annex euro gap

7/21/2019 Annex Euro Gap

1/12

EUROPE EXPANDS, TURNOUT FALLS:

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE 2004

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ELECTION


2/12

nternat ona nst tute or emocracy an ectora ss stance 2004

nternatona pu cat ons are n epen ent o spec c natona or po t ca nterests. ews expresse

n t s pu cat on o not necessar y represent t e v ews o nternatona , ts oar or ts ouncmem ers. aps create or t s pu cat on n or er to a c ar ty to t e text o not mpy any u gement on

t e part o t e nst tute on t e ega status o any terr tory or t e en orsement o any oun ar es, nor oes

t e pacement or s ze o any country or terr tory re ect a po t ca v ew o t e nst tute.

Applications for permission to reproduce or translate all or any part of this publication should be made to:

Publications Office

nternat ona

-103 34 toc o m

we en

nternat ona encourages ssem nat on o ts wor an w prompt y respon to requests or

perm ss on to repro uce or trans ate ts pu cat ons.

Graphic design by: Holmberg & Holmberg Design AB, Stockholm, Sweden

Printed by: Elanders Infologistics Vst AB, Sweden

ISBN: 91-85391-12-3


3/12

3

e biggest free election in European history appeared to be

Europes biggest democratic flop when a majority of European

e ectors pre erre to stay at ome rat er t an go out to vote

in June 200 or mem ers o t e European Par iament. O

an e ectorate o more t an 3 0 mi ion persons, more t an

86 million did not votea higher proportion of abstentions

than in parliamentary elections in India, notwithstanding its

ig er rates o i iteracy an poverty. However, t e e aviour

o citizens varie great y etween t e 25 mem er countries. In

ova ia, on y 17 per cent o e ectors ot ere to vote, w i e

in Malta turnout was 82 per cent. Such great differences cry

out for explanation: why should turnout in one European

country e a most ve times t at in anot er?

as c acts

e body which has become the European Union (EU)was created in 1957 by the Treaty of Rome. Like all inter-

ational treaties, this was a document binding nationalovernments. Just as there is no popularly elected parlia-

ent in t e Unite Nations, so t ere was no provisionor a popu ar y e ecte par iament. e Par iament wasnitia y an assem y o appointe mem ers.

Wit t e expansion o t e powers o t e Europeannion, t e rst irect e ection o mem ers o t european Par iament (MEPs) was e in 1979. However,e powers o t e European Par iament (EP) are sti im-

ted. Key decisions are made by a multinational teamf non-elected offi cials in the European Commission in

Brussels and through consultations between representa-ives of national governments, sitting as the Council of

inisters, an t e Commission. e resignation o t e

Europe Expands, Turnout Falls: The Significance

of the 2004 European Parliament Election

ichard Rose*

Figure 1: National Differences in the Euro-Gap, 2004EURO-GAP: Difference in turnout at latest national election and 2004

European Parliament election.

Source:. Official

returns as of 9 July 2004 plus provisional returns for Ireland, Italy,

Luxembourg and the UK. National election results: Rose, Richard and

Munro, Neil, Elections and Parties in New European Democracies

(Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2003); and update from authors files.

Belgium

0 20 40 60 80

Luxembourg

Malta

Italy

Cyprus

Greece

Ireland

Lithuania

Denmark

Spain

France

Germany

Austria

Latvia

Finland

Portugal

Hungary

United Kingdom

Netherlands

Sweden

Czech Republik

Slovenia

Estonia

Poland

Slovakia17

70

21

46

2757

28

70

28

59

38

80

39

80

39

59

39

71

39

63

3965

41

72

42

80

43

7943

60

45

69

48

87

48

59

60

63

63

75

71

92

73

81

8296

90

87

91

96

100 %

% turnout most recent national Election

% turnout at 2004 European Parliament Election

is paper was a so prepare as part o a researc project on iverging at s o ost-ommunist Countries, supported by grant RES 000 23 0193 from the UK Economic

nd Social Research Council. Dr Neil Munro provided very useful research assistance.


4/12

president and the entire Commission in 1999 due toismanagement and corruption led to an expansion of

he EPs powers to hold the Commission accountable.Nonet e ess, t e in uence o MEPs a s ar s ort o t en uence o nationa par iaments.

e most stri ing eature at t e 2004 EuropeanPar iament e ection is t at turnout varie great y etween

uropean countries ( gure 1). Nine-tent s o e ectors

went to t e po s in Be gium an Luxem ourg an morehan two-thirds voted in three more countries. In sevenountries turnout was higher than the average in elec-ions for the president of the United States since World

War II. However, less than one-third of the electorateot ere to vote in t e Czec Repu ic, Estonia, Po an ,

S ovenia an S ova ia.Secon , t ere is a ig Euro-Gap. Turnout in t e EP

ection o 2004 was in most countries muc ower t anurnout at t e atest e ection or t e nationa Par iament.

e Euro-Gap in 2004 average 25 percentage pointscross t e mem er states o t e European Union. In

Austria, the Netherlands and Sweden, half or more ofhose who voted at the latest national election did not

participate in the election of MEPs, and the same wasrue in five of the EUs new member states. e biggesturo-Gap was registere in S ova ia, w ere 70 per centa turne out to vote in a itter y conteste nationa

par iamentary e ection in 2002, ut on y 17 per centvote in 2004 o e ect S ova ias MEPs.

ir , turnout as een a ing at eac successiveuropean Par iament e ection. W en t e rst popu arection was e in 1979, turnout was 3 per cent. By

1999 it had fallen to below half of the European elector-te, nd in 2004 it was down by more than 17 percentage

points from the level of 1979 (figure 2). In the nineountries that participated in the first direct election to

t e EP, turnout in 2004 was on average 9 percentagepoints ower t an in 1979.

As mem ers ip in t e European Union as expan e ,

turnout as a en. is was ma e very evi ent in t e2004 election: turnout averaged almost 53 per cent inthe 15 established member states, whereas in the ten newmember states it averaged only 40 per cent (see figure 3).ere were, however, big differences between the enlarge-ment countries. Turnout was as high as 82 per cent inMa ta ut was 5 percentage points ower in S ova ia( gure 1). (For t e ates o accession to t e EU, seeInternationa IDEA, 2004, Part II, pp. 5574.)

e new mem er states are not in i erent or averse topo itics, or in t eir most recent nationa e ections turn-out as average on y percentage points ess t an in

national elections in the established EU members, butthe Euro-Gap is bigger in the new member statesa dif-ference of 29 percentage points as against 22 points inestablished member statesbecause of much lower turn-out or t e EP e ection. Moreover, in t e en argementcountries turnout or t e EP e ections was 23 percent-age points ower t an in t e nationa re eren ums emont s e ore to en orse entry to t e EU.

Alternative Explanations

e European Parliament operates as a unitary assemblyand its 732 MEPs are organized in transnational par-ties rat er t an a ong nationa ines. However, MEPsare e ecte in 25 i erent nationa contests. Eac is con-

ucte accor ing to t e particu ar countrys own e ection

0

100%

1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004

65.9%63. 8% 62. 8%

58.4%

53.0%

45.6%

Figure 2: Turnout at European Parliament Elections,

19792004

Figure 3: The Euro-Gap in the Established and New EU

Member States, 2004

Source:. Official

returns as of 9 July 2004 plus provisional returns for Ireland, Italy,

Luxembourg and the UK. National election results: Rose, Richard and

Munro, Neil, Elections and Parties in New European Democracies

(Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2003); and update from authors files.

Mean for nine countries in 1979, 10 in 1984, 12 in

1989 and 1994, 15 in 1999, and 25 in 2004.

% turnout most recent national election

% turnout at 2004 European Parliament election

0

100%

75.2%

52.8%

69.0%

40.3%

15 established members 10 new members


5/12

laws, distinctive national political circumstances, and dis-tinctive position in the European Union, for example, asan established or new member country. Because there are

i erences in nationa context, it is possi e to un erta estatistica ana ysis to i enti y w ic i erences etweencountriese ectora institutions, nationa po itics or EU-re evant circumstances a a statistica y signi cantin uence on turnout at t e 2004 EP e ection.1

Electoral System and Practice

Compu sory voting as consistent y a a signi cantin uence on turnout at nationa e ections (see t e annex).Even w ere it is not u y en orce , it nonet e ess esta -is es a socia norm t at many e ectors respect. In t eatest European Par iament e ection, w ere t ere wascompu sory voting, turnout was ig er (corre ation r:. 8; gure 4). However, t e overa impact o compu soryvoting was reduced because it is conspicuously absentfrom the election laws in all the new EU member states.is is a response to the communist practice of securing100 per cent endorsement for a one-party regime throughintimi ation an vote rau , w ic pro uce turnout g-ures t at were itera y too goo to e true.

A istinctive eature o t e European Par iament e ec-tion is t at nationa governments cou , i t ey c ose,

o nationa an EP e ections on t e same ay so t atpeop e cou vote twice, ma ing just one trip to a po -ing station. Luxem ourg as regu ar y e e ections toits national Parliament on the same day as it elects itsMEPs. In Lithuania, the impeachment of the presidentresulted in the first-round vote to choose a new presidentbeing held on the same day as the EP election. InBe gium, Ire an an parts o t e Unite King om(Eng an an Wa es) regiona or oca government e ec-tions were e simu taneous y wit t e vote or MEPs.

Wit contro o important o ces at sta e, nationa par-ties a an incentive to get out t e voters out an voters

a stronger incentives to go to t e po s. Once t ere,they almost invariably cast a vote for their MEP as well;thus, holding national and EP elections on the same dayhad a positive influence on turnout for the EuropeanParliament election (r: .45).

e e ect o sync ronizing, or yo ing, e ections,

re uce to insigni cance t e impact o o ing e ectionson a rest ay. In ot Britain an Ire an , t e EP anregiona / oca e ections were e on a norma wor ing

ay an turnout went up in comparison wit t e EPe ection o 1999.

Fo owing t e EU Counci ecision o May 2002, amembers of the European Parliament must be elected onthe basis of proportional representation, using the List-PR system or the Single Transferable Vote (STV). Inpractice, 23 member states used the List-PR system buttwo, Ire an an Ma ta, use STV. e type o e ectorasystem t us cannot account or i erences in nationa

turnout in 2004.

