ࡱ> ^`WXYZ[\]#` j bjbj5G5G :&W-W-)*Z*Z*Z(RZ >chfP:gNgvvv8RNg"^ LVV:: :$0h9c0g;:@: <lu<89rZrZVVCNAdAdAd<rZ6VcVpAdg;AdAdN`fcV ஍"dvA[l2d0̑6b6`6eDp'g;g;Adg;g;;LS; _;99/cg;g;g;g;g;g;g;NgNgNgD^JNgNgNgNgNgNgrZrZrZrZrZrZ How party systems Form: The Institutional, Historical and Strategic Foundations of the Post-War German Party System Marcus Kreuzer Associate Professor Department of Political Science Villanova University Villanova, PA 19085 Markus.Kreuzer@villanova.edu Abstract: The formation of new party systems involves very different dynamics from the transformation of established party systems in that politicians do not just try to win votes but also employ a wide range of coordination strategies to makes votes count for efficiently. These strategies include legal restrictions on party formations, changes in electoral vote counting procedures, pooling of seats through party switching and various electoral coalition arrangements. The paper shows how such strategies affect the coordination choices of voters and in doing so shaped the formation of Germanys postwar party system. Add this somewhereI follow John Gerrings definition of an intensive study o a single case (or small set of cases) with the aim to generalize across a larger set of cases of the same general type.  ADDIN EN.CITE Gerring2007298, 651Gerring, John2007Case Study Research. Principles and PracticesCambridgeCambridge University Press(Gerring 2007, 65) This understanding of case study has little use for the atheoretical, thick descriptive studies but plays a crucial role in addressing conceptual, methodological and theoretical issues without which large n, variable-centered and cross-case studies would be possible.  ADDIN EN.CITE Gerring2007298, 37-631Gerring, John2007Case Study Research. Principles and PracticesCambridgeCambridge University Press(Gerring 2007, 37-63) How do party systems form and why does their formation vary so much across countries ? An increasing number of scholars have engaged with these two questions and focused on three broad types of explanations: systematic and already well understood institutional effects; potentially systematic but still unevenly conceptualized and tested elite strategies; and highly contingent and haphazardly analyzed historical factors. This wide range of causal factors and their varying theoretical potential raises a fundamental question that needs to be engaged before tackling the more practical question of how party systems form. The current literature raises the fundamental question of whether it is at an early stage of theory development, where ongoing testing of current theories will led to a convergence around a few, parsimonious explanations; or, whether party system formation is a phenomenon so complex, so historical, that existing theories require thorough reconsideration about how compatible its key theoretical and methodological assumptions with such important temporal dynamics ? With a question so broad, I prefer approaching it empirically rather than theoretically, and by studying a single rather than many cases. Among the numerous cases available, the development of the postwar Germany party systems is an ideal case study for three reasons. First, it institutionalized faster and proved more durable than any party system after 1945. Germany managed to form a stable and enduring two-and-a-half party system by 1957, only eight years after its founding election. This very success suggests a development less complex than any other and occurring under circumstances more beneficial than any other. The German party system thus offers a best case scenario for testing to what extent existing theories premised on established and hence less complex party systems- can explain about the formation of new ones. Put differently, if we can show, that the more systematic, more advanced explanations of party system development do not fair well in one of the most favorable cases, then presumably additional research will do little to reduce the competing number of theories and our attention has instead be refocused on re-specifying them. Second, postwar Germany is an empirical gold mine; it provides data for virtually every conceivable variable, and does so across time, sub-national levels and individual parties. It offers within-case variation that is sufficient to provide preliminary tests of heretofore untested theoretical claims.  ADDIN EN.CITE Gerring2007298, 50-53, 57-591Gerring, John2007Case Study Research. Principles and PracticesCambridgeCambridge University Press(Gerring 2007, 50-53, 57-59) Third, the study of a single case like Germany makes it easier to address problems common during early stages of theory development. Very often little is known about causal mechanisms because initial theoretical claims are poorly specified and overly general.  ADDIN EN.CITE Alexander2004306, 204-081Alexander, GeorgeBennett, Andrew2004Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social SciencesCambridgeMIT PressGerring2007298, 43-451Gerring, John2007Case Study Research. Principles and PracticesCambridgeCambridge University Press(Alexander and Bennett 2004, 204-08; Gerring 2007, 43-45). Interaction effects among variables are insufficiently understood and difficult to control for with large N, cross-sectional research designs.  ADDIN EN.CITE Hall2003183, 380-827Hall, Peter2003Aligning Ontology and Methodology in Comparative PoliticsMahoney, JamesRueschmeyer, DietrichComparative Historical Analysis in the Social SciencesCambridgeCambridge University Press373-406Ragin1994307, 136-391Ragin, Charles1994Constructing Social ResearchThousand OaksPine Forge PressAlexander2004306, 21-221Alexander, GeorgeBennett, Andrew2004Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social SciencesCambridgeMIT Press(Alexander and Bennett 2004, 21-22; Hall 2003, 380-82; Ragin 1994, 136-39) And, temporal structures are overlooked which can play an important role in historical phenomena like the formation of party systems. Transitional party systems could have temporal structures like tornadoes with a quick cause and quick effect or they could function like global warming where long-term, slow moving causes have long-term and slow effects.  ADDIN EN.CITE Pierson2003184, 178-797Pierson, Paul2003Big, Slow-Moving and Invisible: Macrosocial Proesses in the Study of Comparative PoliticsMahoney, JamesRueschmeyer, DietrichComparative Historical Analysis in the Social SciencesCambridgeCambridge University Press177-207(Pierson 2003, 178-79) Such temporal structures have important theoretical implications and thus require the sort of close attention only possible through a case study approach. The paper is organized into four sections. First, I review the literature on party system formation and group the various explanations according to whether they emphasize institutional, historical or strategic factors. Second, I discuss the strengths and shortcomings of institutional factors the most frequently cited and theoretically most advanced in the literature in explaining postwar Germanys rapid party system institutionalization. Third, I analyze the importance historical and strategic factors played in the formation of Germanys party system and how the interact with each other. Fourth, I draw the implications the German case for the broader understanding of party system formation. I. THREE APPROACHES TO EXPLAINING PARTY SYSTEM FORMATION Party systems are complex and the literature consequently employs many different dependent variables to asses its development. They include the formation of voter preferences, the partisan alignments of such preferences, the volatility of such alignments, the formation and turnover of governing coalitions and electoral fragmentation. From this long list, electoral fragmentation that is the number of parties and their respective electoral strength (i.e. effective number of electoral parties, ENEP) or parliamentary strength (i.e. effective number of parliamentary parties, ENPP) is the most widely used measure of party system formation and, hence, the one that I use.  ADDIN EN.CITE Taagepera1989115, 77-911Taagepera, ReinShugart, Matthew Soberg1989Seats and Votes. The Effects & Determinants of Electoral SystemsNew HavenYale University Press(Taagepera and Shugart 1989, 77-91) The literature uses fragmentation to infer when a party system reaches a stable equilibrium point and hence can be considered institutionalized. According to Gary Cox, a stable equilibrium corresponds to a set of market clearing expectations where the number of types of candidates that voters are willing to vote for turns out to equal the number and types of candidates that are willing and able to stand for elections.  ADDIN EN.CITE Cox199716, 71Cox, Gary1997Making Votes Count. Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral SystemsCambridgeCambridge University Press(1997, 7) Equilibria centrally form around mutual expectations that voters and politicians have of each other, and they are reached when neither politicians nor voters have any incentive to change their behavior. What specifically forms and coordinates the expectations of actors is widely debated. Figure 1 groups the most commonly cited factors into three broad causal categories. The most common explanations focus on the three bold boxes 2, 4, and 5 and identify institutions and strategic voting as the principle factors inducing equilibria. Two less common explanations emphasize historical factors (dotted box 1) and political strategies. (dotted box 3) Each approach identifies a factor that seems important in shaping party systems, yet none of them pays much attention to the two others. I briefly discuss each approach and identify certain problems that result from their insufficient dialogue. Figure 1: Approaches to Studying Party System Formation  SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT  Legend: Bold arrow and boxes: factors transforming established party systems. Dotted arrow and boxes: factors forming new party systems. ENEC: Effective Number of electoral contestants; ENEP: Effective number of electoral parties; ENPP: Effective number of parliamentary parties. Institutionally Induced Equilibria: The vast literature elaborating on Duvergers original insight focuses on the bold boxes 2, 4 and 5. It uses large n, cross-sectional research designs and is able to shows strong co-variation between electoral institutions, strategic voting and party fragmentation in established party systems.  ADDIN EN.CITE Lijphart1994541Lijphart, Arend1994Electoral Systems and Party Systems. A Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies, 1945-1990OxfordOxford University PressTaagepera19891151Taagepera, ReinShugart, Matthew Soberg1989Seats and Votes. The Effects & Determinants of Electoral SystemsNew HavenYale University PressRiker1986917Riker, William1986"Duverger's Law Revisited," Bernard Grofman and Arend LijphartElectoral Laws and their Political ConsequencesNew YorkAgathon Press19-43Rae1967881Rae, Douglas1967The Political Consequences of Electoral LawsNew HavenYale University PressSartori1968987Sartori, Giovanni1968Political Development and Political EngineeringMontgomery, J.D. Hirschman, Albert O.Public PolicyCambridgeCambridge University Press17(Lijphart 1994; Rae 1967; Riker 1986; Sartori 1968; Taagepera and Shugart 1989) Encouraged by these findings, scholars have tested these same hypotheses in transitional democracies. Some found few differences and, if they did, explained them in terms of additional institutional factors.  ADDIN EN.CITE Norris2004284, 81-961Norris, Pippa2004Electoral Engineering. Voting Rules and Political BehaviorCambridgeCambridge University PressBielasiak20023710Bielasiak, Jack2002The Institutionalization of Electoral and Party Systems in Postcommunist StatesComparative Politics342189-210JanuaryBirch2001372, 3700Birch, Sarah2001Electoral systems and party systems in Europe East and WestPerspectives on European Politics and Society23355-77Horowitz2005373, 6990Horowitz, ShaleBrowne, Eric C.2005Party PoliticsParty PoliticsSources of Post-Communist Party System Consolidation: Ideology Versus Institutions 10.1177/1354068805057605689-706116http://ppq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/6/689November 1, 2005Birnir20053440Birnir, Johanna Kristin2005Public Venture Capital and Party InstitutionalizationComparative Political Studies388915-38OctoberJones1993305059-75<Go to ISI>://A1993KQ26500004Jones, M. P.The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws in Latin-America and the CaribbeanElectoral StudiesMar1993121ISI:A1993KQ26500004Ishiyama20013790Ishiyama, J. T.Kennedy, R.2001Superpresidentialism and Political Party Development in Russia, Ukraine, Armenia and KyrgyzstanEurope-Asia Studies5381177-1191DecISI:000172189200003<Go to ISI>://000172189200003Herron2001380063-86<Go to ISI>://000165383500004Herron, E. S.Nishikawa, M.Contamination effects and the number of parties in mixed-superposition electoral systemsElectoral StudiesMar2001201ISI:000165383500004Golosov20033780Golosov, G. V.2003Electoral Systems and Party Formation in Russia - A Cross-regional AnalysisComparative Political Studies368912-935OctISI:000185366700003<Go to ISI>://000185366700003Clark20053770Clark, T. D.Wittrock, J. N.2005Presidentialism and the Effect of Electoral Law in Postcommunist Systems - Regime Type MattersComparative Political Studies382171-188MarISI:000227707800003<Go to ISI>://000227707800003(Bielasiak 2002; Birch 2001, 370; Birnir 2005; Clark and Wittrock 2005; Golosov 2003; Herron and Nishikawa 2001; Horowitz and Browne 2005, 699; Ishiyama and Kennedy 2001; Jones 1993; Norris 2004, 81-96) Others scholars especially those considering longitudinal data found that institutional effects are weaker in transitional than in established party systems. They established that such differences in transitional party systems diminish over time and therefore suggest an important political learning process among voters and politicians. They argued that strategic voting is contingent on prior information about parties electoral strength and institutional effects and that such information only emerges after several election rounds and the development of an effective press.  ADDIN EN.CITE Filippov1999304, 8-100Filippov, Mikhail Ordeshook, Peter Shvetsova, Olga1999Party Fragmentation and Presidential Systems in Postcommunist DemocraciesConstitutional Political Economy1013-26MarchC:\My Archives\EndNotes Libraries\URL Attachment-Articles\Filippov, Ordeshook.pdfTavits2006365072-90<Go to ISI>://000236047100005Tavits, M.Annus, T.Learning to make votes count: The role of democratic experienceElectoral StudiesMar2006251ISI:000236047100005Dawisha20063630Dawisha, KarenDeets, Stephen2006Political Learning in Post-Communist ElectionsEast European Politics and Societies204691-728November 1, 2006East European Politics and Societieshttp://eep.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/20/4/691Duch20022570Duch, Raymond and Harvey Palmer2002Strategic Voting in Post-Communist Democracy?British Journal of Political Science32163-91JanuaryC:\My Archives\EndNotes Libraries\URL Attachment-Articles\Duch&Palmer.pdfCox19971669-921Cox, Gary1997Making Votes Count. Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral SystemsCambridgeCambridge University PressReich20043740Reich, G.2004The Evolution of New Party Systems: are Early Elections Exceptional?Electoral Studies232235-250JunISI:000220688200003<Go to ISI>://000220688200003Turner19932700Turner, Arthur W.1993Postauthoritarian elections: Testing expectations about first electionsComparative Political Studies26330-349Theory; Founding ElectionsKostadinova20023750Kostadinova, T.2002Do Mixed Electoral Systems Matter?: a Cross-National Analysis of their Effects in Eastern EuropeElectoral Studies21123-34MarISI:000172791700002<Go to ISI>://000172791700002(Cox 1997 69-92; Dawisha and Deets 2006; Duch 2002; Filippov, Ordeshook, and Shvetsova 1999, 8-10; Kostadinova 2002; Reich 2004; Tavits and Annus 2006; Turner 1993) A third group of scholars also found transitional party systems to be more fragmented than established ones but is skeptical that political learning will uniformly and swiftly give rise to strategic voting. They pointed out that party system disequilibria can in certain cases be a permanent feature and requires consideration of non-institutional factors.  ADDIN EN.CITE Cox199716, 225-651Cox, Gary1997Making Votes Count. Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral SystemsCambridgeCambridge University PressStoner-Weiss20012760Stoner-Weiss, Katherine2001The Limited Reach of Russia's Party System: Underinstitutionalization in Dual TransitionPolitics and Society293385-414SeptemberC:\My Archives\EndNotes Libraries\URL Attachment-Articles\Stoner-Weiss.pdfMainwaring19991721Mainwaring, Scott1999Rethinking Party Systems in the Third Wave of Democratization: the Case of BrazilStanfordStanford University Pressxix, 3900804730571 (cloth alk. paper) 0804730598 (alk. paper)Bap9554Political parties Brazil.Political culture Brazil.Democracy Brazil.Elite (Social sciences) Brazil.Political sociology.Brazil Politics and government 1964-1985.Brazil Politics and government 1985-Moser20013081Moser, Robert G.2001Unexpected Outcomes. Electoral Systems, Political Parties and Representation in RussiaPittsburghUniversity of Pittsburgh PressBirnir20042920Birnir, Johanna Kristin2004Stabelizing Party Systems and Excluding Segments of Society ? The Effects of Formation Costs on New Party Foundation in Latin AmericaStudies in Comparative lnternational Development3933-27Fall(Birnir 2004; Cox 1997, 225-65; Mainwaring 1999; Moser 2001; Stoner-Weiss 2001) Historical Induced Equilibria: A number of historically sensitive scholars point out that voters and politicians already can hold important mutual expectations of each other prior to the first election; they show how long-term historical legacies (i.e. historical cleavages, prior regime type) and short-term starting conditions (i.e. type of democratic transition, timing and sequencing of founding elections, prominence of external actors) shaped such ex ante expectations.  ADDIN EN.CITE Benoit2004289, 3840Benoit, Kenneth2004Models of Electoral System ChangeElectoral Studies23363-89Stepan19922790Stepan, AlfredLinz, Juan1992Political Identities and Election Sequences: Spain, the Soviet Union, and YugoslaviaDaedalus1212123-39SpringReich20012560Reich, G.M.2001Coordinating Party Choice in Founding Elections: Why Timing MattersComparative Political Studies34101237-1263DecemberC:\My Archives\EndNotes Libraries\URL Attachment-Articles\Reich.pdfKitschelt1999232, 19-421Kitschelt, HerbertMansfeldova, ZdenkaMarkowski, RadoslawToka, Gabor1999Post-communist Party Systems: Competition, Representation, and Inter-Party CooperationCambridgeCambridge University Pressxiv, 457Theory, Party System, East Central EuropeMainwaring1999172, 63-881Mainwaring, Scott1999Rethinking Party Systems in the Third Wave of Democratization: the Case of BrazilStanfordStanford University Pressxix, 3900804730571 (cloth alk. paper) 0804730598 (alk. paper)Bap9554Political parties Brazil.Political culture Brazil.Democracy Brazil.Elite (Social sciences) Brazil.Political sociology.Brazil Politics and government 1964-1985.Brazil Politics and government 1985-Cox199716, 203-371Cox, Gary1997Making Votes Count. Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral SystemsCambridgeCambridge University PressOrdeshook19942910Ordeshook, PeterShvetsova, Olga1994Ethnic Heterogeneity, District Magnitude, and the Number of PartiesAmerican Journal of Political Science38100-123(Benoit 2004, 384; Cox 1997, 203-37; Kitschelt et al. 1999, 19-42; Mainwaring 1999, 63-88; Ordeshook and Shvetsova 1994; Reich 2001; Stepan and Linz 1992) Legacies and starting conditions most directly influence the (re-) formation of parties and thus generate important ex ante information about their electoral viability prior to the first national election. Such information determines the effective number of electoral contestants (ENEC). ENEC differ from ENEP or ENPP in that their electoral viability is shaped by a wider array of factors than just prior election outcomes. Historical factors have received less attention than institutions in part because they pose methodological problems. In varying a great deal, they confront methodologist with the many variables, small N problem. This makes them unsuitable for theoretical parsimony and large N, variable-centered research designs. Instead of raising questions about the strength of their co-variation, historical factors raise issues about which ones actually matter, specifying how they are transmitted across time and determining how long their effect lasts.  