=========================================================================== COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ELECTORAL SYSTEMS (CSES) - MODULE 4 (2011-2016) CODEBOOK PART 2: VARIABLES DESCRIPTION FULL RELEASE - MAY 29, 2018 CSES Secretariat www.cses.org =========================================================================== HOW TO CITE THE STUDY: The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (www.cses.org). CSES MODULE 4 FULL RELEASE [dataset and documentation]. May 29, 2018 version. doi:10.7804/cses.module4.2018-05-29 These materials are based on work supported by the American National Science Foundation (www.nsf.gov) under grant numbers SES-0817701, SES-1154687, and SES-1420973, the GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, the University of Michigan, in-kind support of participating election studies, the many organizations that sponsor planning meetings and conferences, and the numerous organizations that fund national election studies by CSES collaborators. Any opinions, findings and conclusions, or recommendations expressed in these materials are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding organizations. =========================================================================== =========================================================================== TABLE OF CONTENTS =========================================================================== ))) IMPORTANT NOTE REGARDING FULL RELEASE ))) OVERVIEW OF "CODEBOOK PART 2: VARIABLES DESCRIPTION" ))) HOW TO NAVIGATE THE CSES MODULE 4 CODEBOOK ))) CSES CODEBOOK - VARIABLE NOTES AND ELECTION STUDY NOTES ))) CSES MODULE 4 CODING OF PARTIES/COALITIONS & LEADERS ))) LIST OF TABLES IN CODEBOOK PART 2 ))) CSES MODULE 4 VARIABLE LIST ))) CSES MODULE 4 VARIABLES: IDENTIFICATION, WEIGHT, AND STUDY ADMINISTRATION DATA ))) CSES MODULE 4 VARIABLES: MICRO-LEVEL (SURVEY) DATA (THE CSES MODULE 4 QUESTIONNAIRE) ))) CSES MODULE 4 VARIABLES: DISTRICT-LEVEL DATA ))) CSES MODULE 4 VARIABLES: MACRO-LEVEL DATA =========================================================================== ))) IMPORTANT NOTE REGARDING FULL RELEASE =========================================================================== This dataset and all accompanying documentation is the "Full Release" of CSES Module 4 (2011-2016). Users of the Final Release may wish to monitor the errata for CSES Module 4 on the CSES website, to check for known errors which may impact their analyses. To view errata for CSES Module 4, go to the Data Center on the CSES website, navigate to the CSES Module 4 download page, and click on the Errata link in the gray box to the right of the page. =========================================================================== ))) OVERVIEW OF "CODEBOOK PART 2: VARIABLES DESCRIPTION" =========================================================================== Part 2 of the CSES Codebook provides users with information about the variables in the CSES dataset as well as accompanying information about each polity's election study. =========================================================================== ))) HOW TO NAVIGATE THE CSES MODULE 4 CODEBOOK =========================================================================== In the CSES Module 4 dataset, all variables begin with the letter "D" (D being the fourth letter of the English alphabet and thus signifying Module 4). The CSES codebook is especially extensive and users are advised that the best way to navigate it is electronically. It is a .txt format which allows it to be accessed via a variety of programmes. In this part of the codebook (Part 2), the headers for individual variables are surrounded by two lines of dashes. For e.g.: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- VARIABLE NAME VARIABLE DESCRIPTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The CSES Codebook can be navigated quickly in the electronic files, with the following commands allowing for quick searching: ))) = Section Header >>> = Sub-section Header 1 <<>> = Sub-section Header 2 +++ = Tables VARIABLE NOTES = Notes for particular variables ELECTION STUDY NOTES = Notes for a particular election study For further details on the CSES Module 4 documentation, users are advised to consult Part 1 of the CSES Codebook. =========================================================================== ))) CSES CODEBOOK - VARIABLE NOTES AND ELECTION STUDY NOTES =========================================================================== >>> VARIABLE NOTES Variable notes provide information on the rationale of a variable as well as source information for that variable. It also details the polity's for which no data for that particular variable are available. VARIABLE NOTES are listed below the descriptive information for the said variable and can be navigated in the Codebook by searching for "VARIABLE NOTES" in Part 2 of the CSES Codebook. >>> ELECTION STUDY NOTES A unique dimension of the CSES are the inclusion of ELECTION STUDY NOTES. They are notes which are attached to each variable included in the dataset and refer to case-specific information regarding a particular variable. Their purpose is to provide users with more detailed information on the case or explain essential deviations specific to cases from CSES conventions. They are also used to provide source data information for users. Where applicable, ELECTION STUDY NOTES are listed below a particular variable and any VARIABLE NOTES in Part 2 and 3 of the CSES codebook. They can be navigated in the Codebook by searching for "ELECTION STUDY NOTES" in Parts 2-4 of the CSES Codebook. =========================================================================== ))) CSES MODULE 4 CODING OF PARTIES/COALITIONS & LEADERS =========================================================================== CSES codes parties/coalitions in its dataset numerically and alphabetically. Below we provide explanations of both of these coding schemes. The details of each party leader classification is available in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. <<>> CSES NUMERICAL PARTY/COALITION CODING All parties/coalitions or presidential candidates, where applicable, participating in the election or the previous election receive a numerical code. These codes are used to Identify the following: - who a respondent's voted for in the current election (variable D3006). - who the respondent voted for in the previous election (variable D3008). - the respondent's party identification (variable D3018). - the extent of institutional contact the respondent received from a party/coalition during the election campaign (variable D3021). The numeric coding is also used to identify macro level information about the parties/coalitions, namely: - which party/coalition held the presidency before and after the elections (variable D5007 and D5011). - which party/coalition held the prime ministership before and after the elections (variable D5008 and D5012). Where possible, the numeric codes assigned to parties/coalitions are consistent for the current and previous election. However, for the previous election (variable D3008) different codes might have been allocated for the same parties (for example a party in the current election might be standing as party of a coalition but previously stood alone). Users are advised to consult the election study notes for variable D3008 for each country where details of deviations are noted. <<>> CSES ALPHABETICAL PARTY/COALITION CODING Parties A through F are the six most popular parties/coalitions, ordered in descending order of their share of the popular vote in the parliamentary election (unless otherwise stated). Thus Party A is the party/coalition that received the most votes in the election, party B the second most votes etc... Parties/coalitions who achieve at least 1% of the vote nationally are eligible for an alphabetical A-F assignment. In countries with multiple electoral tiers and where one vote is cast, parties are ordered according to their vote share in tier 1 (the lowest tier), unless otherwise stated. In countries where voters have two votes (i.e.: a constituency and a list vote) simultaneously, for example Germany, parties are ordered by the national share of the party list vote (tier 2). Parties G, H, and I are supplemental parties. They may, but do not have to, accord with how parties A-F are ordered, that is ordered on the popular share of the vote in a country. More often, they are codified in no particular order. These parties are voluntarily provided by each country's election study and often reflect important or notable parties within a country. They may also include data about individual parties within a coalition, where data about the coalition and the individual parties, or some of these parties that make it up, are provided. These codes are used to identify the following in the micro component of the CSES dataset: - Respondent's likeability of the party/coalition (variable D3011). - Respondent's left-right placement of the party/coalition (variable D3013). These alphabetical codes are used to identify distinct and macro level information about these said parties/coalitions, namely: - The said party/coalition's vote share in the respondent's electoral district (variable D4003). - the said party/coalition's share of the vote in the election (variables D5001, D5002, & D5005). - the said party/coalition's share of the seats in the election (variables D5003 & D5004). - the said party/coalition's share of cabinet portfolios before and after the election (variable D5009 & D5013). - expert judgements by the national collaborators of the said party/coalition's ideological family (variable D5016). - expert judgements by the national collaborators of the said party/ coalition's left-right placement (variable D5017). <<>> CSES ALPHABETICAL LEADER CODING Leaders A through F tend to be the leaders of the six most popular parties/coalitions or the presidential candidates of these parties. They correspond to parties A-F (i.e.: Leader A will be related to Party A in some way, Leader B will be related to Party B etc...) Leaders G, H, and I are supplemental leaders. They may be related to parties G, H, I but they do not have to be. These leaders are voluntarily provided by each country's election study and often include data about additional personalities of interest. For example, in a parliamentary system, data about a President might be provided, even if the Presidency is not being contested. On many occasions, slots Leader G, H, and I will include additional data for parties/coalitions that have multiple leaders. These codes are used to identify the following in the micro and macro components of the CSES dataset: - Respondent's likeability of the leader/personality in question (variable D3012). =========================================================================== ))) LIST OF TABLES IN CODEBOOK PART 2 =========================================================================== Below, we list the Tables located in Codebook Part 2. Tables can be accessed in the electronic version of the CSES Codebook by searching for "+++". - TYPE OF ORIGINAL WEIGHTS BY INDIVIDUAL ELECTION STUDIES - ELECTION STUDIES BY TYPE OF ELECTION - DATES OF FIELDWORK BY POLITY - FREQUENCIES ON D2015 FOR RESPONDENTS WITHOUT PARTNER OR SPOUSE LIVING IN THEIR HOUSEHOLD - FREQUENCIES ON D2016 FOR RESPONDENTS WITHOUT PARTNER OR SPOUSE LIVING IN THEIR HOUSEHOLD - FREQUENCIES ON D2017 FOR RESPONDENTS WITHOUT PARTNER OR SPOUSE LIVING IN THEIR HOUSEHOLD - FREQUENCIES ON D2018 FOR RESPONDENTS WITHOUT PARTNER OR SPOUSE LIVING IN THEIR HOUSEHOLD - FREQUENCIES ON D2019 FOR RESPONDENTS WITHOUT PARTNER OR SPOUSE LIVING IN THEIR HOUSEHOLD - INCOME (D2020) MEASURE TYPE BY ELECTION STUDY - FREQUENCIES ON D2022 FOR HOUSEHOLDS, WHERE THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN UNDER 18 IS EQUAL OR BIGGER THAN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS (D2021) - FREQUENCIES ON D2023 FOR HOUSEHOLDS, WHERE THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN UNDER 6 IS BIGGER THAN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS UNDER 18 (D2022) - FREQUENCIES OF NON-VOTERS (D3005_LH) REPORTING A VOTE CHOICE (D3006_LH) - SUMMARY OF TYPE OF PREVIOUS ELECTION AND THE YEAR IN WHICH IT WAS HELD - SUMMARY OF TYPE OF PREVIOUS ELECTION AND THE YEAR IN WHICH IT WAS HELD - FREQUENCIES OF RESPONDENTS REPORTING THAT THEY HAD NOT HEARD OF A SPECIFIC PARTY BUT PROVIDE AN EVALUATION OF THE PARTY ON THE DISLIKE-LIKE SCALE - FREQUENCIES OF RESPONDENTS REPORTING THAT THEY DID NOT KNOW OF THE LEFT-RIGHT SCALE BUT PROVIDE AN EVALUATION OF A PARTY ON THE LEFT-RIGHT SCALE - FREQUENCIES ON D3018_3 FOR RESPONDENTS THAT DO NOT FEEL CLOSE (D3018_1) OR AT LEAST CLOSER (D3018_2) TO A PARTY - FREQUENCIES ON D3018_4 FOR RESPONDENTS THAT DO NOT MENTION A PARTY IN D3018_3 - RESPONDENTS THAT REPORT BEING CONTACTED BY A PARTICULAR PARTY BUT PREVIOUSLY REPORTED NO CONTACT FROM ANY PARTY - FREQUENCIES ON D3021_ FOR RESPONDENTS THAT MENTION PARTY MORE THAN ONCE - FREQUENCIES ON D3023_ FOR RESPONDENTS THAT DO NOT MENTION AN INSTITUTIONAL CONTACT IN D3022 - FREQUENCIES ON D3028_1 FOR RESPONDENTS CURRENTLY NOT EMPLOYED - FREQUENCIES ON D3028_2 FOR RESPONDENTS' SPOUSES THAT ARE CURRENTLY NOT EMPLOYED - FREQUENCIES ON D3028_2 FOR RESPONDENTS WITHOUT A PARTNER OR SPOUSES IN THEIR HOUSEHOLD (D2004) - SUMMARY OF POLITY AND WHICH ELECTION IN THAT POLITY THAT THE DISTRICT DATA REFERS TO - TOTAL NUMBER OF ELECTORAL DISTRICTS PER POLITY AND TOTAL NUMBER OF ELECTORAL DISTRICTS REPRESENTED IN CSES DATA =========================================================================== ))) CSES MODULE 4 VARIABLE LIST =========================================================================== ))) CSES MODULE 4 VARIABLES: IDENTIFICATION, WEIGHT, AND STUDY ADMINISTRATION DATA D1001 >>> DATASET D1002_VER >>> DATASET VERSION D1002_DOI >>> DIGITAL OBJECT IDENTIFIER D1003 >>> ID VARIABLE - ELECTION STUDY (NUMERIC POLITY) D1004 >>> ID VARIABLE - ELECTION STUDY (ALPHABETIC POLITY) D1005 >>> ID VARIABLE - RESPONDENT D1006 >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY CSES CODE D1006_UN >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY UN CODE D1006_NAM >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY NAME D1007 >>> SAMPLE COMPONENT D1008 >>> ID COMPONENT - ELECTION YEAR D1009 >>> A01 ID COMPONENT - RESPONDENT WITHIN ELECTION STUDY D1010_1 >>> A05 ORIGINAL WEIGHT: SAMPLE D1010_2 >>> A05 ORIGINAL WEIGHT: DEMOGRAPHIC D1010_3 >>> A05 ORIGINAL WEIGHT: POLITICAL D1011_1 >>> FACTOR: MEAN OF SAMPLE WEIGHT D1011_2 >>> FACTOR: MEAN OF DEMOGRAPHIC WEIGHT D1011_3 >>> FACTOR: MEAN OF POLITICAL WEIGHT D1012_1 >>> POLITY WEIGHT: SAMPLE D1012_2 >>> POLITY WEIGHT: DEMOGRAPHIC D1012_3 >>> POLITY WEIGHT: POLITICAL D1013 >>> FACTOR: SAMPLE SIZE ADJUSTMENT D1014_1 >>> DATASET WEIGHT: SAMPLE D1014_2 >>> DATASET WEIGHT: DEMOGRAPHIC D1014_3 >>> DATASET WEIGHT: POLITICAL D1015 >>> ELECTION TYPE D1016 >>> DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - MONTH D1017 >>> DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - DAY D1018 >>> DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YEAR D1019 >>> DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - MONTH D1020 >>> DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - DAY D1021 >>> DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YEAR D1022 >>> STUDY TIMING D1023 >>> MODE OF INTERVIEW D1024 >>> A02 INTERVIEWER ID WITHIN ELECTION STUDY D1025 >>> A03 INTERVIEWER GENDER D1026 >>> A04a DATE QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTERED - MONTH D1027 >>> A04b DATE QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTERED - DAY D1028 >>> A04c DATE QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTERED - YEAR D1029 >>> DAYS INTERVIEW CONDUCTED POST ELECTION D1030 >>> A06 LANGUAGE OF QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTRATION ))) CSES MODULE 4 VARIABLES: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA D2001_M >>> D01a DATE OF BIRTH OF RESPONDENT - MONTH D2001_Y >>> D01b DATE OF BIRTH OF RESPONDENT - YEAR D2002 >>> D02 GENDER D2003 >>> D03 EDUCATION D2004 >>> D04 MARITAL STATUS D2005 >>> D05 UNION MEMBERSHIP OF RESPONDENT D2006 >>> D06 UNION MEMBERSHIP OF OTHERS IN HOUSEHOLD D2007 >>> D07 BUSINESS OR EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP D2008 >>> D08 FARMERS' ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP D2009 >>> D09 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP D2010 >>> D10 CURRENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS D2011 >>> D11 MAIN OCCUPATION D2012 >>> D12 SOCIO ECONOMIC STATUS D2013 >>> D13 EMPLOYMENT TYPE - PUBLIC OR PRIVATE D2014 >>> D14 INDUSTRIAL SECTOR D2015 >>> D15 SPOUSE: CURRENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS D2016 >>> D16 SPOUSE: OCCUPATION D2017 >>> D17 SPOUSE: SOCIO ECONOMIC STATUS D2018 >>> D18 SPOUSE: EMPLOYMENT TYPE - PUBLIC OR PRIVATE D2019 >>> D19 SPOUSE: INDUSTRIAL SECTOR D2020 >>> D20 HOUSEHOLD INCOME D2021 >>> D21a NUMBER IN HOUSEHOLD IN TOTAL D2022 >>> D21b NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD UNDER AGE 18 D2023 >>> D21c NUMBER IN HOUSEHOLD UNDER AGE 6 D2024 >>> D22 RELIGIOUS SERVICES ATTENDANCE D2025 >>> D23 RELIGIOSITY D2026 >>> D24 RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION D2027 >>> D25 LANGUAGE USUALLY SPOKEN AT HOME D2028 >>> D26 REGION OF RESIDENCE D2029 >>> D27 RACE D2030 >>> D28 ETHNICITY D2031 >>> D29 RURAL OR URBAN RESIDENCE D2032 >>> D30 PRIMARY ELECTORAL DISTRICT D2033 >>> D31 COUNTRY OF BIRTH D2034 >>> D32 YEAR ARRIVED IN CURRENT COUNTRY ))) CSES MODULE 4 VARIABLES: MICRO-LEVEL (SURVEY) DATA (THE CSES MODULE 4 QUESTIONNAIRE) D3001_1 >>> Q01a PUBLIC EXPENDITURE: HEALTH D3001_2 >>> Q01b PUBLIC EXPENDITURE: EDUCATION D3001_3 >>> Q01c PUBLIC EXPENDITURE: UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS D3001_4 >>> Q01d PUBLIC EXPENDITURE: DEFENSE D3001_5 >>> Q01e PUBLIC EXPENDITURE: OLD-AGE PENSIONS D3001_6 >>> Q01f PUBLIC EXPENDITURE: BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY D3001_7 >>> Q01g PUBLIC EXPENDITURE: POLICE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT D3001_8 >>> Q01h PUBLIC EXPENDITURE: WELFARE BENEFITS D3002 >>> Q02 IMPROVING STANDARD OF LIVING D3003_1 >>> Q03 STATE OF ECONOMY D3003_2 >>> Q03a STATE OF ECONOMY - BETTER D3003_3 >>> Q03b STATE OF ECONOMY - WORSE D3004 >>> Q04 GOVERNMENT ACTION - DIFFERENCES IN INCOME LEVELS D3005_PR_1 >>> Q05P1-a CURRENT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT - 1ST ROUND D3005_PR_2 >>> Q05P2-a CURRENT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT - 2ND ROUND D3005_LH >>> Q05LH-a CURRENT LOWER HOUSE ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT D3005_UH >>> CURRENT UPPER HOUSE ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT D3006_PR_1 >>> Q05P1-b CURRENT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - 1ST ROUND D3006_PR_2 >>> Q05P2-b CURRENT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - 2ND ROUND D3006_LH_PL >>> Q05LH-b CURRENT LOWER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - PARTY LIST D3006_LH_DC >>> Q05LH-c CURRENT LOWER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - DISTRICT CANDIDATE D3006_LH_PF >>> Q05LH-d CURRENT LOWER HOUSE ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST CANDIDATE PREFERENCE VOTE D3006_UH_PL >>> CURRENT UPPER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - PARTY LIST D3006_UH_DC >>> CURRENT UPPER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - DISTRICT CANDIDATE D3006_UH_PF >>> CURRENT UPPER HOUSE ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST CANDIDATE PREFERENCE VOTE D3007_PR_1 >>> Q06a PREVIOUS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT - 1ST ROUND D3007_PR_2 >>> Q06a PREVIOUS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT - 2ND ROUND D3007_LH >>> Q06a PREVIOUS LOWER HOUSE ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT D3007_UH >>> PREVIOUS UPPER HOUSE ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT D3008_PR_1 >>> Q06b PREVIOUS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - 1ST ROUND D3008_PR_2 >>> Q06b PREVIOUS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - 2ND ROUND D3008_LH_PL >>> Q06b PREVIOUS LOWER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - PARTY LIST D3008_LH_DC >>> Q6c PREVIOUS LOWER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - DISTRICT CANDIDATE 1 D3008_UH_PL >>> PREVIOUS UPPER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - PARTY LIST D3008_UH_DC_1>>> PREVIOUS UPPER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - DISTRICT CANDIDATE 1 D3008_UH_DC_2>>> PREVIOUS UPPER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - DISTRICT CANDIDATE 2 D3009 >>> Q07 WHO IS IN POWER CAN MAKE DIFFERENCE D3010 >>> Q08 WHO PEOPLE VOTE FOR MAKES A DIFFERENCE D3011_A >>> Q09a LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY A D3011_B >>> Q09b LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY B D3011_C >>> Q09c LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY C D3011_D >>> Q09d LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY D D3011_E >>> Q09e LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY E D3011_F >>> Q09f LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY F D3011_G >>> Q09g LIKE-DISLIKE - ADDITIONAL - PARTY G D3011_H >>> Q09h LIKE-DISLIKE - ADDITIONAL - PARTY H D3011_I >>> Q09i LIKE-DISLIKE - ADDITIONAL - PARTY I D3012_A >>> Q10a LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER A D3012_B >>> Q10b LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER B D3012_C >>> Q10c LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER C D3012_D >>> Q10d LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER D D3012_E >>> Q10e LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER E D3012_F >>> Q10f LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER F D3012_G >>> Q10g LIKE-DISLIKE - ADDITIONAL - LEADER G D3012_H >>> Q10h LIKE-DISLIKE - ADDITIONAL - LEADER H D3012_I >>> Q10i LIKE-DISLIKE - ADDITIONAL - LEADER I D3013_A >>> Q11a LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY A D3013_B >>> Q11b LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY B D3013_C >>> Q11c LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY C D3013_D >>> Q11d LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY D D3013_E >>> Q11e LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY E D3013_F >>> Q11f LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY F D3013_G >>> Q11g LEFT-RIGHT - ADDITIONAL - PARTY G D3013_H >>> Q11h LEFT-RIGHT - ADDITIONAL - PARTY H D3013_I >>> Q11i LEFT-RIGHT - ADDITIONAL - PARTY I D3014 >>> Q12 LEFT-RIGHT - SELF D3015_A >>> Q13a OPTIONAL SCALE - PARTY A D3015_B >>> Q13b OPTIONAL SCALE - PARTY B D3015_C >>> Q13c OPTIONAL SCALE - PARTY C D3015_D >>> Q13d OPTIONAL SCALE - PARTY D D3015_E >>> Q13e OPTIONAL SCALE - PARTY E D3015_F >>> Q13f OPTIONAL SCALE - PARTY F D3015_G >>> Q13g OPTIONAL SCALE - ADDITIONAL - PARTY G D3015_H >>> Q13h OPTIONAL SCALE - ADDITIONAL - PARTY H D3015_I >>> Q13i OPTIONAL SCALE - ADDITIONAL - PARTY I D3016 >>> Q14 OPTIONAL SCALE - SELF D3017 >>> Q15 SATISFACTION WITH DEMOCRACY D3018_1 >>> Q16 ARE YOU CLOSE TO ANY POLITICAL PARTY D3018_2 >>> Q16a DO YOU FEEL CLOSER TO ONE PARTY D3018_3 >>> Q16b WHICH PARTY DO YOU FEEL CLOSEST TO D3018_4 >>> Q16c DEGREE OF CLOSENESS TO THIS PARTY D3019 >>> Q17 MOBILIZATION: INSTITUTIONAL CONTACT D3020_1 >>> Q17a MOBILIZATION: INSTITUTIONAL CONTACT - IN PERSON D3020_2 >>> Q17b MOBILIZATION: INSTITUTIONAL CONTACT - BY MAIL D3020_3 >>> Q17c MOBILIZATION: INSTITUTIONAL CONTACT - BY PHONE D3020_4 >>> Q17d MOBILIZATION: INSTITUTIONAL CONTACT - BY TEXT MESSAGE D3020_5 >>> Q17e MOBILIZATION: INSTITUTIONAL CONTACT - BY EMAIL D3020_6 >>> Q17f MOBILIZATION: INSTITUTIONAL CONTACT - SOCIAL NETWORK OR WEB D3021_1 >>> Q17g MOBILIZATION: INSTITUTIONAL CONTACT - WHO - 1ST MENTIONS D3021_2 >>> Q17g MOBILIZATION: INSTITUTIONAL CONTACT - WHO - 2ND MENTIONS D3021_3 >>> Q17g MOBILIZATION: INSTITUTIONAL CONTACT - WHO - 3RD MENTIONS D3021_4 >>> Q17g MOBILIZATION: INSTITUTIONAL CONTACT - WHO - 4TH MENTIONS D3021_5 >>> Q17g MOBILIZATION: INSTITUTIONAL CONTACT - WHO - 5TH MENTIONS D3021_6 >>> Q17g MOBILIZATION: INSTITUTIONAL CONTACT - WHO - 6TH MENTIONS D3021_7 >>> Q17g MOBILIZATION: INSTITUTIONAL CONTACT - WHO - 7TH MENTIONS D3021_8 >>> Q17g MOBILIZATION: INSTITUTIONAL CONTACT - WHO - 8TH MENTIONS D3021_9 >>> Q17g MOBILIZATION: INSTITUTIONAL CONTACT - WHO - 9TH MENTIONS D3021_10 >>> Q17g MOBILIZATION: INSTITUTIONAL CONTACT - WHO - 10TH MENTIONS D3022 >>> Q18 MOBILIZATION: PERSONAL CONTACT D3023_1 >>> Q18a MOBILIZATION: PERSONAL CONTACT - IN PERSON D3023_2 >>> Q18b MOBILIZATION: PERSONAL CONTACT - BY MAIL D3023_3 >>> Q18c MOBILIZATION: PERSONAL CONTACT - BY PHONE D3023_4 >>> Q18d MOBILIZATION: PERSONAL CONTACT - BY TEXT MESSAGE D3023_5 >>> Q18e MOBILIZATION: PERSONAL CONTACT - BY EMAIL D3023_6 >>> Q18f MOBILIZATION: PERSONAL CONTACT - SOCIAL NETWORK OR WEB D3024 >>> Q19 MOBILIZATION: SIGN UP FOR ONLINE INFORMATION OR ALERTS D3025_1_A >>> Q20a DICHOTOMIZED POLITICAL INFORMATION ITEM - 1ST D3025_2_A >>> Q20b DICHOTOMIZED POLITICAL INFORMATION ITEM - 2ND D3025_2_A_PT >>> Q20b_PT DICHOTOMIZED POLITICAL INFORMATION ITEM PRE- TEST - 2ND D3025_3_A >>> Q20c DICHOTOMIZED POLITICAL INFORMATION ITEM - 3RD D3025_4_A >>> Q20d DICHOTOMIZED POLITICAL INFORMATION ITEM - 4TH D3025_4_A_PT >>> Q20d_PT DICHOTOMIZED POLITICAL INFORMATION ITEM PRE- TEST - 4TH D3025_1_B >>> Q20a ORIGINAL POLITICAL INFORMATION ITEM - 1ST D3025_2_B >>> Q20b ORIGINAL POLITICAL INFORMATION ITEM - 2ND D3025_2_B_PT >>> Q20b_PT ORIGINAL POLITICAL INFORMATION ITEM PRE-TEST - 2ND D3025_3_B >>> Q20c ORIGINAL POLITICAL INFORMATION ITEM - 3RD D3025_4_B >>> Q20d ORIGINAL POLITICAL INFORMATION ITEM - 4TH D3025_4_B_PT >>> Q20d_PT ORIGINAL POLITICAL INFORMATION ITEM PRE-TEST - 4TH D3026 >>> Q21 HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN THE NEXT TWELVE MONTHS D3027_1 >>> Q22a OWNERSHIP: RESIDENCE D3027_2 >>> Q22b OWNERSHIP: BUSINESS OR PROPERTY OR FARM OR LIVESTOCK D3027_3 >>> Q22c OWNERSHIP: STOCKS OR BONDS D3027_4 >>> Q22d OWNERSHIP: SAVINGS D3028_1 >>> Q23a FIND ANOTHER JOB - RESPONDENT D3028_2 >>> Q23b FIND ANOTHER JOB - SPOUSE/PARTNER ))) CSES MODULE 4 VARIABLES: DISTRICT-LEVEL DATA D4001 >>> NUMBER OF SEATS IN DISTRICT D4001_N >>> NUMBER OF SEATS IN DISTRICT - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT D4002 >>> NUMBER OF CANDIDATES IN DISTRICT D4002_N >>> NUMBER OF CANDIDATES IN DISTRICT - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT D4003 >>> NUMBER OF PARTY LISTS IN DISTRICT (IN PR-LIST SYSTEMS ONLY) D4003_N >>> NUMBER OF PARTY LISTS IN DISTRICT - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT (IN PR-LIST SYSTEMS ONLY) D4004_A >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY A D4004_B >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY B D4004_C >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY C D4004_D >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY D D4004_E >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY E D4004_F >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY F D4004_G >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY G D4004_H >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY H D4004_I >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY I D4004_A_N >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY A - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT D4004_B_N >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY B - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT D4004_C_N >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY C - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT D4004_D_N >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY D - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT D4004_E_N >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY E - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT D4004_F_N >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY F - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT D4004_G_N >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY G - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT D4004_H_N >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY H - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT D4004_I_N >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY I - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT D4005 >>> TURNOUT IN DISTRICT D4005_N >>> TURNOUT IN DISTRICT - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT ))) CSES MODULE 4 VARIABLES: MACRO-LEVEL DATA D5001_A >>> M04a-c PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY A D5001_B >>> M04a-c PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY B D5001_C >>> M04a-c PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY C D5001_D >>> M04a-c PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY D D5001_E >>> M04a-c PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY E D5001_F >>> M04a-c PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY F D5001_G >>> M04a-c PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY G D5001_H >>> M04a-c PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY H D5001_I >>> M04a-c PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY I D5002_A >>> M04a-c PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY A D5002_B >>> M04a-c PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY B D5002_C >>> M04a-c PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY C D5002_D >>> M04a-c PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY D D5002_E >>> M04a-c PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY E D5002_F >>> M04a-c PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY F D5002_G >>> M04a-c PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY G D5002_H >>> M04a-c PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY H D5002_I >>> M04a-c PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY I D5003_A >>> M04a-c PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY A D5003_B >>> M04a-c PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY B D5003_C >>> M04a-c PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY C D5003_D >>> M04a-c PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY D D5003_E >>> M04a-c PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY E D5003_F >>> M04a-c PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY F D5003_G >>> M04a-c PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY G D5003_H >>> M04a-c PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY H D5003_I >>> M04a-c PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY I D5004_A >>> M04a-c PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY A D5004_B >>> M04a-c PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY B D5004_C >>> M04a-c PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY C D5004_D >>> M04a-c PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY D D5004_E >>> M04a-c PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY E D5004_F >>> M04a-c PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY F D5004_G >>> M04a-c PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY G D5004_H >>> M04a-c PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY H D5004_I >>> M04a-c PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY I D5005_A >>> M04a-c PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY A D5005_B >>> M04a-c PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY B D5005_C >>> M04a-c PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY C D5005_D >>> M04a-c PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY D D5005_E >>> M04a-c PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY E D5005_F >>> M04a-c PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY F D5005_G >>> M04a-c PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY G D5005_H >>> M04a-c PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY H D5005_I >>> M04a-c PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY I D5006_1 >>> M04d-e ELECTORAL TURNOUT - TURNOUT AS A PERCENTAGE OF REGISTERED VOTERS (ER) D5006_2 >>> M04d-e ELECTORAL TURNOUT - TURNOUT AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE VOTING AGE POPULATION (VAP) D5007 >>> M02a PARTY OF THE PRESIDENT BEFORE D5008 >>> M02b PARTY OF THE PRIME MINISTER BEFORE D5009_A >>> M02c NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE - PARTY A D5009_B >>> M02c NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE - PARTY B D5009_C >>> M02c NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE - PARTY C D5009_D >>> M02c NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE - PARTY D D5009_E >>> M02c NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE - PARTY E D5009_F >>> M02c NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE - PARTY F D5009_G >>> M02c NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE - PARTY G D5009_H >>> M02c NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE - PARTY H D5009_I >>> M02c NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE - PARTY I D5010 >>> M02d SIZE OF THE CABINET BEFORE D5011 >>> M03a PARTY OF THE PRESIDENT AFTER D5012 >>> M03b PARTY OF THE PRIME MINISTER AFTER D5013_A >>> M03c NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER - PARTY A D5013_B >>> M03c NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER - PARTY B D5013_C >>> M03c NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER - PARTY C D5013_D >>> M03c NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER - PARTY D D5013_E >>> M03c NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER - PARTY E D5013_F >>> M03c NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER - PARTY F D5013_G >>> M03c NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER - PARTY G D5013_H >>> M03c NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER - PARTY H D5013_I >>> M03c NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER - PARTY I D5014 >>> M03d SIZE OF THE CABINET AFTER D5015 >>> M04a NUMBER OF PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN ELECTION D5016_A >>> M05.a IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY A D5016_B >>> M05.b IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY B D5016_C >>> M05.c IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY C D5016_D >>> M05.d IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY D D5016_E >>> M05.e IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY E D5016_F >>> M05.f IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY F D5016_G >>> M05.g IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY G D5016_H >>> M05.h IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY H D5016_I >>> M05.i IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY I D5017_A >>> M06a.a LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY A D5017_B >>> M06a.b LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY B D5017_C >>> M06a.c LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY C D5017_D >>> M06a.d LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY D D5017_E >>> M06a.e LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY E D5017_F >>> M06a.f LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY F D5017_G >>> M06a.g LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY G D5017_H >>> M06a.h LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY H D5017_I >>> M06a.i LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY I D5018 >>> M06b ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION D5018_A >>> M06b.a ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY A D5018_B >>> M06b.b ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY B D5018_C >>> M06b.c ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY C D5018_D >>> M06b.d ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY D D5018_E >>> M06b.e ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY E D5018_F >>> M06b.f ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY F D5018_G >>> M06b.g ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY G D5018_H >>> M06b.h ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY H D5018_I >>> M06b.i ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY I D5019_1 >>> M07.1 MOST SALIENT FACTORS IN ELECTION - 1ST D5019_2 >>> M07.2 MOST SALIENT FACTORS IN ELECTION - 2ND D5019_3 >>> M07.3 MOST SALIENT FACTORS IN ELECTION - 3RD D5019_4 >>> M07.4 MOST SALIENT FACTORS IN ELECTION - 4TH D5019_5 >>> M07.5 MOST SALIENT FACTORS IN ELECTION - 5TH D5020 >>> M09a FAIRNESS OF THE ELECTION D5021 >>> M09b FORMAL COMPLAINTS AGAINST NATIONAL LEVEL RESULTS D5022 >>> M09c ELECTION IRREGULARITIES REPORTED D5023_1 >>> M09d DATE ELECTION SCHEDULED - MONTH D5023_2 >>> M09d DATE ELECTION SCHEDULED - DAY D5023_3 >>> M09d DATE ELECTION SCHEDULED - YEAR D5024_1 >>> M09e DATE ELECTION HELD - MONTH D5024_2 >>> M09e DATE ELECTION HELD - DAY D5024_3 >>> M09e DATE ELECTION HELD - YEAR D5025 >>> M09e ELECTION DATE IRREGULARITIES D5026 >>> M10a ELECTION VIOLENCE D5027 >>> M10b GEOGRAPHIC CONCENTRATION OF VIOLENCE D5028 >>> M10c POST-ELECTION VIOLENCE D5029 >>> M10d POST-ELECTION PROTEST D5030 >>> M11.1 ELECTORAL ALLIANCES PERMITTED IN ELECTION D5031 >>> M11.2 ELECTORAL ALLIANCES IN PRACTICE D5032 >>> M11.3 DID ANY ELECTORAL ALLIANCES FORM? D5033 >>> M12 REQUIREMENTS FOR JOINT PARTY LISTS D5034 >>> M13a THE POSSIBILITY OF APPARENTEMENT D5035 >>> M13b TYPES OF APPARENTEMENT AGREEMENTS D5036 >>> M14a MULTI-PARTY ENDORSEMENTS D5037 >>> M14b MULTI-PARTY ENDORSEMENTS ON BALLOT D5038_1 >>> M16a VOTES CAST - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) D5038_2 >>> M16a VOTES CAST - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) D5038_3 >>> M16a VOTES CAST - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) D5038_4 >>> M16a VOTES CAST - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) D5039_1 >>> M16b VOTING PROCEDURE - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) D5039_2 >>> M16b VOTING PROCEDURE - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) D5039_3 >>> M16b VOTING PROCEDURE - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) D5039_4 >>> M16b VOTING PROCEDURE - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) D5040_1 >>> M16c VOTING ROUNDS - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) D5040_2 >>> M16c VOTING ROUNDS - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) D5040_3 >>> M16c VOTING ROUNDS - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) D5040_4 >>> M16c VOTING ROUNDS - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) D5041_1 >>> M16d PARTY LISTS - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) D5041_2 >>> M16d PARTY LISTS - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) D5041_3 >>> M16d PARTY LISTS - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) D5041_4 >>> M16d PARTY LISTS - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) D5042_1 >>> M17 TRANSFERABLE VOTES - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) D5042_2 >>> M17 TRANSFERABLE VOTES - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) D5042_3 >>> M17 TRANSFERABLE VOTES - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) D5042_4 >>> M17 TRANSFERABLE VOTES - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) D5043_1 >>> M18 CUMULATED VOTES - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) D5043_2 >>> M18 CUMULATED VOTES - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) D5043_3 >>> M18 CUMULATED VOTES - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) D5043_4 >>> M18 CUMULATED VOTES - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) D5044_1 >>> M19 COMPULSORY VOTING - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) D5044_2 >>> M19 COMPULSORY VOTING - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) D5044_3 >>> M19 COMPULSORY VOTING - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) D5044_4 >>> M19 COMPULSORY VOTING - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) D5045_1 >>> M21a IS THERE PARTY THRESHOLD - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) D5045_2 >>> M21a IS THERE PARTY THRESHOLD - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) D5045_3 >>> M21a IS THERE PARTY THRESHOLD - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) D5045_4 >>> M21a IS THERE PARTY THRESHOLD - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) D5046_1 >>> M21b PARTY THRESHOLD - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) D5046_2 >>> M21b PARTY THRESHOLD - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) D5046_3 >>> M21b PARTY THRESHOLD - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) D5046_4 >>> M21b PARTY THRESHOLD - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) D5047_1 >>> M21c UNIT FOR THE THRESHOLD - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) D5047_2 >>> M21c UNIT FOR THE THRESHOLD - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) D5047_3 >>> M21c UNIT FOR THE THRESHOLD - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) D5047_4 >>> M21c UNIT FOR THE THRESHOLD - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) D5050_1 >>> FREEDOM HOUSE RATING - TIME T D5050_2 >>> FREEDOM HOUSE RATING - TIME T-1 D5050_3 >>> FREEDOM HOUSE RATING - TIME T-2 D5051_1 >>> DEMOCRACY-AUTOCRACY - POLITY IV RATING - TIME T D5051_2 >>> DEMOCRACY-AUTOCRACY - POLITY IV RATING - TIME T-1 D5051_3 >>> DEMOCRACY-AUTOCRACY - POLITY IV RATING - TIME T-2 D5052 >>> AGE OF THE CURRENT REGIME D5054 >>> REGIME: TYPE OF EXECUTIVE D5055 >>> NUMBER OF MONTHS SINCE LAST LOWER HOUSE ELECTION D5056 >>> NUMBER OF MONTHS SINCE LAST PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION D5057 >>> PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS ELECTORAL FORMULA D5058 >>> ELECTORAL FORMULA IN ALL ELECTORAL SEGMENTS (TIERS) D5059 >>> NUMBER OF ELECTORAL SEGMENTS (TIERS) D5060 >>> LINKED ELECTORAL SEGMENTS (TIERS) D5061 >>> DEPENDENT FORMULAE IN MIXED SYSTEMS D5062 >>> SUBTYPES OF MIXED ELECTORAL SYSTEMS D5063 >>> NUMBER OF ELECTORAL DISTRICTS - LOWEST SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE D5064 >>> AVERAGE DISTRICT MAGNITUDE - LOWEST SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE D5065 >>> ELECTORAL FORMULA - LOWEST SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE D5066 >>> NUMBER OF ELECTORAL DISTRICTS - SECOND SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE D5067 >>> AVERAGE DISTRICT MAGNITUDE - SECOND SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE D5068 >>> ELECTORAL FORMULA - SECOND SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE D5069 >>> NUMBER OF ELECTORAL DISTRICTS - THIRD SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE D5070 >>> AVERAGE DISTRICT MAGNITUDE - THIRD SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE D5071 >>> ELECTORAL FORMULA - THIRD SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE D5072 >>> NUMBER OF SEATS ABOVE THE FIRST SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE D5073 >>> PERCENTAGE OF SEATS ABOVE THE FIRST SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE D5074 >>> FUSED VOTE D5075 >>> SIZE OF THE LOWER HOUSE D5080_1 >>> GDP GROWTH - ANNUAL % (WORLD BANK) - TIME T D5080_2 >>> GDP GROWTH - ANNUAL % (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-1 D5080_3 >>> GDP GROWTH - ANNUAL % (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-2 D5081_1 >>> GDP PER CAPITA, PPP (WORLD BANK) - TIME T D5081_2 >>> GDP PER CAPITA, PPP (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-1 D5081_3 >>> GDP PER CAPITA, PPP (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-2 D5082_1 >>> INFLATION, GDP DEFLATOR (ANNUAL %) (WORLD BANK) - TIME T D5082_2 >>> INFLATION, GDP DEFLATOR (ANNUAL %) (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-1 D5082_3 >>> INFLATION, GDP DEFLATOR (ANNUAL %) (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-2 D5083_1 >>> HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX (UNPD) - TIME T D5083_2 >>> HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX (UNPD) - TIME T-1 D5083_3 >>> HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX (UNPD) - TIME T-2 D5084_1 >>> POPULATION, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T D5084_2 >>> POPULATION, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-1 D5084_3 >>> POPULATION, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-2 D5085_1 >>> UNEMPLOYMENT, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T D5085_2 >>> UNEMPLOYMENT, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-1 D5085_3 >>> UNEMPLOYMENT, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-2 D5086 >>> TI CORRUPTION PERCEPTION INDEX D5088_1 >>> NET MIGRATION RATE 2010-2015 D5088_2 >>> NET MIGRATION RATE 2005-2010 D5089_1 >>> GENERAL GOVERNMENT FINAL CONSUMPTION EXPENDITURE (%GDP) - T D5089_2 >>> GENERAL GOVERNMENT FINAL CONSUMPTION EXPENDITURE (%GDP) - T-1 D5089_3 >>> GENERAL GOVERNMENT FINAL CONSUMPTION EXPENDITURE (%GDP) - T-2 D5091_1 >>> HEALTH EXPENDITURE (% GDP) TIME T D5091_2 >>> HEALTH EXPENDITURE (% GDP) TIME T-1 D5091_3 >>> HEALTH EXPENDITURE (% GDP) TIME T-2 D5092_1 >>> MILITARY EXPENDITURE (% GDP) TIME T D5092_2 >>> MILITARY EXPENDITURE (% GDP) TIME T-1 D5092_3 >>> MILITARY EXPENDITURE (% GDP) TIME T-2 D5093_1 >>> CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DEBT, TOTAL (% GDP) TIME T D5093_2 >>> CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DEBT, TOTAL (% GDP) TIME T-1 D5093_3 >>> CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DEBT, TOTAL (% GDP) TIME T-2 D5095 >>> PERCENTAGE OF INDIVIDUALS USING THE INTERNET D5096 >>> MOBILE PHONE SUBSCRIPTIONS PER 100 INHABITANTS D5097 >>> FIXED TELEPHONE LINES PER 100 INHABITANTS D5099 >>> CONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL STRUCTURE D5100 >>> NUMBER OF LEGISLATIVE CHAMBERS D5101 >>> ELECTORAL RESULTS DATA AVAILABLE D5102 >>> EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF ELECTORAL PARTIES D5103 >>> CORRECTED EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF ELECTORAL PARTIES D5104 >>> EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF PARLIAMENTARY PARTIES D5105 >>> CORRECTED EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF PARLIAMENTARY PARTIES D5200_A >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY A D5200_B >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY B D5200_C >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY C D5200_D >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY D D5200_E >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY E D5200_F >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY F D5200_G >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY G D5200_H >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY H D5200_I >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY I D5201_A >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (ParlGov) IDENTIFIER - PARTY A D5201_B >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (ParlGov) IDENTIFIER - PARTY B D5201_C >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (ParlGov) IDENTIFIER - PARTY C D5201_D >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (ParlGov) IDENTIFIER - PARTY D D5201_E >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (ParlGov) IDENTIFIER - PARTY E D5201_F >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (ParlGov) IDENTIFIER - PARTY F D5201_G >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (ParlGov) IDENTIFIER - PARTY G D5201_H >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (ParlGov) IDENTIFIER - PARTY H D5201_I >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (ParlGov) IDENTIFIER - PARTY I =========================================================================== ))) CSES MODULE 4 VARIABLES: IDENTIFICATION, WEIGHT, AND STUDY ADMINISTRATION DATA =========================================================================== --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D1001 >>> DATASET --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dataset. .................................................................. CSES-MODULE-4. CSES MODULE 4 | VARIABLE NOTES: D1001 | | This reports the CSES module applied in each election | study. CSES Module 4 was administered during the | the years 2011 and 2016 inclusive. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D1002_VER >>> DATASET VERSION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dataset version. .................................................................. VER2018-MAY-29. Version of dataset, released on May 29, 2018. | VARIABLE NOTES: D1002 | | The version number corresponds to the date of the dataset's | release. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D1002_DOI >>> DIGITAL OBJECT IDENTIFIER --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digital Object Identifier. .................................................................. doi: 10.7804/cses.module4.2018-05-29. | VARIABLE NOTES: D1002_DOI | | This variable indicates the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) | which is registered for the dataset. CSES DOI registration is | conducted by the DA|RA registration agency for economic and | social science data. Each CSES dataset version | (see variable D1002_VER) has a unique, persistent DOI. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D1003 >>> ID VARIABLE - ELECTION STUDY (NUMERIC POLITY) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Election Study Identifier: Numeric Polity Code and Election Year. .................................................................. 03202015. ARGENTINA (2015) 03602013. AUSTRALIA (2013) 04002013. AUSTRIA (2013) 07602014. BRAZIL (2014) 10002014. BULGARIA (2014) 12402011. CANADA (2011) 12402015. CANADA (2015) 20302013. CZECH REPUBLIC (2013) 24602015. FINLAND (2015) 25002012. FRANCE (2012) 27602013. GERMANY (2013) 30002012. GREECE (2012) 30002015. GREECE (2015) 34402012. HONG KONG (2012) 35202013. ICELAND (2013) 37202011. IRELAND (2011) 37602013. ISRAEL (2013) 39202013. JAPAN (2013) 40402013. KENYA (2013) 42802011. LATVIA (2011) 42802014. LATVIA (2014) 48402012. MEXICO (2012) 48402015. MEXICO (2015) 49902012. MONTENEGRO (2012) 55402011. NEW ZEALAND (2011) 55402014. NEW ZEALAND (2014) 57802013. NORWAY (2013) 60402016. PERU (2016) 60802016. PHILIPPINES (2016) 61602011. POLAND (2011) 62002015. PORTUGAL (2015) 64202012. ROMANIA (2012) 64202014. ROMANIA (2014) 68802012. SERBIA (2012) 70302016. SLOVAKIA (2016) 70502011. SLOVENIA (2011) 71002016. SOUTH AFRICA (2014) 41002012. SOUTH KOREA (2012) 75202016. SWEDEN (2014) 75602011. SWITZERLAND (2011) 15802012. TAIWAN (2012) 76402011. THAILAND (2011) 79202015. TURKEY (2015) 82602015. GREAT BRITAIN (2015) 84022012. UNITED STATES (2012) | VARIABLE NOTES: D1003 | | This eight digit variable uniquely identifies an election study | within the CSES. | | The variable is constructed from two components, variable D1006 | (CSES polity code) and D1008 (election year). | | The first three digits are the numeric version of the country | codes created by the United Nations Statistics Division | ("countries or areas, codes and abbreviations", revised February | 13, 2002), except for Taiwan (see Election Study Note). | | The fourth digit distinguishes between multiple studies | conducted within a single country, for the same election. | | The fifth through eighth digits correspond to the election year | as specified in variable D1008. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D1003 | | The country code for Taiwan is from ISO 3166-1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D1004 >>> ID VARIABLE - ELECTION STUDY (ALPHABETIC POLITY) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Election Study Identifier: Alphabetic Polity Code and Election Year. .................................................................. ARG_2015. ARGENTINA (2015) AUS_2013. AUSTRALIA (2013) AUT_2013. AUSTRIA (2013) BRA_2014. BRAZIL (2014) BGR_2014. BULGARIA (2014) CAN_2011. CANADA (2011) CAN_2015. CANADA (2015) CHE_2011. SWITZERLAND (2011) CZE_2013. CZECH REPUBLIC (2013) FIN_2015. FINLAND (2015) FRA_2012. FRANCE (2012) DEU_2013. GERMANY (2013) GBR_2015. GREAT BRITAIN (2015) GRC_2012. GREECE (2012) GRC_2015. GREECE (2015) HKG_2012. HONG KONG (2012) ISL_2013. ICELAND (2013) IRL_2011. IRELAND (2011) ISR_2013. ISRAEL (2013) JPN_2013. JAPAN (2013) KEN_2013. KENYA (2013) LVA_2011. LATVIA (2011) LVA_2014. LATVIA (2014) MEX_2012. MEXICO (2012) MEX_2015. MEXICO (2015) MNE_2012. MONTENEGRO (2012) NZL_2011. NEW ZEALAND (2011) NZL_2014. NEW ZEALAND (2014) NOR_2013. NORWAY (2013) PER_2016. PERU (2016) PHL_2016. PHILIPPINES (2016) POL_2011. POLAND (2011) PRT_2015. PORTUGAL (2015) ROU_2012. ROMANIA (2012) ROU_2014. ROMANIA (2014) SRB_2012. SERBIA (2012) SVK_2016. SLOVAKIA (2016) SVN_2011. SLOVENIA (2011) KOR_2012. SOUTH KOREA (2012) SWE_2014. SWEDEN (2014) THA_2011. THAILAND (2011) TWN_2012. TAIWAN (2012) TUR_2015. TURKEY (2015) USA_2012. UNITED STATES (2012) ZAF_2014. SOUTH AFRICA (2014) | VARIABLE NOTES: D1004 | | This eight-character variable uniquely identifies an election | study within the CSES. | | The variable is constructed from two components, variable D1006 | (CSES polity code) and D1008 (election year). | | The first three characters are the alphabetic country codes | 'alpha-3' created by the International Organization for | Standardization in their ISO 3166 Standard and shared by the | United Nations Statistics Division ("Countries or areas, codes | and abbreviations", revised February 13, 2002). | | If appropriate, the fourth character distinguishes between | multiple studies conducted within a single country, for the same | election. If only one study is in place for the election, this | character appears as an underscore (_). | | The fifth through eighth characters correspond to the election | year as specified in variable D1008. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D1005 >>> ID VARIABLE - RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Respondent Identifier. .................................................................. | VARIABLE NOTES: D1005 | | This eighteen-character variable uniquely identifies a | respondent within the CSES data file. | | The variable is constructed from three components: variable | D1006 (CSES polity code), D1008 (election year), and D1009 | (respondent within election study). | | The first three characters are the numeric version of the | country codes created by the United Nations Statistics | Division ("countries or areas, codes and abbreviations", | revised February 13, 2002). | | If appropriate, the fourth character distinguishes between | multiple studies conducted within a single country, for the same | election. If only one study is in place for the election, this | character appears as a zero (0). | | The fifth through eighth characters correspond to the election | year as specified in variable D1008. | | The last ten characters are the respondent identifier from | D1009, which is unique within each election study. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D1006 >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY CSES CODE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Polity Identifier. .................................................................. 0320. ARGENTINA (2015) 0360. AUSTRALIA (2013) 0400. AUSTRIA (2013) 0760. BRAZIL (2014) 1000. BULGARIA (2014) 1240. CANADA (2011) 1240. CANADA (2015) 2030. CZECH REPUBLIC (2013) 2460. FINLAND (2015) 2500. FRANCE (2012) 2760. GERMANY (2013) 3000. GREECE (2012) 3000. GREECE (2015) 3440. HONG KONG (2012) 3520. ICELAND (2013) 3720. IRELAND (2011) 3760. ISRAEL (2013) 3920. JAPAN (2013) 4040. KENYA (2013) 4280. LATVIA (2011) 4280. LATVIA (2014) 4840. MEXICO (2012) 4840. MEXICO (2015) 4990. MONTENEGRO (2012) 5540. NEW ZEALAND (2011) 5540. NEW ZEALAND (2014) 5780. NORWAY (2013) 6040. PERU (2016) 6080. PHILIPPINES (2016) 6160. POLAND (2011) 6200. PORTUGAL (2015) 6420. ROMANIA (2012) 6420. ROMANIA (2014) 6880. SERBIA (2012) 7030. SLOVAKIA (2016) 7050. SLOVENIA (2011) 7100. SOUTH AFRICA (2014) 4100. SOUTH KOREA (2012) 7520. SWEDEN (2014) 7560. SWITZERLAND (2011) 1580. TAIWAN (2012) 7640. THAILAND (2011) 7920. TURKEY (2015) 8260. GREAT BRITAIN (2015) 8400. UNITED STATES (2012) | VARIABLE NOTES: D1006 | | This four-character variable uniquely identifies a polity | conducting an election study that is present in CSES | MODULE 4. | | The first three characters are the numeric version of | the country codes created by the United Nations Statistics | Division ("countries or areas, codes and abbreviations", | revised February 13, 2002). | | The fourth character distinguishes between multiple studies | conducted with a single country, for the same election. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D1006_UN >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY UN CODE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Polity Identifier UN Country Code. .................................................................. 032. ARGENTINA (2015) 036. AUSTRALIA (2013) 040. AUSTRIA (2013) 076. BRAZIL (2014) 100. BULGARIA (2014) 124. CANADA (2011) 124. CANADA (2015) 203. CZECH REPUBLIC (2013) 246. FINLAND (2015) 250. FRANCE (2012) 276. GERMANY (2013) 300. GREECE (2012) 300. GREECE (2015) 344. HONG KONG (2012) 352. ICELAND (2013) 372. IRELAND (2011) 376. ISRAEL (2013) 392. JAPAN (2013) 404. KENYA (2013) 428. LATVIA (2011) 428. LATVIA (2014) 484. MEXICO (2012) 484. MEXICO (2015) 499. MONTENEGRO (2012) 554. NEW ZEALAND (2011) 554. NEW ZEALAND (2014) 578. NORWAY (2013) 604. PERU (2016) 608. PHILIPPINES (2016) 616. POLAND (2011) 620. PORTUGAL (2015) 642. ROMANIA (2012) 642. ROMANIA (2014) 688. SERBIA (2012) 703. SLOVAKIA (2016) 705. SLOVENIA (2011) 710. SOUTH AFRICA (2014) 410. SOUTH KOREA (2012) 752. SWEDEN (2014) 756. SWITZERLAND (2011) 158. TAIWAN (2012) 764. THAILAND (2011) 792. TURKEY (2015) 826. GREAT BRITAIN (2015) 840. UNITED STATES (2012) | VARIABLE NOTES: D1006_UN | | This three-character variable uniquely identifies a polity | conducting an election study that is present in CSES | MODULE 4. | | It consists of the numeric version of the country codes created | by the United Nations Statistics Division ("Countries or areas, | codes and abbreviations", revised February 13, 2002). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): D1006_UN | | Note that code 826 would in fact refer to the United Kingdom. | However, the election study is from the Great Britain. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D1006_NAM >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY NAME --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Polity Identifier Country Name. .................................................................. Argentina Australia Austria Brazil Bulgaria Canada Czech Republic Finland France Germany Great Britain Greece Hong Kong Iceland Ireland Israel Japan Kenya Latvia Mexico Montenegro New Zealand Norway Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Republic of Korea Romania Serbia Slovakia Slovenia South Africa Sweden Switzerland Taiwan Thailand Turkey United States of America | VARIABLE NOTES: D1006_NAM | | This variable uniquely identifies a polity conducting an | election study that is present in CSES MODULE 4. | | It consists of country names based on those used by the United | Nations Statistics Division ("Countries or areas, codes and | abbreviations", revised February 13, 2002). However, in some | instances, country names deviate from those used by the United | Nations. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D1007 >>> ID COMPONENT - SAMPLE COMPONENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In some cases, analysts may wish to consider regions of countries or other sample components units of analysis, rather than the countries themselves. We use this variable to capture information about subsets of respondents that are meaningful but that are not capture by other variables. This may, for instance, refer to different sample components or respondents from different panel components. For all other cases, this variable is coded 001. .................................................................. 001. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 002. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 003. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 004. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 005. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 006. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 999. MISSING | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D1007 | | The Argentinian election survey was conducted in two waves. | Only the second wave of the survey is used for CSES. It | contained 780 respondents which had been sampled initially | for the first survey as well as a refresh sample of 626 | respondents. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. First wave sample | 002. Refresh sample | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2015): D1007 | | The study was composed of only one sample component. However, a | study was conducted as panel study (see Overview of Methods - | Canada (2015)). In second wave respondents were at the end of | interview asked if they want to provide their address and | participate in third component of the study mail-back survey. | So, they voluntarily decided to opt-in from that component. To | provide users with the most comprehensive information, variable | D1007 distinguishes between the following three groups of | respondents: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. Respondents who participated in first and second | part of the study and did not want to | participate in mail-back survey (did not provide | address) | 002. Respondents who returned the mail-back | questionnaire | 003. Respondents who opted in for mail-back survey | but did not return questionnaire | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2015): D1007 | | The survey was composed of only one sample component. However, | a subset of the CSES Module 4 questions were asked in a drop-off | questionnaire (see also Election Study Note for D1023 on Survey | Mode). This drop-off questionnaire included the questions on the | following variables: D3019, D3020_, D3021_, D3022, D3023_, | D3024, D3027_, and D3028_. Of the 1,587 respondents, 684 | returned the drop-off questionnaire. To provide users with the | most comprehensive information, variable D1007 distinguishes | between Finnish respondents who returned the drop-off | questionnaire and those who did not. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. Respondents who returned the drop-off | questionnaire | 002. Respondents who did not return the drop-off | questionnaire | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D1007 | | East and West Germany were sampled separately with an | oversampling of East Germans. The final data contains 1,165 | respondents from West and 724 respondents from East Germany. The | sample components are coded as 1='West' and 2='East'. | Further information on weights are available in the Part 6 of | CSES Codebook. Additional relevant information is also available | in the election study notes for variable D1010_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): D1007 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. Respondents sampled for the previous (2012) | election study | 002. Respondents sampled newly for the 2015 election | study | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D1007 | | The survey was part of a rolling cross-sectional | sample. For further reference see the general notes for Norway | in Part 1 of the Codebook. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. Respondents who participated in the panel | already in 2009 | 002. New cross-section sample | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D1007 | | A part of the sample consisted of a panel component in which | respondents were interviewed prior and after the election | (N=1,080). All relevant CSES questions were asked in the post- | election survey of the panel component. All other respondents | were part of a cross sectional post-election study (N=1,203). | For further information, see the general notes for Romania 2012 | in the Part 1 of the CSES Codebook. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. Respondents who were part of the cross-section | post-election study | 002. Respondents who were part of the pre-election/ | post-election panel study | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2014): D1007 | | The survey was part of a rolling cross-sectional study (Wave 1: | 2010-2014; Wave 2: 2014-2018). In addition, respondents could | complete either a long or a short version of the questionnaire. | The latter excluded the demographic variables D2021, D2022, | D2023, D2025 and D2027. To allow distinguishing between these | groups, the sample component not only reflects the two waves but | also the length of the questionnaire. Finally, 22 respondents | in the sample were first time voters who were not part of either | panel. These respondents are coded as "99. MISSING" for D1007. | For further information on the sample composition, see Part 6 of | the CSES Codebook. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. 2010-2014 Panel; Full Questionnaire | 002. 2010-2014 Panel; Short Questionnaire | 003. 2014-2018 Panel; Full Questionnaire | 004. 2014-2018 Panel; Short Questionnaire | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D1007 | | There are two sample components in the US data distinguishing | early voters (N=115) and voters who cast a ballot on election | day. Respondents were asked in the pre-election survey whether | they had voted early. Respondents who affirmed this were still | asked the questions about their voting behavior (D3005_PR_1- | D3006_UH_DC) in the post-election survey. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. Voters who cast a ballot on election day | 002. Early voters --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D1008 >>> ID COMPONENT - ELECTION YEAR --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Election year. .................................................................. 2011-2016. ELECTION YEAR | VARIABLE NOTES: D1008 | | The official period covered in Module 4 is from 2011 to 2016. | A preliminary questionnaire was used for pretests in 2011 - | this version of the questionnaire was very similar to the final | version. The questionnaire was finalized in 2012. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D1009 >>> ID COMPONENT - RESPONDENT WITHIN ELECTION STUDY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A01. Respondent identifier. .................................................................. | VARIABLE NOTES: D1009 | | This variable is ten characters in length. It is unique | for each survey respondent within an election. | | While this variable uniquely identifies a respondent within | an election study, it is not unique across the entire dataset. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D1010_1 >>> ORIGINAL WEIGHT: SAMPLE D1010_2 >>> ORIGINAL WEIGHT: DEMOGRAPHIC D1010_3 >>> ORIGINAL WEIGHT: POLITICAL --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | VARIABLE NOTES: D1010 | | These variables report the original weights provided with | the respective deposited data files. | | Sample weights include those intended to correct for unequal | selection probabilities resulting from "booster" samples, | procedures for selection within the household, non-response, | as well as other features of the sample design. | | Demographic weights adjust sample distributions of socio- | demographic characteristics to more closely resemble the | characteristics of the population. | | Political weights reconcile discrepancies in the reported | electoral behavior of the survey respondents from the | official vote counts. | | In cases where a collaborator provides a single weight that | is a combination of one or more of the three weight categories | (sample, demographic, and political), the weight is duplicated | in the two or more appropriate variables. Thus, analysts using | two or more of the weights simultaneously will need to account | for this duplication. | | Use of weights is at the discretion of the analyst based upon | the considerations of her/his individual research question. | We recommend that analysts familiarize themselves with the | weights, their components, and their methods of creation | before applying them. | | Additionally, analysts will want to keep in mind that these | weights are prepared to be election study weights, not country | weights. To convert the weights to country weights requires an | adjustment for those countries for which one or more polities | or election studies appear in the dataset. | | Where a weight of a particular type is unavailable, these | variables are coded 1. | | Collaborators provided the original weights with a varying | number of decimal places. In this CSES dataset, however, all | of the original weights have been rounded to four decimal | places at maximum (i.e. 1.1234) using STATA. | | +++ TABLE: TYPE OF ORIGINAL WEIGHTS BY INDIVIDUAL ELECTION | STUDIES | | Sample Demographic Political | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) Weight Weight Weight | ----------------------------------------------------------- | AUSTRALIA (2013) - X - | AUSTRIA (2013) - X - | BRAZIL (2014) X - - | BULGARIA (2014) - X - | CANADA (2011) X - - | CANADA (2015) X - - | CZECH REPUBLIC (2013) - - X | FINLAND (2015) - X X | FRANCE (2012) - X X | GERMANY (2013) X X - | GREAT BRITAIN (2015) X X - | GREECE (2012) - X - | GREECE (2015) - X X | HONG KONG (2012) - X - | IRELAND (2011) - X X | JAPAN (2013) - X - | KENYA (2013) X - - | LATVIA (2011) X X - | LATVIA (2014) - X - | MEXICO (2012) X X - | MEXICO (2015) - X - | MONTENEGRO (2012) - X - | NEW ZEALAND (2011) - X X | NEW ZEALAND (2014) - X X | NORWAY (2013) - X - | PERU (2016) X X X | PHILIPPINES (2016) X - - | POLAND (2011) - X - | PORTUGAL (2015) - X - | ROMANIA (2012) X X X | ROMANIA (2014) X X X | SERBIA (2012) X X - | SLOVAKIA (2016) - X - | SOUTH AFRICA (2014) - X - | SWITZERLAND (2011) X - X | TAIWAN (2012) - X - | THAILAND (2011) X - - | TURKEY (2015) - X - | UNITED STATES (2012) X X - | ----------------------------------------------------------- | KEY: X = available; - = not available. | | Weights are unavailable for ARGENTINA (2015), ICELAND (2013), | ISRAEL (2013), SLOVENIA (2011), SOUTH KOREA (2012) and | SWEDEN (2014). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D1010_2 | | The weight variable is a demographic weight calculated using rim | weighting adjusting to four benchmarks, namely: age, gender, | state, and vote choice of respondents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D1010_2 | | The weight variable is a post-stratification demographic | weight. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D1010_2 | | The sample weight is constructed to correct for oversampling | in the state of Sao Paulo. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2014): D1010_2 | | Weights adjust the sample to the population distribution in | terms of age, gender, urbanization level and region of residence | (NUTSII-level). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011 & 2015): D1010_1 | | The sample weight is constructed to correct for unequal | probabilities of selection of respondents at the household stage | and the unequal probabilities of selection based on province of | residence. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2013): D1010_2 | | The political weight corrects for election results (parties | with less than 3% of the vote are included in a | category for 'other parties'). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2015): D1010_2 & D1010_3 | | The original weight for Finland 2015 is a combined weight that | corrects for both demographics (mother tongue, age, and gender) | as well as the overall national election results. Hence, this | weight was used to code both the demographical weight (D1010_2) | as well as the political weight (D1010_3). Thus, applying | either one of the two will result in the same adjustments of the | analyses. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): D1010_2 & D1010_3 | | The demographic weight adjusts the French sample along known | countrywide distributions of sex, age and occupations. | The political weight adjusts the French sample in accordance | with the first and second round results of the | presidential elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D1010_1 & D1010_2 | | The sample weight is intended to correct for the oversampling of | respondents in East Germany and distribution of household sizes. | The demographic weight adjusts for education, age, gender and | "BIK--Gemeindegroessenklassen" (size of communities). | Furthermore, the original data contained 19 ineligible cases, | which were removed from the CSES published dataset without | any adjusting of the weight variables. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): D1010_1 & D1010_2 | | The sample weight corrects for unequal selection probabilities | due to the separate numbers of dwellings, typically flats within | Postcode Address Files (PAF), or multiple households in | dwellings or multiple eligible persons within households. The | weight is constructed as the inverse of the person's chance | within a household to be interviewed. The selection weight is | 'capped' at five to minimize its negative impact on the standard | error and then rescaled to arrive at the original sample size. | The demographic weight accounts for differing levels of response | from different groups. It corrects for age, gender and region. | The demographic weight was calculated after the selection weight | had been applied. For more information, see the design report. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012): D1010_2 | | The weight included corrects for both demographic and political | characteristics of the population and elections. They were | constructed using the method of ranking and take into account | gender, age, education, region, and valid votes in the 2012 | Greek elections. Although the weight is a combined weight, it is | only listed under the demographic weight variable. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): D1010_2 & D1010_3 | | The weight included corrects for both demographic and political | characteristics of the population and elections. They were | constructed using the method of ranking and take into account | gender, age, education, region, and valid votes in the 2015 | Greek elections. Because it is a combined weight, it is listed | under both D1010_2 and D1010_3. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D1010_2 | | The weight variable was calculated on basis of age, sex | and respondents' level of education. For 103 respondents, age is | unknown. These cases are assigned the average original weight | (which is equal to 1). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2011): D1010_2 & D1010_3 | | Two different weights are provided. The demographic weight | ensures that the data is representative of the Irish population | in terms of age, gender, and social class. The political weight | is a combined weight, that takes into account the demographic | weight and, in addition, adjusts the data so that the | distribution of the reported vote choice matches the official | results from the 2011 Irish election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D1010_2 | | The demographic weight is constructed to take into account the | distributions of age, gender, and geographic region in order to | conform to the known population distributions. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D1010_1 | | The provided sample weight adjusts for varying probabilities of | selection due to oversampling of various constituencies. The | weight was constructed based on provinces and matches the | population by region and the urban-rural population | distribution. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2011): D1010_1 & D1010_2 | | There is one weighting variable for the Latvian election study, | which combines both correction for unequal probabilities of | selection (sample weights) and demographic weights. Criteria | that were used for the data weighting are age, nationality, | region, type of residence and gender. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2014): D1010_2 | | The demographic weight's aim is to get the sample division as | close as possible to the universe. Criteria that were used for | the data weighting are: age, nationality, region, type of | residence and gender. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): D1010_1 & D1010_2 | | The sample design weight is a means of correcting for | non-response. | | The demographic weight is s constructed to take into account the | distributions of age and gender in order to conform to the | known population distributions. | | This raw weight is not centered around '1' (rather the mean | weight is approximately 32,000) and while the weight ratios are | correct, using the weight will alter the weighted case counts | accordingly. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2015): D1010_2 | | The combined weight corrects for unequal probabilities of the | sampling units. Post-stratification weights were estimated to | correct for non-response and to match known demographic | characteristics of the populations' gender and age, based on | census data from 2010. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2012): D1010_2 | | The weights variable was calculated on the base of | respondents' ratio of ethnicity, age and gender to the | Montenegrin population. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011): D1010_2 & D1010_3 | | The demographic weight adjusts from real income distribution of | the sample (D2020) to exact quintiles. | The political weight adjusts for party vote and turnout, | on top of the income weight. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2014): D1010_2 & D1010_3 | | The demographic weight adjusts for age groups and education. | The political weight adjusts for voting and non-voting according | to the official data on top of the demographic weight. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D1010_2 | | The provided weight adjusts for non-response in the survey | which correlated particular demographic characteristics. The | weight adjusts for individual turnout (controlled against | electoral roll), gender, age, and education. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): D1010_1-D1010_3 | | The sample and demographic weights (D1010_1 and D1010_2) are | equal. They both contain design weights accounting for unequal | probabilities of selection, combined with demographic weights | based on the population distribution of age and gender. | The political weight (D1010_3) combines the design weights with | political weights based on the results of the first presidential | election round. Political weights were not constructed for 123 | respondents. 105 of these respondents did not cast a vote in the | presidential elections (D3005_PR_1) and the other 18 respondents | did not specify their vote choice in the presidential elections | (D3006_PR_1). These cases were recoded to 0 for the political | weight variable and thus, are dropped from analyses if D1010_3 | is applied. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D1010_1 | | The sample is equally allocated across the four major areas | (National Capital Region, the rest of Luzon outside the NCR, | Visayas and Mindanao. A census-based population weight corrects | for the different probability to be sampled due to the known | allocation of the population in these areas. Also more details | see the design report of the study. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2011): D1010_2 | | The provided demographic weight matches the sample to | population estimates for gender, age, level of education and | size of residence. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): D1010_2 | | The provided weight was designed to match the sample with known | demographic characteristics of the population, namely region, | gender, age and education. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D1010_1-D1010_3 | | The sample weight corrects for the variance in the probability | of being selected into the sample. The demographic weight is | designed to match known characteristics in the population | (gender and age) and further accounts for residence | (urban/rural) and region (Transylvania, Muntenia, Moldavia, and | Bucharest). The political weight corrects for discrepancies | between the reported vote choice and the actual election | results. The demographic and the political weight are | cumulative weights, that is, the demographic weights also takes | into account the sample weight and the political weight takes | into account both the sample and the demographic weight. The | weights were created for each of the two sample components | separately (see D1007) and thus, can be applied when working | with the full sample. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D1010_1-D1010_3 | | The sample weight corrects for the variance in the probability | of being selected into the sample. These probabilities differ | because polls differ in their size. The demographic weight | was computed after the sample weight was applied and is designed | to match known demographic characteristics in the voting | population (gender, age categories, urban/rural residence | and eight regions). The political weight was computed after | both the sample and the demographic weights were applied. It | corrects the sample to match the official election results | at the national level for both Presidential Election rounds | simultaneously. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SERBIA (2012): D1010_1 & D1010_2 | | The sample weight corrects for over-sampling and different | household size. | The demographic weight corrects for differential non-response | according to urbanization level (and includes the sampling | weight). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2016): D1010_2 | | The demographic weight corrects the 2016 Slovakian sample | according to gender, age, education levels, community size, and | region. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D1010_2 | | The sample weight corrects for oversampling linked to urban- | rural residency, race, age, total people inhabiting a household | and total people over the age of 18. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): D1010_1 & D1010_3 | | The sample weight controls for oversampling of citizens by | cantons in the telephone interviews, and is calculated in line | with known population distributions from Swiss Statistics. | The political weight controls for the overall turnout and the | vote share of parties, multiplied with the sample weight. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D1010_2 | | The provided weight allows to generalize from the sample to the | general population of eligible voters in the 2012 presidential | election. The weight accounts for gender, age (5 groups), | education (5 groups), and area (6 regions). The weight was | created, using the raking method. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2011): D1010_1 | | The sample weight was constructed along the population | percentages in each region. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2015): D1010_2 | | The demographic weight adjusts the sample to know population | distributions on gender, six age groups, and five education | levels. Weights to correct deviations from these 60 cells were | multiplied with 12 separately calculated regional weights to | correct regional deviations in the sample. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - USA (2012): D1010_1 & D1010_2 | | The provided weight is a combined sample and demographic weight. | The weight is post-stratified to produce estimates that match | known population proportions for age, race/ethnicity, | educational attainment, martial status, income, census region, | home ownership, nation of birth and cross-classifications of age | and gender, and of race/ethnicity and educational attainment. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D1011_1 >>> FACTOR: MEAN OF SAMPLE WEIGHT D1011_2 >>> FACTOR: MEAN OF DEMOGRAPHIC WEIGHT D1011_3 >>> FACTOR: MEAN OF POLITICAL WEIGHT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | VARIABLE NOTES: D1011 | | These variables report the mean weight of each type, within | each polity (election study). The resulting factors are then | used to create the derivative "Polity Weights" in variables | D1012_1 through D1012_3. | | To follow is the STATA code used to create variables | D1011_1, D1011_2, and D1011_3: | | | forvalues i=1/3 { | foreach x of local elec { | su D1010_`i' if D1004=="`x'" | replace D1011_`i' = r(mean) if D1004=="`x'" | } | } | | The STATA code to create the derivative variables in the CSES | dataset was run on the original, unrounded version of | the original weight variables (D1010_1-D1010_3). Thereafter | the derivative variables were rounded to four decimal places at | maximum (i.e. 1.1234) using STATA. | | It is due to this rounding that the mean values of derivative | weight variables D1011_1-D1011_3 for individual election studies | and for the full dataset are close to, but not necessarily | exactly equal to, 1.0000. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D1012_1 >>> POLITY WEIGHT: SAMPLE D1012_2 >>> POLITY WEIGHT: DEMOGRAPHIC D1012_3 >>> POLITY WEIGHT: POLITICAL --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | VARIABLE NOTES: D1012 | | See also Variable and Election Study Notes for D1010-D1011. | | These variables report standardized versions (with a mean 1 | within the polity) of the original weights provided with the | component election studies, described in D1010. They are the | ratio of each weighting factor to the mean weight (D1011) of | each type, calculated within each polity. | | The derivative "Polity Weight" (D1012) has been created so | that for each weight (sample, demographic, political), each | respondent within the election study has a mean weight of "1". | If you are running a frequency, for instance, this weight | will work so that the N in your frequency table comes out to | approximately the same as the number of interviews in the | study. This derivative weight is created by dividing the | individual weight for each respondent within an election | study by the mean for that weight for all respondents in that | election study. | | To follow is the STATA code used to create variables | D1012_1, D1012_2, and D1012_3: | | gen D1012_1 = D1010_1 / D1011_1 | gen D1012_2 = D1010_2 / D1011_2 | gen D1012_3 = D1010_3 / D1011_3 | | The STATA code to create the derivative variables in the CSES | dataset was run on the original, unrounded version of | the original weight variables (D1010_1-D1010_3). Thereafter | the derivative variables were rounded to four decimal places at | maximum (i.e. 1.1234) using STATA. | | It is due to this rounding that the mean values of derivative | weight variables D1012_1-D1012_3 for individual election studies | and for the full dataset are close to, but not necessarily | exactly equal to, 1.0000. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D1013 >>> FACTOR: SAMPLE SIZE ADJUSTMENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | VARIABLE NOTES: D1013 | | This variable reports the ratio of the average sample size to | each election study sample. Note that this factor is calculated | on the basis of the samples appearing in the CSES data files | (i.e. does not incorporate booster samples, panel respondents | who did not participate in the CSES wave of multi-wave studies, | etc.). Further, this factor treats elections, and not political | systems, as the unit of analysis. Analysts wishing to compare | across-countries, instead of a cross-election studies, should | adjust this weight accordingly. | | The resulting factor is then used to create the derivative | "Dataset Weights" in variables D1014_1 through D1014_3. | | To follow is the STATA code used to create variable D1013: | | gen n=1 | gen tot_obs = _N /*Number of observations*/ | gen estudies = _S /*Number of election studies*/ | gen mean_res = tot_obs/estudies | | gen n_cases = . | foreach x of local elec { | su n if D1004=="`x'" | replace n_cases = r(sum) if D1004=="`x'" | } | | replace D1013 = mean_res / n_cases | drop n-Ncases | | The STATA code to create the derivative variables in the CSES | dataset was run on the original, unrounded version of | the original weight variables (D1010_1-D1010_3). Thereafter | the derivative variables were rounded to four decimal places at | maximum (i.e. 1.1234) using STATA. | | It is due to this rounding that the mean value of derivative | weight variable D1013 for the full dataset is close | to, but not necessarily exactly equal to, 1.0000. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D1014_1 >>> DATASET WEIGHT: SAMPLE D1014_2 >>> DATASET WEIGHT: DEMOGRAPHIC D1014_3 >>> DATASET WEIGHT: POLITICAL --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | VARIABLE NOTES: D1014 | | See also Variable and Election Study Notes for D1010-D1013. | | These variables are intended for micro-level analyses involving | the entire CSES sample. Using the sample size adjustment | (D1013), the centered weights (D1012) are corrected such that | each election study component contributes equally to the | analysis, regardless of the original sample size. Users are | advised to read the notes of the preceding variables carefully | so as to ensure that their analyses will be weighted | appropriately. | | The derivative "Dataset Weight" (D1014) has been created so | that each election study in the dataset will contribute | equally to analyses of respondents, regardless of the number | of interviews in each election study. | | To follow is the STATA code used to create variables | D1014_1, D1014_2, and D1014_3: | | replace D1014_1 = D1012_1 * D1013 | replace D1014_2 = D1012_2 * D1013 | replace D1014_3 = D1012_3 * D1013 | | The STATA code to create the derivative variables in the CSES | dataset was run on the original, unrounded version of | the original weight variables (D1010_1-D1010_3). Thereafter | the derivative variables were rounded to four decimal places at | maximum (i.e. 1.1234) using STATA. | | It is due to this rounding that the mean values of derivative | weight variables D1014_1-D1014_3 for the full dataset are close | to, but not necessarily exactly equal to, 1.0000. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D1015 >>> ELECTION TYPE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Type of election. .................................................................. 10. PARLIAMENTARY/LEGISLATIVE 12. PARLIAMENTARY/LEGISLATIVE AND PRESIDENTIAL 13. PARLIAMENTARY/LEGISLATIVE AND PRIME MINISTER 20. PRESIDENTIAL 30. HEAD OF GOVERNMENT | VARIABLE NOTES: D1015 | | The following table gives an overview of which type of elections | are included for which country. | | +++ TABLE: ELECTION STUDIES BY TYPE OF ELECTION | | Presidential Lower House Upper House | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) Election Election Election | ------------------------------------------------------------- | ARGENTINA (2015) X X X | AUSTRALIA (2013) - X X | AUSTRIA (2013) - X - | BRAZIL (2014) X X X | BULGARIA (2014) - X - | CANADA (2011) - X - | CANADA (2015) - X - | CZECH REPUBLIC (2013) - X - | FINLAND (2015) - X - | FRANCE (2012) X - - | GERMANY (2013) - X - | GREAT BRITAIN (2015) - X - | GREECE (2012) - X - | GREECE (2015) - X - | HONG KONG (2012) - X - | ICELAND (2013) - X - | IRELAND (2011) - X - | ISRAEL (2013) - X - | JAPAN (2013) - - X | KENYA (2013) X X X | LATVIA (2011) - X - | LATVIA (2014) - X - | MEXICO (2012) X X X | MEXICO (2015) - X - | NEW ZEALAND (2011) - X - | NEW ZEALAND (2014) - X - | NORWAY (2013) - X - | PERU (2016) X X - | PHILIPPINES (2016) X X - | POLAND (2011) - X X | PORTUGAL (2015) - X - | ROMANIA (2012) - X X | ROMANIA (2014) X - - | SERBIA (2012) X X - | SLOVAKIA (2016) - X - | SLOVENIA (2011) - X - | SOUTH AFRICA (2014) - X - | SOUTH KOREA (2012) - X - | SWEDEN (2014) - X - | SWITZERLAND (2011) - X - | TAIWAN (2012) X X - | THAILAND (2011) - X - | TURKEY (2015) - X - | UNITED STATES (2012) X X X | ------------------------------------------------------------- | KEY: X = yes; - = no. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D1015 | | The elections to renew the mandate for the House of Councilors, | the Upper House of the Japanese Parliament, were held on | July 21, 2013. Representatives elected to the House of | Councilors serve a fixed term of 6 years each, with elections | held every 3 years (usually in July) to renew the mandate of | half the members of the House. As these elections are held on a | fixed term basis, unlike the Japanese Lower House, which | although has a 4 year term early elections are frequent | (for e.g.: since WWII, there have been 26 lower House elections, | of which 25 were a result of early dissolution). Accordingly, | the CSES questionnaires (Modules 1-4) have been consistently | included in surveys focusing on the Upper House elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): D1015 | | While most of the questions asked in the 2012 Mexican study | refer to the parliamentary election, some questions (for example | the mobilization items D3019) refer to the presidential | election. These deviations are noted for the appropriate | variables. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D1016 >>> DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - MONTH D1017 >>> DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - DAY D1018 >>> DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YEAR D1019 >>> DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - MONTH D1020 >>> DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - DAY D1021 >>> DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YEAR --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date [first round/second round] election began. .................................................................. MONTH 01. JANUARY 02. FEBRUARY 03. MARCH 04. APRIL 05. MAY 06. JUNE 07. JULY 08. AUGUST 09. SEPTEMBER 10. OCTOBER 11. NOVEMBER 12. DECEMBER 99. MISSING DAY 01-31. DAY OF MONTH 99. MISSING YEAR 2011-2016. YEAR 9999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D1016-D1021 | | Variables D1016-D1018 represent the start date of the election. | If the election involved a second round, variables D1019-D1021 | are used to represent the start date of the second round. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D1022 >>> STUDY TIMING --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Timing of study relative to election. .................................................................. 1. POST-ELECTION STUDY 2. PRE-ELECTION AND POST-ELECTION STUDY 3. BETWEEN ROUNDS | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D1022 | | See Election Study Note on Romania 2012 for Variable D1007. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D1023 >>> MODE OF INTERVIEW --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mode of interview. .................................................................. 0. NOT APPLICABLE 1. IN PERSON, FACE-TO-FACE 2. TELEPHONE 3. MAIL OR SELF-COMPLETION SUPPLEMENT 4. INTERNET 5. COMBINATION OF FACE-TO-FACE AND SELF-ADMINISTERED 6. COMBINATION OF TELEPHONE AND SELF-ADMINISTERED 9. MISSING | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D1023 | | The 2013 Australian Election Study was conducted as a mixed-mode | survey. Approximately 85% of the sample was collected via self- | administered questionnaires through mail-back. The remaining 15% | of the sample completed the same survey online. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011 & 2015): D1023 | The Canadian Election Study distributed the questions for the | CSES among three different survey components with different | survey modes. The first component, the campaign period survey | (CPS), which was fielded pre-election, and the second component, | the post-election survey (PES) were conducted as phone surveys. | The third component was conducted as a mail-back survey (MBS). | All components were fielded with the same sample of respondents | but note that there were drop-outs between the components. For | further reference, please consult the 2011 and 2015 Canadian | Design Report. Wherever possible the post-election phone survey | was used for the CSES variables. For variables, in which this is | not the case, there is a reference in the election study notes, | which refers to the respective other survey part. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2015): D1023 | | The first part of the study was conducted face-to-face. | Respondents were then offered a drop-off questionnaire. This | questionnaire included the following set of questions from the | CSES Module 4: D3019, D3020_, D3021_, D3022, D3023_, D3024, | D3027_, and D3028_. Of the 1,587 respondents who were initially | interviewed, 684 returned the drop-off questionnaire. All | respondents who did not return the drop-off questionnaire were | coded as missing for the respective variables (See also election | study notes for all of the listed variables). Analysts can | distinguish between those respondents who returned the drop-off | questionnaire and those who did not, using variable D1007. For | further information, see election study note for D1007. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): D1023 | | The survey was conducted as a face-to-face study with a follow- | up survey. The follow-up survey could be either answered with | a mail-back form or online. Researchers interested in which kind | of self-completion supplement was used per respondent are | referred to contact the team of the BES directly. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012): D1023 | | The 2012 Hellenic (Greek) National Election Voter Study was | conducted as a mixed-mode survey. A random sample of | potential respondents were recruited using RDD. 2,033 | of the potential respondents provided an email address and | were asked to complete the survey on the web, with 529 persons | completing the interview in that fashion. The remaining | potential respondents - those which did not provide an email | address - were approached to complete the survey via | face-to-face interviewing. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): D1023 | | The Greek election study was conducted as a mixed-mode survey. | Respondents were initially contacted by phone and invited to | participate in a web survey. Respondents without internet access | were interviewed on the phone. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2014): D1023 | | The 2014 New Zealand Election Study was conducted as a mixed- | mode survey. Approximately 87% of the sample was collected via | self-administered questionnaires through mail-back. The | remaining 13% of the sample completed an online survey. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D1023 | | The interviews were either done by phone or face-to-face. Those | whose phone number was not listed were interviewed face-to-face. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2016): D1023 | | The interviews were carried out face-to-face, using computer- | assisted personal interviewing (CAPI). Respondents used tablets | to enter their answers. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): D1023 | | In addition to the telephone survey, a proportion of respondents | were asked to answer an additional, self-administrated mail-back | or web survey, including further CSES questions. For greater | detail on the additional questions of the mail-back surveys, see | Election Study Notes for Switzerland (2011). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D1024 >>> INTERVIEWER WITHIN ELECTION STUDY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A02. Interviewer identification variable, within election study. .................................................................. 00000-9999998. INTERVIEWER IDENTIFIER 9999999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D1024 | | This variable uniquely identifies an interviewer within an | election study. It is not unique across the entire dataset. | | Data are unavailable for ARGENTINA (2015), AUSTRALIA (2013), | BULGARIA (2014), CANADA (2011), CANADA (2015) GREECE (2012), | GREECE (2015), ICELAND (2013), IRELAND (2011), JAPAN (2013), | NEW ZEALAND (2011), NEW ZEALAND (2014), PERU (2016), POLAND | (2011), PORTUGAL (2015), ROMANIA (2014) SOUTH AFRICA (2014), | SOUTH KOREA (2012), SWEDEN (2014), SWITZERLAND (2011). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D1024 | | Fifteen interviewer IDs are not listed with the same ID in | the original German Election Study data and the CSES because the | ID values exceeded 999.999. Accordingly, the CSES gave new | interviewer IDs to the relevant cases. Both old and new | interviewer IDs are listed below: | | Original interviewer ID New CSES ID | 2210825 40000 | 2210872 40047 | 2210883 40058 | 2210898 40073 | 2210908 40083 | 2210950 40125 | 2210957 40132 | 2210961 40136 | 2210970 40145 | 2210996 40171 | 2211037 40212 | 2211058 40233 | 2211073 40248 | 2211074 40249 | 2211752 40927 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D1025 >>> INTERVIEWER GENDER --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A03. Gender of interviewer. .................................................................. 1. MALE 2. FEMALE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D1025 | | Data are unavailable for ARGENTINA (2015), AUSTRALIA (2013), | BULGARIA (2014), CANADA (2011), CANADA (2015), CZECH REPUBLIC | (2013), FRANCE (2012), GREAT BRITAIN (2015) GREECE (2012), | GREECE (2015), IRELAND (2011), JAPAN (2013), MEXICO (2012), | NEW ZEALAND (2011), NEW ZEALAND, (2014), PORTUGAL (2015), | ROMANIA (2012), ROMANIA (2014), SLOVAKIA (2016), SOUTH KOREA | (2012), SWEDEN (2014), AND SWITZERLAND (2011). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D1026 >>> DATE QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTERED - MONTH D1027 >>> DATE QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTERED - DAY D1028 >>> DATE QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTERED - YEAR --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A04.a-c. Date questionnaire administered. .................................................................. MONTH 01. JANUARY 02. FEBRUARY 03. MARCH 04. APRIL 05. MAY 06. JUNE 07. JULY 08. AUGUST 09. SEPTEMBER 10. OCTOBER 11. NOVEMBER 12. DECEMBER 99. MISSING DAY 01-31. DAY OF MONTH 99. MISSING YEAR 2011-2016. YEAR 9999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D1026-D1028 | | Election study notes on D1026-D1028 reflect the period of | interviewing, according to the corresponding Design Report, | available at http://www.cses.org. | | In some cases the current dates of interviewing, coded in D1026- | D1028, differ from the field period mentioned in the Design | Reports. For more details, see Election Study Notes. | | Data for D1026 and D1027 are unavailable for PORTUGAL (2015) and | SOUTH KOREA (2012). | | +++ TABLE: DATES OF FIELDWORK BY POLITY | | POLITY (ELEC YR) Fieldwork Begins Fieldwork Ends | ----------------------------------------------------------- | ARGENTINA (2015) Nov 21, 2015 Dec 30, 2015 | AUSTRALIA (2013) Sep 6, 2013 Jan 6, 2014 | AUSTRIA (2013) Oct 1, 2013 Oct 29, 2013 | BRAZIL (2014) Nov 1, 2014 Nov 19, 2014 | BULGARIA (2014) Jan 23, 2015 Jan 31, 2015 | CANADA (2011) SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES BELOW | CANADA (2015) SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES BELOW | CZECH REPUBLIC (2013) Oct 28, 2013 Nov 14, 2013 | FINLAND (2015) Apr 24, 2015 Jul 7, 2015 | FRANCE (2012) May 9, 2012 Jun 9, 2015 | GERMANY (2013) Sep 23, 2013 Dec 23, 2013 | GREAT BRITAIN (2015) May 9, 2015 Sep 13, 2015 (SEE ESN) | GREECE (2012) Oct 19, 2012 Jan 5, 2013 | GREECE (2015) Jun 12, 2015 Sep 8, 2015 | HONG KONG (2012) Sep 13, 2012 Sep 22, 2013 | ICELAND (2013) SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES BELOW | IRELAND (2011) Mar 6, 2011 Apr 10, 2011 | ISRAEL (2013) Feb 8, 2013 Mar 13, 2013 | JAPAN (2013) Jul 22, 2013 Aug 25, 2013 | KENYA (2013) Oct 21, 2013 Nov 28, 2013 | LATVIA (2011) Oct 16, 2011 Nov 11, 2011 | LATVIA (2014) Nov 7 ,2014 Nov 20, 2014 (SEE ESN) | MEXICO (2012) Jul 13, 2012 Jul 19, 2013 | MEXICO (2015) Jun 20, 2015 Jun 28, 2015 | MONTENEGRO (2013) SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES BELOW | NEW ZEALAND (2011) Nov 30, 2011 Apr 4, 2012 | NEW ZEALAND (2014) Sep 23, 2014 Feb 6, 2015 | NORWAY (2013) Sep 12, 2013 Jan 6, 2014 | PERU (2016) May 7, 2016 May 17, 2016 | PHILIPPINES (2016) Jun 24, 2016 Jun 27, 2016 | POLAND (2011) Oct 20, 2011 Nov 13, 2011 | PORTUGAL (2015) Oct 7, 2015 Dec 9, 2015 | ROMANIA (2012) Dec 15, 2012 Jan 30, 2013 | SERBIA (2012) Dec 6, 2012 Feb 13, 2013 | SLOVAKIA (2016) Oct 13, 2016 Nov 28, 2016 | SLOVENIA (2011) Mar 29, 2012 May 28, 2012 | SOUTH AFRICA (2014) Feb 2, 2015 Feb 26, 2015 | SOUTH KOREA (2012) Apr 12, 2012 Apr 29, 2012 | SWEDEN (2014) Sep 15, 2014 Nov 17, 2014 | SWITZERLAND (2015) SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES BELOW | TAIWAN (2012) Jan 15, 2012 Mar 6, 2012 | THAILAND (2011) Jul 15, 2011 Aug 11, 2011 | TURKEY (2015) Jul 18, 2015 Sep 10, 2015 | UNITED STATES (2012) SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES BELOW | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011): D1026-D1028 | | The CSES survey was administered in Canada across three | different survey modes as the Canadian Election Study | comprised multiple components. The first component, the | campaign period survey (CPS) was administered prior to the | election between March 26 and May 1, 2011. The first | post-election survey, administered via phone was fielded between | May 3 and July 5, 2011. The third component of the survey was | administered via mail. The data for the dates on which the | questionnaire was administered in Canada refers to the first | post-election component of the study. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2015): D1026-D1028 | | Election study was conducted as a panel study in three waves. | CSES questions were administered between different components of | the study. The first component, campaign-period survey was | conducted between September 8, 2015, and October 18, 2015, the | night before elections. The date of the interview variables | D1026-D1028 only refer to the first of the two post-election | survey parts, a phone component (PES), which started on October | 20, 2015, and ended on December 23, 2015. The third part of the | survey, a mail-back component was fielded with the respondents | of the PES who provided their mailing address during the PES | interviews. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): D1026-D1028 | | The face-to-face interviews were conducted between May 09, 2015 | and September 13, 2015. September 29 was the last date when an | Internet or mail back follow-up was received. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2013): D1026-D1028 | | The survey was administered between May, 4 2013 and | the end of September 2013. Most interviews were completed | before July 1, 2013 but a break in interviewing during the | summer holidays resulted in 37 interviews being conducted | in September 2013. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2014): D1026-D1028 | | There is a discrepancy of few days between the field period | indicated by the design report and field period indicated by the | data. The data in the dataset is the accurate estimate. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2012): D1026-D1028 | | The precise dates of the beginning and the end of the fieldwork | where not available as the agency conducting the survey did | not collect information on the specific interview date. | Colloborators advise fieldwork conducted between February | and March 2013. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): D1026-D1028 | | The survey was administered between October 24 and November | 24, 2011. One additional interview was realized on November 25, | 2011. Self-completion supplements sent back by respondents were | accepted until December 12, 2011. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D1026-D1028 | | The survey was administered between November 7, 2012 and | January 13, 2013. For demographic variables as well as for | respondents who had voted early, we made use of the | pre-election portion of the questionnaire. This was administered | between September 8 and November 5, 2012 (the cases included in | the CSES dataset were administered between September 9 and | November 5, 2012). | Respondents were asked in the pre-election survey whether they | voted early. Respondents who affirmed this were asked the | questions about their vote behavior (D3005_PR_1-D3006_UH_DC) | already in the pre-election survey. All other respondents were | asked the questions about their voting behavior in the post- | election part of the survey. Early voters are indicated as | belonging to a different sample component in variable D1007. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D1029 >>> DAYS INTERVIEW CONDUCTED POST ELECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of days after the election interview conducted. .................................................................. 001.-900. NUMBER OF DAYS 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D1029 | | If the election was held on more than one day or involved | multiple rounds, this variable reports the number of days | from the first day of the election and/or the first round. | | Data are unavailable for GREECE (2012), PORTUGAL (2015) | and SOUTH KOREA (2012). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D1029 | | This variable indicates the number of days the interview was | conducted post the general elections on October 25, 2015. A | second round of voting for the presidential elections took | place on November 11, 2015. Twelve respondents were interviewed | before this second round (see also D1026 and D1027). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012): D1029 | | The information pertaining to the dates of questionnaire | administration were not provided and consequently the variable | is missing. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D1030 >>> LANGUAGE OF QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTRATION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A06. Language of questionnaire administration. .................................................................. 001. AFRIKAANS 002. ALBANIAN, ARVANITIKA 003. ALBANIAN, GHEG 004. ALBANIAN, TOSK 005. ALLEMANNISCH 006. ALSATIAN 007. ARABIC, JUDEO-MOROCCAN 008. ARABIC, LEVANTINE (ISRAEL) 009. ARMENIAN 201. ASHANTI (GHANA) 237. ASYRIAN 010. AVAR (RUSSIA) 011. AWADHI (INDIA) 012. AYMARA, CENTRAL (ARGENTINA, PERU) 231. AZERI 013. BASQUE 234. BALKAR 014. BELORUSSIAN 015. BEMBA (ZAMBIA) 016. BENGALI, BANGLADESHI, BANGLA (INDIA) 017. BHOJPURI (INDIA) 244. BICOLANO (PHILIPPINES) 265. BISAYA (PHILIPPINES) 270. B'LAAN (PHILIPPINES) 202. BLUCH (PAKISTAN) 263. BOHOLANO (PHILIPPINES) 018. BOSNIAN 019. BRETON 020. BULGARIAN 260. CAGAYANO (PHILIPPINES) 258. CANTILAGNON (PHILIPPINES) 273. CAPIZNON (PHILIPPINES) 021. CATALAN 241. CEBUANO (PHILIPPINES) 276. CENTRAL THAI 022. CHECHEN (RUSSIA) 203. CHINESE, CANTONESE 023. CHINESE, HAKKA 024. CHINESE, MANDARIN 025. CHINESE, MIN NAN 026. CHUVASH (RUSSIA) 027. CROATIAN 028. CZECH 029. DANISH 030. DECCAN (INDIA) 204. DORIC (SCOTLAND) 031. DUTCH 032. ENGLISH 033. ERZYA (RUSSIA) 205. ESAN (NIGERIA) 034. ESTONIAN 206. EWE (GHANA) 209. FARSI (IRAN) 035. FINNISH 036. FRENCH 037. FRISIAN, WESTERN (NETHERLANDS) 038. FULACUNDA (SENEGAL) 207. GA (GHANA) 039. GAELIC, IRISH 208. GAELIC (SCOTLAND) 040. GAGAUZ (MOLDOVA) 041. GALICIAN 042. GASCON 043. GEORGIAN 044. GERMAN, STANDARD 045. GREEK 046. GUARANI, PARAGUAYAN 047. GUJARATI (SOUTH AFRICA, INDIA) 048. HEBREW 266. HIGAONON (PHILIPPINES) 274. HILIGAYNON (PHILIPPINES) 049. HUNGARIAN 051. HINDI 050. ICELANDIC 259. IFUGAO (PHILIPPINES) 242. ILOCANO (PHILIPPINES) 243. ILONGGO (PHILIPPINES) 210. INDONESIAN 211. IRANIAN 254. IRANUN (PHILIPPINES) 278. ISAN THAI 052. ITALIAN 249. ITAWES (PHILIPPINES) 212. IWO (UGANDA) 053. JAKATI (MOLDOVA) 213. JAMAICAN PATOIS 275. JAMINDANON (PHILIPPINES) 054. JAPANESE 280. KAMAE (THAILAND) 257. KAMAYO (PHILIPPINES) 055. KANNADA (INDIA) 056. KAONDE (ZAMBIA) 245. KAPAMPANGAN (PHILIPPINES) 057. KARAIM (LITHUANIA) 261. KARAY-AY (PHILIPPINES) 233. KARBADIN 058. KIRMANJKI (TURKEY) 235. KOMI 279. KORATCH (THAILAND) 066. KOREAN 232. KURDISH 059. KURMANJI (TURKEY) 060. LADINO (ISRAEL) 061. LALA-BISA (ZAMBIA) 062. LAMBA (ZAMBIA) 277. LANNA THAI 063. LATVIAN 064. LENJE (ZAMBIA) 065. LESSER ANTILLEAN CREOLE 268. LEYTENO (PHILIPPINES) 067. LIGURIAN 068. LITHUANIAN 069. LOMBARD 070. LOZI (ZAMBIA) 071. LUNDA (ZAMBIA) 072. LUVALE (ZAMBIA) 073. MACEDONIAN 251. MAGUINDANAON (PHILIPPINES) 074. MAITHILI (INDIA) 229. MALLORQUIN 267. MALAUEG (PHILIPPINES) 075. MALAY 076. MALAYALAM (INDIA) 077. MALINKE (SENEGAL) 214. MALTESE 253. MANOBO (PHILIPPINES) 250. MASBATENO (PHILIPPINES) 215. MENDE (SIERRA LEONE) 216. MIRPUARY/MIRPUIR (PAKISTAN) 217. MNADINGGO (GAMBIA) 078. MAMBWE-LUNGU (ZAMBIA) 079. MANDINKA (SENEGAL) 080. MAORI 081. MAPUDUNGUN (CHILE) 082. MARATHI (INDIA) 083. MBOWE (ZAMBIA) 084. MINGRELIAN (GEORGIA) 085. MONTENEGRIN 255. MUSLIM (PHILIPPINES) 086. MWANGA (ZAMBIA) 144. NDEBELE (SOUTH AFRICA) 087. NEAPOLITAN-CALABRESE 088. NORWEGIAN 089. NSENGA (ZAMBIA) 090. NYANJA (ZAMBIA) 091. NYIHA (ZAMBIA) 092. ORIYA (INDIA) 093. OSETIN (GEORGIA) 218. PAHARI (PAKISTAN) 246. PANGASINENSE (PHILIPPINES) 094. PANJABI, EASTERN (INDIA) 236. PERSIAN 095. PIEMONTESE 096. POLISH 097. PORTUGUESE 098. PROVENCAL 248. PULANGI-ON (PHILIPPINES) 219. PUSHTO (PAKISTAN) 099. QUECHUA, ANCASH, HUAYLAS 100. QUECHUA, SOUTH BOLIVIAN (ARGENTINA) 101. QUECH UA, AYACUCHO 102. QUICHUA, HIGHLAND, IMBABURA 103. ROMANI, BALKAN 104. ROMANI, CARPATHIAN 105. ROMANI, VLACH 106. RUMANIAN 107. RUMANIAN, ISTRO 108. RUMANIAN, MACEDO 109. RUSSIAN 110. SARDINIAN, LOGUDORESE 220. SARAKI (PAKISTAN) 111. SCHWYZERDUTSCH (SWITZERLAND) 112. SERB 113. SERBO-CROATIAN 114. SERERE-SINE (SENEGAL) 264. SIBANIN (PHILIPPINES) 115. SICILIAN 116. SINDHI (SINGAPORE, INDIA) 272. SIPIANON (PHILIPPINES) 117. SLOVAK 118. SLOVENIAN 221. SOMALI 262. SORIGAONON (PHILIPPINES) 119. SOTHO, NORTHERN (SOUTH AFRICA) 120. SOTHO, SOUTHERN (SOUTH AFRICA) 281. SOUTHERN THAI 121. SPANISH 222. SWAHILI 122. SWATI (SOUTH AFRICA) 123. SWEDISH 240. TAGALOG (PHILIPPINES) 256. TAGON-ON (PHILIPPINES) 124. TAMIL (INDIA) 125. TATAR (RUSSIA) 269. T'BOLI (PHILIPPINES) 126. TELUGU (INDIA) 127. TIBETAN 128. TICANESE (SWITZERLAND) 252. TIRURAY (PHILIPPINES_ 129. TONGA (ZAMBIA) 130. TOUCOULEUR (SENEGAL) 131. TSONGA (SOUTH AFRICA) 132. TSWANA (SOUTH AFRICA) 133. TUMBUKA (ZAMBIA) 134. TURKISH 223. TWI (GHANA) 135. UKRAINIAN 224. UGANDAN 230. UDMURT 136. URDU (INDIA) 228. VALENCIANO 225. VIETNAMESE 145. VENDA (SOUTH AFRICA) 137. VENETIAN 247. WARAY (PHILIPPINES) 139. WELSH 140. WOLOF (SENEGAL) 138. XHOSA (SOUTH AFRICA) 141. YAHUDIC (ISRAEL) 142. YIDDISH 226. YORUBA (NIGERIA) 271. ZAMBAL (PHILIPPINES) 143. ZULU 980. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 981. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 982. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 983. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 984. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 985. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 986. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 987. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 988. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 989. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 990. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 991. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 992. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 993. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 994. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 995. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 996. OTHER: NOT SPECIFIED 997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D1030 | | Coding of D1030 follows the scheme of D2027 (language usually | spoken at home). | | Data are unavailable for THAILAND (2011). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011 & 2015): D1030 | | The variable is from the pre-election study. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D1030 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 980. Kikuyu | 981. Luo | 982. Kamba | 983. English and Luo | 984. Kiswahili and English | 985. Kiswahili and Kikuyu | 986. Kiswahili and Luo | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2012): D1030 | | The primary language was Montenegrin, but that | interviewers gave some assistance in other languages. In these | cases, the language of interview is coded as the other language. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D1030 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 980. Maranao | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D1030 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 980. Taiwanese | 981. Mandarin and Taiwanese | 982. Mandarin and Hakka | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2011): D1030 | | The interview was fielded in Thai, Malay, and tribal languages, | such as Lahu. However, the language of interview was not coded | into a variable. D1030 is thus missing. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D1030 | | This refers to the starting language of the interview. | The starting language of the interview was coded for both the | pre-election and the post-election survey. There are 19 cases | where these two differ. For these cases, D1030 is coded | as missing. =========================================================================== ))) CSES MODULE 4 MICRO-LEVEL DATA: DEMOGRAPHIC, VOTE CHOICE, AND ELECTION VARIABLES =========================================================================== | Users should note that the CSES questionnaire of origin | does not include any filter instructions in the demographic | section. | | The use of filter instructions/variables in the demographic | section follows primary researchers' applications. Where they | appear, an election study note will inform on their use and | function. | | For several variables, instructions for the administration of | the CSES Questionnaire were given. See >>> CSES MODULE 4 | COLLABORATOR INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE | CSES QUESTIONNAIRE, in Part 1 of the Codebook. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D2001_M >>> DATE OF BIRTH OF RESPONDENT - MONTH D2001_Y >>> DATE OF BIRTH OF RESPONDENT - YEAR --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D01.a-b. Date of birth of respondent. .................................................................. MONTH 01. JANUARY 02. FEBRUARY 03. MARCH 04. APRIL 05. MAY 06. JUNE 07. JULY 08. AUGUST 09. SEPTEMBER 10. OCTOBER 11. NOVEMBER 12. DECEMBER 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING YEAR 1800-2016. YEAR 9997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 9998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D2001_ | | Data on D2001_M are unavailable for ARGENTINA (2015), AUSTRALIA | (2013), CANADA (2011), CANADA (2015) FINLAND (2015), GREAT | BRITAIN (2015), HONG KONG (2012), ICELAND (2013), IRELAND (2011) | ISRAEL (2013), KENYA (2013), MEXICO (2012), NORWAY (2013), SOUTH | AFRICA (2014), SLOVAKIA (2016), SLOVENIA (2011), SWEDEN (2014), | SWITZERLAND (2011), TAIWAN (2012), UNITED STATES (2012). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D2001_Y | | As the eligible voting age in Austria is 16 years of age, | the Austrian survey includes respondents aged 16+. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011 & 2015): D2001_Y | | This variable is from the pre-election study. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D2001_Y | | Respondents were not asked their year and month of birth, but | their age. The variable represents the calculated year of birth, | using the year of the interview and the age of the respondent. | For persons whose birthday was only after the interview, the | year of birth will hence be incorrect. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D2001_M | | For 137 respondents, the month of birth is missing. | The reason for this is unknown. Furthermore, the eligibility | of two respondents born in 1995 is unknown because the day and | month of birth are missing. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): D2001_Y | |The British Election Study asked for age rather than Month/Year |of birth. D2001_Y is approximated by subtracting the respondents' |age from 2015. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D2001_Y | | Respondents must be 20 years or older to be included in the | Japanese election study. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D2001_Y | | The year of birth of a respondent was calculated based on | the responses to a question in the original questionnaire | reading 'How old were you at the time of your last birthday?'. | The year of birth was calculated by subtracting a respondent's | age from the election year (2013). Lacking information on the | month of birth, the year of birth thus calculated is only an | approximation and possibly diverges by one year from a | respondent's real year of birth. Furthermore, lacking the month | of birth of a respondent, we cannot be completely sure | about a respondents age at the time of the elections. We can | therefore not ensure that all respondents really were of voting | age at that time of the elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2012): D2001_Y | | Although the eligible voting age in Montenegro is 18 years of | age, the Montenegrin sample includes two observations aged 17. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D2001_M | | Respondents were not asked for their month of birth. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D2001_Y | | Respondents' age was asked instead of date of birth. The year of | birth was calculated by subtracting the age of respondent | from 2013, the year in which most of the interviews took place. | Interviews took place between September 12, 2013 and January | 6, 2014. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D2001_Y | | Respondents were not asked for their birthday, but for their | age. We calculated the year of birth with age. We used the | year 2014 to subtract the age of respondent from, because it | can be assumed that most respondents would not have had | birthday within the one to two months until their day of | interview in 2015 took place. For respondents who did in fact | already have their birthday until their day of interview, the | year of birth will be miscalculated by one year. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D2002 >>> GENDER OF RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D02. Gender of Respondent. .................................................................. 1. MALE 2. FEMALE 3. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011 & 2015): D2002 | | The variable is from the pre-election study. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D2002 | | The respondents' gender was subject to interviewers' | guesses after the telephone interview were completed. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2014): D2002 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 03. Transsexual or Transgender --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D2003 >>> EDUCATION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D03. Education of respondent. .................................................................. 01. ISCED LEVEL 0 - EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 02. ISCED LEVEL 1 - PRIMARY 03. ISCED LEVEL 2 - LOWER SECONDARY 04. ISCED LEVEL 3 - UPPER SECONDARY 05. ISCED LEVEL 4 - POST-SECONDARY NON-TERTIARY 06. ISCED LEVEL 5 - SHORT-CYCLE TERTIARY 07. ISCED LEVEL 6 - BACHELOR OR EQUIVALENT 08. ISCED LEVEL 7 - MASTER OR EQUIVALENT 09. ISCED LEVEL 8 - DOCTORAL OR EQUIVALENT 96. NONE (NO EDUCATION) 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D2003 | | The presented categories base on International Standard | Classification of Education (ISCED 2011), provided by the | UNESCO. An English-language description of the ISCED 2011 | standard can be found here: | http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Documents/ISCED_2011_EN.pdf | (Date accessed: May 17, 2018) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Incomplete Primary School | 02. Complete Primary | 03. Incomplete Secondary | 04. Complete Secondary | 05. Incomplete Tertiary | Incomplete University | 06. Complete Tertiary | 07. Complete University | 08. Grad Complete or Incomplete | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D2003 | | Code "98. Volunteered: don't know" was not used in the | Australian data. Instead, a couple of respondents mentioned that | they would still be at school, not further specifying the | current educational level. These cases have been coded as "98". | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Less than 8 years of education, in total | 02. 8 or 9 years of schooling | 03. 9 through 13 years of schooling | 04. 13 through 15 years of schooling | 05. 15 through 22 years of schooling and no | tertiary training | 06. More than 22 years of schooling, including | 2 years of tertiary training | 07. More than 22 years of schooling, including | more than 2 years of tertiary training, | Bachelor degree, or (non-)trade qualification | 08. Undergraduate or associated diploma | 09. Postgraduate degree or postgraduate diploma | 96. No formal schooling | 98. Still at school | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Basic 1 incomplete (up to 3rd grade) | 02. Basic 1 complete (4th grade) | Basic 2 incomplete (7th grade) | 03. Basic 2 complete (8th grade) | High School incomplete (2nd grade) | 04. High school complete (3rd grade) | Undergraduate incomplete or technical | incomplete | 07. Undergraduate | 08. Graduate of more | 96. Illiterate/ Never been to school | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2014): D2003 | | The ISCED categories were directly used in the field | questionnaire. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011): D2003 | | The variable is from the pre-election study. | Accordingly, some codes have a somewhat different | meaning. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Some elementary school | 02. Completed elementary school | 03. Some secondary/high school | 04. Some technical or community college | Some university | 06. Completed technical or community college | 07. Bachelor | 08. Master | 09. Professional degree or doctorate | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2015): D2003 | | This variable is from the pre-election survey. | This variable was differently coded in the original study. | The original values were recoded as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Some elementary school | 02. Completed elementary school | 03. Some secondary/high school | 04. Completed secondary/high school | Some technical or community college | Some university | 06. Completed technical or community college | 07. Bachelor | 08. Master | 09. Professional degree or doctorate | 96. No schooling | ELECTION STUDY NOTES – CZECH REPUBLIC (2013): D2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Unfinished primary education | 02. Primary education | 03. Practical education without leaving exam | Secondary education without leaving exam | 04. Practical education with leaving exam | Technical secondary education with leaving exam | General secondary education with leaving exam | 06. Short tertiary education | 07. Bachelor | 08. Master | 09. PhD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2015): D2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 02. Primary education | 03. Lower secondary education | 04. Short vocational training (vocational school or | course) | College level vocational education (post- | secondary) | Upper secondary education (general) | 05. Tertiary Education | 07. Polytechnic degree or equivalent | 08. University degree | 09. Doctoral degree or equivalent | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): D2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 02. Primary | Primary school certificate | 03. Schooling from 6th to 9th grade | Elementary certificate | 04. Schooling from 10th to 12th grade | CAP,BEP | Diploma nursing auxiliary | Professional baccalaureate | Technical Baccalaureate | General baccalaureate | Degree of access to university | 05. Diploma monitor educator | 06. University Diploma in Technology | 07. Undergraduate degree | Teaching certificate | Professional Bachelor | Bachelor | 08. Engineering school diploma | DESS | Various professional degrees | Grandes Ecoles diploma | Maitrise | DEA | 09. Doctorate in medicine | Doctorate | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D2003 | | The German education system transferability to | ISCED-2011 on the basis of the available data involves some | caveats which are detailed below. | Vocational training in Germany is usually undertaken by people | aged 16-19, having completed ten years of schooling. Respondents | who obtained a secondary school leaving certificate at the 10th | grade, followed by 2-3 years of vocational training as well as | respondents who stayed in school 12-13 years and left school for | tertiary education are coded to CSES code 5 ("Upper | secondary schooling and vocational training") which corresponds | to ISCED-level 4. Meanwhile, respondents who completed full | secondary school schooling and vocational training are | coded to CSES code 6 ("Vocational training at a specialized | vocational institution") which corresponds to ISCED-level 5. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 03. Lower secondary schooling only; | Lower secondary schooling with or without an | internship; | Lower secondary schooling with ongoing, | not finished vocational training | 04. No formal schooling, certified training on a job | but not the standard vocational certificate | Lower secondary schooling with certified training | on a job, but without a standard vocational | certificate | Upper secondary schooling only; | Upper secondary schooling and ongoing vocational | training or finished internship; | Lower secondary schooling and finished vocational | training certificate without access option to | tertiary schooling; | Vocational training certificate only | 05. Upper secondary schooling and vocational training | certificate | 06. Vocational training at a specialized vocational | institution, (German Fachschule, Fachakademie or | Berufsakademie); | Certified Master, Foreman (German Meister) | 07. Degree from a University of Applied Science | 07. Bachelor | 08. Master | 09. Doctorate | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): D2003 | | Respondents were asked 'Do you have any educational or | work-related qualifications?' If the answer was yes, they | were asked to select the appropriate answer from a show | card. The answers to these questions are coded to the | equivalent ISCED code as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 02. No (work) qualification (compulsory schooling) | 03. Youth training certificate, skill seeker | Recognized trade apprenticeship | Clerical and commercial qualifications | GCSE D-G, CSE grades 2-5, O level D-E | City and Guilds level 1, NVQ/SVQ 1 and equivalent | 04. ONC/OND, City and Guilds level 3, NVQ/SVQ 3 | GCSE A*-C, CSE grade 1, O level grade A | Scottish Standard grades, Ordinary band | City and Guilds level 2, NVQ/SVQ 2 and equivalent | 05. A level or equivalent | Scottish Higher or equivalent | 06. Nursing qualification | 06. Teaching qualification | 06. University/poly diploma | 07. First degree (BA) | 08. Postgraduate degree (MA and Ph.D.) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012 & 2015): D2003 | | The ISCED categories were directly used in the field | questionnaire. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D2003 | | Two respondents answered another degree which was not | further specified. These were recoded to missing. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 06. Diplomas/Certificates non-degree | 07. University Degree | 08. Masters | 09. Ph.D. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2013): D2003 | | In the original questionnaire respondents were asked two | questions in respect of their educational attainment. First, | they were asked about the education level they had finished and | second about the education level they had not finished. Those | answers to these two questions are used to construct D2003. | Due to an error that arose during the data gathering process, | all university graduates are coded as "07. ISCED LEVEL 6 - | BACHELOR OR EQUIVALENT" and no further distinction between | university degrees is possible. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 07. University Degree (BA, BS, MA, MS, PhD) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2011): D2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 02. Primary | 03. Junior certificate (lower secondary) | 04. Leaving certificate (upper secondary) | 06. University incomplete, Diploma | 07. University degree complete | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2013): D2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Less than primary | 02. Primary completed | 03. High school without matriculation | 04. High school with matriculation | 05. Tertiary Education | 06. Partial, unfinished bachelor studies | 07. Bachelor's degree | 08. Master's degree | 09. Ph.D. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 02. Junior High School, Former Elementary School or | Former High School | 03. High School or Former Junior High School | 04. High Special School (kousen) | 05. Junior College (tandai) | 06. Specialized Training College (senshuu gakkou) | 07. University | 08. Master’s course of Graduate School | 09. Doctoral course of Graduate School | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. No formal schooling | Some primary education | 02. Completed primary education | Some secondary education | 04. Completed secondary education | Some middle level college education | Some university education | 05. Completed middle level college education | 07. University education completed | 08. Some or completed post graduate education | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2011 & 2014): D2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Unfinished primary education | 02. Primary education | Unfinished secondary education | 04. Secondary education | Unfinished higher education | 05. Vocational education | 07. Higher education - Bachelor's | 08. Higher education - Master's | 09. Higher education - doctoral | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): D2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Incomplete Primary (Elementary school) | 02. Complete Primary (Elementary school) | Incomplete Secondary (Middle School) | or technical education | 03. Complete Secondary (Middle School) | or technical education | Incomplete Preparatory (High School) | or technical education | 04. Complete Preparatory (High School) | or technical education | 07. Bachelor's degree or equivalent | 08. Master's degree or equivalent | 09. Doctoral degree or equivalent | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2015): D2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Primary incomplete | 02. Primary complete | Secondary or technical training incomplete | 03. Secondary or technical training complete | Preparatory or technical training incomplete | 04. Preparatory or technical training complete | 07. University or equivalent | 08. Master's degree or equivalent | 09. Doctorate or equivalent | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2012): D2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Less than elementary school | 02. Elementary school | 03. Elementary school plus some education after | 04. High school | 05. High school plus some education after | 06. College | 07. University degree | 08. MSc or Master degree | 09. Ph.D. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011): D2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Incomplete primary education / none | 02. Primary school completed | 04. Secondary education to School Certificate or NCEA | including incomplete secondary education | 05. UE, Bursary, Higher School or Higher Leaving | Certificate | 06. Non-degree professional trade or technical | tertiary qualification | 07. Incomplete university degree | 08. University degree completed | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2014): D2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 02. Level 1 | 03. Level 2 | 04. Level 3 | 05. School Post School | Level 4 | 06. Level 5-6 | 07. Undergraduate Degree | 08. Postgraduate Degree | 09. PhD | 98. Not known | Overseas | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 02. Primary school/elementary school | 03. Lower secondary school; Continuation school | 03. Upper secondary school with a duration of one | year | 03. Upper secondary school with a duration of two | years | 04. "Realschule"; One or two years of education after | lower secondary school and folk university | college | 04. Upper secondary school of three years or more; | University and university college education of | less than two years | 05. Vocational training; Extensions to upper | secondary school | 06. University or university college education with | a duration of two years (e.g. university college | candidate) | 07. University or university college education with a | duration of three to four years (egg. bachelor | degree, Cand. Mag., teacher, nurse, engineer) | 08. University or university college education with a | duration of three to four years (egg. master | degree, major, graduate engineer, MBA) | 09. Ph.D./research training programme | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): D2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Incomplete primary | 02. Primary complete | 03. Incomplete secondary | 04. Secondary complete | 05. Post-secondary trade/vocational school | 06. University undergraduate degree incomplete | 07. University undergraduate degree complete | 08. University postgraduate degree, incomplete or | complete | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 02. Completed Primary | Some High School | 04. Completed High School | Some Vocational School | Some College | 05. Completed Vocational | 07. Completed College | 08. Post College Master | 09. Post College Doctoral | 96. No formal education | Some elementary | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2011): D2003 | | The 2011 ISCED classification was not used to classify | education in the original study. The Polish categories, | however, are functionally equivalent to ISCED 2011 but specific | categorizations are not available. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): D2003 | | The Portuguese election study did not ask about | post-graduate education and therefore categories 8 and 9 are not | present in the Portuguese data. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Incomplete Primary | 02. Primary | 03. Incomplete Secondary | 04. Secondary | 07. Higher Education | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012 & 2014): D2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Kindergarten | Primary school unfinished | 02. Primary school finished | Lower secondary school unfinished | 03. Lower secondary school finished | Apprentice school | Professional school | High school unfinished | 04. High school finished | Long duration university studies unfinished | 05. Post-high school professional (non-university) | training | 06. Short duration university studies | 07. Long duration university studies finished | 08. Master degree | 09. Doctoral degree | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SERBIA (2012): D2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Incomplete primary school | 02. Primary school (8 years completed) | Incomplete secondary school | 03. Completed occupational H.S. | 04. Completed 4 years H.S. | 05. Higher school | 07. University (BA degree) | 08. Specialization, Master degree or doctorate | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2016): D2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Unfinished primary | 02. Primary | 03. Lower secondary (without matura) | Vocational (without matura) | Higher Vocational (without matura) | 04. Vocational (with matura) | Upper secondary vocational (with matura) | Upper secondary general (with matura) | 05. Post-Secondary | 07. Bachelor | 08. Master or equivalent | 09. Doctoral | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011) D2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Incomplete primary school (more than 3 grades of | 8-year or more than 5-grades of 9-year primary | school) | 02. Primary school (has a primary school certificate) | 03. Lower high school or vocational school (2 to | 3-year program with certificate) | 04. High school (technical school, 4-year program | with leaving examination) | 05. General high school (gymnasium with leaving | examination) | 06. Higher school (2-year program + degree) | 07. College (3-year program, 1st Bologna degree) | University degree (4-year program (or 6) + | thesis) | 08. Specialization (1 year) | Master degree (also Bologna master) | 09. PhD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D2003 | | Some of the codes were defined with slight differences in | the original study in comparison to the CSES conventions. | These are presented below. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 00. No formal schooling (cannot read or write) | 01. some primary schooling | 03. some secondary schooling/high school | 06. incomplete university | 07. university completed | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2012): D2003 | | The South Korea measure of education deviates somewhat | from the conventional ISCED standards and does not make the | differentiation of incomplete and complete levels of education | as in the Korean culture, the level of education is regarded | as a confidential matter for interviewees and it is difficult to | illicit more detailed information of respondents beyond asking | what level of education were the subject to. Thus the South | Korean distribution corresponds to the following answer | categories: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 02. Incomplete/Complete elementary school | 03. Incomplete/Complete middle school | 04. Incomplete/Complete high school | 05. Completed high school, non-formal | education* | 06. Incomplete/Complete community | college, technical college | 07. Incomplete/Complete Bachelor's degree | 08. Incomplete/Complete Master's degree | 09. Incomplete/Complete Doctor's degree | | *Non-formal education here refers to students being educated in | non-formal educational institutions after completing high | school. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2014): D2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 02. Elementary school education | Other/unspecified primary and lower secondary | education (less than 9 years) | 03. Primary and lower secondary education, 9 (or 10) | years | 04. Upper secondary education | 05. Post-secondary education, less than two years | 06. Post-secondary education (min. 2 but not 3 years) | Vocationally oriented program, not university/ | college | 07. Other/unspecified post-secondary program (min. 3 | but not 4 years) | At least 120 higher education credits, no degree | (min. 3 but not 4 years) | General program at university/college (min. 3 | but not 4 years) | Vocationally oriented program at | university/college (min. 3 but not 4 years) | 08. Post-secondary education (>4 years) | 09. Postgraduate education | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Some primary school | 02. Primary school graduate | Some junior high school | 03. Junior high school graduate | Some high school or vocational school | High school or vocational school graduate | 04. Some technical college | Technical college graduate | 05. Some university | University graduate | 06. Post-graduate education | 96. Illiterate | Literate but no formal schooling | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2011): D2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Not completed primary school | 02. Graduated primary school | 03. Secondary Education | 04. Higher Secondary Education | 05. Vocational School | 06. Some higher education | 07. Higher education or Bachelor Degree | 08. Higher education at the master's degree level | 09. Higher education at the PhD degree level | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2015): D2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 02. Primary school degree | 03. Secondary school degree | 04. High school degree | University education dropped with high school | degree | 07. Bachelor's degree | 08. Master's degree | 09. Ph.D. degree | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D2003 | | Respondents who indicated having finished "9th | grade" were classified as only having completed primary | education. Our decision is based on the ISCED Mapping of | National Educational Programmes for the U.S., available only | for ISCED 1997, which classifies secondary/high school education | in the USA to run from grade 10 to grade 12. For more information | see: http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/ISCEDMappings/Pages/ | default.aspx (Date accessed: May 17, 2018). | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Less than 1st grade | 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th grade | 5th or 6th grade | 02. 7th or 8th grade | 9th grade | 03. 10th grade | 11th grade | 12th grade no diploma | 04. High school graduate - high school diploma or | equivalent | Some college but no degree | 06. Associate degree in college - | occupational/vocational program | Associate degree in college - academic program | degree | 07. Bachelor's degree | 08. Master's degree | Professional school degree | 09. Doctorate degree --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D2004 >>> MARITAL OR CIVIL UNION STATUS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D04. Respondent's marital or civil union status. .................................................................. 1. MARRIED OR LIVING TOGETHER AS MARRIED 2. WIDOWED 3. DIVORCED OR SEPARATED (MARRIED BUT SEPARATED/ NOT LIVING WITH LEGAL SPOUSE) 4. SINGLE, NEVER MARRIED 5. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D2004 | | This variable reports the respondent's current marital | status. For instance, a person who is both divorced and | living together as married would be coded 1. | | In some election studies D2004 was used as a filter | question for spouses' occupational variables (D2015 through | D2019). For more details see Elections Study Notes, below, as | well as Election Study Notes on D2015 through D2019. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D2004 | | The Brazilian election study distinguished between more | categories which were collapsed into the CSES standard as | follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Married | Lives together | 02. Widowed | 03. Divorced | Separated | 04. Bachelor | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011 & 2015): D2004 | | The Canadian election study distinguished between more | categories which were collapsed into the CSES standard as | follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Married | Living with a partner | 02. Widowed | 03. Divorced | Separated | 04. Never married | 07. Refused | 08. Don't know | 09. Missing | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): D2004 | | Respondents were asked in more details about the different | kinds of status of their relationships. However, due to an | unknown error, people who said they were currently not in a | relationship were not asked about their marital status. All | missing data refers to respondents who are currently not | married, not in a civil union, nor co-habiting. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D2004 | | Two questions were asked of respondents, one referring to the | legal status of their relationship (legally married or civil | partnership) and one asking if respondents were living | together with a partner or not. Respondents were asked the | second of these questions if they indicated they were married, | but separated from their spouse, if they were in a registered | civil partnership but separated from their spouse or if they | they were single, divorced, or widowed. Accordingly, the | German data is classified to CSES as follows: | | CSES code Election Study Code Category | 01. Married and living together; | same-sex civil partnership, living together; | married and separated but living together with | a partner; | never married but living together with a partner; | divorced but living together with a partner; | widowed and living together with a partner; | same sex civil partnership and separated, living | with a partner; | unknown marriage status but living with a partner | 02. Widowed, no partner; | Widowed, not living together with a partner | 03. Married and separated, no partner; | married and separated, not living with a partner; | same sex civil partnership and separated, | no partner; same sex civil partnership and | separated, not living with a partner; | divorced, no partner; | divorced, not living with partner | 04. unknown marital status, not living with a partner; | unknown marital status, no partner | Not married, not living together with a partner | Not married, no partner | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011): D2004 | | In New Zealand, category 1 is explicitly more inclusive, | with the category encompassing 'married, in a civil union, | or living with partner'. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2014): D2004 | | Category "3 (DIVORCED OR SEPARATED (MARRIED BUT SEPARATED / | NOT LIVING WITH LEGAL SPOUSE)" did not exist in the 2014 | Swedish National Election Study. Furthermore, "4" refers | to "JUST SINGLE" and not to the CSES item label | "SINGLE, NEVER MARRIED". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2016): D2004 | | The 2016 Slovak National Election Study included one | additional category, "Living with a partner" (pertained | to 28 respondents). These were recoded into CSES category "1." | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Married or living together as married | Living together with a partner | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D2004 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 05. other, not further specified | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D2004 | | This variable was constructed using the two original items | 'marital status' and 'domestic partnership status'. Respondents | who indicated not being married in the first item but, in the | second item, refused to indicate whether they were living with a | partner or not were coded as 'refused'. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D2005 >>> UNION MEMBERSHIP OF RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D05. Union membership of respondent. .................................................................. 1. R IS MEMBER OF A UNION 2. R IS NOT A MEMBER OF A UNION 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D2005 | | Data are unavailable for MEXICO (2015). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2015): D2005 | | The answer categories differed slightly in the original study | and were recoded accordingly. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. I belong, but I don't participate in the | activities | I belong and participate in the activities to | some extent | I belong and actively participate in the | activities | 02. I don't belong to any | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): D2005 | | Respondents were asked simultaneously if they were a members of | a union or a professional association. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): D2005 | | This variable includes members of staff associations. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2013): D2005 | | Membership to one kind of association - trade union, farmers', | business, or professional association does not exclude | membership in any of the other types. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): D2005 | | Some members of a trade union are also members of a | farmer's organization (16 cases) and a professional | organization (26 cases). Also, some members of a business are | members within a farmer's organization (6 cases) and | professional organization (16 cases). Finally, some members of a | farmer's association are members within a professional | organization (10 cases). Though, in general, we don't expect | double memberships, there are reasonable explanations for such | occurrences. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011): D2005 | | Some members of a trade union are also members of a | business or employers' association, or a professional | organization. This might be reasonable for some cases, for | example a person working as an independent contractor, or | for teachers or nurses, if a white collar union is also deemed | as a professional organization. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2016): D2005 | | The answer categories differed slightly in the original study | and were recoded accordingly. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Is a member of a union | 02. Is not a member, but was in the past | Not a member and never was | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): D2005 | | This question was only asked in the mail-back and web survey | (see D1023). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D2005 | | This variable was constructed using two original items. In the | first, the respondent was asked whether anyone in the household | belongs to a labor union. In a follow up item, the respondent | was asked which household member belongs to a union. There was | one respondent who refused to answer to the first item and has | thus been coded as 'refused' for D2005. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D2006 >>> UNION MEMBERSHIP OF OTHERS IN HOUSEHOLD --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D06. Someone in household other than respondent is a member of a union. .................................................................. 1. SOMEONE ELSE (OTHER THAN R) IS MEMBER OF A UNION 2. NO ONE ELSE (OTHER THAN R) IS A MEMBER OF A UNION 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D2006 | | See also notes for variable D2005. | | Data are unavailable for FINLAND (2015), GREAT BRITAIN (2015), | ICELAND (2013), KENYA (2013), MEXICO (2015), NORWAY (2013), | POLAND (2011), SERBIA (2012), SLOVAKIA (2016), SLOVENIA (2011), | SWEDEN (2014), SWITZERLAND (2011). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D2006 | | Instead of asking respondents for other persons in the | household that are members of a trade union, the Australian | questionnaire asked about respondent's spouse: 'Does your | partner belong to a trade union?' | Besides the answer options 'yes' and 'no', respondents had the | opportunity to say that the 'partner never worked for pay'. | This answer was coded as '2. No' in the CSES data. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): D2006 | | Respondents were asked if others in their household were members | of a union or other professional organization. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D2006 | | This variable was constructed using two original items. In the | first, the respondent was asked whether anyone in the household | belongs to a labor union. In a follow up item, the respondent | was asked which household member belongs to a union. There was | one respondent who refused to answer to the first item and has | thus been coded as 'refused' for D2006. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D2007 >>> BUSINESS OR EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D07. Respondent is a member of a business or employers' association. .................................................................. 1. R IS A MEMBER OF A BUSINESS OR EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATION 2. R IS NOT A MEMBER OF A BUSINESS OR EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATION 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D2007 | | Data are unavailable for ARGENTINA (2015), AUSTRALIA (2013), | AUSTRIA (2013), BULGARIA (2014), CANADA (2011), CANADA (2015), | FINLAND (2015), FRANCE (2012), GREAT BRITAIN (2015), IRELAND | (2011), ISRAEL (2013), KENYA (2013), MEXICO (2015), SERBIA | (2012), SLOVAKIA (2016), SLOVENIA (2011), SWEDEN (2014), | SWITZERLAND (2011), UNITED STATES (2012). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): D2007 | | For double memberships see election study notes in D2005 or | D2008, respectively. | This item and the subsequent questions about organizational | membership were asked in the following manner: "Please tell me | whether or not you belong to any of the following associations." | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Respondent is a member | 02. Respondent is not a member | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011): D2007 | | For double memberships see election study notes in D2005 or | D2008, respectively. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D2007 | | The membership of business or employers' association, farmers' | association and professional association were all asked within | one question. Respondents were asked if they were a member | of one of these associations. D2007-D2009 are all coded with the | same data. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D2008 >>> FARMERS' ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D08. Respondent is a member of a farmers' association. .................................................................. 1. R IS A MEMBER OF A FARMERS' ASSOCIATION 2. R IS NOT A MEMBER OF A FARMERS' ASSOCIATION 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D2008 | | Data are unavailable for ARGENTINA (2015), AUSTRALIA (2013), | AUSTRIA (2013), CANADA (2011), CANADA (2015), FINLAND (2015), | FRANCE (2012), GREAT BRITAIN (2015), IRELAND (2011), ISRAEL | (2013), KENYA (2013), MEXICO (2015), SERBIA (2012), SLOVAKIA | (2016), SLOVENIA (2011), SWITZERLAND (2011), UNITED STATES | (2012). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2013): D2008 | | 50 respondents are both in a union and a farmers' association. | The main farmers' association in Iceland serves multiple roles | It is a trade union and also a business association even if it | is mainly a farmers' union. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): D2008 | | For double memberships see election study notes in D2005. | This item and the subsequent questions about organizational | membership were asked in the following manner: "Please tell me | whether or not you belong to any of the following associations." | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Respondent is a member | 02. Respondent is not a member | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011): D2008 | | Some members of a farmers' association are also | members in business or professional organizations, which might | be e.g. farmers running their own business. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D2008 | | See Election Study Note for D2007. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D2009 >>> PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D09. Respondent is a member of a professional association. .................................................................. 1. R IS A MEMBER OF A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 2. R IS NOT A MEMBER OF A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D2009 | | Data are unavailable for ARGENTINA (2015), AUSTRALIA (2013), | AUSTRIA (2013), CANADA (2011), CANADA (2015), FINLAND (2015), | FRANCE (2012), GREAT BRITAIN (2015), IRELAND (2011), ISRAEL | (2013), KENYA (2013), MEXICO (2015), SERBIA (2012), SLOVAKIA | (2016), SLOVENIA (2011), SWEDEN (2014), SWITZERLAND (2011), | UNITED STATES (2012). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): D2009 | | For double memberships see election study notes in D2005. | This item and the subsequent questions about organizational | membership were asked in the following manner: "Please tell me | whether or not you belong to any of the following associations." | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Respondent is a member | 02. Respondent is not a member | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011): D2009 | | For double memberships see election study notes in D2005 or | D2008, respectively. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): D2009 | | Membership in a professional organization was asked | simultaneously with union membership, see D2005. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D2009 | | See Election Study Note for D2007. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D2010 >>> CURRENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D10. Current employment status of respondent. .................................................................. IN LABOR FORCE: 01. EMPLOYED - FULL-TIME (32 OR MORE HOURS WEEKLY) 02. EMPLOYED - PART-TIME (15-32 HOURS WEEKLY) 03. EMPLOYED - LESS THAN 15 HOURS 04. HELPING FAMILY MEMBER 05. UNEMPLOYED NOT IN LABOR FORCE: 06. STUDENT, IN SCHOOL, IN VOCATIONAL TRAINING 07. RETIRED 08. HOUSEWIFE, HOME DUTIES 09. PERMANENTLY DISABLED 10. OTHERS, NOT IN LABOR FORCE 11. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 12. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D2010 | | Respondents who are temporarily unemployed are coded UNEMPLOYED. | Respondents on "workfare" or enrolled in a government job | training program are coded EMPLOYED. | | There is some inconsistency between studies in the way | the responses to the questions about current employment status | (D2010) affected the application of the follow-up occupation | variables (D2012-D2014). The CSES standard is that the | occupation variables are asked from those in labor force. | However, in some cases, for respondents categorized as not in | labor force in D2010 (codes 6-12) the occupation variables may | report respondent's last occupation. Hence, the responses | concerning occupation that belong to respondents not in labor | force presumably reflect their previous or last occupation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D2010 | | The number of hours worked was not included in the survey | because of high levels of informality. Everyone who is employed | is coded as full time. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D2010 | | The original survey did not include all the CSES answer | categories. As such, answer categories "03. EMPLOYED - LESS THAN | 15 HOURS", "04. HELPING FAMILY MEMBER", "09. PERMANENTLY | DISABLED" are unavailable for analysis. Being a mail self- | completion survey, the extra category "11. OTHERS (NOT FURTHER | SPECIFIED)" includes people who gave an ambiguous or several | answers. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 11. Others (not further specified) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D2010 | | The Austrian questionnaire employed an initial filter question, | asking respondents if s/he is "currently employed or seeking | work?". If respondent answered "yes", the follow-up questions on | the employment status (D2010), the main occupation (D2011), the | socio economic status (D2012) and the industrial sector (D2014) | were asked. Otherwise, these follow-up questions were skipped in | the interviewing. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D2010 | | The Brazilian questionnaire included more categories than the | CSES answer options. Answers were coded to the CSES categories | in the following way: | | CSES code Election Study Code Category | 01. Registered | Unregistered employee | Autonomous | Liberal professional | Employer | 04. Helps someone in the family and receives | remuneration | Helps someone in the family and does not receive | remuneration | 05. Unemployed (looking for a job) | 06. Apprentice with remuneration | Apprentice without remuneration | Student | 07. Retired (time of work) | Retired (disability) | Receives pension | 08. Housewife | 10. Unemployed (not looking for a job) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011): D2010 | | The variable is from the pre-election study. | The codes, which are mentioned below, have a somewhat | different meaning compared to the standard CSES coding. The | number of working hours was not asked. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Self-employed or working for pay, | number of working hours unknown | Respondent volunteers works at two or more jobs, | number of working unknown | 03. Student and working for pay, | number of hours unknown | 06. Caring for a family | 11. Retired and working for pay | 12. Caring for family and working for pay | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2015): D2010 | | This variable is from the pre-election survey. | This variable was somewhat differently coded in the original | study. Here we provide details on how it was recoded: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Self-employed or working for pay, | number of working hours unknown | Respondent volunteers works at two or more jobs, | number of working hours unknown | 03. Student and working for pay, | number of working hours unknown | 05. Unemployed | 06. Student | 07. Retired | 08. Caring for a family | 09. Disabled/ill | 11. Retired and working for pay | 12. Caring for family and working for pay | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2015): D2010 | | The Finish study included more codes than the CSES options. | These were recoded accordingly. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 08. On parental leave or child care leave | 11. Informal career | 12. Conscripted for military service or in | civilian service | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): D2010 | | In the French election study code '9' means ill or | permanently disabled. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): D2010 | | In the original study, employment status was asked in a | different format. The original codes were recoded to the CSES | standard as shown below. There are differences in the number of | hours associated with full and part time work, see CSES codes 1 | and 2. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Working full time - employee (30+ hours) | Working full time - self-employed (30+ hours) | 02. Working part time - employee (8-29 hours) | Working part time - self-employed (8-29 hours) | 03. - | 04. - | 05. Unemployed and actively seeking work | 06. A full time student or pupil | 07. Retired from paid work | 08. Looking after the family or home | 09. Not working because long-term sick or disabled | 10. - | 11. Not working because temporarily sick or injured | 12. On a government sponsored training scheme | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D2010 | | The German questionnaire included more categories than the | CSES answer options. Answers were coded to the CSES categories | in the following way: | | CSES code Election Study Code Category | 01. Full time employed (more than 30 hours a week) | 02. Part-time employed (up to 30 hours a week) | 05. Unemployed | 06. in vocational training, student, in school, or | retraining | 07. retired | 08. Not in labor force, housewife, home maker | 10. On maternity leave or parental leave | Within federal volunteer service, voluntary social | or voluntary ecological year | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 10. Others, not further specified | 11. Not applicable, never employed | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2011): D2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Full time working | 02. Part time working | 05. Permanently unemployed, | Temporarily unemployed | 06. At School, | Full time student | 07. Retired | 08. Housewife | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2014): D2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 11. on maternity leave | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): D2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Employed | Employed, but not working at the moment | 05. Unemployed | 06. Student | 07. Retired | 08. Home duties | 09. Permanently disabled | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2015): D2010 | | This variable is constructed out of two questions. The first | question reads: "What was your main activity during the past | week?" with answer options "he/she worked", "he/she has work | but did not work (holiday, incapacitated (not capable), | sickness)" being coded into the employed categories. Then, | information from another question was used to determine whether | the respondent was working full-time, or less than that. The | exact amount of hours could not be extracted. Rather, the | following categories are used to differentiate levels of | employment for this election study: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Working full time | 02. Working half time | 03. Working just little time | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011): D2010 | | Code 4 is more specific than the CSES coding scheme and refers | to unpaid work outside the home. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2014): D2010 | | 86 respondents gave several answers to this question. | These respondents were coded as "11. OTHERS (NOT FURTHER | SPECIFIED)" because it was not possible to identify the | the primary employment statues based on the given answers. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 11. Others (not further specified) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): D2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 11. Employed, "other situation" | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D2010 | | 69 respondents indicated that they never had a job. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 11. Never had a job | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D2010 | | Respondents who were not in labor force at the time of the | field period were asked about their previous occupation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SERBIA (2012): D2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories | 11. Employed, "something else" | | The Serbian questionnaire classified full-time as 30 or more | hours per week. Additionally, the Serbian questionnaire did | not specify how many hours part-time workers generally work | in a week. We have classified all part-time employees as 2, | which in the CSES is 15 to less than 32 hours weekly. We | created a new category of 11 for individuals who responded | that they are currently working for pay, but when asked whether | they were working full-time, part-time, or "something else" | said "something else." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2012): D2010 | | There is a slight deviation from the original answer | categories in that answer category 2 stands for: Employed - | Part time (15 to less than 32 hours weekly). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2014): D2010 | | The Swedish National Election Study included a category | for respondents that indicated to be in labor force but | did not provide information about the workings hours. This | applied to 266 cases, now coded as "11". | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories | 11. Employed (no information on working hours) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D2010 | | The original ANES dataset includes an additional category for | temporarily unemployment (code 11). | The weekly hours of work were asked separately and combined for | D2010. | Some of the respondents who are coded as unemployed, | retired, permanently disabled, housewife/home duties, or student | did nevertheless indicate certain amounts of working hours per | week. Analysts interested in these data are advised to refer to | the original ANES dataset. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 11. Temporarily laid off --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D2011 >>> MAIN OCCUPATION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D11. Main occupation of respondent. .................................................................. ARMED FORCES OCCUPATIONS 000. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] COMMISSIONED ARMED FORCES OFFICERS 010. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 011. COMMISSIONED ARMED FORCES OFFICERS NON-COMMISSIONED ARMED FORCES OFFICERS 020. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 021. NON-COMMISSIONED ARMED FORCES OFFICERS ARMED FORCES OCCUPATIONS, OTHER RANKS 030. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 031. ARMED FORCES OCCUPATIONS, OTHER RANKS MANAGERS CHIEF EXECUTIVES, SENIOR OFFICIALS AND LEGISLATORS 100. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 110. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 111. LEGISLATORS AND SENIOR OFFICIALS 112. MANAGING DIRECTORS AND CHIEF EXECUTIVES ADMINISTRATIVE AND COMMERCIAL MANAGERS 120. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 121. BUSINESS SERVICES AND ADMINISTRATION MANAGERS 122. SALES, MARKETING AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGERS PRODUCTION AND SPECIALIZED SERVICES MANAGERS 130. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 131. PRODUCTION MANAGERS IN AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHERIES 132. MANUFACTURING, MINING, CONSTRUCTION, AND DISTRIBUTION MANAGERS 133. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY SERVICE MANAGERS 134. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MANAGERS HOSPITALITY, RETAIL AND OTHER SERVICES MANAGERS 140. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 141. HOTEL AND RESTAURANT MANAGERS 142. RETAIL AND WHOLESALE TRADE MANAGERS 143. OTHER SERVICES MANAGERS PROFESSIONALS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS 200. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 210. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 211. PHYSICAL AND EARTH SCIENCE PROFESSIONALS 212. MATHEMATICIANS, ACTUARIES AND STATISTICIANS 213. LIFE SCIENCE PROFESSIONALS 214. ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS (EXCLUDING ELECTROTECHNOLOGY) 215. ELECTROTECHNOLOGY ENGINEERS 216. ARCHITECTS, PLANNERS, SURVEYORS AND DESIGNERS HEALTH PROFESSIONALS 220. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 221. MEDICAL DOCTORS 222. NURSING AND MIDWIFERY PROFESSIONALS 223. TRADITIONAL AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE PROFESSIONALS 224. PARAMEDICAL PRACTITIONERS 225. VETERINARIANS 226. OTHER HEALTH PROFESSIONALS TEACHING PROFESSIONALS 230. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 231. UNIVERSITY AND HIGHER EDUCATION TEACHERS 232. VOCATIONAL EDUCATION TEACHERS 233. SECONDARY EDUCATION TEACHERS 234. PRIMARY SCHOOL AND EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHERS 235. OTHER TEACHING PROFESSIONALS BUSINESS AND ADMINISTRATION PROFESSIONALS 240. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 241. FINANCE PROFESSIONALS 242. ADMINISTRATION PROFESSIONALS 243. SALES, MARKETING AND PUBLIC RELATIONS PROFESSIONALS 244. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 245. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONALS 250. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 251. SOFTWARE AND APPLICATIONS DEVELOPERS AND ANALYSTS 252. DATABASE AND NETWORK PROFESSIONALS LEGAL, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL PROFESSIONALS 260. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 261. LEGAL PROFESSIONALS 262. LIBRARIANS, ARCHIVISTS AND CURATORS 263. SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS PROFESSIONALS 264. AUTHORS, JOURNALISTS AND LINGUISTS 265. CREATIVE AND PERFORMING ARTISTS TECHNICIANS AND ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 300. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 310. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 311. PHYSICAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCE TECHNICIANS 312. MINING, MANUFACTURING AND CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISORS 313. PROCESS CONTROL TECHNICIANS 314. LIFE SCIENCE TECHNICIANS AND RELATED ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 315. SHIP AND AIRCRAFT CONTROLLERS AND TECHNICIANS HEALTH ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 320. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 321. MEDICAL AND PHARMACEUTICAL TECHNICIANS 322. NURSING AND MIDWIFERY ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 323. TRADITIONAL AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 324. VETERINARY TECHNICIANS AND ASSISTANTS 325. OTHER HEALTH ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS BUSINESS AND ADMINISTRATION ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 330. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 331. FINANCIAL AND MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 332. SALES AND PURCHASING AGENTS AND BROKERS 333. BUSINESS SERVICES AGENTS 334. ADMINISTRATIVE AND SPECIALIZED SECRETARIES 335. REGULATORY GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS LEGAL, SOCIAL, CULTURAL AND RELATED ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 340. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 341. LEGAL, SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 342. SPORTS AND FITNESS WORKERS 343. ARTISTIC, CULTURAL AND CULINARY ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 344. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNICIANS 350. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 351. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS AND USER SUPPORT TECHNICIANS 352. TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND BROADCASTING TECHNICIANS CLERICAL SUPPORT WORKERS GENERAL AND KEYBOARD CLERKS 400. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 410. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 411. GENERAL OFFICE CLERKS 412. SECRETARIES (GENERAL) 413. KEYBOARD OPERATORS CUSTOMER SERVICES CLERKS 420. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 421. TELLERS, MONEY COLLECTORS AND RELATED CLERKS 422. CLIENT INFORMATION WORKERS 423. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] NUMERICAL AND MATERIAL RECORDING CLERKS 430. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 431. NUMERICAL CLERKS 432. MATERIAL-RECORDING AND TRANSPORT CLERKS OTHER CLERICAL SUPPORT WORKERS 440. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 441. OTHER CLERICAL SUPPORT WORKERS SERVICE AND SALES WORKERS PERSONAL SERVICE WORKERS 500. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 510. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 511. TRAVEL ATTENDANTS, CONDUCTORS AND GUIDES 512. COOKS 513. WAITERS AND BARTENDERS 514. HAIRDRESSERS, BEAUTICIANS AND RELATED WORKERS 515. BUILDING AND HOUSEKEEPING SUPERVISORS 516. OTHER PERSONAL SERVICES WORKERS SALES WORKERS 520. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 521. STREET AND MARKET SALESPERSONS 522. SHOP SALESPERSONS 523. CASHIERS AND TICKET CLERKS 524. OTHER SALES WORKERS PERSONAL CARE WORKERS 530. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 531. CHILD CARE WORKERS AND TEACHERS' AIDES 532. PERSONAL CARE WORKERS IN HEALTH SERVICES 533. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] PROTECTIVE SERVICES WORKERS 540. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 541. PROTECTIVE SERVICES WORKERS 552. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] SKILLED AGRICULTURAL, FORESTRY AND FISHERY WORKERS 600. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] MARKET-ORIENTED SKILLED AGRICULTURAL WORKERS 610. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 611. MARKET GARDENERS AND CROP GROWERS 612. ANIMAL PRODUCERS 613. MIXED CROP AND ANIMAL PRODUCERS MARKET-ORIENTED SKILLED FORESTRY, FISHERY AND HUNTING WORKERS 620. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 621. FORESTRY AND RELATED WORKERS 622. FISHERY WORKERS, HUNTERS AND TRAPPERS SUBSISTENCE FARMERS, FISHERS, HUNTERS AND GATHERERS 630. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 631. SUBSISTENCE CROP FARMERS 632. SUBSISTENCE LIVESTOCK FARMERS 633. SUBSISTENCE MIXED CROP AND LIVESTOCK FARMERS 634. SUBSISTENCE FISHERS, HUNTERS, TRAPPERS AND GATHERERS CRAFT AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS BUILDING AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS, EXCLUDING ELECTRICIANS 700. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 710. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 711. BUILDING FRAME AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS 712. BUILDING FINISHERS AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS 713. PAINTERS, BUILDING STRUCTURE CLEANERS AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS METAL, MACHINERY AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS 720. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 721. SHEET AND STRUCTURAL METAL WORKERS, MOULDERS AND WELDERS, AND RELATED WORKERS 722. BLACKSMITHS, TOOLMAKERS AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS 723. MACHINERY MECHANICS AND REPAIRERS HANDICRAFT AND PRINTING WORKERS 730. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 731. HANDICRAFT WORKERS 732. PRINTING TRADES WORKERS ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC TRADES WORKERS 740. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 741. ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT INSTALLERS AND REPAIRERS 742. ELECTRONICS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS INSTALLERS AND REPAIRERS FOOD PROCESSING, WOOD WORKING, GARMENT AND OTHER CRAFT AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS 750. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 751. FOOD PROCESSING AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS 752. WOOD TREATERS, CABINET-MAKERS AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS 753. GARMENT AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS 754. OTHER CRAFT AND RELATED WORKERS PLANT AND MACHINE OPERATORS, AND ASSEMBLERS 800. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] STATIONARY PLANT AND MACHINE OPERATORS 810. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 811. MINING AND MINERAL PROCESSING PLANT OPERATORS 812. METAL PROCESSING AND FINISHING PLANT OPERATORS 813. CHEMICAL AND PHOTOGRAPHIC PRODUCTS PLANT AND MACHINE OPERATORS 814. RUBBER, PLASTIC AND PAPER PRODUCTS MACHINE OPERATORS 815. TEXTILE, FUR AND LEATHER PRODUCTS MACHINE OPERATORS 816. FOOD AND RELATED PRODUCTS MACHINE OPERATORS 817. WOOD PROCESSING AND PAPERMAKING PLANT OPERATORS 818. OTHER STATIONARY PLANT AND MACHINE OPERATORS ASSEMBLERS 820. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 821. ASSEMBLERS DRIVERS AND MOBILE PLANT OPERATORS 830. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 831. LOCOMOTIVE ENGINE DRIVERS AND RELATED WORKERS 832. CAR, VAN AND MOTORCYCLE DRIVERS 833. HEAVY TRUCK AND BUS DRIVERS 834. MOBILE PLANT OPERATORS 835. SHIPS' DECK CREWS AND RELATED WORKERS ELEMENTARY OCCUPATIONS 900. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] CLEANERS AND HELPERS 910. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 911. DOMESTIC, HOTEL AND OFFICE CLEANERS AND HELPERS 912. VEHICLE, WINDOW, LAUNDRY AND OTHER HAND CLEANING WORKERS 913. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] AGRICULTURAL, FORESTRY AND FISHERY LABOURERS 920. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 921. AGRICULTURAL, FORESTRY AND FISHERY LABOURERS LABOURERS IN MINING, CONSTRUCTION, MANUFACTURING AND TRANSPORT 930. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 931. MINING AND CONSTRUCTION LABOURERS 932. MANUFACTURING LABOURERS 933. TRANSPORT AND STORAGE LABOURERS FOOD PREPARATION ASSISTANTS 940. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 941. FOOD PREPARATION ASSISTANTS 942. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] STREET AND RELATED SALES AND SERVICE WORKERS 950. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 951. STREET AND RELATED SERVICE WORKERS 952. STREET VENDORS (EXCLUDING FOOD) REFUSE WORKERS AND OTHER ELEMENTARY WORKERS 960. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 961. REFUSE WORKERS 962. OTHER ELEMENTARY WORKERS OTHER CSES CODES 996. OTHER OR NON-CLASSIFIABLE OCCUPATIONS (NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO CLASSIFY) 997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D2011 | | This variable reports the respondent's main occupation; that | is, the job at which the respondent spends the most time or | if the respondent spends an equal amount of time on two jobs, | it is the one from which the respondent earns the most money. | For respondents who are currently employed, this variable | reports their current occupation. For respondents who are | retired or not currently working, this variable reports | respondent's last occupation. | | Coding conventions employ the first three-digits of 2008 | ISCO / ILO International Standard Classification of Occupations | Code from the International Labor Office, CH-1211, Geneva 22, | Switzerland. | | In some cases it has not been possible to strictly adhere to the | ISCO/ILO conventions. Users will find that some categories have | been added to the ISCO/ILO list in order to accommodate the | occupations of respondents who were not easily classified. | Please refer to specific Election Study Notes for clarification | of additional codes. | | See also notes for D2010. | | Data are unavailable for BRAZIL (2014), KENYA (2013), | SOUTH AFRICA (2014), UNITED STATES (2012). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D2011 | | Retired or unemployed respondents should answer the question | according to their previous occupation. Only those who | had never been in labor force should not be asked questions | related to occupation. | The occupation data provided was coded using the Australian and | New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (ANZSCO) | schema which does not have a direct, one-to-one, code | correspondence with the International Standard Classification | of Occupations (ISCO). As such, there is only a partial and | approximate match between the two. For this reason, at the time | of this release, there are 431 cases which have been coded as | "996. OTHER OR NON-CLASSIFIABLE OCCUPATIONS". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D2011 | | See Election Study Note on D2010. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2014): D2011 | | Only the first two digits of the ISCO codes | were provided. Hence, the data only includes the first two | digits with codes 110, 120, etc. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 010. Commissioned armed forces officers, not further | specified | 020. Non-commissioned armed forces officers, not | further specified | 030. Armed forces occupations, other ranks, not | further specified | 110. Chief executives, senior officials and | legislators, not further specified | 120. Administrative and commercial managers, not | further specified | 130. Production and specialized services managers, not | further specified | 140. Hospitality, retails and other services managers, | not further specified | 210. Science and engineering professionals, not | further specified | 220. Health professionals, not further specified | 230. Teaching professionals, not further specified | 240. Business and administration professionals, not | further specified | 250. Information and communications technology | professionals, not further specified | 260. Legal, social and cultural professionals, not | further specified | 310. Science and engineering associate professionals, | not further specified | 320. Health associate professionals, not further | specified | 330. Business and administration associate | professionals, not further specified | 340. Legal, social, cultural and related associate | professionals, not further specified | 350. Information and communications technicians, not | further specified | 410. General and keyboard clerks, not further | specified | 420. Customer services clerks, not further specified | 430. Numerical and material recording clerks, not | further specified | 440. Other clerical support workers, not further | specified | 510. Personal service workers, not further specified | 520. Sales workers, not further specified | 530. Personal care workers, not further specified | 540. Protective services workers, not further | specified | 610. Market-oriented skilled agricultural workers | 620. Market-oriented skilled forestry, fishery and | hunting workers, not further specified | 630. Subsistence farmers, fishers, hunters and | gatherers, not further specified | 710. Building and related trades workers, excluding | electricians, not further specified | 720. Metal, machinery and related trades workers, not | further specified | 730. Handicraft and printing workers, not further | specified | 740. Electrical and electronic trades workers, not | further specified | 750. Food processing, wood working, garment and other | craft and related trades workers | 810. Stationary plant and machine operators, not | further specified | 820. Assemblers, not further specified | 830. Drivers and mobile plant operators, not further | specified | 910. Cleaners and helpers, not further specified | 920. Agricultural, forestry and fishery laborers, | not further specified | 930. Laborers in mining, construction, manufacturing | and transport, not further specified | 940. Food preparation assistants, not further | specified | 950. Street and related sales and service workers, | not further specified | 960. Refuse workers and other elementary workers, not | further specified | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011): D2011 | | The Canadian occupation variable was originally coded according | to the Canadian National Occupation Classification (NOC) 2011. | A part of the codes could be translated to ISCO-08, in some | cases by using only the first digit or the first two digits | of ISCO-08. However, as stated by the United Nations Statistics | Division, the differences between NOC and ISCO at the unit | group level make direct conversion of data challenging, see: | http://unstats.un.org/unsd/cr/ctryreg/ctrydetail.asp?id=1056 | (Date accessed: May 17, 2018). | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 130. Production and specialized services managers, not | further specified | 200. Professionals, not further specified | 240. Business and administration professionals, not | further specified | 250. Information and communications technology | professionals, not further specified | 260. Legal, social and cultural professionals, not | further specified | 300. Technicians and associate professionals, not | further specified | 310. Science and engineering associate professionals, | not further specified | 330. Business and administration associate | professionals, not further specified | 400. Clerical support workers, not further specified | 520. Sales workers, not further specified | 700. Craft and related trades workers, not further | specified | 710. Building and related trades workers, excluding | electricians, not further specified | 720. Metal, machinery and related trades workers, not | further specified | 740. Electrical and electronic trades workers, not | further specified | 810. Stationary plant and machine operators, not | further specified | 900. Elementary occupations, not further specified | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2015): D2011 | | The Canadian occupation variable was originally coded according | to the Canadian National Occupation Classification (NOC) 2011. | As stated by the United Nations Statistics Division, the | differences between NOC and ISCO at the unit group level make | direct conversion of data challenging | (http://unstats.un.org/unsd/cr/ctryreg/ctrydetail.asp?id=1056). | Thus, only some codes could be translated to ISCO-08, in some | cases by using only the first digit or the first two digits of | ISCO-08. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 000. Armed forces occupations, not further specified | 100. Managers, not further specified | 110. Chief executives, senior officials and | legislators, not further specified | 130. Production and specialized services managers, not | further specified | 200. Professionals, not further specified | 240. Business and administration professionals, not | further specified | 250. Information and communications technology | professionals, not further specified | 260. Legal, social and cultural professionals, not | further specified | 300. Technicians and associate professionals, not | further specified | 310. Science and engineering associate professionals, | not further specified | 330. Business and administration associate | professionals, not further specified | 400. Clerical support workers, not further specified | 500. Service and sales workers, not further specified | 520. Sales workers, not further specified | 700. Craft and related trades workers, not further | specified | 710. Building and related trades workers, excluding | electricians, not further specified | 720. Metal, machinery and related trades workers, not | further specified | 740. Electrical and electronic trades workers, not | further specified | 810. Stationary plant and machine operators, not | further specified | 900. Elementary occupations, not further specified | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2013): D2011 | | Respondents who were not in active labor force at the time of | the survey were asked to name their previous job. Retired | respondents were asked to name their last job prior to | retirement. Additionally, 174 cases could not be coded | according to the three-digit ISCO due to ambiguity | in their open question answers. The respective respondents | were coded according to the codes listed below. Respondents | in the original survey were also provided with an answer | category "never worked" (n=115 cases). These were coded as | missing. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 100. Managers, not further specified | 110. Chief executives, senior officials and | legislators, not further specified | 120. Administrative and commercial managers, not | further specified | 130. Production and specialized services managers, not | further specified | 140. Hospitality, retail and other services managers, | not further specified | 150. Science and engineering professionals | 200. Professionals, not further specified, not further | specified | 210. Science and engineering professionals, not | further specified | 220. Health professionals, not further specified | 230. Teaching professionals, not further specified | 240. Business and administration professionals, not | further specified | 250. Information and communications technology | professionals, not further specified | 260. Legal, social and cultural professionals, not | further specified | 300. Technicians and associate professionals, not | further specified | 310. Science and engineering associate professionals, | not further specified | 320. Health associate professionals, not further | specified | 330. Business and administration associate | professionals, not further specified | 340. Legal, social, cultural and related associate | professionals, not further specified | 350. Information and communications technicians, | not further specified | 400. Clerical support workers, not further specified | 410. General and keyboard clerks, not further | specified | 420. Customer services clerks, not further | specified | 430. Numerical and material recording clerks, not | further specified | 440. Other clerical support workers, not further | specified | 500. Service and sales workers, not further specified | 510. Personal service workers, not further specified | 520. Sales workers, not further specified | 530. Personal care workers, not further specified | 540. Protective services workers, not further | specified | 600. Skilled agricultural, forestry and fishery | workers, not further specified | 610. Market-oriented skilled agricultural workers, | not further specified | 620. Market-oriented skilled forestry, fishery and | hunting workers, not further specified | 630. Subsistence farmers, fishers, hunters and | gatherers, not further specified | 700. Craft and related trades workers, not further | specified | 710. Building and related trades workers, excluding | electricians, not further specified | 720. Metal, machinery and related trades workers, not | further specified | 730. Handicraft and printing workers, not further | specified | 740. Electrical and electronic trades workers, not | further specified | 750. Food processing, wood working, garment and other | craft and related trades workers, not further | specified | 800. Plant and machine operators, and assemblers, not | further specified | 810. Stationary plant and machine operators, not | further specified | 820. Assemblers, not further specified | 830. Drivers and mobile plant operators, not further | specified | 900. Elementary occupations, not further specified | 910. Cleaners and helpers, not further specified | 920. Agricultural, forestry and fishery laborers, not | further specified | 930. Laborers in mining, construction, manufacturing | and transport, not further specified | 940. Food preparation assistants, not further | specified | 950. Street and related sales and service workers, not | further specified | 960. Refuse workers and other elementary workers, not | further specified | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D2011 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 000. Armed forces occupations, not further specified | 420. Customer Services Clerks, not further specified | 600. Market-oriented skilled agricultural workers, | not further specified | 610. Skilled agricultural, forestry and fishery | workers, not further specified | 740. electrical and electronic trades workers, not | further specified | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): D2011 | | The ISCO 2008 values were coded from Standard Occupational | Classification (SOC) 2010, using a mapping table provided by the | Office for National Statistics, ONS. Respondents who were | currently not in labor force, but which had ever had a paid job | apart from casual or holiday jobs were asked for their last | occupation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D2011 | | Only about half of the respondents answered this question. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 995. Non-classifiable occupations due to record | problem | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2013): D2011 | | Due to an error during data collection, respondents were not | asked their occupation to the extent where it can be coded to | the detail level of the three digit ISCO-08. The data available | only includes the first digit with codes 100, 200, etc. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2011): D2011 | | Data unavailable at the time of publication. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2013): D2011 | | Responses concerning occupation of respondents not in labor | force (according to D2010) presumably reflect their previous or | last occupation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D2011 | | Some of the information on respondents' occupational status | was available in the original data. Variable D2011 had to be | coded as missing as this information was not translatable to | the ISCO-08 scale. Researchers interested in the occupational | status data available are advised to refer to the original | dataset and questionnaire. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011 & 2014): D2011 | | Persons currently not in labor force were explicitly asked | with regard to their former job. For example, the question read: | "What kind of paid work do you do, or did you do in your last | paid job? Remember, if you are retired or not working for pay | now, please describe your last regular paid job." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D2011 | | Respondents who were retired, currently unemployed, working on | home duties or recipients of disability benefit were asked to | answer this question according to their former occupation. | Students, conscripts or others out of labor force, on the other | hand, were not asked about neither former nor current | occupation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): D2011 | | Some of the ISCO codes were only coded up to | one or two digits. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 000. Armed Forces Occupations, not further specified | 100. Managers, not further specified | 220. Health Professionals, not further specified | 300. Technicians and Associate Professionals, not | further specified | 320. Health Associate Professionals, not further | specified | 400. Clerical Support Workers, not further specified | 420. Customer Services Clerks, not further specified | 520. Sales Workers, not further specified | 600. Skilled Agricultural, Forestry and Fishery | Workers, not further specified | 700. Building and Related Trades Workers, Excluding | Electricians, not further specified | 720. Metal, Machinery and Related Trades Workers, not | further specified | 730. Handicraft and Printing Workers, not further | specified | 810. Stationary Plant and Machine Operators, not | further specified | 830. Drivers and Mobile Plant Operators, not further | specified | 930. Laborers in Mining, Construction, Manufacturing | and Transport, not further specified | For 22 respondents, only 1-digit and 2-digit ISCO codes could | be coded based on the answers they gave. These were transformed | into ISCO 08 three digit codes. | | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2016): D2011 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 400. Clerical support workers | 900. Elementary occupations | 330. Business and administration associate | professionals | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011) D2011 | | The data was originally collected using the ISCO 88 schema, and | subsequently converted into ISCO 08. As the conversion scheme is | ambiguous for some codes, these cases had to be coded as | missing. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 200. Professionals, not further specified | 230. Teaching professionals, not further specified | 250. Information and communications technology | professionals, not further specified | 300. Technicians and associate professionals, not | further specified | 500. Service and sales workers, not further specified | 520. Sales workers, not further specified | 700. Craft and related trades workers, not further | specified | 900. Elementary occupations, not further specified | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2014): D2011 | | Due to the way in which the question was asked in the original | questionnaire, it was only possible to code according to the two | -digit ISCO-88 scheme. The following codes apply: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 100. Managers, not further specified | 120. Administrative and commercial managers, not | further specified | 130. Production and specialized services managers, not | 210. Science and engineering professionals, not | further specified | 220. Health professionals, not further specified | 230. Teaching professionals, not further specified | 240. Business and administration professionals, not | further specified | 310. Science and engineering associate professionals, | not further specified | 320. Health associate professionals, not further | specified | 330. Business and administration associate | professionals, not further specified | 340. Legal, social, cultural and related associate | professionals, not further specified | 410. General and keyboard clerks, not further | specified | 420. Customer services clerks, not further | specified | 510. Personal service workers, not further specified | 520. Sales workers, not further specified | 610. Market-oriented skilled agricultural workers, | not further specified | 710. Building and related trades workers, excluding | electricians, not further specified | 720. Metal, machinery and related trades workers, not | further specified | 730. Handicraft and printing workers, not further | specified | 740. Electrical and electronic trades workers, not | further specified | 810. Stationary plant and machine operators, not | further specified | 820. Assemblers, not further specified | 830. Drivers and mobile plant operators, not further | specified | 910. Cleaners and helpers, not further specified | 930. Laborers in mining, construction, manufacturing | and transport, not further specified | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): D2011 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 100. Managers, not further specified | 120. Administrative and commercial managers, not | further specified | 130. Production and specialized services managers, not | further specified | 200. Professionals, not further specified, not further | specified | 210. Science and engineering professionals, not | further specified | 220. Health professionals, not further specified | 230. Teaching professionals, not further specified | 240. Business and administration professionals, not | further specified | 250. Information and communications technology | professionals, not further specified | 300. Technicians and associate professionals, not | further specified | 310. Science and engineering associate professionals, | not further specified | 330. Business and administration associate | professionals, not further specified | 400. Clerical support workers, not further specified | 500. Service and sales workers, not further specified | 510. Personal service workers, not further specified | 530. Personal care workers, not further specified | 700. Craft and related trades workers, not further | specified | 710. Building and related trades workers, excluding | electricians, not further specified | 720. Metal, machinery and related trades workers, not | further specified | 730. Handicraft and printing workers, not further | specified | 800. Plant and machine operators, and assemblers, not | further specified | 810. Stationary plant and machine operators, not | further specified | 830. Drivers and mobile plant operators, not further | specified | 900. Elementary occupations, not further specified | 910. Cleaners and helpers, not further specified | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D2011 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 100. Other manager (not further specified) | 200. Other professionals (not further specified) | 300. Other associate professionals (not further | specified) | 510. Other personal service workers (not further | specified) | 700. Other craft and related trades workers (not | further specified) | 810. Stationary plant and machine operators (not | further specified) | 900. Other elementary occupations (not further | specified.) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2015): D2011 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 900. Elementary occupations, not further specified | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D2011 | | At the time of the release, this variable was only available in | the form of a separate text file which can be retrieved from the | website of the American National Election Study (ANES). Data | will be available in subsequent release. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D2012 >>> SOCIO ECONOMIC STATUS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D12. Respondent's socio economic status. .................................................................. 1. WHITE COLLAR 2. WORKER 3. FARMER 4. SELF-EMPLOYED 5. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 6. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D2012 | | The categories are intended to distinguish among the following | groups: | | 1. White Collar: | Broad occupational grouping of workers engaged in non-manual | labor: Managers, salaried professionals, office workers, | sales personnel, and proprietors are generally included in | the category. | | 2. Worker: | Broad occupational grouping of workers engaged in manual labor. | | 3. Farmer: | Normally persons self-employed in farming. | | 4. Self-Employed: | Self-employed occupations of all kinds, excluding self-employed | farming. Includes, for example entrepreneurs, shop keeper, | professionals like lawyers, medical doctors etc. | | See also notes for D2010. | | Data are unavailable for BRAZIL (2014), CANADA (2011), CANADA | (2015), IRELAND (2011), PORTUGAL (2015), SERBIA (2012), SLOVENIA | (2011), TAIWAN (2012), UNITED STATES (2012). | | Note that there is some inconsistency between studies in the way | the responses to the questions about current employment status | (D2010) affected the application of the follow-up occupation | variables (D2012-D2014). The CSES standard is that the | occupation variables are asked from those in labor force. | However, in some cases, for respondents categorized as not in | labor force in D2010 (codes 6-12) the occupation variables may | report respondent's last occupation. Hence, the responses | concerning occupation that belong to respondents not in labor | force presumably reflect their previous or last occupation. | | Data on D2012 for respondents out of labor force are available | for ARGENTINA (2015), AUSTRALIA (2013), BULGARIA (2014), | CZECH REPUBLIC (2013), FINLAND (2015), FRANCE (2012), | GERMANY (2013), GREAT BRITAIN (2015), GREECE (2012), | GREECE (2015), ICELAND (2013), ISRAEL (2013), KENYA (2013), | LATVIA (2014), MEXICO (2015), MONTENEGRO (2012), | NEW ZEALAND (2011), NEW ZEALAND (2014), NORWAY (2013), | PERU (2016), POLAND (2011), ROMANIA (2012), ROMANIA (2014), | SLOVAKIA (2016), SOUTH AFRICA (2014), SWEDEN (2014), | SWITZERLAND (2011) and THAILAND (2011). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D2012 | | Retired or unemployed respondents should answer the | question according to their previous socio-economic status. Only | those who had never been in labor force should skip the | questions related to occupation. | The Australian questionnaire did not specifically ask | if the socio-economic status of respondents is either 'worker' | or 'farmer'. This information was extrapolated based on the | occupational codes of each respondents and the Australian | categorization of what groups are either 'white collar' or | 'blue collar'. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D2012 | | See Election Study Note on D2010. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2013): D2012 | | Retired or unemployed respondents were asked about their | previous socio-economic status. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D2012 | | Only respondents currently in labor force and working at least | part-time were asked this question. Others are coded 'missing'. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): D2012 | | This variable was derived from three different variables. First, | a variable from the BES was used - the National Statistics | Socio-economic classification (NS-SEC), see table, below. | Additionally, those who were identified as self-employed in a | previous question (see notes to D2010) were coded as 4, and | those who were identified as farmers or agricultural workers in | D2011 were coded as 3. The variable includes socio-economic | status of respondents' last occupations, if currently out of | work force. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Large employers and higher managerial and | administrative occupations | Higher professional occupations | Lower managerial, administrative and professional | occupations | Intermediate occupations | 02. Lower supervisory and technical occupations | Semi-routine occupations | Routine occupations | 04. Small employers and own account workers | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2013): D2012 | | Two questions from the original questionnaire were used to | construct variable D2012. These are: A: "Are/were you an | employee or do you operate your own business? if own business: | Do you have employees?" B. What is/was your main occupation? | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2013): D2012 | | Answers concerning respondents' socio economic status for those, | who are currently not in labor force (according to D2010), | presumably reflect their previous or last occupation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): D2012 | | Retired or unemployed respondents were asked this question | with regards to their previous occupation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D2012 | | Respondents' socio economic status was coded according to the | below scheme on the basis of an item of the original | questionnaire asking for occupational status. | For respondent's who indicated to be 'retired' or 'looking for | work, unemployed', their former occupation (described in terms | of the same occupational categories) was used to determine their | socio economic status. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Works for others: Salesperson | Works for others: Mid-level employee | Works for others: Mid-level supervisor and | foreman | Works for others: Mid-level professional | Works for others: Upper-level professional | Works for others: Upper-level manager | 02. Unskilled manual worker in the informal sector | Artisan / skilled manual worker in the informal | sector | Works for others: Unskilled worker (industrial | blue collar, farm worker or low level employee) | Works for others: Skilled worker (industrial blue | collar, farm worker or artisan) | 03. Self-employed: Subsistence farmer (produces only | for home consumption) | Self-employed: Peasant farmer (produces both for | own consumption and some surplus produce for | sale) | Self-employed: Own small farm (produces mainly | for sale) | Self-employed: Own medium / large farm | 04. Vendor / Hawker / Trader (small scale) in the | informal sector | Self-employed: Unskilled manual worker or artisan | who owns small business | Self-employed: Own small business, company, firm | Self-employed: Own medium, large business, | company, firm | Self-employed: Own small professional firm | Self-employed: Own medium, large professional | firm | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2014): D2012 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 03. self-employed in agriculture, forestry and | fishing | 04. self employed | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): D2012 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Owner | White collar (office employee, bureaucrat, | manager, professional, sales agent) | 02. Worker (manual labor) | 03. Farmer | 04. Self-employed | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2015): D2012 | | Retired, unemployed, or permanently disabled respondents | were asked this question with regards to their previous | occupation. Students and housekeepers were not asked this | question. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2012): D2012 | | There are several missing, 'don't know' and 'refused' | answers because this kind of social division of labor is not | generally known in the country: | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011): D2012 | | Respondents who were not in labor force were asked this | question with regards to their previous occupation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2014): D2012 | | This variable was coded based on D2011. For respondents who were | not in labor force, D2012 refers to their previous occupation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D2012 | | The variable was constructed based on current or former | occupational codes (D2011). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2011): D2012 | | This question was asked to all respondents. For respondents | who were not in the labor force, the question referred to | respondents' last job. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012 & 2014): D2012 | | Respondents who were not in labor force were asked this | question with regards to their previous occupation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2016): D2012 | | The original categories delivered to us differed from the | CSES standard categories on D2012. The deposited variable had | four categories: | 1. Employee | 2. Self-employed (without employees) | 3. Self-employed/entrepreneur with employees | 4. Work in family business | Based on this information and occupation codes, respondents were | recoded into CSES categories for this variable. | Respondents working in the family business (N=8) were considered | as "employees." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D2012 | | The question was asked with somewhat different answer | categories. Some codes were less obvious to match with the CSES: | sales-person, mid-level employee, mid-level supervisor and | foreman were coded as workers. Mid-level professionals were | coded as white collar. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): D2012 | | For respondents who were not in labor force, this variable | refers to their previous occupation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D2013 >>> EMPLOYMENT TYPE - PUBLIC OR PRIVATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D13. Whether respondent's employment is private or public. .................................................................. 1. PUBLIC SECTOR 2. PRIVATE SECTOR 3. MIXED 4. "THIRD SECTOR"/NON-PROFIT SECTOR 5. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 6. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D2013 | | There is some inconsistency between studies in the way | the responses to the questions about current employment status | (D2010) affected the application of the follow-up occupation | variables (D2012-D2014). The CSES standard is that the | occupation variables are asked from those in the labor force. | However, in some cases, for respondents categorized as not in | the labor force in D2010 (codes 6-12) the occupation variables | may report respondent's last occupation. Hence, the responses | concerning occupation that belong to respondents not in the | labor force presumably reflect their previous or last | occupation. | | Data on D2013 for respondents out of labor force are available | for ARGENTINA (2015), AUSTRALIA (2013), BRAZIL (2014), CANADA | (2011), CANADA (2015), CZECH REPUBLIC (2013), FINLAND (2015), | FRANCE (2012), GERMANY (2013), GREECE (2012), GREECE (2015), | ICELAND (2013), ISRAEL (2013), LATVIA (2014), KENYA (2013), | MONTENEGRO (2012), NEW ZEALAND (2011), NEW ZEALAND (2014), | NORWAY (2013), PERU (2016), POLAND (2011), PORTUGAL (2015), | ROMANIA (2012), ROMANIA (2014), SLOVENIA (2011), SOUTH AFRICA | (2014), SWEDEN (2014), SWITZERLAND (2011), TAIWAN (2012) and | THAILAND (2011). | | See also notes for D2010. | | Data are unavailable for AUSTRIA (2013), GREAT BRITAIN (2015), | SERBIA (2012), SLOVAKIA (2016), UNITED STATES (2012). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D2013 | | Retired or unemployed respondents should answer the | question according to their previous employment type. Only | those who had never been in labor force should skip the | questions related to occupation. | The Australian questionnaire did not specifically | ask about the employment type of the respondents. The answer | categories have been extrapolated from data about who the | employer of each respondent was. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 05. Others, not classifiable | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL(2014): D2013 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Employee/public sector | 02. Owner/employee/private sector | 04. Owner/employee/third sector/NGO | 05. Autonomous | 06. None of the above | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2015): D2013 | | This variable was somewhat differently coded in the original | study. Here we provide details on how it was recoded: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Public sector | 02. Private company | 07. Refused | 08. Don't know | 09. Not working | Missing | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2013): D2013 | | Retired or unemployed respondents were asked about their | previous socio-economic status. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): D2013 | | Retired or unemployed respondents were asked this question | with respect to their previous occupation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D2013 | | This variable includes respondents who were at least part- | time employed or respondents that reported being in vocational | training only according to D2010 and not self-employed | according to D2012. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2011): D2013 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Public sector | 02. Private sector | 03. Semi-state body, i.e. private companies, | owned by the government | 05. Farmers | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2013): D2013 | | Answers concerning respondents' public sector for those, who are | currently not in labor force (according to D2010), presumably | reflect their previous or last occupation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D2013 | | Unlike suggested in the CSES questionnaire, the answer options | 'mixed' and '"third sector"/non-profit sector' were not offered | to respondents. | In some cases, respondents who indicated to not be employed in | D2010 still answered item D2013. However, as many unemployed | respondents did not answer D2013, it remains unclear whether | those values refer to former occupation. One reason for the | high number of missings is likely that respondents running | their own subsistence farms did not think of it as a firm and | thus did not answer this question. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): D2013 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Government | 02. Private company | 03. Government owned enterprise or | decentralized organization | 04. Third Sector / Non-lucrative institution or | organization | 05. Own business | 06. Independent practice | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2015): D2013 | | Respondents who were unemployed, students, retired, housekeepers | or permanently disabled were not asked this question. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011): D2013 | | Respondents who were not in labor force were asked this question | with respect to their previous occupation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2014): D2013 | | This variable was coded based on D2011. For respondents who were | not in labor force, D2013 refers to their previous occupation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D2013 | | To answer this question respondents were provided | with a categorization scheme which is used by Statistics | Norway. This categorization system does not make use of the | category which can be matched with mixed sector. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Local (municipal) government employee | County municipal government employee | Government employee | 02. Personally owned firm | Limited company/stock corporation | 04. Organization/foundation | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D2013 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 05. Self-employed | 06. Unpaid family worker | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2011): D2013 | | This question was asked to all respondents. For respondents | who were not in the labor force, the question referred to | respondents' last job. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012 & 2014): D2013 | | Respondents who were not in labor force were asked this | question with respect to their previous occupation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2014): D2013 | | This question was asked to all respondents but those | who had indicated on any question that they had never worked | at all before. In the case of respondents who were retired | at the time of the survey, the question referred to | respondents' last job. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): D2013 | | For respondents who were not in labor force, this variable | refers to their previous occupation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D2013 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 05. Other sector, i.e. neither public nor private --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D2014 >>> INDUSTRIAL SECTOR --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D14. Industrial sector of respondent's employment. .................................................................. 1. PRIMARY SECTOR: AGRICULTURAL, FORESTRY, FISHERIES 2. SECONDARY SECTOR: INDUSTRY: MINING, CONSTRUCTION MANUFACTURING 3. TERTIARY SECTOR: TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION AND OTHER PUBLIC UTILITIES, WHOLESALE TRADE, RETAIL TRADE, PERSONAL SERVICES, FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, AND REPAIR SERVICES, ENTERTAINMENT AND REPAIR SERVICES, PROFESSIONAL AND RELATED SERVICES, PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ACTIVE MILITARY DUTY 4. OTHER 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D2014 | | Note that there is some inconsistency among studies in the way | the responses to the questions about current employment status | (D2010) affected the application of the follow-up occupation | variables (D2012-D2014). The CSES standard is that the | occupation variables are asked from those in the labor force. | However, in some cases, for respondents categorized as not in | labor force in D2010 (codes 6-12), the occupation variables may | report respondent's last occupation. Hence, the responses | concerning occupation that belong to respondents not in labor | force presumably reflect their previous or last occupation. | | Data on D2014 for respondents out of labor force are available | for ARGENTINA (2015), BRAZIL (2014), CZECH REPUBLIC (2013), | FRANCE (2012), GERMANY (2013), GREECE (2012), GREECE (2015), | ICELAND (2013), ISRAEL (2013), LATVIA (2014), MEXICO (2015), | MONTENEGRO (2012), NEW ZEALAND (2011), NEW ZEALAND (2014), | NORWAY (2013), PERU (2016), POLAND (2011), ROMANIA (2012), | ROMANIA (2014), SOUTH AFRICA (2014) and THAILAND (2011). | | See also notes for D2010. | | Data are unavailable for AUSTRALIA (2013), CANADA (2011), | CANADA (2015), FINLAND (2015), GREAT BRITAIN (2015), IRELAND | (2011), KENYA (2013), PORTUGAL (2015), SERBIA (2012), SLOVAKIA | (2016), SLOVENIA (2011), SWEDEN (2014), SWITZERLAND (2011), | TAIWAN (2012), UNITED STATES (2012). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D2014 | | See Election Study Note on D2010. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2013): D2014 | | Retired or unemployed respondents were asked about their | previous socio-economic status. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): D2014 | | Retired or unemployed respondents were asked this question | with respect to their previous occupation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D2014 | | This variable only includes respondents who were at least part- | time employed or respondents that reported being in vocational | training according to D2010. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2013): D2014 | | Responses concerning the industrial sector of respondents, who | are currently not in labor force (according to D2010), | presumably reflect their previous or last occupation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2015): D2014 | | Respondents who were retired, pensioned, unemployed or | permanently disabled were asked the same question but referring | to their last job. Students and housekeepers were not asked this | question. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011 & 2014): D2014 | | Respondents who were not in labor force were asked this question | with respect to their previous occupation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D2014 | | The variable was constructed based on current or former | occupational codes (D2011). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2011): D2014 | | This question was asked to all respondents. For respondents | who were not in the labor force, the question referred to | respondents' last job. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012 & 2014): D2014 | | Respondents who were not in labor force were asked this | question with respect to their previous occupation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D2015 >>> SPOUSE: CURRENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D15. Current employment status of respondent's spouse. .................................................................. IN LABOR FORCE: 01. EMPLOYED - FULL TIME (32+ HOURS WEEKLY) 02. EMPLOYED - PART TIME (15-32 HOURS WEEKLY) 03. EMPLOYED - LESS THAN 15 HOURS 04. HELPING FAMILY MEMBER 05. UNEMPLOYED NOT IN LABOR FORCE: 06. STUDENT, IN SCHOOL, IN VOCATIONAL TRAINING 07. RETIRED 08. HOUSEWIFE, HOME DUTIES 09. PERMANENTLY DISABLED 10. OTHERS, NOT IN LABOR FORCE 11. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 12. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D2015 | | Spouses who are temporarily unemployed are coded UNEMPLOYED. | Spouses on "workfare" or enrolled in a government job | training program are coded EMPLOYED. | | Data are unavailable for CANADA (2011), CANADA (2015), FINLAND | (2015), GREAT BRITAIN (2015), ICELAND (2013), IRELAND (2011), | KENYA (2013), MEXICO (2015), PERU (2016) and SWEDEN (2014). | | Note that there is some inconsistency among studies in the way | responses to the questions about current employment status | of spouses (D2015) were administered, affecting the application | of the follow-up occupation variables (D2017-D2019). The CSES | standard is that the occupation variables are asked for those in | the labor force. However, in some cases, for spouses categorized | as not in the labor force in D2015 (codes 6-12), the occupation | variables may report their previous or last occupation. | | There is variation in the manner in which the questions about | respondent's spouse were administered in different election | studies. In some cases only those categorized as "married or | living together" in D2004 were asked the spouse questions, | while in some surveys other responses could also lead to a | respondent being asked these questions. Consequently D2015 | sometimes includes information of spouses from respondents | who reported neither being married nor living together with a | partner (D2004 is not code 1.). These data remained unchanged. | For further details and explanations see Elections Study Notes | on D2004. | | +++ TABLE: FREQUENCIES ON D2015 FOR RESPONDENTS WITHOUT | PARTNER OR SPOUSE LIVING IN THEIR HOUSEHOLD | | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WITHOUT | SPOUSE/PARTNER LIVING IN HOUSEHOLD | ------------------------------------------------------------- | BRAZIL (2014) 237 | CZECH REPUBLIC (2013) 205 | HONG KONG (2012) 255 | MEXICO (2012) 887 | MONTENEGRO (2012) 79 | NEW ZEALAND (2011) 22 | NEW ZEALAND (2014) 10 | POLAND (2011) 153 | ROMANIA (2012) 4 | SERBIA (2012) 7 | SLOVAKIA (2016) 40 | SLOVENIA (2011) 37 | SOUTH AFRICA (2014) 20 | SOUTH KOREA (2012) 2 | SWEDEN (2014) 252 | SWITZERLAND (2011) 104 | TAIWAN (2012) 118 | THAILAND (2011) 47 | ------------------------------------------------------------- | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D2015 | | The number of hours worked was not included in the survey | because of high levels of informality. Everyone who is employed | is coded as full time. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D2015 | | The original survey did not include all the CSES answer | categories. As such, answer categories "03. EMPLOYED - LESS THAN | 15 HOURS", "04. HELPING FAMILY MEMBER", "09. PERMANENTLY | DISABLED" are unavailable for analysis. Being a mail self- | completion survey, the extra category "11. OTHERS (NOT FURTHER | SPECIFIED)" includes people who gave an ambiguous or several | answers. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 11. Others (not further specified) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D2015 | | The Austrian questionnaire employed an initial | filter question, asking respondents if her/his partner is | "currently employed or seeking work?". If respondent answered | "yes", the follow-up questions on the employment status (D2015), | the main occupation (D2016), the socio economic status (D2017) | and the industrial sector (D2019) were asked. Otherwise, these | follow-up questions were skipped in the interviewing. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D2015 | | This question was also asked to respondents without a spouse. | They were given the chance to answer with "Don't have a spouse" | and if so, were coded as missing. | The response categories for the Brazilian questionnaire did not | include hours worked. The questionnaire also included more | categories than the CSES answer options. In the Brazilian study, | this question was also asked to respondents with a partner. | Thus, we recoded the "Don't have a partner" response option as | missing. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Registered employee | Unregistered employee | Autonomous | Liberal professional | Employer | 04. Helps someone in the family and | receives remuneration | Helps someone in the family and doesn't | receive remuneration | 05. Unemployed (looking for a job) | 06. Student | Apprentice with remuneration | Apprentice without remuneration | 07. Retired (time of work) | Retired (disability) | Receives pension | 08. Housewife | 10. Unemployed (not looking for a job) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): D2015 | | In the French election study code 9 means ill or permanently | disabled. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D2015 | | The German questionnaire included more categories than the | CSES answer options. Answers were coded to the CSES categories | in the following way: | | CSES code Election Study Code Category | 01. Full time employed (more than 30 hours a week) | 02. Part-time employed (up to 30 hours a week) | 05. Unemployed | 06. In vocational training, student, in school, or | retraining | 07. Retired | 08. Not in labor force, housewife, home maker | Within federal volunteer service, voluntary | social or voluntary ecological year | 10. On maternity leave or parental leave | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D2015 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 10. Others, not further specified | 11. Not applicable, never employed | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D2015 | | Answer category '06. STUDENT, IN SCHOOL, IN VOCATIONAL TRAINING' | is missing because in the cultural context of Japan, married | couples who are students are very rare. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES – LATVIA (2014): D2015 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 11. On maternity leave | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): D2015 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Employed | Employed, but not working at the moment | 05. Unemployed | 06. Student | 07. Retired | 08. Home duties | 09. Permanently disabled | 11. No partner or spouse | Code 11 was included as an alternative to coding this data as | missing when in fact it was not and provided as it is by the | national collaborators. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011): D2015 | | Code 4 is more specific and refers to 'unpaid work outside the | home'. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2014): D2015 | | 47 respondents indicated that their spouses would fit | multiple categories by selecting more than one answer | category. These cases were coded as "11. OTHERS (NOT FURTHER | SPECIFIED)" because it was not possible to identify the | the primary employment statues based on the given answers. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 11. Others (not further specified) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D2015 | | The Norwegian election study did not ask respondents | about their spouse's working hours per week. They | are hence all coded into category one. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2011): D2015 | | This question was asked to all respondents, whether or | not they were married or living with a partner. The original | questionnaire of the Polish collaborator included the answer | option "I am not married". Living with a partner was not | mentioned in the question. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): D2015 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 11. Employed, "other situation" | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D2010 | | 72 respondents indicated that their spouse never had a job. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 11. Never had a job | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SERBIA (2012): D2015 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories | 11. Employed, "something else" | | There are several respondents, who mentioned an | employment status of spouses, but who are divorced or | separated according to D2004. These data remain unchanged. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2016): D2015 | | The Slovakia questionnaire did not inquire about the number | of hours that employed spouses worked. Hence, all those | respondents who said that their spouse were employed, were | coded as '01. EMPLOYED - FULL TIME (32+ HOURS WEEKLY)'. | | CSES code Election Study Code Category | 01. Employed | 05. Unemployed | 06. Student | 07. Retired | 08. Housewife, Homemaker, Home Duties | 09. Permanently Disabled | 10. Others | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2012): D2015 | | There is a slight deviation from the original answer | categories in that answer category 2 stands for: Employed - | Part time (15 to less than 32 hours weekly). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): D2015 | | Opposing D2004 (marital status), D2015 reports the employment | type of a (former) partner for several divorced or widowed | respondents, as well as for several singles. | These data remained unchanged. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D2015 | | For widowed and divorced respondents (codes 2 and 3 in | D2004), D2015 refers to the employment status of prior spouses. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D2015 | | The ANES questionnaire does not ask for the hours of work for | spouses. All employed spouses have been coded into an additional | category (code 12). | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 11. Temporarily laid off | 12. Employed - no weekly hours specified --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D2016 >>> SPOUSE: MAIN OCCUPATION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D16. Spouse's main occupation. .................................................................. ARMED FORCES OCCUPATIONS 000. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] COMMISSIONED ARMED FORCES OFFICERS 011. COMMISSIONED ARMED FORCES OFFICERS NON-COMMISSIONED ARMED FORCES OFFICERS 021. NON-COMMISSIONED ARMED FORCES OFFICERS ARMED FORCES OCCUPATIONS, OTHER RANKS 031. ARMED FORCES OCCUPATIONS, OTHER RANKS MANAGERS 100. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] CHIEF EXECUTIVES, SENIOR OFFICIALS AND LEGISLATORS 111. LEGISLATORS AND SENIOR OFFICIALS 112. MANAGING DIRECTORS AND CHIEF EXECUTIVES ADMINISTRATIVE AND COMMERCIAL MANAGERS 120. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 121. BUSINESS SERVICES AND ADMINISTRATION MANAGERS 122. SALES, MARKETING AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGERS PRODUCTION AND SPECIALIZED SERVICES MANAGERS 130. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 131. PRODUCTION MANAGERS IN AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHERIES 132. MANUFACTURING, MINING, CONSTRUCTION, AND DISTRIBUTION MANAGERS 133. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY SERVICE MANAGERS 134. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MANAGERS HOSPITALITY, RETAIL AND OTHER SERVICES MANAGERS 141. HOTEL AND RESTAURANT MANAGERS 142. RETAIL AND WHOLESALE TRADE MANAGERS 143. OTHER SERVICES MANAGERS PROFESSIONALS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS 200. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 210. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 211. PHYSICAL AND EARTH SCIENCE PROFESSIONALS 212. MATHEMATICIANS, ACTUARIES AND STATISTICIANS 213. LIFE SCIENCE PROFESSIONALS 214. ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS (EXCLUDING ELECTROTECHNOLOGY) 215. ELECTROTECHNOLOGY ENGINEERS 216. ARCHITECTS, PLANNERS, SURVEYORS AND DESIGNERS HEALTH PROFESSIONALS 220. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 221. MEDICAL DOCTORS 222. NURSING AND MIDWIFERY PROFESSIONALS 223. TRADITIONAL AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE PROFESSIONALS 224. PARAMEDICAL PRACTITIONERS 225. VETERINARIANS 226. OTHER HEALTH PROFESSIONALS TEACHING PROFESSIONALS 230. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 231. UNIVERSITY AND HIGHER EDUCATION TEACHERS 232. VOCATIONAL EDUCATION TEACHERS 233. SECONDARY EDUCATION TEACHERS 234. PRIMARY SCHOOL AND EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHERS 235. OTHER TEACHING PROFESSIONALS BUSINESS AND ADMINISTRATION PROFESSIONALS 240. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 241. FINANCE PROFESSIONALS 242. ADMINISTRATION PROFESSIONALS 243. SALES, MARKETING AND PUBLIC RELATIONS PROFESSIONALS 244. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 245. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONALS 250. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 251. SOFTWARE AND APPLICATIONS DEVELOPERS AND ANALYSTS 252. DATABASE AND NETWORK PROFESSIONALS LEGAL, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL PROFESSIONALS 261. LEGAL PROFESSIONALS 262. LIBRARIANS, ARCHIVISTS AND CURATORS 263. SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS PROFESSIONALS 264. AUTHORS, JOURNALISTS AND LINGUISTS 265. CREATIVE AND PERFORMING ARTISTS TECHNICIANS AND ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 300. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 310. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 311. PHYSICAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCE TECHNICIANS 312. MINING, MANUFACTURING AND CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISORS 313. PROCESS CONTROL TECHNICIANS 314. LIFE SCIENCE TECHNICIANS AND RELATED ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 315. SHIP AND AIRCRAFT CONTROLLERS AND TECHNICIANS HEALTH ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 320. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 321. MEDICAL AND PHARMACEUTICAL TECHNICIANS 322. NURSING AND MIDWIFERY ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 323. TRADITIONAL AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 324. VETERINARY TECHNICIANS AND ASSISTANTS 325. OTHER HEALTH ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS BUSINESS AND ADMINISTRATION ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 330. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 331. FINANCIAL AND MATHEMATICAL ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 332. SALES AND PURCHASING AGENTS AND BROKERS 333. BUSINESS SERVICES AGENTS 334. ADMINISTRATIVE AND SPECIALIZED SECRETARIES 335. REGULATORY GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS LEGAL, SOCIAL, CULTURAL AND RELATED ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 341. LEGAL, SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 342. SPORTS AND FITNESS WORKERS 343. ARTISTIC, CULTURAL AND CULINARY ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 344. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNICIANS 351. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS AND USER SUPPORT TECHNICIANS 352. TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND BROADCASTING TECHNICIANS CLERICAL SUPPORT WORKERS GENERAL AND KEYBOARD CLERKS 400. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 411. GENERAL OFFICE CLERKS 412. SECRETARIES (GENERAL) 413. KEYBOARD OPERATORS CUSTOMER SERVICES CLERKS 420. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 421. TELLERS, MONEY COLLECTORS AND RELATED CLERKS 422. CLIENT INFORMATION WORKERS NUMERICAL AND MATERIAL RECORDING CLERKS 431. NUMERICAL CLERKS 432. MATERIAL-RECORDING AND TRANSPORT CLERKS OTHER CLERICAL SUPPORT WORKERS 441. OTHER CLERICAL SUPPORT WORKERS SERVICE AND SALES WORKERS PERSONAL SERVICE WORKERS 500. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 510. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 511. TRAVEL ATTENDANTS, CONDUCTORS AND GUIDES 512. COOKS 513. WAITERS AND BARTENDERS 514. HAIRDRESSERS, BEAUTICIANS AND RELATED WORKERS 515. BUILDING AND HOUSEKEEPING SUPERVISORS 516. OTHER PERSONAL SERVICES WORKERS SALES WORKERS 520. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 521. STREET AND MARKET SALESPERSONS 522. SHOP SALESPERSONS 523. CASHIERS AND TICKET CLERKS 524. OTHER SALES WORKERS PERSONAL CARE WORKERS 530. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 531. CHILD CARE WORKERS AND TEACHERS' AIDES 532. PERSONAL CARE WORKERS IN HEALTH SERVICES 533. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] PROTECTIVE SERVICES WORKERS 541. PROTECTIVE SERVICES WORKERS 552. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] SKILLED AGRICULTURAL, FORESTRY AND FISHERY WORKERS 600. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] MARKET-ORIENTED SKILLED AGRICULTURAL WORKERS 610. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 611. MARKET GARDENERS AND CROP GROWERS 612. ANIMAL PRODUCERS 613. MIXED CROP AND ANIMAL PRODUCERS MARKET-ORIENTED SKILLED FORESTRY, FISHERY AND HUNTING WORKERS 621. FORESTRY AND RELATED WORKERS 622. FISHERY WORKERS, HUNTERS AND TRAPPERS SUBSISTENCE FARMERS, FISHERS, HUNTERS AND GATHERERS 631. SUBSISTENCE CROP FARMERS 632. SUBSISTENCE LIVESTOCK FARMERS 633. SUBSISTENCE MIXED CROP AND LIVESTOCK FARMERS 634. SUBSISTENCE FISHERS, HUNTERS, TRAPPERS AND GATHERERS CRAFT AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS BUILDING AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS, EXCLUDING ELECTRICIANS 700. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 710. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 711. BUILDING FRAME AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS 712. BUILDING FINISHERS AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS 713. PAINTERS, BUILDING STRUCTURE CLEANERS AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS METAL, MACHINERY AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS 720. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 721. SHEET AND STRUCTURAL METAL WORKERS, MOULDERS AND WELDERS, AND RELATED WORKERS 722. BLACKSMITHS, TOOLMAKERS AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS 723. MACHINERY MECHANICS AND REPAIRERS HANDICRAFT AND PRINTING WORKERS 730. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 731. HANDICRAFT WORKERS 732. PRINTING TRADES WORKERS ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC TRADES WORKERS 740. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 741. ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT INSTALLERS AND REPAIRERS 742. ELECTRONICS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS INSTALLERS AND REPAIRERS FOOD PROCESSING, WOOD WORKING, GARMENT AND OTHER CRAFT AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS 751. FOOD PROCESSING AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS 752. WOOD TREATERS, CABINET-MAKERS AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS 753. GARMENT AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS 754. OTHER CRAFT AND RELATED WORKERS PLANT AND MACHINE OPERATORS, AND ASSEMBLERS 800. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] STATIONARY PLANT AND MACHINE OPERATORS 810. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 811. MINING AND MINERAL PROCESSING PLANT OPERATORS 812. METAL PROCESSING AND FINISHING PLANT OPERATORS 813. CHEMICAL AND PHOTOGRAPHIC PRODUCTS PLANT AND MACHINE OPERATORS 814. RUBBER, PLASTIC AND PAPER PRODUCTS MACHINE OPERATORS 815. TEXTILE, FUR AND LEATHER PRODUCTS MACHINE OPERATORS 816. FOOD AND RELATED PRODUCTS MACHINE OPERATORS 817. WOOD PROCESSING AND PAPERMAKING PLANT OPERATORS 818. OTHER STATIONARY PLANT AND MACHINE OPERATORS ASSEMBLERS 821. ASSEMBLERS DRIVERS AND MOBILE PLANT OPERATORS 830. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 831. LOCOMOTIVE ENGINE DRIVERS AND RELATED WORKERS 832. CAR, VAN AND MOTORCYCLE DRIVERS 833. HEAVY TRUCK AND BUS DRIVERS 834. MOBILE PLANT OPERATORS 835. SHIPS' DECK CREWS AND RELATED WORKERS ELEMENTARY OCCUPATIONS 900. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] CLEANERS AND HELPERS 910. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 911. DOMESTIC, HOTEL AND OFFICE CLEANERS AND HELPERS 912. VEHICLE, WINDOW, LAUNDRY AND OTHER HAND CLEANING WORKERS 913. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] AGRICULTURAL, FORESTRY AND FISHERY LABOURERS 921. AGRICULTURAL, FORESTRY AND FISHERY LABOURERS LABOURERS IN MINING, CONSTRUCTION, MANUFACTURING AND TRANSPORT 930. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 931. MINING AND CONSTRUCTION LABOURERS 932. MANUFACTURING LABOURERS 933. TRANSPORT AND STORAGE LABOURERS FOOD PREPARATION ASSISTANTS 941. FOOD PREPARATION ASSISTANTS 942. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] STREET AND RELATED SALES AND SERVICE WORKERS 951. STREET AND RELATED SERVICE WORKERS 952. STREET VENDORS (EXCLUDING FOOD) REFUSE WORKERS AND OTHER ELEMENTARY WORKERS 961. REFUSE WORKERS 962. OTHER ELEMENTARY WORKERS OTHER CSES CODES 996. OTHER OR NON-CLASSIFIABLE OCCUPATIONS (NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO CLASSIFY) 997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D2016 | | (1) This variable reports the respondent's spouse's main | occupation; that is, the job at which the respondent's | spouse spends most of the time, or if the respondent's | spouse spends an equal amount of time on two jobs, it is | the one from which the respondent's spouse earns the most | money. For spouses who are currently employed, this variable | reports their current occupation. For spouses who are retired | or not currently working, this variable reports the spouse's | last occupation. | | (2) Coding conventions employ the first two-digits of 2008 | ISCO / ILO International Standard Classification of | Occupations Code from the International Labor Office, CH-1211, | Geneva 22, Switzerland. | | In some cases it has not been possible to strictly adhere to the | ISCO/ILO conventions. Users will find that some categories have | been added to the ISCO/ILO list in order to accommodate the | occupations of respondents who were not easily classified. | Please refer to specific Election Study Notes for clarification | of additional codes. | | See also notes for D2015. | | Data are unavailable for BRAZIL (2014), BULGARIA (2014), | CANADA (2011), CANADA (2015), FINLAND (2015), GREAT BRITAIN | (2015), ICELAND (2013), IRELAND (2011), KENYA (2013), MEXICO | (2015), PERU (2016), SOUTH AFRICA (2014), SWEDEN (2014) and | UNITED STATES (2012). | | There is variation in the ways in which the questions about | respondent's spouse were administered in different election | studies. In some cases only those categorized as "married or | living together" in D2004 were asked the spouse questions, | while in some surveys other responses could also lead to a | respondent being asked these questions. Consequently D2016 | sometimes includes information of spouses from respondents who | reported neither being married nor living together with a | partner (D2004 is not code 1.). These data remained unchanged. | For further details and explanations see Elections Study Notes | on D2004. | | +++ TABLE: FREQUENCIES ON D2016 FOR RESPONDENTS WITHOUT PARTNER | OR SPOUSE LIVING IN THEIR HOUSEHOLD | | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WITHOUT | SPOUSE/PARTNER LIVING IN HOUSEHOLD | ------------------------------------------------------------- | CZECH REPUBLIC (2013) 185 | HONG KONG (2012) 1 | ISRAEL (2013) 2 | MONTENEGRO (2012) 77 | NEW ZEALAND (2011) 21 | NEW ZEALAND (2014) 9 | POLAND (2011) 63 | ROMANIA (2012) 2 | SERBIA (2012) 2 | SLOVAKIA (2016) 16 | SLOVENIA (2011) 14 | SOUTH KOREA (2012) 2 | SWITZERLAND (2011) 103 | TAIWAN (2012) 83 | THAILAND (2011) 24 | ------------------------------------------------------------- | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D2016 | | Respondents who have a retired or unemployed partner should | answer the question according to the previous occupation of the | spouse. Only those whose partner had never been in labor force | should not be asked this question. | The occupation data provided was coded using the Australian and | New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (ANZSCO) | schema, which does not have a direct, on-to-one correspondence | with ISCO-08. As such, there is only a partial and approximate | match between the two. Consequently, there are 357 cases which | have been coded as "996. OTHER OR NON-CLASSIFIABLE OCCUPATIONS" | no corresponding match between ANZSCO and ISCO-08 could be | identified. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D2016 | | See Election Study Note on D2015. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2013): D2016 | | Respondents whose spouses were not active in the labor force | at the time of the survey were asked to name their spouse's | previous job. Respondents whose spouses were retired were | asked to name their spouse's job prior to retirement. Also | in n=137 cases, coding according to the three-digit ISCO code | was not possible due to uncertainty about the answer because | the question was asked in an open ended format. These cases | were coded according to the codes listed below. | Respondents in the original survey were also provided with | an answer category "never worked" (n=624) and "no spouse" | (n=22 cases). These were coded as missing. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 100. Managers, not further specified | 110. Chief executives, senior officials and | legislators, not further specified | 120. Administrative and commercial managers, not | further specified | 130. Production and specialized services managers, not | further specified | 140. Hospitality, retail and other services managers, | not further specified | 200. Professionals, not further specified, not further | specified | 210. Science and engineering professionals, not | further specified | 220. Health professionals, not further specified | 230. Teaching professionals, not further specified | 240. Business and administration professionals, not | further specified | 250. Information and communications technology | professionals, not further specified | 260. Legal, social and cultural professionals, not | further specified | 300. Technicians and associate professionals, not | further specified | 310. Science and engineering associate professionals, | not further specified | 320. Health associate professionals, not further | specified | 330. Business and administration associate | professionals, not further specified | 340. Legal, social, cultural and related associate | professionals, not further specified | 350. Information and communications technicians, | not further specified | 400. Clerical support workers, not further specified | 410. General and keyboard clerks, not further | specified | 420. Customer services clerks, not further | specified | 430. Numerical and material recording clerks, not | further specified | 440. Other clerical support workers, not further | specified | 500. Service and sales workers, not further specified | 510. Personal service workers, not further specified | 520. Sales workers, not further specified | 530. Personal care workers, not further specified | 540. Protective services workers, not further | specified | 600. Skilled agricultural, forestry and fishery | workers, not further specified | 610. Market-oriented skilled agricultural workers, | not further specified | 620. Market-oriented skilled forestry, fishery and | hunting workers, not further specified | 630. Subsistence farmers, fishers, hunters and | gatherers, not further specified | 700. Craft and related trades workers, not further | specified | 710. Building and related trades workers, excluding | electricians, not further specified | 720. Metal, machinery and related trades workers, not | further specified | 730. Handicraft and printing workers, not further | specified | 740. Electrical and electronic trades workers, not | further specified | 750. Food processing, wood working, garment and other | craft and related trades workers, not further | specified | 800. Plant and machine operators, and assemblers, not | further specified | 810. Stationary plant and machine operators, not | further specified | 820. Assemblers, not further specified | 830. Drivers and mobile plant operators, not further | specified | 900. Elementary occupations, not further specified | 910. Cleaners and helpers, not further specified | 920. Agricultural, forestry and fishery laborers, not | further specified | 930. Laborers in mining, construction, manufacturing | and transport, not further specified | 940. Food preparation assistants, not further | specified | 950. Street and related sales and service workers, not | further specified | 960. Refuse workers and other elementary workers, not | further specified | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): D2016 | | Note that there were three respondents whose codes had uncertain | meaning. Those codes (244, 344) were recoded to 'missing'. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D2016 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 000. Armed forces occupations, not further specified | 130. Production and specialized services managers, | not further specified | 200. Science and engineering professionals, not | further specified | 230. Teaching professionals, not further specified | 250. Information and communications technology | professionals, not further specified | 300. Technicians and associate professionals, not | further specified | 310. Science and engineering associate professionals, | not further specified | 400. General and keyboard clears, not further | specified | 420. Customer services clerks, not further specified | 610. Skilled agricultural, forestry and fishery | workers, not further specified | 720. Metal, machinery and related trades workers, not | further specified | 740. electrical and electronic trades workers, not | further specified | 800. Plant and machine operators, and assemblers, not | further specified | 810. Stationary plant and machine operators, not | further specified | 900. Elementary occupations, not further specified | 910. Cleaners and helpers, not further specified | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2013): D2016 | | Responses concerning the occupation for respondents' spouses, | who are currently not in labor force (according to D2015), | presumably reflect their previous or last occupation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011 & 2014): D2016 | | Respondents with spouses who were currently not in labor force | were explicitly asked to answer this question with regard to | their spouse's former job. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D2016 | | Respondents' spouses who were retired or currently unemployed, | were asked to answer this question according to their spouse's | former occupation and former employment type. Those with spouses | who were out of labor force for other reasons were not asked | this question. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2011): D2016 | | This question was asked of all respondents, whether or | not they were married or living with a partner. The Polish | questionnaire included the answer category "I am not married" | Living with a partner was not offer as an answer category. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | See coding scheme for D2011 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): D2016 | | Some of the ISCO codes were only coded up to one or two digits. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 000. Armed Forces Occupations, not further specified | 100. Managers, not further specified | 200. Science and Engineering Professionals, not | further specified | 220. Health Professionals, not further specified | 300. Technicians and Associate Professionals, not | further specified | 320. Health Associate Professionals, not further | specified | 400. Clerical Support Workers, not further specified | 420. Customer Services Clerks, not further specified | 520. Sales Workers, not further specified | 600. Skilled Agricultural, Forestry and Fishery | 700. Building and Related Trades Workers, Excluding | Electricians, not further specified | 720. Metal, Machinery and Related Trades Workers, not | further specified | 730. Handicraft and Printing Workers, not further | specified | 810. Stationary Plant and Machine Operators, not | further specified | 830. Drivers and Mobile Plant Operators, not further | specified | 930. Laborers in Mining, Construction, Manufacturing | and Transport, not further specified | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SERBIA (2012): D2016 | | There are two respondents who mentioned an occupation of | spouses, but who are divorced or separated according to D2004. | These data remain unchanged. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2016): D2016 | | For 11 respondents, only 1-digit ISCO codes could be | assigned based on the given answers. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 000. Armed Forces Occupations, not further specified | 400. Clerical support workers | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011) D2016 | | The data was originally collected using the ISCO 88 schema, and | subsequently converted into ISCO 08. As the conversion scheme is | ambiguous for some codes, these cases had to be coded as | missing. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 100. Managers, not further specified | 230. Teaching professionals, not further specified | 250. Information and communications technology | 310. Science and engineering associate professionals, | not further specified | 330. Business and administration associate | professionals, not further specified | 500. Services and sales workers, not further specified | 520. Sales workers, not further specified | 700. Craft and related trades workers, not further | specified | 900. Elementary occupation, not further specified | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): D2016 | | Opposing D2004 (marital status), D2016 reports the socio- | economic status of a (former) partner for several divorced or | widowed respondents, as well as for several singles. | These data remained unchanged. | | For additionally employed codes in D2016, see Swiss Election | Study Note on D2011. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D2016 | | For widowed and divorced respondents (codes 2 and 3 in | D2004), D2016 refers to the occupational status of prior | spouses. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 100. Other manager (not further specified) | 200. Other professionals (not further specified) | 300. Other associate professionals (not further | specified) | 510. Other personal service workers (not further | specified) | 700. Other craft and related trades workers (not | further specified) | 810. Stationary plant and machine operators (not | further specified) | 900. Other elementary occupations (not further | specified.) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2015): D2016 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 900. Elementary occupations, not further specified | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D2016 | | At the time of the release, this variable was only available in | the form of a separate text file which can be retrieved from the | website of the American National Election Study (ANES). Data | will be available in subsequent release. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D2017 >>> SPOUSE: SOCIO ECONOMIC STATUS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D17. Spouse's socio-economic status. .................................................................. 1. WHITE COLLAR 2. WORKER 3. FARMER 4. SELF-EMPLOYED 5. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 6. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D2017 | | The categories are intended to distinguish among the | following groups: | | 1. White Collar: | Broad occupational grouping of workers engaged in non-manual | labor: Managers, salaried professionals, office workers, | sales personnel, and proprietors are generally included in | the category. | | 2. Worker: | Broad occupational grouping of workers engaged in manual labor. | | 3. Farmer: | Normally persons self-employed in farming. | | 4. Self-Employed: | Self-employed occupations of all kinds, excluding self-employed | farming. Included, for example, entrepreneurs, shopkeeper, | professionals, such as lawyers, medical doctors etc. | | See also notes for D2015. | | Data are unavailable for BRAZIL (2014), CANADA (2011), CANADA | (2015), FINLAND (2015), GREAT BRITAIN (2015), ICELAND (2013), | IRELAND (2011), ISRAEL (2013), KENYA (2013), MEXICO (2015), | PERU (20116), PORTUGAL (2015), SERBIA (2012), SLOVAKIA (2016), | SLOVENIA (2011), SWEDEN (2014), TAIWAN (2012), | UNITED STATES (2012). | | Note that there is some inconsistency among studies in the | way the responses to the questions about current employment | status of spouses (D2015) affected the application of the | follow-up occupation variables (D2017-D2019). The CSES standard | is that the occupation variables are asked from those in the | labor force. However, in some cases, for spouses categorized as | not in labor force in D2015 (codes 6-12), the occupation | variables may report respondent's last occupation. Hence, the | responses concerning occupation that belong to respondents not | in labor force presumably reflect their previous or last | occupation. | | Data on D2017 for spouses out of labor force are available for | ARGENTINA (2015), AUSTRALIA (2013), BULGARIA (2014), CZECH | REPUBLIC (2013), FRANCE (2012), GREECE (2012), GREECE (2015), | LATVIA (2014), MONTENEGRO (2012), NEW ZEALAND (2011), NEW | ZEALAND (2014), NORWAY (2013), POLAND (2011), ROMANIA (2012), | ROMANIA (2014), SOUTH AFRICA (2014), SWITZERLAND (2011) and | THAILAND (2011). | | Moreover, there is variation in the ways in which the questions | about respondent's spouse were administered in different | election studies. In some cases only those categorized as | "married or living together" in D2004 were asked the spouse | questions, while in some surveys other responses could also lead | to a respondent being asked these questions. Consequently D2017 | sometimes includes information of spouses from respondents who | reported neither being married nor living together with a | partner (D2004 is not code 1). These data remained unchanged. | For further details and explanations see Elections Study Notes | on D2004. | | +++ TABLE: FREQUENCIES ON D2017 FOR RESPONDENTS WITHOUT PARTNER | OR SPOUSE LIVING IN THEIR HOUSEHOLD | | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WITHOUT | SPOUSE/PARTNER LIVING IN HOUSEHOLD | ------------------------------------------------------------- | CZECH REPUBLIC (2013) 770 | HONG KONG (2012) 1 | MONTENEGRO (2012) 4 | NEW ZEALAND (2011) 23 | NEW ZEALAND (2014) 9 | POLAND (2011) 63 | ROMANIA (2012) 4 | SOUTH AFRICA (2014) 11 | SOUTH KOREA (2012) 2 | SWITZERLAND (2011) 102 | THAILAND (2011) 17 | ------------------------------------------------------------- | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D2017 | | Respondents with a retired or unemployed partner should answer | the question according to the previous economic status. Only | those whose partner had never been in labor force should skip | the questions related to occupation. | The Australian questionnaire did not specifically ask if the | socio economic status of respondents' spouses is either 'worker' | or 'farmer'. This information was extrapolated based on the | occupational codes of each respondents and the Australian | categorization of what groups are either 'white collar' or 'blue | collar'. Also, an additional category 05. was created to account | for answers that couldn't be otherwise matched to any of the | pre-existing categories. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 05. Partner never worked for pay | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D2017 | | See Election Study Note on D2015. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2014): D2017 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 05. Other | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2013): D2017 | | D2017 was asked irrespective of marital status. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): D2017 | | The question was not asked directly but was coded from the | occupation codes (D2016) and a more detailed question about | employment type, in the following way: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. D2016<500 & person not self-employed | 02. D2016>=500 & D2016<963 & person not self-employed | 03. D2016>=600 & D2016<=700 | 04. (D2016<600 or D2016>700) & person self-employed | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D2017 | Only spouses currently in the labor force and working | at least part-time were asked this question. Others are | coded as 'missing'. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): D2017 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Owner | White collar (office employee, bureaucrat, | manager, professional, sales agent) | 02. Worker (manual labor) | 03. Farmer | 04. Self-employed | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011 & 2014): D2017 | | Respondents with spouses who were not in labor force were | explicitly asked this question with respect to their | spouse's former occupation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D2017 | | The variable was constructed based on spouse's current or former | occupational codes (D2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2011): D2017 | | This question was asked to all respondents, whether or not they | were married or living with a partner. The original | questionnaire of the Polish collaborator included the answer | option "I am not married". Living with a partner was not | mentioned in the question. | This variable was generated by recoding the occupation variable | D2016. The scheme is as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. White collar (ISCO-08 codes from 100 to 400) | 02. Worker (ISCO-08 codes 31, and 500 to 900) | 03. Farmer (ISCO-08 codes 611 to 613, 631 to | 634) | 05. Other (ISCO-08 codes 996) | 09. Could not be classified | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012 & 2014): D2017 | | Respondents with spouses who were not in labor force were | asked this question with respect to their spouse's former | occupation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D2017 | | The question was asked with somewhat different answer | categories. Some codes were less obvious to match with the CSES: | sales-person, mid-level employee, mid-level supervisor and | foreman were coded as workers. Mid-level professionals were | coded as white collar. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): D2017 | | Opposing D2004 (marital status), D2017 reports the employment | type of a (former) partner for several divorced or widowed | respondents, as well as for several singles. | These data remained unchanged. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D2018 >>> SPOUSE: EMPLOYMENT TYPE - PUBLIC OR PRIVATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D18. Whether spouse's employment is private or public. .................................................................. 1. PUBLIC SECTOR 2. PRIVATE SECTOR 3. MIXED 4. "THIRD SECTOR"/NON-PROFIT SECTOR 5. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 6. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D2018 | | Data are unavailable for AUSTRIA (2013), CANADA (2011), CANADA | (2015), FINLAND (2015), GREAT BRITAIN (2015), ICELAND (2013), | IRELAND (2011), ISRAEL (2013), KENYA (2013), LATVIA (2014), | MEXICO (2015), PERU (2016), POLAND (2011), SERBIA (2012), | SLOVAKIA (2016), SLOVENIA (2011), SWEDEN (2014) and UNITED | STATES (2012). | | Note that there is some inconsistency among studies in the | way the responses to the questions about current employment | status of spouses (D2015) affected the application of the | follow-up occupation variables (D2017-D2019). The CSES standard | is that the occupation variables are asked from those in the | labor force. However, in some cases, for spouses categorized as | not in labor force in D2015 (codes 6-12), the occupation | variables may report respondent's last occupation. Hence, the | responses concerning occupation that belong to respondents not | in labor force presumably reflect their previous or last | occupation. | | Data on D2018 for spouses out of labor force are available | for ARGENTINA (2015), AUSTRALIA (2013), BRAZIL (2014), CZECH | REPUBLIC (2013), FRANCE (2012), GREECE (2012), GREECE (2015), | LATVIA (2014), MONTENEGRO (2012), NEW ZEALAND (2011), NEW | ZEALAND (2014), NORWAY (2013), PORTUGAL (2015), ROMANIA (2012), | ROMANIA (2014), SOUTH AFRICA (2014), SWITZERLAND (2011), TAIWAN | (2012) and THAILAND (2011). | | See also notes for D2015. | | Moreover, there is variation in the ways in which the questions | about respondent's spouse were administered in different | election studies. In some cases only those categorized as | "married or living together" in D2004 were asked the spouse | questions, while in some surveys other responses could also lead | to a respondent being asked these questions. Consequently D2018 | sometimes includes information of spouses from respondents who | reported neither being married nor living together with a | partner (D2004 is not code 1.). These data remained unchanged. | For further details and explanations see Elections Study Notes | on D2004. | | +++ TABLE: FREQUENCIES ON D2018 FOR RESPONDENTS WITHOUT PARTNER | OR SPOUSE LIVING IN THEIR HOUSEHOLD | | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WITHOUT | SPOUSE/PARTNER LIVING IN HOUSEHOLD | ------------------------------------------------------------- | BRAZIL (2014) 139 | CZECH REPUBLIC (2013) 192 | HONG KONG (2012) 1 | MONTENEGRO (2012) 3 | NEW ZEALAND (2011) 236 | NEW ZEALAND (2014) 8 | ROMANIA (2012) 3 | SOUTH AFRICA (2014) 47 | SOUTH KOREA (2012) 2 | SWITZERLAND (2011) 89 | TAIWAN (2012) 83 | THAILAND (2011) 5 | ------------------------------------------------------------- | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D2018 | | Respondents with a retired or unemployed partner should answer | should answer the question according to the previous employment | type. Only those whose partner had never been in labor force | should skip the questions related to occupation. | The Australian questionnaire did not specifically ask about the | employment type of the respondents' spouses. The answer | categories were extrapolated from data about who the employer of | each respondent's spouse was. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 05. Others, not classifiable | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D2018 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Employee/public sector | 02. Owner/employee/private sector | 04. Owner/employee/third sector/NGO | 05. Autonomous | 06. None of the above | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): D2018 | | If the respondent's spouse was retired, the question was asked | with respect to the spouse's last employment. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D2018 | | This variable only includes spouses who were at least part-time | employed or respondents that reported being in vocational | training according to D2010 and those that were not self- | employed according to D2012. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): D2018 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Government | 02. Private company | 03. Government owned enterprise or | decentralized organization | 04. Third Sector / Non-lucrative institution or | organization | 05. Own business | 06. Independent practice | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011 & 2014): D2018 | | Respondents with spouses who were not in labor force were | explicitly asked this question with respect to their | spouse's former occupation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D2018 | | To answer this question, respondents were provided with a | categorization scheme which is used by Statistics Norway. This | categorization system does not make use of a category which | would translate to mixed sector. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Local (municipal) government employee | County municipal government employee | Government employee | 02. Personally owned firm | 03. Limited company/stock corporation | 04. Organization/foundation | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D2018 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 05. Self-employed | 06. Unpaid family worker | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012 & 2014): D2018 | | Respondents with spouses who were not in labor force were | explicitly asked this question with respect to their | spouse's former occupation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D2018 | | For widowed and divorced respondents (codes 2 and 3 in | D2004), D2018 refers to the employment type of prior spouses | spouses. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 05. Other sector, i.e. neither public nor private --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D2019 >>> SPOUSE: INDUSTRIAL SECTOR --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D19. Industrial sector of spouse's employment. .................................................................. 1. PRIMARY SECTOR: AGRICULTURAL, FORESTRY, FISHERIES 2. SECONDARY SECTOR: INDUSTRY: MINING, CONSTRUCTION MANUFACTURING 3. TERTIARY SECTOR: TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION AND OTHER PUBLIC UTILITIES, WHOLESALE TRADE, RETAIL TRADE, PERSONAL SERVICES, FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, AND REPAIR SERVICES, ENTERTAINMENT AND REPAIR SERVICES, PROFESSIONAL AND RELATED SERVICES, PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ACTIVE MILITARY DUTY 4. OTHER 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D2019 | | Data are unavailable for AUSTRALIA (2013), CANADA (2011), | CANADA (2015), FINLAND (2015), GREAT BRITAIN (2015), | ICELAND (2013), IRELAND (2011), ISRAEL (2013), KENYA (2013), | LATVIA (2014), MEXICO (2015), PERU (2016), PORTUGAL (2015), | SERBIA (2012), SLOVAKIA (2016), SLOVENIA (2011), SOUTH AFRICA | (2014), SWEDEN (2014), SWITZERLAND (2011), TAIWAN (2012) and | UNITED STATES (2012). | | Note that there is some inconsistency among studies in the | way the responses to the questions about current employment | status of souses (D2015) affected the application of the follow- | up occupation variables (D2017-D2019). The CSES standard is that | the occupation variables are asked from those in the labor | force. However, in some cases, for spouses categorized as not in | labor force in D2015 (codes 6-12), the occupation variables may | report respondent's last occupation. Hence, the responses | concerning occupation that belong to respondents not in labor | force presumably reflect their previous or last occupation. | | Data on D2019 for spouses out of labor force are available | for ARGENTINA (2015), BRAZIL (2014), CZECH REPUBLIC (2013), | FRANCE (2012), GREECE (2012), GREECE (2015), MONTENEGRO (2012), | NEW ZEALAND (2011), NEW ZEALAND (2014), NORWAY (2013), POLAND | (2011), ROMANIA (2012), ROMANIA (2014) and THAILAND (2011). | | See also notes for D2015. | | Moreover, there is variation in the ways in which the questions | about respondent's spouse were administered in different | election studies. In some cases only those categorized as | "married or living together" in D2004 were asked the spouse | questions, while in some surveys other responses could also lead | to a respondent being asked these questions. Consequently D2019 | sometimes includes information of spouses from respondents who | reported neither being married nor living together with a | partner (D2004 is not code 1.). These data remained unchanged. | For further details and explanations see Elections Study Notes | on D2004. | | +++ TABLE: FREQUENCIES ON D2019 FOR RESPONDENTS WITHOUT PARTNER | OR SPOUSE LIVING IN THEIR HOUSEHOLD | | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WITHOUT | SPOUSE/PARTNER LIVING IN HOUSEHOLD | ------------------------------------------------------------- | BRAZIL (2014) 130 | CZECH REPUBLIC (2013) 769 | HONG KONG (2012) 1 | MONTENEGRO (2012) 1 | NEW ZEALAND (2011) 19 | NEW ZEALAND (2014) 9 | POLAND (2011) 63 | ROMANIA (2012) 4 | SOUTH KOREA (2012) 2 | THAILAND (2011) 18 | ------------------------------------------------------------- | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D2019 | | See Election Study Note on D2015. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D2019 | | The Brazilian questionnaire included the answer option "None" | (applicable to 5 cases) which was recoded "Other". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2013): D2019 | | D2019 was asked irrespective of marital status. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D2019 | | This variable only includes spouses who were at least part-time | employed or respondents that reported being in vocational | training according to D2010 and those that were not self- | employed according to D2012. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011 & 2014): D2019 | | Respondents with spouses who were not in labor force were | explicitly asked this question with respect to their | spouse's former occupation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2011): D2019 | | This question was asked of all respondents, whether or | not they were married or living with a partner. The Polish | questionnaire included the answer category "I am not married" | Living with a partner was not offer as an answer category. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012 & 2014): D2019 | | Respondents with spouses who were not in labor force were | explicitly asked this question with respect to their | spouse's former occupation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D2020 >>> HOUSEHOLD INCOME --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D20. Household income quintile appropriate to the respondent. .................................................................. 1. LOWEST HOUSEHOLD INCOME QUINTILE 2. SECOND HOUSEHOLD INCOME QUINTILE 3. THIRD HOUSEHOLD INCOME QUINTILE 4. FOURTH HOUSEHOLD INCOME QUINTILE 5. HIGHEST HOUSEHOLD INCOME QUINTILE 6. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D2020 | | Income ranges shown represent sample quintiles (not population | quintiles). | | Where data were deposited in this format, income ranges shown | are as originally reported by collaborators including gaps | between contiguous sets of ranges. | | Where deposited income data were not grouped into sample | quintiles, the data have been recoded into quintiles, according | to sample proportions (not national statistics). For cases where | it was not possible to compute sample quintiles, the income | categories approximating sample quintiles the closest have been | used. Consequently, this variable may contain distributions that | do not really represent quintiles. | | Depending on how the income data was deposited, the variable | reports either monthly or annual income. The table below shows | which of the two applies to the election studies: | | +++ TABLE: INCOME (D2020) MEASURE TYPE BY ELECTION STUDY | | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) MONTHLY INCOME ANNUAL INCOME | ------------------------------------------------------------- | ARGENTINA (2015) X - | AUSTRALIA (2013) - X | AUSTRIA (2013) X - | BRAZIL (2014) X - | BULGARIA (2014) X - | CANADA (2011) - X | CANADA (2015) - X | CZECH REPUBLIC (2013) X - | FINLAND (2015) - X | FRANCE (2012) X - | GERMANY (2013) - X | GREAT BRITAIN (2015) - X | GREECE (2012) - X | GREECE (2015) - X | HONG KONG (2012) X - | ICELAND (2013) X - | IRELAND (2011) - X | ISRAEL (2013) X - | JAPAN (2013) - X | LATVIA (2011) X - | LATVIA (2014) X - | KENYA (2013) X - | MEXICO (2012) X - | MONTENEGRO (2012) X - | NEW ZEALAND (2011) - X | NEW ZEALAND (2014) - X | NORWAY (2013) - X | PERU (2016) X - | POLAND (2011) X - | PORTUGAL (2015) X - | ROMANIA (2012) X - | ROMANIA (2014) X - | SERBIA (2012) X - | SLOVAKIA (2016) X - | SLOVENIA (2011) X - | SOUTH AFRICA (2014) X - | SWEDEN (2014) - X | SWITZERLAND (2011) X - | TAIWAN (2012) X - | THAILAND (2011) X - | TURKEY (2015) X - | UNITED STATES (2012) - X | ------------------------------------------------------------- | KEY: X = yes; - = no. | | Income data are unavailable for SOUTH KOREA (2012). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. less than 5,001 Peso | 02. 5,001 - 6,000 Peso | 03. 6,001 - 9,000 Peso | 04. 9,001 - 13,500 Peso | 05. more than 13,500 Peso | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. less than 30,000 AUS$ | 02. 30,001 - 60,000 AUS$ | 03. 60,001 - 90,000 AUS$ | 04. 90,001 - 140,000 AUS$ | 05. more than 140,000 up to 180,000 AUS$ | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. less than 1,200 EUR | 02. 1,200 - 2,000 EUR | 03. 2,000 - 2,800 EUR | 04. 2,800 - 3,600 EUR | 05. more than 3,600 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D2020 | | This variable was created based on two questions. An open- | ended question first asked respondents to report their income. | Those that did not respond were then asked if their income | fit into one of seven income ranges that the interviewer | provided them with. Quintiles were created based on the | open-ended question. Four of the seven ranges in the second | income question fit the distribution of the quintiles and | were added to the variable. Respondents in the remaining | three categories were coded as missing. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. up to 900 BRL | 02. 920 - 1,460 BRL | 03. 1,500 - 2,000 BRL | 04. 2,008 - 3,000 BRL | 05. more than 3,000 BRL | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2014): D2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. less than 375 BGN | 02. 375 - 580 BGN | 03. 581 - 890 BGN | 04. 891 - 1,300 BGN | 05. more than 1,300 BGN | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011): D2020 | | The variable is from the pre-election study. Respondents were | asked to answer according to their last year's household income. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. 1,000 - 34,000 CAN | 02. 35,000 - 53,000 CAN | 03. 54,000 - 76,000 CAN | 04. 77,000 - 110,000 CAN | 05. 111,000 - 900,000 CAN | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2015): D2020 | | This variable is from the pre-election survey. | Respondents were asked to answer according to their last year’s | household income. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. 1,000 – 40,000 CAN | 02. 41,000 - 70,000 CAN | 03. 71,000 - 100,000 CAN | 04. 101,000 - 140,000 CAN | 05. 141,000 - 900,000 CAN | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2013): D2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. less than 15,999 CZK | 02. 16,000 - 29,999 CZK | 03. 30,000 - 39,999 CZK | 04. 40,000 - 59,999 CZK | 05. more than 60,000 CZK | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2015): D2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. less than 11,999 EUR | 02. 12,000 - 22,999 EUR | 03. 23,000 - 39,999 EUR | 04. 40,000 - 59,999 EUR | 05. more than 60,000 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): D2020 | | The French election study asked about 10 ranges of | household income. Those were collapsed into 5 ranges. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. less than 1,500 EUR | 02. 1,501 - 2,000 EUR | 03. 2,001 - 3,000 EUR | 04. 3,001 - 5,000 EUR | 05. more than 5,000 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D2020 | | The original household income variable had 13 categories. Due to | the distribution, the data does not approximate to quintiles | very well. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. less than 500 to less than 1,250 EUR | 02. 1,250 to less than 1,500 EUR | 03. 1,500 to less than 2,000 EUR | 04. 2,000 to less than 3,000 EUR | 05. 3,000 to 10,000 or more EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): D2020 | | Quintiles were calculated on base of an originally | 15-scaled variable. Resulting distributions are not even. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. less than 10,399 GBP | 02. 10,400 - 20,788 GBP | 03. 20,800 - 36,399 GBP | 04. 36,400 - 59,999 GBP | 05. more than 59,999 GBP | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012 & 2015): D2020 | | The distribution does not approximate to quintiles as the | original questions asked respondents to place themselves | in one of the five closed categories. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. less than 10,000 EUR | 02. 10,001 - 15,000 EUR | 03. 15,001 - 25,000 EUR | 04. 25,001 - 40,000 EUR | 05. more than 40,001 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2013): D2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Up to 260,000 ISK | 02. 261,000-440,000 ISK | 03. 441,000-630,000 ISK | 04. 631,000-900,000 ISK | 05. More than 900,000 ISK | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D2020 | | In the original data, there were 8 categories for ranges of | income and two further categories "no income", "no fixed | income". After recoding, the five categories do not match | quintiles well. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. No income - up to $ 19,999 | 02. $ 10,000 - $ 19,999 | 03. $ 20,000 - $ 29,999 | 04. $ 30,000 - $ 49,000 | 05. $ 50,000 - $ 60,000 or more | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2011): D2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. less than 20,000 EUR | 02. 20,000 - 29,999 EUR | 03. 30,000 - 39,999 EUR | 04. 40,000 - 49,999 EUR | 05. more than 50,000 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2013): D2020 | | Respondents in Israel were asked to place their | household income within the five ranges below. Accordingly, | the data does not match quintiles. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Up to 4,500 NIS | 02. 4,501 - 8,000 NIS | 03. 8,001 - 12,000 NIS | 04. 12,001 - 16,000 NIS | 05. more than 16,000 NIS | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D2020 | | The data provided does not reflect true quintiles derived from | continuous data. The national collaborators asked people about | their income using a 5 point scale. The ranges were designed to | capture an accurate image of the income distribution of people | in Japan. However, responses were under represented in the | sample of the lowest income category because income is a very | sensitive issue in Japan. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. less than 2 million Yen | 02. 2 - 3.5 million Yen | 03. 3.5 - 5.5 million Yen | 04. 5.5 - 8.0 million Yen | 05. more than 8 million Yen | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D2020 | | The deposited income data were not grouped into quintiles. As | the original variable consists of discrete answer categories, | quintiles could only be approximated. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. less than 2,501 KES | 02. 2,600 - 5,000 KES | 03. 5,500 - 10,000 KES | 04. 10,500 - 20,000 KES | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2011): D2020 | | Analysts should be aware that the Latvian election study | deviates from the CSES convention. Respondents were asked for | the last months' after tax salary per family member in the | household. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. less than 85 EUR | 02. 85 - 127 EUR | 03. 130 - 169 EUR | 04. 170 - 247 EUR | 05. more than 247 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2014): D2020 | | Analysts should be aware that the Latvian election study | deviates from the CSES convention. Respondents were asked for | the last months' after tax salary per family member in the | household. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. 0 - 150 EUR | 02. 159 - 230 EUR | 03. 234 - 300 EUR | 04. 320 - 450 EUR | 05. 460 - 3000 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): D2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. less than 2,000 Mexican Pesos | 02. 2,000 - 3,500 Mexican Pesos | 03. 3,501 - 5,000 Mexican Pesos | 04. 5,001 - 7,200 Mexican Pesos | 05. more than 7,200 Mexican Pesos | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2015): D2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. less than 3601 Mexican Pesos | 02. 3700 - 5000 Mexican Pesos | 03. 5200 - 6500 Mexican Pesos | 04. 6600 - 9000 Mexican Pesos | 05. more than 9100 Mexican Pesos | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2012): D2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. less than 200 EUR | 02. 200 - 400 EUR | 03. 401 - 550 EUR | 04. 551 - 800 EUR | 05. more than 800 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011): D2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. less than 28,900 $NZ | 02. 28,900 - 51,399 $NZ | 03. 51,400 - 76,099 $NZ | 04. 76,100 - 110,799 $NZ | 05. more than 110,800 $NZ | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2014): D2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. less than 31,000 $NZ | 02. 31,001 - 55,000 $NZ | 03. 55,001 - 76,100 $NZ | 04. 76,001 - 110,800 $NZ | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. 0 - 385,000 NOK | 02. 390 - 580,000 NOK | 03. 600 - 800,000 NOK | 04. 805 - 1,000,000 NOK | 05. 1,001,000 - 5,000,000 NOK | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): D2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. less than 700 PEN | 02. 700 - 1,200 PEN | 03. 1,200 - 2,000 PEN | 04. 2,000 - 3,400 PEN | 05. more than 3,400 PEN | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. less than 5,000 PHP | 02. 5,000 - 7,200 PHP | 03. 7,201 - 10,000 PHP | 04. 10,001 - 17,000 PHP | 05. more than 17,000 PHP | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2011): D2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. 115 - 890 Zloty | 02. 900 - 1,500 Zloty | 03. 1,520 - 2,300 Zloty | 04. 2,375 - 3,400 Zloty | 05. 3,500 - 30,000 Zloty | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): D2020 | | In general, CSES guidelines request that income be | categorized in sample quintiles. However, to be | consistent with prior Portuguese election studies, | the Portuguese questionnaire asked for the categories | mentioned below. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. less than 300 EUR | 02. 301 - 750 EUR | 03. 751 - 1,500 EUR | 04. 1,501 - 2,500 EUR | 05. more than 2,500 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. less than 600 RON | 02. 601 - 1,000 RON | 03. 1,001 - 1,450 RON | 04. 1,451 - 2,000 RON | 05. more than 2,001 RON | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. less than 635 RON | 02. 640 - 1,100 RON | 03. 1,118 - 1,500 RON | 04. 1,530 - 2,200 RON | 05. more than 2,300 RON | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SERBIA (2012): D2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. less than 19,000 RSD | 02. 20,000 - 29,999 RSD | 03. 30,000 - 49,999 RSD | 04. 50,000 - 69,999 RSD | 05. more than 70,000 RSD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2016): D2020 | | Respondents in the original survey could place themselves in | one of 11 different income categories. These were recoded, as | shown below, such that the distribution within the CSES | categories approximates quintiles. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Up to 150 EUR | 151 - 300 EUR | 301 - 450 EUR | 451 - 600 EUR | 601 - 750 EUR | 02. 751 - 900 EUR | 03. 901 - 1,200 EUR | 04. 1,201-1,500 EUR | 05. 1,501-2,000 EUR | 2,001-3,000 EUR | more than 3,000 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011): D2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. less than 700 EUR | 02. 740 - 1,100 EUR | 03. 1,150 - 1,400 EUR | 04. 1,500 - 2,000 EUR | 05. more than 2,100 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. 0 - 1,500 ZAR | 02. 1,501 - 3,000 ZAR | 03. 3,001 - 5,000 ZAR | 04. 5,001 - 7,500 ZAR | 05. 7,501 - 30,001 ZAR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2014): D2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. less than 261,036 Skr | 02. 261,037 - 411,247 Skr | 03. 411,248 - 608,282 Skr | 04. 608,283 - 795,813 Skr | 05. more than 795,814 Skr | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): D2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. less than 5,000 CHF | 02. 5,001 - 7,000 CHF | 03. 7,001 - 9,000 CHF | 04. 9,000 - 12,000 CHF | 05. more than 12,000 CHF | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. less than 25,000 NT$ | 02. 25,000 - 45,000 NT$ | 03. 45,001 - 75,000 NT$ | 04. 75,001 - 100,000 NT$ | 05. more than 100,000 NT$ | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2011): D2020 | | The income ranges is not distributed as quintiles, | and could not be recalculated in such a manner. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. less than 5,000 Baht | 02. 5,001 - 15,000 Baht | 03. 15,001 - 30,000 Baht | 04. 30,001 - 50,000 Baht | 05. more than 50,000 Baht | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2015): D2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. less than 1,000 TL | 02. 1,000 - 1,250 TL | 03. 1,280 - 1,600 TL | 04. 1,700 - 2,400 TL | 05. more than 2,400 TL | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. under 5,000 - 12,499 US$ | 02. 12,500 - 27,499 US$ | 03. 27,500 - 44,999 US$ | 04. 45,000 - 74,999 US$ | 05. 75,000 - 250,000 US$ or more --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D2021 >>> NUMBER IN HOUSEHOLD IN TOTAL --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D21a. The exact number of persons in household - that is, the number of persons living together in the housing unit excluding paid employees and persons who pay rent for a room. .................................................................. 01.-90. NUMBER OF PERSONS 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D2021 | | Data are unavailable for AUSTRALIA (2013), GREAT BRITAIN (2015), | ISRAEL (2013), UNITED STATES (2012). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011): D2021 | | The variable is from the pre-election study. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2015): D2021 | | This variable is from the pre-election survey. | In the study value "8" means "8 or more". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): D2021 | | There are 12 respondents who answered "zero", although | the question was asked correctly in the questionnaire. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): D2021 | | Seven respondents answered "zero" although the question asked | was "Which is the total number of persons in your household?". | These data remained unchanged. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D2021 | | There are five cases in which the respondent indicated | a number of persons living in the household, which exceeds 20. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D2022 >>> NUMBER IN HOUSEHOLD UNDER AGE 18 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D21b. Number of persons in household under the age of 18. .................................................................. 00.-90. NUMBER OF PERSONS 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D2022 | | See notes on D2021. | | Data are unavailable for AUSTRALIA (2013), FRANCE (2012), | GREAT BRITAIN (2015), ISRAEL (2013), SERBIA (2012). | | There are some instances in which the number of persons | in household is equal to or less than the number of persons | under age 18. These data remained unchanged. For further details | and explanations see Elections Study Notes on D2021 and D2022. | | +++ TABLE: FREQUENCIES ON D2022 FOR HOUSEHOLDS, WHERE THE | NUMBER OF CHILDREN UNDER 18 IS EQUAL OR BIGGER | THAN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS (D2021) | | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) EQUAL BIGGER | ------------------------------------------------------------- | ARGENTINA (2015) 0 3 | AUSTRIA (2013) 4 0 | BRAZIL (2014) 48 6 | CANADA (2011) 8 3 | CZECH REPUBLIC (2013) 4 0 | FINLAND (2015) 10 11 | GREECE (2012) 3 0 | GREECE (2015) 22 0 | HONG KONG (2012) 10 0 | ICELAND (2013) 2 0 | IRELAND (2011) 5 0 | JAPAN (2013) 2 0 | KENYA (2013) 16 12 | LATVIA (2011) 2 0 | MEXICO (2015) 3 2 | MONTENEGRO (2012) 6 0 | SOUTH AFRICA (2014) 16 1 | SWITZERLAND (2011) 8 0 | TAIWAN (2012) 2 0 | THAILAND (2011) 10 2 | ------------------------------------------------------------- | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011 & 2015): D2022 | | The variable is from the pre-election study. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D2022 | | The Norwegian election study asked about respondent's | household's number of persons under the age of 16 instead of | under the age of 18. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D2022 | | On the basis of the original answer categories, we could not | code the number of children under age 18 but only the following | categories: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 00. None | 01. One child under 18 | 02. Two or more children under 18 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D2023 >>> NUMBER IN HOUSEHOLD UNDER AGE 6 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D21c. Number of persons in household under the age of 6. .................................................................. 00.-90. NUMBER OF PERSONS 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D2023 | | See notes on D2021 and D2022. | | Data are unavailable for ARGENTINA (2015), AUSTRALIA (2013), | CANADA (2011), GREAT BRITAIN (2015), ICELAND (2013), IRELAND | (2011), ISRAEL (2013), NEW ZEALAND(2011), NEW ZELAND (2014), | NORWAY (2013), POLAND (2011), SERBIA (2012), SWITZERLAND (2011), | TAIWAN (2012), UNITED STATES (2012). | | There are some instances in which the number of persons | in household is equal to or less than the number of persons | under age 6. These data remained unchanged. For further details | and explanations see Elections Study Notes on D2021 and D2023. | | +++ TABLE: FREQUENCIES ON D2023 FOR HOUSEHOLDS, WHERE THE | NUMBER OF CHILDREN UNDER 6 IS BIGGER THAN THE TOTAL | NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS UNDER 18 (D2022) | | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) BIGGER | ------------------------------------------------------------- | CZECH REPUBLIC (2013) 7 | GREECE (2015) 16 | JAPAN (2013) 5 | KENYA (2013) 75 | LATVIA (2011) 15 | LATVIA (2014) 7 | MEXICO (2015) 149 | MONTENEGRO (2012) 4 | ROMANIA (2012) 2 | SOUTH AFRICA (2014) 12 | SOUTH KOREA (2012) 10 | THAILAND (2011) 8 | ------------------------------------------------------------- | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2015): D2023 | | This variable is from the pre-election survey. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D2024 >>> RELIGIOUS SERVICES ATTENDANCE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D22. Attendance at religious services. .................................................................. 1. NEVER 2. ONCE A YEAR 3. TWO TO ELEVEN TIMES A YEAR 4. ONCE A MONTH 5. TWO OR MORE TIMES A MONTH 6. ONCE A WEEK/MORE THAN ONCE A WEEK 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D2024 | | This variable is an optional variable in the CSES battery. | As a result, it was not carried in all of the studies. | In some studies, this item was included but with different | response categories. | | Researchers should note the CSES questionnaire of origin | does not include any filter instructions in the demographic | section. Consequently, D2024 is asked irrespectively of | individuals' religious denomination. | | Data are unavailable for BULGARIA (2014), CANADA (2011), CANADA | (2015), IRELAND (2011), NORWAY (2013), TAIWAN (2012). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D2024 | | The original Australian question included an additional | answer category, "Less than once a year". This | answer option was recoded in the CSES category to '1.NEVER'. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Never | Less than once a year | 02. At least once a year | 03. Several times a year | 04. At least once a month | 06. At least once a week | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D2024 | | The Brazilian questionnaire included response options | that differed slightly from the CSES categories. | The variable was recoded as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Never goes to a church | 02. Rarely | 03. Sometimes a year | 04. Once or twice a month | 06. More than once a week | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): D2024 | | The original French questionnaire included answer options that | differed from the CSES categories. The variable was recoded in | the following way: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Never | 02. Only for ceremonies like baptisms, marriages, | funerals | 03. From Time to time, for important festivities | 04. Once or twice a month | 06. Once a week | Several times a week | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D2024 | | In the German questionnaire, the interviewer instruction refers | to religious service in a church, mosque or synagogue, excluding | prayer during Ramadan. No instruction to not count special | occasions such as funerals and weddings is provided. There are | also some slight differences in two of the categories used in | Germany compared to the CSES convention (see below): | | CSES-Code Election study code/category | 03. Several times a year | 05. Two to three times a month | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): D2024 | |The BES religious service attendance question was only |asked to those who stated a religious denomination in an |earlier question and the variable was recoding as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Never or practically never | Varies too much to say | Less often | 02. Less often but at least once a year | 03. Less often but at least twice a year | 04. Less often but at least once a month | 05. Less often but at least once in two weeks | 06. Once a week or more | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2013): D2024 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 06. Once a week or more than once a week | every day | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D2024 | | Data for Japan includes many cases, where respondents said they | never attend religious services. However, this should not be | interpreted as high levels of atheism or agnosticism. Japanese | collaborators pointed out, that "this is nothing strange for | Japanese. In many homes, especially in country side, people have | their own small Buddhist temple, or small Shinto altar. These | are the targets of their daily religious practice, even they are | not much religious in their mind. This is a kind of custom." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2015): D2024 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 05. Two or three times a month | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011): D2024 | | Respondents should explicitly not include Weddings, funerals | and baptisms in answering how often they attend religious | services. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2016): D2024 | | The original Slovak questionnaire included an additional | answer category, "less often" (referring to one year). This | answer option was recoded into the CSES category to '1.NEVER'. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Never | Less often (than a year) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2015): D2024 | | The Turkish election study asked about the frequency of prayer | (specifically Muslim prayer, salat or namaz) within the last | year. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D2024 | | The original US questionnaire include answer options that | slightly differ from the CSES categories. Specifically, a | category for "once a year" (CSES code 2) was not included in | the US-questionnaire. The variable was recoded in the | following way: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 03. A few times a year | 04. Once or twice a month | 05. Almost every week --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D2025 >>> RELIGIOSITY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D23. Religiosity. .................................................................. 1. HAVE NO RELIGIOUS BELIEFS 2. NOT VERY RELIGIOUS 3. SOMEWHAT RELIGIOUS 4. VERY RELIGIOUS 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D2025 | | Researchers should note that the CSES questionnaire of origin | does not include any filter instructions in the demographic | section. Consequently, D2025 is asked irrespectively of | individuals' religious denomination. | | Data are unavailable for ARGENTINA (2015), AUSTRALIA (2013), | GREAT BRITAIN (2015) IRELAND (2011), NEW ZEALAND (2014), NORWAY | (2013), SWITZERLAND (2011), TAIWAN (2012), UNITED STATES (2012). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D2025 | | In the 2014 Brazilian original questionnaire, | categories differed from the CSES categories slightly in | their wording and coding. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Not religious | 02. Little religious | 03. Religious | 04. Very religious | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011 & 2015): D2025 | | This variable is from the pre-election survey. | The original wording of the question asked in the election study | was "In your life, would you say religion is VERY important, | SOMEWHAT important, NOT VERY important, or NOT IMPORTANT at | all?" Here we provide details on how it was recoded: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Not important at all | 02. Not very important | 03. Somewhat important | 04. Very important | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D2025 | | In the Hong Kong election study, respondents were first asked a | dichotomous yes-no question, if they had religious beliefs. | Respondents who answered that they had no religious beliefs | were coded into category 1. For the others, a second question | asked if they were not very, somewhat, or very religious. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2013): D2025 | | The Israeli Election Study asked respondents how strongly | respondents observed religious traditions rather than beliefs | with the following answer categories: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. I do not observe the tradition | 02. I observe tradition to a limited degree | 03. I observe tradition to a large degree | 04. I observe tradition meticulously | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D2025 | | See note for D2024. In Japan, having no religious beliefs does | not equate to being agnostic or atheistic. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011): D2025 | | The categories applied in the Slovenian study | differ somewhat from the CSES model. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Not religious | 02. Cannot say if religious | 03. Religious --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D2026 >>> RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D24. Religious denomination. .................................................................. CHRISTIANISM 1000. CHRISTIAN (NO DENOMINATION GIVEN) CATHOLIC 1101. ROMAN CATHOLIC 1102. EASTERN (GREEK RITE) CATHOLIC CHURCHES 1199. CATHOLIC, OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] PROTESTANT 1200. PROTESTANT, NO DENOMINATION GIVEN 1201. ADVENTIST 1203. BAPTIST 1204. CONGREGATIONAL 1205. EUROPEAN FREE CHURCH (ANABAPTISTS, MENNONITES) 1206. HOLINESS 1207. FUNDAMENTALIST 1208. LUTHERAN 1209. METHODIST 1210. PENTECOSTAL 1211. PRESBYTERIAN 1212. CALVINIST 1213. SALVATION ARMY/SALVATIONIST 1214. CHRISTIAN BRETHEN 1215. CHURCHES OF CHRIST 1216. REFORMED CHURCHES 1217. PROTESTANT CHURCH OF THE NETHERLANDS 1298. PROTESTANT, OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 1299. PROTESTANT, OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] ANGLICAN 1300. EPISCOPALIAN, ANGLICAN, CHURCH OF ENGLAND, CHURCH OF IRELAND INDEPENDENTS-NON-AFFILIATED 1401. INDEPENDENT-FUNDAMENTALIST 1410. APOSTOLIC 1420. UNITED CHURCHES 1499. INDEPENDENT, OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] NON-TRADITIONAL PROTESTANTS 1501. CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS 1502. MORMONS, CHURCH OF LATTER DAY SAINTS 1503. UNITARIAN UNIVERSALISTS 1504. JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES 1599. NON-TRADITIONAL PROTESTANT, OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] ORTHODOX 1600. EASTERN ORTHODOX 1699. ORTHODOX, OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] JEWISH 2000. JEWISH ISLAM 3000. MUSLIM; MOHAMMEDAN; ISLAM (NO DENOMINATION GIVEN) 3100. SUNNI 3200. SHI'ISM 3210. ISMA'ILIS 3211. DRUSE BUDDHISM 4000. BUDDHIST 4100. THERAVADA 4200. MAHAYANA HINDUISM AND OTHER RELIGIONS OF INDIA 5000. HINDU 5010. PARSIISM 5020. VAISHNAVISM 5030. SHAIVISM 5040. SHAKTISM 5500. JAINISM 5600. SIKHISM INDIGENOUS RELIGIONS OF EAST ASIA 6100. CONFUCIANISM 6200. TAOISM 6300. SHINTO 6400. NEW RELIGIONSISTS 6401. I-KUAN-TAO 6500. TRADITIONAL FOLK BELIEF/NICHIREN SHSHU ETHNORELIGIONS/OTHER BELIEVER 7100. PAGAN, HEATHEN, TRIBAL RELIGIONSIST, TRADITIONAL RELIGIONIST, ANIMISM, SHAMANISM 7110. RATANA, MAORI 7200. SPIRITISM 7500. BAHAI 7900. EHTNORELIGIONIST, OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7901. EHTNORELIGIONIST, OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] NON BELIEVERS 8100. AGNOSTIC 8200. ATHEIST 8300. NONE OTHERS 9001. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 9002. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 9003. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 9004. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 9005. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 9006. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 9007. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 9008. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 9009. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 9600. OTHER: NOT SPECIFIED 9997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 9998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D2026 | | Researchers should note that the CSES questionnaire of origin | does not include any filter instructions in the demographic | section. | | Data are unavailable for IRELAND (2011) and SWEDEN (2014). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D2026 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 1199. Catholic - not Roman | 1298. Other Protestant | 9001. Armenian Apostolic | 9002. Latter Day Saints | 9003. Seventh Day Adventist | 9004. Other Non-Christian | 9005. Other, not further specified | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D2026 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 1599. Mormon Church, Jehova Witness | 7100. Candombla (African religion) | Umbanda | 7200. Espiritualism | 7900. Seisho-No-Ie, World Messianic Church, Perfect | Liberty | 7901. Santo Daime, Esoteric | 8300. Atheist/agnostic/ Doesn't believe in God | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011): D2026 | | The variable is from the pre-election study. The original | study combined CSES codes "8300. NONE" and "8200. ATHEIST." | This was recoded into "8300. NONE." | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 1298. Christian Reform | 1420. United Church of Canada | 1699. Greek/Ukrainian/Russian Orthodox | 8300. None, don't have one / Atheist | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2015): D2026 | | This variable is from the pre-election study. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 1298. Christian Reform | 1420. United Church of Canada | 1699. Greek/Ukrainian/Russian Orthodox | 8300. None, don't have one / Atheist | 9001. Don't know / Agnostic | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D2026 | | The German questionnaire employed a closed question with six | broad categories for this variable. Four of these could not be | matched to the more detailed categories of the CSES. Instead, | they were recoded as other categories, see below: | | CSES-Code Election study code/category | 1298. Evangelical Church in Germany (without Free | Church) | 1299. One of the free protestant churches | 9001. Some other Christian | 9002. Other, non Christian | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D2026 | | There are many missing's in this variable due to a lot | of persons not having any religious beliefs as of D2025. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 9001. Tibetan Buddhist | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D2026 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 1699. Christian, Orthodox | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2014): D2026 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 1298. Gospel of Faith (protestant group) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2015): D2026 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 1298. Evangelical | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2012): D2026 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 1600. All respondents with this code are Serbian | Orthodox' | 1699. 'Montenegrin Orthodox' | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011): D2026 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 1298. Evangelical | 9001. Free Church of Tonga | 9002. Disciple living Mast | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2014): D2026 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 1298. Evangelical | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D2026 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 1298. Church of Norway, a state church with an | Evangelical-Lutheran orientation | 1299. Protestant denominations independent from the | Church of Norway, including Evangelical Lutheran | Free Church of Norway and Baptist Church of | Norway | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): D2026 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 1599. Non-traditional Protestants | 9001. Israelites of the New Universal Pact | (Israelita del Nuevo Pacto Universal) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D2026 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 1199. ECUMENICAL CATHOLIC CHURCH | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SERBIA (2012): D2026 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories | 1298. 3. Evangelical | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D2026 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 1199. Copts | 1298. Evangelical | 1299. Quaker / Friends | 1499. African Independent Church | 7100. Traditional / ethnic religion | not further specified | 9001. Zionist Christian | 9002. Seventh Day Adventist | 9003. Dutch Reformed (e.g. NGK, NHK, GK, | Mission, APK, URC) | 9004. Rastafarian | 9005. Assembly of God | 9006. St Johns Church | 9007. Twelve Apostles | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D2026 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 1199. Catholic (not further specified) | 9001. Buddhism and Taoism | 9004. White Lotus | 9005. Soka Gakkai | 9006. The Lord of Universe Church | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D2026 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 1298. Evangelical | 1299. Quakers; Friends | 1699. Serbian Orthodox | 9001. Spiritualist | 9002. Religious Science; Science of Mind (not | Scientology, not Christian Science) | 9003. Conservative | 9004. Reform | 9005. Other: More than 1 major religion (e.g. | Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc.) | 9006. American Indian Religions, Native American | Religions | 9007. Wicca; Wiccan --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D2027 >>> LANGUAGE USUALLY SPOKEN AT HOME --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D25. This variable reports the language usually spoken in the respondent's household. If more than one language is spoken at home, this variable reports the language spoken most of the time. .................................................................. 001. AFRIKAANS 002. ALBANIAN, ARVANITIKA 003. ALBANIAN, GHEG 004. ALBANIAN, TOSK 005. ALLEMANNISCH 006. ALSATIAN 007. ARABIC, JUDEO-MOROCCAN 008. ARABIC, LEVANTINE (ISRAEL) 009. ARMENIAN 201. ASHANTI (GHANA) 237. ASYRIAN 010. AVAR (RUSSIA) 011. AWADHI (INDIA) 012. AYMARA, CENTRAL (ARGENTINA, PERU) 231. AZERI 013. BASQUE 234. BALKAR 014. BELORUSSIAN 015. BEMBA (ZAMBIA) 016. BENGALI, BANGLADESHI, BANGLA (INDIA) 017. BHOJPURI (INDIA) 244. BICOLANO (PHILIPPINES) 265. BISAYA (PHILIPPINES) 270. B'LAAN (PHILIPPINES) 202. BLUCH (PAKISTAN) 263. BOHOLANO (PHILIPPINES) 018. BOSNIAN 019. BRETON 020. BULGARIAN 260. CAGAYANO (PHILIPPINES) 258. CANTILAGNON (PHILIPPINES) 273. CAPIZNON (PHILIPPINES) 021. CATALAN 241. CEBUANO (PHILIPPINES) 276. CENTRAL THAI 022. CHECHEN (RUSSIA) 203. CHINESE, CANTONESE 023. CHINESE, HAKKA 024. CHINESE, MANDARIN 025. CHINESE, MIN NAN 026. CHUVASH (RUSSIA) 027. CROATIAN 028. CZECH 029. DANISH 030. DECCAN (INDIA) 204. DORIC (SCOTLAND) 031. DUTCH 032. ENGLISH 033. ERZYA (RUSSIA) 205. ESAN (NIGERIA) 034. ESTONIAN 206. EWE (GHANA) 209. FARSI (IRAN) 035. FINNISH 036. FRENCH 037. FRISIAN, WESTERN (NETHERLANDS) 038. FULACUNDA (SENEGAL) 207. GA (GHANA) 039. GAELIC, IRISH 208. GAELIC (SCOTLAND) 040. GAGAUZ (MOLDOVA) 041. GALICIAN 042. GASCON 043. GEORGIAN 044. GERMAN, STANDARD 045. GREEK 046. GUARANI, PARAGUAYAN 047. GUJARATI (SOUTH AFRICA, INDIA) 048. HEBREW 266. HIGAONON (PHILIPPINES) 274. HILIGAYNON (PHILIPPINES) 049. HUNGARIAN 051. HINDI 050. ICELANDIC 259. IFUGAO (PHILIPPINES) 242. ILOCANO (PHILIPPINES) 243. ILONGGO (PHILIPPINES) 210. INDONESIAN 211. IRANIAN 254. IRANUN (PHILIPPINES) 278. ISAN THAI 052. ITALIAN 249. ITAWES (PHILIPPINES) 212. IWO (UGANDA) 053. JAKATI (MOLDOVA) 213. JAMAICAN PATOIS 275. JAMINDANON (PHILIPPINES) 054. JAPANESE 280. KAMAE (THAILAND) 257. KAMAYO (PHILIPPINES) 055. KANNADA (INDIA) 056. KAONDE (ZAMBIA) 245. KAPAMPANGAN (PHILIPPINES) 057. KARAIM (LITHUANIA) 261. KARAY-AY (PHILIPPINES) 233. KARBADIN 058. KIRMANJKI (TURKEY) 235. KOMI 279. KORATCH (THAILAND) 066. KOREAN 232. KURDISH 059. KURMANJI (TURKEY) 060. LADINO (ISRAEL) 061. LALA-BISA (ZAMBIA) 062. LAMBA (ZAMBIA) 277. LANNA THAI 063. LATVIAN 064. LENJE (ZAMBIA) 065. LESSER ANTILLEAN CREOLE 268. LEYTENO (PHILIPPINES) 067. LIGURIAN 068. LITHUANIAN 069. LOMBARD 070. LOZI (ZAMBIA) 071. LUNDA (ZAMBIA) 072. LUVALE (ZAMBIA) 073. MACEDONIAN 251. MAGUINDANAON (PHILIPPINES) 074. MAITHILI (INDIA) 229. MALLORQUIN 267. MALAUEG (PHILIPPINES) 075. MALAY 076. MALAYALAM (INDIA) 077. MALINKE (SENEGAL) 214. MALTESE 253. MANOBO (PHILIPPINES) 250. MASBATENO (PHILIPPINES) 215. MENDE (SIERRA LEONE) 216. MIRPUARY/MIRPUIR (PAKISTAN) 217. MNADINGGO (GAMBIA) 078. MAMBWE-LUNGU (ZAMBIA) 079. MANDINKA (SENEGAL) 080. MAORI 081. MAPUDUNGUN (CHILE) 082. MARATHI (INDIA) 083. MBOWE (ZAMBIA) 084. MINGRELIAN (GEORGIA) 085. MONTENEGRIN 255. MUSLIM (PHILIPPINES) 086. MWANGA (ZAMBIA) 087. NEAPOLITAN-CALABRESE 088. NORWEGIAN 089. NSENGA (ZAMBIA) 090. NYANJA (ZAMBIA) 091. NYIHA (ZAMBIA) 092. ORIYA (INDIA) 093. OSETIN (GEORGIA) 218. PAHARI (PAKISTAN) 246. PANGASINENSE (PHILIPPINES) 094. PANJABI, EASTERN (INDIA) 236. PERSIAN 095. PIEMONTESE 096. POLISH 097. PORTUGUESE 098. PROVENCAL 248. PULANGI-ON (PHILIPPINES) 219. PUSHTO (PAKISTAN) 099. QUECHUA, ANCASH, HUAYLAS 100. QUECHUA, SOUTH BOLIVIAN (ARGENTINA) 101. QUECH UA, AYACUCHO 102. QUICHUA, HIGHLAND, IMBABURA 103. ROMANI, BALKAN 104. ROMANI, CARPATHIAN 105. ROMANI, VLACH 106. RUMANIAN 107. RUMANIAN, ISTRO 108. RUMANIAN, MACEDO 109. RUSSIAN 110. SARDINIAN, LOGUDORESE 220. SARAKI (PAKISTAN) 111. SCHWYZERDUTSCH (SWITZERLAND) 112. SERB 113. SERBO-CROATIAN 114. SERERE-SINE (SENEGAL) 264. SIBANIN (PHILIPPINES) 115. SICILIAN 116. SINDHI (SINGAPORE, INDIA) 272. SIPIANON (PHILIPPINES) 117. SLOVAK 118. SLOVENIAN 221. SOMALI 262. SORIGAONON (PHILIPPINES) 119. SOTHO, NORTHERN (SOUTH AFRICA) 120. SOTHO, SOUTHERN (SOUTH AFRICA) 281. SOUTHERN THAI 121. SPANISH 222. SWAHILI 122. SWATI (SOUTH AFRICA) 123. SWEDISH 240. TAGALOG (PHILIPPINES) 256. TAGON-ON (PHILIPPINES) 124. TAMIL (INDIA) 125. TATAR (RUSSIA) 269. T'BOLI (PHILIPPINES) 126. TELUGU (INDIA) 127. TIBETAN 128. TICANESE (SWITZERLAND) 252. TIRURAY (PHILIPPINES_ 129. TONGA (ZAMBIA) 130. TOUCOULEUR (SENEGAL) 131. TSONGA (SOUTH AFRICA) 132. TSWANA (SOUTH AFRICA) 133. TUMBUKA (ZAMBIA) 134. TURKISH 223. TWI (GHANA) 135. UKRAINIAN 224. UGANDAN 230. UDMURT 136. URDU (INDIA) 228. VALENCIANO 225. VIETNAMESE 137. VENETIAN 247. WARAY (PHILIPPINES) 139. WELSH 140. WOLOF (SENEGAL) 138. XHOSA (SOUTH AFRICA) 141. YAHUDIC (ISRAEL) 142. YIDDISH 226. YORUBA (NIGERIA) 271. ZAMBAL (PHILIPPINES) 143. ZULU 980. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 981. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 982. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 983. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 984. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 985. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 986. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 987. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 988. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 989. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 990. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 991. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 992. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 993. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 994. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 995. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 996. OTHER: NOT SPECIFIED 997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D2027 | | Coding of D2027 follows the scheme of D1030 (language of | questionnaire administration). | | Data are unavailable for BRAZIL (2014), CANADA (2011), CANADA | (2015), CZECH REPUBLIC (2013), GREAT BRITAIN (2015), ICELAND | (2013), IRELAND (2011), NORWAY (2013), PORTUGAL (2015), | SLOVAKIA (2016), SLOVENIA (2011), SWITZERLAND (2011), | UNITED STATES(2012). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D2027 | | The original mail-back survey asked if "English" was the main | language spoken by the respondents at home. Those who answered | "No" were coded as "996". No further information was provided. | The high number of missing data can be a consequence of the | survey mode, with many respondents not providing an answer. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 996. Non-English speakers | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D2027 | | Only respondents with a migrant background or who reported | having partners with a migrant background were asked this | question. Respondents who did not answer the questions | regarding their own or their partner's migrant background | were code 'missing'. All other respondents were coded to | '44. German'. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 980. Chinese - Chaozhou-ese | 981. Other. Answers included other Chinese dialects | like "Shanghai-ese", "Xiamen-ese" and a local | Pakistani dialect. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 980. Kikuyu | 981. Luo | 982. Luhya | 983. Kamba | 984. Kalenjin | 985. Embu | 986. Kisii | 987. Meru | 988. Maasai | 989. Mijikenda | 990. Taita | 991. Pokot | 992. Tharaka | 993. Pokomo | 994. Borana | 995. Oromo | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2011): D2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 980. English, Russian, Latvian, Hebrew | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2014): D2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 980. Latvian and Russian | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): D2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 980. Maya | 982. Totonaco | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2012): D2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 980. Albanian and Montenegrin | 981. Albanian, Montenegrin, Croatian | 982. Albanian and Croatian | 983. Montenegrin and Serbian | 984. Montenegrin, Serbian and Bosnian | 985. Montenegrin, Serbian, Bosnian, Croatian | 986. Serbian, Croatian, Hungarian, Russian | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011): D2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 980. Cook Island Maori, Samoan, Tongan, Tuvaluan or | other Pacific Islands' languages | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2014): D2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 980. Samoan | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): D2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 995. Quechua, not further specified | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 980. Gujirathi | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 980. Taiwanese | 981. Mandarin and Taiwanese | 982. Mandarin and Hakka | 983. Taiwanese and Hakka | 984. Mandarin, Taiwanese and Hakka | 986. Other Chinese dialect | 987. Mandarin and other Chinese dialect | 988. Mandarin and Japanese | 989. Mandarin, Taiwanese and Japanese | 991. Mandarin and aboriginal language | 992. Burmese language | 993. Mandarin, Taiwanese and English | 994. Mandarin and English | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2011): D2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 980. Tribal language --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D2028 >>> REGION OF RESIDENCE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D27. This variable reports the respondent's region of residence. Regions are usually (but not always) based upon the social, cultural, or historical differences (though some correspond to administrative regions) that manifest themselves in political cleavages .................................................................. 01.-80. REGION CODES [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D2028 | | Data are unavailable for HONG KONG (2012), IRELAND (2011), | ISRAEL (2013), KENYA (2013), MEXICO (2012). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D2028 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Buenos Aires Capital | 02. Buenos Aires State | 03. Chaco | 04. Cordoba | 05. Corrientes | 06. Entre Rios | 07. Jujuy | 08. La Rioja | 09. Mendoza | 10. Neuquen | 11. Rio Negro | 12. Santa Fe | 13. Santiage del Estero | 14. Tucuman | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D2028 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. New South Wales | 02. Victoria | 03. Queensland | 04. South Australia | 05. Western Australia | 06. Tasmania | 07. Northern Territory | 08. Australian Capital Territory | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D2028 | | The Austrian Bundesland Vienna is not included in | D2028, although a number of persons report a ballot cast in one | of Vienna's electoral districts, according to D2032. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Burgenland | 02. Carinthia | 03. Lower Austria | 04. Upper Austria | 05. Salzburg | 06. Styria | 07. Tyrol | 08. Vorarlberg | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2014): D2028 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Blagoevgrad | 02. Bourgas | 03. Varna | 04. Veliko Tarnovo | 05. Vidin | 06. Vratsa | 07. Gabrovo | 08. Dobrich | 09. Kardzhali | 10. Kyustendil | 11. Lovech | 12. Montana | 13. Pazardzhik | 14. Pernik | 15. Pleven | 16. Plovdiv | 17. Razgrad | 18. Rousse | 19. Silistra | 20. Sliven | 21. Smolyan | 22. Sofia city | 23. Sofia region | 24. Stara Zagora | 25. Targovishte | 26. Haskovo | 27. Shoumen | 28. Yambol | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011 & 2015): D2028 | | The three Northern regions, Yukon, Northwest | Territories and Nunavut were not sampled. They contain about | 0.32% of the population. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 10. Newfoundland | 11. Prince Edward Island | 12. Nova Scotia | 13. New Brunswick | 24. Quebec | 35. Ontario | 46. Manitoba | 47. Saskatchewan | 48. Alberta | 59. British Columbia | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2013): D2028 | | CSES-Code Election study code/category | 01. Prague | 02. Benesov | 03. Beroun | 05. Kolin | 06. Kutna Hora | 07. Melnik | 08. Mlada Boleslav | 09. Nymburk | 10. Prague-East | 12. Pribram | 13. Rakovnik | 14. Ceske Budejovice | 15. Cesky Krumlov | 16. Jindrichuv Hradec | 17. Pisek | 18. Prachatice | 20. Tabor | 21. Domazlice | 22. Klatovy | 23. Plzen-town | 24. Plzen-South | 25. Plzen-North | 26. Rokycany | 28. Cheb | 29. Karlovy Vary | 30. Sokolov | 31. Decin | 33. Litomerice | 34. Louny | 35. Most | 36. Teplice in Bohemia | 37. Usti nad Labem | 38. Ceska Lipa | 39. Jablonec nad Nisou | 40. Liberec | 41. Semily | 42. Hradec Kralove | 43. Jicin | 44. Nachod | 45. Rychnov nad Kneznou | 46. Trutnov | 47. Chrudim | 48. Pardubice | 49. Svitavy | 50. Usti nad Orlici | 51. Havlickuv Brod | 52. Jihlava | 53. Pelhrimov | 54. Trebic | 55. Zdar nad Sazavou | 56. Blansko | 57. Brno-town | 58. Brno-countryside | 59. Breclav | 60. Hodonin | 61. Vyskov | 62. Znojmo | 63. Jesenik | 64. Olomouc | 65. Prostejov | 66. Prerov | 67. Sumperk | 68. Kromeriz | 69. Uherske Hradiste | 70. Vsetin | 71. Zlin | 72. Bruntal | 73. Frydek-Mistek | 74. Karvina | 75. Novy Jicin | 76. Opava | 77. Ostrava-town | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2015): D2028 | | The region Aland Islands was not sampled. Approximately | 0.49% of the population are therefore not included in the | sample frame. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Uusimaa | 02. Varsinais-Suomi | 04. Satakunta | 05. Kanta-Haeme | 06. Pirkanmaa | 07. Paeijaet-Haeme | 08. Kymenlaakso | 09. South Karelia | 10. Etelae-Savo | 11. Pohjois-Savo | 12. North Karelia | 13. Central Finland | 14. South Ostrobothnia | 15. Ostrobothnia | 16. Central Ostrobothnia | 17. North Ostrobothnia | 18. Kainuu | 19. Lapland | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D2028 | | CSES-Code Election study code/category | 01. Baden-Wuerttemberg | 02. Bavaria | 03. Berlin | 04. Brandenburg | 05. Bremen | 06. Hamburg | 07. Hesse | 08. Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania | 09. Lower Saxony | 10. North Rhine-Westphalia | 11. Rhineland Palatinate | 12. Saarland | 13. Saxony | 14. Saxony-Anhalt | 15. Schleswig-Holstein | 16. Thuringia | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): D2028 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. North East | 02. North West | 03. Yorkshire and the Humber | 04. East Midlands | 05. West Midlands | 06. East of England | 07. London | 08. South East | 09. South West | 10. Wales | 11. Scotland | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012): D2028 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Anatoliki Makedonia, Thraki | 02. Kentriki and Dytiki Makedonia | 03. Thessalia | 04. Ipeiros and Ionia Nisia | 05. Dytiki Ellada | 06. Sterea Ellada | 07. Peloponnisos | 08. Attiki | 09. Aigaio and Kriti | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): D2028 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 02. Prefecture of Aitoloakarnania | 03. Prefecture of Argolida | 04. Prefecture of Arcadia | 05. Prefecture of Arta | 06. Prefecture of Attica | 07. Prefecture of Achaia | 08. Prefecture of Voiotia | 10. Prefecture of Drama | 11. Prefecture of Dodecanese | 12. Prefecture of Evros | 13. Prefecture of Evoia | 14. Prefecture of Evritania | 15. Prefecture of Zakynthos | 16. Prefecture of Ilia | 17. Prefecture of Imathia | 18. Prefecture of Heracleion | 19. Prefecture of Thesprotia | 20. Prefecture of Thessaloniki | 21. Prefecture of Ioannina | 22. Prefecture of Kavala | 23. Prefecture of Karditsa | 24. Prefecture of Kastoria | 25. Prefecture of Kerkyra | 28. Prefecture of Kozani | 29. Prefecture of Corinthia | 30. Prefecture of Cyclades | 31. Prefecture of Lakonia | 32. Prefecture of Larisa | 34. Prefecture of Lesvos | 36. Prefecture of Magnesia | 37. Prefecture of Messinia | 38. Prefecture of Xanthi | 39. Prefecture of Pella | 40. Prefecture of Pieria | 41. Prefecture of Preveza | 42. Prefecture of Rethimnon | 43. Prefecture of Rodopi | 45. Prefecture of Serres | 46. Prefecture of Trikala | 47. Prefecture of Fthiotida | 48. Prefecture of Florina | 49. Prefecture of Fokida | 51. Prefecture of Chania | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2013): D2028 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Capital area | 02. Reykjanes Peninsula | 03. West | 04. Westfjords | 05. North-West | 06. North-East | 07. East | 08. South | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D2028 | | The data provided for regions overlaps with the primary electoral | electoral districts. Please see the Part 4 of the Codebook | Part 4 for the district labels. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2011 & 2014): D2028 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Riga | 02. Vidzeme | 03. Kurzeme | 04. Zemgale | 05. Latgale | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2015): D2028 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Northwest | 02. Northeast | 03. West | 04. East | 05. North-Central | 06. South-Central | 07. Southeast | 08. Southwest | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2012): D2028 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Budva | 02. Andrijevica | 03. Bar | 04. Berane | 05. Bijelo polje | 06. Cetinje | 07. Danilovgrad | 08. Herceg Novi | 09. Kolasin | 10. Kotor | 11. Mojkovac | 12. Niksic | 13. Plav | 14. Pljevlja | 15. Pluzine | 16. Podgorica | 17. Rozaje | 18. Savnik | 19. Tivat | 20. Ulcinj | 21. Zabljak | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011 & 2014): D2028 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Auckland Urban | 02. Rest of North Island | 03. South Island | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D2028 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Oslofjord | 02. Inner East of Norway | 03. Southern Norway | 04. Western Norway | 05. Trandelag | 06. Northern Norway | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): D2028 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 02. Ancash | 04. Arequipa | 05. Ayacucho | 06. Cajamarca | 07. Callao | 08. Cusco | 09. Huancavelica | 10. Huanuco | 11. Ica | 12. Junin | 13. La Libertad | 14. Lambayeque | 15. Lima | 16. Loreto | 20. Piura | 21. Puno | 22. San Martin | 23. Tacna | 25. Ucayali | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): D2028 | | The regions of residence had been the baseline for the | Philippine sampling process (for further details, see | Part 6 of the Codebook). All four regions include a similar | number of respondents (n=300). Weight D1010_1 can be applied | to correct for different probabilities to be sampled. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. National capital region | 02. Balance Luzon | 03. Visayas | 04. Mindanao | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2011): D2028 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Dolnoslaskie | 02. Kujawsko-pomorskie | 03. Lubelskie | 04. Lubuskie | 05. Lodzkie | 06. Malopolskie | 07. Mazowieckie | 08. Opolskie | 09. Podkarpackie | 10. Podlaskie | 11. Pomorskie | 12. Slaskie | 13. Swietokrzyskie | 14. Warminsko-mazurskie | 15. Wielkopolskie | 16. Zachodniopomorskie | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): D2028 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. North | 02. Center | 03. Lisbon and Tagus Valley | 04. Alentejo | 05. Algarve | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012 & 2014): D2028 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Bucuresti | 02. Muntenia | 03. Oltenia | 04. Dobrogea | 05. Moldova | 06. Banat | 07. Crisana-Maramures | 08. Transylvania | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SERBIA (2012): D2028 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Belgrade area | 02. South and East Serbia | 03. Sumadija and Western Serbia | 04. Vojvodina | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2016): D2028 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Bratislava | 02. Trnava | 03. Trencin | 04. Nitra | 05. Zilina | 06. Banska Bystrica | 07. Presov | 08. Kosice | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011): D2028 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Pomurska | 02. Podravska | 03. Koroska | 04. Savinjska | 05. Zasavska | 06. Spodnjeposavska | 07. JV Slovenija | 08. Osrednjeslovenska | 09. Gorenjska | 10. Notranjsko-kraska | 11. Goriska | 12. Obalno-kraska | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D2028 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Eastern Cape | 02. Free State | 03. Gauteng | 04. KwaZulu Natal | 05. Limpopo | 06. Mpumalanga | 07. Northern Cape | 08. North West | 09. Western Cape | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2012): D2028 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Seoul | 02. Busan | 03. Daegu | 04. Incheon | 05. Gwangju | 06. Daejeon | 07. Ulsan | 08. Gyeonggi-do | 09. Gangwon-do | 10. Chungcheongbuk-do | 11. Chungcheongnam-do | 12. Jeollabuk-do | 13. Jeollanam-do | 14. Gyeongsangbuk-do | 15. Gyeongsangnam-do | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): D2028 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Stockholms | 03. Uppsala | 04. Sodermanlands | 05. Ostergotlands | 06. Jonkopings | 07. Kronobergs | 08. Kalmar | 09. Gotland | 10. Blekinge | 12. Skane | 13. Halland | 14. Vastra gotaland | 17. Varmland | 18. Orebro | 19. Vastmanland | 20. Kopparberg | 21. Gavleborg | 22. Vasternorrland | 23. Jamtland | 24. Vasterbotten | 25. Norrbotten | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): D2028 | | The region of residence (D2028) equals the primary electoral | district (D2032). | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Zurich | 02. Bern | 03. Luzern | 04. Uri | 05. Schwyz | 06. Obwalden | 07. Nidwalden | 08. Glarus | 09. Zug | 10. Fribourg | 11. Solothurn | 12. Basel-Stadt | 13. Basel-Land | 14. Schaffhausen | 15. Appenzell AR | 16. Appenzell AI | 17. St. Gallen | 18. Graubuenden | 19. Aargau | 20. Thurgau | 21. Ticino | 22. Vaud | 23. Valais | 24. Neuchatel | 25. Geneve | 26. Jura | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D2028 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Taipei, New Taipei, Keelung and Ilan | 02. Taoyuan, Hsinchu and Miaoly | 03. Taichung, Changhua and Nantou | 04. Yunlin, Chiayi and Tainan | 05. Kaoshiung, Pingtung and Penghu | 06. Hualien, Taitung and Offshore Islands | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2011): D2028 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. North | 02. Northeast | 03. Central | 04. South | 05. Bangkok | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2015): D2028 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Istanbul | 02. Western Marmara | 03. Aegean | 04. Eastern Marmara | 05. Western Anatolia | 06. Mediterranean | 07. Central Anatolia | 08. Western Black Sea | 09. Eastern Black Sea | 10. North Eastern Anatolia | 11. Central Eastern Anatolia | 12. South Eastern Anatolia | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D2028 | | D2028 reports the federal state a respondent is living in, | according to the US-FIPS-code. | It reflects the first two digits of respondents' electoral | district (see Election Study Note on D2032). | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Alabama | 04. Arizona | 05. Arkansas | 06. California | 08. Colorado | 09. Connecticut | 10. Delaware | 12. Florida | 13. Georgia | 17. Illinois | 18. Indiana | 19. Iowa | 20. Kansas | 21. Kentucky | 22. Louisiana | 24. Maryland | 25. Massachusetts | 26. Michigan | 27. Minnesota | 28. Mississippi | 29. Missouri | 30. Montana | 31. Nebraska | 32. Nevada | 34. New Jersey | 35. New Mexico | 36. New York | 37. North Carolina | 39. Ohio | 40. Oklahoma | 41. Oregon | 42. Pennsylvania | 44. Rhode Island | 45. South Carolina | 47. Tennessee | 48. Texas | 49. Utah | 51. Virginia | 53. Washington | 54. West Virginia | 55. Wisconsin --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D2029 >>> RACE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D27. This item reports the respondent's race. .................................................................. 001.-995. RACE CODES [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 996. OTHER: NOT SPECIFIED 997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D2029 | | This variable is coded according to national standards. | | See also notes for variable D2030. | | Data are unavailable for ARGENTINA (2015), AUSTRALIA (2013), | AUSTRIA (2013), BULGARIA (2014), CANADA (2011), CANADA (2015), | CZECH REPUBLIC (2013), FINLAND (2015), FRANCE (2012), GERMANY | (2013), GREAT BRITAIN (2015), GREECE (2012), GREECE (2015), | HONG KONG (2012), ICELAND (2013), IRELAND (2011), ISRAEL (2013), | JAPAN (2013), KENYA (2013), LATVIA (2011), LATVIA (2014), | NEW ZEALAND (2011), NEW ZEALAND (2014), NORWAY (2013), PERU | (2016), POLAND (2011), SERBIA (2012), SLOVAKIA (2016), SLOVENIA | (2011), SWEDEN (2014), SWITZERLAND (2011), TAIWAN (2012), | TURKEY (2015). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2015): D2029 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. White | 002. Black | 003. Brown | 004. Yellow | 005. Indigenous | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012 & 2015): D2029 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. Indigenous (Indigena) | 002. Mestizo | 003. White | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2012): D2029 | | This question was asked as an open ended question in | Montenegro and produced some non-standard answers. Since over | 90% of respondent answered either 'white' or are 'missing', | all non-standard answers were coded into category '2'. A | few answers, which were clearly not meant to be serious, | were coded as missing. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. White | 002. Other than white | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): D2029 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 002. Asian | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): D2029 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. Undetermined | 002. European | 003. African | 004. Indian | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012 & 2014): D2029 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. White | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D2029 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. Black / African | 002. White / European | 003. Colored | 004. Indian | 005. Chinese | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2012): D2029 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. Asian | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2011): D2029 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. Thai | 002. Chinese | 003. Malayu | 004. Khmer | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D2029 | | In the American National Election Study, respondents' | first three mentions of their race were registered. CSES | notes only the first mention. | The category Hispanic was not presented in the same item as the | rest of the categories. CSES used the item asking whether a | respondent is 'Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino' only to replace | otherwise 'missing', 'refused' or 'other' codes. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. White | 002. Black or African-American | 003. Hispanic | 004. Asian | 005. American Indian or Alaska Native | 006. Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D2030 >>> ETHNICITY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D28. This variable reports the ethnic identity of respondents. .................................................................. 001.-995. ETHNICITY CODES [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 996. OTHER: NOT SPECIFIED 997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D2030 | | This variable is coded according to national standards. | | See also notes for variable D2029. | | Data are unavailable for ARGENTINA (2015), AUSTRIA (2013), | BRAZIL (2014), CZECH REPUBLIC (2013), FINLAND (2015), FRANCE | (2012), GERMANY (2013), HONG KONG (2012), ICELAND (2013), | IRELAND (2011), JAPAN (2013), KENYA (2013), MEXICO (2012), | MEXICO (2015), NORWAY (2013), POLAND (2011), PORTUGAL (2015), | SOUTH AFRICA (2014), SOUTH KOREA (2012), SWEDEN (2014), | SWITZERLAND (2011), TURKEY (2015), UNITED STATES (2012). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D2030 | | The Australian data only distinguishes between Aboriginal | and non-Aboriginal respondents. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders | 002. Non-aboriginal | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011): D2030 | | The variable is from the pre-election study. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. Canadian | 002. Australian | 003. Austrian | 005. Bangladeshi | 006. Black/African | 007. British | 008. Chinese, et. al. | 009. Croatian | 010. Czech | 011. Danish | 012. Dutch | 013. English | 016. French | 017. Finnish | 018. German | 019. Greek | 020. Guyanese | 021. Haitian | 022. Holland | 023. Hungarian | 024. Irish | 025. Italian | 026. Indian | 027. Israeli | 028. Jamaican | 029. Japanese | 030. Jewish/Hebrew | 031. Korean | 032. Lebanese | 037. Norwegian | 038. Pakistani | 039. Filipino | 040. Polish | 041. Portuguese | 042. Russian | 043. Scottish | 044. Serbian | 045. Sikh | 047. Slovakian | 048. Spanish | 049. Sri Lankan | 050. Swedish | 051. Tamil | 053. Ukrainian | 056. Welsh | 057. American | 058. Other European ethnicity | 059. Other Asian ethnicity | 061. Other South American ethnicity | 062. Other African ethnicity | 063. Other Caribbean ethnicity | 064. Arabic/Middle Eastern ethnicity | 066. Mennonite | 070. Anglo Saxon / WASP / Caucasian / White, etc. | 094. Acadian | 095. Inuit, Metis, Aboriginal, Native | 096. Quebecois, Fr. Canadian, Francophone | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2015): D2030 | | This variable is from the pre-election survey. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. Canadian | 002. Australian | 003. Austrian | 005. Bangladeshi | 006. Black/African | 007. British | 008. Chinese, et. al. | 009. Croatian | 010. Czech | 011. Danish | 012. Dutch | 013. English | 014. Salvadorian | 015. Ethiopian | 016. French | 017. Finnish | 018. German | 019. Greek | 020. Guyanese | 021. Haitian | 022. Holland | 023. Hungarian | 024. Irish | 025. Italian | 026. Indian | 027. Israeli | 028. Jamaican | 029. Japanese | 030. Jewish/Hebrew | 031. Korean | 032. Lebanese | 034. New Zealander | 037. Norwegian | 038. Pakistani | 039. Filipino | 040. Polish | 041. Portuguese | 042. Russian | 043. Scottish | 044. Serbian | 045. Sikh | 047. Slovakian | 048. Spanish | 049. Sri Lankan | 050. Swedish | 051. Tamil | 052. Trinidadian | 053. Ukrainian | 054. Vietnamese | 055. Yugoslavian | 056. Welsh | 057. American | 058. Other European ethnicity | 059. Other Asian ethnicity | 060. Other Central American ethnicity | 061. Other South American ethnicity | 062. Other African ethnicity | 063. Other Caribbean ethnicity | 064. Arabic/Middle Eastern ethnicity | 066. Mennonite | 070. Anglo Saxon / WASP / Caucasian / White, etc. | 094. Acadian | 095. Inuit, Metis, Aboriginal, Native | 096. Quebecois, Fr. Cdn, Francophone | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): D2030 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish/British | 002. Irish | 003. Gypsy or Irish Traveler | 004. Any other White background | 005. White and Black Caribbean | 006. White and Black African | 007. White and Asian | 008. Any other Mixed/Multiple ethnic background | 009. Indian | 010. Pakistani | 011. Bangladeshi | 012. Chinese | 013. Any other Asian background | 014. African | 015. Caribbean | 016. Any other Black/African/Caribbean background | 017. Arab | 018. Any other | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012): D2030 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. Greek | 002. American | 003. Polish | 004. Romanian | 005. Bulgarian | 006. Italian | 007. French | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): D2030 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. Greek | 002. Swedish | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2013): D2030 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. Jew | 002. Arab | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2011): D2030 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. Latvian | 002. Russian | 003. Belorussian | 004. Ukrainian | 005. Hebrew | 006. Estonian | 007. Lithuanian | 008. Mordvin | 009. Polish | 010. Hungary | 011. Romani/Gypsy | 012. Greek | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2014): D2030 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. Latvian | 002. Russian | 003. Belorussian | 004. Ukrainian | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2012): D2030 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. Montenegrin | 002. Serbian | 003. Albanian | 004. Bosnian | 005. Muslim | 006. Croat | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011 & 2014): D2030 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. European | 002. Maori | 003. Pasifika | 004. Asian | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): D2030 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. Indigenous | 002. Afro Peruvian | 003. White | 004. Mestizo | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): D2030 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. Icolano | 003. Gorot | 004. Locano | 006. Ebuano | 009. Aguindanao | 010. Maranao | 012. Tagalog | 013. Tausug | 015. Hiligaynon | 016. Kapampangan | 017. Waray | 018. Bisaya | 019. Boholano | 020. Pangasinense | 021. Batangueno | 022. Palaweno | 023. Bago Tribe | 024. Ibanag | 025. Itawes | 026. Aklanon | 027. Masbateno | 028. Badjao | 029. Muslim | 030. Mapun | 031. Cagayanon | 032. Cuyunon | 033. Antiqueno | 034. Kinaray-A | 035. Subanen | 036. Sikihudnon | 037. Mandaya | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012 & 2014): D2030 | | CSES Code Election Study Category/Categories | 001. Romanian | 002. Hungarian | 003. Roma | 004. German | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SERBIA (2012): D2030 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. Serbian | 002. Hungarian | 003. Muslim/Bosniak | 004. Romani/Gypsy | 005. Yugoslav | 006. Croatian | 007. Montenegrin | 008. Romanian | 009. Bulgarian | 010. Slovak | 011. Macedonian | 012. Slovenian | 013. Other/mixed | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2016): D2030 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. Slovak | 002. Hungarian | 003. Roma | 004. Czech | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011): D2030 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. Slovenian | 002. Croatian | 003. Serbian | 004. Bosnian | 005. Macedonian | 006. Albanian | 007. Other | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D2030 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. Taiwanese Hakka | 002. Taiwanese Min-Nan | 003. Mainlander | 004. Aboriginal | 005. Taiwanese - Benshengren | 006. Filipino | 007. Vietnamese | 008. Overseas Chinese | 009. Kinmen | 010. Burmese | 011. Japanese | 012. Taiwanese | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2011): D2030 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. Thai | 002. Chinese | 003. Malayu | 004. Khmer | 005. Lao --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D2031 >>> RURAL OR URBAN RESIDENCE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D29. Rural/Urban Residence. .................................................................. 1. RURAL AREA OR VILLAGE 2. SMALL OR MIDDLE-SIZED TOWN 3. SUBURBS OF LARGE TOWN OR CITY 4. LARGE TOWN OR CITY 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D2031 | | Instead of using the CSES-schema, some countries employ the | amount of inhabitants for the size of respondent's place of | residence. These measurements do not fit the categories | generally used for D2031. Consequently, we advise users to | carefully read the Election Study Notes of the current variable. | | Data are unavailable for BRAZIL (2014), CANADA (2011), CANADA | (2015), HONG KONG (2012), TAIWAN (2012), UNITED STATES (2012). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D2031 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 02. Small or middle-sized town (fewer than 100,000 | residents) | 04. Large town or city (more than 100,000 residents) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D2031 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. A rural area or village | 02. A country town (up to 25,000 people) | A larger country town (over 10,000 people) | 03. A large town (over 25,000 people) | 04. A major city (over 100,000 people) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2015): D2031 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. In a sparsely populated rural area | In a municipal center or other population center | in a rural area | 02. In the center of a smaller town (under 100,000 | inhabitants) | 03. In a city/town suburb | 04. In the center of a large town (over 100,000 | inhabitants) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D2031 | | This question was part of the interviewer protocol and therefore | answered by the interviewer and not the respondent. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2011): D2031 | | The Irish data includes only two categories for D2031. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 02. A town, village or rural district with a | population of less than 1,500 inhabitants | 04. A town or city with a population of more than | 1,500 inhabitants | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): D2031 | | The original variable for D2031 denotes to originally two | variables for the 2011 Rural-Urban Classification for Output | Areas in England and Wales, and the Scottish Urban-Rural | Classification. The categories could only be matched only | approximately. | For further reference, see the url to Great Britain, Urban-Rural | Classifications in Part 1 of the Codebook. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Accessible rural - less than 3,000 people | Rural town and fringe | Rural village and dispersed in a sparse setting | Rural village and dispersed | Rural town and fringe in a sparse setting | | 02. Other urban: 10,000-124,999 people, or | Accessible small town of 3,000-9,000 people | Urban city and town in a sparse setting | Urban city and town | | 04. Large urban area of 125,000 or more people | Urban with major conurbation | Urban with minor conurbation | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2013): D2031 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Rural settlement | 02. Small or middle-sized town (all towns except | Tel-Aviv, Jerusalem or Haifa) | 04. Tel-Aviv, Jerusalem or Haifa | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D2031 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Towns and villages | 02. Cities with less than 100,000 people | 03. Cities between 100,000 and 200,000 people | 04. Cities with more than 200,000 people | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D2031 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Rural (all areas not classified as urban) | 04. Urban (population estimated at 200 or higher | during the 1999 Population and Housing Census) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2011): D2031 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Rural area | 02. Other town | District center | 04. Daugavpils, Liepaja, Jelgava, Ventspils | Riga | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012 & 2015): D2031 | | The Mexican data includes only three categories for | D2031. Researchers should be aware of the 'mixed' response | category as this indicates that the interviews took place in a | cluster of electoral precincts which includes precincts from | both urban and rural areas. Also, researchers should bear in | mind that in Mexico 77.8% of the population lives in urban | areas. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Rural | 02. Mixed | 04. Urban | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): D2031 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Rural area | 04. Urban area non-capital | Urban area capital city | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D2031 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Rural | 02. Small town (less than 100,000 inhabitants) | 03. Suburbs of a large city (over 100,000 | inhabitants) | 04. Large city (over 100,000 inhabitants) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D2031 | | Rural or an urban living was not answered by respondents but | coded for the sampling. The variable is just dichotomous, | differentiating between rural and urban of whatever size. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2016): D2031 | | The original study included an additional category, 'farm'. | This applied to one respondent in the sample. The category | was recoded to '1. RURAL AREA OR VILLAGE'. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. A rural area or village | Farm --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D2032 >>> PRIMARY ELECTORAL DISTRICT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D30. Primary electoral district of respondent. .................................................................. 00001.-90000. [SEE CODEBOOK PART 4 FOR CODE VALUE LABELS] 99996. NATIONWIDE DISTRICT (PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION) 99999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D2032 | | Wherever possible, this variable uses official district | identification numbers. Deviances from this CSES convention are | detailed when applicable in the ELECTION STUDY NOTES. | | In some cases, not all districts in a polity are sampled by | the election study. More specific information regarding this | is detailed in the tables in the District Data section of the | Codebook. | | In some cases, respondents' electoral districts were | identified "indirectly," through postal codes, etc., | by the CSES Secretariat (always with the help of the appropriate | collaborator(s)). Where postal codes, etc., were ambiguous, | cases are coded missing. | | The following polities operate a nationwide electoral district | and they are coded 1. These cases are: ISRAEL (2013), | MONTENEGRO (2012), SERBIA (2012), and SLOVAKIA (2016). | | The following polities operate a nationwide electoral district | for their presidential elections and they are coded 996. | These cases are: FRANCE (2012) and TAIWAN (2012). | | Data are unavailable for MEXICO (2015). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D2032 | | The electoral districts in Brazil are equivalent | to the states, with the exception of one: the Federal District. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): D2032 | | Primary electoral district codes are constituencies by press | association (PA) number. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012): D2032 | | Not all of the Greek electoral district were sampled. No | respondents were sampled in the following electoral districts: | (021) Grevenon, (017) Evrytanias, (029) Kefallinias, | (038) Lasithiou, (039) Lefkadas, (048) Samou, (055) Xiou. | See Codebook Part 4 for the complete list of districts. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D2032 | | Not all of the Japanese electoral district were sampled. No | respondents were sampled in the following prefectures: | (019) Yamanashi and (031) Tottori, both of whose populations | are small. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D2032 | | The primary electoral districts in Norway correspond | to the Norwegian counties (fylke). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D2032 | | The coded districts refer to the tier of the lower house | district candidate elections. For the presidential elections, | and the party list tier of the lower house elections, the | Philippines are one nation-wide district. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): D2032 | | The district variable refers to respondents' answer to which | electoral district they are registered to vote in. | Six cases were coded "99999. Missing", of which two referred to | respondents answering "don't know" and four respondents refusing | to answer the question. | | In reality, there are two districts for voters voting outside | outside of Portugal: a European district and an outside of | Europe code. With respect to the district data in variables | D4001, D4003, D4004 and D4005, these are combined into one | category. | | Two districts were excluded from the sampling frame: | the autonomous regions/archipelagos of Madeira and the Azores. | This excluded 4.87% of the total eligible population | from the sample frame according to Portugal's official | statistics of 2014. | Source: PORDATA, Database on Contemporary Portugal | http://www.pordata.pt/en/Municipalities/Resident+population++ | estimates+at+December+31st-120. | (Date accessed: April 2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D2032 | | The district identifier refers to the Presidential | election, held in one nationwide district. District | data is available with respect to the presidential | election and coded in the CSES nationwide district | variables where applicable (D4002_N, D4004_A_N – D4004_I_N, | and D4005_5). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): D2032 | | The primary electoral district (D2032) is equal to the region | of residence (D2027), i.e. the Swiss cantons. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D2032 | | The district identifier refers to the Presidential | election, held in one nationwide district. Respondents' | electoral district identifier for the lower house elections | were not available. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D2032 | | This variable reports the electoral districts for the US lower | house elections, the House of Representatives. The first two | digits of the district codes indicate the federal state (US- | FIPS-code as used in D2027). | However, the district data for CSES Module 4 was collected for | the US Presidential Election. Considering that the United | States uses an electoral college system that operates on the US | state level, the data was collected accordingly. To link the | district data to respondents in the CSES dataset, users should | make use of the variable D2028 (REGION OF RESIDENCE) which, in | the case of the US 2012 Elections, corresponds to the US states. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D2033 >>> COUNTRY OF BIRTH --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D31. Respondent's country of birth. .................................................................. 004. AFGHANISTAN 012. ALGERIA 024. ANGOLA 028. ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA 031. AZERBIJAN 032. ARGENTINA 036. AUSTRALIA 040. AUSTRIA 044. BAHAMAS 050. BANGLADESH 056. BELGIUM 060. BERMUDA 068. BOLIVIA (PLURINATIONAL STATE OF) 070. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 076. BRAZIL 100. BULGARIA 104. MYANMAR 112. BELARUS 116. CAMBODIA 120. CAMEROON 124. CANADA 144. SRI LANKA 152. CHILE 156. CHINA 158. TAIWAN 170. COLOMBIA 178. CONGO 184. COOK ISLANDS 188. COSTA RICA 191. CROATIA 192. CUBA 196. CYPRUS 200. CZECHOSLOVAKIA 203. CZECH REPUBLIC 208. DENMARK 214. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 218. ECUADOR 222. EL SALVADOR 231. ETHIOPIA 242. FIJI 246. FINLAND 250. FRANCE 258. FRENCH POLYNESIA 262. DJIBOUTI 268. GEORGIA 270. GAMBIA 276. GERMANY 288. GHANA 296. KIRIBATI 300. GREECE 320. GUATEMALA 328. GUYANA 332. HAITI 340. HONDURAS 344. CHINA, HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION 348. HUNGARY 356. INDIA 360. INDONESIA 364. IRAN (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF) 368. IRAQ 372. IRELAND 376. ISRAEL 380. ITALY 388. JAMAICA 392. JAPAN 398. KAZAKHSTAN 400. JORDAN 404. KENYA 410. REPUBLIC OF KOREA 418. LAO PEOPLE'S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC 422. LEBANON 428. LATVIA 434. LIBYA 440. LITHUANIA 446. CHINA, MACAO SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION 458. MALAYSIA 470. MALTA 480. MAURITIUS 484. MEXICO 498. REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA 499. MONTENEGRO 504. MOROCCO 524. NEPAL 528. NETHERLANDS 554. NEW ZEALAND 566. NIGERIA 578. NORWAY 586. PAKISTAN 591. PANAMA 598. PAPUA NEW GUINEA 604. PERU 608. PHILIPPINES 616. POLAND 620. PORTUGAL 626. TIMOR-LESTE 630. PUERTO RICO 642. ROMANIA 643. RUSSIAN FEDERATION 688. SERBIA 690. SEYCHELLES 702. SINGAPORE 703. SLOVAKIA 704. VIET NAM 705. SLOVENIA 706. SOMALIA 710. SOUTH AFRICA 716. ZIMBABWE 724. SPAIN 729. SUDAN 752. SWEDEN 756. SWITZERLAND 760. SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC 762. TAJIKISTAN 764. THAILAND 772. TOKELAU 780. TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO 788. TUNISIA 792. TURKEY 795. TURKMENISTAN 804. UKRAINE 810. USSR 807. THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA 818. EGYPT 826. UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND 834. UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA 840. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 858. URUGUAY 860. UZBEKISTAN 862. VENEZUELA (BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF) 882. SAMOA 887. YEMEN 890. SOCIALIST FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA 894. ZAMBIA 900. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 901. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 902. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 903. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 904. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 905. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 906. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 907. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D2033 | | The country codes base on the United Nations Statistics Division | ("countries or areas, codes and abbreviations", revised | February 13, 2002), similar to D1003, except for Taiwan (see | Election Study Note on D1003). | | Whenever this is not possible, due to referring to a country | that does not exist anymore, earlier country codes, according to | https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49chang.htm were | employed. | | As long as a question on respondents' country of birth was | included in the questionnaire, native born citizens were coded, | according to the country code of the appropriate state. | | Data are unavailable for ARGENTINA (2015), BRAZIL (2014), CZECH | REPUBLIC (2013), FINLAND (2015), FRANCE (2012), GREAT BRITAIN | (2015), ICELAND (2013), IRELAND (2011), KENYA (2013), POLAND | (2011), SLOVAKIA (2016), SLOVENIA (2011), SOUTH AFRICA (2014), | SWEDEN (2014), TAIWAN (2012). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D2033 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 900. Gaza Strip and West Bank | 901. Africa, not further specified | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011): D2033 | | The variable is from the pre-election study. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 900. Other Middle Eastern countries | 901. Other European countries | 902. Other African countries | 903. Other South American and Caribbean countries | 904. Other Asian countries | 905. Other | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2015): D2033 | | The variable is from the pre-election survey. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 158. Taiwan | 230. Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic/Slovakia | 890. Yugoslavia | 900. Other Middle Eastern countries | 901. Other European countries | 902. Other African countries | 903. Other South American and Caribbean countries | 904. Other Asian countries | 905. Other Central American | 906. Other Caribbean countries | 907. Australia and New Zealand | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D2033 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 890. Yugoslavia, former UN code | 200. Czechoslovakia, former UN code | 900. other country, not further specified | 901. former German territories in Eastern Europe, | e.g. Silesia or Eastern Prussia. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D2033 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 900. Others, not further specified | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D2033 | | One respondent (ID 392020130000001841) who claimed to have been | born in the region of Manchuria was coded as having been born in | China. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2011): D2033 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 810. USSR (other than Latvia) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2012): D2033 | | In addition to the country codes of the United Nation Statistics | Divisions, an additional code was employed. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 900. Kosovo | | For information on inconsistencies between D2033 and D2034, | see D2034. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011): D2033 | | In addition to the country codes of the United Nation Statistics | Divisions, additional codes were employed. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 901. Asian country not further specified | 902. Pacific country, not further specified | 903. Other country not further specified | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): D2033 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 900. Other | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): D2033 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 900. Former Portuguese Colony | 901. Other country, not further specified | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): D2033 | | In addition to the country codes of the United Nation Statistics | Divisions, an additional code was employed. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 900. Kosovo --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D2034 >>> YEAR ARRIVED IN CURRENT COUNTRY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D32. Year, when respondent arrived in the current country (the country where the election study is being conducted). .................................................................. 1800-2016. YEAR ARRIVED IN CURRENT COUNTRY 9996. WAS BORN IN CURRENT COUNTRY 9997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 9998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D2034 | | Due to the dynamic development of countries, the question about | when respondent arrived in the current country is sometimes | complex to answer, e.g. if the current country was founded in | respondent's lifetime. In some cases, D2034 includes valid | information on the year of arrival, although the underlying | observation refers to a native-born citizen. | These data remained unchanged. | | Data are unavailable for ARGENTINA (2015), BRAZIL (2014), CZECH | REPUBLIC (2013), FINLAND (2015), FRANCE (2012), GREAT BRITAIN | (2015), ICELAND (2013), IRELAND (2011), KENYA (2013), MEXICO | (2012), NORWAY (2013), POLAND (2011), SLOVAKIA (2016), SLOVENIA | (2011), SOUTH AFRICA (2014), SWITZERLAND (2011), TAIWAN (2012), | THAILAND (2011), UNITED STATES (2012). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011): D2034 | | The variable is from the pre-election study. One respondent | reported a year of arrival, which is earlier than their year of | birth, as in D2001_Y. The data remained unchanged. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2015): D2034 | | The variable is from the pre-election survey. The standard CSES | category "996. WAS BORN IN COUNTRY" was not an answer option in | the study. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D2034 | | This variable only contains respondents who reported not being | born in Germany. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012): D2034 | | Of the 992 missing cases, 991 respondents were actually born in | Greece. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D2034 | | The variable was calculated basing on answers to the question | for how many years respondents had been living in Hong Kong, in | 2012. One respondent, who answered more than 80 years is coded | as 1931. This could be an underestimation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2013): D2034 | | Seven respondents reported a year of arrival prior to their year | of birth, as in D2001_Y. The data remained unchanged. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2012): D2034 | | Fifty-two respondents reported that they are native-born | citizens in D2033 but then provided a "year of | arrival in the country" in question D2034. Those might be | persons who have either lived abroad for a couple of years (or | in some of the former Yugoslavian republics which are now | considered abroad) and they returned after the dissolution of | Yugoslavia or for some other reason. Namely, there were | Montenegrins born in Serbia at the time it was one country. | Two respondents reported a year of arrival which was earlier | than their year of birth, as in D2001_Y. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2011): D2034 | | Every respondent is a native Thai, so D2034 is missing. The | election study team of Thailand asked, however, when respondents | arrived in their current province. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D2034 | | The ANES includes an item asking in which time period a | respondent arrived in the U.S. by specifying four different | period, namely: 'before 1970', '1970-1989', '1990-1999', and | '2000-2012'. Analysts interested in these data are advised | to refer to the American National Election Study - available. | at: http://www.electionstudies.org/. =========================================================================== ))) CSES MODULE 4 MICRO-LEVEL DATA: SURVEY VARIABLES =========================================================================== --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3001_1 >>> Q01a. PUBLIC EXPENDITURE: HEALTH D3001_2 >>> Q01b. PUBLIC EXPENDITURE: EDUCATION D3001_3 >>> Q01c. PUBLIC EXPENDITURE: UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS D3001_4 >>> Q01d. PUBLIC EXPENDITURE: DEFENSE D3001_5 >>> Q01e. PUBLIC EXPENDITURE: OLD-AGE PENSIONS D3001_6 >>> Q01f. PUBLIC EXPENDITURE: BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY D3001_7 >>> Q01g. PUBLIC EXPENDITURE: POLICE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT D3001_8 >>> Q01h. PUBLIC EXPENDITURE: WELFARE BENEFITS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the next questions, please say whether there should be more or less public expenditure in each of the following areas. Remember if you say "more" it could require a tax increase, and if you say "less" it could require a reduction in those services. Q1a. Thinking about public expenditure on HEALTH, should there be much more than now, somewhat more than now, the same as now, somewhat less than now, or much less than now? HELP: The word "health" is intended to refer to public expenditure related to health care, i.e., public health care programs, public hospitals, clinics, etc. Q1b. Thinking about public expenditure on EDUCATION, should there be much more than now, somewhat more than now, the same as now, somewhat less than now, or much less than now? HELP: The word "education" is intended to refer to public expenditure related to all forms of education, i.e., primary and secondary education, universities and colleges, etc. Q1c. Thinking about public expenditure on UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS, should there be much more than now, somewhat more than now, the same as now, somewhat less than now, or much less than now? HELP: The phrase "unemployment benefits" is intended to refer to public expenditure related to the unemployed, mainly through employment insurance programs, but also job training directed at the unemployed, and related programs. Q1d. Thinking about public expenditure on DEFENSE, should there be much more than now, somewhat more than now, the same as now, somewhat less than now, or much less than now? HELP: The word "defense" is intended to refer to public expenditure on the military, and other defense-related programs; it is NOT intended to refer to other international affairs programs, nor foreign aid. Q1e. Thinking about public expenditure on OLD-AGE PENSIONS, should there be much more than now, somewhat more than now, the same as now, somewhat less than now, or much less than now? HELP: The phrase "old-age pensions" is intended to refer to public expenditure on old age pensions, NOT other spending on programs directed at the elderly. Q1f. Thinking about public expenditure on BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY, should there be much more than now, somewhat more than now, the same as now, somewhat less than now, or much less than now? HELP: The phrase "business and industry" is intended to refer to public expenditure related to helping business and industry, Particularly through subsidies. Q1g. Thinking about public expenditure on POLICE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT, should there be much more than now, somewhat more than now, the same as now, somewhat less than now, or much less than now? HELP: The phrase "police and law enforcement" is intended to refer to public expenditure on the justice system related to police and law enforcement. Q1h. Thinking about public expenditure on WELFARE BENEFITS, should there be much more than now, somewhat more than now, the same as now, somewhat less than now, or much less than now? HELP: The phrase "welfare benefits" is intended to refer to public expenditure on welfare programs or social benefit programs. .................................................................. 1. MUCH MORE THAN NOW 2. SOMEWHAT MORE THAN NOW 3. THE SAME AS NOW 4. SOMEWHAT LESS THAN NOW 5. MUCH LESS THAN NOW 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3001_ | | Data on D3001_3 is unavailable for ARGENTINA (2015) and KENYA | (2013). | Data on D3001_4 is unavailable for ARGENTINA (2015) and HONG | KONG (2012). | Data on D3001_6 is unavailable for ARGENTINA (2015). | Data on D3001_7 is unavailable for IRELAND (2011). | Data on D3001_8 is unavailable for IRELAND (2011), KENYA (2013), | SLOVAKIA (2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011): D3001 | | All of these questions were asked in Canada in the | post-election mail-back survey (see D1023). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011): D3001_7 | | The variable is from the pre-election study. the | scale of the original variable from the Canadian election | study is 3-point instead of 5-point. It was recoded as | follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 01. spend more | 02. - | 03. spend the same | 04. - | 05. spend less | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011): D3001_8 | | The variable is from the pre-election study. the | scale of the original variable from the Canadian election | study is 3-point instead of 5-point. It was recoded as | follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 01. spend more | 02. - | 03. spend the same | 04. - | 05. spend less | ELECTION STUDY NOTES – CANADA (2015): D3001_ | | All questions for variables D3001_ were asked in the | post-election mail-back survey (see D1023). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D3001_4 | | The question was asked somewhat differently in Germany. It read: | "And thinking about public expenditure on the German | Armed Forces?" | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D3001_6 | | The question was asked somewhat differently in Germany. It read: | "And thinking about public expenditure on business development | and industrial promotion?" | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D3001_7 | | The question was asked somewhat differently in Germany. It read: | "And thinking about public expenditure on the fight | against crime?" | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D3001_3 | | This item is missing as Kenya does not provide unemployment | benefits. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D3001_8 | | This item was not asked in the Kenyan questionnaire. However, | interested analysts can refer to the original Kenyan election | study containing similar items about specific aspects of the | Kenyan welfare program. These include questions about cash | transfers for elderly, disabled, orphans and vulnerable | children. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2014): D3001_6 | | The question was asked somewhat differently in Latvia. It read: | "Thinking about the facilitation of entrepreneurship(...)" | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2015): D3001_ | | The question text used in the Mexican questionnaire | deviated slightly from the standard CSES question | in that the reminder note included in the CSES | question text "Remember if you say "more" it could require a tax | increase, and if you say "less" it could require a reduction in | those services." Was provided to respondents three times: in the | main question text before item D3001_1, between item D3001_3 and | item D3001_4, and between item D3001_6 and item D3001_7. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2015): D3001_3 | | The answer to the item "unemployment benefits" was formulated in | the following way: "Support programs for unemployed to find | work". This deviates somewhat from the concept used by the CSES | and described in the questionnaire: "The phrase "unemployment | benefits" is intended to refer to public expenditure related to | the unemployed, mainly through employment insurance programs, | but also job training directed at the unemployed, and related | programs. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011): D3001_ | | The election study from New Zealand contains a further | question regarding the expenditure for the environment. This is | not represented within the CSES. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): D3001_ | | These questions were asked only in the mail-back and web survey | (see D1023). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3002 >>> Q02. IMPROVING STANDARD OF LIVING --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q02. Over the next ten years or so, how likely or unlikely is it that you will improve your standard of living? Very likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely, or very unlikely? .................................................................. 1. VERY LIKELY 2. SOMEWHAT LIKELY 4. SOMEWHAT UNLIKELY 5. VERY UNLIKELY 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011): D3002 | | The variable is from the post-election mail-back survey. The | question posed to respondents was somewhat different reading: | "Over the next ten years or so, my family and I have a | good chance of improving our standard of living" | The answer options were coded as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 01. Strongly agree | 02. Agree | 04. Disagree | 05. Strongly disagree | ELECTION STUDY NOTES – CANADA (2015): D3002 | | The variable is from the post-election mail-back survey. | This question did not have "neither agree nor disagree" category | in the original questionnaire. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2011): D3002 | | The Irish question on D3004 differs from the CSES | question, reading: "Please indicate to what extent you Disagree | or Agree with this statement; 'Over the next ten years or so, | my family and I have a good chance of improving our standard of | living". | The answer options were coded as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Strongly agree | 02. Agree | 04. Disagree | 05. Strongly disagree --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3003_1 >>> Q03. STATE OF ECONOMY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q03. Would you say that over the past twelve months, the state of the economy in [COUNTRY] has gotten better, stayed about the same, or gotten worse? .................................................................. 1. GOTTEN BETTER 3. STAYED THE SAME -> GO TO Q4 5. GOTTEN WORSE -> GO TO Q3b 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED -> GO TO Q4 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW -> GO TO Q4 9. MISSING | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D3003_1 | | Questions on the state of economy were combined in a single | question "On the whole, how satisfied are you with the present | state of the economy in Australia?" The provided answer options | run on an 11-point scale from "0. Extremely dissatisfied" and | "10. Extremely satisfied" holding the values "04 to 06" as the | middle point. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Codes 7 through 10 | 03. Codes 4 through 6 | 05. Codes 0 through 3 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): D3003_ | | D3003_1-D3003_3 were not asked separately, but with all answer | options of the three variables in one question. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): D3003_1 | | The state of the economy (D3003_1-D3003_3) was asked as a | single question: How do you think the general economic situation | in this country has changed over the last 12 months? | Answers to this question were recoded as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. a little better | a lot better | 03. the same | 05. a little worse | a lot worse | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D3003_ | | D3003_1-D3003_3 were not asked separately, but with all answer | options of the three variables in one question. Therefore, the | answer options 'refused' and 'don't know' only appear in the | first variable, D3003_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2012): D3003_ | | There are some inconsistencies for the variables D3003_ in | Montenegro 2012 study. There are 48 respondents who said that | the economy got worse on variable D3003_1 and answered question | D3003_2, and 4 respondents who said economy got better on | variable D3003_1 and answered question D3003_3. The survey was | conducted using the PAPI (pen and paper interviewing) | technique, and these inconsistencies were noticed after the data | collection. Most of these respondents answered both questions | D3003_2 and D3003_3. These occurred due to some errors of | surveyors during the interview. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011): D3003_1 | | D3003_1 to D3003_3 were asked within one question, | mentioning all five possible answer categories. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D3003_1 | | Variables D3003_1-D3003_3 were asked within one question, how | much better or worse the economy in the past 12 months had | gotten. For D3003_1 Categories "has gotten much better" and "has | gotten better" were collapsed into "has gotten better". | Categories "has gotten worse" and "has gotten much worse" were | recoded into "has gotten worse". --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3003_2 >>> Q03a. STATE OF ECONOMY - BETTER --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q03a. Would you say much better or somewhat better? .................................................................. 1. MUCH BETTER -> GO TO Q4 2. SOMEWHAT BETTER -> GO TO Q4 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED -> GO TO Q4 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW -> GO TO Q4 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3003_2 | | Data are unavailable for CANADA (2011), CANADA (2015), and | TAIWAN (2012). | | D3003_1 was intended as a filter question for D3003_2 | and D3003_3. Only respondents who answered "GOTTEN BETTER" at Q3 | should receive this question. However, there is variation in the | ways in which the questions about respondent's perception of the | state of economy (D3003_1) were administered in different | election studies. In some cases the follow up question on a | better state of economy (D3003_2) was asked irrespectively of a | respondent's answer on D3003_1. Consequently, D3003_2 sometimes | includes information on respondents that did not mention a | better state of economy (code 1) in D3003_1. These data remained | unchanged. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D3003_2 | | See Election Study Note on D3003_1. | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Codes 9 and 10 | 02. Codes 7 and 8 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): D3003_2 | | See notes to D3003_1 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. a lot better | 02. a little better | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENGRO (2012): D3003_2 | | Seventy-five respondents provided an answer to this question | even though they did not say they economy had improved. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011): D3003_2 | | D3003_1 to D3003_3 were asked within one question, | mentioning all five possible answer categories. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D3003_2 | | See the Election Study Note for D3003_1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3003_3 >>> Q03b. STATE OF ECONOMY - WORSE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q03b. Would you say much worse or somewhat worse? .................................................................. 4. SOMEWHAT WORSE 5. MUCH WORSE 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3003_3 | | Data are unavailable for CANADA (2011), CANADA (2015), | TAIWAN (2012). | | D3003_1 was intended as a filter question for D3003_2 | and D3003_3. Only respondents who answered "GOTTEN BETTER" at Q3 | should receive this question. However, there is variation in the | ways in which the questions about respondent's perception of the | state of economy (D3003_1) were administered in different | election studies. In some cases the follow up question on a | a worse state of economy (D3003_3) was asked irrespectively of a | respondent's answer on D3003_1. Consequently, D3003_2 sometimes | includes information on respondents that did not mention a | worse state of economy (code 5) in D3003_1. These data remained | unchanged. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D3003_3 | | See Election Study Note on D3003_1. | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 04. Codes 2, 3 and 4 | 05. Codes 0 and 1 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): D3003_3 | | See notes to D3003_1 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 04. a little worse | 05. a lot worse | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENGRO (2012): D3003_2 | | Six respondents provided an answer to this question even though | they did not say they economy had worsened. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011): D3003_3 | | D3003_1 to D3003_3 were asked within one question, | mentioning all five possible answer categories. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D3003_3 | | See the Election Study Note for D3003_1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3004 >>> Q04. GOVERNMENT ACTION - DIFFERENCES IN INCOME LEVELS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q04. Please say to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statement: "The government should take measures to reduce differences in income levels." Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree? .................................................................. 1. STRONGLY AGREE 2. SOMEWHAT AGREE 3. NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE 4. SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 5. STRONGLY DISAGREE 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3004 | | Data are unavailable for LATVIA (2011). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011): D3004 | | The variable is from the post-election mail-back survey. Note | that the phrasing was somewhat different, reading "On a scale | from 0 to 10 where 0 means you strongly believe that the | government SHOULD ACT to reduce differences in income and | wealth, and 10 means that you strongly believe that the | government SHOULD NOT ACT to reduce differences in income and | wealth, where would you place your view?" | | CSES Code Election Study Codes | 01. 0 should act, 1 | 02. 2, 3 | 03. 4, 5, 6 | 04. 7, 8 | 05. 9, 10 should not act | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2015): D3004 | | The variable is from the post-election mail-back survey. | The 2015 Canadian questionnaire did not include a neutral anchor | (3) of the perception-scale on government action. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Strongly agree | 02. Agree | 04. Disagree | 05. Strongly disagree | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): D3004 | | The Greek response categories deviated slightly from the CSES | convention, lacking the qualifier "somewhat" in category 2 and | 4. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 02. Agree | 04. Disagree | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2011): D3004 | | The Irish question on D3004 differs from the CSES | question of origin: "On a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 means you | strongly believe that the government SHOULD ACT to reduce | differences in income and wealth, and 10 means that you strongly | believe that the government SHOULD NOT ACT to reduce differences | in income and wealth, where would you place your view?" | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Strongly Agree (0 & 1) | 02. Somewhat Agree (2 & 3) | 03. Neither Agree Nor Disagree (4, 5 & 6) | 04. Somewhat Disagree (7 & 8) | 05. Strongly Disagree (9 & 10) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): D3004 | | This question was asked only in the mail-back and web survey | (see D1023). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D3004 | | The Taiwanese questionnaire did not include a neutral | anchor (3) of the perception-scale on government action. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Strongly agree | 02. Agree | 04. Disagree | 05. Strongly disagree --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3005_PR_1 >>> Q05P1a. CURRENT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT - 1ST ROUND D3005_PR_2 >>> Q05P2a. CURRENT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT - 2ND ROUND D3005_LH >>> Q05LHa. CURRENT LOWER HOUSE ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The wording of this item, which is to record voting in the national election, follows national standards. This item ascertains whether or not the respondent cast a ballot, regardless of whether or not it was valid. If the data collection occurs between rounds in a two round election, this item should ascertain whether or not the respondent intends to cast a ballot in the second round, regardless of whether or not it will be valid. If the data collection occurs after the second round in a two round election, this item should ascertain whether or not the respondent cast a ballot in the second round, regardless of whether or not it was valid. .................................................................. 1. RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT/WILL CAST A BALLOT 5. RESPONDENT DID NOT CAST A BALLOT/WILL NOT CAST A BALLOT 6. VOLUNTEERED: RESPONDENT NOT REGISTERED ON ELECTORAL LISTS [IF APPLICABLE] 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3005_ | | In order to differ between respondents who already voted and | those, who express their will to vote, please consider D1022. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D3005_PR_2 | | Twelve respondents were interviewed before the second round of | the presidential elections took place on November 21 (see also | D1026 and D1027). In these cases, respondents were asked for | their voting intention rather than their actual turnout. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D3005_LH | | Because voting is compulsory in Australia, a question about | electoral participation for the Lower House was not asked. | D3005_LH was coded based on the vote choice variable. | Respondents who mentioned to have voted for a party were coded | as "1. Yes", while those who said "Voted informal/did not vote" | were coded as "5. No." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D3005_PR_1 | | The 2014 elections took place on the same day on multiple | levels. Voting is not compulsory for Brazilians between the ages | of 16 and 17 or over 70, and for illiterate citizens of any age. | Due to compulsory voting, non-voters have to officially justify | non-voting behavior on election day. In the Brazilian election | study respondents were asked if they voted in "the first round" | of the current election. Although it can be assumed that the | presidential election is meant, it is not made explicit. | In the original data, there were different kind of "no" answers | which showed why respondents did not vote. The answer values | were recoded as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Yes, voted | 05. No, more than 70 years old (voluntary) | No, 16-17 years old (voluntary) | No, showed justification in 1st round | Neither voted nor showed justification at first | round | No, didn't have the necessary documentation | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D3005_PR_2 | | In the Brazilian election study, respondents were asked if | they voted in "the second round" of the current election. | Although it can be assumed that the presidential election is | meant, it is not made explicit. In the original data, | there were different kind of "no" answers which showed why | respondents did not vote. The answer values were recoded | as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Yes, voted | 05. No, more than 70 years old (voluntary) | No, 16-17 years old (voluntary) | No, showed justification in 1st round | Neither voted nor showed justification at first | round | No, didn't have the necessary documentation | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D3005_LH | | The question if respondents voted in the "first round" of | the current election did not differentiate between the | presidential, lower house and upper house elections. | Since voting is compulsory, it can be assumed, that | most persons who answered "yes", voted in all of the elections | and those who answered "no" did not vote in any of the | elections, which took place simultaneously. Further, there | were different kind of "no" answers in the original dataset | which showed why respondents did not vote. These values were | recoded as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Yes, voted | 05. No, more than 70 years old (voluntary) | No, 16-17 years old (voluntary) | No, showed justification in 1st round | Neither voted nor showed justification at first | round | No, didn't have the necessary documentation | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2011): D3005_LH | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Voted | 05. Not voted | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D3005_PR_1 and D3005_LH | | The elections were general elections in which, amongst others, | the president and the lower and upper house of the parliament | were elected. When respondents indicated that they had voted in | the general elections, it is assumed that they voted for all | of these three institutions. This assumption is supported by the | fact that the number of votes cast for the presidential, the | upper house and the lower house elections are very similar | (see https://www.iebc.or.ke/docs/4TH%20MARCH%202013%20GENERAL% | 20ELECTION%20DATA.pdf, accessed February 2, 2017). | | One respondent indicated a vote choice in D3006_PR_1 even though | s/he indicated not to have voted in D3005_PR_1. As it is not | possible to identify in which item the error occurred, the data | remain unchanged. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011 & 2014): D3005_LH | | The question which was used in New Zealand reads: "From looking | at the election results, we can see that a lot of people didn't | cast a vote. Did you vote, not manage to vote, or choose not to | vote?' The answers 'did not manage to vote' and 'chose not to | vote' were collapsed into CSES category 'did not cast a ballot". | Both validated and unvalidated respondents data was provided. | The CSES makes use only of the unvalidated answers. Around 10% | of the answers did not match the validated answers with a larger | amount of persons underreporting their vote cast. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D3005_PR_1 and | D3005_LH | | Only respondents who indicated that they were registered to vote | and who indicated that they voted in the general elections were | asked this question. 'Refused' answers to the registration | question were coded as 'refused' in D3005_PR_1. 'Don't know' | answers to the registration question were coded as 'missing' in | D3005_PR_1. 