Political party

In politics, a political party is an organized group of people who have the same ideology, or who otherwise have the same political positions, and who field candidates for elections, in an attempt to get them elected and thereby implement their agenda. Political parties are a defining element of representative democracy.[1]

For other uses, see Political party (disambiguation).

The members of political parties coordinate to collectively achieve and use political power.
Part of the Politics series
Party politics
Political spectrum
Left-wing
Centre
Right-wing
Party platform
Party organization
Party Leadership
Party system
Coalition
Lists
 Politics portal

While there is some international commonality in the way political parties are recognized and in how they operate, there are often many differences, some of which are significant. Most of political parties have an ideological core, but some do not, and many represent ideologies very different from their ideology at the time the party was founded. Many countries, such as Germany and India, have several significant political parties, and some nations have one-party systems, such as China and Cuba. The United States is in practice a two-party system but with many smaller parties also participating.

Historical development

The idea of people forming large groups or factions to advocate for their shared interests is ancient. Plato mentions the political factions of Classical Athens in the Republic,[2] and Aristotle discusses the tendency of different types of government to produce factions in the Politics.[3] Certain ancient disputes were also factional, like the Nika riots between two chariot racing factions at the Hippodrome of Constantinople. A few instances of recorded political groups or factions in history included the late Roman Republic's Populares and Optimates faction as well as the Dutch Republic's Orangists and the Staatsgezinde. However, modern political parties are considered to have emerged around the end of the 18th or early 19th centuries, appearing first in Europe and the United States.[4][5] What distinguishes political parties from factions and interest groups is that political parties use an explicit label to identify their members as having shared electoral and legislative goals.[5][6] The transformation from loose factions into organized modern political parties is considered to have first occurred in either the United Kingdom or the United States, with the United Kingdom's Conservative Party and the Democratic Party of the United States both frequently called the world's "oldest continuous political party".[7]

18th century
In A Block for the Wigs (1783), James Gillray caricatured Fox's return to power in a coalition with North. George III is the blockhead in the centre.

The first stable party system is thought to have emerged in early modern Britain, with origins in the factions that emerged from the Exclusion Crisis and Glorious Revolution of the late 17th century.[8]:4 The Whig faction originally organized itself around support for Protestant constitutional monarchy as opposed to absolute rule, whereas the conservative Tory faction (originally the Royalist or Cavalier faction of the English Civil War) supported a strong monarchy, and these two groups structured disputes in the politics of the United Kingdom throughout the 18th century[8]:4 Between the Glorious Revolution and the accession of George III in 1760 the Whigs were consistently the most powerful bloc, while the Tories presented united opposition to the Whigs while remaining out of power.[9]

When the Whigs did ultimate lose power, their leadership dissolved into a decade of factional chaos with distinct Grenvillite, Bedfordite, Rockinghamite, and Chathamite factions successively in power, which has been described as the catalyst for the emergence of the first distinctive political parties, the first being the Rockingham Whigs.[10] Edmund Burke, who provided guidance to the Rockingham Wigs, described a political party as "a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest, upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed".[11] The Rockingham Whigs have been considered potentially the first modern political party because, in contrast to the instability of earlier factions, the party was centred around a set of core principles and remained out of power as a united opposition.[12]

At the end of the late 18th century, the United States also developed a nascent party system. Although the framers of the 1787 United States Constitution did not anticipate that American political disputes would be primarily organized around political parties, political controversies in the early 1790s over the extent of federal government powers saw the emergence of two proto-political parties: the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party, which were respectively led by Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson.[13][14]

19th century

The American party system was fairly unstable during the 19th century; party politics there waned in 1816 and political parties remained weak for nearly a decade, a period commonly known as the Era of Good Feelings.[15] However, the splintering of the Democratic-Republican Party in the aftermath of the contentious 1824 presidential election led to the re-emergence of political parties. Two major parties would dominate the political landscape for the next quarter-century: the Democratic Party, led by Andrew Jackson, and the Whig Party, established by Henry Clay from the National Republicans and from other Anti-Jackson groups. When the Whig Party fell apart in the mid-1850s, its position as a major U.S. political party was filled by the Republican Party.[16]

In the 19th century, Sweden also developed a party system which has been called the world's first.[4] Also at the end of this century, the Home Rule League Party, campaigning for Home Rule for Ireland in the British Parliament, was fundamentally changed by the Irish political leader Charles Stewart Parnell in the 1880s.[17] In 1882, he changed his party's name to the Irish Parliamentary Party and created a well-organized grassroots structure, introducing membership to replace ad hoc informal groupings.[17] He created a new selection procedure to ensure the professional selection of party candidates committed to taking their seats, and in 1884 he imposed a firm 'party pledge' which obliged MPs to vote as a bloc in parliament on all occasions.[17] This formalized structure and control contrasted with the loose rules and flexible informality found in the main British parties, and represented the development of new forms of party organizations, which constituted a "model" in the 20th-century.[17]

Worldwide spread

Throughout the second half of the 19th century, the party model of politics was adopted across Europe. In Germany, France, Austria and elsewhere, the 1848 Revolutions sparked a wave of liberal sentiment governments, with the formation of representative bodies and political parties. The end of the century saw the formation of large socialist parties in Europe, some conforming to the philosophy of Karl Marx, others adapting social democracy through the use of reformist and gradualist methods.[18]

Origin of political parties

Political parties are a nearly ubiquitous feature of modern countries. Nearly all democratic countries have strong political parties, and many political scientists consider countries with fewer than two parties to necessarily be autocratic.[19][20][21] However, these sources allow that a country with multiple competitive parties is not necessarily democratic, and the politics of many autocratic countries are organized around one dominant political party.[21][22] There are many explanations for how and why political parties are such a crucial part of modern states.[5]:11

Social cleavages
Main article: Cleavage (politics)
Political parties like the Romanian Communist Party can arise out of, or be closely connected to, existing segments of society, such as organizations of workers.

One of the core explanations for why political parties exist is that they arise from existing divisions among people. Building on Harold Hotelling's work on the aggregation of preferences and Duncan Black's development of social choice theory, Anthony Downs showed how an underlying distribution of preferences in an electorate can produce regular results in the aggregate, such as the median voter theorem.[23] This abstract model shows that parties can arise from variations within an electorate, and can adjust themselves to the patterns in the electorate (although how well the median voter idea describes the varieties of party systems that exists has been a topic of continued study).[24] However, Downs assumed that some distribution of preferences exists, rather than attributing any meaning to that distribution.

Seymour Martin Lipset and Stein Rokkan made the idea of differences within an electorate more concrete by arguing that several major party systems of the 1960s were the result of social cleavages that had already existed in the 1920s.[25] They identify four lasting cleavages in the countries they examine: a Center-Periphery cleavage regarding religion and language, a State-Church cleavage centered on control of mass education, a Land-Industry cleavage regarding freedom of industry and agricultural policies, and an Owner-Worker cleavage which includes a conflict between nationalism and internationalism.[25] Subsequent authors have expanded on or modified these cleavages, particularly when examining parties in other parts of the world.[26]

The argument that parties are produced by social cleavages has drawn several criticisms. Some authors have challenged the theory on empirical grounds, either finding no evidence for the claim that parties emerge from existing cleavages or arguing that this claim is not empirically testable.[27] Others note that while social cleavages might cause political parties to exist, this obscures the opposite effect: that political parties also cause changes in the underlying social cleavages.[5]:13 A further objection is that, if the explanation for where parties come from is that they emerge from existing social cleavages, then the theory has not identified what causes parties unless it also explains where social cleavages come from; one response to this objection, along the lines of Charles Tilly's bellicist theory of state-building, is that social cleavages are formed by historical conflicts.[28]

Individual and group incentives
It is easier for voters to evaluate one simple list of policies for each party, like this platform for the United Australia Party, than to individually judge every single candidate.