ADDIN EN.CITE Grzymala-Busse2002260, 20-231Grzymala-Busse, Anna Maria2002Redeeming the Communist Past. The Regeneration of Communist Parties in East Central EuropeCambridgeCambridge University PressKitschelt1999232, 12-131Kitschelt, HerbertMansfeldova, ZdenkaMarkowski, RadoslawToka, Gabor1999Post-communist Party Systems: Competition, Representation, and Inter-Party CooperationCambridgeCambridge University Pressxiv, 457Theory, Party System, East Central EuropeGrzymala-Busse20022601Grzymala-Busse, Anna Maria2002Redeeming the Communist Past. The Regeneration of Communist Parties in East Central EuropeCambridgeCambridge University PressAbbott1988220, 17726Abbott, Andrew1988Transcending General Linear RealitySociological Theory62169-186Autumn(Abbott 1988, 177; Grzymala-Busse 2002, 20-23; Kitschelt et al. 1999, 12-13) Paul Pierson, for example, points out that not all initial conditions are as likely to shape subsequent developments; conditions where large set-up costs, learning and coordination effects and adaptive expectations are present are particularly prone to generate increasing returns and path dependencies.  ADDIN EN.CITE Pierson20031847Pierson, Paul2003Big, Slow-Moving and Invisible: Macrosocial Proesses in the Study of Comparative PoliticsMahoney, JamesRueschmeyer, DietrichComparative Historical Analysis in the Social SciencesCambridgeCambridge University Press177-207Pierson2000189, 76-770Pierson, Paul2000Not Just What, but When: Timing and Sequence in Political ProcessesStudies in American Political Development1472–92SpringC:\My Archives\EndNotes Libraries\URL Attachment-Articles\Pierson 2000.pdf(2000, 76-77; 2003) Specifying these conditions and analyzing the various mechanisms producing increasing returns become the primary task of historical analysis a task requiring a great deal of case-specific knowledge and a task not easily accommodate by large N research designs. Politically Induced Equilibria (Coordination Strategies): If historical factors shape expectations prior to founding election, then political strategies reshape expectations between elections. (i.e. dotted box 3) Voters update their information not just through learning from quadrennial election outcomes, but also in response to how politicians transform the political environment produced by the previous election.  ADDIN EN.CITE Laver20032690Laver, MichaelBenoit, Kenneth2003The Evolution of Party Systems between ElectionsAmerican Journal of Political Science472215-33AprilC:\My Archives\EndNotes Libraries\URL Attachment-Articles\Laver&Benoit AJPS_2003.pdf(Laver and Benoit 2003) Jack Bielasiak observed that the development of party structures is driven by election outcomes, and by parliamentary gamesmanship between elections. Elections and parliamentary activities act as screenings devices that elevate some political contenders to prominent roles and marginalizes other party formations.  ADDIN EN.CITE Bielasiak1997230, 280Bielasiak, Jack1997Substance and Process in the Development of Party Systems in East Central EuropeCommunist and Post-Communist Studies30123-44Theory, East Central Europe(1997, 28) Gary Cox loosely labeled these forms of inter-electoral gamesmanship, coordination strategies. They capitalize on the fact that the political value of individual votes is not given, but can be enhanced or diminished through coordination moves taking place between elections. Coordination strategies play an important but underappreciated role in inducing equilibiria, and therefore require slightly more attention than the other two. Table 1 lists the coordination strategies identified in the literature (even though they are not always labeled as such), and summarizes how they enhance the value of votes in the sense of increasing their seat-winning capacity. They include aggregating votes across districts through forming national parties  ADDIN EN.CITE Cox199716, 181-2021Cox, Gary1997Making Votes Count. Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral SystemsCambridgeCambridge University PressAldrich199511Aldrich, John1995Why Parties ? The Origins and Transformation of Party Politics in AmericaChicagoUniversity of Chicago PressChhibber20042741Chhibber, PradeepKollman, Kenneth2004The Formation of National Party Systems. Federalism and Party Competition in Canada, Great Britain, India and the United StatesPrincetonPrinceton University Press(Aldrich 1995; Chhibber and Kollman 2004; Cox 1997, 181-202), pooling or trading votes through inter-party electoral coalitions  ADDIN EN.CITE Cox199716, 41-421Cox, Gary1997Making Votes Count. Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral SystemsCambridgeCambridge University PressTsebelis1990119, 187-2331Tsebelis, George1990Nested Games. Rational Choice in Comparative Politics Berkeley University of California PressShvetsova20023397Shvetsova, Olga2002Institutions and Coalition Building in Post-Communist TransitionsReynolds, AndrewThe Architecture of DemocracyOxfordOxford University Press55-76(Cox 1997, 41-42; Shvetsova 2002; Tsebelis 1990, 187-233), limiting the entry of new competitors to avoid diluting existing votes  ADDIN EN.CITE Cox199716, 151-781Cox, Gary1997Making Votes Count. Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral SystemsCambridgeCambridge University PressBirnir20053440Birnir, Johanna Kristin2005Public Venture Capital and Party InstitutionalizationComparative Political Studies388915-38October(Birnir 2005; Cox 1997, 151-78), changing the rules that determine how votes will be counted when translated into seats  ADDIN EN.CITE Benoit20042890Benoit, Kenneth2004Models of Electoral System ChangeElectoral Studies23363-89Boix19991420Boix, Carles1999Setting the Rules of the Game: the Choice of Electoral Systems in Advanced DemocraciesAmerican Political Science Review933609-24September(Benoit 2004; Boix 1999), or changing value of votes after the election when individual politicians switch their party affiliations.  ADDIN EN.CITE Kreuzer20032950Kreuzer, Marcus Pettai, Vello2003Patterns of Political Instability: Affiliation Patterns of Politicians and Voters in Postcommunist Estonia, Latvia and LithuaniaStudies in Comparative International Development38273-95SummerShabad20042380Shabad, GoldieSlomczynski, Kazimierz2004Interparty Mobility among Political Elites in Post-Communist East Central EuropeParty Politics102151-76Theory; East Central Europe; PartiesC:\My Archives\EndNotes Libraries\URL Attachment-Articles\Shabad et al. 2004.pdfMainwaring1999172, 131-741Mainwaring, Scott1999Rethinking Party Systems in the Third Wave of Democratization: the Case of BrazilStanfordStanford University Pressxix, 3900804730571 (cloth alk. paper) 0804730598 (alk. paper)Bap9554Political parties Brazil.Political culture Brazil.Democracy Brazil.Elite (Social sciences) Brazil.Political sociology.Brazil Politics and government 1964-1985.Brazil Politics and government 1985-Gunther19892770Gunther, Richard1989Electoral Laws, Party Systems, and Elites: the Case of SpainAmerican Political Science Review833835-58September(Gunther 1989; Kreuzer and Pettai 2003; Mainwaring 1999, 131-74; Shabad and Slomczynski 2004) Table 1: Coordination Strategies and Value of Votes Coordination Strategy  increases vote value to the extent that it a. Strategic Entry 1 limits the supply of voting options and hence reduces risk of vote dilution.b. Changes of seat related electoral procedures 3  increases the seat value of votes (e.g. increases disproportionality to reduce the seat value of votes received by smaller parties)c. Switching of party affiliation 2 candidates switch from smaller to larger parties or parties merge to pool seats.d. Electoral Coalition 4 pools vote through electoral alliances/apparantements or trade them through cross-district candidate withdrawals.d. Party Formation aggregates local vote getting efforts horizontally across districts and vertically across levels of government. 1) Includes party registration laws and party-internal candidate selection procedures; 3) Seat related procedures include district magnitude, threshold and electoral formula; 2) Switching includes hopping of candidates among existing parties, mergers and fissions; 4) Includes cross-district withdrawals of candidates, electoral alliances (e.g. merging of separate lists prior to election), and apparantements (e.g. separate lists joined solely for seat allocation of voting) Why Do Coordination Strategies Matter ? The party system literature, especially in its institutional garb, assumes that electoral markets are efficient and thereby pre-determine what sort of coordination strategies are chosen. It employs a tacit functional logic whereby the strategies are part of an invisible natural selection process through which politicians decide to merge, withdraw, switch in response to prior and anticipated elections outcomes. Coordination strategies are in effect accelerators that amplify market outcomes; but their choice is predetermined by market outcomes and thus lacks any independent causal impact on the formation of party systems. This functional logic logic overlooks two important things. First, actors choose coordination strategies in response to election outcomes and institutional constraints. The latter influence the ability of politicians to change electoral rules, switch or form coalitions and these constraints vary a great across countries. Coordination strategies thus can have very different accelerator effects across countries. Second, coordination strategies also serve as breaks on market outcomes. Many times parties use coordination strategies to shelter themselves from strategic voting. Small parties, for example, form electoral coalitions or use their parliamentary swing votes to make electoral rules more proportional. In short, coordination strategies are influenced, but by no means pre-determined, by electoral market outcomes; they consequently cannot be reduced to some functional, natural selection process. They have to be analyzed as distinct causal mechanism shaping party systems; they can alter the number of parties or their electoral prospects to the point where the effective number of electoral parties (ENEC) that voters face in subsequent elections has little in common with ENPPt1 produced by the preceding election. Coordination strategies generate information about parties strength or create focal points around which voters expectations can converge. Cox notes that there are many instrumentally rational agents in elections candidates, activists, contributors all of them may respond in ways that overwhelm or accentuate the strategic responses of voters.  ADDIN EN.CITE Cox199716, 149, 2551Cox, Gary1997Making Votes Count. Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral SystemsCambridgeCambridge University Press(Cox 1997, 149, 255) Coordination strategies especially matter in transitional party systems where electioneering strategies the vote winning strategies most central in established party systems oftentimes are limited in their effectiveness. Electioneering strategies include formulating policies, building personal reputations, manipulating issue dimensions, advertising or turning out voters.  ADDIN EN.CITE Downs195720, 77-1141Downs, Anthony1957An Economic Theory of DemocracyNew YorkHarper and RowRiker1990927Riker, William1990Heresthetic and Rhetoric in the Spatial ModelEnelown, James Hinichn, MelvingAdvances in the Spatial Theory of VotingCambridgeCambridge University Press46-63Meguid20011803Meguid, Bonnie M.2001Competing with the Neophyte: The Role of Mainstream Party Strategy in Rising Party SuccessAnnual Meeting of the American Political Science AssociationSan FranciscoAugust 30-September 2\\sac2000\mkreuzer\EndNotes Libraries\URL Attachment-Articles\Meguid 2001.pdf(Downs 1957, 77-114; Meguid 2001; Riker 1990) At the most basic level, they involve communicating with voters to either change their party affiliation or, for those already affiliated, assure their turnout. However, such communication is effective only if voters have formed preferences and get to choose among a stable set of parties offering clear policy alternatives. The relative absence of such conditions in many transitional party systems means that voters cannot evaluate electoral alternatives and parties cannot effectively solicit electoral support. As a result, politicians in transitional democracies rely just as much on coordination strategies as they do on electioneering strategies. Implications for Theory Development: The numerous variables suggested by literature vary tremendously in their theoretical potential. Institutions clearly have the greatest theoretical potential. The specific procedures affecting strategic voting are few in number, well conceptualized and readily quantified. These procedures also are not easy to change, and, if they remain unchanged, have effects remains constant across time and only vary across cases. Coordination strategies have a more limited theoretical potential. Their potential stems from the fact that are clearly anchor in individual actors, have well developed causal mechanisms and also appear to be invariant across time. Their limitations stems from the fact that they are very numerous, unevenly conceptualized, subject to important interaction effects and still lacking in extensive cross-national data. Historical factors clearly have the smallest theoretical potential; they vary not only more across cases but their effects also is changing across time. This change can be increasing in the form of increasing returns or diminishing as legacies fade away. This being the first case study, that pays equal attention to all three of these factors should give us a preliminary idea of how much each mattered in postwar Germany. This insight combined with the theoretical potential of individual factors gives some clues about theoretical potential there is, that what the prospects of explaining the development of party system in terms of systematic co-variation of causal variables. II. INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS How well do institutional accounts explain the formation of the Germany party system ? Table 2 displays for Germany some of the data that institutional explanations use for their large n, cross-sectional analysis. There is much of the Germany data that the latters more general findings. Fragmentation dropped very quickly, suggesting voters defecting from smaller parties with slim winning chances. These defections also are reflected in the decline in wasted, that is non-strategic, votes. The continuity in parties vote share indicates that voter choices remained consistent over time and that parties formed before the 1949 founding election (i.e. 1st Election Parties) remained the focal points of voters. Finally, parties formed after the 1st election never participated for more than two electoral cycles, thus suggesting strategic withdrawals. Overall then, the rapid and linear consolidation of the postwar Germany party system fits the causal account of institutionally induced strategic voting and efficient electoral markets. Moreover, German institutions to the extent that they have an effect on strategic voting were genuine causes rather than effects of a prior non-institutional factor (.e. party system, cleavages) determining their selection. This an important issue because, if institutions were indeed pre-determined, then their effects would be spurious.  ADDIN EN.CITE Colomer20052750Colomer, Josep2005It's Parties That Choose Electoral Systems (or, Duverger's Laws Upside Down)Political Studies531-21Boix19991420Boix, Carles1999Setting the Rules of the Game: the Choice of Electoral Systems in Advanced DemocraciesAmerican Political Science Review933609-24SeptemberShvetsova20032830Shvetsova, Olga2003Endogenous Selection of Institutions and Their Exogenous EffectsConstitutional Political Economy143191-212(Boix 1999; Colomer 2005; Shvetsova 2003) Since proving the absence of any endogeneity would unduly detract from the flow my argument, I moved the relevant discussion into Appendix I. Table 2: Formation of Post-War German Party System 194919531957196119651969A. Fragmentation1 4.012.792.392.512.382.24B. Party Stability2 1st Election Parties95.2%91.5%93.2%94.4%96.4%94.6%2nd Election Parties8.5%5.6%0.8%3rd Election Parties1.2%0.1%4th Election Parties4.7%1.3%5th Election Parties2.3%4.5%6th Election Parties0.9%C. Wasted Votes3 (in %)7.27.17.45.73.75.5Legend: 1Effective number of parliamentary parties. 2Vote Shares of parties according the electoral cycle during which they were founded. 3MMD vote shares of all parties failing to win seats. Yet, if we look beyond the general pattern, a number inconsistencies and unanswered questions remain. First, institutional accounts imply that fragmentation and strategic voting should co-vary; yet in Table 2, we see fragmentation declining and waste vote shares remaining unchanged for the first three elections. This disjuncture suggests that voters defected until 1961 at higher rates from small, seat-winning and hence risky parties (thereby reducing fragmentation without affected wasted vote shares) than from even smaller, seatless and hence hopeless parties (thereby leaving wasted vote shares unaffected)  ADDIN EN.CITE Tavits2006365, 77072-90<Go to ISI>://000236047100005Tavits, M.Annus, T.Learning to make votes count: The role of democratic experienceElectoral StudiesMar2006251ISI:000236047100005(Tavits and Annus 2006, 77) It also implies that voters of risky parties used different information than voters of hopeless parties. Institutional explanations cannot account for such informational discrepancies since they assume that electoral markets provide uniform information for all parties and all voters learn from that information the same lessons. This discrepancy, therefore, suggests that we look at additional sources of information that influence strategic voting and not just electoral market. Coordination strategies constituted such an additional source information in postwar Germany and thus require close attention. Institutional explanations ignore such strategies presumably because they are still poorly conceptualized and lack systematic, cross-national data. Second, institutional incentives and efficient markets only reduce fragmentation to the extent that voters choose among well organized, stable and mostly national parties.  ADDIN EN.CITE Cox199716, 181-2021Cox, Gary1997Making Votes Count. Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral SystemsCambridgeCambridge University Press(Cox 1997, 181-202) The early and continuous vote share of 1st Election Parties in Table demonstrates that such parties developed instantaneously in postwar Germany. The suddenness pose a problem for institutional explanations which following a functional logic attribute their formation to the need to form effective electoral and legislative coalitions.  ADDIN EN.CITE Aldrich199511Aldrich, John1995Why Parties ? The Origins and Transformation of Party Politics in AmericaChicagoUniversity of Chicago PressCox1987151Cox, Gary1987The Efficiency SecretCambridgeCambridge University Press(Aldrich 1995; Cox 1987) Such a functional logic would imply a gradual institutionalization of parties rather than an instantaneous one we observe in Table 2. Furthermore, the suddenness can be only partly attributed to the historical legacy of the Weimar Republic. Weimars liberal and conservative parties were fragmented, plagued by defections and unsuccessful in transforming themselves from unorganized notable parties into well institutionalized mass parties  ADDIN EN.CITE Kreuzer200150, 91-1321Kreuzer, Marcus2001Institutions and Innovation. Voters, Parties, and Interest Groups in the Consolidation of Democracy - France and Germany, 1870-1939Ann ArborUniversity of Michigan Press(Kreuzer 2001, 91-132). Very few of their members stayed in politics after 1945, as only 8.6% of the CDU/CSU deputies in Weimar Reichstag and 13.4% of the FDP deputies.  ADDIN EN.CITE Schindler1984236, 183-851Schindler, Peter1984Datenhandbuch zur Geschichte des Deutschen Bundestages 1949 bis 1982Baden-BadenNomos3rdGermany, Electoral System, Party, Postwar(Schindler 1984, 183-85) With so little personal continuity, center right parties had to reinvent themselves.  ADDIN EN.CITE Cary19962811Cary, Noel1996The Path to Christian Democracy. German Catholics and the Party System from Windhorst to AdenauerCambridgeHarvard University Press(Cary 1996) The only interwar parties that resurrected their old organizations were the SPD and KPD. All of this suggests that we look more closely at how starting conditions that is something occurring after historical legacies but before electoral markets operated - influenced the formation of parties. The effects of starting conditions is overlooked by institutional explanations because, just like coordination strategies, it is not easily quantifiable. Moreover, the fact that parties change their qualitative attributes as they form makes them difficult to incorporate in quantitative research designs which assume party variables to be fixed across time and place in terms of their organizational characteristics and vary only according to their most readily measured attribute, namely vote share.  