This study aims to determine the characteristics of party systems within the context of electoral systems, forms of government, and continents. There is no study in the literature that quantitatively reveals the relationship between the party system and forms of government. Furthermore, this study differs from other studies in that it deals with the relationship between the electoral system and the party system on a global scale. In the study, the effective number of parties (ENEP and ENPP) was calculated for the last three legislative elections of the countries governed by presidential, president–parliamentary, premier–presidential and parliamentary forms of government, using the Laakso–Taagepera Index. The dataset was then analyzed with ANOVA and post-hoc tests. The study revealed that party systems do not differ significantly from forms of government, that is, forms of government do not determine party systems. Similarly, party systems do not significantly differ in terms of the continents, that is, there are no continental party system characteristics of the forms of government. Also, the study confirmed that it is the electoral system that determines the party systems.
AbdiHWilliamsLJ (2010) Newman–Keuls test and Tukey test. Encyclopedia of Research Design2: 897–902.
2.
AnckarC (2002) Effekter av valsystem. En studie av 80 stater. Stockholm: SNS förlag.
3.
BenavoliACoraniGMangiliF (2016) Should we really use post-hoc tests based on mean-ranks?The Journal of Machine Learning Research17(1): 152–161.
4.
BlauA (2008) The effective number of parties at four scales: Votes, seats, legislative power and cabinet power. Party Politics14(2): 167–187.
5.
BlondelJ (1968) Party systems and patterns of government in western democracies. Canadian Journal of Political Science1(2): 180–203.
6.
BramborTClarkWRGolderM (2007) Are African party systems different?Electoral Studies26: 315–323.
7.
ChhibberPNooruddinI (2004) Do party systems count? The number of parties and government performance in the Indian states. Comparative Political Studies37(2): 152–187.
8.
CoxKESchoppaLJ (2002) Interaction effects in mixed-member electoral systems. Comparative Political Systems35(9): 1027–1053.
9.
CroissantAVölkelP (2012) Party system types and party system institutionalization: Comparing new democracies in east and Southeast Asia. Party Politics18(2): 235–265.
10.
DahlRA (1966) Patterns of opposition. In: DahlRA (ed) Political Oppositions in Western Democracies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, pp. 332–347.
11.
DemšarJ.2008. On the appropriateness of statistical tests in machine learning. In: Workshop on Evaluation Methods for Machine Learning in Conjunction with ICML, p.65.
12.
DonnoDRoussiasN (2012) Does cheating pay? The effect of electoral misconduct on party systems. Comparative Political Studies45(5): 575–605.
13.
DunleavyPBoucekF (2003) Constructing the number of parties. Party Politics9(3): 291–315.
14.
DunnetCW (1980) Pairwise multiple comparison in the homogenous variance, unequal sample size case. Journal of the American Statistical Association75: 789–795.
15.
DuvergerM (1964). Political Parties(trans. Barbara North and Robert North). New York: Methuen.
16.
ElgieR (1998) The classification of democratic regime types: Conceptual ambiguity and contestable assumptions. European Journal of Political Research33: 219–238.
17.
FerlandB (2014) How do voters’ strategic behaviors mediate the impact of electoral systems on the effective number of electoral parties? An experimental study. Journal of Elections Public Opinion and Parties24(3): 265–290.
18.
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.
19.
GamesPAHowellJF (1976) Pairwise multiple comparison procedures with unequal n’s and/or variances: A Monte Carlo study. Journal of Educational Statistics1(2): 113–125.
20.
GolosovG (2010a) Effective number of parties: A new approach. Party Politics16(2): 171–192.
21.
GolosovG (2010b) Party system classification: A methodological inquiry. Party Politics17(5): 539–560.
22.
HickenAStollH (2017) Legislative policy-making authority, party system size, and party system nationalization. Electoral Studies47: 113–124.
23.
KeselmanHJRoganJC (1978) A comparison of the modified-Tukey and Scheffe methods of multiple comparisons for pairwise contrasts. Journal of the American Statistical Association73(361): 47–52.
24.
KesselmanM (1966) French local politics: A statistical examination of grass-roots consensus. American Political Science Review60(4): 963–973.
25.
KlineR (2009) How we count counts: The empirical effects of using coalitional potential to measure the effective number of parties. Electoral Studies28(2): 261–269.
26.
KselmanDMPowellENTuckerJA (2016) Crowded space, fertile ground: Party entry and the effective number of parties. Political Science Research and Methods4(2): 317–342.
27.
KuenziMLambrightG (2005) Party systems and democratic consolidation in Africa’s electoral regimes. Party Politics11(4): 423–446.
28.
LaaksoMTaageperaR (1979) Effective number of parties: A measure with application to west Europe. Comparative Political Studies12(1): 3–27.
29.
LaaksoMTaageperaR (1981) Proportional representation and effective number of parties in Finland. In: HollerMJ (ed) Power, Voting, and Voting Power. Würzburg: Physica, pp. 107–120.
30.
LijphartA (1994) Electoral Systems and Party Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31.
LijphartABowmanPJHazanRY (1999) Party systems and issue dimensions: Israel and thirty-five other old and new democracies compared. Israel Affairs6(2): 29–51.
32.
LinzJ (1994) Presidential or parliamentary democracy: Does it make a difference? In: LinzJValenzuelaA (eds) The Failure of Presidential Democracy, Vol. I. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 3–87.
33.
MainwaringS (1993) Presidentialism, multipartism and democracy: The difficult combination. Comparative Political Studies26(2): 198–228.
34.
MetinAÜnalS (2022) Classifying forms of government on a global scale. Asian Journal of Comparative Politics: 20578911221127176.
35.
MolinarJ (1991) Counting the number of parties: An alternative index. The American Political Science Review85(4): 1383–1391.
36.
MozaffarSScarritJR (2005) The puzzle of African party systems. Party Politics11(4): 399–421.
37.
NandaAMohapatraBBMahapatraAPK, et al. (2021) Multiple comparison test by Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD): Do the confident level control type I error. International Journal of Statistics and Applied Mathematics6: 59–65.
38.
NetoOACoxGW (1997) Electoral institutions, cleavage structures and the number of parties. American Journal of Political Science41(1): 149–174.
39.
OrdeshookPCShvetsovaOV (1994) Ethnic heterogeneity, district magnitude, and the number of parties. American Journal of Political Science38(1): 100–123.
40.
OsborneJW (ed) (2008) Best Practices in Quantitative Methods. the United States of America: Sage.
41.
PaskhinaISTelinKO (2017) “Party zero”: Russian elections through the prism of the effective number of parties. Polis, Politicheskie Issledovaniya–Political Studies5: 43–53.
42.
QuinnT (2013) From two-partism to alternating predominance: The changing UK party system. 1950–2010. Political Studies61(2): 378–400.
43.
RaeDWTaylorM (1970) The Analysis of Political Cleavages. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
44.
RikerW (1986) Duverger’s law revisited. In: GrofmanBLijphartA (eds) Electoral Laws and Their Political Consequences. New York: Agathon Press, pp. 19–42.
45.
RokkanS (1970) Citizens, Elections, Parties: Approaches to the Comparative Study of Political Development. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
46.
RossAWillsonVL (2017) Paired samples T-test. In: Ross A and Wilson VL (eds) Basic and Advanced Statistical Tests. Rotterdam: SenseP, pp. 17–19.
47.
RusticusSALovatoCY (2014) Impact of sample size and variability on the power and type I error rates of equivalence tests: A simulation study. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation19(1): 11.
48.
SartoriG (1976) Parties and Party Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
49.
SartoriG (1994) Comparative Constitutional Engineering: An Inquiry into Structures, Incentives and Outcomes. Hampshire: Macmillan.
50.
SawyerSF (2009) Analysis of variance: The fundamental concepts. Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy17(2): 27E–38E.
51.
SchleiterPVoznayaAM (2014) Party system competitiveness and corruption. Party Politics20(5): 675–686.
52.
ShugartMSCareyJM (1992) Presidents and Assemblies. Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
53.
SiaroffA (2000) Comparative European Party Systems: An Analysis of Parliamentary Elections Since 1945. New York: Garland.
54.
TaageperaR (1999) Supplementing the effective number of parties. Electoral Studies18(4): 497–504.
55.
TaageperaRShugartMS (1989) Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
56.
VerneyD (1959) The Analysis of Political System. Michigan: Compton Printing Works.
57.
WareA (1996) Political Parties and Party Systems. New York: Oxford University.
58.
WildgenJ (1971) The measurement of hyperfractionalization. Comparative Political Studies4(2): 233–243.