Figure 4: Influences on Turnout at the 2004 Election to

the European Parliament

Correlation

Electoral system/practice

Compulsory voting .68**

Holding national and EP electionson the same day .45*

Rest day not significant

Proportional representation not significant

National politics

Trust in parties .62**

Trust in government .54**

Post-communist country .58**

Perception of corruption not significant

Vote for biggest governing party .44*

European Union position

Over-representation in the European

Parliament .57**

Duration of EU membership .46*

Benefits of EU membership not significant

** Pearson r correlation significant at


6/12

6

or eac 1 per cent ig er t e nationa eve o trust inpo itica parties, turnout was up y 1.4 percentage points

( gure 5). e in uence o trust in government was a sou stantia , ut not so ig , oosting turnout y 0.7 per-entage points for each additional 1 per cent increase inrust in the government.

Given a legacy of repressive and corrupt communistrule, distrust is higher in post-communist countries. (epparent association etween very recent mem ers ip oe EU an ower turnout is actua y a re ection o t e

act t at eig t o t e ten new mem er states were omi-ate y Moscow e ore t e Ber in Wa e .) In t e eig tew mem er states o Centra an Eastern Europe, on y

11 per cent trust po itica parties an 2 per cent express

rust in nationa government. By contrast, in t e newember states of Cyprus and Malta trust in parties and

overnment is actually above the average for establishedU member countries, and so was turnout, reaching 82

per cent in Malta, where voting was not compulsory.Distrust o government oes not re ect a e ie

at t ose in government are corrupt. ere was noigni cant corre ation etween turnout an Transparency

Internationa s Perception o Corruption In ex, w icows wi e variations in perceive corruption etween

uropean countries. Nor oes istrust re ect concernwit governments taxing an spen ing powers. ere

s no significant correlation between public expendi-ure and turnout at the European Parliament election.

Instead, evidence from the European Social Survey

(see Rose 2004) indicates that distrust in political insti-tutions is boosted by electors feeling that politicians do

not care what people like themselves think.Dissatisfaction with the government of the day isin e to istrust in nationa government. In 22 o t e 25

EU mem er countries, t e s are o t e vote or t e arg-est party in government e in t e European Par iamentcontest y an average o more t an 10 percentage points.

e parties w ic a een t e argest party in govern-ment emerge rom t e EP e ection wit an averageo on y 23 per cent o t e nationa vote. In Po an t eSocialist government was already leaving national offi cebefore the EP election, so it was not surprising that itsshare of the vote was down from 41 to 9 per cent. In

the Czech Republic, the Social Democratic prime min-ister resigne a ter is partys vote roppe rom 30 to9 per cent. In Ita y, Prime Minister Si vio Ber usconisgoverning party ost more t an one-quarter o its vote,ea ing to t e ismissa o t e minister o nance an t e

resignation o t e ea er o one partner party in t e gov-ernment coa ition. In Germany t e Socia DemocraticParty su ere its worst resu t in generations, as its s areof the vote fell to 21.5 per cent. While ChancellorGerhard Schrder survived, his political prestige wasbadly affected.

e fall in votes for the governing party was not so

muc ue to a rise in support or t e opposition as itwas to i erences etween t e supporters o i erentparties in t e retreat into a stention. e more t e gov-

Figure 5: The Influence of Trust in National Parties on Turnout in Elections to the European

Parliament

Source:Eurobarometer survey, March 2004

0 10 20 30 40

100 -

80 -

60 -

40 -

20 -

0

EPt

urnout2004

% Trusting national parties

Pol

Slovak

CZ

Lat

UK

LithGer FR

Hun

Por

Est

Slvn

AT

FI

Swe

Spain

NL

DK

IREGre

CY

BE

IT

Lux

Malta

R-square: .38


7/12

erning partys vote was down, the more turnout was down(r -.44). is pattern reflects the fact that electors regarda European election as a mid-term election. ose whonorma y expect to support t e government in a nationae ection use t e mi -term a ot to sen a warning tot e party t ey avour y a staining. e oss in popu ar-ity nee not e ong-term. Governments su ering rommi -term unpopu arity can respon y c anging ca inet

ministers or y c anging party ea ers an prime minis-ters.

From the perspective of European federalists, indif-ference to the European project is worrisome. From theperspective of elected governments, however, it is betterto ose support t roug i erentia a stention t an to seevoters stirre up to vote or t e o cia oppositionor, as

appene in Britain in 2004, to see a strong per ormancey a ra ica outsi er party, t e anti-EU Unite King om

In epen ence Party.

e uropean mens on

From t e perspective o a vocates o strengt ening t eEuropean Union, t e European imension is seen as t emost important in e ections to t e European Par iament.However, t e European imension is on y one o t ree majorsources o in uence on turnout. Moreover, y comparison

wit nationa e ection aws an practices an nationa po it-ica in uences, it is t e east important in uence.

