Party competition and electoral reforms: why do governments initiate a reform?

References

• Ahmed, Amel. (2010). ‘Reading History Forward: The Origins of Electoral Systems in European Democracies’, Comparative Political Studies, 43:8–9, 1059–88.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahmed, Amel. (2013). Democracy and the Politics of Electoral System Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bawn, Kathleen. (1993). ‘The Logic of Institutional Preferences: German Electoral Law as a Social Choice Outcome’, American Journal of Political Science, 37:4, 965–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beck, Nathaniel, Jonathan N. Katz, and Richard Tucker (1998). ‘Taking Time Seriously: Time-Series-Cross-Section Analysis with a Binary Dependent Variable’, American Journal of Political Science, 42:4, 1260–88.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benoit, Kenneth. (2004). ‘Models of Electoral System Change’, Electoral Studies, 23:3, 363–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benoit, Kenneth. (2007). ‘Electoral Laws as Political Consequences: Explaining the Origins and Change of Electoral Institutions’, Annual Review of Political Science, 10:1, 363–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benoit, Kenneth, and Jacqueline Hayden (2004). ‘Institutional Change and Persistence: The Evolution of Poland’ s Electoral System 1989-2001’, The Journal of Politics, 66:2, 396–427.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bielasiak, Jack, and John W. Hulsey (2013). ‘Party System Determinants of Electoral Reform in Post-Communist States’, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 46:1, 1–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birch, Sarah, Frances Millard, Marina Popescu, and Kieran Williams (2002). Embodying Democracy: Electoral System Design in Post-Communist Europe. First. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Blais, André, Agnieszka Dobrzynska, and Indridi H. Indridason (2005). ‘To Adopt or Not to Adopt Proportional Representation: The Politics of Institutional Choice’, British Journal of Political Science, 35:1, 182–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blais, André, ed. (2008). To Keep or to Change First Past the Post? The Politics of Electoral Reform. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Blau, Adrian. (2008). ‘Electoral Reform in the UK: A Veto Player Analysis’, in André Blais (ed.), To Keep or to Change First Past the Post? The Politics of Electoral Reform, New York: Oxford University Press, 61–89.
   Google 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bol, Damien. (2016). ‘Electoral Reform, Values, and Party Self-Interest’, Party Politics, 22:1, 93–104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolt, Jutta, Robert Inklaar, Jong Herman de, and Jan Luiten van Zanden (2018). Data from: Maddison Project Database, Version 2018. [Dataset]. Retrieved from: https://www.rug.nl/ggdc/historicaldevelopment/maddison/releases/maddison-project-database-2018.
   Google Scholar
• Bowler, Shaun, and Bernard Grofman, eds. (2000). Elections in Australia, Ireland, and Malta under the Single Transferable Vote: Reflections on an Embedded Institution. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Calvo, Ernesto. (2009). ‘The Competitive Road to Proportional Representation’, World Politics, 61:2, 254–95.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carey, John, and Simon Hix (2011). ‘The Electoral Sweet Spot: Low-Magnitude Proportional Electoral Systems’, American Journal of Political Science, 55:2, 383–97.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, Terry D., and Nerijus Prekevičius (2003). ‘Explaining the 2000 Lithuanian Parliamentary Elections: An Application of Contextual and New Institutional Approaches’, Slavic Review, 62:3, 548–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colomer, Josep M. (2004). ‘The Strategy and History of Electoral System Choice’, in Josep M. Colomer (ed.), Handbook of Electoral System Choice. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
   Google Scholar
• Colomer, Josep M. (2005). ‘It’s Parties That Choose Electoral Systems (or, Duverger’s Laws Upside Down)’, Political Studies, 53:1, 1–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dinas, Elias. (2020). ‘The Electoral System’, in Kevin Featherstone and Dimitri A. Sotiropoulos (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Modern Greek Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 203–18.
   Google Scholar
• Döring, Holger, and Philip Manow (2018). ‘Parliaments and Governments Database (ParlGov): Information on Parties, Elections and Cabinets in Modern Democracies.’ [Dataset]. Retrieved from www.parlgov.org.
