CSES Module 1: 2006-2011 Errata

Updates and error corrections.

CURRENT ERRATA

Errata listed in this section apply to the current version of CSES Module 1, and users should consider whether to apply the items to their files.

CSES Module 1 errata discovered with Full Release of December 15, 2015, in the development of CSES IMD Phase 2

CSES Module 1: Dataset & Codebook Errata

Posted: October 17, 2019

Errata discovered with Full Release of December 15, 2015, in the development of CSES IMD Phase 2

With the release of the second phase of CSES Integrated Module Dataset (IMD), the CSES Secretariat identified some issues with CSES Module 1 Full Release of December 15, 2015. Below, we provide a list of these issues detailing the problem and which users of CSES Module 1 in the future may wish to take note of concerning analyses.

 

  • VARIABLES A1016-1018 (DATE OF ELECTION): For Spain (1996) and Germany (1998), the election dates are incorrect. In Spain, the election date is coded as March 11, 1996, but the election took place on March 3, 1996. In Germany, the election date is coded as September 28, 1998, but the election took place on September 27, 1998. In the last Full Release of CSES Module 1 dated December 15, 2015, these errors remain. However, the CSES IMD Release of October 17, 2019, this error has been corrected and incorporated into the dataset.

 

  • VARIABLE A2029 (VOTE CHOICE – PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION): For Russia (2000), there 24 respondents who are coded as “96” for this variable. The current documentation or dataset does not refer to the meaning of this code. Checks by the CSES Secretariat discovered this code referred to “96. AGAINST ALL CANDIDATES.”In the last Full Release of CSES Module 1 dated December 15, 2015, this error persists. However, the CSES IMD Release of October 17, 2019, the 24 respondents who are coded as “96” for this variable were recoded to “9999988. NONE OF THE CANDIDATES/PARTIES” in CSES IMD.

 

  • VARIABLE A2030 (PARTY LIST VOTED FOR – DISTRICT): For Belgium-Wallonia (1999), Belgium-Flanders (1999), Hong Kong (1998), Peru (2001), and Russia (1999), the last Full Release of CSES Module 1 includes a series of irregular codes. For Belgium-Wallonia (1999), there are two respondents coded as “30” and six respondents coded as “50.” For Belgium-Flanders (1999), there are 54 respondents coded as “12.” For Hong Kong (1998) there 44 respondents coded as “12” and three coded as “13.” For Peru (2001), there are 65 respondents coded as “10”, and for Russia (1999) there 37 respondents coded as “96.” The current documentation or dataset does not refer to the meaning of this code. In the last Full Release of CSES Module 1 dated December 15, 2015, these errors remain. However, the CSES IMD Release of October 17, 2019, these irregular codes have all been set to “999999. MISSING” except for two cases. Checks by the CSES Secretariat discovered code “13” (Hong Kong 1998) referred to “forgotten” and the three respondents were recoded to “9999998. DON’T KNOW.” Code “96” (Russia 1999) refers to “VOTE AGAINST ALL THE PARTIES AND BLOCS” and the 37 respondents were recoded to “9999988. NONE OF THE CANDIDATES/PARTIES.”

 

  • VARIABLE A3009 (WHICH PARTY DO YOU FEEL CLOSEST TO): For Switzerland (1999), there is one respondent who is coded as “42” for this variable. For Russia (1999), there is one respondent who is coded as “72”, one as “83”, and one as “96.” For Russia (2000), there are two respondents coded as “96.” The current documentation or dataset does not refer to the meaning of this code. In the last Full Release of CSES Module 1 dated December 15, 2015, this error persists. However, the CSES IMD Release of October 17, 2019, these six respondents were recoded to “9999999. MISSING” in CSES IMD.

 

  • VARIABLE A3005_1 (PARTY CLOSEST TO – 1ST MENTION): For Belgium-Flanders (1999), Chile (1999), Russia (1999), and Russia (2000), the last Full Release of CSES Module 1 includes a series of irregular codes.For Belgium-Flanders (1999), there is one respondent who is coded as “50.” For Chile (1999), one respondent is coded as “93.” For Russia (1999), there is one respondent who is coded as “50”, one as “69”, and three respondents who are coded as “96.” For Russia (2000), there are four respondents coded as “96.” The current documentation or dataset does not refer to the meaning of this code. In the last Full Release of CSES Module 1 dated December 15, 2015, these errors remain. However, the CSES IMD Release of October 17, 2019, these irregular codes have all been set to “999999. MISSING.”

 

  • VARIABLE A3005_2 (PARTY CLOSEST TO – 2ND MENTION): For Russia (1999), two respondents are coded as “96” for this variable. The current documentation or dataset does not refer to the meaning of this code. In the last Full Release of CSES Module 1 dated December 15, 2015, this error persists. However, the CSES IMD Release of October 17, 2019, the two respondents who are coded as “96” for this variable were recoded to “9999999. MISSING” in CSES IMD.

 

  • VARIABLE A3005_3 (PARTY CLOSEST TO – 3RD MENTION): For each Russia (1999) and Russia (2000), there is one respondent who is coded as “96” for this variable. The current documentation or dataset does not refer to the meaning of this code. In the last Full Release of CSES Module 1 dated December 15, 2015, this error persists. However, the CSES IMD Release of October 17, 2019, the two respondents who are coded as “96” for this variable were recoded to “9999999. MISSING” in CSES IMD.

