Abdel-Ghaffar, O., Gordon, O., and Shugart, M. S., n.d., “How the Electoral System Rewarded Fervor in the 2006 Palestinian Elections,” Unpubilshed paper, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar

Ahmed, A. 2013, Democracy and the Politics of Electoral System Choice: Engineering Electoral Dominance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Allen, N. 2018, “Electoral Systems in Context: Indonesia,” in Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems, edited by Herron, E., Pekkanen, R., and Shugart, M. S.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ames, Barry. 1995a. “Electoral Strategy Under Open-List Proportional Representation,” American Journal of Political Science May.Google Scholar

Ames, Barry. 1995b. “Electoral Rules, Constituency Pressures, and Pork Barrel: Bases of Voting in the Brazilian Congress,” Journal of Politics 57: 2 (May).Google Scholar

Amorim Neto, O. and Cox, G. W. 1997, “Electoral Institutions, Cleavage Structures, and the Number of Parties,” American Journal of Political Science 44(1): 149–174.Google Scholar

André, A., Depauw, S., Shugart, M. S., and Chytilek, R. 2017. “Party Nomination Strategies in Flexible-List Systems: Do Preference Votes Matter?,” Party Politics. 23, 5.Google Scholar

Arter, D. 2014, “Clowns, ‘Alluring Ducks’ and ‘Miss Finland 2009’: The Value of ‘Celebrity Candidates’ in an Open-List PR Voting System,” Representation 50(4): 453–470.Google Scholar

Bacik, G. 2008, “The Parliamentary Elections in Turkey, July 2007,” Electoral Studies 27(2): 377–381.Google Scholar

Batto, N. F. 2008, “Strategic Defection from Strong Candidates in the 2004 Taiwanese Legislative Election,” Japanese Journal of Political Science 9(1): 21–38.Google Scholar

Belden, C. R., n.d., “Do Electoral Rules Influence Small Parties’ Policy Work? Analyzing Green Party Attention to Local Issues,” Unpublished paper, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar

Belden, C. R., and Shugart, M. S., n.d., “District Level Party Systems Dataset.” Unpublished, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar

Bergman, M. E., Shugart, M. S., and Watt, K. A. 2013, “Patterns of Intraparty Competition in Open-List, and SNTV Systems,” Electoral Studies 32(2): 321–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blais, A. and Shugart, M. S. 2008, “To Keep or Change First Past the Post: Conclusion” in To Keep or Change First Past the Post, edited by Blais, A.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Blondel, J. 1968, “Party Systems and Patterns of Government in Western Democracies,” Canadian Journal of Political Science 1(2): 180–203.Google Scholar

Boix, C. 2003, Democracy and Redistribution. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bormann, N. and Golder, M. 2013, “Democratic Electoral Systems Around the World, 1946–2011,” Electoral Studies 32(2): 360–369.Google Scholar

Bowler, S. and Farrell, D. M. 2006, “We Know Which One We Prefer but We Don’t Really Know Why: The Curious Case of Mixed Member Electoral Systems,” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 8(3): 445–460.Google Scholar

Bowler, S., Farrell, D. M., and Pettitt, R. T. 2005, “Expert Opinion on Electoral Systems: So Which Electoral System Is ‘Best’?,” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties 15(1): 3–19.Google Scholar

Brambor, T., Clark, W. R., and Golder, M. 2006, “Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses,” Political Analysis 14(1): 63–82.Google Scholar

Brams, S.J., and Fishburn, P.C. 1983, Approval Voting. Boston: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar

Cahill, C., André, A., Depauw, S., and Shugart, M. S., n.d, “The Incentives (or Lack of Incentives) to Cultivate a Personal Vote in Flexible-List Systems,” Unpublished paper, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar

Cain, Bruce E., Ferejohn, John A., and Fiorina, Morris P. 1984. “The Constituency Service Basis of the Personal Vote for US Representatives and British Members of Parliament,” American Political Science Review 78 (01): 110–25.Google Scholar

Calvo, E. and Murillo, M. V. 2012, “When Parties Meet Voters Assessing Political Linkages Through Partisan Networks and Distributive Expectations in Argentina and Chile,” Comparative Political Studies 46(7): 851–882.Google Scholar

Campbell, A. 1960, “Surge and Decline: A Study of Electoral Change,” Public Opinion Quarterly 24(3): 397–418.Google Scholar

Carey, J. M. 2002, “Parties, Coalitions, and the Chilean Congress in the 1990s” in Legislative Politics in Latin America, edited by Morgenstern, S. and Nacif, B.. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Carey, J. M. 2009, Legislative Voting and Accountability. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Carey, J. M. 2018, “Electoral System Design in New Democracies” in Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems, edited by Herron, E., Pekkanen, R., and Shugart, M. S.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Carey, J. M. and Hix, S. 2011, “The Electoral Sweet Spot: Low‐Magnitude Proportional Electoral Systems,” American Journal of Political Science 55(2): 383–397.Google Scholar

Carey, J. M., Hix, S., Htun, M., Mozzafar, S., Powell, G. B., Reynolds, A., 2013, “Political Scientists as System Engineers,” Perspectives on Politics 11 (3): 827–833.Google Scholar

Centellas, Miguel. 2015, “Mixed-Member Election and Candidate Selection in Bolivia’s 1993 and 1997 Elections,” The Latin Americanist 59(1): 3–22.Google Scholar

Cheibub, J.A. 2007, Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, and Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cheibub, J. A., Przeworski, A., Limongi Neto, F. P., and Alvarez, M. M. 1996, “What Makes Democracies Endure?,” Journal of Democracy 7(1): 39–55.Google Scholar

Clark, W. R. and Golder, M. 2006, “Rehabilitating Duverger’s Theory Testing the Mechanical and Strategic Modifying Effects of Electoral Laws,” Comparative Political Studies 39(6): 679–708.Google Scholar

Colomer, J. M. 2004, “The Strategy and History of Electoral System Choice” in The Handbook of Electoral System Choice, edited by Colomer, J.M.. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Colomer, J. M. 2005, “It’s Parties That Choose Electoral Systems (or, Duverger’s laws Upside Down),” Political Studies 53(1): 1–21.Google Scholar

Colomer, J. M., 2007. “What Other Sciences Look Like,” European Political Science 6: 134–142.Google Scholar

Colomer, J. M., ed. 2011, Personal Representation: The Neglected Dimension of Electoral Systems. Essex: ECPR Press.Google Scholar

Colomer, J. M. 2014, “Equilibrium Institutions: The Federal-Proportional Trade-Off,” Public Choice 158(3–4): 559–576.Google Scholar

Cox, G. W. 1996, “Is the Single Nontransferable Vote Superproportional? Evidence from Japan and Taiwan,” American Journal of Political Science 40(3): 740–755.Google Scholar

Cox, G. W. 1997, Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cox, G. 1999, “Electoral Rules and Electoral Coordination,” Annual Review of Political Science 2(1): 145–161.Google Scholar

Cox, G. W. and Niou, E. 1994, “Seat Bonuses Under the Single Nontransferable Vote System: Evidence from Japan and Taiwan,” Comparative Politics 26(2): 221–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cox, G. W. and Shugart, M. S. 1995, “In the Absence of Vote Pooling: Nomination and Vote Allocation Errors in Colombia,” Electoral Studies 14(4): 441–460.Google Scholar

Crisp, B. F., Escobar‐Lemmon, M. C., Jones, B. S., Jones, M. P., and Taylor‐Robinson, M. M. 2004, “Vote‐Seeking Incentives and Legislative Representation in Six Presidential Democracies,” Journal of Politics 66(3): 823–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crisp, B. F., Olivella, S., Malecki, M., and Sher, M. 2013, “Vote-Earning Strategies in Flexible List Systems: Seats at the Price of Unity,” Electoral Studies 32(4): 658–669.Google Scholar

Cunow, S. F. 2014, Vote Choice in Complex Electoral Environments. University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar

Dahl, R. A. 1961, Who Governs: Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Dawisha, A. 2010, “Iraq: A Vote Against Sectarianism,” Journal of Democracy 21(3): 26–40.Google Scholar