ADDIN EN.CITE Abbott1988220, 17126Abbott, Andrew1988Transcending General Linear RealitySociological Theory62169-186AutumnHall2003183, 3837Hall, Peter2003Aligning Ontology and Methodology in Comparative PoliticsMahoney, JamesRueschmeyer, DietrichComparative Historical Analysis in the Social SciencesCambridgeCambridge University Press373-406Munck2004299, 1127Munck, Gerado2004Tools for Qualitative ResearchBrady, HenryCollier, DavidRethinking Social Inquiry. Diverse Tools, Shared StandardsLanhamRowman & Littlefield105-122(Abbott 1988, 171; Hall 2003, 383; Munck 2004, 112) Third, Germanys institutions provided weak incentives for strategic voting. Under the personalized PR system, Germans cast one vote for single member districts and a second vote for multi-member districts ranging in magnitude from 5 to 109 (average of 44.7 for 1949). As only their second vote affects the distribution of seats, they face weak incentives for strategic voting. In SMD, German voters defect in marginal numbers from smaller parties; such parties received only 2.8% fewer first than second votes between 1953-83.  ADDIN EN.CITE Esser1985304, 280-811Esser, Eckhard1985Wahlrecht zwischen Kontinuität und ReformDüsseldorfDroste Verlag(Esser 1985, 280-81) Such limited strategic voting illustrates that the first vote serves to personalize representation rather than reduce the number of parties. The most significant incentive for strategic voting comes from the 5% electoral threshold. According to Taagepera and Shugart estimation, such a threshold corresponds to a district magnitude of 10  ADDIN EN.CITE Taagepera1989115, 117, 266-691Taagepera, ReinShugart, Matthew Soberg1989Seats and Votes. The Effects & Determinants of Electoral SystemsNew HavenYale University Press(1989, 117, 266-69) which according to Cox provides at best negligible incentives for strategic voting.  ADDIN EN.CITE Cox199716, 100, 1411Cox, Gary1997Making Votes Count. Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral SystemsCambridgeCambridge University Press(1997, 100, 141) The Bonn constitution also re-affirmed Germanys longstanding federal structure in which Lnder governments and elections create important opportunities for regional parties to build a local power base. It further removed Weimars directly elected presidency and thus removed a single, national and non-divisible political price around which voters and politicians could coordinate their expectations.  ADDIN EN.CITE Chhibber2004274. 263-921Chhibber, PradeepKollman, Kenneth2004The Formation of National Party Systems. Federalism and Party Competition in Canada, Great Britain, India and the United StatesPrincetonPrinceton University PressCox199716, 186-901Cox, Gary1997Making Votes Count. Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral SystemsCambridgeCambridge University PressMainwaring19991721Mainwaring, Scott1999Rethinking Party Systems in the Third Wave of Democratization: the Case of BrazilStanfordStanford University Pressxix, 3900804730571 (cloth alk. paper) 0804730598 (alk. paper)Bap9554Political parties Brazil.Political culture Brazil.Democracy Brazil.Elite (Social sciences) Brazil.Political sociology.Brazil Politics and government 1964-1985.Brazil Politics and government 1985-Stoll20052973Stoll, Heather2005Electoral Coordination and Political Institutions: From ElectoralSystems to the Power of the PrizeAnnual Meeting of the American Political Science AssociationWashingtonAmerican Political Science AssociationSeptember 1-4(Chhibber and Kollman 2004. 263-92; Cox 1997, 186-90; Mainwaring 1999; Stoll 2005) II. HISTORICAL FACTORS: Long-term and short-term historical factors potentially impact how many effective electoral contestants participate in the founding election, their available resources, and their perceived winning prospects. Herbert Kitschelt put it nicely when he observed that the breakdown of political and economic regimes always offers new political actors opportunities to deal creatively with a highly contingent and open range of possibilities in order to craft new institutions and power relations. Nevertheless, the creativity of actors is also constrained by the experience of the past and the patterns of economic and politically resource distribution under the old regimes.  ADDIN EN.CITE Kitschelt1999232, 191Kitschelt, HerbertMansfeldova, ZdenkaMarkowski, RadoslawToka, Gabor1999Post-communist Party Systems: Competition, Representation, and Inter-Party CooperationCambridgeCambridge University Pressxiv, 457Theory, Party System, East Central Europe(Kitschelt et al. 1999, 19) Historical Legacies: Longstanding socio-economic, religious or regional cleavages reduce the ENEC going into the founding election because they convey indirect information about a partys potential voting base and, hence, winning prospects.  ADDIN EN.CITE Cox199716, 203-211Cox, Gary1997Making Votes Count. Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral SystemsCambridgeCambridge University PressOrdeshook19942910Ordeshook, PeterShvetsova, Olga1994Ethnic Heterogeneity, District Magnitude, and the Number of PartiesAmerican Journal of Political Science38100-123(Cox 1997, 203-21; Ordeshook and Shvetsova 1994) Cleavages are more likely to matter in re-democratizers, like postwar Germany, than first time democratizers whose political fault lines are not yet fully defined. Prior to 1949, Germany experienced 70 years of electoral politics during which a party system with clear regional, religious and above all class lines had evolved.  ADDIN EN.CITE Lepsius1973697Lepsius, Rainer1973Parteiensystem und Sozialstruktur: zum Problem der Demokratisierung der deutschen GesellschaftRitter, Gerhard A.Deutsche Parteien vor 1918CologneKiepenheuer & Witsch56-80(Lepsius 1973) These cleavages had a most direct impact on the left where the leaders of the SPD and KPD returned from exile, re-established their organizations and mobilized voters around the same class issues that dominated Weimar politics. Their impact, however, was much weaker for center and center-right parties. These parties had to form new party organizations, formulate programs capable of bridging old regional, religious and class divides, integrate twelve million German refugees and pre-empt the resurgence of Nazi-successor parties.  ADDIN EN.CITE Cary19962811Cary, Noel1996The Path to Christian Democracy. German Catholics and the Party System from Windhorst to AdenauerCambridgeHarvard University Press(Cary 1996) Little of the center-rights pre-war party infrastructure, which already was weak to begin with, survived the Great Depression, twelve years of Nazi rules and six years of war. Organizations that once had linked the parties to specific cultures had vanished The result was a breakdown of the rigid system of regional, denominational, ideological and class cleavages that had characterized German society and the old party system.  ADDIN EN.CITE Cary1996281, 1481Cary, Noel1996The Path to Christian Democracy. German Catholics and the Party System from Windhorst to AdenauerCambridgeHarvard University Press(Cary 1996, 148) Historical legacies, thus, did relatively little to reduce the ENEC going into the founding elections; they provided few useful cues for center and center right voters about what would the principle new bourgeois parties. Gerhard Loewenberg was mostly right when he observed that nothing in the previous [pre-1945] development of the German party system suggested that such a [post-1945] transformation would occur.  ADDIN EN.CITE Loewenberg1971259, 37Loewenberg, Gerhard1971The Remaking of the German Party SystemDogan, MatteiRose, RichardEuropean Politics: A ReaderBostonLittle Brown and Co.259-80Germany, Electoral System, Party, Postwar(1971, 3) What then about more short-term historical factors that defined the starting conditions of the post-war party system ? Two require attention: sequencing of early elections, institutional choices and party licensing. Sequencing of Early Elections: Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan argue that holding regional elections before national ones creates incentives for parties to organize themselves and define their platforms in more local than national terms thus, making it more difficult for voters to coordinate strategic voting at the national level. Gary Reich, in turn, found that the closer founding elections are held to the actual regime transition, the more salient the regime cleavage will be. The polarizing effects of such a cleavage, as opposed to less polarizing policy differences, will help voters coordinate their electoral expectations.  ADDIN EN.CITE Reich2001256, 12450Reich, G.M.2001Coordinating Party Choice in Founding Elections: Why Timing MattersComparative Political Studies34101237-1263DecemberC:\My Archives\EndNotes Libraries\URL Attachment-Articles\Reich.pdf(Reich 2001, 1245) By these criteria, Germanys postwar party system was off to an unpromising start. The sequence of state and national elections was reverse so that fourteen state elections were held before the first federal election in August 1949. This reverse sequence created important incentives for politicians to focus their programs and organizational efforts at the regional rather than national level. Moreover, the founding election took place only four years after the collapse of the Nazi regime thus weakening any polarizing regime cleavage and its potential coordinating effect. Party Licensing: The Allies involved themselves very selectively in Germanys return to democracy except when it came to licensing new parties. Party licensing plays a particularly important role in transitional party systems where voters have insufficient information about parties winning chances to cast effective strategic ballots. As a result, the number of entrants is not limited by anticipation of strategic voting [and thus] everyone has an ex ante equal chance of suffering (or benefiting) from it.  ADDIN EN.CITE Cox199716, 1521Cox, Gary1997Making Votes Count. Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral SystemsCambridgeCambridge University Press(Cox 1997, 152) Through party licensing, the Allies decisively changed these odds, thus making it highly efficient but also highly undemocratic way to make votes count. It had a profound impact because it restricted the supply of parties contesting and gave the licensed parties a tremendous early mover advantage. I analyze first the proximate effects of party licensing by looking at how its varied application across the French, British and US occupation zones affected the ENEP going into the 1949 election. I then assess the licensings more distal effects on parties organizational institutionalization by following the affiliation choices that electoral candidates made after the 1949 election. Licensings Proximate Effects: The Allies had no uniform, German-wide licensing policy and so the licensing varied across the British, French and US occupation zones. The licensing practices ranged from giving parties a license for an entire zone, a single Land within a zone, or for a few electoral districts within a particular Land. Parties also were denied licenses or even banned outright. Table 3 summarizes these various licensing practices by showing the year in which a party received a license (columns) and how its license varied across the three zones (rows). Table 3: Party Licensing by Allied Zone 19451946194719481949A) Licenses for an entire zoneUS ZoneCDU/CSU, SPD, KPD, FDPBPUK ZoneZentrumNLP/DP2French Zone B) Licenses for a single LandUS ZoneWAVBHE4UK ZoneNLP/DP2SSV4, RVP; RSVP French Zone Denied to all partiesC) Licenses for select districts (Kreis), no licenses or bansUS ZoneBHKP 3BHE; BP; NDP1; BHE4, NDP1 UK ZoneBHE; DKP-DRP.BHE4French ZoneNo district level licenses grantedDPLegend: : Banned parties; Italics: parties that won seats in the August 1949 Federal election. 1 Founded in 1945 by Heinrich Leuchtgens. Received only licences for some Kreise in Hessen. No license for 1946 Lnder election and 1949 federal election. Formed in 1949 and electoral alliance in Hessen with FDP which led to election of Leuchtgens.  ADDIN EN.CITE Rogers1995265, 53-561Rogers, Daniel1995Politics after Hitler. The Western Allies and the German Party SystemNew YorkNew York University PressGermany, Electoral System, Party, Postwar(Rogers 1995, 53-56). 2 Given license for Niedersachsen but licenses denied for other northern Lnder until 1949.  ADDIN EN.CITE Rogers1995265, 67-681Rogers, Daniel1995Politics after Hitler. The Western Allies and the German Party SystemNew YorkNew York University PressGermany, Electoral System, Party, Postwar(Rogers 1995, 67-68). 3Banned in October 1945.  ADDIN EN.CITE Rogers1995265, 631Rogers, Daniel1995Politics after Hitler. The Western Allies and the German Party SystemNew YorkNew York University PressGermany, Electoral System, Party, Postwar(Rogers 1995, 63) 4After 1947, the BHEs precursor organizations were permitted to run independent candidates US Zone Lnder elections, as long as they did not labeled themselves as members of such organizations. Did not receive license for 1949 federal election.  ADDIN EN.CITE Rogers1995265, 1091Rogers, Daniel1995Politics after Hitler. The Western Allies and the German Party SystemNew YorkNew York University PressGermany, Electoral System, Party, Postwar(Rogers 1995, 109); 5 SSV received license only for northern districts in Schleswig-Holstein in which sizeable Danish population lived  ADDIN EN.CITE Rogers1995265, 1301Rogers, Daniel1995Politics after Hitler. The Western Allies and the German Party SystemNew YorkNew York University PressGermany, Electoral System, Party, Postwar(Rogers 1995, 130) Party acronyms: BHE: Block der Heimatvertriebenen und Entrechteten (League of Expellees and Dispossessed); BHKP: Bayerische Heimats- und Knigspartei (Bavarian Homeland and Royalist Party); DKP-DRP: Deutsche Konservative Partei-Deutsche Rechtspartei (German Conservative Party/German Right Party); BP: Bayerische Partei (Bavarian Party); NDP: Nationaldemokratische Partei (National Democratic Party); NSLP/DP: Niederschsische Landespartei/Deutsche Partei (after 1947) (Lower Saxon State Party/German Party); RSFP: Radikal-Soziale Freiheitspartei (Radical-Social Freedom Party); RVP: Rheinische Volkspartei (Rhenish Peoples Party); SSV: Sdschleswigscher Verein (South Schleswig Association); WAV: Wirtschaftlich Aufbau-Vereinigung (Economic Reconstruction Party); Sources: (Rogers 1995; http://www.lexikon-definition.de) Of the fifteen parties, only four, the CDU/CSU, SPD, FDP, and KPD, received licenses in all three zones thus enabling them to operate as national parties. Of the 12 partially licensed parties, three were granted licenses in only one zone (e.g. the BP, Zentrum, and NLP/DP) and five were licensed in only a single Land (e.g. WAV, BHE, SSV, RVP, RSVP) Three more parties received even more limited licenses or were banned (e.g. BHKP, NDP, DKP-DRP). Clearly, the French had the most restrictive licensing, restricting it to the four large parties and denying all other requests.  ADDIN EN.CITE Rogers1995265, 122-241Rogers, Daniel1995Politics after Hitler. The Western Allies and the German Party SystemNew YorkNew York University PressGermany, Electoral System, Party, Postwar(Rogers 1995, 122-24) The Americans and British occupation authorities were more liberal in their licensing. They tried to balance their desire to assist the CDU/CSU, SPD and FDP with their concern that silencing important social groups would unduly radicalize them or drive them underground. Strikingly enough, party licenses were only denied to right of center parties and not a single leftist party which partly reflects organizational continuity of the two camps after 1945. The SPD and KPD were direct successors from the Weimar Republic as their leaders returned from exile. The center and the right, by contrast, had to start form zero. Their Weimar predecessors were weak notable parties that had been eviscerated by the Great Depression and then permanently discredited by their collaboration with the Nazis. Party licensing dramatically reduced the ENEC heading into the founding election, leading the CDU/CSU, SPD, FDP and KPD winning 77.8% of the votes. It did so in three ways. First, the four fully licensed parties were the most successful in linking their organizations across levels of government and districts, making them the only genuinely national parties. As a result, they contested virtually every SMD district in 1949 and field lists in all eleven MMD districts. The other parties participated in far fewer electoral contests; the RSF fielded lists in five Lnder, the DP and the DKP-DRP in four, the DZP in three, BP and WAV in one. Second, the fully licensed parties to participate in all the 14 Lnder elections held before 1949, the only partially licensed parties, by contrast, ran in no more than two Lnder elections. This extensive participation in Lnder elections gave the four fully licensed an important reputational advantage going into the 1949 election. Third, the fully licensed parties attracted more experienced and, presumably also, more skilled politicians. In the first Bundestag, 18.4% of CDU/CSU deputies sat in one of the previous Lnder assemblies, 20.1% of SPD deputies and 17.6% of FPD deputies. Of the partly licensed parties, only the DP had any pre-1949 legislative experience (27.8%).  ADDIN EN.CITE Schindler19842361Schindler, Peter1984Datenhandbuch zur Geschichte des Deutschen Bundestages 1949 bis 1982Baden-BadenNomos3rdGermany, Electoral System, Party, PostwarNetLexikon26631NetLexikonDeutsche Politikhttp://www.lexikon-definition.de/Liste-der-Mitglieder-des-Deutschen-Bundestageshttp://www.lexikon-definition.de/Liste-der-Mitglieder-des-Deutschen-Bundestages-%281.-Wahlperiode%29.html(NetLexikon; Schindler 1984) Two additional observations underscore the causal link between party licensing and strategic voting. First, the variations in party licensing across the three occupation zones directly impacted the ENEP. I had mentioned that licensing in the French zone was far more restrictive than in the US and British zone. Not surprisingly, the ENEP in the Lnder election taking place in the French zone was low at 2.8 compared to the 3.8 in the British zone and 3.8 ENEP in the US zone. Second, the Allies actually prefered to have voters kill small parties through strategic defections rather than having to kill them through outright bans. Rogers observed that the Allies original intent was to limit parties geographically [and] thereby manage them quietly into harmlessness rather than to ban them outright.  ADDIN EN.CITE Rogers1995265, 591Rogers, Daniel1995Politics after Hitler. The Western Allies and the German Party SystemNew YorkNew York University PressGermany, Electoral System, Party, Postwar(Rogers 1995, 59) Licensings Distal Effects: How enduring were the first mover advantages of the CDU/CSU, SPD, FDP and KPD ? The best way to answer this question would be to track voters choices with the help of individual level survey data. Given the unavailability of such data, I follow the affiliation choices of electoral candidates to assess the extent to which the early mover advantages of the fully licensed parties translated into long-term, durable organizational benefits. Such an analysis is particularly interesting because party licensing ended shortly after the 1949 election; this lead to new party formations and the geographic expansion of heretofore only partially licensed parties. The time following the 1949 election then saw a significant increase in the demand for electoral candidates and allows us to use those candidates affiliations choices as a measure for how they viewed the various parties long-term electoral and organizational viability. Table 4 provides data on the affiliation choices of electoral candidates beyond the 1949 election. It tries to infer the long-term organizational advantages resulting from party licensing in two ways: Column a) simply indicates the carry over rate of candidates running in one or more previous elections while column b) presents the cumulative electoral experience by averaging the number of previous elections in which a partys candidates participated. Table 3 thus tries to demonstrate the organizational effects of party licensing by focusing on the continuity and seniority of a partys candidate pool.  ADDIN EN.CITE Shabad2002329For a similar analysis, see: 0Shabad, GoldieSlomczynski, Kazimierz2002The Emergence of Career Politicians in Post-Communist Democracies: Poland and the Czech RepublicLegislative Studies Quarterly173333-59August(For a similar analysis, see: Shabad and Slomczynski 2002) Looking at candidates, rather than the more common focus on incumbents, has the advantage of increasing the number of observations and of eliminating the impact of elections. If I were to restrict the analysis to incumbents, both the carry-over rates and electoral experience would be affected not just but individual candidates affiliation choices but also the seats gains and losses of their parties. . Table 4: Electoral Carry-over (a) and Electoral Experience (b) 19531957196119651969a)b)a)b)a)b)a)b)a)b)1) CDU/CSU35%1.352%1.759%2.153%2.152%2.22) SPD39%1.451%1.854%3.051.