Here is the CMT Uptime check phrase

CSES Module 1: 2006-2001 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.

Errata discovered with Full Release of December 15, 2015, in the development of CSES IMD Phase 3 of December 8, 2020.

CSES Module 1: Dataset & Codebook Errata

Posted December 8, 2020

Errata discovered with Full Release of December 15, 2015, in the development of CSES IMD Phase 3 of December 8, 2020.

With the release of Phase 3 of the CSES Integrated Module Dataset (IMD), the CSES Secretariat identified some issues with the CSES Module 1 Full Release of December 15, 2015. Below, we provide a list of these issues that detail the problem, which users of CSES Module 1 in the future may wish to take note of concerning analyses. Issues requiring data change to CSES Module 1 will be incorporated in the next release of this data.

DATA CHANGES

  1. Variable A2008 (Main Occupation): For Canada (1997) teachers are assigned code 28, a code not envisaged by ISCO-88. The correct ISCO-88 code for teachers is 23. Further, forestry workers are coded as “63. Subsistence Farmers”, but should be coded “61. Market-oriented skilled agricultural workers”. Finally, non-classifiable occupations are assigned code 94, but should have been assigned code “96. Other non-classifiable occupations”. Data remain unchanged in the CSES Module 1 Full Release of December 15, 2015 but have been corrected in the CSES IMD Release of December 8, 2020 for Canada (1997, variable IMD2015_ISCO_88).

 

  1. Variable A2008 (MAIN OCCUPATION): For Norway (1997) wild codes (i.e., codes where the meaning of the classification is not ascertainable) 25, 63, and 64 are included in the data which are neither envisaged by ISCO-88, nor documented in the CSES Module 1 Codebook. Data remain unchanged in the CSES Module 1 Full Release of December 15, 2015 but have been set to “999. Missing” in the CSES IMD Release of December 8, 2020 for Norway (1997, variable IMD2015_ISCO_88), as the meaning of the codes could not be ascertained.

 

  1. Variable A2009 (EMPLOYMENT TYPE – PUBLIC OR PRIVATE): For Hong Kong (1998 and 2000) wild code (i.e., code where the meaning of the classification is not ascertainable) 7 is included in the data which is not documented in the CSES Module 1 Codebook. Data remain unchanged in the CSES Module 1 Full Release of December 15, 2015 but have been set to “9. Missing” in the CSES IMD Release of December 8, 2020 for Hong Kong (1998 and 2000, variable IMD2017), as the meaning of the code could not be ascertained.

 

  1. Variable A2010 (INDUSTRIAL SECTOR): For Hong Kong (1998) wild code (i.e., code where the meaning of the classification is not ascertainable) 7 is included the data which is not documented in the CSES Module 1 Codebook. Data remain unchanged in the CSES Module 1 Full Release of December 15, 2015 but have been set to “9. Missing” in the CSES IMD Release of December 8, 2020 for Hong Kong (1998), as the meaning of the code could not be ascertained.

 

  1. Variable A2011 (OCCUPATION OF CHIEF WAGE EARNER OR SPOUSE): For Hong Kong (1998 and 2000) wild codes 5, 7, 8 and 95 are included in the data which are neither envisaged by ISCO-88, nor documented in the CSES Module 1 Codebook. Data remain unchanged in the CSES Module 1 Full Release of December 15, 2015 but have been set to “999. Missing” in the CSES IMD Release of December 8, 2020 for Hong Kong (1998 and 2000, variable IMD2021_ISCO_88) studies, as the meaning of the codes could not be ascertained.

 

  1. Variable A2011 (OCCUPATION OF CHIEF WAGE EARNER OR SPOUSE): For Norway (1997) wild codes 25, 63, and 64 are included in the data which are neither envisaged by ISCO-88, nor documented in the CSES Module 1 Codebook. Data remain unchanged in the CSES Module 1 Full Release of December 15, 2015 but have been set to “999. Missing” in the CSES IMD Release of December 8, 2020 for Norway (1997, variable IMD2021_ISCO_88), as the meaning of the codes could not be ascertained.

 

  1. Variables A2015 (RELIGIOUS SERVICES ATTENDANCE) and A2016 (RELIGIOSITY): Israel (1996) has been set to missing in the CSES IMD Release of December 8, 2020 (variables IMD2005_1 and IMD2005_2). Examination of the correlations between these two variables implied that one of the scales may have been reversed in the processing of the original data. This will be further investigated by the CSES Secretariat and addressed in future releases. Data remain unchanged in the CSES Module 1 Full Release of December 15, 2015.

 

  1. Variable A2018 (LANGUAGE USUALLY SPOKEN AT HOME): For Romania (1996) wild code 227 is included the data which is not documented in the CSES Module 1 Codebook. Data remain unchanged in the CSES Module 1 Full Release of December 15, 2015 but have been set to “999. Missing” in the CSES IMD Release of December 8, 2020 for Romania (1996, variable IMD2013), as the meaning of the code could not be ascertained.

 

  1. Variable A2018 (LANGUAGE USUALLY SPOKEN AT HOME): For Sweden (1998) wild code 163 is included in the data which is not documented in the CSES Module 1 Codebook. Data remain unchanged in the CSES Module 1 Full Release of December 15, 2015 but have been set to “999. Missing” in the CSES IMD Release of December 8, 2020 for Sweden (1998, variable IMD2013), as the meaning of the code could not be ascertained.