e European Par iament is not a e era assem y wita lower house representing electors on the basis of onevote, one value, and an upper house containing territorialrepresentatives wit itt e or no regar or popu ation (as int e German Bun esrat or t e US Senate). Instea , t e EP

as on y a sing e c am er in w ic t e num er o MEPsassigne to eac country is on y approximate y re ate topopu ation. It varies rom ve MEPs or Ma ta an six orCyprus, Estonia an Luxem ourg to 99 or Germany.

e istri ution o seats in t e European Par iamentresu ts in t e countries wit t e sma est popu ations eingover-represented. ere is one MEP for every 36,000electors in Luxembourg and for every 58,000 electors inMalta, while in Germany, Italy and Spain there are morethan 600,000 electors for each MEP. At the national level,t is means t at MEPs in countries wit sma er popu a-

tions may e c oser to t e e ectorate. However, inequa ityat t e eve o t e in ivi ua e ector is counter a ancey inequa ity in t e tota num er o seats in Par iament.

ere are 1 times more German MEPs t an representa-tives rom Luxem ourg an 13 times more Ita ian MEPst an MEPs rom Ma ta. At t e European eve , t e votesof MEPs from countries such as Luxembourg and Maltaare usually wasted, for only if the 732 MEPs are dividedalmost evenly can their votes be decisiveeven if they allvote together.

e e ectorates in sma er mem er states o t eEuropean Union are rea ier to participate in e ecting t eir

MEPs. e greater t e egree o over-representation, t eig er t e turnout (r .57). A greater rea iness to vote oes

not appear to e in expectation o getting greater ene ts.

While 54 per cent of the citizens of Europe see theirountry as benefiting from EU membership, there is noignificant correlation between a belief that EU member-

ip is ene cia an voter turnout.

s ere a ren own n urnout

Integrationist theories of the European Union assume thathe longer countries are members of the EU, the more

hey, and their national electorates, will actively participaten it. Prior to t e atest roun o EU en argement, t ereave een t ree previous waves o en argement, starting

wit t e entry o t e UK, Denmar an Ire an in 1973.ere is a positive corre ation etween t e uration

a countrys EU mem ers ip an turnout (r .4 ). isncourages t e ope t at t e ow turnout in en argementountries in 2004 may rise at uture e ections. However,e rise is i e y to e s ig t, since, statistica y spea ing,

he effect of EU membership for almost half a centuryboosts turnout by less than 3 per cent compared to the

ewest members.Among the long-standing members of the EU, there

s no common tren in turnout. At t e 2004 EuropeanPar iament e ection, t ree countries t at a participaten every EP e ection a a ig er turnout t an t eir aver-ge or t e ve e ections rom 1979 to 1999 (see gure 1n annex, gure A.2) . In t e UK turnout was up y. percentage points rom t at average, in Ire an it was

up y 4.9 points, an in Luxem ourg it was up y 2.1oints. In four countries the fall in turnout was less than

6 percentage points. In only two long-standing memberountries was turnout well below their past average: it

was down by 10.3 percentage points in France and by15.0 points in Germany.

e ownwar tren in aggregate turnout epicten gure 2 is ue on y in part to t e en argement o t european Union y t e intro uction o Centra an Easturopean countries. In uences w ic epress turnoutperate in Western Europe too. For examp e, turnout in

Hungary, Latvia and Lithuania was higher or virtuallyhe same as in four of the established member states, theetherlands, Portugal, Sweden and the UK.

mp cat ons

Constitutiona ana ysis an t e Euro-Gap ot point toe same conc usion: t e institutions o t e Europeannion i er great y rom t ose o t e 25 states t at

onstitute its membership and are distant from citizensolitical priorities. us, any prescription to boost turn-ut at elections to the European Parliament must takento the account the fact that the political process foron ucting EP e ections is in t e an s o 25 i erentationa par iaments, 25 i erent party systems an 25i erent sets o e ectors. us, even i common ru es orectora ormu ae were app ie t roug out Europe, t e

responses o e ectors wou i er.

hanges Within the Existing Framework

e rst an un amenta o stac e to ig turnout at EP


8/12

8

lections, or simply a turnout as high as at a countrysational elections, is that they are regarded by voters asecondary elections, less important than the nationalections e in eac mem er state. Lower turnout at

econ ary e ections is norma . It is emonstrate in t euc ower turnout or oca e ections t an or nationaections in many European countries. In t e Unite

States, turnout rops rom aroun 50 per cent in a presi-

entia e ection to 33 per cent in t e years w en on y seatsn Congress are at stake. As long as the European Union isf secondary importance to citizens across the continent, auro-Gap will remain, just as there is a Local Gap withinountries that hold local and national elections at differ-nt times an a Congress Gap in t e Unite States.

ections wi continue to re ect nationa in uencess ong as t ey are oug t y nationa parties rat er t an

pan-European parties. In t eory, t ere is not ing to stopationa ea ers rom orming suc parties wit out any

egis ation or irection rom Brusse s. In practice, suc aparty requires a egree o agreement on programmes an

principles. It would also require a belief among nationalpoliticians that running on a pan-European ticket would

win them more national votes than running as candi-ates only of a familiar national party.