 

  • VARIABLE A3011 (WHICH PARTY DO YOU FEEL CLOSER TO): There are 6,511 respondents in the Full Release of CSES Module 1 dated December 15, 2015, which are coded as “9”, indicating a valid code. Checks by the CSES Secretariat discovered these respondents should have been coded as “99. MISSING” because they had already been coded as missing for the preceding variable A3010 (DO YOU FEEL CLOSER TO ONE PARTY). This applies to the following election studies (number of respondents in parentheses): Australia 1996 (N=346), Belgium-Flanders 1999 (N=320), Canada 1997 (N=892), Chile 1999 (N=10), Czech Republic 1996 (N=17), Germany 1998 (N=9), Great Britain 1997 (N=55), Hong Kong 1998/2000 (N=11/116), Hungary 1998 (N=19), Iceland 1999 (N=1), Israel 1999 (N=400), Lithuania 1997 (1), Mexico 1997/2000 (N=52/39), Norway 1997 (1), New Zealand 1996 (N=1,812), Poland 1997 (N=2), Romania 1996 (N=108), Russia 1999/2000 (N=20/16), Slovenia 1996 (N=1,623), Sweden 1998 (N=124), Thailand 2001 (N=504), Switzerland 1999 (N=4), and the United States 1996 (N=9). Further, for Russia (1999) there is one respondent who is coded as “96” and for Russia (2000), there is one respondent who is coded as “68.” The current documentation or dataset does not refer to the meaning of this code. In the last Full Release of CSES Module 1 dated December 15, 2015, this error persists. However, in the CSES IMD Release of October 17, 2019, the 6,511 respondents who are coded as “9” for this variable, as well as the other two respondents, were recoded to “9999999. MISSING” in CSES IMD.

 

  • VARIABLE A3031 (LEFT-RIGHT – SELF): For Lithuania (1997), there are six respondents coded as “96.” For Peru (2001), there are seven respondents coded as “96” for this variable. The current documentation or dataset does not refer to the meaning of this code. In the last Full Release of CSES Module 1 dated December 15, 2015, this error persists. However, the CSES IMD Release of December 4, 2018, the two respondents who are coded as “96” for this variable were recoded to “99. MISSING” in CSES IMD.

 

  • VARIABLE A5005_D (PERCENT VOTE – LOWER HOUSE – PARTY D) is coded “0” for Russia (2000). However, since the study refers to the Russian 2000 Presidential election, this should be coded to not applicable. In the last Full Release of CSES Module 1 dated December 15, 2015, this error persists. However, in the CSES IMD Release of October 17, 2019, this variable is coded “997. NOT APPLICABLE” for Russia (2000).

 

  • VARIABLE A5007_F (PERCENT VOTE – UPPER HOUSE – PARTY F) is coded “0” for Hong Kong (1998). Hong Kong is a unicameral system, and this should be coded as not applicable. In the last Full Release of CSES Module 1 dated December 15, 2015, this error persists. However, in the CSES IMD Release of October 17, 2019, this variable is coded “996. NOT APPLICABLE – UNICAMERAL SYSTEM” for Hong Kong (1998).

 

  • VARIABLE A5009_F (PERCENT VOTE – PRESIDENT – PARTY F) is coded “0” for Hong Kong (1998). Hong Kong does not have a President. In the last Full Release of CSES Module 1 dated December 15, 2015, this error persists. However, in the CSES IMD Release of October 17, 2019, this variable is coded “996. NOT APPLICABLE – NO ROLE OF PRESIDENT” for Hong Kong (1998).

 

  • VARIABLE A5031 (COMPULSORY VOTING): For the Netherlands (1998), this variable is coded as “4. YES; WITHOUT SANCTION FOR VIOLATION” indicating that compulsory voting existed in 1998. Checks by the CSES Secretariat discovered these respondents should have been coded as “5. NO” because the Netherlands did not have any form of compulsory voting at the time of the election.  In the last Full Release of CSES Module 1 dated December 15, 2015, this error persists. However, the CSES IMD Release of December 4, 2018, the respondents for the 1998 Dutch study who are coded as “4” for this variable were recoded to “5. NO” in CSES IMD.

 

  • VARIABLES A5032_1 (VOTES CAST – LOWER – 1ST SEGMENT) and A5032_3 (VOTES CAST – UPPER – 1ST SEGMENT) are code “1” for Australia (1996). Australia uses the Alternative Vote system (for Lower House) and a single-transferable vote form of proportional representation (for Upper House). Hence, voters vote for as many candidates as there are on the ballot. Thus, the total number of votes varies across electoral districts. In the last Full Release of CSES Module 1 dated December 15, 2015, this error persists. However, in the CSES IMD Release of October 17, 2019, these variables are coded “91. OTHER (SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES)” for Australia (1996).

 

  • VARIABLE A5032_2 (VOTES CAST – LOWER – 2ND SEGMENT) is coded “1” for two Mexican studies (1997 and 2000). Voters in Mexico for Upper house election cast a single vote, which is further used to determine both state and national seat allocations. In the last Full Release of CSES Module 1 dated December 15, 2015, this error persists. However, in the CSES IMD Release of October 17, 2019, this variable is coded “97. NOT APPLICABLE” for Mexico (1997 and 2000).

 

  • VARIABLE A5032_2 (VOTES CAST – LOWER – 2ND SEGMENT) is coded “97. NOT APPLICABLE” for Norway (1997). But the Norwegian Parliament comprises 169 seats in two tiers. In the last Full Release of CSES Module 1 dated December 15, 2015, this error persists. However, in the CSES IMD Release of October 17, 2019, this variable is coded “91. OTHER (SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES)” for Norway (1997).

 

  • VARIABLE A5032_3 (VOTES CAST – UPPER – 1ST SEGMENT) is coded “3” for Germany’s (1998) study. Members of Bundesrat (German Upper House) are indirectly elected. Thus this code is not correct. In the last Full Release of CSES Module 1 dated December 15, 2015, this error persists. However, in the CSES IMD Release of October 17, 2019, this variable is coded “97. NOT APPLICABLE” for Germany (1998).

 

  • VARIABLE A5032_3 (VOTES CAST – UPPER – 1ST SEGMENT) is coded “3” for Netherlands (1998). Members of the Senate (Dutch Upper House) are indirectly elected. Thus this code is not correct. In the last Full Release of CSES Module 1 dated December 15, 2015, this error persists. However, in the CSES IMD Release of October 17, 2019, this variable is coded “97. NOT APPLICABLE” for Netherlands (1998).

 

  • VARIABLE A5032_3 (VOTES CAST – UPPER – 1ST SEGMENT) is coded “1” for Poland (1997). In Upper House Election in Poland, voters have as many votes as there are candidates to be elected in a district (between 1 and 4). In the last Full Release of CSES Module 1 dated December 15, 2015, this error persists. However, in the CSES IMD Release of October 17, 2019, this variable is coded “91. OTHER (SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES)” for Poland (1997).

 

  • VARIABLE A5032_3 (VOTES CAST – UPPER – 1ST SEGMENT) is coded “1” for Spain (1996 and 2000). Each voter in Spain has three votes in 52 multi-member constituencies in Senate election. In the last Full Release of CSES Module 1 dated December 15, 2015, this error persists. However, in the CSES IMD Release of October 17, 2019, this variable is coded “3” for Spain (1996 and 2000).

 

  • VARIABLES A5033_1 (VOTING PROCEDURE – LOWER – 1ST SEGMENT) and A5033_3 (VOTING PROCEDURE – UPPER – 1ST SEGMENT) are coded “1. CANDIDATES” for Chile (1999). It is not precise coding because coalitions in Chile present a list of two candidates, generally from different parties, and voters cast a vote for one candidate from the list. In the last Full Release of CSES Module 1 dated December 15, 2015, this error persists. However, in the CSES IMD Release of October 17, 2019, this variable is coded “2. PARTY LISTS” for Chile (1999).

 

  • VARIABLE A5033_1 (VOTING PROCEDURE – LOWER – 1ST SEGMENT) is coded “2. PARTY LISTS” for Denmark (1998). However, in Denmark, voters choose to endorse a party, a candidate on a party list, or an independent candidate. In the last Full Release of CSES Module 1 dated December 15, 2015, this error persists. However, in the CSES IMD Release of October 17, 2019, this variable is coded “4. OTHER (SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES)” for Denmark (1998).

 

  • VARIABLE A5033_1 (VOTING PROCEDURE – LOWER – 1ST SEGMENT) is coded “2. PARTY LISTS” for Netherlands (1998). However, voters in the Netherlands cast one vote for the list and for a candidate at the same time (matrix). In the last Full Release of CSES Module 1 dated December 15, 2015, this error persists. However, in the CSES IMD Release of October 17, 2019, this variable is coded “4. OTHER (SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES)” for Netherlands (1998).

 

  • VARIABLE A5033_1 (VOTING PROCEDURE – LOWER – 1ST SEGMENT) is coded “2. PARTY LISTS” for Switzerland (1999). But, Swiss voters can vote for a party list; endorse a specific candidate from a list; add candidates from other parties instead of a candidate of the list; delete candidates or vote twice for the same candidate. In the last Full Release of CSES Module 1 dated December 15, 2015, this error persists. However, in the CSES IMD Release of October 17, 2019, this variable is coded “4. OTHER (SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES)” for Switzerland (1999).

 

  • VARIABLE A5033_2 (VOTING PROCEDURE – LOWER – 2ND SEGMENT) is coded “7. NOT APPLICABLE” for Norway (1997). Norway is a two-tier system, and voters cast one single vote based on party lists. In the last Full Release of CSES Module 1 dated December 15, 2015, this error persists. However, in the CSES IMD Release of October 17, 2019, this variable is coded “2. PARTY LISTS” for Norway (1997).

 

  • VARIABLE A5033_1 (VOTING PROCEDURE – LOWER – 1ST SEGMENT) is “4. OTHER (SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES)” for Germany (1998). Members of Bundesrat (German Upper House) are indirectly elected. Thus this code is not correct. In the last Full Release of CSES Module 1 dated December 15, 2015, this error persists. However, in the CSES IMD Release of October 17, 2019, this variable is coded “7. NOT APPLICABLE” for Germany (1998).

 

  • VARIABLES A5033_3 (VOTING PROCEDURE – UPPER – 1ST SEGMENT) and A5033_4 (VOTING PROCEDURE – UPPER – 2ND SEGMENT) are coded “2. PARTY LISTS” for the first segment (tier) and “7. NOT APPLICABLE” for second segment (tier) for Mexico (1997 and 2000). In Mexico, each vote in Upper house election is counted twice: once for the 3-seat multi-member districts contest, and a second time for the national PR contest. In the last Full Release of CSES Module 1 dated December 15, 2015, this error persists. However, in the CSES IMD Release of October 17, 2019, these variables are coded “1. CANDIDATES” for IMD5017_3 (Voting procedure, Upper House – 1st segment(tier)) and “2. PARTY LISTS” for IMD5017_4 (Voting procedure, Upper House – 2nd segment(tier)) for Mexico (1997 and 2000).

 

  • VARIABLE A5033_3 (VOTING PROCEDURE – UPPER – 1ST SEGMENT) is coded “ OTHER (SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES)” for Netherlands (1998). Members of the Senate (Dutch Upper House) are indirectly elected. Thus this code is not correct. In the last Full Release of CSES Module 1 dated December 15, 2015, this error persists. However, in the CSES IMD Release of October 17, 2019, this variable is coded “97. NOT APPLICABLE” for Netherlands (1998).

 

  • VARIABLE A5033_3 (VOTING PROCEDURE – UPPER – 1ST SEGMENT) is coded “1. CANDIDATES” for Spain (1996 and 2000). For Upper house election in Spain parties present list of three candidates, voters mark up to three candidates, from any party. In total, four candidates are elected who won the most votes in the district. In the last Full Release of CSES Module 1 dated December 15, 2015, this error persists. However, in the CSES IMD Release of October 17, 2019, this variable is coded “4. OTHER (SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES)” for Spain (1996 and 2000).
CSES Module 1 Full Release: December 15, 2015 Version

CSES Module 1 Data Set Errata
Posted: December 15, 2015

Updates made to the Full Release of December 15, 2015, since the Full Release of August 4, 2003

The files released on December 15, 2015 are an update to the prior release of August 4, 2003. Please do not use files from the previous release with files from the current release. Variable names and attributes, as well as the data, have sometimes been changed. However, no records were removed nor added. The respondent, country, and election study count remain the same.

With this release, the data and syntax file formats, and the codebook, have been improved to be more consistent with other CSES data releases. Furthermore, newly accompanying the release are datasets already prepared and ready to be immediately loaded into R, SAS, SPSS, and STATA. The dataset has also been made available in CSV format (albeit without metadata beyond variable names in the column headers).

Last, a number of corrections were made to known issues in the data and documentation. The CSES user community originally made us aware of many of these issues, and we thank you for that feedback. A list of some of the most important changes made is as follows, though this is not a comprehensive list of all changes:

    1. Some macro level features which refer to the United Kingdom were adjusted so that they refer only to Great Britain, and not the United Kingdom. The affected variables are: A5005_A – A5005_E (PERCENT VOTE – LOWER HOUSE – PARTY A to E), A5006_A – A5006_E (PERCENT SEATS – LOWER HOUSE – PARTY A to E), A5010 (ELECTORAL TURNOUT), A5026_1 (PRIMARY DISTRICTS – LOWER – 1ST SEGMENT), A5027_1 (NUMBER OF SEATS – LOWER – 1ST SEGMENT).
    2. In the United States (1996) portion of the CSES Module 1 datafile, the following macro variables had to be corrected due to an error during CSES processing: A5005_A-A5005_C (PERCENT VOTE – LOWER HOUSE – PARTY X), A5007_A-A5007_B (PERCENT VOTE – UPPER HOUSE – PARTY X), A5008_A (PERCENT SEATS – UPPER HOUSE – PARTY A).
    3. For the Switzerland (1999) data, corrections suggested by the Swiss collaborator have been implemented for the following seven macro variables: A5031, A5032_1, A5032_3, A5034_1, A5034_3, A5035_1, and A5042. Furthermore, new election study notes have been implemented for variables A5031, A5032_1, A5032_3 , A5034_1, A5034_3, A5035_1, A5042.
    4. In the Denmark 1998 portion of the CSES Module 1 data file, cases coded ‘9. MISSING’ in A3010 were now coded ‘0. NOT APPLICABLE’ in A3011.
    5. In the Spain (1996) and Spain (2000) election studies, variable A5051 (HEAD OF STATE – COMMANDER OF FORCES) was corrected to be coded ‘1. YES’ instead of ‘5. NO’.
    6. The question wording used in the 1998 Dutch Election Study differs somewhat from the question wording in the CSES Module 1 questionnaire. To make users aware of this, we have added election study notes to the codebook for the following variables: A3004 – A3006, A3009 – A3012, and A3012.
    7. The election study note that appeared in the codebook for Belgium-Flanders (1999) for variables A3004, A3005_1, A3005_2, A3005_3, and A3006 has been corrected to indicate that it actually pertains to Belgium-Walloon (1999).
    8. An election study note concerning question wording of the Belgium-Flanders (1999) election study was added to the codebook for variables A3004-A3006 and A3009 (concerning closeness to political party).
    9. For New Zealand (1996), the data in variable A4004_F (PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT – PARTY F) has been corrected.
    10. Missing values for variables A5005_D, A5005_E, A5007_D, A5007_E, A5009_D, and A5009_E in the Mexico (2000) study, were corrected to be coded 997 instead of 97.
    11. For Thailand (2001), the values for variable A2018 (LANGUAGE USUALLY SPOKEN AT HOME) were corrected.
    12. For New Zealand (1996), the values for variable A2018 (LANGUAGE USUALLY SPOKEN AT HOME) were corrected.
    13. An election study note for variables A1010_1 to A1010_3 (ORIGINAL WEIGHTS) has been added to the codebook, clarifying why weights for some respondents were coded 0.
    14. The numbers for turnout (A5010) of 23 countries (see below) have been amended according to considerations presented in the CSES Technical Report ‘Electoral Turnouts Reported in Modules 1 and 2’ by Sebastian Netscher (October 2010).
    15. An election study note for Portugal (2001) for the variables A1026-A028 (DATE QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTERED) has been added to the codebook.
    16. For Germany (1998), the sample component specified in variable A1007 now differentiates between West and East Germany.
    17. For Peru (2000), variable A2022 (RURAL OR URBAN RESIDENCE), an election study note has been added to the codebook pertaining to the sampline in urban vs. rural areas for this election study.
    18. The election study note for Poland (1997), variable A2019 (REGION OF RESIDENCE), has been adjusted to not include the category ‘8. DON’T KNOW’ anymore.
    19. In variable A2021 (ETHNICITY), ‘refusal’, ‘don’t know’ and similar categories had been coded differently across countries. For the missing statement distributed by CSES to also apply to these cases, they were recoded to ‘999. MISSING’.
    20. In Module 1, there were no country labels associated with the variable A1003 (ID VARIABLE – ELECTION STUDY (NUMERIC POLITY)) as there are in Module 2, Module 3, and Module 4. They have now been added.
    21. Variable A2005 (UNION MEMBERSHIP) was coded missing for Denmark (1998) as the data distribution did not accurately reflect the reality at the time of the study. An election study note commenting this was added to the codebook.
    22. There was a lack of consistency in applying ‘999. MISSING’ vs. ‘0. NOT APPLICABLE’ to variables A4002 (NUMBER OF CANDIDATES IN DISTRICT) and A4003 (NUMBER OF PARTY LISTS IN DISTRICT), both within and across modules. This has been corrected such that for countries emplyoing party lists, A4002 (NUMBER OF CANDIDATES IN DISTRICT) is now coded ‘0. Not Applicable’ and not ‘999. Missing’. There is one exception to this: A4002 also lists candidates from some systems with open lists, because there too voters can vote for candidates. This is in accordance with the variable description in the Module 1 codebook.
    23. For the elections in Israel (1996), Netherlands (1998), and Peru (2000), there was only one primary district, namely the whole country. This was indicated by coding these cases ‘0’ on variable A2027 (PRIMARY ELECTORAL DISTRICT). However, in later modules, such cases have been coded ‘1’. To increase consistency across the modules, we adjusted Module 1 to now also take the value ‘1’ for Israel (1996), Netherlands (1998), and Peru (2000).
    24. The election study note for Poland (1997) for variable A2021 (ETHNICITY) was removed from the codebook as it listed a category not present in the data.
    25. For variable A2021 (ETHNICITY), Israel has codes 93 and 99 in the data, but the documentation of this election study does not provide information on what these values refer to. They have thus been coded missing.
    26. For variables A3010 (DO YOU FEEL CLOSER TO ONE PARTY), we made the correction to recode 319 respondents from category ‘9. MISSING’ into category ‘5. NO’.

