=========================================================================== COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ELECTORAL SYSTEMS (CSES) - MODULE 1 (1996-2001) CODEBOOK: INTRODUCTION FULL RELEASE - DECEMBER 15, 2015 VERSION CSES Secretariat www.cses.org =========================================================================== HOW TO CITE THE STUDY: The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (www.cses.org). CSES MODULE 1 FULL RELEASE [dataset]. December 15, 2015 version. doi:10.7804/cses.module1.2015-12-15 These materials are based on work supported by the American National Science Foundation (www.nsf.gov) under grant number SBR-9317631, 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 many organizations that fund 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. =========================================================================== IMPORTANT NOTE REGARDING FULL RELEASES: This dataset and all accompanying documentation is the "Full Release" of CSES Module 1 (1996-2001). Users of the Final Release may wish to monitor the errata for CSES Module 1 on the CSES website, to check for known errors which may impact their analyses. To view errata for CSES Module 1, go to the Data Center on the CSES website, navigate to the CSES Module 1 download page, and click on the Errata link in the gray box to the right of the page. =========================================================================== TABLE OF CONTENTS =========================================================================== ))) CSES PROJECT PROFILE >>> CSES MODULE 1 STUDY DESCRIPTION >>> CSES MODULE 1 PLANNING COMMITTEE >>> CSES MODULE 1 COLLABORATORS >>> MICRO LEVEL (SURVEY) COMPONENT >>> DISTRICT LEVEL COMPONENT >>> MACRO LEVEL COMPONENT ))) HOW TO USE THE CSES MODULE 1 DOCUMENTATION >>> TYPES OF DOCUMENTATION AVAILABLE >>> CODEBOOK CONVENTIONS ))) HOW TO USE THE CSES MODULE 1 DATA FILES ))) SPECIAL DATA NOTES >>> IDENTIFICATION VARIABLES >>> MISSING DATA >>> WEIGHTS ))) CSES MODULE 1 ELECTION STUDIES >>> LIST OF ELECTION STUDIES INCLUDED IN CSES MODULE 1 ))) ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - AUSTRALIA (1996) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - BELARUS (2001) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (1999) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLOON (1999) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - CANADA (1997) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - CHILE (1999) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (1996) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - DENMARK (1998) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - GERMANY (1998) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - UNITED KINGDOM: GREAT BRITAIN (1997) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - HONG KONG (1998) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - HONG KONG (2000) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - HUNGARY (1998) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - ICELAND (1999) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - ISRAEL (1996) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - JAPAN (1996) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - LITHUANIA (1997) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - MEXICO (1997) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - MEXICO (2000) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - NETHERLANDS (1998) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (1996) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - NORWAY (1997) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - PERU (2000) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - PERU (2001) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - POLAND (1997) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - PORTUGAL (2002) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - ROMANIA (1996) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - RUSSIAN FEDERATION (1999) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - RUSSIAN FEDERATION (2000) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - SLOVENIA (1996) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2000) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - SPAIN (1996) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - SPAIN (2000) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - SWEDEN (1998) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - SWITZERLAND (1999) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - TAIWAN PROVINCE OF CHINA (1996) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - THAILAND (2001) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - UKRAINE (1998) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - UNITED STATES (1996) ))) BIBLIOGRAPHY =========================================================================== ))) CSES PROJECT PROFILE =========================================================================== The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES) is a collaborative program of cross-national public opinion research. A standard survey module, CSES Module 1, was administered as part of nearly 40 national post-election study projects. The CSES Secretariat, with the help of the collaborators in each participant country, has compiled these data and supplemented them with socio-demographic information about each respondent. To facilitate cross-national comparative analyses, these micro-level data have been further supplemented with district level information that provide insight into the respondent's political context, and macro-level data that detail the respondent's political system, as a whole. At each level of data collection, the measurements used have been standardized to promote comparison. By collaborating in this way, the CSES community hopes to forward scientific inquiry into the relationship between electoral institutions and political behavior. In particular, CSES Module 1 focuses on the structure electoral institutions provide voters in their beliefs and choices. Further, the survey items used in Module 1 emphasize the ways in which citizens assess and evaluate the institutions of their governments. For example, what impact, if any, do institutional differences -- in electoral laws, in the nature of political parties, or in the structure and longevity of the political regime -- have on the way that citizens assess the performance of the electoral process, political parties, and democracy as a whole? Do some kinds of institutional arrangements produce more positive evaluations than others? Does citizen satisfaction with the performance of political parties increase with the number and ideological diversity of the political choices that citizens are offered? Module 1 also considers how well the deeply-rooted divisions in society are managed, moderated or alleviated by political institutions: How do institutional structures affect the nature and intensity of social and political cleavages? Do federal systems suppress social cleavages? How well do different party systems "encapsulate conflict" by constraining social divisions? Do plurality systems produce more broadly based parties that discourage the kind of sectional and ideological parties (and hence intense political cleavages) that can more easily survive under proportional representation? The CSES project, by explicitly linking individual attitudes and behaviors to political context in a variety of settings, provides analysts with the resources to address these and many other types of questions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> CSES MODULE 1 STUDY DESCRIPTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Module 1 materials include public opinion survey data, supplementary demographic data, district level and macro data collected in 39 election studies, usually in the weeks following national elections held between 1996 and 2001. The Planning Committee oversaw every stage of the project development, include the design of the survey instrument, demographic and macro measures. The various report, documents and pilot studies prepared by members of the Planning Committee in the course of Module 1 development are avaialable on the CSES website. CSES relies on the collaborators in each country to ensure that the data are collected in the most transparent and reliable way possible. The micro level component of the data collection exercise is documented in the "Sample Design and Data Collection Reports" completed by each collaborator, and available on the CSES website. A complete list of the collaborators and CSES contacts within each country is also available on the CSES website. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> CSES MODULE 1 PLANNING COMMITTEE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The CSES Module 1 Planning Committee was responsible for the design of CSES Module 1 and shared responsibility for its implementation. The following persons were members of the CSES Module 1 Planning Committee: Prof. Rita Bajaruniene Sociological Laboratory Vilnius University Prof. Gary Cox Department of Political Science University of California, San Diego Prof. John Curtice Department of Government University of Strathclyde Prof. Juan Diez-Nicolas ASEP Prof. Oscar Hernandez Escuela de Estadistica Universidad de Costa Rico Prof. Soren Holmberg Department of Political Science Goteborg University Prof. Hans-Dieter Klingemann Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin fur Sozialforschung Prof. Marta Lagos LATINOBAROMETRO Opinion Publica Latinoamericana Prof. Felipe B. Miranda Social Weather Stations PSSC Building Prof. Ekkehard Mochmann Zentralarchiv fur empirische Sozialforschung Universitat zu Koln Prof. Yoshitaka Nishizawa Political Science Department Meiji Gakuin University Prof. Richard Rockwell ICPSR Institute for Social Research University of Michigan Prof. Steven J. Rosenstone Center for Political Studies Institute for Social Research University of Michigan Prof. Hermann Schmitt Mannheimer Zentrum fur Europaische Sozilforschung Universitat Mannheim Prof. W. Phillips Shively Department of Political Science University of Minnesota Prof. Jacques Thomassen Department of Public Administration University of Twente Dr. Gabor Toka Political Science Program Central European University --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> CSES MODULE 1 COLLABORATORS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The CSES project is extremely grateful to our Module 1 collaborators, who raised their own funds to include CSES Module 1 in a nationally representative post-election study in their country or province. Listed collaborators are our contact persons for election studies that appear in the CSES Module 1 full release dataset - they are not necessarily the parties who collected the data. Within each election study, collaborators are presented in alphabetical order. The affiliations listed are current as of the the date when the election study first appeared in the CSES dataset. - Australia (1996) Prof. Ian McAllister Australian National University Australia - Belarus (2001) Prof. David Rotman Belarus State University Belarus MA Irina Levitskaya Belarus State University Belarus MA Natalia Veremeeva Belarus State University Belarus - Belgium-Flanders (1999) Prof. Jaak Billiet University of Leuven Belgium - Belgium-Walloon (1999) Prof. Andre-Paul Frognier Catholic University of Louvain Belgium - Canada (1997) Prof. Andre Blais Universite de Montreal Canada Prof. Elisabeth L. Gidengil McGill University Canada Prof. Richard Nadeau Universite de Montreal Canada Prof. Neil Nevitte University of Toronto Canada - Chile (1999) Prof. Marta Lagos Latinobarometro Chile - Czech Republic (1996) Prof. Gabor Toka Central European University Hungary - Denmark (1998) Prof. Jørgen Goul Andersen Aalborg University Denmark - Germany (1998) PD Dr. Hermann Schmitt Universitat Mannheim Germany - Prof. Dr. Bernhard Weßels Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin fur Sozialforschung (WZB) Germany - Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China (1998) Dr. Li Pang-kwong Lingnan University Hong Kong - Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China (2000) Dr. Li Pang-kwong Lingnan University Hong Kong - Hungary (1998) Prof. Gabor Toka Political Science Department Central European University Hungary - Iceland (1999) Prof. Ólafur Þ. Harðarson University of Iceland Iceland - Israel (1996) Prof. Asher Arian Department of Political Science Tel Aviv University Prof. Michal Shamir Tel Aviv University Israel - Japan (1996) Prof. Yoshitaka Nishizawa Doshisha University Japan - Lithuania (1997) Rasa Alisauskiene Baltic Surveys Lithuania Elena Liubsiene Baltic Surveys Lithuania - Mexico (1997) Prof. Ulises Beltran CIDE (Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Economica) Mexico Prof. Benito Nacif Hernandez CIDE (Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Economica) Mexico - Mexico (2000) Prof. Ulises