 

  1. Variable A2021 (ETHNICITY): For Romania (1996) wild code 5 is included in the data which is not documented in the CSES Module 1 Codebook. Data remain unchanged in the CSES Module 1 Full Release of December 15, 2015 but have been set to “999999. Missing” in the CSES IMD Release of December 8, 2020 for Romania (1996, variable IMD2011), as the meaning of the code could not be ascertained.

 

  1. Variable A5011 (ELECTORAL ALLIANCES IN ELECTION): For Australia (1996) this variable is incorrectly coded “1. Yes.” However, this is an error, as electoral alliances are not permitted during the election campaign in Australia, a point clarified by the Australian national collaborators. Data remain unchanged in the CSES Module 1 Full Release of December 15, 2015 but have been set to “0. No” in the CSES IMD Release of December 8, 2020 for Australia (1996, variable IMD5036_1).

 

  1. Variable A5012 (DID ANY ELECTORAL ALLIANCES FORM?): In CSES Module 1, there were two classifications possible, namely: “1. Yes” and “5. No.” In subsequent CSES Standalone Modules, a not applicable category was introduced identifying polities where electoral alliances were not permitted by law. As this “Not Applicable” category was not available in CSES Module 1, several studies in CSES Module 1 were listed as “5. No” when the possibility of Electoral Alliances forming is not applicable in these polities. The studies (listed in alphabetical order) are:
    • Denmark (1998)
    • Japan (1996)
    • Sweden (1998)
    • Taiwan (1996)
    • Thailand (2001)
    • United States (1996)

Data remain unchanged in the CSES Module 1 Full Release of December 15, 2015 but have been set to “7. Not applicable” in the CSES IMD Release of December 8, 2020 (variable IMD5036_3).

 

  1. Variable A5025_1 (ELECTORAL SEGMENTS – LOWER HOUSE): For CSES Module 1, the following studies were incorrectly coded as 1 (one electoral segment): ·      Denmark (1998)·      Iceland (1999)·      Norway (1997)·      Sweden (1998). Based on the information provided by the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), all above polities should have been coded 2 (two electoral segments). Data remain unchanged in the CSES Module 1 Full Release of December 15, 2015 but for these studies, the value 2 is assigned in the CSES IMD Release of December 8, 2020 (variable IMD5041_1).

 

  1. Variable A5025_1 (ELECTORAL SEGMENTS – LOWER HOUSE): For Poland (1997) this variable is incorrectly coded 2 (two electoral segments) in CSES Module 1. Based on the information provided by the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), this polity should have been coded 1 (one electoral segment). Data remain unchanged in the CSES Module 1 Full Release of December 15, 2015 but for Poland (1997) the value  1 is assigned in the CSES IMD Release of December 8, 2020 (variable IMD5041_1).

 

  1. Variable A5028_1 (DISTRICT MAGNITUDE – LOWER – 1ST SEGMENT): For Iceland (1999), the first electoral segment is incorrectly coded as having an average district magnitude of 6.20 in CSES Module 1. This study should have been 6.25, as the first tier returned 50 seats from 8 multi-member districts. Data remain unchanged in the CSES Module 1 Full Release of December 15, 2015 but for Iceland (1999) the value has been corrected in the CSES IMD Release of December 8, 2020 (variable IMD5045_1).

 

  1. Variable A5028_1 (DISTRICT MAGNITUDE – LOWER – 1ST SEGMENT): For Norway (1997), the first electoral segment is incorrectly coded as having an average district magnitude of 8.60 in CSES Module 1. However, the correct value is 8.26, as the first electoral segment returned 157 seats in 19 multi-member districts. Data remain unchanged in the CSES Module 1 Full Release of December 15, 2015 but for Norway (1997) the value has been corrected in the CSES IMD Release of December 8, 2020 (variable IMD5045_1).

 

  1. Variable A5028_1 (DISTRICT MAGNITUDE – LOWER – 1ST SEGMENT): For Spain (1996 and 2000) the first electoral segment is incorrectly coded as having an average district magnitude of 7.00 in CSES Module 1. However, the correct value is 6.73, as the country operates one electoral segment with 350 seats being allocated in 52 multi-member districts. Data remain unchanged in the CSES Module 1 Full Release of December 15, 2015 but for Spain (1996 and 2000) the value has been corrected in the CSES IMD Release of December 8, 2020 (variable IMD5045_1).

 

  1. Variable A5028_2 (DISTRICT MAGNITUDE – LOWER – 2ND SEGMENT): For Denmark (1998) this variable is incorrectly coded as “000. Not Applicable; No Second Segment.” However, for the 1998 election, Denmark employed two electoral segments, with the second tier awarding 40 compensatory seats on the national level. Data remain unchanged in the CSES Module 1 Full Release of December 15, 2015 but for Denmark (1998) the value has been set to “40.00” in the CSES IMD Release of December 8, 2020 (variable IMD5045_2).

 

  1. Variable A5028_2 (DISTRICT MAGNITUDE – LOWER – 2ND SEGMENT): For Germany (1998) this variable is incorrectly coded as 328 in CSES Module 1. However, the correct value is 20.50 as the second electoral segment returned 328 seats from 16 multi-member districts. Therefore, the correct value is 20.50, disregarding overhang seats. Data remain unchanged in the CSES Module 1 Full Release of December 15, 2015 but for Germany (1998) the value has been corrected in the CSES IMD Release of December 8, 2020 (variable IMD5045_2).

 

  1. Variable A5028_2 (DISTRICT MAGNITUDE – LOWER – 2ND SEGMENT): For Iceland (1999) this variable is incorrectly coded as “000. Not Applicable; No Second Segment” in CSES Module 1. However, Iceland employs two tiers for lower house elections, with second tier returning 13 seats in 1999. Data remain unchanged in the CSES Module 1 Full Release of December 15, 2015 but for Iceland (1999) the value has been set to “13.00” in the CSES IMD Release of December 8, 2020 (variable IMD5045_2).