   Google Scholar
• Duvold, Kjetil, and Mindaugas Jurkynas (2012). ‘Lithuania’, in Sten Berglund Joakim Ekman, Kevin Deegan-Krause, and Terje Knutsen (eds.), The Handbook of Political Change in Eastern Europe, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 37–9.
   Google Scholar
• Elgie, Robert. (2005). ‘France: Stacking the Deck’, in Michael Gallagher and Paul Mitchell (eds.), The Politics of Electoral Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 119–36.
   Google Scholar
• Farrell, David. (2011). Electoral Systems: A Comparative Introduction. London: Macmillan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fink-Hafner, Danica, and Alenka Krašovec (2014). ‘Slovenia’, European Journal of Political Research Political Data Yearbook, 53:1, 281–6.
   Google Scholar
• Gallagher, Michael. (1991). ‘Proportionality, Disproportionality and Electoral Systems’, Electoral Studies, 10:1, 33–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harfst, Philipp. (2013). ‘Changing the Rules of the Game: Determinants of Successful Electoral System Change in Central and Eastern Europe’, International Political Science Review, 34:4, 427–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Issever-Ekinci, Esra. (2016). ‘The Politics of Institutional Change: Electoral Reforms in Turkey’, unpublished paper, 112th American Political Science Association’s Annual Meeting, Philadelphia.
   Google Scholar
• Jacobs, Kristof, and Monique Leyenaar (2011). ‘A Conceptual Framework for Major, Minor, and Technical Electoral Reform’, West European Politics, 34:3, 495–513.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jurkynas, Mindaugas. (2005). ‘The 2004 Presidential and Parliamentary Elections in Lithuania’, Electoral Studies, 24:4, 770–7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krupavicius, Algis. (2005). ‘Lithuania’, European Journal of Political Research, 44:7-8, 1086–101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• La Porta, Rafael, Florencio López-de-Silanes, Cristian Pop-Eleches, and Andrei Shleifer (2004). ‘Judicial Checks and Balances’, Journal of Political Economy, 112:2, 445–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laakso, Markku, and Rein Taagepera (1979). ‘Effective Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to West Europe’, Comparative Political Studies, 12:1, 3–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ‘Latvia Update’ (1995a).). East European Constitutional Review, 4:Spring, 15–16.
   Google Scholar
• ‘Latvia Update’ (1995b). East European Constitutional Review, 4:Summer,13–14.
   Google Scholar
• ‘Latvia Update’ (1997a). East European Constitutional Review, 6:Spring/Summer, 19–21.
   Google Scholar
• Leyenaar, Monique, and Reuven Y. Hazan (2011). ‘Reconceptualizing Electoral Reform’, West European Politics, 34:3, 437–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levick, Laura. (2016). ‘Are Majoritarian Systems More Likely to Investigate Electoral Reform?’, unpublished paper, 112th American Political Science Association’s Annual Meeting, Philadelphia.
   Google Scholar
• Lijphart, Arend. (1994). Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies, 1945– 1990, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• 'Lithuania Update ‘ (2000). East European Constitutional Review, 9:Winter/Spring, 22–24.
   Google Scholar
• 'Lithuanian Parliament Amends Election Law ‘, (2000). Deutsche Presse-Agentur.
   Google Scholar
• Long, J. Scott, and Jeremy Freese (2014). Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata. College Station, Texas: Stata Press.
   Google Scholar
• Maddex, Robert L. (2008). Constitutions of the World. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mainwaring, Scott, Carlos Gervasoni, and Annabella Espana-Najera (2017). ‘Extra and within System Volatility’, Party Politics, 23:6, 623–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marian, Cosmin Gabriel, and Ronald F. King (2010). ‘Plus Ça Change: Electoral Law Reform and the 2008 Romanian Parliamentary Elections’, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 43:1, 7–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martinaitis, Žilvinas. (2012). ‘Explaining Electoral Reforms in Lithuania’, Journal of Baltic Studies, 43:3, 389–400.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell, Paul. (2005). ‘The United Kingdom: Plurality Rule under Siege’, in Michael Gallagher and Paul Mitchell (eds.), The Politics of Electoral Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 157–84.