Beltran CIDE (Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Economica) Mexico Prof. Benito Nacif Hernandez CIDE (Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Economica) Mexico - Netherlands (1998) Dr. Kees Aarts University of Twente The Netherlands - New Zealand (1996) Dr. Peter Aimer University of Auckland New Zealand Dr. Susan Banducci University of Twente The Netherlands Dr. Jeffrey A. Karp University of Twente The Netherlands Prof. Jack Vowles University of Auckland New Zealand - Norway (1997) Prof. Bernt Aardal Institute for Social Research Norway Prof. Henry Valen Institute for Social Research Norway - Peru (2000) Prof. Catalina Romero Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru Peru - Peru (2001) Prof. Catalina Romero Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru Peru - Poland (1997) Prof. Krzysztof Jasiewicz Polish Academy of Sciences Poland Prof. Radoslaw Markowski Polish Academy of Sciences Poland - Portugal (2002) Prof. Antonio Barreto Universidade de Lisboa Portugal Andre Freire University of Lisbon Portugal - Romania (1996) Prof. Gabriel Badescu Babes-Bolyai University Romania Prof. Paul Sum University of North Dakota United States - Russian Federation (1999) Prof. Timothy Colton Harvard University United States Polina Kozyreva Academy of Sciences Russia - Russian Federation (2000) Prof. Timothy Colton Harvard University United States Polina Kozyreva Academy of Sciences Russia - Slovenia (1996) Janez Stebe University of Ljubljana Slovenia Niko Tos University of Ljubljana Slovenia - South Korea (2000) Prof. Nam-Young Lee Sookmyung Women's University Korea - Spain (1996) Prof. Juan Diez-Nicolas ASEP (Analisis Sociologicos Economicos y Politicos) Spain - Spain (2000) Prof. Juan Diez-Nicolas ASEP (Analisis Sociologicos Economicos y Politicos) Spain - Sweden (1998) Prof. Soren Holmberg Goteborg University Sweden - Switzerland (1999) Prof. Dr. Sibylle Hardmeier Universitat Zurich Switzerland Dr. Peter Selb Universitat Zurich Switzerland - Taiwan Province of China (1996) Prof. Yun-Han Chu National Taiwan University Taiwan - Thailand (2001) Prof. Robert B. Albritton The University of Mississippi United States Dr. Thawilwadee Bureekul The King Prajadhipok's Institute Thailand - Ukraine (1998) Olga Balakireva Ukrainian Institute for Social Research Ukraine - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1997) Prof. John Curtice University of Strathclyde Scotland Prof. Anthony Heath University of Oxford England Prof. Roger Jowell National Centre for Social Research England Prof. Pippa Norris Harvard University United States - United States of America (1996) ANES Staff Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan United States Prof. Virginia Sapiro University of Wisconsin - Madison United States Prof. W. Phillips Shively University of Minnesota United States The following election study included CSES Module 1, but did not appear in the CSES Module 1 Full Release dataset due to an administrative oversight on the part of CSES. Requests for the data may be addressed to the collaborator directly. - Philippines (1998) Linda Luz Guerrero Social Weather Stations Philippines --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> MICRO LEVEL (SURVEY) COMPONENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The ten-minute CSES module was usually administered as a single uninterrupted block of questions at the beginning or the end of a national election survey. There are several features of this component of which analysts should be aware: A. The question text is included in the variable documentation of this codebook. The questions are reported in the order in which they appear in the questionnaire. B. Where there are differences in the way a particular question was administered in an election study, this is noted in the "Election Study Notes," following the documentation of the corresponding variable. C. There are several sets of party and leader evaluation items included in the module. These correspond to parties labeled A-F, in descending order, the six most popular parties in the lower house elections (or presidential elections if legislative elections were not held). Where respondents were asked to evaluate other parties, these evaluations have been included and are labeled parties G-I, regardless of their vote shares (for a total of six parties per election study). The parties and leader to which these evaluations apply are identified in Appendix I. D. There are several questions (including the vote-choice and party identification items) which ask the respondents to specify a political party. The codes for these items are also reported in Appendix I. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> DISTRICT LEVEL COMPONENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The district level variables report the official returns of the lower house (first segment) election for each respondent's district, as published by the official election authority in each country (Great Britain is the sole exception: these data are from P. Norris (2001),"The British Parliamentary Constituency Database, 1992-2001"). Although this is the most reliable source, the availability of district-level data is limited by what is actually published by electoral commissions (e.g. some did not publish turnout at the district level), and by the form in which these data are made public (e.g. including what language, but also how the returns are reported: some commissions report only actual votes received by each winning candidate, and not the number of votes cast in favor of each party). The following district level data are included in the CSES datafile (X's indicate availability): # Seats #Candidates/ Vote Turnout Lists Returns Australia X X X X Belarus Belgium- Flanders X X X X Belgium- Walloon X X X X Canada X X X X Chile [NA- Presidential Election] Czech Republic X X X Denmark X X X Germany X X X X Hong Kong (1998) X X X X Hong Kong (2000) X X X X Hungary X X X X Iceland X X X Israel X X X X Japan X X X X Lithuania [NA- Presidential Election] Mexico (1997) X X X Mexico (2000) X X Netherlands X X X X New Zealand X X X X Norway X X X Peru (2000) X X X X Peru (2001) X X X X Poland X X X Portugal X X X X Romania X X X Russia (1999) Russia (2000) Slovenia X X X South Korea Spain (1996) X X X Spain (2000) X X X Sweden X X X X Switzerland X X X Taiwan X X USA X X X Ukraine X X X Great Britain X X X X Thailand --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> MACRO LEVEL COMPONENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- To supplement the micro data, the teams of researchers responsible for the collection of the public opinion data also compiled and deposited electoral legislation, political party platforms, and official electoral returns. To facilitate this process, a detailed questionnaire was construct to serves as a framework for the macro component of the project. The Macro Data Reports completed by the CSES collaborators can be found on the CSES website. The text of the questions is provided in the variable documentation section of this codebook. Additional measures, thought pertinent to the micro-district- macro design, are also compiled and available in the CSES datafiles. A bibliography of the sources consulted follows the main body of these introductory materials. Finally, to facilitate the use of the macro data, the steps taken in the coding of several systems are provided to illustrate the working definitions of some of the terms used in the documentation of these variables: A. ELECTORAL STRUCTURES: This section illustrates how characteristics of electoral systems are coded in the macro level study. Consider the case of Hungary: Under Hungarian electoral rules, the (unicameral) legislative house is composed of 328 seats. Of these, 176 are elected in single-member districts and 152 are elected in 20 multi- member districts. The Hungarian case is coded in the following way: A5024 NUMBER OF LEGISLATIVE CHAMBERS - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT: One (there is no 'upper' house, like the American Senate, or the British House of Lords). A5025_1 NUMBER OF ELECTORAL SEGMENTS - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT: Two (as the members elected in single member districts are elected independently of those elected to seats in the multi-member districts, there are two electoral segments). Usually the number of electoral segments corresponds to the number of independent ballots cast by voters for each legislative body. A5026_1 NUMBER OF PRIMARY ELECTORAL DISTRICTS - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT: 176 (a primary electoral district is the smallest geographic area in which votes are tallied to allocate seats in a legislature). A5027_1 NUMBER OF SEATS- LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT: 176 (within this segment there are 176 seats to be allocated). A5028_1 DISTRICT MAGNITUDE- LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT: 1 ('district magnitude' refers to the average number of seats allocated per primary district; in systems with multi-member districts, this is the total number of seats divided by the number of districts). A5029_1 NUMBER OF SECONDARY DISTRICTS- LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT: 1 (the votes cast for non-winning members in the single-member districts are cumulated as "remainder votes" at the national level for the allocation of 58 "reserved" seats). A5030_1 NUMBER OF TERTIARY DISTRICTS- LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT: 0 (if, for example, the single member district "remainder votes" could first be applied to the allocation of regional seats, and then the "remainder votes" from this allocation were cumulated at the national level, then there would be several secondary districts and 1 tertiary district). B. LEGISLATIVE ELECTIONS: VOTING PROCEDURES: In systems where there is more than one electoral segment, the voting procedures usually vary across segments, as well as across legislative chambers. For this reason, the macro data file includes data for the voting procedures for each electoral segment in each of the legislative houses. To illustrate, consider how the voting procedures for Japan are reported in the datafile: A5031 COMPULSORY VOTING: '0. No.' (Some countries do have laws requiring their citizens to vote. However, the sanctions imposed on non-voters in these countries vary widely, and are reported in this variable). A5032_1 VOTES CAST - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT: One (under some electoral laws, citizens may vote for as many candidates as there are seats to be contested; in Japan, however, the first electoral segment is composed of 300 seats contested in single member districts and citizens cast only one vote in this segment). A5033_1 VOTING PROCEDURES - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT: '01. Single Candidate'. (In some majoritarian electoral systems, e.g. Australia, in selecting a candidate, voters will also choose 'alternatives' by ranking the political candidates. If no candidate wins a majority in the first round, the candidate with the smallest number of first preferences is eliminated, and her supporters' second preferences are allocated among the remaining candidates. Alternatively, as will be discussed below, in some systems, voters elect party lists rather than candidates. In Japan, as the first segment is elected through single member districts voters select a single candidate). C. LEGISLATIVE ELECTIONS: HOW VOTES BECOME SEATS: In systems where there is more than one electoral segment, the electoral formulae used to allocate seats usually vary across segments. For this reason, the macro. data file includes data for the electoral formulae for each electoral segments within each of the legislative chambers. For example, these characteristics of New Zealand's electoral system are reported in the following way: A5034_1 ELECTORAL FORMULA- LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT: '11. Plurality- Single Member Districts.' (In the first electoral segment, New Zealanders elect 65 representatives in single-member districts). A5034_2 LOWER HOUSE- SECOND SEGMENT- ELECTORAL FORMULA: '034. PR- Ste-Lague.' (The remaining 55 seats in the legislature are allocated according to the percentage of popular vote each party receives; systems of this sort are broadly referred to as "proportional representation" systems. There are several different forumlae used to translate popular vote into seats; the Ste-Lague Highest Averages method used in New Zealand is among the more commonly used formulae). A5035_1 THRESHOLD - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT: '0. NA.' (Unlike in some proportional representation systems, candidates in New Zealand do not need to be supported by a specified percentage of the popular vote in order to gain their seats. Rather, candidates who win a simple plurality are elected to the seat representing their district). A5035_2 LOWER HOUSE- SECOND