 

  1. Variable A5028_2 (DISTRICT MAGNITUDE – LOWER – 2ND SEGMENT): For Norway (1997) this variable is incorrectly coded as “000. Not Applicable; No Second Segment” in CSES Module 1. However, Norway employed two electoral segments, with the second tier awarding 8 adjustment seats on the national level. Data remain unchanged in the CSES Module 1 Full Release of December 15, 2015 but for Norway (1997) the value has been set to “8.00” in the CSES IMD Release of December 8, 2020 (variable IMD5045_2).

 

  1. Variable A5028_2 (DISTRICT MAGNITUDE – LOWER – 2ND SEGMENT): For Sweden (1998) this variable is incorrectly coded as “000. Not Applicable; No Second Segment” in CSES Module 1. However, for the 1998 election, Sweden employed two electoral segments, with the second tier awarding 39 adjustments seats on the national level. Data remain unchanged in the CSES Module 1 Full Release of December 15, 2015 but for Sweden (1998) the value has been set to “39.00” in the CSES IMD Release of December 8, 2020 (variable IMD5045_2).

 

  1. Variable A5040 (MULTI-PARTY ENDORSEMENTS): For Iceland (1999) this variable is incorrectly coded as “1. Yes”, suggesting that candidates could run with the endorsement of more than one party in CSES Module 1. However, multi-party endorsements are not permissible in Iceland. Data remain unchanged in the CSES Module 1 Full Release of December 15, 2015 but for Iceland (1999) the value has been corrected to “5. No” in the CSES IMD Release of December 8, 2020 (variable IMD5040_1).

 

  1. Variable A5040 (MULTI-PARTY ENDORSEMENTS): For Japan (1996) this variable is incorrectly coded as “5. No”, suggesting that candidates could not run with the endorsement of more than one party in CSES Module 1. However, multi-party endorsements are permissible in Japan. Data remain unchanged in the CSES Module 1 Full Release of December 15, 2015 but for Japan (1996) the value has been corrected to “1. Yes” in the CSES IMD Release of December 8, 2020 (variable IMD5040_1).

 

  1. Variable A5041 (MULTI-PARTY ENDORSEMENTS ON BALLOT): For Great Britain (1997) this variable is coded “5. Yes, other” in CSES Module 1. However, in Great Britain, candidates are permitted to put a short description of themselves on the ballot paper, including party labels, with CSES having a categorization more suitable to this information. Data remain unchanged in the CSES Module 1 Full Release of December 15, 2015 but for Great Britain (1997) the value has been corrected to “3. Yes, candidate’s name appears once, together with the names of all supporting parties” in the CSES IMD Release of December 8, 2020 (variable IMD5040_2).

 

  1. Variable A5041 (MULTI-PARTY ENDORSEMENTS ON BALLOT): For Iceland (1999) this variable is incorrectly coded “3. Yes, other”, suggesting that candidates could run with the endorsement of multiple parties in CSES Module 1. However, multi-party endorsements are not permissible in Iceland. Data remain unchanged in the CSES Module 1 Full Release of December 15, 2015 but for Iceland (1999) the value has been corrected to “7. Not applicable” in the CSES IMD Release of December 8, 2020 (variable IMD5040_2).

 

  1. Variable A5041 (MULTI-PARTY ENDORSEMENTS ON BALLOT): For New Zealand (1996) this variable is incorrectly coded 3, suggesting that multi-party endorsements were reflected on the ballot paper with the “candidate’s name appearing once, together with the names of all supporting parties” in CSES Module 1. However, although candidates may have an endorsement from another party, usually the main party of the candidate is the one appearing on the ballot paper. Data remain unchanged in the CSES Module 1 Full Release of December 15, 2015 but for New Zealand (1996) the value has been corrected to “1. No” in the CSES IMD Release of December 8, 2020 (variable IMD5040_2).

 

  1. Variable A5041 (MULTI-PARTY ENDORSEMENTS ON BALLOT): For United States (1996) this variable is incorrectly coded 1, suggesting that multi-party endorsements are reflected on the ballot paper with “one appearance of candidate name for multiple parties.” However, with the electoral rules varying by state, nearly all the options distinguished by A5041 are possible in the United States. Data remain unchanged in the CSES Module 1 Full Release of December 15, 2015 but for United States (1996) the value has been corrected to “3. Yes, other” in the CSES IMD Release of December 8, 2020 (variable IMD5040_2).

 

CODEBOOK CHANGES

      1. Variable A2010 (INDUSTRIAL SECTOR): For Australia (1996) the CSES Module 1 Codebook states that data only includes answers from persons out of labor force. However, data in A2010 are coded missing for Australia (1996). Codebook entry remains unchanged in the CSES Module 1 Full Release of December 15, 2015 but for Australia (1996) have been corrected in the CSES IMD Release of December 8, 2020 (variable IMD2018).
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.

 

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.”
    4. 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.
    5. 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.”
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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).
    11. 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).
    12. 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).
    13. 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.
    14. 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).
    15. 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).
    16. 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).
    17. 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).
    18. 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).
    19. 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).
    20. 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).
    21. 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).
    22. 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).
    23. 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).
    24. 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).
    25. 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).
    26. 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).
    27. 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).
    28. 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).
    29. 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 [email protected] 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

As indicated in the following election study note from the CSES Module 1 codebook, the sample coverage for the 1997 British General Election Study is Great Britain, not the United Kingdom.

         | ELECTION STUDY NOTE - GREAT BRITAIN (1997): A1006
         |
         | Please note that the coverage of the 1997 British General
         | Election Study is Great Britain (i.e. England, Wales and
         | Scotland) - not the United Kingdom. (The most important
         | difference being that the UK also includes Northern Ireland).

