Party nationalization has two distinct components: the first is based on the degree of homogeneity in the geographic distribution of a party's vote, and the other is defined by the degree to which national events are reflected in the change in a party's electoral support in all regions of the country. In spite of literature tying the static/distributional and the dynamic components together, we show theoretically and empirically that there is a nonnecessary link between them. We then use a seemingly unrelated regression analysis on 60 parties across 28 countries to show that while the executive system (presidentialism vs. parliamentarism) drives an explanation of the dynamic levels of nationalization, the electoral system explains much of the variance in the static/distributional aspect of the phenomenon