To consi er t is proposition, it is wort notingat, in or er to organize t e usiness o t e European

Par iament, it is a rea y necessary or MEPs to orm partyroups. is amp i es t e voice o in ivi ua s an every

party group receives money an a ministrative resourcesrom t e EP u get. To orm a group requires a mini-um o 19 mem ers rawn rom at east ve i erentember states. ere is no requirement that members

f a parliamentary group agree with each other. Whilehe largest parliamentary group, the European Peoples

Party, has MEPs from all 25 member states, the extent ofe i eo ogica ivergence wit in it is s own y t e actat it inc u es ree-mar et Britis Conservatives, sociaar et German C ristian Democrats an supporters o

Frenc Presi ent Jacques C irac. e secon - argest par-iamentary group, t e European Socia ists, as mem ersrawn rom 23 i erent states. It too is u o partiesat i er not on y in t eir interpretation o t e wor

ocialism but also, like French socialists and the British

abour Party, over the Iraq war and much else.Given that turnout at national elections is higher,holding European elections on the same day as national

ections wou e i e y to raise turnout signi cant y.is occurre in ve countries in 2004. However,

n y in Luxem ourg is t is a matter o stan ar prac-ice. E sew ere it was an a oc response to events, orxamp e, o owing t e impeac ment o t e presi ent

Lit uania. In Eng an an Wa es it was a matter oministrative convenience to o ot oca govern-ent and European elections at the same time rather

han having to hold one election in May and another

month later. However, the practical obstacles aremmense. It would require 25 member states to agreeo xe -term par iaments an to ma e t at term ve

yearswe a ove t e European averageor s orten t eterm o MEPs. is wou e un esira e in countries

w ere coa ition governments can co apse uring t e i eo a our-year par iament. Nor is it po itica y rea istic toexpect a British or Irish prime minister to abandon theprerogative of choosing an election date.

National politicians can object to holding the electionson the same day on the grounds that voting for MEPs

wou intro uce a con using e ement into an importantnationa vote. Promoters o European integration a so

ave groun s to o ject, or t e e ect wou a most cer-tain y e to increase t e importance o nationa in uenceon t e c oice o eac countrys MEPs.

In 2004 t e Britis government experimente wito ing t e EP e ection an oca e ections on t e same

day in England and Wales, and with all-postal voting infour English EP constituencies. In the United Kingdomas a whole, turnout increased from 24.0 per cent in 1999to 38.9 per cent in 2004. A portion of this increase was

ue to t e emergence o t e anti-EU UK In epen enceParty, w ic encourage opponents o t e EU to voterat er t an a stain; a part was ue to t e oca an EPcontests eing e on t e same ay; an a part was ue

to t e use o posta voting. e EP constituency witt e ig est turnout in t e UK was once again Nort ernIre an , w ere a most 52 per cent o t e e ectorate vote(figure 6) in a situation in which elections can be seenas a continuation of civil war by other means. Second inturnout was Wales, where there were local elections butno postal voting. In the four English regions which held

a ots exc usive y y post, turnout was up y an averageo a most 21 percentage points, compare to an increaseo 15 per cent in t e ve Eng is regions w ere t ere

was no posta a ot ut oca e ections were a so e .Turnout in Scot an , w ere t ere was neit er a oca e ec-

tion nor a posta a ot, was 8 percentage points e owt e overa UK gure.

While all-postal voting appeared to boost turnout by

Figure 6: Variations in Turnout in the EU and in the

United Kingdom, European Parliament Elections, 2004

Figures are percentages.

Belgium 90.8

EU mean: 15 established members 52.8

Northern Ireland 51.7

EU mean: 25 member states 47.8

Wales: local elections, no postal ballot 41.4

English: local, all-postal regions 40.0

UNITED KINGDOM overall 38.9

England: local elections but no postal vote 38.3

Scotland: no local elections, no postal ballot 30.9

Source:UK Electoral Commission; European Parliament.


9/12

9

up to 6 percentage points in the electoral districts involved,he turnouts in Wales and Northern Ireland show that

postal voting was not a necessary condition for achievingove-average turnout. In a ition, t ree- t s o Britis

ectors w o receive a posta a ot at t eir ome t rewt away or e t t e enve ope unopene rat er t an voteor an MEP, an in every constituency t at a a -posta

voting t e num er o inva i a ot papers increase . In

on on, w ere t e EP e ection was e on t e same ays two ot er sets o e ections e un er two urt er i -erent sets o ru es, upwar s o one-quarter o a ots were

rejected as improperly marked in one or another contest.(See International IDEA, 2004, chapter 6.)

One prescription or increasing turnout oes not requireny egis ative or institutiona c ange: po iticians s ouct in ways t at create pu ic trust rat er t an istrust.