SEGMENT- THRESHOLD: '5.00 percent'. (In order to to be included in the allocation of seats via the Ste. Lague formula, parties in New Zealand must be supported by at least 5.00 percent of the national popular vote). D. TYPES OF ELECTORAL ALLIANCES Some electoral systems allow parties to ally themselves through formal or informal agreements. Where this occurs, there may be restrictions or additional requirements that party alliances are subject to. To clarify some of the terminology used in the codebook, this section provides some definitions of the type of electoral alliances parties may form: MULTI-PARTY ENDORSEMENTS: Candidates may sometimes be endorsed by more than one party, while maintaining their own party identification and membership. APPARENTEMENT: In list PR systems, small parties may be unable to gain seats in the legislature because their proportions of the popular vote fall below the threshold needed to be included in the allocation of seats. In some systems however, parties are allowed to form 'cartels,' such that, although participant parties stand for election as individual parties, their vote totals are cumulated and seats are allocated to the 'cartel,' and then distributed among the participant parties. JOINT LISTS: In contrast to apparentement, where parties maintain their own party lists and votes are pooled between the parties, parties may present joint lists, in which candidates from both parties are included, and elected according to the order prescribed by the list. Joint lists tend to be more formal and complete alliances than apparentement agreements. It is important to note that, in some systems, there are different thresholds, etc. for joint party lists contesting an election than for individual parties. =========================================================================== ))) HOW TO USE THE CSES MODULE 1 DOCUMENTATION =========================================================================== --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> TYPES OF DOCUMENTATION AVAILABLE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- There are several components to the CSES documentation. Analysts will want to become familiar with all of them. For most election studies, collaborators have provided documentation to accompany their election studies, including the source macro reports, design reports, and original-language questionnaire(s). These documents, where available, can be found on the CSES website (www.cses.org) by visiting the "Data Center" and then clicking on the CSES Module 1 download page. The CSES Module 1 questionnaire is also available from the website or by referencing the corresponding variables in this codebook. The codebook consists of three files: "cses1_codebook_part1_introduction.txt" is the codebook introduction, the file you are reading now; it includes an overview of the study and data, information about use of the files, general election study descriptions and notes, and a bibliography "cses1_codebook_part2_variables.txt" is the variable descriptions' file, including questions, code frames, general notes, and notes specific to an election study (by variable) "cses1_codebook_part3_appendices.txt" contains Appendix I (Parties and Leaders), Appendix II (Primary Electoral Districts), and Appendix III (District-Level Candidates). Analysts will also want to become familiar with the CSES Module 1 errata page, which is accessible from the CSES Module 1 download page on the website. Updates, error notifications and corrections are posted there, often in real time, as they become available. Please check the errata page regularly for new notifications. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> CODEBOOK CONVENTIONS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the CSES Module 1 dataset, all variables begin with the letter "A". This convention helps reduce the possibility of overwriting data when merging with other CSES data sets. Variables are presented in five groupings: A1001-A1999 identification, weight, and election study variables A2001-A2999 demographic and vote choice variables A3001-A3999 micro-level data (the CSES Module 1 Questionnaire) A4001-A4999 district-level data A5001-A5999 macro-level data Variable names are separated off by two lines of dashes. Variable names do not exceed eight characters in length. In the variable descriptions portion of codebook file "cm_cod2.txt", the leftmost eight columns are intended to be for variable names only. Most sections of the codebook can be navigated in the machine-readable files by searching for the characters ">>>" or ")))" as appropriate. =========================================================================== ))) HOW TO USE THE CSES MODULE 1 DATA FILES =========================================================================== We recommend that PC users create the following directory on their hard drive, and to download their files from this Module 1 release to that location: c:/cses/module1/20151215/ The subdirectory value "20151215" represents the version (release date) of the dataset - this being the 2015, December 15th version of CSES Module 1. This organization method allows users with multiple CSES datasets and/or versions to stay organized and not over-write their other files. Users of other computer types (Macs, Unix, etc.) are recommended to use a similar directory structure to organize their CSES files. The following ZIP files are available to download from the Module 1 download page under the Data Center on the CSES website. All users should download the codebook file: cses1_codebook.zip Contains the three codebook files, including this one, in text format. Users should also download one or more of the following six files, depending on which statistical package(s) they intend to use with the data, and how: cses1_csv.zip Contains a CSV file with variables names as column headers but no additional metadata (for instance, no code labels are included). cses1_syntax.zip Contains a raw data file and syntax statements to read the dataset into SAS, SPSS, and STATA. The instructions for doing so are found in the headers of the syntax files for each statistical package: cses1.sas for SAS, cses1.sps for SPSS, and cses1.do for STATA. This ZIP file also contains optional missing data statements which can be applied to the dataset in SAS, SPSS, or STATA. cses1_r.zip Contains a R Workplace system file (.rdata), with the dataset already prepared and ready to be loaded into R. Missing data statements are not applied. cses1_sas.zip Contains a SAS 7-8 system file (.sas7bdat), with the dataset already prepared and ready to be loaded into SAS. Missing data statements are not applied. cses1_spss.zip Contains a SPSS system file (.sav), with the dataset already prepared and ready to be loaded into SPSS. Missing data statements are not applied. cses1_stata.zip Contains a STATA 13 system file (.dta), with the dataset already prepared and ready to be loaded into STATA. Missing data statements are not applied. =========================================================================== >>> SPECIAL DATA NOTES =========================================================================== --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ))) IDENTIFICATION VARIABLES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Each record in CSES Module 1 contains a number of identification variables with which the analysis will wish to become familiar. These three variables identify the dataset, version, and DOI: A1001 >>> DATASET A1002 >>> DATASET VERSION A1002_DOI>>> DIGITAL OBJECT IDENTIFIER This variable uniquely identifies an election study across time. It appears in two variations: A1003 >>> ID VARIABLE - ELECTION STUDY (NUMERIC POLITY) A1004 >>> ID VARIABLE - ELECTION STUDY (ALPHABETIC POLITY) This variable uniquely identifies a respondent across time: A1005 >>> ID VARIABLE - RESPONDENT This variable uniquely identifies a polity (country, nation, etc.). It appears in three variations: A1006 >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY CSES CODE A1006_UN >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY UN CODE A1006_NAM>>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY NAME Notes on their creation and use of these variables are available in the Variable Descriptions portion of the codebook. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ))) WEIGHTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Because of the variance in the sample designs used in the election studies included in this project, the weights provided by the collaborators also vary greatly. They are described in detail in variables A1010-A1014. Analysts are advised to read the weight documentation carefully to ensure that their analyses are weighted appropriately. The original weights provided by the collaborators, where available, are: A1010_1 >>> ORIGINAL WEIGHT: SAMPLE A1010_2 >>> ORIGINAL WEIGHT: DEMOGRAPHIC A1010_3 >>> ORIGINAL WEIGHT: POLITICAL The remainder of the weight variables in the dataset are derivative variables, constructed from the original weights: A1011_1 >>> FACTOR: MEAN OF SAMPLE WEIGHT A1011_2 >>> FACTOR: MEAN OF DEMOGRAPHIC WEIGHT A1011_3 >>> FACTOR: MEAN OF POLITICAL WEIGHT A1012_1 >>> POLITY WEIGHT: SAMPLE A1012_2 >>> POLITY WEIGHT: DEMOGRAPHIC A1012_3 >>> POLITY WEIGHT: POLITICAL A1013 >>> FACTOR: SAMPLE SIZE ADJUSTMENT A1014_1 >>> DATASET WEIGHT: SAMPLE A1014_2 >>> DATASET WEIGHT: DEMOGRAPHIC A1014_3 >>> DATASET WEIGHT: POLITICAL --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> MISSING DATA --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the micro component of the project, there is some ambiguity regarding which response categories have been included in the "missing" category (usually indicated with a last digit of 9) in the component election studies of the CSES project. Researchers should be aware that this category may include those who have refused to answer a particular question, indicated that they "didn't know," were not asked the question, or otherwise did not provide an answer to a particular item. =========================================================================== ))) CSES MODULE 1 ELECTION STUDIES =========================================================================== --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> LIST OF ELECTION STUDIES INCLUDED IN CSES MODULE 1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The CSES data report on the following 39 election studies (in alphabetic order), held between 1996 and 2002: Election Study Cases Australia 1996 1,798 Belarus 2001 1,000 Belgium-Flanders 1999 2,179 Belgium-Walloon 1999 1,960 Canada 1997 1,851 Chile 1999 1,173 Czech Republic 1996 1,229 Denmark 1998 2,001 Germany 1998 2,019 Great Britain 1997 2,897 Hong Kong 1998 1,000 Hong Kong 2000 674 Hungary 1998 1,525 Iceland 1999 1,631 Israel 1996 1,091 Japan 1996 1,327 Lithuania 1997 1,009 Mexico 1997 2,033 Mexico 2000 1,766 Netherlands 1998 2,101 New Zealand 1996 4,080 Norway 1997 2,055 Peru 2000 1,102 Peru 2001 1,118 Poland 1997 2,003 Portugal 2002 1,303 Romania 1996 1,175 Russia 1999 1,842 Russia 2000 1,748 Slovenia 1996 2,031 South Korea 2000 1,100 Spain 1996 1,212 Spain 2000 1,208 Sweden 1998 1,157 Switzerland 1999 2,048 Taiwan 1996 1,200 Thailand 2001 1,081 Ukraine 1998 1,148 United States 1996 1,534 Total 62,409 NOTES: (1) Multi-wave panel studies. Only those respondents who participated in the wave of the study that included the CSES Module are included in the CSES core data-files. Analysts should be aware that the subsamples included in the CSES core data-files differ from the original samples drawn in the following countries: Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Japan, the Netherlands, Russia, and the United States. Analysts should refer to the "Sample Design and Data Collection Reports" prepared by the collaborators in these countries for more details. (2) Booster Samples. In New Zealand and Great Britain, certain segments of the population were over-sampled to allow for cross-group comparisons. As the CSES module was not administered to these segments, these respondents are not included in the CSES data-files. However, as the documentation provided by the collaborators refers to these "booster" samples in some places, analysts should be aware of this feature of these research designs. Finally, where other component studies have over-sampled segments of their populations, but administered the CSES Module to all subsamples, these booster samples are included in the CSES data-file. In most cases where this has occurred, the collaborators have provided weights that correct for this over-sampling in the estimation of national parameters. Analysts should pay particular attention to the documentation provided for the weights in this codebook. (3) Russia. The post-parliamentary and post-presidential data are drawn from different waves of a multi-wave panel study. As a result, the respondents are the same, as indicated by the common case