   Google Scholar
• North, Douglass. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. New York, NY: Cambridge Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nunez, Lidia, and Kristof T. E. Jacobs (2016). ‘Catalysts and Barriers: Explaining Electoral Reform in Western Europe’, European Journal of Political Research, 55:3, 454–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nunez, Lidia, Pablo Simon, and Jean-Benoit Pilet (2017). ‘Electoral Volatility and the Dynamics of Electoral Reform’, West European Politics, 40:2, 378–401.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pedersen, Mogens N. (1979). ‘The Dynamics of European Party Systems: Changing Patterns of Electoral Volatility’, European Journal of Political Research, 7:1, 1–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pettai, Vello, and Marcus Kreuzer (1999). ‘Party Politics in the Baltic States: Social Bases and Institutional Context’, Eastern European Politics and Societies, 13:1, 150–91.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pilet, Jean-Benoit. (2007). ‘Strategies under the Surface: The Determinants of Redistricting in Belgium’, Comparative European Politics, 5:2, 205–25.
   Google Scholar
• Pilet, Jean-Benoit, and Damien Bol (2011). ‘Party Preferences and Electoral Reform: How Time in Government Affects the Likelihood of Supporting Electoral Change’, West European Politics, 34:3, 568–86.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pilon, Denis. (2013). Wrestling with Democracy: Voting Systems as Politics in the 20th Century West. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Raabe, Johannes. (2015). ‘Principles of Representation throughout the World: Constitutional Provisions and Electoral Systems’, International Political Science Review, 36:5, 578–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rahat, Gideon. (2008). The Politics of Regime Structure Reform in Democracies: Israel in Comparative and Theoretical Perspective. New York: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rahat, Gideon, and Reuven Y. Hazan (2011). ‘The Barriers to Electoral System Reform: A Synthesis of Alternative Approaches’, West European Politics, 34:3, 478–94.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Remmer, Karen. (2008). ‘The Politics of Institutional Change: Electoral Reform in Latin America, 1978-2002’, Party Politics, 14:1, 5–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renwick, Alan. (2011). ‘Electoral Reform in Europe since 1945’, West European Politics, 34:3, 456–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renwick, Alan, Chris Hanretty, and David Hine (2009). ‘Partisan Self-Interest and Electoral Reform: The New Italian Electoral Law of 2005’, Electoral Studies, 28:3, 437–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riera, Pedro. (2013). ‘Changing the Rules of the Game: On the Determinants and Consequences of Electoral Reforms in Contemporary Democracies’, unpublished dissertation, European University Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Santucci, Jack. (2018). ‘Maine Ranked-Choice Voting as a Case of Electoral-System Change’, Representation, 54:3, 297–311.
   Google Scholar
• Seki, Katsunori, and Laron K. Williams (2014). ‘Updating the Party Government Data Set’, Electoral Studies, 34, 270–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shugart, Matthew. (1992). ‘Electoral Reforms in Systems of Proportional Representation’, European Journal of Political Research, 21:3, 207–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shugart, Matthew. (2001). ‘Electoral “Efficiency” and the Move to Mixed-Member Systems’, Electoral Studies, 20:2, 173–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shugart, Matthew. (2008). ‘Inherent and Contingent Factors in Reform Initiation in Plurality Systems’, in André Blais (ed.), To Keep or to Change First Past the Post? The Politics of Electoral Reform, New York: Oxford University Press, 1–66.
   Google Scholar
• Shugart, Matthew and Martin P. Wattenberg, eds. (2001). Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds ? New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sprudzs, Adolf. (2001). ‘Rebuilding Democracy in Latvia: Overcoming a Dual Legacy’, in Jan Zielonka (ed). Democratic Consolidation in Eastern Europe Volume 1: Institutional Engineering, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 139–64.
   Google Scholar
• Taagepera, Rein. (2007). Predicting Party Sizes: The Logic of Simple Electoral Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tsebelis, George. (1990). Nested Games. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar