Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T15:21:38.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How Campaigns Enhance European Issues Voting During European Parliament Elections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2017

Derek Beach ,
Kasper M. Hansen  and
Martin V. Larsen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Based on findings from the literature on campaign effects on the one hand, and the literature on European Parliament elections on the other, we propose a model of European Parliamentary elections in which the campaign shift the calculus of electoral support, making differences in national political allegiances less important and attitudes about the European project more important by informing voters of and getting them interested in European politics. In effect, we argue that the political campaign leading up to the election makes European Parliament elections less second order. While previous studies have demonstrated that EU issues can matter for voting behavior in European Parliament elections, existing research has drawn on post-election surveys that do not enable us to capture campaign effects. Our contribution is to assess the impact of a campaign by utilizing a rolling cross-sectional survey that enables us to track how voters were affected by the campaign. Our findings show that campaigns do have an effect on European Parliament election outcomes, in that they provide information that enables voters to make decisions based on their attitude on European issues, making voter decision-making more dominated by EU issue voting.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Political Science Research and Methods , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , October 2018 , pp. 791 - 808
Copyright
© The European Political Science Association 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Derek Beach, Department of Political Science, University of Aarhus, Bartholins Allé 7. 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark ([email protected]). Kasper M. Hansen, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, 1350 Copenhagen K, Denmark ([email protected], www.kaspermhansen.eu). Martin V. Larsen, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, 1350 Copenhagen K, Denmark ([email protected]). To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2017.6

