Table 3.1
Party System Fragmentation and the Presidential Legislative Contingent (average from two most recent legislative elections)| Country | Effective number of legislative parties |
Presidential party’s contingent in lower house or national assembly (percent) |
Proportionality of design of election system |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 7.81 |
19 |
4.90 |
| Ecuador | 6.71 |
25 |
3.23 |
| Bolivia | 5.21 |
27 |
4.44 |
| Colombia | 5.00 |
20 |
3.14 |
| Venezuela | 4.75 |
34 |
3.32 |
| Peru | 4.24 |
41 |
3.12 |
| El Salvador | 3.50 |
34 |
3.16 |
| Guatemala | 3.46 |
43 |
3.11 |
| Argentina | 3.18 |
48 |
3.21 |
| Costa Rica | 3.12 |
40 |
3.62 |
| Panama | 3.09 |
39 |
1.97 |
| Mexico | 2.79 |
37 |
2.50 |
| Uruguay | 2.73 |
43 |
5.00 |
| Paraguay | 2.73 |
51 |
3.06 |
| Dominican Republic | 2.52 |
41 |
3.77 |
| Nicaragua | 2.39 |
54 |
3.15 |
| Honduras | 2.30 |
50 |
3.47 |
| Chile | 2.02 |
55 |
2.00 |
Note: The index of the effective number of legislative parties is computed by taking the inverse of the sum of the squares of all parties' seat shares (Laakso and Taagepera (1979)). The index of the proportionality of the design of the election system ranges from 1 to 5, where 1=majority system (average district magnitude [ADM] = 1); 2=low proportionality (ADM= 2-4); 3=moderate proportionality (ADM=4-10); high proportionality (ADM=10-20); and 5=very high proportionality (20-national district). Sources: Jones (2005) and authors’ calculations. |
|||