Universal Party Primaries and General Election Outcomes: The Case of Uruguay (1999-2009)

Abstract

*What would happen if all parties competing in the electoral game were forced to hold open, binding, concurrent and obligatory primaries constrained by a ‘Sore Loser Law’? The answer to this question has not been explored, perhaps because there is only one democracy in the world that has applied such rules more than once: Uruguay. This country offers a fertile ground for testing some of the hypotheses developed by the literature. This research supports the hypotheses that (i) candidates selected in primary elections with more than one candidate are likely to be the ones located farthest away from the median voter, but closer to the party’s constituents and (ii) there is an optimal level of competitiveness in primaries, beyond which either higher or lower competition can damage the party in the corresponding general elections. The implications of this study have relevant bearing on critical questions that academics, politicians and political reformers regularly ask about primaries, not only in the UK, but also elsewhere.