%2.144%2.03) FDP29%1.327%1.441%1.646%1.939%1.84) KPD23.4%1.2Average31.6%1.343.3%1.651.3%2.250.0%2.045.0%2.05) DP/GDP9.6%1.123.6%1.340.5%1.620.9%1.46) GB/BHE5.3%1.129.5%1.37) BP23.3%1.219.3%1.29.1%1.28) Z/FU40%1.434.5%1.59) DRP/NPD7.9%1.18.2%1.125.7%1.321.5%1.331.1%1.4Avg. 5-9)17.2%1.220.2%1.233.1%1.521.5%1.323.9%1.4Avg. 1-9)24.0%1.230.0%1.444.0%1.943.0%1.933.0%1.6Legend: 1) Column a): Carry-over; 2) column b) Electoral Experience (average number of electoral candidates of all party candidates; 3) Merged cells indicate party mergers. Source:  ADDIN EN.CITE Bundeswahlleiter1949-6929110Bundeswahlleiter1949-69Die Wahlbewerber für die Wahl zum BundestagBonnStatistisches Bundesamt1949-69(Bundeswahlleiter 1949-69) Comparing fully licensed with partly licensed parties (e.g. parties 1 to 4 versus 5 to 9), we can notice that the former had significantly higher carry-over and electoral experience rates over the first three electoral cycles. The carry-over for fully licensed was consistently between 12-28% higher than that of partly licensed parties and, by 1957, candidates of fully licensed parties ran on average for 0.4 to 0.7 more elections than their counterparts. There are a few minor departures form this overall pattern. The catholic Zentrum and the regional Bavarian Party (BP) depart from this general pattern by having higher carry-over rates than other partially licensed parties. The Zentrum also was fully licensed in the entire British Zone and the Americans granted the BP in 1948 a license for Bavaria, the only district in which it ran. The low 1957 carry-over for the FDP reflected an important internal schism in which sixteen deputies, including four ministers, left their party in 1956 over policy differences.  ADDIN EN.CITE Dittberner1984273, 1345-467Dittberner, Jürgen1984Die Freie Demokratische ParteiStöss, RichardParteien Handbuch. Die Parteien der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 1945-1980OpladenWestdeutscher Verlag21311-81(Dittberner 1984, 1345-46) In 1953, the carry over rate of 23.6% was noticeably lower than for other elections; this deviation is attributable to the increase of Bundestags size by 85 deputies. Besides these anomalies, the overall pattern clearly shows that fully licensed parties were far more successful in retaining a higher percentage of candidates and for a longer period of time than the partly licensed or post 1949 parties. From the literature on legislative recruitment, we know that such continuity and seniority translate into greater professionalization and ultimately also higher levels of party institutionalization.  ADDIN EN.CITE Shabad20023290Shabad, GoldieSlomczynski, Kazimierz2002The Emergence of Career Politicians in Post-Communist Democracies: Poland and the Czech RepublicLegislative Studies Quarterly173333-59AugustWessel19972867Wessel, Bernhard1997GermanyNorris, PippaPassages to PowerCambridgeCambridge University Press76-97Borchert20032877Borchert, JensGolsch, Lutz2003The Political Class in Advanced DemocraciesBorchert, JensZeiss, JürgenThe Political Class in Advanced DemocraciesOxfordOxford University Press142-63(Borchert and Golsch 2003; Shabad and Slomczynski 2002; Wessel 1997) III. COORDINATION STRATEGIES: Historical factors set post-war Germanys party system on a favorable path. They explain the rapid re-establishment of the SPD and, especially through party licensing, gave licensed parties an early mover advantage which compounded over time. However, these legacies and the increasing returns they produced certainly constrained actors without however leaving them without choices. The very lifting of party licensing a few months before the 1949 election meant that in that election the ENEP rose to 4.8 from 3.4 in the previous 1946-48 state elections. As we will see, this increase was the result of new party entries many of which had strong regional support. (i.e. DP, SSW, BP and WAV) After 1949, the German party system was two tiered; it was vertically fragmented along national fault lines defined by the four fully licensed parties and horizontally divided across the regional identities represented either partially licensed parties or new entrants. There were few indications that this second, regional tier would disappear as quickly as it did. The regional parties had strong historical roots and their strength was sufficiently concentrated that in three states they came within a few percentage points of matching the CDU/CSUs vote share. The institutional incentives for strategic voting also were weak given Germanys permissive electoral system and federal system. In understanding, why historical factors contributed to the rapid formation of party system it is insufficient to invoke functional arguments about increasing returns, as path dependency arguments are prone to do, without also clearly specifying actors and their strategies the employed to capitalize on their early mover advantages. We therefore need to primarily analyze the four major parties and the coordination strategies they employed to accentuate their early advantages. We also have study remaining smaller parties to understand how they failed to use coordination strategies to mitigate their early disadvantages. Germany politicians used four coordination strategies after 1949: strategy entry, electoral engineering, party switching and formation of electoral coalitions. Strategic Entry: Strategies to coordinate the entries of new candidates or parties significantly affect strategic voting as it shapes shape pre-electoral expectations about the entrants electoral viability. Parties employ three entry strategies. First, they reduce the supply of their candidates through party-internal candidate recruitment regulations. Such regulations seek to prevent vote splitting among similarly minded voters by offering them a single, party-endorsed candidate.  ADDIN EN.CITE Ranney1968897Ranney, Austin1968Candidate Selection and Party Cohesion in Britain and the United StatesWilliam CrottyApproaches to the Study of Party OrganizationBostonAllyn and Bacon139-57Cox199716, 157-601Cox, Gary1997Making Votes Count. Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral SystemsCambridgeCambridge University Press(Cox 1997, 157-60; Ranney 1968) Second, party laws oftentimes restrict the supply of parties to the extent that they require formidable signature or membership requirements, the more they will increase the entry costs and thus limit the number of electoral entrants.  ADDIN EN.CITE Birnir2004292, 4-140Birnir, Johanna Kristin2004Stabelizing Party Systems and Excluding Segments of Society ? The Effects of Formation Costs on New Party Foundation in Latin AmericaStudies in Comparative lnternational Development3933-27Fall(Birnir 2004, 4-14) Third, party laws in mnay post-authoritarian democracies contain democratic litmus tests which permit banning of entire parties or individual politicians.  ADDIN EN.CITE Kieran20053420Kieran, WilliamsFowler, Brigid Szczerbiak, Aleks2005Explaining Lustration in Central Europe: a 'Post-communist Politics' ApproachDemocratization12122 - 43FebruaryNorris200283, 83-951Norris, Pippa2005The Radical Right. Voters and Parties in the Electoral Market.CambridgeCambridge University Press(Kieran, Fowler, and Szczerbiak 2005; Norris 2005, 83-95) The more restrictive such litmus tests are and the more discretion elected politicians, as opposed to less partisan constitutional courts, have in enforcing them, the more likely they will constrain the entries of new parties. At this point readers might ask at this point in what ways party laws differ from the aforementioned party licensing. The two strategies are identical in that they seek to control the number of entrants, but they differ in that they involve different actors. As licensing agents, the Allies commanded different resources than regular parties and also had very different goals than regular parties; I therefore treat them as historical factor rather than a coordination strategy. Of these three strategies, only party laws in form of party bans were employed in post-war Germany. Banning of parties or former Nazis barely influenced strategic voting. The Allies de-Nazifization program effectively barred all medium to high ranking Nazi officials from running for public office.  ADDIN EN.CITE Edinger1960218, 64-680Edinger, Lewis1960Post-Totalitarian Leadership: Elites in the German Federal RepublicAmerican Political Science Review54158-82March(Edinger 1960, 64-68) Moreover, the post-war constitution permitted the Constitutional Court to ban extremist or anti-democratic parties. The Court did so on two occasions, banning the neo-Nazi SRP in 1952 and the KPD in 1956. These bans did not affect voters strategic voting since the two parties were so small to be electorally unviable in the first place.  ADDIN EN.CITE Padgett1986278, 291Padgett, StephenBurkett, Tony1986Parties and Elections in West Germany: the Search for StabilityLondonC. Hurst(Padgett and Burkett 1986, 29) The SRP gained considerable public attention by winning 11% of the votes in 1951 Niedersachsen state election and 7% in the 1951 Bremen state election. Despite these two regional successes, the party had limited support in other states. It won only 1.7% of all votes cast in the 1949-52 state elections, before it was banned from running in a federal election.  ADDIN EN.CITE Kaack1971220, 207-081Kaack, Heino1971Geschichte und Struktur des deutschen ParteiensystemsOpladenWestdeutscher VerlagGermany, Party, PostwarC:\My Archives\EndNotes Libraries\URL Attachment-Articles\Kaack_Parteiensystem.pdf(Kaack 1971, 207-08) Similarly, the KPD won only 2.2% of votes in the 1953 federal election and 2.8% of the votes during the 1953-56 Lnder elections, thus failing to cross either electoral threshold. Clearly, voters, rather than party bans, contributed to the two parties decline. ELECTORAL ENGINEERING: Frequent chances of electoral procedures are a common characteristic of transitional party systems. With each election, politicians acquire more information about their own and their competitors electoral strength and, response to such information, they will coordinate efforts to maximize their seat share by modifying electoral procedures. Figure 2 provides a chronology of these institutional changes that took place following the 1949 election. Of the four institutional changes, the raising in 1953 of the 5% electoral threshold from the state to the national level affected the affected strategic most directly, while the other three strategies were of relatively minor significance.  SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT   ADDIN EN.CITE Kaack1972240Sources: , 20-210Kaack, Heino1972Fraktions- und Parteiwechsler im Deutschen BundestagZeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen313-27Germany, Electoral System, Party, PostwarNetLexikon26631NetLexikonDeutsche Politikhttp://www.lexikon-definition.de/Liste-der-Mitglieder-des-Deutschen-Bundestageshttp://www.lexikon-definition.de/Liste-der-Mitglieder-des-Deutschen-Bundestages-%281.-Wahlperiode%29.html(Sources: Kaack 1972, 20-21; NetLexikon) Electoral Threshold: Table 5 assesses the impact of the new, federal 5% threshold by looking at the ENEP at both the state and federal level. Since state-level and federal electoral districts overlapped, it is possible to compare the effects of the two different electoral thresholds across 36 elections rather than just two federal ones. I use the ENEP because it reflects strategic voting more accurately than ENPP. Table 5: ENEP in Lnder Elections and Federal Electoral Districts* Federal 1949Lnder 1949-52Federal 1953Lnder 1953-56Schleswig-Holstein4.75.23.14.1Bremen4.84.743.4Bayern4.84.83.33.9Baden-Wrttemberg4.342.93.4Nordhein-Westfalen3.93.82.83.3Rheinland-Pfalz2.83.32.73Niedersachsen5.14.74.34.3Hamburg4.13.13.82.2Hessen4.133.83.5Median4.543.33.5*Does not include Saarland because did not rejoin Federal Republic until 1957 nor Wrttemberg-Baden and Wrttemberg-Hohenzollern because merged in 1952 to become Baden-Wrttemberg.  ADDIN EN.CITE Kaack1971220Source: 1Kaack, Heino1971Geschichte und Struktur des deutschen ParteiensystemsOpladenWestdeutscher VerlagGermany, Party, PostwarC:\My Archives\EndNotes Libraries\URL Attachment-Articles\Kaack_Parteiensystem.pdf(Source: Kaack 1971) Table 4 underscores the significant impact that the higher 1953 threshold had on strategic voting. It contributed in 1953 to a drop in the median party fragmentation of 1.2 parties compared with the 1949 election and 0.7 number of parties when compared to average fragmentation for the 1949-52 state elections. These aggregate drops also are very consistent across the individual electoral districts; all nine districts in 1953 had lower fragmentation levels than in the 1949 and seven districts in 1953 had lower levels than in the preceding state elections. Moreover, minor parties, that is parties other than the CDU/CSU, SPD or FDP, were most adversely affected by the new electoral threshold; in 1953, they lost 11.3% of the votes they had won in the 1949 and 10.2% of the votes they had received in the preceding state elections. Having regional strongholds, these minor parties had no difficulties crossing the state level thresholds. Their national support, however, was close or below the new five percent threshold, thus accounting for the defection of a significant number of voters in 1953 election. In this election, only two districts did not see decline in fragmentation. The unexpected increase in Hamburg and Hessens 1953 fragmentation levels at first suggests that its voters did not vote strategically. On closer analysis, this increase in fragmentation reflected exceptional electoral alliances that parties formed in the preceding state elections thus artificially lowering state-level fragmentation. In Hamburg, the CDU and FPD formed an anti-socialist alliance - the Vaterstdtischen Bund Hamburg (VBH) - to compete more effectively against the dominant SPD; in Hessen, the highly nationalist FDP state party merged with the right BEH by inviting its candidates to run on its electoral list.  ADDIN EN.CITE Stöss1984272, 14347Stöss, Richard1984Der Gesamtdeutsche Block/BHEStöss, RichardBacia, JürgenParteien-Handbuch: die Parteien der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 1945-1980OpladenWestdeutscher Verlag11424-59Germany, Electoral System, Party, PostwarDittberner1984273, 1313-147Dittberner, Jürgen1984Die Freie Demokratische ParteiStöss, RichardParteien Handbuch. Die Parteien der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 1945-1980OpladenWestdeutscher Verlag21311-81(Dittberner 1984, 1313-14; Stss 1984, 1434) This Lnder electoral alliances were not repeated in the 1953 federal election thus accounting for the increased fragmentation in those two districts; so, it was change in elite behavior, rather than strategic voting, which accounts for this anomaly. Looking at the fragmentation of state elections following the 1953 federal election offers another opportunity to assess the effects of the new, national electoral threshold. The last column in Table 4 shows that median fragmentation increased by 0.2 parties compared to 1953 but dropped by 0.5 parties when compared with the 1949-52 state elections. Voters thus responded to the lower threshold in the post-1953 state elections by returning to smaller parties but clearly not at the same rate as during the previous round of state elections. So most likely, only a small percent of voters who defected from small parties in 1953returned to those parties once the incentives for strategic voting declined in the state elections. Other Procedural Changes: Compared to the electoral threshold, the introduction of the second ballot, change in secondary electoral threshold, and size requirement for parliamentary caucuses had only a minor impact on strategic voting. The original electoral law granted parties parliamentary representation that won a single district but failed to cross the 5% threshold. In 1957, this secondary threshold was increased from one to three SMD; this increase was largely a concession from the CDU to the FDP which hoped to further weaken minor parties, leaving it as the only remaining swing party.  ADDIN EN.CITE Jesse1985101, 226-271Jesse, Eckhard1985Wahlrecht zwischen Kontinuität und Reform. Eine Analyse der Wahlsystemdiskussion und der Wahlrechtsänderung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1949-83DüsseldorfDrosteKK5272 .J47 1985Germany; Electoral System(Jesse 1985, 226-27) The increase was inconsequential since small parties, facing strategic voting, never were competitive in SMD districts. For example, if we simulate the 1953 election with the 1957 three SMD threshold, the ENPP would have dropped from 2.79 to 2.7, preventing only the Zentrum from making it into the Bundestag. The introduction of the second ballot in 1953 has frequently led scholars to over-estimate its importance. Starting in 1953, voters got to cast two separate ballots: a district vote used in winner-take-all district races and a party vote applied to the state-wide party lists. The two separate votes permitted ticket splitting and thus have repeatedly created the impression that parties could make voters count more if they coordinated their ticket splitting. Leave out for now: Kathleen Bawn, for example, claims, without clearly demonstrating how, that ticket splitting in the 1950s could change as many as many as 17 seats.  ADDIN EN.CITE Bawn199387, 9770Bawn, Kathleen1993The Logic of Institutional Preferences: German Electoral Law as a Social Choice OutcomeAmerican Journal of Political Science37965–89Germany; Electoral System\\sac2000\mkreuzer\EndNotes Libraries\URL Attachment-Articles\Bawn 1993.pdf(Bawn 1993, 977) The first ballot only determines how many SMD, as opposed to list seats, a party wins and has no bearing on its overall seat share which is exclusively based on the second ballot. The first ballot, in other words, merely adds a personalizing element, permitting voters to express a personal preference for individual candidates. So given the centrality of the second vote for a partys overall seat share, any additional SMD seats won through ticket splitting are inconsequential. This fact is frequently lost on voters and politicians alike who keep on believing that ticket splitting somehow can affect the overall seat distribution among parties.  ADDIN EN.CITE Jesse1985101, 265-681Jesse, Eckhard1985Wahlrecht zwischen Kontinuität und Reform. Eine Analyse der Wahlsystemdiskussion und der Wahlrechtsänderung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1949-83DüsseldorfDrosteKK5272 .J47 1985Germany; Electoral System(Jesse 1985, 265-68) The one instance, though, were ticket splitting actually can affect the seat distribution is when parties strategically withdraw candidates across districts to cross the secondary SDM electoral threshold. As we will see further below, the CDU withdrew in 1953 and 1957 candidates in a handful of safe SMD, thus artificially removing incentives for strategic voting, and instructed its voters to cast their ballots for one of their coalition partner (e.g. either the DP, Zentrum or FDP). The objective of such strategic withdrawals was to award these parties SMD seats so that they could clear the secondary electoral threshold even though they had little chance of crossing the national 5% electoral threshold. The double ballot made such strategic withdrawals far less costly for the CDU because its voters could still cast their decisive, second list vote for their party, thus assuring that ticket splitting would not reduce its seat share.  ADDIN EN.CITE Jesse1985101, 261-651Jesse, Eckhard1985Wahlrecht zwischen Kontinuität und Reform. Eine Analyse der Wahlsystemdiskussion und der Wahlrechtsänderung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1949-83DüsseldorfDrosteKK5272 .J47 1985Germany; Electoral System(Jesse 1985, 261-65) Not surprisingly, the number of strategic withdrawals increased from 31 in 1949 to 77 in 1953 before dropping, largely because of the CDUs absorption of many small parties, to 20 in 1957. The more general impact such strategic withdrawals had on party fragmentation is discussed in the papers final section.  ADDIN EN.CITE Schindler1984236, 106-1101Schindler, Peter1984Datenhandbuch zur Geschichte des Deutschen Bundestages 1949 bis 1982Baden-BadenNomos3rdGermany, Electoral System, Party, Postwar(Schindler 1984, 106-110) Finally, in 1951, the SPD and CDU/CSU cooperated to raise the number of deputies required to form a parliamentary faction from 11 to 15. Their goal was to make committee work more efficient by excluding smaller parties. The rule change contributed to the loss of the KPDs committee assignments. It would have meant the same for the nine Zentrum and thirteen BP deputies had they not joined together in the newly formed FU. Similarly, the 7 WAV deputies retained their committee assignments by joining the DP.  ADDIN EN.CITE Kaack1972240, 210Kaack, Heino1972Fraktions- und Parteiwechsler im Deutschen BundestagZeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen313-27Germany, Electoral System, Party, Postwar(Kaack 1972, 21) These party switches had no significant overall effect, reducing the ENPP from 4.01 to 3.98. PARTY SWITCHING: Most rational choice scholars model treat political parties as member-less and infrastructure-free coalitions of office seekers who continuously re-evaluate their membership.  