Some macro level features which refer to the United Kingdom need to be adjusted so that they refer instead to Great Britain.

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)

Pseudo-code for making the corrections is provided below:

if A1004 = "GBR_1997" A5005_A = 44.33
if A1004 = "GBR_1997" A5005_B = 31.45
if A1004 = "GBR_1997" A5005_C = 17.19
if A1004 = "GBR_1997" A5005_D = 2.04
if A1004 = "GBR_1997" A5005_E = 0.53
if A1004 = "GBR_1997" A5006_A = 65.21
if A1004 = "GBR_1997" A5006_B = 25.74
if A1004 = "GBR_1997" A5006_C = 7.18
if A1004 = "GBR_1997" A5006_D = 0.94
if A1004 = "GBR_1997" A5006_E = 0.31
if A1004 = "GBR_1997" A5010   = 71.57
if A1004 = "GBR_1997" A5026_1 = 641
if A1004 = "GBR_1997" A5027_1 = 641

The percent of the vote was obtained for A5005_A, A5005_B and A5005_C from the UK Electoral Commission. Given that the Commission did not report vote percentages for small parties at the level of Great Britain, we sought alternative sources to supply these statistics. This information was located at: http://www.election.demon.co.uk. Here the results are disaggregated properly for vote share. This site is not an official election site for the UK, but the information found at the UK Electoral Commission in this case was consistent with the alternative site (i.e., the total amount of vote for the SNP and PC is exactly the same–both percentages and number of votes). Thus, we used this source to refill the incomplete data from the UK Electoral Commission (e.g., vote for SNP, vote for PC and voter turnout).

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

As indicated in the following election study note from the CSES Module 1 codebook, the sample coverage for the 1997 British General Election Study is Great Britain, not the United Kingdom.

         | ELECTION STUDY NOTE - GREAT BRITAIN (1997): A1006
         |
         | Please note that the coverage of the 1997 British General
         | Election Study is Great Britain (i.e. England, Wales and
         | Scotland) - not the United Kingdom. (The most important
         | difference being that the UK also includes Northern Ireland).

Some macro level features which refer to the United Kingdom need to be adjusted so that they refer instead to Great Britain.

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)

Pseudo-code for making the corrections is provided below:

if A1004 = "GBR_1997" A5005_A = 44.33
if A1004 = "GBR_1997" A5005_B = 31.45
if A1004 = "GBR_1997" A5005_C = 17.19
if A1004 = "GBR_1997" A5005_D = 2.04
if A1004 = "GBR_1997" A5005_E = 0.53
if A1004 = "GBR_1997" A5006_A = 65.21
if A1004 = "GBR_1997" A5006_B = 25.74
if A1004 = "GBR_1997" A5006_C = 7.18
if A1004 = "GBR_1997" A5006_D = 0.94
if A1004 = "GBR_1997" A5006_E = 0.31
if A1004 = "GBR_1997" A5010   = 71.57
if A1004 = "GBR_1997" A5026_1 = 641
if A1004 = "GBR_1997" A5027_1 = 641

The percent of the vote was obtained for A5005_A, A5005_B and A5005_C from the UK Electoral Commission. Given that the Commission did not report vote percentages for small parties at the level of Great Britain, we sought alternative sources to supply these statistics. This information was located at: http://www.election.demon.co.uk. Here the results are disaggregated properly for vote share. This site is not an official election site for the UK, but the information found at the UK Electoral Commission in this case was consistent with the alternative site (i.e., the total amount of vote for the SNP and PC is exactly the same–both percentages and number of votes). Thus, we used this source to refill the incomplete data from the UK Electoral Commission (e.g., vote for SNP, vote for PC and voter turnout).

Switzerland (1999) – Macro Variables A5031, A5032_1, A5032_3, A5034_1, A5034_3, A5035_1, and A5042

Since the last full release of the CSES Module 1 data, Swiss collaborators have found corrections to seven macro variables (listed above).

Recommended changes to the data file are as follows:

VARIABLE    ORIGINAL VALUE                  NEW VALUE
--------    --------------                  ---------
A5031       03. Yes; Limited enforcement    05. No
A5035_1     07.                             00.
A5032_1     02.                             91. Other [See variable notes]
A5032_3     01.                             91. Other [See variable notes]
A5042       05. No                          01. Yes

The following code, written for SPSS, will correct the problems:

If A1004 = "CHE_1999" A5031 = 5.
If A1004 = "CHE_1999" A5032_1 = 91.
If A1004 = "CHE_1999" A5032_3 = 91.
If A1004 = "CHE_1999" A5035_1 = 0.
If A1004 = "CHE_1999" A5042 = 1.