identification codes, and can be compared across the 1999 and 2000 component studies. =========================================================================== ))) ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES =========================================================================== The following section provides: (1). General information about the election after which the CSES Module 1 was administered. In several cases, the election followed the establishment of new electoral rules. In several others, the election marks a dramatic change in government. This information is provided with the intention of alerting the analyst to interesting features of the election. For more details, please refer to the Macro Reports prepared by the collaborators, and available on the CSES website. (2). General information about the research and sample designs of the component election studies. For example, in some cases, the CSES module was adminstered in a later wave of a multi-wave study. Also, in Belgium, the CSES module was administered by different election study teams in different regions of the country. Finally, in several countries, significant proportions of the population were excluded from the sample frame, usually because of geographic isolation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - AUSTRALIA (1996) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) "After five successive Federal election wins and thirteen years in government, the ALP (led by the Prime Minister Paul Keating) lost 31 seats, and the government, in the 2 March 1996 Federal election for the 148 seat House of Representatives. The Liberal and National Parties (led by the Liberal Leader of the Opposition, John Howard) gained 27 and 2 seats, respectively (independents gained 3), giving the new coalition government 94 seats (Liberal 76 and Nationals 18), a majority of 44 seats over the ALP... Although many observers had expected the government to lose the election (from February 1995 the opinion polls had consistently shown the ALP trailing the Liberal- National parties), most were surprised by the magnitude of the swing to the coalition parties." (CSES Macro Report: Australia). (2) The sample was drawn from the Australian Electoral Rolls. As enrolment is compulsory, nearly 95% of those eligible are included in the sample frame. The sample is stratified by region, and the AEC identified sample points using a systematic random selection m echanism (interval count). The identified respondents were contacted three times before being declared a non-interview. No replacement methods were used. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - BELARUS (2001) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) This study was conducted following nearly concurrent legislative (October 15, 2000; repeated March 18, 2001) and presidential (September 9, 2001) elections. The evaluation (Parties and Leaders), candidate recall, and macro data items pertain to the legislative election, although only presidential vote choice is reported. (2) Households were randomly selected, and then respondents were identified according to the "next birthday" method. Households were contacted 3 times over two days before it was declared a non-interview. No replacement methods were used. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (1999) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) Following the 1995 election, public confidence in the governing institutions was seriously shaken by several scandals involving members of the governing coalition. Spontaneous strikes occurred throughout this period, with the largest, the "White March," involving 300 000 protesters. Immigration and asylum remain contentious issues. In Flanders, the disaffection with the governing parties benefitted the VLD, which became the largest party in the Flemish region. (2) Although the Belgium-Flanders and Belgium-Walloon election studies were very similar, the data were collected and deposited by different teams of researchers. Further, the party systems are exclusive. As a result, in the CSES datafiles the Flanders and Walloon components are treated as distinct elections. However, to facilitate comparisons across these components, wherever possible, similar coding schemes have been used. (3) The Belgium-Flanders (1999) election study includes the Flemish- speaking portion of Brussels. (4) Some of the respondents were panel respondents (1460) who cooperated in 1991 and (or) 1995 and the other part was a cross-section (718). For the cross section (and for the first use of the panel in 1991) a two stage sampling procedure was used. Primary units were municipalities, selected according to their population size. Secondary units were selected at random within the primary units, from the electoral registers. Replacement of the new sample points from within the same municipality occurred after attempts to contact the respondent were unsuccessful. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLOON (1999) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) Following the 1995 election, public confidence in the governing institutions was seriously shaken by several scandals involving members of the governing coalition. Spontaneous strikes occurred throughout this period, with the largest, the "White March," involving 300 000 protesters. Immigration and asylum remain contentious issues. Unlike in Flanders, the challenging parties made only modest gains in Walloon. PS remained large enough to ensure a place in the governing coalition. It should be noted that Ecolo nearly doubled its share of the vote in both Wallonia and Brussels. (2) Although the Belgium-Flanders and Belgium-Walloon election studies were very similar, the data were collected and deposited by different teams of researchers. Further, the party systems are exclusive. As a result, in the CSES datafiles the Flanders and Walloon components are treated as distinct elections. However, to facilitate comparisons across these components, wherever possible, similar coding schemes have been used. (3) The Belgium-Walloon (1999) election study includes the French-speaking portion of Brussels. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - CANADA (1997) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) The 1997 Federal Election marks the consolidation of the radical changes in the Canadian party system that occurred in the 1993 election. Following the Progressive Conservative government's failure to ratify the Charlottetown Accord in 1992, and as a result of general dissatisfaction with the Mulroney government, the Progressive Conservatives were reduced from 170 seats to only 2 seats in 1993, losing official party status. Although the Progressive Conservatives did regain official party status in the 1997 election, its presence remains over-shadowed by two new parties, the Bloc Quebecois (which formed her Majesty's Loyal Opposition following the 1993 election) and the Reform Party (first elected in 1993, and the official opposition party following the 1997 election). With the emergence of these new parties, Canadian party politics has become highly regionalized: Bloc Quebecois candidates stand for election exclusively in Quebec. The Reform Party's stronghold is in the Western provinces, particularly Alberta and British Colombia, in spite of efforts to gain standing in central Canada. The Liberal's support is drawn almost exclusively from Ontario where, in 1997, Liberal candidates were elected in 101 out of 103 constituencies. (2) It is also important to note that this was the first election following the 1995 referendum on secession in Quebec. Following the narrow defeat of the referendum (by a margin of less than 1%), the charismatic leader and founding member of the federal Bloc Quebecois, Lucien Bouchard stepped down to lead the provincial Parti Quebecois and was replaced by Gilles Duceppe. (3) The CES was conducted in three panels (Refer to The 1997 Canadian Election Survey: Technical Documentation). An origi1al sample (n=3949) was drawn in the pre-election period. These respondents were re-interviewed following the election (n=3170). Finally, a mailback survey that contained the CSES module was sent to the respondents; 1857 returned the study. Note, all 3949 of the original respondents are included in the CSES datafiles. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - CHILE (1999) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) Through this presidential election, Ricardo Lagos, became the third consecutive president from the center-left coalition, and the first socialist president, since the reestablishment of democracy. The elections were held in a critical economic situation; the rates of unemployment and crime were high; and there were a set of demonstrations performed by students and indigenous people. The possibility of Pinochet being judged overseas provoked nationalistic anger among the majority of the population, who demanded a more active intervention of the government to bring him back to the country. The first round showed a tight result between the two main candidates. Lagos got 0.05% of votes over Joaquin Lavin, the candidate for the right-wing alliance. The government candidate was favored by a decline in the unemployment rate and by Pinochet's obvious release a month before the second round. Finally, Lagos got 2.60% more votes than Lavin. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (1996) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) "The election... illustrated the remarkable political stability of the Czech Republic and saw some significant concentration of the party spectrum and the emergence of an effective democratic opposition." (Fitzmaurice (1997), "The 1996 Czech Elections," Electoral Studies) (2) The CSES module was contained in the post-election panel of the study. The original sample included 1589; 1229 participated in the later wave and are included in the CSES datafiles. (3) In the first stage of selection, a sample of 300 localities (stratified by size) was randomly selected. Then, respondents were identified according to quotas based on age, gender and education. 3 contacts were made before a sample point was declared a non-interview. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - DENMARK (1998) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) The previous minority coalition government led by the Social Democratic Party, and that also includes the Social Liberal Party, won the general election in March 1998 with a majority of one in the parliament. Voters' deep concern about Denmark's membership in the EU is in part due to a lack of confidence in the long-run stability of European economies. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - GERMANY (1998) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) This election marks the end of the Chancellorship of Helmut Kohl, and reflects the general disenchantment with the CDU. The CDU was supported by less than a third of the popular vote. The new government was formed by the SPD in coalition with the Greens, under the charismatic, "post-modern" leadership of Gerhard Schroeder. (2) This is an RDD sample, with random selection within the household. 12 contacts were made before a sample point was declared a non-interview. No replacement methods were used. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (1997) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) Following Black Wednesday, voter confidence in the government declined dramatically, bolstering support for parties previously in opposition. (2) This study is accurately referred to in this documentation as "Great Britain," rather than the United Kingdom, because the study includes England, Scotland and Wales, but not Northern Ireland. Please refer to the "Sample Design and Data Collection Report" for details of the complicated sample design used. In particular, note that the Scottish "booster" sample is not included in the CSES datafiles. (3) The sample frame includes eligible voters in Britain. The PSUs are postal sectors, stratified by sub-region and according to population density and socioeconomic profile, selected in probabilities proportionate to size (systematic random selection), treating England/Wales, and Scotland separately. Interviewers determined the household and respondents according to Kish grids. A minimum of four re-contacts occurred. No replacement methods were used. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - HONG KONG (1998) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) Turnout for the first elections since Hong Kong was transferred from Great Britain to the People's Republic of China was higher than at any election conducted under British rule. The resulting legislative body is one with a much stronger pro-Beijing presence when compared to previous elections. At the same time, the success of candidates and parties previously ousted by the Beijing-appointed Provisional Legislative Council suggests the emergence of a pro-local autonomy and full democracy vs. pro-Beijing cleavage in electoral politics. (2) Based on the final registers of electors of 1998, the Registration and Electoral Office helped select randomly 8,000 registered electors in proportion to size by consistency. Potential respondents were contacted 3 times before being declared a non-sample. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - HONG KONG (2000) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) The second legislative council election was characterized by concerns about producing a council broadly viewed as legitimate. The number of members from geographical constituencies was increased from 20 to 24, and the number returned by an election committee was reduced from 10 to 6. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - HUNGARY (1998) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) In the 1998 Hungarian election, the FIDESZ-MPP, an oppositional party since 1990, challenged the governing Hungarian Socialist Party. Although the FIDESZ-MPP was supported by the majority of the popular vote and won a plurality of the seats in the legislature, it was necessary to form a coalition with the FKGP and the MDF to form a government. (2) There was some concern, prior to the 1998 Hungarian election, that the notorious complexity of Hungarian electoral rules, combined with a large number of parties and candidates, would bewilder voters. In fact, turnout for the first round was considerably low (roughly 60%). However, turnout did increase during the second round, when the FIDESZ- MPP withdrew many of its non-winning candidates in support of coalition partners, and concluded numerous electoral agreements with other parties. "For the first time in Hungary's post-communist politics, the party which won the largest regional list vote and was ahead in the constituencies after the first round [the FIDESZ-MPP] failed to emerge as the overall winner" (Fowler, B. , "Hungarian Parliamentary Elections, May 1998," Electoral Studies 17:2, 257-262). (3) In Hungary, the CSES module was administered in the post-election wave of a panel study. Some of the demographic data in the CSES data set (marital status, religion, religiosity, church attendance, size of household, family income) were obtained from the pre-election wave. Note that the "post-election" wave was actually carried out between the two rounds of the election that were separated by two weeks in 1998. The reason for this choice was the worry that after the second round many more respondents would fail to correctly remember which party they supported on the list, which one in their single-member districts in the first round, and which in the runoff in the single-members. (4) Localities were stratified by county and population size, and selected with probabilities proportionate to size. Households were selected via random walks. Respondents were selected with Kish grids from within the household. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - ICELAND (1999) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) An interesting feature of the 1999 parliamentary election was the effort of parties on the left to form a united front, consisting of a union of the People's Alliance, the Social Democratic Party, and the Women's Alliance, to challenge the conservative Independence Party. However, the leaders of the Alliance were unable to accommodate those farthest to the left, and lost supporters to the newly emergent Left-Greens. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - ISRAEL (1996) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) Israelis directly elected their Prime Minister for the first time in these elections. Prior the 1996 election, the Prime Minister was selected by the legislature, as is customary in parliamentary systems. With these reforms, the Prime Minister and the legislature are elected concurrently, but by separate ballots for four year terms. (2) Data pertaining to the 1996 Prime Ministerial elections are reported in variables otherwise assigned to presidential variables. (3) As new information regarding the handling of the Israeli data was brought forward by the collaborator, there are signficant revisions to several of the variables, resulting in distributions which differ from earlier versions of the CSES datafiles. (4) 3 samples were drawn from telephone listings. When, after 3 contacts, the entire sample had been used, interviewers proceeded to the second, and then third lists. This procedure was followed in the selection of a general sample (Jewish and Russian sample), and an Arab sample. The response rate among the Arab population was much higher, and as a result, the third list was not used. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - JAPAN (1996) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) "The 1996 General Election was conducted under a new mixed system. Each voter casts two separate votes: one for the single member districts and one for the PR districts." (CSES Marco. Level Survey: Japan). (2) Further, as the previous election (1993) ended the 38-year reign of the Liberal Democratic Party, the 1996 election marked a dramatic change in party system dynamics. During the last government and over the course of the campaign, the traditional opposition party, the JSP, collapsed, several new parties formed, and prominent politicians "crossed the floor." (Reed (1997), "The 1996 Japanese General Election", Electoral Studies 16:1) (3) The CSES items were contained in the post-election wave of a panel study. The original sample includes 1535 respondents; 1327 completed the post-election survey and are included in the CSES datafiles. (4) Most of the questions were asked out of sequence in the pre- and the post-election waves. See Table 1 for the order of CSES questions placed in the Japanese survey. Table 1 CSES JEDS96 Q1 (Satisfied with democracy) A24 Q2 (Election conducted fairly) B26 Q3 (Close to a party?) B18 Q4 (Parties care what people think) B27 Q5 (Parties are necessary) B28 Q6 (Candidate recall) B1c1-B1c3 Q7 (Party evaluations) B34 Q8 (Leader evaluations) B35 Q9 (Current state of the economy) A26 Q10 (Past state of the economy) A27 Q11 (MPs know what people think) B29 Q12 (Contact with MP?) B30 Q13 (Who is in power makes difference) B31 Q14 (Vote make difference) B32 Q15 (Say or hide opinion) B33 Q16 (Left-Right, Self/ party placement) A14, A15 'A' for JEDS96 denotes pre-election wave and 'B' denotes post-election wave. The numbers that follow A or B are question numbers. (5) Pre-election only cases from the Japanese survey are not included in the CSES Japanese data. (6) First, the prefectures are divided into 11 districts, which correspond to the 11 PR districts for the General Election for the House of Representatives. In each district, cities and towns/villages were divided into the strata according to their population size. 2,100 census tracts were selected (via systematic sampling) from these 52 strata in proportion to the census population estimates. Finally, the secondary sampling units (individual respondents) were chosen by the systematic sampling from the voter registration list (in come cases from the residential register) in each designated primary sampling unit. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - LITHUANIA (1997) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) Political parties and their presidential candidates were not the central actors in this presidential election. Instead, the two candidates who proceeded to the second round of the run-off elections were not affiliated with any of the major parties, but ran as independents. (2) The sample was stratified according to the ethnic regions of Lithuanian. Then, 104 clusters were randomly selected in strata, according to the size of the settlement. Finally, Kish tables were used to identify respondents within the household. 3 attempts to contact the respondents were made before a sample point was declared a non-interview. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - MEXICO (1997) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) This election marks the demise of what some observers have called "hegemonic" PRI rule. Prior to this election, the Institutional Revolutionary Party ruled longer than any other party in the world, controlling the presidency, and the congress since they was established in 1929. (2) Electoral reforms implemented with the 1996 election reduced party thresholds for seat eligibility to 2%. Further, no party can be over represented in terms of seats in the Chamber by more than 8%. As a result, a party must receive at least 42% of the popular vote in order to form a majority government. The PRI anticipated (wrongly) that they would be supported by that at least that proportion. (3) Changes have been made in the handling of the missing data from the past release. Therefore, some variables in this release might have a different distribution from the ones included in the past release. (4) The primary sampling units were the municipalities. The municipalities were chosen within each electoral stratum, using a systematic method with probabilities proportional to size. The second-stage sampling units were the AGEBS (Basic Geo-statistical units) for urban cases, or the localities for rural cases. They were chosen randomly with probability proportional to their size. The measuring of the unit's size was the population over 18 years old. The respondent selected within the household was the person over 18 years old, whose birthday was the most proximate to the date of the interview. Substitutes were randomly selected after 3 failed attempts to contact the designated respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - MEXICO (2000) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) These elections marked the end of 71 years of rule by the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI). The country's economic situation was good, after recovering from the 1994 economic crisis, people were being employed and the economy was starting to grow. The main opposition candidate, Vicente Fox, started a campaign to be his party's, National Action Party (PAN), candidate three years before the election. Fox was finally the candidate of a coalition between his right-wing party, PAN, and the Green Party (PVEM). The other opposition candidate, Cuauhemoc Cardenas, was supported by a coalition formed by his party, Democratic Revolution Party (PRD), and a group of smaller less important parties. At the beginning of the electoral process the main opposition parties tried to build an electoral alliance, but it was not possible because neither Fox nor Cardenas were willing to step down of the competition. The candidate from the governing party, Francisco Labastida, had served as governor of Sinaloa and as Minister of Energy, Agriculture and Government. The strategy followed by Fox was to present himself as the symbol of the change. He moved on the political spectrum more to the center, in order to attract center-left voters and young people. This election was the first in which the members of the PRI elected their candidate, because President Zedillo refused to continue the practice of choosing his successor. For the first time, there were televised debates among the candidates. Although the polls showed that the competition among Labastida and Fox was going to be tight, Fox got 6.4% votes over Labastida. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - NETHERLANDS (1998) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) In the prior election, the traditional governing party, the Christian Democrats suffered a tremendous loss of 20 seats. With only 34 seats (out of 150), the CDA were excluded from the 1994 Cabinet. In the 1998 election, the CDA lost 5 more seats, bolstering the electoral strength of the so-called 'Purple Coalition' government, formed by the Labor Party (whose color is red), and the Liberals (whose color is blue). (2) With regards to party dynamics and campaigns, it is worth noting that TV ads made their first appearance in this Dutch election. Only recently, has commercial television been introduced in the Netherlands; in past elections, parties were given equal amounts of time on public networks. The Socialist Party was the first party to announce its intention to 'buy time' on a commercial station. The Democrats 66 attempted to convince the other parties not to purchase time, but when they refused, D66 became the first party to produce an ad. (Irwin (1999), "The Dutch Parliamentary Election of 1998," Electoral Studies 18:1, 271-300). (3) New electoral reforms allowed candidates to be elected if (s)he received one-quarter of the electoral quotient (prior to this the threshold had been one-half), regardless of their position on party lists. As a result, two members were elected despite lower positions on the party lists than their parties' quotients allowed. Prior to this reform, only three members had been elected in this way. (Irwin (1999), "The Dutch Parliamentary Election of 1998," Electoral Studies 18:1, 271-300). (4) The Dutch Parliamentary Election Study consisted of both a pre-election wave and a post-election wave, together with supplementary data collections (e.g. for non-response cases). CSES variables are split between pre-election and post-election data. 287 cases from the Dutch pre-election study were not re-interviewed in the post-election study. (5) A sample frame of municipalities was stratified according to region and population density. Within selected municipalities, respondents were identified by SRS from electoral rolls. Random replacement of municipalities occurred when the municipalities were unwilling to cooperate. There was no maximum number of contact attempts. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (1996) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) The 1996 election began a new electoral regime for New Zealanders. Prior to the 1996 election, legislators were elected in single member districts, and the legislature was structured according to the Westminster model. However, following a referendum on electoral reform held in 1992, the legislature was restructured according to a plurality-PR model. In voting for the lower house, New Zealanders now select both a candidate and a party list (similarly to German electoral procedures). (2) There are several sample components: First, a post-election new sample was drawn from the electoral rolls. Those registered on the Maori rolls were over-sampled. Second, a pre-post election sample includes the VAP, and was drawn via RDD in the pre-election wave. A mail-back survey, containing the CSES module, was sent to members of each of these samples. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - NORWAY (1997) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) "The election was characterized by great volatility and unclear alternatives. It resulted in an unexpected change of government. Although Labor remained the largest party, the incumbent Labor government resigned after the election and was replaced by a mini-coalition of three parties at the center, the Christian People's Party, the Center (Agrarian) party and the Liberals." (Valen (1997), "Norway: The Storting Election of September 15, 1997," Electoral Studies 555-60). (2) Municipalities were stratified into 109 strata, and one was selected from each stratum. Individuals were randomly selected (systematically) from the population registers for each municipality. Four contacts were made before the sample point was declared a non-interview. No replacement methods were used. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - PERU (2000) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) The 2000 legislative election is notable for the instability of the party system: With the exception of "Change '90," and "Nueva Mayoria" that were both part of the successful "Peru 2000" alliance, no party that contested the 1995 election received more than 7.5% of the vote. (2) It is also important to note the highly personalized nature of this election: Fujimori was re-elected for a third term, in violation of the constitution. Peru 2000 rallied in his support, and the campaigns of all parties centered largely on this issue. (3) Finally, it should be noted that there were "serious limits" imposed on the media throughout the campaign period. (4) In the first stage of sample selection, PSUs were randomly selected. Respondents were identified according to demographic quotas. 2 attempts were made to contact each respondent. No replacement methods were used. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - PERU (2001) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) Following the controversial 2000 election, electoral institutions were re-designed in the hopes of promoting accountability. Please refer to the macro component of the project for more details. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - POLAND (1997) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) The 1997 Polish election marks the first alternation in government since the collapse of the Soviet regime. The Solidarity Election Action (AWS) replaced the Democratic Left Alliance (SLD) in both houses, with a slightly larger proportion of the popular vote and a plurality of seats in both legislative chambers. In coalition with the Freedom Union (itself an alliance of the former Democratic Union, and the Liberal Democratic Congress), AWS formed the government. (2) It seems that the AWS victory comes largely at the defeat of the Polish Peasant Party (PSL), a former coalition partner of the SLD: In the 1997 election, the PSL was reduced to 27 seats (from 132). Some observers credit the PSL's resistance to economic reforms as the source of the electorate's disenchantment with this party (Chan, K. (1997), "The Polish General Election of 1997," Electoral Studies 17:4, 561-567). (3) Statistical districts (defined by the Main Statistical Office) were selected with probabilities proportionate to size. Households were then randomly selected from within these districts. 3 contact attempts were made. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - PORTUGAL (2002) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) Following relatively poor results for the Socialist Party (PS) in the local elections held on December 2001, Prime Minister Guterres tendered his resignation. The legislative elections of 17 March 2002 spelled the end of Socialist Party rule, which lost 19 MPs and the victory, albeit without an absolute majority, of the centre-right party, the PSD, which elected 81 MPs, out of a possible 230. The elections also led to the formation of a coalition government, after 15 years of single-party government, between the PSD and the right-wing CDS/PP. Nevertheless, the alternation in power, as well as the change in government type, did not represent a fundamental shift in voting behaviour, as seen by national and district party results. (2) This sample was stratified by NUTS II (5 regions in the mainland: North, Centre, Lisbon and Tagus Valley, Alentejo and Algarve) and HABITAT (eleven categories of localities by number of inhabitants: less than 100 ; 101 to 200 ; 201 to 500 ; 501 to 1000 ; 1001 to 2000; 2001 to 5000 ; 5001 to 10.000; 10.001 to 20.000 ; 20.001 to 100.000 ; 100.001 to 500.000; more than 500.001). For each cell within the NUTS II and HABITAT frame, and according to the proportion of residents in each cell, the number of interviews was defined. Then, the number of localities inside each cell of the same frame was randomly selected, trying to ensure that no more than 10 interviews were done in the same locality. So, for example, if according to the number of residents in a cell of the frame, 100 interviews had to be carried out, 10 localities in that cell were selected. In each locality, the method of random route was used, in order to ensure a good distribution of the selected households, for all the extension of the locality. In the household, respondents were selected using the following criteria: next person living in the household to have his/her birthday. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - ROMANIA (1996) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) The 1996 Romanian legislative election is notable for the emergence of the Democratic Social Party of Romania (PDSR), and the National Peasant's Christian and Democratic Party (PNTC). Both of these parties made considerable gains in this election; the PDSR formed the government in coalition with other leftist parties, including the former governing Romanian Social Democratic Party. (2) Localities were randomly selected from strata defined by region and size. Then, electoral lists were randomly selected from within each locality, and respondents were selected from each list. After three unsuccessful attempts to contact a particular respondent, a randomly selected substitute was interviewed instead. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - RUSSIA (1999) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - RUSSIA (2000) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) The Russian party system has yet to be institutionalized in the sense that voters, candidates, and parties have learned to behave strategically vis-`-vis the electoral rules. In this election however, the 6 parties that passed the PR threshold had received 81% of the vote between them, and the distribution of seats among the party closely reflects the percentage of the vote each had gained. However, given the sheer number of parties and candidates, especially independent candidates, who competed in the single-member districts, there were many victories with only a low plurality. The new "Unity" party, an alliance established in September 1999 to represent the Government in the elections, won 72 seats or 23 percent, 67 of which were gained through party-list proportional representation. The Communist Party, however, lost 44 seats while retaining 113. (2) Very early in the race, Putin, with an agenda that called for a strong state and properly functioning market economy, emerged as the clear frontrunner. (3) This component of the CSES project is taken from part of a three-wave panel study: The pre-election wave was fielded throughout November and December, 1999 (n=1919). A post-legislative election study was conducted following the parliamentary elections held in December, 1999 (n=1842). Finally, the respondents were interviewed a third time, following the presidential election in March, 2000. The CSES battery was carried (almost in entirety) in both the post-legislative and post-presidential election studies. The post-legislative data are included in the CSES datafiles. Although panel attrition was relatively slight, analysts should refer to the "Sample Design and Data Collection Report," available through the CSES Country Archive for details. Note, also, that the demographic items are taken from the pre-legislative wave of the study. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - SLOVENIA (1996) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) In the 1996 Slovenian election, the governing Slovene Christian Democratic Party (SKD) and United List of Social Democrats (ZLSD) were replaced by the Slovene People's Party (SLS), and the Social Democrats (SDS). In spite of this instability in the party system, there seems to be some consensus among the parties regarding the direction of Slovenia's nation-building efforts. As one observer remarks, "this was a routine election at which no existential issues were at stake" (Fitzmaurice, J. (1997) "The Slovenian Parliamentary Elections of 10 November 1996," Electoral Studies 16:3, 403-407). (2) The Central Register of Population (a list of names and addresses constantly updated by public administration) is employed as a sampling frame. The sample is a three-stage systematic sample with random start. The target sample size was N=2100 (140 primary and 420 secondary sampling units). Systematic sample with start from primary sampling units of k=1200. Third stage sample is systematic sample of k=10 with start from second stage units. Individual persons with name and address are selected on a final stage. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2000) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) This election was characterized by high voter cynicism and a marked decline in turnout. The growing salience of issues was a departure from the authoritarian style of politics that has characterized politics. Salient issues included the pace with which the nation should approach the restructuring of the economy, political reform and democratization. In an effort to cut costs, the number of contested seats was reduced to 273,from 299 in the previous election. As in previous elections, regionalism continued as one of the strongest factors impacting electoral outcomes. However, the election signaled a weakening hold of current political bosses Kim Dae Jung, Kim Young-Sam, and Kim Jong-pil. Independent candidates won seats in President Kim Dae Jung's south-western region; the DPP, as a new party formed by GNP politicians not nominated by their party, emerged in Kim Young-Sam's south-eastern region; and Kim Jong-pil was unsuccessful helping the ULD to retain seats in Chungchong. (2) Note, there are some regions excluded from the sample frame: Cheju island and other small islands. This is a usual practice for Korean national surveys, since people in these regions are difficult and costly to contact while occupying a very small percentage of the whole population. To devise the sample frame, Electoral districts were randomly selected. Then, for each electoral district, a quota of respondents was determined reflecting the whole population distribution in terms of age and sex. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - SPAIN (1996) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - SPAIN (2000) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) The 1996 election marks a significant turning point in Spanish electoral history: Since the 1982 election, the Socialist Party (PSOE) had governed with an absolute majority of seats in the legislature. However, in 1996, the People's Party (PP) gained a plurality of seats in the Chamber of Deputies. In coalition with regional parties, the PP maintained parliamentary support, and broadened its electoral support in the subsequent 2000 election. (2) In the 2000 election, the People's Party (PP) gained an absolute majority in Congress, allowing it to govern without the additional votes of the Catalan or Basque nationalists. (3) PSUs were randomly selected, and then a random route method was used. If a selected respondent within the household was unavailable, another housing unit along the same route was selected. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - SWEDEN (1998) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) The 1998 Swedish election is the first since a shift to a four-year parliamentary term (previously, Swedish parliaments sat for two years). Note that turnout was the lowest in this election of all Swedish elections held since 1958 (Ater, D. (1999), "The Swedish General Election of the 20th September 1998: victory for values over policies," Electoral Studies 18:2, 296-300). (2) "The sample has been drawn disproportionally. For in depth comparative purposes, 3 cantons (ZH, GE, TI) are over represented. Cantonal proportionality in the national data requires this backlog to be deleted. Thus, the data set includes 2048, instead of 3257 cases." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - SWITZERLAND (1999) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) In the 1999 Swiss election, the Swiss People's Party gained 15 seats (largely at the expense of smaller, more radical parties). Observers credit this gain to their concentration on the issue of political asylum in Switzerland, an issue stemming from the recent influx of refugees from Kosovo. (2) Households were selected from the Swisscom directory (private lines: number and addresses), in two stages, with disproportional random sampling. Then, after screening according to the age of contacted person, the structure of household (number of persons, number of persons with right to vote, name, age, sex and nationality of each person), respondents were randomly selected. Between 30 and 50 contact attempts were made. No replacement methods were used. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - TAIWAN (1996) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) In the 1996 election, Taiwanese voters elected, for the first time, their President and Vice-President for a four year term. Prior to this election, the President and Vice-President were elected by members of the legislature. The incumbent, Lee Tung-hui was re-elected with a considerable lead over his opponents. (2) The sampling frame consists of eligible voters residing on the mainland. Strata were defined by region, with concern for the representation of major municipalities. From these strata, PSUs were sampled with probabilities proportionate to size. Electoral districts were randomly identified, and then respondents were selected from within these districts according to the electoral rolls. 9 such samples were drawn. If the original respondent could not be interviewed, a replacement from an alternative sample, of similar demographic characteristics from within the district was interviewed as a substitute. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - THAILAND (2001) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) On 6 January, 2001 Thai voters cast their ballots in the first election for members to the House of Representatives to be held under the 16th Constitution, passed in October 1997. The new constitution increased the number of seats from 392 to 500, with 100 MPs elected from a nation-wide party list and 400 from single member constituencies. (2) Although the design corresponds to a pre-election/post-election panel study, many of the CSES items are drawn from the pre-election phase. Where there is reason to believe that this may affect analysis of these data, those items that are obtained from the pre-election study are noted in the relevant variables' documentation. (3) The sample was drawn in the following manner: First, the population was stratified by region. Each region was to produce 250 respondents. Then, a systematic sample of polling units was drawn from within each region. Finally, a systematic sample of eligible voters was drawn from the polling units selected in each region. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - UKRAINE (1998) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) The 1994 Ukrainian election demonstrated the inability of the electoral system established following the collapse of the Soviet regime to produce stable, competitive electoral politics. Because of the enormous obstacles facing candidates (to gain a seat, they required an absolute majority of the popular vote cast by an absolute majority of the electorate), nearly half of the seats were left unfilled, and only half of the legislators elected in 1994 were members of political parties. As a result, the government dramatically reformed the electoral system, and new electoral law was adopted in 1997. Under these new regulations, half of the seats were elected by single member districts, and the other half through proportional representation. The 1998 election was the first held under these electoral rules. In spite of these reforms however, half of the members elected in the single-member districts were independent (without party affiliation). (2) The first stage of sampling design is grouping of the oblasts, which are the main units of territorial and administrative division of Ukraine, into regions. The grouping is made on the basis of more than 150 characteristics and indicators of economic, social and cultural development by methods of factor analysis and cluster analysis applied in sequence. The second stage of the sampling design is a selection of urban and rural settlements. The task of the second stage is to select 32-35 urban settlements to represent on the one hand, the structure of the urban settlements of Ukraine and, on the other hand, to represent each of the 10 regions singled out at the first stage of sampling design. For this, within each region the cities and towns belonging to the same group are put in alphabetical order and selected at random. At the third stage, urban sampling points are divided into so-called "rayons" (territorial divisions). Streets for the interviewers' routes are selected at the fourth stage. The number of the streets selected within each district should correspond to the number of routes. If no districts were selected within the urban settlement, the streets selected should be distant from each other. This should also give the possibility to study opinions of people living in multi-storied buildings, detached private houses, etc. Each route should cover not more than 10 interviews. The number of houses should not be less than 10 for each route. Rural settlements are selected randomly from the list of the rural settlements of the same oblasts to which the cities selected to represent the urban population belong. The last (fifth) stage of the sampling procedure is selection of the respondents by quota task. It is not clear whether multiple attempts were made to contact respondents, or what replacement methods were used. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - UNITED STATES (1996) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) "The American elections of 1996 proved to be a curious anticlimax" (Shafer, B. (1996), "The American Elections of 1996," Electoral Studies 16:3, 394-403). It seems that the 1996 election mirrored the 1992 election in most respects: The Democrat presidential candidate, Bill Clinton, won with a comfortable majority of electoral college votes (though without a majority of the popular vote); the Republican candidate, Bob Dole, failed to close the popularity gap between himself and the presidency (though the Republicans did gain some of Ross Perot's, an independent candidate, support). There is one notable difference from the 1992 election: In 1992, an overwhelming majority of elected congressmen were Democrats, while in the 1996 election the Republicans maintained the majority presence in Congress that they had gained in the 1994 midterm elections. (2) The 1996 National Election Study entailed both a pre-election interview and a post-election re-interview. About three-fourths of the 1996 cases consist of empaneled respondents who were first interviewed in the 1994 or 1992 National Election Study. A freshly drawn cross-section sample makes up the balance of the 1996 cases. (Details of the sample design are given in "Sample Design of the 1996 Pre/Post Election Studies", in Appendix B.) Altogether, 1714 citizens were interviewed in the 9 weeks prior to the November 5, 1996 election. To permit analysis of the impact of the unfolding election campaign, the pre-election sample was divided into four subsample replicates, which were released approximately two weeks apart. 1316 of the pre-election interviews were conducted with panel respondents; 398 with cross-section respondents. In the weeks following the election, 1534 pre-election respondents were reinterviewed: 1197 panel, 337 cross-section. (3) The selection of primary stage sampling units (PSUs), which depending on the sample stratum are either MSAs, single counties or groupings of small counties, is based on the county-level 1980 Census Reports of Population and Housing. A three-step process of ordering the SSUs within the primary areas produced an implicit stratification of the area segments in the second-stage sampling frame, stratified at the county level by geographic location and population. For each area segment selected in the second sampling stage, a listing was made of all housing units located within the physical boundaries of the segment. The final equal probability sample of housing units for the 1994 NES was systematically selected from the housing unit listings for the sampled area segments. Note, half of the respondents were randomly assigned to telephone interviews in a mode experiment. Extensive attempts were made to contact respondents before a sample point was declared non-interview. =========================================================================== ))) BIBLIOGRAPHY =========================================================================== Citations for Macro Reports Aardal, B. (1998) One for the Record: the 1997 Storting Election. Scandanavian Political Studies, 21(4). Act No. 247, On Elections to the Parliament of The Czech Republic, and on Amendments to Certain Other Acts, September 27, 1995. Arian, Asher. (1996) The Israeli election for Prime Minister and the Knesset, 1996. Electoral Studies, 15 (4), 570-575. Arter, David. (1999) The Swedish general election of 20th September 1998: a vistory for values over policies? Electoral Studies, 18 (2), 271-300. Banks, Arthur S., Muller, Thomas C., et al., eds. (1999). Political Handbook of the World: 1999. Binghamton, NY: CSA Publications. The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. Adopted 4 April 1990 at the Third Session of the Seventh National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China. The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. Adopted on 4 April 2000 by the Seventh National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China at its Third Session. Basic Law: The Knesset. Retrieved December 7, 1998, from http://www. israel-mfa-gov.il/gov/ Belin, Laura. (2000, January 7). Early Presidential Campaign Secures Duma Majority for Putin. Russian Election Report, 8. Retrieved from http://www/rferl.org/elections/russia99report/ Belin, Laura. (2000, April 7). News and Analysis of the 2000 Russian Presidential Election. Russian Election Report, 5 (13). Retrieved December 17, 2001 from http://www/rferl.org/elections/russia00report/ Birch, Susan amd Andrew Wilson.(1999) The Ukrainian parliamentary elections of 1998. Electoral Studies 18 (2), 271-300. Blais, Andre and Louis Massicotte. (1996). Electoral Systems. In Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in Global Perspective. LeDuc, Niemi, and Norris (eds.), 49-81. Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse. (5/10/2001). Democracy Under Siege in Belarus [Electronic version]. Congressional Record, 64. Chan, Kenneth Ka-Lok. (1998) The Polish General Election of 1997. Electoral Studies, 17(4),561-564. Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Czech Republic). Retrieved July 28, 1997, from http://www.ppsp.cz/docs/laws/charter.html/ The Chilean Electoral System Before 1973. Retrieved June 22, 2001, from http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/docs/chile.htm Codigo federal de instituciones y procedimientos electorales. Retireived from http://www.ife.org.mx/wwwife/incofipe.htm/ Colomer, Josep M. (2001). The 2000 general election in Spain. Electoral Studies, 20 (3), 463-501. Composition of the New National Assembly (Slovenia). Retrieved June 11, 2002, from http://www.sigov.si/elections/info/eurpa19.htm/ Constitution, Canadian House of Commons. Constitution: Republic of China. (1997).Taiwan:Government Information Office, Republic of China. Constitution of the Czech Republic of the 16th of December, 1992 [Electronic Version]. Retrieved July 28, 1997, from http://www.psp.cz/ docs/laws/constitution.html/ Constitution of South Korea. Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, As approved by the citizens of the Republic of Lithuania in the Referendum on 25 October 1992. Retrieved October 16,1998, from http://rc.lrs.lt/cgi-bin/preps2? Condition1=21892&Condition2=/ The Constitutional Act of 17th October 1992 (1993) (Poland). Warsaw: The Sejm Publishing Office. Cox, Gary W. (1997). Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Croissant, Aurel and Jorn Dosch. (forthcoming, 2002). Parliamentary elections in Thailand, March 2000 and Januray 2001. Election Studies [Electronic version]. Retrieved July 26, 2002, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/ Czech Republic Assembly Elections of June 19-20 1998. Retrieved June 22, 2002, from http://www.iosphere.net.au/~lance/czechrep Democracy in Taiwan. Taiwan Communique, 71. June 1996. [Electronic version] Retrieved May 13, 2002 from http://www.taiwandc.org/ Direccion Ejecutiva de Organizacion Electoral. Retrieved May 9, 2002, from http://www.ife.org.mx/ Elections Canada On-Line: Thirty-sixth General Election Voting Results. (2000, November 22) Retrieved July 10, 2001, from http://www. elections.ca Elections in Israel May 1996. Retrieved July 16, 2002 from http://www. israel.org/mfa/ Elections in the Czech Republic. From Rose, Munro, Mackie (1998). Elections in Central and Eastern Europe Since 1990. Retrieved May 8, 2002 from http://www.cspp.strath.ac.uk//crelec.html. Elections of the President of the Republic of Lithuania. Retrieved October 22, 1998, from http://www.lrs.rinkimai/ Elections 1996 (Slovenia). Retrieved June 5, 2001, from http://www/sigov. si/elections/uvi-a.html/ Farrell, David M. (2001). Electoral Systems: A Comparative Introduction. New York: Palgrave. Federal Law On the Election of Deputies of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation. Retrieved December 17, 2001, from http://www.ifes.org/ Federal Law on the Election of the President of the Russian Federation. Retrieved December 17, 2001, from http://www.ifes.org/ Fitzmaurice, John. (1997). The Slovenian Parliamentary Elections of 10 November 1996. Electoral Studies, 16 (3), 403-407. Fitzmaurice, John. (1996). The 1996 Czech Elections. Electoral Studies, 15 (4), 575-580. Floating Party Alignments in the Duma. Retrieved January 14, 2002, from http://www.russiavotes.org/Duma_align.htm/ Fourteenth Knesset Election Results. Retrieved July 31, 2001 from http:// www.knesset.gov.il/knesset/ Fowler, B. (1998). Hungarian Parliamentary Elections, May 1998. Electoral Studies, 17 (2), 257-262. Hardarson, Olafur Th. and Gunnar Helgi Kristinsson. The 1999 Parliamentary Elections in Iceland. Electoral Studies 20(2), 325-331. Hazan, Reuven Y.(1997). The Intra-Party Elections in Israel: Adopting Party Primaries. Electoral Studies, 16 (1), 95-103. Hazan, Reuven Y. and Abraham Diskin. (2000). The 1999 Knesset and prime ministerial elections in Israel. Electoral Studies, 19 (4), 615-646. Ho, Karl. (1999). The Hong Kong legislative election of 1998. Electoral Studies, 18 (3), 438-445. Horn, Robert. Bullets and Ballots. (8 Jan. 2001) Retrieved October 8, 2001 from http://www.time.com/ Horn, Robert. Where's Our Million? (15 Jan. 2001) Retrieved Octbor 8, 2001 from http://www.time.com/ Hsieh, John Fuh-Sheng and Emerson M. S. Niou. (1996) Taiwan's March 1996 Elections. Electoral Studies, 16(4),545-550. The Hungarian Election Results [Electronic version]. Retrieved July 9,2001,from gopher://olymp.wu-wien.ac.at:7121/00/pub/cerro/ central_europe_data/hungary/Hungarian.election Irwin, Galen A. (1999) The Dutch parliamentary election of 1998. Electoral Studies, 18(2):271-300. Jasiewicz, Krzysztof. Poland: Between Fragmentation and Polarization. Retrieved July 23, 1999, from... Kang, Kyung-Tae and Scott Walker. (2002) The 2000 national assembly elections in South Korea. Electoral Studies, 21, 473-533. Karp, Jeffry A. and Susan A. Banducci. (1999). The Impact of Proportional Representation on Turnout: Evidence from New Zealand. Australian Journal of Political Science, 34 (3), 363-377. Karp, Jeffrey A., Jack Vowles, Susan A. Banducci, and Todd Donovan. (2002) Strategic Voting, party activity, and candidate effects: testing explanations for split voting in New Zealand's new mixed system. Electoral Studies, 21 (1), 1-22. Klesner, Joseph L. (1997) The Mexican Midterm Congressional and Gubernatorial Elections of 1997:End of the Hegemonic Party System. Electoral Studies, 16 (4), 567-575. Klesner, Joseph L. (2002) Presidential and congressional elections in Mexico, July 2000. Electoral Studies, 21 (1), 101-154. Law on Presidential Elections, Republic of Lithuania. Retrieved September 28, 1998, from http://rc.lrs.lt/cgi-bin/preps2?Condition1=48324& Condition2= LeDuc, Lawrence, Richard G. Niemi, and Pippa Norris, eds. (1996). Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in Global Perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Lijphart, Arend. (1994). Electoral Systems and Party systems: A study of Twenty-Seven Democracies, 1945-1990. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lijphart, Arend. (1999). Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. McKean, Margaret and Ethan Scheiner.(2000). Japan's new electoral system: la plus ca change... Electoral Studies, 19, 447-477. Morriss, Peter. (1996). Electoral Politics in South Korea. Electoral Studies, 15(4), 550-562. Murray, David. (1998) Thailand's Recent Electoral Reforms. Electoral Studies, 18 (4), 525-536. The Norwegian Electoral System: Main Features. (1993). The Royal Ministry of Local Government and Labor. Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. (2001). Republic of Belarus Presidential Election. Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. (2000) OSCE/ODIHR Assessment of the Electoral Code of the Republic of Belarus and of the Position of the Government of Belarus on the Electoral Code as Stated by the Central Election Commission of Belarus. Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. (2000). Russian Federation: Elections to the State Duma 19 December 1999. Parliamentary Elections and Election Administration in Denmark. (n.d.) Retrieved June 22, 2001 from http://www.folketinget.dk/ Polish Electoral Law: A Brief Outline. (1997). Warsaw: Krajowe Biuro Wyborcze. Public Officials Election and Recall Law, Republic of China, Published by the Central Election Commission 1995 Przystawa, Jerzy. (2001). The Electoral System of Belarus. Retrieved January 14, 2002 from British Helsinki Human Rights Group on the World Wide Web: http://www.bhhrg.org/belarus Reed, Steven R. (1997) The 1996 Japanese General Election. Electoral Studies,16: 121-125. Republic of Lithuania, Law on Presidential Elections, As Amended by 25 November 1997, No. VIII-543. Reynolds, Andrew, Ben Reilly, et al. (1997). The International IDEA Handbook of Electoral System Design. Stockholm: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Rose, Munro, Mackie. (1998) "Elections in the Czech Republic" in Elections in Central and Eastern Europe Since 1990 [Electronic version]. Retrieved May 8, 2002, from http://www,cspp.strath.ac. uk//crelec.html Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly (Slovenia). Retrieved June 5, 2001, from http://www.sigov.si/en Russian Election Watch 5. (12/3/1999). SDI Project, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, JFK School of Government, Harvard University. Shafer, Byron E. (1997) The American Elections of 1996. Electoral Studies, 16(3),394-403. Single Member Districts (Russia). Retrieved December 17, 2001, from http://www.russiavotes.org/Duma_smd.htm/ Smith, Christopher H. (10/26/2000). Statement of Christopher H. Smith [Electronic Version]. Congressional Record, 136. Statement of the NDI/Carter Center Post-Election Delegation to Peru. Lima, July 14, 2000. [Electronic version] Retrieved February 1, 2002, from http://www.accessdemocracy.org/ Swyngedouw, Marc. (2002). The general election in Belgium, June 1999. Electoral Studies, 21(1), 105-154. Valen, Henry. (1998) Norway: The Stoting Election of September 15, 1997. Electoral Studies, 17(4),555-560. Voter Turnout from 1945 to date: a Global Report on Political Participation. Retrieved from http://www.irde.int/voter_turnout/index.html. White, Stephen. (2001). The Russian presidential election, March 2000. Electoral Studies 20 (3), 463-501. 1998 Ukrainian Parliamentary Election Party Vote. Retrieved July 12, 2001 from http:/www.skrobach.com/ukrel981.htm/ 1999 State Duma Elections. Retrieved December 17, 2001, from the NUPI Centre for Russian Studies on the World Wide Web: http://www.nupi.no/ russland/elections/ *The following site on the World Wide Web are a valauable source of electoral information on systems around the world http://www.electionworld.org/ (link is dead) http://www.polisci.com/ (link is dead) http://world.altavista.com (link is dead) IPU Parline Project www.ipu.org Psephos Adam Carr http://psephos.adam-carr.net IDEA database http://www.idea.net Election Resources http://www.electionresources.org Electoral Commission of Hong Kong 1998 http://www.eac.gov.hk/en/legco/1998_report.htm Electoral Commission of Hong Kong 2000 http://www.eac.gov.hk/en/legco/2000_report.htm Electoral Commission of Lithuania http://www3.lrs.lt Federal Electoral Institute of Mexico http://www.ife.org.mx Permanent Electoral Authority in Romania http://www.roaep.ro/en/index.php http://www2.essex.ac.uk/elect/database/ (link is dead) Czech election returns for the Senate retrieved June 19, 2002 Romanian 1996 Parliamentary election returns retrieved June 7,2002 Russian presidential election returns retrieved July 12, 2002 Russian 1999 parliamentary returns retrieved June 7, 2002 Polish Senatorial Returns, 1997 retrieved June 6,2002 Polish 1991 Parliamentary Elections, retrieved September 6, 2001 Election results by country were retrieved from the following websites: Australian Electoral Commission: 1996 Election Results. Retrieved July 16, 2001, from http://www.aec.gov.au/results/ 1996/results/ Belgian Electoral Commission: Senaat 13/06/99. Retrieved June 23, 2002, from http://elections.fgov.be/Resultats/electionshtml/ Elections Canada.Retrieved June 22, 2001, from www.elections.ca. Chilean election returns retrieved August 1, 2001 from the Chilean Ministerio del Interior Website, http://www.elecciones.gov.cl; Retrieved June 22, 2001 from http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/docs/chgen97a.htm Official Result of the 1998 Bundestag elections. Retrieved October 29, 2001 from http://www.destaus.de/presse/ Hungarian Electoral Commission: Individual Constituencies and Territorial Constituencies. Retrieved October 10, 2001, from http://www.election. hu/ Lithuanian election results retrieved Octber 22, 1998 from http:// www.lrs.lt/rinkimai/pr97 Mexican election returns retrieved December 11,2001 and May 9, 2002, from http://www.ife.org.mx/ Norwegian election returns retrieved June 22, 2001, from http://www. stortinget.no/ Peruvian election returns retrieved June 3, 2002 from http://www.onpe.gob. pe/histo_elect/resant/elecgen/20001_nac.html/ Peruvian election returns retrieved June 3, 2002 from http://www.onpe.gob. pe/cd_onpe/onpe.htm Republic of Poland Sejm Election of 11 September 1997. Retrieved May 10, 2002, from http://psephos.adam-carr.net/sejm1.txt/ Results of elections in Portugal retrieved July 12, 2002, from http://www.eleicoes.mj.pt/ Romanian election returns retrieved May 10, 2002 from the website of the Romanian Electoral Commission, http://www.kappa.ro Spanish election information and returns retrieved January 7, 2000 and January 7, 2002 from http://www.elecciones.mir.es/paginas/Congreso/; Retrieved June 12, 2002 from http://www.senado/es/elecciones/actual /index.html; Retrieved July 17, 2002 from http://www.senado.es/ elecciones/actual/ Results of Slovenian elections retrieved July 10, 2001, from http://www. sigov.si/elections/info/eurve26.htm/ Swedish electoral results retrieved June 22, 2001 from http://val.rsv.se/ val/val98/mandf98.htm Swiss electoral statistics retrieved July 10, 2001, from http://www. statistik.admin/ch/ Thai election returns retrieved October 8, 2001 and June 16, 2002 from website of the Thai Electoral Commission, http://www.ect.go.th/english /national/ and July 11, 2001 from http://scoop.bangkokpost.co.th/ bangkokpostnews/election2001/results.html Ukrainian election returns retrieved July 12, 2001 from http://www. skrobach.com/ //END OF FILE