An alternative explanation for why parties are ubiquitous across the world is that the formation of parties provides compatible incentives for candidates and legislators. One explanation for the existence of parties, advanced by John Aldrich, is that the existence of political parties means that a candidate in one electoral district has an incentive to assist a candidate in a different district when those two candidates have a similar ideology.[29]

One reason that this incentive exists is that parties can solve certain legislative challenges that a legislature of unaffiliated members might face. Gary W. Cox and Mathew D. McCubbins argue that the development of many institutions can be explained by their power to constrain the incentives of individuals; a powerful institution can prohibit individuals from acting in ways that harm the community.[30] This suggests that political parties might be mechanisms for preventing candidates with similar ideologies from acting to each other's detriment.[31] One specific advantage that candidates might obtain from helping similar candidates in other districts is that the existence of a party apparatus can help coalitions of electors to agree on ideal policy choices,[32] which is in general not possible.[33][34] This could be true even in contexts where it is only slightly beneficial to be part of a party; models of how individuals coordinate on joining a group or participating in an event show how even a weak preference to be part of a group can provoke mass participation.[35]

Parties as heuristics
Main article: Party identification

Parties may be necessary for many individuals to participate in politics because they provide a massively simplifying heuristic which allows people to make informed choices with a much lower cognitive cost. Without political parties, electors would have to evaluate every individual candidate in every single election they are eligible to vote in. Instead, parties enable electors to make judgments about a few groups instead of a much larger number of individuals. Angus Campbell, Philip Converse, Warren Miller, and Donald E. Stokes argued in The American Voter that identification with a political party is a crucial determinant of whether and how an individual will vote.[36] Because it is much easier to become informed about a few parties' platforms than about many candidates' personal positions, parties reduce the cognitive burden for people to cast informed votes. However, evidence suggests that over the last several decades the strength of party identification has been weakening, so this may be a less important function for parties to provide than it was in the past.[37]

Structure of political parties

Political parties are often structured in similar ways across countries. They typically feature a single party leader, a group of party executives, and a community of party members.[38] Parties in democracies usually select their party leadership in ways that are more open and competitive than parties in autocracies, where the selection of a new party leader is likely to be tightly controlled.[39] In countries with large sub-national regions, particularly federalist countries, there may be regional party leaders and regional party members in addition to the national membership and leadership.[5]:75

Party leaders
A National Congress of the Communist Party of China, where policies may be set and changes can be made to party leadership.

Parties are typically led by a party leader, who is the main representative of the party and often has primary responsibility for overseeing the party's policies and strategies. The leader of the party that controls the government usually becomes the head of government, such as the president or prime minister, and the leaders of other parties explicitly compete to become the head of government.[38] In both presidential democracies and parliamentary democracies, the members of a party frequently have substantial input into the selection of party leaders, for example by voting on party leadership at a party conference.[40][41] Because the leader of a major party is a powerful and visible person, many party leaders are well-known career politicians.[42] Party leaders can be sufficiently prominent that they affect how voters perceive the entire political party,[43] and some voters decide how to vote in elections partly based on how much they like the leaders of the different parties.[44]

The number of people involved in choosing party leaders varies widely across parties and countries. On one extreme, party leaders might be selected from the entire electorate; on the opposite extreme, they might be selected by just one individual.[45] Selection by a smaller group can be a feature of party leadership transitions in more autocratic countries, where the existence of political parties may be severely constrained to only one legal political party, or only one competitive party. Some of these parties, like the Chinese Communist Party, have rigid methods for selecting the next party leader, which involve selection by other party members.[46] A small number of single-party states have hereditary succession, where party leadership is inherited by the child of an outgoing party leader.[47] Autocratic parties use more restrictive selection methods to avoid having major shifts in the regime as a result of successions.[39]

Party executives

In both democratic and non-democratic countries, the party leader is often the foremost member of a larger party leadership. A party executive will commonly include administrative positions, like a party secretary and a party chair, who may be different people from the party leader.[48][49] These executive organizations may serve to constrain the party leader, especially if that leader is an autocrat.[50][51] It is common for political parties to conduct major leadership decisions, like selecting a party executive and setting their policy goals, during regular party conferences.[52]

Members of the National Woman's Party in 1918.

Much as party leaders who are not in power are usually at least nominally competing to become the head of government, the entire party executive may be competing for various positions in the government. For example, in Westminster systems, the largest party that is out of power will form the Official Opposition in parliament, and select a shadow cabinet which (among other functions) provides a signal about which members of the party would hold which positions in the government if the party were to win an election.[53]

Party membership

Citizens in a democracy will often affiliate with a political party. Party membership may include paying dues, an agreement not to affiliate with multiple parties at the same time, and sometimes a statement of agreement with the party's policies and platform.[54] In democratic countries, members of political parties often are allowed to participate in elections to choose the party leadership.[45] Party members may form the base of the volunteer activists and donors who support political parties during campaigns.[55] The extent of participation in party organizations can be affected by a country's political institutions, with certain electoral systems and party systems encouraging higher party membership.[56] Since at least the 1980s, membership in large traditional party organizations has been steadily declining across a number of countries.[57]

Types of party organizations

Political scientists have distinguished between different types of political parties that have evolved throughout history. These include cadre parties, mass parties, catch-all parties and cartel parties.[58] Cadre parties were political elites that were concerned with contesting elections and restricted the influence of outsiders, who were only required to assist in election campaigns. Mass parties tried to recruit new members who were a source of party income and were often expected to spread party ideology as well as assist in elections. In the United States, where both major parties were cadre parties, the introduction of primaries and other reforms has transformed them so that power is held by activists who compete over influence and nomination of candidates.[59]

Cadre parties
Main article: Elite party

A cadre party, or elite party, is a type of political party that was dominant in the nineteenth century before the introduction of universal suffrage and that was made up of a collection of individuals or political elites. The French political scientist Maurice Duverger first distinguished between "cadre" and "mass" parties, founding his distinction on the differences within the organisational structures of these two types.[60]:60–71 Cadre parties are characterized by minimal and loose organisation, and are financed by fewer larger monetary contributions typically originating from outside the party. Cadre parties give little priority to expanding the party's membership base, and its leaders are its only members.[61][62] The earliest parties, such as the early American political parties, the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists, are classified as cadre parties.[63]

Mass parties
Parties can arise from existing cleavages in society, like the Social Democratic Party of Germany which was formed to represent German workers.
Main article: Mass politics

A mass party is a type of political party that developed around cleavages in society and mobilized the ordinary citizens or 'masses' in the political process.[63] In Europe, the introduction of universal suffrage resulted in the creation of worker's parties that later evolved into mass parties; an example is the German Social Democratic Party.[61] These parties represented large groups of citizens who had previously not been represented in political processes, articulating the interests of different groups in society. In contrast to cadre parties, mass parties are funded by their members, and rely on and maintain a large membership base. Further, mass parties prioritize the mobilization of voters and are more centralized than cadre parties.[63][64]

Catch-all parties
Main article: Big tent party

The term "Catch-all party" was developed by German-American political scientist Otto Kirchheimer to describe the parties that developed in the 1950s and 1960s as a result of changes within the mass parties.[65][61] The term "big tent party" may be used interchangeably. Kirchheimer characterized the shift from the traditional mass parties to catch-all parties as a set of developments including the "drastic reduction of the party's ideological baggage" and the "downgrading of the role of the individual party member".[66] By broadening their central ideologies into more open-ended ones, catch-all parties seek to secure the support of a wider section of the population. Further, the role of members is reduced as catch-all parties are financed in part by the state or by donations.[67] In Europe, the shift of Christian Democratic parties that were organized around religion into broader centre-right parties epitomizes this type.[68]

Cartel parties
Main article: Cartel party theory

Cartel parties are a type of political party that emerged post-1970s and are characterized by heavy state financing and the diminished role of ideology as an organizing principle. The cartel party thesis was developed by Richard Katz and Peter Mair who wrote that political parties have turned into "semi-state agencies",[69] acting on behalf of the state rather than groups in society. The term 'cartel' refers to the way in which prominent parties in government make it difficult for new parties to enter, as such forming a cartel of established parties. As with catch-all parties, the role of members in cartel parties is largely insignificant as parties use the resources of the state to maintain their position within the political system.[70]

Niche parties
A political party may focus on one niche issue, like the environment.
See also: Single-issue politics

Niche parties are a type of political party that developed on the basis of the emergence of new cleavages and issues in politics, such as immigration and the environment.[71] In contrast to mainstream or catch-all parties, niche parties articulate an often limited set of interests in a way that does not conform to the dominant economic left-right divide in politics, emphasising issues that do not attain prominence within the other parties.[72] Further, niche parties do not respond to changes in public opinion to the extent that mainstream parties do. Examples of niche parties include Green parties and extreme nationalist parties, such as the Front National in France.[73] However, over time these parties may lose some of their niche qualities, instead adopting those of mainstream parties, for example after entering government.[72]

Entrepreneurial parties
Main article: Entrepreneurial party

Entrepreneurial parties are a type of political party that is centered on a political entrepreneur, and dedicated to the advancement of that person or their policies.[74]

Party positions and ideologies
Main article: List of political ideologies
Ideology of ruling party in legislative body at the regional or national level worldwide, or ideology of ruling body, as of May 2020. Colour-coded from left- (red) to right- (blue) wing scale. Based on identification from international recognition or self-proclaimed party ideology.

