Editing Party system (section)

==Types of party systems==
Main classification of party systems is using the number of parties.{{sfn|Wolinetz|2006|p=53}} Counting the "effective number" of parties is somewhat tricky since the decisions need to be made as to which parties shall be included into the count. Including all parties usually makes little sense: for example, in the [[2005 United Kingdom general election]] 16 entities run candidates and 12 got seats in the parliament, however, no researcher would argue that UK at the time had a 16- or 12-party system. The practical choice would be between a two-party ([[Labour Party (UK)|Labour]] won 35% of the vote, [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservatives]] 32%), or three-party system ([[Liberal Democrats (UK)|Liberal Democrats]] got 22%).{{sfn|Wolinetz|2006|pp=53–54|loc=Counting parties}} Some researchers suggest to exclude parties with low percentage of votes (for example, [[Alan Ware]] recommends a 3% threshold), others, like [[Giovanni Sartori]], suggest looking at the history of participation in the governments. The 2005 UK example will yield 3 parties if Ware's definition is used and 2 parties if Sartori's definition is chosen, since the Liberal Democrats almost never influenced the government formation.{{sfn|Wolinetz|2006|p=54}}

The classification is based on the typology originally proposed by [[Jean Blondel]] (1968):{{sfn|Wolinetz|2006|p=55}}
* [[One-party state|One-party system]]: a system in which a single political party has the right to form the government, usually based on the existing constitution, or where only one party has the exclusive control over political power. Example: [[China]]
* [[Dominant-party system]]: a system where there is "a category of parties/political organizations that have successively won election victories and whose future defeat cannot be envisaged or is unlikely for the foreseeable future". Example: [[Russia]]
* [[Two-party system|Two party system]]: a system where only two parties or alliances, typically placed either side of the center, have a realistic chance of forming a majority. Other parties are very minor or solely regional. Example: [[United States]], [[United Kingdom]]
* [[Two-and-a-half party system]] where each of the two major political parties that stand apart on the [[political spectrum]] needs a coalition with a smaller "half" party for political control. Example: post-war [[Federal Republic of Germany]] until the end of the 20th century{{sfn | Siaroff | 2003 | p=273}}
* [[Multi-party system]]: a system in which multiple political parties have the capacity to gain control of government offices, separately or in coalition. Example: [[Sweden]], [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]
* [[Non-partisan democracy|Non-partisan system]]: a system of government or organization such that universal and periodic elections take place without reference to political parties. Example: [[Federated States of Micronesia|Micronesia]]

Sartori splits the original Blondel's "one-party" category into true one party (no other ones exist), "hegemonic" (other parties exist, but there is no practical competition), and "predominant", where competition exists, but one party on a regular basis gets over 50% of the votes. He had also split the multiparty system into "moderate pluralism" (3–5 "relevant" parties) and "extreme pluralism" (6–8 parties)  and introduced an "atomized" party system, where the political system is so fragmented that adding one more party does not affect the political process at all. The functioning of the moderate pluralism resembles the two-party rule: there are two camps separated in the political spectrum with established electorate, the competition occurs for the voters in the political center, the political forces are [[cetripetal]]. The "polarized pluralism" is different: "anti-system parties" position themselves at the fringes of the spectrum are detached from the center, so the parties in the center are left without a credible election threat. This results in deep political divisions, "[[centrifugal forces]]", and "irresponsible oppositions" that do "outbidding" secure in their knowledge that they will not have to govern and thus can safely over-promise. Sartori declares that the 5-party threshold between moderate and extreme pluralism is not a cause of change, but a result of the process of [[elite accommodation]] in the moderate case and lack thereof in the extreme pluralism.{{sfn|Wolinetz|2006|p=57}}