1 / 20

Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher University of Plymouth, UK Eva Anduiza Perea and Joan Font

Institutional arrangements for European Parliament elections: Do they facilitate? Do they mobilise? . Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher University of Plymouth, UK Eva Anduiza Perea and Joan Font Barcelona and Madrid, Spain . Institutional mobilisation –

robyn
Download Presentation

Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher University of Plymouth, UK Eva Anduiza Perea and Joan Font

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Institutional arrangements for European Parliament elections: Do they facilitate? Do they mobilise? Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher University of Plymouth, UK Eva Anduiza Perea and Joan Font Barcelona and Madrid, Spain

  2. Institutional mobilisation – Attributes of the political system and of the political process that make people want to vote Institutional facilitation – Attributes of the administration of elections and of the political communication process that make it easy to vote

  3. Underlying mobilizing indicators Degree of political decentralization • Financial autonomy of local units • Indices on degree of federalism and decentralisation • State format and organisation

  4. Scores on the composite index of non-central independence from central government

  5. Underlying mobilizing indicatorsAvailability of direct democracy institutions

  6. Underlying mobilizing indicators Social fragmentation • Religious fragmentation • Linguistic fragmentation • Ethnic fragmentation

  7. Linguistic fragmentation Belgium 2.2 Finland 1.1 Spain 1.8 Netherlands 1.1 France 1.3 Ireland 1.1 Sweden 1.2 Denmark 1.1 Germany 1.2 Austria 1.0 Italy 1.2 Portugal 1.0 UK 1.2

  8. Contextual mobilizing indicators Degree of political fragmentation and polarization • Party system fragmentation • Government Fragmentation • Political Polarisation

  9. Vote for ‘extreme’ political parties 80 60 Voter turnout in the 2004 EP elections (%) 40 20 0 10 20 30 40 Vote for extreme political parties (%) % vote Fitted values

  10. Contextual mobilizing indicators Electoral cycle • Time since last elections • Simultaneous elections

  11. Facilitating indicators Pre-vote • ‘Automatic’ registration • Flexible voting opportunities • Voter education • Campaign funding

  12. Flexible voting opportunities Postal voting – GB all postal (14m); on demand -Spain, Germany; at post offices -Finland, Sweden E-voting – polling place -Belgium (3.2m), France, Portugal (pilots) remote –Netherlands (very limited) ‘Mobile’ voting – any polling station in country -Czech R, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia

  13. Facilitating indicators At vote • Ballot paper design • Availability of ‘choice’

  14. Ballot paper design Party symbols/logos – Colour -Ireland, Italy Black and White -Latvia, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, UK Candidate photographs – Cyprus, Ireland Non-alphabetic ordering – Lithuania (random listing), Netherlands (parl. strength), Slovakia (random within parties)

  15. Explaining turnout change 1999-2004 Turnout increases 1999 2004 Finland 31.4 41.1 GE 31st March ‘Candidate-centred’/media Ireland 50.2 59.7 Local elections + Ref Local elections + Ref Netherlands 30.0 39.1 ‘More polarised parties’ UK 24.0 38.9 Locals 6th May Local elections + all postal

  16. Explaining turnout change 1999-2004 Turnout decreases 1999 2004 Austria 49.4 41.8 (GE 3rd October ) Pres 25th April Greece 75.3 62.8 GE 7th March Spain 63.0 45.9 Local + Reg elections GE 14th March

  17. The British case I % increase in turnout 1999-2004 All-postal regions Local election No local elections North East 133.6 92.1 North West 119.5 66.2 Yorkshire /Humber 130.0 68.2 East Midlands 96.6 90.5 Non-postal regions West Midlands 76.8 44.3 Eastern 62.4 35.5 South East 61.3 38.8 South West 56.2 30.6

  18. The British case II Dependent variable = change in % turnout 1999-2004   B Std error All postal 9.69* 0.33 Locals 4.07* 0.30 % aged 65+ -0.02 0.07 % aged 18-29 -0.18 0.06 % manag/prof 0.12* 0.03 % council/HA 0.02 0.03 % white -0.16* 0.02 (constant) 24.17* 3.02 Adjusted R2 0.78 *significant at 0.01 level

  19. Conclusions • Countries seem to have ‘normal’ turnout levels which can be depressed/boosted by specific events/initiatives • Moving a country to a different level is more difficult –and requires legislative change/long bedding in period • Therefore, 2009 likely to be much like 2004 –with observed differences ‘explainable’ in a similar way

More Related