Political ideologies are one of the major organizing features of political parties, and parties often officially align themselves with specific ideologies. Parties adopt ideologies for a number of reasons. Ideological affiliations for political parties send signals about what sort of policies they might pursue if they were in power.[75] Ideologies also differentiate parties from one another, so that voters can select the party that advances the policies that they most prefer.[76] A party may also seek to advance an ideology, by convincing voters to adopt its belief system.[77]

Common ideologies that can form a central part of the identity of a political party include liberalism, conservatism, socialism, communism, anarchism, fascism, feminism, environmentalism, nationalism, fundamentalism,[78] Islamism, and multiculturalism.[79] Liberalism is the ideology that is most closely connected to the history of democracies and is often considered to be the dominant or default ideology of governing parties in much of the contemporary world.[80] Many of the traditional competitors to liberal parties are conservative parties.[80] Socialist, communist, anarchist, fascist, and nationalist parties are more recent developments, largely entering political competitions only in the 19th and 20th centuries.[80] Feminism, environmentalism, multiculturalism, and certain types of fundamentalism became prominent towards the end of the 20th century.[80]

Parties can sometimes be organized according to their ideology using an economic left-right political spectrum. However, a simple left-right economic axis does not fully capture the variation in party ideologies.[81] Other common axes that are used to compare the ideologies of political parties include ranges from liberal to authoritarian,[82] from pro-establishment to anti-establishment, and from tolerant to pluralistic.[81]

Traditional political spectrum used to describe European political parties

Though ideologies are central to a large number of political parties around the world, not all political parties have an organizing ideology, or exist to promote ideological policies. For example, some political parties may be clientelistic or patronage-based organizations, which are largely concerned with distributing goods.[83] Other political parties may be created as tools for the advancement of an individual politician.[84][85] Either of these types of parties may also be ideological, but parties can exist which are not ideological.[86]

Party systems
Main article: Party system

Political parties are ubiquitous across both democratic and autocratic countries, and there is often very little change in which political parties have a chance of holding power in a country from one election to the next. This makes it possible to think about the political parties in a country as collectively forming one of the country's central political institutions, called a party system.[87] Some basic features of a party system are how many parties there are and what sorts of parties are the most successful.[88] These properties are closely connected to other major features of the country's politics, like how democratic it is, what sorts of restrictions its laws impose on political parties, and what type of electoral systems it uses.[87] An informative way to classify the party systems of the world is by how many parties they include.[88]

Non-partisan systems
Main article: Non-partisan democracy
In a non-partisan legislature, like the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories, every member runs and legislates as a political independent with no party affiliation.

In a non-partisan system, no political parties exist, or political parties are not a major part of the political system. There are very few countries without political parties.[89] A permanent absence of parties is usually, but not always, the result of an official ban on partisan activity. A temporary lack of partisan activity can also occur during an upheaval in a country's politics.

In some non-partisan countries, the formation of parties is explicitly banned by law.[90] The existence of political parties may be banned in autocratic countries in order to prevent a turnover in power.[91] For example, in Saudi Arabia, a ban on political parties has been used as a tool for protecting the monarchy.[91] However, parties are also banned in some polities that have long democratic histories, usually in local or regional elections of countries that have strong national party systems.[92][93][94]

Political parties may also temporarily cease to exist in countries that have either only been established recently, or have experienced a major upheaval in their politics and have not yet returned to a stable system of political parties. For example, the United States began as a non-partisan democracy, and it evolved a stable system of political parties over the course of many decades.[29]:ch.4 A country's party system may also dissolve and take time to re-form, leaving a period of minimal or no party system, such as in Peru following the regime of Alberto Fujimori.[95] However, it is also possible (though rare) for countries with no bans on political parties, and which have not experienced a major disruption, to nevertheless have no political parties: there are a small number of pacific island democracies, such as Palau, where political parties are permitted to exist and yet parties are not an important part of national politics.[90]

One-party systems
Main article: One-party state

In a one-party system, power is held entirely by one political party. When only one political party exists, it may be the result of a ban on the formation of any competing political parties, which is a common feature in authoritarian states. For example, the Communist Party of Cuba is the only permitted political party in Cuba, and is the only party that can hold seats in the legislature.[96] When only one powerful party is legally permitted to exist, its membership can grow to contain a very large portion of society and it can play substantial roles in civil society that are not necessarily directly related to political governance; one example of this is the Chinese Communist Party.[97] Bans on competing parties can also ensure that only one party can ever realistically hold power, even without completely outlawing all other political parties. For example, in North Korea, more than one party is officially permitted to exist and even to seat members in the legislature,[98] but laws ensure that the Workers' Party of Korea retains control.[99]

It is also possible for countries with free elections to have only one party that holds power. These cases are sometimes called dominant-party systems or particracies. Scholars have debated whether or not a country that has never experienced a transfer of power from one party to another can nevertheless be considered a democracy.[100]:23 There have been periods of government exclusively or entirely by one party in some countries that are often considered to have been democratic, and which had no official legal barriers to the inclusion of other parties in the government; this includes recent periods in Botswana, Japan, Mexico, Senegal, and South Africa.[100]:24–27 It can also occur that one political party dominates a sub-national region of a democratic country that has a competitive national party system; one example is the southern United States during much of the 19th and 20th centuries, where the Democratic Party had almost complete control.[101]

Two-party systems
Main article: Two-party system
The United States has one of the main examples of a two-party system.

In several countries, there are only two parties that have a realistic chance of competing to form government.[102] One canonical two-party democracy is the United States, where the national government is exclusively controlled by either the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.[103] Other examples of countries which have had long periods of two-party dominance include Colombia, Uruguay,[104] Malta,[105] and Ghana.[106]

It is also possible for authoritarian countries, and not just democracies, to have two-party systems. Competition between two parties has occurred in historical autocratic regimes in countries including Brazil[107] and Venezuela.[108]

In the 1960s Maurice Duverger observed that single-member district single-vote plurality-rule elections tend to produce two-party systems,[109]:217 a phenomenon that became known as Duverger's law. Whether or not this pattern is true has been heavily debated over the last several decades.[110]

Multi-party systems
Main article: Multi-party system
On this 2012 Mexican ballot, voters have more than two parties to choose from.

