Contextual Determinants of Electoral System Choice - Ã bo Akademi

observed in e.g. South Korea and the Republic of Macedonia, whereas mixedsystems have been adopted in e.g. Mexico and Lesotho despite a low level offragmentation.Table 5.13. Party system fragmentation in two samples of countries with plurality systems. Meanvalues.Electoral systemParty systemfragmentationNStd.deviationChange from plurality to mixed and PR 3.43 33 2.22Plurality systems 2.79 27 1.10Note: Eta Squared .031, sig. .17853 proportional systems are compared to eleven cases of electoral system changein table 5.14. The level of party system fragmentation in the category of countriesthat have replaced PR with plurality or mixed systems is slightly higher thanamong proportional systems in general, which suggests that party system structuredoes not influence electoral system choice. A low level of party systemfragmentation in Paraguay, Egypt and Senegal contributes to the smaller meanvalue for cases of change compared to the corresponding value in table 5.12.Table 5.14. Party system fragmentation in two samples of countries with proportional systems.Mean values.Electoral systemParty systemfragmentationNStd.deviationChange from PR to plurality and mixed 4.73 11 2.55Proportional systems 4.38 53 2.01Note: Eta Squared .004, sig. .6025.3.2 Party System Structure – DemocraciesIn this section, a similar analysis is conducted among democratic countries. Partysystem fragmentation in plurality systems in general and cases of change fromplurality to PR are compared in table 5.15. There is practically no differencebetween the categories. However, only three democratic countries (Turkey, Cyprusand Sri Lanka) have replaced plurality systems with proportional systems. The166