Denemark, D. 2001, “Choosing MMP in New Zealand: Explaining the 1993 Electoral Reform” in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds?, edited by Shugart, M.S. and Wattenberg, M.P.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Doron, G. and Maor, M. 1991, “Barriers to Entry into a Political System: A Theoretical Framework and Empirical Application from the Israeli Experience,” Journal of Theoretical Politics 3(2): 175–188.Google Scholar

Droop, H. R. 2012 [1869], “On the Political and Social Effects of Different Methods of Electing Representatives”, in Electoral Systems, Vol. III., edited by Farrell, D.M. and Shugart, M.S.. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Dunleavy, P., and Caulier, J.-F. 2003, “Constructing the Number of Parties,” Party Politics 9: 291–315.Google Scholar

Dupoirier, E., and Sauger, S. 2010, “Four Rounds in a Row: The Impact of Presidential Election Outcome on Legislative Elections in France,” French Politics 8: 21–41.Google Scholar

Duverger, M. 1951, Les partis politiques. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar

Duverger, M. 1954, Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar

Duverger, M. 1986, “Duverger’s Law: Forty Years Later” in Electoral Laws and Their Political Consequences, edited by Grofman, B., and Lijphart, A.. New York: Agathon Press.Google Scholar

Eccarius-Kelly, V. 2008, “The Kurdish Conundrum in Europe: Political Opportunities and Transnational Activism” in Migration and Activism in Europe since 1945, ed. by Pojmann, W.. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Elgie, R., 2011, Semi-Presidentialism: Sub-Types and Democratic Performance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Elgie, R., Bucur, C., Dolez, B., and Laurent, A. 2014, “Proximity, Candidates, and Presidential Power: How Directly Elected Presidents Shape the Legislative Party System,” Political Research Quarterly 67(3): 467–477.Google Scholar

Elklit, J. 2005, “Denmark: Simplicity Embedded in Complexity (or Is It the Other Way Round?)” in The Politics of Electoral Systems, edited by Gallagher, M. and Mitchell, P.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Elklit, J., and Roberts, N. S. 1996, “A Category of Its Own? Four PR Two‐Tier Compensatory Member Electoral Systems in 1994,” European Journal of Political Research 30(2): 217–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Erikson, R. S. 1988, “The Puzzle of Midterm Loss,” The Journal of Politics 50(4): 1011–1029.Google Scholar

Fearon, J. D. 2003, “Ethnic and Cultural Diversity by Country,” Journal of Economic Growth 8(2): 195–222.Google Scholar

Ferree, K. E., Powell, G., and Scheiner, E. 2013, “How Context Shapes the Effects of Electoral Rules,” Political Science, Electoral Rules, and Democratic Governance, ed. by Htun, M. and Powell, G. B Jr.. Washington: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar

Ferree, K. E. 2018, “Electoral Systems in Context: South Africa” in Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems, edited by Herron, E., Pekkanen, R., and Shugart, M. S. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Filippov, M. G., Ordeshook, P. C., and Shvetsova, O. V. 1999, “Party Fragmentation and Presidential Elections in Post-Communist Democracies,” Constitutional Political Economy 10(1): 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fiorina, M. P. 1992, Divided Government. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Frederick, B. 2009, Congressional Representation and Constituents: The Case for Increasing the US House of Representatives. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Gaines, B. J. 1999, “Duverger’s Law and the Meaning of Canadian exceptionalism,” Comparative Political Studies 32(7): 835–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gaines, B. J., and Taagepera, R. 2013, “How to Operationalize Two-Partyness,” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties 23(4): 387–404.Google Scholar

Gallagher, M. 1991, “Proportionality, Disproportionality and Electoral Systems,” Electoral Studies 10(1): 33–51.Google Scholar