Multi-party systems are systems in which more than two parties have a realistic chance of holding power and influencing policy.[104] A very large number of systems around the world have had periods of multi-party competition,[111] and two-party democracies may be considered unusual or uncommon compared to multi-party systems.[112] Many of the largest democracies in the world have had long periods of multi-party competition, including India,[113] Indonesia,[114] Pakistan,[115] Brazil,[116] and Nigeria.[117] Multiparty systems encourage characteristically different types of governance than smaller party systems, for example by often encouraging the formation of coalition governments.[118]

The presence of many competing political parties is usually associated with a greater level of democracy, and a country transitioning from having a one-party system to having a many-party system is often considered to be democratizing.[119] Authoritarian countries can include multi-party competition, but typically this occurs when the elections are not fair.[120] For this reason, in two-party democracies like the United States, proponents of forming new competitive political parties often argue that developing a multi-party system would make the country more democratic.[121] However, the question of whether multiparty systems are more democratic than two-party systems, or if they enjoy better policy outcomes, is a subject of substantial disagreement among scholars[122][123] as well as among the public.[124][125] In the opposite extreme, a country with a very large number of parties can experience governing coalitions that include highly ideologically diverse parties that are unable to make much policy progress, which may cause the country to be unstable and experience a very large number of elections; examples of systems that have been described as having these problems include periods in the recent history of Israel,[126] Italy, and Finland.[127]

Some multi-party systems may have two parties that are noticeably more competitive than the other parties.[128] Such party systems have been called "two-party-plus" systems, which refers to the two dominant parties, plus other parties that exist but rarely or never hold power in the government.[129] It is also possible for very large multi-party systems, like India's, to nevertheless be characterized largely by a series of regional contests that realistically have only two competitive parties, but in the aggregate can produce many more than 2 parties that have major roles in the country's national politics.[113]

Funding
Main article: Political party funding

Many of the activities of political parties involve acquiring funds and allocating them in order to achieve political goals. The funding involved can be very substantial, with contemporary elections in the largest democracies typically costing billions or even tens of billions of dollars.[130][131] Much of this expense is paid by candidates and political parties, which often develop sophisticated fundraising organizations.[132] Because paying for participation in electoral contests is such a central democratic activity, the funding of political parties is an important feature of a country's politics.[132]

Sources of party funds
Campaign finance restrictions may be motivated by the perception that excessive or secretive contributions to political parties will make them beholden to people other than the voters.

Common sources of party funding across countries include dues-paying party members, advocacy groups and lobbying organizations, corporations, trade unions, and candidates who may self-fund activities.[133] In most countries, the government also provides some level of funding for political parties.[132][134] Nearly all of the 180 countries examined by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance have some form of public funding for political parties, and about a third of them have regular payments of government funds that goes beyond campaign reimbursements.[135] In some countries public funding for parties depends on the size of that party, for example a country may only provide funding to parties which have more than a certain number of candidates or supporters.[135] A common argument for public funding of political parties is that it creates fairer and more democratic elections by enabling more groups to compete, whereas many advocates for private funding of parties argue that donations to parties are a form of political expression that should be protected in a democracy.[136] Public financing of political parties may decrease parties' pursuit of funds through corrupt methods, by decreasing their incentive to find alternate sources of funding.[137]

One way of categorizing the sources of party funding is between public funding and private funding. Another dichotomy is between plutocratic and grassroots sources; parties which get much of their funding from large corporations may tend to pursue different policies and use different strategies than parties which are mostly funded through small donations by individual supporters.[138] Private funding for political parties can also be thought of as coming from internal or external sources: this distinguishes between dues from party members or contributions by candidates, and donations from entities outside of the party like non-members, corporations, or trade unions.[138] Internal funding may be preferred because external sources might make the party beholden to an outside entity.[138]

Uses for party funds

There are many ways for political parties to deploy money in order to secure better electoral outcomes. Parties often spend money to train activists, recruit volunteers, create and deploy advertisements, conduct research and support for their leadership in between elections, and promote their policy agenda.[132] Many political parties and candidates engage in a practice called clientelism, in which they distribute material rewards to people in exchange for political support; in many countries this is illegal, though even where it is illegal it may nevertheless be widespread in practice.[139] Some parties engage directly in vote-buying, in which a party gives money to a person in exchange for their vote.[140]

Though it may be crucial for a party to spend more than some threshold to win a given election, there are typically diminishing returns for expenses during a campaign.[141] Once a party has spent more than a certain amount, additional expenditures might not increase their chance of success.[142]

Restrictions

Fundraising and expenditures by political parties are regulated by governments, with regulations largely focusing on who can contribute money to parties, how parties' money can be spent, and how much of it can pass through the hands of a political party.[143] Two main ways that regulations affect parties is by intervening in their sources of income and by mandating that they maintain some level of transparency about their funding.[144] One common type of restriction on how parties acquire money is to limit who can donate money to political parties; for example, people who are not citizens of a country may not be allowed to make contributions to that country's political parties, in order to prevent foreign interference.[143] It is also common to limit how much money an individual can give to a political party each election.[145] Similarly, many governments cap the total amount of money that can be spent by each party in an election.[134] Transparency regulations may require parties to disclose detailed financial information to the government, and in many countries transparency laws require those disclosures to be available to the public, as a safeguard against potential corruption.[132]

Creating, implementing, and amending laws regarding party expenses can be extremely difficult, since governments may be controlled by the very parties that these regulations restrict.[132]

Party colours and symbols
Main articles: Political colour and List of political party symbols

Nearly all political parties associate themselves with colours and symbols, primarily to aid voters in identifying, recognizing, and remembering the party. This branding is particularly important in polities where much of the population may be illiterate, so that someone who cannot read a party's name on a ballot can instead identify that party by colour or logo.[146] Parties of similar ideologies will often use the same colours across different countries.[147][148] Colour associations are useful as a short-hand for referring to and representing parties in graphical media.[149] They can also be used to refer to coalitions and alliances between political parties and other organizations;[150] examples include purple alliances, red-green alliances, traffic light coalitions, pan-green coalitions, and pan-blue coalitions.

However, associations between colour and ideology are extremely inconsistent: parties of the same ideology in different countries often use different colours, and sometimes competing parties in a country may even adopt the same colours.[151] These associations also have major exceptions. For example, in the United States, red is associated with the more conservative Republican Party while blue is associated with the more liberal Democratic Party, which is different from the typical mapping.[147][152]

Ideology Colours Symbols Examples References
Agrarianism   Green
  • Grain
 [148]:58[153][154][155]
Anarchism
  •   Black
  •   Red
[156][157][158][159]
Centrism
  •   Purple
 [160][161]
Communism   Red
[162][163][164]
Conservatism
  •   Blue
 [165][166]
Democratic socialism   Red
[167][168]
Fascism
  •   Black
  •   Brown
[148]:56[169][170]
Feminism
  •   White
  •   Purple
  •   Gold
  •   Pink
[171][172]
Green politics   Green
  • Sun
  • Sunflower
 [173][174]
Islamism   Green [147][175]
Liberalism   Yellow [149][176][177]
Libertarianism   Yellow Porcupine [147][178][179][180]
Monarchism
  •   White
  •   Gold
  •   Purple
 Crown [148][181][182]
Pacifism
  •   White
[148][183]
Social democracy   Red
[184][185][186][167]
Socialism   Red Red rose [162][187][188][189][167]

