Party Competition and Representation

Democratic representation requires that voters can find a party that represents their interests. Thus, representation is a function of the policy demands of citizens and even more so on the supply of party choices at election time. This chapter describes the factors that affect the choices that parties and party systems offer to voters, such as the number of political cleavages, the structure of the electoral system, the number of parties, the ideological diversity of these choices, and other factors. This chapter uses the Left–Right scale to describes the representation process across contemporary party systems. The chapter also considers the implications of these patterns for the functioning of representative democracy, and the issues facing future research.

The Measurement of Party Competition

American Political Science Review ◽

10.1017/s0003055400117472 ◽

1974 ◽

Vol 68 (2) ◽

pp. 682-700 ◽

Cited By ~ 21

Author(s):

David J. Elkins

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Survey Research ◽

Party Systems ◽

The United States ◽

Party Competition ◽

Party Loyalty ◽

Number Of Parties ◽

Over Time

Most measures of party competition were designed for the United States or other two-party systems. The measure proposed here is intended for multiparty as well as two-party systems. It is a formalization of the notion of uncertainty: election outcomes are competitive to the degree we are uncertain who will win. By ascertaining through survey research the degree of party loyalty over time, one can calculate the chances of alternative outcomes in hypothetical replications of any given election. Since the chance that a losing party might have won is one measure of the importance of that party, this approach to party competition also provides a precise indicator of the number of parties in the system (i.e., whether it is two-party, three party, etc.). The method is applied here to data on Canadian federal elections in 1965 and 1968.

Electoral and Party Systems

The United States and Canada ◽

10.1093/oso/9780190870829.003.0003 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 48-78

Author(s):

André Blais ◽

Shaun Bowler ◽

Bernard Grofman

Keyword(s):

Voter Turnout ◽

Party System ◽

National Level ◽

Party Systems ◽

The United States ◽

Party Competition ◽

Colonial Legacy ◽

Electoral Laws ◽

Number Of Parties ◽

The U.S

Electoral laws are often regarded as the key factors structuring party competition. Yet, despite having very similar electoral systems, reflecting a shared colonial legacy, the United States (U.S.) and Canada have had very different party systems. For the past 100 years, the U.S. is perhaps the most consistently two-party system among the world’s major democracies, but during this same period Canada has experienced considerable variation in the number of parties represented in Parliament at the national level. This chapter addresses both the causes and consequences of this puzzling divergence in party systems in the two countries. We also compare a number of other features of the two nation’s electoral institutions, including campaign finance rules, rules for constituency boundary drawing, bicameralism, and the mechanism for the selection of the executive, with particular attention to the U.S. Electoral College and its alleged link with two-partyism. We also examine the policy consequences of the divergence in party systems and look at the way in which party competition in the two countries may affect voter turnout.

Introducing new multilevel datasets: Party systems at the district and national levels

Research & Politics ◽

10.1177/2053168018813508 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 5 (4) ◽

pp. 205316801881350

Author(s):

Cory L. Struthers ◽

Yuhui Li ◽

Matthew S. Shugart

Keyword(s):

Party System ◽

National Level ◽

Party Systems ◽

District Level ◽

Party Competition ◽

List Type ◽

National Party ◽

Presidential Candidates ◽

Effective Number Of Parties ◽

For decades, datasets on national-level elections have contributed to knowledge on what shapes national party systems. More recently, datasets on elections at the district level have advanced research on subnational party competition. Yet, to our knowledge, no publicly accessible dataset with observations of the party system at both national and district levels exists, limiting the ease with which cross-level comparisons can be made. To fill this gap, we release two corresponding datasets, the National Level Party Systems dataset and the District Level Party Systems dataset, where the unit of analysis is the party system within either the national or district jurisdiction. More than 50 elections in the two datasets are overlapping, meaning they include observations for a single election at both the district and national levels. In addition to conventional measures such as the effective number of parties, we also include underutilized variables, such as the size of the largest party, list type, and the vote shares for presidential candidates in corresponding elections.

Increasingly ‘Irrational’ Party Systems: Evidence that There Are Increasingly More Than Two Parties at the District Level

Government and Opposition ◽

10.1017/gov.2013.5 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 48 (4) ◽

pp. 506-525 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Christopher D. Raymond

Keyword(s):

Recent Work ◽

Electoral Systems ◽

National Level ◽

Electoral System ◽

Party Systems ◽

Third Parties ◽

Conventional Wisdom ◽

District Level ◽

Recent work has noted an increase in the number of parties at the national level in both proportional and majoritarian electoral systems. While the conventional wisdom maintains that the incentives provided by the electoral system will prevent the number of parties at the district level from exceeding two in majoritarian systems, the evidence presented here demonstrates otherwise. I argue that this has occurred because the number of cleavages articulated by parties has increased as several third parties have begun articulating cleavages that are not well represented by the two larger parties.

9. Party Competition

Foundations of European Politics ◽

10.1093/hepl/9780198831303.003.0009 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 155-168

Author(s):

Catherine E. De Vries ◽

Sara B. Hobolt ◽

Sven-Oliver Proksch ◽

Jonathan B. Slapin

Keyword(s):

Spatial Model ◽

Party Systems ◽

Party Competition ◽

Leadership Traits ◽

Ideological Position ◽

Competition Models ◽

Party Characteristics ◽

This chapter looks at competition between parties. First, the chapter outlines the ways in which party systems are described and categorized, in terms of the number of parties (in other words, fragmentation) and their ideological position (polarization). The chapter then addresses the theological models that aim to explain party competition. The chapter uses the simple spatial model here which predicts that parties position themselves close to the centre of politics to appeal to the modern voter. It then looks at competition models. These models expect parties to champion issues they ‘own’. The chapter also looks at valence models which focus on competence, leadership traits and other non-party characteristics of candidates and parties. The chapter ends with a discussion of mainstream parties, looking at how they seek to respond to the rise of challenger parties.

Conclusions

10.1093/oso/9780192847218.003.0009 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 163-172

Author(s):

Emiliano Grossman ◽

Isabelle Guinaudeau

Keyword(s):

Public Policy ◽

Party Competition ◽

Future Research ◽

Institutional Determinants ◽

Comparative Institutions ◽

Opposition Parties

This chapter summarizes the book’s main findings, in particular the existence of “tunnels of attention” constraining campaign agendas and their implications with regard to mandate responsiveness and its institutional determinants. Coalition partners, as well as opposition parties, emerge as key forces incentivizing governments to stick to their progamme. Majoritarian systems provide governments with unique powers to shape policy, but excessive majoritarianism seems to limit their incentives to respect their mandate. In contrast, counter-majoritarian institutions generate hurdles on executive capacity, but also incentives to respond to ‘tunnel’ incentives. These conclusions have important implications for party competition, democratic representation, public policy and comparative institutions. They point to multiple intriguing directions for future research.

5. Winning and Losing Elections

10.1093/hepl/9780198840626.003.0005 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 146-180

Author(s):

Peter John

Keyword(s):

Political Parties ◽

Electoral Systems ◽

Electoral System ◽

Party Systems ◽

Election Campaign ◽

Number Of Parties ◽

The Impact ◽

Rules Of The Game ◽

Developing Strategies

This chapter assesses what politicians and members of political parties really care about: getting into office on the back of a successful election campaign. Rather than the general determinants of voting outlined in the previous chapter, this is about the choices voters and parties face within a particular system, so they can organize themselves to win. For that they need to play by the rules of the game, which includes developing strategies within electoral systems. The chapter then discusses the impact of electoral systems on that calculus, and how the number of parties is affected by the electoral system in place. It also looks at the factors that assist the winning of elections, and the extent to which the choices of parties and voters are affected by growing instability in the system. Overall, the chapter provides an overview of British political parties and party systems.

Federal and Subnational Elections in Russia: Coherence and Divergence in Electoral Outcomes

Russian Politics ◽

10.30965/24518921-00503004 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 5 (3) ◽

pp. 329-353

Author(s):

Rostislav Turovsky ◽

Marina Sukhova

Keyword(s):

Party System ◽

Party Systems ◽

Strong Connection ◽

Regional Parties ◽

Electoral Outcomes ◽

Electoral Authoritarianism ◽

Subnational Elections ◽

Effective Number Of Parties ◽

Number Of Parties ◽

Regional Elections

Abstract This article examines the differences between Russian voting at federal elections and regional legislature elections, both combined and conducted independently. The authors analyse these differences, their character and their dynamics as an important characteristic of the nationalisation of the party system. They also test hypotheses about a higher level of oppositional voting and competitiveness in subnational elections, in accordance with the theory of second-order elections, as well as the strategic nature of voting at federal elections, by contrast with expressive voting during subnational campaigns. The empirical study is based on calculating the differences in votes for leading Russian parties at subnational elections and at federal elections (simultaneous, preceding and following) from 2003, when mandatory voting on party lists was widespread among the regions, to 2019. The level of competitiveness is measured in a similar way, by calculating the effective number of parties. The study indicates a low level of autonomy of regional party systems, in many ways caused by the fact that the law made it impossible to create regional parties, and then also by the 2005 ban on creation of regional blocs. The strong connection between federal and regional elections in Russia clearly underlines the fluid and asynchronic nature of its electoral dynamics, where subnational elections typically predetermine the results of the following federal campaigns. At the same time, the formal success of the nationalisation of the party system, achieved by increasing the homogeneity of voting at the 2016 and 2018 federal elections, is not reflected by the opposing process of desynchronisation between federal and regional elections after Putin’s third-term election. There is also a clear rise in the scale of the differences between the two. At the same time, the study demonstrates the potential presence in Russia of features common to subnational elections in many countries: their greater support for the opposition and presence of affective voting. However, there is a clear exception to this trend during the period of maximum mobilisation of the loyal electorate at the subnational elections immediately following the accession of Crimea in 2014–2015, and such tendencies are generally restrained by the conditions of electoral authoritarianism.

The Social and Attitudinal Basis of Political Parties: Cleavage Politics Revisited

European Review ◽

10.1017/s1062798708000264 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 16 (3) ◽

pp. 287-304 ◽

Cited By ~ 42

Author(s):

Zsolt Enyedi

Keyword(s):

Political Parties ◽

Party Systems ◽

Party Politics ◽

Social Embeddedness ◽

The Social ◽

The Relationship

As a result of various political and non-political developments, the socio-culturally anchored and well structured character of European party systems has come under strain. This article assesses the overall social embeddedness of modern party politics and identifies newly emerging conflict-lines. It draws attention to phenomena that do not fit into the trend of dealignment, and discusses the relationship between group-based politics and democratic representation.

Avoidance, ambiguity, alternation: Position blurring strategies in multidimensional party competition

European Union Politics ◽

10.1177/14651165211027472 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 146511652110274

Author(s):

Jelle Koedam

Keyword(s):

European Integration ◽

Strategic Behavior ◽

Party Competition ◽

European Countries ◽

Political Accountability ◽

Party Leaders ◽

Party Strategy ◽

Political Outcome ◽

Western European

In a multidimensional environment, parties may have compelling incentives to obscure their preferences on select issues. This study contributes to a growing literature on position blurring by demonstrating how party leaders purposively create uncertainty about where their party stands on the issue of European integration. By doing so, it theoretically and empirically disentangles the cause of position blurring—parties’ strategic behavior—from its intended political outcome. The analysis of survey and manifesto data across 14 Western European countries (1999–2019) confirms that three distinct strategies—avoidance, ambiguity, and alternation—all increase expert uncertainty about a party's position. This finding is then unpacked by examining for whom avoidance is particularly effective. This study has important implications for our understanding of party strategy, democratic representation, and political accountability.