Hostname: page-component-669899f699-cf6xr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T16:31:53.864Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political Stability of Two-Party and Multiparty Systems: Probabilistic Bases for the Comparison of Party Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Manus I. Midlarsky
Manus I. Midlarsky*
Affiliation:
University of Colorado, Boulder
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The stability of the American two-party system is examined from 1866 until 1980. Following the approach of Stokes and Iversen (1962), restoring forces are posited for presidential elections, but restraining forces also are suggested for congressional elections, leading to an equilibrium between the two in elections to the House. Points of maximum restoration in presidential elections are derived using autocorrelations, and these points suggest a pattern of second-term Republican victories every 28 years beginning in 1872.

Equilibrium properties of the American two-party system lead to the twin criteria of representation and restraint in multiparty cabinet coalitions in order to achieve cabinet durabilities on the order of those found in two-party systems. Minimum entropy-minimum winning coalitions satisfy these criteria. Cabinet durabilities on the order of two-party systems can be achieved by means of a 44-55 percentage of the legislative seats won by the first party in a multiparty system.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 78 , Issue 4 , December 1984 , pp. 929 - 951
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abramowitz, A. I.A comparison of voting for U.S. senator and representative in 1978. American Political Science Review, 1980, 74, 633–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, T. W.The statistical analysis of time series. New York: Wiley, 1971.Google Scholar
Beck, P. A., & Jennings, M. K.Political periods and political participation. American Political Science Review, 1979, 73, 737–750.Google Scholar
Blondel, J.Party systems and patterns of government in Western democracies. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 1968, 1, 180–203.Google Scholar
Box, G. E., & Jenkins, G. M.Time series analysis: Forecasting and control (Rev. ed.). San Francisco: Holden-Day, 1976.Google Scholar
Box, G. E., & Pierce, D. A.Distribution of residual autocorrelations in autoregressive-integrated moving average time series models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1970, 65, 1509–1526.Google Scholar
Burington, R. S., & May, D. C.Handbook of probability and statistics with tables (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970.Google Scholar
Chandrasekhar, S.Stochastic problems in physics and astronomy. Reviews of Modem Physics, 1943, 75, 1–89.Google Scholar
Clubb, J. M., Flanigan, W. H., & Zingale, N. H.Partisan realignment: Voters, parties, and government in American history. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1980.Google Scholar
Collie, M. P.Incumbency, electoral safety, and turn-over in the House of Representatives, 1952-1976. American Political Science Review, 1981, 75, 119–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, P. E.Change in the American electorate. In Campbell, A. & Converse, P. E. (Eds.). The human meaning of social change. New York: Russell Sage, 1972, pp. 307–317.Google Scholar
Converse, P. E.Of time and partisan stability. Comparative Political Studies, 1969, 2, 139–171.Google Scholar
Dahl, R. A.Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1971.Google Scholar
Davis, O. A., Hinich, M. J., & Ordeshook, P. C.An expository development of a mathematical model of the electoral process. American Political Science Review, 1970, 64, 426–448.Google Scholar
Dodd, L. C.Coalitions in parliamentary government. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1976.Google Scholar
Doob, J. L.The Brownian movement and stochastic equations. Annals of Mathematics, 1942, 43, 351–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, A.An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row, 1957.Google Scholar
Enelow, J., & Hinich, M. J.A new approach to voter uncertainty in the Downsian spatial model. American Journal of Political Science, 1981, 25, 483–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feller, W.An introduction to probability theory and its applications (Vol. 1, 3rd ed.). New York: Wiley, 1968.Google Scholar
Good, I. J.Maximum entropy for hypothesis formulation, especially for multi-dimensional contingency scales. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1963, 34, 911–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hastings, N. A., & Peacock, J. B.Statistical distributions. New York: Wiley, 1975.Google Scholar
Hibbs, D. A. Jr.Political parties and macroeconomic policy. American Political Science Review, 1977, 71, 1467–1487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinich, M. J., & Pollard, W.A new approach to the spatial theory of electoral competition. American Journal of Political Science, 1981, 25, 323–341.Google Scholar
Holland, J. H.Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1975.Google Scholar
Huntington, S. P.Political order in changing societies. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1968.Google Scholar
Jackman, R. W.The predictability of coups d'etat: A model with African data. American Political Science Review, 1978, 72, 1262–1275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaynes, E. T.Information theory and statistical mechanics. Physical Review, 1957, 106, 620–630.Google Scholar
Johnson, N. L., & Kotz, S.Urn models and their application: An approach to modern discrete probability theory. New York: Wiley, 1977.Google Scholar
Kac, M.Random walk and the theory of Brownian motion. American Mathematical Monthly, 1947, 54, 369–391.Google Scholar
Kac, M., & Logan, J.Fluctuations. In Montroll, E. W. & Lebowitz, J. L. (Eds.), Fluctuation phenomena. Studies in statistical mechanics (vol. VIII). Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1979, pp. 1–60.Google Scholar