ADDIN EN.CITE Laver19992507Laver, MichaelShepsle, Kenneth1999How Political Parties Emerged from the Primeval Slime: Party Cohesion, Party Discipline and the Formation of GovernmentsBowler, ShaunFarrell, DavidKatz, RichardParty Discipline and Parliamentary GovernmentColumbusOhio State Universtiy23-52Aldrich199511Aldrich, John1995Why Parties ? The Origins and Transformation of Party Politics in AmericaChicagoUniversity of Chicago PressGeddes19941621Geddes, Barbara1994Politician's Dilemma. Building State Capacity in Latin AmericaBerkeleyUniversity of California Press(Aldrich 1995; Geddes 1994; Laver and Shepsle 1999) This conceptualization, while empirically inaccurate, has the theoretical merit of highlighting the propensity of politicians to switch their party affiliations under certain conditions and, when doing so, altering a party system between elections. Such switches usually are accompanied by personality disputes or factional squabbles which generate considerable publicity and therefore provide voters with information about parties changing electoral prospects. The amount of switching and the specific types of switches are key for understanding how they ultimately affect strategic voting; the more switching pools seats, the more likely voters will upgrade the winning chances of the party attracting the switchers and vote for them and vice versa. Frequency and Types of Switching: Table 5 provides information about the frequency and the nature of German party switchers. The first row indicates that switching was a temporary phenomenon - with the number of switchers declining rapidly and disappearing altogether after 1961. The second row identifies switchers according to the size of their party of origin; it shows that switchers originating from minor parties account for most switches. This is hardly surprising given the fact that small parties precarious existence made them unattractive both to existing members contemplating defection as well as prospective joiners from other parties. By contrast, the major parties experienced much lower levels of switching because they provided more secure career paths for their members. Deputies leaving one the three big parties almost always did so because of important policy differences rather than uncertainty about their careers. Such a difference, for example, led in 1956 to the defection of 16 FDP deputies who formed the shortlived FVP before joining the DP.  ADDIN EN.CITE Dittberner1984273, 1324-267Dittberner, Jürgen1984Die Freie Demokratische ParteiStöss, RichardParteien Handbuch. Die Parteien der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 1945-1980OpladenWestdeutscher Verlag21311-81(Dittberner 1984, 1324-26) These 16 defectors also also explain why the percentage of minor party switchers was so much lower during the 1953-57 electoral cycle. Table 5: Post-war German Party Switching 1949-531953-571957-61% of Deputies Switching 14.2% (n: 57)7.6% (n: 37)4.3% (n: 21)% of Switches Involving Minor Parties93.2%66.7%85.7%Source:  ADDIN EN.CITE Schindler1984236, 237-541Schindler, Peter1984Datenhandbuch zur Geschichte des Deutschen Bundestages 1949 bis 1982Baden-BadenNomos3rdGermany, Electoral System, Party, Postwar(Schindler 1984, 237-54) What then were the re-affiliation preferences of the deputies defecting from minor parties ? The answer to this question is key for understanding how switching affected the consolidation of the German party system. German deputies had different switching options (e.g. hopping among existing parties, fusions and fissions) and could re-affiliate between parties of very different sizes and ideological orientations. Among the possible choices, Table 6 highlights the two which pooled seats the most and, thus, were most likely to induce strategic voting. These choices were minor party deputies switching to either the CDU/CSU, SPD or FDP, or merging with other minor party candidates. Row 3 lumps the remaining switching strategies under Others. This category includes fissions, hopping from major to minor parties or lateral hopping among small parties or even large parties. Such strategies would dilute seat concentration, reduce parties electoral viability and thus led to strategic defections. Table 6 reports individual switches rather than individual switchers; it therefore reflects multiple switches of deputies who changed their party affiliations several times during a legislative period. Table 6: Types of Party Switches 1949-531953-571957-611) Hopping to CDU or FDP10 (9.7%)17 (23.6%)15 (71.4%)2) Fusion among Minor Parties*27 (26.2%)17 (23.6%)03) Other66 (64.1%)38 (52.7%)6 (28.6%)* Minor party candidates defined as all candidates not belonging to CDU/CSU, FPD, or KPD Source:  ADDIN EN.CITE Schindler1984236, 237-541Schindler, Peter1984Datenhandbuch zur Geschichte des Deutschen Bundestages 1949 bis 1982Baden-BadenNomos3rdGermany, Electoral System, Party, Postwar(Schindler 1984, 237-54) Switching and Strategic Voting: Table 6 underscores three broad switching patterns. First, the switching strategies which dilute seats were almost exclusively confined to the first parliamentary term; they also account for much of the initially high switching level. The 66 switches recorded between 1949-53 fall in roughly two categories. Some switchers changed their party affiliation because they preferred the new partys platform. Such policy motivated switching was common right after the 1949 election. Prior to the election, many deputies joined parties that had not yet settled on a party program. As parties clarified their program during the election, various initial joiners reassessed their ideological fit and switch to ideologically more compatible parties. Other switchers belonged to refugee organizations that did not receive party licenses in time for the 1949 election. These candidates cleverly got around this obstacle by running either as independents or as guest candidates on other parties lists. Not wanting to overstay their welcome, these guest candidates switched out of their host party, the WAV, and formed their own parliamentary faction, the GB/BHE. Such formation was possible because no more licenses were needed after the 1949 election.  ADDIN EN.CITE Kaack1972240, 190Kaack, Heino1972Fraktions- und Parteiwechsler im Deutschen BundestagZeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen313-27Germany, Electoral System, Party, Postwar(Kaack 1972, 19) After 1953, switches in the Other category dropped noticeably; 30 of the 38 switches in 1953-57 were the result of the FDPs 1956 schism. Second, fusion related switches declined rapidly during the first two electoral cycles. They essentially served as stop-gap measures helping smaller parties to counter strategic voting by pooling their voters and resources. This was the primary motivation for the BP and Zentrum to form the FU in 1951, the WAVs fusion with the DP in the same year, and the FVPs merger with the DP in 1957. All these mergers were marriages of convenience and their principle goal was to convince voters that the fused parties had enough electoral support to cross the 5% electoral threshold. These mergers did not succeed in stemming strategic defections and thus halting the parties electoral decline. Third, the CDU/CSU, and to a lesser extent the FPD, attracted a steady number of switchers throughout the 1950s while suffering only a few defections themselves. The deputies switching to the CDU/CSU did so as small groups rather than as individuals. Their re-affiliations profoundly impacted the party system but their impact owed more to who they were than how many of them there were. If we look strictly at the number of switchers, their impact was limited. Switchers added 1.5% to the CDUs parliamentary size in the first legislature (for a total of 36% of seats), 2.0% in the second (51.9%) and 2.4% in the third (56.7%). Such switchers did not alter the overall fragmentation since they were too infrequent to offset fissions and switches from larger to smaller parties. Switchers joining the CDU/CSU mattered somewhat more in 1953-57 because they increased the CDU/CSU a parliamentary majority and thus lessened its dependence on the other parties making up the coalition government. Switching Effect on Minor Parties: If the switchers joining the CDU/CSU were too few to reduce fragmentation, they were too important to be inconsequential for the parties from which they exited. The CDU/CSU accepted five of the twelve BP deputies in 1952, nine of the twenty seven GB/BHE deputies in 1955 and eleven out of seventeen DP deputies in 1960. These party switches received significant media attention and thus further undermined public confidence in electoral viability of the switchers old parties. Moreover, these parties winning prospects were further diminished by the fact that most switchers were senior party members with considerable public reputations, extensive contacts with interest groups and a lot of political experience. Losing the these assets undermined the electioneering effectiveness of the switchers old parties. These switches to the CDU/CSU all followed a similar pattern. They usually began with an internal crisis in the switchers old party. The trigger for such a crisis was either a disappointing election result or the concern about losing the partys identity by cooperating so closely with the CDU/CSU. In response to such a crisis, a majority faction usually responded by advocating the departure from the CDU/CSU-led federal coalition government, joining a state-level coalition government with the SPD or seeking a merger with another minor party. These proposals sought either to ideologically differentiate oneself from CDU/CSU and thereby win back disgruntled voters; or, in the case of mergers, to pool votes to reduce strategic voting. After these proposals were tabled, a minority faction opposed them because its members, usually senior party members, were unwilling to give up committee assignments, cabinet posts or, in the case of mergers, safe positions on the electoral lists that such breaks with the CDU/CSU or mergers with other parties would have entailed. After losing such fights and being accused of careerism, the members of the minority factions switched to the CDU/CSU.  ADDIN EN.CITE Dittberner1984273, 1324-267Dittberner, Jürgen1984Die Freie Demokratische ParteiStöss, RichardParteien Handbuch. Die Parteien der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 1945-1980OpladenWestdeutscher Verlag21311-81Schmidt1984289, 1040-42, 1082-837Schmidt, Ute1984Christlich Demokratische Union DeutschlandsStöss, RichardParteien Handbuch. Die Parteien der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 1945-1980OpladenWestdeutscher Verlag1490-660Germany, Electoral System, Party, PostwarMintzel1984290, 668-707Mintzel, Alf1984Die Christlich-Soziale Union in BayersStöss, RichardParteien Handbuch. Die Parteien der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 1945-1980OpladenWestdeutscher Verlag1661-718Germany, Electoral System, Party, PostwarCary1996281, 246-471Cary, Noel1996The Path to Christian Democracy. German Catholics and the Party System from Windhorst to AdenauerCambridgeHarvard University Press(Cary 1996, 246-47; Dittberner 1984, 1324-26; Mintzel 1984, 668-70; Schmidt 1984, 1040-42, 1082-83) Their decision was made all the easier by the CDU/CSUs promise to grant switchers the same seniority and offices they had in their old party. This ready welcome was part of Adenauers divide and conquer strategy which sought to weaken minor parties by strategically poaching some of their leaders.  ADDIN EN.CITE Cary1996281, 237, 266-671Cary, Noel1996The Path to Christian Democracy. German Catholics and the Party System from Windhorst to AdenauerCambridgeHarvard University Press(Cary 1996, 237, 266-67) He thought that such strategy required fewer concessions and political costs than would have been required by an outright fusions with minor parties. ELECTORAL COALITIONS: The formation of electoral coalitions offers politicians an important instrument for making votes count more effectively by temporarily reallocating votes to produce a more efficient translation of votes into seats.  ADDIN EN.CITE Cox199716, 671Cox, Gary1997Making Votes Count. Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral SystemsCambridgeCambridge University Press(Cox 1997, 67) Electoral coalitions can take three forms; apparantements (e.g. separate lists joined solely for seat allocation after voting); electoral alliances (e.g. merging of separate lists prior to voting) or coordination of candidate withdrawals across districts.  ADDIN EN.CITE Cox199716, 40-45, 61-621Cox, Gary1997Making Votes Count. Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral SystemsCambridgeCambridge University PressLijphart199454, 134-38, 1901Lijphart, Arend1994Electoral Systems and Party Systems. A Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies, 1945-1990OxfordOxford University Press(Cox 1997, 40-45, 61-62; Lijphart 1994, 134-38, 190) The vote pooling effect of such coalitions certainly reduces defection of strategic voters but the resulting voter coordination doesnt necessarily reduce the number of parties in a lasting fashion. Electoral coalitions usually are temporary arrangements, involving small parties that try to rescue each other from losing their seats by pooling their votes.  ADDIN EN.CITE Cox199716, 681Cox, Gary1997Making Votes Count. Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral SystemsCambridgeCambridge University Press(Cox 1997, 68) Of the three coalition arrangements, German politicians used only electoral alliances and candidate withdrawals. And of those two only the latter had any effect on party system formation. Electoral Alliances: Electoral alliances were inconsequential because they involved tinny parties and were limited to the 1949 election. These alliances were piggy back arrangements through which unlicensed parties entered parliament. The unlicensed party would actively campaign for its allied party in return for a few safe list positions. Three such piggy back alliances materialized in 1949. The FDP in Hessen offered the NDP a few list positions in return for its electoral support. This alliance boosted the FDPs vote share in Hessen to 28%, much higher than in other states. It led to the election of the NDPs party chairmen Heinrich Leuchtgens who, after the election, immediately left the FPD and founded the DRP.  ADDIN EN.CITE Schmidt1984289, 1898-997Schmidt, Ute1984Christlich Demokratische Union DeutschlandsStöss, RichardParteien Handbuch. Die Parteien der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 1945-1980OpladenWestdeutscher Verlag1490-660Germany, Electoral System, Party, PostwarDittberner1984273, 13437Dittberner, Jürgen1984Die Freie Demokratische ParteiStöss, RichardParteien Handbuch. Die Parteien der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 1945-1980OpladenWestdeutscher Verlag21311-81(Dittberner 1984, 1343; Schmidt 1984, 1898-99) In Niedersachsen, the DKP-DRP formed an electoral alliance with the Gemeinschaft unabhngiger Deutscher whose two leaders were elected.  ADDIN EN.CITE Schmidt1984289, 1004-067Schmidt, Ute1984Christlich Demokratische Union DeutschlandsStöss, RichardParteien Handbuch. Die Parteien der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 1945-1980OpladenWestdeutscher Verlag1490-660Germany, Electoral System, Party, Postwar(Schmidt 1984, 1004-06) And in Bavaria, the WAV formed a joint list with a large refugee organization, helping to latter to elect six candidates.  ADDIN EN.CITE Woller1984271, 24601Woller, Hans1984Wirtschaftliche Aufbau-VereinigungStöss, RichardParteien Handbuch. Die Parteien der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 1945-1980OpladenWestdeutscher Verlag22458-81Germany, Electoral System, Party, PostwarStöss1984272, 14267Stöss, Richard1984Der Gesamtdeutsche Block/BHEStöss, RichardBacia, JürgenParteien-Handbuch: die Parteien der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 1945-1980OpladenWestdeutscher Verlag11424-59Germany, Electoral System, Party, Postwar(Stss 1984, 1426; Woller 1984, 2460) All these alliances were temporary as the piggy backing candidates left their host party immediately after the election. The overall effect of the alliances was minimal; they were one-time events leading to the election of nine candidates who otherwise would not have made into the Bundestag. Strategic Candidate Withdrawals: Strategic withdrawals across single member districts constituted a second and more important form of electoral coalition formation that were attractive to small and large parties alike. To the former, they provided an opportunity to clear the electoral threshold while, for the latter, they offered the possibility of rescuing small parties that were potential coalition partners. Kitzinger notes that even the very smallest parties that might somehow slip into the Bundestag under one arrangement or another might tip the scales between an Adenauer and an Ollenhauer [leader of the SPD] government. Both large parties were therefore prepared to intrigue with very minor groups and with otherwise insignificant men so as to gain every ounce of extra strength they could muster for a struggle of which the outcome seemed so uncertain.  ADDIN EN.CITE Kitzinger196088, 381Kitzinger, U. W.1960German Electoral PoliticsOxfordClarendon PressGermany; Electoral System(1960, 38) What made strategic withdrawals feasible was Germanys secondary electoral threshold which permitted parties to win seats if they won one and, after 1957, three single member districts. The secondary threshold was particularly attractive to smaller parties because they could win seats even if they failed to cross the primary 5% threshold. Smaller parties, however, stood little chance of winning SMD contests without larger parties withdrawing their candidates and instructing their voters to support the candidate of the small, allied party. Table 7 looks at the number of strategic withdrawals and differentiates among those involving withdrawals between the CDU/CSU and small parties and withdrawals among small parties. Every party withdrawing a single candidate was counted as one withdrawal. Table 7: Strategic Withdrawals 194919531957Involving CDU/CSU13 (61.9%)55 (71.4%)16 (80%)Not involving CDU/CSU18 (38.1%)22 (28.6%)4 (20%)Source:  ADDIN EN.CITE Schindler1984236, 107-1101Schindler, Peter1984Datenhandbuch zur Geschichte des Deutschen Bundestages 1949 bis 1982Baden-BadenNomos3rdGermany, Electoral System, Party, PostwarKitzinger196088, 40-421Kitzinger, U. W.1960German Electoral PoliticsOxfordClarendon PressGermany; Electoral System(Kitzinger 1960, 40-42; Schindler 1984, 107-110) Three things are immediately striking about these strategic withdrawals. First, strategic withdrawals among minor parties were never successful in helping parties to circumvent the primary, 5% threshold by crossing the secondary threshold. Second, most withdrawals were CDU/CSU-led rescue missions; they involved right of center parties that were too small to cross the 5% threshold but large enough to attractive as potential coalition partner for the CDU/CSU. It was exactly with this rescue objective in mind that the CDU/CSU fought for the inclusion of a secondary threshold in 1949.  ADDIN EN.CITE Jesse1985101, 250-701Jesse, Eckhard1985Wahlrecht zwischen Kontinuität und Reform. Eine Analyse der Wahlsystemdiskussion und der Wahlrechtsänderung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1949-83DüsseldorfDrosteKK5272 .J47 1985Germany; Electoral System(Jesse 1985, 250-70) The CDU/CSU used strategic withdrawals very selectively, offering it only to parties it wanted to include in its post-electoral coalition. For example, after the 1953 election, the CDU/CSU rebuffed the BP, the Center and FVP.  ADDIN EN.CITE Kitzinger196088, 43-501Kitzinger, U. W.1960German Electoral PoliticsOxfordClarendon PressGermany; Electoral System(Kitzinger 1960, 43-50) Third, strategic withdrawals constituted a temporary phenomenon which spiked in 1953 and disappeared altogether after 1957. Their heavy use in 1953 was directly related to the CDU/CSUs desire to rescue potential coalition partners whose seats were by the new 5% national threshold. This strategy proved highly effective. In 1957, it permitted the Zentrum and the DP to win three, respectively 15 seats even though they both failed to cross the 5% threshold. In 1957, it helped the DP once again to win 17. In 1953, these rescued seats added a 4% seat share to the CDU/CSUs (for a total of 45.1% ) and, in 1957, a 3.3% seat share (50.7%). The disappearance of strategic withdrawals after 1957, in turn, is explained by the CDU/CSU disinterest in rescuing parties whose electoral strength all but evaporated. The strategic withdrawals in 1949 were less consequential. The CDU/CSU, together with other parties, successfully supported in Northern Germany an independent candidate against the Danish minority party, the SWW. It also coordinated candidate withdrawals with the FDP which, however, were inconsequential because the FDP easily crossed the 5% threshold.  