The following election studies notes should replace existing election study notes, as appropriate:

         | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (1999): A5031
         |
         | Voting is compulsory in only a single district (Schaffhausen,
         | A2027=14), i.e., applies to about 1% of the Swiss population,
         | where those abstaining without a justifiable reason are subject
         | to a small fine.

         | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (1999): A5032_1
         |
         | All Switzerland cases for this variable have been coded "91"
         | for the following reason:
         | Voters can cast as many votes as there are seats in their
         | districts (1 to 34; see A4001).

         | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (1999): A5032_3
         |
         | All Switzerland cases for this variable have been coded "91"
         | for the following reason:
         | Voters can cast one or two votes, depending on whether their
         | district is a canton or a so-called half-canton. Cantons are
         | represented by two councilors each in the upper house, and
         | voters have two votes, accordingly. Half cantons elect a single
         | representative, and voters can therefore cast only one vote.
         | Half-cantons are Obwalden (A2027=6), Nidwalden (7), Basle-Town
         | (12), Basle-Country (13), Appenzell Outer-Rhodes (15) and
         | Appenzell Inner-Rhodes (16).

         | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2003): A5034_1
         |
         | "Proportional representation election system in all cantons
         | with more than 1 seat according the Hagenbach-Bischoff System.
         | Single-member-districts (OW, NW, UR, GL, AI, and AR from 2003)
         | have a Majority voting system (simple Majority required).
         | Hagenbach-Bischoff System: Proportional Representation system
         | based on the highest Average concept. Involves the combination
         | of a quota and a divisor system. Two stage process where
         | candidates receiving a quota are elected first and any remaining
         | seats are determined by a divisor system (d'Hondt).
         | Note that PR formally applies to all the districts in lower
         | house (National Council) elections, but PR elections congeal to
         | de facto plurality in single member districts.

         | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2003): A5034_3
         |
         | The seats are assigned in majority run-off elections, with two
         | exceptions. Canton Jura uses d'Hondt PR formula, while Upper
         | House elections in Appenzell Inner-Rhodes (AI) are held at the
         | Landsgemeinde, an annual assembly of all citizens.  The
         | electoral formula may most properly be described as plurality
         | (citizens simply raise their hands for one candidate, vote
         | shares are roughly estimated rather than counted, no qualified
         | majority is needed). "There are different ways to calculate the
         | absolute majority. In the cantons LU, UR, SZ, FR, AR, SG, AG,
         | TG, VD, VS, NE, JU - on the base of all valid votes,
         | often minus blank votes:
         | (Total valid votes shared by 2) + 1 = the absolute majority.
         | Candidates have to get more than 50% of all votes to be elected
         | in the first run. In the second run (usually a few weeks later)
         | the simple majority is enough. In ZH, BE, GL. ZG, SO, BL, SH:
         | based of the votes for candidates: total votes for candidates
         | divided by the amount seats to provide, and then divided by
         | 2 = Majority. In those cases the majority is usually under 50%.
         | In Graubünden (GR): the total of the votes for candidates is
         | divided by the amount of seats to provide + 1. The result + 1 is
         | the absolute majority. In GE a simple Majority of 33.33% is
         | enough to be elected."

         | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (1999): A5035_1
         |
         | There are no legal thresholds at the national level.

         | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (1999): A5042
         |
         | In the Upper House elections, in some cases parties refrain from
         | running candidate(s) already on first ballots. In other cases
         | parties withdraw their candidacies in run-offs. Strategic
         | coordination between parties is not limited to Upper House
         | elections alone. Especially in Lower House single-member
         | districts (SMDs) it is quite common that parties fraternally
         | divide upper and lower house seat(s) among them before the
         | election, so that elections are either 'mock' elections (i.e. no
         | prosperous rival candidates), or, in case of perfect
         | coordination, 'tacit' elections (i.e. no rival candidates at
         | all, and thus, no election is held). The latter happened at the
         | 1999 lower house elections and at the 2003 upper house elections
         | in Obwalden. The former occurred, for example,  at the 1999
         | lower house elections in Uri, Glarus, Nidwalden, and Appenzell
         | Inner-Rhodes, and at the 2003 lower house elections in the
         | mentioned districts plus Obwalden.

Posted: January 28, 2010

United States (1996) – A5005-A5008 (Percent Vote and Seats)

In the United States (1996) portion of the CSES Module 1 datafile, the following macro variables were coded incorrectly:

A5005_A >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY A
A5005_B >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY B
A5005_C >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY C
A5007_A >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY A
A5007_B >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY B
A5008_A >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY A

This is due to an error that occurred during CSES processing. We apologize for the error. The corrections that need to be made are:

  • Variable A5005_A should be coded 48.1% instead of 49%.
  • Variable A5005_B should be coded 47.8% instead of 41%.
  • Variable A5005_C should be coded 0.6% instead of 8%.
  • Variable A5007_A should be coded 47.4% instead of 41%.
  • Variable A5007_B should be coded 50.2% instead of 41%.
  • Variable A5008_A should be coded 45% instead of 49%.

The coding errors only impact the United States (1996) portion of the CSES Module 1 dataset. To correct the coding errors please adapt the following SPSS or STATA code as necessary for use in your software:

STATA code:

replace A5005_A = 48.1 if A1004=="USA_1996"
replace A5005_B = 47.8 if A1004=="USA_1996"
replace A5005_C = 0.6  if A1004=="USA_1996"
replace A5007_A = 47.4 if A1004=="USA_1996"
replace A5007_B = 50.2 if A1004=="USA_1996"
replace A5008_A = 45   if A1004=="USA_1996"

SPSS code:

DO IF (A1004="USA_1996").
compute A5005_A = 48.1 .
compute A5005_B = 47.8 .
compute A5005_C = 0.6  .
compute A5007_A = 47.4 .
compute A5007_B = 50.2 .
compute A5008_A = 45   .
END IF.
EXECUTE.

Posted: August 18, 2005

Denmark (1998) – A3011 (Which Party Do You Feel Closer To)

In the Denmark 1998 portion of the CSES Module 1 data file, some of the cases in A3011 are incorrectly coded 9. Cases coded “9. Missing” in A3010 should be coded “0. Not Applicable” in A3011.