References

Adam, S., and M, Maier,. 2011. ‘National parties as politicizers of EU integration? Party campaign communication in the run-up to the 2009 European Parliament election’. European Union Politics 12(3):431–453.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2005. ‘Homer Gets a Tax Cut: Inequality and Public Policy in the American Mind’. Perspectives on Politics 3(1):15–31.Google Scholar
Bhatti, Yosef, and Hansen, Kasper M.. 2014. ‘Vælgerne og Europa-parlamentsvalg: Landspolitisk valgvind og stærke spidskandidater’. Økonomi og Politik 87(2):71–87.Google Scholar
Brady, Henry E., and Johnston, Richard. 2006. ‘The Rolling Cross-Section and Causal Attribution’. In Henry E. Brady and Richard Johnston (eds), Capturing Campaign Effects, 164–195. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Buch, Roger, and Hansen, Kasper M.. 2002. ‘The Danes and Europe: From EC 1972 to Euro 2000 – Elections, Referendums and Attitudes’. Scandinavian Political Studies 25(1):1–26.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
de Vries, Catherine E. 2010. ‘EU Issue Voting: Asset or Liability?: How European Integration Affects Parties’ Electoral Fortunes’. European Union Politics 11(1):89–117.Google Scholar
de Vries, Catherine E., van der Brug, Wouter, van Egmonda, Marcel H., and van der Eijk, Cees. 2011. ‘Individual and Contextual Variation in EU Issue Voting: The Role of Political Information’. Electoral Studies 30(1):16–28.Google Scholar
Farrell, David M., and Schmitt-Beck, Rüdiger. (eds). 2003. Do political Campaigns Matter?: Campaign Effects in Elections and Referendums. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Garry, John, Marsh, Michael, and Sinnott, Richard. 2005. ‘“Second-Order” Versus “Issue-Voting” Effects in EU Referendums: Evidence from the Irish Nice Treaty Referendums’. European Union Politics 6(2):201–221.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and King, Gary. 1993. ‘Why are American Presidential Election Campaign Polls so Variable When Votes are so Predictable?’. British Journal of Political Science 23(4):409–451.Google Scholar
Hansen, Kasper M., and Kosiara-Pedersen, Karina. 2015. ‘How Campaigns Polarize the Electorate: Political Polarization as an Effect of the Minimal Effect Theory Within a Multi-Party System. Party Politics.Google Scholar
Hansen, Kasper M., and Pedersen, Rasmus T.. 2014. ‘Campaigns Matter: How Voters Become Knowledgeable and Efficacious During Election Campaigns’. Political Communication 31(2):303–324.Google Scholar
Hix, Simon, and Marsh, Michael. 2007. ‘Punishment or Protest? Understanding European Parliament Elections’. Journal of Politics 69(2):495–510.Google Scholar
Hix, Simon, and Marsh, Michael. 2011. ‘Second-Order Effects Plus Pan-European Political Swings: An Analysis of European Parliament Elections Across Time’. Electoral Studies 30(1):4–15.Google Scholar
Hobolt, Sara B. 2007. ‘Taking Cues on Europe? Voter Competence and Party Endorsements in Referendums on European Integration’. European Journal of Political Research 46(2):151–182.Google Scholar
Hobolt, Sara B., and Wittrock, Jill. 2011. ‘The Second-Order Election Model Revisited: An Experimental Test of Vote Choices in European Parliament Elections’. Electoral Studies 30(1):29–40.Google Scholar
Hogh, Esben, and Larsen, Martin. 2016. Can Information Increase Turnout in European Parliament Elections? Evidence From a Quasi‐Experiment in Denmark. Journal of Common Market Studies 54(6), 1495–1508.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, and Kinder, Donald. 1987. News That Matters. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Johnston, Rihanrd, and Brady, Henry E.. 2002. ‘The Rolling Cross-Section Design’. Electoral Studies 21(2):283–295.Google Scholar
Jung, Nakwon, Kim, Yonghwan, and de Zúñiga, Homero Gil. 2011. ‘The Mediating Role of Knowledge and Efficacy in the Effects of Communication on Political Participation’. Mass Communication and Society 14(4):407–430.Google Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A., and Kinder, Donald R.. 1990. ‘Altering the Foundations of Support for the President Through Priming’. American Political Science Review 84(2):497–512.Google Scholar
Lassen, David D. 2005. ‘The Effect of Information on Voter Turnout: Evidence From a Natural Experiment’. American Journal of Political Science 49(1):103–118.Google Scholar
Lenz, Gabriel S. 2009. ‘Learning and Opinion Change, Not Priming: Reconsidering the Priming Hypothesis’. American Journal of Political Science 53(4):821–837.Google Scholar
Lenz, Gabriel S. 2013. Follow the Leader?: How Voters Respond to Politicians’ Policies and Performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Marsh, Michael. 1998. ‘Testing the Second-Order Election Model After Four European Elections’. British Journal of Political Science 28(4):591–607.Google Scholar
Marsh, Michael, and Mikhaylov, Slave. 2010. ‘European Parliament Elections and EU Governance’. Living Reviews in European Governance 5(4):1–30.Google Scholar
Maurer, Marcus, and Reinemann, Carsten. 2006. ‘Learning Versus Knowing Effects of Misinformation in Televised Debates’. Communication Research 33(6):489–506.Google Scholar
Miller, Joanne M., and Krosnick, Jon A.. 2000. ‘News Media Impact on the Ingredients of Presidential Evaluations: Politically Knowledgeable Citizens are Guided by a Trusted Source’. American Journal of Political Science 44(2):301–315.Google Scholar
Petrocik, John R. 1996. ‘Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, With a 1980 Case Study’. American Journal of Political Science 40(3):825–850.Google Scholar
Reef, Karl Heinz, and Schmitt, Herman. 1980. ‘Nine Second‐Order National Elections – A Conceptual Framework for the Analysis of European Election Results’. European Journal of Political Research 8(1):3–44.Google Scholar
Rohrschneider, Robert, and Clark, Nick. 2008. ‘Second-Order Elections Versus First-Order Thinking: How Voters Perceive the Representation Process in a Multi-Layered System of Governance’. In Cees van der Eijk and Hermann Schmitt (eds), Multi-Level Electoral Systems of the European Union, 137–162. Mannheim: CONNEX.Google Scholar
Sniderman, Paul M., Brody Richard, A. and Tetlock, Philip E.. 1993. Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sniderman, Gabriel S., and Theriault, Sean M.. 2004. ‘The Structure of Political Argument and the Logic of Issue Framing’. In William E. Saris and Paul M. Sniderman (eds), Studies in Public Opinion:Attitudes, Nonattitudes, Measurement Error, and Change, 133–65. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Taber, C.S., M, Lodge., and J, Glathar. 2001. ‘The motivated construction of political judgments’. Citizens and politics: Perspectives from political psychology, 198–226.Google Scholar
Valentino, Nicholas A., Hutchings, Vincent. L., and White, Ismail K.. 2002. ‘Cues That Matter: How Political Ads Prime Racial Attitudes During Campaigns’. American Political Science Review 96(1):75–90.Google Scholar
Zaller, John. 1989. ‘Bringing Converse Back In: Modeling Information Flow in Political Campaigns’. Political Analysis 1(1):181–234.Google Scholar
Zaller, John. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Beach et al Dataset

Dataset

http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/QUIXMK
Link
Supplementary material: File

Beach supplementary material

Beach supplementary material

Download Beach supplementary material(File)
File 70.5 KB