Palavras-chave
Partidos políticos
Candidatos presidenciais
Argentina
Uruguai
Como Citar
Resumo
Este artigo analisa as eleições primárias presidenciais – abertas, simultâneas e obrigatórias para os partidos políticos – no Uruguai e na Argentina. Apesar da semelhança, os dois sistemas apresentam algumas diferenças: i) o voto é obrigatório na Argentina e voluntário no Uruguai; ii) na Argentina competem chapas fechadas (presidente e vice-presidente), enquanto no Uruguai competem apenas pela candidatura presidencial. Usando uma abordagem neoinstitucionalista e analisando os resultados das primárias, a pesquisa mostra que as diferenças nas regras geram consequências significativamente diferentes. No Uruguai, promovem a competição interna e incentivam uma diversidade de opções, tanto dentro dos partidos quanto entre os partidos. Na Argentina, desencorajam a competição e promovem a coordenação de elite desde o início do processo, concentrando a oferta e arrumando as preferências em dois blocos.
Referências
ABAL MEDINA, J. Mayor democracia y equidad en los partidos y en el Estado. In: ABAL MEDINA, J. M.; TULLIO, A.; ESCOLAR, M. Reforma política en la Argentina. Buenos Aires: Secretaría de la Gestión Pública, 2010.
ACUÑA, S. “En búsqueda del equilibrio perdido: la adaptación del sistema de partidos uruguayo (1999-2014)”. Tesis de Maestría en Ciencia Política. Montevideo, Universidad de la República, 2019.
ADAMS, J.; MERRILL, S. “Candidate and party strategies in two-stage elections beginning with a primary”. American Journal of Political Science, vol. 52, n° 2, p. 344-359, 2008.
AGRANOV, M. “Flip-flopping, primary visibility, and the selection of candidates”. American Eco-nomic Journal: Microeconomics, vol. 8, n° 2, p. 61-85, 2016.
ALCÁNTARA SÁEZ, M. “Experimentos de democracia interna: las primarias de partidos en América Latina”. The Kellogg Institute for International Studies, Working Paper #293, 2002.
ALDRICH, J. Why parties? The origin and transformation of political parties in America. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1995.
ALTMAN, D. “Universal party primaries and general election outcomes: the case of Uruguay (1999-2009)”. Parliamentary Affairs, vol. 66, n° 4, p. 834-855, 2013.
ALTMAN, D.; BUQUET, D.; LUNA, J. P. Constitutional reforms and political turnover in Uruguay: winning a battle, losing the war. Departamento de Ciencia Política, Facultad de Ciencias Socia-les-Universidad de la República 02/11, 2011. Disponible en: https://www.colibri.udelar.edu.uy/jspui/bitstream/20.500.12008/4606/1/DOL%20CP%2002%2011.pdf. Acceso en: 27 ago. 2021.
ANCKAR, C. “On the applicability of the most similar systems design and the most different sys-tems design in comparative research”. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, vol. 11, n° 5, p. 389-401, 2008.
ANSOLABEHERE, S.; HIRANO, S.; SNYDER, J. What did the direct primary do to party loyalty in Con-gress?. In: BRADY, D.; MCCUBBINS, M. D. (eds.). Party, process, and political change in con-gress: further new perspectives on the history of Congress. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2006.
ANSOLABEHERE, S.; SHANTO I.; SIMON, A. “Replicating experiments using aggregate and survey data: the case of negative advertising and turnout”. American Political Science Review, vol. 93, n° 4, p. 901-910, 1999.
ARAGÓN, F. “Political parties, candidate selection, and quality of government”. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, vol. 13, n° 2, p. 783-810, 2013.
ATKENSON, L. R. “Divisive primaries and general election outcomes: another look at presidential campaigns”. American Journal of Political Science, vol. 42, n° 1, p. 256-271, 1998.
BARNEA, S.; RAHAT, G. “Reforming candidate selection methods: a three-level approach”. Party Politics, vol. 13, n° 3, p. 375-394, 2007.
BERENSZTEIN, S. ¿Somos todos peronistas? Del idealismo al pragmatismo. Caba: El Ateneo, 2019.
BIBBY, J. Politics, parties, and elections in America. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1996.
BIDEGAIN, G.; TRICOT, V. Political opportunity structure, social movements, and malaise in rep-resentation in Uruguay, 1985-2014. In: JOIGNANT, A.; MORALES, M.; FUENTES, C. (eds.). Malaise in representation in Latin American countries: Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, p. 187-210, 2017.