Gallagher, M. 2005. “Ireland: The Discreet Charm of PR-STV” in The Politics of Electoral Systems, edited by Gallagher, M. and Mitchell, P.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gallagher, M., and Mitchell, P., eds. 2005a, The Politics of Electoral Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gallagher, M. and Mitchell, P. 2005b, “Introduction to Electoral Systems” in The Politics of Electoral Systems, edited by Gallagher, M. and Mitchell, P.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gallagher, M., and Mitchell, P. 2018, “Dimensions of Variation in Electoral Systems” in Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems, edited by Herron, E., Pekkanen, R., and Shugart, M. S.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Golder, M. 2006, “Presidential Coattails and Legislative Fragmentation,” American Journal of Political Science 50(1): 34–48.Google Scholar

Golosov, G. V. 2009, “The Effective Number of Parties: A New Approach,” Party Politics 16(2): 171–192.Google Scholar

Gouws, A. and Mitchell, P. 2005, “South Africa: One Party Dominance Despite Perfect Proportionality” in The Politics of Electoral Systems, edited by Gallagher, M. and Mitchell, P.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Grofman, B., Lee, S., Winckler, E., and Woodall, B., eds. 1999, Elections in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan under the Single Non-Transferable Vote: The Comparative Study of an Embedded Institution. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Handley, L. and Grofman, B. 2008, Redistricting in Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hare, T. 1859, Treatise on the Election of Representatives, Parliamentary and Municipal. London: Longman, Green, Reader, and Dyer.Google Scholar

Hazan, R. Y., Itzkovitch-Malka, R., and Rahat, G. 2018, “Electoral Systems in Context: Israel” in Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems, edited by Herron, E., Pekkanen, R., and Shugart, M. S. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hawking, S. and Mlodinow, L. 2005. A Briefer History of Time: A Special Edition of the Science Classic. London: Bantam Books.Google Scholar

Heath, A., Glouharova, S., and Heath, O. 2005, “India: Two-Party Contests Within a Multiparty System” in The Politics of Electoral Systems, edited by Gallagher, M. and Mitchell, P.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Herron, E., Pekkanen, R.J., and Shugart, M.S., eds. 2018, Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hicken, A. 2009, Building Party Systems in Developing Democracies. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hicken, A. and Stoll, H. 2011, “Presidents and Parties: How Presidential Elections Shape Coordination in Legislative Elections,” Comparative Political Studies 44(7): 854–883.Google Scholar

Hicken, A. and Stoll, H. 2012, “Are All Presidents Created Equal? Presidential Powers and the Shadow of Presidential Elections,” Comparative Political Studies 46(13): 291–319.Google Scholar

Hinckley, B. 1967, “Interpreting House Midterm Elections: Toward a Measurement of the In-Party’s “Expected” Loss of Seats,” American Political Science Review 61(3): 694–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hopkin, J. 2005, “Spain: Proportional Representation with Majoritarian Outcomes” in The Politics of Electoral Systems, edited by Gallagher, M. and Mitchell, P.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hrebenar, R. J. 1986, The Japanese Party System: From One-Party Rule to Coalition Government. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar

Jacobs, K. 2018, “Electoral Systems in Context: The Netherlands” in Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems, edited by Herron, E., Pekkanen, R., and Shugart, M. S. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Johnson, J. W. and Hoyo, V. 2012, “Beyond Personal Vote Incentives: Dividing the Vote in Preferential Electoral Systems,” Electoral Studies 31(1): 131–142.Google Scholar

Johnston, R. 2017, The Canadian Party System: An Analytic History. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar

Jones, M. P. 2018, “Presidential and Legislative Elections” in Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems, edited by Herron, E., Pekkanen, R., and Shugart, M. S.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kam, C. J. 2009. Party Discipline and Parliamentary Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Karvonen, L. 2004, “Preferential Voting: Incidence and Effects,” International Political Science Review, 25(2): 203–226.Google Scholar

Kasuya, Yuko. 2009. Presidential Bandwagon: Parties and Party Systems in the Philippines. Pasig City, Philippines: Anvil Publishing.Google Scholar

Katz, R. S. 1986, “Intraparty Preference Voting” in Electoral Laws and Their Political Consequences, edited by Grofman, B., and Lijphart, A.. New York: Agathon Press.Google Scholar

Kedar, O., Harsgor, L., and Sheinerman, R. A. 2016, “Are Voters Equal Under Proportional Representation?,” American Journal of Political Science 60(3): 679–691.Google Scholar