See also

References
  1. Muirhead, Russell; Rosenblum, Nancy L. (2020). "The Political Theory of Parties and Partisanship: Catching up". Annual Review of Political Science. 23: 95–110. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-041916-020727.
  2. Plato (1935). The Republic. Macmillan and Co, Ltd.
  3. Aristotle (1984). The Politics. The University of Chicago Press. p. 135.
  4. Metcalf, Michael F. (1977). "The first "modern" party system? Political parties, Sweden's Age of liberty and the historians". Scandinavian Journal of History. 2 (1–4): 265–287. doi:10.1080/03468757708578923.
  5. Chhibber, Pradeep K.; Kollman, Ken (2004). The formation of national party systems: Federalism and party competition in Canada, Great Britain, India, and the United States. Princeton University Press.
  6. Belloni, Frank P.; Beller, Dennis C. (1976). "The Study of Party Factions as Competitive Political Organizations". The Western Political Quarterly. 29 (4): 531–549. doi:10.1177/106591297602900405.
  7. Dirr, Alison (24 October 2016). "Is the Democratic Party the oldest continuous political party in the world?". Politifact Wisconsin. Retrieved 30 September 2019.
  8. Jones, J. R. (1961). The First Whigs. The Politics of the Exclusion Crisis. 1678–1683. Oxford University Press.
  9. Hamowy, Ronald (2008). "Whiggism". The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE; Cato Institute. pp. 542–43. doi:10.4135/9781412965811.n328. ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. LCCN 2008009151. OCLC 750831024.
  10. Robert Lloyd Kelley (1990). The Transatlantic Persuasion: The Liberal-Democratic Mind in the Age of Gladstone. Transaction Publishers. p. 83. ISBN 9781412840293.
  11. Burke, Edmund (1770). Thoughts on the cause of the present discontents.
  12. "ConHome op-ed: the USA, Radical Conservatism and Edmund Burke".
  13. Hofstadter, Richard (1970). The Idea of a Party System: The Rise of Legitimate Opposition in the United States, 1780–1840. University of California Press.
  14. William Nisbet Chambers, ed. (1972). The first party system.
  15. Minicucci, Stephen (2004). "Internal Improvements and the Union, 1790–1860". Studies in American Political Development. Cambridge University Press. 18 (2): 160–185. doi:10.1017/S0898588X04000094.
  16. Kollman, Ken (2012). The American political system. W. W. Norton and Company.
  17. Jordan, Donald (1986). "John O'Connor Power, Charles Stewart Parnell and the Centralization of Popular Politics in Ireland". Irish Historical Studies. 25 (97): 46–66. doi:10.1017/S0021121400025335.
  18. Busky, Donald F. (2000), Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey, Westport, Connecticut, USA: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc., p. 8, The Frankfurt Declaration of the Socialist International, which almost all social democratic parties are members of, declares the goal of the development of democratic socialism
  19. Przeworski, Adam; Alvarez, Michael E.; Cheibub, Jose Antonio; Limongi, Fernando (2000). Democracy and development: Political institutions and well-being in the world, 1950–1990. Cambridge University Press. p. 20.
  20. Boix, Carles; Miller, Michael; Rosato, Sebastian (2013). "A complete data set of political regimes, 1800–2007". Comparative Political Studies. 46 (12): 1523–1554. doi:10.1177/0010414012463905. S2CID 45833659.
  21. Svolik, Milan (2008). "Authoritarian reversals and democratic consolidation". American Political Science Review. 102 (2): 153–168. doi:10.1017/S0003055408080143.
  22. Knutsen, Carl Henrik; Nygård, Håvard Mokleiv; Wig, Tore (2017). "Autocratic elections: Stabilizing tool or force for change?". World Politics. 69 (1): 98–143. doi:10.1017/S0043887116000149.
  23. Downs, Anthony (1957). An economic theory of democracy. Harper Collins.
  24. Adams, James (December 2010). "Review of Voting for Policy, Not Parties: How Voters Compensate for Power Sharing, by Orit Kedar". Perspectives on Politics. 8 (4): 1257–1258. doi:10.1017/S153759271000280X.
  25. Lipset, Seymour Martin; Rokkan, Stein (1967). Cleavage structures, party systems, and voter alignments: Cross-national perspectives. New York Free Press. p. 50.
  26. Ware, Alan (1995). Political parties and party systems. Oxford University Press. p. 22.
  27. Lybeck, Johan A. (2017). "Is the Lipset-Rokkan Hypothesis Testable?". Scandinavian Political Studies. 8 (1–2): 105–113. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9477.1985.tb00314.x.
  28. Tilly, Charles (1990). Coercion, capital, and European states. Blackwell.
  29. Aldrich, John (1995). Why Parties?: The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. University of Chicago Press.
  30. Cox, Gary; Nubbins, Mathew (1999). Legislative leviathan. University of California Press.
  31. Hicken, Allen (2009). Building party systems in new democracies. Cambridge University Press.
  32. Tsebelis, George (2000). "Veto players and institutional analysis". Governance. 13 (4): 441–474. doi:10.1111/0952-1895.00141.
  33. McKelvey, Richard D. (1976). "Intransitivities in multidimensional voting bodies". Journal of Economic Theory. 12: 472–482. doi:10.1016/0022-0531(76)90040-5.
  34. Schofield, Norman (1983). "Generic instability of majority rule". Review of Economic Studies. 50 (4): 695–705. doi:10.2307/2297770. JSTOR 2297770.
  35. Granovetter, Mark (1978). "Threshold models of collective behavior". American Journal of Sociology. 83 (6): 1420–1443. doi:10.1086/226707.
  36. Campbell, Angus; Converse, Philip; Miller, Warren; Stokes, Donald (1960). The American Voter. University of Chicago Press.
  37. Dalton, Russell J.; Wattenberg, Martin P. (2002). Parties without partisans: Political change in advanced industrial democracies. Oxford University Press.
  38. Ludger Helms, ed. (2012). Comparative Political Leadership. Springer. ISBN 978-1-349-33368-4.
  39. Helms, Ludger (11 March 2020). "Leadership succession in politics: The democracy/autocracy divide revisited". The British Journal of Politics and International Relations. 22 (2): 328–346. doi:10.1177/1369148120908528.
  40. Marsh, Michael (October 1993). "Introduction: Selecting the party leader". European Journal of Political Research. 24: 229–231. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6765.1993.tb00378.x.
  41. William Cross; André Blais (26 January 2011). "Who selects the party leader?". Party Politics. 18 (2): 127–150. doi:10.1177/1354068810382935.
  42. Barber, Stephen (17 September 2013). "Arise, Careerless Politician: The Rise of the Professional Party Leader". Politics. 34 (1): 23–31. doi:10.1111/1467-9256.12030.
  43. Garzia, Diego (3 September 2012). "Party and Leader Effects in Parliamentary Elections: Towards a Reassessment". Politics. 32 (3): 175–185. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9256.2012.01443.x. hdl:1814/23834.
  44. Jean-François Daoust; André Blais; Gabrielle Péloquin-Skulski (29 April 2019). "What do voters do when they prefer a leader from another party?". Party Politics. 50: 1103–1109. doi:10.1177/1354068819845100.
  45. Kenig, Ofer (30 October 2009). "Classifying Party Leaders' Selection Methods in Parliamentary Democracies". Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties. 19 (4): 433–447. doi:10.1080/17457280903275261.
  46. Li Cheng; Lynn White (1998). "The Fifteenth Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party: Full-Fledged Technocratic Leadership with Partial Control by Jiang Zemin". Asian Survey. 38 (3): 231–264. doi:10.2307/2645427.
  47. Brownlee, Jason (July 2007). "Hereditary Succession in Modern Autocracies". World Politics. 59 (4): 595–628.
  48. Lewis, Paul Geoffrey (8 June 1989). Political Authority and Party Secretaries in Poland, 1975-1986. Cambridge University Press. pp. 29–51. ISBN 9780521363693.
  49. Martz, John D. (1966). "The Party Organization: Structural Framework". Accion Democratica: Evolution of a Modern Political Party in Venezuela. Princeton University Press. p. 155. ISBN 9781400875870.
  50. Trevaskes, Susan (16 April 2018). "A Law Unto Itself: Chinese Communist Party Leadership and Yifa zhiguo in the Xi Era". Modern China. 44 (4): 347–373. doi:10.1177/0097700418770176.
  51. Kroeger, Alex M. (9 March 2018). "Dominant Party Rule, Elections, and Cabinet Instability in African Autocracies". British Journal of Political Science. 50 (1): 79–101. doi:10.1017/S0007123417000497.
