Party Competition Under New Electoral Rules in Italy and Japan, 1994–2009

  • Aldo Di Virgilio
  • Junko Kato
Part of the Studies in Public Choice book series (SIPC, volume 24)


The political history of Italy and Japan during the post-war period is strongly ­associated with two dominant parties: the Italian Christian Democrats (DC) and the Japanese Liberal Democrat Party (LDP). Notwithstanding this similarity, the electoral and party systems of the two countries differed. Italy had a fragmented and polarized multiparty system under proportional representation (PR), while Japan was known for the dominance of a single ruling party under the unusual single nontransferable vote (SNTV) system. However, in the 1990s, both countries experienced electoral system changes through the adoption of mixed electoral systems. Electoral reform was enacted first in Italy in 1993 and in the following year in Japan. Later in 2005, Italy switched from a mixed majoritarian electoral system (MMES) to a further “hybridized” electoral system, which gives a seat bonus to the party or coalition winning a plurality of votes, but in which seat allocation to coalition partners follows a proportional rule. In Japan, the MMES adopted in 1994 was changed as well, although in minor ways. For example, in the 1996 elections, the mixed system elected 300 MPs from single member districts (SMDs) and 200 from 11 PR districts; in the 2000 elections, the number of PR seats decreased from 200 to 180.


Electoral System Party System Proportional Representation Liberal Democrat Party Coalition Government 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bartolini, Stefano, Alessandro Chiaramonte, and Roberto D’Alimonte. 2004. The Italian party systems between parties and coalitions. West European Politics 27(1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartolini, Stefano, and Roberto D’Alimonte. 2002. La maggioranza ritrovata. La competizione nei college uninominali. In Roberto D’Alimonte and Stefano Bartolini (eds.), Maggioritario finalmente? La transizione elettorale 1994–2001. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  3. Benoit, Kenneth, and Michael Laver. 2006. Party policy in modern democracies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Bowler, Shaun, and Bernard Grofman (eds.). 2000. Elections in Australia, Ireland and Malta under the single transferable vote: reflections on an embedded institutions. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  5. Burnett, Stanton H., and Luca Mantovani. 1998. The Italian guillotine. Operation Clean Hands and the overthrow of Italy’s first republic. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  6. Cotta, Maurizio, and Luca Verzichelli. 2000. From “constrained” coalitions to alternating governments? In Wolfgang C. Muller and Kaare Strøm (eds.), Coalition governments in western Europe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cox, Gary W., and Frances Rosenbluth. 1994. Reducing nomination errors: factional competition and party strategy in Japan. Electoral Studies 13(1): 4–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. D’Alimonte, R. 2005. Italy: a case of fragmented bipolarism. In M. Gallagher and P. Mitchell (eds.), The politics of electoral systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 253–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Di Virgilio, Aldo. 2002. L’offerta elettorale. La politica delle alleanze si istituzionalizza. In Roberto D’Alimonte and Stefano Bartolini (eds.), Maggioritario finalmente? La transizione elettorale 1994–2001. Bologna, Italy: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  10. Di Virgilio, Aldo. 2004. La politica delle alleanze: stabilizzazione senza coesione. In Stefano Ceccanti and Salvatore Vassallo (eds.), Come chiudere la transizione. Bologna, Italy: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  11. Di Virgilio, Aldo. 2007. La riforma elettorale della Casa delle Libertà alla prova del voto. Polis 1: 119–146.Google Scholar
  12. Gallagher, Michael. 1998. The political impact of electoral system change in Japan and New Zealand. Party Politics 4(2): 203–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Giannetti, Daniela, and Michael Laver. 2001. Party system dynamics and the making and breaking of Italian governments. Electoral Studies 20(1): 529–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Horiuchi, Yusaku, and Jun Saito. 2003. Reapportionment and redistribution: consequences of electoral reform in Japan. American Journal of Political Science 47(4): 669–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kato, Junko. 1998. When the party breaks up: exit and voice among Japanese legislators. American Political Science Review 92(4): 857–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kato, Junko, and Yuto Kannon. 2008. Coalition governments, party switching, and the rise and decline of parties: changing Japanese party politics since 1993. Japanese Journal of Political Science 9(3): 341–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Katz, R. S. 2001. Reforming the Italian electoral law, 1993. In M. S. Shugart and M. P. Wattenberg (eds.), Mixed-member electoral systems: the best of both worlds? Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 96–122.Google Scholar
  18. Kawato, Sadfumi. 1992. Nihon no Seitoseiji – 1890–1937 nen – Gikaibunseki to Senkyo no Suryobunseki. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kohno, Masaru. 1997. Japan’s postwar party politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Krauss, Ellis S., and Robert Pekkanen. 2004. Explaining party adaptation to electoral reform: the discreet charm of the LDP? Journal of Japanese Studies 30(1): 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Laver, Michael, and Junko Kato. 2001. Dynamic approaches to government formation and the generic instability of decisive structures in Japan. Electoral Studies 20(4): 509–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Laver, M., and N. Schofield. 1990. Multiparty government. The politics of coalition in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Martin, R. W., and R. T. Stevenson. 2001. Government formation in parliamentary democracies. American Journal of Political Science 45(1): 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McKean, Margaret, and E. Scheiner. 2000. Japan’s new electoral system: la plus ca change …. Electoral Studies 19(4): 447–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Morlino, Leonardo, and Marco Tarchi. 1996. The dissatisfied society. Protest and support in Italy. European Journal of Political Research 30(2): 41–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Reed, Steven R. 2001. Duverger’s law is working in Italy. Comparative Political Studies 34: 312–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Reed, Steven R., and E. Scheiner. 2003. Electoral incentives and policy preferences: mixed motives behind party defections in Japan. British Journal of Political Science 33(3): 469–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Reed, Steven R., and Kay Shimizu. 2009. Avoiding a two-party system: the LDP versus Duverger’s law. In Steven R. Reed, Kenneth Mori McElwain, and Kay Shimizu (eds.), Political change in Japan: electoral behavior, party realignment, and the Koizumi reforms. Washington, DC: Brookings.Google Scholar
  29. Ricolfi, Luca. 1993. L’ultimo parlamento. Nuova Italia Scientifica.Google Scholar
  30. Saito, June 2009. Infrastructure as the magnet of power: explaining why Japanese legislators left and returned to the LDP. Journal of East Asian Studies 9(3): 467–493.Google Scholar
  31. Sartori, Giovanni. 1984. Le “leggi” sulla influenza dei sistemi elettorali. Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica 14(1): 3–40.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly
  2. 2.Graduate School of LawThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations