in Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press.
29.
NetoOACoxGW (1997) Electoral institutions, cleavage structures, and the number of parties. American Journal of Political Science41(1): 149–174.
30.
OrdeshookPCShvetsovaOV (1994) Ethnic heterogeneity, district magnitude, and the number of parties. American Journal of Political Science38(1): 100–123.
31.
PowellGB (1982) Contemporary Democracies. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
32.
RaeDW (1967) The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws. New Haven: Yale University Press.
33.
RaymondCDHuelshoffMRosenblumMR (2016) Electoral systems, ethnic cleavages and experience with democracy. International Political Science Review37(4): 550–566.
34.
RemmerKL (2008) The politics of institutional change. Party Politics14(1): 5–30.
35.
RieraP (2013) Electoral coordination in mixed-member systems: Does the level of democratic experience matter?European Journal of Political Research52(1): 119–141.
36.
RobertsKMWibbelsE (1999) Party systems and electoral volatility in Latin America: A test of economic, institutional, and structural explanations. American Political Science Review93(3): 575–590.
37.
RoussiasN (2022) The evolution of new party systems: Voter learning and electoral systems. Political Studies Review20(3): 410–432.
38.
ShugartMSMainwaringS (1997) Presidentialism and democracy in Latin America: Rethinking the terms of the debate. In: ShugartMSMainwaringS (eds). Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press, 12–54.
39.
ShugartMSTaageperaR (2017) Votes from Seats: Logical Models of Electoral Systems. New York: Cambridge University Press.
40.
SingerMMStephensonLB (2009) The political context and Duverger’s theory: Evidence at the district level. Electoral Studies28(3): 480–491.
41.
TaageperaR (1998) How electoral systems matter for democratization. Democratization5(3): 68–91.
42.
TaageperaR (2007) Predicting Party Sizes: The Logic of Simple Electoral Systems. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
43.
TaageperaRShugartMS (1989) Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems. New Haven: Yale University Press.
44.
TavitsM (2005) The development of stable party support: Electoral dynamics in post-communist europe. American Journal of Political Science49(2): 283–298.
45.
TavitsMAnnusT (2006) Learning to make votes count: The role of democratic experience. Electoral Studies25(1): 72–90.
46.
TeorellJLindstedtC (2010) Measuring electoral systems. Political Research Quarterly63(2): 434–448.
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.