If you have questions or concerns, e-mail us at cses@umich.edu and we would be pleased to help.

ALREADY APPLIED

These following errata have already been applied to the most recent version of the dataset, and can be ignored by users of the current version of CSES Module 1.

CSES Module 1 Full Release: August 4, 2003 Version

CSES Module 1 Data Set Errata
Posted: October 24, 2010

Great Britain (1997) – Macro Variables A5005_A-A5005_E, A5006_A-A5006_E, A5010, A5026_1, and A5027_1

CSES Module 1: July 26, 2002 Version

Posted: August 3, 2003

Israel (1996) – Replacement for Variable A2030

We have been made aware that variable A2030 still requires some corrections in the Israel (1996) portion of the dataset.

This errata replaces prior errata “Israel (1996) – Parties for Whom Respondents Voted”, which also sought to correct A2030 for Israel. Prior errata “Israel (1996) – Replacement for Appendix I: Parties and Leaders” is still valid, and consistent with the corrections below.

We are providing for download below a data file that can be used to replace variable A2030 for all Israel (1996) records, and in doing so make the necessary corrections. Three variables are present in the tab-delimited file, which contains only the 1,091 records from the Israel (1996) election study data:

  • A1003 >>> ID VARIABLE – ELECTION STUDY (NUMERIC POLITY)
  • A1009 >>> ID COMPONENT – RESPONDENT WITHIN ELECTION STUDY
  • A2030 >>> PARTY LIST VOTED FOR – DISTRICT

Variables A1003 and A1009 are for purposes of merging the file. You should overwrite your existing Israel (1996) data for variable A2030 with the new data we are providing.

The datafile containing the corrected A2030 data can be downloaded here: ISR_A2030.txt.

If you have any questions, please e-mail us at cses@umich.edu and we would be glad to assist you.

 

Israel (1996) – Replacement for Appendix I: Parties and Leaders

In the codebook, under “APPENDIX I: PARTIES AND LEADERS”, the entry for Israel (1996) should be replaced with the following:

01. PARTY B Likud                LEADER B Benjamin Netanyahu
02. PARTY A Avoda                LEADER A Shimon Peres
03. PARTY D Mafdal               LEADER D Zvulun Hamer
04. PARTY C Shas                 LEADER C Arye Deri
05. PARTY E Meretz               LEADER E Yossi Sarid
06.         Gesher
07.         Tzomet
08.         Moledet
09.         Yahadut Hatora
10.         Haderech Hashlishit
11.         Israel Ba'aliya
12.         Hadash
13.         Balad
14.         Mada
15.         Islamic Movement
16.         Reshima Aravit Meuhedet
17.         Hadash + Balad Block
18.         Mada + Islamic Movement Block
19.         Likud + Gesher + Tzomet Block
20.         Left Block
21.         Right Block
22.         Religious Block
23.         Blank Vote
24.         Others

As an aside, the most significant changes are from switching the labels for codes 3 and 4, although there are no code 3s in any of the items for which the parties comprise the response.

Russia (1999) – Candidate Mentioned (A3016)

Currently, the Russia (1999) data in A3016 simply report a “1” if a candidate was correctly recalled and no primary districts were identified. The updated version of this data, below, allows users to identify which candidates were recalled, as well as the primary electoral district in which the respondent resides.

To make this update, download and apply the two files that follow:

  • File a3016.doc, a Microsoft Word file, contains the updated value labels.
  • File a3016.txt, an ASCII text, comma-delimited data file with variable header, contains the corrected data.

The data in the file above should be placed in your main dataset for the records shown. To merge this dataset into your main dataset:

  • First, read ‘a3016.txt’ into your statistical package of choice.
  • Second, sort your files by variables A1003 and A1009 (both).
  • Last, merge the two files by variables A1003 and A1009 (both). Include a command so that for all records where variable A1003 equals ‘64301999’, variables A2027, A3016_1, A3016_2, and A3016_3 are taken from file ‘a3016.txt’ (and thus you overwrite these variables in the main dataset for those records only).

 

Posted: November 20, 2002

Nov-20-2002: Korea (2000) – District, Party of Candidate Voted for (A2031)

Data for variable A2031 should be recoded as follows for Korea (2000).

do if a1003=41002000.
  recode a2031 (5=8) (6=11) (7=99).
end if.

(Please note that the syntax above is in SPSS format, and will need to be altered as appropriate for use in other software packages).

Successfully applying this correction results in the following distribution:

Code    N
------  ------
1	357
2	270
3	50
4	14
8	5
11	62
98 	102
99      240
------  ------
Total	1100

Additionally, Appendix 1 in the codebook should be made to read:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> PARTIES AND LEADERS: KOREA (2000)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 01. PARTY A  GRAND NATIONAL PARTY               LEADER A  LEE HOI CHANG
 02. PARTY B  MILLENIUM DEMOCRATIC PARTY         LEADER B  KIM DAE JUNG
 03. PARTY C  UNITED LIBERAL DEMOCRATS           LEADER C  KIM JONG PIL
 04. PARTY D  DEMOCRATIC PEOPLES PARTY           LEADER D  CHO SOON
 05. PARTY F  NEW KOREAN PARTY OF THE HOPE       LEADER F  KIM YONG WHAN
 06. PARTY E  DEMOCRATIC LIBERAL PARTY           LEADER E  KWON YOUNG GHIL
 07.          KOREA YOUTH PROGRESS PARTY
 08.          OTHER
 11.          INDEPENDENT


         | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KOREA (2000): PARTIES AND LEADERS
         |
         | ALTHOUGH RESPONDENTS WERE ASKED TO EVALUATE LEADER D, THESE DATA
         | WERE NOT DEPOSITED BY THE COLLABORATOR.
         |
         | ALTHOUGH IN THE ELECTORAL RESULTS THE NEW KOREAN PARTY OF HOPE
         | (PARTY F) GOT A SMALLER PERCENTAGE OF THE VOTES (0.4%) THAN THE
         | YOUTH PROGRESS PARTY (0.7%), THE FIRST ONE GOT A SEAT IN THE
         | PARLIAMENT, WHILE THE LAST ONE DID NOT OBTAIN ANY SEATS.
         | THEREFORE, THE COLLABORATORS CHOSE AS PARTY F THE NEW KOREAN
         | PARTY OF HOPE.
         |
         | PARTIES REPORTED IN A2031, OTHER THAN PARTIES 1 THROUGH 4, ARE
         | INCLUDED IN THE '08.  OTHER' CATEGORY.


STATA Data Types/Storage Formats: Data Descriptor Statements

Some variables in the CSES Module 1 dataset, in particular the weights and some of the identification variables, require larger data types/storage formats than were provided in the original STATA data descriptor statements. The result is that some variables are inappropriately rounded when reading the data into STATA.

This can have a number of adverse affects. One example is that some of the longer identification variables, particularly A1003 and A1009, may no longer be unique (due to rounding) and so merges based on those variables will not perform appropriately. Additionally, the weight variables for some countries may in fact be more accurate than the designated storage format allows.

Solution: STATA users will want to use a text editor to revise STATA data descriptor file ‘cm1_col.dct’ so that the proper data types/storage formats are used, as shown here (excerpted and revised from file ‘cm1_col.dct’):

long   A1003        30-  37
double A1009        80-  89
double A1010_1      91- 101
double A1010_2     103- 112
double A1010_3     114- 124
double A1011_1     126- 135
double A1011_2     137- 146
double A1011_3     148- 157
double A1012_1     159- 169
double A1012_2     171- 181
double A1012_3     183- 193
double A1013       195- 204
double A1014_1     206- 215
double A1014_2     217- 227
double A1014_3     229- 239

For your convenience, we have a revised version of the file available for download here: cm1_col.dct.

NOTE 1: 
After editing ‘cm1_col.dct’ most users will want to read in their ASCII data again using the revised STATA statements, so that the revised data types/storage formats for these variables are applied. Users who choose to to read and merge in only the affected variables will need to re-apply errata, merges, or other corrections that relied on identification variables A1003 and/or A1009.

NOTE 2: 
This revision makes greater demands on your computer’s memory, and so depending on your computing resources and the version of STATA you are using, you may also want to use a text editor to alter the ‘set memory’ command in the file ‘cm1_run.do’. The relevant line in ‘cm1_run.do’ appears as ‘set memory 60m’. We recommend setting the value to ’65m’ or higher, which has worked well for us.

NOTE 3: 
This is the first CSES release for which STATA statements have been provided. If you encounter any errors in the STATA data descriptor statements, or in using CSES files in STATA in general, please provide a detailed description of the problem by e-mail to cses@umich.edu so that we may investigate the problem. Thank you!

