www.valforskning.pol .gu.se Citizens & Election Systems Workshop on electoral methods KTH Stockholm 2011-05-31 #kthwem Professor HENRIK EKENGREN OSCARSSON Head of the SOM-institute, University of Gothenburg Principal investigator Swedish National Election Studies [email protected]
30
Embed
Citizens & Election Systems Workshop on electoral methods KTH Stockholm 2011-05-31 # kthwem
Citizens & Election Systems Workshop on electoral methods KTH Stockholm 2011-05-31 # kthwem. Professor HENRIK EKENGREN OSCARSSON Head of the SOM-institute, University of Gothenburg Principal investigator Swedish National Election Studies [email protected]. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
www.valforskning.pol.gu.se
Citizens & Election SystemsWorkshop on electoral methods
KTH Stockholm2011-05-31
#kthwem
Professor HENRIK EKENGREN OSCARSSONHead of the SOM-institute, University of GothenburgPrincipal investigator Swedish National Election [email protected]
In all election systems, the citizens do the voting
The players (parties) decide themselves if and how they want to change the rules of the game (electoral reforms)
www.valforskning.pol.gu.se
Separate Elections and Spring elections
(2001)
Personal vote (1998)
Attitudes Towards the Democratic Rules of the Game among Citizens and Members of Parliament (2008)
Absentee Voting in Sweden (2009)
www.valforskning.pol.gu.se
Some findings
• The effects of the personal vote reform (mid 1990s) is far from what was intended2006: 22%; 2010: 25%; only about half can remember (correctly) who they voted forCandidate recognition is very low (30 percent) no personalisation of politics hereThe new threshold (8%5%) will most likely have little effect
• Absentee voting reforms (2002-2006) have measureable and significant positive effects on turnout levels, according to micro level panel analyses.
• Issues on electoral reform is weakly politicized both in the electorate and among the MPs.• Attitudes toward all kinds of electoral reforms are negative (except for local referendums).
Status quo tend to be the most preferred option.• Attitudes toward electoral reforms are more negative among the MPs than among the
citizens.
More
www.valforskning.pol.gu.se
Citizens attitudes toward some electoral reforms 1998, 2000 och 2006 (percent, net balance) Proposition
++ + o – – – percent
opinion balance
Lower the voting age to 16 years in all 1998 2 7 14 33 44 100 -68 elections 2000 3 6 14 34 43 100 -68 2006 2 8 14 31 45 100 -66 Lower the 4-percent threshold to the 1998 4 7 29 28 32 100 -49 Riksdag 2006 2 7 24 30 37 100 -58 Conduct more national referendums 1998 12 27 38 15 8 100 +16 2000 9 29 35 19 8 100 +11 2006 8 24 37 20 11 100 +1 Conduct more local referendums 1998 11 29 35 16 9 100 +15 2000 11 34 34 15 6 100 +24 2006 9 34 33 17 7 100 +19 Conduct national and local elections 1998 12 16 34 19 19 100 -10 separately 2000 11 23 34 18 14 100 +2 2006 5 12 35 25 23 100 -31 Change the length of the election periods 2000 10 16 31 24 19 100 -17 from 4 to 3 years 2006 6 11 24 26 33 100 -42
www.valforskning.pol.gu.se
1. Citizens’ estimates of fairness of elections2. Swedish Citizens’ knowledge of the electoral system3. Swedish Citizens’ trust in the Election Authority
(Valmyndigheten)
www.valforskning.pol.gu.se
1. Citizens’ estimates of fairness of elections2. Swedish Citizens’ knowledge of the electoral system3. Swedish Citizens’ trust in the Election Authority
(Valmyndigheten)
www.valforskning.pol.gu.se
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?”
1. Citizens’ estimates of fairness of elections2. Swedish Citizens’ knowledge of the electoral system3. Swedish Citizens’ trust in the Election Authority
(Valmyndigheten)
www.valforskning.pol.gu.se
Average political knowledge among men and womenduring the life span
www.valforskning.pol.gu.se
Table 1 Swedish voters’ factual knowledge 1985-2002. Percentage of voters giving a correct answer (Percent).
1991 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 true/false
Factual knowledge of the political system and how it works
You must cross a candidate on the party list, otherwise your vote will be unvalid
– – 88 – – – false
The Swedish Riksdag has 349 members 69 69 74 72 74 76 true During the period 1998-2002/2002-2006,
Sweden had a Social democratic one party government
– – – 47 45 – true
During the period 2006-2010, Sweden had a government with four bourgeois parties
– – – – – 95 true
A party must receive more than six percent of the votes to enter the Swedish Riksdag
– – – – – 90 false
Source: SNES 1991-2010
www.valforskning.pol.gu.se
Factual knowledge (cont.) eup eup fo eup eup
1995 1999 2003 2004 2009
Question about when the next EU-election will take place (correctly formulated) - - 41 24 44-
The European Parliament decides on all laws within EU (false) - - - 35 39
The EU-parliament can dissolve the EU-commission (correct) - - - 36 35
The Social democrats (PES) is the largest party group in the European Parliament (wrong) - - - - 30
How many representatives do Sweden have in the European Union? (18 or 20 coded as correct) - - - - 14
How many votes do Sweden have in the European council? (4) 25 13 - - -
www.valforskning.pol.gu.se
What Swedes know about politics
• Knowledge of party standpoints
• Knowledge of the political system• Factual knowledge on political matters
• Knowledge of candidates/political representatives
• Voters of small parties tend to have a higher probability of answering the ”6-percent threshold” question correct.
www.valforskning.pol.gu.se
1. Citizens’ estimates of fairness of elections2. Swedish Citizens’ knowledge of the electoral system3. Swedish Citizens’ trust in the Election Authority
Reasons not to vote in the re-election 2011 (rank ordered)(% very important+rather important)
1. I distrust the politicians (45%)2. It was wrong to arrange a reelection (44%)3. I was busy/away from home (33%)4. No party represents my views in political matters (31%)5. I am not informed of the issues of the regional election (29%)6. My vote has no effect (23%)7. I do not trust that the counting of votes is fair (22%)8. I am not interested in politics (14%)9. I did not know about the election (4%)
www.valforskning.pol.gu.se
1. Citizens’ estimates of fairness of elections2. Swedish Citizens’ knowledge of the electoral system3. Swedish Citizens’ trust in the Election Authority
(Valmyndigheten)
www.valforskning.pol.gu.se
Citizens & Election SystemsWorkshop on electoral methods
KTH Stockholm2011-05-31
Professor HENRIK EKENGREN OSCARSSONHead of the SOM-institute, University of GothenburgPrincipal investigator Swedish National Election Studies