  52. Jean-Benoit Pilet; William Cross, eds. (10 January 2014). The Selection of Political Party Leaders in Contemporary Parliamentary Democracies: A Comparative Study. Routledge. ISBN 9781317929451.
  53. Andrew C. Eggers; Arthur Spirling (11 April 2016). "The Shadow Cabinet in Westminster Systems: Modeling Opposition Agenda Setting in the House of Commons, 1832–1915". British Journal of Political Science. 48 (2): 343–367. doi:10.1017/S0007123416000016.
  54. Gauja, Anika (4 December 2014). "The construction of party membership". European Journal of Political Research. 54 (2): 232–248. doi:10.1111/1475-6765.12078.
  55. Weldon, Steven (1 July 2006). "Downsize My Polity? The Impact of Size on Party Membership and Member Activism". Party Politics. 12 (4): 467–481. doi:10.1177/1354068806064729.
  56. Smith, Alison F. (2020). Political Party Membership in New Democracies. Springer. ISBN 978-3030417956.
  57. Peter Mair; Ingrid van Biezen (1 January 2001). "Party Membership in Twenty European Democracies, 1980-2000". Party Politics. 7 (1): 5–21. doi:10.1177/1354068801007001001.
  58. Schumacher, Gijs (2017). ‘The Transformation of Political Parties’, in van Praag, Philip (ed.), Political Science and Changing Politics. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, pp.163-178
  59. Ware, Political parties, pp. 65–67
  60. Duverger, Maurice (1964). Political Parties: Their Organisation and Activity in the Modern State (3 ed.). London: Methuen.
  61. Schumacher, Gijs (2017). ‘The Transformation of Political Parties’, in van Praag, Philip (ed.), Political Science and Changing Politics. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, pp.163-178 (p.165)
  62. Katz, Richard S.; Mair, Peter (1995). "Changing Models of Party Organisation and Party Democracy: The Emergence of the Cartel Party". Party Politics. 1 (1): 20. doi:10.1177/1354068895001001001.
  63. Hague, Rod; McCormick, John; Harrop, Martin (2019). Comparative Government and Politics, An Introduction (11 ed.). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 271.
  64. Angell, Harold M. (June 1987). "Duverger, Epstein and the Problem of the Mass Party: The Case of the Parti Québécois". Canadian Journal of Political Science. 20 (2): 364. doi:10.1017/S0008423900049489.
  65. Krouwel, Andre (2003). "Otto Kirchheimer and the Catch-All Party". West European Politics. 26 (2): 24. doi:10.1080/01402380512331341091. S2CID 145308222.
  66. Kirchheimer, Otto (1966). 'The Transformation of Western European Party Systems', in J. LaPalombara and M. Weiner (eds.), Political Parties and Political Development. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, pp.177–200 (p.190)
  67. Schumacher, Gijs (2017). 'The Transformation of Political Parties', in van Praag, Philip (ed.), Political Science and Changing Politics. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, pp.163-178 (p.167)
  68. Hague, Rod; McCormick, John; Harrop, Martin (2019). Comparative Government and Politics, An Introduction (11 ed.). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 272.
  69. Katz, Richard S.; Mair, Peter (1995). "Changing Models of Party Organisation and Party Democracy: The Emergence of the Cartel Party". Party Politics. 1 (1): 16. doi:10.1177/1354068895001001001.
  70. Schumacher, Gijs (2017). 'The Transformation of Political Parties', in van Praag, Philip (ed.), Political Science and Changing Politics. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, pp.163-178 (p.168)
  71. Meguid, Bonnie M. (2005). "Competition Between Unequals: The Role of Mainstream Party Strategy in Niche Party Success". American Political Science Review. 99 (3): 347–348. doi:10.1017/S0003055405051701.
  72. Meyer, Thomas; Miller, Bernhard (2015). "The niche party concept and its measurement". Party Politics. 21 (2): 259–271. doi:10.1177/1354068812472582. PMC 5180693. PMID 28066152.
  73. Adams, James; Clark, Michael; Ezrow, Lawrence; Glasgow, Garrett (2006). "Are Niche Parties Fundamentally Different from Mainstream Parties? The Causes and the Electoral Consequences of Western European Parties' Policy Shifts, 1976-1998" (PDF). American Journal of Political Science. 50 (3): 513–529. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00199.x.
  74. Kosowska-Gąstoł, Beata; Sobolewska-Myślik, Katarzyna (2017). "New Political Entrepreneurs in Poland" (PDF). Politologický časopis - Czech Journal of Political Science. 24 (2): 137–157. doi:10.5817/PC2017-2-137.
  75. Hooghe, Liesbet (2007). "What Drives Euroskepticism? Party–Public Cueing, Ideology and Strategic Opportunity". European Union Politics. 8 (1): 5–12. doi:10.1177/1465116507073283. Retrieved 30 January 2021.
  76. Lachat, Romain (December 2008). "The impact of party polarization on ideological voting". Electoral Studies. 27 (4): 687–698. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2008.06.002.
  77. Roemer, John E. (June 1994). "The Strategic Role of Party Ideology When Voters are Uncertain About How the Economy Works". The American Political Science Review. 88 (2): 327–335. doi:10.2307/2944707.
  78. Vincent, Andrew (30 March 2009). Modern Political Ideologies. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 1–22. ISBN 9781444311051.
  79. Heywood, Andrew (16 February 2017). Political Ideologies: An Introduction. Macmillan International Higher Education. pp. 1–23. ISBN 9781137606044.
  80. Freeden, Michael (24 October 1996). Ideologies and Political Theory: A Conceptual Approach. Clarendon Press. pp. vii–x. ISBN 9780198275329.
  81. Richard Gunther; Larry Diamond (1 March 2003). "Species of Political Parties: A New Typology". Party Politics. 9 (2): 167–199. doi:10.1177/13540688030092003.
  82. Anna Lührmann; Juraj Medzihorsky; Garry Hindle; Staffan I. Lindberg (26 October 2020). "New Global Data on Political Parties: V-Party". V-Dem Briefing Paper (9): 1–4.
  83. Hicken, Allen (17 March 2011). "Clientelism". Annual Review of Political Science. 14: 289–310. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.031908.220508.
  84. Catherine E. De Vries; Sara B. Hobolt (16 June 2019). Political Entrepreneurs: The Rise of Challenger Parties in Europe. Princeton University Press. pp. 1–38. ISBN 9780691194752.
  85. Mark Schneider; Paul Teske (September 1992). "Toward A Theory of the Political Entrepreneur: Evidence from Local Government". The American Political Science Review. 86 (3): 737–747. doi:10.2307/1964135.
  86. Olanrewaju, John S. (28 June 2017). "Political Parties and Poverty of Ideology in Nigeria". Afro Asian Journal of Social Sciences. VI (3): 1–16.
  87. Scott Mainwaring; Mariano Torcal (January 2005). "Party System Institutionalization and Party System Theory After the Third Wave of Democratization". In Richard S. Katz; William Crotty (eds.). Handbook of Party Politics. SAGE Publications. pp. 204–227. doi:10.4135/9781848608047.n19. ISBN 9780761943143.
  88. Birch, Sarah (2003). Electoral Systems and Political Transformation in Post-Communist Europe. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 99–118. doi:10.1057/9781403938763. ISBN 978-1-349-43138-0.
  89. Schattschneider, E. E. (1942). Party Government. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. p. 1. ISBN 9781412830508.
  90. Veenendaal, Wouter P. (2013). "How democracy functions without parties: The Republic of Palau". Party Politics. 22 (1): 27–36. doi:10.1177/1354068813509524.
  91. "Saudi Arabia: Political Party Formed". The New York Times. 10 February 2011. Retrieved 20 January 2021.
  92. Brian F. Schaffner; Matthew Streb; Gerald Wright (1 March 2001). "Tearns Without Uniforms: The Nonpartisan Ballot in State and Local Elections". Political Research Quarterly. 54 (1): 7–30. doi:10.1177/106591290105400101.
  93. Dickerson, M. O. (1992). Whose North?: Political Change, Political Development, and Self-government in the Northwest Territories. University of British Columbia Press. p. 9. ISBN 9780774804189.
  94. Northup, Nancy (December 1987). "Local Nonpartisan Elections, Political Parties and the First Amendment". Columbia Law Review. 87 (7): 1677–1701.
  95. Steven Levitsky; Maxwell A. Cameron (19 December 2008). "Democracy Without Parties? Political Parties and Regime Change in Fujimori's Peru". Latin American Politics and Society. 45 (3): 1–33. doi:10.1111/j.1548-2456.2003.tb00248.x.
  96. "Freedom in the World 2020: Cuba". Freedom House. 2020. Retrieved 20 January 2021.