'Refused' answers to the general elections question | were coded as 'refused' in D3005_PR_1. | The original data show that six respondents reported their | voting behavior inconsistently. When asked before the elections | whether they had already participated in early voting they | answered yes. However, when asked after the elections they | reported not to have voted early. For the CSES coding, the | answer given before the elections is assumed to be valid. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3005_UH >>> CURRENT UPPER HOUSE ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The wording of this item, which is to record voting in the national election, follows national standards. This item ascertains whether or not the respondent cast a ballot, regardless of whether or not it was valid. .................................................................. 1. RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT/WILL CAST A BALLOT 5. RESPONDENT DID NOT CAST A BALLOT/WILL NOT CAST A BALLOT 6. VOLUNTEERED: RESPONDENT NOT REGISTERED ON ELECTORAL LISTS [IF APPLICABLE] 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 996. NOT APPLICABLE: UNICAMERAL SYSTEM 997. NOT APPLICABLE: NO UPPER HOUSE ELECTION 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3005_UH | | In order to differ between respondents who already voted and | those, who express their will to vote, please consider D1022. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D3005_UH | | Because voting is compulsory in Australia, a question about | electoral participation for the Lower House was not asked. | D3005_UH was coded based on the vote choice variable. | Respondents who mentioned to have voted for a party were coded | as '1. Yes', while those who said "Voted informal/did not vote" | were coded as '5. No'. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D3005_UH | | The question if respondents voted in the "first round" of the | current election did not differentiate between the | presidential, lower house and upper house elections. Since | voting is compulsory, it can be assumed, that most persons who | answered "yes", voted in all of the elections and those who | answered "no" did not vote in any of the elections, which took | place simultaneously. Furthermore, there were different kind of | "no" answers in the original dataset which showed why | respondents did not vote. These values were recoded as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Yes, voted | 05. No, more than 70 years old (voluntary) | No, 16-17 years old (voluntary) | No, showed justification in 1st round | Neither voted nor showed justification at first | round | No, didn't have the necessary documentation | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D3005_UH | | The elections were general elections in which, amongst others, | the president and the lower and upper house of the parliament | were elected. When respondents indicated that they had voted in | the general elections, it is assumed that they voted for all | of these three institutions. This assumption is supported by the | fact that the number of votes cast for the presidential, the | upper house and the lower house elections are very similar | (see https://www.iebc.or.ke/docs/4TH%20MARCH%202013%20GENERAL% | 20ELECTION%20DATA.pdf, accessed February 2, 2017). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D3005_UH | | Only respondents who indicated that they were registered to vote | and who indicated that they voted in the general elections were | asked this question. | The original data show that six respondents reported their | voting behavior inconsistently. When asked before the elections | whether they had already participated in early voting they | answered yes. However, when asked after the elections they | reported not to have voted early. For the CSES coding, the | answer given before the elections is assumed to be valid. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3006_PR_1 >>> Q05P1b. CURRENT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - 1ST ROUND D3006_PR_2 >>> Q05P2b. CURRENT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - 2ND ROUND --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If applicable and respondent cast a ballot in the presidential election: These variables report the respondent's vote choice for President in the first and/or second round of election. If the data collection occurs between rounds in a two round election, this item should report the respondent's vote choice intention for president in the second round. If the data collection occurs after the second round in a two round election, this item should report the respondent's vote choice for president in the second round. .................................................................. 01-88. [SEE CODEBOOK PART 3 FOR PARTY AND LEADER NUMERIC CODES] 89. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 90. OTHER CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 91. NONE OF THE CANDIDATES 92. R CAST INVALID BALLOT 93. R CAST BLANK BALLOT 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3006_PR_1 & PR_2 | | For more detailed information on how CSES codes | parties/coalitions, please see Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | | Respondents that mentioned not casting a ballot in the current | Presidential election (D3005_PR_) but report a vote choice | are included as it is not possible to identify why this | inconsistency occurred. We report such deviations below in | the ELECTION STUDY NOTES. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D3006_PR_2 | | Twelve respondents were interviewed before the second round of | the presidential elections took place on November 21 (see also | D1026 and D1027). In these cases, respondents were asked for | their voting intention rather than their actual vote choice. | | Moreover, 113 respondents reported a vote choice despite | previously reporting they had abstained in the election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D3006_PR_1 | | Presidential candidates were supported by their own as well as | other parties. Dilma Rousseff, the Presidential candidate of the | Workers' Party (PT) was also endorsed for the Presidency by the | following parties: | Brazilian Democratic Movement (PMDB) - Party C | Progressive Party (PP) - Party D | Social Democratic Party (PSD) - Party F | Republic Party (PR) - Party G | Republican Party of the Social Order (PROS) | Democratic Labor Party (PDT) | Brazilian Republican Party (PRB) | Communist Party of Brazil (PCdoB) | | Aecio Neves, the Presidential candidate of the Brazilian Social | Democracy Party (PSDB) was also endorsed for the Presidency by | the following parties: | Democrats (DEM) - Party I | Brazilian Labor Party (PTB) | National Ecology Party (PEN) | National Labor Party (PTN) | Party of National Mobilization (PMN) | Solidarity (SD) | Christian Labor Party (PTC) | Labor Party of Brazil (PTdoB) | | Marina Silva, the Presidential candidate of the Brazilian Social | Democratic Party (PSD) was also endorsed for the Presidency by | the following parties: | Progressive Republic Party (PRP) | Popular Socialist Party (PPS) | Social Liberal Party (PSL) | Free Homeland Party (PPL) | Humanist Party of Solidarity (PHS) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D3006_PR_1 | | One respondent indicated a vote choice in D3006_PR_1 even though | s/he indicated not to have voted in D3005_PR_1. As it is not | possible to identify in which item the error occurred, the data | remain unchanged. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D3006_PR_1 | | For three of the presidential candidates there is a strong | divergence of aggregated respondents’ reported vote choice | in comparison to official election data. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D3006_PR_1 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Ma Ying-Jeou and Wu Den-Yih (KMT) | 02. Tsai Ing-Wen and Su Jia-Chyuan (DPP) | 03. James Soong and Lin Ruey-Shiung (PFP) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3006_LH_PL >>> Q05LHb. CURRENT LOWER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - PARTY LIST D3006_LH_DC >>> Q05LHc. CURRENT LOWER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - DISTRICT CANDIDATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If applicable and respondent cast a ballot in the Lower House legislative election: These variables report the respondent's vote choice for party list and/or district candidate in Lower House elections. See Election Study Notes for more information. For preferential STV voting systems, please provide the first two preferences (Q5LH-c1 and Q5LH-c2). .................................................................. 01-88. [SEE CODEBOOK PART 3 FOR PARTY AND LEADER CODES] 89. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 90. OTHER PARTY/CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 91. NONE OF THE PARTIES/CANDIDATES 92. R CAST INVALID BALLOT 93. R CAST BLANK BALLOT 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3006_LH | | For more detailed information on how CSES codes | parties/coalitions, please see Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | | Respondents that mentioned not casting a ballot in the current | lower house election (D3005_LH) but report a vote choice | are included as it is not possible to identify why this | inconsistency occurred. We report such deviations below in | tables (where appropriate) or in ELECTION STUDY NOTES. | | +++ TABLE: FREQUENCIES OF NON-VOTERS (D3005_LH) | REPORTING A VOTE CHOICE (D3006_LH_) | | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) PARTY LIST DISTRICT | ------------------------------------------------------------- | AUSTRALIA (2013) 0 72 | KENYA (2013) 0 34 | MONTENEGRO (2012) 19 0 | NEW ZEALAND (2011) 18 18 | NEW ZEALAND (2014) 2 2 | NORWAY (2013) 175 0 | PHILIPPINES (2016) 75 75 | ------------------------------------------------------------- | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D3006_LH_PL | | For this variable, data has been coded to indicate the coalition | a respondent voted for (codes 1 to 6). Some respondents had | initially indicated the individual party they voted for. These | answers were recoded into the appropriate coalition code. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D3006_LH_DC | | Respondents who mentioned "Voted informal/did not vote", were | coded as "99. missing" in D3006_LH_DC. See Election Study Note | on D3005_LH, in addition. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): D3006_LH_PL | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 92. Invalid/blank ballot | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012 & 2015): D3006_LH_PL | | Despite having a mixed electoral system, in congressional | elections Mexican voters cast a single vote in a simple | plurality election. The PR seats are allocated according | to the national distribution of votes. Thus, only the district | vote choice variable is employed. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2015): D3006_LH_DC | | No respondents are coded as "97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED" because | a specific procedure was used to obtain respondents' answers | for this variable. Respondents completed a pseudo ballot and | insert it into a pseudo ballot box. Consequently, respondents | who did not wish to provide a response were coded in the | categories "93. BLANK BALLOT" or "92. INVALID BALLOT". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011): D3006_LH_ | | The NZES also collected the "validated" vote. Users | interested in these data are referred to contact the New Zealand | election study directly. In order to make the study more | comparative across countries, the CSES makes use only of the | unvalidated respondents' answers. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D3005_LH_PL | | While the Norwegian election study possesses verified | versions of the vote questions, the CSES only makes use of | respondents' unverified answers in order to make these more | comparable to other election studies. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D3006_LH_DC | | A number of respondents reported to have voted for parties that | were part of an electoral alliance. This pertains to 93 | respondents who reported to have voted for the Social Democratic | Party (PSD), 33 respondents who reported to have voted for the | National Liberal Party (PNL) and 1 respondent who reported to | have voted for the National Union for Romania's Progress (UNPR). | These respondents were recoded to "1. Social Liberal Union | (USL)", the electoral alliance which all of these parties were | part of. An additional 35 respondents reported to have voted for | the Liberal Democratic Party (PDL) and 1 respondent reported to | have voted for the Christian Democratic National Peasant Party | (PNTCD). These were recoded to "2. Alliance for a Just Romania | (ARD)", the electoral alliance which the PDL and the PNTCD were | part of. | There are large discrepancies between reported vote and actual | election outcome (see election study note for Romania 2012 for | variable D1010_3 for more). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2016): D3006_LH_PL | | The Slovakian survey included a loop question. Respondents | who answered with either "don't know" or refused to name a party | were asked again to try to recall the party which they had voted | for. This pertained to 95 respondents. After being asked again, | 31 of these respondents named a party they had recalled to have | voted for in the election. These were were coded as valid | answers. | Furthermore, due to the sample procedure, voters of the | Direction-Social Democracy (Smer) Party (CSES Code 1) were | overrepresented in the sample, resulting in a discrepancy | between the reported vote and the actual election outcome of | 9.27%. Applying the demographic weight reduces this discrepancy | to 5.29%. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2011): D3006_LH_ | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 92. Go but don't do anything | 93. Vote no --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3006_LH_PF >>> Q05LHd. CURRENT LOWER HOUSE ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST A PREFERENCE VOTE? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports whether a respondent cast a preference vote. There are two different types of preference vote. The first is associated with open PR-List systems. These systems allow citizens to vote for a party list and to mark a "preference" for one or more candidates within the party list. In these systems, this type of vote is known as a preference vote (or a candidate vote). The second is associated with STV and AV systems, where citizens rank-order candidates in descending order of their preference. In these systems, a distinction is made between a voter's first preference (i.e.: who voters allocate their "number 1" preference to) and their subsequent lower preferences. These latter preferences (i.e.: all the voter's preferences aside from their first preference) are also known as preference votes. We distinguish between these two different types of preference votes in the below categorization. In party list systems, the question asked of respondents should read like this: "Did you simply vote for a party or did you also express a candidate preference?" In party list systems where voters have to vote directly for a candidate and cannot cast a vote for the party list only (e.g.: Estonia, Finland, & Poland), the question asked of respondents should read like this: "Do you consider the vote that you cast merely a vote for the party, or did you also mean it as a vote for a particular candidate?" In STV/AV systems, the question asked of respondents should be akin to this: "Which of the parties/candidates did you give your preference vote to?" or "To whom did you give your second (or lower) preference vote to?" .................................................................. 0. CASTING PREFERENCE VOTE IS NOT APPLICABLE 1. RESPONDENT CAST PREFERENCE VOTE IN PR-LIST SYSTEM 2. RESPONDENT CAST PREFERENCE VOTE IN AV/STV SYSTEM 5. RESPONDENT DID NOT CAST PREFERENCE VOTE 6. RESPONDENT CAST INVALID BALLOT 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3006_LH_PF | | For more detailed information on how CSES codes | parties/coalitions, please see Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | Respondents that mentioned not casting a ballot in the current | lower house election (D3005_LH) but reported a vote choice are | included as it is not possible to identify why this | inconsistency occurred. We report such deviations below in | the ELECTION STUDY NOTES. | | Data are unavailable for FINLAND (2015), GREECE (2012), GREECE | (2015), IRELAND (2011), ICELAND (2013), PHILIPPINES (2016), and | POLAND (2011). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D3006_LH_PF | | Seventy-two respondents reported a preference vote choice | despite previously reporting they had abstained in the election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D3006_LH_PF | | 118 respondents reported a preference vote choice despite | previously reporting they had abstained in the election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2011): D3006_LH_PF | | The Latvian electoral system allows voters to specify both | positive and negative preferences on the ballot. The question | pertaining to this variable asked respondents whether they used | any type of preference vote. Hence, this variable refers to both | positive and negative preference votes. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3006_UH_PL >>> CURRENT UPPER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - PARTY LIST D3006_UH_DC >>> CURRENT UPPER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - DISTRICT CANDIDATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If applicable and respondent cast a ballot in the Upper House legislative election: These variables report the respondent's vote choice for party list and/or district candidate in Upper House elections. See Election Study Notes for more information. .................................................................. 01-88. [SEE CODEBOOK PART 3 FOR PARTY AND LEADER CODES] 89. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 90. OTHER PARTY/CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 91. NONE OF THE PARTIES/CANDIDATES 92. R CAST INVALID BALLOT 93. R CAST BLANK BALLOT 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 996. NOT APPLICABLE: UNICAMERAL SYSTEM 997. NOT APPLICABLE: NO UPPER HOUSE ELECTION 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3006_UH_PL | | For more detailed information on how CSES codes | parties/coalitions, please see Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | Respondents that mentioned not casting a ballot in the current | lower house election (D3005_LH) but report a vote choice are | included as it is not possible to identify why this | inconsistency occurred. We report such deviations below in | the ELECTION STUDY NOTES. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D3006_UH_DC | | Respondents who mentioned "Voted informal/did not vote", were | coded as "99. MISSING" in D3006_UH_DC. See Election Study Note | on D3005_UH, in addition. | Moreover, 61 respondents reported casting a district vote | despite previously reporting they had abstained in the election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D3006_UH_DC | | A number of respondents reported to have voted for parties that | were part of an electoral alliance. This pertains to 96 | respondents who reported to have voted for the Social Democratic | Party (PSD), 33 respondents who reported to have voted for the | National Liberal Party (PNL) and 1 respondent who reported to | have voted for the National Union for Romania's Progress (UNPR). | These respondents were recoded to "1. Social Liberal Union | (USL)", the electoral alliance which all of these parties were | part of. An additional 33 respondents reported to have voted for | the Liberal Democratic Party (PDL). These were recoded to | "2. Alliance for a Just Romania (ARD)" of which the PDL was a | member. | There are also discrepancies between reported vote and actual | election outcome (see election study note for Romania 2012 for | variable D1010_3 for more). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3006_UH_PF >>> CURRENT UPPER HOUSE ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST CANDIDATE PREFERENCE VOTE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports whether a respondent cast a preference vote in the current Upper House elections. There are two different types of preference vote. The first is associated with open PR-List systems. These systems allow citizens to vote for a party list and to mark a "preference" for one or more candidates within the party list. In these systems, this type of vote is known as a preference vote (or a candidate vote). The second is associated with STV and AV systems, where citizens rank-order candidates in descending order of their preference. In these systems, a distinction is made between a voter's first preference (i.e.: who voters allocate their "number 1" preference to) and their subsequent lower preferences. These latter preferences (i.e.: all the voter's preferences aside from their first preference) are also known as preference votes. We distinguish between these two different types of preference votes in the below categorization. In party list systems, the question asked of respondents should read like this: "Did you simply vote for a party or did you also express a candidate preference?" In party list systems where voters have to vote directly for a candidate and cannot cast a vote for the party list only (e.g.: Estonia, Finland, & Poland), the question asked of respondents should read like this: "Do you consider the vote that you cast merely a vote for the party, or did you also mean it as a vote for a particular candidate?" In STV/AV systems, the question asked of respondents should be akin to this: "Which of the parties/candidates did you give your preference vote to?" or "To whom did you give your second (or lower) preference vote to?" .................................................................. 0. CASTING PREFERENCE VOTE IS NOT APPLICABLE 1. RESPONDENT CAST PREFERENCE VOTE IN PR-LIST SYSTEM 2. RESPONDENT CAST PREFERENCE VOTE IN AV/STV SYSTEM 5. RESPONDENT DID NOT CAST PREFERENCE VOTE 6. RESPONDENT CAST INVALID BALLOT 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 996. NOT APPLICABLE: UNICAMERAL SYSTEM 997. NOT APPLICABLE: NO UPPER HOUSE ELECTION 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3006_UH_PF | | For more detailed information on how CSES codes | parties/coalitions, please see Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | Respondents that mentioned not casting a ballot in the current | lower house election (D3005_LH) but report a vote choice are | included as it is not possible to identify why this | inconsistency occurred. We report such deviations below in | tables (where appropriate) or in ELECTION STUDY NOTES. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D3006_LH_PF | | Sixty-one respondents reported a preference vote choice despite | previously reporting they had abstained in the election. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3007_PR_1 >>> Q06a. PREVIOUS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT - 1ST ROUND D3007_PR_2 >>> Q06a. PREVIOUS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT - 2ND ROUND D3007_LH >>> Q06a. PREVIOUS ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT - LOWER HOUSE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This item ascertains whether or not the respondent cast a ballot, regardless of whether or not it was valid, in the PREVIOUS election to be considered (see instructions). .................................................................. 1. RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT 5. RESPONDENT DID NOT CAST A BALLOT 6. VOLUNTEERED: NOT ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN LAST ELECTION OR NOT REGISTERED ON ELECTORAL LISTS 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3007_PR_1-D3007_LH | | +++ TABLE: SUMMARY OF TYPE OF PREVIOUS ELECTION | AND THE YEAR IN WHICH IT WAS HELD | | Presidential Lower House Upper House | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) Election Election Election | ----------------------------------------------------------- | ARGENTINA (2015) 2011 - - | AUSTRALIA (2013) - 2010 - | AUSTRIA (2013) - 2008 - | BRAZIL (2014) 2010 2010 2010 | BULGARIA (2014) - 2013 - | CANADA (2011) - 2008 - | CANADA (2015) - 2011 - | CZECH REPUBLIC (2013) - 2010 - | FINLAND (2015) - 2011 - | FRANCE (2012) - 2007 - | GERMANY (2013) - 2013 - | GREAT BRITAIN (2015) - 2010 - | GREECE (2012) - 2012 - | GREECE (2015) - 2012 - | HONG KONG (2012) - 2008 - | ICELAND (2013) - 2009 - | IRELAND (2011) - 2007 - | ISRAEL (2013) - 2013 - | JAPAN (2013) - 2012 - | KENYA (2013) 2007 - - | LATVIA (2011) - 2010 - | LATVIA (2014) - 2011 - | MEXICO (2012) - 2009 - | MEXICO (2015) - 2012 - | MONTENEGRO (2012) - 2009 - | NEW ZEALAND (2011) - 2008 - | NEW ZEALAND (2014) - 2011 - | NORWAY (2013) - 2009 - | PERU (2016) 2011 - - | PHILIPPINES (2016) - 2013 - | POLAND (2011) - 2007 - | PORTUGAL (2015) - 2011 - | ROMANIA (2012) - 2008 2008 | ROMANIA (2014) 2009 - - | SERBIA (2012) - 2008 - | SLOVAKIA (2016) - 2012 - | SLOVENIA (2011) - 2008 - | SOUTH AFRICA (2014) - 2009 - | SOUTH KOREA (2012) - 2008 - | SWEDEN (2014) - 2010 - | SWITZERLAND (2011) - 2007 - | TAIWAN (2012) - 2008 - | THAILAND (2011) - 2007 - | TURKEY (2015) - 2011 - | UNITED STATES (2012) 2008 2010 2010 | ------------------------------------------------------------- | KEY: X = Year in which last applicable election was held; | - = Not applicable. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D3007_PR_1 | | The information coded in D3007_PR_1 was derived from | variable D3008_PR_1 (PREVIOUS ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - PRESIDENT | [FIRST ROUND]). D3008_PR_1 included one answer option "did | not vote". All missing codes (refused, don't know, missing) were | also taken over from variable D3008_PR_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D3007_PR_1 & D3007_LH | | Respondents were asked if they voted in the first round of the | election in 2010, without further specifying which ballot was | meant. The variable was used to code all three types of | elections (round one of the presidential election, lower house | and upper house). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES – CANADA (2011 & 2015): D3007_LH | | The variable is from the pre-election survey. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): D3007_LH | | Respondents were asked a single question: 'Thinking back to the | previous general election held on 6th May 2010, do you remember | which party you voted for then - or perhaps you didn't vote?' | Respondents who reported not having voted in 2010 were coded as | 5 and all those reporting a vote choice were coded as 1. | Respondents' candidate answers were coded into D3007_LH_DC. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012): D3007_LH | | The variable D3007_LH refers to the 2012 Greek election which | which took place on May 6, 2012. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2011): D3007_LH | | The Irish question on D3007_LH did not include an answer | category for "not eligible to vote" (code 6). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D3007_PR_1 | | The question whether a respondent voted was not asked in the | Kenyan survey. Instead, this variable was coded as | "1. RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT" if a vote choice was indicated for | variable D3008_PR_1. This variable was coded "5. RESPONDENT DID | NOT CAST A BALLOT" if variable D3008_PR_1 was missing. The | categories "refused" and "don't know" were also coded according | to D3008_PR_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D3007_PR_1 | | Respondents were not given the answer option "not eligible to | vote." As a consequence, respondents who were ineligible to vote | in the 2008 elections, were coded as "did not cast a ballot." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3007_UH >>> PREVIOUS ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT - UPPER HOUSE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This item ascertains whether or not the respondent cast a ballot, regardless of whether or not it was valid, in the PREVIOUS UPPER HOUSE election. .................................................................. 1. RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT 5. RESPONDENT DID NOT CAST A BALLOT 6. VOLUNTEERED: NOT ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN LAST ELECTION OR NOT REGISTERED ON ELECTORAL LISTS 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 996. NOT APPLICABLE: UNICAMERAL SYSTEM 997. NOT APPLICABLE: NO UPPER HOUSE ELECTION 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3007_UH | | +++ TABLE: SUMMARY OF TYPE OF PREVIOUS ELECTION | AND THE YEAR IN WHICH IT WAS HELD | | Presidential Lower House Upper House | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) Election Election Election | ----------------------------------------------------------- | ARGENTINA (2015) 2011 - - | AUSTRALIA (2013) - 2010 - | AUSTRIA (2013) - 2008 - | BRAZIL (2014) 2010 2010 2010 | BULGARIA (2014) - 2013 - | CANADA (2011) - 2008 - | CANADA (2015) - 2011 - | CZECH REPUBLIC (2013) - 2010 - | FINLAND (2015) - 2011 - | FRANCE (2012) - 2007 - | GERMANY (2013) - 2013 - | GREAT BRITAIN (2015) - 2010 - | GREECE (2012) - 2012 - | GREECE (2015) - 2012 - | HONG KONG (2012) - 2008 - | ICELAND (2013) - 2009 - | IRELAND (2011) - 2007 - | ISRAEL (2013) - 2013 - | JAPAN (2013) - 2012 - | KENYA (2013) 2007 - - | LATVIA (2011) - 2010 - | LATVIA (2014) - 2011 - | MEXICO (2012) - 2009 - | MEXICO (2015) - 2012 - | MONTENEGRO (2012) - 2009 - | NEW ZEALAND (2011) - 2008 - | NEW ZEALAND (2014) - 2011 - | NORWAY (2013) - 2009 - | PERU (2016) 2011 - - | PHILIPPINES (2016) - 2013 - | POLAND (2011) - 2007 - | PORTUGAL (2015) - 2011 - | ROMANIA (2012) - 2008 2008 | ROMANIA (2014) 2009 - - | SERBIA (2012) - 2008 - | SLOVAKIA (2016) - 2012 - | SLOVENIA (2011) - 2008 - | SOUTH AFRICA (2014) - 2009 - | SOUTH KOREA (2012) - 2008 - | SWEDEN (2014) - 2010 - | SWITZERLAND (2011) - 2007 - | TAIWAN (2012) - 2008 - | THAILAND (2011) - 2007 - | TURKEY (2015) - 2011 - | UNITED STATES (2012) 2008 2010 2010 | ------------------------------------------------------------- | KEY: X = Year in which last applicable election was held; | - = Not applicable. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D3007_UH | | Respondents were asked if they voted in the first round | of the election in 2010, without further specifying which | ballot was meant. The variable was used to code all three | types of elections (round one of the presidential election, | lower house and upper house). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3008_PR_1 >>> Q06b. PREVIOUS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - 1ST ROUND D3008_PR_2 >>> 0Q6b. PREVIOUS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - 2ND ROUND --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If applicable and respondent cast a ballot in the presidential election: This item reports the respondent's vote choice for president in the PREVIOUS election. .................................................................. 01-88. [SEE CODEBOOK PART 3 FOR PARTY AND LEADER CODES & BELOW ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 89. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 90. OTHER CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 91. NONE OF THE CANDIDATES 92. R CAST INVALID BALLOT 93. R CAST BLANK BALLOT 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3008_PR_1 & PR_2 | | Numerical party/alliance codes are listed in Part 3 of the CSES | Codebook. | | There are cases in which numerical party codes for previous vote | choice might differ from those assigned for current vote choice | (for example - a party in the current election might be running | as part of an alliance this time but in the previous election | ran alone). In these circumstances, we list deviations/ | additional codes below in each polity's ELECTION STUDY NOTES. | | Respondents that mentioned not casting a ballot in the previous | Presidential election (D3007_PR) but report a vote choice are | included as it is not possible to identify why this | inconsistency occurred. We report such deviations below in | in the ELECTION STUDY NOTES. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D3008_PR_1 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 1. Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner | 2. Ricardo Alfonsin | 3. Eduardo Duhalde | 4. Hermes Binner | 5. Alberto Rodriguez Saa | 6. Elisa Carrio | 7. Jorge Altamira | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D3008_PR_1 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 2. Raila Odinga | 4. Kalonzo Musyoka | 46. Mwai Kibaki | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2015): D3008_PR_1 | | Code 92 deviates slightly from its original meaning "invalid | ballot" in this case, standing here for "invalid or blank vote". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): D3008_PR_1 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 8. Alejandro Toledo (Party: Peru Possible) | 13. Ollanta Humala (Party: Peru Wins) | 14. Keiko Fujimori (Party: Force 2011) | 15. Pedro Pablo Kuczynski (Party: Alliance for the | Big Change) | 16. Luis Castaneda (Party: National Solidarity | Alliance) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): D3008_PR_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 13. Ollanta Humala (Party: Peru Wins) | 14. Keiko Fujimori (Party: Force 2011) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3008_LH_PL >>> Q06b. PREVIOUS LOWER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - PARTY LIST D3008_LH_DC >>> Q06c. PREVIOUS LOWER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - DISTRICT CANDIDATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If applicable and respondent cast a ballot in the Lower House legislative election: These items report the respondent's vote choice for party list and/or district candidate in the PREVIOUS election. .................................................................. 01-88. [SEE CODEBOOK PART 3 FOR PARTY AND LEADER CODES & BELOW ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 89. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 90. OTHER PARTY/CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 91. NONE OF THE PARTIES/CANDIDATES 92. R CAST INVALID BALLOT 93. R CAST BLANK BALLOT 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3008_LH_ | | Numerical party/alliance codes are listed in Part 3 of the CSES | Codebook. | | There are cases in which numerical party codes for previous vote | choice might differ from those assigned for current vote choice | (for example - a party in the current election might be running | as part of an alliance this time but in the previous election | ran alone). In these circumstances, we list deviations/ | additional codes below in each polity's ELECTION STUDY NOTES. | | Respondents that mentioned not casting a ballot in the previous | Presidential election (D3007_LH) but report a vote choice | are included as it is not possible to identify why this | inconsistency occurred. We report such deviations below in | the ELECTION STUDY NOTES. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2014): D3008_LH_PL | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 20. Union of Democratic Forces | 21. Order, Law and Justice | 22. VMRO - Bulgarian National Movement | 23. Leader | 24. Democrats for Strong Bulgaria and Bulgarian | Democratic Forum (DSB BDF) | 25. Movement Bulgaria for Citizens | 26. People's Voice | ELECTION STUDY NOTES – CANADA (2015): D3008_LH_DC | | The variable is from the pre-election survey. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2013): D3008_LH_PL | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 25. Czech National Social Party (CSNS) | 27. Public Affairs (VV) | 28. Liberal Reform Party (LiRA) | 29. Conservative Party (KONS) | 31. Moravians | 32. STOP | 34. Czech National Socialist Party (CSNS 2005) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): D3008_LH_PL | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Synaspismos Rizospastikis Aristeras (SYRIZA-EKM) | 02. Nea Dimokratia (ND) | 03. Laikos Syndesmos - Chrysi Aygi | 05. Kommounistiko Komma Elladas (KKE) | 06. Anexartitoi Ellines (ANEL) | 07. Dimokratiki Symparataxi (DISI) | 10. Laikos Orthodoxos Synagermos (LAOS) | 12. Dimokratiki Aristera (DIMAR) | 14. Dimiourgia Xana (DHMXANA) | 15. Oikologoi Prasinoi (OP) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2011): D3008_LH_DC | | The Socialist Party (coded Party 7) in the previous vote choice | variable (D3008_LH_DC) competed as part of the United Left | Alliance - ULA (PARTY E). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2013): D3008_LH_PL | | D3008_LH_PL Party and Leader codes for the previous | parliamentary election, 2009. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Likud (L, National Liberal Party) | 02. Yisrael Beiteinu (YB, Israel Our Home) | 03. Ha'avoda (Labour) | 04. Habayit Hayehudi (HH, The Jewish Home) | 05. Shomrei Sfarad (Shas, Sfarad's Keepers of Torah) | 06. Yahadut Hatorah (YH, United Toah Judaism) | 07. Hatnua Hayeruka (Hat, The Green Movement) | 08. Meretz | 09. HaReshima HaAravit (Raam, United Arab List) | 10. Hadash (H, Democratic Front for Peace and Eq.) | 11. Brit Le'umit Demokratit (Balad, Nat. Dem Assem.) | 12. Kadima (Kadima, Forward) | 13. Haichud Haleumi (The National Alliance) | 14. Gil (Pensioners of Israel) | 15. Sabra (Israel's young adults zabar) | 16. The Green Party (Hayerukim) | 17. Green Leaf / Ale yarok | 18. Leader | 19. Eternal Convenant / Brit olam | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2011): D3008_LH_PL | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 14. For a good Latvia (AS) (Alliance between LPP/LC | and People's Party) | 15. Made in Latvia | 16. Responsibility - Social Democratic Alliance of | Political Parties | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENGRO (2012): D3008_LH_PL | | Sixteen respondents reported a vote choice in previous election | despite previously reporting they had abstained in that | election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D3008_LH_PL | | The previous election was a midterm election, in which half of | the lower house representatives were exchanged. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. 1-Care | 02. 1-Lambat | 03. 1-Utak | 04. A Teacher Inc. | 05. Aambis-Owa | 06. Aangat Tayo | 07. Abakada | 08. Abamin | 09. Abansi Pinay | 10. Abante | 11. Abono | 12. Act Teachers | 13. Adda | 14. Agbiag! | 15. Agham | 16. Akbayan | 17. Ako Bahay | 18. Ako Bicol | 19. Alay Buhay | 20. Alif | 21. Alu | 22. Anak Mindnao (Amin) | 23. An Waray | 24. Anad | 25. Anak Bayan | 26. Ang Guro | 27. Angkla | 28. Apec | 29. App | 30. Ating Koop | 31. Bagong Henerasyon | 32. Bayan | 33. Buhay | 34. Butil | 35. Cibac | 36. Cocofed | 37. Consla | 38. Diwa | 39. Gabriela | 40. Kabataan | 41. Kabayan | 42. Kalinga | 43. Ang Kasangga | 44. Liberal Party | 45. Magdalo | 46. Manila Teachers | 47. Pbb | 48. Piston | 49. Pm | 50. Sanlakas | 51. 1-Cebu | 52. Senior Citizens | 53. Tucp | 54. Alab Katipunan | 55. Yacap | 56. Anakpawis | 57. Coop-Natcco | 58. Abba | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D3008_LH_DC | | For D3008_LH_DC please consult the parties and leaders table in | Codebook Part 3, not the table mentioned for D3008_LH_PL. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): D3008_LH_PL | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. PPD-PSD* | |* = In the previous elections of 2011, the PPD-PSD and the CDS | -PP did not form an electoral alliance and ran as two separate | entities. Accordingly, they have been assigned two separate | codes for vote choice in that election. The PPD-PDS has been | assigned code 1 and CDS-PP has been assigned code 8. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D3008_LH_DC | | This variable reports the respondents' voting in the 2008 | Parliamentary election. 537 respondents answered to have voted | for the Social Democratic Party (PSD) and 1 respondent indicated | to have vote for the Conservative Party (PC). Because these two | parties jointly competed as an electoral alliance in 2008, these | respondents were coded as "1." | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Political Alliance Social Democratic Party + | Conservative Party (PSD+PC) | 02. Liberal Democratic Party (PDL) | 03. National Liberal Party (PNL) | 04. Hungarian Democratic Union of Romania (UDMR) | 05. Greater Romania Party (PRM) | 06. Christian Democratic National Peasant | Party (PNTCD) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SERBIA (2012): D3008_LH_PL | | This variable reports the respondents' voting in the 2008 | Parliament election. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. For European Serbia - Boris Tadic (DS) | 02. Serbian Radical Party - dr Vojislav Seselj | 03. Democratic Party of Serbia - New Serbia (DSS, NS) | 04. Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS, PUPS, JS) | 05. Liberal Democratic Party - Eedomir Jovanovic | 06. Hungarian Coalition - Istvan Pasztor | 07. Bosniak List for European Sanjak - Dr | Sulejman Ugljanin | 08. Movement power of Serbia - Bogoljub Karic | 10. Reformist party - Dr Aleksandar Visnjic | 11. "Give villages a say" - Peoples Peasant Party | 20. Peoples Movement for Serbia - Milan Paroski | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2016): D3008_LH_PL | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 25. Greens (Zeleni) | 26. Party of Democratic Left (SDL) | 27. Right and Justice (PaS) | 28. Our Country (NAS KRAJ) | 29. Change from the Bottom, Democratic Union | of Slovakia (ZZ-DS) | 30. Nation and Justice - Our Party (NaS-NS) | 31. Party of Roma Union in Slovakia (SRUS) | 32. 99 Percent - Civic Voice (99%) | 33. People's Party - Movement for a Democratic | Slovakia (LS-HZDS) | 34. Party + 1 Vote (+1 HLAS) | 35. We do it for our Children (SF) | 36. Party of Slovak Citizens (SOSKA) | 37. Party of Free Word of Nora Mojsejova (SSS-NM) | 38. Party of Slovakia's Traders (SZS) | 39. Ordinary People (Obycajni ludia) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2012): D3008_LH_PL | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Grand National Party | 02. Democratic United Party (DUP) | 03. Democratic Labor Party (DLP) | 04. Liberty Forward Party | 06. New Progressive Party | 08. Pro-Park Geun-hye Alliance | 09. Creative Korea Party | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2012): D3008_LH_DC | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Grand National Party | 02. Democratic United Party (DUP) | 03. Democratic Labor Party (DLP) | 04. Liberty Forward Party | 06. New Progressive Party | 08. Pro-Park Geun-hye Alliance | 09. Creative Korea Party | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2011): D3008_LH_ | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 92. Go but don't do anything | 93. Vote no | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2015): D3008_LH_PL | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 09. Democratic Party (DP) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3008_UH_PL >>> Q06b. PREVIOUS UPPER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - PARTY LIST D3008_UH_DC_1 >>> Q06c. PREVIOUS UPPER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - DISTRICT CANDIDATE 1 D3008_UH_DC_2 >>> Q06c. PREVIOUS UPPER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - DISTRICT CANDIDATE 2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If applicable and respondent cast a ballot in the Upper House legislative election: These items report the respondent's vote choice for party list and/or district candidate in the PREVIOUS election. .................................................................. 01-88. [SEE CODEBOOK PART 3 FOR PARTY AND LEADER CODES & BELOW ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 89. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 90. OTHER PARTY/CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 91. NONE OF THE PARTIES/CANDIDATES 92. R CAST INVALID BALLOT 93. R CAST BLANK BALLOT 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 996. NOT APPLICABLE: UNICAMERAL SYSTEM 997. NOT APPLICABLE: NO UPPER HOUSE ELECTION 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3008_UH_ | | Numerical party/alliance codes are listed in Part 3 of the CSES | Module 4 Codebook. | | There are cases in which numerical party codes for previous vote | choice might differ from those assigned for current vote choice | (for example - a party in the current election might be running | as part of an alliance this time but in the previous election | ran alone). In these circumstances, we list deviations/ | additional codes below in each polity's ELECTION STUDY NOTES. | | Respondents that mentioned not casting a ballot in the previous | Presidential election (D3007_UH) but report a vote choice | are included as it is not possible to identify why this | inconsistency occurred. We report such deviations below in | tables (where appropriate) or in ELECTION STUDY NOTES. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D3008_UH_DC_ | | For the Brazilian Upper House (Federal Senate) election, 2/3 of | the seats are up for election every eight years, and 1/3 of | seats are up for election every eight years with these two | possibilities alternating from election to election. In the | 2014 Brazil election 1/3 of the Upper House seats were up for | election. Thus, voters could vote for one candidate only within | the federal state of residency. In 2010, however, voters could | vote for two candidates since 2/3 of the Upper House seats were | up for election. Consequence, the 2014 Brazilian Electoral | Study asked for whom voters voted with their first and second | choice in the 2010 Upper House election. These information are | reported in the two separate variables, D3008_UH_DC_1 and | D3008_UH_DC_2. | Moreover, 3 respondents reported a vote choice in the previous | election despite previously reporting they had abstained in | that election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D3008_UH_DC_1 | | This variable reports the respondents' vote choice in the 2008 | Parliament election. 528 respondents answered to have voted for | the Social Democratic Party (PSD) and 1 respondent indicated to | have voted for the Conservative Party (PC). Because these two | parties jointly competed as an electoral alliance in the 2008 | Romania legislative elections, these respondents were recoded | to "1. Political Alliance Social Democratic Party + Conservative | Party (PSD+PC)." | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Political Alliance Social Democratic Party + | Conservative Party (PSD+PC) | 02. Liberal Democratic Party (PDL) | 03. National Liberal Party (PNL) | 04. Hungarian Democratic Union of Romania (UDMR) | 05. Greater Romania Party (PRM) | 06. Christian Democratic National Peasant | Party (PNTCD) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3009 >>> Q07. WHO IS IN POWER CAN MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q07. Some people say that it doesn't make any difference who is in power. Others say that it makes a big difference who is in power. Using the scale on this card, (where ONE means that it doesn't make any difference who is in power and FIVE means that it makes a big difference who is in power), where would you place yourself? .................................................................. 1. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE WHO IS IN POWER 2. 3. 4. 5. IT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE WHO IS IN POWER 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3009 | | Data are unavailable for IRELAND (2011). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D3009 | | The original survey question had an inversed scale that | ran from '01. It makes a big difference who is in power' to | '05. It doesn't make any difference who is in power'. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011 & 2015): D3009 | | The variable is from the post-election mail-back survey. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): D3009 | | This question was only asked in the mail-back and web survey | (see D1023). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3010 >>> Q08. WHO PEOPLE VOTE FOR MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q08. Some people say that no matter who people vote for, it won't make any difference to what happens. Others say that who people vote for can make a big difference to what happens. Using the scale on this card, (where ONE means that voting won't make any difference to what happens and FIVE means that voting can make a big difference), where would you place yourself? .................................................................. 1. WHO PEOPLE VOTE FOR WON'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE 2. 3. 4. 5. WHO PEOPLE VOTE FOR CAN MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D3010 | | The original survey question had an inversed scale that | ran from '01. Who people vote for can make a big difference' to | '05. Who people vote for won't make any difference'. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES – CANADA (2015): D3010 | | The variable is from the post-election mail-back survey. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2011): D3010 | | The Irish question on D3010 differs from the CSES | question of origin: "So many people vote, my vote does not make | much difference to who is in government". | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Strongly agree (code 7) | 02. (Slightly) agree (codes 5 & 6) | 03. Neither agree nor disagree (code 4) | 04. (Slightly) disagree (codes 2 & 3) | 05. Strongly disagree (code 1) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D3010 | | In the Norwegian questionnaire, the response | alternative 5 did not include the word "big" and hence read | "Who people vote for can make a difference". --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3011_A >>> Q09a. LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY A D3011_B >>> Q09b. LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY B D3011_C >>> Q09c. LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY C D3011_D >>> Q09d. LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY D D3011_E >>> Q09e. LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY E D3011_F >>> Q09f. LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY F D3011_G >>> Q09g. LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY G (OPTIONAL) D3011_H >>> Q09h. LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY H (OPTIONAL) D3011_I >>> Q09i. LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY I (OPTIONAL) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q09a-i. I'd like to know what you think about each of our political parties. After I read the name of a political party, please rate it on a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 means you strongly dislike that party and 10 means that you strongly like that party. If I come to a party you haven't heard of or you feel you do not know enough about, just say so. The first party is [PARTY A]. Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY B]? Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY C]? Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY D]? Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY E]? Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY F]? Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY G]? Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY H]? Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY I]? .................................................................. 00. STRONGLY DISLIKE 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. STRONGLY LIKE 96. HAVEN'T HEARD OF PARTY 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT/DON'T KNOW WHERE TO RATE 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3011_ | | Parties and their alphabetical classifications for each country | are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES codebook. For more | information on how CSES codes parties/coalitions and leaders, | please see Part 3 of the CSES codebook. | | In some cases, parties were assigned an alphabetical CSES code | but data for D3011_ is not available for these parties. These | instances are documented in an election study note below the | party/leader table of the Election Study to which this applies | in Part 3 of the CSES codebook. | | Users should note that D3011_ includes several observations in | which all parties are scored equally by respondents. Also, there | may be instances in which respondents provide the same answer to | all items, e.g. "don't know". These data remain unchanged. | | Several respondents mentioned not to know a certain party | in one of the appropriate variables on D3011_, D3013_ or D3015_ | but evaluated even this party on any other scale. These data | remain unchanged. | | +++ TABLE: FREQUENCIES OF RESPONDENTS REPORTING THAT THEY HAD | NOT HEARD OF A SPECIFIC PARTY BUT PROVIDE AN | EVALUATION OF THE PARTY ON THE DISLIKE-LIKE SCALE | | PARTY _A _B _C _D _E _F _G _H _I | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | ARGENTINA (2015) 6 0 42 0 60 0 8 14 12 | AUSTRIA (2013) 1 0 1 1 15 11 6 0 0 | BRAZIL (2014) 109 150 116 0 212 223 214 0 223 | BULGARIA (2014) 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 | CANADA (2011) 3 2 3 1 12 0 0 0 0 | CANADA (2015) 1 1 3 0 11 0 0 0 0 | CZECH REPUBLIC (2013) 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 | FINLAND (2015) 1 3 2 1 2 1 0 2 0 | FRANCE (2012) 1 1 2 16 14 5 0 0 0 | GREECE (2012) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 | HONG KONG (2012) 1 1 1 1 2 7 0 5 2 | ICELAND (2013) 3 6 4 5 78 124 0 0 0 | ISRAEL (2013) 3 8 5 10 5 0 8 0 0 | JAPAN (2013) 1 2 2 4 2 2 8 2 4 | KENYA (2013) 0 1 9 5 7 0 6 0 0 | LATVIA (2011) 3 2 2 10 3 5 0 0 0 | LATVIA (2014) 7 5 6 10 17 31 0 0 0 | MEXICO (2012) 32 37 29 46 50 60 48 0 0 | MEXICO (2015) 28 29 26 45 38 40 0 0 38 | MONTENEGRO (2012) 114 92 97 85 95 0 76 73 51 | NORWAY (2013) 0 2 2 6 5 3 2 40 40 | PERU (2016) 27 39 53 99 0 72 117 0 0 | PHILIPPINES (2016) 7 21 0 13 11 11 0 0 23 | POLAND (2011) 40 34 55 43 43 0 0 0 0 | PORTUGAL (2011) 6 7 7 6 0 101 0 6 0 | ROMANIA (2012) 1 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 | ROMANIA (2014) 9 10 15 7 11 6 0 0 0 | SERBIA (2012) 5 0 3 1 9 6 6 0 0 | SLOVAKIA (2016) 4 11 5 5 21 5 8 6 0 | SOUTH AFRICA (2014) 12 16 20 22 23 25 26 19 16 | SWEDEN (2014) 27 27 67 30 30 24 31 32 53 | THAILAND (2011) 1 3 3 8 6 12 9 9 23 | TURKEY (2015) 0 0 0 0 1 12 0 0 0 | UNITED STATES (2012) 68 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | Please note: Have not heard of a party response might not have | been elicited to this specific question but rather at some point | during the entire interview of a respondent. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011 & 2015): D3011_ | | The variable is from the pre-election survey. | The questions about PARTY D (Bloc Quebecois, BQ) were only asked | of respondents in Quebec as the party only contests elections | in this province. | The original scale of the variable ran from 0 to 100. It was re- | calculated to the 11-point scheme by first dividing it by 9.18. | As a second step, decimal values were rounded upwards and | downwards to match the integers from 0 to 10. | | CSES Code Election Study Codes after the division | 00. All values <0.5 | 01. Values >=0.5<1.5 | 02. Values >=1.5<2.5 | 03. Values >=2.5<3.5 | 04. Values >=3.5<4.5 | 05. Values >=4.5<5.5 | 06. Values >=5.5<6.5 | 07. Values >=6.5<7.5 | 08. Values >=7.5<8.5 | 09. Values >=8.5<9.5 | 10. Values >=9.5 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): D3011_G-D3011_H | | The questions about PARTY F (Scottish National Party, SNP) and | PARTY G (Plaid Cymru, PC) were only asked of respondents in | Scotland and Wales respectively, as these parties only contest | elections in these regions. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D3011_ | | Respondents were asked to answer the like-dislike items for | four more parties than displayed in the CSES dataset. Due to the | low vote shares of these parties, they do not fall in the range | of parties A-I and are therefore not included in our dataset. | Researchers interested in like-dislike ratings of further | parties are advised to refer to the original questionnaire and | dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2012): D3011_ | | D3011_A does not refer to the electoral alliance Coalition | "For a European Montenegro" (CG) but one of its member, the | Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS). D3011_B does not refer to | the electoral alliance Democratic Front (DF) but one of its | members, the New Serb Democracy (NSD) party. D3011_H does not | refer to the electoral alliance Albanian Coalition (AK) but one | of its members, the Democratic Party (DP). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): D3011_ | | The meaning of code 96 deviates slightly from the CSES standard. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 96. I don't know this party well enough | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): D3011_ | | Respondents were not asked what they thought about the Portugal | Ahead Coalition (PaF) but instead were asked to rate their | like/dislike for each party comprising the Portugal Ahead | Coalition (PaF). Accordingly, the like-dislike scores of the | PPD-PSD are coded into variable D3011_A while like-dislike | scores of the CSD-PP are coded into variable D3011_H. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D3011_ | | Respondents were not given the answer option 'don't | know enough about/don't know where to rate' but the code 98 here | stands for 'volunteered: don't know'. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3012_A >>> Q10a. LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER A D3012_B >>> Q10b. LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER B D3012_C >>> Q10c. LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER C D3012_D >>> Q10d. LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER D D3012_E >>> Q10e. LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER E D3012_F >>> Q10f. LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER F D3012_G >>> Q10g. LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER G (OPTIONAL) D3012_H >>> Q10h. LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER H (OPTIONAL) D3012_I >>> Q10i. LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER I (OPTIONAL) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q10a-i. And what do you think of the presidential candidates/ party leaders? After I read the name of a presidential candidate/party leader, please rate them on a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 means you strongly dislike that candidate and 10 means that you strongly like that candidate. If I come to a presidential candidate/party leader you haven't heard of or you feel you do not know enough about, just say so. The first is [LEADER A]. Using the same scale, where would you place, [LEADER B]? Using the same scale, where would you place, [LEADER C]? Using the same scale, where would you place, [LEADER D]? Using the same scale, where would you place, [LEADER E]? Using the same scale, where would you place, [LEADER F]? Using the same scale, where would you place, [LEADER G]? Using the same scale, where would you place, [LEADER H]? Using the same scale, where would you place, [LEADER I]? .................................................................. 00. STRONGLY DISLIKE 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. STRONGLY LIKE 96. HAVEN'T HEARD OF LEADER 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT/DON'T KNOW WHERE TO RATE 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3012_ | | Leaders and their alphabetical classifications for each country | are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES codebook. For more | information on how CSES codes parties/coalitions and leaders, | please see Part 3 of the CSES codebook. | | In some cases, leaders were assigned an alphabetical | CSES code but data for D3012_ is not available for these | leaders. These instances are documented in an election study | note below the party/leader table of the Election Study to | which this applies in Part 3 of the CSES codebook. | | Users should note that D3012_ includes several observations in | which all parties are scored equally by respondents. Also, there | may be instances in which respondents provide the same answer to | all items, e.g. "don't know". These data remain unchanged. | | Data are unavailable for MEXICO (2015). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011 & 2015): D3012_ | | The variable is from the pre-election survey. The question | about LEADER D, Gilles Duceppe (BC), was only asked in Quebec, | the only Province Bloc Quebecois competed in. The original scale | of the variable ranged from 0 (Really Dislike) to 100 (Really | Like). It was rescaled to the 11-point scheme by first dividing | it by 9.18. In a second step, decimal values were rounded | upwards and downwards to match the integers from 0 to 10. | Further, there were different categories that respondents could | choose from to indicate that they did not know the leader they | were asked to rate, namely “Don’t know any of the leaders” and | “Don’t know who that leader is.” These were both recoded into | the CSES category “96. HAVEN’T HEARD OF LEADER.” | | CSES Code Election Study Codes after the division | 00. All values <0.5 | 01. Values >=0.5<1.5 | 02. Values >=1.5<2.5 | 03. Values >=2.5<3.5 | 04. Values >=3.5<4.5 | 05. Values >=4.5<5.5 | 06. Values >=5.5<6.5 | 07. Values >=6.5<7.5 | 08. Values >=7.5<8.5 | 09. Values >=8.5<9.5 | 10. Values >=9.5 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D3012 | | Though the CSES convention has been to only include one | personality per party, the German Election Study includes | two party personalities for several of the parties. However, | with the exception of the Social Democratic Party (SPD), | only one leader per party is included for Germany in the CSES. | The decision about which of the two politicians to include for | each party (except for the SPD) in the CSES is based on the | number of respondents that evaluated or were able to evaluate | the said candidates. The candidate that was evaluated by most | respondents was chosen for inclusion in the dataset. | Analysts who are interested in respondents' evaluation of the | other parties' leaders not included in the CSES data are | referred to the German Election Study data directly, | which can be accessed at: http://www.gles.eu/ (Date accessed: | May 16, 2018). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): D3012_ | | For MEXICO (2012), the leader evaluations refer to the | presidential and not party leaders. For further information, | see Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): D3012_ | | The meaning of code 96 deviates slightly from the CSES standard. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 96. I don't know this party well enough | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): D3012_ | | Respondents were not asked what they thought about the Portugal | Ahead Coalition (PaF) but instead were asked to rate their | like/dislike for each party comprising the Portugal Ahead | Coalition (PaF). Accordingly, the like-dislike scores of the | PPD-PSD leader, Pedro Passos Coelho, are coded into variable | D3012_A while like-dislike scores of the CSD-PP leader, Paulo | Portas, are coded into variable D3011_H. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D3012_ | | For the Romania 2014, the like-dislike measures refer to the | Presidential candidates of the parties/coalitions. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2012): D3012_ | | The Korean Election Study asked the like-dislike leader question | for several leaders of the two major parties New Frontier Party | and Democratic United Party. The CSES chose one leader per | party, namely Park Geun-hye (NFP) and Moon Jae-in (DUP). The | reason for selecting these two leaders was, that they ended up | running for president in the presidential elections in December | 2012. The Korean Election Study additionally asked this question | for other party leaders who were considered potential | presidential candidates by the time the survey was conducted. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2014): D3012_A through D3012_I | | The Green Party was led by two politicians, Gustav Fridolin and | Asa Romson. Since CSES is limited to nine parties/candidates | for all respective variables including party evaluation, we | had to two choose among these two. We decided to include | Gustav Fridolin based on the higher share of respondents who | evaluated him compared to the share who evaluated Romson. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): D3012_ | | This question was only asked in the mail-back and web survey | (see D1023). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D3012_ | | The leader ratings for Taiwan (2012) refer to the presidential | candidates (D3012_A, D3012_B and D3012_C) and the vice- | presidential candidates (D3012_G, D3012_H and D3012_I). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D3012_ | | Respondents were not given the answer option 'don't | know enough about/don't know where to rate' but the code 98 here | stands for 'volunteered: don't know'. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3013_A >>> Q11a. LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY A D3013_B >>> Q11b. LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY B D3013_C >>> Q11c. LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY C D3013_D >>> Q11d. LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY D D3013_E >>> Q11e. LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY E D3013_F >>> Q11f. LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY F D3013_G >>> Q11g. LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY G (OPTIONAL) D3013_H >>> Q11h. LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY H (OPTIONAL) D3013_I >>> Q11i. LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY I (OPTIONAL) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q11a-i. In politics people sometimes talk of left and right. Where would you place [PARTY A] on a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 means the left and 10 means the right? Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY B]? Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY C]? Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY D]? Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY E]? Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY F]? Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY G]? Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY H]? Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY I]? .................................................................. 00. LEFT 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. RIGHT 95. VOLUNTEERED: HAVEN'T HEARD OF LEFT-RIGHT 96. VOLUNTEERED: HAVEN'T HEARD OF PARTY 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW WHERE TO PLACE 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3013_ | | Parties and their alphabetical classifications for each election | study are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES codebook. For more | detailed information on how CSES codes parties/coalitions and | leaders, please see Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | | In some cases, parties were assigned an alphabetical | CSES code but data for D3013_ is not available for these | parties. These instances are documented in an election study | note below the party/leader table of the Election Study to | which this applies in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | | Note that the CSES asks collaborators to ask the left-right | scale questions even if left-right is not considered to be | meaningful/important/widely understood in the area being | studied. However, it was possible to add an optional | alternative scale question. See D3015_ and D3016. | | Users should note that D3013_ includes several observations in | which all parties are scored equally by respondents. Also, there | may be instances in which respondents provide the same answer to | all items, e.g. "don't know". These data remain unchanged. | | Data are unavailable for TAIWAN (2012). | | Several respondents mentioned not to know the left-right scale | in one of the appropriate variables on D3013_ or D3014, but | evaluated the other parties on even that scale. | These data remain unchanged. | | +++ TABLE: FREQUENCIES OF RESPONDENTS REPORTING THAT THEY DID | NOT KNOW OF THE LEFT-RIGHT SCALE BUT PROVIDE AN | EVALUATION OF A PARTY ON THE LEFT-RIGHT SCALE | | PARTY _A _B _C _D _E _F _G _H _I SELF | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | BRAZIL (2014) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 | BULGARIA (2014) 8 0 17 12 5 18 17 9 0 3 | CZECH REPUBLIC (2013) 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 5 | FINLAND (2015) 1 1 5 3 5 2 3 2 0 1 | GREECE (2012) 1 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 | JAPAN (2013) 6 6 6 7 6 6 7 7 8 2 | LATVIA (2014) 30 30 30 30 30 28 0 0 0 0 | MEXICO (2012) 26 26 26 30 31 30 29 0 0 10 | MEXICO (2015) 25 32 23 18 20 26 0 0 20 9 | MONTENEGRO (2012) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 | PHILIPPINES (2016) 7 19 0 23 13 13 0 0 31 5 | POLAND (2011) 65 63 151 93 60 0 0 0 0 35 | ROMANIA (2012) 1 1 5 6 6 0 2 2 3 4 | ROMANIA (2014) 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 66 | SERBIA (2012) 16 16 17 18 20 23 19 0 0 64 | SLOVAKIA (2016) 10 10 12 10 13 13 10 11 0 7 | SOUTH AFRICA (2014) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 110 | SWEDEN (2014) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 | THAILAND (2011) 12 6 12 18 13 18 18 18 24 0 | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | Please note: Have not heard of left/right response might not | have been elicited to this specific question but rather at some | point during the entire interview of a respondent. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011 & 2015): D3013_ | | The variable is from the post-election mail-back survey. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): D3013_ | | Respondents' estimations of the PARTY E (Scottish National | Party) and PARTY C (United Kingdom Independence Party, UKIP), | and PARTY F (Green Party, GP) tend to noticeably differ from the | expert classifications assigned in variable D5017. The British | Election Study suggests that this is a consequence of | respondents having difficulty accurately placing these parties | on the left-right scale and that the expert judgments, based on | an expert survey conducted by the British Election Study prior | to the election, may offer a more concrete estimate of these | parties specific positions on this scale. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2011): D3013_E | | No data available for the Socialist Party (Party E). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D3013_ | | The CSES standard for the left-right items is a scale ranging | from 0 to 10. In the Kenyan case, the scale in the original | questionnaire ranged from 1 to 10. To increase comparability, | the variable was recoded. The categories 1 to 5 were recoded | into 0 to 4 and a new, empty category 5 was added. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2012): D3013_ | | The concept and political terms of 'left' and 'right' are not | commonly known in Montenegro. The primary researcher noted that | even if this question is answered, respondents sometimes think | of bad (1) and good (10), in response to this question. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): D3013_ | | The meaning of code 96 deviates slightly from the CSES standard. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 96. I don't know this party well enough | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): D3013_ | | Respondents were not asked to place the Portugal Ahead Coalition | (PaF) on the left-right scale but instead were asked to place | each party comprising the Portugal Ahead Coalition (PaF) | separately on the left-right scale. Accordingly, the left-right | scores of the PPD-PSD are coded into variable D3013_A while | left-right scores of the CSD_PP are coded into variable D3013_H. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D3013 | | The value zero was also termed radical; value ten was | termed conservative. Note relatively higher response biases, | especially for parties D-H, which were placed to value zero by | higher percentages of voters. According to the primary | researcher, biases could have multiple reasons - simple lack of | information, or confusion about the terms left and right which | had made more sense to people in the 1990s, because of their | stances vis a vis apartheid, and whether the country would move | towards socialism or liberal democracy. Greater confusion could | have arisen after president Thabo Mbeki attacked his opponents | as 'leftists'. Also a rather large percentages can't | make use of the scale, see D3014. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3014 >>> Q12. LEFT-RIGHT - SELF --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q12. Where would you place yourself on this scale? .................................................................. 00. LEFT 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. RIGHT 95. VOLUNTEERED: HAVEN'T HEARD OF LEFT-RIGHT 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW WHERE TO PLACE 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3014 | | Data are unavailable for TAIWAN (2012), THAILAND (2011). | | The CSES asks collaborators to ask the left-right | scale questions even if left-right is not considered to be | meaningful/important/widely understood in the area being | studied. However, it was possible to add an optional | alternative scale question. See D3015_ and D3016. | | Several respondents mentioned not to know the left-right scale | in one of the appropriate variables on D3013_ or D3014, but | evaluated the other parties on even that scale. These data | remain unchanged. For further information, see Variable Notes on | D3013_. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011 & 2015): D3014 | | The variable is from the post-election mail-back survey. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D3014 | | Code 95 here refers to respondents who answered that they do | not use the terms left and right, usually. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3015_A >>> Q13a. OPTIONAL ALTERNATIVE SCALE - PARTY A D3015_B >>> Q13b. OPTIONAL ALTERNATIVE SCALE - PARTY B D3015_C >>> Q13c. OPTIONAL ALTERNATIVE SCALE - PARTY C D3015_D >>> Q13d. OPTIONAL ALTERNATIVE SCALE - PARTY D D3015_E >>> Q13e. OPTIONAL ALTERNATIVE SCALE - PARTY E D3015_F >>> Q13f. OPTIONAL ALTERNATIVE SCALE - PARTY F D3015_G >>> Q13g. OPTIONAL ALTERNATIVE SCALE - PARTY G (OPTIONAL) D3015_H >>> Q13h. OPTIONAL ALTERNATIVE SCALE - PARTY H (OPTIONAL) D3015_I >>> Q13i. OPTIONAL ALTERNATIVE SCALE - PARTY I (OPTIONAL) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q13a-i. In politics people sometimes talk of [SCALE VALUE AT POINT 0] and [SCALE VALUE AT POINT 10]. Where would you place [PARTY A] on a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 means [SCALE VALUE AT POINT 0] and 10 means [SCALE VALUE AT POINT 10]? Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY B]? Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY C]? Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY D]? Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY E]? Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY F]? Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY G]? Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY H]? Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY I]? .................................................................. 00. [SCALE VALUE AT POINT 0] 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. [SCALE VALUE AT POINT 10] 95. VOLUNTEERED: HAVEN'T HEARD OF [SCALE] 96. VOLUNTEERED: HAVEN'T HEARD OF PARTY 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW WHERE TO PLACE 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3015_ | | Data are available for HONG KONG (2012), LATVIA (2011), | LATVIA (2014), MEXICO (2012), PHILIPPINES (2016) and | TAIWAN (2012). | | In contexts where left-right is not considered | meaningful/important/widely understood, IN ADDITION TO ASKING | THE LEFT-RIGHT QUESTION, the collaborator had the option of also | administering the optional alternative question which is thought | to best summarize the main ideological division in the country. | Variable D3015_ include these alternative scales where | applicable. | | Parties and their alphabetical classifications for each election | study are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. For more | detailed information on how CSES codes parties/coalitions and | leaders, please see Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | | In some cases, parties were assigned an alphabetical | CSES code but data for D3015_ is not available for these | parties. These instances are documented in an election study | note below the party/leader table of the election study to | which this applies in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | | D3015_ includes several observations in which all parties | are scored equally by respondents. Also, there may be instances | in which respondents provide the same answer to all items, e.g. | "don't know". These data remain unchanged. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D3015_ | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 00. pro Hong-Kong | ... | 10. pro Beijing | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2011 & 2014): D3015_ | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 00. Advocates interests of the Russophone residents | ... | 10. Advocates interests of Latvians | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): D3015_ | | In the dataset, there are several respondents who reported to | not know the optional scale for one of the items but evaluated | parties on the same scale for other items. These data remained | unchanged. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 00. Liberal | ... | 10. Conservative | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D3015_A-D3015_I | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 00. Only eradicating graft and corruption in | government is important | ... | 10. Only helping the poor is important | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D3015_ | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 00. Taiwan should declare independence immediately | ... | 10. Taiwan and China unify immediately --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3016 >>> Q14. OPTIONAL ALTERNATIVE SCALE - SELF --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q14. Where would you place yourself on this scale? .................................................................. 00. [SCALE VALUE AT POINT 0] 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. [SCALE VALUE AT POINT 10] 95. VOLUNTEERED: HAVEN'T HEARD OF [SCALE] 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW WHERE TO PLACE 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3016 | | Data are available for HONG KONG (2012), LATVIA (2011), MEXICO | (2012), MEXICO (2015), PHILIPPINES (2016), POLAND (2011), | TAIWAN (2012). | | In contexts where left-right is not considered | meaningful/important/widely understood, IN ADDITION TO ASKING | THE LEFT-RIGHT QUESTION, the collaborator had the option of also | administering the optional alternative question which is thought | to best summarize the main ideological division in the country. | | Several respondents mentioned not to know the optional scale | in one of the appropriate variables on D3015_ or D3016, but | evaluated the other parties on even that scale. These data | remain unchanged. For further information, see Variable Notes on | D3015_. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D3016 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 00. pro Hong-Kong | ... | 10. pro Beijing | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2011 & 2014): D3016 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 00. Advocates interests of the Russophone residents | ... | 10. Advocates interests of Latvians | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012 & 2015): D3016 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 00. Liberal | ... | 10. Conservative | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D3016 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 00. Only eradicating graft and corruption in | government is important | ... | 10. Only helping the poor is important | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2011): D3016 | | The question for D3016 for POLAND (2011) read as follows: | "Politicians sometimes talk about the division into | Solidary Poland and Liberal Poland. Where would you place | yourself on this scale?". | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 00. Solidary Poland | ... | 10. Liberal Poland | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D3016 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 00. Taiwan should declare independence immediately | ... | 10. Taiwan and China unify immediately --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3017 >>> Q15. SATISFACTION WITH DEMOCRATIC PROCESS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q15. On the whole, are you very satisfied, fairly satisfied, not very satisfied, or not at all satisfied with the way democracy works in [COUNTRY]? .................................................................. 1. VERY SATISFIED 2. FAIRLY SATISFIED 4. NOT VERY SATISFIED 5. NOT AT ALL SATISFIED 6. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3017 | | Data are unavailable for ARGENTINA (2015). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D3017 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 06. Neither satisfied nor unsatisfied | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011 & 2015): D3017 | | The variable is from the pre-election survey. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2011 & 2014): D3017 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 06. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D3017 | | Code 6 refers to an additional category meaning "South Africa | is not a democracy". Interviewers were instructed not to read | this aloud, but accept it as an answer option. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 06. South Africa is not a democracy (volunteered) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3018_1 >>> Q16. ARE YOU CLOSE TO ANY POLITICAL PARTY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q16. Do you usually think of yourself as close to any particular party? .................................................................. 1. YES -> GO TO Q16b 5. NO 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D3018_1 | | The Australian questionnaire did not ask respondents | if they feel close or at least closer to a particular party. | Instead, respondents were asked about which party they feel | close to, offering a category "no party". | Based on these party mentions D3018_1 was constructed, expecting | that respondents that mentioned a party, feel close to even this | party, while respondents that said "no party" were coded as not | feeling close to a particular party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D3018_1 | | The wording in the Brazilian questionnaire slightly deviates | from the original CSES question. It was asked as follows: "In | general, is there any political party that you like?" | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011): D3018_1 | | The variable is from the post-election mail-back survey. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES – CANADA (2015): D3018_ | | The variables are from the post-election mail-back survey. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2011): D3018_1 | | See Election Study Note for Ireland (2011) on D3018_4. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): D3018_1 | | Ten respondents mentioned "yes" in D3018_1 and D3018_2, | although D3018_2 should have not been asked, if D3018_1 was | "yes", already. These data remained unchanged. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2015): D3018_1 | | This question set was structured differently in the Mexican | questionnaire than it is in the CSES questionnaire. Respondents | were first asked whether they sympathize with any political | party (this was coded in D3028_1). If they answered "yes", they | were asked which party this is. If they made several mentions, | they were asked with which of these parties they sympathized a | bit more (this party was coded into D3018_3. For respondents who | mentioned only one party, this party was coded into D3018_3. If | they did not mention any party or had already said "no" to the | first question, they were asked whether there is any party that | they sympathized a bit more with than the others (this was coded | in D3018_2). If they answered "yes" here, they were asked which | party this was (this party was coded into D3018_3). | | Furthermore, the wording of the question used in the Mexican | questionnaire for D3018_1 deviates somewhat from that in the | CSES questionnaire. It reads: "Independently of which party you | voted for in the last elections, generally, do you sympathize | with any political party in particular?" | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D3018_1 | | The Norwegian Survey asked respondents if they supported a | party (D3018_1), and which one (D3018_3) within one question. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3018_2 >>> Q16a. DO YOU FEEL CLOSER TO ONE PARTY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q16a. Do you feel yourself a little closer to one of the political parties than the others? .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO -> GO TO Q17 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED -> GO TO Q17 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW -> GO TO Q17 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3018_2 | | Data are unavailable for AUSTRALIA (2013), LATVIA (2011), LATVIA | (2014), NORWAY (2013), PERU (2016) and SLOVENIA (2011). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D3018_2 | | See Election Study Notes on D3018_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D3018_2 | | The wording in the Brazilian questionnaire slightly deviates | from the original CSES question. It was asked as follows: "Do | you like one political party more than the others?" | | 797 respondents answered this question (680) "yes"; | 111 "no"; 5 "Refused"; 1 "don't know"), even though they | answered D3018_1 with "yes". According to the CSES questionnaire | D3018_2 should have not been asked, if D3018_1 was answered with | "yes". The data remain unchanged. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011): D3018_2 | | The variable is from the post-election mail-back survey. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): D3018_2 | | The question was asked slightly different "Is there nevertheless | a political party with which you feel less distant than others?" | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2011): D3018_2 | | See Election Study Note for Ireland (2011) on D3018_4. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D3018_2 | | One respondent answered this question (negatively) even though | s/he had answered D3018_1 positively. In this case the answer | was not recoded to missing. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012 & 2015): D3018_2 | | See Election Study Note on D3018_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011): D3018_2 | | 85 respondents answered this question although they had | answered D3018_1 positively. These answers were recoded to | '9. MISSING'. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2014): D3018 _2 | | 369 respondents answered this question although they had | answered D3018_1 positively. These answers were recoded to | '9. MISSING'. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D3018_2 | | This question was omitted from the Norwegian Survey. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): D3018_2 | | This question was omitted from the Peruvian Survey. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): D3018_2 | | 58 respondents answered to this question (52 "yes"; 3 "No" | 3 "Refused"), although they answered D3018_1 with | "yes". D3018_2 should not have been asked, if D3018_1 was | answered with "yes". These data remained unchanged. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D3018_2 | | 727 respondents answered to this question (721 | "yes"; 6 "no"), although they answered D3018_1 with | "yes". D3018_2 should not have been asked, if D3018_1 was | answered with "yes". These data remained unchanged. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3018_3 >>> Q16b. WHICH PARTY DO YOU FEEL CLOSEST TO --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q16b. Which party do you feel closest to? .................................................................. 01-88. [SEE CODEBOOK PART 3 FOR PARTY AND LEADER CODES] 89. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 90. OTHER PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 91. NONE OF THE PARTIES/CANDIDATES 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED -> GO TO Q17 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW -> GO TO Q17 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3018_3 | | Respondents' party mentions in D3018_3 depend on the two former | questions (D3018_1 and D3018_2). The party mention in D3018_3 | should have only been asked for those respondents that reported | to be close (D3018_1) or at least closer (D3018_2) to a party. | However, there are several respondents that mentioned a party | (D3018_3), without feeling close (D3018_1) or closer (D3018_2) | to a party. These data remained unchanged. | | +++ TABLE: FREQUENCIES ON D3018_3 FOR RESPONDENTS THAT DO NOT | FEEL CLOSE (D3018_1) OR AT LEAST CLOSER (D3018_2) TO | A PARTY | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | AUSTRALIA (2013) 498 | CANADA (2011) 60 | CANADA (2015) 26 | MONTENEGRO (2012) 95 | NORWAY (2013) 16 | SOUTH AFRICA (2014) 1 | THAILAND (2011) 11 | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D3018_3 | | The coalition Cambiemos was not provided as an answer option to | this question. However, some of its constituent parties were | (see code 7. Propuesta Republicana and code 8. Union Civica | Radical). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D3018_3 | | The wording in the Brazilian questionnaire slightly deviates | from the original CSES question. It was asked as follows: | "Which party do you like?" | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011): D3018_3 | | The variable is from the post-election mail-back survey. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2012): D3018_3 | | All respondents were asked this question, even if they | had given a negative answer in D3018_1 or D3018_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D3018_3 | | The Norwegian Survey asked respondents if they supported a | party (D3018_1), and which one (D3018_3) within one question. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): D3018_3 | | Data was not available for the Popular Alliance (PARTY E) in the | original Peruvian election study. However, data on this | variable is available for one of its two constituent parties, | namely the Partido Popular Cristiano. Researchers interested in | this data can refer to the original Peruvian election study. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): D3018_3 | | The question which party a respondent felt close to was asked | twice in the Portuguese election study; Once right after D3018_1 | (Are you close to any political party?) to respondents who | answered "yes" to D3018_1 and once after D3018_2 to respondents | who answered "yes" to D3018_2. CSES initially used the values of | the latter question to code D3018_3 and then replaced missing | values with values of the former question, where available. | | Respondents were not given the answer option Portugal Ahead | Coalition (PaF) but instead were given a separate answer option | for each party comprising the Portugal Ahead Coalition (PaF). | Accordingly, they have been assigned two separate codes | for this variable. The PPD-PDS has been assigned code 1 and the | CDS-PP has been assigned code 8. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D3018_3 | | The data for respondents who indicated to feel close to a party | which was part of an electoral alliance remains unchanged. | Users who wish to analyze electoral alliances should consider | that the Social Democratic Party - PSD (Code 6) and the National | Liberal Party - PNL (Code 7) were part of the Social Liberal | Union - USL (Code 1). Furthermore, the Liberal Democratic Party | - PDL (Code 8) was part of the Alliance for a Just Romania - ARD | (Code 2). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D3018_3 | | The data for respondents who indicated to feel close to a party | which was part of an electoral alliance remains unchanged. | Users who wish to analyze electoral alliances should consider | that the Social Democratic Party - PSD (Code 11), the National | Union for Romania’s Progress - UNPR (Code 12), and the | Conservative Party - PC (Code 13) formed an alliance, the | PSD-UNPR-PC Electoral Alliance (PARTY A, Code 1) to support the | Presidential candidate Victor Ponta. Furthermore, the National | Liberal Party - PNL (Code 14) and the Liberal Democratic Party - | PDL (Code 15) were part of the Christian-Liberal Alliance - ACL | which supported the Presidential candidate Klause W. Iohannis. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3018_4 >>> Q16c. DEGREE OF CLOSENESS TO THIS PARTY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q16c. Do you feel very close to this party, somewhat close, or not very close? .................................................................. 1. VERY CLOSE 2. SOMEWHAT CLOSE 3. NOT VERY CLOSE 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3018_4 | | Data are unavailable for KENYA (2013). | | The degree of closeness to the party, mentioned in D3018_4, | should have only been asked for those respondents that mentioned | a party in D3018_3. However, there are several respondents that | reported the degree of closeness (D3018_4), without mentioning a | party (D3018_3). These data remained unchanged. | Also see Variable Notes on D3018_3. | | +++ TABLE: FREQUENCIES ON D3018_4 FOR RESPONDENTS THAT DO NOT | MENTION A PARTY IN D3018_3 | | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | AUSTRALIA (2013) 18 | AUSTRIA (2013) 3 | CANADA (2015) 5 | CZECH REPUBLIC (2013) 2 | GREECE (2015) 29 | IRELAND (2011) 276 | ISRAEL (2013) 3 | JAPAN (2013) 1 | MEXICO (2012) 1017 | MONTENEGRO (2012) 12 | NEW ZEALAND (2011) 18 | NEW ZEALAND (2014) 16 | PERU (2016) 45 | SLOVAKIA (2016) 4 | SOUTH AFRICA (2014) 15 | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D3018_4 | | The answer categories in the original Australian 2013 study | deviated from CSES conventions and were recoded as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Very strong supporter | 02. Fairly strong supporter | 03. Not very strong supporter | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D3018_4 | | The wording in the Brazilian questionnaire slightly deviates | from the original CSES question. It was asked as follows: | "About that party, do you like it very much, only like, or like | a little?" | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011): D3018_4 | | The variable is from the post-election mail-back survey. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): D3018_4 | | Code 4 'not close at all' was recoded to CSES code 3 - "not very | close" | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2011): D3018_4 | | The degree of closeness was only asked, if respondent | mentioned to feel closer to a party (D3018_2), but not if | respondent mentioned to feel close to a party (D3018_1). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D3018_4 | | This item was not asked in the Kenyan questionnaire. However, | interested analysts can refer to the original Kenyan election | study containing a similar item asking for strength of party | support. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2015): D3018_4 | | The wording of the question and answer options in the Mexican | questionnaire deviates somewhat from the wording used in the | CSES questionnaire. The question reads: "Do you sympathize a lot | with this party, somewhat or a little?". The answer categories | read: "I sympathize a lot", "I sympathize somewhat", and "I | sympathize a little". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D3018_4 | | Respondents were asked if they considered themselves as strong | supporters of the party which was mentioned in D3018_3, or if | they were not very convinced. Hence, only these two response | options "strongly" and "not very convinced" are included. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Strongly convinced | 03. Not very convinced --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3019 >>> Q17. MOBILIZATION: INSTITUTIONAL CONTACT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The following definitions are provided as guidance for translating questions Q17 through Q19 into other languages, and to assist in training interviewers on the meaning of the terms. "Blogs" and "micro-blogs" are both news and information sites that provide regular (daily) updates from parties/politicians about their schedules and responses to events. "Web" refers to the World Wide Web, "Online" covers any type of communication or contact occurring via the World Wide Web, Internet, or digital media. Q17. During the campaign, did a party or candidate contact you in person or by any other means? .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO -> GO TO Q18 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED -> GO TO Q18 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW -> GO TO Q18 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3019 | | See Variable Notes on D3020_. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D3019 | | The Australian questionnaire did not include a filter question, | asking for institutional contact, in general. Instead, | respondents were asked about the type of contact, providing an | answer option "None". To process D3019, respondents who said | "None" were coded as '5. No', while respondents that mentioned | at least one of the types, listed in D3020_, were coded | '1. Yes'. All other respondents were coded '9. Missing' in | D3019. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011): D3019 | | The variable is from the post-election mail-back survey. Also, | the question wording in the original survey deviated | from CSES conventions and read as follows: "During the election | campaign, did a party, candidate or political organization | contact you about voting for a particular party or candidate?" | ELECTION STUDY NOTES – CANADA (2015): D3019 | | The variable is from the post-election mail-back survey. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2011): D3019 | | This question was only asked in the mail-back drop-off | questionnaire (see Election Study Note for D1023). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011 & 2014): D3019 | | The New Zealand survey did not ask the screening | question of whether respondent was contacted by a party or a | candidate (D3019). The variable reported here is constructed | on the basis of the responses to D3020_ questions. Respondents | who answered negatively to each of the contact modes (D3020_) | were coded "5. No" in D3019 (and missing in D3020_), and the | remaining respondents were coded "1. Yes" for D3019. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D3019 | | This general contact question was not asked | separately in South Africa. The variable was coded with "yes" | if the respondent answered that any of the D3020_1-D3020_10 | parties contacted them. Also see the note on D3021_. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): D3019 | | This question was only asked in the mail-back and web survey | (see D1023). | The survey did not ask the screening question of whether | respondent was contacted by a party or a candidate (D3019). | The variable reported here is constructed on the basis of the | responses to D3020_ questions. Respondents who answered | negatively to each of the contact modes (D3020_) were coded | "5. No" in D3019 (and missing in D3020_), and the remaining | respondents were coded "1. Yes". --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3020_1 >>> Q17a. MOBILIZATION: INSTITUTIONAL CONTACT - IN PERSON D3020_2 >>> Q17b. MOBILIZATION: INSTITUTIONAL CONTACT - BY MAIL D3020_3 >>> Q17c. MOBILIZATION: INSTITUTIONAL CONTACT - BY PHONE D3020_4 >>> Q17d. MOBILIZATION: INSTITUTIONAL CONTACT - BY TEXT MESSAGE D3020_5 >>> Q17e. MOBILIZATION: INSTITUTIONAL CONTACT - BY EMAIL D3020_6 >>> Q17f. MOBILIZATION: INSTITUTIONAL CONTACT - SOCIAL NETWORK OR WEB --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Only respondents who answered "YES" at Q17 should receive this question. Other respondents should be coded as MISSING for this question. (Q17F) Collaborators, please add additional local examples of social network and microblogging sites, as appropriate, to the interviewer instruction (HELP instruction). Q17a. Did they contact you in person, face-to-face? If the respondent mentions "in the street" or "at my house" then please record the answer as "yes". Q17b. Did they contact you by mail? If the respondent mentions a "leaflet posted to my home" then please record the answer as "yes". The question is not intended to include "electronic mail" or "email". (these are asked about in a later question). Q17c. Did they contact you by phone? If the respondent mentions a "call to my land line or mobile" then please record the answer as "yes". This question is not intended to include contacts by "text message" or "SMS" as these are asked about in the next question. Q17d. Did they contact you by text message or SMS? Q17e. Did they contact you by email? Q17f. Did they contact you through a social network site or other Web-based method? If the respondent mentions Facebook, or a microblogging site such as Twitter, then please record the answer as "yes". .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3020_ | | Data on D3020_2 are unavailable for CANADA (2011), | HONG KONG (2012). | Data on D3020_3 are unavailable for CANADA (2011), | IRELAND (2011). | Data on D3020_4 are unavailable for CANADA (2011), | GERMANY (2013), GREAT BRITAIN (2015), NEW ZEALAND (2011). | Data on D3020_5 are unavailable for CANADA (2011). | Data on D3020_6 are unavailable for CANADA (2011), | IRELAND (2011), LATVIA (2014). | | The type of institutional contact (D3020_) should have only been | asked for those respondents that report institutional contacts | in D3019. However, there are several respondents that mentioned | a type of institutional contact (D3020_), without reporting | being contacted (D3019). These data remained unchanged and the | cases in which this occurred are detailed in the table below. | | +++ TABLE: RESPONDENTS THAT REPORT BEING CONTACTED BY A | PARTICULAR PARTY BUT PREVIOUSLY REPORTED NO CONTACT | FROM ANY PARTY | | D3020 _1 _2 _3 _4 _5 _6 | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | FINLAND (2015) 12 18 1 2 2 3 | MONTENEGRO (2012) 1 0 1 0 0 2 | SOUTH AFRICA (2014) 0 0 2 0 0 0 |----------------------------------------------------------------- | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D3020_ | | See Election Study Notes on D3019. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011): D3020_1 | | The variable is from the post-election mail-back survey. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES – CANADA (2015): D3020_ | | The variables are from the post-election mail-back survey. | | The formulation in the questionnaire for D3020_6 was "through a | social networking site (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, etc.)". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2011): D3020_ | | These questions were only asked in the mail-back drop-off | questionnaire (see Election Study Note for D1023). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D3020_4 | | In the German questionnaire, respondents are asked about | text messages and e-mails simultaneously. Since e-mails are | mentioned first, the data is only recorded in D3020_5. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D3020_5 | | In the German questionnaire, this variable represents the | the number of respondents who say they were contacted by | email or text messages. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): D3020_5-D3020_6 | | Email and text message were asked together as a single option. | Email was asked first so the data is coded in D3020_5. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D3020_2 | | Respondents were not asked if they were contacted via mail. Hong | Kong collaborators stated that contacting voters by mail is a | basic campaign practice for political parties and that postage | charges of sending mails to voters by candidates are waived. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2011): D3020_ | | the Irish questions on the variable series of D3020_ | differs from the CSES manner. | | Instead of asking separate questions, contacts by mail and phone | were asked jointly: "Did they contact you by mail or phone?" | Responses to this question are coded in D3020_2. | | Likewise, contacts by email and social networking sites were | asked jointly: "Did they contact you by email or a social | networking site?" | Responses to this question are coded in D3020_5. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D3020_ | | The original dataset also contains information on which party | used which means to contact a respondent. The CSES dataset | instead includes two separate variables containing the | information by which means a respondent has been contacted | (D3020_1-D3020_6) and by which party a respondent has been | contacted (D3021_1-D3021_9). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011): D3020_ | | Respondents were asked if they were contacted either via email | or text message in one question. Answers are represented in | D3020_5. | The New Zealand survey did not ask the screening question | of whether respondent was contacted by a party of candidate | (D3019). However, respondents who answered negatively to each | of the contact modes (D3020_) were coded missing in D3020_ | and "No" in D3019. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D3020_ | | Respondents were asked if they were contacted by one | of ten mentioned parties and by which means within one question | battery. For D3020_1-D3020_6 in the CSES, data was recoded to | just represent if the respondent was contacted by any of the | parties, by any of the means captured in D3020_1-D3020_6. The | original election study data is hence richer in details. | Researchers who would like to obtain these data are referred to | the South African Election study, directly. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): D3020_ | | This question was only asked in the mail-back and web survey | (see D1023). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3021_1 >>> Q17g. MOBILIZATION: INST. CONTACT - WHO D3021_2 >>> Q17g. MOBILIZATION: INST. CONTACT - WHO D3021_3 >>> Q17g. MOBILIZATION: INST. CONTACT - WHO D3021_4 >>> Q17g. MOBILIZATION: INST. CONTACT - WHO D3021_5 >>> Q17g. MOBILIZATION: INST. CONTACT - WHO D3021_6 >>> Q17g. MOBILIZATION: INST. CONTACT - WHO D3021_7 >>> Q17g. MOBILIZATION: INST. CONTACT - WHO D3021_8 >>> Q17g. MOBILIZATION: INST. CONTACT - WHO D3021_9 >>> Q17g. MOBILIZATION: INST. CONTACT - WHO D3021_10 >>> Q17g. MOBILIZATION: INST. CONTACT - WHO --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Only respondents who answered "YES" at Q17 should receive this question. Other respondents should be coded as MISSING for this question. Multiple answers are allowed for this question. Please record all of the parties or candidates that are mentioned by the respondent. Q17g. Which [party or parties/candidate or candidates] contacted you by any of these means? If the respondent answers "all [parties/candidates]" please probe the respondent for the names of the specific [parties/ candidates]. .................................................................. 01-88. [PLEASE PROVIDE PARTY/CANDIDATE CODES] 89. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 90. OTHER PARTY/CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 91. NONE OF THE PARTIES/CANDIDATES 92. ALL [PARTIES/CANDIDATES] 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3021_ | | Variables D3021_1 through D3021_10 do not reflect a | mention order of respondents, in general. In cases where such an | order is applicable, a corresponding ELECTION STUDY NOTE is | included, below. | | Data are unavailable for CANADA (2011), IRELAND (2011). | | In some instances, respondents mentioned the same | party more than once in their answers. These data remain | unchanged. | | There are rare instances when respondents have mentioned more | than 10 parties in their answer. Due to a very few cases to | which this applies, instances with more than 10 party mentions | are not coded by CSES. | | +++ TABLE: FREQUENCIES ON D3021_ FOR RESPONDENTS THAT MENTION | PARTY MORE THAN ONCE | | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | ARGENTINA (2015) 47 | BRAZIL (2014) 40 | CZECH REPUBLIC (2013) 3 | GREECE (2012) 7 | ICELAND (2013) 1 | ISRAEL (2013) 4 | KENYA (2013) 2 | LATVIA (2011) 1 | LATVIA (2014) 4 | MEXICO (2015) 38 | NEW ZEALAND (2011) 15 | NEW ZEALAND (2014) 4 | NORWAY (2013) 13 | PERU (2016) 1 | PHILIPPINES (2016) 14 | ROMANIA (2012) 1 | SERBIA (2012) 9 | SLOVAKIA (2016) 1 | SWEDEN (2014) 5 | TURKEY (2015) 9 | UNITED STATES (2012) 272 | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D3021_ | | The data show that 60 respondents repeated their party | mentions. This is because in the original questionnaire, there | were separate answer options for having been contacted by a | candidate and a party. When transferring these answers to the | CSES format, these two answer options were recoded into one | category. Respondents with repeated party mentions can thus be | assumed to have indicated that they were contacted by a | candidate of a party as well as by the party as such. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D3021_ | | Although the Austrian questionnaire allowed multiple | mentions on institutional contact, only one mention for each | respondent was available at the time of the first data release. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D3021_2 | | In a number of cases (2 respondents), we could not match | the mentioned candidates with any party. These cases were | coded as missing. Moreover, 40 respondents mentioned a | single party multiple times. These data remain unchanged. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES – CANADA (2015): D3021_ | | The variable is from the post-election mail-back survey. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2011): D3021_ | | These questions were only asked in the mail-back drop-off | questionnaire (see Election Study Note for D1023). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D3021_ | | Respondents were asked about five specific coalitions in a | closed-ended question ("110. Please tell me whether any of the | following coalitions, their candidates or their representative | contacted you during the recent election campaign? [If Yes] | Was that contact with you in person, on the telephone, by mail, | or by email?"). These coalitions, as well as their member | parties, are specified in Part 3 of the Codebook. | | The original dataset of the Kenyan election study also includes | information on which means of communication (e.g. in person, | telephone, email) were used by which coalition or their | candidates to contact the respondent during the recent campaign. | Researchers interested in this information are advised to refer | to the original questionnaire and dataset. See also election | study note for D3020_. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): D3021_ | | Questions regarding this item were asked individually for each | of the Presidential candidates and cumulated afterwards. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011): D3021_ | | The variable represents respondents' party value, either as a | single mention, or giving the first value of multiple mentions. | For example, if a respondent answered parties 5, 7, 9, D3021_1 | contains value 5, D3021_2 contains 7, and so forth. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D3021_ | | Questions regarding this item were asked individually for each | of the five most important parties and cumulated afterwards. | The variable does not reflect a mention order. Only very few | respondents also mentioned other parties, than the most | important ones, which are defined in Part 3 of the Codebook. | These few other party answers were coded to missing. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES(2016): D3021_ | | Respondents' mentions of district candidates were coded with | code 90 due to missing or unknown party affiliations. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D3021_ | | The data for respondents who indicated to be mobilized by a | party which was part of an electoral alliance remained | unchanged. Users who wish to analyze electoral alliances should | consider that the Social Democratic Party - PSD (Code 6) and the | National Liberal Party - PNL (Code 7) were part of the Social | Liberal Union - USL (Code 1). Furthermore, the Liberal | Democratic Party - PDL (Code 8) was part of the Alliance for a | Just Romania - ARD (Code 2). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D3021_ | | The questions were asked with regards to the Presidential | candidates. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D3021_ | | Respondents were asked if they were contacted by one of ten | mentioned parties and by which means within one question | battery. For D3021_1-D3021_10, data had to be recoded to just | represent if the respondent was contacted by any of the | parties, not capturing the means of contact per party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2016): D3021_ | | Respondents were asked to name a maximum of three | parties only. Hence, D3021_4 through D3021_10 are coded | missing for all Slovak respondents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): D3021_ | | The questions about parties contacting respondents during the | electoral campaign were asked separately for each of the major | parties A through G, listed in Part 3 of the Codebook. | Consequently, D3021_1 through D3021_7 do not reflect any | preference order of respondent. | These questions were asked only in the mail-back and web survey | (see D1023). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D3021_ | | It seems like 272 respondents repeated their party | mentions. This is because in the original questionnaire there | were separate answer options for having been contacted by a | candidate and a party (e.g. 'Candidate - Democratic' and 'Party | - Democratic'). For transferring this to the CSES format, these | two were recoded into one category. Respondents with | repeated party mentions can thus be assumed to have indicated | that they were contacted by the candidate of a party as well as | by the party as such. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3022 >>> Q18. MOBILIZATION: PERSONAL CONTACT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q18. During the campaign, did a friend, family member, neighbor, work colleague or other acquaintance try to persuade you to vote for a particular party or candidate? .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO -> GO TO Q19 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED -> GO TO Q19 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW -> GO TO Q19 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3022 | | See Variable Notes on D3023_. | | Data are unavailable for PORTUGAL (2015) and SOUTH AFRICA | (2014). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D3022 | | The Australian questionnaire did not include a filter question, | asking for institutional contact, in general. Instead, | respondents were asked about the type of contact, providing an | answer option "None". To process D3022, respondents who said | "None" were coded as '5. No', while respondents that mentioned | at least one of the type, listed in D3023_, were coded | '1. Yes'. All other respondents were coded '9. Missing' in | D3022. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011): D3022 | | The variable is from the post-election mail-back survey. Also, | the question wording in the original survey deviated | from CSES conventions and read as follows: “During the campaign, | did a friend, family member, neighbor, work colleague or other | acquaintance contact you about voting for a particular party or | candidate?” Rather than the word “persuade”, the word “contact” | is used. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES – CANADA (2015): D3022 | | The variable is from the post-election mail-back survey. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2011): D3022 | | These questions were only asked in the mail-back drop-off | questionnaire (see Election Study Note for D1023). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D3022 | The original Kenyan dataset also includes information about the | means of communication (e.g. in person, telephone, email) | used by a personal contact (friend, family member etc.) to | persuade the respondent to vote for a particular party | or candidate. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2011): D3022 | | The question wording in the Latvian election study slightly | deviates from the CSES norm in that certain categories of | personal contacts were not explicitly mentioned. The Latvian | question reads: Did your relative, friend or colleague try to | persuade you to vote for a particular party during the pre- | election campaign? | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011 & 2014): D3022 | | The New Zealand Election Study did not ask the screening | question of whether respondent was contacted personally (D3019) | The variable reported here is constructed on the basis of the | responses to D3023_ questions. Respondents who answered | negatively to each of the contact modes (D3023_) were coded | "5. No" in D3022 (and missing in D3023_), and the remaining | respondents were coded "1. Yes" for F3022. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): D3022 | | Questions D3022 and D3023 were asked only in the mail-back or | web survey (see D1023). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3023_1 >>> Q18a. MOBILIZATION: PERSONAL CONTACT - IN PERSON D3023_2 >>> Q18b. MOBILIZATION: PERSONAL CONTACT - BY MAIL D3023_3 >>> Q18c. MOBILIZATION: PERSONAL CONTACT - BY PHONE D3023_4 >>> Q18d. MOBILIZATION: PERSONAL CONTACT - BY TEXT MESSAGE D3023_5 >>> Q18e. MOBILIZATION: PERSONAL CONTACT - BY EMAIL D3023_6 >>> Q18f. MOBILIZATION: PERSONAL CONTACT - SOCIAL NETWORK OR WEB --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Only respondents who answered "YES" at Q18 should receive these questions. Other respondents should be coded as MISSING for these questions. Q18F) Collaborators, please add additional local examples of social network and microblogging sites, as appropriate, to the interviewer instruction (HELP instruction). Q18a. Did they try to persuade you in person, face-to-face? If the respondent mentions "in the street" or "at my house" then please record the answer as "yes". Q18b. Did they try to persuade you by mail? If the respondent mentions a "leaflet posted to my home" then please record the answer as "yes". The question is not intended to include "electronic mail" or "email" (these are asked about in a later question). Q18c. Did they try to persuade you by phone? If the respondent mentions a "call to my landline or mobile" then please record the answer as "yes". This question is not intended to include persuasion by "text message" or "SMS" as these are asked about in the next question. Q18d. Did they try to persuade you by text message or SMS? Q18e. Did they try to persuade you by email? Q18f. Did they try to persuade you through a social network site or other Web-based method? If the respondent mentions Facebook, or a microblogging site such as Twitter, then please record the answer as "yes". .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3023_ | | Data on D3023_1 are unavailable for CANADA (2011), | PORTUGAL (2015), SOUTH AFRICA (2014). | Data on D3023_2 are unavailable for CANADA (2011), | HONG KONG (2012), PORTUGAL (2015), SOUTH AFRICA (2014). | Data on D3023_3 are unavailable for CANADA (2011), | IRELAND (2011), PORTUGAL (2015), SOUTH AFRICA (2014). | Data on D3023_4 are unavailable for CANADA (2011), | NEW ZEALAND (2011), PORTUGAL (2015), SOUTH AFRICA (2014). | Data on D3023_5 are unavailable for CANADA (2011), | PORTUGAL (2015), SOUTH AFRICA (2014). | Data on D3023_6 are unavailable for CANADA (2011), | IRELAND (2011), PORTUGAL (2015), SOUTH AFRICA (2014). | | The type of personal contact (D3023_) should have only been | asked for those respondents that report personal contacts | in D3022. However, there are several respondents that mentioned | a type of personal contact (D3023_), without reporting a | contact, itself (D3022). These data remained unchanged. | | +++ TABLE: FREQUENCIES ON D3023_ FOR RESPONDENTS THAT DO NOT | MENTION AN INSTITUTIONAL CONTACT IN D3022 | | D3020 _1 _2 _3 _4 _5 _6 | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | FINLAND (2015) 0 6 0 2 0 0 | MONTENEGRO (2012) 5 1 3 0 0 0 | SWITZERLAND (2011) 73 202 9 4 43 29 | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | ELECTION STUDY NOTES – CANADA (2015): D3023_ | | The variables are from the post-election mail-back survey. | | The formulation in the questionnaire for D3023_6 was "through a | social networking site (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, etc.)". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2011): D3023_ | | These questions were only asked in the mail-back drop-off | questionnaire (see Election Study Note for D1023). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D3023_2 | | Respondents were not asked if they were tried to be persuaded | via mail, but it is a basic campaign practice in Hong Kong. Also | see the note on D3020_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2011): D3023_ | | The Irish study asked contacts by mail or telephone jointly with | respondents asked "Did they contact you by mail or phone?" | Responses to this question are coded in D3023_2. | Likewise, contacts by email and social networking sites were | asked jointly "Did they contact you by email or a social | networking site?" Responses to this question are coded in | D3023_5. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011): D3023_ | | Respondents were asked if they were contacted either via email | or text message in one question. Answers are represented in | D3023_5. | The New Zealand survey did not ask the screening | question of whether respondent was contacted personally (D3022). | However, respondents who answered negatively to each of the | contact modes (D3023_) were coded missing in D3023_ and "No" | in D3022. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): D3023_ | | This question was only asked in the mail-back and web survey | (see D1023). | The variables include a number of respondents that mentioned no | institutional contact in D3022, but reported how they were | contacted in D3020_. Because this question was part of the self- | administrated mail-back and web survey, there is no possibility | to fix these cases. The data remained unchanged. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3024 >>> Q19. MOBILIZATION: SIGN UP FOR ONLINE INFORMATION OR ALERTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Collaborators, please add additional local examples of social network and microblogging sites, as appropriate, to the interviewer instruction (HELP instruction). .................................................................. Q19. Prior to or during the campaign, did you use the Internet or your mobile phone to sign up for information or alerts from a party or candidate? If the respondent mentions "by SMS", "e-newsletters", text messages, "RSS news", a blog feed, email, "on the Web", a microblogging site such as Twitter, or a social network site such as Facebook, then please record the answer as "yes". .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3024 | | Data are unavailable for KENYA (2013), SOUTH AFRICA (2014), | SWITZERLAND (2011). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2014): D3024 | | The question also contained examples. The exact | question wording was: "Prior to or during the campaign, did you | use the Internet or your mobile phone to sign up for information | or alerts from a party or candidate? For instance information | that you might have received through SMS, electronic bulletins, | RSS news, blogs, e-mails, Facebook, Twitter or other social | networks." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES – CANADA (2011): D3024 | | The variable is from the post-election mail-back survey. Also | note that the question worded deviated from CSES conventions and | read as follows: "During the campaign, did you SIGN UP to | receive online information or alerts from a party or candidate – | for example, by text message, email, RSS news or blog feed, | Twitter, Facebook, or other means online?" | ELECTION STUDY NOTES – CANADA (2015): D3024 | | The variable is from the post-election mail-back survey. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2011): D3024 | | This question was only asked in the mail-back drop-off | questionnaire (see Election Study Note for D1023). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2011): D3024 | | The Irish question on D3024 differs from the CSES | question of origin: "During the campaign did you sign up on the | Internet to receive online information or alerts from a party or | candidate?" | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D3024 | | This item was not asked in the Kenyan questionnaire. However, | interested analysts can refer to the original Kenyan election | study containing a similar item asking whether respondents used | a computer or mobile device to obtain information about the | election campaign from sources such as websites, e-mail, social | networks, apps, or texting. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2015): D3024 | | Sixty-five respondents answered that they do not have | Internet/cell phone. For the CSES dataset, these | were coded into category "5. NO". | Users who are interested in the original coding, please refer to | the Mexican National Election Study 2015 (Encuesta Nacional | Electoral 2015). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3025_1_A >>> Q20a DICHOTOMIZED POLITICAL INFORMATION ITEM - 1ST D3025_2_A >>> Q20b DICHOTOMIZED POLITICAL INFORMATION ITEM - 2ND D3025_2_A_PT >>> Q20b_PT DICHOTOMIZED POLITICAL INFORMATION ITEM PRE- TEST - 2ND D3025_3_A >>> Q20c DICHOTOMIZED POLITICAL INFORMATION ITEM - 3RD D3025_4_A >>> Q20d DICHOTOMIZED POLITICAL INFORMATION ITEM - 4TH D3025_4_A_PT >>> Q20d_PT DICHOTOMIZED POLITICAL INFORMATION ITEM PRE- TEST - 4TH --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q20a. Which of these persons was the Finance Minister before the recent election - [CABINET MINISTER NAME - FIRST CHOICE], [CABINET MINISTER NAME - SECOND CHOICE], [CABINET MINISTER NAME - THIRD CHOICE], or [CABINET MINISTER NAME - FOURTH CHOICE]? Q20b. What was the current unemployment rate in [COUNTRY] as of [DATE] - [UNEMPLOYMENT RATE - FIRST CHOICE], [UNEMPLOYMENT RATE - SECOND CHOICE], [UNEMPLOYMENT RATE - THIRD CHOICE], or [UNEMPLOYMENT RATE - FOURTH CHOICE]? Q20b_PT. What is the longest time permitted between one [UNIT OF GOVERNMENT] election and the next - [NUMBER OF YEARS - FIRST CHOICE], [NUMBER OF YEARS - SECOND CHOICE], [NUMBER OF YEARS - THIRD CHOICE], or [NUMBER OF YEARS - FOURTH CHOICE]? Q20c. Which [PARTY, ALLIANCE, OR COALITION] came in second in seats in the [NAME OF THE LOWER HOUSE IN BICAMERAL SYSTEMS; OR ASSEMBLY, PARLIAMENT, OR CONGRESS IN UNICAMERAL SYSTEMS] - [PARTY, ALLIANCE, OR COALITION - FIRST CHOICE], [PARTY, ALLIANCE, OR COALITION - SECOND CHOICE], [PARTY, ALLIANCE, OR COALITION - THIRD CHOICE], or [PARTY, ALLIANCE, OR COALITION - FOURTH CHOICE]? Q20d. Who is the current Secretary-General of the United Nations - Kofi Annan, Kurt Waldheim, Ban Ki-moon, or Boutros Boutros-Ghali? Q20d_PT. Who was the first president of South Africa after apartheid ended? Desmond Tutu, Robert Mugabe, Nelson Mandela, or Rupiah Banda? .................................................................. 1. CORRECT 5. INCORRECT 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3025_1_ | | For correct answer on questions of origin, see Election Study | Notes on D3025_1_B through D3025_4_B_PT. | | Variables D3025_2_A_PT and D3025_4_A_PT report political | information questions that were asked in a pre-test version of | the CSES Module 4 questionnaire. They are reported separately to | delineate the different questions asked between the pre-test | and the final version of the CSES Module 4 questionnaire. The | The pre-test versions of the questionnaire were fielded in | CANADA (2011) and IRELAND (2011). | | The dichotomization of this variable only includes respondents | who explicitly answered correctly or incorrectly to the | information question. Respondents who answered don't know are | not included in the incorrect answer category. | | Data on D3025_1_A are unavailable for LATVIA (2014), PERU | (2016) and SOUTH AFRICA (2014). | | Data on D3025_2_A are unavailable for ARGENTINA (2015), CANADA | (2011), IRELAND (2011), LATVIA (2014) and PERU (2016). | | Data on D3025_3_A are unavailable for ARGENTINA (2015), | IRELAND (2011), LATVIA (2014), and PERU (2016). | | Data on D3025_4_A are unavailable for CANADA (2011), IRELAND | (2011), LATVIA (2014) and PERU (2016). | | Data on D3025_2_A_PT and D3025_4_A_PT are available for | CANADA (2011) and IRELAND (2011) only. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3025_1_B >>> Q20a. ORIGINAL POLITICAL INFORMATION ITEM - 1ST --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The items in question set Q20a-Q20d are designed to indicate the respondent's general political awareness. Their intent is to provide a combined general assessment of the respondent's attention to politics, more than of their knowledge or familiarity with specific aspects of politics. For each question, please provide CSES the original question with the full response set, as provided to the respondent. Additionally, please let CSES know which answer is the "correct" answer out of the four choices provided to the respondent. In the variable provided to CSES, CSES wants to receive the actual answer that the respondent provided, not whether the answer was correct or not. If the order of the response codes was randomized, we would also appreciate receiving an additional variable indicating the randomization for each respondent. In Q20a, one name in the list should be the Finance Minister that was in office at the moment of the election. The three other names in the list should be three other high-profile Cabinet Ministers in that previous government. Q20a. Which of these persons was the Finance Minister before the recent election - [CABINET MINISTER NAME - FIRST CHOICE], [CABINET MINISTER NAME - SECOND CHOICE], [CABINET MINISTER NAME - THIRD CHOICE], or [CABINET MINISTER NAME - FOURTH CHOICE]? .................................................................. 1. [CABINET MINISTER NAME - 1ST CHOICE] 2. [CABINET MINISTER NAME - 2ND CHOICE] 3. [CABINET MINISTER NAME - 3RD CHOICE] 4. [CABINET MINISTER NAME - 4TH CHOICE] 5. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3025_1_B | | Data are unavailable for LATVIA (2014), PERU (2016) and SOUTH | AFRICA (2014). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D3025_1_B | | Answer options: 1. Jorge Capitanich | 2. Axel Kicillof | 3. Hector Timerman | 4. Florencio Randazzo | Correct Answer: 2. Axel Kicillof | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D3025_1_B | | Answer options: 1. Bob Carr | 2. Bill Shorten | 3. Chris Bowen | 4. Tony Burke | | Correct Answer: 3. Chris Bowen | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D3025_1_B | | Answer options: 1. Josef Proell | 2. Johanna Mikl-Leitner | 3. Maria Fekter | 4. Rudolf Hundstorfer | | Correct answer: 3. Maria Fekter | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D3025_1_B | | Answer options: 1. Gilberto Carvalho | 2. Aloisio Mercadante | 3. Guido Mantega | 4. Jose Eduardo Cardozo | | Correct Answer: 3. Guido Mantega | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2014): D3025_1_B | | Answer options: 1. Yordan Bakalov | 2. Rumen Porozhanov | 3. Velizar Shalamanov | 4. Evgenia Radanova | | Correct Answer: 2. Rumen Porozhanov | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011): D3025_1_B | | The variable is from the post-election mail-back survey. | | Answer options: 1. John Baird | 2. Laurence Cannon | 3. Jim Flaherty | 4. Peter MacKay | | Correct Answer: 3. Jim Flaherty | ELECTION STUDY NOTES – CANADA (2015): D3025_1_B | | The variable is from the post-election mail-back survey. | | Answer options: 1. John Baird | 2. Jim Flaherty | 3. Peter MacKay | 4. Joe Oliver | | Correct Answer: 4. Joe Oliver | | The option "Not sure" in the election study questionnaire | was recoded to "8. Don't know." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2013): D3025_1_B | | Answer options: 1. Rusnok | 2. Martin Pecina | 3. Jan Fischer | 4. Jan Kohout | | Correct Answer: 3. Jan Fischer | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2015): D3025_1_B | | Answer options: 1. Krista Kiuru | 2. Jan Vapaavuori | 3. Paula Risikko | 4. Antti Rinne | | Correct Answer: 4. Antti Rinne | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): D3025_1_B | | Answer options: 1. Francois Baroin | 2. Xavier Bertrand | 3. Luc Chatel | 4. Alain Juppe | | Correct Answer: 1. Francois Baroin | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D3025_1_B | | Answer options: 1. Rainer Bruederle | 2. Thomas De Maiziere | 3. Wolfgang Schaeuble | 4. Dirk Niebel | | Correct answer: 3. Wolfgang Schaeuble | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): D3025_1_B | | Answer options: 1. George Osborne | 2. Vince Cable | 3. Theresa May | 4. Philip Hammond | | Correct Answer: 1. George Osborne | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012): D3025_1_B | | Answer options: 1. Anna Diamantopoulou | 2. Antreas Loverdos | 3. Michalis Chrisochoidis | 4. Filippos Sachinidis | | Correct Answer: 4. Filippos Sachinidis | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): D3025_1_B | | Answer options: 1. Gikas Hardouvelis | 2. Andreas Loverdos | 3. Michalis Chrysochoidis | 4. Kiriakos Mitsotakis | | Correct Answer: 1. Gikas Hardouvelis | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D3025_1_B | | Answer options: 1. Tsang Chun-wah, John | 2. Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, Carrie | 3. Chan Ka-keung, Ceajer | 4. Yuen Kwok-keung, Rimsky | | Correct Answer: 1. Tsang Chun-wah, John | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2013): D3025_1_B | | Answer options: 1. Katrin Juliusdottir | 2. Svandis Svavarsdottir | 3. Ogmundur Jonasson | 4. Ossur Skarpheoinsson | | Correct Answer: 1. Katrin Juliusdottir | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2011): D3025_1_B | | Irish question on D3025_1_a was: "Which, if any, of these | persons was Finance Minster before the recent election?" | | Answer options: 1. Brian Lenihan | 2. Brian Cowen | 3. Micheal Martin | 4. Michael Noonan | | Correct Answer: 1. Brian Lenihan | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2013): D3025_1_B | | Answer options: 1. Uzi Landau | 2. Gideon Sa'ar | 3. Yuval Steinitz | 4. Eli Yishai | | Correct Answer: 3. Yuval Steinitz | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D3025_1_B | | Answer options: 1. Kaoru Yosano | 2. Jun Azumi | 3. Taro Aso | 4. Sadakazu Tanigaki | | Correct Answer: 3. Taro Aso | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D3025_1_B | | Answer options: 1. Mutula Kilonzo | 2. Njeru Githae | 3. Wycliffe Oparanya | 4. Amos Kimunya | | Correct Answer: 2. Njeru Githae | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2011): D3025_1_B | | Answer options: 1. Aigars Stokenbergs | 2. Uldis Augulis | 3. Andris Vilks | 4. Artis Kampars | | Correct Answer: 3. Andris Vilks | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): D3025_1_B | | Answer options: 1. Jose Antonio Mid | 2. Alejandro Poare | 3. Heriberto Felix Guerra | 4. Genaro Garcia Luna | | Correct Answer: 1. Jose Antonio Mid | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2015): D3025_1_B | | This question was formulated slightly differently reading "Who | of the following is the finance minister?". As the Mexican | election study was conducted between 13 and 21 days after the | elections, it is clear that no new cabinet had been formed yet | and that this question, hence, refers to the finance minister | before the elections. | | Answer options: 1. Luis Videgaray | 2. Miguel Angel Osorio Chong | 3. Rosario Robles | 4. Arely Gomez | | Correct Answer: 1. Luis Videgaray | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2012): D3025_1_B | | Answer options: 1. Igor Luksic | 2. Miodrag Katnic | 3. Vladimir Kavaric | 4. Dusko Markovic | | Correct Answer: 2. Miodrag Katnic | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011): D3025_1_B | | Answer options: 1. Simon Power | 2. Bill English | 3. Tony Ryall | 4. Nick Smith | | Correct answer: 2. Bill English | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2014): D3025_1_B | | Answer options: 1. Judith Collins | 2. Bill English | 3. Tony Ryall | 4. Nick Smith | | Correct Answer: 2. Bill English | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D3025_1_B | | Answer options: 1. Grete Faremo | 2. Kristin Halvorsen | 3. Sigbjoern Johnsen | 4. Trond Giske | | Correct answer: 3. Sigbjoern Johnsen | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): D3025_1_B | | As deviating political information questions were asked in the | Peruvian survey, they are not included in the CSES | dataset. Interested researchers can refer to the original | Peruvian election study. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D3025_1_B | | Answer options: 1. Jose Pardo | 2. Gary Teves | 3. Cesar Purisima | 4. Roberto de Ocampo | | Correct Answer: 3. Cesar Purisima | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2011): D3025_1_B | | Answer options: 1. Leszek Balcerowicz | 2. Marek Belka | 3. Jacek Rostowski | 4. Zyta Gilowska | | Correct Answer: 3. Jacek Rostowski | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): D3025_1_B | | Answer options: 1. Vieira da Silva | 2. Vitor Gaspar | 3. Augusto Santos Silva | 4. Maria Luis Albuquerque | | Correct Answer: 4. Maria Luis Albuquerque | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D3025_1_B | | Answer options: 1. Titus Corlatean | 2. Florin Georgescu | 3. Mircea Dusa | 4. Daniel Constantin | | Correct Answer: 2. Florin Georgescu | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D3025_1_B | | Answer options: 1. Titus Corlatean | 2. Ioana-Maria Petrescu | 3. Rovana Plumb | 4. Daniel Constantin | | Correct Answer: 2. Ioana-Maria Petrescu | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SERBIA (2012): D3025_1_B | | Answer options: 1. Oliver Dulic | 2. Mirko Cvetkovic | 3. Ivica Daeic | 4. Snezana Malovic | | 5. None | | Correct Answer: 2. Mirko Cvetkovic | | The the Serbian Election study contained an additional | category (5. none), which is treated as an incorrect answer. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2016): D3025_1_B | | Answer options: 1. Robert Kalinak | 2. Peter Kazimir | 3. Jan Pociatek | 4. Lubomir Vazny | | Correct Answer: 2. Peter Kazimir | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011): D3025_1_B | | Answer options: 1. Mitja Gaspari | 2. Ales Zalar | 3. Franci Krizanic | 4. Ivan Svetlik | | Correct Answer: 3. Franci Krizanic | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2012): D3025_1_B | | Answer options: 1. Han Seung-soo | 2. Lee Heon-jae | 3. Kwon O-kyu | 4. Park Jae-wan | | Correct Answer: 4. Park Jae-wan | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2014): D3025_1_B | | Answer options: 1. Carl Bildt | 2. Anders Borg | 3. Annie Loof | 4. Beatrice Ask | | Correct answer: 2. Anders Borg | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): D3025_1_B | | Answer options: 1. Micheline Calmy-Rey | 2. Johann Schneider-Amman | 3. Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf | 4. Doris Leuthard | | Correct answer: 3. Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D3025_1_B | | Answer options: 1. Jiang Yi-huah | 2. Chen Chun (Sean Chen) | 3. Mao Chi-kuo | 4. Lee Sush-der | | Correct Answer: 4. Lee Sush-der | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2011): D3025_1_B | | Answer options: 1. Chinnaworn Boonyukida | 2. Korn Chatikavanij | 3. Chaovarat Chanweerakul | 4. Jurin Laksanawisit | | Correct Answer: 2. Korn Chatikavanij | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2015): D3025_1_B | | Answer options: 1. Bulent Arinc | 2. Taner Yildiz | 3. Mehmet Simsek | 4. Mevlut Cavusoglu | | Correct Answer: 3. Mehmet Simsek | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D3025_1_B | | Answer options: 1. Hillary Clinton | 2. Eric Holder | 3. Leon Panetta | 4. Timothy Geithner | | Correct Answer: 4. Timothy Geithner --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3025_2_B >>> Q20b. ORIGINAL POLITICAL INFORMATION ITEM - 2ND --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the options, please list each of the unemployment rate choices in the format "XX.X%" - for instance, 4.5% or 10.1%. After populating one of the options with the actual current unemployment rate in the country of your election study, please then add or subtract 2.0% from that amount until the other three options are populated with incorrect alternatives. Please list the options in increasing order. For instance, if the actual unemployment rate is 8.7%, any of these example choice sets would be acceptable: 2.7%, 4.7%, 6.7%, 8.7% 4.7%, 6.7%, 8.7%, 10.7% 6.7%, 8.7%, 10.7%, 12.7% 8.7%, 10.7%, 12.7%, 14.7% In the question text where "[DATE]" appears, please provide the date (day/month/year) for the latest official unemployment rate that is available for the country as of the beginning of the data collection period for the survey that includes the CSES Module. When depositing the election study with the CSES Secretariat, it would be helpful for the collaborator to let the CSES Secretariat know the source of the unemployment rate used in the question. Q20b. What was the current unemployment rate in [COUNTRY] as of [DATE] - [UNEMPLOYMENT RATE - FIRST CHOICE], [UNEMPLOYMENT RATE - SECOND CHOICE], [UNEMPLOYMENT RATE - THIRD CHOICE], or [UNEMPLOYMENT RATE - FOURTH CHOICE]? .................................................................. 1. [UNEMPLOYMENT RATE - 1ST CHOICE] 2. [UNEMPLOYMENT RATE - 2ND CHOICE] 3. [UNEMPLOYMENT RATE - 3RD CHOICE] 4. [UNEMPLOYMENT RATE - 4TH CHOICE] 5. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3025_2_B | | Data are unavailable for ARGENTINA (2015), CANADA (2011), | IRELAND (2011), LATVIA (2014) and PERU (2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D3025_2_B | | Answer options: 1. 3.7% | 2. 5.7% | 3. 7.7% | 4. 9.7% | | Correct Answer: 2. 5.7% | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D3025_2_B | | Answer options: 1. 2.9% | 2. 6.9% | 3. 8.9% | 4. 9.9% | | Correct Answer: 2. 6.9% | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D3025_2_B | | Answer options: 1. 7.0% | 2. 11.0% | 3. 5.0% | 4. 9.0% | | Correct Answer: 3. 5.0% | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2014): D3025_2_B | | Answer options: 1. 6.8% | 2. 8.8% | 3. 10.8% | 4. 12.8% | | Correct Answer: 3. 10.8% | | The Bulgarian Study asked for the unemployment rate as of | September 2014, and hence four months before the survey was | administered. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES – CANADA (2015): D3025_2_B | | The variable is from the post-election mail-back survey. | | Answer options: 1. 5.1% | 2. 7.1% | 3. 9.1% | 4. 11.1% | | Correct Answer: 2. 7.1% | | The option "Not sure" in the Canadian election study | questionnaire was recoded to "8. Don't know." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2013): D3025_2_B | | Answer options: 1. 5.6% | 2. 7.6% | 3. 9.6% | 4. 11.6% | | Correct Answer: 2. 7.6% | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2015): D3025_2_B | | Answer options: 1. 8.1% | 2. 10.1% | 3. 12.1% | 4. 14.1% | | Correct Answer: 2. 10.1% | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): D3025_2_B | | Answer options: 1. 8% | 2. 10% | 3. 12% | 4. 14% | | Correct Answer: 2. 10% | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D3025_2_B | | Answer options: 1. 4.8% | 2. 6.8% | 3. 8.8% | 4. 10.8% | | Correct answer: 2. 6.8% | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): D3025_2_B | | Answer options: 1. 4% | 2. 6% | 3. 8% | 4. 10% | | Correct Answer: 2. 6% | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012 & 2015): D3025_2_B | | Answer options: 1. 23% | 2. 25% | 3. 27% | 4. 29% | | Correct Answer: 2. 25% | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D3025_2_B | | Answer options: 1. 1.2% | 2. 3.2% | 3. 5.2% | 4. 7.2% | | Correct Answer: 2. 3.2% | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2013): D3025_2_B | | Answer options: 1. 4.8% | 2. 6.8% | 3. 7.8% | 4. 10.8% | | Correct Answer: 2. 6.8% | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2011): D3025_2_B | | As the pretest question implemented by Ireland (2011) differs | substantially from the one fielded in the final Module 4 | questionnaire, it is not included in this variable. The data | might be included in a subsequent release. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2013): D3025_2_B | | Answer options: 1. 4.7% | 2. 6.7% | 3. 8.7% | 4. 10.7% | | Correct Answer: 2. 6.7% | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D3025_2_B | | Answer options: 1. 2.1% | 2. 4.1% | 3. 6.1% | 4. 8.1% | | Correct Answer: 2. 4.1% | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D3025_2_B | | Answer options: 1. 15% | 2. 25% | 3. 35% | 4. 45% | 5. 55% | | Correct Answer: 4. 45% | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2011): D3025_2_B | | Answer options: 1. 9.8% | 2. 11.8% | 3. 13.8% | 4. 15.8% | | Correct Answer: 4. 15.8% | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): D3025_2_B | | Answer options: 1. 2.87% | 2. 4.87% | 3. 6.87% | 4. 8.87% | | Correct answer: 2. 4.87% | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2015): D3025_2_B | | Answer options: 1. 2.87% | 2. 4.32% | 3. 6.87% | 4. 8.87% | | Correct Answer: 2. 4.32% | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2012): D3025_2_B | | Answer options: 1. 11.1% | 2. 13.1% | 3. 15.1% | 4. 17.1% | | Correct answer: 2. 13.1% | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011): D3025_2_B | | Answer options: 1. 4.6% | 2. 6.6% | 3. 8.6% | 4. 10.6% | | Correct answer: 2. 6.6% | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2014): D3025_2_B | | Answer options: 1. 3.6% | 2. 5.6% | 3. 7.6% | 4. 9.6% | | Correct Answer: 2. 5.6% | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D3025_2_B | | Answer options: 1. 0-2% | 2. 2-4% | 3. 4-6% | 4. 6-8% | | Correct answer: 2. 2-4% | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): D3025_2_B | | As deviating political information questions were asked in the | Peruvian survey, these are not included in the CSES | dataset. Interested researchers can refer to the original | Peruvian election study. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D3025_2_B | | Answer options: 1. 6.6% | 2. 7.8% | 3. 6.1% | 4. 10.8% | | Correct Answer: 3. 6.1% | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2011): D3025_2_B | | Answer options: 1. 5.0% | 2. 8.0% | 3. 11.6% | 4. 16.4% | | Correct Answer: 3. 11.6% | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): D3025_2_B | | Answer options: 1. 13.9% | 2. 11.9% | 3. 15.9% | 4. 17.9% | | Correct Answer: 1. 13.9% | | Respondents were asked the unemployment rate in 2014. | By the time the survey was implemented, it hence referred to a | point in time that was between 10 and 12 month ago. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D3025_2_B | | Answer options: 1. 3.1% | 2. 5.1% | 3. 7.1% | 4. 9.1% | | Correct Answer: 3. 7.1% | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D3025_2_B | | Answer options: 1. 2.9% | 2. 4.9% | 3. 6.9% | 4. 8.9% | | Correct Answer: 3. 6.9% | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SERBIA (2012): D3025_2_B | | Answer options: 1. 21.5% | 2. 23.5% | 3. 25.5% | 4. 27.5% | | 5. None | | Correct Answer: 3. 25.5% | | The Serbian Election study contained an additional | category (5. none), which is treated as an incorrect answer. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2016): D3025_2_B | | Answer options: 1. 10.6% | 2. 12.8% | 3. 8.2% | 4. 15.6% | | Correct Answer: 1. 10.6% | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011): D3025_2_B | | Answer options: 1. 5.1% | 2. 8.2% | 3. 10.4% | 4. 15.3% | | Correct Answer: 3. 10.4% | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D3025_2_B | | Answer options: 1. 5 % | 2. 15 % | 3. 25 % | 4. 50 % | 5. 75 % | | Correct Answer: 3. 25 % | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2012): D3025_2_B | | Answer options: 1. 2.2% | 2. 4.2% | 3. 6.2% | 4. 8.2% | | Correct Answer: 2. 4.2% | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2014): D3025_2_B | | Answer options: 1. 6.0% | 2. 8.0% | 3. 10.0% | 4. 12.0% | | Correct answer: 2. 8.0% | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): D3025_2_B | | Answer options: 1. 2.8% | 2. 4.8% | 3. 6.8% | 4. 8.8% | | Correct Answer: 1. 2.8% | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D3025_2_B | | Answer options: 1. 2.3% | 2. 4.3% | 3. 6.3% | 4. 8.3 | | Correct Answer: 2. 4.3% | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2011): D3025_2_B | | Answer options: 1. 0.8% | 2. 1.8% | 3. 2.8% | 4. 3.8% | | Correct Answer: 1. 0.8% | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2015): D3025_2_B | | Answer options: 1. 8.6% | 2. 10.6% | 3. 12.6% | 4. 14.6% | | Correct Answer: 2. 10.6% | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D3025_2_B | | Answer options: 1. 5.9% | 2. 7.9% | 3. 9.9% | 4. 11.9% | | Correct Answer: 2. 7.9% --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3025_2_B_PT >>> Q20b_PT. ORIGINAL POLITICAL INFORMATION ITEM PRE-TEST - 2ND --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports a political knowledge question that was asked in pre-test versions of the CSES Module 4 questionnaire. It is reported separately because the wording differed from the final version of the CSES Module 4 question. .................................................................. Q20b_PT. What is the longest time permitted between one [UNIT OF GOVERNMENT] election and the next - [NUMBER OF YEARS - FIRST CHOICE], [NUMBER OF YEARS - SECOND CHOICE], [NUMBER OF YEARS - THIRD CHOICE], or [NUMBER OF YEARS - FOURTH CHOICE]? .................................................................. 1. [NUMBER OF YEARS - 1ST CHOICE] 2. [NUMBER OF YEARS - 2ND CHOICE] 3. [NUMBER OF YEARS - 3RD CHOICE] 4. [NUMBER OF YEARS - 4TH CHOICE] 5. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3025_2_B_PT | | Data for D3025_2_B_PT is available for IRELAND (2011) and | CANADA (2011), i.e. the only two studies in which the pre-test | versions of the questions Q20b and Q20d were fielded. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011): D3025_2_B_PT | | Answer options: 1. 3 years | 2. 4 years | 3. 5 years | 4. 6 years | | Correct Answer: 2. 4 years | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2011): D3025_2_B_PT | | Answer options: 1. 5 years | 2. 7 years | 3. 4 years | 4. 10 years | | Correct Answer: 1. 5 years --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3025_3_B >>> Q20c. ORIGINAL POLITICAL INFORMATION ITEM - 3RD --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please present the four party, alliance, and coalition options to the respondent in alphabetical order. If the election is a presidential election, collaborators may wish to list candidates instead. If there are multiple rounds in the election, please indicate indicate the round of the election (if appropriate) in the question, and please let CSES know which round was asked about. Q20c. Which [PARTY, ALLIANCE, OR COALITION] came in second in seats in the [NAME OF THE LOWER HOUSE IN BICAMERAL SYSTEMS; OR ASSEMBLY, PARLIAMENT, OR CONGRESS IN UNICAMERAL SYSTEMS] - [PARTY, ALLIANCE, OR COALITION - FIRST CHOICE], [PARTY, ALLIANCE, OR COALITION - SECOND CHOICE], [PARTY, ALLIANCE, OR COALITION - THIRD CHOICE], or [PARTY, ALLIANCE, OR COALITION - FOURTH CHOICE]? .................................................................. 1. [PARTY, ALLIANCE, OR COALITION - 1ST CHOICE] 2. [PARTY, ALLIANCE, OR COALITION - 2ND CHOICE] 3. [PARTY, ALLIANCE, OR COALITION - 3RD CHOICE] 4. [PARTY, ALLIANCE, OR COALITION - 4TH CHOICE] 5. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 6. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3025_3_B | | Data are unavailable for ARGENTINA (2015), IRELAND (2011), | LATVIA (2014) and PERU (2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D3025_3_B | | Answer options: 1. Greens | 2. Katter's Australian Party | 3. Labor Party (ALP) | 4. Liberal-National Coalition | | Correct Answer: 3. Labor Party (ALP) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D3025_3_B | | Answer options: 1. FPO | 2. Greens | 3. OVP | 4. SPO | | Correct Answer: 3. OVP | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D3025_3_B | | Answer options: 1. PMDB | 2. PT | 3. PSDB | 4. PSB | | Correct Answer: 1. PMDB | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2014): D3025_3_B | | Answer options: 1. BSP Left Bulgaria | 2. CEDB | 3. Patriotic Front - National front for the salvation of Bulgaria | 4. Reformist block | | Correct Answer: 1. BSP Left Bulgaria | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011): D3025_3_B | | The variable is from the post-election mail-back survey. | | Answer options: 1. Bloc Quebecois | 2. Conservative Party | 3. Liberal Party | 4. New Democratic Party | | Correct Answer: 4. New Democratic Party | ELECTION STUDY NOTES – CANADA (2015): D3025_3_B | | The variable is from the post-election mail-back survey. | | Answer options: 1. Conservative Party | 2. Liberal Party | 3. New Democratic Party | 4. Bloc Quebecois | 5. Green Party | | Correct Answer: 1. Conservative Party | | The option "Not sure" in the election study questionnaire | was recoded to "8. Don't know." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2013): D3025_3_B | | Answer options: 1. CSSD | 2. KSCM | 3. ANO 2011 | 4. TOP 09 | | Correct answer: 3. ANO 2011 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2015): D3025_3_B | | Answer options: 1. Social Democratic Party of Finland (SDP) | 2. True Finns (PS) | 3. Centre Party of Finland (KESK) | 4. National Coalition Party (KOK) | | Correct Answer: 2. True Finns (PS) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): D3025_3_B | | This question refers to the last election of the National | Assembly in 2007. | | Answer options: 1. Le Parti communiste | 2. Le Parti socialiste | 3. Le MoDem | 4. L'UMP | | Correct Answer: 2. Le Parti socialiste | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D3025_3_B | | Answer options: 1. FDP | 2. Greens | 3. SPD | 4. CDU | | Correct answer: 3. SPD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): D3025_3_B | | Answer options: 1. Conservatives | 2. Labour | 3. Liberal Democrats | 4. UKIP | | Correct answer: 2. Labour | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012): D3025_3_B | | Answer options: 1. Anel | 2. DIMAR | 3. PASOK | 4. Syriza | | Correct answer: 4. SYRIZA | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): D3025_3_B | | Answer options: 1. ANEL | 2. ND | 3. PASOK | 4. POTAMI | | Correct Answer: 2. ND | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D3025_3_B | | According to the sum of votes to the three tiers Geographical | Constituency (GC), District Council (Second) Functional | Constituency (FC) and traditional FC lead to three parties | coming in second. They all gained 6 seats. The question was | hence changed into "Which party did not come in second | (...). | | Answer options: 1. Democratic Party | 2. Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions [FTU] | 3. Civic Party | 4. Labour Party | | Correct answer: 4. Labour Party | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2013): D3025_3_B | | ICENES asked "Which party came in second in votes in the | election to Althingi...". That is instead of asking who came in | second in seats respondents were asked about who came in second | in votes. The reason is because there was a tie in the seats of | the top two parties (19 seats each). | | Answer options: 1. Social Democratic Alliance | 2. Progressive Party | 3. Independence Party | 4. Left Green Movement | | Correct answer: 2. Progressive Party | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2013): D3025_3_B | | Answer options: 1. Shas | 2. Habayit Hayehudi | 3. Ha'avoda | 4. Yesh Atid headed by Yair Lapid | | Correct answer: 4. Yesh Atid | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D3025_3_B | | Answer options: 1. Japan Restoration Party | 2. Liberal Democratic Party of Japan | 3. New Komeito | 4. Democratic Party of Japan | | Correct answer: 4. Democratic Party of Japan | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D3025_3_B | | Answer options: 1. AMANI | 2. CORD | 3. EAGLE | 4. JUBILEE | 5. PAMBAZUKA | | 6. Other | | Correct answer: 2. CORD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2011): D3025_3_B | | Answer options: 1. National Alliance | 2. Unity | 3. Union of Greens and Farmers | 4. Zatlers' Reform Party | | Correct Answer: 4. Zatlers' Reform Party | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): D3025_3_B | | Answer options: 1. PAN | 2. PRD | 3. PRI | 4. PVEM | | 5. Other | | Correct answer: 1. PAN | | The Mexican Election study contained an additional category | (5. other), which was coded as an incorrect answer. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2015): D3025_3_B | | Answer options: 1. PAN | 2. PRD | 3. PRI | 4. Partido Verde (PVEM) | 5. MORENA | 6. Other | | Correct answer: 1. PAN | | The Mexican Election study contained two additional categories | (5.MORENA, 6. Other), which were coded as incorrect answers. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2012): D3025_3_B | | Answer options: 1. Demokratski front - Miodrag Lekic | 2. Koalicija evropska CG - Milo Dukanovic | 3. Pozitivna Crna Gora | 4. SocijalistiCka narodna partija | | Correct answer: 1. Demokratski front - Miodrag Lekic | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011): D3025_3_B | | In the original questionnaire, people could choose from eight | potential answer options. Below, we listed and coded those six | options that were marked by at least one respondent. Further | options that are not shown and not coded were "United | Future" and "Mana Party". These were not included because the | code values 7 and 8 are already taken by CSES standard codes. | | Answer options: 1. Labor Party | 2. National Party | 3. Green Party | 4. New Zealand First | 5. Act | 6. Maori | | Correct answer: 1. Labor Party | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2014): D3025_3_B | | In the original questionnaire, people could choose from eight | potential answer options. Below, we listed and coded those five | options that were marked by at least one respondent. Further | options that are not shown and not coded were "United Future", | "Maori Party", and "Internet-Mana Party". These were not | included because the code values 7 and 8 are already taken by | CSES standard codes. | | Answer options: 1. Labour | 2. National | 3. Green | 4. NZ First | 5. ACT | | Correct answer: 1. Labour | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D3025_3_B | | Answer options: 1. Labor Party | 2. Conservative Party | 3. Progress Party | 4. Socialist Left Party | | Correct answer: 2. Conservative Party | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D3025_3_B | | Answer options: 1. Partido Demokratikong Pilipino | - Lakas Ng Bayan (PDP-Laban) | 2. United Nationalist Alliance (UNA) | 3. Liberal Party | 4. Nacionalista Party (NP) | 5. National People's Coalition (NPC) | 6. People's Reform Party (PRP) | | Correct answer: 5. National People's Coalition (NPC) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2011): D3025_3_B | | Answer options: 1. PiS | 2. PO | 3. PSL | 4. Ruch Palikota | | Correct answer: 1. PiS | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): D3025_3_B | | Answer options: 1. CDU | 2. PaF (PPD-PSD/CDS-PP) | 3. PS | 4. BE | | Correct answer: 3. PS | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D3025_3_B | | Answer options: 1. The Alliance for a Just Romania (ARD) | 2. People's Party - Dan Diaconescu (PP-DD) | 3. Hungarian Democratic Union of Romania | (UDMR) | 4. Social Liberal Union (USL) | | Correct answer: 1. The Alliance for a Just Romania (ARD) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D3025_3_B | | As the data was collected on the 2014 Romanian Presidential | Election, the question read "Which candidate came in second in | votes in the 1st round of the Presidential elections of November | 2, 2014?" | | Answer options: 1. Victor Ponta | 2. Klaus Iohannis | 3. Elena Udrea | 4. Calin Popescu-Tariceanu | | Correct answer: 2. Klaus Iohannis | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SERBIA (2012): D3025_3_B | | Answer options: 1. Choice for a Better Life - Boris Tadic | 2. "Ivica Daeic - Socialist Party of Serbia - | PUPS-JS" (SPS) | 3. Democratic Party of Serbia (DSS) - Vojislav | Kostunica | 4. "Let's Get Serbia Moving - Tomislav Nikolic" | | 5. None | | Correct answer: 1. Choice for a Better Life - Boris Tadic | | The Serbian Election study contained an additional | category (5. none), which is treated as an incorrect answer. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2016): D3025_3_B | | Answer options: 1. Slovak National Party (SNS) | 2. Ordinary people - Independent | personalities (OLaNO) | 3. Freedom and Solidarity (SaS) | 4. Sme Rodina - Boris Kollar (SR) | | Correct answer: 3. Freedom and Solidarity (SaS) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011): D3025_3_B | | Answer options: 1. SD | 2. PS | 3. SDS | 4. DLGV | | Correct answer: 1. SDS | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D3025_3_B | | Answer options: 1. Congress of the People (COPE) | 2. Democratic Alliance (DA) | 3. Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) | 4. Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) | | Correct answer: 2. Democratic Alliance (DA) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2012): D3025_3_B | | Answer options: 1. New Frontier Party | 2. Democratic United Party | 3. Liberty Forward Party | 4. Unified Progressive Party | | Correct answer: 2. Democratic United Party | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2014): D3025_3_B | | Answer options: 1. Liberals | 2. Green Party | 3. Conservatives | 4. Social Democrats | | Correct answer: 3. Conservatives | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): D3025_3_B | | Answer options: 1. SVP | 2. CVP | 3. FDP | 4. SP | | Correct answer: 4. SP | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D3025_3_B | | Answer options: 1. Kuomintang Recommendation | 2. Democratic Progressive Party | 3. People First Party | 4. Non-Partisan Solidarity Union | | Correct answer: 2. Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2011): D3025_3_B | | Answer options: 1. Bhumjaithai Party | 2. Thais United National Development Party | 3. Social Action Party | 4. Chartthaipattana Party | | Correct answer: 4. Chartthaipattana Party | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2015): D3025_3_B | | Answer options: 1. Justice and Development Party (AKP) | 2. Republican People's Party (CHP) | 3. Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP) | 4. Nationalist Action Party (MHP) | | Correct Answer: 2. Republican People's Party (CHP) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D3025_3_B | | Answer options: 1. Democratic Party | 2. Republican Party | 3. Green Party | 4. Libertarian Party | | Correct answer: 1. Democratic Party --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3025_4_B >>> Q20d. ORIGINAL POLITICAL INFORMATION ITEM - 4TH --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As of the publication of this questionnaire, Ban Ki-moon is the Secretary-General of the United Nations, but his term expires on December 31, 2011. If a different Secretary-General of the United Nations is in place when your election study is run, please replace the name "Kurt Waldheim" in option 2 with the name of the current Secretary-General of the United Nations. Q20d. Who is the current Secretary-General of the United Nations - Kofi Annan, Kurt Waldheim, Ban Ki-moon, or Boutros Boutros-Ghali? .................................................................. 1. KOFI ANNAN 2. KURT WALDHEIM 3. BAN KI-MOON 4. BOUTROS BOUTROS-GHALI 5. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3025_4_B | | Correct response is "3. BAN KI-MOON". | | Data are unavailable for CANADA (2011), IRELAND (2011), | LATVIA (2014) and PERU (2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES – CANADA (2015): D3025_4_B | | The variable is from the post-election mail-back survey. | The option "Not sure" in the election study questionnaire | was recoded to "8. DON'T KNOW." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2011): D3025_4_B | | As the pretest question implemented by Ireland (2011) differs | substantially from the one fielded in the final Module 4 | questionnaire, it is not included in this variable. The data | might be included in a subsequent release. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D3025_4_B | | The UN secretary general was mistakenly translated as | chairperson of the UN to the Japanese language. This difference | to the official translation for the UN secretary general might | have led to difficulties in answering this particular question. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): D3025_4_B | | As deviating political information questions were asked in the | Peruvian survey, these are not included in the CSES | dataset. Interested researchers can refer to the original | Peruvian election study. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D3025_4_B | | Respondents could specify another person, who was | not mentioned in the question. These answers are coded with | code 5. Individual answers were not further specified. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 05. Other person, not specified --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3025_4_B_PT >>> Q20d_PT. ORIGINAL POLITICAL INFORMATION ITEM PRE-TEST - 4TH --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports a political knowledge question that was asked in pre-test versions of the CSES Module 4 questionnaire. It is reported separately because the wording differed from the final version of the CSES Module 4 question. .................................................................. Q20d_PT. Who was the first president of South Africa after apartheid ended? Desmond Tutu, Robert Mugabe, Nelson Mandela, or Rupiah Banda? .................................................................. 1. [PRESIDENT NAME - 1ST CHOICE] 2. |PRESIDENT NAME - 2ND CHOICE] 3. [PRESIDENT NAME - 3RD CHOICE] 4. [PRESIDENT NAME - 4TH CHOICE] 5. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3025_4_B_PT | | Data for D3025_4_B_PT is available for IRELAND (2011) and | CANADA (2011), i.e. the two studies in which the pre-test | versions of the questions Q20b and Q20d were used. The correct | answer is Nelson Mandela, but the order of answers | varied between election studies. For details, see Election | Study Notes below. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011): D3025_4_B_PT | | Answer options: 1. RUPIAH BANDA | 2. NELSON MANDELA | 3. ROBERT MUGABE | 4. DESMOND TUTU | | Correct Answer: 2. NELSON MANDELA | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2011): D3025_4_B_PT | | Answer options: 1. DESMOND TUTU | 2. ROBERT MUGABE | 3. NELSON MANDELA | 4. RUPIAH BANDA | | Correct Answer: 3. NELSON MANDELA --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3026 >>> Q21. HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN THE NEXT TWELVE MONTHS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The next question is about your household's income. Q21. How likely or unlikely do you think it is that your household's income could be severely reduced IN THE NEXT TWELVE MONTHS? Very likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely, or very unlikely? .................................................................. 1. VERY LIKELY 2. SOMEWHAT LIKELY 4. SOMEWHAT UNLIKELY 5. VERY UNLIKELY 6. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3026 | | Data are unavailable for ARGENTINA (2015), SWEDEN (2014). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES – CANADA (2011 & 2015): D3026 | | The variable is from the post-election mail-back survey. | The question wording in the original study differed from CSES | conventions. Respondents were asked how likely they thought it | was that the household's main sources of income would be lost in | the following year. Also see the note on D3028_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D3026 | | Respondents were allowed to choose an additional answer | category "half-and-half". The answer was coded to code 6. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 06. half-and-half --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3027_1 >>> Q22a. OWNERSHIP: RESIDENCE D3027_2 >>> Q22b. OWNERSHIP: BUSINESS OR PROPERTY OR FARM OR LIVESTOCK D3027_3 >>> Q22c. OWNERSHIP: STOCKS OR BONDS D3027_4 >>> Q22d. OWNERSHIP: SAVINGS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If the national collaborator team feels that questions Q22a-Q22d will be considered especially sensitive topics for the respondent and thus cause important or serious issues with respect to the conduct of the survey, it is allowable to move the four questions to the end of the survey interview. Q22a. Do you or a member of your household own a residence - for example, a home or an apartment? HELP: If the respondent mentioned a "beach house" or "country house" the answer should be recorded as "yes". Q22b. Do you or a member of your household own a business, a piece of property, a farm, or livestock? HELP: If the respondent mentioned a "piece of land" or "rental property" the answer should be recorded as "yes". Q22c. Do you or a member of your household own stocks or bonds? Q22d. Do you or a member of your household have any savings? .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011): D3027_1 | | This variable is from the post-election telephone survey. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011): D3027_2 D3027_3 D3027_4 | | These variables are from the post-election mail-back survey. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES – CANADA (2015): D3027_ | | The variables are from the post-election mail-back survey. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2011): D3027_ | | These questions were only asked in the mail-back drop-off | questionnaire (see Election Study Note for D1023). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): D3027_1 | | This data was recoded from a BES question that asked about the | respondent's home. Those who owned their home outright or on a | mortgage were coded as 1, those living in rented/social housing | were coded as 5. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D3027_1 | | The question wording was slightly different. Respondents were | asked, "Do you or your household members own the apartment you | are living in?" | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D3027_2 | The question wording was slightly different. Respondents were | asked, "Do you or your household members own a company or a | property for rent?" | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2013): D3027_3 | | Due to a mistake in data-gathering 195 respondents were | not asked this question (whether they own business or | property or farm or livestock). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3028_1 >>> Q23a. FIND ANOTHER JOB - RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- While this question is considered part of the CSES Module, to accommodate the aforementioned skip pattern, collaborators are asked to please place this question somewhere after their question indicating the "current employment status" of the respondent, a question which is normally included in the demographics section of a questionnaire. Q23a. If you lost your job, how easy or difficult would it be to find another job IN THE NEXT TWELVE MONTHS? Very easy, somewhat easy, somewhat difficult, or very difficult? .................................................................. 1. VERY EASY 2. SOMEWHAT EASY 4. SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT 5. VERY DIFFICULT 6. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3028_1 | | Data are unavailable for SWEDEN (2014) | | A respondent should only receive this question if the respondent | is currently employed. However, researchers should pay attention | to the fact that D3028_1 includes several observations that | answered this question, although they were currently not | employed (D2010). These data remained unchanged. | | +++ TABLE: FREQUENCIES ON D3028_1 FOR RESPONDENTS CURRENTLY NOT | EMPLOYED | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | AUSTRALIA (2013) 1178 | BRAZIL (2014) 5 | CANADA (2011) 1129 | CANADA (2015) 1417 | CZECH REPUBLIC (2013) 128 | GERMANY (2013) 6 | GREAT BRITAIN (2015) 180 | ICELAND (2013) 1 | IRELAND (2011) 726 | LATVIA (2014) 12 | MONTENEGRO (2012) 69 | NEW ZEALAND (2014) 114 | PERU (2016) 59 | POLAND (2011) 57 | PORTUGAL (2012) 10 | ROMANIA (2012) 1323 | ROMANIA (2014) 263 | SERBIA (2012) 26 | SLOVENIA (2011) 6 | SOUTH AFRICA (2014) 353 | TAIWAN (2012) 5 | THAILAND (2011) 375 | UNITED STATES (2012) 41 | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D3028_1 | | The Australian questionnaire did not include any | filter instruction on D3028_1, referring to respondent's current | employment status (D2010). The answers of the respondents who | mentioned 'Do not have a job' were recoded as '9. Missing'. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES – CANADA (2011 & 2015): D3028_1 | | The variable is from the post-election mail-back survey. | | The question is somewhat different. It reads how difficult or | easy it would be for the respondent to find another source of | income or a comparable job. All respondents were asked this, | irrespective their source of income. Also see note on the D3026. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2011): D3028_1 | | This question was only asked in the mail-back drop-off | questionnaire (see Election Study Note for D1023). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): D3028_1 | | This question was not filtered by employment. | Instead, respondents were given the option for this particular | question to say they had no job.Those answers were coded to | '9. Missing'. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2012): D3028_1 | | In Montenegro, there is only code 3 for 'difficult' | which does not differ between how difficult. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D3028_1 | | The answers to this question reflect respondents' views | about the working market situation and was asked | independently of the current employment status. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D3028_1 | | The answers to this question reflect respondents' views | about the working market situation and was asked | independently of the current employment status. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D3028_1 | | Code 2 was translated as "easy", not "somewhat easy". | Also all respondents could answer this question | regardless of their current employment status. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D3028_1 | | Retired respondents as well as those doing home duty | (codes 7 and 8 in D2010) were asked about how difficult it would | be to find another job within the next twelve month. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D3028_1 | | This question was also answered by some respondents | who are classified as not currently in the labor force, | according to D2010. This is because the skip pattern applied in | the American National Election Study (ANES) is based on a | slightly different definition of 'currently in the labor force' | than suggested in D2010. For example, respondents who indicated | to primarily be students but also indicated doing paid work at | the same time were also asked D3028_1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3028_2 >>> Q23b. FIND ANOTHER JOB - SPOUSE/PARTNER --------------------------------------------------------------------------- While this question is considered part of the CSES Module, to accommodate the aforementioned skip pattern, collaborators are asked to please place this question somewhere after their question indicating the "current employment status" of the respondent, a question which is normally included in the demographics section of a questionnaire. Q23b. If your spouse/partner lost their job, how easy or difficult would it be for them to find another job IN THE NEXT TWELVE MONTHS? Very easy, somewhat easy, somewhat difficult, or very difficult? 1. VERY EASY 2. SOMEWHAT EASY 4. SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT 5. VERY DIFFICULT 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D3028_2 | Data are unavailable for CANADA (2011), CANADA (2015), ICELAND | (2013), IRELAND (2011), LATVIA (2014), MEXICO (2015), | PERU (2016) and SWEDEN (2014). | | A respondent should only receive this question if the | respondent's spouse/partner is currently employed. However, | researchers should pay attention to the fact that D3028_2 | includes several observations that answered this question for | spouses currently not employed (D2015). These data remained | unchanged. | | +++ TABLE: FREQUENCIES ON D3028_2 FOR RESPONDENTS' SPOUSES THAT | ARE CURRENTLY NOT EMPLOYED | | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | AUSTRALIA (2013) 783 | BRAZIL (2014) 3 | CZECH REPUBLIC (2013) 84 | ISRAEL (2013) 34 | MONTENEGRO (2012) 47 | NEW ZEALAND (2014) 76 | PORTUGAL (2015) 3 | ROMANIA (2012) 478 | ROMANIA (2014) 163 | SERBIA (2012) 18 | SLOVENIA (2011) 7 | SOUTH AFRICA (2014) 89 | TAIWAN (2012) 3 | THAILAND (2011) 249 | UNITED STATES (2012) 625 | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | | Moreover, several respondents without partner or spouse living | in their household (D2004) answered this question. | These data remained unchanged. | | +++ TABLE: FREQUENCIES ON D3028_2 FOR RESPONDENTS WITHOUT A | PARTNER OR SPOUSES IN THEIR HOUSEHOLD (D2004) | | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | AUSTRALIA (2013) 293 | BRAZIL (2014) 150 | CZECH REPUBLIC (2013) 198 | FINLAND (2015) 25 | GREAT BRITAIN (2015) 153 | HONG KONG (2012) 2 | KENYA (2013) 142 | MONTENEGRO (2012) 30 | NEW ZEALAND (2011) 10 | NEW ZEALAND (2014) 8 | ROMANIA (2012) 97 | ROMANIA (2014) 104 | SERBIA (2012) 2 | SLOVAKIA (2016) 29 | SLOVENIA (2011) 17 | SOUTH AFRICA (2014) 56 | SOUTH KOREA (2012) 2 | SWITZERLAND (2011) 88 | TAIWAN (2012) 5 | THAILAND (2011) 123 | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D3028_2 | | The Australian questionnaire did not include any | filter instruction on D3028_2, referring to the current | employment status of respondent's spouse (D2015). | Respondents who mentioned 'Do not have a job' in response | to the question for D3028_2 were recoded as '9. Missing'. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2011): D3028_2 | | This question was only asked in the mail-back drop-off | questionnaire (see Election Study Note for D1023). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): D3028_2 | | This question was not filtered by marital status, | but respondents were given the option to say they had no | spouse. Those answers are coded as 9. missing. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2013): D3028_2 | | This question was asked to all respondents with | spouses/partners irrespective of the other's employment status. | Only answers from respondents, whose spouses were not in labor | force, and who answered that they would not try to find a new | job, were recoded to missing for this variable. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012 & 2014): D3028_2 | | The answers to this question reflect respondents' views | about the working market situation and was asked | independently of spouses' current employment status. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SERBIA (2012): D3028_2 | | There are two respondents who answered this question | but who are divorced or separated according to D2004. These | data remain unchanged. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D3028_2 | | Code 2 was translated as "easy", not "somewhat easy". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): D3028_2 | | Opposing D2004 (marital status), D3028_2 evaluates the changes | of finding a new job for a (former) spouse of several divorce or | widowed respondents, as well as for several singles. | These data remained unchanged. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D3028_2 | | Respondents were asked about how difficult it would be | for their spouses to find another job within the next twelve | month, although the spouse is retired or does home duty (codes 7 | and 8 in D2015). | Likewise divorced respondents (code 3 in D2004) were asked about | how difficult it would be for their spouses to find another job | within the next twelve month. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D3028_2 | | See note on D3028_1 =========================================================================== ))) CSES MODULE 4 DISTRICT-LEVEL VARIABLES =========================================================================== | VARIABLE NOTES: | | (1) Respondents' electoral districts are reported in D2032, | with labels listed in Part 4 of the Codebook. | | (2) According to the different types of elections included in | this CSES release, the tables below provide an overview of | each polity and to which election the district data | pertains to and details the number of districts in total | In each state and the number of these districts which are | sampled by studies included in CSES. Users are advised to | consult these tables carefully to decide which data is | appropriate for their analyses. | | (3) In mixed systems, such as Germany or New Zealand, district | data refers to the constituency vote (as opposed to the | list-PR vote). | | (4) There are two versions of each district-level variable. | Most election studies are coded into D4001-D4005. For | polities that operate one nationwide electoral district, | district data are coded into variables D4001_N-D4005_N | to specifically highlight one nationwide district polities. | | +++ TABLE: SUMMARY OF POLITY AND WHICH ELECTION IN THAT POLITY | THAT THE DISTRICT DATA REFERS TO | | Presidential Lower House Upper House | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) Election Election Election | ------------------------------------------------------------- | ARGENTINA (2015) - X - | AUSTRALIA (2013) - X - | AUSTRIA (2013) - X - | BRAZIL (2014) - X - | BULGARIA (2014) - X - | CANADA (2011) - X - | CANADA (2015) - X - | CZECH REPUBLIC (2013) - X - | FINLAND (2015) - X - | FRANCE (2012) X - - | GERMANY (2013) - X - | GREAT BRITAIN (2015) - X - | GREECE (2012) - X - | GREECE (2015) - X - | HONG KONG (2012) - X - | ICELAND (2013) - X - | IRELAND (2011) - X - | ISRAEL (2013) - X - | JAPAN (2013) - - X | LATVIA (2011) - X - | LATVIA (2014) - X - | KENYA (2013) - X - | MEXICO (2012) - X - | MONTENEGRO (2012) - X - | NEW ZEALAND (2011) - X - | NEW ZEALAND (2014) - X - | NORWAY (2013) - X - | PERU (2016) - X - | POLAND (2011) - X - | PORTUGAL (2015) - X - | ROMANIA (2012) - X - | ROMANIA (2014) X - - | SERBIA (2012) - X - | SLOVAKIA (2016) - X - | SLOVENIA (2011) - X - | SOUTH AFRICA (2014) - X - | SOUTH KOREA (2012) - X - | SWEDEN (2014) - X - | SWITZERLAND (2011) - X - | TAIWAN (2012) X - - | THAILAND (2011) - X - | TURKEY (2015) - X - | UNITED STATES (2012) X - - | ------------------------------------------------------------- | KEY: X = yes; - = no. | | District data are unavailable for MEXICO (2015) and | PHILIPPINES (2016). | | +++ TABLE: TOTAL NUMBER OF ELECTORAL DISTRICTS PER POLITY AND | TOTAL NUMBER OF ELECTORAL DISTRICTS REPRESENTED IN | CSES DATA | | Total number of Total number of | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) Electoral Districts Electoral Districts | in Polity in CSES (%) | ------------------------------------------------------------- | | ARGENTINA (2015) 24 14 (58%) | AUSTRALIA (2013) 150 150 (100%) | AUSTRIA (2013) 39 39 (100%) | BRAZIL (2014) 27 27 (100%) | BULGARIA (2014) 31 31 (100%) | CANADA (2011) 308 301 (98%) | CANADA (2015) 338 332 (98%) | CZECH REPUBLIC (2013) 14 14 (100%) | FINLAND (2015) 13 12 (92%) | FRANCE (2012) 1 1 (100%) | GERMANY (2013) 299 200 (67%) | GREAT BRITAIN (2015) 650 292 (45%) | GREECE (2012) 56 49 (88%) | GREECE (2015) 56 52 (93%) | HONG KONG (2012) 5 5 (100%) | ICELAND (2013) 6 6 (100%) | IRELAND (2011) 43 43 (100%) | ISRAEL (2013) 1 1 (100%) | JAPAN (2013) 49 45 (92%) | KENYA (2013) 290 56 (19%) | LATVIA (2011) 5 5 (100%) | LATVIA (2014) 5 5 (100%) | MEXICO (2012) 300 130 (43%) | MONTENEGRO (2012) 1 1 (100%) | NEW ZEALAND (2011) 70 70 (100%) | NEW ZEALAND (2014) 71 71 (100%) | NORWAY (2013) 19 19 (100%) | PERU (2016) 26 19 (73%) | POLAND (2011) 41 41 (100%) | PORTUGAL (2015) 22 19 (87%) | ROMANIA (2012) 315 63 (20%) | ROMANIA (2014) 1 1 (100%) | SERBIA (2012) 1 1 (100%) | SLOVAKIA (2016) 1 1 (100%) | SLOVENIA (2011) 62 62 (100%) | SOUTH AFRICA (2014) 9 9 (100%) | SOUTH KOREA (2012) 246 119 (48%) | SWEDEN (2014) 29 29 (100%) | SWITZERLAND (2011) 26 26 (100%) | TAIWAN (2012) 1 1 (100%) | THAILAND (2011) 375 72 (23%) | TURKEY (2015) 85 47 (55%) | UNITED STATES (2012) 51 41 (80%) | ------------------------------------------------------------- | | District data are unavailable for MEXICO (2015) and | PHILIPPINES (2016). | | List: Used Sources on Election District Variables, if possible | including URL and date accessed. | [For more details on sources see Part 1 of the CODEBOOK]. | | POLITY NAME (ELEC YEAR) | SOURCE | URL | DATE ACCESSED | | ARGENTINA (2015) | Direccion Nacional Electoral | http://www.elecciones.gob.ar/admin/ckfinder/userfiles/files/ | DN_DEFINITIVO%20x%20Distrito_GRALES_%202015.pdf | Date accessed: March 7, 2017 | | AUSTRALIA (2013) | Australian Electoral Commission | http://results.aec.gov.au/17496/Website/HouseDownloadsMenu-17496 | -csv.htm | Date accessed: June 30, 2014 | | AUSTRIA (2013) | Austrian Minister of Interior | http://wahl13.bmi.gv.at/ | Date accessed: March 12, 2014 | | BRAZIL(2014) | Superior Electoral Court | http://www.tse.jus.br/eleicoes/estatisticas/estatisticas- | candidaturas-2014/estatisticas-eleitorais-2014 | Date accessed: May 30, 2016 | | BULGARIA (2014) | Central Electoral Commission | http://results.cik.bg/pi2014/rezultati/index.html | Date accessed: December 2, 2014 | | CANADA (2015) | Elections Canada | http://www.elections.ca/res/rep/off/ovr2015app/home.html#1 | Date accessed: January 28, 2018 | | CZECH REPUBLIC (2013) | Czech Statistical Office | http://www.volby.cz/index_en.htm | Date accessed: April 20, 2016 | | FINLAND (2015) | Statistics Finland | http://pxnet2.stat.fi/PXWeb/pxweb/en/StatFin/StatFin__vaa__evaa | __evaa_2015/140_evaa_tau_104.px/?rxid=c2f51671-c283-4b81-aa06- | d14c9854e9bd | Date accessed: October 25, 2016 | Finlex | http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/2014/20140935?search%5Btype% | 5D=pika&search%5Bpika%5D=paikkojen%20jaosta%20vaalipiirien% | 20kesken | Date accessed: October 25, 2016 | | FRANCE (2012) | European Election Database (EED) | http://eed.nsd.uib.no/webview/index.jsp?study=http%3A%2F%2F129.1 | 77.90.166%3A80%2Fobj%2FfStudy%2FFRPR2012&mode=cube&v=2&cube=http | %3A%2F%2F129.177.90.166%3A80%2Fobj%2FfCube%2FFRPR2012_C1&top=yes | Date accessed: January 29, 2018 | | Constitutional council of the French Republic | http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/ | root/bank/download/cc2012listecandidats.pdf | Date accessed: April 5, 2018 | | GERMANY (2013) | The Federal Returning Officer | http://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/de/bundestagswahlen/BTW_BUND_13/ | veroeffentlichungen/ergebnisse/ | Date accessed: October 28, 2014 | | GREAT BRITAIN (2015) | PRESS ASSOCIATION (PA) numbers | http://election.pressassociation.com/Constituencies/general_2015 | _constit_by_number.php | Date accessed: March 6, 2017 | | GREECE (2012) | Greek Ministry of Interior | http://ekloges-prev.singularlogic.eu/v2012b/public/index.html? | lang=en#{"cls":"eps","params":{}} | Date accessed: September 8, 2014 | http://www.igraphics.gr/en/multimedia/2012/06/elections2012b | Date accessed: September 8, 2014 | Psephos Adam Carr | http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/g/greece/greece20123.txt | Date accessed: September 8, 2014 | | GREECE (2015) | Greek Ministry of Interior | http://www.ekloges.ypes.gr/current/v/public/index.html?lang=en#{ | Date accessed: April 4, 2018 | | HONG KONG (2012) | Government of Hong Kong Legislative Council Election 2012 | http://www.elections.gov.hk/legco2012/eng/tt_gc_LC1.html | Date accessed: August 10, 2016 | | ICELAND (2013) | Election Resources.org | http://www.electionresources.org/is/althing.php?election=2013 | &constituency=01 | Date accessed: January 14, 2015 | | IRELAND (2011) | General Election for the National Parliament of the Republic of | Ireland 2011 | http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/publications/2011_Electoral_ | Handbookrevpdf | Date accessed: August 12, 2013 | Psephos Adam Carr (for D4003 and, D4004_A through | D4004_F) | http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/i/ireland/ | ireland20112.txt | Date accessed: August 12, 2013 | | JAPAN (2013) | Election Resources.org | http://www.electionresources.org/jp/councillors.php? | election=2013 | Date accessed: January 7, 2015 | | KENYA (2013) | CLEA 2014 Version (20140812) | http://electiondataarchive.org/datacenter.html | Accessed December 10, 2014. | Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission | https://www.iebc.or.ke/docs/4TH%20MARCH%202013%20GENERAL | %20ELECTION%20DATA.pdf | Date accessed: February 2, 2017 | | LATVIA (2011) | Central Election Commission | http://www.velesanas2011.cvk.lv/results.html | Date accessed: January 3, 2018 | | MEXICO (2012) | National Electoral Institute | http://siceef.ine.mx/atlas.html?p%C3%A1gina=1#siceen | Date accessed: May 4, 2018 | Election Resources on the Internet: Federal Elections in Mexico | http://www.electionresources.org/mx/ | Date accessed: April 23, 2014 | | MONTENEGRO (2012) | Electoral Commission of Montenegro | http://www.dik.co.me/ | Date accessed: November 14, 2013 | International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance | http://www.idea.int/data-tools/country-view/203/40 | Date accessed: March 15, 2017 | | NEW ZEALAND (2011) | New Zealand Electoral Commission | http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2011/ | Date accessed: October 17, 2013 | | NEW ZEALAND (2014) | New Zealand Electoral Commission | http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2014/ | electoratestatus.html | Date accessed: August 10, 2016 | | NORWAY (2013) | Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation | http://valgresultat.no/?type=st&ar=2013 | Date accessed: May 25, 2016 | European Election Database | http://eed.nsd.uib.no/webview/index.jsp?study=http%3A%2F%2F129.1 | 77.90.166%3A80%2Fobj%2FfStudy%2Fnopa2013&mode=cube&v=2&cube=http | %3A%2F%2F129.177.90.166%3A80%2Fobj%2FfCube%2Fnopa2013_C1&top=yes | Date accessed: May 25, 2016 | | PERU (2016) | National Office of Electoral Processes | https://www.web.onpe.gob.pe/modElecciones/elecciones/elecciones | 2016/PRPCP2016/Resumen-GeneralCongreso.html#posicion | Date accessed: February 26, 2018 | | POLAND (2011) | Poland National Electoral Commission | http://wybory2011.pkw.gov.pl/wsw/en/000000.html | Date accessed: March 12, 2015 | European Election Database (D4005) | http://www.nsd.uib.no/european_election_database/country/poland/ | Date accessed: March 12, 2015 | | PORTUGAL (2015) | Portuguese Ministry of Internal Administration | http://www.eleicoes.mai.gov.pt/legislativas2015/ | Date accessed: May 2, 2016 | | ROMANIA (2012) | Permanent Electoral Authority | http://alegeri.roaep.ro/ | Date accessed: April 10, 2018 | | ROMANIA (2014) | Permanent Electoral Authority | http://alegeri.roaep.ro/ | Date accessed: January 26, 2018 | | SERBIA (2012) | Republic of Serbia - Republican Electoral Commission | http://www.rik.parlament.gov.rs | Date accessed: August 10, 2013 | | SLOVAKIA (2016) | Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic | http://volbysr.sk/en/parties.html | Date accessed: February 2, 2017 | | SLOVENIA (2011) | The National Electoral Commission | http://www.dvk-rs.si/arhivi/dz2011/en/rezultati/rez_ka2.html#1 | Date accessed: April 30, 2015 | | SOUTH KOREA (2012) | Constituency-Level Elections Archive (CLEA) | http://electiondataarchive.org/datacenter.html | Date accessed: February 19, 2016 | | SWEDEN (2014) | Statistics Sweden | http://www.val.se/val/val2014/slutresultat/R/rike/ | Date accessed: April 30, 2018 | | SWITZERLAND (2011) | Swiss Statistics | https://www.bk.admin.ch/ch/d/nrw/nrw11/list/kt_index.html | Date accessed: April 7, 2018 | | Swiss Statistics | http://www.politik-stat.ch/nrw2011KT_de.html | Date accessed: April 7, 2018 | | TAIWAN (2012) | Data unavailable | | THAILAND (2011) | http://www2.ect.go.th/about.php?Province=mp54&SiteMenuID=7647 | Accessed before April 2014, not available anymore | | TURKEY (2015) | Turkish Statistical Institute | http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/VeriBilgi.do?alt_id=1061 | https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/secimdagitimapp/secim.zul | Date accessed: March 6, 2016 | | UNITED STATES (2012) | Federal Election Commission (D4001-D4004) | http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2012/federalelections2012.shtml | Date accessed: February 18, 2015 | United States Elections Project (D4005) | http://www.electproject.org/2012g | Date accessed: February 18, 2015 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D4001 >>> NUMBER OF SEATS IN DISTRICT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports the number of seats contested in each district of the first segment of the lower house of the legislature. .................................................................. 001-900. NUMBER OF SEATS CONTESTED IN ELECTORAL DISTRICT 997. NOT APPLICABLE 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D4001 | | Data are unavailable for PHILIPPINES (2016) and THAILAND (2011). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D4001 | | The data represents the first electoral tier (regionalwahl | kreis). Seats in Austria are distributed across three tiers | (regionalwahlkreis-tier 1; landwahlkreis-tier 2; and the | federal level-tier 3). To win seats (the constituencies at the | regionalwahlkreis are multi-seat constituencies), a party | must reach a quota(s). The quota is calculated by dividing | the number of valid votes cast in the landwahlkreis (tier 2) | that the said regionalwahlkreis is in, by the number of seats | allocated to the landwahlkreis (tier 2) in total. If no party | surpasses this quota, no seat is allocated at tier 1 and these | votes go into the mix in deciding allocation of seats at | the landwahlkreis (tier 2). In 2013, no seats were allocated | in the following regionalwahlkreis because no party reached the | necessary quota to guarantee a seat: | Western Corinithia (District No. 00005 for Austria) | Salzburg City (District No. 00019 for Austria) | Innsbruck (District No. 00026 for Austria) | Eastern Tyrol (District No. 00030 for Austria) | Southern Voralberg (District No. 00032 for Austria) | Vienna City-South (District No. 00033 for Austria) | Vienna City-West (District No. 00034 for Austria) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D4001 | | The number of seats represent the seats allocated according to | the first electoral tear, without the adjustment seats. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): D4001 | | There are two districts for voters voting from outside Portugal | (emigrants): "21. Europe" and "22. Outside Europe". | However, in this case they have been summarized | in district code 21. The district level data represents the sum | of the seats of these two districts in D4001. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2014): D4001 | | See Election Study Note on D2032. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): D4001 | | See Election Study Note on D2032. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D4001 | | D4001 reports the number of electoral college votes | allocated to each state in the US Presidential election and not | the number of congressional seats in each district. | Considering that the United States uses an electoral college | system that operates on the state level, the data was collected | accordingly. Variable D2032 links the respondent with the | lower house district that they voted in. Variable D2028 details | the Region of Residency which corresponds to the state the | respondent votes in and this is what the district data refers | to. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D4001_N >>> NUMBER OF SEATS IN DISTRICT - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports the number of seats contested in each district of the first segment of the lower house of the legislature. This variable is used instead of D4001 for countries operating only one nationwide electoral district. .................................................................. 001-900. NUMBER OF SEATS CONTESTED IN ELECTORAL DISTRICT 997. NOT APPLICABLE 999. MISSING --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D4002 >>> NUMBER OF CANDIDATES IN DISTRICT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports the number of candidates who contested seats in each district. .................................................................. 0001-9000. NUMBER OF CANDIDATES WHO CONTESTED THE ELECTION IN THIS ELECTORAL DISTRICT 9997. NOT APPLICABLE 9999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D4002 | | These data are reported for electoral systems where voters cast | ballots for candidates directly and in PR-list systems where | voters may cast a candidate preference vote (i.e.: where a voter | can indicate a candidate from a party list, in addition to | casting a ballot for a party list). | | Data are unavailable for JAPAN (2013), MEXICO (2012), | MEXICO (2015), PHILIPPINES (2016), SLOVENIA (2011) and | THAILAND (2011). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D4002 | | Candidates were counted with the help of data from the | Bundeswahlleiter. However, not all parties were listed | individually, with an "other parties" candidate making it | impossible to decipher the specific number of candidates. | CSES provides the best estimate available from public sources. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): D4002 | | See Election Study Note on D2032. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D4002 | | This variable reports the number of candidates in the federal | state instead of in respondents' electoral district. | | For some states, the official election results | published by the Federal Election Commission | (http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2012/2012pres.pdf) indicate that | there were more candidates than named in the document by | including a 'scattered', 'others' or 'miscellaneous' category. | This is the case namely for the states of Alabama, Iowa, | Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, North Carolina, Nebraska, | Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, and | Wisconsin. Such candidates are not included in D4002. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D4002_N >>> NUMBER OF CANDIDATES IN DISTRICT - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports the number of candidates nationwide who contested seats. .................................................................. 0001-9000. NUMBER OF CANDIDATES WHO CONTESTED THE ELECTION IN THIS ELECTORAL DISTRICT 9997. NOT APPLICABLE 9999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D4002_N | | These data are reported for electoral systems where voters cast | ballots for candidates directly and in PR-list systems where | voters may cast a candidate preference vote (i.e.: where a voter | can indicate a candidate from a party list, in addition to | casting a ballot for a party list) nationwide. | Other countries who apply electoral systems with multiple | districts are detailed in variable D4002. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2016): D4002_N | | Overall, 2914 candidates competed in the 2016 Slovakian Lower | House election. Because voters could cast up to four preference | votes for candidates on the list they voted for and because | the 2016 Slovakian elections used a nationwide district, these | are coded here. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D4002_N | | Data refers to the first round of the 2014 Romanian | Presidential Elections. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D4003 >>> NUMBER OF PARTY LISTS IN DISTRICT (IN PR-LIST SYSTEMS ONLY) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports the number of parties that presented lists and, thereby, contested seats in the district. .................................................................. 001-900. NUMBER OF PARTIES THAT PRESENTED A LIST OF CANDIDATES IN THE ELECTION IN THIS ELECTORAL DISTRICT 997. NOT APPLICABLE 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D4003 | | These data are only relevant for PR-list electoral systems | where voters cast ballots for party lists. Countries that do not | employ a PR-list system are classified as "000. NOT APPLICABLE". | | Data are unavailable for PHILIPPINES (2016), SLOVENIA (2011) and | THAILAND (2011). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2014): D4003 | | This variable only includes parties which actually | received votes. It might be that some parties ran but did not | receive any votes and are hence not included in the count in | this variable. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2015): D4003 | | Candidates in Finland can also compete if they are supported | by so called Constituency Associations. Such an association can | be founded if at least 100 enfranchised citizens come together. | These Constituency Associations are not counted here. | Constituency Associations fielded candidates in the following | electoral districts: Helsinki, Uusimaa, Varsinais-Suomi, | Pirkanmaa, South East Finland, Vaasa, and Central Finland. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D4003 | | According to the German electoral system, candidates are voted | at the district level, while party lists are voted at the level | of federal states (Laender). This variable is therefore coded | '000. NOT APPLICABLE'. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D4003 | | It is a common strategy of popular parties in Hong Kong to | present multiple party lists within a district. Thereby, they | increase the chance of more candidates to win seats in the | election. CSES counts the number of parties which presented | lists. In cases in which a party presented multiple lists, the | party is only counted once. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011 & 2014): D4003 | | In the New Zealand electoral system, candidates are voted | at the district level, while party lists are voted at the | national level. This variable is therefore coded '000. | NOT APPLICABLE'. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): D4003 | | There are two districts for voters voting from outside | Portugal (emigrants): "21. Europe" and "22. Outside Europe". | However, in this case they have been summarized | in district code 21. The number of party lists presented in the | two districts (D4003) was 16 in both cases. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2014): D4003 | | For Sweden 2014, this variable provides the number of parties | which ordered ballots prior to the election as required by the | Swedish Election Authority. The Swedish system allows | for apparentment in which multiple lists with the same party | label in a given constituency can form a cartel. If these cases | parties were only counted once in line with this variable's | intention to count the parties that presented lists rather than | the total number of lists provided by parties. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): D4003 | | See Election Study Note on D2032. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D4003_N >>> NUMBER OF PARTY LISTS IN DISTRICT - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT (IN PR-LIST SYSTEMS ONLY) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports the number of parties that presented lists nationwide. .................................................................. 001-900. NUMBER OF PARTIES THAT PRESENTED A LIST OF CANDIDATES IN THE ELECTION IN THIS ELECTORAL DISTRICT 997. NOT APPLICABLE 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D4003_N | | These data are only relevant for PR-list electoral systems | where voters cast ballots for party lists and where the | has a single electoral constituency with the country | operating as a nationwide district. Countries that do not | employ a PR-list system are classified as "000. NOT APPLICABLE". | Countries who apply a PR-list system electoral system | with multiple districts are detailed in variable D4003. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D4004_A >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY A D4004_B >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY B D4004_C >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY C D4004_D >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY D D4004_E >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY E D4004_F >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY F D4004_G >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY G D4004_H >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY H D4004_I >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports the proportion of votes cast in favor of party [A/B/C/D/E/F] in this district. In majoritarian systems, in which more than one round of elections are held, this variable reports the proportion of the popular vote cast in favor of party [A/B/C/D/E/F] in the FIRST round. .................................................................. 000.00-100.00. PERCENT (0.00% TO 100.00%) OF THE VALID BALLOTS CAST IN THIS DISTRICT THAT WERE CAST IN FAVOR OF PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F] 997.00. NOT APPLICABLE 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D4004 | | Parties are identified in Part 3 of the Codebook. | | Data are unavailable for MEXICO (2015) and PHILIPPINES (2016). | | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D4004_ | | Variables D4004_A to D4004_H reflect the percentage vote | received by candidates standing for their respective party | in the electoral district (i.e.: the first vote). Each party | has only one candidate per electoral district. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D4004_ | | Vote share was calculated by using data on the total number of | votes per party in district. For parties which ran multiple | lists, vote share was accumulated. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2014): D4004_F | | The Internet MANA Party did not field any district candidates. | All district results for this party are therefore coded as 0.00. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): D4004_ | | There are two districts for voters voting from outside | Portugal (emigrants): "21. Europe" and "22. Outside Europe". | However, in this case they have been summarized in district code | 21. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): D4004_H | | Party H, CDS-PP, only ran by itself (rather | than as part of the Portugal Ahead coalition) in one district | (RA Madeira). As this district was excluded from the | sampling frame of the Portuguese election study, D4004_H | contains only missing observations. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): D4004_ | | In some instances, parties are coded as having received zero | percent of the vote share in a particular district while, at | the same time, a number of voters in this district report to | have voted for these parties. One such example is the district | "Kanton Obwalden" (District 6 in variable D2032) where the | Social Democratic Party (SP / PS) is coded as zero percent | percent for D4004_B but where multiple respondents report to | have voted for both the party list (D3006_LH_PL) and/or the | district candidate (D3006_LH_DC). This presumably results from | voters using their empty ballot to vote for a candidate or | party list that did not officially compete in their district. | The zero percent thus reflects either that a party did not | receive any votes at all or, that they did not officially | compete in a district. These data remain unchanged. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D4004_ | | D4004_ reports the results of the presidential | election in the each federal states. The results published | reflect those as published by the Federal Election Commission | See: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2012/2012pres.pdf --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D4004_A_N >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY A - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT D4004_B_N >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY B - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT D4004_C_N >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY C - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT D4004_D_N >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY D - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT D4004_E_N >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY E - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT D4004_F_N >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY F - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT D4004_G_N >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY G - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT D4004_H_N >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY H - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT D4004_I_N >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY I - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports the proportion of votes cast in favor of party [A/B/C/D/E/F] in this district. In majoritarian systems, in which more than one round of elections are held, this variable reports the proportion of the popular vote cast in favor of party [A/B/C/D/E/F] in the FIRST round. These variables are used instead of D4004_A-D4004_I for countries operating only one nationwide electoral district. .................................................................. 000.00-100.00. PERCENT (0.00% TO 100.00%) OF THE VALID BALLOTS CAST IN THIS DISTRICT THAT WERE CAST IN FAVOR OF PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F] 997.00. NOT APPLICABLE 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D4004_N | | Parties are identified in Part 3 of the Codebook. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D4004_ | | Data refers to the first round of the 2014 Romanian | Presidential Elections. Also, D4004_H_N and D4004_I_N | report the results for LEADER H (Calin-Constantin-Anton Popescu- | Tariceanu) and LEADER I (Monica-Luisa Macovei), both of whom | competed as non-party candidates in the Presidential election. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D4005 >>> TURNOUT IN DISTRICT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports official voter turnout in each district. .................................................................. 000.00-100.00 PERCENT OF VOTER TURNOUT BY DISTRICT 997.00 NOT APPLICABLE 999.00 MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D4005 | | Please note: official turnout data are calculated using | different formulas. For instance, the denominator sometimes | includes the total number of the voting age population, while | other times it is the total number of registered voters. | | Data are unavailable for MEXICO (2015), PHILIPPINES (2016), | SWITZERLAND (2011) and TAIWAN (2012). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D4005 | | The data in this variable are consistent with the reported | turnout rate for 10.30 pm, as reported on the website of the | Legislative Council Election 2012. On this website it is noted | that these rates are imprecise and should only be used for | temporary reference only. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D4005 | | The turnout data is based on the number of registered voters. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): D4005 | | The turnout data are based on the number of registered | voters. | | There are two districts for people voting from outside | Portugal (emigrants): "21. Europe" and "22. Outside Europe". | However, in this case they were summarized in district code 21. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2014): D4005 | | See Election Study Note on D2032. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): D4005 | | See Election Study Note on D2032. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D4005 | | This variable indicates the turnout in the presidential | election by federal state. | | The turnout is calculated with the denominator being | the Voting Age Population (VAP) as this is the most appropriate | comparable measure. The American Elections Project also provides | information on the Voting Eligible Population (VEP), which | calculates turnout on the basis of eligibility, rather than | the Voting Age Population. Analysts may refer to the website | link below to access this data. | | A different source other than the Federal Election Commission | had to be consulted for D4005 as the Federal Election | Commission does not provide an estimate of the size of the | the electorate, hence making an estimate of turnout impossible. | Instead, data from the United States Elections | Project by Michael McDonald is used | (see: http://www.electproject.org/2012g, Date accessed: February | 2015). For some states, the total number of votes in the | presidential elections differed from the numbers indicated by | the US Federal Election Commission. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D4005_N >>> TURNOUT IN DISTRICT - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports official voter turnout in each district. This variable is used instead of D4005_N for countries operating only one nationwide electoral district. .................................................................. 000.00-100.00. PERCENT OF VOTER TURNOUT BY DISTRICT 997.00. NOT APPLICABLE 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D4005_N | | Please note: official turnout data are calculated using | different formulas. For instance, the denominator sometimes | includes the total number of the voting age population, while | other times it is the total number of registered voters. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D4005_N | | Data refers to the first round of the 2014 Romanian | Presidential Elections. =========================================================================== ))) CSES MODULE 4 MACRO-LEVEL VARIABLES =========================================================================== I. DATA FROM THE MODULE 4 MACRO QUESTIONNAIRE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5001_A >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY A D5001_B >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY B D5001_C >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY C D5001_D >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY D D5001_E >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY E D5001_F >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY F D5001_G >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY G D5001_H >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY H D5001_I >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M04a-c. Percent of popular vote received by PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I] in current (lower house) legislative election: .................................................................. 000.00-100.00. PERCENT OF THE POPULAR VOTE THAT PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I] RECEIVED 997.00. NOT APPLICABLE: NO LOWER HOUSE ELECTION 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5001 | | Parties are identified in Part 3 of the Codebook. | | Sources of data: | - CSES Macro Report M4a-c | - Other publicly available data | | The CSES Secretariat always verifies the election results | provided by the collaborators. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D5001 | | The Argentinian Chamber of Deputies is composed of 257 members | with members elected for a four-year term. Half of the Chamber | of Deputies are renewed every two years. The 2015 elections saw | 130 seats contested. The data represents the percentage of | votes won by each party on the basis of the 130 seats | contested in the election. | | Multiple estimates of the national election results are | available from a wide variety of sources. These sources | often differ in the final vote tallies provided for each | party, most probably because of the complicated alliance system | that operates in Argentina. Our estimates are primarily based | on data from the Argentina Electoral Commission | (Direccion Nacional Electoral). We also consulted the article | "The 2015 Argentina presidential and legislative elections" by | Alles, Jones, and Tchintian. Our results were also confirmed | with the Argentina collaborators directly. | | Source of data: | Argentina Electoral Commission (Direccion Nacional Electoral) | Available at: http://www.elecciones.gob.ar/admin/ckfinder/ | userfiles/files/SN_DEFINITIVO%20x%20Distrito_GRALES_%202015.pdf | (Date accessed: January 17, 2017). | | Alles, S. Jones, M.P., and Tchintian, C., "The 2015 Argentine | presidential and legislative elections" Electoral Studies 43 | 184-187. Available from: http://www.bakerinstitute.org/files/ | 10888/ | (Date accessed: January 17, 2017). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D5001_A | | PARTY A (Front for Victory, FPV) includes the results for | PARTY I (the Peronists) which was part of this alliance. No | other information is available for the constituent parts of the | alliance. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D5001_B | | PARTY B (Let's Change, Cambiemos) includes the results for | PARTY G (Republican Proposal, PRO) and PARTY H (Radical Civic | Union, UCR) which were both part of this alliance. No other | information is available for the constituent parts of the | alliance. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D5001 | | The data represents the percentage of first preference votes | in the election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D5001_A | | PARTY A (The Liberal Party) combines the results for the | Liberal National Party (who contested only in Queensland | state) and the Liberal Party (who contested in all other states | states). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D5001_E | | PARTY E (National Party) combines the results for the Nationals | and the Country Liberals, as the latter only contested in the | Northern Territory. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D5001 | | These data report the national share of the "party list" | votes that each party received. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): D5001 | | These data represent the national share of the vote attained by | parties who fielded candidates in England, Scotland, and Wales. | Northern Ireland data is not included as the 2015 British | Election Study did not include respondents from Northern | Ireland. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): D5001_A | | These data include the votes received by Speaker John Bercow | originally a Conservative, who was standing in the Buckingham | constituency. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D5001 | | Legislative Council (LegCo) in Hong Kong is composed of 70 | members, 35 of which are returned by geographical constituency | elections and another 35 by functional constituency elections. | The data shows the party vote of the geographical constituency | part of the 2012 LegCo Elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D5001 | | The data represents the percentage of votes for the election of | the 290 National Assembly seats. Full National Assembly contains | additional 47 seats awarded to women in separate election, and | further 12 appointed representatives, which makes total number | of 349 representatives. In addition, the Speaker of the Assembly | is an ex officio member. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2014): D5001_B | | This data refers to the electoral coalition "Unity", which | consisted of parties Unity and the Reform Party. In 2015, the | Reform Party was absorbed by Unity. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): D5001 | | The data refers to the vote shares of the single member | districts. The results from the proportional representation | lists are calculated using the national distribution of votes | from the single member districts but excludes non valid votes, | votes for parties that obtained less than 2% and votes for | non-registered candidates. | | In the 2012 presidential and legislative election voters could | vote for either individual parties/candidates or for alliances. | Hence, the official election results are presented per | political parties, per parties and coalitions and per candidate. | This variable presents data for political parties. | parties PRI and PVEM (parties A and D respectively) participated | also as an electoral alliance, under the label "Commitment for | Mexico". Parties PRD, PT and MOVIMIENTO CIUDADANO (parties C, E | and G) also formed an electoral coalition under the | label "Progressive Movement". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2015): D5001 | | These data refer to the national level vote shares. | The Lower House or the Mexican Congress is composed of 500 | deputies. Of these, 300 are elected in single-member districts | (distritos uninominales) elected by plurality rule, and the | other 200 are from five multi-member districts | (circunscripciones plurinominales) given by proportional | representation. | Each voter can cast only one vote that counts for two things: to | elect the 300 deputies by the plurality rule and to determine | the percentage of votes that each party obtained in the election | in order to give the seats of proportional representation that | each party will obtain (200 seats). | In the 2015 legislative election voters could vote for either | individual parties/candidates or for alliances. The election | results presented here are per political parties. | parties PRI and PVEM (parties A and E respectively), and PRD and | PT (PARTY C and PARTY I) also participated as two separate | electoral coalitions. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011 & 2014): D5001 | | These data report the national share of the "party list" | (tier 2) that each party received. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D5001 | | These data refer to the vote shares of the single member | congressional districts (first segment of the Lower House; | 238 seats in total). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D5001_I | | PARTY I (PRP - People's Reform Party) did not take part in | the congressional elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): D5001_A | | The votes for the Portugal Ahead (PaF) alliance includes the | votes won by the Social Democratic Party (PPD-PSD) and the | People's Party (CDS-PP) in Madeira and the Azores, where each | party ran on separate lists. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D5001_G | | PARTY G (Social Democratic Party, PSD) is part of the alliance | Social Liberal Union (coded Party A). Individual vote share | data are unavailable for the party but the combined vote share | for the alliance are available in D5001_A. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D5001_H | | PARTY H (National Liberal Union, NLP) is part of the alliance | Social Liberal Union (coded PARTY A). Individual vote share | data are unavailable for the party but the combined vote share | for the alliance are available in D5001_A. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D5001_I | | PARTY I (Liberal Democratic Party, PDL) is part of the alliance | Alliance for a Just Romania (coded PARTY B). Individual vote | share data is unavailable for the party but the combined vote | share for the alliance is available in D5001_B. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2012): D5001 | | These election results correspond to the proportional tier of | the Parliament (the second segment). They reflect the nationwide | proportion of votes cast for party lists. This data is provided | since the results from single-member constituencies was not | available. Notice that 54 out of 300 parliamentary seats are | allocated through the second segment. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D5001 | | The data report the share of votes obtained in the | nominal tier, excluding plain aborigines, and mountain | aborigines seats. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2011): D5001 | | These election results correspond to the proportional tier of | the Parliament (the second segment). They reflect nationwide | proportion of votes cast for party lists, namely 125 seats out | of 500 seats. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D5001 | | Multiple estimates of the national election results are | available from a wide variety of sources. These sources | often differ in the final vote tallies provided for each | party, most probably a consequence of the fact that counting | is done at a state level, and accordingly votes are sometimes | reported in different ways and at different time points. The | estimates of party vote share in the US House of Representative | elections are based on the data reported by the US Congressional | Election Information Statistics of the Presidential and | Congressional Elections 2012. | | Source: | US Congressional Election Information Statistics of the | Presidential and Congressional Elections 2012 | http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/2012election.pdf | (Date accessed: December 4, 2014). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5002_A >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY A D5002_B >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY B D5002_C >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY C D5002_D >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY D D5002_E >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY E D5002_F >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY F D5002_G >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY G D5002_H >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY H D5002_I >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M04a-c. Percent of seats in lower house received by PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I] in current (lower house) election: .................................................................. 000.00-100.00. PERCENT OF THE SEATS THAT PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I] RECEIVED 997.00. NOT APPLICABLE: NO LOWER HOUSE ELECTION 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5002 | | Parties are identified in Part 3 of the Codebook. | | Sources of data: | - CSES Macro Report M4a-c | - Other publicly available data | | The CSES Secretariat always verifies the election results | provided by the collaborators. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D5002 | | The 2015 elections saw half of the Congress of Deputies | seats contested (n=130). The data represents the percentage | of seats won by each party in this election and does not | include holdover seats. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D5002_A | | PARTY A (Front for Victory, FPV) includes the results for | PARTY I (the Peronists) which was part of this alliance. No | other information is available for the constituent parts of the | alliance. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D5002_B | | PARTY B (Let's Change, Cambiemos) includes the results for | PARTY G (Republican Proposal, PRO) and PARTY I (Radical Civic | Union, UCR) which were both part of this alliance. No other | information is available for the constituent parts of the | alliance. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D5002_A | | PARTY A (The Liberal Party) combines the results for | Liberal National Party (who contested only in Queensland | state) and the Liberal Party (who contested in all other states) | states). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D5002_E | | PARTY E (National Party) combines the results for the Nationals | and the Country Liberals, as the latter only contested in the | Northern Territory. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D5002 | | These data report the percentage share of seats that each | party received resulting from both the "party list" and | "candidate" votes. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): D5002 | | These data represent the national share of the seats attained by | parties who fielded candidates in England, Scotland, and Wales | (n=632 seats). Northern Ireland data (n=18 seats) is not | included as the 2015 British Election Study did not include | respondents from Northern Ireland. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): D5002_A | | These data include the seat won by Speaker John Bercow | originally a Conservative, who was standing in the Buckingham | constituency. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D5002 | | Legislative Council (LegCo) in Hong Kong is composed of 70 | members, 35 of which are returned by geographical constituency | elections and another 35 by functional constituency elections. | The data shows the party seat compositions of the | geographical constituency part of the 2012 LegCo Elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D5002 | | The data represents the percentage of seats won in the election | of the 290 National Assembly seats. Full National Assembly | contains additional 47 seats awarded to women in separate | election, and further 12 appointed representatives, which makes | total number of 349 representatives. In addition, the Speaker | of the Assembly is an ex officio member. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2014): D5002_B | | The data refers to the electoral coalition Unity (PARTY B) which | consisted of parties Unity and the Reform Party. In 2015, the | Reform Party was absorbed by Unity. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): D5002 | | The data refers to the total seat shares, taking into account | both those won in single member districts and in the national | proportional district. | | In the 2012 presidential and legislative election voters could | vote for either individual parties/candidates or for alliances. | Hence, the official election results are presented per | political party, per parties and coalitions and per candidate. | This variable presents data for political parties. | parties PRI and PVEM (parties A and D respectively) participated | also as an electoral alliance, under the label "Commitment for | Mexico". Parties PRD, PT and MOVIMIENTO CIUDADANO (parties C, E | and G) also formed an electoral coalition under the | label "Progressive Movement". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2015): D5002 | | The data refers to the total national-level seat shares, | taking into account both those won in single member districts | and in the five proportional representation segments. | | In the 2015 legislative election voters could vote for either | individual parties/candidates or for alliances. The election | results presented here are per political parties. | parties PRI and PVEM (parties A and E respectively), and PRD and | PT (parties C and I) also participated as two separate electoral | coalitions. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011 & 2014): D5002 | | These data report the percentage share of seats that each | party received on the basis of both the "candidate" vote | (tier 1) and the "party list" vote (tier 2). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D5002 | | The data refer to the seat shares won in the | congressional district election (first segment | of the Lower House). However, the percentages are calculated | against all seats in the Lower House, i.e., including | those obtained via the proportional party list segment | (59 seats). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D5002_I | | PARTY I (People's Reform Party; PRP) did not take part in | the congressional elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): D5002_A | | See note for D5001_A. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D5002_G | | PARTY G (Social Democratic Party, PSD) is part of the alliance | Social Liberal Union (coded PARTY A). The individual share of | seats for constituent parts of the alliance are also available | and are detailed here. Data for the seat share of the alliance | is detailed in D5002_A. The proportion of seats tallies to | to 100% for Romania by taking into account parties A-E. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D5002_H | | PARTY H (National Liberal Union, NLP) is part of the alliance | Social Liberal Union (coded PARTY A). The individual share of | seats for constituent parts of the alliance are also available | and are detailed here. Data for the seat share of the alliance | that this party belong to is detailed in D5002_A. The proportion | of seats tallies to 100% for Romania by taking into account | parties A-E. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D5002_I | | PARTY I (Liberal Democratic Party, PDL) is part of the alliance | Alliance for a Just Romania (coded PARTY B). The individual | share of seats for constituent parts of the alliance are | also available and are detailed here. Data for the seat share | of the alliance that this party belongs to is detailed in | D5002_B. The proportion of seats tallies to 100% for Romania | by taking into account parties A-E. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2012): D5002 | | These data report the total number of seats in the Parliament | while D5001 report the results for the proportional segment of | the Parliament. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D5002 | | These data report the percent seats obtained by each party | in the nominal tier, excluding plain aborigines, and mountain | aborigines seats. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2011): D5002 | | These data report the total number of seats allocated to each | party after the election, resulting from both party list and | candidate votes. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5003_A >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY A D5003_B >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY B D5003_C >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY C D5003_D >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY D D5003_E >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY E D5003_F >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY F D5003_G >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY G D5003_H >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY H D5003_I >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M04a-c. Percent of popular vote received by PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I] in current (upper house) legislative election: .................................................................. 000.00-100.00. PERCENT OF THE POPULAR VOTE THAT PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I] RECEIVED 996.00. NOT APPLICABLE: UNICAMERAL SYSTEM 997.00. NOT APPLICABLE: NO UPPER HOUSE ELECTION 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5003_ | | Parties are identified in Part 3 of the Codebook. | | Sources of data: | - CSES Macro Report M4a-c | - Other publicly available data | | The CSES Secretariat always verifies the election results | provided by the collaborators. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D5003 | | The Argentinian Senate is composed of 72 members with | members elected for a six-year term. One third of the Senate | is renewed every two years. The 2015 elections saw | 24 seats contested. The data represents the percentage of | votes won by each party on the basis of the 24 seats | contested in the election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D5003_A | | PARTY A (Front for Victory, FPV) includes the results for | PARTY I (the Peronists) which was part of this alliance. No | other information is available for the constituent parts of the | alliance. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D5003_B | | PARTY B (Let's Change, Cambiemos) includes the results for | PARTY G (Republican Proposal, PRO) and PARTY I (Radical Civic | Union, UCR) which were both part of this alliance. No other | information is available for the constituent parts of the | alliance. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D5003 | | The election on September 7, 2013 also included a half Senate | election whereby 40 senators were elected in total, six for each | state (6 states) and two for each of the Federal Territories. | The data represent the percentage of first preference | votes won by each party on the basis of the 40 seats | contested. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D5003_A | | PARTY A (The Liberal Party) combines the results for | Liberal National Party (who ran only in Queensland state) and | the Liberal Party (who ran in all other states) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D5003_E | | PARTY E (National Party) combines the results for the Nationals | and the Country Liberals, as the latter only ran in the | Northern Territory. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D5003_A - D5003_I | | The Brazilian Senate is composed of 81 members with members | elected for an eight year term. Two thirds of the Senate seats | (n=54) are contested in one election cycle while the remaining | one third is contested in the other cycle. The 2014 elections | saw one third of the Senate seats contested (27 in all | representing one seat per state). The data represents the | percentage of votes won by each party on the basis of the 27 | seats contested. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D5003 | | The July 21, 2013 elections were held to renew half of the | House of Councilors, the upper house of Parliament. Of | the 121 seats, 73 were filled using a simple majority system | in geographical constituencies (Prefecture Districts), while 48 | were determined using a proportional representation system based | on a single constituency covering the whole country. | The data refers to the Prefecture District election results | for the Upper House. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D5003 | | The data represents the percentage of votes for the election of | the 47 Senators, i.e., members of the Kenyan Upper House. The | full Senate contains additional 20 seats. The political parties | nominate an additional 16 women in proportion to their vote | share in the Senate. Additional nominations are made for two | members representing the youth and two members representing | persons with disabilities. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): D5003 | | The data refers to the vote shares in the majoritarian segment | of the Mexican Senate, where three MPs are elected from each of | 31 States and a Federal District. The remaining 32 Senators are | elected proportionally in a single national district. | The results from the proportional representation lists are based | on the national of votes from the constituency votes. | | In the 2012 presidential and legislative election voters could | vote for either individual parties/candidates or for alliances. | Hence, the official election results are presented per | political parties, per parties and coalitions and per candidate. | This variable presents data for political parties. | parties PRI and PVEM (parties A and D respectively) participated | also as an electoral alliance, under the label "Commitment for | Mexico)". Parties PRD, PT and MOVIMIENTO CIUDADANO (parties C, E | and G) also formed an electoral coalition under the | label "Progressive Movement)". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D5003 | | The Philippines Senate (Senado) has 24 members, serving six- | years terms. Concurrently with presidential elections, half | of the Senate (12 members) is renewed each three years, in a | single nation-wide constituency. Senators are elected | according to the simple majority, and each voters can cast | up to 12 votes. Hence, vote percentages and national totals | are not meaningful data. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D5003_G | | PARTY G (Social Democratic Party, PSD) is part of the alliance | Social Liberal Union (coded PARTY A). Individual vote share | data are unavailable for the party but the combined vote share | for the alliance are available in D5003_A. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D5003_H | | PARTY H (National Liberal Union, NLP) is part of the alliance | Social Liberal Union (coded PARTY A). Individual vote share | data are unavailable for the party but the combined vote share | for the alliance are available in D5001_A. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D5003_I | | PARTY I (Liberal Democratic Party, PDL) is part of the alliance | Alliance for a Just Romania (coded PARTY B). Individual vote | share data is unavailable for the party but the combined vote | share for the alliance is available in D5001_B. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D5003 | | The US Senate is composed of 100 members with members | elected for a six year term. One third of the Senate seats | (n=33/34) are contested in election cycles every two years | The 2012 elections saw one third of the Senate seats contested | 33 in all). The data represents the percentage of votes won by | each on the basis of the 33 seats contested. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5004_A >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY A D5004_B >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY B D5004_C >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY C D5004_D >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY D D5004_E >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY E D5004_F >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY F D5004_G >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY G D5004_H >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY H D5004_I >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M04a-c. Percent of seats in upper house received by PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I] in current (upper house) election: .................................................................. 000.00-100.00. PERCENT OF THE SEATS THAT PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I] RECEIVED 996.00. NOT APPLICABLE: UNICAMERAL SYSTEM 997.00. NOT APPLICABLE: NO UPPER HOUSE ELECTION 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5004_ | | Parties are identified in Part 3 of the Codebook. | | Sources of data: | - CSES Macro Report M4a-c | - Other publicly available data | | The CSES Secretariat always verifies the election results | provided by the collaborators. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D5004 | | The 2015 elections saw one third of the Senate seats contested | (n=24). The data represents the percentage of seats won by | each party in this election and does not include holdover seats. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D5004_A | | PARTY A (Front for Victory, FPV) includes the results for | PARTY I (the Peronists) which was part of this alliance. No | other information is available for the constituent parts of the | alliance. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D5004_B | | PARTY B (Let's Change, Cambiemos) includes the results for | PARTY G (Republican Proposal, PRO) and PARTY I (Radical Civic | Union, UCR) which were both part of this alliance. No other | information is available for the constituent parts of the | alliance. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D5004 | | The election on September 7, 2013 also included a half Senate | election whereby 40 senators were elected in total, six for each | state (6 states) and two for the two Federal Territories. | The data represents the percentage of first | preference votes and does not include holdover seats. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D5004_A | | PARTY A (The Liberal Party) combines the results for | Liberal National Party (who ran only in Queensland state) and | the Liberal Party (who ran in all other states) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D5004_E | | PARTY E (National Party) combines the results for the Nationals | and the Country Liberals, as the latter only ran in the | Northern Territory. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D5004_A - D5004_I | | The 2014 election saw one third of the Senate seats contested | (27 in all representing one seat per state). The data represents | the percentage of seats won by each party (n=27) and does not | include holdover seats. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D5004 | | The July 21, 2013 elections were held to renew half of the | House of Councilors, the upper house of Parliament. Of | the 121 seats, 73 were filled using a simple majority system | in geographical constituencies (Prefectural Districts), while 48 | were determined using a proportional representation system based | on a single constituency covering the whole country. | The data refers to the Prefecture District election results | for the Upper House. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D5004 | | The data represents the percentage of seats in the election of | the 47 Senators, i.e., members of the Kenyan Upper House. The | full Senate contains additional 20 seats. The political parties | nominate an additional 16 women in proportion to their vote | share in the Senate. Additional nominations are made for two | members representing the youth and two members representing | persons with disabilities. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): D5004 | | The data refers to the total seat shares, taking into account | both those won in majoritarian multi-member districts and in the | national proportional district. | | In the 2012 presidential and legislative election voters could | vote for either individual parties/candidates or for alliances. | Hence, the official election results are presented per | political parties, per parties and coalitions and per candidate. | This variable presents data for political parties. | parties PRI and PVEM (parties A and D respectively) participated | also as an electoral alliance, under the label "Commitment for | Mexico)". Parties PRD, PT and MOVIMIENTO CIUDADANO (parties C, E | and G) also formed an electoral coalition under the | label "Progressive Movement)". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D5004 | | In addition to the reported results, 3 seats (25%) were | won by independent candidates, and one seat by Akbayan | Citizens' Action Party (8.33%). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2011): D5004 | | Four remaining seats were won by independent candidates. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D5004_G | | PARTY G (Social Democratic Party, PSD) is part of the alliance | Social Liberal Union (coded PARTY A). The individual share of | seats for constituent parts of the alliance are also available | and are detailed here. Data for the seat share of the alliance | is detailed in D5004_A. The proportion of seats tallies to | to 100% for Romania by taking into account parties A-E. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D5004_H | | PARTY H (National Liberal Union, NLP) is part of the alliance | Social Liberal Union (coded PARTY A). The individual share of | seats for constituent parts of the alliance are also available | and are detailed here. Data for the seat share of the alliance | that this party belong to is detailed in D5004_A. The proportion | of seats tallies to 100% for Romania by taking into account | parties A-E. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D5004_I | | PARTY I (Liberal Democratic Party, PDL) is part of the alliance | Alliance for a Just Romania (coded PARTY B). The individual | share of seats for constituent parts of the alliance are | also available and are detailed here. Data for the seat share | of the alliance that this party belongs to is detailed in | D5004_B. The proportion of seats tallies to 100% for Romania | by taking into account parties A-E. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D5004 | | The 2012 elections saw one third of the Senate seats contested | (n=33). The data represents the percentage of seats won by each | party (n=33) and does not include holdover seats. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5005_A >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY A D5005_B >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY B D5005_C >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY C D5005_D >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY D D5005_E >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY E D5005_F >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY F D5005_G >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY G D5005_H >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY H D5005_I >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M04a-c. If multiple rounds, percent of vote received in first round. .................................................................. 000.00-100.00. PERCENT OF THE POPULAR VOTE THAT PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I] RECEIVED 996.00. NOT APPLICABLE: NO ROLE OF PRESIDENT 997.00. NOT APPLICABLE: NO PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5005_ | | Parties and presidential candidates are identified in Part 3 of | the Codebook. | In elections with two rounds, data refers to the results | received by each candidate in Round 1 unless otherwise specified | - SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES. | | Sources of data: | - CSES Macro Report M4a-c | - Other publicly available data | | The CSES Secretariat always verifies the election results | provided by the collaborators. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D5005_A | | Daniel Scioli, the Presidential candidate of the Front for | Victory (FPV) was also endorsed for the Presidency by | the following parties who made up the alliance: | - Peronismo - PARTY I | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D5005_B | | Mauricio Macro, the Presidential candidate of the Let's Change | Cambiemos alliance was also endorsed for the Presidency by | the following parties who made up the alliance: | - Republican Proposal (PRO) - PARTY G | - Radical Civic Union (UCR) - PARTY H | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D5005_A | | Dilma Rousseff, the Presidential candidate of the Workers' | Party (PT) was also endorsed for the Presidency by the following | parties: | Brazilian Democratic Movement (PMDB) - PARTY C | Progressive Party (PP) - PARTY D | Social Democratic Party (PSD) - PARTY F | Republic Party (PR) - Party G | Republican Party of the Social Order (PROS) | Democratic Labour Party (PDT) | Brazilian Republican Party (PRB) | Communist Party of Brazil (PCdoB) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D5005_B | | Aecio Neves, the Presidential candidate of the Brazilian Social | Democracy Party (PSDB) was also endorsed for the Presidency by | the following parties: | Democrats (DEM) - PARTY I | Brazilian Labour Party (PTB) | National Ecology Party (PEN) | National Labour Party (PTN) | Party of National Mobilization (PMN) | Solidarity (SD) | Christian Labour Party (PTC) | Labour Party of Brazil (PTdoB) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D5005_E | | Marina Silva, the Presidential candidate of the Brazilian Social | Democratic Party (PSD) was also endorsed for the Presidency by | the following parties: | Progressive Republic Party (PRP) | Popular Socialist Party (PPS) | Social Liberal Party (PSL) | Free Homeland Party (PPL) | Humanist Party of Solidarity (PHS) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D5005 | | Since the winning candidate Uhuru Kenyatta, representing The | National Alliance (PARTY A) and other parties allied in the | Jubilee Alliance, won above 50% of the total vote in the | first round. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D5005_A | | The Jubilee Alliance is a multi-party coalition established to | support the joint presidential elections ticket of Uhuru | Kenyatta and William Ruto in the 2013 Kenya general elections. | At the time of the election, its members were: | - The National Alliance (PARTY A), | - The United Republican Party (PARTY C), | - The National Rainbow Coalition (PARTY G), and others. | Alliance Party of Kenya (PARTY H) was not formally a part of the | Jubilee Alliance, but it did support Kenyatta's bid in the 2013 | presidential contest. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D5005_B | | This data represents the election results of presidential | candidate Raila Odinga who was supported by the CORD coalition. | CORD, or The Coalition for Reforms and Democracy is a coalition | of multiple political parties, built around the presidential | candidate Raila Odinga, to contest the Kenya General elections | of 2013. | The principal members of the coalition were: | - Orange Democratic Movement (PARTY B), | - Wiper Democratic Movement (PARTY D), | - FORD-KENYA (PARTY F). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D5005_E | | This data represents the election results of presidential | candidate Musalia Mudavadi, He was supported by the Amani | Coalition, whose members are parties: | - UDFP (PARTY E), | - KANU (PARTY I) and | - New Ford Kenya. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): D5005 | | In the 2012 presidential and legislative elections the official | election results are reported per political parties, per parties | and coalitions, and per candidates. | This variable presents data for presidential candidates. Note | that the candidates are in two cases supported by coalitions. | Electoral results are assigned to the major party in a | coalition. The following describes the CSES codes: | | CSES PARTY PARTY/COALITION CANDIDATE | PARTY A PRI-PVEM Enrique Pena Nieto | (Parties A and D) | PARTY B PAN Josefina Vazquez Mota | PARTY C PRD-PT-MC Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador | (Parties C, E and G) | PARTY F New Alliance Party Gabriel Quadri de la Torre | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): C5005 | | These data report results of the first round of the | presidential elections. In the second round, Pedro Pablo | Kuczynski (Peruvians for Change/Peruanos Por el Kambio; | Party E) won the contest with 50.12% of the vote against | Keiko Fujimori (Popular Force/Fuerza Popular; Party A). | | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): D5005_D | | PARTY D (Alliance for the Progress of Peru, APP) did not take | part in the presidential elections as their candidate César | Acuna was disqualified. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D5005_H | | This data represents the percentage of votes obtained by Grace | Poe, who ran as an officially independent candidate. However, | since she is a member of Aksyon (Democratic Action), her | election result is assigned to this party. She was also | endorsed by the Nationalist People's Coalition (NPC; | Party B in CSES nomenclature). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNTIED STATES (2012): D5005_C-D5005_E | | Data for Parties G (Libertarian Party, LP), H (Green Party, | GPUS) and I (Constitution Party, Con) are listed in slots C | (Libertarian Party, LP), D (Green Party, GPUS) and E | (Constitution Party, Con). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5006_1 >>> ELECTORAL TURNOUT - TURNOUT AS A PERCENTAGE OF REGISTERED VOTERS (ER) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M04d-e. Official voter turnout - Percentage of registered voters (ER). .................................................................. 000.00-100.00. PERCENT OF REGISTERED VOTERS WHO VOTED 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5006_1 | | The Electoral Register (ER) is the total number of votes cast | (valid and invalid) divided by the number of names on the | voters' register, expressed as a percentage. | Turnout data refers to lower house elections unless otherwise | specified. Please refer to ELECTION STUDY NOTES. | | In Presidential elections with two rounds of voting, turnout | data refers to first round of elections. | | Turnout data primarily comes from the International Institute | for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) Voter Turnout | Database. During the fielding of Module 4, the IDEA website | from where the data was sourced changed. The most up to date | website is: http://www.idea.int/data-tools/data/voter-turnout | (Date accessed: May 17, 2018). Previously, data was also | obtained from the old IDEA website, previously available at: | http://www.oldsite.idea.int/vt/index.cfm. This URL is no longer | active at the time of publication. | | If source deviates from the above, it is detailed in the | ELECTION STUDY NOTES. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D5006 | | In Argentina, voting is compulsory but only for voters aged | 18-70 years old. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D5006_1 | | In Brazil, voting is compulsory but only for voters aged 18-70 | years old. The eligible voting age in Brazil is 16. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2015): D5006_1 | | These data reports the turnout for the entire electorate, | including Finnish citizens living abroad. Turnout of Finnish | citizens living in Finland was 70.1%, while it was 10.1% for | Finnish citizens living abroad. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): D5006_1 | | These data refer to the first round of the Presidential | election. Turnout in the second round of the Presidential | election was 80.4%. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D5006_1 | | In Germany, people do not have to officially register to be | able to vote (rather they are required to register their place | of residence). Accordingly, the turnout is calculated with | respect to the number of persons legally entitled to vote | rather than the number of registered voters. | The estimate for Electoral Register (ER) turnout in Germany is | based on the total number of votes (including spoilt) cast as | being 44,309,925 | (Bundeswahlleiter, 2013). | | Sources: | ACE The Electoral Knowledge Network | http://aceproject.org/epic-en/CDTable?question=VR008&view=countr | y&set_language=en & http://aceproject.org/epic-en/CDTable?questi | on=VR004&view=country&set_language=en | (Date accessed: November 8, 2014). | Bundeswahlleiter 2013 German Bundestag election results: | http://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/en/bundestagswahlen/BTW_BUND_13/e | rgebnisse/bundesergebnisse/index.html | (Date accessed: November 8, 2014). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): D5006_1 | | These data refer to the turnout in Great Britain only, that is | the turnout in England, Scotland, and Wales combined. | Northern Ireland data is not included as the 2015 British | Election Study did not include respondents from | Northern Ireland. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D5006_1 | | These data refer to the turnout in the geographical constituency | component of the 2012 Hong Kong parliamentary elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D5006_1 | | Data is sourced from the Kenyan Electoral Commission. | | Data source: | The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (Kenya) | https://www.iebc.or.ke/docs/4TH%20MARCH%202013%20GENERAL% | 20ELECTION%20DATA.pdf. | (Date accessed: February 16, 2017). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): D5006_1-D5006_2 | | [Note from the Collaborator]: Notice that the number of | registered voters is larger than the voting age population | (10%). In an extraordinary effort done in the 1990's, in a | house-by-house visit the Electoral Commission made a census | of all eligible voters. Independent estimates found that | this original census covered close to 98% of the voting age | population of the time (persons 18 years older and more). | This difference indicates that the actual list of eligible | voters ("lista nominal") has not been fully updated, most | likely because of persons who have passed away and are not | taken out from the list. Another likely source of error might | be due to the fact that people who would turn 18 years | the year of the election and before election day can register | to vote. So the 2010 number does not take into account the new | voters who turned 18 after 2010 and right before the election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): D5006_1 | | The estimate for ER turnout in Portugal is based on the total | number of votes (including spoilt) cast as being 5,408,801 | (Portuguese Ministry of the Interior, 2015). | Sources: | Portuguese Ministry of the Interior 2015 election results: | http://www.eleicoes.mai.gov.pt/legislativas2015/ | (Date accessed: May 2, 2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5006_1 | | These data refer to the first round of the Presidential | election. Turnout in the second round of the Presidential | election was 64.4%. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D5006_1-D5006_2 | | Data refers to turnout in the Presidential election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D5006_1 | | Turnout data refers to turnout in the Presidential election. | Percentage of registered voters estimate is taken from the IDEA. | | Source: | IDEA Voter Turnout for the United States | http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?CountryCode=US | (Date accessed: December 29, 2014). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5006_2 >>> ELECTORAL TURNOUT - TURNOUT AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE VOTING AGE POPULATION (VAP) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M04d-e. Official voter turnout - Percentage of Voting Age Population (VAP). .................................................................. 000.00-100.00. PERCENT OF VOTING AGE POPULATION (VAP) WHO VOTED 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5006_2 | | The Voting Age Population (VAP) includes all citizens above the | legal voting age in a country. It is not intended to be a | precise measure of the number of citizens entitled to vote as it | does not take into account legal or systematic impediments such | as resident non-citizens. Rather, its intent is to provide an | estimate of turnout besides estimates based solely on an | electoral register. Voter registers are often outdated or | inaccurate or in some circumstances are not used for elections | (e.g.: 1994 South African elections) | | In some polities, voters are registered automatically and hence | it might be expected that the electoral register measure and the | voting age population would be identical. This is not always the | case for the reasons set out above. However, and unless we can | verify accuracy, CSES reports the voting age population as | listed by the IDEA. However, ELECTION STUDY NOTES below do alert | users to instances where voter registration is automatic and | thus to cases which in theory the ER and VAP estimates could be | identical. | | Turnout data refers to lower house elections unless otherwise | specified. Please refer to ELECTION STUDY NOTES. | | In Presidential elections with two rounds of voting, turnout | data refers to first round of elections. | | Turnout data primarily comes from the International Institute | for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) Voter Turnout | Database. During the fielding of Module 4, the IDEA website | from where the data was sourced changed. The most up to date | website is: http://www.idea.int/data-tools/data/voter-turnout | (Date accessed: May 17, 2018). Previously, data was also | obtained from the old IDEA website, previously available at: | http://www.oldsite.idea.int/vt/index.cfm. This URL is no longer | active at the time of publication. | | If source deviates from the above, it is detailed in the | ELECTION STUDY NOTES. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D5006_2 | | The estimate for Voting Age Population (VAP) turnout in | Argentina is based on the number of eligible voters of voting | being 32,032,592, data which is obtained from the | Argentina Election Commission. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D5006_2 | | In Austria, voter registration is automatic with the voter | register compiled by citizens registration of a permanent | address. However, it is not known how accurate such | records are. If one assumes complete accuracy, D5006_1 and | D5006_2 would be identical (74.91%). These data does not assume | complete accuracy and thus the estimate for VAP in Austria is | based on a voting age population of 7,260,801. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D5006_2 | | CSES estimate is based on an estimated age voting | population being 17,048,864 (IDEA 2013) and the | number of votes cast being 13,726,070 (Australian | Electoral Commission). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D5006_2 | | In Brazil, voting is compulsory but only for voters aged | 18-70 years old. The eligible voting age in Brazil | is 16. The estimate for VAP turnout in Brazil is based on | number of eligible voters of voting age being 154,784,308. | | Source: | Brazilian IBGE (government agency responsible for census | and population estimates): | http://www.ibge.gov.br/english/estatistica/populacao/ | trabalhoerendimento/pnad2012/default_sintese.shtm | (Date accessed: May 30, 2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2014): D5006_2 | | In Bulgaria, while there is no voter registration, all eligible | citizens are automatically included on the voter register. The | voter register is compiled by citizens registration of a | permanent address. However, it is not known how accurate such | records are. If one assumes complete accuracy, D5006_1 and | D5006_2 would be identical (51.05%). These data does not assume | complete accuracy and thus the estimate for VAP in Bulgaria is | based on the total number of votes cast being 6,912,475. | | Source of data: | Bulgarian Election Commission - see: | http://www.grao.bg/tbg/tbg2014.tx | (Date accessed: February, 2017). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2013): D5006_2 | | The data is based on the estimate of the population of age 18 | and older as of January 1, 2013. It includes persons without | voting rights such as foreign residents. | | Source: | Czech Bureau of Statistics: | https://www.czso.cz/csu/czso/age-distribution-of-the-population | -2013-9pca2gng8n; | (Date accessed: May 28, 2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): D5006_1 | | These data refer to the first round of the Presidential | election. Turnout in the second round of the Presidential | election was 79.6%. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D5006_2 | | The estimate for VAP turnout in Germany is based on | the total number of votes (including spoilt) cast being as | 44,309,925 (Bundeswahlleiter, 2013). | | Source: | Bundeswahlleiter 2013 German Bundestag Election Results: | http://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/en/bundestagswahlen/BTW_BUND_13/e | rgebnisse/bundesergebnisse/index.html | (Date accessed: November 8, 2014). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): D5006_2 | | These data represent the turnout in Great Britain only, that is | the turnout in England, Scotland, and Wales combined. | Northern Ireland data is not included as the 2015 British | Election Study did not include respondents from | Northern Ireland. The estimate for VAP turnout in | Great Britain is based on the number of eligible voters | of voting age being 49,921,573, data which is obtained | from the British Office of National Statistics (ONS). | | Source: | British Office of National Statistics: | https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/ | peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/ | populationestimates/datasets/populationestimates | forukenglandandwalesscotlandandnorthernireland | /mid2015/ukmye2015.zip | (Date accessed: February 6, 2017). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D5006_2 | | The data refers to the turnout in the geographical | constituency part of the 2012 LegCo Elections. There | is a substantial difference between number of registered voters | (3,466,201 registered electors) and the total number of voting | age population (6,089,940; | | Source: http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hkstat/sub/sp150.jsp? | tableID=002&ID=0&productType=8). | (Date accessed: September 27, 2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2013): D5006_2 | | The estimate is based on the Voting Age Population from | Statistics Iceland. | | Source: | http://www.statice.is | (Date accessed: January 14, 2015). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D5006_1 | | Data is sourced from the Kenyan Electoral Commission. | | Data source: | The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (Kenya) | https://www.iebc.or.ke/docs/4TH%20MARCH%202013%20GENERAL% | 20ELECTION%20DATA.pdf. | (Date accessed: February 16, 2017). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): D5006_1-D5006_2 | | [Note from the Collaborator]: Notice that the number of | registered voters is larger than the voting age population | (10%). In an extraordinary effort done in the 1990's, in a | house-by-house visit the Electoral Commission made a census | of all eligible voters. Independent estimates found that | this original census covered close to 98% of the voting age | population of the time (persons 18 years and older). | This difference indicates that the actual list of eligible | voters ("lista nominal") has not been fully updated, most | likely because of persons who have passed away and are not | taken out from the list. Another likely source of error might | be the fact that people who would turn 18 in the year | of the election and before election day can register | to vote. So the 2010 number does not take into account the new | voters who turned 18 after 2010 and right before the election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2014): D5006_2 | | The estimate for VAP turnout in New Zealand is based on | the total number of votes (including spoilt) cast being as | 3,391,100. | | Source: | Statistics New Zealand - data available on request from | Statistics New Zealand directly but not published. | (Date accessed: November 24, 2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D5006_2 | | In Norway all eligible voters are registered automatically. | The Voting Age Population estimate thus excludes non-Norwegian | citizens who are ineligible to vote in Storting elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): D5006_2 | | According to the Macro Report, this data represents the | projected population (for 2016) of voting age, living in the | country. Peruvians of voting age living abroad also have the | right to vote, but there is no accurate estimate of their size. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D5006_2 | | CSES estimate is based on an estimated age voting | population being 17,974,764 (IDEA 2013). IDEA estimate of | voting age population advised to be more accurate than national | electoral commission, whose estimate is not thought to include | Romanian nationals living abroad. | | Source: | International IDEA Voter Turnout Database: | http://www.oldsite.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?id=189 | (Date accessed: March 6, 2017). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5006_1 | | These data refer to the first round of the Presidential | election. Turnout in the second round of the Presidential | election was 64.1%. | Voter registration in Romania is automatic, consequently all | voting age population should be registered. The Permanent | Electoral Authority reports on the list of registered citizens | all those who, according to local government records, are | resident in Romania. However, the electoral register is poorly | updated, holds many errors and includes at least a part of the | voters residing abroad. Taking these aspects into account the | Central Electoral Bureau reported different numbers for the | Total voting age population and the number of registered voters. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SERBIA (2012): D5006_2 | | In Serbia, voter registration is automatic. However, it is not | known how accurate such records are. If one assumes complete | accuracy, D5006_1 and D5006_2 would be identical (57.80%). | These data does not assume complete accuracy and thus the | estimate for VAP in Serbia is based on the total age population | on a voting age population of 5,790,302. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2016): D5006_2 | | In Slovakia, voter registration is automatic. Hence the number | of register voters and the voting age population is the name. | (i.e.: D5006_1 is equal to D5006_2 in Slovakia). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2012): D5006_2 | | In Slovenia, voter registration is automatic. However, it is not | known how accurate such records are. If one assumes complete | accuracy, D5006_1 and D5006_2 would be identical (65.60%). | These data does not assume complete accuracy and thus the | estimate for VAP in Slovenia is based on the total age | population on a voting age population of 1,674,170. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D5006_1-D5006_2 | | Data refers to turnout in the Presidential election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D5006_2 | | Turnout data is based on turnout in the Presidential election. | Voting Age Population estimate is taken from the American | Federal Election Commission. | Source: | American Federal Election Commission: | http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2012/federalelections2012.pdf | (Date accessed: December 4, 2014). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5007 >>> PARTY OF THE PRESIDENT BEFORE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M02a. Party of the president before the election, regardless of whether the election was presidential. .................................................................. 01-88. [SEE PART 3 OF CODEBOOK FOR PARTY & LEADER NUMERICAL CODES] 89. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 97. NOT APPLICABLE 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5007 | | Source: CSES Macro Report M2a. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D5007 | | The President before the election was Cristina Fernandez de | Kirchner, a Peronist (PARTY I). In the 2015 election, this | party was part of the alliance Front for Victory (PARTY A). | These data refer to the coalition Front for Victory (PARTY A). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D5007 | | The Austrian president, elected on April 25, 2010, | Heinz Fischer, suspended his SPO membership for the time | period of his presidency. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2014): D5007 | | Previous presidential election was held in Bulgaria on 23 | October 2011. In a runoff election, Rosen Plevneliev of GERB | (Party A) won the presidency. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2013): D5007 | | The President of Czech Republic is elected directly by popular | vote for the first time in January 2013. Until then, the | President was elected indirectly, by the Czech Parliament. Milos | Zeman (of SPOZ - Party of Civic Rights - Zeman's people) won the | elections in the second round on January 25-26, 2013. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2015): D5007 | | The Finnish President is elected directly by popular vote | for a six-year term. The incumbent at the time of 2015 | elections was Sauli Niinisto, of the National Coalition | Party (Party B), elected in 2012. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D5007 | | The President is Joachim Gauck who was elected as an independent | candidate in 2012. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012 & 2015): D5007 | | The President is elected indirectly by the Parliament for a term | of five years. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): D5007 | | Before the elections, Greek president was Karolos Papoulias of | PASOK (PARTY G; supported by Nea Dimokratia - PARTY B). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D5007 | | The Chief Executive (CE) in Hong Kong can be seen as an | equivalent of president elsewhere. It is the highest government | official of the HKSAR Government. However, CE cannot belong to | any political party, according to the Chief Executive Election | Ordinance (Chapter 569, Laws of Hong Kong). | The Chief Executive is not elected by a popular vote, but by a | 1200-member Election Committee, an electoral college consisting | of individuals (i.e. private citizens) and bodies (i.e. special | interest groups) selected or elected within 28 Functional | Constituencies. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2013): D5007 | | The Icelandic President is elected directly by popular vote | for a four-year term. The current incumbent is Olafur Ragnar | Grimsson, who is now in his fifth term having been re-elected | in a contested election in 2012. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2011): D5007 | | The Irish President is elected directly by popular vote for a | seven-year term. The last presidential election was held on | October 1, 2004 (when Mary McAleese was re-elected unopposed). | A subsequent presidential election was held in October 2011, | eight months after the current parliamentary election. | Accordingly, the president before and after the current | parliamentary election was the same. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2013): D5007 | | The President is Shimon Peres, elected as a | Kadima candidate in 2007. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D5007 | | Before the 2013 elections, President of Kenya was Mwai Kibaki, | the candidate of a newly formed alliance Party of National | Unity. Members of this alliance were KANU, the Democratic Party, | NARC-Kenya, FORD-Kenya, Ford-People, and Shirikisho among | others. In 2013 elections, Party of National Unity supported the | TNA (Party A) candidate Uhuru Kenyatta. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): D5007 | | This party (Partido Nacionalista Peruano) did not participate in | the 2016 elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D5007 | | The President of Romania is not allowed to be a member of a | political party once elected to office. However, during an | election, he/she may be endorsed by a party or coalition. Traian | Basescu, the President at the time of the 2012 parliamentary | elections was endorsed by PARTY G (Liberal Democratic Party, | PDL), party of the Alliance for a Just Romania (PARTY B). These | data refer to the coalition Alliance for a Just Romania | (PARTY B). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5007 | | The President of Romania is directly elected by a two-round | system for a five-year term. | From a legal point of view, the president is not allowed to be | a member of a political party during his term in office. | However, he/she may be publicly endorsed by a specific | party. Traian Basescu raced for his second term with the | endorsement of the Democrat-Liberal Party (PD-L), however | during the second half of his last term in office he was | perceived as being closest to the PMP, which was created | by a splinter group from the PD-L. (From the Macro report). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2016): D5007 | | The Slovak President is elected directly by popular vote for a | five-year term. Andrej Kisk, an independent candidate was | elected in 2014. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011): D5007 | | Dr. Danilo Turk, was elected as President, on December 23, | 2007 as an independent candidate (though supported by Social | Democrats - Party C in current CSES data). The President's term | does not coincide with that of the parliament. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D5007 | | The President serves as both head of state and head of | government in South Africa. Like Prime Ministers in other | countries, the president is elected by the lower house and | must enjoy the confidence of parliament to govern. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5008 >>> PARTY OF THE PRIME MINISTER BEFORE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M02b. Party of the Prime Minister before the election , regardless of whether the election was parliamentary. .................................................................. 01-88. [SEE PART 3 OF CODEBOOK FOR PARTY & LEADER NUMERICAL CODES] 89. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 97. NOT APPLICABLE 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5008 | | Source: CSES Macro Report M2b. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2014): D5008 | | Before the current election, in the period between May 29, 2013 | and August 6, 2014, Prime Minister was Plamen Oresharski, | nominally independent, but endorsed by the Bulgarian Socialist | Party (Party B). Period immediately before the 2014 election | (August-November 2014) was covered by a care-taking government, | and an independent acting Prime Minister (also supported by | BSP). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2013): D5008 | | This data refers to Jioi Rusnok, who was the Prime Minister of a | caretaker government, appointed by the President Zeman, between | July 2013 and January 2014. He was Independent at the time, but | according to the Macro Report, close to the President Zeman and | his SPO-Z party (party coded 19 in this CSES data). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2015): D5008 | | Before the current election, in the period between June 2014, | and May, 2015, the Prime Minister was Alexander Stubb, | affiliated with the National Coalition Party (Party B). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012): D5008 | | This data refers to the Prime Minister of the caretaker | government between the elections of May 6, 2012, and current | elections of June 17, 2012. Before the May 6 election, the PM | was also independent, but supported by the Nea Dimokratia | (Party A), Panellinio Sosialistiko Kinima (PA.SO.K.; Party C), | and Laikos Orthodoxos Synagermos (Party E). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): D5008 | | Prime minister before the elections was Antonis Samaras (Nea | Dimokratia, Party B, with the support of PASOK, Party G). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D5008 | | There is no such post (the Prime Minister) in Hong Kong. See | also ES note for D5007. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2013): D5008 | | Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was leader of the Likud Party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D5008 | | The data refers to Abe cabinet, formed on Dec. 26, 2012. | Since the current elections refer to the Upper House elections, | the data about the Cabinet prior the election (variables D5008, | D5009_ and D5010 are the same as those for the period after the | election (variables D5012, D5013_, D5014). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D5008 | | Before the 2013 election, Prime Minister was Raila Odinga, of | the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM; Party B). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): D5008 | | This party (Partido Nacionalista Peruano) did not participate in | the 2016 elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): D5008 | | The outgoing Prime Minister was Pedro Coelho, leader of the | Social Democratic Party (PPD-PSD). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D5008 | | The outgoing Prime Minister was Victor Ponta, leader of PARTY G | (The Social Democratic Party, PSD), a member of the Social | Liberal Union (PARTY A). These data refer to the coalition | Social Liberal Union (PARTY A). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5008 | | This data refers to the alliance in the current presidential | election. The Prime minister is a member of the Social-Democrat | Party (PSD), Partidul Social Democrat, the dominant party in an | alliance of parties supporting a single candidate in this | election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2012): D5008 | | Note from the Collaborator: "The Prime Minister at this moment | was not affiliated to any party. (Note: He/she is usually not | a political figure. The Prime Minister is generally chosen by | the President. In a broad sense, one could say that the Prime | Minister belongs to the Frontier Party because he was chosen | by the President belonging to the Frontier Party [Party A (1)], | which means that the Prime Minister probably has the same | political view with the President)." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): D5008 | | There is no formal Prime Minister in Switzerland. Instead, | executive power is exercised by a collective organism called the | Federal Council of Switzerland. This organism has seven members | and is elected by the Federal Assembly (which is composed of two | organs, the Council of States and National Council) for a | four-year term. Since 1959 the Federal Council has been composed | of a coalition of all major parties (SVP/UDC, SP/PS, FDP/PRD, | and CVP/PDC), an arrangement called the "magic formula". The | Council elects each year among its members a president, but this | position is presumably largely ceremonial. Consequently, this | variable is coded with 97 "Not-applicable". --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5009_A >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY A D5009_B >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY B D5009_C >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY C D5009_D >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY D D5009_E >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY E D5009_F >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY F D5009_G >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY G D5009_H >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY H D5009_I >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M02c. Number of cabinet posts (portfolios) held by PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I] before the election. .................................................................. 00.00-99.00. NUMBER OF CABINET POSTS BEFORE ELECTION 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5009_ | | Parties are identified in Part 3 of the Codebook. | | Ministers are considered those members of government who are | members of the Cabinet and who have Cabinet voting rights. | | Source: CSES Macro Report M2c. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2014): D5009 | | The data refers to Oresharski Government, formed on May 29, | 2013 and dissolved on August 6, 2014. In addition to the listed | cabinet members, there was one independent minister. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2013): D5009 | | The caretaker government of Jioi Rusnok consisted of 15 | ministers, 14 of whom were independent, i.e. had no formal | party membership. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): D5009 | | In addition to 21 full cabinet ministers from Party B (UMP), | there were two full cabinet ministers from Party 17 (Nouveau | Centre, NC) and two independent cabinet ministers. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012): D5009 | | The data (all independent members) refers to the caretaker | government between the elections of May 6, 2012, and current | elections of June 17, 2012. | Before the May 6 election, the government was composed of 11 | members from Panellinio Sosialistiko Kinima (PA.SO.K.; Party C), | two member from Nea Dimokratia (Party A), one member from Laikos | Orthodoxos Synagermos (Party E), and four independent members | (17 in total). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): D5009 | | One additional post was held by an independent cabinet member. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D5009 | | In Hong Kong, the Executive Council (ExCo), which is established | to assist the Chief Executive (CE; equivalent of Prime Minister, | or President) in policymaking, is some equivalent of the cabinet | elsewhere. However, the majority views of the ExCo, if any, are | not binding and it is up to the CE to decide whether to accept | them or not. In this sense, the ExCo members do not have voting | rights. The ExCo had 30 members (including the CE, 15 official | members and 14 non-official members). Only three of the ExCo | members have party affiliation, reported in this variable. One | of the three members belongs to party Rural Council. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2011): D5009 | | One additional post was held by the Progressive Democrats. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2013): D5009_A | | Likud had 13 cabinet ministers while Yisrael Beiteinu had 3. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D5009 | | The data refers to Abe cabinet, formed on Dec. 26, 2012. | Since the current elections refer to the Upper House elections, | the data about the Cabinet prior the election (variables D5008, | D5009_ and D5010) are the same as those for the period after the | election (variables D5012, D5013_, D5014). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D5009_A | | Before the 2013 elections, the Cabinet had 40 members. In | addition to the 25 cabinet members reported in this variable, | 13 ministers came from the Party of National Unity, while 2 | ministers were independent. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2014): D5009_B | | The data for the Party B (Unity) includes 3 portfolios held by | The Reform Party, which took part in the 2014 elections in a | coalition with Unity. In 2015, the Reform Party was absorbed | by Unity. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): D5009 | | In addition to the portfolios (State Secretaries) coded in the | data, there were 10 additional independent ministers. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2015): D5009 | | Mexico has a presidential system. The cabinet is made up by | eighteen portfolios held by state secretaries directly appointed | by the President, and the General Attorney (19 in total). Only | the Secretary of Foreign Relations and the General Attorney need | approval from the Senate. There is no voting in the cabinet, and | the positions are not necessarily political. | In addition to the portfolios (State Secretaries) coded in the | data, there were 4 additional independent ministers. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2012): D5009 | | One additional post was held by the Democratic union of | Albanians DUA (Demokratska unija Albanaca). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2012): D5009_A | | Party A represents the coalition of Democratic Party of | Socialists (DPS; dominant member) and Socialdemocratic party | (SDP). The former obtained 13 cabinet posts, and the latter 3 | cabinet posts. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): D5009 | | Prior to the 2016 elections, all cabinet posts were held by | members of Partido Nacionalista Peruano (party 10; the party | does not have an alphabetical CSES code, because it did not | participate in the current elections). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D5009 | | There were 24 cabinet members before the election. However, | most were independent, while some were members of parties | participating in the party list (proportional) electoral | segment. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2011): D5009 | | Six additional posts were held by independent ministers, but, | according to the Macro Report, close to or affiliated with | the Platforma Obywatelska (Party A). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): D5009_A | | Social Democratic Party (PPD-PSD) held 8 cabinet posts while | the People's Party (CDS-PP) held 4 cabinet posts. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D5009_G | | PARTY G (Social Democratic Party, PSD) is part of the alliance | Social Liberal Union (coded PARTY A). The individual share of | cabinet seats for constituent parts of the alliance are also | available and are detailed here. Data for the share of | cabinet seats for the entire alliance that this party belong to | is detailed in D5009_A. The complete distribution of cabinet | portfolios for Romania is obtained by taking into account | the number of portfolios for parties A-E inclusive. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D5009_H | | PARTY H (National Liberal Union, NLP) is part of the alliance | Social Liberal Union (coded PARTY A). The individual share of | cabinet seats for constituent parts of the alliance are also | available and are detailed here. Data for the share of | cabinet seats for the entire alliance that this party belong to | is detailed in D5009_A. The complete distribution of cabinet | portfolios for Romania is obtained by taking into account | the number of portfolios for parties A-E inclusive. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D5009_I | | PARTY I (Liberal Democratic Party, PDL) is part of the alliance | Alliance for a Just Romania (coded PARTY B). The individual | share of cabinet seats for constituent parts of the alliance | are also available and are detailed here. Data for the share of | cabinet seats for the entire alliance that this party belong to | is detailed in D5009_B. The complete distribution of cabinet | portfolios for Romania is obtained by taking into account | the number of portfolios for parties A-E inclusive. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5009_A | | This data refers to the number of posts held by the members of | the coalition under Party A label here. The dominant member | (Social-Democrat Party, PSD) had 15 members, including the PM. | UNPR had 2 members, while PC had one cabinet member. In | addition, there we 6 independent members of the cabinet. | The overall number includes the 8 (eight) so-called delegate | ministers who, according to Romanian law, are Cabinet members | and have voting right if they received parliamentary approval. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SERBIA (2012): D5009 | | The Serbian government has one Prime Minister, one or more vice- | ministers and ministers - they together constitute the cabinet | and they all have voting rights. Former Prime Minister was at | the same time also the Finance Minister (one among the 19 | cabinet members). There were three Deputy Prime Ministers. | Immediately after the 2008 election, the cabinet had 27 members. | Cabinet members not accounted in D5009 come from Serbian Renewal | Movement (SPO), Social Democratic Party of Serbia (SDPS) | (Socijaldemokratska partija Srbije), Party of United Pensioners | of Serbia (PUPS), Independent (G17+ endorsed), and Party of | Democratic Action of Sandzak (SDAS), each having one cabinet | member. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011): D5009 | | This data shows the distribution of portfolios just before the | December 2011 elections. During 2011 previous coalition partners | left the government, while the seats they formerly occupied were | distributed among the SD (Party C) and LDS. The overall number | of cabinet posts remained the same, but a number of remaining | ministers took more than a single ministry. Thus, Party C (SD) | held 15 posts (including the PM), LDS held 2 posts, and one post | was held by an independent minister. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SERBIA (2012): D5009_F | | Party F, United Regions of Serbia (URS) changed its name in | 2010. Its former name was G17 Plus. This data shows the number | of cabinet members from G17 plus. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2012): D5009_A | | Note from the Collaborator: "Most of the Ministers are not | affiliated to political parties, but they can be considered as | the members of the Frontier Party because they were chosen by | the President belonging to the Frontier party, which means the | Ministers probably have the same political view with the | President." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5010 >>> SIZE OF THE CABINET BEFORE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M02d. The size of the cabinet before the election. .................................................................. 00.00-99.00. SIZE OF THE CABINET 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5010 | | Source: CSES Macro Report M2d. | | Definitions: | a) Parliamentary and Semi-Presidential Regimes: | Cabinet size is defined by the total number of ministers | (persons, not posts) in a defined government. Ministers are | considered members of a cabinet when they exercise voting | rights. This number includes both ministers with and without | portfolio, but excludes deputy ministers, undersecretaries, | parliamentary secretaries, ministerial alternates, given that | in the majority of cases, they do not exercise full voting | rights. | b) Presidential Regimes: | Cabinet size is defined by the total number of ministers or | secretaries who head a ministry. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D5010 | | In addition to 7 cabinet members from the Social Democratic | Party (SPO; Party A) and 6 from the Austrian People's Party | (OVP; Party B), there was one Independent member (nominated | by the Austrian People's Party (OVP). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D5010 | | The size of the cabinet is 39 seats in total with thirteen | cabinet positions occupied by Independents and a further two | occupied by the PCdoB and the PDT parties respectively. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2014): D5010 | | The data refers to Oresharski Government, formed on May 29, | 2013 and dissolved on August 6, 2014. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2013): D5010 | | The caretaker government of Jiøí Rusnok consisted of 15 | ministers, 14 of whom were independent, i.e. had no formal | party membership. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D5010 | | The Executive Council (ExCo) has 30 members (including the CE, | 15 official members and 14 non-official members). However, both | the official and non-official members do not have voting rights | in the ExCo (see ES note for D5009). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D5010 | | The data refers to Abe cabinet, formed on Dec. 26, 2012. | Since the current elections refer to the Upper House elections, | the data about the Cabinet prior the election (variables D5008, | D5009_ and D5010 are the same as those for the period after the | election (variables D5012, D5013_, D5014). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2014): D5010 | | In addition to the listed portfolios, there was one independent | cabinet member, but according to the collaborator, affiliated | with party Unity (PARTY B). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): D5010 | | The size of the cabinet is 15 seats in total with three cabinet | positions occupied by Independents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D5010 | | The size of the cabinet is 21 seats in total with five cabinet | positions occupied by Independents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011): D5010 | | See election study note for D5009. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5011 >>> PARTY OF THE PRESIDENT AFTER --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M03a. Party of the president AFTER the election, regardless of whether the election was presidential. .................................................................. 01-88. [SEE PART 3 OF CODEBOOK FOR PARTY & LEADER NUMERICAL CODES] 89. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 97. NOT APPLICABLE 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5011 | | Source: CSES Macro Report M3a. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D5011 | | The President after the election was Mauricio Macri from the | Republican Proposal (PRO - PARTY G). In the 2015 election, this | party was part of the alliance Let's Change Cambiemos (PARTY B). | These data refer to the coalition Cambiemos (PARTY B). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2013): D5011 | | The President of Czech Republic is elected directly by popular | vote for the first time in January 2013. Until then, the | President was elected indirectly, by the Czech Parliament. Milos | Zeman (of SPOZ - Party of Civic Rights - Zeman's people) won the | elections in the second round on January 25-26, 2013. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2015): D5011 | | The Finnish President is elected directly by popular vote | for a six-year term. The incumbent before and after the | parliamentary elections of 2015 was Sauli Niinisto, of the | National Coalition Party (Party B), elected in 2012. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D5011 | | See ELECTION STUDY NOTE - GERMANY D5007. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012): D5011 | | The President is elected indirectly, by the Parliament | for a term of five years. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): D5011 | | President of Greece is elected indirectly, by the Parliament. | After the current parliamentary elections, the new parliament | elected Prokopis Pavlopoulos, who was supported by the newly | formed SYRIZA-ANEL coalition government (parties A and F). | Officially, Pavlopoulos acted as an independent candidate (he | was formerly member of Nea Dimokratia (Party B). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D5011 | | The Chief Executive (CE) in Hong Kong can be seen as an | equivalent of the president elsewhere. It is the highest | government official of the HKSAR Government. However, CE cannot | belong to any political party, according to the Chief Executive | Election Ordinance (Chapter 569, Laws of Hong Kong). | The Chief Executive is not elected by a popular vote, but by a | 1200-member Election Committee, an electoral college consisting | of individuals and bodies (i.e. special interest groups) | selected or elected within 28 Functional Constituencies. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2013): D5011 | | The president before and after the 20013 parliamentary | election was the same. For more details see Election Study | note for D5007. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D5011 | | The 2013 Presidential elections were won by Uhuru Kenyatta, who | was supported by a multi-party coalition The Jubilee Alliance, | the principal member of which was the National Alliance | (Party A/1). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D5011 | | See ELECTION STUDY NOTE - ROMANIA D5007. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5011 | | This data refers to the Christian-Liberal Alliance (ACL), a | coalition that supported the president elect, Klaus Werner | Iohannis, who at that time was a member of PNL (Partidul | National Liberal). After the election, according to law, | he resigned from this party. However, he continues to be | endorsed by them. | During the election campaign the president elect was supported | by a coalition of two parties - Christian-Liberal Alliance | (Alianta Crestin-Liberala, ACL) comprising the National Liberal | Party (Partidul National Liberal, PNL) and the Liberal | Democratic Party (Partidul Democrat Liberal, PDL). At that date | the two parties had already initiated a formal process of merger | under the name National Liberal Party (PNL), Partidul National | Liberal, which was approved by courts after the deadline for | submitting candidacies for the presidency. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2016): D5011 | | See ELECTION STUDY NOTE - SLOVAKIA D5007. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011): D5011 | | The President's term does not coincide with that of the | parliament. The two rounds of the presidential elections were | held in 2007. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D5011 | | The President serves as both head of state and head of | government in South Africa. Like Prime Ministers in other | countries, the president is elected by the lower house and | must enjoy the confidence of parliament to govern. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5012 >>> PARTY OF THE PRIME MINISTER AFTER --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M03b. Party of the Prime Minister AFTER the election, regardless of whether the election was parliamentary. .................................................................. 01-88. [SEE PART 3 OF CODEBOOK FOR PARTY & LEADER NUMERICAL CODES] 89. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 97. NOT APPLICABLE 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5012 | | Source: CSES Macro Report M3b. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D5012 | | The Austrian president, elected on April 25, 2010, | Heinz Fischer, suspended his SPO membership for the time | period of his presidency. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2014): D5012 | | After the current election of October 2014, the Prime Minister | became Boyko Borisov, who has served since November 7, 2014 in | his second government. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2013): D5012 | | Bohuslav Sobotka became Prime Minister of the Czech Republic | after the 2013 parliamentary elections. He has been a chairman | of Czech Social Democratic Party (ESSD; Party A in CSES data) | since 2011. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2015): D5012 | | After the current election, the Prime Minister became Juha | Sipila, of the Centre Party (Party A). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): D5012 | | After the current election, the Prime Minister became Alexis | Tsipras of SYRIZA (Party A). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D5012 | | There is no such post (the Prime Minister) in Hong Kong. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2013): D5012 | | Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was leader of the Likud Party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D5012 | | The data refers to Abe cabinet which was formed on | December 26, 2012. | Since the current elections refer to the Upper House elections, | the data about the Cabinet prior the election (variables D5008, | D5009_ and D5010 are the same as those for the period after the | election (variables D5012, D5013_, D5014). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D5012 | | The Prime Minister position was abolished by the 2010 | Constitution after the 2013 elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D5012 | | The Prime Minister was Victor Ponta, leader of PARTY G | (The Social Democratic Party, PSD), a member of the Social | Liberal Union Alliance (PARTY A). These data refer to the | coalition Social Liberal Union (PARTY A). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5012 | | This data refers to the alliance in the current presidential | election. The Prime minister, Victor Ponta, is a member of the | Social-Democrat Party (PSD), Partidul Social Democrat, the | dominant party in an alliance of parties supporting a single | candidate in this election. | During his time in office, Victor Ponta presided over 4 | different cabinets. At the time of this election the so-called | Ponta 3 Cabinet was in office. It is considered that a cabinet | is different from the previous one even if the prime minister is | the same if it required parliamentary approval to be installed | (cabinet reshuffles are allowed without parliament approval only | if the political composition, i.e. political parties | represented, of the cabinet stays the same). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2012): D5012 | | Note from the Collaborator: The Prime Minister is generally | chosen by the President. In a broad sense, one could say that | the Prime Minister belongs to the Frontier Party because he was | chosen by the President belonging to the Frontier Party | [Party A (1)], which means that the Prime Minister probably has | the same political view with the President. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): D5012 | | There is no formal PM in Switzerland. Instead, executive power | is exercised by a collective organism called the Federal Council | of Switzerland. This organism has seven members and is elected | by the Federal Assembly (which is composed of two organs, the | Council of States and National Council) for a four-year term. | Since 1959 the Federal Council has been composed of a coalition | of all major parties (SVP/UDC, SP/PS, FDP/PRD, and CVP/PDC), an | arrangement called the "magic formula." The Council elects each | year among its members a president, but this position is | presumably largely ceremonial. Consequently, this variable is | coded with 97 "Not-applicable." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5013_A >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION AFTER ELECTION - PARTY A D5013_B >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION AFTER ELECTION - PARTY B D5013_C >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION AFTER ELECTION - PARTY C D5013_D >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION AFTER ELECTION - PARTY D D5013_E >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION AFTER ELECTION - PARTY E D5013_F >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION AFTER ELECTION - PARTY F D5013_G >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION AFTER ELECTION - PARTY G D5013_H >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION AFTER ELECTION - PARTY H D5013_I >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION AFTER ELECTION - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M03c. Number of cabinet posts (portfolios) held by PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I] after the election. .................................................................. 00.00-99.00. NUMBER OF CABINET POSTS BEFORE ELECTION 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5013_ | | Parties are identified in Part 3 of the Codebook. | | Ministers are considered those members of government who are | members of the Cabinet and who have Cabinet voting rights. | | Source: CSES Macro Report M3c. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D5013_G/H | | PARTY G (Republican Proposal, PRO) and PARTY H (Radical Civic | Union, UCR) is part of the alliance Let's Change Cambiemos | (PARTY B). The individual share of cabinet seats for | constituent parts of the alliance are also available and are | detailed here. Data for the share of cabinet seats for the | entire alliance that these parties belong to is detailed in | D5013_B. The complete distribution of cabinet portfolios for | Argentina is obtained by taking into account the number of | portfolios for parties A-F inclusive. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2014): D5013 | | The data refers to the so called Second Borisov Cabinet, | formed on November 7, 2014, after the parliamentary elections | which were held on October 5, 2014. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): D5013_A | | In addition to 30 full cabinet ministers from Party A (PS), | there are 2 full cabinet ministers from Party F (Europe | Ecologie Les Verts; EELV), two from Party 16 (Parti radical | de gauche; PRG) and one independent cabinet minister. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012): D5013 | | The data refers to the government formed after the elections | of June 17, 2012. In addition to the listed members, there was | one independent cabinet member. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D5013 | | In Hong Kong, the Executive Council (ExCo), which is established | to assist the Chief Executive (CE; equivalent of Prime Minister, | or President) in policymaking, is some equivalent of the cabinet | elsewhere. However, the majority views of the ExCo, if any, are | not binding and it is up to the CE to decide whether to accept | them or not. In this sense, the ExCo members do not have voting | rights. | After the 2012 elections, the ExCo had 32 members (including the | CE, 15 official members and 16 non-official members). Five of | the non-official ExCo members have party affiliation, reported | in this variable. One of the five members belongs to party Rural | Council, and another one to Business and Professional Alliance | for Hong Kong. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2013): D5013_A | | Likud have 12 cabinet ministers while Yisrael Beiteinu have 4. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D5013 | | The data refers to Abe cabinet which was formed on Dec. 26, | 2012. | Since the current elections refer to the Upper House elections, | the data about the Cabinet prior the election (variables D5008, | D5009_ and D5010 are the same as those for the period after the | election (variables D5012, D5013_, D5014). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D5013 | | All member of the Cabinet after the election, including the | President and Vice President, were members or affiliated with | the Jubilee Coalition, of which principal members were parties | TNA (Party A) and URP (Party C). This alliance supported the | winning presidential candidate coming from TNA (Party A). | In addition to the 11 members of the Cabinet recorded in this | variable, there were 7 nominally independent members, one from | New Ford Kenya party, one from the Republican Congress Party, | and 2 former members of the ODM (opposition Party B). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2011): D5013 | In addition to the listed portfolio, there were two independent | cabinet member, but according to the collaborator, they were | affiliated with party Unity (PARTY C). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): D5013 | | In addition to the portfolios (State Secretaries) coded in the | data, there were 5 additional independent ministers. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2015): D5013 | | Mexico has a presidential system. After the 2015 election | there were 18 cabinet posts, including the General Attorney | who is appointed by the President but has to be approved by | the Senate as the Foreign Affairs Secretary. There is no | voting in the cabinet, and positions are not necessarily | political. In addition to the portfolios (State Secretaries) | coded in D5013, the remaining posts were held by independent | candidates. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2012): D5013_A | | Party A represents coalition of Democratic Party of Socialists | (DPS; dominant member) and Social Democratic Party (SDP). The | former obtained 14 cabinet posts, and the later 3 cabinet posts. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D5013 | | There were 23 cabinet members after the election. However, | most are independent, while some are members of parties | participating in the party list (proportional) electoral | segment. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2011): D5013 | | Six additional posts were held by independent ministers, but, | according to the Macro Report, close to or affiliated with | the Platforma Obywatelska (Party A). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D5013_G | | PARTY G (Social Democratic Party, PSD) is part of the alliance | Social Liberal Union (coded PARTY A). The individual share of | cabinet seats for constituent parts of the alliance are also | available and are detailed here. Data for the share of | cabinet seats for the entire alliance that this party belong to | is detailed in D5013_A. The complete distribution of cabinet | portfolios for Romania is obtained by taking into account | the number of portfolios for parties A-E inclusive. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D5013_H | | PARTY H (National Liberal Union, NLP) is part of the alliance | Social Liberal Union (coded PARTY A). The individual share of | cabinet seats for constituent parts of the alliance are also | available and are detailed here. Data for the share of | cabinet seats for the entire alliance that this party belong to | is detailed in D5013_A. The complete distribution of cabinet | portfolios for Romania is obtained by taking into account | the number of portfolios for parties A-E inclusive. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D5013_I | | PARTY I (Liberal Democratic Party, PDL) is part of the alliance | Alliance for a Just Romania (coded PARTY B). The individual | share of cabinet seats for constituent parts of the alliance | are also available and are detailed here. Data for the share of | cabinet seats for the entire alliance that this party belong to | is detailed in D5013_B. The complete distribution of cabinet | portfolios for Romania is obtained by taking into account | the number of portfolios for parties A-E inclusive. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5013 | | This Cabinet (so-called Ponta 3 Cabinet) was in the office until | December 13, 2014. Following the presidential elections, the | UDMR decided to leave the governing coalition because of the | anti-PSD vote of the Hungarian voters. Because this involved a | political change in the Cabinet parliamentary approval was | sought and received on December 17, 2014. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SERBIA (2012): D5013 | | The Serbian government has one Prime Minister, one or more | vice-ministers and ministers - they together constitute the | cabinet and they all have voting right. After the 2012 | elections, the Serbian government had 19 members with voting | rights: one Prime Minister, four Deputy Prime Ministers, and 14 | ministers. In the new government, the Prime Minister is also | Minister of Internal Affairs. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SERBIA (2012): D5013_A | | Party A (SNS) had six cabinet members, plus two independents by | nominated by the SNS. Hence, SNS was coded as having 8 Cabinet | members. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SERBIA (2012): D5013_C | | Party C, SPS, participated in the election as a senior member in | coalition with PUPS. SPS ended up with 4 cabinet members and URS | with one. Given the dominant position of SPS over URS, the | data includes cabinet members of both parties. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2016): D5013_G D5013_H | | Siet (PARTY H) split on August 31, 2016, with several members | quitting the party, including party leader Radoslava Prochazka, | and the party losing its status as an official party | in the Slovak parliament. Siet lost its sole cabinet position | in this split. The Most-Hid (Bridge Party - PARTY G) was | allocated a third position in cabinet on August 31, 2016 as a | result of the Siet split. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D5013 | | All Cabinet Ministers were from the KMT. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5014 >>> SIZE OF THE CABINET AFTER --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M03d. The size of the cabinet after the election. .................................................................. 00.00-99.00. SIZE OF THE CABINET 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5014 | | Source: CSES Macro Report M3d. | | Definitions: | a) Parliamentary and Semi-Presidential Regimes: | Cabinet size is defined by the total number of ministers | (persons, not posts) in a defined government. Ministers are | considered members of a cabinet when they exercise voting | rights. This number includes both ministers with and without | portfolio, but excludes deputy ministers, undersecretaries, | parliamentary secretaries, ministerial alternates, given that | in the majority of cases, they do not exercise full voting | rights. | b) Presidential Regimes: | Cabinet size is defined by the total number of ministers or | secretaries who head a ministry. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D5014 | | The size of the cabinet is 21 seats in total with six cabinet | positions occupied by Independents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D5014 | | In addition to 7 cabinet members from the Social Democratic | Party (SPO, PARTY A) and 5 from the Austrian People's Party | (OVP, PARTY B), there were two Independent members (nominated | by the Austrian People's Party (OVP)). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D5014 | | The size of the cabinet is 39 seats in total with thirteen | cabinet positions occupied by Independents and a further two | occupied by the PCdoB and the PDT parties respectively. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2014): D5014 | | These data refer to the so called Second Borisov Cabinet, | formed on November 7, 2014, after the parliamentary elections | which were held on October 5, 2014. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D5014 | | The Executive Council (ExCo) has 32 members (including the CE, | 15 official members and 16 non-official members). However, both | the official and non-official members do not have voting rights | in the ExCo (see ES note for D5013). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D5014 | | The data refers to Abe cabinet which was formed on | December 26, 2012. | Since the current elections refer to the Upper House elections, | the data about the Cabinet prior the election (variables D5008, | D5009_ and D5010 are the same as those for the period after the | election (variables D5012, D5013_, D5014). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): D5014 | | Since December 1, 2013 the cabinet in Mexico consists of | twenty secretariats. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): D5014 | | The size of the cabinet is 18 seats in total with eight cabinet | positions occupied by Independents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D5014 | | The size of the cabinet is 28 seats in total with one cabinet | position occupied by an Independent. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011): D5014 | | This number includes 12 ministerial posts (one of them | without portfolio), plus the Prime Minister and a Deputy | Prime Minister. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2011): D5014 | | This data contain 35 ministers plus the prime minister for a | total of 36. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5015 >>> NUMBER OF PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN ELECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M04a. How many political parties received votes in the election? .................................................................. 001-900. NUMBER OF PARTIES 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5015 | | Source: CSES Macro Report M4a. | | This variable reports the number of participating political | parties, not merely alliances or coalitions of political parties | about which official information was available. | Independent candidates are not counted. Where coalitions are | present member parties are counted separately. | This variable primarily concerns the Lower House election. | However, if a particular study is focused on the Upper House, or | Presidential election, it may report results for these | elections. Please see ELECTION STUDY NOTES. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D5015 | | Parties comprising coalitions are counted separately. If | coalitions are counted as one grouping, the number of parties | competing reduces to 20. The number of parties competing in the | Presidential election is 35 if counted separately, although this | reduces to 6 if coalitions are counted as one grouping. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D5015 | | 36 parties received votes in the Australian House of | Representatives election of 2013. The Liberal and Liberal | National Party are counted as separate parties. | Additionally, the National Party and the Country Liberals that | run in the Northern Territory are also considered separate | parties. Furthermore only six parties received votes in excess | of 1% nationally. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D5015 | | There were 14 parties which received votes in the Austrian | federal election 2013. PARTY F (The New Austria, NEOS) is an | alliance of three parties of The New Austria (NEOS), the Liberal | Forum (LiF) and the Young Liberals (Julis). Because it competed | as a joint list, the alliance was counted as one party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D5015 | | Data refers to number of parties receiving votes in the Chamber | of Deputies election (Lower House). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2014): D5015 | | The data (42 parties) refers to the total number of political | parties that participated in the election. There were only 25 | electoral lists that competed in the election. Three of them | were coalitions. | Coalition 'Reformers Block' consisted of 5 parties. Coalition | 'Patriotic front' consisted of 2 parties. Coalition 'BSP - Left | Bulgaria' consisted of 13 parties. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D5015 | | The data contains the number of parties who received list votes. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): D5015 | | The data (29 parties) refers to the total number of political | parties that participated in the election. There were | 23 electoral lists that obtained votes in the election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D5015 | | The data reflects the number of parties participating in the | geographical constituency elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D5015 | | The data refers to the Prefectural District elections for the | Upper House. | In elections for the proportional segment of the Upper House, | 12 parties participated. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D5015 | | In the Lower House Elections, 60 parties participated, of which | 21 parties won at least one seat. In Presidential Elections run | 8 parties/coalitions, while in the Upper House Elections 44 | parties participated (10 parties won at least 1 seat). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011): D5015 | | The data represents the number of parties who received list | votes (tier 2). 23 parties received votes at the constituency | level (tier 1). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2014): D5015 | | These data represents the number of parties who received list | votes (tier 2). 24 parties received votes at the constituency | level (tier 1). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): D5015 | | This data represents the number of parties competing for the | votes in Congress elections. Officially, 15 entities are listed | as participating in the election, but some were disqualified | before the elections. As a result, 11 entities received votes, | one of which was an electoral coalition, the Alianza Popular | (PARTY E). The Alianze Popular consists of the Partido Aprista | Peruano and Partido Popular Cristiano. | In the presidential elections, 10 candidates received votes, | although 4 additional candidates are officially listed (received | no votes). Again, one candidate was supported by a coalition of | two parties (PARTY E). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D5015 | | Political parties in the Philippines are numerous and diverse | ideologically. Different subsets of parties participated in | the Presidential, Senate and Congress elections of 2016. | Electoral Commission lists 169 registered/accredited political | parties, as of January 25, 2016 | (http://www.comelec.gov.ph/?r=2016NLE/PoliticalParties. Date | accessed: January 25, 2016). | In the Congress election, 26 parties participated in the | congressional districts elections, while 115 parties | participated in the Party List elections (the secondary | or proportional segment). In the Senate election, 11 parties | competed along with 22 independent candidates. | The data in this variable refers to the number of parties | participating in the Congressional district elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2011): D5015 | | The data refers to the number of parties competing in the Lower | House election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): D5015 | | The electoral alliance Portugal Ahead (PPD-PSD/CDS-PP) was | counted as one party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D5015 | | Data refers to number of parties receiving votes in the | Chamber of Deputies election (Lower House). Parties comprising | coalitions are counted separately. If coalitions are counted | as one party, the number of parties competing reduces to 30. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SERBIA (2012): D5015 | | The data (42) refers to the number of parties taking part in | the 2012 Serbian parliamentary elections. However, they | participated within various electoral coalitions. There were 18 | electoral lists that competed in the election. | In the first round of the 2012 presidential elections there were | 9 non-independent candidates. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): D5015 | | The data (15) refers to the number of party lists that obtained | at least 0.20% of the national vote. In the official sources, | about 2.2% of the total vote was obtained by an unspecified | group of party lists, termed "Other." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D5015 | | 15 political parties received votes in the legislative | elections, 3 political parties received votes in the | presidential elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D5015 | | The data refers to parties that fielded candidates in the | Presidential election. Estimates of the number of parties that | contested the House of Representative and Senate elections are | available in the US Macro Report. However, it should be noted | that estimating the number of parties contesting the election | is difficult as parties do not always use the same names and | sometimes vote records do not acknowledge smaller parties, but | instead collate the results under an umbrella "other" category. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5016_A >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY A D5016_B >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY B D5016_C >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY C D5016_D >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY D D5016_E >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY E D5016_F >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY F D5016_G >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY G D5016_H >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY H D5016_I >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M05.a-i. Ideological Family Party is Closest to: .................................................................. 01. ECOLOGY PARTIES 02. COMMUNIST PARTIES 03. SOCIALIST PARTIES 04. SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTIES 05. LEFT LIBERAL PARTIES 06. LIBERAL PARTIES 07. RIGHT LIBERAL PARTIES 08. CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC PARTIES 09. CONSERVATIVE PARTIES 10. NATIONAL PARTIES 11. AGRARIAN PARTIES 12. ETHNIC PARTIES 13. REGIONAL PARTIES 14. INDEPENDENT PARTIES 15. OTHER 97. NOT APPLICABLE 98. NO IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY MENTIONED 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5016_ | | Parties are identified in Part 3 of the Codebook. | | This variable represents the expert judgment of the national | collaborators as to which ideological family each party belongs | to. Often collaborators provide two characterizations for a | party. These multiple characterizations are detailed in | the ELECTION STUDY NOTES below with details of what | characterization is coded in the dataset. | Collaborators at times provide additional information to help | refine the characterization and when applicable these are | detailed in the ELECTION STUDY NOTES below. | | Source: CSES Macro Report M5.a-f. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2014): D5016_C | | PARTY C (Movement for Rights and Freedoms, DPS) | is officially characterized as being Liberal party, | but analysts classify it as an ethnic party due to its | leadership, membership and most of its policies and campaigning. | The latter characterization is coded in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2014): D5016_D | | PARTY D (Reformist Block, RB) consists of the following parties: | BAPU, MBC, MSB, PPFD, UDF. These member-parties are | categorized by the collaborator in the following manner: | Conservative Parties, Liberal Parties, Right Liberal Parties, | Christian Democratic Parties. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2014): D5016_F | | PARTY F (Bulgaria Without Censorship, BBZ) is classified as | a populist party without clear orientation. Subsequently it | started leaning towards the right-wing spectrum (currently, its | Member of the European Parliament belongs to the Conservatives, | but at the moment of the elections this was not so clear; the | politician in question was hesitating if he should join the | Liberals or the Conservatives). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2015): D5016_D | | PARTY D (The Bloc Quebecois, BQ) was characterized as both a | "National" and a "Regional" party. Only the first | characterization is coded in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2013): D5016_F | | PARTY F (Usvit) is a radical right party, against immigration, | Islam, Roma, NGOs, EU, in favor of direct democracy (example | referendums, direct election of executive offices and the | possibility of recall of politicians. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2015): D5016_C | | PARTY C (The Finns Party, PS) is also described as | populist party by the collaborator. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012): D5016_A | | PARTY A (New Democracy, ND) is characterized as a Conservative | and a Christian Democratic party. Only the first | characterization is coded in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012): D5016_E | | PARTY E (Golden Dawn, LS_XA) is described as ultra conservative | by the collaborators. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): D5016_C | | PARTY C (Golden Dawn, LS_XA) is described as an extreme | right-wing party by the collaborators. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): D5016_F | | PARTY F (The Independent Greeks, ANEL) is characterized as a | Nationalist party and a right-wing populist party. Only the | first characterization is coded in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2013): D5016_A | | PARTY A classifies the alliance between the Likud Party and | Yisrael Beiteinu which was established for the 2013 elections. | The alliance was for the purposes of the 2013 elections only | and both continue to be separate parties. The alliance is | characterized as both National and Conservative. Only the | former characterization is coded in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D5016_F | | PARTY F (Komeito, K) is described as Religious Party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2013): D5016_B | | PARTY B (Progressive Party, F) is characterized as an | Agrarian/Liberal Centre party. Only the first characterization | is coded in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2011): D5016_A | | PARTY A (Harmony Centre, SC) is characterized as a an Ethnic | and a Social Demcoratic party. Only the first characterization | is coded in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2011): D5016_E | | PARTY E (Union of Greens and Farmers, ZZS), is characterized | as an Agrarian and Ecology party. Only the first | characterization is coded in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2014): D5016_A | | PARTY A (Harmony Centre, SC) is also described as being an | Ethnic party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2014): D5016_C | | PARTY C (Union of Greens and Farmers, ZZS), is characterized | as an Agrarian and Ecology party. Only the first | characterization is coded in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2015): D5016_A | | PARTY A (Institutional Revolutionary Party, PRI) was fully | characterized as a moderate Social Democratic party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2015): D5016_C | | PARTY C (Party of the Democratic Revolution, PRD) was fully | characterized as a radical Social Democratic party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2015): D5016_D | | PARTY D (National Regeneration Movement, MORENA) was fully | characterized as a radical Social Democratic party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2012): D5016_A | | The data for PARTY A refer to Democratic Party of Socialists | (DPS), the dominant member of the alliance. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D5016_C | | PARTY C (Progress Party, FrP) is characterized as an | Right Liberal/Populist party. Only the first characterization | is coded in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D5016_I | | PARTY I (Red Party, R) is characterized as a "Radical" | Socialist" party. Only the first characterization is coded in | the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): D5016_D | | PARTY D (Alliance for Progress of Peru, APP) is characterized | as a Personalistic/Clientelistic party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): D5016_F | | PARTY F (Peoples' Action, AP) is characterized as a Centrist | party which was formerly a Social Democratic party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): D5016_E | | The data characterizes Party A - Alianza Popular. It is | an electoral coalition consisting of Partido Aprista | Peruano and Partido Popular Cristiano, both of which | also belong to the family of "9. Conservative Parties". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2011): D5016_B | | PARTY B (Law and Justice Party, PiS) was fully characterized | as a Nationalist-Populist party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2011): D5016_C | | PARTY C (Palikots Movement, RP) is characterized as an a leftist | anti-clerical party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): D5016_A | | PARTY A (The Portugal Ahead Alliance, PaF) is made up of the | Social Democratic Party (PPD-PSD) & the People's Party (CDS-PP). | Separate ideological family classifications are provided for | each party. D5016_A represents the classification for the Social | Democratic Party (PPD-SPD) while D5016_H represents the | classification for the People's Party (CDS-PP). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): D5016_C | | PARTY C (Left Bloc, BE) is characterized as an | "Communist/Left Liberal" party. Only the first characterization | is coded in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): D5016_D | | PARTY D (Unitary Democratic Coalition, PCP-PEV) is | characterized as an "Ecology/Communist" party. Only the first | characterization is coded in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2013): D5016_H | | See note for D5016_A | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5016_D | | PARTY D (People’s Party Dan Diaconescu, PP_DD) is characterized | as a Populist-Left party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5016_E | | PARTY E (Greater Romania Party, PRM) is characterized as a | Nationalist-Left party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SERBIA (2012): D5016_B | | PARTY B (Democratic Party, DS) is also described as a Social | Democratic party and a Left-Liberal party. Only the first | characterization is coded in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SERBIA (2012): D5016_F | | PARTY F (United Regions of Serbia, URS) is a party characterized | as supporting decentralization and regionalization but besides | these policy stances, lacks a clear ideological profile. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2016): D5016_E | | PARTY E (The People's Party/Our Slovakia, LSNS) is characterized | as an extreme right party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2016): D5016_H | | PARTY H (Siet, S) is characterized as a "Liberal-Conservative" | party. Siet Only the first characterization is coded in the | dataset. Siet is an inter-ethnic party which called for closer | co-operation between the ethnic Hungarian population in Slovakia | and ethnic Slovaks. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2016): D5016_I | | PARTY H (Christian Democratic Movement, KDH) is characterized | as a Christian Democratic-Conservative party. Only the first | characterization is coded in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011): D5016_E | | PARTY E (Democratic Party of Retired Persons, DeSUS) is | described as an issue specific party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D5016_D | | PARTY D (Inkatha Freedom Party, IFP) is characterized | as an Ethnic and a Conservative party. Only the first | characterization is coded in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D5016_F | | PARTY F (United Democratic Movement, UDM) is characterized | as a Regional and a Social Democratic party. Only the first | characterization is coded in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D5016_G | | PARTY G (Freedom Front Plus, FF+) is characterized | as an Ethnic and a Conservative party. Only the first | characterization is coded in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2012): D5016_D | | PARTY D (Liberty Forward Party, LFP) is fully described as | "Conservative Party, Regional Party based on Chung-cheong | region" by the collaborator. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): D5016_F | | PARTY F (Green Liberal Party, GLP/PVL) was also characterized | as 06. LIBERAL PARTIES. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2011): D5016_A to I | | According to the Macro Report, none of the proposed categories | fit the political parties in Thailand. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2015): D5016_F | | According to the collaborators, "The Patriotic Party | (Vatan Partisi) represents an eccentric mix of ideologies | including nationalism, statism, Marxism." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5017_A >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY A D5017_B >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY B D5017_C >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY C D5017_D >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY D D5017_E >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY E D5017_F >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY F D5017_G >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY G D5017_H >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY H D5017_I >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M06a.a-i. Parties' positions on the left-right scale (in the expert judgment of the CSES Collaborator): .................................................................. 00. LEFT 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. RIGHT 97. NOT APPLICABLE; NO LOWER HOUSE ELECTIONS 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5017_ | | Parties are identified in Part 3 of the Codebook. | | This variable represents the expert judgment of the national | collaborators as to where parties are located on the left-right | ideological scale. Sometimes parties ideological differences in | certain polities on the left-right scale are difficult to | detect, perhaps because party competition is not structured on | the left-right dimension. These instances are detailed in | ELECTION STUDY NOTES below. Moreover, D5018 details an | alternative expert judgment scale based on national | collaborators ratings of parties on a scale of their choice | which is related to relevant national political circumstances. | | Source: CSES Macro Report Q6a.a-i. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D5017 | | The left-right estimates presented here are based on an expert | survey with the members of the AUTNES team. The resulting | numbers were averaged and rounded across all members of the | team (n=11). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): D5017_E | | The data (left-right score of 8) characterizes Party A - | Alianza Popular. It is an electoral coalition consisting of | Partido Aprista Peruano and Partido Popular Cristiano. The | collaborator assigned them the left-right scores of 7 and 8, | respectively. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2011): D5017 | | According to the Macro report: "In Poland the Left- | Right dimension is related (almost exclusively) to socio- | cultural and symbolic issues. The [provided] positioning is | based on socio-cultural dimension." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): D5017_A | | The Portugal Ahead (PaF) alliance is made up of the of the | Social Democratic Party (PPD-PSD) and the People's Party | (CDS-PP). The left-right classification refers to the Alliance | as a whole rather than each party individually. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5017_H | | This data refers to the independent candidate Popescu- | Tariceanu Calin-Constantin-Anton, coded as Party H/87. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5017_I | | This data refers to the independent candidate Macovei | Monica-Luisa, coded as Party I/88. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2011): D5017_A to I | | All political parties in Thailand were coded 5 by the | collaborator. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNTIED STATES (2012): D5017_C-D5017_E | | Data for Parties G (Libertarian Party, LP), H (Green Party, | GPUS) and I (Constitution Party, Con) are listed in slots C | (Libertarian Party, LP), D (Green Party, GPUS) and E | (Constitution Party, Con). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5018 >>> ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M06b. Were respondents asked to rank political parties on an alternative dimension, other than the left-right dimension? .................................................................. 1. YES [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES FOR THE DIMENSION LABELS] 5. NO 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5018 | | This variable represents the expert judgment of the national | collaborators as to where parties are located on a particular | scale unique to the polity. The decision as to what scale is | invoked is the decision of the national collaborator and is | designed to represent party positions on a scale relevant to | national political circumstances. | The type of scales and the labels assigned to each are | detailed below in the ELECTION STUDY NOTES. | | Data are available for HONG KONG (2012), LATVIA (2011), LATVIA | (2014), MEXICO (2012), MEXICO (2015) and POLAND (2011). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D5018 | | The Hong Kong alternative scale measures the expert judgments | of the national collaborators as to party's positions on | Hong Kong's relationship with China. The dimension is classified | as Pro-Periphery (Hong-Kong) versus Pro-Centre (Beijing). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2011 & 2014): D5018 | | The Latvia alternative scale measures the expert judgments | of the national collaborators as to party's positions on | whether they are Pro-Slavic or Pro-Latvian. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012 & 2015): D5018 | | The Mexico alternative scale measures the expert judgments | of the national collaborators as to party's positions on | whether they are Liberal or Conservative. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2011): D5018 | | The Poland alternative scale measures the expert judgments | of the national collaborators as to party's positions on | whether they favour a solidarity or liberal Poland. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5018_A >>> ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY A D5018_B >>> ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY B D5018_C >>> ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY C D5018_D >>> ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY D D5018_E >>> ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY E D5018_F >>> ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY F D5018_G >>> ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY G D5018_H >>> ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY H D5018_I >>> ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M06b.a-i. Parties' positions on the alternative scale (in the expert judgment of the CSES Collaborator): .................................................................. 00. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES FOR THE DIMENSION LABELS] 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES FOR THE DIMENSION LABELS] 97. NOT APPLICABLE 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5018_ | | Parties are identified in Part 3 of the Codebook. | | This variable represents the expert judgment of the national | collaborators as to where parties are located on a particular | scale unique to the polity. The decision as to what scale is | invoked is the decision of the national collaborator and is | designed to represent party positions on a scale relevant to | national political circumstances. | The type of scales invoked are detailed above in variable D5018. | The labels for each polity are detailed below in the | ELECTION STUDY NOTES. | | Source of data: CSES Macro Report Q6b. | | Data are available for HONG KONG (2012), LATVIA (2011), LATVIA | (2014), MEXICO (2012), MEXICO (2015) and POLAND (2011). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D5018_ | | Label for left hand position (Code 0): Pro-Periphery (Hong | Kong). | ... | Label for right hand position (Code 10): Pro-centre (Beijing). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2011 & 2014): D5018_ | | Label for left hand position (Code 0): Pro-Slavic. | ... | Label for right hand position (Code 10): Pro-Latvian. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012 & 2015): D5018_ | | Label for left hand position (Code 0): Liberal. | ... | Label for right hand position (Code 10): Conservative. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2011): D5018_ | | Label for left hand position (Code 0): Solidarity. | ... | Label for right hand position (Code 10): Liberal. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5019_1 >>> MOST SALIENT FACTORS IN ELECTION - 1ST D5019_2 >>> MOST SALIENT FACTORS IN ELECTION - 2ND D5019_3 >>> MOST SALIENT FACTORS IN ELECTION - 3RD D5019_4 >>> MOST SALIENT FACTORS IN ELECTION - 4TH D5019_5 >>> MOST SALIENT FACTORS IN ELECTION - 5TH --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M07.1-5. In your view, what are the five most salient factors that affected the outcome of the election (e.g., major scandals; economic events; the presence of an independent actor; specific issues)? .................................................................. 001.-899. MOST SALIENT FACTORS CODES [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5019_ | | This variable represents the expert judgment of the national | collaborators as to the most important issues at the time of the | election. Issues are listed in descending order of saliency | (i.e.: most important issues are listed first). | Numerical allocation by CSES is random. Collaborators are asked | to provide up to five salient issues. In some cases, | collaborators provide fewer issues. | | Source of data: CSES Macro Report Q7. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 164. Job approval of the incumbent party. | 165. Inflation. | 166. Corruption scandals. | 167. Public safety. | 168. Candidate quality differentials. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 050. The economy. | 051. Asylum seekers. | 052. Health. | 053. Education. | 054. Policy failures. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 045. Economic development. | 046. Political scandals/corruption. | 047. New parties (NEOS, Team Stronach). | 048. Education. | 049. Euro crisis. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 129. The Petrobras corruption scandal (national oil | company). This scandal concerned bribes and | laundering money that involved former ministers, | the Workers' Party (the government party), and | Congressional representatives of many government | supporting parties. It resulted in corruption being | a key issue, in particular in the Presidential election. | The Workers' Party (PT) was coming to the end of three | consecutive terms of holding the Presidency. | 130. The strong polarization between the first and second | rounds of the Presidential elections. The corruption | scandals, the programmatic differences between parties | and candidates, especially the issue of privatization | and personal attacks where the main themes in the final | three weeks of the 2014 elections. The weeks after the | election were noted for being particularly polarized | with intense demonstrations via conventional and social | media, coinciding with the fieldwork of the 2014 | Brazilian Election Study. | 131. The death of the presidential candidate of the | Brazilian Socialist Party (PSB) Eduardo Campos at the | beginning of the campaign. He was considered to be a | threat to the incumbent President Rousseff. The PSB | selected Marina Silva as their standard bearer in the | election after Campos' death. She came close to | obtaining enough votes to proceed to the second round | run off but was defeated by Aecio Neves from the | Brazilian Social Democratic Party (PSDB). | 132. Economy and the continuity of the Workers' Party at the | Federal Government level. The maintenance of economic | conditions, employment levels, and investment in social | programs were prominent. | 133. Religion and moral values: The presence of very distinct | candidates in the first round stimulated debate about | gay marriage, abortion, and creationism. Marina Silva, | the PSD candidate for the Presidency is a prominent | evangelical Christian in Brazil. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2014): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 134. Disappointment with the corrupt governments during the | previous years (not just the last one). | 135. Lack of media freedom and therefore very biased media | coverage. | 136. Economic crisis creating fears and looking for simple | solutions (including populist and nationalistic ideas). | 137. Purchasing votes (a wide-spread practice over many years | now, which is practiced by many parties). | 138. Street protests against the previous government that | lasted for more than a year (protesters were not | organized in a party running for seats in the Parliament | and therefore, they provoked the elections, but did not | have crucial impact on the actual results, but just on | the political background of the elections). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 124. General orientations: the NDP made gains among the | left-leaning voters (economically and socially). These | factors also account for Conservative support. | 125. Leadership: the NDP made gains due to its leader's | climbing popularity and priming. The Conservative | leader is also appreciated by many. | 126. Partisanship: the Conservatives have the largest group | of partisans. | 127. Issues: the NDP captured voters who favor spending more | on health and the environment and higher corporate taxes. | 128. Campaign strategy: the Bloc's focus on Quebec sovereignty | led some soft nationalists to leave the party and support | the NDP. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2015): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 214. Leadership | 215. Which left-wing party could replace the incumbent | Conservative government | 216. Economy | 217. Niqab Ban | 218. Healthcare. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2013): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 139. Fall of the Necas cabinet following the corruption | and spy scandal and the decline in support for the | Prime Minister's party ODS (Civic Democratic Party). | 140. Formation of the Rusnok cabinet without any support | in the Chamber of Deputies and its being in the office | till early election. | 141. Emergence of a new party ANO 2011, formed and sponsored | by the multi-billionaire Andrej Babis; co-operation of | this party with prominent PR and political marketing | specialists. | 142. Main agenda of election was corruption and | dissatisfaction with established parties. | 143. Acquisition of two national newspapers by Andrej Babis | (party leader of ANO 2011), newspapers were MFDnes (1st | largest newspaper) and Lidove Noviny (4th largest). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2015): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 154. Employment and national economic competitiveness. | 155. Government spending and public debt. | 156. Immigration. | 157. Social welfare, health care and other types of | public services. | 158. The EU, foreign and security politics. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 011. Economic crisis in general (growth, unemployment). | 012. Public debt crisis and the European coordination around | this issue. | 013. Redistribution and the level of taxation. | 014. Immigration. | 015. Pensions' reform. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 055. The Euro Crisis. | 056. Debate about the minimum wage. | 057. Uncontested popularity of Angela Merkel as | Bundeskanzlerin. | 058. Policy failures of the FDP (Liberals). | 059. Debate about motorway tolling. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 060. The possibility of withdrawal / expulsion from the Euro | zone. | 061. The government deficit & debt crisis, the "Memorandum" | between the government and the "Troika" (European | Commission, European Central Bank, International Monetary | Fund), the respective austerity measures. | 062. The danger of no party achieving the majority of seats | needed in the parliament to form a sovereign government. | 063. The potential of forming a coalition government of the | pro-European Union political parties. | 064. The illegal immigration issue. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 209. Austerity policies (linked to the Memorandum between | the Greek government and its creditors, economic | recession and levels of unemployment). | 210. The possibility of withdrawal / expulsion from the Euro | zone. | 211. Rejection of old two-party system and old political | personnel; against corruption and vested interests. | 212. The refugee crisis and illegal immigration. | 213. Restoration of role of Parliament: against growing | democratic deficit in Greece under the crisis. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 172. The economic recovery. | 173. Austerity. | 174. Immigration. | 175. The collapse in support for the Liberal Democrats as a | result of entering into coalition with the Conservative | Party. | 176. The collapse of Labour support in Scotland and the rise | of the Scottish National Party (SNP) following the 2014 | Independence referendum. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2013): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 085. A debate about whether the state should write | down mortgage principle for all. | 086. Ruling of EFTA court regarding the ICESAVE issue | 087. Dis/satisfaction with economic recovery post 2008 | global credit crunch. | 088. Dissatisfaction with political system and parties. | 089. Negotiations about Iceland's membership of the EU. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2011): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 035. Country's economic difficulties. | 036. Unemployment. | 037. IMF/EU bailout agreement. | 038. Political reform. | 039. Health services. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2013): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 100. The Israeli-Arab conflict. | 101. The social protest of 2011 and the socio-economic | issues it put on the agenda. | 102. State-Religion issues. | 103. New centre parties. | 104. Candidates (the joining of charismatic and popular public | figures to party lists and in particular in leadership | positions). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 075. Economy (Abenomics). | 076. Cabinet approval. | 077. Expectation to the new parties (Japan Restoration | Party, Your Party). | 078. Disappointment to the Democratic Party of Japan. | 079. Fragmentation at camp of anti-nuclear plant. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 065. History of the Government of National Unity. With all | sides, including the political parties and the media, | agreeing prior to the campaign to promote calm and | refrain from using potentially inflammatory language, the | election period was mostly peaceful. However, some | observers pointed to a harsher security environment and a | large degree of self-censorship. | (Source: Freedom House Report 2014 Kenya.) | 066. International Criminal Court (ICC) trials. Throughout | 2013, the impending ICC trials of Kenyatta and his deputy | president, William Ruto, for crimes against humanity in | connection with the 2007-08 postelection violence loomed | large. Witnesses against them disappeared or withdrew | amid threats, and civil society organizations and media | outlets that focused on the trials faced intimidation. | (Source: Freedom House Report 2014 Kenya) | 067. The new constitution. The new constitution was intended | to reduce the role of ethnicity in elections. Although | the Political Parties Act requires each party to have at | least 1,000 members in 24 of the 47 counties as a | mechanism for ensuring diversity, ethnicity remains an | entrenched political factor, as the major coalitions | reflected distinctive, though rarely exclusive, ethnic | groupings. The stipulation that all voters must possess | a National Identity Card impeded historically | marginalized groups from greater access to the political | process, in particular nearly seven million pastoralists | from the upper Rift Valley and North Eastern Provinces. | Finally, ongoing extra judicial harassment by the security | forces on the substantial Somali population diminished | their electoral opportunities. | (Source: Freedom House Report 2014 Kenya) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2011): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 197. Convocation of extraordinary elections | 198. Rule of law | 199. Economic crisis | 200. Ethnic cleavage | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2014): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 201. War in Ukraine | 202. Ethnic cleavage | 203. Economic situation | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 040. The state of the economy. Even though the "war" waged | by the government of President Calderon and its | consequences have been felt by most Mexicans, | either indirectly or directly, as the candidates did not | present different alternatives to deal with drug dealers | it probably did not have a major effect on the direction | of citizens' vote. Those people who supported the war | against drugs tended to support Calderon's government, | and by itself the war against drugs did not seem to sway | voters during the campaign. | 041. The candidacy of Gabriel Quadri de la Torre to the | presidency by Nueva Alianza brought a different tone to | the campaign. Quadri was not a member of Nueva Alianza so | he presented himself as an independent candidate bringing | in the voice of the citizenry. He managed to invigorate | the first half of the campaign and to attract young | voters with his liberal discourse. He managed to maintain | some effect after the debates and give Nueva Alianza more | than enough votes it needed to maintain its registration. | 042. "Yo soy 132". College students, both from private and | public universities, created a movement called "Yo soy | 132" (I am 132). It originated from a visit of | Enrique Pena Nieto, PRI's candidate, to the Jesuit | university in Mexico City (Universidad Iberoamericana). | There, students started booing and opposing the candidate | because when he was governor of the State of Mexico | (Estado de Mexico) he ordered the police to break up a | protest by local residents at Atenco. The police used | force and two protesters were killed, and human rights | groups have charged the police with multiple rapes and | violence during that event. The candidate defended his | decision to use force at the time of the protest and he | had to leave the auditorium because of the opposition | from the students. The media and the PRI dismissed the | event and said that it was an incident created by 131 | students. Thus, a movement, mainly through social media, | started with the name "Yo soy 132". The movement took | place mostly, but not only, in Mexico City. There were | protests in Guadalajara, Puebla, Merida, San Cristobal de | las Casas, Hermosillo, Cuernavaca, Tijuana, among others. | Students protested both the media coverage and the PRI's | political positioning on human rights issues and | corruption. Students wanted to organize their own | presidential debate, which they successfully did. All the | candidates, except from Pena Nieto who said that there | were no conditions for impartiality, attended the debate. | 043. The support from all the members of the PAN to the | candidate Josefina Vasquez Mota, was not clear throughout | the election. President Calderon did not seem to be | behind her a hundred percent and former President Vicente | Fox publicly announced that he would vote for Enrique | Pena Nieto, the PRI's candidate. Vasquez Mota did not | have clear conservative position on several social issues | such as abortion, which could have also affected the | support from the panista base. | 044. Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador created a movement called | MORENA (Movimiento de Regeneracion Nacional, National | Regeneration Movement). He asked people to support and | vote for MORENA. But MORENA was not a party so some | analysts argue that some less educated and sophisticated | people could get confused at the time of voting looking | for the MORENA logo. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2015): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 109. Tax reform. | 110. Reforms. High growth expectations and then lower | growth expectations. | 111. "White House". Corruption scandals. | 112. Enforced disappearance of Ayotzinapa students. | 113. PVEM scandal about gifts in campaigns and vote buying. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2012): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 030. Montenegrin-Serbian cleavage. | 031. Economic crisis. | 032. Corruption. | 033. New leader of the opposition. | 034. Bribing scandals. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 021. Satisfaction with the country's economic performance | 022. Satisfaction with the government's leadership. | 023. Strategic Voting encouraged by the National and Act | parties, that probably helped New Zealand First over | the 5% party vote threshold | 024. Poor performance of the leading Opposition party, Labor. | 025. A range of issues on which majority opinion if anything | favored the opposition but with effects overridden by | the above. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2014): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 159. Satisfaction with the country's economic performance and | overall direction. | 160. Satisfaction with the government's leadership. | 161. Poor performance of the leading opposition Labor Party. | 162. Scandals that detracted attention away from policy | debates. | 163. Uncertainty about the nature and stability of an | alternative coalition. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 114. Healthcare. | 115. Education. | 116. Transport and infrastructure. | 117. Environment. | 118. Taxes. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 204. The exclusion, for legal reasons, of two candidates in | the first months of 2016 who had good electoral support. | 205. The slowing down of the economic growth due to | international factors (commodities prices). | 206. Opinion public perception on crime. | 207. Accusations of money laundering among leaders from the | Fuerza Popular party. | 208. Corruption scandals: Lava Jato case. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 182. Revolt of the middle class against the administration of | Pres. Nonoy Aquino. The win of Rody Duterte despite his | late entry in the presidential race exemplified the anger | of the middle class against the administration of Pres. | Noynoy Aquino. Despite the economic success of the Aquino | administration, the middle class felt that they suffered | most from the lack of public services, unfulfilled | promises and break down of peace and order. They see that | the poor have their own targeted economic program | (Conditional Cash Transfers) and the rich getting richer | because of the economic success while they were left out | suffering. | 183. Drugs and crime as campaign issues. Rody Duterte veered | away from the traditional campaign issues of solving | poverty and uplifting the economic conditions of | Filipinos. He focused on addressing the drug and crime | problems of the country which was received positively by | Filipinos. | 184. Use of social media in campaign. The early stages of the | campaign of Rody Duterte was marred by lack of funds from | potential donors. This was evident with the dearth of | political advertisements in traditional media like TV, | radio and newspapers which his rivals have been | capitalizing on from the start. His campaign staff and | group of volunteers turned to Facebook and Youtube to | convey his campaign messages and platforms. This effort | was so effective that each of his campaign posts became | viral. | 185. Citizenship case against Grace Poe. Some analyst believes | that the citizenship case against Grace Poe is one of the | factors she relinquished the early lead in most | pre-election surveys. She cannot really campaign without | being asked about her case. The case was finally resolved | 2 months before elections but it was too late since she | was now overtaken by Rody Duterte for the lead in the | polls. | 186. Televised Presidential debate. The televised debate was | one of the important tools that the voters used in | deciding whom to vote for in the May 2016 elections. | Awareness of the debate was 54% during the first debate | and 74% in the last debate. Plurality of the respondents | polled after the debate mentioned Rody Duterte as the | most sincere candidate who will fulfill his campaign | promises. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2011): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 070. Economic crisis and relative economic success | of Poland. | 071. The consequences of the airplane crash at Smolensk | in 2010, where the President of Poland and ninety- | plus other high-ranked Polish officials lost their lives. | 072. Radicalism of the main opposition party (PiS) in | their electoral appeal. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 119. The slender economic recovery experienced since 2014 | - following the successful completion of the bailout | program by the International Monetary Fund, the European | Central Bank and the European Commission (2011-2014) - | probably was beneficial for the right-wing coalition, | which had carried out a very strict economic adjustment | program as prescribed by international lenders. | 120. The fratricidal dispute which culminated in the election | of current Prime Minister Antonio Costa as leader of the | Socialist Party only 10 months before the general | election of 2015 - after defeating his predecessor | Antonio Jose Seguro in the first open primary in the | history of PS - may have had something to do with the | party's disappointing electoral results. | 121. The pre-electoral coalition between both incumbent | parties on the right side of the political spectrum (the | Social Democratic Party and the People's party) allowed | them to aggregate overlapping electorates and | consequently, to prevent intra-bloc competition and | benefit from electoral system disproportionality. | 122. The prominence acquired by two Left Bloc Members of | Parliament - Mariana Mortágua (during extraordinary | committee hearings on the collapse of a pivotal | Portuguese private bank; BES) and Catarina Martins (the | coordinator of the party) - in the months leading to the | general election, enabled B.E. to achieve its best result | since the formation of the party in 1999. | 123. The bailout of 2011 still hovered over the general | election of 2015. Some electors still blamed the | Socialist Party for filing for bankruptcy in 2011; others | resented the right-wing coalition for the hardships | caused by the already mentioned economic adjustment | program. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 187. The President: Traian Basescu was very unpopular, | turning not just the election itself, | but also the events preceding it throughout 2012, | largely into a referendum on him. | 188. Referendum: In the summer of 2012, a newly formed | parliamentary majority (PSD, PNL, and a few smaller | parties) suspended President Basescu, but this political | decision was not confirmed in a subsequent referendum, | due to low turnout (even though the vast majority of | those who voted did so in favor of the suspension). | 189. Street protests: The year 2012 started with street | protests against the President and the government (for | the first half of 2012, the government was formed by the | PD-L and was backed by Basescu). The protests, which | eventually led to the fall of the government (which was | replaced, in a first instance, by a more technocratic | government, and a few months later by a government | formed by the former opposition - PSD, PNL and their | allies), started because of popular discontent with a | proposal to privatize the health emergency response | system, but they were also a symptom of a much larger, | discontent with the incumbent government, particularly | President Basescu. | 190. Plagiarism: Several members of the new government formed | by PSD and PNL in the summer of 2012 - most notably, the | Prime Minister and leader of the PSD, Victor Ponta - were | accused of plagiarism. In Victor Ponta's case, the | Minister of Education in his government made changes at | the very last moment in organizations dealing with | plagiarism in order to avoid a verdict against Ponta. | Critics of the new government argued that this was just | an example of how the new government was changing the | rules of the democratic game in its favor | (e.g.: changing the Ombudsman overnight with a person | close to them, or an unsuccessful attempt to change the | electoral law to an SMD plurality system). | 191. Economy/austerity: The austerity measures taken in the | years following the economic crisis of 2008-2009 have | affected quite dramatically the population, especially | low-income Romanians (public employees, pensioners). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 192. Ensuring voting rights for the diaspora. Romania grants | its citizens living abroad the right to vote in | parliamentary and presidential elections. The incumbent | government, led by PSD leader and presidential candidate | Victor Ponta, was perceived as trying to hinder the | access to voting of the diaspora, which usually votes for | the PSD in small numbers. This has led to significant | protests between the two rounds of the elections, | intensified by the refusal of the government to do more | in order to facilitate voting for the diaspora. Against | this background, the second round of the elections has | seen a significantly higher turnout and has led to the | victory of the opposition candidate. This issue | overshadows by far any other factors. | 193. Involvement of secret services in politics, media and the | judicial system. In the months prior to the elections | there have been intense discussions on the fact that | Romanian secret services have placed undercover officers | with the judicial system (prosecutors, courts), media | outlets and political parties. The discussions were | initiated once a reputed journalist has publicly admitted | to have been an undercover officer and culminated with | unproven accusations (made by incumbent president Traian | Basescu during the electoral campaign) that the incumbent | Prime Minister and presidential candidate Victor Ponta | had also been an undercover officer of the External | Informations Service (SIE, Serviciul de Informatii | Externe). | 194. Negative campaign: The campaign of Victor Ponta and the | PSD has been very negative in tone with multiple attacks | towards the main opposition candidate (ethnic German, | Protestant Klaus Iohannis) on issues related to religion, | ethnicity and personal life. Accusations and attacks | included among others references to involvement in child | trafficking and being unfit for office because the | Iohannis family has no children. | 195. Widespread corruption. The 2014 presidential campaign | took place in a context marred by citizens’ perception | of widespread political corruption, enforced by the | increasing number of arrests and accusations made by the | National Anti-Corruption Department (DNA). Many | politicians accused of wrongdoing by the DNA have claimed | they are wrongly accused and that accusations are | politically motivated. | 196. Scandal: Victor Ponta’s plagiarized PhD thesis. In 2012 | Victor Ponta was accused of plagiarizing large portions | on his PhD thesis. The Prime Minister had denied | wrongdoing. However, his government has used various | legal and administrative measures to ensure he is not | officially declared guilty of plagiarism and stripped of | his PhD title. This topic has persisted on the public | agenda and was specifically mentioned during the | electoral campaign for the presidential election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SERBIA (2012): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 006. Alleged corruption in government and the ruling parties. | 007. Socio-economic decline - rising unemployment, welfare | issues, etc. | 008. European (EU) integration vs. closer ties with Russia. | 009. National sovereignty issue - Policy towards Kosovo | separatism. | 010. Symbolic issues - social-liberal vs. moral conservatism | (e.g., attitudes towards 'Pride parade', etc.). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2016): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 177. Corruption scandals. | 178. Presence of new parties and political actors. | 179. Debates about coalition options. | 180. Economic performance. | 181. Education system and the strike of the teachers. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 090. Political crisis and instability through the whole | 2008-2011 governmental mandate which was demonstrated | through continuous changes within the government as | well as opposition obstructions and interpellations. | 091. Economic crisis: rise of global and national economic | instability and crisis. With the aim to solve crisis | government proposed a set of reform packages which were | not confirmed by the Parliament, for three of them | referendums were called in 2011 (1) referendum on mini | jobs on April 10, 2011; 2) referendum on Prevention of | Undeclared Work and Employment Act on June 5, 2011; 3) | referendum on pension reform scheme on June 5, 2011). | All of them were rejected. | 092. Restoration of public banking system. | 093. Construction of the block 6 of the Å oÅ¡tanj thermal | power plant. | 094. Alleged corruption and clientelistic affairs: affair | Patria (SDS JanÅ¡a), alleged LDS clientelistic affairs | with bullmastiffs dogs, hiring of the work facilities | space for the National Bureau of Investigation (LDS, | Ministry of Interior Affairs), affair Ultra (by Golobiè, | president of party Zares), affair Dimic (head of the | prime minister's Pahor cabinet); SCT (main road | construction firm in the state) road construction affair | 'Clean shovel'; bankruptcy of major national market | chains and companies (Mura, Merkur, Istrabenz, Vegrad, | SCT - Slovenian construction company); alleged private | money and real-estate laundering in Slovenia and tax | haven in Cyprus (PS - Jankovic). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 169. Issues around service delivery and corruption. | While the opposition pointed to the shortcomings | of government, the ANC campaign highlighted that | it had "A good story to tell" about 20 years of | successful service delivery. | 170. Scandal around President Zuma's private residence | (Nkandla) and the Public Protectors report on the matter. | 171. Stronger political opposition: The emergence of the | EFF and changes within the DA leadership. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2012): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 105. D.dos attack: D.dos attack hit the web-site of the | National Election Commission on October 26, 2011 the | Seoul Mayoral Election. Because of this attack, voters | were not able to access this website and check the voting | place. The secretary Kong of the politician Gu-sik Choi | and other people related to the Grand National Party | raised this scandal. | 106. Problematic nomination in the United Democratic Party. | They had difficulties to nominate candidates until the | nomination deadline and a lot of conflicts and doubts | such as a rigged election on mobile voting during the | process of the nominations. | 107. Bribery at the party progress in the Grand National Party | (after: the Frontier Party). The politician Seung-duk Koh | revealed that he received a bribe from a politician of | the Grand National Party at the party progress in the | Grand National Party in 2008 and was elected. | 108. Problematic statements by the politician Yong-min Kim in | the United Democratic Party: 8 years ago, the politician | Yong-min Kim who was a candidate in the 19th General | Election day mentioned controversial statements through | the Internet broadcasting and this broadcasting was | revealed on the YouTube before the 19th General Election | day. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2014): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 095. Social welfare/healthcare. | 096. Education. | 097. Employment. | 098. Immigration/refugees. | 099. Environment. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 016. Establishment of two new parties (BDP, GLP) at the | national level. | 017. Switzerland's largest party, the national-conservative | SVP, became a victim of the increased polarization of the | Swiss political system during the last 20 years, which | was to a large extent caused by the party itself. | 018. Economic events related to the financial crisis (most | importantly the over-valuation of the Swiss franc). | 019. Comparatively low salience of polarizing issues such as | immigration during the campaign. | 020. The recent popular support for Switzerland's planned | nuclear phase-out (after the incident in Fukushima | Daiichi). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 001. Party identification. | 002. Personal traits and capability of the candidates. | 003. Cross-straits issues: 92 consensus. | 004. Economic issues. | 005. Ma's first term in office. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2011): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 026. Association with former Prime Minister Thaksin | Shinawatra. | 027. Dissatisfaction with the work of Abhisit Vejjajiva | government. | 028. The familiarity with Pheu Thai policy. | 029. Party policy positions. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2015): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 144. New party (HDP / Peoples' Democracy Party). | 145. Kurdish issue. | 146. The economy. | 147. President's role. | 148. Debate about the minimum wage. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D5019 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 080. Economic events. | 081. Republican party divisions over party direction. | 082. Policies enacted since last election (2008) such as the | Affordable Health Care Act. | 083. Evaluation of incumbent President (Obama). | 084. Social issues. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5020 >>> FAIRNESS OF THE ELECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M09a. How impartial was the body that administered the election law? .................................................................. 1. VERY IMPARTIAL 2. MOSTLY IMPARTIAL 3. NOT VERY IMPARTIAL 4. NOT IMPARTIAL AT ALL 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5020 | | Source: CSES Macro Report M9a. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5021 >>> FORMAL COMPLAINTS AGAINST NATIONAL LEVEL RESULTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M09b. Was there a formal complaint against the national level results? .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5021 | | Source: CSES Macro Report M9b. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D5021 | | On February 20, 2014, the Senate election result in 2013 in | Western Australia state were declared void by the Australian | High Court after 1,375 ballot papers were found to be missing | during a recount of the ballots. The High Court ruled that | because the number of lost ballots far exceeded the | margin of victory for the two remaining Senate seats, the only | acceptable remedy was to hold a fresh election. This decision | set in motion the process of an unprecedented special election | held on April 5, 2014. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D5021 | | Formal complaints against the election results are a common | occurrence in Germany with 224 appeals made with respect to the | 2013 elections. None were successful. The reasons for | complaints vary. Reasons include disputes over the layout of the | ballots, disabled people being prevented from voting, and | errors in the vote count. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2013): D5021 | | There were sporadic complains against the results at the | precinct level, thus potentially challenging the national | result given that Israel is based on national level | district PR. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D5021 | | "Through lawsuits, disproportionality among prefectural | districts in the upper house election is judged as | unconstitutional at the courts (at Tokyo, Sendai, and Miyazaki) | on December 20, 2013, although election itself was judged as | effective." (Source: Macro Report). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D5021 | | EU Election Observation Mission to Kenya. | | Source: http://www.eods.eu/library/eu-eom-kenya-2013-final- | report_en.pdf (Date accessed: May 17, 2018) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2011): D5021 | | Formal complaints were reported but Supreme Court of Poland | stated that irregularities were minor and did not have any | influence of election results. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): D5021 | | The Party 'We the Citizens' (NC) challenged the national results | regarding out of country voting. The NC argued that voters | outside Europe, especially in East Asia had not received their | ballot papers in time to vote. The NC claimed this delay | resulted in them failing to get representation in parliament | and asked for the election in the overseas district outside of | Europe to be re-run. The Portuguese Constitutional Court | rejected the argument in a decision taken on October 20, 2015. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5022 >>> ELECTION IRREGULARITIES REPORTED --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M09c. Were there irregularities reported by international election observers? .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 6. NO INTERNATIONAL ELECTION OBSERVERS 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5022 | | Source: CSES Macro Report M9c. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D5022 | | There were serious questions surrounding the tabulation of | results. The IEBC's electronic transmission system failed, and | the manual delivery of ballots was delayed and not transparent. | Moreover, there was significant confusion initially over the | total number of rejected or invalid ballots, as well as | controversy over whether to include the rejected ballots in the | total number of votes cast in the presidential vote. | | Source: Freedom House | https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2015/kenya | (Date accessed: May 17, 2018). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5023_1 >>> DATE ELECTION SCHEDULED - MONTH D5023_2 >>> DATE ELECTION SCHEDULED - DAY D5023_3 >>> DATE ELECTION SCHEDULED - YEAR D5024_1 >>> DATE ELECTION HELD - MONTH D5024_2 >>> DATE ELECTION HELD - DAY D5024_3 >>> DATE ELECTION HELD - YEAR --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M09d. On what date was the election originally scheduled to be held? M09e. On what date was the election actually held? .................................................................. MONTH 01. JANUARY 02. FEBRUARY 03. MARCH 04. APRIL 05. MAY 06. JUNE 07. JULY 08. AUGUST 09. SEPTEMBER 10. OCTOBER 11. NOVEMBER 12. DECEMBER 99. MISSING DAY 01-31. DAY OF MONTH 96. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 99. MISSING YEAR 2011-2017. YEAR 9999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5023_ & D5024_ | | Source: CSES Macro Report M9d-e. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D5023 & D5024 | | This date refers to the first round of elections. The second | round of elections were held on November 22, 2015. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D5023 & D5024 | | This date refers to the first round of elections. The second | round of elections were held for October 26, 2014. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2014): D5023-D5024 | | The current elections were held ahead of time, on October 5, | 2014. Previous parliamentary elections were held on May 12, | 2013. Hence, the next elections were supposed to be held in May | 2017. However, the previous legislature was dissolved on August | 6, 2014. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2013): D5023_2 | | Elections were original scheduled for June 2014 with no specific | day specified as elections are conventionally held across two | days in the Czech Republic. Early elections were held after a | vote of no-confidence against the incumbent government on August | 7, 2013. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2013): D5024_2 | | Elections were held on two days, October 25 and 26, 2013. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): D5024 | | The data refers to the first round of the presidential | election. The second round was held on May 6, 2012. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012): D5023-D5024 | | Due to the failure to form a government after the May 6, 2012 | elections, new elections were held on June 17, 2012. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): D5023-D5024 | | Regular elections were scheduled for June 2016. The current | elections of 25 January 2015 were early elections. | The presidential election due in February 2015 was moved up by | the coalition government of ND and PASOK to December 2014. | According to the Greek Constitution, the president is elected by | parliament by a two-thirds supermajority (on the first or second | round) or, failing that, by a three-fifths majority on the third | round of voting. The candidate nominated by the two governmental | parties was Stavros Dimas, a former European Union (EU) | commissioner and deputy leader of ND. However, the opposition | parties had already declared that they would vote against the | government nominee regardless of the choice. The leaders of | SYRIZA and ANEL were fairly forthcoming in regard to their | motivation to use the election of the president as a tool to | force an election that would oust the ND-PASOK government. As | stipulated by the Greek Constitution, the failure to elect a | new president led to snap parliamentary elections held on 25 | January 2015. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D5023-D5024 | | The originally scheduled election date was changed due to a High | Court ruling that the transition parliament should complete its | full 5 year term before holding elections under the new | constitution. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2011): D5023-D5024 | | Latvian parliamentary elections are scheduled to be held once | every four years. The expected date of elections is on the first | Saturday of October. However, on July 23, 2011, a parliamentary | dissolution referendum was held, and the early elections were | scheduled for September 2011 (instead of 2014). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2014): D5023-D5024 | | Latvian parliamentary elections are scheduled to be held once | every four years. However, because the previous elections of | 2011 were early elections, the subsequent term was reduced to | three years only. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2012): D5023 | | According to Montenegrin electoral law, parliamentary term lasts | 4 years. The date entered here represents the exact 4 years | period since the previous election (held on March 29, 2009). The | law does not specify the exact date of new elections, but states | that the elections should be held at least 15 days before the | expiry of the parliamentary term. The outgoing legislature was | dissolved on July 26, 2012. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2012): D5024 | | The current elections were held ahead of time, on October 14, | 2012, instead in March 2013. The outgoing legislature was | dissolved on July 26, 2012. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5023 & D5024 | | These data refer to the first round of the presidential | election. The second round was held two weeks later, on | November 16, 2014. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SERBIA (2012): D5023-D5024 | | The data (May 6, 2012) refers to the parliamentary elections. | The first round of the presidential election was held on the | same date. | Presidential elections are not scheduled on a specific | date. Presidential term is 5 years, and presidential elections | have to be announced at least 90 days before the expiry of the | mandate, and to finish at least 30 days before the end of the | mandate. Thus, the regular term of the former President Boris | Tadic would expire in January 2013, but early elections were | called. The second round is scheduled 2 weeks after the first | round. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011): D5023-D5024 | | Previous elections were held on September 21, 2008. The next | elections were supposed to be held four years later. According | to the Slovene Constitution "A new National Assembly shall be | elected no sooner than two months and no later than fifteen days | before the expiry of four years from the date of the first | session of the previous National Assembly. If the National | Assembly is dissolved, a new National Assembly shall be elected | no later than two months after the dissolution of the previous | one." (Article 81). | President of the Republic, Danilo Turk, had signed an order | dissolving the Assembly on October 21, 2011. The date | entered under D5023 indicates exactly four years after the | previous elections, although the law does not prescribe the | exact date, but only states that the parliamentary term is | four years. | The early elections were held on December 4, 2011. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5025 >>> ELECTION DATE IRREGULARITIES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M09e. If the election was held on a different date than scheduled, please explain why? .................................................................. 0. ELECTION WAS HELD ON THE SAME DAY AS SCHEDULED 1. ELECTION WAS NOT HELD ON THE SAME DAY AS SCHEDULED [SEE VARIABLE NOTES] 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5025 | | Source: CSES Macro Report M9e. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D5025 | | The term of the Australian House of Representatives (HoR) runs | for three years from the date of the first meeting of the HoR | following the previous election. An election can be held no | later than 31 days beyond the expiry of the House's term, | meaning the 2013 election had to be held by Saturday | November 30, 2013. On January 30, 2013,the Prime Minister Julia | Gillard announced that she intended to hold the general | election on Saturday September 14, 2013. However, Kevin Rudd | replaced Gillard as Prime Minister on June 28, 2013. In August | 2013, he decided the election would be held on Saturday | September 7, 2013. As the Prime Minister advises the Governor | General of the date of the election, no election date | irregularity is classified. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2014): D5025 | | The current elections were held ahead of time, on October 5, | 2014. Previous parliamentary elections were held on May 12, | 2013. Hence, the next elections were supposed to be held in May | 2017. However, the previous legislature was dissolved on August | 6, 2014. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011): D5025 | | The term of the Canadian House of Commons runs for four years | as stipulated in Canada's Election Act. Each general election | is scheduled to be held on the third Monday of October in the | fourth calendar year following polling day of the last general | election. However, on March 22, 2011 the budget of the incumbent | Conservative minority government was rejected by the Canadian | House of Commons. On March 26, 2011 Governor General David | Johnston on the advice of Prime Minister Stephen Harper | dissolved the House of Commons with the general election | scheduled for May 2, 2011. | | Source: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-2.01/ | (Date accessed: May 11, 2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2013): D5025 | | In June 2013, the cabinet fell as a result of corruption and | spy scandal. The newly formed cabinet failed to win a vote of | confidence in parliament as the cabinet had support only | of the President who appoints Prime Minister. A majority of | parties in the Chamber of Deputies passed a resolution | for an early election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012): D5025 | | Due to the failure to form a government after the May 6, 2012 | elections, new elections were scheduled for June 17, 2012 | and were held on that date. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2011): D5025 | | The massive economic downturn worsened the political crisis | that started with the dissolution of the Progressive Democrats | party (one of the government's junior coalition partner) in | 2009. The Green Party (the remaining junior coalition partner) | came under pressure to withdraw support for the government led | by Fianna Fail in late 2010. The Green party withdrew from the | government in January 2011. The Dail was dissolved on January | 29, 2011, with the election held February 25, 2011. | (Source: CSES Macro Report). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2013): D5025 | | The election had been scheduled to take place on October 22, | 2013. However, the incumbent coalition failed to agree on a | budget for the fiscal year 2013 and on October 9, 2012, Prime | Minister Netanyahu opted for early elections, which took place | on January 22, 2013 (Source: Diskin & Hazan 2013). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D5025 | | The originally scheduled election date was changed due to a High | Court ruling that the transition parliament should complete its | full 5 year term before holding elections under the new | constitution. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2011): D5025 | | The National Referendum on dissolution of the 10th Saeima (held | on 23 July 2011) decided to dissolve the parliament. The early | elections were scheduled for September 17, 2011 (instead of | 2014). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2014): D5025 | | Latvian parliamentary elections are scheduled to be held once | every four years. However, because the previous elections of | 2011 were early elections, the subsequent term was reduced to | three years only. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2012): D5025 | | The current elections were held ahead of time, on October 14, | 2012, instead of March 2013. The outgoing legislature was | dissolved on July 26, 2012. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011): D5025 | | This was an early election. | Previous elections were held on September 21, 2008. The next | elections were supposed to be held four years later. However, | President of the Republic, Danilo Turk, had signed an order | dissolving the Assembly on October 21, 2011. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5026 >>> ELECTION VIOLENCE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M10a. To what extent was there violence and voter or candidate intimidation during the election campaign and the election day? .................................................................. 1. NO VIOLENCE AT ALL 2. SPORADIC VIOLENCE ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT 3. SPORADIC VIOLENCE ON THE PART OF OPPOSITION GROUPS 4. SPORADIC VIOLENCE ON ALL SIDES 5. SIGNIFICANT VIOLENCE ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT 6. SIGNIFICANT VIOLENCE ON THE PART OF OPPOSITION GROUPS 7. SIGNIFICANT VIOLENCE OF ALL SIDES 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5026 | | Source: CSES Macro Report M10a. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2014): D5026 | | According to the Bulgarian collaborator, there was no election | violence, but there were instances of voter intimidation. | "There are number of reports of employers or local leaders | putting pressure on people to vote for particular party | (government and opposition both apply this method) in order | to keep their job. Although this is intimidation, it | does not involve violence." (Source: Macro Report). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D5026 | | "However, there were very sporadic quarrels/conflicts among | supporters of different candidates." (Source: Macro Report) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D5026 | | Citizens are free to organize into political parties that | represent a range of ideological, regional, and ethnic | interests, but Kenyan parties are notoriously weak, often | amalgamated into coalitions designed only to contest elections. | Opposition party leaders and members are not routinely harassed | by the state, though there have been sporadic outbursts of | violence by party activists and affiliated ethnic gangs. | | Source: Freedom House | https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2015/kenya | (Date accessed: May 17, 2018). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2015): D5026 | | There were several attacks to the offices and members | of the Kurdish party HDP during the election campaign. | There was some sporadic violence towards the offices | and members of the governing party (AKP) as well. | (Source: Macro report) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5027 >>> GEOGRAPHIC CONCENTRATION OF VIOLENCE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M10b. If there was violence, was it geographically concentrated or national? .................................................................. 1. NO ELECTION VIOLENCE 2. GEOGRAPHICALLY CONCENTRATED 3. NATIONAL 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5027 | | Source: CSES Macro Report M10b. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D5027 | | Politicians from all parties largely avoided the ethnic hate | speech and sponsorship of ethnic violence and crime that | characterized the 2007 election. The killings in Coast province | all took place during March 1-6, mostly immediately prior to or | after voting on March 4. It appears that the incidents prior to | the polling stations opening were intended to intimidate voters | in Coast province into not voting. This objective was not | achieved, and voters demonstrated determination and courage in | turning out in large numbers to vote. | During the two-week period Feb. 25 - March 10 (the day after the | results were announced), 68% of political/ethnic | incidents occurred in North Eastern province and Coast province. | | Source: Carter Center | https://www.cartercenter.org/resources/pdfs/news/peace_ | publications/election_reports/kenya-final-101613.pdf | (Date accessed: May 17, 2018). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5028 >>> POST-ELECTION VIOLENCE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M10c. To what extent was there violence following the election? .................................................................. 1. NO VIOLENCE AT ALL 2. SPORADIC VIOLENCE ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT 3. SPORADIC VIOLENCE ON THE PART OF OPPOSITION GROUPS 4. SPORADIC VIOLENCE ON ALL SIDES 5. SIGNIFICANT VIOLENCE ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT 6. SIGNIFICANT VIOLENCE ON THE PART OF OPPOSITION GROUPS 7. SIGNIFICANT VIOLENCE OF ALL SIDES 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5028 | | Source: CSES Macro Report M10c. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2015): D5028 | | According to the Macro Report, this answer takes | into consideration election-related violence only. | The aftermath of the election witnessed an upsurge | in violence between Turkish armed forces (including | police and army) and armed Kurdish groups. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5029 >>> POST-ELECTION PROTEST --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M10d. To what extent was there protest following the election? .................................................................. 1. NO PROTEST AT ALL 2. SPORADIC PROTEST 3. SIGNIFICANT PROTEST 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5029 | | Source: CSES Macro Report M10d. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D5029 | | The closeness of the results in the second round of the | Presidential election resulted in Aecio Neves, the defeated | candidate asking the Superior Electoral Court to re-check the | results, resulting in sporadic protests. The results were | legitimized by the Superior Electoral Court and the | post-election protests were not too extensive around the time | of the 2014 elections themselves. Protests did however take hold | in 2016 with calls for President Roussleff to be impeached amid | allegations of using funds from state banks to cover budget | shortfalls ahead of her re-election campaign in October 2014. | | Source: BBC News | http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-36028117 | (Date accessed: May 30, 2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2015): D5029 | | There was significant protest but not related to the election | result but the proposed budget cuts by the new government. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): D5029 | | After the election, President Silva re-appointed incumbent Prime | Minister Pedro Passos Coelho (Portugal Ahead). However, his | government lasted only a month, and was defeated in a | parliamentary vote of no confidence put forward by the | Socialist Party (PS) and approved with the support of parties | on the Left. President Silva later appointed Antonio Costa (PS) | as Prime Minister with the Socialists (PS) governing with the | support of parties of the left (although not in coalition). | Post this change of government, there were some peaceful | protests in Lisbon from supporters of both sides, protests | which were linked to the outcome of the election and the | subsequent circumstances surrounding government formation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SERBIA (2012): D5029 | | There was protest between the two rounds of presidential | elections. The opposition candidate's party claimed that the | governing party had been falsifying the election results. | However, the claims were not confirmed, and the allegations | dropped immediately after the second round results were | announced (and the opposition candidate won). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5030 >>> ELECTORAL ALLIANCES PERMITTED IN ELECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M11.1. There are multiple types of electoral alliances/coalitions, but we are explicitly interested in those involving joint lists or candidates - i.e. those where parties compete as a unit during the election. Is this type of electoral coalition legally allowable? .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5030 | | Source: CSES Macro Report M11.1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D5030 | | While electoral alliances are not allowed to form for the | House of Representatives election (Lower House), they are | permitted for Senate (Upper House) election. The coding in | the data reflects the Lower House situation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011) & CANADA (2015): D5030 | | According to the Canada Elections Act (Article 66.5) the | nomination of a candidate requires the name of the political | party that has endorsed the prospective candidate. If none | the candidate's choice is to have either the word "independent" | or no designation of political affiliation under his/her name. | The key is that the article refers to "the political party", | meaning one. | | Source: Canada Elections Act 2000 | http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-2.01/ | (Date accessed: May 11, 2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2015): D5030 | | The Finnish system falls between joint lists and apparentement. | Technically, the joint lists are joint lists (the seats are | allocated to the joint list within constituencies), but the | parties never compete as a unit. On the other hand, there is no | reallocation of seats to the lists in the alliance. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): D5030 | | Such alliances are not forbidden, but neither they are | explicitly allowed. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5031 >>> ELECTORAL ALLIANCES IN PRACTICE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M11.2. Is this type of electoral coalition [mentioned in M11.1.] used in practice, even if not legally allowable? .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5031 | | Source: CSES Macro Report M11.2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5032 >>> DID ANY ELECTORAL ALLIANCES FORM? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M11.3. (If yes to M11.1 or M11.2) Did any electoral alliances form? .................................................................. 1. YES [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 5. NO 7. NOT APPLICABLE [NO ALLIANCES PERMITTED] 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5032 | | Below, we detail the number of alliances and the party in each | alliance by country in English. | | * = Indicates the dominant member(s) of an alliance where | applicable. | | Source: CSES Macro Report M11.3. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D5032 | | Six alliances formed in the 2015 Argentinian election. | They are detailed below. | | | ALLIANCE 1: | Front For Victory (Frente Para la Victoria, PARTY A) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | - Partido Justicialista (PJ Peronists, PARTY G) | | ALLIANCE 2: | Let's Change (Cambiemos PARTY B) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | - Republican Proposal (PRO, PARTY G) | - Radicial Civic Union (UCR, PARTY H) | - Civic Coalition (CC) | | ALLIANCE 3: | United for a New Alternative (UNA, PARTY C) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | - Renewal Front (FR) | - the Christian Democratic Party (CDP) | - Integration and Development Movement. | | ALLIANCE 4: | Workers Left Front (FIT, PARTY D) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | - Workers' Party (PO) | - Socialist Workers' Party (PTS) | - Socialist Left (IS) | | ALLIANCE 6: | Federal Commitment (ACF, PARTY F) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | - Partido Nacionalista Constitucional (PNC) | - Independent Movement for Justice and Dignity (MIJD) | - Federal Peronism | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D5032 | | One alliance formed in the 2013 Austrian election. It is | detailed below. | | | ALLIANCE 1: | Das Neue Oesterreich (NEOS, The New Austria, PARTY F) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | - The New Austria (NEOS)* | - Liberal Forum (LiF) | - Young Liberals (Julis) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D5032 | | Three alliances formed in the 2014 Brazilian election. They are | detailed below. | | | ALLIANCE 1: | Coligacao Com a Forca do Povo (With the Strength of the People) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | - Workers' Party (PT, PARTY A) | - Brazilian Democratic Movement Party (PMDB, PARTY C) | - Democratic Labour Party (PDT) | - Communist Party of Brazil (PC do B) | - Progressive Party (PP, PARTY D) | - Republic Party (PR, PARTY G) | - Social Democratic Party (PSD, PARTY F) | - Republican Party of the Social Order (PROS) | - Brazilian Republican Party (PRB) | | ALLIANCE 2: | Coligacao Muda Brasil (Opposition Coalition Change Brazil) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | - Brazilian Social Democracy Party (PSDB, PARTY B) | - Brazilian Labour Party (PTB) | - Christian Labour Party (PTC) | - Party of National Mobilization (PMN) | - Labour Party of Brazil (PT do B) | - National Labour Party (PTN) | - Solidarity (SD) | - Democrats (DEM, PARTY I) | - National Ecologic Party (PEN) | | ALLIANCE 3: | Coligacao Unidos pelo Brasil (Opposition Coalition United for | Brazil) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | - Social Democratic Party (PSB, PARTY E) | - Progressive Republican Party (PRP) | - Socialist Popular Party (PPS) | - Social Liberal Party (PSL) | - Free Homeland Party (PPL) | - Humanist Party of Solidarity (PHS) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2014): D5032 | | Three alliances formed in the 2014 Bulgarian election. They are | detailed below. | | | ALLIANCE 1: | Reformatorski Blok (RB, Reformist Blok, PARTY D) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | - Movement Bulgaria for Citizens (DBG)* | - Democrats for a strong Bulgaria (DSB)* | - Union of Democratic Forces (SDS) | - Freedom and Dignity People's Party (NPSD) | - Bulgarian Agrarian National Union (BZNS) | | ALLIANCE 2: | Patriotic Front (NFSB and VMRO, PARTY E) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - National Front for Salvation of Bulgaria (NFSB) | - Bulgarian National Movement (VMRO)* | | ALLIANCE 3: | Koalitsiya za Balgariya | Demokratichna Levitsa (KzB|DL, BSP | Left Bulgaria - Coalition for Bulgaria, PARTY B) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP)* | - Party of Bulgarian Social Democrats (PBSD) | - Agrarian Union "Aleksandar Stamboliyski" (ZS-AS) | - Communist Party of Bulgaria (KPB) | - Movement for Social Humanism (DSH) | - Civil Union "Roma" | - New Dawn (Nova Zora) | - European Security and Integration | - Social Democrats (Socialdemokrats) | - United Social Democracy | - Union of Communists in Bulgaria (SKB) | - Ecoglasnost | - Party of Bulgarian Communists | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2015): D5032 | | Three alliances formed in the 2015 Finnish election. However, | these alliances are valid for certain constituencies only. | Below, we detail the alliances and the constituencies they | fought in. | | | ALLIANCE 1: | The alliance has no official name. It fought in the constituency | of Helsinki only. | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - Christian Democrats (KD, PARTY H)* | - "For the Cause of the Poor" (fringe party) | | ALLIANCE 2: | The alliance has no official name. It fought in the constituency | of Varsinais-Suomi only. | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - National Coalition Party (KOK, PARTY B)* | - Swedish People's Party (RKP, PARTY G) | | ALLIANCE 3: | The alliance has no official name. It fought in the constituency | of Constituency of Lapland only. | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - The Finns Party (PS, PARTY C)* | - Christian Democrats (KD, PARTY H) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): D5032 | | Two alliances formed in the 2012 French election. Note that | these are unofficial alliances that supported a certain | candidate in the presidential elections. Along with information | about the candidate they supported, the alliances are detailed | below. | | | ALLIANCE 1: | The alliance has no official name. It supported Francois Holland | (Socialist Party, PS). | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - Socialist Party (PS, PARTY A)* | - Radical Party of the Left (PRG) | - Citizen and Republican Movement (MRC) | - Ecology Generation (GE) | - Citizenship, Action, Participation for the 21st Century | (CAP21) | | ALLIANCE 2: | The alliance has no official name. It supported Nicolas Sarkozy | (Union for a Popular Movement, UMP). | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - Union for a Popular Movement (UMP, PARTY B)* | - Radicals | - New Center (NC) | - Christian Democrat Party (PCD) | - Hunting, Fishing, Nature, Tradition (CPNT) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012): D5032 | | Two alliances formed in the 2012 Greece election. They are | detailed below. | | | ALLIANCE 1: | Synaspismos tis Rizospatikis Aristeras - Enotiko Koinoniko | Metopo Koinoniko Metopo (SYRIZA, Coalition of the Radical Left, | PARTY B) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - Renewing Communist Ecological Left (AKOA) | - Anticapitalist Political Group (APO) | - Democratic Social Movement (DIKKI) | - Internationalist Workers' Left (DEA) | - Active Citizens | - Unitary Front | - Movement for the United in Action Left (KEDA) | - Kokkino | - Communist Organization of Greece (KOE) | - Ecosocialists of Greece (Oikososialistes Elladas) | - Radicals (Rizospastes) | - Rosa | - The Coalition of Left, of Movements and Ecology | (Synaspismos)* | | ALLIANCE 2 | Dimiourgia Xana (DX, Recreate Greece) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - Recreate Greece (DX)* | - Action (D) | - The Liberal Alliance (FS) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): D5032 | | One alliances formed in the January 2015 elections in Greece. | It is detailed below. | | ALLIANCE 1: Anexartitoi Ellines (PARTY F) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | - Ethniki Patriotiki Simmachia | - Agrotiko Ktinotrofiko Komma Elladas | - Lefko | - Pyrikafstos Ellada | - Christianodimokratiko Komma Anatropis | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D5032 | | Three alliances formed in the 2012 Hong Kong election. They all | competed for seats in New Territories East (NTE), only. | | | ALLIANCE 1: | The alliance has no official name. | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - Civil Force* | - New Forum | | ALLIANCE 2: | The alliance has no official name. | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - Democratic Alliance for Betterment and Progress of Hong | Progress of Hong Kong (DAB, PARTY A)* | - New Territories Association of Societies (NTAS) | | ALLIANCE 3: | The alliance has no official name. | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - People Power (PP, PARTY D)* | - The Frontier | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2011): D5032 | | One alliance formed in the 2011 Irish election. It is | detailed below. | | | ALLIANCE 1: | United Left Alliance (ULA, PARTY E) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - Socialist Party (SP, PARTY G) | - People Before Profit Alliance (PBPA) | - Workers and Unemployed Action Group (WUA) | - Independent Candidates | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2013): D5032 | | Four alliances formed in the 2013 Israeli election. They are | detailed below. | | | ALLIANCE 1: | Likud (L) / Yisrael Beiteinu (YB) (National Liberal Party / | Israel Is Our Home, PARTY A) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - National Liberal Party (L) | - Israel Is Our Home (YB) | | ALLIANCE 2: | Habayit Hayehudi (HH, The Jewish Home, PARTY D) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - National Religious Party (Mafdal) | - Resurrection (Tkuma) | | ALLIANCE 3: | Yahadut Hatorah (YH, United Torah Judaism, PARTY F) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - Banner of the Torah | - Union of Israel | | ALLIANCE 4: | HaReshima HaAravit HaMe'uhedet (Ra'am, United Arab List, | PARTY I) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - United Arab List (Ra'am, PARTY I) | - Arab Movement for Renewal (Ta'al) | - Arab Democratic Party (Mada) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D5032 | | Four alliances formed in the 2013 Kenyan election. They are | detailed below. | | | ALLIANCE 1: | The Jubilee Coalition | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - The National Alliance (TNA, PARTY B)* | - National Rainbow Coalition-Kenya (NARC-K) | - United Republican Party (URP, PARTY C) | - Republican Congress (RC) | | ALLIANCE 2: | The Coalition for Reforms and Democracy (CORD) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - Orange Democratic Movement (ODM, PARTY A)* | - Wiper Democratic Movement (WDM, PARTY D) | - Forum for the Restoration of Democracy-Kenya (FORD-Kenya, | PARTY F) | - Kenya Social Kongress | - The Independent Party | - KADU-AILLI | - Peoples' Democratic Party | - Mkenya Solidarity Movement | - Chama Cha Uzalendo | - Muungano Development Movement Party of Kenya | - United Democratic Movement | - Chama Cha Mwananchi | - Federal Party of Kenya | - Labour Party of Kenya | | ALLIANCE 3: | AMANI Coalition | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - United Democratic Forum Party (UDFP, PARTY E)* | - Kenya African National Union (KANU, PARTY H) | - New Ford Kenya (PARTY G) | | ALLIANCE 4: | EAGLE Alliance | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - Kenya National Cogress (KNC)* | - Party of Action (POA) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2011): D5032 | | Two alliances formed in the 2011 elections | in Latvia. They are detailed below. | | | ALLIANCE 1: Harmony Centre (SC, PARTY A) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | - Harmony | - Socialist Party of Latvia | | ALLIANCE 2: Union of Greens and Farmers (ZZS, PARTY E) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | - Latvian Farmer’s Union* | - Latvian Green Party* | - For Latvia and Ventspils | - Liepaja Party | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2014): D5032 | | Three alliances formed in the 2014 elections | in Latvia. They are detailed below. | | | ALLIANCE 1: Unity (PARTY B) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | - Unity* | - Reform Party | | ALLIANCE 2: Union of Greens and Farmers (ZZS, PARTY C) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | - Latvian Farmer’s Union* | - Latvian Green Party* | - For Latvia and Ventspils | - Liepaja Party | | ALLIANCE 3: Latvian Association of Regions (PARTY F) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | - Regional Alliance* | - Vidzeme Party* | - Latvian Social Democratic Workers' Party | - Christian Democratic Union | - Association of People | - Latvian Rebirth Party | - For you, Jurmala | - For Presidental Republic | - Our party | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): D5032 | | Two alliances formed in the 2012 Mexican election. They are | detailed below. | | | ALLIANCE 1: | Compromiso por Mexico (Commitment for Mexico) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI, PARTY A)* | - Ecological Green Party of Mexico (PVEM, PARTY D) | | ALLIANCE 2: | Movimiento Progresista (Progressive Movement) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD, PARTY C)* | - Labor Party (PT, PARTY E) | - Citizens' Movement (MC, PARTY G) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2015): D5032 | | Two alliances formed in the 2015 Mexican election. They are | detailed below. | | | ALLIANCE 1: | Coalicion de Izquierda Progresista (Coalition of the | Progressive Left) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD, PARTY C)* | - Labor Party (PT, PARTY I) | | ALLIANCE 2: | Coalicion PRI-PVEM (Coalition PRI-PVEM) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI, PARTY A)* | - Green Party of Mexico (PVEM, PARTY E) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2012): D5032 | | Four alliances formed in the 2012 Montenegro election. They are | detailed below. | | | ALLIANCE 1: | Albanska Koalicija (AK, Albanian Coalition, PARTY H) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - Democratic League in Montenegro | - Democratic Party of Montenegro | - Albanian Alternative | | ALLIANCE 2: | Demokratski Front (DF, Democratic Front, PARTY B) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - Movement for Changes (PzP) | - New Serb Democracy (NSD)* | - Demcoratic Party of Unity (DSJ) | | ALLIANCE 3: | Koalicija za Evropsku (CG, Coalition "For a European | Montenegro", PARTY A) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS)* | - Social Democratic Party (SDP) | - Liberal Party (LPCG) | | ALLIANCE 4: | Forca za Jedinstvo - Forca per Bashkim (FZJ-FPB, Force for | Unity, PARTY G) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - New Democratic Power - Forca per Bashkim* | - Perspective and the Citizens Initiative | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2014): D5032 | | One alliance formed in the 2014 New Zeland election. | It is detailed below. | | | ALLIANCE 1: | Internet/MANA (PARTY F) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - Internet Party | - Mana Movement | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): D5032 | | One alliance formed in the 2016 elections in Peru. | It is detailed below. | | ALLIANCE 1: Alianza Popular (PARTY E) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | - Partido Aprista Peruano* | - Partido Popular Cristiano | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D5032 | | In the 2016 election no formal coalition was formed by | any of the national parties at the national level | voting (from Macro Report). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): D5032 | | Two alliances formed in the 2015 Portugese election. They | are detailed below. For further information on data | availabiltiy for these coalitions, see Party/Leader Table | (CSES Module 4 Codebook Part 3). | | | ALLIANCE 1: | Portugal a Frente (PaF, Portugal Ahead, PARTY A) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - Social Democratic Party (PPD-PSD) | - People's Party (CDS-PP, PARTY H) | | ALLIANCE 2: | Coligacao Democratica Unitaria (CDU, Unitary Democratic | Coalition, PARTY D) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - Communist Party (PCP) | - Green Party (PEV) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D5032 | | Two alliances formed in the 2012 Romanian election. They are | detailed below. | | | ALLIANCE 1: | Uniunea Social Liberala (USL, Social Liberal Union, PARTY A) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | - Social Democratic Party (PSD, PARTY G) | - National Liberal Party (PNL, PARTY H) | - Conservative Party (PC) | - National Union for Romania's Progress | | ALLIANCE 2: | Alianta Romania Dreapta (ARD, Alliance for a Just Romania | PARTY B) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | - Liberal Democratic Party (PDL, PARTY I) | - Civic Force (CF) | - Christian Democratic National Peasant Party (PNTCD) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5032 | | Two alliances formed in the 2014 Presidential elections | in Romania. They are detailed below. | | | ALLIANCE 1: | PSD-UNPR-PC Electoral Alliance (Alianta Electorala PSD-UNPR-PC) | (PARTY A) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - Social-Democrat Party* (PSD) | - National Union for Romania’s Progress (UNPR) | - Conservative Party (PC) | | ALLIANCE 2: | Christian-Liberal Alliance (Alianta Crestin-Liberala, ACL) | (PARTY B) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - National Liberal Party (PNL) | - Democrat-Liberal Party (PD-L) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SERBIA (2012): D5032 | | Six alliances formed in the 2012 Serbian election. They are | detailed below. | | | ALLIANCE 1: | Choice For A Better Life - Boris Tadic | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | - Democratic Party (DS, PARTY B)* | - Social Democratic Party of Serbia (SDPS) | - League of Social Democrats of Vojvodina (LSV) | - Greens of Serbia (ZS) | - Democratic Alliance of Croats in Vojvodina (DSHV) | - Christian Democratic Party of Serbia (DHSS) | | ALLIANCE 2: | Let's Get Serbia Moving - Tomislav Nikolic | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | - Serbian Progressive Party (SNS, PARTY A)* | - New Serbia (NS) | - Movement of Socialists (PS) | - Strength of Serbia Movement (PSS) | - Serbian Association of Small and Medium Companies | and Entrepreneurs | - Association of Refugees in Serbia | - People's Peasant Party (NSS) | - Bosniak People's Party (BNS) | - Democratic Party of Macedonian | - Roma Party (RP) | - Vlach Unity Movement | - Economic Renewal of Serbia | | ALLIANCE 3: | Turnover - Cedomir Jovanovic. In addition to the members | listed below, the alliance was also supported by the Association | of Free and Independent Trade Unions. | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | - Liberal Democratic Party (LDP, PARTY E)* | - Serbian Renewal Movement (SPO) | - Social Democratic Union (SDU) | - Rich Serbia (BS) | - Vojvodina's Party (VP) | - Democratic Party of Sandzak (SDAS) | - Green Ecological Party | - Party of Bulgarians from Serbia | | ALLIANCE 4: | United Regions of Serbia - Mlaoan Dinkic (URS). In addition to | the members listed below, the alliance also include several | other regional political parties and movements. The alliance | works de facto as a political party. | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | - G17 Plus party (G17+)* | - Together for Sumadija (ZZS) | - People's Party | | ALLIANCE 5: | Socijalistieka Partija Srbije - Partija ujedinjenih penzionera | Srbije - Jedinstvena Srbij (SPS - PUPS - JS, Socialist Party | of Serbia - Party of United Pensioners of Serbia - United | Serbia) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | - Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS, PARTY C)* | - Party of United Pensioners of Serbia (PUPS) | - United Serbia (JS) | | ALLIANCE 6: | Sve Zajedno (All Together) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | - Bosniak Democratic Union (BDZ)* | - Civil Alliance of Hungarians (GSM) | - Democratic Union of Croats (DZH) | - Democratic Fellowship of Vojvodina Hungarians (DZVM) | - Slovak Party | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011): D5032 | | According to the Macro Report, "In general it is not common to | form alliances of that kind in Slovenia due to proportional | electoral system and relatively low threshold". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D5032 | | One alliance formed in the 2014 South African election. It is | detailed below. | | | ALLIANCE 1: | No official name. Note that COSATU and SACP members | compete for legislative office on the ANC list as ANC members. | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | - African National Congress (ANC, PARTY A)* | - Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) | - South African Communist Party (SACP) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2015): D5032 | | One alliance formed in the 2015 Turkish election. It is | detailed below. | | | ALLIANCE 1: | No official name. Both alliance members competed on the | list of the Felicity Party (SP). | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | - Felicity Party (SP)* | - Great Unity Party (BBP) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5033 >>> REQUIREMENTS FOR JOINT PARTY LISTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M12. If joint lists are possible, are they subject to different regulations than single-party lists? For example higher thresholds, different numbers of candidates that may appear on the list, etc. .................................................................. 1. YES, JOINT PARTY LISTS MUST SATISFY HIGHER THRESHOLDS 2. YES, JOINT PARTY LISTS MAY PRESENT DIFFERENT NUMBERS OF CANDIDATES 3. YES, JOINT PARTY LISTS ARE SUBJECT TO OTHER REGULATIONS THAT ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING INDEPENDENT PARTIES 5. NO, JOINT PARTIES ARE GOVERNED BY THE SAME RULES AS OTHER PARTIES 7. NOT APPLICABLE; NO JOINT PARTY LISTS ARE ALLOWED 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5033 | | Source: CSES Macro Report M12. | | Please also refer to notes for variables D5030-D5032. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D5033 | | This applies to lower house elections. D5033 for Brazil is coded | 2, because joint party lists may present different number of | candidates: | | When district magnitude >=20: a political party can present | up to 1.5 candidates for each seat. When there is joint list, a | political party can present up to 2 candidates for each seat. | | When district magnitude <20: a political party can present | up to 2 candidates for each seat. When there is joint list a | political party can present up to 2.5 candidates for each seat. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012 & 2015): D5033 | | The electoral law amendment of 2008 (law 3636/2008) was passed | in 2008 only to be implemented in the "one after the next" | election. Hence, the current code differs from the one for the | Greece (2009) study from CSES Module 3. | | "2.a. The independent Party that came first in valid votes in | the electoral District of Greece, beside the seats that are | allocated to it according to paragraph 1, gains fifty (50) more | seats, which are derived from the electoral peripheries that | have seats not allocated after the conclusion of the procedure | in accordance with the provisions of article 6. | These extra fifty (50) seats could be also gained by a party | coalition, under the condition that the average of the | percentages that the Parties of the coalition gained is higher | than the percentage of the independent Party that came first in | valid votes. This average is obtained by the division of the | percentage that the fore mentioned party coalition gained | divided by the number of Parties that it consists of." [Excerpt | from Law 3636/2008: Article 1, Paragraph 2a (Amendment of law | 3231/2004 "Election of the Members of the Parliament").] | | This means that if a party coalition gets the relative | majority but its average power is less than the power of the | independent party that gets the higher percentage among the | independent parties the extra fifty seats gained by this | independent party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2011): D5033 | | For Lower House elections (Sejm), threshold for coalitions is | increased from 5% (for parties) to 8%. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D5033 | | This applies to both the Chamber of Deputies and the | Senate elections. The threshold for political parties if | 5% of the valid votes. An electoral alliance of two parties | however is subject to a threshold of 8% of the valid votes. | A three party alliance is subject to a 9% threshold of valid | votes while alliances comprising of four parties or more | is required to reach 10% of the valid votes. | Alternatively, a party that win six district seats in the | Chamber of Deputies or three district seats in the Senate | may also receive seats. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5033 | | The CSES survey was conducted for the 2014 Presidential | Election, where joint candidates are not subject to different | regulations. | For the last Parliamentary Elections in November 2012, in the | case of alliances 3% was added to the normal 5% threshold for | the second party and 1% for each additional party in the | alliance. However, the requested threshold for alliances could | not exceed 10%. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5034 >>> THE POSSIBILITY OF APPARENTEMENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M13a. Is there apparentement or linking of lists? .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5034 | | Source: CSES Macro Report M13a. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5035 >>> TYPES OF APPARENTEMENT AGREEMENTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M13b. If apparentement is possible, what lists can participate in such agreements? .................................................................. 1. LISTS OF THE SAME PARTY IN THE SAME CONSTITUENCY 2. LISTS OF THE SAME PARTY FROM DIFFERENT CONSTITUENCIES 3. LISTS OF DIFFERENT PARTIES IN THE SAME CONSTITUENCY 7. NOT APPLICABLE; NO APPARENTEMENT 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5035 | | Source: CSES Macro Report M13b. | | Please also refer to notes for variable D5034. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2014): D5035 | | In Sweden, it is also possible that lists of different parties | (code 3) can participate in apparentement. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5036 >>> MULTI-PARTY ENDORSEMENTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M14a. Can candidates run with the endorsement of more than one party? .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5036_ | | Source: CSES Macro Report M14a. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2011): D5036 | | According to Polish electoral law, subject of electoral | competition are Electoral Committees of parties, not parties as | such. Electoral committee can be formed by individual parties, | or coalition of parties. A candidate can be endorsed by ONLY ONE | electoral committee. However, the list of candidates of an | electoral committee can contain candidates supported by (only | one) political party different than the party which formed the | electoral committee. Usually it means that a candidate from a | smaller party is a guest on the candidate list of electoral | committee of a bigger party. In this case, Official Electoral | Announcements (posters which one can find in the polling | stations) contain information that a candidate is supported by | different a party than the party of his/her electoral committee. | However, on the voting ballot one can find only the name of an | electoral committee. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5036 | | The only exception is the case of parties that form a legally | registered electoral alliance and have joint candidates. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5037 >>> MULTI-PARTY ENDORSEMENTS ON BALLOT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M14b. If candidates can run with the endorsement of more than one party, is this reflected on the ballot? .................................................................. 1. NO 2. NO PARTY ENDORSEMENTS ARE INDICATED ON THE BALLOT PAPER 3. YES, CANDIDATE'S NAME APPEARS ONCE, TOGETHER WITH THE NAMES OF ALL SUPPORTING PARTIES 4. YES, CANDIDATE'S NAME APPEARS AS MANY TIMES AS THERE ARE DIFFERENT PARTIES ENDORSING HIM/HER, EACH TIME WITH THE NAME OF THE ENDORSING PARTY 5. YES, OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5037 | | Source: CSES Macro Report M14b. | | Please also refer to notes for variable D5036. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): D5037 | | French 2012 study is focused on presidential elections. | In case of presidential elections, ballots contain the | candidate's name only, without any party endorsement. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): D5037 | | In Mexico, private financing of parties and candidates is | extremely limited: one person cannot contribute more than a few | dollars, and corporate entities cannot finance campaigns or | parties. The electoral commission determines the amount for the | upcoming election (mostly based on past experiences), and 30% of | the total is distributed equally among all registered parties, | and 70% according to last electoral results. For that reason, | even when more than one party supports a candidate, voters have | to mark the logo of the party they prefer. If voters cross more | than one party with the same candidate, that vote is divided | among those parties the voter marked. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2014): D5037 | | A candidate standing in tier 1 ('electorate vote') may have | an endorsement from another party but it is usually tacit | rather than direct and usually the main party of the candidate | is the one that appears on the ballot paper. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2011): D5037 | | On voting ballots one can find only names of an electoral | committees supporting particular candidates. See | also note for D5036. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D5037 | | Nearly all of these options are possible in the United States | with the rules varying by state. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5038_1 >>> VOTES CAST - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) D5038_2 >>> VOTES CAST - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) D5038_3 >>> VOTES CAST - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) D5038_4 >>> VOTES CAST - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M16a. How many votes do voters cast or can cast? In systems where voters rank order the candidates, if there are 10 candidates (for example), the response to this question should be 10. .................................................................. 01-90. NUMBER OF VOTES 91. OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 97. NOT APPLICABLE 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5038_ | | Source: CSES Macro Report M16a. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D5038_1 | | For lower house elections, Australia employs the Alternative | Vote system. In this system, voters are required | to list their preferences for as many candidates | as there are on the ballot. Thus, the total number of votes | varies across electoral districts. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D5038_3 | | For upper house elections, Australia employs a single- | transferable-vote form of proportional representation. In this | system each voter indicates the order of preference among all | the candidates in competing in her district, or alternatively, | she can indicate support for a party ticket (which determines | the order of preference of candidates within the party). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D5038_1 | | The Austrian electoral system is a proportional representation | system with three segments or tiers. These correspond to the | regional districts tier, the Land level tier (or state level) | and the federal (or national) level tier. Counting and | allocation of seats passes through each of these levels. | However, voters cast a single vote. In this vote, they can | express preferences for specific candidates, particularly, a | Laender level candidate and/or for a regional level candidate. | However, since voters cast a single vote only, this system is | different from systems with multiple tiers where voters vote | separately in different tiers. Hence, the system is coded as | consisting of a single tier in variables D5038-D5047. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D5038_3 | | Members of the Brazilian Senate (Senado Federal) are elected | for an 8-year term and the chamber is composed of 81 members, | with each state in Brazil having three Senators each. | Members are elected in alternative electoral cycles: two thirds | of the Senate seats (n=54) are contested in one election cycle | while the remaining one third are contested in the other. The | 2014 elections saw a third of the Senate seats contested (n=27). | Accordingly, voters therefore had one vote in this election as | only one Senator per State was being selected. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2014): D5038_1 | | Bulgarian National Assembly consists of 240 representatives, | elected in 31 multi-member districts, with each district having | between 4 and 16 representatives. Representatives are elected | according to a proportional representation system based on open | party lists. Voter first selects the party/coalition of his/her | choice and then he/she can choose a preference to a particular | candidate in the relevant list. The preference contributes to | the ranking of the candidate. If no candidate preference is | chose, the vote is counted according to the arranged order | within the list. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2013): D5038_3 | | Senate (the upper chamber of the Parliament of the Czech | Republic) consists of 81 directly elected members. Senators are | elected for a term of 6 years, while one third of the Chamber is | renewed every two years. Elections are based on 81 single-member | constituencies, using two-round majoritarian system. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D5038_1 D5038_2 | | In elections in Germany, each voter has 2 votes, | one in each segment: One vote ("first vote") for an individual | candidate in one of the electoral constituencies (tier 1), | and another vote ("second vote") for a regional party-list, | based on the 16 Laender, drawn up by each political party | (tier 2). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012 & 2015): D5038_1 | | In the Greek electoral system, representatives are elected | according to three methods of counting votes. First, 250 | representatives are elected proportionally in 56 constituencies. | Next, up to 1/20 of the Parliament (currently 12), may be | elected not in a specified constituency but throughout the | country at large. These are the State Deputies, whose exact | number depends on the total electoral strength of each party. | Finally, there are 50 'bonus' seats awarded to the party | receiving the largest share of the vote. | However, since voters cast a single vote only, this system is | different from systems with multiple tiers where voters vote | separately in different tiers. Hence, the system is coded as | consisting of a single tier in variables D5038-D5047. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D5038_1 & D5038_2 | | Hong Kong has a unicameral legislature. The Legislative Council | of the HKSAR has 70 members. Half of the legislative council is | returned by geographic constituency (popular) elections; the | other half is returned by functional constituency elections. | Election data on Hong Kong electoral institutions refer to the | geographical constituency elections only. | In the Geographical Constituency (GC) part of the Election, Hong | Kong is divided into 5 constituencies and voters elect | candidates by universal suffrage. The number of LegCo seats in | each constituency is decided according to the constituency | population. The voting system adopted is the closed list | proportional representation system. Geographical Constituency is | treated here as the first segment of the LegCo. | There are two parts of the Functional Constituencies (FCs): the | traditional FCs and the District Council (Second) FC. | The traditional FCs return 30 LegCo members. Registration as a | voter in some traditional Fcs requires certain qualifications, | for example, registered medical practitioners or dentists for | the Medical FC. Note that in some FCs, voters are individuals, | while in others, 'voters' are not individuals but companies or | organizations. | The District Council (Second) FC is treated here as the second | segment of the LegCo. This segment returns 5 LegCo members. In | this part of election, the whole of Hong Kong has one | constituency only and the voting system adopted is the closed | list proportional representation system. Candidates must be | elected District Council members who are nominated by no less | than 15 other elected District Council members; whereas voters | are registered GC electors who are not registered in other Fcs. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2013): D5038_2 | | There is a second tier where 9 (out of 63) so called | "supplementary" seats are allocated to party lists receiving | at least 5% of the valid vote. However, voters cast only a | single vote and voters do not directly cast a vote for | this tier.Hence, this variable is coded 7 "Non-applicable". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2011): D5038_1 | | Voters can cast as many votes as there are candidates running | for elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D5038_1-D5038_4 | | Japan has a bicameral Parliament (Kokkai, or National Diet). | The Lower House (House of Representatives; Shugi-in) has 480 | seats which are elected in two electoral segments for a four- | year term. The first segment consists of 300 seats elected from | roughly equal-sized single member districts. The second segment | is comprised of 180 seats allocated on the basis of proportional | representation in 11 regional multi-member districts. | | The Upper House (House of Councilors) has 242 members who are | elected in two electoral segments, for a 6 year term, where half | of the members (121) stand for re-election every three years. | The first segment consists of 47 prefecture-level districts | where 73 representatives in each election are chosen by simple | majority. Successful candidates are decided in the order of the | number of valid votes obtained on the basis of the comparative | plurality. | The second segment is represented by a single nation-wide | district based on proportional representation (D'Hondt method), | where 48 representatives are elected in a single electoral | half-cycle. | The current Japanese CSES election study is | concerned with the Upper House elections of 2013. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D5038_1 - D5038_2 | | Parliament of Kenya consists of two houses: The National | Assembly (lower house) and The Senate (upper house). | The National Assembly consists of 350 representatives. The first | tier is represented by 290 members elected in single member | constituencies, according to the first-past-the-post system. | Additional 47 seats, i.e. the second tier, are awarded to women | in separate election in 47 counties, where each county | constitutes a single member constituency. Further 12 | representatives are appointed, which makes total number of 349 | representatives. In addition, the Speaker of the Assembly is | an ex officio member. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D5038_3 | | Parliament of Kenya consists of two houses: The National | Assembly (lower house) and The Senate (upper house). | The Senate has 68 seats, of which 47 are elected from single- | member constituencies based on the counties using first-past-the | -post, and the remaining 21 are appointed; 16 women based on | party's seat numbers, two representing disabled groups and two | representing youth (both of which must consist of a male and | female nominee) and one elected Speaker, who is an ex officio | member. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012 & 2015): D5038_1-D5038_2 | | Mexican voters cast a single vote in a single member district | plurality election. However, this also counts for the allocation | of the proportional representation seats disputed in the larger | regional multi-member districts (five circumscriptions). Thus, | voters are not allowed to split their vote, in fact, the same | vote is subject to a double counting that produces two-seat | relevant vote totals. The first vote total determines who wins | the plurality in the single-member district (300 seats). The | second serves to allocate seats in the multi-member districts | (200 seats). The PR seats are allocated according to the | aggregate distribution of votes of multi-member districts. | For a party to be entitled to have members of proportional | representation in the Lower Chamber, it must attain at | least 2% of the total votes cast for these elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012 & 2015): D5038_3-D5038_4 | | For senatorial (Upper House) elections, voters cast a single | vote in 3-seat multi-member districts (which correspond to the | country's 31 states plus the Federal District). The first two | seats are awarded to the plurality winner and the third seat is | given to the first runner-up. This vote also counts for the | allocation of proportional representation seats disputed in one | national district. Thus, each vote is subject to a double | counting that produces two-seat relevant vote totals. The first | vote total determines who wins in the multi-member districts (96 | seats), and the second serves to allocate through proportional | representation the resting 32 seats. For the allocation of the | PR seats the national distribution of votes excludes non valid | votes, votes for parties that obtained less than 2% and votes | for non-registered candidates. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011 &2014): D5038_1 D5038_2 | | In elections in New Zealand, each voter has 2 votes, | one in each segment: One vote ('electorate vote') for an | individual candidate in one of the electoral constituencies | (tier 1), and another vote ('party vote') for a national | party-list drawn up by each political party (tier 2). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D5038_2 | | The Norwegian Parliament comprises 169 seats in two tiers: | 150 members are elected in 19 multi-member districts using | proportional representation. The remaining 19 seats are | compensatory and are allocated to parties that receive 4%+ of | the national vote. These seats are known as "members at large" | and are seen as a means of evening out discrepancies between | the number of votes received and the number of seats in the | Storting. The distribution is based on a comparison of the | actual distribution of seats with what would have been occurred | had the country been treated as on big constituency, thus | allowing a determination to be made as to which parties are | under-represented. These parties are then awarded "seats at | large" in the constituencies where they were closest to winning | an ordinary seat. While voters do not cast a ballot directly for | this tier and the seats are awarded at the national level | (albeit dispersed at the constituency level), it is widely | acknowledged to constitute a separate tier of the electoral | system. | | For more see: | https://www.stortinget.no/en/In-English/About-the-Storting/ | Elections/ | (Date accessed: April 28, 2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D5038_1-D5038_2 | | The Congress of the Philippines has two chambers or houses: | the House of Representatives (Kapulungan Mga Kinatawan) and | the Senate (Senado). | | The House of Representatives is elected on the basis of two | electoral segments. In the first segment, 238 representatives | are elected in single-member districts, to a three-year term. | In addition, up to 20% of the total number of representatives | is elected through the party-list system in a single nation- | wide electoral district (second segment). After the 2016 | elections, there are 59 representatives elected on party-list | basis. Party-lists are to be proposed by indigenous, but non- | religious, minority groups. A maximum of three seats is awarded | to each party. Each elector casts two votes: one for the | district representative and the other for the party of his | choice. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D5038_3 | | The Philippines Senate (Senado) has 24 members, serving six- | years terms. Concurrently with presidential elections, half | of the Senate (12 members) is renewed each three years, in a | single nation-wide constituency. Senators are elected | according to the simple majority, and each voters can cast | up to 12 votes. Hence, vote percentages and national totals | are not meaningful data. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5038 | | The 2014 Romanian election study is concerned with the | Presidential elections of 2014. | However, the information about the electoral system, presented | in variables D5038-D5047 and D5058-D5075 concern the Lower and | the Upper House of the Romanian parliament. Note that the below | description refers to the electoral regulations from 2008, | which were valid at the time of the 2014 elections. The | electoral system was changed again in 2015. | | The 2008 electoral law prescribed a complex electoral system. | The system adopted was candidate centered, with voters having | one vote for the Chamber of Deputies (Lower House) and one vote | for the Senate. The systems is classified as a mixed system | because it employs both majoritarian and proportional rules. | Voters cast ballots in single member districts. However, the | complex seat allocation procedure operates over multiple tiers. | The division of seats between tiers is variable and depends on | the actual result of voting. In extreme theoretical | circumstances, it is possible for one tier not to receive seats | at all. Overhang seats are allowed. | Districts are geographically identical to counties (41 County, | plus one for Bucharest, and one for Romanians living abroad) and | each county is divided into several single member districts, | known in Romania as ‘electoral colleges’. Voters are initially | aggregated at national level to determine which parties have | passed the explicit electoral threshold (see variable D5046 and | variable D5047) and are thus eligible for seats. | Direct seats are won by polling 50% in a district; however, | candidates winning over 50% in their districts win the seat only | if their party passes the appropriate threshold. | However, a party can also enter parliament if it wins at least | three Senate and six Deputy districts in the first tier | regardless of the percentage of votes the party obtains at the | national level. | To decide on seat allocation, the number of votes won by each of | the parties is totaled and divided by the number of seats | (corresponding to the number of districts) established for each | constituency, thus obtaining an electoral quota. Then, the | number of votes won by each party is divided by the quota, | thus giving the number of seats to which each party is entitled. | The second stage involves the remainders of these divisions | being summed up for each party at the national level using the | D'Hondt system, thus giving a ranked list of parties. Then, in | the district, the first party on the list, regardless of its | vote has priority in the redistribution process, the second | party on the list follows, and so forth. Candidates belonging to | the parties that passed the threshold - winning over 50% of the | votes in their district - are automatically elected and their | districts are no longer included in the next stages of the seat | allocation process. | The candidates from districts without a first round winner then | enter the redistribution process. In each constituency, the | candidates of each party are ranked in the order of the number | of votes obtained by each of them in the district in which they | ran. Based on the quota, each party receives a number of seats | corresponding to its quota. After this stage, the Electoral | Commission determines the number of seats the party is entitled | to in the final distribution. | At the time, the Lower House had 315 seats contested in SMDs, | and 18 seats reserved for ethnic minorities. After the 2012 | Parliamentary election, the actual size of the Lower House was | 412. Out of 315 SMDs, 240 seats were won directly, by winning | above 50% of the votes. The remaining 75 seats were won through | the second-level allocation, via 43 electoral districts. In | addition, there were 79 overhang seats. As a result, for 2012, | the Chamber of Deputies elected 412 members, while the Senate | elected 176 members. Seats are reserved in parliament for 18 | ethnic minority groups representing Germans, Roma, Macedonians, | Armenians, Bulgarians, Albanians, Jews, Tatars, Czechs/Slovaks, | Russians/Lipovians, Serbs, Poles, Italians, Ukrainians, Turks, | Croatians, and Ruthenians. | | For more information see: | Gherghina & Jiglau (2012) "Where does the mechanism collapse?: | Understanding the 2008 Romanian Electoral System", | Representation, Vol 48 No 4, pp.445-59. | DOI: 10.1080/00344893.2012.720889 | Date accessed: March 7, 2017. | | In variables D5038-D5047, both the Chamber of deputies and the | Senate are coded as having a single electoral segment (tier). | Although for the purpose of seat allocation, the calculation | procedure aggregates votes at different level (national, county), | the systems goes back to the single member districts for the | actual seat allocation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011): D5038_3 | | Slovenia is considered to be a case of incomplete bicameralism. | The National Council could be regarded as the Upper House. It | is supposed to be representative of social, economic, | professional and local interest groups in Slovenia. However, | since it is not only indirectly elected but also does not pass | laws itself, variables D5038 to D5047 that refer to upper house | are coded as 'Not applicable'. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D5038_1 | | The South African electoral system is a closed-list | proportional representation system. The National Assembly | seats are filled in two tiers: Half (200) seats are | regional seats and filled by reference to regional votes | and regional lists (representing nine federal provinces); | the other half (200) are national seats and filled by | reference to national votes and national lists (or | entirely from regional lists if a party did not submit | a separate national list). | Since voters have a single vote for the election of the | National Assembly, and the system in effect uses one nationwide | constituency (with 400 members) to elect MPs, the system is | coded as consisting of one tier in variables D5038-D5047, and | of two tiers in variables D5059, D5063-D5071. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2012): D5038_1-D5038_2 | | Korea employs a mixed-member majoritarian system that combines | 246 single-member districts (SMD) with 54 proportional | representation (PR) seats, elected from a single nation-wide | district. Each voter casts two votes, one for an individual | candidate in the SMD segment, and one for a closed party list | in the PR segment. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2014): D5038_1 D5038_2 | | The Swedish Riksdag has 349 members, where 310 members are | elected from 29 multi-member constituencies. Additionally, | 39 supplementary seats are distributed in order to achieve full | proportionality which are equivalent to a second tier. However, | voters only cast a single vote and do not cast a separate ballot | for each tier in the system. Hence, variable D5038_2 for Sweden | was coded '97. Not Applicable'. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): D5038_1 | | In Switzerland voters have as many votes as the number of seats | in their district (between 1 and 34 depending on the cantons). | Voters can choose one of the parties on the party lists, or they | can create their own list by filling an empty list on the ballot | with the candidates they prefer. Moreover, they can modify the | party (e.g. add candidates from other parties instead of a | candidates of the list [panachage]), delete candidates or vote | twice for a same candidate (cumulation). | | If a voter casts fewer votes than seats in the district, the | remaining votes go to the party indicated on the list. If | no party is indicated, the remaining votes are lost. Since all | candidates belong to a party, if a voters cast a single vote for | a candidate, that vote automatically counts for that candidate's | party list. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): D5038_3 | | In 20 cantons of Switzerland voters have two votes, while in the | six so-called half-cantons (BL, BS, OW, NW, AI, AR) voters have | one vote. The number of votes is equal to the number of seats | elected in a particular canton (or half canton). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2011): D5038_1 D5038_2 | | Voters in Thailand have two votes in elections for the Lower | House (The House of Representatives; Sapha Phuthaen Ratsadon), | one for each of the two segments/tiers: a single-member | constituency vote (D5038_1) and the party list vote (D5038_2). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2011): D5038_3 | | Voters in Thailand have one vote in elections for the Senate. | The Senate is composed of 150 members, of whom 76 are | directly elected from the 75 Provinces of Thailand and | Bangkok. The remaining 74 Senators are appointed from various | sectors by the Senate Selection Committee. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5039_1 >>> VOTING PROCEDURE - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) D5039_2 >>> VOTING PROCEDURE - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) D5039_3 >>> VOTING PROCEDURE - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) D5039_4 >>> VOTING PROCEDURE - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M16b. Do they vote for candidates (not party lists) or party lists? Definition: Party bloc voting is used in multi-member districts where voters cast a single party-centered vote for their party of choice; the party with the most votes wins all of the district seats. .................................................................. 1. CANDIDATES 2. PARTY LISTS 3. PARTY BLOC VOTING 4. OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5039_ | | Source: CSES Macro Report M16b. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D5039_1 | | Voting is by the full preferential system (also known as | instant-runoff system), where voters rank the candidates | in order of preference rather than vote for a single | candidate. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D5039_3 | | Senators are popularly elected under a single transferable | vote system, where voters have as many votes as there are | candidates in a district. Voters can also vote for an | individual party ('group voting ticket'). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D5039_1 | | The Austrian electoral system is a proportional representation | system with three segments or tiers. These correspond to the | regional districts tier, the Land level tier (or state level) | and the federal (or national) level tier. Counting and | allocation of seats passes through each of these levels. | Voters can cast a (single) party vote on an open list and | indicate their preferred candidate on the respective party list. | See also Election Study Note for D5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D5039_1 | | Each political party presents a list of candidates. Voters can | vote for a candidate or they can vote for a party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2015): D5039_1 | | Electoral system in Finland is based on open lists, where the | votes for candidates per party list in each constituency form | the basis for seat allocation. Each voter must choose a | candidate; it is not possible to vote for a party as such. | The method for seat allocation is PR/d'Hondt within each | constituency. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D5039_1 & D5039_2 | | Both in the Geographical Constituency (GC) and in the | District Council (Second) Functional Constituency, voters vote | for closed party lists. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D5039_1-D5039_4 | | The current Japanese CSES election study is concerned | with the Upper House elections of 2013. | See also election study note for D5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D5039_1 - D5039_2 | | See variable note for D5038_1 and D5038_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D5039_3 | | See variable note for D5038_3. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012 & 2015): D5039_1-D5039_2 | | In Mexico each voters' vote is counted twice; once for the | single member district contest, and a second time for the | regional PR contest (see Election Study Note for D5038_1-2 | for details). Accordingly, the voting procedure is coded as | voting for candidates and for a party list for each respective | contest. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012 & 2015): D5039_3-D5039_4 | | In Mexico each voters' vote for choosing senators is counted | twice; once for the 3-seat multi-member districts contest, and a | second time for the national PR contest (see Election Study note | for D5038_3-4 for details). Accordingly, the voting procedure is | coded as voting for candidates and for a party list for each | respective contest. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011): D5039_1 D5039_2 | | In the first segment (Electorate Vote), voters vote for | candidates. In the second segment (Party Vote), voters for | closed party lists. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D5039_2 | | Voters in Norway cast only one single ballot in the election on | the basis of party lists. This vote directly impacts the | selection of the 150 members elected in the 19 multi-member | districts using proportional representation. However, the ballot | also influences the dispersion of the 19 "member at large seats" | (for more see D5038_2). As such, when voters are casting their | ballot for party lists they are also casting a ballot, albeit | indirectly for the allocation of the "member at large seats". | Accordingly, we code this as "2.PARTY LISTS". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D5039 | | See notes for D5038_1-D5038_3. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5039 | | The 2014 Romanian election study is concerned with the | Presidential elections of 2014. | However, the information about the electoral system, presented | in variables D5038-D5047 and D5058-D5075 concern the Lower and | the Upper House of the Romanian parliament. | For more details about the electoral system see the ES note | for D5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2012): D5039_1-D5039_2 | | Korean voters have two votes - one vote in the 246 single | member constituencies and one on a single nation-wide | proportional district. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): D5039_1 | | Swiss voters can cast their vote in many different ways. Among | others they can a) simply vote for a party list, b) endorse | specific candidates from the party list, c) add candidates from | other parties instead of a candidate of the list [panachage]), | d) delete candidates or vote twice for a same candidate | (cumulation). | | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): D5039_3 | | Cantonal law governs election to the Council of States. However, | candidates are generally chosen by absolute majority vote. One | exception is the canton of Jura that uses a PR system to elect | it's two seats. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2011): D5039_1 D5039_2 | | In the first segment (375 single-member constituencies), voters | vote for candidates. In the second segment (party list vote), | voters vote for closed party lists. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2011): D5039_3 | | In elections for the Senate, which is composed of 150 members, | voters vote for candidates in 76 single-member districts | (75 Provinces of Thailand and Bangkok). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5040_1 >>> VOTING ROUNDS - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) D5040_2 >>> VOTING ROUNDS - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) D5040_3 >>> VOTING ROUNDS - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) D5040_4 >>> VOTING ROUNDS - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M16c. How many rounds of voting are there? .................................................................. 01-90. NUMBER OF ROUNDS 97. NOT APPLICABLE 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5040_ | | Source: CSES Macro Report M16c. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D5040 | | See also Election Study Note for D5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2013): D5040_3 | | Senate (the upper chamber of the Parliament of the Czech | Republic) consists of 81 directly elected members. Senators are | elected for a term of 6 years, while one third of the Chamber is | renewed every two years. Elections are based on 81 single-member | constituencies, using two-round majoritarian system. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D5040 | | The current Japanese CSES election study is concerned | with the Upper House elections of 2013. | See also election study note for D5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D5040_2 | | See variable note for D5038_2 and D5039_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5040 | | The 2014 Romanian election study is concerned with the | Presidential elections of 2014. | However, the information about the electoral system, presented | in variables D5038-D5047 and D5058-D5075 concern the Lower and | the Upper House of the Romanian parliament. | For more details about the electoral system see the ES note | for D5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2011): D5040_3 | | The electoral rules (except the number of seats to be filled) | are subject of cantonal regulations. Therefore the electoral | system varies. Most cantons have two-round majoritarian | elections, where an absolute majority is required in the first | round. However, one canton uses a PR system for its two seats | (canton of Jura). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5041_1 >>> PARTY LISTS - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) D5041_2 >>> PARTY LISTS - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) D5041_3 >>> PARTY LISTS - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) D5041_4 >>> PARTY LISTS - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M16d. If there are lists, are they closed, open, flexible, or is there party bloc voting? .................................................................. 1. CLOSED (Order of candidates elected is determined by the party and voters are unable to express preference for a particular candidate) 2. OPEN (Voters can indicate their preferred party and their favored candidate within that party) 3. FLEXIBLE (Voters can allocate votes to candidates either within a single party list or across different party lists as they see fit) 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5041_ | | Source: CSES Macro Report M16d. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D5041_1 & D5041_3 | | For both lower and upper house elections, while a closed list | system operates, many parties use primaries to select and order | their party lists. | | For more information see: | Altman Olin (n.d) "Argentina Electoral System" ACE Electoral | Knowledge Network, available at: | http://aceproject.org/regions-en/countries-and-territories/AR | /case-studies/esy_ar (Date accessed: April 8, 2018). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D5041 | | See also Election Study Note for D5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2013): D5041_1 | | Voters cast votes for party lists. Voters may select four | candidates within a party list. A candidate who receives over 5% | of the preferential votes at the regional level will be | placed at the top of the party list. In cases where several | candidates receive over 5% of preferential votes, they | will be placed on the list in descending order based on the | total number of preferential votes they receive. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2013): D5041_1 | | Iceland is coded as open as the ballot structure allows | voters to strike out candidates names on the party list | they choose and this can result in the ranking of candidates on | the list changing. Voters also have the ability to change the | order of the seats for the candidates of the party they vote | for and can indicate a non-preference for certain candidates. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2011): D5041 | | There are no party lists, but the system is in many respects | analogous to open lists. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D5041 | | The current Japanese CSES election study is concerned | with the Upper House elections of 2013. | See also election study note for D5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): D5041_2 & D5041_4 | | Party lists used in the second segment (tier) for the Lower and | Upper Chambers are closed, as the order of the candidates on the | list is defined by the political parties. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2015): D5041_2 & D5041_4 | | Party lists used in the second segment (tier) for the Lower and | Upper Chambers are closed, as the order of the candidates on the | list is defined by the political parties. | See also Election Study Note for D5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D5041_2 | | See variable note for D5038_2 and D5039_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5041 | | The 2014 Romanian election study is concerned with the | Presidential elections of 2014. | However, the information about the electoral system, presented | in variables D5038-D5047 and D5058-D5075 concern the Lower and | the Upper House of the Romanian parliament. | For more details about the electoral system see the ES note | for D5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2016): D5041_1 | | Slovak voters can vote for party lists of political subjects and | every voter has got 4 preferential votes, they are counted if | they reach 3% of all votes for the party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011): D5041_1 | | According to the collaborator, "Although formally lists are not | closed, [...] Voters may decide only on those candidates on the | list that appears in their electoral district - from one party | only one candidate appears. In such a situation, lists | definitely cannot be treated as open because voters cannot | indicate their preferred party and their favored candidate | within that party, as well as voters cannot allocate votes to | candidates either within a single party list or across different | party lists as they see fit." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5042_1 >>> TRANSFERABLE VOTES - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) D5042_2 >>> TRANSFERABLE VOTES - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) D5042_3 >>> TRANSFERABLE VOTES - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) D5042_4 >>> TRANSFERABLE VOTES - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M17. Are the votes transferable? Definition: In systems with preferential voting, a voter can express a list of preferences. For example, votes can be cast by putting a '1' in the column next to the voter's preferred candidate, a '2' beside their second favorite candidate and so on.Votes are counted according to the first preferences and any candidates who have achieved the predetermined quota are elected. To decide which of the remaining candidates are elected the votes are transferred from candidates who have more than the necessary number to achieve the quota and from the candidate with the least number of votes. An example of this is the election in Ireland in 2002. .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5042_ | | Source: CSES Macro Report M17. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D5042 | | See also Election Study Note for D5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D5042 | | The current Japanese CSES election study is concerned | with the Upper House elections of 2013. | See also election study note for D5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5042 | | The 2014 Romanian election study is concerned with the | Presidential elections of 2014. | However, the information about the electoral system, presented | in variables D5038-D5047 and D5058-D5075 concern the Lower and | the Upper House of the Romanian parliament. | For more details about the electoral system see the ES note | for D5038. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5043_1 >>> CUMULATED VOTES - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) D5043_2 >>> CUMULATED VOTES - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) D5043_3 >>> CUMULATED VOTES - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) D5043_4 >>> CUMULATED VOTES - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M18. If more than one vote can be cast, can they be cumulated? Definition: Cumulative voting refers to systems in which voters are allowed to cast more than one vote for a single candidate. .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5043_ | | Source: CSES Macro Report M18. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D5043 | | See also Election Study Note for D5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D5043 | | The current Japanese CSES election study is concerned with the | Upper House elections of 2013. | See also election study note for D5038. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5044_1 >>> COMPULSORY VOTING - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) D5044_2 >>> COMPULSORY VOTING - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) D5044_3 >>> COMPULSORY VOTING - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) D5044_4 >>> COMPULSORY VOTING - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M19. Is voting compulsory? Definition: Voting is compulsory if the law states that all those who have the right to vote are obliged to exercise that right. .................................................................. 1. YES; STRICTLY ENFORCED SANCTIONS 2. YES; WEAKLY ENFORCED SANCTIONS 3. YES; WITHOUT SANCTION FOR VIOLATION 5. NO 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5044_ | | Source for this variable: CSES Macro Report M19. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D5044 | | Voting is compulsory for those aged 18-70 and non-compulsory | for those aged 70 or over and those aged 16-18. Voting is also | compulsory in primary elections. In a primary election however, | a voter can abstain if they formally express their desire to do | so to the electoral authorities 48-hours in advance of the | election. Voting has been compulsory since 1912. | | Source of information: | International IDEA "What is compulsory voting?" available at: | https://www.idea.int/data-tools/data/voter-turnout/compulsory | -voting (Date accessed: April 8, 2018). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D5044 | | See Election Study Note for D5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D5044 | | Voting is compulsory for those aged 18-70 unless they are | illiterate. Voting is optional for the illiterate, those over | 70, and those aged 16-18. Those who do fail to vote must provide | a justification to the Brazilian Election Commission. | (Source: Bustani 2001, p. 306,n. 2). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D5044 | | The current Japanese CSES election study is concerned | with the Upper House elections of 2013. | See also election study note for D5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012 & 2015): D5044_1 / D5044_3 | | Voting in Mexico is formally compulsory, but without | sanction for violation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5044 | | The 2014 Romanian election study is concerned with the | Presidential elections of 2014. | However, the information about the electoral system, presented | in variables D5038-D5047 and D5058-D5075 concern the Lower and | the Upper House of the Romanian parliament. | For more details about the electoral system see the ES note | for D5038. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5045_1 >>> IS THERE PARTY THRESHOLD - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) D5045_2 >>> IS THERE PARTY THRESHOLD - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) D5045_3 >>> IS THERE PARTY THRESHOLD - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) D5045_4 >>> IS THERE PARTY THRESHOLD - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M21a. Are there legally mandated thresholds that a party must exceed before it is eligible to receive seats? .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5045_ | | Source: CSES Macro Report M21a. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D5045_1 | | Parties that already won a seat in one of the 39 regional | districts or received at least 4% of the nationwide valid | votes can enter parliament. The threshold applies to the | first electoral tier, the 39 regional districts | ("Regionalwahlkreis"). | See also Election Study Note for D5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012 & 2015): D5045_1 | | Parties that receive at least 3% of | all valid votes cast are entitled to participate in | the so-called first round of proportional allocation of 250 | seats at the national level. The remaining 50 seats are awarded | to the party that obtained the nation-wide plurality of votes, | regardless of its obtained percentage or the difference with | the second party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2013): D5045_2 | | While there is no formal threshold at the first tier, in | the second tier (national district - see Election Study Note | for D5038_2 for details) only party lists receiving at least 5% | of the national vote are entitled to receive one of the 9 seats | to be allocated. | See also Election Study Note for D5038_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): D5045_1 & D5045_3 | | In the single-member districts of the lower house contest, as | well as for the prefecture-level districts of the upper house, | a candidate needs to obtain votes at least equal to one-sixth | of the quotient obtained by dividing the total of valid ballots | cast by the number of seats to be filled from the constituency | concerned. For all single member districts of the lower house | contest this equals obtaining at least 1/6 (16.7%) of | the total valid votes. Instead the multi-member prefecture | -level districts of the upper house contest have variable | district magnitude with minimum of 1 and maximum 5. In this | case, this quotient varies from 16.6% to 3.33% of the valid | votes. | The current Japanese CSES election study is | concerned with the Upper House elections of 2013. | See election study note for D5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D5045_2 | | The electoral threshold in Norway only applies to | the "member at large" seats (n=19) at the second tier. Only | parties receiving at least 4% of the total vote are entitled | to receive one of the 19 seats to be allocated. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D5045_2 | | In the second segment, i.e., for a sectoral representative via | closed party-list system, there is a 2% election threshold and | 3-seat cap. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5045 | | The 2014 Romanian election study is concerned with the | Presidential elections of 2014. | However, the information about the electoral system, presented | in variables D5038-D5047 and D5058-D5075 concern the Lower and | the Upper House of the Romanian parliament. | For more details about the electoral system see the ES note | for D5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D5045_1 | | De facto threshold is approximately 0,25% for one seat in | parliament. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2012): D5045_2 | | The threshold applies to the nation-wide proportional district: | 3% of the total valid votes for party lists, or at least 5 | primary district seats. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5046_1 >>> PARTY THRESHOLD - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) D5046_2 >>> PARTY THRESHOLD - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) D5046_3 >>> PARTY THRESHOLD - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) D5046_4 >>> PARTY THRESHOLD - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M21b. If YES in M21a, what is the threshold? .................................................................. 00.00. THERE IS NO THRESHOLD 00.10-95.00. A PARTY MUST RECEIVE THIS PERCENT (0.1% TO 95%) OF THE POPULAR VOTE IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR SEATS 96.00. OTHER THRESHOLD [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 97.00. NOT APPLICABLE 99.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5046_ | | Source: CSES Macro Report M21b. | | See also notes for D5045. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D5046_1 | | Parties that already won a seat in one of the 39 regional | districts or received at least 4% of the nationwide valid | votes can enter parliament. The threshold applies to the | first electoral tier, the 39 regional districts | ("Regionalwahlkreis"). | See also Election Study Note for D5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D5046_1 | | The threshold is based on the Hare Quota. To win seats a party | must exceed the quota (total valid votes divided by the number | of seats) in each electoral district. Each party is entitled to | as many seats as the number of times its vote reaches the quota. | Unallocated seats apportioned according to the D'Hondt formula. | (Source: ACE Electoral Knowledge Network | and Nicolau 2008, p.170). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2014): D5046_1 | | Political parties and coalitions must receive at least 4% | of valid votes at the national level to receive a seat. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2013): D5046_1 | | The threshold is 5% for a single party. It is higher for | coalitions: | 10% for coalition of 2 parties, | 15% for coalition of 3 parties, | 20% for coalition of 4 parties, etc. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D5046_2 | | Germany has an alternative threshold: Parties with more than 5% | of the valid votes nationally on the basis of the party list | votes ("second vote") or those who have won three of the 299 | constituency seats receive a proportional share of the 299 list | seats on the basis of their national vote share. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012 & 2015): D5046_1 | | The threshold is 3% of valid votes for parties | to be entitled to participate in the so-called first round of | proportional allocation of 250 seats at the national level. | To win representation in the remaining 50 seats, a party must | obtain the nation-wide plurality of votes, regardless of its | obtained percentage or the difference with the second party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2013): D5046_2 | | For more details see Election Study Note for D5045_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2013): D5046_1 | | The legal threshold in Israel at the time of the election was | 2%.This was later raised in 2014 to 3.25%. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D5046_1 | | Candidates running in single-seat constituencies must obtain at | least one-sixth of all valid votes to obtain a seat. | The current Japanese CSES data refer to the Upper | House elections of 2013. | See also Election Study Note for D5045_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D5046_3 | | See election study note D5045_3. | The current Japanese CSES election study is concerned | with the Upper House elections of 2013. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2012): D5046_1 | | The threshold is 3% nationally. However, if a minority | population is not represented by a party that meets the national | threshold, the threshold is then reduced to 0.7% of the | valid votes. A further exception is provided for the Croatian | minority, which constitutes less than 2% of the | population, the threshold for which is 0.35%. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011 & 2014): D5046_2 | | New Zealand has an alternative threshold: Parties with more than | 5% of the total votes nationally on the basis of the party list | votes ('party vote', tier 2) or those who have won one of the 70 | constituency seats (tier 1) are entitled to sit in parliament | and may be eligible to receive a proportional share of the 50 | list seats on the basis of their national vote share. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D5046_2 | | See variable note for D5045_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): D5046_1 | | The threshold is 5% of the national vote, or 6 parliamentarians | in more than one electoral district. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D5046_2 | | In the second segment, i.e., for a sectoral representative via | closed party-list system, there is a 2% election threshold and | 3-seat cap. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2011): D5046_1 | | The threshold is 5% nationally for political parties. | For electoral alliances it is 8%. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D5046_1 & D5046_3 | | The threshold for political parties to obtain seats is 5% of the | valid votes. However, it is higher for electoral alliances | comprising of more parties: | - A threshold of 8% of valid votes for coalitions | of 2 parties. | - A threshold of 9% of valid votes for coalitions | of 3 parties. | - A threshold of 10% of valid votes for coalitions | of 4 parties or more. | Alternatively, a party that wins six district seats in the | Chamber of Deputies or three district seats in the Senate | may also receive seats. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5046_1 & D5046_3 | | The 2014 Romanian election study is concerned with the | Presidential elections of 2014. | However, the information about the electoral system, presented | in variables D5038-D5047 and D5058-D5075 concern the Lower and | the Upper House of the Romanian parliament. | For more details about the electoral system see the ES note | for D5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2016): D5046_1 & D5046_3 | | The threshold for political parties to obtain seats is 5% of the | valid votes. However, it is higher for electoral alliances | comprising of more parties: | - A threshold of 7% of valid votes for coalitions | of 2 or 3 parties. | - A threshold of 10% of valid votes for coalitions | of 4 parties or more. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D5046_1 | | De facto threshold is approximately 0,25% for one seat in | parliament. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2012): D5046_2 | | The threshold applies to the nation-wide proportional district: | 3% of the total valid votes for party lists, or at least 5 | primary district seats. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5047_1 >>> UNIT FOR THE THRESHOLD - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) D5047_2 >>> UNIT FOR THE THRESHOLD - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) D5047_3 >>> UNIT FOR THE THRESHOLD - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) D5047_4 >>> UNIT FOR THE THRESHOLD - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M21c. If YES in M21a, what is the unit for the threshold mentioned in M21b? .................................................................. 1. PERCENT OF TOTAL VOTES 2. PERCENT OF VALID VOTES 3. PERCENT OF THE TOTAL ELECTORATE 4. OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5047_ | | Source: CSES Macro Report M21c. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D5047_2 | | Germany has an alternative threshold: Parties with more than 5% | of the valid votes nationally on the basis of the party list | vote ("second vote") or those who have won three of the 299 | constituency seats receive a proportional share of the 299 list | seats on the basis of their national vote share. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D5047_1 | | Candidates running in single-seat constituencies must obtain at | least one-sixth of all valid votes to obtain a seat. | The current Japanese CSES data refer to the Upper | House elections of 2013. | See also Election Study note for D5045_1 and D5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D5047_3 | | See election study note D5045_3. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012 & 2015): D5047_2 / D5047_4 | | For a party to be entitled to have members of proportional | representation in the Lower Chamber, it must attain at least 2% | of the total votes cast for these elections. | However, if a candidate of such party wins in any of the | plurality seats, she would receive the seat and be declared as | "independent". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2012): D5047_1 | | See Election Study Note for D5046_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011 & 2014): D5047_2 | | New Zealand has an alternative threshold: Parties with more than | 5% of the total votes nationally on the basis of the party list | votes ('party vote', tier 2) or those who have won one of the 70 | constituency seats (tier 1) are entitled to sit in parliament | and may be eligible to receive a proportional share of the 50 | list seats on the basis of their national vote share. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D5047_2 | | See variable note for D5045_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): D5047_1 | | The threshold is 5% of the valid national-level vote, or | 6 parliamentarians in more than one electoral district. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D5047_2 | | In the second segment, i.e., for a sectoral representative via | closed party-list system, there is a 2% election threshold and | 3-seat cap. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5047 | | The 2014 Romanian election study is concerned with the | Presidential elections of 2014. | However, the information about the electoral system, presented | in variables D5038-D5047 and D5058-D5075 concern the Lower and | the Upper House of the Romanian parliament. | For more details about the electoral system see the ES note | for D5038. II. DATA FROM PUBLIC SOURCES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5050_1 >>> FREEDOM HOUSE RATING - TIME T D5050_2 >>> FREEDOM HOUSE RATING - TIME T-1 D5050_3 >>> FREEDOM HOUSE RATING - TIME T-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- These variables report Freedom House's rating of freedom in a country at three time periods: the election year (time T), one year before election (T-1), and two years before election (T-2). Each country and territory is assigned a numerical rating, on a scale of 1 to 7. A rating of 1 indicates the highest degree of freedom and 7 the least amount of freedom. CSES reports average of the "Political Rights" and "Civil Liberties" scores. .................................................................. 1.00-7.00. FREEDOM SCORE 9.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5050_ | | Source: Freedom House's annual publications "Freedom in the | World" (http://www.freedomhouse.org/images/File/FIW%20All%20Scor | es,%20Countries,%201973-2010.xls and http://www.freedomhouse.org | /images/File/FIW%20All%20Scores,Territories,%201973-2010.xls. | Downloaded on October 13, 2010). | | Until 2003, countries whose combined average ratings for | Political Rights and for Civil Liberties fell between 1.0 and | 2.5 were designated "Free"; between 3.0 and 5.5 "Partly Free", | and between 5.5 and 7.0 "Not Free". Beginning with the ratings | for 2003, countries whose combined average ratings fall between | 3.0 and 5.0 are "Partly Free", and those between 5.5 and 7.0 are | "Not Free". | | More information about Freedom House's methodology available at: | http://freedomhouse.org/. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5051_1 >>> DEMOCRACY-AUTOCRACY - POLITY IV RATING - TIME T D5051_2 >>> DEMOCRACY-AUTOCRACY - POLITY IV RATING - TIME T-1 D5051_3 >>> DEMOCRACY-AUTOCRACY - POLITY IV RATING - TIME T-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- These variables report POLITY IV ratings of institutionalized democracy versus autocracy in a country, at three time periods: the election year (time T), one year before election (T-1), and two years before election (T-2). CSES reports the original variable POLITY - Combined Polity Score. The variable is constructed by subtracting the autocracy score from the democracy score; the resulting scale ranges from +10 (strongly democratic) to -10 (strongly autocratic). .................................................................. 10. DEMOCRATIC 09. 08. 07. 06. 05. 04. 03. 02. 01. 00. -01. -02. -03. -04. -05. -06. -07. -08. -09. -10. AUTOCRATIC -66. INTERRUPTION PERIODS -77. INTERREGUM PERIODS -88. TRANSITION PERIODS 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5051_ | | Source: POLITY IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics | and Transitions, 1800-2007, Monty G. Marshall and Keith Jaggers, | George Mason University and Colorado State University. | Available at: http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm | (Date accessed: May 17, 2018). | | The Polity IV Dataset Users' Manual, available at: | http://www.systemicpeace.org/inscr/p4manualv2012.pdf | (Date accessed: November 25, 2010). | | The Polity IV annual time-series dataset, available at: | http://www.systemicpeace.org/inscrdata.html | (Date accessed: May 17, 2018). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2013): D5051 | | Data unavailable as Polity IV does not include Iceland. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2016): D5051_1 | | Data unavailable for 2016 at the time of publication. | Data will be available in subsequent release. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5052 >>> AGE OF THE CURRENT REGIME --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The number of years since the most recent regime change (defined by a three-point change in the POLITY score over a period of three years or less) or the end of transition period defined by the lack of stable political institutions (denoted by a standardized authority score) [Variable "Durable" from Polity IV Project Dataset Users' Manual]. .................................................................. 000-500. AGE OF THE REGIME (YEARS) 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5052 | | Source: POLITY IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics | and Transitions, 1800-2007, Monty G. Marshall and Keith Jaggers, | George Mason University and Colorado State University. | Available at: http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm | (Date accessed: May 17, 2018). | | The Polity IV Dataset Users' Manual, available at: | http://www.systemicpeace.org/inscr/p4manualv2012.pdf | (Date accessed: November 25, 2010). | | The Polity IV annual time-series dataset, available at: | http://www.systemicpeace.org/inscrdata.html | (Date accessed: May 17, 2018). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2013): D5052 | | Data unavailable as Polity IV does not include Iceland. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5054 >>> REGIME: TYPE OF EXECUTIVE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Classification of political regimes in which democracies are distinguished by the type of executive (0 Dictatorship, 1 Parliamentary Democracy, 2 Mixed Democracy, 3 Presidential Democracy). The following decision rule is applied (see Cheibub, 2007): A. The system is parliamentary either (i) if there is no independently (indirectly or directly) elected president or (ii) if there is an independently (indirectly or directly) elected president but the government is not responsible to the president. B. The system is mixed either if there is an independently (indirectly or directly) elected president and government is responsible to the president. C. The system is presidential if government is not responsible to the elected legislature. NOTE: Responsibility refers to whether the survival of the executive depends directly on legislature (i.e. vote of confidence). .................................................................. 1. PARLIAMENTARY REGIME 2. MIXED REGIME 3. PRESIDENTIAL REGIME 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5054 | | Source: Publicly Available Sources. | | Decision rule comes from: Cheibub, Jose Antonio. 2007. | "Presidentialism, Parliamentarian, and Democracy". New York. | Cambridge University Press. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D5054 | | Austrian executive power is coded as a mixed or semi- | presidential regime given that the president can dissolve the | National Council. Article 29 of the Constitution states: | "(1) The Federal President can dissolve the National Council, | but he may avail himself of this prerogative only once for the | same reason". However, in practice the system works mostly | as a parliamentary system (Muller, 2005). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2015): D5054 | | Classifying the finish executive power is subject to some | controversy. Here it is coded as a mixed or semi-presidential | system. Some key features of the Finnish system that distinguish | it from a traditional parliamentary system are that by | constitution a) the president is popularly elected by direct | vote for a fixed term of six years, and for no more than two | consecutive terms of office; b) the president can, on | recommendation of the prime minister, dissolve the legislature; | c) the president can veto legislature, though parliament can | override the presidential veto with a simple majority; and | d) the president may issue decrees that have force of law. | Nonetheless, it has been argued that Finland, after | constitutional reforms in the 1990's, works in practice as a | parliamentary system. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012 & 2015): D5054 | | The president is elected by the Parliament for a term of five | years. According to article 84 of the Greek Constitution, the | government must enjoy the confidence of parliament. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D5054 | | Note that Hong Kong is not a sovereign state, but a Special | Administrative Region (SAR) in China. The Central Government | authorizes the HKSAR to exercise a high degree of autonomy and | enjoy executive, legislative and independent judicial power. | Therefore, the HKSAR Government is kind of local government. | The Chief Executive (CE) is the President of the Executive | Council of Hong Kong and head of the Government of the Hong | Kong Special Administrative Region. The Chief Executive is | elected by an 800-member Election Committee. The elected CE | must then be appointed by the Central People's Government. | Regarding the relationship between the CE and Legislative | Council, the type of executive may be regarded as some form of a | presidential system, because the CE and the LegCo members are | returned by different elections. | According to the Article 52, the CE must resign in case of | refusal to sign a bill passed by a two-thirds majority of the | Legislative Council. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2013): D5054 | | The coding of Iceland on this particular metric is subject to | various interpretation, with different sources providing | different estimates (for e.g.: the DPI classifies it | as parliamentary and Matt Golder considers it semi- | presidential). While Iceland does have a popularly elected | president, who does have powers under the Icelandic | constitution to dissolve parliament, submit a bill to | parliament, and exercise emergency powers, the powers | exercised have varied depending on the particular | person occupying the Presidency. Accordingly, the position | is largely considered ceremonial. Presidential elections are | also often uncontested (for e.g.: 2000 and 2008). For this | reason, CSES classifies Iceland as a parliamentary system. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D5054 | | The President of the republic of Kenya is both the head of state | and head of government. The President is elected in two-round | system on a first-past-the-post basis. In order to win in the | first round, a candidate is required to receive over 50% of the | vote, as well as 25% of the vote in at least 24 of 47 counties. | A successful presidential candidate must also run for, and win, | a parliamentary seat. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D5054 | | The Philippines is a republic with a presidential form of | government wherein power is equally divided among its three | branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. The Executive | branch is composed of the President and the Vice President who | are elected by direct popular vote and serve a term of six | years. The Constitution grants the President authority to | appoint his Cabinet. | | Source: http://www.gov.ph/about/gov/ | (Date accessed: March 3, 2017) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011): D5054 | | The President of Slovenia is directly elected by universal | adult suffrage once every five years. | There are just two possibilities when the President can dissolve | the parliament but not on his/her initiative: a) It is the | responsibility of the President to propose to the National | Assembly a candidate for PM who then must obtain the required | support in the National Assembly. If no candidates manage to | secure the required majority of votes after three rounds, the | president dissolves the National Assembly and calls new | elections. | b) Under very carefully detailed conditions and procedures, the | National Assembly can be dissolved when the government fails to | carry a vote of confidence. All these means that the president | does not have a discretionary right to dissolve the National | Assembly, but is obliged to do so in some constitutionally- | defined instances (see Alenka Krasovec and Damjan Lajh, 2013: | The Chameleonic Character of the Slovenian Presidents of the | Republic, in Vit Hlousek et al. eds. Presidents above Parties? | Masaryk University: Brno). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D5054 | | The Republic of South Africa is usually described as a | parliamentary representative democratic republic, although | it does not have the institution of a Prime Minister. | However, South Africa's chief executive, i.e. the President, | is functionally closer to a prime minister than a president. | The President is elected by the National Assembly (the lower | house of the South African Parliament) and must enjoy the | confidence of the Assembly in order to remain in office. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D5054 | | Since 1992, the constitution provides for the direct election of | a president. Yet, the executive Yuan is responsible to the | legislative Yuan provided that the legislative Yuan is in | session, its members have the right to interpellate the | President of the Executive Yuan, and Ministers and chairmen of | the Commissions of the said Yuan (Article 57 of the | Constitution). However, the legislature cannot vote no | confidence in the government and can be dissolved by the | president. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2011): D5054 | | Thailand is a constitutional monarchy with a Prime Minister as | head of government and the King as head of state. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5055 >>> NUMBER OF MONTHS SINCE LAST LOWER HOUSE ELECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Indicates the number of months between the current election and the previous national lower chamber election (if current election renews the national lower chamber), or the most recent national lower chamber election (if current election does not renew the national lower chamber). .................................................................. 1-200. NUMBER OF MONTHS SINCE LAST LOWER HOUSE ELECTION 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5055 | | If previous national lower chamber election was held in more | than one round (i.e. run-off election), the data refers to | the number of months since the first round. | | Source: Publicly Available Sources. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012): D5055 | | Due to the failure to form a government after the May 6 2012 | elections, new elections were scheduled and held on June 17, | 2012. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): D5055 | | Previous parliamentary elections were held on June 17, 2012. | The failure to elect a new president in 2014 led to early | parliamentary elections held on 25 January 2015. For ore | details, see note for D5023-D5024. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D5055 | | Current election concerns the Upper House election. | The data refers to the previous Lower House elections, held | on December 16, 2012. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): D5055 | | Previous general elections (parliamentary and presidential | first round) were held on April 10, 2011. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5055 | | Current election concerns the presidential election. The data | refers to the Parliamentary election held on December 9, 2012. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2015): D5055 | | Turkey's 17th general election was held on June 12, 2011 to | elect 550 new members of Grand National Assembly. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5056 >>> NUMBER OF MONTHS SINCE LAST PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Indicates the number of months between the current and previous presidential election. This variable does not signify that the election chose either the nominal or effective head of government. .................................................................. 1-200. NUMBER OF MONTHS SINCE LAST PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 997. NOT APPLICABLE 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5056 | | If previous presidential election was held in more than one | round (i.e. run-off election), the data refers to the number | of months since the first round. | | Source: Publicly Available Sources. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2015): D5056 | | Current election concerns the Lower House election. | The data refers to the presidential elections of January | 22, 2012 (first round). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012 & 2015): D5056 | | The President is elected indirectly, by the Parliament | for a term of five years. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D5056 | | The Chief Executive (CE) is the President of the Executive | Council of Hong Kong and head of the Government of the Hong | Kong Special Administrative Region. As such, the CE can be | seen as an equivalent of the president elsewhere. It is the | highest government official of the HKSAR Government. | The Chief Executive is not elected by a popular vote. Instead, | CE is elected by an 800-member Election Committee. The elected | CE must then be appointed by the Central People's Government. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2011 & 2014): D5056 | | Latvian President is elected indirectly, by the Parliament | for a term of four years. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): D5056 | | Previous general elections (parliamentary and presidential | first round) were held on April 10, 2011. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5056 | | Current election concerns the presidential election. | The data refers to the first round of the Romanian | Presidential elections, held on November 22, 2009. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011): D5056 | | Current election concerns the Lower House election. | The data refers to the presidential elections of October | 21, 2007 (first round). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D5056 | | The President of the Republic of South Africa is elected | indirectly by the National Assembly, for a term of five years. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2012): D5056 | | Previous South Korean presidential election took place on | December 19, 2007. The election was won by Lee Myung-bak of | the Grand National Party (currently the New Frontier | Party; Party A). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2015): D5056 | | Previous Presidential elections were held on August 10, 2014 in | order to elect the 12th President of Turkey. Incumbent Prime | Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was elected outright with a simple | majority of the vote in the first round, making a scheduled | run-off for August 24 unnecessary. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5057 >>> PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS ELECTORAL FORMULA --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable indicates what electoral formula was used to elect the president. The definition of this variable is taken from Matt Golder's database about Democratic Electoral Systems Around the World, 1946-2000 (http://mattgolder.com/elections, Date accessed: May 17, 2018). PLURALITY - the candidate that obtains the most votes wins. ABSOLUTE MAJORITY RULE - A candidate must win over 50% of the vote to win. If no candidate wins this many votes, then there is a runoff between the top two candidates. QUALIFIED MAJORITY RULE - Each qualified majority system specifies a particular percentage of the vote that a candidate must win in order to be elected in the first round. If two or more candidates overcome these thresholds, then the one with the highest number of votes wins. The qualified majority systems vary in terms of the electoral procedure that applies when these thresholds are not met. ELECTORAL COLLEGE - The candidate that wins a plurality of the electoral college votes wins. SINGLE TRANSFERABLE VOTE - Requires voters to rank single candidates in order of the most to least preferred. Votes are transferred until candidates obtain the Droop quota. The candidate that obtains this quota first is elected. .................................................................. 1. PLURALITY 2. ABSOLUTE MAJORITY RULE 3. QUALIFIED MAJORITY RULE 4. ELECTORAL COLLEGE 5. SINGLE TRANSFERABLE VOTE 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5057 | | Source: Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012 & 2015): D5057 | | The President is elected indirectly, by the Parliament | for a term of five years. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D5057 | | See ES note for D5056. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2011 & 2014): D5057 | | The President is elected by secret ballot with a majority of | the votes of not less than fifty-one members of the Saeima | (Article 36 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia). | In other words, Latvian President is elected indirectly, by | the Parliament for a term of four years. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D5057 | | The President of the Republic of South Africa is elected | indirectly by the National Assembly, for a term of five years. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D5057 | | The President and Vice President are not directly elected by | the voters. Voters cast their vote for President and Vice- | President by selecting a pair of candidates listed on a single | Presidential/Vice Presidential ticket. This vote selects slates | of electors to serve in the Electoral College. In forty-eight | of the fifty states and the District of Columbia, the list of | electors that obtains a majority of votes wins the state and | with it the electoral college votes for that state. Maine and | Nebraska allow the possibility for state electoral votes to be | split on the basis of which slate of electors obtains the most | votes in electoral districts. If no candidate obtains a | majority in the electoral college, the election is decided by | the incoming House of Representative. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5058 >>> ELECTORAL FORMULA IN ALL ELECTORAL SEGMENTS (TIERS) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a variable indicating whether the country uses (i) a majoritarian formula in all of its electoral segments (tiers), (ii) a proportional formula in all of its electoral segments (tiers), or (iii) a mixed formula. The definition of this variable is taken from Matt Golder's database about Democratic Electoral Systems Around the World, 1946-2000 (http://mattgolder.com/elections, Date accessed: May 17, 2018). MAJORITARIAN systems require successful candidates to win either a plurality or majority of the vote. As a result, they are considered majoritarian. PROPORTIONAL systems can be divided into two types: those that use party lists and those like the single transferable vote that do not. Those systems employing lists can themselves be divided into two further categories: quota systems (with allocation of remainders) and highest average systems. MIXED systems use a mixture of majoritarian and proportional electoral rules. A country can be classified as having a mixed system whether it uses one or more electoral segments (tiers); in practice, most mixed systems have more than one segment (tier). Mixed electoral systems can be divided into those in which the two electoral formulas are dependent and those in which they are independent. .................................................................. 1. MAJORITARIAN 2. PROPORTIONAL 3. MIXED 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5058 | | Source: CSES Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D5058 | | For the Chamber of Deputies elections (lower house), Argentina | used a proportional closed-list system. Most parties use | primaries to select and order their party lists. Members elected | to the Chamber of Deputies are elected for a four-year term | which is renewable. Half of the Chamber is renewed every two | years. There are 24 multi-member districts with a party/alliance | needing to exceed 3 percent of the registered electors to | secure a seat. | | For more information see: | Altman Olin (n.d) "Argentina Electoral System" ACE Electoral | Knowledge Network, available at: | http://aceproject.org/regions-en/countries-and-territories/AR | /case-studies/esy_ar (Date accessed: April 8, 2018). | and | IFES Election Guide, available at: | http://www.electionguide.org/elections/id/2471/ | (Date accessed: April 8, 2018). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D5058 | | The Austrian electoral system is a proportional representation | system with three segments or tiers. These correspond to the | federal level tier, the Land level tier (or state level) and the | regional districts tier. Counting and allocation of seats passes | through each of these levels. | Voters can cast a (single) party vote on an open list and | indicate their preferred candidate on the respective party list. | See also Election Study Note for D5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D5058 | | Mixed: 299 members are elected at district level under the | majority (first-past-the post) system. The remaining seats | are allocated through a party list using proportional | representation using the Sainte-Lague Formula. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012 & 2015): D5058 | | Greece uses the Hagenbach-Bischoff system of "reinforced" | proportional representation, with voting for party lists and, | within each list, preferential vote. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D5058 | | This concerns the election of 35 representative in | geographical constituencies, and 5 representatives in | the District Council (Second) Functional Constituency. | For more details, see ES note for D5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2013): D5058 | | The Icelandic Althingi (Parliament) has 63 members, where 54 | members are elected from 6 multi-member (9 seats apiece) | constituencies (first tier). In addition, there is a second | tier, comprising of 9 "supplementary" seats that are | allocated to parties (using the D'Hondt method) to ensure the | number of seats they receive is in proportion to its national | vote. However, only party lists that obtain at least 5% of | the national vote are entitled to receive these seats. | | Source: | Landskjorstjorn Elections to the Althingi: | http://www.landskjor.is/media/frettir/AnalysisIceland | Election2013.pdf | (Date accessed January 14, 2015). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D5058 | | The data in variables D5058-D5062 refer to the Upper House | of Japanese Parliament, because the current Japanese CSES | election study refers to the Upper House elections. | See also note D5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D5058 | | For both houses of the Parliament, Kenya uses first-past-the | -post election system. | See also the election study note for D5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2014): D5058 | | Mixed: 70 members are elected at the district level (tier 1) | under the majority (first-past-the post) system. The remaining | 50 seats (tier 2) are allocated through a national party list | using proportional representation based on the | Sainte-Lague Formula. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2014): D5058 | | Mixed: 70 members are elected at the district level (tier 1) | under the majority (first-past-the post) system. The remaining | 50 seats (tier 2) are allocated through a national party list | using proportional representation based on the | Sainte-Lague Formula. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D5058 | | Electoral reform came on to the agenda in Romania in the | aftermath of 2004 elections and the election of a weak | centre-right coalition between the National Liberal Party (PNL) | and the Democratic (PD) parties. However, it was a feud between | President of Romania and the Romanian parliament that brought | the issue to the fore. In 2007, the party alliance of the | PNL and the PD split. The Romanian parliament then voted to | impeach President Basescu, a proponent of electoral reform, | accusing him of abuse of power. The row was sparked by the | decision of then Justice Minister Monica Macovei to take the | appointment of special prosecutors into the domain of the | president, where previously it had been the responsibility of | an independent body. A national referendum was held | on May 19, 2007 to decide whether the president's dismissal by | parliament would be upheld. However, the proposal was defeated | in a low turnout referendum and Basescu was reinstated as | Romanian President shortly afterwards. After his reinstatement, | President Basescu made electoral reform a central issue, | calling for a national referendum on the subject. Initially | President Basescu and Prime Minister Tariceanu put forward | rival models of electoral reform. However, after months of | debate on the subject, including a referendum on the issue, | a compromise was eventually agreed and a new electoral system | was adopted in time for the 2008 parliamentary elections. | | The system adopted was candidate centred, with voters having one | vote for the Chamber of Deputies (Lower House) and one vote for | the Senate. The systems is classified as a mixed system because | it employs both majoritarian and proportional rules. Voters | cast ballots in single member districts. However, the seat | allocation procedure is notably complex and operates over | multiple tiers. Districts are geographically identical to | counties and each county is divided into several single member | districts, known in Romania as colleges. Voters are initially | aggregated at national level to determine which parties have | passed the explicit electoral threshold (see variable D5046 and | variable D5047) and are thus eligible for seats. | Direct seats are won by polling 50% in a district; however, | candidates winning over 50% in their districts win the seat | only if their party passes the appropriate threshold. | However, a party can also enter parliament if it wins at least | three Senate and six Deputy districts in the first tier | regardless of the percentage of votes the party obtains at the | national level. | To decide on seat allocation, the number of votes won by each | of the parties is totalled and divided by the number of seats | (corresponding to the number of districts) established for each | constituency, thus obtaining an electoral quota. Then, the | number of votes won by each party is divided by the quota, thus | giving the number of seats to which each party is entitled. The | second stage involves thee remainders of these divisions being | summed up for each party at the national level using the D'Hondt | system, thus giving a ranked list of parties. Then, in the | district, the first party on the list, regardless of its votes | has priority in the redistribution process, the second party on | the list follows, and so forth. Candidates belonging to the | parties that passed the threshold - winning over 50% of the | votes in their district - are automatically elected and their | districts are no longer included in the next stages of the seat | allocation process. | The candidates from districts without a first round winner then | enter the redistribution process. In each constituency, the | candidates of each party are ranked in the order of the number | of votes obtained by each of them in the district in which they | ran. Based on the quota, each party receives a number of seats | corresponding to its quota. After this stage, the Electoral | Commission determines the number of seats the party is entitled | to in the final distribution. | For 2012, the Chamber of Deputies elected 412 members and the | Senate elected 176 members. Seats are reserved in parliament for | 18 ethnic minority groups representing Germans, Romas, | Macedonians, Armenians, Bulgarians, Albanians, Jews, Tatars, | Czechs/Slovaks, Russians/Lipovians, Serbs, Poles, Italians, | Ukrainians, Turks, Croatians, and Ruthenians. | | For more information see: | Gherghina & Jiglau (2012) "Where does the mechanism collapse?: | Understanding the 2008 Romanian Electoral System", | Representation, Vol 48 No 4, pp.445-59. | DOI: 10.1080/00344893.2012.720889 | Date accessed: March 7, 2017. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5058 | | The 2014 Romanian election study is concerned with the | Presidential elections of 2014. | However, the information about the electoral system, presented | in variables D5038-D5047 and D5058-D5075 concern the Lower and | the Upper House of the Romanian parliament. | For more details about the electoral system see the ES note | for D5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D5058 | | The South African electoral system is a closed-list | proportional representation system. The National Assembly | seats are filled in two tiers: Half (200) seats are | regional seats and filled by reference to regional votes | and regional lists (representing nine federal provinces); | the other half (200) are national seats and filled by | reference to national votes and national lists (or | entirely from regional lists if a party did not submit | a separate national list). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2012): D5058 | | Korea employs a mixed-member majoritarian system that combines | 246 single-member districts (SMD) with 54 proportional | representation (PR) seats, elected from a single nation-wide | district. Each voter casts two votes, one for an individual | candidate in the SMD segment, and one for a closed party list | in the PR segment. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D5058 | | The electoral law in the 2012 legislative election is mixed- | member majoritarian (MMM) system, and the total number of seats | is 113. Among them, 73 seats are elected based on the single- | member districts (SMD), 34 seats based on the proportional | representational (PR) in a nationwide district, and 6 seats for | the aboriginals. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5059 >>> NUMBER OF ELECTORAL SEGMENTS (TIERS) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable indicates the number of electoral segments (tiers) in each country. .................................................................. 0-5. NUMBER OF ELECTORAL SEGMENTS (TIERS) 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5059 | | This variable primarily concerns the Lower House election. | However, if a particular study is focused on the Upper House, or | presidential election, it may report results for these | elections, respectively. | | Source: CSES Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012 & 2015): D5059 | | Of the 300 members of parliament, 250 are elected proportionally | in 56 constituencies comprised of 48 multi- and 8 single-seat | constituencies. | According to Greek Constitution (Article 54.3), part of the | Parliament (no more than 1/20, currently 12), may be elected not | in a specified constituency but rather throughout the country at | large. These are the State Deputies, whose exact number depends | on the total electoral strength of each party. | The remaining 50 seats are awarded to the party receiving the | largest share of the vote, as a 'premium'. | However, since voters cast a single vote only, this system is | different from systems with multiple tiers where voters vote | separately in different tiers. Hence, the system is coded as | consisting of three tiers in variable D5059, and of a single | tier in variables D5063-D5071. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D5059 | | Hong Kong has a unicameral legislature. The Legislative Council | of the HKSAR has 70 members. Half of the legislative council is | returned by geographic constituency (popular) elections; the | other half is returned by functional constituency elections. | Geographical Constituency is treated here as the first segment | of the LegCo. | There are two parts of the Functional Constituencies (FCs): the | traditional FCs and the District Council (Second) FC. | Only the District Council (Second) FC is based on direct | popular elections. Therefore, it is treated here as the | second segment of the LegCo. This segment returns 5 LegCo | members. This segment was introduced by an electoral reform | in 2010. | For more details, see ES note for D5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D5059 | | Data in variables D5058-D5062 refer to the Upper House | of Japanese Parliament, because the current Japanese CSES | election study refers to the Upper House elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D5059 | | The National Assembly (lower house) consists of 350 | representatives. The first tier is represented by 290 members | elected in single member constituencies, according to the first | -past-the-post system. Additional 47 seats, i.e. the second | tier, are awarded to women in separate election in 47 counties, | where each county constitutes a single member constituency. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D5059 | | The Norwegian Parliament comprises 169 seats in two tiers: | 150 members are elected in 19 multi-member districts using | proportional representation. The remaining 19 seats are | compensatory and are allocated to parties that receive 4%+ of | the national vote. These seats are known as "members at large" | and are seen as a means of evening out discrepancies between | the number of votes received and the number of seats in the | Storting. The distribution is based on a comparison of the | actual distribution of seats with what would have been occurred | had the country been treated as on big constituency, thus | allowing a determination to be made as to which parties are | under-represented. While voters do not cast a ballot directly | for this second tier and the seats are awarded at the national | level (albeit dispersed at the constituency level), the tiers | are considered linked because a voter casts only one ballot for | both tiers and the fact that allocation of the 19 additional | seats in part depends on how many seats are won by a party list | in the first tier. | | For more see: | https://www.stortinget.no/en/In-English/About-the-Storting/ | Elections/ | (Date accessed: April 28, 2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D5059 | | The Congress of the Philippines has two chambers or houses: | the House of Representatives (Kapulungan Mga Kinatawan) and | the Senate (Senado). | The House of Representatives is elected on the basis of two | electoral segments. In the first segment, 238 representatives | are elected in single-member districts, to a three-year term. | In addition, up to 20% of the total number of representatives | is elected through the party-list system in a single nation- | wide electoral district (second segment). Party-lists are to | be proposed by indigenous, but non-religious, minority groups. | A maximum of three seats is awarded to each party. Each | elector casts two votes: one for the district representative | and the other for the party of his choice. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5059 | | The 2014 Romanian election study is concerned with the | Presidential elections of 2014. | However, the information about the electoral system, presented | in variables D5038-D5047 and D5058-D5075 concern the Lower and | the Upper House of the Romanian parliament. | For more details about the electoral system see the ES note | for D5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011): D5059 | | National Assembly deputies are elected according to the | proportional system, using Droop quotient in 8 electoral | constituencies. The nation-wide threshold for entering the | parliament is 4% of total vote. The second tier is represented | by those seats that remain unallocated on the bases of election | results in primary constituencies. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D5059 | | Parties present two lists for the 400 National Assembly seats: | 200 nominations on a 'national list' and further 200 candidates | representing the nine provinces in the Assembly. Despite the | two lists, voters have a single vote. There are 9 multi-member | constituencies corresponding to the provinces. Note that the | national lists are optional: if a party did not submit a | separate national list seats are filled entirely from regional | lists. | Since voters have a single vote for the election of the | National Assembly, and the system in effect uses one nationwide | constituency (with 400 members) to elect MPs, the the system is | coded as consisting of one tier in variables D5038-D5047, and | of two tiers in variables D5059, D5063-D5071. | See also ES note for D5058. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2011): D5059 | | The House of Representatives has two segments/tiers: one | consisting of 375 single-member constituencies (D5038_1), and | the second tier based on party list vote and proportional | representation, giving 125 seats in the parliament (D5038_2). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5060 >>> LINKED ELECTORAL SEGMENTS (TIERS) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable indicates whether countries with multiple segments (tiers) have linked (connected) or unlinked (unconnected) segments (tiers). Linkage occurs whenever (i) unused votes from one electoral segment (tier) are used at another level or (ii) the allocation of seats in one segment (tier) is conditional on the seats received in another segment (tier). The definition of this variable is taken from Matt Golder's database about Democratic Electoral Systems Around the World, 1946-2000 (http://mattgolder.com/elections, Date accessed: May 17, 2018). .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 6. SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5060 | | This variable primarily concerns the Lower House election. | However, if a particular study is focused on the Upper House, or | presidential election, it may report results for these | elections, respectively. | | Source: CSES Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D5060 | | The Austrian electoral system is a (non-mixed) proportional | representation system with three segments or tiers. These | correspond to the federal level tier, the Land level tier (or | state level) and the regional districts tier. Counting and | allocation of seats passes through each of these levels, and | as a consequence is a three step process. In first place in each | Laender a Hare quota is calculated and used to distribute seats | across the regional districts. That is, parties are allocated | seats from each regional district depending on how often they | exceeded the Land level specified quota. Followed by this seats | are allocated at the Land level tier also following the Land | level quota. Finally, at the national level seats are | distributed following the D'Hondt system. Seats that have been | already allocated in the first and second tier are deducted from | from the number of seats each parties obtains at the national | level. Only those parties that obtain more than 4% of the | national valid votes or one seat from the regional | constituencies qualify to receive seats from the Laender and | National seat distribution. Given this last element the | electoral system is coded as linked. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (203): D5060 | | In Japan's mixed electoral system, seats of both tiers are | allocated separately; each party is allocated its proportionate | share of the PR seats plus the SMD seats won by its candidates. | However, it is important to notice that candidates may run in | both the SMD districts as well as in the party list of the PR | contest. These so-called "duplicate" candidates are restricted | to run only in SMD constituency located within their PR bloc. | While this feature might create some implicit interdependence | between the segments, Japan's system is coded as un-linked since | the allocation of seats of each segment in done independently, | without considering the marginal results of the other segment. | | Data in variables D5058-D5062 refer to the Upper | House of Japanese Parliament, because the current Japanese | CSES election study refers to the Upper House elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011 & 2014): D5060 | | The two tiers are linked with the 'party vote' for the national | party list (tier 2) acting as a compensatory mechanism to tier 1 | ('electorate vote'), ensuring that the total number of seats | each party wins is near proportional to its total vote. Tier 2 | seats are allocated through a national party list using | proportional representation based on the Sainte-Lague Formula. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5060 | | The 2014 Romanian election study is concerned with the | Presidential elections of 2014. | However, the information about the electoral system, presented | in variables D5038-D5047 and D5058-D5075 concern the Lower and | the Upper House of the Romanian parliament. | For more details about the electoral system see the ES note | for D5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D5060 | | South Africa's electoral system is not mixed, but composed of | two linked tiers that use proportional representation. | Parties present two lists to fill the National Assembly's seats: | 200 nominations on a 'national list' and a 200 candidates | representing the nine provinces in the Assembly. Despite the | two lists, voters have a single vote. The tiers are linked since | successful candidates on a party's national list depend on its | proportion of the national vote; successful candidates on its | provincial lists depend on the proportion of the national vote | in each province. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2012): D5060 | | In Korea's mixed electoral system seats of both tiers are | allocated separately; each party is allocated its proportionate | share of the PR seats plus the SMD seats won by its candidates. | Thus, its segments are classified as not being linked. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2014): D5060 | | There are 39 supplementary seats which are distributed to ensure | proportionality. Having aggregated the seats for each party in | each constituency (310 seats in total), a new distribution of | seats is conducted, based on the total votes for each party at | the national level. As such, the 39 supplementary seats are | allocated to ensure the result is as close as possible to | the proportional result nationally. | | Source: Valmyndigheten, http://www.val.se/ | (Date accessed: February 22, 2016). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5061 >>> DEPENDENT FORMULAE IN MIXED SYSTEMS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This indicates whether the two electoral formulas used in a mixed system are dependent or independent. A dependent mixed system is one in which the application of one formula is dependent on the outcome produced by the other formula. An independent mixed system is one in which the two electoral formulas are implemented independently of each other. The definition of this variable is taken from Matt Golder's database about Democratic Electoral Systems Around the World, 1946-2011 (http://mattgolder.com/elections, Date accessed: November 21, 2016). .................................................................. 1. INDEPENDENT 2. INDEPENDENT/DEPENDENT 3. DEPENDENT 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5061 | | This variable primarily concerns the Lower House election. | However, if a particular study is focused on the Upper House, or | presidential election, it may report results for these | elections, respectively. | | Source: CSES Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D5061 | | Data in variables D5058-D5062 refer to the Upper House | of Japanese Parliament, because the current Japanese CSES | election study refers to the Upper House elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012 & 2015): D5061 | | Mexico's mixed electoral system is classified as dependent | because the marginal distribution of votes of the lower level | segment determines how many seats each party obtains in the | higher level segment. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5061 | | The 2014 Romanian election study is concerned with the | Presidential elections of 2014. | However, the information about the electoral system, presented | in variables D5038-D5047 and D5058-D5075 concern the Lower and | the Upper House of the Romanian parliament. | For more details about the electoral system see the ES note | for D5038. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5062 >>> SUBTYPES OF MIXED ELECTORAL SYSTEMS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sub-types of mixed electoral systems. COEXISTENCE: This is a system in which some districts use a majoritarian formula, while others employ a proportional formula in a single electoral segment (tier). Coexistence systems are independent mixed systems. SUPERPOSITION: This is a system in which a majoritarian and proportional formula are applied in independent electoral districts. FUSION: This is a system in which majoritarian and proportional formulas are used in an independent manner within a single district. CORRECTION: This is a system in which seats distributed by proportional representation in one set of districts are used to correct the distortions created by the majoritarian formula in another. Correction systems are a dependent form of mixed system. CONDITIONAL: This is a system in which the actual use or not of one electoral formula depends on the outcome produced by the other. Conditional systems are a dependent form of mixed system. The definition of this variable is taken from Matt Golder's database about Democratic Electoral Systems Around the World, 1946-2011 (http://mattgolder.com/elections, Date accessed: November 21, 2016). .................................................................. 1. COEXISTENCE 2. SUPERPOSITION 3. FUSION 4. CORRECTION 5. CONDITIONAL 6. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5062 | | This variable primarily concerns the Lower House election. | However, if a particular study is focused on the Upper House, or | presidential election, it may report results for these | elections, respectively. | | Source: Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D5062 | | Data in variables D5058-D5062 refer to the Upper House | of Japanese Parliament, because the current Japanese CSES | election study refers to the Upper House elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5062 | | The 2014 Romanian election study is concerned with the | Presidential elections of 2014. | However, the information about the electoral system, presented | in variables D5038-D5047 and D5058-D5075 concern the Lower and | the Upper House of the Romanian parliament. | For more details about the electoral system see the ES note | for D5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D5062 | | The electoral law in the 2008 legislative election is mixed- | member majoritarian (MMM) system, and the total number of seats | is 113. Among them, 73 seats are elected based on the single- | member districts (SMD), 34 seats based on the proportional | representational (PR) in a nationwide district, and 6 seats for | the aboriginals. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5063 >>> NUMBER OF ELECTORAL DISTRICTS - LOWEST SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of electoral districts or constituencies in the first or lowest electoral segment (tier) for the lower house of the legislature. .................................................................. 001-900. NUMBER OF ELECTORAL DISTRICTS 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5063 | | Source: CSES Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D5063 | | The Austrian electoral system consists of three overlapping | tiers. The first tier is made of 39 regional electoral | districts, the second tier of 9 Land or state level electoral | districts and the third tier of one nation-wide electoral | district. The number of seats allotted to each Land ahead of an | election depends on its census number of resident citizens plus | registered Austrian expatriates. The Hare electoral quota used | for seat allocation both in the first and second tier is | calculated at the level of the second tier. In each Land the | electoral quota is calculated from the number of allotted seats | divided by the number of valid votes cast. The electoral quota | thus varies by Land and the same quota is applied to the first | tier seat allocation in the Land's regional electoral districts. | Seats allocated (and votes used up) in the first tier are | subtracted from the number of seats (and votes) available for | subsequent second tier allocation. The number of seats available | for third tier allocation is 183 minus the number of seats | distributed during first and second tier allocation. The same | rule determines the number of remaining votes available for | third tier allocation. Participation in second and third tier | seat allocation is restricted to parties that have gained at | least one first tier seat or a minimum of 4% of valid votes | nation-wide. Seat allocation in the third tier is through the | D'Hondt divisor rule. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2014): D5063 | | Bulgarian unicameral National Assembly consists of 240 | representatives, elected in 31 multi-member districts, with each | district having between 4 and 16 representatives based on | population. Representatives are elected according to a | proportional representation system based on open party lists. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2015): D5063 | | For parliamentary elections, Finland is divided into 13 | electoral districts. Because of demographic transitions | within Finland, the number of constituencies was reduced to | 13 (from 15) at the election of 2015. There are in total 200 | MPs. The number of MPs per constituency is decided before | each election based on the number of inhabitants in each | constituency. In the Parliamentary election of 2015, the | number of MPs on the mainland constituencies varied between | 7 (in the constituency of Lapland) and 35 (Uusimaa). Of the | 200 MPs, 199 are elected in mainland Finland. Moreover, the | constituency of the autonomous Aland Islands elects 1 MP | according to the Election Act. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012 & 2015): D5063 | | Of the 300 members of parliament, 250 are elected proportionally | in 56 constituencies comprised of 48 multi- and 8 single-seat | constituencies. | According to Greek Constitution (Article 54.3), part of the | Parliament (no more than 1/20, currently 12), may be elected not | in a specified constituency but rather throughout the country at | large. These are the State Deputies, whose exact number depends | on the total electoral strength of each party. | The remaining 50 seats are awarded to the party receiving the | largest share of the vote, as a 'premium'. | However, since voters cast a single vote only, this system is | different from systems with multiple tiers where voters vote | separately in different tiers. Hence, the system is coded as | consisting of a single tier in variables D5063-D5071. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D5063 | | Thirty five members of the Legislative Council of the HKSAR are | elected directly, on the basis of five geographic electoral | constituencies. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2013): D5063 | | For more details see Election Study Note for D5058. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2011): D5063 | | Each of the 43 constituencies elects between 3 and 5 candidates, | and the total number of elected representatives is 166. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2013): D5063 | | Israel has a single electoral constituency with the country | operating as a nationwide district. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D5063 | | The Japanese Lower House (The House of Representatives) has 480 | members, elected for a four-year term. Of these, 180 members | are elected from 11 multi-member constituencies by a party-list | system of proportional representation (second tier here), and | 300 are elected from single-member constituencies (lowest tier | here). | The current Japanese CSES data refer to the Upper | House elections of 2013. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D5063 | | The National Assembly (lower house) consists of 350 | representatives. The first tier is represented by 290 members | elected in single member constituencies. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2011 & 2014): D5063 | | There are 5 multi-member constituencies: Riga, Vidzeme, Latgale, | Kurzeme, and Zemgale. The number of members of parliament to be | elected from each constituency is determined proportionally to | the number of voters registered in each constituency four months | before election day. Voters residing abroad are included among | voters of the Riga constituency. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENGRO (2012): D5063 | | Montenegro has a single electoral constituency with the country | operating as a nationwide district. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011 & 2014): D5063 | | Officially there are 70 electoral constituencies at tier 1 | (although this can alter if there are overhang seats - see | variable note D5075 for more), made up of 63 constituencies | representing the general population and 7 Maori | constituencies. The latter provides special representation to | New Zealand's Maori community. Maori electorates were | introduced in 1867 and operate in the same way as general | constituencies but include Maori electors who have decided to | to place their name on the Maori electoral roll | rather than the general electoral roll. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D5063 | | In the first tier, there are 19 multi-member districts, | electing 150 representatives in total. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): D5063 | | The 130 members of the Congress of the Republic are elected | in 26 multi-member constituencies using closed list | proportional representation. The constituencies represent | country's 25 regions and a special district for metropolitan | Lima and Peruvians abroad. | The representatives are elected for a 5 year term. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D5063 | | The House of Representatives is elected on the basis of two | electoral segments. In the first segment, 238 representatives | are elected in single-member districts. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2015): D5063 | | Portugal has 22 electoral districts in total: 18 in mainland | Portugal plus four other constituencies covering the overseas | (split into two dependent on whether they reside in Europe or | outside Europe) and two remaining districts for the overseas | territories of Madeira and the Azores. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5063 | | The 2014 Romanian election study is concerned with the | Presidential elections of 2014. | However, the information about the electoral system, presented | in variables D5038-D5047 and D5058-D5075 concern the Lower and | the Upper House of the Romanian parliament. | For more details about the electoral system see the ES note | for D5038. | At the time, the Lower House had 315 seats contested in SMDs, | representing the lower tier. After the 2012 Parliamentary | election, only 240 seats were won directly, by winning above | 50% of the district votes. The remaining 75 seats were won | through the second-level allocation, via 43 electoral districts | (second tier). In addition, there were 79 overhang seats. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SERBIA (2012): D5063 | | Serbia has a single electoral constituency with the country | operating as a nationwide district. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2016): D5063 | | Slovakia has a single electoral constituency with the country | operating as a nationwide district. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011): D5063 | | The National Assembly is composed of deputies of the | citizens of Slovenia and comprises 90 deputies. Deputies | are elected by universal, equal, direct and secret voting, | in 8 electoral units (constituencies) (11 deputies are | elected in each electoral unit). 88 National Assembly deputies | are elected according to the proportional system, using Droop | quotient. Two deputies of the Italian and Hungarian national | communities are elected according to the majority system. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2014): D5063 | | In the first tier, there are 29 multi-member districts, | electing 310 representatives in total. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2015): D5063 | | Turkey is split into 85 electoral districts, which elect a | certain number of Members to the Grand National Assembly of | Turkey. The Assembly has a total of 550 seats, which each | electoral district allocated a certain number of MPs in | proportion to their population. The Supreme Electoral Council | of Turkey conducts population reviews of each district before | the election and can increase or decrease a district's number of | seats according to their electorate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5064 >>> AVERAGE DISTRICT MAGNITUDE - LOWEST SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average district magnitude in the first or lowest electoral segment (tier). This is calculated as the total number of seats allocated in the lowest segment (tier) divided by the total number of districts in that segment (tier). .................................................................. 001.00-900.00. NUMBER OF SEATS ELECTED PER DISTRICT 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5064 | | Source: CSES Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D5064 | | Number is the empirical average district magnitude calculated | from the total number of seats allocated in the 39 first tier | districts in the 2013 election. Average district magnitude | varies over time based on electoral result. | For more details see Election Study Note for D5063. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BULGARIA (2014): D5064 | | Each of the 31 constituencies elects between 4 and 16 candidates | and the total number of elected representatives is 240. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2015): D5064 | | The data is based on the mainland multi member constituencies | which give 199 our of 200 Mps. The constituency of the | autonomous Aland Islands always elects 1 MP. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012 & 2015): D5064 | | The average district magnitude refers here to the 250 seats | elected proportionally in 56 constituencies comprised of 48 | multi- and 8 single-seat constituencies. | For more details see Election Study Note for D5063. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D5064 | | Thirty five members of the Legislative Council of the HKSAR are | elected directly, on the basis of five geographic electoral | constituencies. The exact number of LegCo seats in each | constituency is decided according to the constituency | population. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2011): D5064 | | Each of the 43 constituencies elects between 3 and 5 candidates, | and the total number of elected representatives is 166. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D5064 | | The current Japanese CSES data refer to the Upper | House elections of 2013. | See also election study note for D5063. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5064 | | The 2014 Romanian election study is concerned with the | Presidential elections of 2014. | However, the information about the electoral system, presented | in variables D5038-D5047 and D5058-D5075 concern the Lower and | the Upper House of the Romanian parliament. | For more details about the electoral system see the ES note | for D5038. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5065 >>> ELECTORAL FORMULA - LOWEST SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The precise electoral formula used in the first or lowest electoral segment (tier) of the lower house. .................................................................. 10. PLURALITY 11. PLURALITY - SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS 12. PLURALITY - MULTI MEMBER DISTRICTS 20. MAJORITY 21. MAJORITY - RUN-OFF 22. MAJORITY - ALTERNATIVE 30. PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION 31. PR - D'HONDT 32. PR - LARGEST REMAINDER - DROOP 33. PR - LARGEST REMAINDER - HARE 34. PR - MODIFIED STE-LAGUE 98. OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5065 | | Source: CSES Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D5065 | | According to Parline: "Voters are required to express a | preference among all the candidates contesting the same seat. | A candidate is elected if he/she gains an absolute majority or | 50% + 1 vote. If none of the candidates in a division obtains | an absolute majority of the first preference votes, a second | round of counting is held. At this point, the candidate with the | least number of votes is eliminated and the votes which he/she | obtained in the first round are redistributed among the | remaining candidates on the basis of the electors' second | choices. This procedure is repeated until such time as one of | the candidates obtains an absolute majority." | For details: http://www.ipu.org/parline-e/reports/2015_B.htm | (Date accessed: May 17, 2018) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012 & 2015): D5065 | | The 250 seats are allocated proportionally using the | Hagenbach-Bischoff method. However, the data is | coded with response 31 PR - D'Hondt. The reason is that the | Hagenbach-Bischoff method is considered a variant of the | D'Hondt method. Further, both systems return identical results. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2011): D5065 | | "The electoral system in Ireland is a proportional | representation single transferable vote system (PRSTV). Voters | put a '1' beside their most preferred candidate, a '2' beside | their second most preferred candidate, and so on. Voters can | express as many preferences as there are candidates running in | their constituency. On the first count, candidates are declared | elected if they attract enough first preference votes to pass a | specified threshold, which is defined separately for each | constituency according to the formula: [total valid votes/ | (total number of seats +1) +1]. If a candidate is declared | elected on the first count, the second preferences of the | candidate's surplus votes (i.e., votes over and above the | threshold) are then distributed among the other candidates. If | this redistribution does not push any of the remaining | candidates over the threshold, the candidate with the lowest | number of votes is eliminated, then the second preferences of | the eliminated candidate's votes are redistributed. This process | of redistribution of surpluses and elimination of candidates | continues until all the seats in a given constituency are | filled. (For details, see Gallagher et al., 2003, Codebook | Part 1). | | Owing to the quota formula: [total valid votes/(total number | of seats "+1") +1], the STV system in Ireland works similarly | as the party-list proportional representation which uses | the largest-reminder method with droop quota. Consequently, | D5065 of IRL_2007 is coded as 32. | | Because Ireland uses STV instead of PR, there are non-trivial | differences between the electoral system of Ireland and the | other countries with the PR, for example, "residual" votes go | to the next preferred candidates in the STV but in the PR to | the next listed/ranked candidates, even though both systems | employ "droop" quota for the seats allocation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D5065 | | The current Japanese CSES data refer to the Upper | House elections of 2013. | See also election study note for D5063. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5065 | | The 2014 Romanian election study is concerned with the | Presidential elections of 2014. | However, the information about the electoral system, presented | in variables D5038-D5047 and D5058-D5075 concern the Lower and | the Upper House of the Romanian parliament. | For more details about the electoral system see the ES note | for D5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2016): D5065 | | Slovakia uses the Hagenbach-Bischoff method to distribute seats, | a variant of the D'Hondt system. An electoral quota is | calculated by dividing the total number of valid votes won | by lists eligible for seats by the number of seats on offer plus | one (i.e.: 150+1=151). The number of votes polled by each party | that surpasses the threshold is divided by the quota | (with any fractional remainder is disregarded) and this gives | the number of seats each party is entitled to. Any seats that | remain unallocated after the application of this procedure | are distributed according to the largest remainder method. | | Source of data: http://www.electionresources.org/sk/ | (Date accessed: February 9, 2017) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D5065 | | The conversion of votes into seats depends on the nationwide | district. The Droop quota is used to allocate seats. Surplus | seats are apportioned using the largest remainder method. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2014): D5065 | | Modified St-Lague method. "The permanent constituency seats | are distributed on the basis of the total number of votes gained | by the political parties in each constituency. Comparative | numbers are calculated for the parties that will take part in | the distribution of seats. The first comparative number is | obtained by dividing the parties' respective total number of | votes by 1.4. The party which receives the highest comparative | number is awarded the first seat in the constituency. That party | is then allocated a new comparative number, obtained by dividing | the party's votes by 3. The other parties keep their comparative | numbers until they are awarded a seat. When a party obtains its | second seat, its votes are divided by 5 to calculate the next | comparative number. For the third seat by 7 etc. This method of | calculation is referred to as the 'adjusted odd-number method'." | | Source: Valmyndigheten: http://www.val.se/ | Date accessed: February 22, 2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D5065 | | While a plurality of votes is sufficient in 49 states and the | District of Columbia, in the state of Louisiana, a "jungle | primary" has been used since 1977. The system employed is | akin to the first round of a majority run-off election system, | whereby all candidates for an office run together in one | election. If one candidate obtains a majority of the vote, they | win the office they are seeking outright, the only "primary" | where a candidate can actually achieve this without a run off. | When a candidate does not win a majority of the vote, the top | two candidates, irrespective of party, go forward to a run off | election, usually held one month later. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5066 >>> NUMBER OF ELECTORAL DISTRICTS - SECOND SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of electoral districts or constituencies in the second electoral segment (tier) for the lower house of the legislature. .................................................................. 001-900. NUMBER OF ELECTORAL DISTRICTS 997. NOT APPLICABLE 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5066 | | Source: CSES Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D5066 | | The Austrian electoral system has three segments or tiers. These | correspond to the federal level tier, the Land or state level | tier (9 districts) and the regional districts tier | (39 districts). | For more details see Election Study Note for D5063. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D5066 | | The District Council (Second) FC is treated here as the second | segment of the LegCo. This segment returns 5 LegCo members. In | this part of election, the whole of Hong Kong functions as a | single constituency. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2013): D5066 | | For more details see Election Study Note for D5058. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D5066 | | The current Japanese CSES data refer to the Upper House | elections of 2013. | See also election study note for D5063. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D5066 | | The Senate has 68 seats, of which 47 are elected from | single-member constituencies based on the counties using | first-past-the-post, and the remaining 21 are appointed. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2013): D5066 | | In addition to the 150 seats in 19 electoral districts, the | second tier comprises 19 "members at large" seats (for more | see variable notes D5038_2 and D5039_2). These seats are | allotted by the modified Saint-Lague method. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D5066 | | The House of Representatives is elected on the basis of two | electoral segments. In the first segment, 238 representatives | are elected in single-member districts. In addition, up to 20% | of the total number of representatives is elected through the | party-list system in a single nation-wide electoral district | (second tier). After the 2016 elections, there are 59 | representatives elected on party-list basis. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5066 | | The 2014 Romanian election study is concerned with the | Presidential elections of 2014. | However, the information about the electoral system, presented | in variables D5038-D5047 and D5058-D5075 concern the Lower and | the Upper House of the Romanian parliament. | For more details about the electoral system see the ES note | for D5038. | | Electoral districts constituting the second tier are | geographically identical to counties (41 County, plus one for | Bucharest, and one for Romanians living abroad). Each county is | divided into several single member districts, known in Romania | as "electoral colleges." Voters are initially aggregated at | national level to determine which parties have passed the | explicit electoral threshold (see variable D5046 and variable | D5047) and are thus eligible for seats. As a result, it is | possible that all seats are allocated via SMD, and that there | are no sears for this level of allocation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011): D5066 | | National Assembly deputies are elected according to the | proportional system, using Droop quotient in 8 electoral | constituencies. The nation-wide threshold for entering | the parliament is 4% of total vote. The second tier is | represented by those seats that remain unallocated on the | bases of election results in primary constituencies. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2014): D5066 | | There are 39 supplementary seats which are distributed to ensure | proportionality. These seats are allocated by a system of | proportional representation based on the votes obtained | nationwide following the "adjusted odd-number method" see note | for variable D5065. | | Source: Valmyndigheten: http://www.val.se/ | (Date accessed: February 22, 2016). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5067 >>> AVERAGE DISTRICT MAGNITUDE - SECOND SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average district magnitude in the second electoral segment (tier) This is calculated as the total number of seats allocated in the second segment (tier) divided by the total number of districts in that segment (tier). .................................................................. 001.00-900.00. NUMBER OF SEATS ELECTED PER DISTRICT 997.00. NOT APPLICABLE 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5067 | | Source: CSES Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D5067 | | The number is the average district magnitude | calculated from the number of seats allocated in the 9 second | tier districts in the 2013 election. The average district | magnitude varies over time, depending on the electoral results. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D5067 | | The average district magnitude in Germany is liable to change | depending on whether compensatory seats are allotted or | not. Without compensatory seats, the value is 18.69, which is | the value the CSES data reflects. | In the 2013 election, there were 33 compensatory seats (the | total membership of the 2013 Bundestag was 631). Including these | compensatory mandates in the district magnitude calculation | results in the estimate of district magnitude rising to 20.75. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D5067 | | The current Japanese CSES data refer to the Upper | House elections of 2013. | See also election study note for D5063. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011): D5067 | | See Election Study Note for D5075. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2014): D5067 | | The average district magnitude in New Zealand is liable to | change depending on whether compensatory seats are allotted or | not. Without compensatory seats the value is 50, which is | the value the CSES data reflects. | In the 2014 election, there was 1 compensatory or 'overhang' | seat (the total membership of the 2014 House of Representatives | was 121) but this additional seat was at the constituency level | (tier 1) and not at the party list level (tier 2) - for more see | variable note D5075. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5067 | | The 2014 Romanian election study is concerned with the | Presidential elections of 2014. | However, the information about the electoral system, presented | in variables D5038-D5047 and D5058-D5075 concern the Lower and | the Upper House of the Romanian parliament. | For more details about the electoral system see the ES note | for D5038. | | Electoral district constituting the second tier are | geographically identical to counties (41 County, plus one for | Bucharest, and one for Romanians living abroad). However, the | number of seats allocated at this level is variable - depends | how many SMDs are won directly. Hence, it is possible that no | seats are allocated at this level. This data shows the | theoretical maximum electoral district magnitude - the case | where no seat would be allocated by direct winning any SMD. | In 2012, 75 seats were allocate on this level, which means that | the average district magnitude was 1.74. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011): D5067 | | The number of seats that belong to the second tier is not fixed. | The second, nation-wide tier is represented by those seats | that remain unallocated on the bases of election results in | primary constituencies. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5068 >>> ELECTORAL FORMULA - SECOND SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The precise electoral formula used in the second electoral segment (tier) of the lower house. .................................................................. 10. PLURALITY 11. PLURALITY - SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS 12. PLURALITY - MULTI MEMBER DISTRICTS 20. MAJORITY 21. MAJORITY - RUN-OFF 22. MAJORITY - ALTERNATIVE 30. PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION 31. PR - D'HONDT 32. PR - LARGEST REMAINDER - DROOP 33. PR - LARGEST REMAINDER - HARE 34. PR - MODIFIED STE-LAGUE 97. NOT APPLICABLE 98. OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5068 | | Source: CSES Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D5068 | | The current Japanese CSES data refer to the Upper | House elections of 2013. | See also election study note for D5063. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D5068 | | "The parties, organizations and coalitions receiving at least | 2% of the total votes cast for the party-list system | shall be entitled to one seat each, provided that those | garnering more than 2% of the votes shall be entitled | to additional seats in proportion to their total number of | votes." (Section 11 (B) and Section 12 of Republic Act (RA) 941 | or the Party-list System Act). Party-list groups are only | allowed a maximum of three seats. | | There are two formulae in determining the number of allocated | seats for each qualified party. The first formula is used to | compute the number of seats to which the first party (top vote | getter) is entitled to. | Proportion of the first party = | (Total votes for the first party-list) | / (total number of votes for the party-list system). | If the proportion of votes received by the top party without | rounding it off is equal to at least 6% of the total | valid votes cast for all party list groups, then the top party | is entitled to two additional seats for a total of three seats | overall. If the proportion of votes without rounding off is | equal to or greater than 4%, but less than 6%, | then the first party shall have one additional seats | for a total of two seats. If the proportion is less than 4%, | then the first party is not entitled to any additional | seat. | Formula for solving additional seats that other qualified | parties are entitled to: (Additional seats for concerned party) | = [ (Number. of votes of concerned party)/(Number of votes of | first party)] x (Number of additional seats allocated to the | first party). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5068 | | The 2014 Romanian election study is concerned with the | Presidential elections of 2014. | However, the information about the electoral system, presented | in variables D5038-D5047 and D5058-D5075 concern the Lower and | the Upper House of the Romanian parliament. | For more details about the electoral system see the ES note | for D5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D5068 | | The conversion of votes into seats depends on the nationwide | district. The Droop quota is used to allocate seats. Surplus | seats are apportioned using the largest remainder method. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5069 >>> NUMBER OF ELECTORAL DISTRICTS - THIRD SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of electoral districts or constituencies in the third electoral segment (tier) for the lower house of the legislature. This variable is taken from Matt Golder's database about Democratic Electoral Systems Around the World, 1946-2000 (http://mattgolder.com/elections, Date accessed: May 17, 2018). Original variable name: DISTRICTS3. .................................................................. 001-900. NUMBER OF ELECTORAL DISTRICTS 997. NOT APPLICABLE 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5069 | | Source: CSES Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D5069 | | The Austrian electoral system has three segments or | tiers. The single federal electoral district represents | the third tier, while the remaining two are the Land or | state level and the regional tier. | For more details see Election Study Note for D5063. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5070 >>> AVERAGE DISTRICT MAGNITUDE - THIRD SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average district magnitude in the third electoral segment (tier). This is calculated as the total number of seats allocated in the second segment (tier) divided by the total number of districts in that segment (tier). This variable is taken from Matt Golder's database about Democratic Electoral Systems Around the World, 1946-2000 (http://mattgolder.com/elections, Date accessed: May 17, 2018). Original variable name: AVEMAG3. .................................................................. 001.00-900.00. NUMBER OF SEATS ELECTED PER DISTRICT 997.00. NOT APPLICABLE 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5070 | | Source: CSES Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D5070 | | The number is the district magnitude calculated from | the number of seats allocated in the single third tier district | in the 2013 election. | District magnitude varies over time based on electoral result. | For more details see Election Study Note for D5063. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5071 >>> ELECTORAL FORMULA - THIRD SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The precise electoral formula used in the third electoral segment (tier) of the lower house. .................................................................. 10. PLURALITY 11. PLURALITY - SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS 12. PLURALITY - MULTI MEMBER DISTRICTS 20. MAJORITY 21. MAJORITY - RUN-OFF 22. MAJORITY - ALTERNATIVE 30. PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION 31. PR - D'HONDT 32. PR - LARGEST REMAINDER - DROOP 33. PR - LARGEST REMAINDER - HARE 34. PR - MODIFIED STE-LAGUE 97. NOT APPLICABLE 98. OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5071 | | Source: CSES Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5072 >>> NUMBER OF SEATS ABOVE THE FIRST SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The number of seats allocated in electoral districts or constituencies above the first or lowest segment (tier). This variable may include seats allocated in several different upper segments (tiers). .................................................................. 000-900. NUMBER OF SEATS 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5072 | | Source: CSES Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D5072 | | The number is based on the seat allocation after the | 2013 election. | The number of distributed seats within each tier varies from | election to election, depending on the electoral result. | For more details see Election Study Note for D5063. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012 & 2015): D5072 | | The data refers to the 50 seats awarded to the party | receiving the largest share of the vote, as a 'premium'. | For more details see Election Study Note for D5063. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D5072 | | The District Council (Second) FC is treated here as the second | segment of the LegCo. This segment returns 5 LegCo members. In | this part of election, the whole of Hong Kong functions as a | single constituency. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D5072 | | The current Japanese CSES data refer to the Upper | House elections of 2013. | See also election study note for D5063. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D5072 | | The total number of seats above the first tier entered here | includes 47 seats, are awarded to women in separate election | in 47 counties, 12 appointed members, and the Assembly | Speaker, who is an ex officio member. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011): D5072 | | See Election Study Note for D5075. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5072 | | The 2014 Romanian election study is concerned with the | Presidential elections of 2014. | However, the information about the electoral system, presented | in variables D5038-D5047 and D5058-D5075 concern the Lower and | the Upper House of the Romanian parliament. | For more details about the electoral system see the ES note | for D5038. | | Number of seats allocated above the first tier is variable. | Theoretically it is possible that no seat is allocated above the | first tier. After the 2012 election, 154 seats were allocated | above the first tier. There were 75 seats allocated via 43 | county constituencies, and 79 overhang seats. This data does | not include the 18 seats reserved for ethnic minorities. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011): D5072 | | Number of seats that belong to the second tier is not fixed. | The second, nation-wide tier is represented by those seats | that remain unallocated on the bases of election results in | primary constituencies. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5073 >>> PERCENTAGE OF SEATS ABOVE THE FIRST SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Percentage of seats allocated in electoral districts above the lowest segment (tier). .................................................................. 000.00-100.00. PERCENTAGE OF SEATS 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5073 | | Source: CSES Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D5073 | | The number (108/183=59.02) is based on the seat allocation after | the 2013 election. | The number of seats distributed within each tier varies from | election to election, depending on electoral result. | For more details see Election Study Note for D5063. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D5073 | | This number of seats allocated in the first tier can change | depending on whether compensatory seats are allotted or | not. Without compensatory seats, the value is always 50% which | is the value the CSES data reflects. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2012 & 2015): D5073 | | The data refers to the 50 seats awarded to the party | receiving the largest share of the vote, as a 'premium'. | For more details see Election Study Note for D5063. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D5073 | | The District Council (Second) FC is treated here as the second | segment of the LegCo. This segment returns 5 LegCo members. | The data is calculated taking into account only directly | elected seats (Geographic constituency of 35 seats, and the | Second FC with 5 eats (40 seats in total). | For more details about Hong Kong electoral system, see ES note | for D5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D5073 | | The current Japanese CSES data refer to the Upper | House elections of 2013. | See also election study note for D5063. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011): D5073 | | The number of seats allocated in the second tier can change | depending on whether compensatory seats are allotted or | not. Without compensatory seats, the value is always 41.7% which | is the value the CSES data reflects. One compensatory seat was | allocated in tier 2 in the 2011 elections, which increased the | percentage of seats above tier 1 to 42.15%. However, without | compensatory seats, the value is always 41.7% which is the value | CSES data reflects. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2014): D5073 | | The number of seats allocated in the second tier can change | depending on whether compensatory seats are allotted or | not. Without compensatory seats, the value is always 41.7% which | is the value the CSES data reflects. No compensatory seats were | allocated in tier 2 in the 2014 elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5073 | | The 2014 Romanian election study is concerned with the | Presidential elections of 2014. | However, the information about the electoral system, presented | in variables D5038-D5047 and D5058-D5075 concern the Lower and | the Upper House of the Romanian parliament. | For more details about the electoral system see the ES note | for D5038. | | Number of seats allocated above the first tier is variable. | Theoretically it is possible that no seat is allocated above | the first tier. After the 2012 election, 154 seats were | allocated above the first tier. There were 75 seats allocated | via 43 county constituencies, and 79 overhang seats. The data | does not include the 18 seats reserved for ethnic minorities. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011): D5073 | | Number of seats that belong to the second tier is not fixed. | The second, nation-wide tier is represented by those seats | that remain unallocated on the bases of election results in | primary constituencies. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5074 >>> FUSED VOTE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This indicates whether a fused vote was used for presidential and legislative elections. A fused vote is when a citizen casts a single ballot for the elections of more than one political office. This particular variable captures when the single ballot is for the presidency and the legislature. Citizens are unable to divide their votes among the candidates or lists of different parties. Split-ticket voting is expressly prohibited. .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5074 | | Source: CSES Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D5074 | | While voters in Argentina can cast a fused vote, Argentine | election law considers each election (the presidential | and legislative elections) to be a separate choice and thus a | voter casting a fused ballot is considered to have made two | individual choices. According to the Argentine collaborator, | voters and can regularly do split their votes by physically | cutting their ballot paper in half and thus combining a | vote for a presidential candidate for one party/alliance and | a legislative vote for another party/alliance. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5075 >>> SIZE OF THE LOWER HOUSE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total number of seats in the lower house of the legislature during the election year. .................................................................. 001-900. SEATS IN THE LOWER HOUSE 999. MISSING. | VARIABLE NOTES: D5075 | | Source: CSES Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D5075 | | Constitutionally, the Argentina Chamber of Deputies comprises | comprises 257 seats. Deputies are elected for a four-year term | via closed-list proportional representation system. Half of the | Chamber of Deputies are renewed every two years. The data | reported here includes the full size of the Chambers of | Deputies. Only 130 seats were contested in the 2015 elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D5075 | | Constitutionally, the Bundestag comprises of 598 seats. Half | of the members (299) members are elected in single member | districts using the first past the post electoral system | (the "first vote"). The remaining 299 seats are filled by | proportional representation using the party list (the "second | vote"). These seats are distributed according to the Saint | Lague method. | According to the 2013 Federal Election Act, in circumstances | where parties obtain more seats in the single member districts | ("first vote") than it is entitled to according to the results | of the proportional representation system ("second vote"), | it is authorized to keep these additional seats. Accordingly, | and to ensure proportionality of the share of the votes for all | parties nationwide, compensatory seats are allocated. In the | 2013 Bundestag elections, there were 33 compensatory seats, | resulting in the size of the Bundestag being 631. | | Source: | Inter-Parliamentary Union Electoral Systems: | http://www.ipu.org/parline-e/mod-electoral.asp | (Date accessed: November 11, 2014). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D5075 | | Legislative Council (LegCo) in Hong Kong is composed of 70 | members, 35 of which are returned by Geographical Constituency | elections and another 35 by Functional Constituency elections. | For more details about Hong Kong electoral system, see ES note | for D5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D5075 | | The current Japanese CSES data refer to the Upper | House elections of 2013. | See also election study note for D5063. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D5075 | | The National Assembly (lower house) consists of 350 | representatives. The first tier is represented by 290 members | elected in single member constituencies. Additional 47 seats, | i.e. the second tier, are awarded to women in separate election | in 47 counties, where each county constitutes a single member | constituency. There are also 12 appointed members, and the | Assembly Speaker, who is an ex officio member. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2011 & 2014): D5075 | | The Constitution of the Republic of Latvia sets forth that the | Saeima is composed of 100 representatives of the people and is | elected for a term of four years in general, equal and direct | elections conducted by secret ballot and based on proportional | representation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2011): D5075 | | Conventionally, the New Zealand Parliament has 120 members. | However this can sometimes increase due to 'overhang' seats, | which arise when a party gains more constituency seats (tier 1) | than its party list vote (tier 2) would entitle it to on a | proportional basis. In 2011, the number of seats in New | Zealand's parliament was 121 because the Maori Party won | three electorates (tier 1). Its party list vote would otherwise | only have entitled it to two seats based on its share of the | party list vote. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2014): D5075 | | Conventionally, The New Zealand Parliament has 120 members. | However this can sometimes increase due to 'overhang' seats, | which arise when a party gains more constituency seats (tier 1) | than its party list vote (tier 2) would entitle it to on a | proportional basis. In 2014, the number of seats in New | Zealand's parliament was 121 because the United First Party won | the electorate of Ohariu (tier 1). It would otherwise not have | been entitled to any seats based on its 0.2% share of the | party list vote. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D5075 | | The Congress of the Philippines has two chambers or houses: | the House of Representatives (Kapulungan Mga Kinatawan) and | the Senate (Senado). | The House of Representatives is elected on the basis of two | electoral segments. In the first segment, 238 representatives | are elected in single-member districts. In addition, up to 20% | of the total number of representatives is elected through the | party-list system in a single nation-wide electoral district | (second segment). After the 2016 elections, there are 59 | representatives elected on party-list basis. Thus, in total | after the 2016 elections there were 297 representatives in the | House of Representatives. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5075 | | The 2014 Romanian election study is concerned with the | Presidential elections of 2014. | However, the information about the electoral system, presented | in variables D5038-D5047 and D5058-D5075 concern the Lower and | the Upper House of the Romanian parliament. | For more details about the electoral system see the ES note | for D5038. | | After the 2012 Parliamentary election, the actual size of the | Lower House was 412. Out of 315 SMDs, 240 seats were won | directly, by winning above 50% of the votes. The remaining | 75 seats were won through the second-level allocation, via | 43 electoral districts. In addition, there were 79 overhang | seats. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D5075 | | Reform adopted by the Legislative Yuan in 2007 changed the | electoral boundaries into 73 single-member districts and reduced | the size of the legislature from 225 seats to 113 seats. The | legislative term was also lengthened from the current three | years to four years. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5080_1 >>> GDP GROWTH - ANNUAL % (WORLD BANK) - TIME T D5080_2 >>> GDP GROWTH - ANNUAL % (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-1 D5080_3 >>> GDP GROWTH - ANNUAL % (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- These variables report World Bank estimate of the annual GDP growth, at three time periods: the election year (time T), one year before election (T-1), and two years before election (T-2). Definition: Annual percentage growth rate of GDP at market prices based on constant local currency. Aggregates are based on constant 2000 U.S. dollars. GDP is the sum of gross value added by all resident producers in the economy plus any product taxes and minus any subsidies not included in the value of the products. It is calculated without making deductions for depreciation of fabricated assets or for depletion and degradation of natural resources. .................................................................. -20.00 to +20.00. PERCENT ANNUAL GROWTH 99.00. MISSING/NOT AVAILABLE AT TIME OF PUBLICATION | VARIABLE NOTES: D5080_ | | These data comes from the World Bank World Development | Indicators Open Database - see: | http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG | (Date accessed: April 9, 2017). | | Users are advised that there is normally a two-year time lag | between estimates being available and the election year in | question. ELECTION STUDY NOTES for each country will detail | where this is the case. | | CSES collects the most up to data for each polity available | at the time the data is being processed by the CSES Secretariat. | However, aggregate level macro data from the World Bank is often | updated retroactively as revised estimates become available. | These revised estimates are usually because of improved data | collection, or more evidence becoming available to allow for a | more robust estimates to be made, or changes in methodology. | For more see the advice of the World Bank at: | http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/0,, | contentMDK:20541394~menuPK:1277382~pagePK:64133150~piPK:64133175 | ~print:Y~theSitePK:239419,00.html#recent_data | (Date accessed: April 9, 2017). | | The CSES policy is to provide users with estimates of data | at the time the data is processed. CSES does not retroactively | update these estimates as to do so might impede replication. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D5080 | | These data are sourced from the CIA World Fact Book. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5081_1 >>> GDP PER CAPITA, PPP (WORLD BANK) - TIME T D5081_2 >>> GDP PER CAPITA, PPP (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-1 D5081_3 >>> GDP PER CAPITA, PPP (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- These variables report World Bank estimate of the GDP per capita, at three time periods: the election year (time T), one year before election (T-1), and two years before election (T-2). Definition: GDP is gross domestic product at purchaser prices divided by midyear population. It is the sum of the gross value added by all resident producers in the economy plus any product taxes and minus any subsidies not included in the value of the products. It is calculated without deductions for depreciation of fabricated assets or for depletion and degradation of natural resources. PPP GDP is gross domestic product converted to international dollars using purchasing power parity rates. An international dollar has the same purchasing power over GDP as a U.S. dollar has in the United States. Data are in constant 2005 international dollars. .................................................................. 000000.00-899999.00. GDP PER CAPITA 999999.00. MISSING/NOT AVAILABLE AT TIME OF PUBLICATION | VARIABLE NOTES: D5081_ | | These data comes from the World Bank World Development | Indicators Open Database - see: | http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD | (Date accessed: April 9, 2017). | | Users are advised that there is normally a two-year time lag | between estimates being available and the election year in | question. ELECTION STUDY NOTES for each country will detail | where this is the case. | | CSES collects the most up to data for each polity available | at the time the data is being processed by the CSES Secretariat. | However, aggregate level macro data from the World Bank is often | updated retroactively as revised estimates become available. | These revised estimates are usually because of improved data | collection, or more evidence becoming available to allow for a | more robust estimates to be made, or changes in methodology. | For more see the advice of the World Bank at: | http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/0,, | contentMDK:20541394~menuPK:1277382~pagePK:64133150~piPK:64133175 | ~print:Y~theSitePK:239419,00.html#recent_data | (Date accessed: April 9, 2017). | | The CSES policy is to provide users with estimates of data | at the time the data is processed. CSES does not retroactively | update these estimates as to do so might impede replication. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D5081 | | These data are sourced from the CIA World Fact Book. | The data are in US dollars. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5082_1 >>> INFLATION, GDP DEFLATOR (ANNUAL %) (WORLD BANK) - TIME T D5082_2 >>> INFLATION, GDP DEFLATOR (ANNUAL %) (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-1 D5082_3 >>> INFLATION, GDP DEFLATOR (ANNUAL %) (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- These variables report World Bank estimate of Inflation at three time periods: the election year (time T), one year before election (T-1), and two years before election (T-2). Definition: Inflation as measured by the annual growth rate of the GDP implicit deflator shows the rate of price change in the economy as a whole. The GDP implicit deflator is the ratio of GDP in current local currency to GDP in constant local currency. .................................................................. -100.00-10000.00. INFLATION (ANNUAL %) 99999.00. MISSING/NOT AVAILABLE AT TIME OF PUBLICATION | VARIABLE NOTES: D5082_ | | These data comes from the World Bank World Development | Indicators Open Database - see: | http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.DEFL.KD.ZG | (Date accessed: April 9, 2017). | | Users are advised that there is normally a two-year time lag | between estimates being available and the election year in | question. ELECTION STUDY NOTES for each country will detail | where this is the case. | | CSES collects the most up to data for each polity available | at the time the data is being processed by the CSES Secretariat. | However, aggregate level macro data from the World Bank is often | updated retroactively as revised estimates become available. | These revised estimates are usually because of improved data | collection, or more evidence becoming available to allow for a | more robust estimates to be made, or changes in methodology. | For more see the advice of the World Bank at: | http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/0,, | contentMDK:20541394~menuPK:1277382~pagePK:64133150~piPK:64133175 | ~print:Y~theSitePK:239419,00.html#recent_data | (Date accessed: April 9, 2017). | | The CSES policy is to provide users with estimates of data | at the time the data is processed. CSES does not retroactively | update these estimates as to do so might impede replication. | Data are unavailable at time of publication for D5082_3 for | TAIWAN (2012). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D5082 | | These data are sourced from the CIA World Fact Book. | These capture the inflation rate of consumer prices. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5083_1 >>> HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX (UNPD) - TIME T D5083_2 >>> HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX (UNPD) - TIME T-1 D5083_3 >>> HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX (UNPD) - TIME T-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- These variables report UNDP Human Development Index (HDI) at three time periods: the election year (time T), one year before election (T-1), and two years before election (T-2). Definition: The human development index (HDI) is a composite index that measures the average achievements in a country in three basic dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life; access to knowledge; and a decent standard of living. These basic dimensions are measured by life expectancy at birth, adult literacy and combined gross enrollment in primary, secondary and tertiary level education, and gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in Purchasing Power Parity US dollars (PPP US$), respectively. .................................................................. 00.00-99.00. HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX 999.00. MISSING/NOT AVAILABLE AT TIME OF PUBLICATION | VARIABLE NOTES: D5083_ | | These data comes from the United Nations Human Development | Database see: http://hdr.undp.org/en/data | (Date accessed: April 9, 2017). | | As of 2010 HDI data are different from the previous | reports, due to the revision of the HDI methodology. Hence, | data for all the countries included in this CSES release are | updated accordingly. For more details about the change in the | HDI methodology, see: | http://hdr.undp.org/en/faq-page/human-development-index-hdi | (Date accessed: April 9, 2017). | Data are unavailable at time of publication for D5083_1 for | PERU (2016), PHILLIPINES (2016), SLOVAKIA (2016) and | TAIWAN (2012). | Data are unavailable at time of publication for D5083_2 for | TAIWAN (2012). | Data are unavailable at time of publication for D5083_3 for | TAIWAN (2012). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5084_1 >>> POPULATION, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T D5084_2 >>> POPULATION, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-1 D5084_3 >>> POPULATION, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- These variables report World Bank estimate of the total population size, at three time periods: the election year (time T), one year before election (T-1), and two years before election (T-2). Definition: Total population is based on the de facto definition of population, which counts all residents regardless of legal status or citizenship - except for refugees not permanently settled in the country of asylum, who are generally considered part of the population of their country of origin. .................................................................. 1000-899,999,999. POPULATION SIZE 999,999,999. MISSING/NOT AVAILABLE AT TIME OF PUBLICATION | VARIABLE NOTES: D5084_ | | These data comes from the World Bank World Development | Indicators Open Database - see: | http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL | (Date accessed: April 9, 2017). | | Definition: Total population is based on the de facto definition | of population, which counts all residents regardless of legal | status or citizenship - except for refugees not permanently | settled in the country of asylum, who are generally considered | part of the population of their country of origin. | Users are advised that there is normally a two-year time lag | between estimates being available and the election year in | question. ELECTION STUDY NOTES for each country will detail | where this is the case. | | CSES collects the most up to data for each polity available | at the time the data is being processed by the CSES Secretariat. | However, aggregate level macro data from the World Bank is often | updated retroactively as revised estimates become available. | These revised estimates are usually because of improved data | collection, or more evidence becoming available to allow for a | more robust estimates to be made, or changes in methodology. | For more see the advice of the World Bank at: | http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/0,, | contentMDK:20541394~menuPK:1277382~pagePK:64133150~piPK:64133175 | ~print:Y~theSitePK:239419,00.html#recent_data | (Date accessed: April 9, 2017). | | The CSES policy is to provide users with estimates of data | at the time the data is processed. CSES does not retroactively | update these estimates as to do so might impede replication. | Data are unavailable at time of publication for D5084_1 for | PERU (2016). | Data are unavailable at time of publication for D5084_2 for | TAIWAN (2012). | Data are unavailable at time of publication for D5084_3 for | TAIWAN (2012). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D5084_1 | | The data comes from The Statistics Austria, Population | forecast 2013 at http://www.statistik.at (Date accessed: | October 18, 2013). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D5084 | | The source of these data (for year 2013) is the CIA world fact | book. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5085_1 >>> UNEMPLOYMENT, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T D5085_2 >>> UNEMPLOYMENT, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-1 D5085_3 >>> UNEMPLOYMENT, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- These variables report World Bank estimates of the unemployment rate (% of total labor force), at three time periods: the election year (time T), one year before election (T-1), and two years before election (T-2). Unemployment is the share of the labor force without work but available for and seeking employment. Definitions of labor force and unemployment may differ by country. ................................................................. 00.00-100.00. UNEMPLOYMENT RATE (% OF TOTAL LABOR FORCE) 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5085_ | | Unemployment is the share of the labor force without work but | available for and seeking employment. Definitions of labor force | and unemployment may differ by country. | | These data comes from the World Bank World Development | Indicators Open Database - see: | http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.UEM.TOTL.ZS | (Date accessed: April 9, 2017). | | Users are advised that there is normally a two-year time lag | between estimates being available and the election year in | question. ELECTION STUDY NOTES for each country will detail | where this is the case. | | CSES collects the most up to data for each polity available | at the time the data is being processed by the CSES Secretariat. | However, aggregate level macro data from the World Bank is often | updated retroactively as revised estimates become available. | These revised estimates are usually because of improved data | collection, or more evidence becoming available to allow for a | more robust estimates to be made, or changes in methodology. | For more see the advice of the World Bank at: | http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/0,, | contentMDK:20541394~menuPK:1277382~pagePK:64133150~piPK:64133175 | ~print:Y~theSitePK:239419,00.html#recent_data | (Date accessed: April 9, 2017). | | The CSES policy is to provide users with estimates of data | at the time the data is processed. CSES does not retroactively | update these estimates as to do so might impede replication. | | See also notes for D5080_. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D5085 | | Taiwan data unavailable in WDI database. The source of these | data is the IMF. World economic outlook database. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5086. >>> TI CORRUPTION PERCEPTION INDEX --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI). The Index measures the perceived levels of public sector corruption in countries worldwide, scoring them from 0 (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean). The Corruption Perceptions Index aggregates data from a number of different sources that provide perceptions of business people and country experts of the level of corruption in the public sector. .................................................................. 00.-100. TI CORRUPTION PERCEPTION INDEX 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5086 | | These data come from Transparency International | see: http://www.transparency.org/research/cpi/overview | (Date accessed: April 9, 2017). | | The Corruption Perceptions Index aggregates data from a number | of different sources that provide perceptions of business people | and country experts of the level of corruption in the public | sector. | | From 2012 Transparency International changed | methodology in constructing the CPI. Hence, country scores of | the CPI 2012 cannot be compared against those of 2011 or | previous editions. Year to year comparisons are possible from | 2012 onwards. | | Elections held in 2011 and included in the CSES provide CPI | data for the year 2012 as it is the closest point where | comparable data is available. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D5086 | | The data refers to year 2012, the closest available year. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011): D5086 | | The data refers to the year 2012, the closest available year. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2011): D5086 | | The data refers to year 2012, the closest available year. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): D5086 | | The data refers to year 2015, the closest available year. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011): D5086 | | The data refers to year 2013, the closest available year. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5088_1. >>> NET MIGRATION RATE 2010-2015 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports the net difference in the number of migrants as an average estimate of the net number of migrants per 1,000 of the population during the period 2010-2015. The variable is calculated by taking the number of immigrants minus the number of emigrants and dividing by the person/years lived by the population of the receiving country over that period. A positive value represents more people entering the country than leaving it. A negative value represents more people leaving than entering the country. .................................................................. -100.00 to +100.00. NET MIGRATION RATE 2010-2015 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5088_1 | | These data come from the United Nations World Population | Prospects 2015 revisions. | see: https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Download/Standard/Migration/ | (Date accessed: April 9, 2017). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5088_2. >>> NET MIGRATION RATE 2005-2010 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports the net difference in the number of migrants as an average estimate of the net number of migrants per 1,000 of the population during the period 2005-2010. The variable is calculated by taking the number of immigrants minus the number of emigrants and dividing by the person/years lived by the population of the receiving country over that period. A positive value represents more people entering the country than leaving it. A negative value represents more people leaving than entering the country. .................................................................. -100.00 to +100.00. NET MIGRATION RATE 2005-2010 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5088_2 | | These data come from the United Nations World Population | Prospects 2015 revisions. | see: https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Download/Standard/Migration/ | (Date accessed: April 9, 2017). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5089_1. >>> GENERAL GOVERNMENT FINAL CONSUMPTION EXPENDITURE (%GDP) - T D5089_2. >>> GENERAL GOVERNMENT FINAL CONSUMPTION EXPENDITURE (%GDP) - T-1 D5089_3. >>> GENERAL GOVERNMENT FINAL CONSUMPTION EXPENDITURE (%GDP) - T-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- These variables report World Bank estimates of the General government final consumption expenditure (% of GDP) at three time periods: the election year (time T), one year before election (T-1), and two years before election (T-2). Definition: General government final consumption expenditure includes all government current expenditures for purchases of goods and services (including compensation of employees). It also includes most expenditures on national defense and security, but excludes government military expenditures that are part of government capital formation. .................................................................. 000.00-100.00. GENERAL GOVERNMENT FINAL CONSUMPTION EXPENDITURE (%GDP) 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5089_ | | These data comes from the World Bank World Development | Indicators Open Database - see: | http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.CON.GOVT.ZS | (Date accessed: April 9, 2017). | | Users are advised that there is normally a two-year time lag | between estimates being available and the election year in | question. ELECTION STUDY NOTES for each country will detail | where this is the case. | | CSES collects the most up to data for each polity available | at the time the data is being processed by the CSES Secretariat. | However, aggregate level macro data from the World Bank is often | updated retroactively as revised estimates become available. | These revised estimates are usually because of improved data | collection, or more evidence becoming available to allow for a | more robust estimates to be made, or changes in methodology. | For more see the advice of the World Bank at: | http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/0,, | contentMDK:20541394~menuPK:1277382~pagePK:64133150~piPK:64133175 | ~print:Y~theSitePK:239419,00.html#recent_data | (Date accessed: April 9, 2017). | | The CSES policy is to provide users with estimates of data | at the time the data is processed. CSES does not retroactively | update these estimates as to do so might impede replication. | | Data are unavailable at time of publication for D5089_1 for | NEW ZEALAND (2011). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D5089 | | The source of these data is the IMF. World economic outlook | data base. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5091_1. >>> HEALTH EXPENDITURE (% GDP) TIME T D5091_2. >>> HEALTH EXPENDITURE (% GDP) TIME T-1 D5091_3. >>> HEALTH EXPENDITURE (% GDP) TIME T-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- These variables report World Bank estimates of the Total health expenditure (% of GDP) at three time periods: the election year (time T), one year before election (T-1), and two years before election (T-2). Definition: Total health expenditure is the sum of public and private health expenditure. It covers the provision of health services (preventive and curative), family planning activities, nutrition activities, and emergency aid designated for health but does not include provision of water and sanitation. .................................................................. 000.00-100.00. HEALTH EXPENDITURE (% GDP) 999.00. MISSING/NOT AVAILABLE AT TIME OF PUBLICATION | VARIABLE NOTES: D5091_ | | These data comes from the World Bank World Development | Indicators Open Database - see: | http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS | (Date accessed: April 9, 2017). | | Users are advised that there usually is a two-year time lag | in some estimates being available. Consequently certain data | might not have been available at the time of the Full Release | of the data. Polities, where data were unavailable at the | time of release, are listed below in the final paragraph of | this variable note. Users can consult the official data source, | directly, also detailed below, to see if data unavailable at the | time of the Full Release has become accessible in the interim. | | CSES collects the most up to data for each polity available | at the time the data is being processed by the CSES Secretariat. | However, aggregate level macro data from the World Bank is often | updated retroactively as revised estimates become available. | These revised estimates are usually because of improved data | collection, or more evidence becoming available to allow for a | more robust estimates to be made, or changes in methodology. | For more see the advice of the World Bank at: | http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/0,, | contentMDK:20541394~menuPK:1277382~pagePK:64133150~piPK:64133175 | ~print:Y~theSitePK:239419,00.html#recent_data | (Date accessed: April 9, 2017). | | The CSES policy is to provide users with estimates of data | at the time the data is processed. CSES does not retroactively | update these estimates as to do so might impede replication. | | Data are unavailable at time of publication for D5091_1 for | the following polities: ARGENTINA (2015), CANADA (2015), | FINLAND (2015), GREAT BRITAIN (2015), GREECE (2015), | HONG KONG (2012), MEXICO (2015), NEW ZEALAND (2014), | PERU (2016), PHILLIPINES (2016), SLOVAKIA (2016), TAIWAN (2012), | and TURKEY (2015). | | Data are unavailable at time of publication for D5091_2 for | the following polities: HONG KONG (2012), PERU (2016), | PHILLIPINES (2016), SLOVAKIA (2016), and TAIWAN (2012). | | Data are unavailable at time of publication for D5091_3 for | the following polities: HONG KONG (2012), and TAIWAN (2012) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5092_1. >>> MILITARY EXPENDITURE (% GDP) TIME T D5092_2. >>> MILITARY EXPENDITURE (% GDP) TIME T-1 D5092_3. >>> MILITARY EXPENDITURE (% GDP) TIME T-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- These variables report World Bank estimates of the Military expenditure (% of GDP) at three time periods: the election year (time T), one year before election (T-1), and two years before election (T-2). Definition: Military expenditures data are derived from the NATO definition, which includes all current and capital expenditures on the armed forces, including peacekeeping forces; defense ministries and other government agencies engaged in defense projects; paramilitary forces, if these are judged to be trained and equipped for military operations; and military space activities. .................................................................. 000.00-100.00. MILITARY EXPENDITURE (% GDP) 999.00. MISSING/NOT AVAILABLE AT TIME OF PUBLICATION | VARIABLE NOTES: D5092_ | | These data comes from the World Bank World Development | Indicators Open Database - see: | http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS | (Date accessed: April 9, 2017). | | Users are advised that there usually is a two-year time lag | in some estimates being available. Consequently certain data | might not have been available at the time of the Full Release | of the data. Polities, where data were unavailable at the | time of release, are listed below in the final paragraph of | this variable note. Users can consult the official data source, | directly, also detailed below, to see if data unavailable at the | time of the Full Release has become accessible in the interim. | | CSES collects the most up to data for each polity available | at the time the data is being processed by the CSES Secretariat. | However, aggregate level macro data from the World Bank is often | updated retroactively as revised estimates become available. | These revised estimates are usually because of improved data | collection, or more evidence becoming available to allow for a | more robust estimates to be made, or changes in methodology. | For more see the advice of the World Bank at: | http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/0,, | contentMDK:20541394~menuPK:1277382~pagePK:64133150~piPK:64133175 | ~print:Y~theSitePK:239419,00.html#recent_data | (Date accessed: April 9, 2017). | | The CSES policy is to provide users with estimates of data | at the time the data is processed. CSES does not retroactively | update these estimates as to do so might impede replication. | | Data are unavailable at time of publication for D5092_1 for | the following polities: HONG KONG (2012), ICELAND (2013) and | TAIWAN (2012). | | Data are unavailable at time of publication for D5092_2 for | the following polities: HONG KONG (2012) and TAIWAN (2012). | | Data are unavailable at time of publication for D5092_3 for | the following polities: HONG KONG (2012). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D5092_3 | | The source of these data is SIPRI Military Expenditure | Database, 1988-2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5093_1. >>> CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DEBT, TOTAL (% GDP) TIME T D5093_2. >>> CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DEBT, TOTAL (% GDP) TIME T-1 D5093_3. >>> CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DEBT, TOTAL (% GDP) TIME T-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- These variables report World Bank estimates of the Central government debt, total (% of GDP), at three time periods: the election year (time T), one year before election (T-1), and two years before election (T-2). Definition: Debt is the entire stock of direct government fixed-term contractual obligations to others outstanding on a particular date. It includes domestic and foreign liabilities such as currency and money deposits, securities other than shares, and loans. It is the gross amount of government liabilities reduced by the amount of equity and financial derivatives held by the government. Because debt is a stock rather than a flow, it is measured as of a given date, usually the last day of the fiscal year. .................................................................. 000.00-200.00. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DEBT, TOTAL (% GDP) 999.00. MISSING/NOT AVAILABLE AT TIME OF PUBLICATION | VARIABLE NOTES: D5093_ | | These data comes from the World Bank World Development | Indicators Open Database - see: | http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GC.DOD.TOTL.GD.ZS | (Date accessed: April 9, 2017). | | Users are advised that there usually is a two-year time lag | in some estimates being available. Consequently certain data | might not have been available at the time of the Full Release | of the data. Polities, where data were unavailable at the | time of release, are listed below in the final paragraph of | this variable note. Users can consult the official data source, | directly, also detailed below, to see if data unavailable at the | time of the Full Release has become accessible in the interim. | | CSES collects the most up to data for each polity available | at the time the data is being processed by the CSES Secretariat. | However, aggregate level macro data from the World Bank is often | updated retroactively as revised estimates become available. | These revised estimates are usually because of improved data | collection, or more evidence becoming available to allow for a | more robust estimates to be made, or changes in methodology. | For more see the advice of the World Bank at: | http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/0,, | contentMDK:20541394~menuPK:1277382~pagePK:64133150~piPK:64133175 | ~print:Y~theSitePK:239419,00.html#recent_data | (Date accessed: April 9, 2017). | | The CSES policy is to provide users with estimates of data | at the time the data is processed. CSES does not retroactively | update these estimates as to do so might impede replication. | | Data are unavailable at time of publication for D5093_1 for | the following polities: ARGENTINA (2015), AUSTRIA (2013), | CANADA (2015), FINLAND (2015), FRANCE (2015), GERMANY (2013), | GREECE (2015), HONG KONG (2012), ICELAND (2013), ISRAEL (2013), | KENYA (2013), LATVIA (2014), MEXICO (2012), MEXICO (2015), | MONTENEGRO (2012), NEW ZEALAND (2014), NORWAY (2013), | PERU (2016), PHILLIPINES (2016), POLAND (2011), PORTUGAL (2015), | ROMANIA (2014), SERBIA (2012), SLOVAKIA (2016), SLOVENIA (2011), | SOUTH AFRICA (2014), and SWEDEN (2014). | | Data are unavailable at time of publication for D5093_2 for | the following polities: ARGENTINA (2015), AUSTRIA (2013), | CANADA (2015), FINLAND (2015), GREECE (2015), HONG KONG (2012), | ISRAEL (2013), KENYA (2013), LATVIA (2014), MEXICO (2012), | MEXICO (2015), MONTENEGRO (2012), PHILLIPINES (2016), | POLAND (2011), PORTUGAL (2015), SERBIA (2012), SLOVAKIA (2016), | SLOVENIA (2011), SOUTH AFRICA (2014), SOUTH KOREA (2012) and | SWEDEN (2014). | | Data are unavailable at time of publication for D5093_3 for | the following polities: ARGENTINA (2015), CANADA (2015), | FINLAND (2015), GREECE (2015), HONG KONG (2012), | ISRAEL (2013), KENYA (2013), MEXICO (2012), MEXICO (2015), | MONTENEGRO (2012), POLAND (2011), PORTUGAL (2015), | SERBIA (2012), SLOVAKIA (2016), SLOVENIA (2011), | SOUTH AFRICA (2014), and SOUTH KOREA (2012). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D5093 | | The source of these data is the IMF World economic outlook | database. General government gross of debt (% of GDP). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5095. >>> PERCENTAGE OF INDIVIDUALS USING THE Internet --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports the Percentage of individuals using the Internet. .................................................................. 000.00-100.00. PERCENTAGE OF INDIVIDUALS USING THE INTERNET 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5095 | | These data comes from the International Telecommunication Union | (ICT) - see: | https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/stat/default.aspx | (Date accessed: April 9, 2017). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2015): D5095 | | Data correspond to 2014, the closest available year. | The data will be updated in subsequent release. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): D5095 | | Data correspond to 2015, the closest available year. | The data will be updated in subsequent release. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5095 | | Data correspond to 2014, the closest available year. | The data will be updated in subsequent release. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5096. >>> MOBILE PHONE SUBSCRIPTIONS PER 100 INHABITANTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports the number of mobile-cellular subscriptions per 100 inhabitants. .................................................................. 000.00-800.00. MOBILE PHONE SUBSCRIPTIONS PER 100 INHABITANTS 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5096 | | These data comes from the International Telecommunication Union | (ICT) - see: | https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/stat/default.aspx | (Date accessed: April 9, 2017). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2015): D5096 | | Data correspond to 2014, the closest available year. | The data will be updated in subsequent release. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): D5096 | | Data correspond to 2015, the closest available year. | The data will be updated in subsequent release. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5097. >>> FIXED TELEPHONE LINES PER 100 INHABITANTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports the number of Fixed-telephone subscriptions per 100 inhabitants. .................................................................. 000.00-100.00. FIXED TELEPHONE LINES PER 100 INHABITANTS 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5097 | | These data comes from the International Telecommunication Union | (ICT) - see: | https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/stat/default.aspx | (Date accessed: April 9, 2017). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2015): D5097 | | Data correspond to 2014, the closest available year. | The data will be updated in subsequent release. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2016): D5097 | | Data correspond to 2015, the closest available year. | The data will be updated in subsequent release. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5097 | | Data correspond to 2014, the closest available year. | The data will be updated in subsequent release. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5099 >>> CONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL STRUCTURE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is the country federal? Federations are "compound polities, combining strong constituent units and strong general government, each possessing powers delegated to it by the people through a constitution and each empowered to deal directly with the citizens in the exercise of the legislative, administrative and taxing powers, and each directly elected by the citizens." (page 12, Watts, 2008). .................................................................. 1. YES [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 5. NO 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5099 | | Source: Ronald L. Watts, (2008). "Comparing Federal Systems". | Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, Queen's University, | Kingston, Ontario, Canada. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D5099 | | Brazil is a federation consisting of 26 federal states and the | federal capital district making 27 in total. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011): D5099 | | Canada is a Federation consisting of 10 provinces and | 3 territories. There are two primary levels of government in | Canada, namely the Federal and the provincial level. The | federal government is responsible for issues including | national defence, foreign affairs, banking, and aboriginal | land rights. The provincial governments are primarily | responsible for areas such as education, health care, | and road regulations. | | Source: Canadian Parliament | http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/Education/our | countryourparliament/teacherguide/pdfs/ booklet-section2-e.pdf | (Date accessed: May 11, 2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D5099 | | Germany is a Federation consisting of 16 Laender (states). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D5099 | | The Republic of the Philippines (Filipino: Republika ng | Pilipinas) is a unitary presidential constitutional | republic. The Provinces of the Philippines are the | primary political and administrative divisions of the | Philippines. There are 81 provinces at present, further | subdivided into component cities and municipalities. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D5099 | | South Africa's constitutional structure is Federal, | with 9 provinces. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D5099 | | Although de-facto, the Republic of China is functioning as a | unitary state, it is also de-jure, a federated unit of the | People's Republic of China. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5100 >>> NUMBER OF LEGISLATIVE CHAMBERS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of legislative chambers: .................................................................. 1. ONE LEGISLATIVE CHAMBER; UNICAMERAL LEGISLATURE 2. TWO LEGISLATIVE CHAMBERS; BICAMERAL LEGISLATURE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5100 | | Some of the countries have indirectly elected Upper Chambers. | | Source: CSES Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2013): D5100 | | Austria has a bicameral system with two chambers: the | Nationalrat (or National Council) and the Bundesrat (or Federal | Council). However, only the Nationalrat is elected popularly. | This house has 183 members elected for five-year terms in | multimember constituencies with a proportional representation. | The Bundesrat consists of 62 members. These are elected | indirectly by the parties according to the number of seats they | hold in the provincial assemblies. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D5100 | | See Election Study note for variable D5003. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2014): D5100 | | See Election Study note for variable D5003. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2011): D5100 | | Canada is a bicameral parliamentary system with a House of | Commons comprising 308 members elected in single member | districts and a Senate, modeled on the British House of Lords. | The Canadian Constitution stipulates that the Senate should have | 105 members appointed by the Governor General on the advice of | the government (Prime Minister). Seats are allocated on a | regional basis, with the chamber created to counterbalance | representation by population in the Canadian House of Commons. | | Source: http://sen.parl.gc.ca/portal/about-senate-e.htm | (Date accessed: May 11, 2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2013): D5100 | | Parliament of the Czech Republic consists of two chambers, both | elected in direct elections: Chamber of Deputies (Lower House), | and Senat (Upper House). | Senate (the upper chamber of the Parliament of the Czech | Republic) consists of 81 directly elected members. Senators are | elected for a term of 6 years, while one third of the Chamber is | renewed every two years. Elections are based on 81 single-member | constituencies, using two-round majoritarian system. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): D5100 | | The Bundesrat is not a second chamber formally since it is | indirectly elected, but it is functionally because of its policy | implications. Hence, Germany is treated as a two-chamber system. | Individual elections in the 16 Laender (States) determine the | composition of each Land assembly (Landtag). Each Landtag elects | a Land government which then sends its members as delegates to | the Bundesrat. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2011): D5100 | | Irish parliament (the Oireachtas) has two chambers. The upper | house, Seanad Eireann is an indirectly elected legislative | chamber. It has 60 members, 11 members nominated, 6 members | selected by the universities and 43 members elected from five | vocational panels, all in short time after the parliamentary | elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D5100 | | Japan has a bicameral Parliament (Kokkai, or National Diet). | There are 480 seats in the House of Representatives (Shugi-in), | elected in two electoral segments for a four-year term. | The upper chamber (House of Councilors) has 242 members who are | elected in two electoral segments, for 6 years term, where half | of the members (121) stand for re-election every three years. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KENYA (2013): D5100 | | Parliament of Kenya consists of two directly elected houses: | The National Assembly (lower house) and The Senate (upper | house). | The National Assembly consists of 350 representatives: 290 | members are elected in single member constituencies, 47 seats | are awarded to women in separate election in 47 counties, where | each county constitutes a single member constituency. Further 12 | representatives are appointed, which makes total number of 349 | representatives. In addition, the Speaker of the Assembly who is | an ex officio member. | The Senate has 68 seats, of which 47 are elected from single- | member constituencies based on the counties using first-past- | the-post, and the remaining 21 are appointed; 16 women based on | party's seat numbers, two representing disabled groups and two | representing youth (both of which must consist of a male and | female nominee) and one elected Speaker, who is an ex officio | member. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2015): D5100 | | The Congreso de la Union (Congress of the Union) has two | chambers. The Camara de Diputados (Chamber of Deputies - The | Lower Chamber) has 500 members, elected for a three year term, | 300 members elected in single-seat constituencies and 200 | members elected by proportional representation in multi-seat | constituencies. The Camara de Senadores (Chamber of Senators - | The Upper Chamber) has 128 members, elected for a six year | term, 96 of them in three seat constituencies and 32 by | proportional representation. In the constituencies two seats are | awarded to the plurality winner and one to the first runner-up. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D5100 | | The Congress of the Philippines has two elected chambers | or houses: the House of Representatives (Kapulungan Mga | Kinatawan) and the Senate (Senado). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2011): D5100 | | Poland has a bicameral parliament consisting of a 460-member | lower house (Sejm) and a 100-member Senate (Senat). Both | Houses are directly elected by popular vote. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5100 | | The Parliament of Romania (Romanian: Parlamentul României) | consists of the Chamber of Deputies (Camera Deputatilor), | and the Senate (Senatul). Both Houses are directly elected. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011): D5100 | | Slovenia is considered to be a case of incomplete bicameralism. | The National Assembly is the general representative body of | Slovenia, directly elected by popular suffrage. The National | Council could be regarded as the Upper House. It is supposed | to be representative of social, economic, professional and | local interest groups in Slovenia. It is an | indirectly elected body, and does not pass laws itself. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2014): D5100 | | The South African Parliament is composed of two chambers. | Only one chamber, the National Assembly (lower house) | is directly elected. The upper chamber, the National | Council of Provinces, is indirectly elected. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D5100 | | The United States Senate is the upper house of the bicameral | legislature of the United States. Together with the United | States House of Representatives, they make up the United | States Congress. Approximately one third of the Senate is | renewed every two years. Senators serve terms of six years each; | the terms are staggered so that approximately one-third of the | seats are up for election every two years. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5101 >>> ELECTORAL RESULTS DATA AVAILABLE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Are electoral results data available? .................................................................. 1. YES 3. INCOMPLETE 5. NO 9. MISSING | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2012): D5101 | | See note D5001. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5102 >>> EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF ELECTORAL PARTIES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Effective number of electoral parties (ENEP). Formula: ENPP = 1/(SUM[V_i^2]) where V_i represents the vote share of party i, and all parties (i=1,2...n) receiving votes are included in the calculation. Definition based on Laakso, M. and R. Taagepera (1979). '"Effective" Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to West Europe', Comparative Political Studies 12: 3-27. .................................................................. 000.00-150.00. EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF ELECTORAL PARTIES 997.00. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION ONLY - NOT CALCULATED 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5102 | | Formula: ENPP = 1/(SUM[V_i^2]) | where V_i represents the vote share of party i, and all | parties (i=1,2...n) receiving votes are included in the | calculation. | | Definition based on Laakso, M. and R. Taagepera (1979). | "Effective" Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to | West Europe', Comparative Political Studies 12: 3-27. | | The electoral data employed to calculate this index comes | from lower house elections, unless the study is focused on | upper house election exclusively. | For countries with mixed electoral systems (see D5058) the | electoral returns come from the segment containing the most | seats. If there are an equal amount of seats in each segment | the results come from the proportional representation segment. | | The CSES Secretariat calculates these data for each polity's | election and cross-checks it against the standard source, | namely: | Gallagher, Michael, 2017. "Election indices dataset" - see: | http://www.tcd.ie/Political_Science/staff/michael_gallagher | /ElSystems/index.php, | (Date accessed: April 9, 2017). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D5102 | | Calculating the effective number of electoral parties in | Argentina is complex given that parties form alliances at the | regional level and moreover election results data is not always | aggregated consistently for parties/alliances. Thus, consistent | estimates of this metric are difficult to arrive at, something | which is noted by Gallagher (2017) in his estimates of the same | data. CSES estimates of this metric are arrived at using the | following approach: | - Parties and alliances are treated as one party/grouping. | - Only parties contesting seats in the 2015 election are | counted. Parties not contesting but who held holdover seats | in parliament are not included in the estimate. | - While 158 parties are estimated to have fielded candidates | in the election, the number of parties competing reduces to | 20 if coalitions are counted as one grouping. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D5102 | | This data is calculated by treating the Liberals (Liberal party | and Liberal National Party) and the Nationals (the National | Party and the Country Liberals) as single entities. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): D5102 | | Data unavailable as the 2012 CSES study in France relates to | the Presidential elections held on April 22, 2012 (Round 1) | and May 6, 2012 (Round 2). Parliamentary elections were | subsequently held on June 10 and June 17, 2012. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): D5102 | | These data are calculated on national share of the vote | and share of seats attained by parties who fielded candidates | in England, Scotland, and Wales. Northern Ireland data is not | included in the calculation of Effective Number of Electoral | or Parliamentary Parties as the 2015 British Election Study | did not include respondents from Northern Ireland. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D5102 | | The data refers to the first segment of the Legislative | Council (LegCo), i.e. the election of 35 representatives | in Geographical Constituencies. | For more details about Hong Kong electoral system, see ES note | for D5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D5102 | | The data refers to the first segment of the Upper | House electoral system (majoritarian, segment - Prefectoral | Districts), because the current Japanese CSES data refer to the | Upper House elections of 2013. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): D5102 | | The data is calculated on the basis of constituency votes. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2015): D5102 | | The data is calculated on the basis of the national level | election results. | Mexican voters cast a single vote in a single member district | plurality election. However, this also counts for the allocation | of the proportional representation seats disputed in the larger | regional multi-member districts (five circumscriptions). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D5102 | | These data are based the on congressional district election | results (first segment of the Lower House). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D5102 | | These data is calculated by treating the Alliances Social | Liberal Union (PARTY A) and Alliance for a Just Romania | (PARTY B) as single entities. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5102 | | The 2014 Romanian election study is concerned with the | Presidential elections of 2014. Hence, this variable is | coded Missing. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011): D5102 | | Effective number of political parties was calculated without | taking into account parties/candidates competing for the two | seats reserved for the representatives of Hungarian and Italian | minorities. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2012): D5102 | | The data refers to the second tier of the Parliament | (the proportional segment). They reflect the nationwide | proportion of votes cast for party lists. This data is | provided since the results from single-member constituencies | was not available. Notice that 54 out of 300 parliamentary | seats are allocated through the second segment. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D5102 | | The data was calculated for the lower tier. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2011): D5102 | | Effective number of political parties was calculated using vote | shares from the PR list tier. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5103 >>> CORRECTED EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF ELECTORAL PARTIES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Corrected effective number of electoral parties (CENEP). Corrected Effective Number of Electoral Parties corrects for the "other" category using the least component method of bounds suggested by Taagepera (D2015). The method requires calculating the ENEP (D5093) two times. One is treating the "other" category as a single party and the second is calculating the ENEP as if every vote in the "other" category belonged to a different party. The CENEP is the mean of both measures. Definition based on: Taagepera, R. (1997). 'Effective Number of Parties for incomplete Data', Electoral Studies 16: 145-151. .................................................................. 000.00-150.00. CORRECTED EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF ELECTORAL PARTIES 997.00. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION ONLY - NOT CALCULATED 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5103 | | Corrected Effective Number of Electoral Parties corrects for the | "other" category using the least component method of bounds | suggested by Taagepera (D2015). The method requires calculating | the ENEP (D5093) two times. One is treating the "other" category | as a single party and the second is calculating the ENEP as if | every vote in the "other" category belonged to a different | party. The CENEP is the mean of both measures. | Definition based on: Taagepera, R. (1997). 'Effective Number of | Parties for incomplete Data', Electoral Studies 16: 145-151. | | The electoral data employed to calculate this index comes | from lower house elections, unless the study is focused on | upper house election exclusively. | For countries with mixed electoral systems (see D5058) the | electoral returns come from the segment containing the most | seats. If there are an equal amount of seats in each segment | the results come from the proportional representation segment. | | The CSES Secretariat calculates these data for each polity's | election and cross-checks it against the standard source, | namely: | Gallagher, Michael, 2017. "Election indices dataset" - see: | http://www.tcd.ie/Political_Science/staff/michael_gallagher | /ElSystems/index.php, | (Date accessed: April 9, 2017). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D5103 | | Calculating the corrected effective number of electoral parties | in Argentina is complex given that parties form alliances at the | regional level and moreover election results data is not always | aggregated consistently for parties/alliances. Thus, consistent | estimates of this metric are difficult to arrive at, something | which is noted by Gallagher (2017) in his estimates of the same | data. CSES estimates of this metric are arrived at using the | following approach: | - Parties and alliances are treated as one party/grouping. | - Only parties contesting seats in the 2015 election are | counted. Parties not contesting but who held holdover seats | in parliament are not included in the estimate. | - While 158 parties are estimated to have fielded candidates | in the election, the number of parties competing reduces to | 20 if coalitions are counted as one grouping. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D5103 | | This data is calculated by treating the Liberals (Liberal party | and Liberal National Party) and the Nationals (the National | Party and the Country Liberals) as single entities. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): D5103 | | See Election Study Note for variable D5102 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): D5103 | | These data are calculated on national share of the vote | and share of seats attained by parties who fielded candidates | in England, Scotland, and Wales. Northern Ireland data is not | included in the calculation of Effective Number of Electoral | or Parliamentary Parties as the 2015 British Election Study | did not include respondents from Northern Ireland. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D5103 | | The data refers to the first segment of the Legislative | Council (LegCo), i.e. the election of 35 representatives | in Geographical Constituencies. | For more details about Hong Kong electoral system, see ES note | for D5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D5103 | | The data refers to the first segment of the Upper | House electoral system (majoritarian, segment - Prefectoral | Districts), because the current Japanese CSES data refer to the | Upper House elections of 2013. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012): D5103 | | This data is calculated on the basis of the constituency votes. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2015): D5103 | | Data is calculated on the basis of the national | level election results. | Mexican voters cast a single vote in a single member district | plurality election. However, this also counts for the allocation | of the proportional representation seats disputed in the larger | regional multi-member districts (five circumscriptions). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D5103 | | These data are based the on congressional district election | results (first segment of the Lower House). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D5103 | | These data is calculated by treating the Alliances Social | Liberal Union (PARTY A) and Alliance for a Just Romania | (PARTY B) as single entities. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5103 | | The 2014 Romanian election study is concerned with the | Presidential elections of 2014. Hence, this variable is | coded Missing. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011): D5103 | | Corrected effective number of political parties was calculated | without taking into account parties/candidates competing for | the two seats reserved for the representatives of Hungarian | and Italian minorities. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2012): D5103 | | Data refers to the second tier of the Parliament | (the proportional segment). They reflect the nationwide | proportion of votes cast for party lists. This data is | provided since the results from single-member constituencies | was not available. Notice that 54 out of 300 parliamentary | seats are allocated through the second segment. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D5103 | | Data were calculated for lower tier. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2011): D5103 | | Corrected effective number of political parties was calculated | using vote shares from the PR list tier. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5104 >>> EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF PARLIAMENTARY PARTIES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Effective number of parliamentary parties (ENPP). Formula: ENPP = 1/(SUM[S_i^2]) where S_i represents the seat share of party i, and all parties (i=1,2...n) receiving votes are included in the calculation. Definition based on Laakso, M. and R. Taagepera (1979). '"Effective" Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to West Europe', Comparative Political Studies 12: 3-27. .................................................................. 000.00-150.00. EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF PARLIAMENTARY PARTIES 997.00. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION ONLY - NOT CALCULATED 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5104 | | Formula: ENPP = 1/(SUM[S_i^2]) | where S_i represents the seat share of party i, and all | parties (i=1,2...n) receiving votes are included in the | calculation. | Definition based on Laakso, M. and R. Taagepera (1979). |"Effective Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to | West Europe", Comparative Political Studies 12: 3-27. | | The electoral data employed to calculate this index comes | from lower house elections, unless the study is focused on | upper house election exclusively. | | The CSES Secretariat calculates these data for each polity's | election and cross-checks it against the standard source, | namely: | Gallagher, Michael, 2017. "Election indices dataset" - see: | http://www.tcd.ie/Political_Science/staff/michael_gallagher | /ElSystems/index.php, | (Date accessed: April 9, 2017). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D5104 | | Calculating the effective number of parliamentary parties in | Argentina is complex given that parties form alliances at the | regional level and moreover election results data is not always | aggregated consistently for parties/alliances. Thus, consistent | estimates of this metric are difficult to arrive at, something | which is noted by Gallagher (2017) in his estimates of the same | data. CSES estimates of this metric are arrived at using the | following approach: | - Parties and alliances are treated as one party/grouping. | - All parties represented in the Chamber of Deputies post the | 2015 elections are included in the count, including parties | /groupings that held holdover seats but did not contest/or | win additional Chamber of Deputy seats in 2015. | - The number of parties/alliances represented in the Chamber | of Deputies after the 2015 elections is estimated by our | count to be 28. This is treating for the most part parties/ | alliances as one. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D5104 | | This data is calculated by treating the Liberals (Liberal party | and Liberal National Party) and the Nationals (the National | Party and the Country Liberals) as single entities. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): D5104 | | See Election Study Note for variable D5102 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): D5104 | | These data are calculated on national share of the vote | and share of seats attained by parties who fielded candidates | in England, Scotland, and Wales. Northern Ireland data is not | included in the calculation of Effective Number of Electoral | or Parliamentary Parties as the 2015 British Election Study | did not include respondents from Northern Ireland. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D5104 | | The data refers to the first segment of the Legislative | Council (LegCo), i.e. the election of 35 representatives | in Geographical Constituencies. | For more details about Hong Kong electoral system, see ES note | for D5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D5104 | | The data refers to the first segment of the Upper | House electoral system (majoritarian, segment - Prefectoral | Districts), because the current Japanese CSES data refer to the | Upper House elections of 2013. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012 & 2015): D5104 | | The data is calculated on the basis of total number of seats, | won in both single-member constituencies (300 seats) and in the | national proportional district (200 seats). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D5104 | | These data are reflect the seat share won in the | congressional district election (first segment | of the Lower House). However, the percentages are calculated | against all seats in the Lower House, i.e., including | those obtained via the proportional party list segment | (59 seats). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D5104 | | These data is calculated by treating the Alliances Social | Liberal Union (PARTY A) and Alliance for a Just Romania | (PARTY B) as single entities. Where the parties that make | up the coalitions counted separately, the effective number | of parliamentary parties (ENPP) is 4.463. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5104 | | The 2014 Romanian election study is concerned with the | Presidential elections of 2014. Hence, this variable is | coded Missing. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011): D5104 | | Data was calculated without taking into account | parties/candidates competing for the two eats reserved for the | representatives of Hungarian and Italian minorities. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2012): D5104 | | The data is based on the total number of representatives | elected into the parliament. The data includes both the | 54 representatives on the basis of a proportional tier, and | the 246 representatives from the single member constituencies. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D5104 | | Data were calculated for lower tier. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2011): D5104 | | Data was calculated using seat shares from both tiers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5105 >>> CORRECTED EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF PARLIAMENTARY PARTIES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Corrected Effective number of parliamentary parties (CENPP). Corrected Effective Number of Parliamentary Parties corrects for the "other" category using the least component method of bounds suggested by Taagepera (1997). The method requires calculating the ENPP two times. One is treating the "other" category as a single party and the second is calculating the ENPP as if every seat in the "other" category belonged to a different party. The CENPP is the mean of both measures. Definition based on: Taagepera, R. (1997). 'Effective Number of Parties for incomplete Data', Electoral Studies 16: 145-151. .................................................................. 000.00-150.00. CORRECTED EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF PARLIAMENTARY PARTIES 997.00. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION ONLY - NOT CALCULATED 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: D5105 | | Corrected Effective Number of Parliamentary Parties corrects for | the "other" category using the least component method of bounds | suggested by Taagepera (1997). The method requires calculating | the ENPP two times. One is treating the "other" category as a | single party and the second is calculating the ENPP as if every | seat in the "other" category belonged to a different party. The | CENPP is the mean of both measures. | Definition based on: Taagepera, R. (1997). 'Effective Number of | Parties for incomplete Data', Electoral Studies 16: 145-151. | | The electoral data employed to calculate this index comes | from lower house elections, unless the study is focused on | upper house election exclusively. | | The CSES Secretariat calculates these data for each polity's | election and cross-checks it against the standard source, | namely: | Gallagher, Michael, 2017. "Election indices dataset" - see: | http://www.tcd.ie/Political_Science/staff/michael_gallagher | /ElSystems/index.php, | (Date accessed: April 9, 2017). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ARGENTINA (2015): D5105 | | Calculating the effective number of parliamentary parties in | Argentina is complex given that parties form alliances at the | regional level and moreover election results data is not always | aggregated consistently for parties/alliances. Thus, consistent | estimates of this metric are difficult to arrive at, something | which is noted by Gallagher (2017) in his estimates of the same | data. CSES estimates of this metric are arrived at using the | following approach: | - Parties and alliances are treated as one party/grouping. | - All parties represented in the Chamber of Deputies post the | 2015 elections are included in the count, including parties | /groupings that held holdover seats but did not contest/or | win additional Chamber of Deputy seats in 2015. | - The number of parties/alliances represented in the Chamber | of Deputies after the 2015 elections is estimated by our | count to be 28. This is treating for the most part parties/ | alliances as one. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2013): D5105 | | Data is calculated by treating the Liberals | (Liberal party and Liberal National Party) and the | Nationals (the National Party and the Country Liberals) | as single entities. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2012): D5105 | | See Election Study Note for variable D5102. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2015): D5105 | | These data are calculated on national share of the vote | and share of seats attained by parties who fielded candidates | in England, Scotland, and Wales. Northern Ireland data is not | included in the calculation of Effective Number of Electoral | or Parliamentary Parties as the 2015 British Election Study | did not include respondents from Northern Ireland. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2012): D5105 | | The data refers to the first segment of the Legislative | Council (LegCo), i.e. the election of 35 representatives | in Geographical Constituencies. | For more details about Hong Kong electoral system, see ES note | for D5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2013): D5105 | | Data refers to the first segment of the Upper | House electoral system (majoritarian, segment - Prefectoral | Districts), because the current Japanese CSES data refer to the | Upper House elections of 2013. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2012 & 2015): D5105 | | Data is calculated on the basis of total number of seats, | won in both single-member constituencies (300 seats) and in the | national proportional district (200 seats). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2016): D5105 | | These data are reflect the seat share won in the | congressional district election (first segment | of the Lower House). However, the percentages are calculated | against all seats in the Lower House, i.e., including | those obtained via the proportional party list segment | (59 seats). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2012): D5105 | | These data are calculated by treating the Alliances Social | Liberal Union (PARTY A) and Alliance for a Just Romania | (PARTY B) as single entities. Where the parties that make | up the coalitions counted separately, the corrected effective | number of parliamentary parties (ENPP) is 4.445. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2014): D5105 | | The 2014 Romanian election study is concerned with the | Presidential elections of 2014. Hence, this variable is | coded Missing. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2011): D5105 | | Corrected effective number of parliamentary parties was | calculated without taking into account parties/candidates | competing for the two seats reserved for the representatives of | Hungarian and Italian minorities. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2012): D5105 | | Data is based on the total number of representatives | elected into the parliament. The data includes both the | 54 representatives on the basis of a proportional tier, and | the 246 representatives from the single member constituencies. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2012): D5105 | | Data were calculated for lower tier. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2011): D5105 | | Corrected effective number of parliamentary parties was | calculated using seat shares from both tiers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5200_A >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY A D5200_B >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY B D5200_C >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY C D5200_D >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY D D5200_E >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY E D5200_F >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY F D5200_G >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY G D5200_H >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY H D5200_I >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- These variables contain the party identification codes from the Manifesto Research on Political Representation (MARPOR/CMP) project. Codes are provided for parties that are assigned an alphabetical code (A-I) by the CSES and for polities, for which MARPOR/CMP identifiers are available. The complete list of parties (A-I) and their MARPOR/CMP codes are detailed in Part 3 of the Codebook. The MARPOR/CMP party codes were retrieved from the Manifesto Project Dataset (version 2017b): Volkens, A., Lehmann, P., Matthieß, T., Merz, N., Regel, S., and Weßels, B. (2017): The Manifesto Data Collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Version 2017b. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB). doi: 10.25522/manifesto.mpds.2017b Available at: https://manifestoproject.wzb.eu/datasets (Date accessed: May 22, 2018). .................................................................. 11110-181910. MARPOR/CMP PARTY IDENTIFIER 999999. NOT AVAILABLE IN MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) DATASET --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5201_A >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (PARLGOV) IDENTIFIER - PARTY A D5201_B >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (PARLGOV) IDENTIFIER - PARTY B D5201_C >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (PARLGOV) IDENTIFIER - PARTY C D5201_D >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (PARLGOV) IDENTIFIER - PARTY D D5201_E >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (PARLGOV) IDENTIFIER - PARTY E D5201_F >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (PARLGOV) IDENTIFIER - PARTY F D5201_G >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (PARLGOV) IDENTIFIER - PARTY G D5201_H >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (PARLGOV) IDENTIFIER - PARTY H D5201_I >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (PARLGOV) IDENTIFIER - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- These variables contain the party identification codes from the Parliaments and Government Database (ParlGov) project. Codes are provided for parties that are assigned an alphabetical code (A-I) by the CSES and for polities, for which ParlGov identifiers are available. The complete list of parties (A-I) and their ParlGov codes are detailed in Part 3 of the Codebook. The ParlGov party codes were retrieved from the projects website, available at: http://www.parlgov.org/#data (Date accessed: April 4, 2018). .................................................................. 0002-2624. PARLGOV PARTY IDENTIFIER 9999. NOT AVAILABLE IN PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (PARLGOV) //END OF FILE