lines. Mainwaring and Shugart's table 11.3 shows parties in Brazil do not have control over the selection of candidates or the order of candidates. Parties do pool votes among lists. As a result, politicians have a great degree of autonomy and an incentive to cater to the people, not the party. This may be an advantage to the party because the party can benefit from a highly popular candidate when votes are pooled. On the other hand, party labels may become blurred as candidates progress through their political career and waver from their initial ideology.Fractionalization is another repercussion of this policy, which can make things difficult for the 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...