  97. Staff writer (30 June 2015). "China's Communist Party membership tops entire population of Germany". South China Morning Post. SCMP Group. Archived from the original on 3 July 2015. Retrieved 30 June 2015.
  98. Cha, Victor; Hwang, Balbina (2009). "Government and Politics". In Worden, Robert (ed.). North Korea: a Country Study (5th ed.). Federal Research Division. Library of Congress. p. 214. ISBN 978-1598044683.
  99. Clemens Jr., Walter C. (2016). North Korea and the World. University Press of Kentucky. p. 5. ISBN 9780813167466.
  100. Adam Przeworski; Michael E. Alvarez; Jose Antonio Cheibub; Fernando Limongi (28 August 2000). Democracy and development: political institutions and well-being in the world, 1950-1990. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521793797.
  101. Mickey, Robert (2015). Paths Out of Dixie: The Democratization of Authoritarian Enclaves in America's Deep South, 1944–1972. Princeton University Press. p. 18. ISBN 9780691149639.
  102. Arend Lijphart; Don Aitkin (1994). Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-seven Democracies, 1945–1990. Oxford University Press. p. 67. ISBN 9780198280545.
  103. Cohen, Alexander (2 March 2020). "The two-party system is here to stay". The Conversation. Retrieved 22 January 2021.
  104. Coppedge, Michael (1 October 1998). "The Dynamic Diversity of Latin American Party Systems". Party Politics. 4 (4): 547–568. doi:10.1177/1354068898004004007.
  105. Cini, Michelle (2 December 2009). "A Divided Nation: Polarization and the Two-Party System in Malta". South European Society and Politics. 7 (1): 6–23. doi:10.1080/714004966.
  106. Minion K. C. Morrison; Jae Woo Hong (December 2006). "Ghana's political parties: How ethno/regional variations sustain the national two-party system". The Journal of Modern African Studies. 44 (4): 623–647. doi:10.1017/S0022278X06002114.
  107. James Loxton; Timothy Power (2 June 2020). "Introducing authoritarian diasporas: causes and consequences of authoritarian elite dispersion". Democratization. 28 (3). doi:10.1080/13510347.2020.1866553.
  108. Kornblith, Miriam (July 2013). "Latin America's Authoritarian Drift: Chavismo After Chávez?". Journal of Democracy. 24 (3): 47–61. doi:10.1353/jod.2013.0050.
  109. Duverger, Maurice (1964). Political Parties: Their Organisation and Activity in the Modern State (3 ed.). London: Methuen.
  110. William Roberts Clark; Matt Golder (August 2006). "Rehabilitating Duverger's Theory: Testing the Mechanical and Strategic Modifying Effects of Electoral Laws". Comparative Political Studies. 39 (6): 679–708. doi:10.1177/0010414005278420.
  111. Sartori, Giovanni (2005). "The overall framework". Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. European Consortium for Political Research Press. pp. 243–281. ISBN 0954796616.
  112. Stephen P. Nicholson; Christopher J. Carman; Chelsea M. Coe; Aidan Feeney; Balázs Fehér; Brett K. Hayes; Christopher Kam; Jeffrey A. Karp; Gergo Vaczi; Evan Heit (13 February 2018). "The Nature of Party Categories in Two‐Party and Multiparty Systems". Advances in Political Psychology. 39 (S1): 279–304. doi:10.1111/pops.12486.
  113. Anthony Heath; Siana Glouharova; Oliver Heath (2005). "India: Two‐Party Contests within a Multiparty System". In Michael Gallagher; Paul Mitchell (eds.). The Politics of Electoral Systems. Oxford University Press. pp. 137–156. doi:10.1093/0199257566.003.0007. ISBN 9780199257560.
  114. A. Farid Wadjdi; Mistiani; Nebula F. Hasani (2020). "The Multi-Party System in Indonesia: Reviewing the Number of Electoral Parties from the Aspects of the National Defense and Security". Journal of Social and Political Sciences. 3 (3): 711–724. doi:10.31014/aior.1991.03.03.204.
  115. Xiang Wu; Salman Ali (25 July 2020). "The Novel Changes in Pakistan's Party Politics: Analysis of Causes and Impacts". Chinese Political Science Review. 5: 513–533. doi:10.1007/s41111-020-00156-z.
  116. Marcondes de Freitas, Andréa. "Governmental Coalitions in Multiparty Presidentialism: The Brazilian Case (1988-2011)" (PDF). Universidade de São Paulo. Retrieved 22 January 2021.
  117. Oluwadunsin Ogunkorode, Oluwayemi (30 April 2019). "Curbing the Challenges of Multi Party System in Nigeria: The Need for Independent Candidature". Journal of Law, Policy, & Globalization. 84 (26): 26–35. doi:10.7176/JLPG/84-03.
  118. Dodd, Lawrence C. (September 1974). "Party Coalitions in Multiparty Parliaments: A Game-Theoretic Analysis". The American Political Science Review. 68 (3): 1093–1117. doi:10.2307/1959150.
  119. Carbone, Giovanni M. (November 2003). "Developing Multi-Party Politics: Stability and Change in Ghana and Mozambique" (PDF). Crisis States Programme Working Paper Series. 1 (36). Retrieved 23 January 2021.
  120. Michalik, Susanne (15 April 2015). Multiparty Elections in Authoritarian Regimes. p. 1. doi:10.1007/978-3-658-09511-6_1. ISBN 978-3-658-09510-9.
  121. Drutman, Lee (19 October 2019). "Let a Thousand Parties Bloom". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 22 January 2021.
  122. Rosenfeld, Sam (14 April 2020). "It Takes Three (or More)". Boston Review. Retrieved 22 January 2021.
  123. Malachova, Anastasija (21 November 2012). "Does a Multi-party System Lead to "More" Democracy?". E-International Relations. Retrieved 22 January 2021.
  124. "Africans increasingly support multiparty democracy, but trust in political parties remains low". Afrobarometer. 18 June 2018. Retrieved 22 January 2021.
  125. Todd Donovan; Janine A. Parry; Shaun Bowler (March 2005). "O Other, Where Art Thou? Support for Multiparty Politics in the United States". Social Science Quarterly. 86 (1): 147–159.
  126. Gideon Rahat; Reuven Y. Hazan (2005). "Israel: The Politics of an Extreme Electoral System". In Michael Gallagher; Paul Mitchell (eds.). The Politics of Electoral Systems. Oxford University Press. pp. 333–351. doi:10.1093/0199257566.001.0001. ISBN 9780199257560.
  127. Raunio, Tapio (2005). "Finland: One Hundred Years of Quietude". In Michael Gallagher; Paul Mitchell (eds.). The Politics of Electoral Systems. Oxford University Press. p. 486. doi:10.1093/0199257566.001.0001. ISBN 9780199257560.
  128. Francis, Darrell (13 July 2016). "Why the Two-Party System Isn't as Broken as You May Think". Observer. Retrieved 22 January 2021.
  129. Epstein, Leon D. (March 1964). "A Comparative Study of Canadian Parties". The American Political Science Review. 58 (1): 46–59. doi:10.2307/1952754.
  130. Archana Chaudhary; Jeanette Rodrigues (11 March 2019). "Why India's Election Is Among the World's Most Expensive". Bloomberg News. Retrieved 22 January 2021.
  131. "2020 election to cost $14 billion, blowing away spending records". Center for Responsive Politics. 28 October 2020. Retrieved 22 January 2021.
  132. Justin Fisher; Todd A. Eisenstadt (1 November 2004). "Introduction: Comparative Party Finance: What is to be Done?". Party Politics. 10 (6): 619–626. doi:10.1177/1354068804046910.
  133. Alexander, Brad (June 2005). "Good Money and Bad Money: Do Funding Sources Affect Electoral Outcomes?". Political Research Quarterly. 58 (2): 353–358. doi:10.2307/3595635.
  134. Levush, Ruth (March 2016). "Regulation of Campaign Finance and Free Advertising". Library of Congress. Retrieved 22 January 2021.
  135. "Are there provisions for direct public funding to political parties?". International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Retrieved 23 January 2021.
  136. "Report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters". Parliament of Australia. 9 December 2011. Retrieved 22 January 2021.
  137. Meitzner, Marcus (August 2007). "Party Financing in Post-Soeharto Indonesia: Between State Subsidies and Political Corruption". Contemporary Southeast Asia. 29 (2): 238–263. doi:10.1353/csa.2007.0030.
  138. Scarrow, Susan E. (15 June 2007). "Political Finance in Comparative Perspective". Annual Review of Political Science. 10: 193–210. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.080505.100115.
  139. Corstange, Daniel (2016). The Price of a Vote in the Middle East: Clientelism and Communal Politics in Lebanon and Yemen. Cambridge University Press. p. 8. ISBN 9781107106673.
  140. Cruz, Cesi (7 August 2018). "Social Networks and the Targeting of Vote Buying". Comparative Political Studies. 52 (3): 382–411. doi:10.1177/0010414018784062.
