Anckar, D., & Karvonen, L. (2002, August). Constitutional amendment methods in the democracies of the world. Paper presented at the 13th Nordic Political Science Congress (pp. 15–17). Aalborg, Denmark.
Bergman, T., Müller, W. C., Strøm, K., & Blomgren, M. (2003). Democratic delegation and accountability: Cross-national patterns. In K. Strøm, W. C. Müller, & T. Bergman (Eds.), Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies (pp. 109–220). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boix, C. (1999). Setting the rules of the game: The choice of electoral systems in advanced democracies. American Political Science Review,
Brunner, G. (2000). The constitutional judiciary in Hungary: Analysis and collected decisions 1990–93. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Carey, J. M., & Reynolds, A. (2011). The impact of election systems. Journal of Democracy,
Chemerinsky, E. (1997). Constitutional law: Principles and policies. New York: Aspen Law & Business.
Colomer, J. M. (2005). It’s parties that choose electoral systems (or, Duverger’s Law’s upside down). Political Studies,
Congleton, R. D. (2001). On the durability of king and council: The continuum between dictatorship and democracy. Constitutional Political Economy,
Congleton, R. D. (2003). Improving democracy through constitutional reform: some swedish lessons. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Couso, J. (2003). The politics of judicial review in Chile in the era of democratic transition, 1990–2002. Democratization,
Cox, G. W., & McCubbins, M. D. (2004). Setting the agenda. Responsible party government in the U.S. house of representatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Denzau, A. T., & Mackay, R. J. (1983). Gatekeeping and monopoly power of committees: An analysis of sincere and sophisticated behaviour. American Journal of Political Science,
Depauw, S., & Martin, S. (2009). Legislative party discipline and cohesion in comparative perspective. In D. Giannetti & K. Benoit (Eds.), Intra-party politics and coalition governments in parliamentary democracies (pp. 103–120). London: Routledge.
Dixon, R. (2011). Constitutional amendment rules: a comparative perspective. In T. Ginsburg & R. Dixon (Eds.), Comparative constitutional law (pp. 96–111). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Dixon, R., & Holden, R. (2012). Constitutional amendment rules: The denominator problem. In T. Ginsburg (Ed.), Comparative constitutional design. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Domingo, P. (2000). Judicial independence: the politics of the Supreme Court in Mexico. Journal of Latin American Studies,
Duverger, M. (1954). Political parties: Their organization and activity in the modern state. New York: Wiley.
Elgie, R. (1998). The classification of democratic regime types: Conceptual ambiguity and contestable assumptions. European Journal of Political Research,
Elgie, R. (2005). France: Stacking the deck. In M. Gallagher & P. Mitchell (Eds.), The politics of electoral systems (pp. 119–136). New York: Oxford University Press.
Elster, J. (1995). Forces and mechanisms in the constitution-making process. Duke Law Review,
Elster, J. (2000). Ulysses unbound: Studies in rationality, precommitment, and constraints. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Epstein, L., Knight, J., & Shvetsova, O. (2001). The role of constitutional courts in the establishment of democratic systems of government. Law and Society Review,
Farrell, D. M. (2011). Electoral systems: A comparative introduction (2nd ed.). Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ferejohn, J. (1997). The politics of imperfection: The amendment of constitutions. Law and Social Inquiry,
Gallagher, M. (1987). Does Ireland need a new electoral system? Irish Political Studies,
Ganghof, S. (2003). Promises and pitfalls of veto player analysis. Swiss Political Science Review,
Geddes, B. (2003). Paradigms and sand castles: Theory building and research design in comparative politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Gibson, J. L., & Caldeira, G. A. (2009). Confirmation politics and the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court: Institutional loyalty, positivity bias, and the Alito nomination. American Journal of Political Science,
Ginsburg, T. (2003). Judicial review in new democracies: Constitutional courts in Asian cases. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Giovannoni, F. (2003). Amendment rules in constitutions. Public Choice,
Hardarson, Ó. T., & Kristinsson, G. H. (2011). Iceland. European Journal of Political Research,
Heller, W. B. (2001). Making policy stick: Why the government gets what it wants in multiparty parliaments. American Journal of Political Science,
Hodder-Williams, R. (1992). Six notions of “political” and the United States Supreme Court. British Journal of Political Science,
Hooghe, M., & Deschouwer, K. (2011). Veto players and electoral reform in Belgium. West European Politics,
Hylland, A. (1994). Konstitusjonell treghet. Bør noen saker være unndratt flertallets kontroll? In E.R. Bjørn & K. Midgaard (Eds.), Representativt demokrati. Spilleregler under debatt. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Kannar, G. (1990). The Constitutional catechism of Antonin Scalia. The Yale Law Journal,
Kastellec, J. P., Lax, J. R., & Phillips, J. H. (2010). Public opinion and senate confirmation of Supreme Court nominees. The Journal of Politics,
Kelly, A. H. (1983). The American Constitution: Its origins and development (6th ed.). New York: Norton.