Kelly, W. W. 2007, “Is Baseball a Global Sport? America’s ‘National Pastime’ as Global Field and International Sport,” Global Networks 7(2): 187–201.Google Scholar

Kelly, W. W. 2009, “Samurai Baseball: The Vicissitudes of a National Sporting Style,” The International Journal of the History of Sport 26(3): 429–441.Google Scholar

Kernell, S. 1977, “Presidential Popularity and Negative Voting: An Alternative Explanation of the Midterm Congressional Decline of the President’s Party,” American Political Science Review 71(1): 44–66.Google Scholar

Kollman, K., Hicken, A., Caramani, D., Backer, D., and Lublin, D. 2016, Constituency-Level Elections Archive. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Political Studies, University of Michigan [producer and distributor]. Web; 24 October 2016.Google Scholar

Laakso, M. and Taagepera, R. 1979, “The ‘Effective’ Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to West Europe,” Comparative Political Studies 12(1): 3–27.Google Scholar

Lehoucq, F. 2004, “Costa Rica: Modifying Majoritarianism with 40 per cent Threshold” in The Handbook of Electoral System Choice, edited Colomer, J. M.. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Li, Y. and Shugart, M. S. 2016, “The Seat Product Model of the Effective Number of Parties: A Case for Applied Political Science,” Electoral Studies 41(1): 23–34.Google Scholar

Li, Y. and Shugart, M. S. n.d., “National Level Party Systems Dataset.” Unpublished, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar

Lijphart, A. 1985, “The Field of Electoral Systems Research: A Critical Survey,” Electoral Studies 4(1): 3–14.Google Scholar

Lijphart, A. 1990, “Size, Pluralism, and the Westminster Model of Democracy: Implications for the Eastern Caribbean” in A Revolution Aborted: The Lessons of Grenada, edited by Heine, J.. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar

Lijphart, A. 1991, “The Alternative Vote: a Realistic Alternative for South Africa?,” Politikon: South African Journal of Political Studies 18(2): 91–101.Google Scholar

Lijphart, A. 1994, Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies, 1945–1990. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lijphart, A. 1999, Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Democracies. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Lijphart, A, Lopez Pintor, R., and Sone, Y. 1986. “The Limited Vote and the Single Non-Transferable Vote: Lessons from the Japanese and Spanish Examples” in Electoral Laws and Their Political Consequences, edited by Grofman, B. and Lijphart, A.. New York: Agathon.Google Scholar

Loosemore, J., and Hanby, V. J. 1971, “The Theoretical Limits of Maximum Distortion: Some Analytic Expressions for Electoral Systems,” British Journal of Political Science 1(4): 467–477.Google Scholar

Lublin, D. 2014, Minority Rules: Electoral Systems, Decentralization, and Ethnoregional Party Success. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lundberg, T. C., 2018, “Electoral Systems in Context: UK” in Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems, edited by Herron, E., Pekkanen, R., and Shugart, M. S.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Machado, A. 2012. Alianças Eleitorais: Casamento com Prazo de Validade, o Caso das Coligações Brasileiras. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier Editora.Google Scholar

Machado, A. 2009, “Minimum Winning Electoral Coalitions under Presidentialism: Reality or Fiction? The Case of Brazil,” Latin American Politics and Society 51(3): 87–110.Google Scholar

MacIntyre, A. J. 2003, The Power of Institutions: Political Architecture and Governance. Cornell: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Mainwaring, S. 1991. “Politicians, Electoral Systems, and Parties: Brazil in Comparative Perspective,” Comparative Politics 24, No. 1 (October): 21–43.Google Scholar

Mainwaring, S. 1993, “Presidentialism, Multipartism, and Democracy: The Difficult Combination,” Comparative Political Studies 26(2): 198–228.Google Scholar

Mainwaring, M. and Shugart, M. S., 1997. “Conclusion: Presidentialism and the Party System” in Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin America, edited by Mainwaring, S and Shugart, M. S.. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 394–439.Google Scholar

Mair, P. 1997, Party System Change: Approaches and Interpretations. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Marsh, M. 1985, “The Voters Decide?: Preferential Voting in European List Systems,” European Journal of Political Research 13(4): 365–378.Google Scholar