The following SPSS code can be used to correct the error, after modification to fit the statistical software in use.

if A1004="DNK_1998" and A3010=9 A3011=0.

Please note that this affects 362 Denmark 1998 cases in A3011; no other cases or polities are affected.

The frequency distribution for A3011, for Denmark cases, with the correction applied is as follows:

A3011  Which Party Do You Feel Close To
---------------------------------------
Code        Frequency
01.           182
02.            32
03.            56
04.            26
05.            87
06.            38
07.            13
09.           157
10.            17
11.            27
12.             2

00.          1364

Total        2001
 

Posted: July 19, 2005

Mexico (2000) – Missing Values For A5005, A5007, and A5009

Missing values for variables A5005_D, A5005_E, A5007_D, A5007_E, A5009_D, and A5009_E appear as “97.00” in the Mexico (2000) study, but should instead be coded as “997.00”.

The follow recode statements make the necessary corrections. This code is written to run in SPSS; if you are not using SPSS the code will need to be modified for the statistical package you are using.

if A1003 = 48402000 A5005_d = 997.
if A1003 = 48402000 A5005_e = 997.

if A1003 = 48402000 A5007_d = 997.
if A1003 = 48402000 A5007_e = 997.

if A1003 = 48402000 A5009_d = 997.
if A1003 = 48402000 A5009_e = 997.

New Zealand (1996) – Data for Variable A4004_F is Incorrect

The data for variable A4004_F (“Percent Vote in District – Party F”) is not correct for the New Zealand (1996) Study.

The following recode statements will correct the problematic data. This code is written to run in SPSS; if you are not using SPSS the code will need to be modified for the statistical package you are using.

if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 1 A4004_f = 2.65.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 2 A4004_f = 1.92.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 3 A4004_f = 1.19.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 4 A4004_f = 2.12.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 5 A4004_f = 3.84.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 6 A4004_f = 0.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 7 A4004_f = 0.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 8 A4004_f = 3.38.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 9 A4004_f = 0.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 10 A4004_f = 0.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 11 A4004_f = 0.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 12 A4004_f = 1.6.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 13 A4004_f = 2.46.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 14 A4004_f = 3.18.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 15 A4004_f = 3.31.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 16 A4004_f = 0.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 17 A4004_f = 0.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 18 A4004_f = 0.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 19 A4004_f = 0.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 20 A4004_f = 3.3.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 21 A4004_f = 0.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 22 A4004_f = 3.27.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 23 A4004_f = 2.37.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 24 A4004_f = 0.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 25 A4004_f = 3.09.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 26 A4004_f = 0.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 27 A4004_f = 0.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 28 A4004_f = 2.17.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 29 A4004_f = 0.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 30 A4004_f = 0.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 31 A4004_f = 2.15.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 32 A4004_f = 0.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 33 A4004_f = 2.54.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 34 A4004_f = 3.67.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 35 A4004_f = 2.72.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 36 A4004_f = 3.18.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 37 A4004_f = 0.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 38 A4004_f = 3.1.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 39 A4004_f = 4.66.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 40 A4004_f = 2.56.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 41 A4004_f = 2.73.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 42 A4004_f = 2.89.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 43 A4004_f = 3.33.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 44 A4004_f = 0.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 45 A4004_f = 0.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 46 A4004_f = 2.92.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 47 A4004_f = 0.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 48 A4004_f = 0.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 49 A4004_f = 0.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 50 A4004_f = 4.42.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 51 A4004_f = 3.24.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 52 A4004_f = 2.9.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 53 A4004_f = 0.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 54 A4004_f = 2.23.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 55 A4004_f = 0.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 56 A4004_f = 0.73.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 57 A4004_f = 1.55.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 58 A4004_f = 4.16.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 59 A4004_f = 0.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 60 A4004_f = 0.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 61 A4004_f = 1.72.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 62 A4004_f = 1.8.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 63 A4004_f = 0.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 64 A4004_f = 1.41.
if A1003 = 55401996 and A2027 = 65 A4004_f = 0.

Belgium-Flanders (1999) – Election Study Note For Variables A3004-A3006 and A3009

We recommend that users include the below election study note in their codebook for variables A3004, A3005_1, A3005_2, A3005_3, A3006, and A3009:

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (1999): A3004-A3006, A3009
         |
         | CSES variables A3004-A3006 and A3009 were constructed from these
         | questions in the Belgium-Flanders (1999) study:
         |
         | R55_1
         | q55.1
         | Which political party do you prefer most?
         | 
         | R55_2
         | q55.2
         | Which political party do you prefer the second most?
         |
         | Analysts should consider in their analyses that this question wording 
         | is different from that in the CSES Module 1 questionnaire.

Belgium-Flanders (1999) and Belgium-Walloon (1999) – Election Study Note For Variables A3004-A3006

The election study note that appears in the codebook for Belgium-Flanders (1999) for variables A3004, A3005_1, A3005_2, A3005_3, and A3006 is incorrect. The election study note actually pertains to Belgium-Walloon (1999), and so should instead read as follows:

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLOON (1999): A3004-A3006
         |
         | A3004-A3006 are not currently included in the CSES data file.

