Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Electoral Systems in Latin America: Explaining the Adoption of Proportional Representation Systems During the Twentieth Century

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018


Laura Wills-Otero
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh, Department of Political Science, Universidad de los Andes. law27@pitt.edu
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

This article explains the twentieth-century Latin American shift from majoritarian to proportional representation (PR) electoral systems. It argues that PR was introduced when the electoral arena changed significantly and threatened the power of the dominant party. The adoption of PR was therefore an effort by the established party to retain partial power in the face of absolute defeat. Majoritarian systems remained in place when the incumbent party was strong enough to believe that it could gain a plurality of the votes despite electoral changes. An empirical analysis of 20 countries over 104 years (1900–2004) provides support for this argument.


Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © University of Miami 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Ames, Barry. 1995. Electoral Strategy under Open-List Proportional Representation. American Journal of Political Science 39, 2: 406–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ames, Barry. 2001. The Deadlock of Democracy in Brazil. Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banks, Arthur S. 2004. Cross-National Time-Series Data Archive.Google Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, and Katz, Jonathan N.. 1995. What to Do (and Not to Do) with Time-Series Cross-Section Data. American Political Science Review 89, 3: 634–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boix, Carles. 1999. Setting the Rules of the Game: the Choice of Electoral Systems in Advanced Democracies. American Political Science Review 93, 3: 609–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinks, Daniel, and Coppedge, Michael. 2006. Diffusion is No Illusion: Neighbor Emulation in the Third Wave of Democracy. Comparative Political Studies 39, 40: 463–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colomer, Josep M., ed. 2004. Handbook of Electoral System Choice. New York : Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colomer, Josep M., ed. 2005. It's Parties that Choose Electoral Systems (or Duverger's Laws Upside down). Political Studies 53, 1: 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppedge, Michael. 1997. District Magnitude, Economic Performance, and Party System Fragmentation in Five Latin American Countries. Comparative Political Studies 3, 2: 156–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W. 1997. Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral Systems. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crisp, Brian. 2000. Democratic Institutional Design: The Powers and Incentives of Venezuelan Politicians and Interest Groups. Stanford : Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Duverger, Maurice. 1954 [1969]. Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. Reprint ed. London : Methuen.Google Scholar
Gil, Federico G. 1966. The Political System of Chile. Boston : Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
Golder, Matt. 2003. Democratic Electoral Systems around the World, 1946–2000. Electoral Studies 24, 2: 103–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Donald P., Yeon Kim, Soo, and Yoon, David H.. 2001. Dirty Pool. International Organization 55: 441–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Mark P. 1995a. Electoral Laws and the Survival of Presidential Democracies. Notre Dame : University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Mark P. 1995b. A Guide to the Electoral Systems of the Americas. Electoral Studies 14, 1: 521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krennerich, Michael. 1993. Nicaragua. In Nohlen 1993. 453–75.Google Scholar
Laakso, Markku, and Taagepera, Rein. 1979. The Effective Number of Parties: a Measure with Application to Western Europe. Comparative Political Studies 12, 1: 327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehoucq, Fabrice Edouard. 2000. Institutionalizing Democracy: Constraint and Ambition in the Politics of Electoral Reform. Comparative Politics 32: 459–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1985. The Field of Electoral Systems Research: a Critical Survey. Electoral Studies 4, 1: 314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-six Democracies. New Haven : Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lundell, Krister, and Karvonen, Lauri. 2003. A Comparative Dataset on Political Institutions. Stockholm : Abo Akademi. Available at <http://www.sns.se> Google Scholar
Maddison, Angus. 2003. The World Economy: Historical Statistics. Paris : Development Center, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mainwaring, Scott. 1999. Rethinking Party Systems in the Third Wave of Democratization: The Case of Brazil. Stanford : Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Marshall, Monty G., Gurr, Ted R., and Jaggers, Keith. 2006. Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800–2006. Washington , DC : Center for Systemic Peace/George Mason University.Google Scholar
Negretto, Gabriel L. 2006. Choosing How to Choose Presidents: Parties, Military Rulers, and Presidential Elections in Latin America. Journal of Politics 68, 2: 421–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielson, Daniel. 2003. Supplying Trade Reform: Political Institutions and Liberalization in Middle-Income Presidential Democracies. American Journal of Political Science 47, 3: 470–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nohlen, Dieter, ed. 1993. Enciclopedia electoral latinoamericana y del Caribe. San José, Costa Rica : Instituto Interamericano de Derechos Humanos.Google Scholar
Nohlen, Dieter, ed. 2005a. Chile. In Nohlen 2005b. 253–94.Google Scholar
Nohlen, Dieter, ed. 2005b. Elections in the Americas: A Data Handbook. New York : Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Norris, Pippa. 1997. Choosing Electoral Systems: Proportional, Majoritarian and Mixed Systems. International Political Science Review 18, 3: 297312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Liñán, Aníbal, and Wills-Otero, Laura. 2006. Electoral Systems in the Americas, 1900–2006. Dataset. Department of Political Science, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Rae, Douglas. 1967. The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws. New Haven : Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Rokkan, Stein. 1970. Citizens, Elections, Parties: Approaches to the Comparative Study of the Process of Development. Oslo : Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni. 1976. Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. New York : Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shugart, Matthew Soberg, and Carey, John M.. 1992. Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Designs and Electoral Dynamics. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siavelis, Peter M. 1997. Continuity and Change in the Chilean Party System: on Transformational Effects of Electoral Reform. Comparative Political Studies 30, 6: 651–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siavelis, Peter M. 1999. The President and Congress in Postauthoritarian Chile: Institutional Constraints to Democratic Consolidation. University Park : Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Taagepera, Rein, and Shugart, Matthew. 1989. Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems. New Haven : Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, George. 1995. Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicameralism and Multipartyism. British Journal of Political Science 25: 289325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanhanen, Tatu. 2005. Measures of Democracy, 1810–2004. Helsinki : Finnish Social Science Data Archive.Google Scholar
Wallack, Jessica Seddon, Gaviria Uribe, Alejandro, Panizza, Ugo, and Stein, Ernesto. 2003. Particularism around the World. World Bank Economic Review 17, 1: 133–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willey, Joseph. 1998. Institutional Arrangements and the Success of New Parties in Old Democracies. Political Studies 46, 3: 651–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wills-Otero, Laura, and Pérez-Liñán, Aníbal. 2005. La evolución de los sistemas electorales en América. Revista Colección: 4782.Google Scholar
World Bank. 2005. World Development Indicators. Washington , DC : World Bank. <http://www.devdata.worldbank.org/dataonline> >Google ScholarPubMed

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 9 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 02nd January 2018 - 5th December 2020. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-b4dcdd7-fbgh5 Total loading time: 0.246 Render date: 2020-12-05T12:02:15.416Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags last update: Sat Dec 05 2020 12:00:59 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) Feature Flags: { "metrics": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "peerReview": true, "crossMark": true, "comments": true, "relatedCommentaries": true, "subject": true, "clr": false, "languageSwitch": true }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Electoral Systems in Latin America: Explaining the Adoption of Proportional Representation Systems During the Twentieth Century
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Electoral Systems in Latin America: Explaining the Adoption of Proportional Representation Systems During the Twentieth Century
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Electoral Systems in Latin America: Explaining the Adoption of Proportional Representation Systems During the Twentieth Century
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *