Citizens & Election Systems Workshop on electoral methods KTH Stockholm 2011-05-31 # kthwem

1. Citizens & Election SystemsWorkshop on electoral methodsKTH Stockholm2011-05-31#kthwem Professor HENRIK EKENGREN OSCARSSON Head of the SOM-institute, University of Gothenburg Principal investigator Swedish National Election Studies Henrik.oscarsson@pol.gu.se

2. SOME (MAJOR) CONSTRAINTS FOR ELECTORAL REFORMIn all election systems, the citizens do the votingThe players (parties) decidethemselvesif and howtheywanttochange the rulesof the game (electoral reforms)

3. Personal vote(1998) SeparateElections and Spring elections(2001) AbsenteeVoting in Sweden (2009) AttitudesTowards the DemocraticRulesof the Game among Citizens and MembersofParliament(2008)

4. Somefindings • The effects of the personal vote reform (mid 1990s) is far from whatwasintended2006: 22%; 2010: 25%; onlyabouthalfcanremember (correctly) whotheyvoted forCandidaterecognition is verylow (30 percent) no personalisationofpoliticshereThe new threshold(8%5%) willmostlikelyhavelittleeffect • Absenteevoting reforms (2002-2006) havemeasureable and significant positive effects on turnoutlevels, accordingtomicrolevel panel analyses. • Issues on electoral reform is weaklypoliticizedboth in the electorate and among the MPs. • Attitudestoward all kinds of electoral reforms are negative (except for local referendums). Status quo tend to be the mostpreferred option. • Attitudestowardelectoral reforms are more negative among the MPsthanamong the citizens.  More

6. Citizens’ estimatesoffairnessofelections Swedish Citizens’ knowledgeof the electoral system Swedish Citizens’ trust in the ElectionAuthority(Valmyndigheten)

7. Citizens’ estimatesoffairnessofelections Swedish Citizens’ knowledgeof the electoral system Swedish Citizens’ trust in the ElectionAuthority(Valmyndigheten)

8. Perceived Fairness of the Last Election (www.CSES.org ) “In some countries, people believe their elections are conducted fairly. In other countries, people believe that their elections are conducted unfairly. Thinking of the last election in [country], where would you place it on this scale of one to five where ONE means that the last election was conducted fairly and FIVE means that the last election was conducted unfairly?” COUNTRY MEANS

9. Perception of Fairness of Electionsin Sweden 1998-2010% ”last electionwasconductedfairly” Sweden 1998: 74 % (post electioninterview) Sweden 2006: 64 % (preelectioninterview) Sweden 2006: 65 % (post electionmailquestionnaire) Sweden 2010: 58 % (post electioninterview) Source: SNES 1998-2010

10. Citizens’ estimatesoffairnessofelections Swedish Citizens’ knowledgeof the electoral system Swedish Citizens’ trust in the ElectionAuthority(Valmyndigheten)

11. Averagepoliticalknowledgeamong men and women during the life span

12. Source: SNES 1991-2010

13. Factualknowledge (cont.)

14. WhatSwedesknowaboutpolitics • Knowledgeofparty standpoints • Knowledgeof the political system • Factualknowledge on politicalmatters • Knowledgeofcandidates/political representatives

15. Source: SNES 2010

16. Somepreliminaryresults • Voters of small partiestend to have a higherprobability of answering the ”6-percent threshold” questioncorrect.

17. Citizens’ estimatesoffairnessofelections Swedish Citizens’ knowledgeof the electoral system Swedish Citizens’ trust in the ElectionAuthority(Valmyndigheten)

18. Job performanceElectionAuthority (Valmyndigheten 2001-) ”How do youthink the followingauthoritiesaredoingtheirjob?” NORECOGNITION (24%) DON’TKNOW (4%) Source: National SOM survey 2010

19. Job performanceElectionAuthority (Valmyndigheten) ”How do youthink the followingauthoritiesaredoingtheirjob?” NORECOGNITION (24%) DON’TKNOW (4%)

20. Job performance/Trust in the ElectionAuthority Proportion ofSwedes (amongthosehaving an opinion) thatthinkthatElectionAuthority is performing ”verywell” or ”ratherwell” : SOM-survey 2010 (POST ELECTION): 56 percent Proportion ofSwedes (amongthosehaving an opinion) thathave ”veryhigh” or ”ratherhigh” trust in the ElectionAuthority: SNES 2010 (PRE ELECTION): 92 percent

21. Who has an opinion on ElectionAuthorityjob performance? • Politicallyinterested • The youngercitizens

22. Who thinks the ElectionAuthority is doing a goodjob? • The politicallyinterested • The older • The welleducated • Sympathisers to the established Riksdag parties

23. Job performance ”ElectionAuthority”, post election periodSource: 2010 National SOM survey; estimatescorrected for compositioneffects Field work 0=first twoweeks 1=week 3+4 2=week 5+6 3=week 7+8+9 4=week 10+

24. Re-electionCampaign Panel 2011selfrecruited access panel (n=2000+) ”Do you think that the decision to arrange a reelectionwas a good or bad decision?” PREPOST ELEC ELEC Verygood 22% 15% Rathergood 20% 20% Neithergood nor bad 16% 16% Rather bad 19% 24% Very bad 15% 22% DK 7% 3% --------------------- 100% 100%

25. Re-electionCampaign Panel 2011selfrecruited access panel (n=2000+) Reasons not to vote in the re-election 2011 (rank ordered) (% veryimportant+ratherimportant) • I distrust the politicians (45%) • It waswrong to arrange a reelection (44%) • I wasbusy/away from home (33%) • No party represents my views in political matters (31%) • I am not informed of the issues of the regional election (29%) • My vote has no effect (23%) • I do not trust that the counting of votes is fair (22%) • I am not interested in politics (14%) • I did not knowabout the election (4%)

26. Citizens’ estimatesoffairnessofelections Swedish Citizens’ knowledgeof the electoral system Swedish Citizens’ trust in the ElectionAuthority(Valmyndigheten)

27. Citizens & Election SystemsWorkshop on electoral methodsKTH Stockholm2011-05-31 Professor HENRIK EKENGREN OSCARSSON Head of the SOM-institute, University of Gothenburg Principal investigator Swedish National Election Studies

29. Andel som bedömer Valmyndighetens arbete

30. Andel som anser att Valmyndigheten sköter sitt arbete ”mycket bra” eller ”ganska bra”