Massicotte, L., 2018, “Electoral Systems in Context: Canada” in Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems, edited by Herron, E., Pekkanen, R., and Shugart, M. S.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Matland, R. E., and Taylor, M. M. 1997, “Electoral System Effects on Women’s Representation Theoretical Arguments and Evidence from Costa Rica,” Comparative Political Studies 30(2): 186–210.Google Scholar

McAllister, I., and Makkai, T. 2018. “Electoral Systems in Context: Australia” in Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems, edited by Herron, E., Pekkanen, R., and Shugart, M.S.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

McGann, A. J., Smith, C. A., Latner, M., and Keena, A. 2016, Gerrymandering in America: The House of Representatives, the Supreme Court, and the Future of Popular Sovereignty. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Milazzo, Caitlin, Moser, Robert G., and Scheiner, Ethan. In press. “Social Diversity Affects the Number of Parties Even under First-Past-the-Post Rules,” Comparative Political Studies.Google Scholar

Mill, J. S. 1861, Considerations on Representative Government. London: Parker, Son, and Bourn.Google Scholar

Molinar, J. 1991. “Counting the Number of Parties: An Alternative Index,” American Political Science Review 85: 1383–1391.Google Scholar

Monroe, B. L., and Rose, A. G. 2002, “Electoral Systems and Unimagined Consequences: Partisan Effects of Districted Proportional Representation,” American Journal of Political Science 46(1): 67–89.Google Scholar

Moser, R. G., and Scheiner, E. 2012, Electoral Systems and Political Context: How the Effects of Rules Vary Across New and Established Democracies. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Moser, R. G., Scheiner, E., and Stoll, H. 2018. “Social Diversity, Election Rules, and the Party System” in Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems, edited by Herron, E., Pekkanen, R., and Shugart, M. S.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Mozaffar, S., Scarritt, J. R., and Galaich, G. 2003. “Electoral Institutions, Ethnopolitical Cleavages and Party Systems in Africa’s Emerging Democracies,” American Political Science Review 97(3): 379–390.Google Scholar

Ordeshook, P. and Shvetsova, O. 1994, “Ethnic Heterogeneity, District Magnitude, and the Number of Parties,” American Journal of Political Science 38, 100–123.Google Scholar

Pachón, M., and Shugart, M. S. 2010, “Electoral Reform and the Mirror Image of Inter-Party and Intra-Party Competition: The Adoption of Party Lists in Colombia,” Electoral Studies 29(4): 648–660.Google Scholar

Passarelli, G. 2018, “Electoral Systems in Context: Italy” in Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems, edited by Herron, E., Pekkanen, R., and Shugart, M. S.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Potter, J. D. 2014, “Demographic Diversity and District-Level Party Systems,” Comparative Political Studies 47(13): 1801–1829.Google Scholar

Rae, D. W. 1967, The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Rahat, G. and Hazan, R. Y. 2001, “Candidate Selection Methods an Analytical Framework,” Party Politics 7(3): 297–322.Google Scholar

Raunio, T. 2005, “Finland: One Hundred Years of Quietude” in The Politics of Electoral Systems, edited by Gallagher, M. and Mitchell, P.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Reed, S. R. 1991, “Structure and Behaviour: Extending Duverger’s Law to the Japanese Case,” British Journal of Political Science 20(3): 335–356.Google Scholar

Reed, S. R. 2003, “What Mechanism Causes the M+1 Rule? A Simple Simulation,” Japanese Journal of Political Science 4(1): 41–60.Google Scholar

Reed, S. R. 2009, “Party Strategy or Candidate Strategy: How Does the LDP Run the Right Number of Candidates in Japan’s Multi-Member Districts?,” Party Politics 15(3): 295–314.Google Scholar

Reed, S. R. and Bolland, J. M. 1999, “The Fragmentation Effect of SNTV in Japan” in Elections in Japan, Korea, and TaiFn Under the Single Non-Transferable Vote: The Comparative Study of an Embedded Institution, edited by Grofman, B. et al. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Reilly, B. 2002, “Social Choice in the South Seas: Electoral Innovation and the Borda Count in the Pacific Island Countries,” International Political Science Review 23(4): 355–372.Google Scholar