Netherlands (1998) – Election Study Notes for Variables A3004-A3006 and A3009-A3012

We have been notified that for the CSES variable A3004, the question wording used in the 1998 Dutch Election Study differs somewhat from the question wording in the CSES Module 1 questionnaire. Analysts should be aware of the possibility that the following variables in the Netherlands (1998) data may not be comparable as a result:

    A3004    >>> ARE YOU CLOSE TO ANY POLITICAL PARTY
    A3005_1  >>> PARTY CLOSEST TO - 1ST MENTION
    A3005_2  >>> PARTY CLOSEST TO - 2ND MENTION
    A3005_3  >>> PARTY CLOSEST TO - 3RD MENTION
    A3006    >>> NUMBER OF PARTIES MENTIONED IN A3005
    A3009    >>> WHICH PARTY DO YOU FEEL CLOSEST TO
    A3010    >>> DO YOU FEEL CLOSER TO ONE PARTY
    A3011    >>> WHICH PARTY DO YOU FEEL CLOSER TO
    A3012    >>> DEGREE OF CLOSENESS TO THIS PARTY

We recommend that the following election study note be added to the codebook for the variables shown:

         | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (1998): A3004-A3006, A3009-A3012
         |
         | The 1998 Dutch Election Study used the traditional Party ID question 
         | format for variable A3004, rather than the wording from the CSES 
         | Module 1 questionnaire.  Analysts should be aware of the 
         | possibility that variables A3004-A3006 and A3009-A3012 in the
         | Netherlands (1998) data may not be comparable as a result.
         |
         | The question wording from the 1998 Dutch Election Study:
         |
         | "Many people think of themselves as adherents to a particular
         | political party, but there are also people who do not think of
         | themselves as an adherent to a political party.  Do you think 
         | of yourself as an adherent or not as an adherent to a political
         | party?

Additionally, we recommend that the following election study note be added to variable A3012 in the codebook, for the sake of clarity:

         | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (1998): A3012
         |
         | This question is asked of respondents who indicate that they feel 
         | close to a particular party in A3004, as well as of those respondents 
         | who initially indicate they do not feel close to a party in A3004, but
         | who later identify a party they feel closer to in A3011.  The latter 
         | set of respondents were not asked this item.

Posted: June 23, 2005

Spain (1996 and 2000) – Macro Report: A5051

In the Spain (1996) and Spain (2000) election studies, variable A5051 (HEAD OF STATE – COMMANDER OF FORCES) is currently coded as “5. NO” but should instead be coded as “1. YES”. According to the Spanish Constitution, the King is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

The error can be corrected by applying code similar to the following:

If A1004="ESP_1996" or A1004="ESP_2000" then A5051=1.

Posted: September 27, 2004

Thailand (2001) – Replacement for Variable A2018

Variable A2018, “Language Usually Spoken At Home” is not coded correctly in Module 1 only.

Below we provide, for download, a raw data file that can be used to replace A2018 for all Thailand (2001) records. Using this data file to replace A2018 for Thailand will make the necessary corrections.

Three variables are present in the tab-delimited file below. Please note that the first record is a header with the variable names. This file contains only the 1,081 records from the Thailand (2001) election study data. The variables included are:

  • A1003 >>> ID VARIABLE – ELECTION STUDY (NUMERIC POLITY)
  • A1009 >>> ID COMPONENT – RESPONDENT WITHIN THE ELECTION STUDY
  • A2018 >>> LANGUAGE USUALLY SPOKEN AT HOME

Variables A1003 and A1009 are for the purposes of merging the file. You should overwrite the existing Thailand 2001 data for variable A2018 with the new data we provide below.

The datafile containing the corrected A2018 data can be downloaded here: THA_A2018.txt.

In addition, codebook documentation is as follows:

ELECTION STUDY NOTES – THAILAND (2001): A2018

CSES Code, Election Study Category/Categories:

  • 300. Only local dialect
  • 301. Mostly local dialect
  • 302. Mostly central Thai
  • 303. Only central Thai
  • 999. Missing

If you have any questions, please e-mail us at [email protected] and we would be glad to assist you.

New Zealand (1996) – Replacement for Variable A2018

Parts of variable A2018, “Language Usually Spoken At Home” are incorrect in Module 1 for New Zealand only.

Below we provide, for download, a raw data file that can be used to replace A2018 for all New Zealand (1996) records. Using this data file to replace A2018 for New Zealand will make the necessary corrections.

Three variables are present in the tab-delimited file below. Please note that the first record is a header with the variable names. This file contains only the 4,080 records from the New Zealand (1996) election study data. The variables included are:

  • A1003 >>> ID VARIABLE – ELECTION STUDY (NUMERIC POLITY)
  • A1009 >>> ID COMPONENT – RESPONDENT WITHIN THE ELECTION STUDY
  • A2018 >>> LANGUAGE USUALLY SPOKEN AT HOME

Variables A1003 and A1009 are for the purposes of merging the file. You should overwrite the existing New Zealand (1996) data for variable A2018 with the new data we provide below.

The datafile containing the A2018 data can be downloaded here: NZL_A2018.txt.

In addition, codebook documentation is as follows:

ELECTION STUDY NOTES – NEW ZEALAND (1996): A2018

CSES Code, Election Study Category/Categories:

  • 310. Other Asian
  • 311. Other European
  • 312. Pacific Island Language

If you have any questions, please e-mail us at [email protected] and we would be glad to assist you.

Posted: January 13, 2003

Zeroes present in weights

Users should note that there are several cases in which individual weights (A1010-A1014) for CSES Module 1 are equal to 0. This is evident in Spain (1 record), Netherlands (287 records), and Belgium-Walloon (447 records).

This seems to have has occurred because some of the data used to calculate the weights were unavailable for some of the respondents. Those respondents with missing data in the components had their weights set to zero. Because this was a collaborator decision and the weights appear this way in the original data deposits, no change was made by CSES staff.

