¹ For this see Austen-Smith, D. and Banks, J., ‘Elections, Coalitions and Legislative Outcomes’, American Political Science Review, 82 (1988), 405–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar: Austen-Smith, D. and Banks, J., ‘Stable Governments and the Allocation of Policy Portfolios’, American Political Science Review, 84 (1990), 891–906CrossRefGoogle Scholar: Baron, D., ‘A Spatial Bargaining Theory of Government Formation in Parliamentary Systems’, American Political Science Review, 85 (1991), 137–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar: Budge, Ian and Keman, Hans, Parties and Democracy: Coalition Formation and Government Functioning in Twenty Countries (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990)Google Scholar: Grofman, B., ‘A Dynamic Model of Protocoalition Formation in Ideological N-Space’, Behavioural Science, 27 (1982), 77–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar: McKelvey, R. D. and Schofield, N., ‘Generalized Symmetry Conditions at a Core Point’, Econometrica, 55 (1987), 923–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² This is described in Budge, Ian, Robertson, David and Hearl, Derek, eds, Ideology, Strategy and Party Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar: Strom, Kaare and Liepart, Jorn, ‘Ideology, Strategy and Party Competition in Norway’, European Journal of Political Research, 17 (1989), 263–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar: Laver, M. J. and Budge, Ian, eds, Party Policy and Government Coalitions (London: Macmillan, 1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ Riker, W. H., The Theory of Political Coalition (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1962).Google Scholar

⁴ de Swaan, Abram, Coalition Theories and Cabinet Formation (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1973), p. 25.Google Scholar

⁵ Budge, Ian and Laver, M. J., ‘Office-Seeking and Policy-Pursuit in Coalition Theory’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 2 (1986), 485–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ These included Axelrod, Robert, Conflict of Interest (Chicago: Markham, 1970)Google Scholar; de Swaan, , Coalition Theories and Cabinet Formation.Google Scholar

⁷ Grofman, , ‘A Dynamic Model of Protocoalition Formation’, p. 78.Google Scholar

⁸ McKelvey, R. D., ‘General Conditions for Global Intransitives in Formal Voting Models’, Econometrica, 47 (1979), 1085–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹ Budge, and Keman, , Parties and Democracy, pp. 19–26, 34Google Scholar: Laver, and Budge, , Party Policy and Government Coalitions, chap. 2.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Shepsle, Kenneth A. and Weingast, B., ‘Structure Induced Equilibrium and Legislative Choice’, Public Choice, 37 (1981), 503–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹ Dodd, Lawrence C., Coalitions in Parliamentary Government (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976).Google Scholar

¹² For a full description of the techniques used by the original gatherer of each country's data set, see the appropriate chapters in Budge, Robertson, and Hearl, , eds, Ideology, Strategy and Party Movement.Google Scholar

¹³ While possibly non-intuitive, the differential saliency of issues makes perfect sense in the context of party competition. On most issues (such as taxes, welfare, military strength) one party has clearly the most popular policy. It will seek to emphasize such issues to attract votes, but the most obvious tactic for rivals is to de-emphasize that issue in favour of the ones where they have the most popular policies. Empirical confirmation of this phenomenon can be found in: Robertson, David, A Theory of Party Competition (London: Wiley, 1976)Google Scholar: Budge, Ian and Farlie, D. J., Voting and Party Competition (London: Wiley, 1977)Google Scholar: Budge, Ian and Farlie, D. J., Explaining and Predicting Elections (London: Unwin, 1982)Google Scholar: Budge, , Robertson, and Hearl, , eds, Ideology, Strategy and Party MovementGoogle Scholar: Laver, and Budge, , eds, Party Policy and Government Coalitions.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Laver, and Budge, , eds, Party Policy and Government Coalitions, pp. 36–7.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Laver, and Budge, , eds, Party Policy and Government Coalitions, pp. 25–30.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Grofman, , ‘A Dynamic Model of Proto-Coalition Formation’Google Scholar. Grofman himself weights distances by the relative size of the parties involved. It is not obvious why such weights should be preferred to simple unweighted distances, so we use the latter.

¹⁷ Schofield, Norman, ‘Existence of a Structurally Stable Equilibrium for a Non-Collegial Voting Rule’, Public Choice, 51 (1986), 267–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁸ Axelrod, , Conflict of Interest, chap. 3.Google Scholar

¹⁹ De Swaan, , Coalition Theories and Cabinet Formation, p. 25.Google Scholar

²⁰ For a non-spatial formulation of this point, which is empirically very successful, see Budge, and Keman, , Parties and Democracy, p. 44.Google Scholar

²¹ Lipset, S. M. and Rokkan, Stein, Party Systems and Voter Alignments (New York: The Free Press, 1967).Google Scholar

²² For empirical proof of this, see the figures in Budge, , Robertson, and Hearl, , eds, Ideology, Strategy and Party Movement, passim.Google Scholar

²³ Strom, and Liepart, , ‘Ideology, Strategy and Party Movement in Norway’, pp. 240–80.Google Scholar

²⁴ Budge, and Keman, , Parties and Democracy, pp. 132–58Google Scholar; Castles, Frank, ed., The Impact of Parties (London: Sage, 1982).Google Scholar

²⁵ Browne, Eric, Fendreis, J. and Gleiber, D., ‘An Events Approach to the Problem of Cabinet Stability’, Comparative Political Studies, 17 (1984), 167–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar: Dodd, , Coalitions in Parliamentary Government, passim.Google Scholar

²⁶ Budge, and Keman, , Parties and Democracy, pp. 34, 44.Google Scholar