Kelsen, H. (1945). General theory of law and state. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Kommers, D. P. (1997). The constitutional jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany. Durham: Duke University Press.
Lane, J. (1996). Constitutions and political theory. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Lijphart, A. (1994). Electoral systems and party systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Lorenz, A. (2005). How to measure constitutional rigidity: Four concepts and two alternatives. Journal of Theoretical Politics,
Lutz, D. S. (1994). Toward a theory of constitutional amendment. American Political Science Review,
Lutz, D.S. (1995). Toward a theory of constitutional amendment. In S. Levinson (Ed.), Responding to imperfection. The theory and practice of constitutional amendment (pp. 237–274). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Lutz, D. S. (2006). Principles of constitutional design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maddex, R. L. (1996). Constitutions of the world. London: Routledge.
Moraski, B. J., & Shipan, C. R. (1999). The politics of Supreme Court nominations: a theory of institutional constraints and choices. American Journal of Political Science,
Mueller, D. C. (1999). On amending constitutions. Constitutional Political Economy,
Müller, W. C. (2002). Parties and the institutional framework. In K. R. Luther & F. Müller-Rommel (Eds.), Political parties in the new Europe (pp. 249–292). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Murphy, W. (2000). Constitutional interpretation as constitutional creation: The 1999–2000 Harry Eckstein lecture. Center for the Study of Democracy. University of California at Irvine.
Negretto, G. (2009). Political parties and institutional design: Explaining constitutional choice in Latin America. British Journal of Political Science,
Peters, G. B. (1998). The new institutionalism. London: Cassells.
Pildes, R. (2010). Political parties and constitutionalism. New York University Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers. Paper No. 179.
Pilet, J. B., & Bol, D. (2011). Party preferences and electoral reform: How time in government affects the likelihood of supporting electoral change. West European Politics,
Rasch, B. E. (1995). Parliamentary voting procedures. In H. Döring (Ed.), Parliaments and majority rule in Western Europe. Frankfurt/New York: Campus/St. Martin’s Press.
Rasch, B. E., & Congleton, R. (2006). Stability and constitutional amendment procedures. In R. Congleton & B. Swedenborg (Eds.), Democratic constitutional design and public policy: Analysis and design. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Renwick, A. (2009). The politics of electoral reform: Changing the rules of democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Romer, T., & Rosenthal, H. (1978). Political resource allocation, controlled agenda, and the status quo. Public Choice,
Rubin, B. R. (2004). Crafting a constitution for Afghanistan. Journal of Democracy,
Segal, J. A., & Cover, A. D. (1989). Ideological values and the votes of U.S. Supreme Court justices. American Political Science Review,
Shepsle, K. A., & Weingast, B. R. (1987). The institutional foundations of committee power. American Political Science Review,
Shugart, M. S. (2008). Inherent and contingent factors in reform initiation in plurality systems. In A. Blais (Ed.), To keep or to change first past the post? The politics of electoral reform (pp. 7–60). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sinnott, R. (2010). The electoral system. In J. Coakley & M.Gallagher (Eds.), Politics in the Republic of Ireland (pp. 111-136). London: Routledge.
Smith, E. (1993). Høyesterett og folkestyret. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Stone, A. (1992). The Birth of judicial politics in France: The constitutional council in comparative perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Strøm, K. (2003). Parliamentary democracy and delegation. In K. Strøm, W. C. Müller, & T. Bergman (Eds.), Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies (pp. 55–106). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Szmer, J., & Songer, D. (2005). The effects of information on the accuracy of presidential assessments of Supreme Court nominee preferences. Political Research Quarterly,
Taube, C. (2001). Constitutionalism in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania: A study in comparative constitutional law. Uppsala: Iustus.
Tsebelis, G. (1995). Decision making in political systems: Veto players in presidentialism, parliamentarism, multicameralism and multipartyism. British Journal of Political Science,
Tsebelis, G. (2002). Veto players. How political institutions work. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Voigt, S. (1999). Explaining constitutional change. A positive economics approach. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Whittington, K. E. (1999). Constitutional interpretation: Textual meaning, original intent, and judicial review. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.