 

Posted: August 4, 2003

Updates made to the Full Release of August 4, 2003, since the Advance Release of July 26, 2002

The files released on August 04, 2003 are an update to the original release of July 26, 2002. The updated files are being provided as a convenience to users. No records were removed nor added, and so the record, country, and election study count remain the same.

Updates were as follows:

  • Some minor codebook and label corrections (usually typographical errors or small improvements) were made.
  • All errata posted on the website from July 26, 2002 through August 4, 2003 were applied to the files.
  • Variable “A1007”, previously containing “OLD POLITY CODE” data, was replaced with data concerning “SAMPLE COMPONENT”. The new use of variable “A1007” for “SAMPLE COMPONENT” allows us to identify regions of countries or other sample components as units of analysis, rather than the elections themselves.

“OLD POLITY CODE” was a past CSES identification variable that is now outdated (having been replaced by variable “A1006”, “ID COMPONENT – POLITY”, which is based on United Nations Statistics Division coding schemes).

Please contact [email protected] with any questions you might have concerning these changes.

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 [email protected] and we would be glad to assist you.

Posted: May 1, 2003

Israel (1996) – Parties for Whom Respondents Voted

With new information provided by the Israeli collaborator, we can better identify the parties for whom respondents voted.

A2030, therefore, should be revised using the datafile that can be downloaded here: “ISR_1996.txt“. (This data file contains the revised values for A2030 for 307 cases, in addition to country and respondent identification codes).

The current distribution is (with all prior errata incorporated):

                                              Frequency

01. LIKUD                                           236
02. AVODA                                           260
04. SHAS                                             71
06. GESHER                                           61
07. TZOMET                                           37
08. MOLEDET                                          13
09. YAHADUT HATORA                                  200
10. HADERECH HASHLISHIT                              45
98. RESPONDENT CAST INVALID BALLOT/ DID NOT VOTE     62
99. APPLICABLE BUT NOT ASCERTAINED- DK, REFUSED     106

Total                                              1091

When this correction has been correctly applied, the distribution for Israeli respondents should be:

Frequency

01. LIKUD                                           236
02. AVODA                                           260
04. SHAS                                            114
05. MERETZ                                           74
07. TZOMET                                           37
08. MOLEDET                                          31
09. YAHADUT HATORA                                   67
10. HADERECH HASHLISHIT                               1
11. ISRAEL BA'ALIYA                                  56
17. HADASH+BALAD BLOCK                               40
23. BLANK VOTE                                        5
24. OTHERS                                            3
98. RESPONDENT CAST INVALID BALLOT/ DID NOT VOTE     62
99. APPLICABLE BUT NOT ASCERTAINED- DK, REFUSED     105

Total                                              1091

This revision involves individuals previously coded in the following response categories:

Prior                       New                   Number
Response                    Response                  of
Category                    Category               Cases
06.                         04.                       43
06.                         08.                       18
09.                         05.                       74
09.                         09.                       67
09.                         11.                       56
09.                         24.                        3
10.                         17.                       39
10.                         23.                        5
99.                         17.                        1

Total                                                306
 
 

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 [email protected] 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.

Canada (1997) One Inconsistent Vote Choice Response: Datafile: A2028

In the Canada (1997) election study, one record appears in which the respondent indicated they had voted (variable A2028), but no vote choice is indicated (variable A2031). Variable A2028 for this single case should be recoded to category ‘6. Inconsistent response: Voted; No vote choice”. The following pseudo-code can be used to make the correction, after modification to fit the statistical software is use. Note that “eq” means “is equal to”.

if a1003 eq 12401997 and a2028 eq 1 and a2031 eq 99 then a2028 eq 6.

Israel (1996) Vote Choice: Datafile: A2028

There are 79 cases which are mistakenly coded in variable A2028 under category ‘7. Inconsistent response: Did not vote; Vote choice indicated’. In fact, these 79 cases are non-voters, and should be reported in category ‘5. Did not cast a ballot’.

Analysts can correct these errors with syntax similar to the following, adjusted as appropriate for their statistical packages:

if (a1003 eq 37601996 and a2029 eq 98 and (a2030 eq 98 or a2030 eq 99)) then a2028 eq 5.

Coding of Non-Voters in Vote Choice Variables: Datafile: A2028

There are errors in the datafile involving the coding of non-voters (variable A2028) for select election studies. A number of respondents who indicated that they did not vote were mistakenly coded in a response category reserved for identifying inconsistent responses.

The seven election studies affected, a total of 8755 records, are: Chile (1999), Spain (2000), Hong Kong (1998), Hong Kong (2000), Iceland (1999), Israel (1996), and Portugal (2002).

Analysts may correct these errors by downloading the following correction file and merging it into the original dataset:

Download the correction file by clicking here – a2028.zip.

The raw data file (“a2028.txt”) within “a2028.zip” contains three variables, comma-delimited, with one record per line.

Variable A1003 is found in columns 1-8. 
Variable A1009 is found in columns 10-13. 
Variable A2028 is found in column 15.

The analyst will want to follow thse steps to merge the correction file into their original CSES Module 1 file:

  1. Unzip raw data file “a2028.txt” from the file “a2028.zip”.
  2. Read the correction file “a2028.txt” into a statistical package of your choice. Be sure to delete the first record, which is a header, if it is not needed for this step.
  3. Sort both the original and correction files by two variables: A1003 and A1009.
  4. Over-write variable A2028 in the original file with variable A2028 from the correction file.

Analysts are advised to check file distributions both before and after the merge to be confident that their code executed correctly, and affected only variable A2028 for the 8755 cases that appear in the correction file.