Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Runoff
View through CrossRef
Is there a “sweet spot” between openness to new parties and a plethora of parties that can be achieved through a reduced threshold for election to the presidency? Specifically, through a threshold between 40% and 50%? Unfortunately, although the evidence is not definitive, the answer appears to be: usually, no. Raising barriers to entry, a reduced threshold is disadvantageous if a cartel party or a party with an authoritarian past is strong, as in Argentina between 1983 and the present. Also, although in principle a reduced threshold raises barriers to entry, in practice—as in Ecuador between 2002 and 2006—it may not; the reasons for a larger or smaller number of parties are manifold. Further, a reduced threshold is risky. Although it voids runoffs that would have been unnecessary, it also voids runoffs that would have added presidential legitimacy.
Title: Runoff
Description:
Is there a “sweet spot” between openness to new parties and a plethora of parties that can be achieved through a reduced threshold for election to the presidency? Specifically, through a threshold between 40% and 50%? Unfortunately, although the evidence is not definitive, the answer appears to be: usually, no.
Raising barriers to entry, a reduced threshold is disadvantageous if a cartel party or a party with an authoritarian past is strong, as in Argentina between 1983 and the present.
Also, although in principle a reduced threshold raises barriers to entry, in practice—as in Ecuador between 2002 and 2006—it may not; the reasons for a larger or smaller number of parties are manifold.
Further, a reduced threshold is risky.
Although it voids runoffs that would have been unnecessary, it also voids runoffs that would have added presidential legitimacy.
Related Results
Introduction
Introduction
During the third wave, like most democratizing countries worldwide, Latin American countries replaced plurality rules for presidential election with runoff rules. To date, most sch...