BOIDI, M., QUEIROLO, R. “La piedra en el zapato (de las encuestadoras): encuestas de opinión y elecciones internas 2009”. Revista Uruguaya de Ciencia Política, vol. 18, p. 65-83, 2009.
BOTTINELLI, O. El ciclo electoral 1999-2000 y el sistema de partidos. In: BOTTINELLI, O., et al. Elecciones 1999/2000. Montevideo: Ediciones de la Banda Oriental, 2000.
BUENO DE MESQUITA, B., et al. The logic of political survival. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2003.
BUQUET, D. “Entre la legitimidad y la eficacia: reformas electorales en América del Sur”. Revis-ta Uruguaya de Ciencia Política, vol. 16, p. 35-49, 2007.
BUQUET, D.; CHASQUETTI, D. Presidential candidate selection in Uruguay: 1942-2004. In: SIAVE-LIS, P.; MORGENSTERN, S. (eds.). Pathways to power: political recruitment and candidate selec-tion in Latin America. University Park: Penn State University Press, p. 319-359, 2008.
BUQUET, D.; CHASQUETTI, D.; MORAES, J. A. Fragmentación política y gobierno en Uruguay: ¿Un enfermo imaginario? Montevideo: Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, 1998.
BUQUET, D.; MARTÍNEZ, P. Autonomía vs. centralización: selección de candidatos a diputado en Uruguay (1999-2004). In: ALCÁNTARA SÁEZ, M.; CABEZAS, L. M. (eds.). Selección de candidatos y elaboración de programas en los partidos políticos latinoamericanos. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch, p. 271-319, 2013.
BUQUET, D.; PIÑEIRO, R. “Participación electoral en las elecciones primarias en Uruguay”. Re-vista Debates, vol. 5, n° 2, p. 79-95, 2011.
BURDEN, B., et al. “Sore Loser Laws and Congressional Polarization”. LSQ, vol 39, p. 299-325, 2014.
BURDEN, B.; GREENE, S. “Party attachments and state election laws”. Political Research Quarter-ly, vol. 53, p. 57-70, 2000.
CAMPBELL, A., et al. The American voter. New York: Wiley, 1960.
CARDARELLO, A. “Muchas dudas, algunas certezas y escaso entusiasmo. Las elecciones munici-pales 2010 en Uruguay”. Revista Uruguaya de Ciencia Política, vol. 20, n° 1, p. 63-94, 2011.
CARDARELLO, A.; YAFFÉ, J. Crónica de una victoria anunciada: estrategias de campaña y desem-peños partidarios en las elecciones presidenciales y parlamentarias de 2009. In: BUQUET, D.; JOHNSON, N. (eds.). Del cambio a la continuidad: ciclo electoral 2009-2010 en Uruguay. Monte-video: Fin de Siglo-CLACSO-Instituto de Ciencia Política, p. 23-43, 2010.
CAREY, J. M.; POLGA-HECIMOVICH, J. “Primary elections and candidate strength in Latin America”. The Journal of Politics, vol. 68, n° 3, p. 530-543, 2006.
CHASQUETTI, D.; GARCÉ, A. Después del naufragio: el desempeño electoral del Partido Nacional. In: BOTTINELLI, O., et al. (eds.). Elecciones 1999/2000. Montevideo: Ediciones de la Banda Oriental, Instituto de Ciencia Política, p. 141-164, 2000.
CHO, S. J.; KANG, I. “Open primaries and crossover voting”. Journal of Theoretical Politics, vol. 27, n° 3, p. 351-379, 2015.
COHEN, M., et al. The party decides. Presidential nomination before and after reforms. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008.
COLOMER, J. Las elecciones primarias presidenciales en América Latina y sus consecuencias políticas. In: CAVAROZZI, M.; ABAL MEDINA, J. (eds.). El asedio a la política: los partidos latinoa-mericanos en la era neoliberal. Buenos Aires: Altamira/Konrad Adenauer, p. 117-34, 2002.
CORBETTA, P.; VIGNATI, R. “The primaries of the centre left: only a temporary success?”. Con-temporary Italian Politics, vol. 5, n° 1, p. 82-96, 2013.
COX, G. La coordinación estratégica de los sistemas electorales del mundo. Barcelona: Gedisa, 1997.
CROSS, W.; BLAIS, A. “Who selects the party leader?”. Party Politics, vol. 18, n° 2, p. 127-150, 2012.