ADDIN EN.CITE Schindler1984236, 106-1101Schindler, Peter1984Datenhandbuch zur Geschichte des Deutschen Bundestages 1949 bis 1982Baden-BadenNomos3rdGermany, Electoral System, Party, Postwar(Schindler 1984, 106-110) Effects of Strategic Withdrawals: How then did these strategic withdrawals and electoral alliances affect the voters assessment of parties winning chance ? The literature generally views electoral coalitions as in impediment to strategic voting because they reduce the disadvantage of being a small party [and] removes an important incentive for small parties to merge, and hence, all other factors being equal, it should increase the effective numbers of parties.  ADDIN EN.CITE Lijphart199454, 1351Lijphart, Arend1994Electoral Systems and Party Systems. A Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies, 1945-1990OxfordOxford University Press(Lijphart 1994, 135) In the case of Germany, the fragmenting effect of electoral coalitions was minimal. If we simulate the ENPP without parties rescued by the CDU/CSU, then in 1953 fragmentation would have been 0.2 parties lower and 0.06 parties lower in 1957. Electoral coalitions thus had no significant impact on strategic voting. Electoral coalitions, however, influenced the formation of the German party system in three other ways. First, they helped the CDU/CSU form stable parliamentary majorities in 1953 and to a lesser degree in 1957. Second, strategic withdrawals moderated electoral competition. They prevented the DP, Zentrum and other parties hoping to be rescued by the CDU/CSU from outflanking it on the right by mobilizing nationalist, regionalists or otherwise extremist constituencies.  ADDIN EN.CITE Kaack1971220, 2201Kaack, Heino1971Geschichte und Struktur des deutschen ParteiensystemsOpladenWestdeutscher VerlagGermany, Party, PostwarC:\My Archives\EndNotes Libraries\URL Attachment-Articles\Kaack_Parteiensystem.pdf(Kaack 1971, 220) Third, CDU/CSUs rescue of smaller parties was a preliminary step to coopting their most prominent leaders and subverting their long-term organizational viability. Acting from the position of senior governing party, the CDU/CSU tactically exploited electoral alliances with the aim of rendering acceptable to some of the smaller parties electoral reforms that would weaken the latters position, until they were completely dependent on the support of the CDU/CSU itself to obtain seats. This two-track strategy of electoral reforms and electoral alliances allowed the CDU/CSU to absorb both the electorates and (part of) the elites of the smaller moderate groups.  ADDIN EN.CITE Capoccia2002268, 1940Capoccia, Giovanni2002The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws: The German System at FiftyWest European Politics253171-202July(Capoccia 2002, 194) FROM COORDINATION TO EQUILIBRIUM Party licensing, electoral engineering and, to a lesser extent, party switching and electoral coalitions improved the efficiency with which some parties vote were translated into seats, reduced voters initial informational deficit about parties winning prospects and permitted them to cast strategic votes. Taken together, these coordination strategies were crucial for structuring the German party system; they functioned in many ways as interim measures which created an equilibrium conditions under which both voters and politicians had fewer and fewer incentives to change their behavior. Very rapidly, German voters lost their incentives to change their voting choices based on a partys winning chances. They no longer chose from all available alternatives but began to restrict their choices to those parties with a good and proven winning record. This narrow of voters choice set explain why after 1953 over 90% of Germans voted either for the CDU/CSU, SPD or FDP. This is not to say that they did not switch among these three parties based on their policy positions, but it meant voters discounted the winning chances of all other parties to the point where they no longer were competitive. Similarly, German politicians reached a situation where they had fewer and fewer incentives to change their strategies. They saw fewer and fewer opportunities to maximize their seat share by adopting any of the coordination strategies. Consequently, they employed fewer and fewer coordination strategies which led their rapid decline during the 1950s and eventual disappearance in the 1960s. The pay-offs of pooling votes through electoral coalitions or increasing electoral thresholds diminished once parties electoral reputation created so much ex ante knowledge about their viability that there was little room left to manipulate it between elections. Finally, even prospective politicians, contemplating entering national electoral politics for the first time, had fewer and fewer incentives to do so. The probability of their success diminished as the winning chances of minor parties declined and the growing incumbency tenure of established parties reduced the number of attractive entry opportunities. With the demand for new candidates declining, their numbers running for the Bundestag dropped from 2226 in 1957 to 1633 in 1967. So by the early 1960s, politicians and voters faced fewer and fewer incentives to change their status quo choices, thus making the postwar German party system less indeterminate and moving it to a point where their mutual expectations had reached a stable equilibrium. It resembled what Gary Cox described as Market clearing expectations, attained in the hypothetical equilibria of political models, equate demand and supply. At those expectations, the number and type of candidates that voters are willing to vote for turns out to equal the number and type of candidates that are willing and able to stand for elections.  ADDIN EN.CITE Cox199716, 71Cox, Gary1997Making Votes Count. Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral SystemsCambridgeCambridge University Press(Cox 1997, 7) In other words, the voter driven demand for parties stabilized because voters now overwhelmingly chose among a narrow, and stable set of three party alternatives. By contrast, the supply of parties, controlled by politicians, also stabilized as both the external supply of brand new candidates declined and internal supply parties first dropped and then stabilized. Once both the coordination efforts of politicians and voters reached a stable equilibrium, the principle political dynamic shifted to the quadrennial electoral competition between parties. Politicians thus no longer coordinated efforts to make votes count but, instead, focused on winning them through electioneering; they shifted their attention from politicking over the structure of the party system to competing within it by winning votes. And voters no longer coordinated their expectations about parties winning chances but instead concentrated on selecting the party platform closest to their preferences. At that stage, a party system ceased its formation stage and began its transformation through electoral competition. It started to function just is it described in the works inspired by Maurice Duverger, Giovanni Sartori, Anthony Downs and others who theorized about established party systems. The difference between a party system, whose structures are undergoing formation, and one in transformation is occurring within existing structures helps us understand how the latter ultimately contributes to democratic consolidation. In such a fully formed party system, electioneering and voter choices, rather than inter-electoral politicking, are the key determinants of electoral outcomes. As a result, political conflicts increasingly assume an inter-temporal character that is so critical for democratic consolidation. The value of votes is no longer altered by continuous and oftentimes arbitrary political machinations at various points between elections; instead, votes retain the value that voters assigned them for a full parliamentary term. Politicians no longer try to fortify their temporary advantages through ex ante or ex post intra-electoral rule changes and vote-pooling arrangements. The disappearance of coordination strategies means that politicians have less and less ability to mitigate in advance unfavorable elections outcomes; it forces them to expand their time horizon from continuous inter-electoral coordination strategies to quadrennial electioneering. This change makes electoral outcomes increasingly uncertain and turns them the sort of judgment days capable of holding politicians accountable.  ADDIN EN.CITE Popper1988800Popper, Karl1988The Open Society and Its Enemies RevisitedEconomist19-22April 23(Popper 1988) This institutionalization of uncertainty also is crucial, as Adam Przeworski points out, for making electoral outcomes more readily acceptable to its losers, a key requisite for democratic consolidation. Przeworski links this consolidating effect to how institutions shape actors time horizons. The more uncertain electoral outcomes are for politicians, that is, the less they cab be altered or made more secure with the help of coordination strategies, the longer the actors time horizon allows actors to think about the future rather than being concerned exclusively with present outcomes.  ADDIN EN.CITE Przeworski199186, 19, 361Przeworski, Adam1991Democracy and the MarketCambridgeCambridge University Press(Przeworski 1991, 19, 36) It also creates a consolation effect for political losers by increasing the probability to they will win the next time around. This consolation effect in turn will make losers more likely to comply with the unfavorable election outcomes.  ADDIN EN.CITE Alexander200287, 56-781Alexander, Gerard2002The Sources of Democratic ConsolidationIthacaCornell University Press(Alexander 2002, 56-78) It ultimately provides an explanation for the miracle of democracy where conflicting forces obey the results of voting. People who have guns obey those without them. Incumbents risk their control of governmental office by holding elections. Losers wait for their chance to win office. Conflicts are regulated, processed according to rules, and thus limited. This is not consensus, yet not mayhem either. Just limited conflict; conflict without killing. Ballots are 'paper stones,' as Engels once observed.  ADDIN EN.CITE Przeworski198685, 11Przeworski, Adam and John Sprague1986Paper Stones. A History of Electoral SocialismChicagoUniversity of Chicago Press(Przeworski 1986, 1) Appendix I: Institutional explanations raise the question of whether institutions are genuinely independent causes or merely the effect of the prior factors (i.e. party system, cleavages) determining their choice.  ADDIN EN.CITE Colomer20052750Colomer, Josep2005It's Parties That Choose Electoral Systems (or, Duverger's Laws Upside Down)Political Studies531-21Boix19991420Boix, Carles1999Setting the Rules of the Game: the Choice of Electoral Systems in Advanced DemocraciesAmerican Political Science Review933609-24SeptemberShvetsova20032830Shvetsova, Olga2003Endogenous Selection of Institutions and Their Exogenous EffectsConstitutional Political Economy143191-212(Boix 1999; Colomer 2005; Shvetsova 2003). Checking for spuriousness of institutional effects is difficult as it requires very detailed and hard to come by information about what the motivations and information of the actors choosing the institutions..  ADDIN EN.CITE Benoit20042890Benoit, Kenneth2004Models of Electoral System ChangeElectoral Studies23363-89(Benoit 2004) Kathleen Bawn, for example, attributes the original adoption of the 1949 electoral system to the knowledge that parties had about their respective electoral strength. She argues that parties derived that knowledge from the 1946-48 state-level election their seat shares in the 1949 Parliamentary Council which selected the electoral system.  ADDIN EN.CITE Bawn199387968-720Bawn, Kathleen1993The Logic of Institutional Preferences: German Electoral Law as a Social Choice OutcomeAmerican Journal of Political Science37965–89Germany; Electoral System\\sac2000\mkreuzer\EndNotes Libraries\URL Attachment-Articles\Bawn 1993.pdf(Bawn 1993 968-72) Her account implies that the prior party system causes the electoral system, thus making institutional effects spurious. Erhard Langes far less theoretical but more detailed 883 page book provides different and in my estimation more convincing account. He also emphasizes the parties seat maximization as an important factor shaping their institutional preferences.  ADDIN EN.CITE Lange197598. 342-621Lange, Erhard1975Wahlrecht und InnenpolitikMeisenheimAnton HainJN3971.A95 L3 1975 (U. Penn)Germany; Electoral System(Lange 1975. 342-62) However, he cites additional factors and gives them far more weight. First, parties were not the only decision makers as the Allies and state governments also participated in the decision-making process. And these additional actors were interested in goals other than seat maximization.  ADDIN EN.CITE Lange197598, 376-881Lange, Erhard1975Wahlrecht und InnenpolitikMeisenheimAnton HainJN3971.A95 L3 1975 (U. Penn)Germany; Electoral System(Lange 1975, 376-88) Second, concerns about avoiding the extreme fragmentation and party ossification of the Weimar era played an important role for all the parties. Third, the information parties derived from the 1946-48 state level election was very unreliable for a number of reasons. Politicians did not know whether the Soviet zone would become part of the new Germany, nor did they have information where the 12 million refugees would settle and for who they would vote. Simulations run by parties proved inconclusive as the same electoral system favoring a party in one state would harm it in another.  ADDIN EN.CITE Lange197598, 216-18, 255, 7671Lange, Erhard1975Wahlrecht und InnenpolitikMeisenheimAnton HainJN3971.A95 L3 1975 (U. Penn)Germany; Electoral System(Lange 1975, 216-18, 255, 767) Fourth, whatever party system chose the electoral system was not a natural one but, as the next section shows, the direct result of Allies party licensing. In light of this evidence, it is difficult to argue conclusively that the post 1949 electoral system was the result of the pre 1949 party system. So whatever effect the 1949 electoral system had can reasonably be attributed to institutional factors rather than to some antecedent non-institutional factors. Bibliography:  ADDIN EN.REFLIST Abbott, Andrew. 1988. Transcending General Linear Reality. In Sociological Theory. Aldrich, John. 1995. Why Parties ? The Origins and Transformation of Party Politics in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Alexander, George, and Andrew Bennett. 2004. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press. Alexander, Gerard. 2002. The Sources of Democratic Consolidation. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Bawn, Kathleen. 1993. The Logic of Institutional Preferences: German Electoral Law as a Social Choice Outcome. American Journal of Political Science 37:96589. Benoit, Kenneth. 2004. Models of Electoral System Change. Electoral Studies 23:363-89. Bielasiak, Jack. 1997. Substance and Process in the Development of Party Systems in East Central Europe. Communist and Post-Communist Studies 30 (1):23-44. Bielasiak, Jack. 2002. The Institutionalization of Electoral and Party Systems in Postcommunist States. Comparative Politics 34 (2):189-210. Birch, Sarah. 2001. Electoral systems and party systems in Europe East and West. Perspectives on European Politics and Society 2 (3):355-77. Birnir, Johanna Kristin. 2004. Stabelizing Party Systems and Excluding Segments of Society ? The Effects of Formation Costs on New Party Foundation in Latin America. Studies in Comparative lnternational Development 39 (3):3-27. Birnir, Johanna Kristin. 2005. Public Venture Capital and Party Institutionalization. Comparative Political Studies 38 (8):915-38. Boix, Carles. 1999. Setting the Rules of the Game: the Choice of Electoral Systems in Advanced Democracies. American Political Science Review 93 (3):609-24. Borchert, Jens, and Lutz Golsch. 2003. The Political Class in Advanced Democracies. In The Political Class in Advanced Democracies, edited by J. Borchert and J. Zeiss. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bundeswahlleiter. 1949-69. Die Wahlbewerber fr die Wahl zum Bundestag. Bonn: Statistisches Bundesamt. Capoccia, Giovanni. 2002. The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws: The German System at Fifty. West European Politics 25 (3):171-202. Cary, Noel. 1996. The Path to Christian Democracy. German Catholics and the Party System from Windhorst to Adenauer. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Chhibber, Pradeep, and Kenneth Kollman. 2004. The Formation of National Party Systems. Federalism and Party Competition in Canada, Great Britain, India and the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Clark, T. D., and J. N. Wittrock. 2005. Presidentialism and the Effect of Electoral Law in Postcommunist Systems - Regime Type Matters. Comparative Political Studies 38 (2):171-188. Colomer, Josep. 2005. It's Parties That Choose Electoral Systems (or, Duverger's Laws Upside Down). Political Studies 53:1-21. Cox, Gary. 1987. The Efficiency Secret. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cox, Gary. 1997. Making Votes Count. Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dawisha, Karen, and Stephen Deets. 2006. Political Learning in Post-Communist Elections. East European Politics and Societies 20 (4):691-728. Dittberner, Jrgen. 1984. Die Freie Demokratische Partei. In Parteien Handbuch. Die Parteien der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 1945-1980, edited by R. Stss. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row. Duch, Raymond and Harvey Palmer. 2002. Strategic Voting in Post-Communist Democracy? British Journal of Political Science 32 (1):63-91. Edinger, Lewis. 1960. Post-Totalitarian Leadership: Elites in the German Federal Republic. American Political Science Review 54 (1):58-82. Esser, Eckhard. 1985. Wahlrecht zwischen Kontinuitt und Reform. Dsseldorf: Droste Verlag. Filippov, Mikhail , Peter Ordeshook, and Olga Shvetsova. 1999. Party Fragmentation and Presidential Systems in Postcommunist Democracies. Constitutional Political Economy 10 (1):3-26. Geddes, Barbara. 1994. Politician's Dilemma. Building State Capacity in Latin America. Berkeley: University of California Press. Gerring, John. 2007. Case Study Research. Principles and Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Golosov, G. V. 2003. Electoral Systems and Party Formation in Russia - A Cross-regional Analysis. Comparative Political Studies 36 (8):912-935. Grzymala-Busse, Anna Maria. 2002. Redeeming the Communist Past. The Regeneration of Communist Parties in East Central Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gunther, Richard. 1989. Electoral Laws, Party Systems, and Elites: the Case of Spain. American Political Science Review 83 (3):835-58. Hall, Peter. 2003. Aligning Ontology and Methodology in Comparative Politics. In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, edited by J. Mahoney and D. Rueschmeyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Herron, E. S., and M. Nishikawa. 2001. Contamination effects and the number of parties in mixed-superposition electoral systems. Electoral Studies 20 (1):63-86. Horowitz, Shale, and Eric C. Browne. 2005. Sources of Post-Communist Party System Consolidation: Ideology Versus Institutions 10.1177/1354068805057605. Party Politics 11 (6):689-706. Ishiyama, J. T., and R. Kennedy. 2001. Superpresidentialism and Political Party Development in Russia, Ukraine, Armenia and Kyrgyzstan. Europe-Asia Studies 53 (8):1177-1191. Jesse, Eckhard. 1985. Wahlrecht zwischen Kontinuitt und Reform. Eine Analyse der Wahlsystemdiskussion und der Wahlrechtsnderung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1949-83. Dsseldorf: Droste. Jones, M. P. 1993. The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws in Latin-America and the Caribbean. Electoral Studies 12 (1):59-75. Kaack, Heino. 1971. Geschichte und Struktur des deutschen Parteiensystems. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Kaack, Heino. 1972. Fraktions- und Parteiwechsler im Deutschen Bundestag. Zeitschrift fr Parlamentsfragen 3 (1):3-27. Kieran, Williams, Brigid Fowler, and Aleks Szczerbiak. 2005. Explaining Lustration in Central Europe: a 'Post-communist Politics' Approach. Democratization 12 (1):22 - 43. Kitschelt, Herbert, Zdenka Mansfeldova, Radoslaw Markowski, and Gabor Toka. 1999. Post-communist Party Systems: Competition, Representation, and Inter-Party Cooperation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kitzinger, U. W. 1960. German Electoral Politics. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Kostadinova, T. 2002. Do Mixed Electoral Systems Matter?: a Cross-National Analysis of their Effects in Eastern Europe. Electoral Studies 21 (1):23-34. Kreuzer, Marcus. 2001. Institutions and Innovation. Voters, Parties, and Interest Groups in the Consolidation of Democracy - France and Germany, 1870-1939. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Kreuzer, Marcus , and Vello Pettai. 2003. Patterns of Political Instability: Affiliation Patterns of Politicians and Voters in Postcommunist Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Studies in Comparative International Development 38 (2):73-95. Lange, Erhard. 1975. Wahlrecht und Innenpolitik. Meisenheim: Anton Hain. Laver, Michael, and Kenneth Benoit. 2003. The Evolution of Party Systems between Elections. American Journal of Political Science 47 (2):215-33. Laver, Michael, and Kenneth Shepsle. 1999. How Political Parties Emerged from the Primeval Slime: Party Cohesion, Party Discipline and the Formation of Governments. In Party Discipline and Parliamentary Government, edited by S. Bowler, D. Farrell and R. Katz. Columbus: Ohio State Universtiy. Lepsius, Rainer. 1973. Parteiensystem und Sozialstruktur: zum Problem der Demokratisierung der deutschen Gesellschaft. In Deutsche Parteien vor 1918, edited by G. A. Ritter. Cologne: Kiepenheuer & Witsch. Lijphart, Arend. 1994. Electoral Systems and Party Systems. A Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies, 1945-1990. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Loewenberg, Gerhard. 1971. The Remaking of the German Party System. In European Politics: A Reader, edited by M. Dogan and R. Rose. Boston: Little Brown and Co. Mainwaring, Scott. 1999. Rethinking Party Systems in the Third Wave of Democratization: the Case of Brazil. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Meguid, Bonnie M. 2001. Competing with the Neophyte: The Role of Mainstream Party Strategy in Rising Party Success. Paper read at Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, August 30-September 2, at San Francisco. Mintzel, Alf. 1984. Die Christlich-Soziale Union in Bayers. In Parteien Handbuch. Die Parteien der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 1945-1980, edited by R. Stss. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Moser, Robert G. 2001. Unexpected Outcomes. Electoral Systems, Political Parties and Representation in Russia. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Munck, Gerado. 2004. Tools for Qualitative Research. In Rethinking Social Inquiry. Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, edited by H. Brady and D. Collier. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. NetLexikon. Deutsche Politik:  HYPERLINK "http://www.lexikon-definition.de/Liste-der-Mitglieder-des-Deutschen-Bundestages" http://www.lexikon-definition.de/Liste-der-Mitglieder-des-Deutschen-Bundestages. Norris, Pippa. 2004. Electoral Engineering. Voting Rules and Political Behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Norris, Pippa. 2005. The Radical Right. Voters and Parties in the Electoral Market. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ordeshook, Peter, and Olga Shvetsova. 1994. Ethnic Heterogeneity, District Magnitude, and the Number of Parties. American Journal of Political Science 38:100-123. Padgett, Stephen, and Tony Burkett. 1986. Parties and Elections in West Germany: the Search for Stability. London: C. Hurst. Pierson, Paul. 2000. Not Just What, but When: Timing and Sequence in Political Processes. Studies in American Political Development 14:7292. Pierson, Paul. 2003. Big, Slow-Moving and Invisible: Macrosocial Proesses in the Study of Comparative Politics. In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, edited by J. Mahoney and D. Rueschmeyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Popper, Karl. 1988. The Open Society and Its Enemies Revisited. Economist:19-22. Przeworski, Adam. 1991. Democracy and the Market. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Przeworski, Adam and John Sprague. 1986. Paper Stones. A History of Electoral Socialism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rae, Douglas. 1967. The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws. New Haven: Yale University Press. Ragin, Charles. 1994. Constructing Social Research. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press. Ranney, Austin. 1968. Candidate Selection and Party Cohesion in Britain and the United States. In Approaches to the Study of Party Organization, edited by W. Crotty. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Reich, G. 2004. The Evolution of New Party Systems: are Early Elections Exceptional? Electoral Studies 23 (2):235-250. Reich, G.M. 2001. Coordinating Party Choice in Founding Elections: Why Timing Matters. Comparative Political Studies 34 (10):1237-1263. Riker, William. 1986. "Duverger's Law Revisited,". In Electoral Laws and their Political Consequences, edited by B. G. a. A. Lijphart. New York: Agathon Press. Riker, William. 1990. Heresthetic and Rhetoric in the Spatial Model. In Advances in the Spatial Theory of Voting, edited by J. Enelown and M. Hinichn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rogers, Daniel. 1995. Politics after Hitler. The Western Allies and the German Party System. New York: New York University Press. Sartori, Giovanni. 1968. Political Development and Political Engineering. In Public Policy, edited by J. D. Montgomery and A. O. Hirschman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sartori, Giovanni. 1969. From the Sociology of Politics to Political Sociology. In Politics and the Social Sciences, edited by S. M. Lipset. New York: Oxford University Press. Schattschneider, E. E. 1970. Party Government. Westport: Greenwood Publications. Schieman, John. 2000. Meeting Halfway Between Rochester and Frankfurt: Generative Salience, Focal Points, and Strategic Interaction. American Journal of Political Science 44 (1):1-16. Schindler, Peter. 1984. Datenhandbuch zur Geschichte des Deutschen Bundestages 1949 bis 1982. 3rd ed. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Schmidt, Ute. 1984. Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands. In Parteien Handbuch. Die Parteien der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 1945-1980, edited by R. Stss. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Shabad, Goldie, and Kazimierz Slomczynski. 2002. The Emergence of Career Politicians in Post-Communist Democracies: Poland and the Czech Republic. Legislative Studies Quarterly 17 (3):333-59. Shabad, Goldie, and Kazimierz Slomczynski. 2004. Interparty Mobility among Political Elites in Post-Communist East Central Europe. Party Politics 10 (2):151-76. Shvetsova, Olga. 2002. Institutions and Coalition Building in Post-Communist Transitions. In The Architecture of Democracy, edited by A. Reynolds. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shvetsova, Olga. 2003. Endogenous Selection of Institutions and Their Exogenous Effects. Constitutional Political Economy 14 (3):191-212. Stepan, Alfred, and Juan Linz. 1992. Political Identities and Election Sequences: Spain, the Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia. Daedalus 121 (2):123-39. Stoll, Heather. 2005. Electoral Coordination and Political Institutions: From ElectoralSystems to the Power of the Prize. Paper read at Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, September 1-4, at Washington. Stoner-Weiss, Katherine. 2001. The Limited Reach of Russia's Party System: Underinstitutionalization in Dual Transition. Politics and Society 29 (3):385-414. Stss, Richard. 1984. Der Gesamtdeutsche Block/BHE. In Parteien-Handbuch: die Parteien der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 1945-1980, edited by R. Stss and J. Bacia. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Taagepera, Rein, and Matthew Soberg Shugart. 1989. Seats and Votes. The Effects & Determinants of Electoral Systems. New Haven: Yale University Press. Tavits, M., and T. Annus. 2006. Learning to make votes count: The role of democratic experience. Electoral Studies 25 (1):72-90. Tsebelis, George. 1990. Nested Games. Rational Choice in Comparative Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press. Turner, Arthur W. 1993. Postauthoritarian elections: Testing expectations about first elections. Comparative Political Studies 26:330-349. Vachudova, Milada Anna. 2005. Europe Undivided. Democracy, Leverage. and Integration after Communism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wessel, Bernhard. 1997. Germany. In Passages to Power, edited by P. Norris. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Woller, Hans. 1984. Wirtschaftliche Aufbau-Vereinigung. Edited by R. Stss. Vol. 2, Parteien Handbuch. Die Parteien der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 1945-1980. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.   I would like to thank Eric Magar, Scott Mainwaring, John Schieman for their helpful comments. Konstantin Gunchev provided fabulous research assistance.  Olga Shvetsova points out that electoral institutions can be both causes and effects of party systems depending on how much ex ante information the institutional designers have about the institutions likely effects. German politicians, who changed minor electoral procedures after the adoption of the original 1949 electoral system, had very reliable information about the effects their proposed institutional change. I treat such instances as political induced equilibria because it is the ex ante information and requisite control of parliamentary majorities that transformed the party system rather than the institutions themselves.  ADDIN EN.CITE Shvetsova20032830Shvetsova, Olga2003Endogenous Selection of Institutions and Their Exogenous EffectsConstitutional Political Economy143191-212(2003)  The importance of political actors in the formation of party systems has long been highlighted in the older party literature.  ADDIN EN.CITE Sartori196997, 847Sartori, Giovanni1969From the Sociology of Politics to Political SociologySeymour Martin LipsetPolitics and the Social SciencesNew YorkOxford University Press65-100Schattschneider19701041Schattschneider, E. E.1970Party GovernmentWestportGreenwood Publications1942(Sartori 1969, 84; Schattschneider 1970) Gary Coxs great contribution has been to use game theory to demonstrate the inherent instability of parties systems and show how its absence is contingent on the way politicians successful coordination strategies structure voter expectations. In emphasizing politicians, Cox also avoids the indeterminancy of earlier attempts to model Duvergers law which focused to narrowly on equilibrium solutions generated exclusively through institutional incentives, strategic interaction of voters, and quadrennial, electoral updating of their expectations.  ADDIN EN.CITE Schieman2000290For a discussion of this point, see 0Schieman, John2000Meeting Halfway Between Rochester and Frankfurt: Generative Salience, Focal Points, and Strategic InteractionAmerican Journal of Political Science4411-16January(For a discussion of this point, see Schieman 2000).  The details of how precisely the two votes are translated into seats is discussed further below.  The EU played a very similar, albeit much more indirect, role in East Central Europe.  ADDIN EN.CITE Vachudova20053811Vachudova, Milada Anna2005Europe Undivided. Democracy, Leverage. and Integration after CommunismOxfordOxford University Press(Vachudova 2005)  These figures express the CDUs net seat gains as result of switching and as such also take into account the seats it lost as a result of its deputies switching to minor parties.     PAGE 46 PAGE 8 Party Switching  DATE \@ "M/d/yyyy" 3/12/2007 p. German Party Switching  DATE \@ "M/d/yyyy" 3/12/2007 p.  PAGE 1 Consider redoing it. Make boldness of boxes indicate of importance of various stages in the formation process rather than importance in the literatrure. In transition state have coordination strategies, reconsider Might need to add preference induced equilbria voting models. Make clearer the explicit market mechanism, historical efficiency assumption inherent in institutional explanations. Maybe discuss more fully how they contribute to an equilibrium. How do they help to induce it. See volume by Hanson and Eckiert, esp. Kitschelt chapter. Add footnote how we defined party age. Give special attention to parties who re-enter, or who were banned and then reformed under different name. Why not 100% ?? Maybe add equilibrium number of parties predicted by Taagepera and Cox and point out that are quite a bit higher than the actual numbers. Include choice of electoral institutions. If number of actors determine choice then, they rather than institutions become the determinant of the party system. So, need to assess this. Eventually cite your WP article Also consider whether number of new candidates any use. Have the figures and Cox makes some argument about strategic entries Figures for all four major parties somewhat lower result of increase in bundestag size which meant that all parties recruited more candidates  - make reference to earlier point about lack of co-variation between strategic voting and fragmentation - use maybe concluding paragraph of previous section as new introductory paragraph here. Enter indented text somewhere in section on electoral engineering. CDU & DP formed in 1951 state election a joined list because SPD change electoral laws prohibiting them forming an electoral alliance. Schmidt CDU p. 569 Comment more on this. Significance resides less for the party and more for coalitional dynamics. Cite Gschwend and Hooghe Schmidt in chapter on Zentrum p. 12-7 fn. 32 reports an alliance between the CDU, Zentrum and EVP in Hessen 1949 federal election. Figure 2: Institutional Engineering 1957 Increase of secondary threshold from 1 to 3 SMD 1953 (June 25): 5% threshold applied nationally 5. Repetition of Steps 3 & 4 4. Subsequent Election ENEC t2 + strategic voting = ENEP t2 + translation of votes into seats = ENPP t2 3. Inter-Electoral Stage: ENPPt1 + coordination strategies = ENEC t2 2. Founding Election ENEC t1 + strategic voting = ENEP t1 + translation of votes into seats = ENPP t1 1952 (Jan. 1): increase of parliamentary faction size from 10 to 15 1. Transition Stage: Historical legacies and starting conditions = ENEC t1 1957 Election 1953 Election 1949 Election 1953 Second ballot introduced fstuvw{      2 2 t u v w ǼҦ|t||l||g hQ5h,`CJaJh}tCJaJh8h8CJaJh) CJaJh8h?CJaJh8h?5CJaJ h*h[eh[eh*CJaJmH sH h[eh*CJaJh[eh[eCJaJh[eh*hrjh0J+;U h) ; hes;h=h(4_h) &vwxyz{    v +q..gd gdqj&gd@HgdQd]^`gd8`gd[e $a$gd[egd*gd=)i  > ? rs[27|14Eijky&+{  &@QVW9¾Һhs~rh8NhmhAShPnhE1hnYhshb'hQhRh h+hxjhChQ6UhChQ6D9AY]jIJUY[cs.a89A.>?T U ! !!!&&&&&H'd''''''A(B(̼̰jhx"?Uhx!uhejheUhdhx"?hh0]jh0]Uh*hIhhbmhTAhs~rh+MhAShREB(**+++++q......./)/D/Z////f0000000213191:1J1M1O1P133<3=3>3h33333344666666677 77m7n7o7|777777777ںҺҺڶڶֶڶڶhXjh4 Uh, jh, UhH5hx!uhrjh4 h*%5 haoo5h 3hAShqj&jhx"?Uhx"?H.o7%:^:{:::;;;y$<<$Ifgd$pl/$gd2gde7gd2gd $hd^h`gdK7 $`gdK7$gdK7gd, 784858S8_8d8k8m888889949<9G9H9J9Q9i9999999999999999: ::":%:/:E:\:]:^:_:v:w:x:z:{::::::ؾؾثؓhhK75CJaJjhK70J3UaJ hK75jhK7UmHnHujhK7UjhK70J35UaJh{`hK7hr7Uh h4 hj~hfEhL+hEhXh29:::::::; ;-;7;9;?;f;k;;;;;;; < <*<T<X<Z<g<h<p<<<<<<EEEEEEEFFF F-F/FLFǻǷ~~zh7hH5h`jh{0J3UaJh{jh{U h{5huahr7UhKhpThh h\jh*%0J3UaJ h0U5hUehK7CJaJhhK75CJaJhK7CJaJhhK7CJaJhK75CJaJ0LFiFlFnFqF{FFFFFFZ ZZZZZZ[9[<[|[[+\d\p\\\\\\\\\] ]]]llmmmmmnsn{n}nnnooyyyyyyzzzzzz/z俺h`jh@0J3UaJhU h.zJ5 h5jhy9Uhy9h0jh\Uha\hH5h\h4njh4nUhr7UhuahA/z0z1z@z_zczzzzzzzz {{{/{~{{{{{{{{։׉qrs{|Ċ̊)8@Bbދ6N_ь1=X߻۷߳߳߫߯߫hHh/&hg(h~{jh((0J3UaJhBph8GjhBpUhuah75hKh, hu6hH5huhUh`h[%Cߍ!>?ѕҕGSnʛ˛ޛߛҜԜ !"07Fe3QgӠԠՠƽƲƤjhs;[hs;[U hs;[hs;[ hWhe7jhWhe7UhE he76he7h$4PhW haoo5 h5jh)Uh)jh~{Uh/&h~{hHhg(:89CDE^`c8EWYpvw-. FGDE*+()黶 h25hch25jhs;[0J+Uh, jh2Uh8Gh'he7hEh2h((jhs;[hs;[Uhs;[Hlm'(JK-. bdgjntv/ŹͮhH0hiRhr{?hk3h h5hN.h2CJaJhk9lh2CJH*aJh2CJaJhk9lh2CJaJh2CJH*aJhF|h2H* h2H*h2hch25 h25:lmm$$Ifgd$pl/}kd$$Ifl0 ,""v t0644 layt$plm'mm$$Ifgd$pl/}kdR$$Ifl0 ,""v t0644 layt$p'(Lmm$$Ifgd$pl/}kd$$Ifl0 ,""v t0644 layt$p-mm$$Ifgd$pl/}kd$$Ifl0 ,""v t0644 layt$p-.Amm$$Ifgd$pl/}kdR$$Ifl0 ,""v t0644 layt$pm$$Ifgd$pl/}kd$$Ifl0 ,""v t0644 layt$p4HcYzc$$d$If`a$gd,|$gdbgd&gd gdgd2jkd$$Ifl,"" t0644 layt$p /p*+?@JKo| 1:o{]^_`5@Guv4YInjhChp[hW h|p5jh2Uh, h8Gh2jh$4PUjh$4P0J+Uhk3 h$4PH*hh$4Phr{?hhhH0hH06hH0?HbcOQsXYǼwwwwwwwhV*hbCJ\aJhvGCJ\aJhb5CJH*\aJhb5CJ\aJh%hbCJaJhV*hb5CJ\aJhV*hbCJaJ h%hbhbhQjh`@6Uh`@6h; h&H*h& h5 haoo5hChp[.$$d$If`a$gd,|&kd<$$Ifl֞ <`' 'I'I'I'I'I'P644 lalpFyt,|$$d<<$If`a$gd,|$$d<<$If`a$gd,|&kd$$Ifl֞ <`' 'I'I'I'I'I'P644 lalpFyt,|$$d<<$If`a$gd,|$$d<<$If`a$gd,|>#$$Vd$If^V`a$gd,|kd$$Iflֈ<`'<'I'I'I'I'P644 lalp<yt,|5679K]^_as Ǽ缱缱缱缱缱yyyhV*hbCJ\aJhbCJ\aJhhbCJ\aJhb5CJH*\aJhb5CJ\aJh%hbCJaJhV*hbCJaJ jhV*hb0J3<UaJhV*hb5CJH*\aJhV*hb5CJ\aJht3hbCJaJ/#)/5$$d$If`a$gd,|56&kd$$Ifl֞ <`' 'I'I'I'I'I'P644 lalpFyt,|6KLQV[\]^stuzFfFf $$d$If`a$gd,|$$Vd$If^V`a$gd,|$$d<<$If`a$gd,|FfFf'$$Vd$If^V`a$gd,|Ff$$d$If`a$gd,| $$d<<$If`a$gd,|!#$8EOPDHI~.9EFGJKPp>?#%߸hPLhPLH*hPLjh_Uh_ h6h6h6hi8jhk3Uhk3hhY-hvGCJ\aJhb5CJH*\aJh6Dhb5CJ\aJht3hbCJaJhV*hbCJ\aJhbCJ\aJ2&kd$$Ifl֞ <`' 'I'I'I'I'I'P644 lalpFyt,|D4%M%*S>+?F*F}LNgdbgd7{gd gdc#gdk3gdHt6Ikd$$Ifl'644 lalp yt,|$$d<$If`a$gd,|OP'()#!>Rpqrmn~19 # T    ABDK,-145PRV]_h0Wh!.jh0W0J3UaJh?Jhhr?=h*hCh.Thc#hk3jhk3Uh *KTUV]|}~DEF$%89:FGWXYkn'.DE$$2%3%4%J%K%L%M%y%%%%%&&&'Ҿξξκκκβh Ch[ehK hC5jhBO0J3UaJ haoo5hbjh~Uh~jh,|Ujhr?=Uhr?=h,|jh0J+Uhhh!.h0Wjh0WUhChY-6''q*r**********!+++..... ///3/h/////D0E0222224444]6^6i6j6x6677889999::J:Z::͵jhrZU h%hrZhv!>jhxzUhrZhxzhBhbh*jh7{Uh7{hZm3hH>Q>R>S>>>>>>>+?0?1?H?AACCCCD"DFF)F*F5F{FFFFFFFHHIIIIJ!J2JOJJL䯕hujhG%UjhOq0J+Uh5hghG%hh5E5 hG%5 hDh7{h$4Pjh7{Uh7{ h7{5h7{h7{5hthjhm3Uhm3hrZhB7L/L0L1LELJL_LjL|L}LLLLLLLHM`MMMNNvNNNNNNNNNOOO&OCOLOMOTO]O^O_OsOvOOOOOOOOOOOOOOǿ迺迫进迓hLhbH*hO@hbH*hzhbH* hbH*hLhb6H* hb6hLhb6 hb5h'Ihb5h'7hb5hi hh92hbhFc hFc hFc 5huh8NNNNNNNN$$$Ifa$gdbl/$$Ifgdbl/$gdbNNO:&$$Ifgdbl/kdn$$Iflֈ /,"H t0"44 laOO&O=O>O?OBOCODOLOMOUOVOmmmmmhmmmFf=!$$Ifgdbl/$$If^gdbl/fkdh$$Ifl,"" t0"44 la VOWO_O`OmOnOoOpOqOrOsOOFfc($$If^gdbl/Ff$$$Ifgdbl/ OOOOOOOOOOOq]]]]]Xq]Ffx,$$Ifgdbl/$$If^gdul/ukd|*$$Ifl,""  t 0"44 lap OOOOOOOOO.P8Prhb6CJaJhbCJaJh=hbCJaJhb6CJaJh'7hbCJaJ* aEah}qvfzȀ !$$$Ifa$gdbl/$$Ifgdbl/$gdbgdbxgdb$d`gdb ee f ffffYguggggggghhhhh@iMiiiiij0jsjvjjjkkkk^lilllllllmmmmmm]q^qzq{qqqqqqss}ssss t(t,tttvvvvvvvvvh T hb5 hFc 5h6hjhbUh9hC]h-9.h.h92hbhNvvwwwwwwrxzxxxxx y*yMy{yyyyzzz+zezfzlzmzz{||||~~./ Āŀ΀π!#ABEMuvy}hhbCJaJhhb5CJaJhb5CJaJhhb5h#hb5jhb0J3UaJhGGjhbUhi h`hb5h6hUth Thbh9ABMQUY]aeimquvFfA$$Ifgdbl/Ff(>$$$Ifa$gdbl/v}ÁǁˁρӁׁFfxE$$$Ifa$gdbl/$$Ifgdbl/ׁ؁߁   !"'(+,-.07`abdkº~~~~~~~~~~vhGNhb6 hGNhb6B*CJaJphhH6B*CJaJphhGNhb56CJaJhHhhHCJaJhHCJaJhH5CJaJ jhb0J3B*UaJphhhbCJaJhhb5CJaJhb5CJaJhb.ׁ؁߁ $$d$If`a$gdbl/$$If^gdbl/FfL$$$Ifa$gdbl/$$Ifgdbl/Ff'I "(,-7<@FJPTUV\`$$$Ifa$gdbl/$$Ifgdbl/FfP $$d$If`a$gdbl/`akptz~FfZ$$$Ifa$gdbl/$$Ifgdbl/Ff4U͂΂тق  #$'(-.1278;<ABEFGPQVWZ[`adejknotuxy~  /ۺhbCJaJhhbCJaJhhb5CJaJhWwuhb6CJaJhH6CJaJhbhhbCJaJhhb5CJaJhb5CJaJB‚Âɂ͂΂قނFf?e$$Ifgdbl/Ff_$$$Ifa$gdbl/  $(.28<BFGQW[aFfum $$d$If`a$gdbl/$$If^gdbl/Ffi$$$Ifa$gdbl/aekouy1Nmךոgdy f`gdbgd gdqgdb$dx`gdb$dx`gdbFf*q $$d$If`a$gdbl//01789:Ѕх"FV߆&ABJK13ab|}Íčێ܎KLMNjklƾƺƲƫƫƾƶƣƣƣƲƲƣƣƣƜjhq0J3UaJ haoo5 h:_hbjhbU hDchbh^]hGGh6h xhHhbjhbCJUaJh>DhbCJaJh>Dhb5CJaJhhbCJaJhbCJaJ4lmHn͞Ӟݞޞߞ[lΟϟ @Pɦʦݦަߦ z{34Z[ϹϹϹϪϢhuhu5hujhuh U huh jhuhuUh,[h hD huhu h 5huhq5hSk hfhqhq hu5@[#$ Bacd  ()ͷηոNcpx}¹ɹABC5GglyzŽŽŽŵŵŵŵjqshi U%jhy f5CJUaJmHnHujhy fUhi h1|hy fhbh,7 hhbhbhb5 hb5h$IhjhuhuU huhu<G$$d$If`a$gdI$gdy fgdy f`gdy f z17=>nvFGMNǻǻDzzzhH)hy fB*CJaJphhH)hy fCJaJhH)hy f5CJaJh=hy fCJaJ hH)hy fhuD5CJaJh0hy f5CJaJhy f5CJaJh0hy fCJaJh*rhy f5h5,h1|hi hOL5jhy fUhy f0kdt$$IflrO C"&p&&& (0P"44 la_p2$$d$If`a$gdI$$d$If`a$gdIkdnu$$IflrO C"&p&&& (0P"44 la_p2$$d$If`a$gdI$$d$If`a$gdI  (,.67JNRZ[kosyz'012GHꭢꭋjhy fCJUaJh0hy fCJaJh0hy fCJaJhy fCJaJhK1hy f5CJaJhK1hy f56CJaJhH)hy fB*CJaJphhH)hy f5CJaJh=hy fCJaJhH)hy fCJaJ6kdv$$IflrO C"&p&&& (0P"44 la_p2  $$d$If`a$gdI$$d$If`a$gdIkdx$$IflrO C"&p&&& (0P"44 la_p2(,.26$$d$If`a$gdI$$d$If`a$gdI67kday$$IflrO C"&p&&& (0P"44 la_p27JNRVZ$$d$If`a$gdI$$d$If`a$gdIZ[kdz$$IflrO C"&p&&& (0P"44 la_p2[koswy$$d$If`a$gdI$$d$If`a$gdIyzkd{$$IflrO C"&p&&& (0P"44 la_p2z$$d$If`a$gdI$$d$If`a$gdIkd*}$$IflrO C"&p&&& (0P"44 la_p2$$d$If`a$gdI$$d$If`a$gdIkdm~$$IflrO C"&p&&& (0P"44 la_p2$$d$If`a$gdI$$d$If`a$gdIkd$$IflrO C"&p&&& (0P"44 la_p2$$d$If`a$gdI$$d$If`a$gdIkd$$IflrO C"&p&&& (0P"44 la_p2]76 )*2:B$<<$Ifa$gdC l/gdC gdC gdbgdy f$ & Fdxgdy f4\wz}1NZm,.12^_`afm9:\]  &- ~67Q! hOL5h$rhU khm jhy f0J3UaJjhy fUh2r"hb]jh5,hK1hy fh=hy fCJaJJ  %&:;rsop  )/5GJPi|ȼļĴjhJUh?&h}1%hJhKhOLhb5 hOL5 h*bhy f h!h!h! h!5h$rjhy fUhy fGADd}6MX%.Ich06?LP~[\vw()C\ȼh;"hC CJaJhC CJaJh4hC 5CJaJhYVhC 5CJaJ h4shC jhC UhA+h@ h`5hC h`h?&hJjhJUh}1%>BC\jwQ>(($$Ifa$gd&a,l/$Ifgd&a,l/kdR$$Ifl\E," t062 s2 s2 s44 law;($Ifgd&a,l/kd$$Ifl\E," t062 s2 s2 s44 la$$Ifa$gd&a,l/;0 x`gdC kd$$Ifl\E," t062 s2 s2 s44 la$$Ifa$gd&a,l/_ c u           & `    M R ] c         & ' 1 2 < = > ? @ H I S T ^ _ h i j k     һ֤֤֤֤֤֤֤֤h(hC CJaJhYVhC 5CJaJ h4shC hR#h]={hA+htMThC hC CJaJjhC CJUaJhm#hC CJaJh;"hC CJaJ@      $$<<$Ifa$gdC l/$gdC gdC      Q=&&$$$Ifa$gdC l/$$IfgdC l/kd̈́$$Ifl\0," t062 s2 s2 s44 la   ' 2 :&$$IfgdC l/kd$$Ifl\0," t062 s2 s2 s44 la$$$Ifa$gdC l/2 = ? @ I :'$Ifgd&a,l/kd$$Ifl\0," t062 s2 s2 s44 la$$$Ifa$gdC l/I T _ i j ;kdr$$Ifl\0," t062 s2 s2 s44 la$$Ifa$gd&a,l/j  {-d!`3v3M>)QXYYYYYY$$<<$Ifa$gdC $<<$IfgdC $gdC gd<_dhxx`gd]={gdC `gdC $d`a$gdC ViEr{A\  =E-/Px3=gqz,-û㱥jhC 0J3UaJjhC 0J+Uh%bhC 5hT\_hj<jhC Uh5hR#hLh]={hC h`5jhC CJUaJhC CJaJA4 A      !!O"Z""""""# #{#######$$-$0$ & &`/a/// 000022223+3^3`3u3v33 4P4Q455666!6.677@:갨jh<_Uh<_jhEaUUhEaUhZx hChC hCh]={hFhC 5h-jhC Uh]={h0hj<h" BhC h`5B@:A:u:v:u;v;;;=======>M>b>i>k>l>>>>>*?,?9?:?r??@@@@@@AAAA#A$A9F:FhFiFFFIIIIII!J"J=JLJMJPJQJOOPP\PPPPPPPjhC 0J3UaJhfjhC UhyjhO`0J3UaJho hC h<_5h-/h0h<_jh<_UHPPPP)QJQQQRRVRWRXR\RhRmRRRTTZV[VeVfVrVVVVVWWWWXXX XX%XBXEXVX^XXX>YmYYYYYYYY Z Z Z!Z)Z*Z]]]]]t^u^^_ _ɾjh (hC CJUaJh (hC CJaJh'hC CJaJ h'[hC h2ajhC Uh_qh-/hW hy5hC hfEYYYYYYJA555 $$Ifa$gd&a, $Ifgd&a,kdC$$Ifl\a Q #'P'P'P0644 lalp(YYZ ZZ ZJA555 $$Ifa$gd&a, $Ifgd&a,kd-$$Ifl\a Q #'P'P'P0644 lalp( Z!Z]oelpwyJ?:555gdC gd-/ x`gdC kd%$$Ifl\a Q #'P'P'P0644 lalp( _ __!_G_H__A`B`bbbbccccTeUeleme:fCf]fhfff8g;gAgBgjgtgggggggWhbhiiiikklll5lll mmmooooppppMqqqqqqMrqrrrtttthK hWhWhWhg' hW5 h'hC jhC UhC hS+h2ah-/Mtttu5uAubumuuwww`yayuyvywyyyyyzSzYzZz[zzzz0{p{q{t{{{{{ ||a|| }}+}9}E}L}P}T}g}h}i}v}}}}L~M~~~~~~89мȸȴhOhth6|qhfhQh Nhkh /hhS+h@,hKh p hb5 h: b5 hhC jhC UhWhC hunhC @wyyM~‚RߋƜ}~r$dx7$8$H$`a$gd3gd"gdgd$0)$a$gd$0)G$ b p` P @ 0 p`P@0 d7$8$H$`a$gd$0)gdygd#gd:gd /gdb 9H$7Krف@PTnqsz{‚σ23ӆԆ5CGlxÇćʇՇ܇ &4;QRW45UV^_w OPNJÿÿh%hI_h3Mh"jhFdEU hFdE6hFdEhoqh,hh6|qh;AhthOhQh /JNJȊ-57܋ދߋʌԌ:>BhwRvxݎh ΐ}~+Z ,Tz_`yz{֖+`gܺܺܺܳ hyhjhUhhy hZhjhZhUhh55h%h]h:h6|qh#hI_h"Egij "2eŜƜdedeͤΤۤܤ23˾˾˾wwwwwwwwwjh$0)h$0)CJUaJh$0)h$0)CJaJh$0)h%5h$0)h$0)5h55#h$0)B*CJOJQJ^JaJph hyh55jhyB*UphhyB*phhyhyB*phhyh55B*ph hyhyhjhl=Uhl=+ a  ET]c?@/0DE}~ S:ͷ8IYmϹEc߻gݽƾh$Ih$I6h$Ih"gjh"gUh3h"g5 h35h3CJaJ hh"gh$0)jh$0)h$0)CJUaJh$0)h$0)CJaJhQCJaJA{^U~ sټ@˽e;pDfM$0d^`0a$gd$Iݽ>ÿUfX3W0\Ur~6 h{9AP Ib,kHu?Yf*ydefjh KUjh$IUh$Ih$Ih$I6XM()O=a2}$0d^`0a$gd$IQ:G *]@TS3$0d^`0a$gd$I,f{+a4Vr$"?;c 9Yl]n,IikJ[Da*|&'()hxPOh"gjh"gUh$Ih$I6h$Ijh$IUh$Ih$I0JTR<zRjnh&()B@gd$4P$0d^`0a$gdm$0d^`0a$gd$I)*BC 34\]BC-.>?@A    *Ƶƪh`@6CJaJhK0JmHnHuh`@60JmHnHu h`@60Jjh`@60JUjhXUhXhqYh`@65 h`@65jh`@6Uh`@6jh`@60J+U<@cdF44gdK7 gd6u[h]hgdn6h]hgdn 6&`#$gd[2gdC *+-.BCLMN_abdz{|FG?@mn~  ͒͒͒͒͒͒͒͒͒͒͜ h7{h`@6 h`@65jh`@60J3UhXhK0JCJaJmHnHuh6u[h`@60JCJaJ!jh6u[h`@60JCJUaJh`@6hKCJaJmHnHujh6u[h`@6CJUaJh`@6CJaJh6u[h`@6CJaJ4?m~ c]4gdC 4gdy f ^`gdq4gdbgdFP4gdb44gd{cd   9 : ; X Z [ \ p u v w y                 # $ & @ 񪠙񪠙 h`@6H*aJha0h`@6H*aJh h`@6H*aJh7ICh`@65aJ h`@65aJhh`@6CJaJh`@6CJaJhF.h`@65hXhuh`@65 h`@65h`@6jh`@60J3U8     d`gdy f`gdy f"$a$gd&&3"gd&&3 : ; Y Z q       p q        ! " 0 $d`a$gdy f"gdK7"$a$gdK7 d`gdy f@ A C l m o q                 ! " 0 1 2 O P h i j ;礙礙礙畑hxPOhNRhWTh`@6CJaJh`@6CJaJh h`@6H*aJhTh`@65 h`@65hh`@65aJ h`@65aJhh`@6CJaJh`@6CJaJh`@6ha0h`@6H*aJhch`@6H*aJ 0 1 2 P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f  d`gdy f$d`a$gdy ff g h i j $0d^`0a$gdm8 00P:p/ =!"#$% Dd0!D  3 @@"?$$If!vh5"5v#v"#vv:V/l t065"5v/ / / yt$p$$If!vh5"5v#v"#vv:V/l t065"5v/ / yt$p$$If!vh5"5v#v"#vv:V/l t065"5v/ yt$p$$If!vh5"5v#v"#vv:V/l t065"5v/ yt$p$$If!vh5"5v#v"#vv:V/l t065"5v/ yt$p$$If!vh5"5v#v"#vv:V/l t065"5v/ / yt$p$$If!vh5"#v":V/l t065"/ yt$pE$$Ifl!vh5 5I5I5I5I5I5P#v #vI#vP:V l6,5 5I5P9/ / /  / / / alpFyt,|7$$Ifl!vh5 5I5I5I5I5I5P#v #vI#vP:V l6,5 5I5P9/ / / / / alpFyt,|3$$Ifl!vh5<5I5I5I5I5P#v<#vI#vP:V l6,5<5I5P9/ / /  / / / alp<yt,|E$$Ifl!vh5 5I5I5I5I5I5P#v #vI#vP:V l6,5 5I5P9/ /  /  / / / alpFyt,|$$Ifl!vh5 5I5I5I5I5I5P#v #vI#vP:V l F6,5 5I5P9/ / / /  / / / / / alpFyt,| kd8 $$Ifl֞ <`' 'I'I'I'I'I'P F644 lalpFyt,|$$Ifl!vh5 5I5I5I5I5I5P#v #vI#vP:V l F6,5 5I5P9/ / / /  / / / / / alpFyt,| kd$$Ifl֞ <`' 'I'I'I'I'I'P F644 lalpFyt,|$$Ifl!vh5 5I5I5I5I5I5P#v #vI#vP:V l F6,5 5I5P9/ / / /  / / / alpFyt,| kd$$Ifl֞ <`' 'I'I'I'I'I'P F644 lalpFyt,|$$Ifl!vh5 5I5I5I5I5I5P#v #vI#vP:V l 26,5 5I5P9/ /  / / / / alpFyt,|kd$$Ifl֞ <`' 'I'I'I'I'I'P 2644 lalpFyt,|$$Ifl!vh5 5I5I5I5I5I5P#v #vI#vP:V l <6,5 5I5P9/ / / / /  / alpFyt,|kd$$Ifl֞ <`' 'I'I'I'I'I'P <644 lalpFyt,|E$$Ifl!vh5 5I5I5I5I5I5P#v #vI#vP:V l6,5 5I5P9/ / /  / / / alpFyt,|w$$Ifl!vh5#v:V l6,59/ alp yt,|$$If!vh5H55555#vH#v#v#v#v:V/l t"5H5555/ / /  / / / R$$If!vh5"#v":V/l t"5"/ $$If!vh5H55555#vH#v#v#v#v:V/l4  t<"+5H5555/ / /  / / p<kd$$Ifl4ֈ /,"H`  t<0"44 lap<q$$If!vh5H55555#vH#v#v#v#v:V/l4  t<"+5H5555/ / / / p<kdV#$$Ifl4ֈ /,"H   t<0"44 lap<$$If!vh5H55555#vH#v#v#v#v:V/l4  t<"+5H5555/ / / /  / p<kd&$$Ifl4ֈ /,"H   t<0"44 lap<q$$If!vh5"#v":V/l  t "5"/ p $$If!vh5H55555#vH#v#v#v#v:V/l  t<",5H5555/ / /  / / p<ytukd*$$Iflֈ /,"H  t<0"44 lap<ytu$$If!vh5H55555#vH#v#v#v#v:V/l  t<",5H5555/ / / / / p<ytukd.$$Iflֈ /,"H  t<0"44 lap<ytu $$If!vh5H55#vH#v#v:V/l  t",5H55/ / / /  / pytuq$$If!vh5"#v":V/l  t "5"/ p $$If!vh5H55555#vH#v#v#v#v:V/l  t<",5H5555/ / /  / / p<ytukd3$$Iflֈ /,"H  t<0"44 lap<ytuu$$If!vh5H55555#vH#v#v#v#v:V/l  t<",5H5555/ / / / p<ytukd\7$$Iflֈ /,"H  t<0"44 lap<ytu $$If!vh5H55#vH#v#v:V/l  t",5H55/ / / /  / pytu$$If!vh555555#v#v#v:V/l t'#555/ /  / / f$$If!v h555555555 5 5 #v#v#v :V/l t'#555 / / / / / / / / /  / / / /  Ekd<$$Ifl 4' " t0'#,,,,44 laf$$If!v h555555555 5 5 #v#v#v :V/l t'#555 / / / / / / / / /  / / /  / Ekdo@$$Ifl 4' " t0'#,,,,44 laX$$If!v h555555555 5 5 #v#v#v :V/l t'#555 / / / / / / / / /  / / / EkdD$$Ifl 4' " t0'#,,,,44 laf$$If!v h555555555 5 5 #v#v#v :V/l t'#555 / / / / / / / / /  / / /  / EkdG$$Ifl 4' " t0'#,,,,44 laf$$If!v h555555555 5 5 #v#v#v :V/l t'#555 / / / / / / / / /  / / /  / EkdnK$$Ifl 4' " t0'#,,,,44 lat$$If!v h555555555 5 5 #v#v#v :V/l t'#555 / / / / / / / / /  / / / / /  EkdO$$Ifl 4' " t0'#,,,,44 laX$$If!v h555555555 5 5 #v#v#v :V/l4  tZ'#+++ + ,, 555 / / / / / / / / /  / / /  / pZkdR$$Ifl4 4' "  tZ0'#,,,,44 lapZL$$If!v h555555555 5 5 #v#v#v :V/l4  tZ'#+++ + 555 / / / / / / / / / /  / / / pZkdMX$$Ifl4 4' "      tZ0'#,,,,44 lapZ:$$If!v h555555555 5 5 #v#v#v :V/l4  tZ'#++,555 / / / / / / / / /  / / / pZkd]$$Ifl4 4' "  tZ0'#,,,,44 lapZ4$$If!v h555555555 5 5 #v#v#v :V/l4  tZ'#++555 / / / / / / / / /  / / / pZkd c$$Ifl4 4' "    tZ0'#,,,,44 lapZf$$If!v h555555555 5 5 #v#v#v :V/l t'#555 / / / / / / / / /  / / / / EkdXh$$Ifl 4' " t0'#,,,,44 lal$$If!v h555555555 5 5 #v#v#v :V/l t'#, 555 / / / / / / / / /  / / / / Ekdl$$Ifl 4' " t0'#,,,,44 lal$$If!v h555555555 5 5 #v#v#v :V/l t'#, 555 / / / / / / / / /  / / / /  Ekdo$$Ifl 4' " t0'#,,,,44 laDd D  3 @@"?k$$If_!vh5\ 5=5=5=5=#v\ #v=:V l (0P",5p599/ / / / / a_p2A$$If_!vh5\ 5=5=5=5=#v\ #v=:V l (0P",5p599/ / a_p2k$$If_!vh5\ 5=5=5=5=#v\ #v=:V l (0P",5p599/ / / / / a_p2A$$If_!vh5\ 5=5=5=5=#v\ #v=:V l (0P",5p599/ / a_p2A$$If_!vh5\ 5=5=5=5=#v\ #v=:V l (0P",5p599/ / a_p2A$$If_!vh5\ 5=5=5=5=#v\ #v=:V l (0P",5p599/ / a_p2A$$If_!vh5\ 5=5=5=5=#v\ #v=:V l (0P",5p599/ / a_p2A$$If_!vh5\ 5=5=5=5=#v\ #v=:V l (0P",5p599/ / a_p2A$$If_!vh5\ 5=5=5=5=#v\ #v=:V l (0P",5p599/ / a_p2A$$If_!vh5\ 5=5=5=5=#v\ #v=:V l (0P",5p599/ / a_p2]$$If_!vh5\ 5=5=5=5=#v\ #v=:V l (0P",5p599/ / / / a_p2$$If!vh55M5M5M#v#vM:V/l t0655/ 2 s2 s2 s$$If!vh55M5M5M#v#vM:V/l t06,55/ / 2 s2 s2 s$$If!vh55M5M5M#v#vM:V/l t06,55/ 2 s2 s2 s$$If!vh5555#v#v#v:V/l t06555/ 2 s2 s2 s$$If!vh5555#v#v#v:V/l t06,555/ / 2 s2 s2 s$$If!vh5555#v#v#v:V/l t06,555/ 2 s2 s2 s$$If!vh5555#v#v#v:V/l t06,5552 s2 s2 s$$Ifl!vh5a 5P5P5P#va #vP:V l06,55P9/ alp($$Ifl!vh5a 5P5P5P#va #vP:V l06,55P9/ / alp($$Ifl!vh5a 5P5P5P#va #vP:V l06,55P9/ alp(DyK yK http://www.lexikon-definition.de/Liste-der-Mitglieder-des-Deutschen-Bundestages\@\ uNormal,N$ dhx` a$CJ_HaJmH sH tH `@` {uJ Heading 1,1$d@&a$59;B*CJphz@z ){uJHeading 2,Heading 2 Char,2 Chard@&`59 .Heading 3,Heading 3 Char,3 Char&$d@&^` 5B*phRR DS Heading 4,47@&^7`5@A@ {uJ Heading 5,5 $@&a$5TT {uJ Heading 6,6$$$d@&`a$DD {uJ Heading 7$ & F@&5FF {uJ Heading 8$$ & F@&a$5R R {uJ Heading 9 & F<@&56CJOJQJDA@D Default Paragraph FontVi@V  Table Normal :V 44 la (k(No List LOL A)$  \ 0dh<<]05B*VV B6$  \ @ 0d]^@ `05pp Y Bibliography,dPP1$7$8$H$^`B*^JaJph>/"> Listd<<^B*R2R Notes,nt( p`d<<^``RBR Indent 8dh<<^8` B*OJQJPP Reading Syllabus,rs & FdXObX uTable Heading,th$dx`a$5TT  Title 1,T1!$$d`a$66q6  Title 2,T2$a$TT Box,d$d%d&d'd`B*CJ>+>  Endnote TextdCJLOL uTable,t$d`a$ B*phR@R u Footnote Texthd`h B*CJph\\ 1 Listing,l%$ & Fd((]a$ B*ph22 TOC 1`BB TOC 2$dx`a$544 TOC 3 d^PQP Reading Reference,rr ! & FCJFO"F u Textbox,tb"d`CJ2 YBStyle Bibliography + Left Left: 0" Hanging: 0.5" After: 0 pt..."#$0d^`0a$^JaJ\B\ aBullet List b Char$ & F @d^fRf 'Y Bullet List 1'% & F h<^` B*phDQbD #o Bullet List 2& & Fd.Br. ^}v Body Text'^^ (Bullet List a Char( & F@<^@ B*ph~~ {uJ$Heading 2 Char Char,2 Char Char Char59CJ_HaJmH sH tH RYR u Document Map*-D M OJQJ^JD&@D uFootnote ReferenceCJEHJJ uHeader, D t"d B*CJphXX uHeading -dh^`5CJOJQJ $Heading 3 Char Char,3 Char Char Char$5B*CJ_HaJmH phsH tH @ #B Table Grid7:V/0/$ dhx` a$RAR aSyllabus Readings 0 & F CJaJNN @Syllabus Headings1< 5CJaJDC"D b*Body Text Indent 2h^h>'@1> b*Comment ReferenceCJ<@B< b* Comment Text4CJaJH@RH b* Balloon Text5CJOJQJ^JaJ4 @b4 P:Footer 6 !lrl 8UBullet List Char Char7 <^` B*phnn 7UBullet List Char Char Char!B*CJ_HaJmH phsH tH <m<{uJ1 / 1.1 / 1.1.19 F 0l0{uJ 1 / a / i: F @n@{uJArticle / Section; F@T@ {uJ Block Text<]^8P8 {uJ Body Text 2=d:Q: {uJ Body Text 3>CJaJPMqP {uJBody Text First Indent ?`TN!T {uJBody Text First Indent 2 @`NRN {uJBody Text Indent 2Ahd^hPS"P {uJBody Text Indent 3 Bh^hCJaJ2?22 {uJClosing C^$L$ {uJDateD<[R< {uJE-mail SignatureE.Xa. {uJEmphasis6]h$rh {uJEnvelope Address!G@ &+D/^@ OJQJ^JN%N {uJEnvelope ReturnHCJOJQJ^JaJFVF {uJFollowedHyperlink >*B* ph0_0 {uJ HTML Acronym:`: {uJ HTML AddressK6]0a0 {uJ HTML Cite6]>b> {uJ HTML CodeCJOJQJ^JaJ<c< {uJHTML Definition6]FdF {uJ HTML KeyboardCJOJQJ^JaJReR {uJHTML PreformattedPCJOJQJ^JaJ:f: {uJ HTML Sample OJQJ^JJg!J {uJHTML TypewriterCJOJQJ^JaJ8h18 {uJ HTML Variable6]6U@A6 {uJ Hyperlink >*B*ph.(Q. {uJ Line Number82b8 {uJList 2V^`83r8 {uJList 3W8^8`848 {uJList 4X^`858 {uJList 5Y^`:0: {uJ List Bullet Z & F>6> {uJ List Bullet 2 [ & F>7> {uJ List Bullet 3 \ & F>8> {uJ List Bullet 4 ] & F I {uJMessage Headerg^8$d%d&d'd-DM NOPQ^8` OJQJ^J4^4 {uJ Normal (Web)_>> {uJ Normal Indent `^4O4 {uJ Note HeadingaDZ"D {uJ Plain TextbCJOJQJ^JaJ0K0 {uJ Salutationc6@B6 {uJ Signature d^*WQ* {uJStrong5\FJbF {uJSubtitlef$<@&a$ OJQJ^Js {uJTable 3D effects 1m:Vgj#j#j#j#j.j.j.j. g$ dhx` a$55\5B* \`J phB* `J phNN {uJTable 3D effects 2:Vhj.@j#j9jj 4h$ dhx` a$5\5\ {uJTable 3D effects 3:Vij.@j j j#j9jj44i$ dhx` a$:B*`Jph B*`Jph5\5\zrz {uJTable Classic 1:Vj0  j#j#j#jj j$ dhx` a$9B*`Jph6]5\56\]s {uJTable Classic 2#:Vk0  j% j#j0 jjj%  k$ dhx` a$:5\B*`JphB* `J ph5\ltl {uJTable Classic 3:Vl0    jj0  j0  l$ dhx` a$QB* ph5B*\`JphB* `J ph56B*\]`Jphu {uJTable Classic 4:Vm0  jj0 j0 jj m$ dhx` a$X5\B* `J ph56B*\]`JphB* `J ph5\jvj {uJTable Colorful 1:Vn0    j% j% jj%  n$ dhx` a$<B*ph56\]56\]56\]lwl {uJTable Colorful 2:Vo0 j% jj0  j o$ dhx` a$@56\]56B*\]`Jph56\]LxL {uJTable Colorful 3:Vp0j;$ j0 j%  p$ dhx` a$5B*\`Jphy {uJTable Columns 1 :Vq0    j j jjjj#jj4q$ dhx` a$l5\B*`Jph B*`Jph5\5\5\5\5\5\z# {uJTable Columns 2:Vrj j jjjj% jj4r$ dhx` a$5\B*`Jph B*`Jph5\5B*\`Jph5\B*`Jph5\5\{3 {uJTable Columns 3:Vs0j j jjj#j% j4s$ dhx` a$h5\B*`Jph B*`Jph5\5\5\B*`Jph5\*|C* {uJTable Columns 4:Vtj j jjj% 4t$ dhx` a$LB*`Jph B*`Jph5\5\B*`Jphx}Sx {uJTable Columns 5:Vu0    j jjj#j#4u$ dhx` a$VB*`Jph B*`Jph5\5\5\56\]HcH {uJTable Contemporary:Vv0j%@ j% j% 4v$ dhx` a$<@B*`JphB*`Jph5B*\`Jphs {uJ Table Elegant_:Vw0j w$ dhx` a$;B*`Jph~ {uJ Table Grid 1z:Vx0jj x$ dhx` a$6]6]66 {uJ Table Grid 2:Vy0jjj#j y$ dhx` a$,5\5\5\5\ {uJ Table Grid 3:Vz0  jjj0  z$ dhx` a$5\5\VV {uJ Table Grid 4:V{0  jj0 j0  {$ dhx` a$B5B*\`Jph5B*\`JphB*`Jph   {uJ Table Grid 5:V|0    jjj# j |$ dhx` a$5\5\<< {uJ Table Grid 6:V}0    jj#j#j }$ dhx` a$(5\B*`Jph5\bb {uJ Table Grid 7:V~0    jjj#j# j ~$ dhx` a$25\5\5\5\5\88 {uJ Table Grid 8:V0jjj%  $ dhx` a$H5B*\`Jph5B*\`Jph5B*\`Jph {uJ Table List 1:V0  j%@ jj#j0 j4$ dhx` a$M@B*`JphB*`Jph56B* \]`J ph5\ {uJ Table List 2:V0 j%@ jj#j0 j4$ dhx` a$G@B*`JphB*`Jph5B*\`Jph5\*#* {uJ Table List 3:V0  j# j# j $ dhx` a$05B* \`J ph6B* ]`J ph3 {uJ Table List 4w:V0    j0   $ dhx` a$5B*\`JphC {uJ Table List 5:V0jj#  $ dhx` a$5\5\ S  {uJ Table List 6:V0j%@ j# j#  4$ dhx` a$5\5\c {uJ Table List 7:V0  j%@ j% jjj# j0  4$ dhx` a$>@B*`Jph5\5\5\5\s {uJ Table List 8:V0j%@ j% jjj#j0 4$ dhx` a$D@B*`Jph5\5\5\56\] {uJTable Professionall:V0j%  $ dhx` a$5B*\`Jpho {uJTable Simple 1:V0  j#j# $ dhx` a$p {uJTable Simple 2:Vj#j# j#j# j#j#$ dhx` a$O5\5\5B*\`Jph5\5\5\q {uJTable Simple 3l:V0    j%  $ dhx` a$5B*\`Jph {uJTable Subtle 1 :Vj0@ j# j# j0  j. jj4$ dhx` a$5\5\ {uJTable Subtle 2:V0j0  j0  j# j# jj$ dhx` a$5\5\ {uJ Table Theme7:V0$ dhx` a$ {uJ Table Web 1h:V03j $ dhx` a$B*`Jph {uJ Table Web 2h:V03j $ dhx` a$B*`Jph {uJ Table Web 3h:V03j $ dhx` a$B*`Jphj! j ( Bullet List a Char Char1!B*CJ_HaJmH phsH tH F" 1 F $ Bullet List b Char Char.)@A . U* Page Number@jAB@ kWComment Subject5\ha h Bullet List a Char Char!B*CJ_HaJmH phsH tH >Or > Eh Bullet List a & F8"8 <"Caption5CJ\aJs]} >j  ;qrs,sm|j0          *)&YTSR%Q$#"% &!'"(#)$*%+&,'-(.)3/*1+456872,9-:.;/ ;qrs,sm|      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;LudwigFeb. 24 Comments\223=r{4 J"xyj_k6LBjLI L$M L=o[ LSUd LGP Li vuvuLm LLdt LLuLm LL0(LhwZ L0(JFJF*&Z%FұұRf_*>}DFFFFFFFFFGG&G=G>G?GBGCGDGLGMGUGVGWG_G`GmGnGoGpGqGrGsGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG/H0H8H@HJHQHRHSH_H`HhHiHwHxHyH~HHHHHHI V YEY`}infrxyy yyyy!y"y#y&y)y,y/y2y5y8y;y>yAyByMyQyUyYy]yayeyiymyqyuyvy}yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyzz zzzzz"z(z,z-z7z@60@00 0 D@0!0 000P @40X@40X@40X@40X@40X@40X@40X@40X@40X@40X@0X@40X@40X@40X@40X@0X@0X@0X@40X@40X@40X@40X@40X000;Q00;Q00;Q00 "00 @"0"00@"0"00@"0"00  XQ00@"0"00hXQ00hXQ0000000 @c0vwxyz{v q&&o/%2^2{222333qֻlm'(L-.A4HcY#)/56KLQV[\]^stuz D 4M"S6+7>*>}DFFFFFFFFFGG&G=G>G?GBGCGDGLGMGUGVGWG_G`GmGnGoGpGqGrGsGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG/H0H8H@HJHQHRHSH_H`HhHiHwHxHyH~HHHHHHI V YEY`}infrxyy yyyy!y"y#y&y)y,y/y2y5y8y;y>yAyByMyQyUyYy]yayeyiymyqyuyvy}yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyzz zzzzz"z(z,z-z7z@60@000<>8@;0pqr00j00L_j007j00@0 @0@0b1`M@0b1`M@0@40b1`M@40b1`M@40b1`M@40b1`M 00 nn 9B(7:LF/z/':LO R^ev/l[z@:P _t9NJgݽ)*@ j    .l'-56NNOVOOOO/PhPP a!#vׁ`a67Z[yzBw  2 I j YY ZwyM@ 0 f j   i >r8>T A "#O)+<+,..^2v2y24==>RRUdegqqsցq>эʓޓӘ8C- FD*(_uH~>O'qm~ A U   E$8FW2q""#&&D(**,].i.0113G6Q69;;@AA JKLrLdNyNNPPQSSTU V[x]]e]izilnntv.w9|}}a|ۆKΗɞݞz3# c (ͯyϽ1^ %:ro[v  `''(**P,-./@2u2355#99>h>>AAPBGHLZNeN)RUUAXZZ[T]l]acdeggjllo`quq2}~~}_yiddۜ͜2 ?/De&jQQQQQQQQ_QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ_QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQX̕ !#7LV!!!_ 3 \  qQQQQtZ[ @     A@ A1 8c8c     ?A)BCD|E||# "0e@       @ABC DEEFGHIJK5%LMNOPQRSTUWYZ[ \]^_ `abN E5%  N E5%  N F   5%    !"?N@ABC DEFFGHIJK5%LMNOPQRSTUWYZ[ \]^_ `ab@3Zh(    (,  O3  s"*?t P s *X998c?"` (,  Q <!Q ?"6@`NNN?N .] ! R <R Ԕ?"6@`NNN?NP6  S <S ?"6@`NNN?NYt  T <T Ԕ?"6@`NNN?NlS' 2 U NZGyHoI1?"0@NNN?N2] VB NZG9HpI91?"0@NNN?NCY$ W NGSH)IS1?"0@NNN?NNtb X HGHI$Ԕ?"0@NNN?NC5" Y <Y Ԕ?"6@`NNN?N# *  B Z NG(H/I8pԔ?"0@NNN?N#/ ':  ) 3  s"*?`  c $X99?)  3 r% GHD  B S  ?E%F&HI)TQRUURSVVSTWWRTXXTYZw2jO0!t(# t  OLE_LINK5yk{k"Internal Data Integrity (Type 4) 1kk I $M =o[ SUd GP i m dt um 0(hwZ 0(S2{234rs1 "y`b6BB+ \223=r{4 "yjk6LB+t{$z+#+(+/+..003333======== RR+R1RBRJRQRXRRR eeee%e)e0e8e:eCeIeRe_eje}eeeeqqqr2;@I\bژ!&-өܩ $*18?DJjpuռ@NEJ#-OTcf1 6         %.s"|"""&&&&&'3'['h'*****+$2(222_7e7CC/G2G4G7G9GVCVOVxV|V~VVVVVVVVVVVVVW;WEWFWLW_WbWdWyWzWWWWWWWWWW XXXX X/XPXSXUX_X`XkXmXtXXXXXXXXXXXuYxYzY}YYYZZZZZZZZZZZ[!^$^)^,^]_`_e_h_``aaaa a#a@bCbsbvbbbbbbb ccmcsccc ddGdSd6eE>>>>>>>>>GGGGJJxKKKKOOUU[[V]_]^(^__hakaaaaagghhlllm8m@mbqjq]u`udugu3|=|zъۊ[eakfjqx^bU^CP *5Ȳղswy)/ٴ'45>@H)2emovS[cr7ADK`eҹܹ޹  &./23Aglnuw޺fm%>DEKMUir}˼(/T_%GM  %'45;=BDIQZ`noqr{aju{|2;}Yf    #$-.:HPQT|)QW:ARdnty17GQ\c$ %.]g@E39CHjt ry3:kq-78ELX]efnt|}<Ez\l=V$,13:<IJPR[ouv}jr nwyhn|$)FKdl5<GVHJ/8\a-M{9D9< `cqtqu#<@hlhk !1'1-6%NXCMJm *6D S 66EEHH=InIKLeN{N\QQEYY|dd oo ٱ !09Y\=G  U((II__dd8m@m&0͒eݭT{^ghQc0dٴ?e;\ pzɸDf !޺W`4]˽Tþ`)MbaIc2E<riv"#eGRceCg /(]@O:8 }6r'YZozR~@)_c-M{y}hk333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333{() hkaaBCe&()BC.>? *+-MN_a{hkb]j\#\X ^[>hֵZ_@jH*x~` (dq&)38(w(+(hzvҗ"6#  o|H dH f&-L~`Ơ0_GU"徏%/9Y*a7)cbJ~F$>i6b:3iN nR%!8cp  ^`OJQJo( 88^8`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo(^`o() XX^X`hH. (L(^(`LhH.   ^ `hH.   ^ `hH. L^`LhH. hh^h`hH. 88^8`hH. L^`LhH.^`o() XX^X`hH. (L(^(`LhH.   ^ `hH.   ^ `hH. L^`LhH. hh^h`hH. 88^8`hH. L^`LhH.^`o() XX^X`hH. (L(^(`LhH.   ^ `hH.   ^ `hH. L^`LhH. hh^h`hH. 88^8`hH. L^`LhH.(  ^ `56B*OJQJ^Jo(phhH^^^^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo. . ^. `OJQJo(hH  ^ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hHnn^n`OJQJo(hH>>^>`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH(@ ^@`56B*OJQJ^Jo(phhH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo  ^ `OJQJo(hH` ` ^` `OJQJo(hH00^0`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH ^`hH Article . 8^`hH Section . P^`PhH() `p`^``phH() P^`PhH) P^`PhH) ^`hH) P^`PhH. 0p0^0`phH. hh^h`hH. P^`PhH.. ^`hH... x^`xhH....  ^`hH .....  X@ ^ `XhH ......  ^ `hH.......  8x^`8hH........  `H^``hH.........^`o() XX^X`hH. (L(^(`LhH.   ^ `hH.   ^ `hH. L^`LhH. hh^h`hH. 88^8`hH. L^`LhH. $oo^o`56B*OJQJo(phhH ^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo   ^ `OJQJo(hH   ^ `OJQJo(hH PP^P`OJQJ^Jo(hHo   ^ `OJQJo(hH ^`OJQJo(hH ^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo ^`OJQJo(hH(^`56B*OJQJ^Jo(phhH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hH hh^h`OJQJo(SD^`D5CJOJPJQJ^Jo(-XX^X`OJQJ^Jo(hHo((^(`OJQJo(hH  ^ `OJQJo(hH  ^ `OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hHhh^h`OJQJo(hH88^8`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH (@@^@`56B*OJQJ^Jo(phhH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hH(^`(OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo  ^ `OJQJo(hH` ` ^` `OJQJo(hH00^0`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH^`56OJQJ^Jo(hH-^`OJQJ^Jo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hHhh^h`B*OJQJo( hh^h`hH) ^`hH) 88^8`hH) ^`hH() ^`hH() pp^p`hH()   ^ `hH. @ @ ^@ `hH.   ^ `hH./9Y n3i_GU38(&-L)cbo|H8cp"6+((dq&~*adH_@j>iЮ        s        JTL        5r                Ю        3        ,:        xt        3        0         @ @,e}E]:&rM!&qQ$=Qz%%M*c;E%O_-20E]U2|54c5 W:}c;EKrM!/v&\j7_ uYp6fM*"_f4wfS g|ggjF!j0mjM*Igu uqQ$wvxJtx=Qz20M*  < E 5,.X7==>RWI_ uDeX&UYYLs3{>JU'rIoP_SU['%!S! P}s!/Re`5uOwiyO}~ k&U*@QcuU|$})6[`ZrW  0JM^gvx    ` ) * , O X  . %H l 9n n   ( ,7 H VQ ]  , -> J O Ja f g o /w | ~   o ?   [ 2 3 b y RX-eSkZ/< &"E"15_,xIH T{`fgphuRy#UJbtiw xdebU0R`zmKs-P/LNk^c0u2rPxzF 0gp$rz+ bbez6Ef%:;@DH+Md'uBwpyr&5UF5U _(mmw}DGd;lRsB +=F W /8In~f 1E'IJ\)aPc5rL@,14F h|']axe  ( ) 3 \5 C O .S U ` Fc i q z | !; !!!'!b! {!;"%""G+">/"~9"G"I"M"2r" ~"[## ##64#D#~L#R#e#$$/$0/$y>$rF$>Y$`$%&%*%-%}1%t:%G%AH%H%L%U%b%Mf%Fm%u%=&$&,&/&1&7&8&9&?&Y&Z&qj&j&s&' ''$&'57'_'na'b'g'=(R(((((49(vF(fX(m()7)Y))$0) 8)L)U)})* * ****H$*)*T/*e^*b*h*)z*y+++A+,+DB+G+L+gN+GP+"R+S+[+^+j+m+, ,2,(,.,@,J,N,&a,Cl,o,s,-b ---)"-n2-=-[H-Y-s-..!.-9.F.L.Z.ka.?g.Sw. /*/l/-/./ > >U >v!>'E>R>^>Gm>z>?c??v?x"?$?%?8?7>?B?l?2m?p?r{?8@@ @eJ@O@m@{@~@(A!A,A4AjCAEAKSABB" B#B>+B0BJBeMBZB^BUrBm&C1CGC7ICMC#mCAqCsCvD#9D:D>D6BDAJDTD.\DEfEAESJE2LEXEZEFdEzEX{E|E3FFF IFZLF[F]F`FbF GR3G8G3N8NGNiNOhO OI ON OBOxPOROfYO^ObOP!P-"P(P.P$4PckBcDc^c6fc!}cdd_d"dS(dr*r-r8@r;BrMJr!RrZrs~r2s3*s.s4s5s`vsvsvs{sI t!t(t6tktxtuD ux!u~@CJYVc:n%-FdLajqxb/^Ue:y< %+,D6D%_Rgoq}78wEN$lo b(0 33<Ylvz*'59tBI_hq}PJLLuTIVcn!(,;8UDYT]Uou&*3ce1m}h!,<l=~\uk{Dm z"+57!Bjgxl#7>?@IpTTl6}~'< 7EH KMQ]S4]? $46>DJK^aH{Rk#o%FAHRK:Z"[fprtb-%9',-46aVku O.a01r29fDHZauz (1BNG`> V*d:Kfj=knsPv|L}V90 o#)P]bgvw5z`m ;&(7CW[egu#aclx{ bc#h'+-1BK NOadiOqs}Y'EhGT] %f((4-59<$FPL_y7{) 4%*?AFHdo$u,~V2<DVUyc1*BO:_d?i8jvwO)+a;<@@5ExI& " %/WahHd??JP7,KrERqwN~ C(AGOYD\sauw}=|$. BRRbu IV]$/81I8?;AyC+4";wGiIQZZ>-l|[^'*9n;/NN[_cgk} )(1P3&pp '=!WZScmZu $ 9!/6[FK)H)CFHL6SYo%y'0\tv&.U7D:GNa fxf#0:BGp[dft u/^]msG?GBGCGDGLGMGUGVGWG_G`GmGnGoGpGqGrGsGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG/H0H8H@HQHRHSH_H`HhHiHwHxHyH~HHHHHHyy yyyy!y"y#y&y)y,y/y2y5y8y;y>yAyByMyQyUyYy]yayeyiymyqyuyvy}yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyzz zzzzz"z(z,z-z7z<Enabled>1</Enabled><ScanUnformatted>1</ScanUnformatted><ScanChanges>1</ScanChanges></ENInstantFormat>e<ENLayout><Style>Amer Political Sci Review</Style><LeftDelim>{</LeftDelim><RightDelim>}</RightDelim><FontName>Times New Roman</FontName><FontSize>12</FontSize><ReflistTitle></ReflistTitle><StartingRefnum>1</StartingRefnum><FirstLineIndent>0</FirstLineIndent><HangingIndent>720</HangingIndent><LineSpacing>0</LineSpacing><SpaceAfter>0</SpaceAfter></ENLayout><ENLibraries><Libraries><item>Theory.enl</item><item>Parliamentarization.enl</item><item>Europe.enl</item><item>Baltic &amp; Eastern Europe Library.enl</item></Libraries></ENLibraries>A@`` j@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial5& zaTahoma3z Times?5 z Courier New;Wingdings"1hc&c&Ad&n>x{Dn>x{DY4d 2QXR 0 s&2MOVEMENT POLITICSvu user"Victoria Elizabeth Perez Rodriguez`         ; 9       :Oh+'0 ,8 X d p |MOVEMENT POLITICSvu userNormal$Victoria Elizabeth Perez Rodriguez2Microsoft Office Word@@NN@ x d@ x dn>x՜.+,D՜.+,P  hp  villanova universityD{ MOVEMENT POLITICS Title  8@ _PID_HLINKSA7&=Phttp://www.lexikon-definition.de/Liste-der-Mitglieder-des-Deutschen-BundestagesH  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFHIJKLMNPQRSTUV_Root Entry F"daData  1Table[WordDocument:&SummaryInformation(GDocumentSummaryInformation8OCompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q