 

A5003 – Expanded Definition for Code 11: Codebook

In variable A5003, the international party organization for code 11 is defined as:

’11. Confederation of Socialist Parties of the European Community’

However, that organization is no longer active, and was succeeded by the ‘Party of European Socialists’ in 1992. Thus, a more appropriate, expanded definition for code 11 in variable A5003 is:

’11. Confederation of Socialist Parties of the European Community/Parties of European Socialists’

Peru (2000) – ‘Parties and Leaders’ Code Definitions Missing: Codebook

The ‘Parties and Leaders’ code definitions for Peru (2000) were mistakenly not included in the Appendix I of the codebook, but are given below.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> PARTIES AND LEADERS: PERU (2000)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 01.          People's Action
 02.          Forwards
 03. PARTY C  Moralizing Independent Front      LEADER C  F. Olivera
 04.          Agrarian People's Front of Peru
 05. PARTY E  American Revolutionary People's   LEADER E  A. Salinas
                Front of Peru
 06. PARTY A  Peru 2000                         LEADER A  A. Fujimori
 07. PARTY B  Possible Peru                     LEADER B  A. Toledo
 08. PARTY F  National Solidarity Party         LEADER F  L. Castaneda
                                                          Lossio
 09. PARTY D  We are Peru                       LEADER D  A. Andrade
 10.          Union for Peru
 11.          Change 90 (Peru 2000 block)
 12.          New Majority (Peru 2000 block)
 13.          National Independent Front Peru 2000 (Peru 2000 block)
 14.          Let's go Neighbour (Peru 2000 block)

         | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2000): PARTIES AND LEADERS
         |
         | Block labels are included in paretheses following party
         | labels.

Mexico (2000) – ‘Parties and Leaders’ Code Definitions Missing: Codebook

The ‘Parties and Leaders’ code definitions for Mexico (2000) were mistakenly not included in the Appendix I of the codebook, but are given below.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> PARTIES AND LEADERS: MEXICO (2000)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 01. PARTY A* Nation Action Party
 02. PARTY B  Institutional Revolutionary Party LEADER B Francisco
                                                         Labastida Ochoa
 03. PARTY C* Democratic Revolution Party
 04. PARTY D  Labor Party
 05. PARTY E  Mexican Ecological Party
 06. PARTY F  Authentic Party of the Mexican
              Revolution (PARM)
 07. PARTY A  Alliance for Change               LEADER A Vicente Fox
                                                         Quesada
 08. PARTY C  Alliance for Mexico               LEADER C C. Cardenas
                                                         Solorzano
 09.          Democratic Center Party
 10.          Social Democracy

         | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2000): PARTIES AND LEADERS
         |
         | Classification of Parties A-F is based on seats awarded in the
         | legislative election, and not according to the popular votes
         | allocated to the various electoral blocks.  However, in items
         | A3020 and A3032, respondents evaluated the predominant parties,
         | and not the electoral blocks.  These "proxies" are denoted with
         | an "*" above.

Australia (1996) – District Level Returns Flipped: Datafile

The district level returns for Australian parties A and B are flipped. That is, the Liberal Party returns are reported in variable A4004_A, and the Australian Labour Party returns are reported in variable A4004_B.

The following pseudo-code can be used to correct the problem, after modification to fit the statistical software in use:

rename variable "A4004_A" to "temp".
rename variable "A4004_B" to "A4004_A".
rename variable "temp"    to "A4004_B".

Belgium-Flanders (1999) – Multiple Corrections: Datafile

We have received information that there are a number of corrections that need be made to the Belgium-Flanders (1999) data. The two items below are: 1.) a table summarizing the changes, and 2.) pseudo-code that can be helpful in programming the changes.

The changes are summarized as follows:

VARIABLE ORIGINAL VALUE NEW VALUE
A5003_A 99. MISSING 31. EUROPEAN LIBERAL, DEMOCRATIC AND REFORM PARTIES
A5003_B 99. MISSING 22. EUROPEAN PEOPLE’S PARTY
A5003_C 99. MISSING 11. PARTY OF EUROPEAN SOCIALISTS
A5003_E 99. MISSING 50. GREENS
A5003_F 99. MISSING 81. EUROPEAN FREE-ALLIANCE-DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF THE PEOPLE OF EUROPE
A5004_A 99. MISSING 06.
A5004_B 99. MISSING 05.
A5004_C 99. MISSING 04.
A5004_D 99. MISSING 09.
A5004_E 99. MISSING 02.
A5004_F 99. MISSING 04.
A5013_3 058. PARTY ALLIANCES, DYNAMICS, REALIGNMENT 012. UNEMPLOYMENT
A5013_4 060. STATE AND REGIONAL DIFFERENCES 058. PARTY ALLIANCES, DYNAMICS, RE-ALIGNMENT
A5013_5 012. UNEMPLOYMENT 074. IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE ISSUES
A5011 9. MISSING 1. YES
A5012 9. MISSING 1. YES
A5031 9. MISSING 1. YES; STRICTLY ENFORCED SANCTIONS
A5032_4 09. 99. MISSING
A5035_1 99. MISSING 00. THERE IS NO THRESHOLD
A5036 9. MISSING 1. YES
A5037 9. MISSING 5. NO, JOINT PARTIES ARE GOVERNED BY THE SAME RULES AS OTHER PARTIES
A5038 9. MISSING 1. YES
A5039 9. MISSING 2. LISTS OF THE SAME PARTY FROM DIFFERENT CONSTITUENCIES
A5040 9. MISSING 5. NO
A5041 9. MISSING 0. NOT APPLICABLE
A5042 9. MISSING 5. NO
A5050 1. YES 5. NO
A5052 1. YES 5. NO
A5053 1. YES 5. NO
A5054 1. YES 5. NO
A5058 9. MISSING 2. NOMINATES MINISTERS FOR APPROVAL BY THE [KING]
A5059 9. MISSING 1. YES
A5060 9. MISSING 1. YES
A5061 9. MISSING 1. YES
A5062 9. MISSING 1. YES
A5063 9. MISSING 1. YES
A5064 9. MISSING 5. OTHER (SEE VARIABLE NOTES) – THE CABINET MAY BE DISMISSED AS A RESULT OF SEVERE CONFLICT AND SUBSEQUENT NEGOTIATION

