Disproportionality and Party System Fragmentation: Does Assembly Size Matter?
- 1 Department of Political Science, ?bo Akademi University, ?bo, Finland
Abstract
The article examines the impact of assembly size on the degree of disproportionality and party system fragmentation. The hypothesis is as follows: assembly size has a negative effect on the degree of disproportionality and a positive effect on the effective number of parties in systems with single-member districts—in proportional electoral systems, by contrast, such a pattern does not exist. In PR systems, notably the average effective threshold supersedes assembly size in explaining the degree of disproportionality and the effective number of parties. Electoral thresholds, ordinal ballots and apparentement, which also have some impact on disproportionality and party system fragmentation in proportional elections, are absent in systems with single-member districts (with the exception of ordinal ballots in alternative vote systems). Moreover, the district magnitude does not vary between electoral districts and countries. Therefore, assembly size is a significant factor in majoritarian systems. The empirical analysis of 550 elections in democratic countries provides support for the hypothesis.
- Anckar, C. (1997). Determinants of disproportionality and wasted votes. Electoral Studies, 16, 501-515. doi:10.1016/S0261-3794(97)00038-3
- Anckar, C. (1998). Storlek och partisystem: En studie av 77 stater. Ph.D. Thesis, ?bo: ?bo Akademi University.
- Anckar, C. (2002). Effekter av valsystem: En studie av 80 stater. Stockholm: SNS F?rlag.
- Anckar, C., Eriksson, M., & Leskinen, J. (2002). Measuring ethnic, lingustic and religious fragmentation in the world. ?bo: ?bo Akademi University.
- Chronicle of parliamentary elections. Several editions. Geneva: Inter-Parliamentary Union.
- Colomer, J. M. (2004). The strategy and history of electoral system choice. In J. M. Colomer (Ed.), Handbook of electoral system choice (pp. 3-80). Houndsmills and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Countries of the World. (2011). URL (last checked 28 October 2011) http://www.theodora.com/wfb/
- Cox, G. W. (1997). Making votes count: Strategic coordination in the world’s electoral systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Duverger, M. (1964). Political parties: Their organization and activity in the modern state. London: Methuen.
- Freedom House (2011). URL (last checked 27 October 2011) http://www.freedomhouse.org
- Gallagher, M. (1991). Proportionality, disproportionality and electoral systems. Electoral Studies, 10, 33-51. doi:10.1016/0261-3794(91)90004-C
- Gallagher, M., & Mitchell, P. (Eds.) (2005). The politics of electoral systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Inter-Parliamentary Union (2011). URL (last checked 27 October 2011) http://www.ipu.org/parline-e/parlinesearch.asp
- Jones, M. P. (1993). The political consequences of electoral laws in Latin America and the Caribbean. Electoral Studies, 12, 59-75. doi:10.1016/0261-3794(93)90006-6
- Laakso, M., & Taagepera, R. (1979). “Effective” number of parties: A measure with application to West Europe. Comparative Political Studies, 12, 3-27.
- Lijphart, A. (1990). Size, pluralism, and the Westminster model of democracy: Implications for the Eastern Caribbean In J. Heine (Ed.), A revolution aborted: The lessons of Grenada (pp. 321-340). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
- Lijphart, A. (1994). Electoral systems and party systems: A study of twenty-seven democracies 1945-1990. Oxford: Oxford University Press.