CROTTY, P.; JACKSON, P. Presidential primaries and nomination. Washington: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1985.
DUVERGER, M. Los partidos políticos. Ciudad de México: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1996 [1951].
EPSTEIN, L. Political parties in the American mold. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1986.
FIORINA, M. “What ever happened to the median voter?”. Trabajo presentado en Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, 1999.
FREIDENBERG, F. Selección de candidatos y democracia interna en los partidos de América Lati-na. Biblioteca de la Reforma Política, n° 1. Lima: International Idea, 2003.
FREIDENBERG, F. “Mucho ruido y pocas nueces. Organizaciones partidistas y democracia interna en América Latina”. Polis, vol. 1, n° 1, p. 91-134, 2005.
FREIDENBERG, F. ¿Qué es la democracia interna? Una propuesta de redefinición conceptual. In: REYNOSO NÚÑEZ, J.; SÁNCHEZ, H. (coords.). La democracia en su contexto. Estudios en homena-je a Dieter Nohlen en su septuagésimo aniversario. México: Unam, p. 277-295, 2009.
FREIDENBERG, F.; DOSEK, T. “Las reformas electorales en América Latina (1978-2015)”. In: CA-SAS-ZAMORA, et al. (eds.). Reformas Políticas en América Latina, tendencias y casos. Washing-ton: Organización de los Estados Americanos, p. 73-103. 2016.
GALLAGHER, M.; MARSH, M. (eds.). Candidate selection in comparative perspective. The secret garden of politics. London: Sage Publications, 1988.
GALLO, A. “Un Paso decisivo. Los partidos de izquierda después de la reforma electoral en la Argentina”. Revista PostData, Buenos Aires, vol. 22, n° 1, p. 233-271, 2017.
GALLO, A. “Entre lo ideado y lo obtenido: un análisis de los efectos de las primarias abiertas en Argentina a diez años de su incorporación formal”. Revista Brasileira de Ciência Política, vol. 34 p. 1-46, 2021.
GEER, J. "Assessing the representativeness of electorates in presidential primaries". American Journal of Political Science, vol. 32, nº 4, 1988.
GROFMAN, B.; TROUMPOUNIS, O.; XEFTERIS, D. “Electoral competition with primaries and quality asymmetries”. The Journal of Politics, 2019, vol. 81, n° 1, p. 260-273, 2019.
HAZAN, R.; RAHAT, G. Democracy within parties. Candidate selection methods and their political consequences. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
HIRANO, S.; SNYDER J. “Primary elections and the quality of elected officials”. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, vol. 9, n° 4, p. 473-500, 2014.
JOHNSON, G. B., et al. “Divisive primaries and incumbent general election performance: pro-spects and costs in U.S. house races”. American Politics Research, vol. 38, n° 5, p. 931-955, 2010.
JONES, M. Electoral laws and the survival of presidential democracies. Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995.
KANG, M. “Sore loser laws and democratic contestation”. Georgetown Law Journal, vol. 99, n° 4, p. 1014-75, 2011.
KANG, M.; BURDEN, B. Sore loser laws in presidential and congressional elections. In: BOAT-RIGHT, R. G. (ed.). Routledge handbook of primary elections. New York: Routledge, 2018.
KATZ, R.; MAIR, P. Three faces of party organization: adaptation and change. Working Paper of the European Policy Research Unit. Manchester: University of Manchester, 1995.
KAUFMANN, K.; GIMPEL, J.; HOFFMAN, A. “A promise fulfilled? Open primaries and representation”. The Journal of Politics, vol. 65, n° 2, p. 457-476, 2003.
KEECH, W.; MATTHEWS, D. The party's choice. Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1976.
KEMAHLIOGLU, O., et al. “Why primaries in Latin American presidential elections?”. The Journal of Politics, vol. 71, n° 1, p. 339-352, 2009.
KENNEY, P.; RICE, T. “The effects of primary divisiveness in gubernatorial and senatorial elec-tions”. Journal of Politics, vol. 46, p. 904-915, 1984.
KENNEY, P.; RICE, T. “The relationship between divisive primaries and general election out-comes”. American Journal of Political Science, vol. 31, n° 1, p. 31-44, 1987.
KEY, V. O. Politics, parties and pressure groups. New York: Thomas Crowell Company, 1964.
KIRKPATRICK, J. The new presidential elite. New York: Russell Sage, 1976.