  141. Chris W. Bonneau; Damon M. Cann (October 2011). "Campaign Spending, Diminishing Marginal Returns, and Campaign Finance Restrictions in Judicial Elections". The Journal of Politics. 73 (4): 1267–1280. doi:10.1017/S0022381611000934.
  142. Horncastle, William (27 November 2020). "The 2020 election was the most expensive in history, but campaign spending does not always lead to success". London School of Economics. Retrieved 22 January 2021.
  143. Hamada, Yukihiko (11 December 2018). "Let's talk about money: comparative perspectives on political finance regulations". International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Retrieved 22 January 2021.
  144. David L. Wiltse; Raymond J. La Raja; Dorie E. Apollonio (11 September 2019). "Typologies of Party Finance Systems: A Comparative Study of How Countries Regulate Party Finance and Their Institutional Foundations". Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy. 18 (3): 1–19. doi:10.1089/elj.2018.0493.
  145. Atwill, Nicole (May 2009). "Campaign Finance: Comparative Summary". Library of Congress. Retrieved 22 January 2021.
  146. Manveena Suri; Oscar Holland (19 April 2019). "Ceiling fans, brooms and mangoes: The election symbols of India's political parties". CNN. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
  147. "Understanding Political Color Designations". Gremillion Consulting. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
  148. Enninful, Ebenezer Kofi (November 2012). "The Symbolism of Ghanaian Political Parties and their Impact on the Electorates" (PDF). Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
  149. Malasig, Jeline (16 May 2018). "Can you paint with all the colors of politics?". InterAksyon. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
  150. Johnson, Ian P. (20 November 2017). "Germany's colorful coalition shorthand". Deutsche Welle. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
  151. Rost, Lisa Charlotte (28 August 2018). "Election reporting: Which color for which party?". Datawrapper. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
  152. Farhi, Paul (2 November 2004), "Elephants Are Red, Donkeys Are Blue", The Washington Post, retrieved 24 January 2021
  153. George, Jane (11 March 2013). "Greenland vote likely headed for a squeaker this March 12". Nunatsiaq News. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
  154. Finnis, Alex (10 September 2020). "Why Boris Johnson and MPs are wearing a wheat sheaf badge on their lapel: The campaign to support British farmers explained". i. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
  155. "Agrarian Party of Russia". Flags of the World. 27 February 2014. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
  156. "The Classical Symbol of Anarchism". Anarchism.net. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
  157. "Disciplina: mando único: Partido Sindicalista". University of California, San Diego. 9 December 2014. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
  158. Baillargeon, Normand (2013) [2008]. "Introduction". Order Without Power: An Introduction to Anarchism: History and Current Challenges. Translated by Mary Foster. New York: Seven Stories Press. ISBN 978-1-60980-472-5.
  159. "A quick history of the Circle-A". Rival LA. 10 June 2020. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
  160. Stephen Ansolabehere; Jonathan Rodden; James M. Snyder Jr. (2006). "Purple America". The Journal of Economic Perspectives. 20 (2): 97–118.
  161. McLarty, Scott (2019). "Forget Red vs. Blue: The Paradigm for the 21st Century is Orange, Purple, and Green". United States Green Party. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
  162. Klein, Sarah (April 2018). "Interview with Gerd Koenen: The Fading of a Political Colour". Goethe-Institut. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
  163. Tran, Bich T. (29 August 2019). "Evolution of the Communist Party of Vietnam's Control Over the Military". The Diplomat. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
  164. Hatherley, Owen (12 February 2013). "Has the communist hammer and sickle had its day?". The Guardian. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
  165. "Why is the Conservative Party Blue", BBC, 20 April 2006, retrieved 24 January 2021
  166. Alex Marland; Tom Flanagan (December 2013). "Brand New Party: Political Branding and the Conservative Party of Canada". Canadian Journal of Political Science. 46 (4): 951–972. doi:10.1017/S0008423913001108.
  167. Gottfried Korff; Larry Peterson (Fall 1992). "From Brotherly Handshake to Militant Clenched Fist: On Political Metaphors for the Worker's Hand". International Labor and Working-Class History. 42: 70–81.
  168. Speedy, Sam (27 May 2017). "The movement behind the rose emoji that you probably don't know about". Mashable. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
  169. Fuentes, Juan Francisco (27 June 2018). "Shirt Movements in Interwar Europe: a Totalitarian Fashion". Ler História. 72: 151–173. doi:10.4000/lerhistoria.3560.
  170. "Hate Symbols Database". Anti-Defamation League. 2021. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
  171. "Symbols of the Women's Suffrage Movement". United States National Park Service. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
  172. "The Real Meanings Behind Six Symbols of Protest". Elephant art. 1 July 2020. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
  173. "Green Party Taiwan". Global Greens. 19 September 2014. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
  174. "AD+PD launches new logo to symbolise party's ethos". Malta Today. 14 November 2020. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
  175. Suryadinata, Leo (August 2007). "The Decline of the Hegemonic Party System in Indonesia: Golkar after the Fall of Soeharto". Contemporary Southeast Asia. 29 (2): 333–358.
  176. O'Hara, Glen (17 August 2020). "There is still a place for Liberal Democrats in British politics". GQ. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
  177. Cassel-Picot, Muriel "The Liberal Democrats and the Green Cause: From Yellow to Green" in Leydier, Gilles and Martin, Alexia (2013) Environmental Issues in Political Discourse in Britain and Ireland. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. p.105. ISBN 9781443852838
  178. Huber, Eliza (16 July 2020). "Why Are Primary Colors Trending In Fashion Right Now?". Refinery29. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
  179. "Youtuber mistura aberturas de "Game of Thrones" e "Tiger King" em animação". UOL (in Portuguese). 18 May 2020. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
  180. Block, Walter E. (8 November 2020). "Libertarians Spoil the Election". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
  181. Iredale, Jessica (20 January 2021). "The Deep Meaning of the Color Purple at the Biden Inauguration". Town & Country Magazine. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
  182. Nandrea, Lorri (18 February 2020). "RNC 2020 and the symbols of history: Crowns, Hornets, and Boiler Plugs". People's World. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
  183. "Peace symbols through history". The History Press. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
  184. Adams, Sean; Morioka, Noreen; Stone, Terry Lee (2006). Color Design Workbook: A Real World Guide to Using Color in Graphic Design. Gloucester, Mass.: Rockport Publishers. pp. 86. ISBN 159253192X. OCLC 60393965.
  185. Kumar, Rohit Vishal; Joshi, Radhika (October–December 2006). "Colour, Colour Everywhere: In Marketing Too". SCMS Journal of Indian Management. 3 (4): 40–46. ISSN 0973-3167. SSRN 969272.
  186. Pâkzâd, Poyâ (December 2020). "Denmark's "Democratic Ownership" Agenda Shows We Can Run Our Own Lives". Jacobin. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
  187. "Uso de cores de partido em prédios públicos gera condenação por improbidade". Jusbrasil (in Portuguese). 2015. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
  188. Einaudi, Luca (August 2017). "Coins of the Month -- The symbols of the French socialists from the nineteenth century to today". www.histecon.magd.cam.ac.uk. Joint Centre for History and Economics, University of Cambridge. Retrieved 26 May 2019.
  189. "¿Coincidencia? ¿Por qué estos 3 logos de partidos de izquierda son tan parecidos?". Tiempo Real (in Spanish). 20 September 2017. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.