I am really excited about the recent postings and I, for one, tend to agree with Mike Thies that it might be premature to discuss the consequences of the new election law. I think we should commend him for being brave enough to make bold predictions.

My question has more to do with the period when the electoral system was producing equilibirium behavior.

What still puzzles me is how to explain the tremendous and seemingly paradoxical changes in the Japanese party system in the two decades from the 60s to 80s.

On the one hand, content analysis of party platforms (as conducted by Inoguchi Takashi in the Ian Budge at al. edited book) seem to show a convergence of party policy positions, which are exceptional compared to Anglo-American democracies.
On the other hand, however, we see an increase of new political parties which seem to indicate increased polarization of the policy spectrum. Indeed, even up to the late-1970s the Socialists rejected a moderate program, adhering to their "anti-monopoly capitalism" policies (and I don't have to remind anynow how recent their foreign/national security polices changed).

Although I have my own hypothesis, what I would really like to know is to what extent the above trend can be ascribed to electoral systems.

In other words, what changes in party systems can be explained/predicted by examining electoral systems? Or is this a wrong way of trying to figure out how to draw the line between equilibirium/out of equilibirium behavior?

Again any advice is appreciated.

Nobuhiro Hiwatari
Cambridge, UK.