The following pseudo-code can be used to make the corrections, after modification to fit the statistical software is use:

if A1003 eq 5611999 then A5003_A eq 31.
if A1003 eq 5611999 then A5003_B eq 22.
if A1003 eq 5611999 then A5003_C eq 11.
if A1003 eq 5611999 then A5003_E eq 50.
if A1003 eq 5611999 then A5003_F eq 81.
if A1003 eq 5611999 then A5004_A eq 06.
if A1003 eq 5611999 then A5004_B eq 05.
if A1003 eq 5611999 then A5004_C eq 04.
if A1003 eq 5611999 then A5004_D eq 09.
if A1003 eq 5611999 then A5004_E eq 02.
if A1003 eq 5611999 then A5004_F eq 04.
if A1003 eq 5611999 then A5013_3 eq 012.
if A1003 eq 5611999 then A5013_4 eq 058.
if A1003 eq 5611999 then A5013_5 eq 074.
if A1003 eq 5611999 then A5011   eq 1.
if A1003 eq 5611999 then A5012   eq 1.
if A1003 eq 5611999 then A5031   eq 1.
if A1003 eq 5611999 then A5032_4 eq 99.
if A1003 eq 5611999 then A5035_1 eq 00.
if A1003 eq 5611999 then A5036   eq 1.
if A1003 eq 5611999 then A5037   eq 5.
if A1003 eq 5611999 then A5038   eq 1.
if A1003 eq 5611999 then A5039   eq 2.
if A1003 eq 5611999 then A5040   eq 5.
if A1003 eq 5611999 then A5041   eq 0.
if A1003 eq 5611999 then A5042   eq 5.
if A1003 eq 5611999 then A5050   eq 5.
if A1003 eq 5611999 then A5052   eq 5.
if A1003 eq 5611999 then A5053   eq 5.
if A1003 eq 5611999 then A5054   eq 5.
if A1003 eq 5611999 then A5058   eq 2.
if A1003 eq 5611999 then A5059   eq 1.
if A1003 eq 5611999 then A5060   eq 1.
if A1003 eq 5611999 then A5061   eq 1.
if A1003 eq 5611999 then A5062   eq 1.
if A1003 eq 5611999 then A5063   eq 1.
if A1003 eq 5611999 then A5064   eq 5

Posted: August 2, 2002

Code Value Labels: A1006

This errata concerns code value labels appearing in the data set itself.

In variable A1006, the polity identification variable, the code value label for code “8260” should read “United Kingdom: Great Britain” (not “United Kingdom” as it now appears).

Likewise, code “4100” does not have a code value label at all. The code value label for code “4100” should read “Republic of Korea.”

Inconsistent Missing Data Coding in Datafile: A2029-A2032

It has been discovered that missing data is approached inconsistently in the vote choice items (variables A2029 to A2032) in the datafile. As an example, there are several cases for Belgium (Flanders) in which A2031 is reported as code “99. MISSING” instead of the more appropriate code “00. NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS ELECTORAL SYSTEM”.

These sort of inconsistencies occur in the following election studies:

Election Study          Variable(s)
----------------------- ---------------
Belgium-Flanders (1997) A2031
Canada (1997)           A2029 and A2030
Chile (1999)            A2031
Great Britain (1997)    A2029 and A2030
Hong Kong (1998)        A2031
Hong Kong (2000)        A2031
Hungary (1998)          A2029
Mexico (1997)           A2029 and A2031
Romania (1996)          A2031
Russia (1999)           A2029
Slovenia (1996)         A2029 and A2031
Spain (1996)            A2029 and A2031
Taiwan (1996)           A2030
Ukraine (1998)          A2029

Analysts will want to use the following pseudo-code to correct the inconsistencies. Before doing so, please make modifications to the pseudo-code so that it matches the syntax of the software package being used. Note that the term “eq” indicates “equal to” and “ne” indicates “not equal to”.

if a1003 eq  5611999 and a2031 ne 0 then a2031 eq 0.
if a1003 eq 12401997                then a2029 eq 0.
if a1003 eq 12401997                then a2030 eq 0.
if a1003 eq 15201999 and a2031 ne 0 then a2031 eq 0.
if a1003 eq 82601997 and a2029 ne 0 then a2029 eq 0.
if a1003 eq 82601997 and a2030 ne 0 then a2030 eq 0.
if a1003 eq 34401998 and a2031 ne 0 then a2031 eq 0.
if a1003 eq 34402000 and a2031 ne 0 then a2031 eq 0.
if a1003 eq 34801998 and a2029 ne 0 then a2029 eq 0.
if a1003 eq 48401997 and a2029 ne 0 then a2029 eq 0.
if a1003 eq 48401997 and a2031 ne 0 then a2031 eq 0.
if a1003 eq 64201996 and a2031 ne 0 then a2031 eq 0.
if a1003 eq 64301999 and a2029 ne 0 then a2029 eq 0.
if a1003 eq 70501996 and a2029 ne 0 then a2029 eq 0.
if a1003 eq 70501996 and a2031 ne 0 then a2031 eq 0. 
if a1003 eq 72401996 and a2029 ne 0 then a2029 eq 0.
if a1003 eq 72401996 and a2031 ne 0 then a2031 eq 0.
if a1003 eq 15801996 and a2030 ne 0 then a2030 eq 0.
if a1003 eq 80401998 and a2029 ne 0 then a2029 eq 0. 

Mexico (1997) Vote Choice in Wrong Variable: Datafile: A2030-A2031

Vote choice data for the Mexico (1997) election study appear in the wrong variable. The data currently appear in variable A2030 (party list), but should instead appear in variable A2031 (party of candidate).

Analysts can correct the error using the following pseudo-code, adjusted for their particular statistical software. The two lines of code should be executed in the order shown.

if a1003 eq 48401997 then a2031 eq a2030.
if a1003 eq 48401997 then a2030 eq     0.