E ectors w o t in t at po iticians o not care w at t eyin an are on y intereste in oo ing a ter t emse ves

rat er t an t eir constituents or t e nationa interest areess i e y to vote. Suc causes o po itica istrust go ar

eyon t e powers o t e EU to ea wit . Yet t ey arewithin the capacity of national politicians to act upon.

ore an erent ect ons

Since t e secon ary nature o t e European Par iament cre-tes a Euro-Gap t at iscourages turnout, t ere are voicesa ing or European e ections to e ma e more impor-ant to t e e ectorate in or er to attract a igger turnoutn ma e t e EU more emocratic. e act t at Brusse sffi cials are accountable to 25 national elected govern-

ments is regarded as unsatisfactory. A democratic deficits presumed to exist as long as the European Commissions not primarily accountable to 340 million electors and

eir MEPs.Proponents o strengt ening t e European Union

ssume t at ma ing t e EU more important oug t toncrease participation in European e ections. However, t evi ence o t e 2004 e ection ca s t is assumption intouestion. Even in sma er European emocracies, sucs Portuga , Swe en an S ovenia, w ere t e European

Commissions pre-election Eurobarometer surveys foundhat the national population tended to see the European

Union as more important its national government, turn-

ut was not significantly higher than in countries suchs France an Ita y, w ere t e nationa government wasregar e as more important.

Proposa s or t e presi ent o t e European Union toe irect y e ecte may e justi e on groun s o increas-

ng t e EUs accounta i ity an ecause it is assume t ate egitimacy provi e y popu ar e ection wou give

he EU president the political clout to enable him toresolve disputes and to promote the integration of Europend its global role. Such proposals typically ignore nuts-nd-bolts issues about how an EU president would belected. If the EU elected a president by popular vote, the

om ine e ectorates o ve mem er states wou consti-ute an a so ute majority, an t e e ectors o 20 mem er

states t at ene t rom isproportiona representation in

he European Parliament would be left with little or nonfluence. If election were by a plurality, then the presi-ent of Europe could be elected with one-third or less ofe votean , i turnout were t e same as turnout orections to t e EP, wit t e support o on y one-sixt ouropes e ectorates. I a secon -roun run-o e ection

were require to ensure an a so ute majority, t e even-ua winner cou e t e rst-roun c oice o ess t an

ne- t o voters an ess t an one-tent o t e e ector-te.

e problems associated with referendums inuropean countries on the draft EU Constitution arereater still. Whatever the aggregate vote total, a referen-um is i e y to s ow some e ectora istricts (in t e case

t e European Union, some countries) pro ucing aajority Yes vote w i e in ot ers most vote No. To require

pprova y t ree-quarters o t e mem er statest eargin or amen ments to t e US Constitutionwou

ee approva y 19 countries. e anxieties o nationaea ers over t e t oug t o o ing re eren ums on t e

ndorsement of the draft EU Constitution is an indicatorf the diffi culties, when many national elections are held,f securing a majority view that is the same everywhere.oreover, when turnout is so low, then the real majority

n a European vote is not t ose w o avour a party or are eren um issue ut t ose w o cannot e ot ere tovo e.

References and Further Reading

se, Richard, Political Trust, Turnout and Governance Capital,tudies in Public Policy no. 386 (Glasgow: University oftrathclyde, 2004)

Gratschew, Maria and Lpez Pintor, Rafael, Voter urnoutince 1945: A Global Report (Stockholm: InternationalDEA, 2002

urobarometer, spring 2004, Public Opinion in the Europeannion,

< ttp://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb61/b61_en.pdf>

uropean Parliament,

uropean Social Service,

Gratschew; Maria and Lpez Pintor, Rafael, Voter Turnoutn Western Europe Since 19 5 (Stockholm: InternationalDEA, 200


10/12

10

Figure 7:

Country Turnout Turnout Turnout Referendum Euro- Vote Compulsory No. of Yoked

EP04 National EP99 on gap Change for voting Electors election

accessn (4) Govt Party per MEP

ESTABLISHED MEMBER STATES

Austria 42,4 84,3 49,0 na -41,9 -9,6 No 322 222 No

Belgium 90,8 91,6 91,0 na -,8 -1,8 Yes 312 500 Yes

Denmark 47,9 87,1 50,4 na -39,2 -11,8 No 285 714 No

Finland 39,4 69,7 30,1 na -30,3 -1,3 No 300 000 No

France 42,8 60,3 46,8 na -17,6 -3,3 No 471 795 No

Germany 43,0 79,1 45,2 na -36,1 -17,0 No 620 202 No

Greece 63,4 75,0 75,3 na -11,6 -2,4 Yes 391 667 No

Ireland 59,7 62,6 50,7 na -2,9 -12,0 No 230 769 Yes

Italy 73,1 81,4 70,8 na -8,3 -8,4 No 633 333 No

Luxembourg 90,0 86,5 85,8 na 3,5 7,7 Yes 36 167 YesNetherlands 39,3 80,0 29,9 na -40,7 -4,2 No 448 148 No

Portugal 38,6 62,8 40,4 na -24,2 -4,5 No 370 833 No

Spain 45,1 68,7 64,4 na -23,6 0,2 No 629 630 No

Sweden 37,8 80,1 38,8 na -42,3 -15,3 No 352 632 No

United Kingdom 38,9 59,4 24,0 na -20,5 -18,4 No 569 231 Yes

Mean for establ. Members 52,8 75,2 52,8 na -22,4 -6,8 na 398 323 na

NEW MEMBER STATES

Cyprus 71,2 91,8 na na -20,6 -6,8 Yes 83 333 No

Czech Republic 28,3 57,9 na 55,2 -29,6 -21,4 No 345 833 No

Estonia 26,8 58,2 na 64,1 -31,4 -17,9 No 150 000 No

Hungary 38,5 70,5 na 45,6 -32,0 -7,8 No 250 000 No

Latvia 41,3 71,2 na 72,8 -29,9 -10,1 No 155 556 No

Lithuania 48,4 58,6 na 63,4 -10,2 -14,8 No 200 000 Yes

Malta 82,4 95,7 na 90,9 -13,3 -12,0 No 58 800 No

Poland 20,9 46,2 na 58,9 -25,3 -31,7 No 544 444 No

Slovakia 17,0 70,1 na 52,2 -53,1 2,0 No 300 000 No

Slovenia 28,3 70,1 na 61,1 -41,8 -14,3 No 228 571 No

Mean for new members 40,3 69,0 na 62,7 -28,7 -13,5 na 231 654 na

EU MEAN 47,8 72,8 na -24,9 -9,5 na 331 655 na

Notes

(1) % MEPs divided by % European electorate

(2) 100 divided by district size or legal threshold whichever is higher. RR to supply note

(3) 75 divided by square root of total number of districts multiplied by average district magniture plus one. Taagepera index. RR to supply note

(4) Difference between turnout at EP04 and latest national vote

(6) 0=5th wave; 1=4th wave; 2=3rd wave; 3=2nd wave; 4=founder member.

(7) Spain and Portugal definite; rest are maybes.

Source: BBC Online 23.6.04

Belgium 90,8 91,6 91,0 na -,8 -1,8 Yes 312 500 Yes

Finland 39,4 69,7 30,1 na -30,3 -1,3 No 300 000 No

Germany 43,0 79,1 45,2 na -36,1 -17,0 No 620 202 No

Ireland 59,7 62,6 50,7 na -2,9 -12,0 No 230 769 Yes

Luxembourg 90,0 86,5 85,8 na 3,5 7,7 Yes 36 167 Yes

Portugal 38,6 62,8 40,4 na -24,2 -4,5 No 370 833 No

Sweden 37,8 80,1 38,8 na -42,3 -15,3 No 352 632 No

Mean for establ. Members 52,8 75,2 52,8 na -22,4 -6,8 na 398 323 na

Czech Republic 28,3 57,9 na 55,2 -29,6 -21,4 No 345 833 No

Hungary 38,5 70,5 na 45,6 -32,0 -7,8 No 250 000 No

Lithuania 48,4 58,6 na 63,4 -10,2 -14,8 No 200 000 Yes

Poland 20,9 46,2 na 58,9 -25,3 -31,7 No 544 444 No

Slovenia 28,3 70,1 na 61,1 -41,8 -14,3 No 228 571 No


11/12

unday % Vote % Vote Wasted Year PR No. of No. of National EP Represen-

ection lgst govt pty lgst govt pty votes EU or MEPs Districts electorate electorate tation Trust Trust

lst election EP 2004 % entry STV million million index (1) EU natl govt

Yes 42,27 32,7 0,8 1995 List PR 18 1 5,80 343,0 1,45 31 39

Yes 15,40 12,8 7,0 1957 List PR 24 4 7,50 343,0 1,50 49 34

Yes 31,20 19,4 1,4 1973 List PR 14 1 4,00 343,0 1,64 41 44

Yes 24,69 23,3 6,7 1995 List PR 14 1 4,20 343,0 1,56 40 59

Yes 19,90 16,8 11,9 1957 List PR 78 8 36,80 343,0 0,99 42 29

Yes 38,50 21,5 9,9 1957 List PR 99 1 61,40 343,0 0,76 35 23

Yes 45,37 43,1 5,1 1981 List PR 24 1 9,40 343,0 1,20 68 55

No 41,50 29,5 1,2 1973 STV 13 4 3,00 343,0 2,03 56 39

Yes 29,40 21,0 3,8 1957 List PR 78 1 49,40 343,0 0,74 54 26

Yes 30,20 37,1 10,9 1957 List PR 6 1 0,22 343,0 12,78 53 61No 28,57 24,4 7,0 1957 List PR 27 1 12,10 343,0 1,05 39 39

Yes 40,10 34,0 7,0 1986 List PR 24 1 8,90 343,0 1,26 60 34

Yes 43,33 43,5 3,6 1986 List PR 54 1 34,00 343,0 0,74 58 42

Yes 39,85 24,8 2,1 1995 List PR 19 1 6,70 343,0 1,33 29 48

No 40,67 22,3 5,1 1973 List PR 78 12 44,40 343,0 0,82 19 19

na 34,06 27,1 5,6 1973 List PR 38 3 19,19 343,0 0,93 45 39

Yes 34,71 27,9 16,0 2004 List PR 6 1 0,50 343,0 5,67 57 75

No 30,21 8,8 17,1 2004 List PR 24 1 8,30 343,0 1,35 42 25

Yes 24,60 6,7 23,0 2004 List PR 6 1 0,90 343,0 3,12 39 45

Yes 42,10 34,3 5,3 2004 List PR 24 1 6,00 343,0 1,87 54 31

No 16,68 6,6 26,7 2004 List PR 9 1 1,40 343,0 3,01 39 28

Yes 19,64 4,8 13,2 2004 List PR 13 1 2,60 343,0 2,34 50 31

No 51,79 40,0 11,0 2004 STV 5 1 0,29 343,0 7,87 50 49

Yes 41,04 9,1 8,3 2004 List PR 54 13 29,40 343,0 0,86 33 7

Yes 15,09 17,1 19,5 2004 List PR 14 1 4,20 343,0 1,56 47 17

Yes 36,23 21,9 22,7 2004 List PR 7 1 1,60 343,0 2,05 47 27

na 31,21 17,7 16,3 2004 List PR 16 2 5,52 343,0 1,36 46 34

na 32,92 23,3 9,9 1986 List PR 29 2 13,72 343,0 0,99 45 37

Yes 15,40 12,8 7,0 1957 List PR 24 4 7,50 343,0 1,50 49 34

Yes 24,69 23,3 6,7 1995 List PR 14 1 4,20 343,0 1,56 40 59

Yes 38,50 21,5 9,9 1957 List PR 99 1 61,40 343,0 0,76 35 23

No 41,50 29,5 1,2 1973 STV 13 4 3,00 343,0 2,03 56 39

Yes 30,20 37,1 10,9 1957 List PR 6 1 0,22 343,0 12,78 53 61

Yes 40,10 34,0 7,0 1986 List PR 24 1 8,90 343,0 1,26 60 34

Yes 39,85 24,8 2,1 1995 List PR 19 1 6,70 343,0 1,33 29 48

na 34,06 27,1 5,6 1973 List PR 38 3 19,19 343,0 0,93 45 39

No 30,21 8,8 17,1 2004 List PR 24 1 8,30 343,0 1,35 42 25

Yes 42,10 34,3 5,3 2004 List PR 24 1 6,00 343,0 1,87 54 31

Yes 19,64 4,8 13,2 2004 List PR 13 1 2,60 343,0 2,34 50 31

Yes 41,04 9,1 8,3 2004 List PR 54 13 29,40 343,0 0,86 33 7

Yes 36,23 21,9 22,7 2004 List PR 7 1 1,60 343,0 2,05 47 27


12/12

12

Figure A.1: Influences onVoterTurnout in the EU Member

Countries

Results of a multiple regression analysis explaining 59.1% of

the variance in turnout in 233 national elections from 1945 to

April 2002

ba Betaa

Length of time over which free

elections have been heldb 4.9 0.44

Proportional representation 8.8 0.43

Compulsory voting 5.3 0.29

Election day a rest day 3.9 0.23

Electors per MP ('000) 0.066 0.22

GDP per capita not significant

Government expenditureas a % of GDP not significant

a The b value is the unstandardized regression coefficient; the Beta value

is the standardized regression coefficient.

b The lengths of time for which countries have held free elections are

divided into three categories: (a) for the lifetime of present-day voters;

(b) consistently since 1945; and (c) for about a quarter-century (Greece,

Portugal and Spain).

Source: Figures supplied from the International IDEA Voter Turnout

database for elections in all EU member countries from 1945 to April

2002.

Figure A.2:Turnout in Elections to the European Parliament, by Country, 197999

No. of European Turnout in European Turnout inParl iament elections Parl iament elections (%) national elections (%) Di fference

Sweden 2 40.2 80.8 40.6

United Kingdom 5 32.3 72.1 39.8

Denmark 5 49.4 88.3 38.9

Netherlands 5 44.3 81.3 37.0

Germany 5 58.0 82.9 24.9

Austria 2 58.3 80.4 22.1

Finland 2 43.8 65.3 21.5

Portugal 4 49.9 66.1 16.2

Ireland 5 54.8 70.9 16.1

France 5 53.1 68.9 15.8

Spain 4 61.7 73.5 11.8

Italy 5 79.0 86.6 7.6

Greece 4 74.7 81.5 6.8

Belgium 5 91.2 92.7 1.5

Luxembourg 5 87.9 87.9 0

Note: Turnout is the average for all elections held since the country's first European Parliament election.

Source: Figures supplied from the International IDEA Voter Turnout database.

Figure A.3: Influences onTurnout in Elections to the

European Parliament, 197999 (UK 19791994)

Results of a multiple regression analysis explaining 65.4% of

the variance in turnout in 63 national European Parliament

elections, 197999.b Betaa

Compulsory voting 22.6 0.50

Proportional representation 13.0 0.29

Election day a rest day 10.5 0.27

Duration of EU membership (years)b 5.0 0.27

Govt. expenditure as % of GDP 0.6 0.21

Electors per MP ('000) not significant

GDP per capita not significant

a The b value is the unstandardized regression coefficient; the Beta

value is the standardized regression coefficient.

b Four categories of duration of EU membership are used: (a) the six

founder countries; (b) three older members, the UK, Ireland and

Denmark; (c) three newer members, Spain, Portugal and Greece; and

(d) the three newest members, Sweden, Finland and Austria.

Source: Figures supplied from the International IDEA Voter Turnout

database.

annex euro gap

Documents