Kendall, M. G., & Stuart, A.The law of the cubic proportion in election results. British Journal of Sociology, 1950, 1, 183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, G. H.Short-term fluctuations in U.S. voting behavior, 1896-1964. American Political Science Review, 1971, 65, 131–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, A. Coalition theory and cabinet durability: A critique. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Denver, Colorado, September, 1982.Google Scholar
Lijphart, A.Democracies. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1984.Google Scholar
Lijphart, A.Democracy in plural societies: A comparative exploration. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1977.Google Scholar
Mackie, T. T., & Rose, R.General elections in Western nations during 1973 through general elections in Western nations during 1980. European Journal of Political Research, 1974–1981, 2–9, September.Google Scholar
Mackie, T. T., & Rose, R.The international almanac of electoral history. New York: Free Press, 1974.Google Scholar
Mandl, P.Analytical treatment of one-dimensional Markov processes. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1968.Google Scholar
March, J. G.Party legislative representation as a function of election results. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1957, 21, 521–542.Google Scholar
Mayer, L. C.Party systems and cabinet stability. In Merkl, P. H. (Ed.), Western European party systems. New York: Free Press, 1980, pp. 335–347.Google Scholar
Midlarsky, M. I.Absence of memory in the nineteenth-century alliance system: Perspectives from queuing theory and bivariate probability distributions. American Journal of Political Science, 1983, 27, 762–784.Google Scholar
Midlarsky, M. I.Analyzing diffusion and contagion effects: The urban disorders of the 1960s. American Political Science Review, 1978, 72, 996–1008.Google Scholar
Midlarsky, M. I.Equilibria in the nineteenth-century balance-of-power system. American Journal of Political Science, 1981, 25, 270–296.Google Scholar
Midlarsky, M. I.Scarcity and inequality: Prologue to the onset of mass revolution. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1982, 26, 3–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, W. E., & Levitin, T. E.Leadership and change: Presidential elections from 1952-1976. Cambridge, Mass.: Winthrop, 1976.Google Scholar
Nie, N. H., Verba, S., & Petrocik, J. R.The changing American voter. (Enlarged ed.). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1979.Google Scholar
Ornstein, D. S.Ergodic theory, randomness and dynamical systems. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1973.Google Scholar
Ornstein, D. S.What does it mean for a mechanical system to be isomorphic to the Bernoulli flow? In Moser, J. (Ed.), Dynamical systems: Theory and applications. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1974, pp. 209–223.Google Scholar
Penrose, L. S.The elementary statistics of majority voting. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 1946, 109, 53–57.Google Scholar
Powell, G. B. Jr.Party systems and political system performance: Voting participation, government stability and mass violence in contemporary democracies. American Political Science Review, 1981, 75, 861–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rae, D. W.The political consequences of electoral laws. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1971.Google Scholar
Riker, W. H.The theory of political coalitions. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1962.Google Scholar
Sanders, D., & Herman, V.The stability and survival of governments in Western democracies. Acta Politico, 1977, 12, 346–377.Google Scholar
Sartori, G.Parties and party systems: A framework for analysis (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.Google Scholar
Sellers, G.The equilibrium cycle in two-party politics. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1965, 29, 16–38.Google Scholar
Sinai, Y. G.Introduction to ergodic theory. Scheffer, V. (Trans.). Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1976.Google Scholar
Spafford, D.A note on the ‘equilibrium’ division of the vote. American Political Science Review, 1971, 65, 180–183.Google Scholar
Stokes, D. E., & Iversen, G. R.On the existence of forces restoring party competition. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1962, 26, 159–171.Google Scholar
Sveshnikov, A. A.Problems in probability theory, mathematical statistics and theory of random functions. New York: Dover, 1968.Google Scholar
Taylor, M., & Herman, V. M.Party systems and government stability. American Political Science Review, 1971, 65, 28–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theil, H.The desired political entropy. American Political Science Review, 1969, 63, 521–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theil, H.Statistical decomposition analysis. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1972.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. C.Ideological change in competitive labor parties. Comparative Political Studies, 1982, 15, 223–240.Google Scholar
Tufte, E. R.Political control of the economy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Wang, M. C., & Uhlenbeck, G. E.On the theory of Brownian motion II. Reviews of Modern Physics, 1945, 17, 323–342.Google Scholar
Warwick, P.The durability of coalition governments in parliamentary democracies. Comparative Political Studies, 1979, 11, 465–498.Google Scholar
Wax, N. (Ed.). Selected papers on noise and stochastic processes. New York: Dover, 1954.Google Scholar
Weisberg, H. F., & Fiorina, M. P.Candidate preference under uncertainty: An expanded view of rational voting. In Pierce, J. C. & Sullivan, J. L. (Eds.), The electorate reconsidered. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1980, pp. 237–256.Google Scholar
Zinnes, D. A., & Wilkenfeld, J.An analysis of foreign conflict behavior of nations. In Hanreider, W. F. (Ed.), Comparative foreign policy: Theoretical essays. New York: David McKay, 1971, pp. 167–213.Google Scholar
Zinnes, D. A., Zinnes, J. L., & McClure, R. D.Hostility in diplomatic communication: A study of the 1914 crisis. In Hermann, C. F. (Ed.), International crises: Insights from behavioral research. New York: Free Press, 1972, pp. 139–162.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.