Reilly, B., Ellis, A., and Reynolds, A. 2005, Electoral System Design: The New International IDEA Handbook, International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.Google Scholar

Renwick, A., and Pilet, J. 2016, Faces on the Ballot: The Personalization of Electoral Systems in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Reynolds, A. 2006, “The Curious Case of Afghanistan,” Journal of Democracy 17(2): 104–117.Google Scholar

Riker, W. H. 1982, Liberalism against Populism: A Confrontation Between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar

Samuels, D. J. and Shugart, M. S. 2010, Presidents, Parties, and Prime Ministers: How the Separation of Powers Affects Party Organization and Behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Samuels, D. J. and Snyder, R. 2001. “The Value of a Vote: Malapportionment in Comparative Perspective,” British Journal of Political Science 31(3): 651–671.Google Scholar

Sartori, G. 1976, Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

von Schoultz, Å. 2018, “Electoral Systems in Context: Finland” in Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems, edited by Herron, E., Pekkanen, R., and Shugart, M. S. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Shugart, M. S. 1995, “The Electoral Cycle and Institutional Sources of Divided Presidential Government,” American Political Science Review 89(2): 327–343.Google Scholar

Shugart, M. S. 2004, “Elections: The American Process of Selecting a President: A Comparative Perspective,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 34(3): 632–655.Google Scholar

Shugart, M. S. 2005a, “Comparative Electoral Systems Research: The Maturation of a Field and New Challenges Ahead,” in The Politics of Electoral Systems, edited by Gallagher, M. and Mitchell, P.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Shugart, M. S. 2005b, “Semi-Presidential Systems: Dual Executive and Mixed Authority Patterns,” French Politics 3(3): 323–351.Google Scholar

Shugart, M. S. 2007, “Mayoría relativa vs. segunda vuelta: la elección presidencial mexicana de 2006 en perspectiva comparada,” Política y gobierno XIV(1): 175–202.Google Scholar

Shugart, M. S. and Carey, J. M. 1992, Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Shugart, M. S., Moreno, E., and Fajardo, L. E. 2007, “Deepening Democracy Through Renovating Political Practices: The Struggle for Electoral Reform in Colombia” in Peace, Democracy, and Human Rights in Colombia, edited by Welna, C. and Gallon, G.. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press.Google Scholar

Shugart, M. S. and Taagepera, R. 1994, “Plurality Versus Majority Election of Presidents: A Proposal for a ‘Double Complement Rule’,” Comparative Political Studies 27(3): 323–348.Google Scholar

Shugart, M. S. and Tan, A. C., 2016. “Political Consequences of New Zealand’s MMP System in Comparative Perspective” in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems in Constitutional Context: Taiwan, Japan, and Beyond, edited by Batto, N., Huang, C., Tan, A. C., and Cox, G. W., pp. 247–277. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Shugart, M. S. and Wattenberg, M. P., eds., 2001. Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds? New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Shugart, M. S., Valdini, M. E., and Suominen, K. 2005, “Looking for Locals: Voter Information Demands and Personal Vote‐Earning Attributes of Legislators under Proportional Representation,” American Journal of Political Science 49(2): 437–449.Google Scholar

Siavelis, P. M. 2002, “The Hidden Logic of Candidate Selection for Chilean Parliamentary Elections,” Comparative Politics 34(4): 419–438.Google Scholar

Siavelis, P. M. 2005, “Chile: Unexpected (and Expected) Consequences of Electoral Engineering” in The Politics of Electoral Systems, ed. by Gallagher, M. and Mitchell, P.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sikk, A., and Taagepera, R. 2014, “How Population Size Affects Party Systems and Cabinet Duration,” Party Politics 20(4): 591–603.Google Scholar

Singer, M. M. 2013, “Was Duverger Correct? Single-Member District Election Outcomes in Fifty-Three Countries,” British Journal of Political Science 43(1): 201–220.Google Scholar

Spoon, J. J. 2011, Political Survival of Small Parties in Europe. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Stein, J. D. 2008, How Math Explains the World. New York: Harper Collins/Smithsonian Books.Google Scholar

Stoll, H. 2008, “Social Cleavages and the Number of Parties: How the Measures You Choose Affect the Answers You Get,” Comparative Political Studies 41(11): 1439–1465.Google Scholar

Stoll, H. 2013, Changing Societies, Changing Party Systems. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Stoll, H. 2015, “Presidential Coattails: A Closer Look,” Party Politics 21(3): 417–427.Google Scholar

Swindle, S. M. 2002, “The Supply and Demand of the Personal Vote Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Implications of Collective Electoral Incentives,” Party Politics 8(3): 279–300.Google Scholar

Taagepera, R. 1997, “Effective Number of Parties for Incomplete Data,” Electoral Studies 16(2): 145–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Taagepera, R. 1999, “Supplementing the Effective Number of Parties,” Electoral Studies 18(4): 497–504.Google Scholar

Taagepera, R. 2007, Predicting Party Sizes: The Logic of Simple Electoral Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Taagepera, R. 2008, Making Social Sciences More Scientific: The Need for Predictive Models. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Taagepera, R. 2015. “La balanza inclinada: Probando la “ley” de Duverger en el nivel nacional,” De Política 3, no. 4/5, 11–19.Google Scholar

Taagepera, R. and Ensch, J. 2006. “Institutional Determinants of the Largest Seat Share,” Electoral Studies 25: 760–765.Google Scholar

Taagepera, R. and Grofman, B. 1985. “Rethinking Duverger’s Law: Predicting the Effective Number of Parties in Plurality and PR Systems – Parties Minus Issues Equals One,” European Journal of Political Research 13: 341–352.Google Scholar

Taagepera, R. and Grofman, B. 2003. “Mapping the Indices of Seats–Votes Disproportionality and Inter-Election Volatility,” Party Politics 9(6): 659–677.Google Scholar

Taagepera, R. and Sikk, A. 2010. “Parsimonious Model for Predicting Mean Cabinet Duration on the Basis of Electoral System,” Party Politics 16(2): 261–281.Google Scholar

Taagepera, R. and Shugart, M. S. 1993. “Predicting the Number of Parties: A Quantitative Model of Duverger’s Mechanical Effect,” American Political Science Review 87(2): 455–464.Google Scholar

Taagepera, R. and Shugart, M. S. 1989a. Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Taagepera, R. and Shugart, M. S. 1989b. “Designing Electoral systems,” Electoral Studies 8(1): 49–58.Google Scholar

Taylor, S. L. and Shugart, M. S. 2018. “Electoral Systems in Context: Colombia” in Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems, edited by Herron, E., Pekkanen, R., and Shugart, M. S.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Taylor, S. L., Shugart, M. S., Lijphart, A., and Grofman, B. 2014, A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Thayer, N. B. 1969, How the Conservatives Rule Japan. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Tufte, E. R. 1975, “Determinants of the Outcomes of Midterm Congressional Elections,” American Political Science Review 69(3): 812–826.Google Scholar

Vowles, J. 2008, “Systemic Failure, Coordination, and Contingencies: Understanding Electoral System Change in New Zealand” in To Keep or To Change First Past The Post?: The Politics of Electoral Reform, edited by Blais, A.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Vowles, J. 2018, “Electoral Systems in Context: New Zealand” in Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems, edited by Herron, E., Pekkanen, R., and Shugart, M. S. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

van de Wardt, M. 2017, “Explaining the Effective Number of Parties: Beyond the Standard Model,” Electoral Studies 45: 44–54.Google Scholar

Wolinetz, S. B. 2006, “Party Systems and Party SystemTtypes” in Handbook of Party Politics, edited by Katz, R. S. and Crotty, W. J.. London: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar

Zittel, T. 2018, “Electoral Systems in Context: Germany” in Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems, edited by Herron, E., Pekkanen, R., and Shugart, M. S., New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Zupan, M. A. 1991, “An Economic Explanation for the Existence and Nature of Political Ticket-Splitting,” Journal of Law and Economics 34: 343–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar