president. Uruguay is more disciplined than Brazil, but less disciplined than Argentina. Brazil elects congress by factional lists. The different parties put out a bunch of different list and constituents vote for their favorite list. Mainwaring and Shugart's Table 11.3, first, indicates the parties have control over candidate selection. As a result, candidates and legislators must be loyal to the party to certain degree in order to get on the again. Second, the parties do not have control over the order of election. This means the candidates must, also, cater to the people whom ultimately decide the winner. Third, the votes are pooled. This allows the party to benefit form any remarkably popular candidate. Overall, the Uruguayan party system is very balanced forcing politicians to weight to juggle the needs of the party and the constituents. The Argentine system is the most disciplined of the party systems. All three of Mainwaring and Shugart's three elements are present. First, Argentine parties have the ability to control candidate selection. As a result, candidates must adhere strictly to party rules and politics if they wish to be placed on the list. This means candidates will think less about the constituents they represent and more about the needs and wants of the party. Second, the party controls the order of candidates' names as they appear on the list. This creates an atmosphere of competition within the party. Candidates are forced to play party politics while trying to shoulder out competitors. Seems rather two faced. Voters lose, as they cannot directly choose a presidential candidate, but only a party. Third, the party pools the votes among lists with districts. Parties that use closed lists automatically have this element too. This essay has focused on showing the differences between party politics in Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina. This group is representative of the entire spectrum of po...