LAASKO, M.; TAAGEPERA, R. “Effective number of parties: a measure of application to Western Europe”. Comparative Political Studies, vol. 12, p. 3-27, 1979.
MARSH, M. “Introduction: selecting the party leader”. European Journal of Political Research, vol. 24, p. 229-231, 1993.
MCCLOSKY, H. “Consensus and ideology in American politics”. American Political Science Re-view, vol. 58, n° 2, p. 361-82, 1964.
MOORE, D. W.; HOFSTETTER, C. R. “The representativeness of primary elections: Ohio, 1968”. Polity, vol. 6, n° 2, p. 197-222, 1973.
NAVIA, P.; ROJAS MORALES, P. “El efecto de la participación electoral. En las primarias para la elección presidencial de 1999 en Chile”. Postdata, Buenos Aires, n° 13, p. 193-222, 2008.
NORRANDER, B. “Ideological representativeness of presidential primary voters”. American Jour-nal of Political Science, vol. 33, p. 570-58, 1989.
PETERSON D.; DJUPE, P. “When primary campaigns go negative: the determinants of campaign negativity”. Political Research Quarterly, vol. 58, n° 1, p. 45-54, 2005.
PIERESON J.; SMITH, T. “Primary divisiveness and general election success: a re-examination”. Journal of Politics, vol. 37, p. 555-561, 1977.
POLSBY, N. Consequences of party reform. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983.
RAHAT, G.; HAZAN, R. “Candidate selection methods an analytical framework”. Party Politics, vol. 7, n° 3, p. 297-322, 2001.
RANNEY, A. “Representativeness of primary electorates”. Midwest Journal of Political Science, vol. 12, nº 2, 1968.
SANDRI, G. “Leadership selection methods in Italy and their consequences on membership mo-bilization”. Paper presented at the ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops, St. Gallen, Switzerland, 2011.
SANDRI, G.; SEDDONE, A. Introduction: Primary elections across the world. In: SANDRI, G.; SEDDONE, A.; VENTURINO, F. (eds.). Party primaries in comparative perspective. Farnham: Ash-gate, 2015.
SARTORI, G. Parties and party systems. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976.
SHATTSCHNEIDER, E. Régimen de partidos. Madrid: Tecnos, 1964 [1941].
SELIOS, L.; VAIRO, D. “Elecciones 2009 en Uruguay: permanencia de lealtades políticas y ac-countability electoral”. Opinião Pública, vol. 18, n° 1, p. 198-215, 2012.
SERRA, G. “Why primaries? The party's tradeoff between policy and valence”. Journal of Theo-retical Politics, vol. 23, 2011.
SERRA, G. No polarization in spite of primaries: a median voter theorem with competitive nomi-nations. In: SCHOFIELD, N.; CABALLERO, G. (eds.). The Political Economy of Governance Institu-tions, Political Performance and Elections. New York: Springer, 2013.
SERRAFERO, M. Reelección y sucesión presidencial. Poder y continuidad: Argentina, América Latina y EEUU. Buenos Aires: Editorial de Belgrano, 1997.
SIAVELIS, P.; MORGENSTERN, S. (eds.). Pathways to power. Political recruitment and candidate selection in Latin America. Pennsylvania: Penn State University Press, 2008.
SHUGART, M.; CAREY, J. “Incentives to cultivate a personal vote. A rank ordering of electoral formulas”. Electoral Studies, vol. 14, n° 4, p. 417-439, 1995.
STEGER, W. P.; HICKMAN, J.; YOHN, K. “Candidate competition and attrition in presidential prima-ries, 1912 to 2000”. American Politics Research, vol. 30, n° 5, p. 528-554, 2002.
VAIRO, D. “Juntos, pero no casados: los efectos de la reforma constitucional al interior de los partidos”. Revista Uruguaya de Ciencia Política, vol. 17, n° 1, p. 159-182, 2008.
WARE, A. Political parties and party systems. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
ZELAZNIK, J. Resultados y escenarios después de las Paso. Buenos Aires: UTDT, 2015.
HONORABLE CONGRESO DE LA NACIÓN ARGENTINA. Ley 26.571 y Decreto 2004/2009. Partidos Políti-cos. Democratización de la representación política, la transparencia y la equidad electoral. Disponible en: https://www.argentina.gob.ar/normativa/nacional/ley-26571-161453/texto. Acceso en: 27 ago. 2021.
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2022 Opinião Pública
Downloads
