Using data from a nearly comprehensive set of the world’s electoral democracies, 1992–2014, this article empirically evaluates the impact of presidentialism upon legislative fragmentation. The analysis demonstrates that the impact is strong, consistent across a wide variety of political contexts, and conditioned by the type of presidential regime, the scope of presidential powers, electoral system effects, and essential party system properties. While much of the reasoning regarding the interplay between presidentialism and legislative fragmentation has been traditionally focused on short-term coattail effects of presidential elections, this study shows that these effects are real, but they are insufficient to make a significant impact upon the parameter of crucial importance for the functioning of presidential regimes: the number of parties in the legislature. The main impact of presidentialism is systemic, stemming from its tendency to restrict the number of parties to a limited set of viable competitors for the presidential prize.
AlesinaADevleeschauwerAEasterlyW. (2003) Fractionalization. Journal of Economic Growth8(2): 155–194.
2.
Amorim NetoOCoxGM (1997) Electoral institutions, cleavage structures, and the number of parties. American Journal of Political Science41(1): 149–174.
3.
BeckNKatzJN (1995) What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-section data. American Political Science Review89(3): 634–647.
4.
BirchS (2003) Two-round electoral systems and democracy. Comparative Political Studies36(3): 319–344.
5.
BrancatiD (2008) The origins and strength of regional parties. British Journal of Political Science38(1): 135–159.
6.
ClarkWGolderM (2006) Rehabilitating Duverger’s theory: Testing the mechanical and strategic modifying effect of electoral laws. Comparative Political Studies39(6): 679–708.
7.
CLEA (2014) Constituency-Level Elections Archive (data file and codebook) (ed KollmanKHickenACaramaniD.). Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Political Studies, University of Michigan. Available at: http://www.electiondataarchive.org (accessed January 2015).
8.
CoppedgeM (1997) District magnitude, economic performance, and party-system fragmentation in five Latin American countries. Comparative Political Studies30(2): 156–185.
9.
CoxGW (1997) Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral SystemsCambridge: Cambridge University Press.
ElgieRBucurCDolezB. (2014) Proximity, candidates, and presidential power: How directly elected presidents shape the legislative party system. Political Research Quarterly67(3): 467–477.
18.
FeldSGrofmanB (2007) The Laakso-Taagepera index in a mean and variance framework. Journal of Theoretical Politics19(1): 101–106.
19.
FerraraF (2011) Cleavages, institutions, and the number of parties: A study of third wave democracies. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties21(1): 1–27.
20.
FerraraFHerronENishikawaM (2005) Mixed Electoral Systems: Contamination and Its Consequences. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
21.
FilippovMGOrdeshookPCShvetsovaOV (1999) Party fragmentation and presidential elections in post-communist democracies. Constitutional Political Economy10(1): 3–26.
GolderM (2006) Presidential coattails and legislative fragmentation. American Journal of Political Science50(1): 34–48.
24.
GolosovGV (2010) The effective number of parties: A new approach. Party Politics16(2): 171–192.
25.
GolosovGV (2013) Towards a classification of the world’s democratic party systems, step 1: Identifying the units. Party Politics19(1): 122–142.
26.
GolosovGV (2016) Party system nationalization: The problems of measurement with an application to federal states. Party Politics22(3): 278–288.
27.
HickenAStollH (2008) Electoral rules and the size of the prize: How political institutions shape presidential party systems. Journal of Politics70(4): 1109–1127.
28.
HickenAStollH (2011) Presidents and parties: How presidential elections shape coordination in legislative elections. Comparative Political Studies44(7): 854–883.
29.
HickenAStollH (2013) Are all presidents created equal? Presidential powers and the shadow of presidential elections. Comparative Political Studies46(3): 291–319.
30.
IshiyamaJTKennedyR (2001) Superpresidentialism and political party development in Russia, Ukraine, Armenia and Kyrgyzstan. Europe-Asia Studies53(8): 1177–1191.
31.
JonesMP (1994) Presidential election laws and multipartism in Latin America. Political Research Quarterly47(1): 41–57.
32.
JonesMP (1995) Electoral Laws and the Survival of Presidential Democracies. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
33.
JonesMPMainwaringS (2003) The nationalization of parties and party systems: An empirical measure and an application to the Americas. Party Politics9(2): 139–166.
34.
KatzR (1980) A Theory of Parties and Party Systems. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
35.
LaaksoMTaageperaR (1979) ‘Effective’ number of parties: A measure with application to West Europe. Comparative Political Studies12(1): 3–27.
36.
LijphartA (1994) Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies, 1945–1990. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
37.
LipsetSMRokkanS (1967) Cleavage structures, party systems, and voter alignments. In: LipsetSMRokkanS (eds) Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives. New York: Free Press, pp.1–64.
38.
LoweryDOtjesSGherghinaS. (2010) Unpacking LogM: Toward a more general theory of party system density. American Journal of Political Science54(4): 921–935.
39.
MainwaringS (1993) Presidentialism, multipartism, and democracy: The difficult combination. Comparative Political Studies26: 2198–2228.
40.
MassicotteLBlaisA (1999) Mixed electoral systems: A conceptual and empirical survey. Electoral Studies18(3): 341–366.
41.
MeguidB (2008) Party Competition between Unequals: Strategies and Electoral Fortunes in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42.
MorgensternSSwindleSMCastagnolaA (2009) Party nationalization and institutions. Journal of Politics71(4): 1322–1341.
43.
MozaffarSScarrittJRGalaichG (2003) Electoral institutions, ethnopolitical cleavages, and party systems in Africa’s emerging democracies. American Political Science Review97(3): 379–390.
44.
NorrisP (2004) Electoral Engineering: Voting Rules and Political Behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45.
OrdeshookPCShvetsovaOV (1994) Ethnic heterogeneity, district magnitude, and the number of parties. American Journal of Political Science38(1): 100–123.
46.
PowellG (1982) Contemporary Democracies: Participation, Stability, and Violence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
47.
RaeD (1967) The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
48.
RikerWH (1982) The two-party system and Duverger’s law: An essay on the history of political science. American Political Science Review76(4): 753–766.
49.
SamuelsD (2000) The gubernatorial coattails effect: Federalism and congressional elections in Brazil. Journal of Politics62(1): 240–253.
50.
ShugartMS (1995) The electoral cycle and institutional sources of divided presidential government. American Political Science Review89(2): 327–343.
51.
ShugartMS (2005) Semi-presidential systems: Dual executive and mixed authority patterns. French Politics3(3): 323–351.
52.
ShugartMSCareyJ (1992) Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
53.
StepanASkachC (1993) Constitutional frameworks and democratic consolidation: Parliamentarianism versus presidentialism. World Politics46(1): 1–22.
54.
StollH (2015) Presidential coattails: A closer look. Party Politics21(3): 417–427.
55.
Williams-WycheSN (2014) An empirical test of presidentialism’s effect on party competition. Electoral Studies33: 166–174.
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.
