=========================================================================== COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ELECTORAL SYSTEMS (CSES) - MODULE 3 (2006-2011) CODEBOOK: VARIABLES DESCRIPTION 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 3 FULL RELEASE [dataset]. December 15, 2015 version. doi:10.7804/cses.module3.2015-12-15 These materials are based on work supported by the American National Science Foundation (www.nsf.gov) under grant numbers SES-0451598 , SES-0817701, and SES-1154687, 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 3 (2006-2011). Users of the Final Release may wish to monitor the errata for CSES Module 3 on the CSES website, to check for known errors which may impact their analyses. To view errata for CSES Module 3, go to the Data Center on the CSES website, navigate to the CSES Module 3 download page, and click on the Errata link in the gray box to the right of the page. =========================================================================== TABLE OF CONTENTS =========================================================================== ))) CSES MODULE 3 VARIABLE LIST ))) CSES MODULE 3 MICRO-LEVEL DATA: IDENTIFICATION, WEIGHT, AND STUDY ADMINISTRATION VARIABLES ))) CSES MODULE 3 MICRO-LEVEL DATA: DEMOGRAPHIC, VOTE CHOICE, AND ELECTION VARIABLES ))) CSES MODULE 3 MICRO-LEVEL DATA: SURVEY VARIABLES ))) CSES MODULE 3 DISTRICT-LEVEL VARIABLES ))) CSES MODULE 3 MACRO-LEVEL VARIABLES =========================================================================== ))) CSES MODULE 3 VARIABLE LIST =========================================================================== ))) CSES MODULE 3 MICRO-LEVEL DATA: IDENTIFICATION, WEIGHT, AND STUDY ADMINISTRATION VARIABLES C1001 >>> DATASET C1002 >>> DATASET VERSION C1002_DOI >>> DIGITAL OBJECT IDENTIFIER C1003 >>> ID VARIABLE - ELECTION STUDY (NUMERIC POLITY) C1004 >>> ID VARIABLE - ELECTION STUDY (ALPHABETIC POLITY) C1005 >>> ID VARIABLE - RESPONDENT C1006 >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY CSES CODE C1006_UN >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY UN CODE C1006_NAM >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY NAME C1007 >>> ID COMPONENT - SAMPLE COMPONENT C1008 >>> ID COMPONENT - ELECTION YEAR C1009 >>> ID COMPONENT - RESPONDENT WITHIN ELECTION STUDY C1010_1 >>> ORIGINAL WEIGHT: SAMPLE C1010_2 >>> ORIGINAL WEIGHT: DEMOGRAPHIC C1010_3 >>> ORIGINAL WEIGHT: POLITICAL C1011_1 >>> FACTOR: MEAN OF SAMPLE WEIGHT C1011_2 >>> FACTOR: MEAN OF DEMOGRAPHIC WEIGHT C1011_3 >>> FACTOR: MEAN OF POLITICAL WEIGHT C1012_1 >>> POLITY WEIGHT: SAMPLE C1012_2 >>> POLITY WEIGHT: DEMOGRAPHIC C1012_3 >>> POLITY WEIGHT: POLITICAL C1013 >>> FACTOR: SAMPLE SIZE ADJUSTMENT C1014_1 >>> DATASET WEIGHT: SAMPLE C1014_2 >>> DATASET WEIGHT: DEMOGRAPHIC C1014_3 >>> DATASET WEIGHT: POLITICAL C1015 >>> ELECTION TYPE C1016 >>> DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - MONTH C1017 >>> DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - DAY C1018 >>> DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YEAR C1019 >>> DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - MONTH C1020 >>> DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - DAY C1021 >>> DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YEAR C1022 >>> STUDY TIMING C1023 >>> MODE OF INTERVIEW C1024 >>> INTERVIEWER WITHIN ELECTION STUDY C1025 >>> INTERVIEWER SEX C1026 >>> DATE QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTERED - MONTH C1027 >>> DATE QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTERED - DAY C1028 >>> DATE QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTERED - YEAR ))) CSES MODULE 3 MICRO-LEVEL DATA: DEMOGRAPHIC, VOTE CHOICE, AND ELECTION VARIABLES C2001 >>> D1. AGE C2002 >>> D2. GENDER OF RESPONDENT C2003 >>> D3. EDUCATION C2004 >>> D4. MARITAL OR CIVIL UNION STATUS C2005 >>> D5. UNION MEMBERSHIP C2006 >>> D6. UNION MEMBERSHIP OF OTHERS IN HOUSEHOLD C2007 >>> D7. BUSINESS OR EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP C2008 >>> D8. FARMERS' ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP C2009 >>> D9. PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP C2010 >>> D10. CURRENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS C2011 >>> D11. MAIN OCCUPATION C2012 >>> D12. SOCIO ECONOMIC STATUS C2013 >>> D13. EMPLOYMENT TYPE - PUBLIC OR PRIVATE C2014 >>> D14. INDUSTRIAL SECTOR C2015 >>> D15. SPOUSE: CURRENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS C2016 >>> D16. SPOUSE: OCCUPATION C2017 >>> D17. SPOUSE: SOCIO ECONOMIC STATUS C2018 >>> D18. SPOUSE: EMPLOYMENT TYPE - PUBLIC OR PRIVATE C2019 >>> D19. SPOUSE: INDUSTRIAL SECTOR C2020 >>> D20. HOUSEHOLD INCOME C2021 >>> D21. NUMBER IN HOUSEHOLD C2022 >>> D22. NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD UNDER AGE 18 C2023 >>> D23. RELIGIOUS SERVICES ATTENDANCE C2024 >>> D24. RELIGIOSITY C2025 >>> D25. RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION C2026 >>> D26. LANGUAGE USUALLY SPOKEN AT HOME C2027 >>> D27. REGION OF RESIDENCE C2028 >>> D28. RACE C2029 >>> D29. ETHNICITY C2030 >>> D30. RURAL OR URBAN RESIDENCE C2031 >>> D31. PRIMARY ELECTORAL DISTRICT C2032 >>> D32. DAYS INTERVIEW CONDUCTED POST ELECTION ))) CSES MODULE 3 MICRO-LEVEL DATA: SURVEY VARIABLES C3001_1 >>> Q1a. MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM-EGOCENTRIC-FIRST MENTION C3001_2 >>> Q1b. MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM-EGOCENTRIC-SECOND MENTION C3002_1 >>> Q2a. MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM-SOCIOTROPIC-FIRST MENTION C3002_2 >>> Q2b. MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM-SOCIOTROPIC-SECOND MENTION C3003_1 >>> Q3a. PARTY/CANDIDATE COMPETENCE-FIRST SOCIOTROPIC PROBLEM C3003_2 >>> Q3b. PARTY/CANDIDATE COMPETENCE-SECOND SOCIOTROPIC PROBLEM C3004 >>> Q4. WHO IS IN POWER CAN MAKE DIFFERENCE C3005 >>> Q5. WHO PEOPLE VOTE FOR MAKES A DIFFERENCE C3006 >>> Q6. GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE: GENERAL C3007_1 >>> Q7. IS THERE A PARTY THAT REPRESENTS R'S VIEWS C3007_2 >>> Q7a. PARTY THAT REPRESENTS R'S VIEWS BEST C3008_1 >>> Q8. IS THERE A LEADER WHO REPRESENTS R'S VIEWS C3008_2 >>> Q8a. LEADER WHO REPRESENTS R'S VIEWS BEST C3009_A >>> Q9a. LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY A C3009_B >>> Q9b. LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY B C3009_C >>> Q9c. LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY C C3009_D >>> Q9d. LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY D C3009_E >>> Q9e. LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY E C3009_F >>> Q9f. LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY F C3009_G >>> Q9g. LIKE-DISLIKE - ADDITIONAL - PARTY G C3009_H >>> Q9h. LIKE-DISLIKE - ADDITIONAL - PARTY H C3009_I >>> Q9i. LIKE-DISLIKE - ADDITIONAL - PARTY I C3010_A >>> Q10a. LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER A C3010_B >>> Q10b. LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER B C3010_C >>> Q10c. LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER C C3010_D >>> Q10d. LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER D C3010_E >>> Q10e. LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER E C3010_F >>> Q10f. LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER F C3010_G >>> Q10g. LIKE-DISLIKE - ADDITIONAL - LEADER G C3010_H >>> Q10h. LIKE-DISLIKE - ADDITIONAL - LEADER H C3010_I >>> Q10i. LIKE-DISLIKE - ADDITIONAL - LEADER I C3011_A >>> Q11a. LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY A C3011_B >>> Q11b. LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY B C3011_C >>> Q11c. LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY C C3011_D >>> Q11d. LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY D C3011_E >>> Q11e. LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY E C3011_F >>> Q11f. LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY F C3011_G >>> Q11g. LEFT-RIGHT - ADDITIONAL - PARTY G C3011_H >>> Q11h. LEFT-RIGHT - ADDITIONAL - PARTY H C3011_I >>> Q11i. LEFT-RIGHT - ADDITIONAL - PARTY I C3012_A >>> Q12a. LEFT-RIGHT - LEADER A C3012_B >>> Q12b. LEFT-RIGHT - LEADER B C3012_C >>> Q12c. LEFT-RIGHT - LEADER C C3012_D >>> Q12d. LEFT-RIGHT - LEADER D C3012_E >>> Q12e. LEFT-RIGHT - LEADER E C3012_F >>> Q12f. LEFT-RIGHT - LEADER F C3012_G >>> Q12g. LEFT-RIGHT - ADDITIONAL - LEADER G C3012_H >>> Q12h. LEFT-RIGHT - ADDITIONAL - LEADER H C3012_I >>> Q12i. LEFT-RIGHT - ADDITIONAL - LEADER I C3013 >>> Q13. LEFT-RIGHT - SELF C3014_A >>> Q14a. OPTIONAL SCALE - PARTY A C3014_B >>> Q14b. OPTIONAL SCALE - PARTY B C3014_C >>> Q14c. OPTIONAL SCALE - PARTY C C3014_D >>> Q14d. OPTIONAL SCALE - PARTY D C3014_E >>> Q14e. OPTIONAL SCALE - PARTY E C3014_F >>> Q14f. OPTIONAL SCALE - PARTY F C3014_G >>> Q14g. OPTIONAL SCALE - ADDITIONAL - PARTY G C3014_H >>> Q14h. OPTIONAL SCALE - ADDITIONAL - PARTY H C3014_I >>> Q14i. OPTIONAL SCALE - ADDITIONAL - PARTY I C3015_A >>> Q15a. OPTIONAL SCALE - LEADER A C3015_B >>> Q15b. OPTIONAL SCALE - LEADER B C3015_C >>> Q15c. OPTIONAL SCALE - LEADER C C3015_D >>> Q15d. OPTIONAL SCALE - LEADER D C3015_E >>> Q15e. OPTIONAL SCALE - LEADER E C3015_F >>> Q15f. OPTIONAL SCALE - LEADER F C3015_G >>> Q15g. OPTIONAL SCALE - ADDITIONAL - LEADER G C3015_H >>> Q15h. OPTIONAL SCALE - ADDITIONAL - LEADER H C3015_I >>> Q15i. OPTIONAL SCALE - ADDITIONAL - LEADER I C3016 >>> Q16. OPTIONAL SCALE - SELF C3017 >>> Q17. DIFFERENCES OF CHOICE OPTIONS C3018 >>> Q18. CAMPAIGN INVOLVEMENT C3019 >>> Q19. SATISFACTION WITH DEMOCRACY C3020_1 >>> Q20. ARE YOU CLOSE TO ANY POLITICAL PARTY C3020_2 >>> Q20a. DO YOU FEEL CLOSER TO ONE PARTY C3020_3 >>> Q20b. WHICH PARTY DO YOU FEEL CLOSEST TO C3020_4 >>> Q20c. DEGREE OF CLOSENESS TO THIS PARTY C3021_1 >>> Q21. CURRENT ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT 1 C3021_2 >>> Q21. CURRENT ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT 2 C3022_1 >>> Q21a. CURRENT ELECTION: IF YOU HAD VOTED-FIRST MENTION C3022_2 >>> Q21a. CURRENT ELECTION: IF YOU HAD VOTED-SECOND MENTION C3022_3 >>> Q21a. CURRENT ELECTION: IF YOU HAD VOTED-THIRD MENTION C3022_4 >>> Q21a. CURRENT ELECTION: IF YOU HAD VOTED-FOURTH MENTION C3023_PR_1 >>> Q21b. CURRENT ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - PRESIDENT 1 C3023_PR_2 >>> Q21b. CURRENT ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - PRESIDENT 2 C3023_LH_PL >>> Q21c. CURRENT ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE LOWER HOUSE - PARTY LIST C3023_LH_DC >>> Q21d. CURRENT ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE LOWER HOUSE - DISTRICT CANDIDATE C3023_UH_PL >>> Q21c. CURRENT ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE UPPER HOUSE - PARTY LIST C3023_UH_DC_1 >>> Q21d. CURRENT ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE UPPER HOUSE - DISTRICT CANDIDATE 1 C3023_UH_DC_2 >>> Q21d. CURRENT ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE UPPER HOUSE - DISTRICT CANDIDATE 2 C3023_UH_DC_3 >>> Q21d. CURRENT ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE UPPER HOUSE - DISTRICT CANDIDATE 3 C3023_UH_DC_4 >>> Q21d. CURRENT ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE UPPER HOUSE - DISTRICT CANDIDATE 4 C3026 >>> Q21e. CURRENT ELECTION: DID R CAST CANDIDATE PREFERENCE VOTE C3027_PR >>> Q22a. DID R CONSIDER VOTING FOR OTHERS, PRESIDENT C3027_LH >>> Q22a. DID R CONSIDER VOTING FOR OTHERS, LOWER HOUSE C3027_UH >>> Q22a. DID R CONSIDER VOTING FOR OTHERS, UPPER HOUSE C3028_PR_1 >>> Q22b. R DID CONSIDER VOTING FOR OTHERS-FIRST MENTION, PRESIDENT C3028_PR_2 >>> Q22b. R DID CONSIDER VOTING FOR OTHERS-SECOND MENTION, PRESIDENT C3028_PR_3 >>> Q22b. R DID CONSIDER VOTING FOR OTHERS-THIRD MENTION, PRESIDENT C3028_PR_4 >>> Q22b. R DID CONSIDER VOTING FOR OTHERS-FOURTH MENTION, PRESIDENT C3028_LH_1 >>> Q22b. R DID CONSIDER VOTING FOR OTHERS-FIRST MENTION, LOWER HOUSE C3028_LH_2 >>> Q22b. R DID CONSIDER VOTING FOR OTHERS-SECOND MENTION, LOWER HOUSE C3028_LH_3 >>> Q22b. R DID CONSIDER VOTING FOR OTHERS-THIRD MENTION, LOWER HOUSE C3028_LH_4 >>> Q22b. R DID CONSIDER VOTING FOR OTHERS-FOURTH MENTION, LOWER HOUSE C3028_LH_5 >>> Q22b. R DID CONSIDER VOTING FOR OTHERS-ADDITIONAL MENTIONS, LOWER HOUSE C3028_LH_6 >>> Q22b. R DID CONSIDER VOTING FOR OTHERS-ADDITIONAL MENTIONS, LOWER HOUSE C3028_LH_7 >>> Q22b. R DID CONSIDER VOTING FOR OTHERS-ADDITIONAL MENTIONS, LOWER HOUSE C3028_LH_8 >>> Q22b. R DID CONSIDER VOTING FOR OTHERS-ADDITIONAL MENTIONS, LOWER HOUSE C3028_LH_9 >>> Q22b. R DID CONSIDER VOTING FOR OTHERS-ADDITIONAL MENTIONS, LOWER HOUSE C3028_UH_1 >>> Q22b. R DID CONSIDER VOTING FOR OTHERS-FIRST MENTION, UPPER HOUSE C3028_UH_2 >>> Q22b. R DID CONSIDER VOTING FOR OTHERS-SECOND MENTION, UPPER HOUSE C3028_UH_3 >>> Q22b. R DID CONSIDER VOTING FOR OTHERS-THIRD MENTION, UPPER HOUSE C3028_UH_4 >>> Q22b. R DID CONSIDER VOTING FOR OTHERS-FOURTH MENTION, UPPER HOUSE C3029_PR >>> Q22c. ARE THERE OTHERS FOR WHICH R WOULD NEVER VOTE, PRESIDENT C3029_LH >>> Q22c. ARE THERE OTHERS FOR WHICH R WOULD NEVER VOTE, LOWER HOUSE C3029_UH >>> Q22c. ARE THERE OTHERS FOR WHICH R WOULD NEVER VOTE, UPPER HOUSE C3030_PR_1 >>> Q22d. OTHERS FOR WHICH R WOULD NEVER VOTE-FIRST MENTION, PRESIDENT C3030_PR_2 >>> Q22d. OTHERS FOR WHICH R WOULD NEVER VOTE-SECOND MENTION, PRESIDENT C3030_PR_3 >>> Q22d. OTHERS FOR WHICH R WOULD NEVER VOTE-THIRD MENTION, PRESIDENT C3030_PR_4 >>> Q22d. OTHERS FOR WHICH R WOULD NEVER VOTE-FOURTH MENTION, PRESIDENT C3030_LH_1 >>> Q22d. OTHERS FOR WHICH R WOULD NEVER VOTE-FIRST MENTION, LOWER HOUSE C3030_LH_2 >>> Q22d. OTHERS FOR WHICH R WOULD NEVER VOTE-SECOND MENTION, LOWER HOUSE C3030_LH_3 >>> Q22d. OTHERS FOR WHICH R WOULD NEVER VOTE-THIRD MENTION, LOWER HOUSE C3030_LH_4 >>> Q22d. OTHERS FOR WHICH R WOULD NEVER VOTE-FOURTH MENTION, LOWER HOUSE C3030_LH_5 >>> Q22d. OTHERS FOR WHICH R WOULD NEVER VOTE-FIFTH MENTION, LOWER HOUSE C3030_LH_6 >>> Q22d. OTHERS FOR WHICH R WOULD NEVER VOTE-SIXTH MENTION, LOWER HOUSE C3030_LH_7 >>> Q22d. OTHERS FOR WHICH R WOULD NEVER VOTE-SEVENTH MENTION, LOWER HOUSE C3030_LH_8 >>> Q22d. OTHERS FOR WHICH R WOULD NEVER VOTE-EIGHTH MENTION, LOWER HOUSE C3030_LH_9 >>> Q22d. OTHERS FOR WHICH R WOULD NEVER VOTE-NINTH MENTION, LOWER HOUSE C3030_UH_1 >>> Q22d. OTHERS FOR WHICH R WOULD NEVER VOTE-FIRST MENTION, UPPER HOUSE C3030_UH_2 >>> Q22d. OTHERS FOR WHICH R WOULD NEVER VOTE-SECOND MENTION, UPPER HOUSE C3030_UH_3 >>> Q22d. OTHERS FOR WHICH R WOULD NEVER VOTE-THIRD MENTION, UPPER HOUSE C3030_UH_4 >>> Q22d. OTHERS FOR WHICH R WOULD NEVER VOTE-FOURTH MENTION, UPPER HOUSE C3031 >>> Q23. PREVIOUS ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT C3032_PR_1 >>> Q23a. PREVIOUS ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - PRESIDENT 1 C3032_PR_2 >>> Q23a. PREVIOUS ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - PRESIDENT 2 C3032_LH_PL >>> Q23b. PREVIOUS ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE LOWER HOUSE - PARTY LIST C3032_LH_DC >>> Q23c. PREVIOUS ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE LOWER HOUSE - DISTRICT CANDIDATE C3032_UH_PL >>> Q23b. PREVIOUS ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE UPPER HOUSE - PARTY LIST C3032_UH_DC >>> Q23c. PREVIOUS ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE UPPER HOUSE - DISTRICT CANDIDATE C3035 >>> Q23d. PREVIOUS ELECTION: DID R CAST CANDIDATE PREFERENCE VOTE C3036_1 >>> Q24a. POLITICAL INFORMATION ITEM - 1ST C3036_2 >>> Q24b. POLITICAL INFORMATION ITEM - 2ND C3036_3 >>> Q24c. POLITICAL INFORMATION ITEM - 3RD ))) CSES MODULE 3 DISTRICT-LEVEL VARIABLES C4001 >>> NUMBER OF SEATS IN DISTRICT C4002 >>> NUMBER OF CANDIDATES IN DISTRICT C4003 >>> NUMBER OF PARTY LISTS IN DISTRICT C4004_A >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY A C4004_B >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY B C4004_C >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY C C4004_D >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY D C4004_E >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY E C4004_F >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY F C4004_G >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY G C4004_H >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY H C4004_I >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY I C4005 >>> TURNOUT IN DISTRICT ))) CSES MODULE 3 MACRO-LEVEL VARIABLES I. DATA FROM THE MODULE 3 MACRO QUESTIONNAIRE C5001_A >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY A C5001_B >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY B C5001_C >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY C C5001_D >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY D C5001_E >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY E C5001_F >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY F C5001_G >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY G C5001_H >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY H C5001_I >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY I C5002_A >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY A C5002_B >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY B C5002_C >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY C C5002_D >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY D C5002_E >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY E C5002_F >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY F C5002_G >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY G C5002_H >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY H C5002_I >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY I C5003_A >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY A C5003_B >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY B C5003_C >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY C C5003_D >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY D C5003_E >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY E C5003_F >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY F C5003_G >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY G C5003_H >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY H C5003_I >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY I C5004_A >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY A C5004_B >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY B C5004_C >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY C C5004_D >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY D C5004_E >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY E C5004_F >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY F C5004_G >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY G C5004_H >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY H C5004_I >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY I C5005_A >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY A C5005_B >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY B C5005_C >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY C C5005_D >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY D C5005_E >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY E C5005_F >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY F C5005_G >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY G C5005_H >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY H C5005_I >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY I C5006_1 >>> ELECTORAL TURNOUT - VERSION 1 C5006_2 >>> ELECTORAL TURNOUT - VERSION 2 C5007 >>> PARTY OF THE PRESIDENT BEFORE C5008 >>> PARTY OF THE PRIME MINISTER BEFORE C5009_A >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY A C5009_B >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY B C5009_C >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY C C5009_D >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY D C5009_E >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY E C5009_F >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY F C5009_G >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY G C5009_H >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY H C5009_I >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY I C5010 >>> SIZE OF THE CABINET BEFORE C5011 >>> PARTY OF THE PRESIDENT AFTER C5012 >>> PARTY OF THE PRIME MINISTER AFTER C5013_A >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION AFTER ELECTION - PARTY A C5013_B >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION AFTER ELECTION - PARTY B C5013_C >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION AFTER ELECTION - PARTY C C5013_D >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION AFTER ELECTION - PARTY D C5013_E >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION AFTER ELECTION - PARTY E C5013_F >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION AFTER ELECTION - PARTY F C5013_G >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION AFTER ELECTION - PARTY G C5013_H >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION AFTER ELECTION - PARTY H C5013_I >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION AFTER ELECTION - PARTY I C5014 >>> SIZE OF THE CABINET AFTER C5015 >>> NUMBER OF PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN ELECTION C5016_A >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY A C5016_B >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY B C5016_C >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY C C5016_D >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY D C5016_E >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY E C5016_F >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY F C5016_G >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY G C5016_H >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY H C5016_I >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY I C5017_A >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY A C5017_B >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY B C5017_C >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY C C5017_D >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY D C5017_E >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY E C5017_F >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY F C5017_G >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY G C5017_H >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY H C5017_I >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY I C5018 >>> ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION C5018_A >>> ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY A C5018_B >>> ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY B C5018_C >>> ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY C C5018_D >>> ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY D C5018_E >>> ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY E C5018_F >>> ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY F C5018_G >>> ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY G C5018_H >>> ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY H C5018_I >>> ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY I C5019_1 >>> MOST SALIENT FACTORS IN ELECTION - 1ST C5019_2 >>> MOST SALIENT FACTORS IN ELECTION - 2ND C5019_3 >>> MOST SALIENT FACTORS IN ELECTION - 3RD C5019_4 >>> MOST SALIENT FACTORS IN ELECTION - 4TH C5019_5 >>> MOST SALIENT FACTORS IN ELECTION - 5TH C5020 >>> FAIRNESS OF THE ELECTION C5021 >>> FORMAL COMPLAINTS AGAINST NATIONAL LEVEL RESULTS C5022 >>> ELECTION IRREGULARITIES C5023_1 >>> DATE ELECTION SCHEDULED - MONTH C5023_2 >>> DATE ELECTION SCHEDULED - DAY C5023_3 >>> DATE ELECTION SCHEDULED - YEAR C5024_1 >>> DATE ELECTION HELD - MONTH C5024_2 >>> DATE ELECTION HELD - DAY C5024_3 >>> DATE ELECTION HELD - YEAR C5025 >>> ELECTION IRREGULARITIES C5026 >>> ELECTION VIOLENCE C5027 >>> GEOGRAPHIC CONCENTRATION OF VIOLENCE C5028 >>> POST-ELECTION VIOLENCE C5029 >>> POST-ELECTION PROTEST C5030 >>> ELECTORAL ALLIANCES PERMITTED IN ELECTION C5031 >>> ELECTORAL ALLIANCES IN PRACTICE C5032 >>> DID ANY ELECTORAL ALLIANCES FORM? C5033 >>> REQUIREMENTS FOR JOINT PARTY LISTS C5034 >>> THE POSSIBILITY OF APPARENTEMENT C5035 >>> TYPES OF APPARENTEMENT AGREEMENTS C5036 >>> MULTI-PARTY ENDORSEMENTS C5037 >>> MULTI-PARTY ENDORSEMENTS ON BALLOT C5038_1 >>> VOTES CAST - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) C5038_2 >>> VOTES CAST - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) C5038_3 >>> VOTES CAST - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) C5038_4 >>> VOTES CAST - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) C5039_1 >>> VOTING PROCEDURE - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) C5039_2 >>> VOTING PROCEDURE - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) C5039_3 >>> VOTING PROCEDURE - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) C5039_4 >>> VOTING PROCEDURE - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) C5040_1 >>> VOTING ROUNDS - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) C5040_2 >>> VOTING ROUNDS - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) C5040_3 >>> VOTING ROUNDS - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) C5040_4 >>> VOTING ROUNDS - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) C5041_1 >>> PARTY LISTS - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) C5041_2 >>> PARTY LISTS - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) C5041_3 >>> PARTY LISTS - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) C5041_4 >>> PARTY LISTS - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) C5042_1 >>> TRANSFERABLE VOTES - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) C5042_2 >>> TRANSFERABLE VOTES - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) C5042_3 >>> TRANSFERABLE VOTES - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) C5042_4 >>> TRANSFERABLE VOTES - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) C5043_1 >>> CUMULATED VOTES - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) C5043_2 >>> CUMULATED VOTES - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) C5043_3 >>> CUMULATED VOTES - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) C5043_4 >>> CUMULATED VOTES - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) C5044_1 >>> COMPULSORY VOTING - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) C5044_2 >>> COMPULSORY VOTING - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) C5044_3 >>> COMPULSORY VOTING - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) C5044_4 >>> COMPULSORY VOTING - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) C5045_1 >>> IS THERE PARTY THRESHOLD - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) C5045_2 >>> IS THERE PARTY THRESHOLD - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) C5045_3 >>> IS THERE PARTY THRESHOLD - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) C5045_4 >>> IS THERE PARTY THRESHOLD - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) C5046_1 >>> PARTY THRESHOLD - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) C5046_2 >>> PARTY THRESHOLD - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) C5046_3 >>> PARTY THRESHOLD - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) C5046_4 >>> PARTY THRESHOLD - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) C5047_1 >>> UNIT FOR THE THRESHOLD - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) C5047_2 >>> UNIT FOR THE THRESHOLD - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) C5047_3 >>> UNIT FOR THE THRESHOLD - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) C5047_4 >>> UNIT FOR THE THRESHOLD - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) II. DATA FROM PUBLIC SOURCES C5050_1 >>> FREEDOM HOUSE RATING - TIME T C5050_2 >>> FREEDOM HOUSE RATING - TIME T-1 C5050_3 >>> FREEDOM HOUSE RATING - TIME T-2 C5051_1 >>> DEMOCRACY-AUTOCRACY - POLITY IV RATING - TIME T C5051_2 >>> DEMOCRACY-AUTOCRACY - POLITY IV RATING - TIME T-1 C5051_3 >>> DEMOCRACY-AUTOCRACY - POLITY IV RATING - TIME T-2 C5052 >>> AGE OF THE CURRENT REGIME C5054 >>> REGIME: TYPE OF EXECUTIVE C5055 >>> NUMBER OF MONTHS SINCE LAST LOWER HOUSE ELECTION C5056 >>> NUMBER OF MONTHS SINCE LAST PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION C5057 >>> PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS ELECTORAL FORMULA C5058 >>> ELECTORAL FORMULA IN ALL ELECTORAL TIERS C5059 >>> NUMBER OF ELECTORAL TIERS C5060 >>> LINKED ELECTORAL TIERS C5061 >>> DEPENDENT FORMULAE IN MIXED SYSTEMS C5062 >>> SUBTYPES OF MIXED ELECTORAL SYSTEMS C5063 >>> NUMBER OF ELECTORAL DISTRICTS - LOWEST TIER - LOWER HOUSE C5064 >>> AVERAGE DISTRICT MAGNITUDE - LOWEST TIER - LOWER HOUSE C5065 >>> ELECTORAL FORMULA - LOWEST TIER - LOWER HOUSE C5066 >>> NUMBER OF ELECTORAL DISTRICTS - SECOND TIER - LOWER HOUSE C5067 >>> AVERAGE DISTRICT MAGNITUDE - SECOND TIER - LOWER HOUSE C5068 >>> ELECTORAL FORMULA - SECOND TIER - LOWER HOUSE C5069 >>> NUMBER OF ELECTORAL DISTRICTS - THIRD TIER - LOWER HOUSE C5070 >>> AVERAGE DISTRICT MAGNITUDE - THIRD TIER - LOWER HOUSE C5071 >>> ELECTORAL FORMULA - THIRD TIER - LOWER HOUSE C5072 >>> NUMBER OF SEATS ABOVE THE FIRST TIER - LOWER HOUSE C5073 >>> PERCENTAGE OF SEATS ABOVE THE FIRST TIER - LOWER HOUSE C5074 >>> FUSED VOTE C5075 >>> SIZE OF THE LOWER HOUSE C5080_1 >>> GDP GROWTH - ANNUAL % (WORLD BANK) - TIME T C5080_2 >>> GDP GROWTH - ANNUAL % (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-1 C5080_3 >>> GDP GROWTH - ANNUAL % (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-2 C5081_1 >>> GDP PER CAPITA, PPP (WORLD BANK) - TIME T C5081_2 >>> GDP PER CAPITA, PPP (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-1 C5081_3 >>> GDP PER CAPITA, PPP (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-2 C5082_1 >>> INFLATION, GDP DEFLATOR (ANNUAL %) (WORLD BANK) - TIME T C5082_2 >>> INFLATION, GDP DEFLATOR (ANNUAL %) (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-1 C5082_3 >>> INFLATION, GDP DEFLATOR (ANNUAL %) (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-2 C5083_1 >>> HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX (UNPD) - TIME T C5083_2 >>> HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX (UNPD) - TIME T-1 C5083_3 >>> HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX (UNPD) - TIME T-2 C5084_1 >>> POPULATION, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T C5084_2 >>> POPULATION, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-1 C5084_3 >>> POPULATION, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-2 C5085_1 >>> UNEMPLOYMENT, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T C5085_2 >>> UNEMPLOYMENT, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-1 C5085_3 >>> UNEMPLOYMENT, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-2 C5090 >>> CONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL STRUCTURE C5091 >>> NUMBER OF ELECTED LEGISLATIVE CHAMBERS C5092 >>> ELECTORAL RESULTS DATA AVAILABLE C5093 >>> EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF ELECTORAL PARTIES C5094 >>> CORRECTED EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF ELECTORAL PARTIES C5095 >>> EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF PARLIAMENTARY PARTIES C5096 >>> CORRECTED EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF PARLIAMENTARY PARTIES =========================================================================== ))) CSES MODULE 3 MICRO-LEVEL DATA: IDENTIFICATION, WEIGHT, AND STUDY ADMINISTRATION VARIABLES =========================================================================== --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C1001 >>> DATASET --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dataset. .................................................................. CSES-MODULE-3. CSES MODULE 3 | NOTES: C1001 | | This variable reports the CSES module used in each election | study. Generally, MODULE 3 was used, or will be used, for | election studies conducted between the years 2006 and 2011, | inclusive. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C1002 >>> DATASET VERSION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dataset version. .................................................................. VER2012-MAY-31. Version of dataset, released on May 31, 2012. | NOTES: C1002 | | The version number corresponds to the date of the dataset's | release. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C1002_DOI>>> DIGITAL OBJECT IDENTIFIER --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digital Object Identifier. .................................................................. doi:10.7804/cses.module3.2015-12-15. | NOTES: C1002_DOI | | This variable indicates the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) which | is registered for the dataset. CSES DOI registration is conducted | by the DA|RA registration agency for economic and social science | data. Each CSES dataset version (see variable C1002) has a | unique, persistent DOI. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C1003 >>> ID VARIABLE - ELECTION STUDY (NUMERIC POLITY) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Election Study Identifier: Numeric Polity Code and Election Year .................................................................. 03602007. AUSTRALIA (2007) 04002008. AUSTRIA (2008) 11202008. BELARUS (2008) 07602006. BRAZIL (2006) 07602010. BRAZIL (2010) 12402008. CANADA (2008) 15202009. CHILE (2009) 19102007. CROATIA (2007) 20302006. CZECH REPUBLIC (2006) 20302010. CZECH REPUBLIC (2010) 20802007. DENMARK (2007) 23302011. ESTONIA (2011) 24602007. FINLAND (2007) 24602011. FINLAND (2011) 25002007. FRANCE (2007) 27602005. GERMANY (2005) 27602009. GERMANY (2009) 30002009. GREECE (2009) 34402008. HONG KONG (2008) 35202007. ICELAND (2007) 35202009. ICELAND (2009) 37202007. IRELAND (2007) 37602006. ISRAEL (2006) 39202007. JAPAN (2007) 42802010. LATVIA (2010) 48402006. MEXICO (2006) 48402009. MEXICO (2009) 52802006. NETHERLANDS (2006) 52802010. NETHERLANDS (2010) 55402008. NEW ZEALAND (2008) 57802005. NORWAY (2005) 57802009. NORWAY (2009) 60402011. PERU (2011) 60802010. PHILIPPINES (2010) 61602005. POLAND (2005) 61602007. POLAND (2007) 62002009. PORTUGAL (2009) 64202009. ROMANIA (2009) 70302010. SLOVAKIA (2010) 70502008. SLOVENIA (2008) 72402008. SPAIN (2008) 75202006. SWEDEN (2006) 71002009. SOUTH AFRICA (2009) 41002008. SOUTH KOREA (2008) 75602007. SWITZERLAND (2007) 15802008. TAIWAN (2008) 76402007. THAILAND (2007) 79202011. TURKEY (2011) 84002008. UNITED STATES (2008) 85802009. URUGUAY (2009) | NOTES: C1003 | | This eight digit variable uniquely identifies an election | study within the CSES. | | The variable is constructed from two components, variable | C1006 (CSES polity code) and C1008 (election year). | | The first three digits are the numeric version of the | country codes created by the United Nations Statistics | Division ("countries or areas, codes and abbreviations", | revised 13 February 2002). | | The fourth digit distinguishes between multiple studies | conducted within a single country, for the same election. | | The fifth through eighth digits correspond to the | election year as specified in variable C1008. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C1004 >>> ID VARIABLE - ELECTION STUDY (ALPHABETIC POLITY) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Election Study Identifier: Alphabetic Polity Code and Election Year. .................................................................. AUS_2007. AUSTRALIA (2007) AUT_2008. AUSTRIA (2008) BLR_2008. BELARUS (2008) BRA_2006. BRAZIL (2006) BRA_2010. BRAZIL (2010) CAN_2008. CANADA (2008) CHE_2007. SWITZERLAND (2007) CHL_2009. CHILE (2009) CZE_2006. CZECH REPUBLIC (2006) CZE_2010. CZECH REPUBLIC (2010) DEU_2005. GERMANY (2005) DEU_2009. GERMANY (2009) DNK_2007. DENMARK (2007) ESP_2008. SPAIN (2008) EST_2011. ESTONIA (2011) FIN_2007. FINLAND (2007) FIN_2011. FINLAND (2011) FRA_2007. FRANCE (2007) GRC_2009. GREECE (2009) HKG_2008. HONG KONG (2008) HRV_2007. CROATIA (2007) ISL_2007. ICELAND (2007) ISL_2009. ICELAND (2009) IRL_2007. IRELAND (2007) ISR_2006. ISRAEL (2006) JPN_2007. JAPAN (2007) KOR_2008. SOUTH KOREA (2008) LVA_2010. LATVIA (2010) MEX_2006. MEXICO (2006) MEX_2009. MEXICO (2009) NLD_2006. NETHERLANDS (2006) NLD_2010. NETHERLANDS (2010) NZL_2008. NEW ZEALAND (2008) NOR_2005. NORWAY (2005) NOR_2009. NORWAY (2009) PER_2011. PERU (2011) PHL_2010. PHILIPPINES (2010) POL_2005. POLAND (2005) POL_2007. POLAND (2007) PRT_2009. PORTUGAL (2009) ROU_2009. ROMANIA (2009) SVK_2010. SLOVAKIA (2010) SVN_2008. SLOVENIA (2008) SWE_2006. SWEDEN (2006) THA_2007. THAILAND (2007) TUR_2011. TURKEY (2011) TWN_2008. TAIWAN (2008) URY_2009. URUGUAY (2009) USA_2008. UNITED STATES (2008) ZAF_2009. SOUTH AFRICA (2009) | NOTES: C1004 | | This eight-character variable uniquely identifies an | election study within the CSES. | | The variable is constructed from two components, variable | C1006 (CSES polity code) and C1008 (election year). | | The first three characters are the alphabetic country codes | 'alpha-3' created by the International Organization for | Standardization in their ISO 3166 Standard and shared by the | United Nations Statistics Division ("Countries or areas, codes | and abbreviations", revised 13 February 2002). | | If appropriate, the fourth character distinguishes between | multiple studies conducted within a single country, for the same | election. This distinction was never needed in CSES Module 3, as | there was no instance of two election studies being conducted | after a single election in any country. So this character | appears as an underscore (_) for all elections in CSES | Module 3. | | The fifth through eighth characters correspond to the | election year as specified in variable C1008. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C1005 >>> ID VARIABLE - RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Respondent Identifier. .................................................................. This variable is eighteen characters in length. It is unique across the data file. | NOTES: C1005 | | This eighteen-character variable uniquely identifies a | respondent within the CSES data file. | | The variable is constructed from three components, variable | C1006 (CSES polity code), C1008 (election year), and C1009 | (respondent within election study). | | The first three characters are the numeric version of the | country codes created by the United Nations Statistics | Division ("countries or areas, codes and abbreviations", | revised 13 February 2002). | | If approriate, the fourth character distinguishes between | multiple studies conducted within a single country, for the same | election. All other election studies in CSES MODULE 3 are coded 0 | here. | | The fifth through eighth characters correspond to the | election year as specified in variable C1008. | | The last ten characters are the respondent identifier from | C1009, which is unique within each election study. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C1006 >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY CSES CODE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Polity Identifier CSES Code. .................................................................. 0360. AUSTRALIA 0400. AUSTRIA 1120. BELARUS 0760. BRAZIL 1240. CANADA 1520. CHILE 1910. CROATIA 2030. CZECH REPUBLIC 2080. DENMARK 2330. ESTONIA 2460. FINLAND 2500. FRANCE 2760. GERMANY 3000. GREECE 3440. HONG KONG 3520. ICELAND 3720. IRELAND 3760. ISRAEL 3920. JAPAN 4280. Latvia 4840. MEXICO 5280. NETHERLANDS 5540. NEW ZEALAND 5780. NORWAY 6040. PERU 6080. PHILIPPINES 6160. POLAND 6200. PORTUGAL 6420. ROMANIA 7030. SLOVAKIA 7050. SLOVENIA 7100. SOUTH AFRICA 4100. SOUTH KOREA 7240. SPAIN 7520. SWEDEN 7560. SWITZERLAND 1580. TAIWAN 7640. THAILAND 7920. TURKEY 8400. UNITED STATES 8580. URUGUAY | NOTES: C1006 | | This four-character variable uniquely identifies a polity | conducting an election study that is present in CSES | MODULE 3. | | The first three characters are the numeric version of | the country codes created by the United Nations Statistics | Division ("countries or areas, codes and abbreviations", | revised 13 February 2002). | | The fourth character distinguishes between multiple studies | conducted within a single country, for the same election. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C1006_UN >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY UN CODE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Polity Identifier UN Country Code. .................................................................. 036. AUSTRALIA 040. AUSTRIA 112. BELARUS 076. BRAZIL 124. CANADA 152. CHILE 191. CROATIA 203. CZECH REPUBLIC 208. DENMARK 233. ESTONIA 246. FINLAND 250. FRANCE 276. GERMANY 300. GREECE 344. HONG KONG 352. ICELAND 372. IRELAND 376. ISRAEL 392. JAPAN 428. Latvia 484. MEXICO 528. NETHERLANDS 554. NEW ZEALAND 578. NORWAY 604. PERU 608. PHILIPPINES 616. POLAND 620. PORTUGAL 642. ROMANIA 703. SLOVAKIA 705. SLOVENIA 710. SOUTH AFRICA 410. SOUTH KOREA 724. SPAIN 752. SWEDEN 756. SWITZERLAND 158. TAIWAN 764. THAILAND 792. TURKEY 840. UNITED STATES 858. URUGUAY | NOTES: C1006_UN | | This three-character variable uniquely identifies a polity | conducting an election study that is present in CSES | MODULE 3. | | It consists of the numeric version of the country codes created | by the United Nations Statistics Division ("Countries or areas, | codes and abbreviations", revised 13 February 2002). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C1006_NAM>>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY NAME --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Polity Identifier Country Name. .................................................................. Australia Austria Belarus Brazil Canada Chile Croatia Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hong Kong Iceland Ireland Israel Japan Latvia Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Republic of Korea Romania Slovakia Slovenia South Africa Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan Thailand Turkey United States of America Uruguay | NOTES: C1006_NAM | | This variable uniquely identifies a polity conducting an | election study that is present in CSES MODULE 3. | | It consists of country names based on those used by the United | Nations Statistics Division ("Countries or areas, codes and | abbreviations", revised 13 February 2002). However, in some | instances, country names deviate from those used by the United | Nations. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C1007 >>> ID COMPONENT - SAMPLE COMPONENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In some cases, analysts may wish to consider regions of countries or other sample components units of analysis, rather than the countries themselves. This variable identifies these sample components. Where these sample components do not exist this variable is coded 001. .................................................................. 001. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 002. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 003. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 004. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 005. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 006. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 999. MISSING | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2008): C1007 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Pre-election survey, only | 02. Pre-and-post-election survey, only | 03. Pre-and-post-election-mail-back survey only | 04. Pre-and-post-election-panel survey, only | 05. Pre-and-post-election-mail-back-panel survey | | Values 4 and 5 mean that respondents also participated already | in earlier election studies. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2011): C1007 | | C1007 reflects the language of interviewing | (see also notes on C1009). | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Finnish | 02. Swedish | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C1007 | | Germany used two different samples, dividing the German | population along the former division of the country after | the Second World War. The population of the two components | equal the population of residence in C2027, where values 12 | to 15 refer to East Germany. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. East Germany, including East Berlin | 002. West Germany, including West Berlin | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C1007 | | The German data over-sample the eastern part of Germany, the | federal states of the former German Democratic Republic. | However, the original German data do not allow to separate both | parts of Berlin, which has been over-sampled for the eastern | part, as well. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. Eastern part (former German Democratic Republic) | 002. Western part of Germany (including Berlin) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C1007 | | New Zealanders of Maori descent can choose to be registered on | a separate Maori roll, and cast their electorate votes within | seven constituencies that overlie the general electorates. | For its new sample the 2008 New Zealand Election Study sampled | within four subsets of registered voters and over-sampled | subsets 1, 3, and 4 below, groups of particular interest to the | researchers. For the CSES release, respondents from the three | over-sampled subsets were re-sampled to bring their numbers into | the appropriate proportions among registered voters, removing | any need for sampling weights. | | In this variable you find information of persons registration: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Those on Maori roll 27 and over | 02. Those on General roll 27 and over | 03. Those on Maori roll 18-26 | 04. Those on General Roll 18-26 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C1007 | | In Sweden, some respondents did not receive the same | questionnaire in terms of length. The following codes allow | users to identify respondents by questionnaire type. 408 | respondents did not get the CSES module. | | CSES Code Election Study Category/Categories: | 01. FULL QUESTIONNAIRE | 02. SHORTENED QUESTIONNAIRE | 03. VERY SHORT QUESTIONNAIRE (NO CSES) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C1007 | | The CSES survey was applied in several stages and with different | methodologies. For details see study description in codebook. | Variable C1007 accounts to the type of sample from where each | respondents was selected, as well as type of questionnaire | employed in the follow-up stage (if applicable). | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Respondents from national sample and no follow-up | participation | 02. Respondents from cantonal over-sample and no | follow-up participation | 03. Respondents from national sample and completed | mail-back questionnaire follow-up. | 04. Respondents from cantonal over-sample sample and | completed questionnaire mail-back follow-up. | 05. Respondents from national sample and completed | online questionnaire follow-up. | 06. Respondents from cantonal over-sample sample and | completed online questionnaire follow-up. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C1008 >>> ID COMPONENT - ELECTION YEAR --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Election year. .................................................................. 2005-2011. ELECTION YEAR | NOTES: C1008 | | The official period covered in Module 3 is from | 2006 to 2011. The questionnaire was finalized for data collection | beginning in 2006, however we include three pilot studies from | 2005, namely Germany (2005), Norway (2005) and Poland (2005). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C1009 >>> ID COMPONENT - RESPONDENT WITHIN ELECTION STUDY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Respondent identifier. .................................................................. This variable is ten characters in length. It is unique for each survey respondent within an election. | NOTES: C1009 | | While this variable uniquely identifies a respondent within | an election study, it is not unique across the entire dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2011): C1009 | | The first digit of respondents' unique id variable reflects the | language of the interviewing, as explained in the election study | note on C1007. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C1009 | | The unique respondent identifier provided with the Taiwan (2008) | study was too long to be included in this variable. It was not | possible to find an algorithm to convert it to a variable that | fit within the same length as the CSES variable. Therefor, a | respondent identifier for Taiwan (2008) was created that is | unique to CSES, but unfortunately does not allow analysts to | merge the CSES dataset back to the original Taiwan (2008) | election study. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C1010_1 >>> ORIGINAL WEIGHT: SAMPLE C1010_2 >>> ORIGINAL WEIGHT: DEMOGRAPHIC C1010_3 >>> ORIGINAL WEIGHT: POLITICAL --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | NOTES: C1010 | | These variables report the original weights provided with | the respective deposited data files. | | Sample weights include those intended to correct for unequal | selection probabilities resulting from "booster" samples, | procedures for selection within the household, non-response, | as well as other features of the sample design. | | Demographic weights adjust sample distributions of socio- | demographic characteristics to more closely resemble the | characteristics of the population. | | Political weights reconcile discrepancies in the reported | electoral behavior of the survey respondents from the | official vote counts. | | In cases where a collaborator provides a single weight that | is a combination of one or more of the three weight categories | (sample, demographic, and political), the weight is duplicated | in the two or more appropriate variables. Thus, analysts using | two or more of the weights simultaneously will need to account | for this duplication. | | Use of weights is at the discretion of the analyst based upon | the considerations of her/his individual research question. | We recommend that analysts familiarize themselves with the | weights, their components, and their methods of creation | before applying them. | | Additionally, analysts will want to keep in mind that these | weights are prepared to be election study weights, not country | weights. To convert the weights to country weights requires an | adjustment for those countries for which one or more polities | or election studies appear in the dataset. | | Where a weight of a particular type is not available, these | variables are coded 1. | | Collaborators provided the original weights with a varying | number of decimal places. In this CSES dataset, however, all | of the original weights have been rounded to four decimal | places at maximum (i.e. 1.1234) using STATA. | | Table: Summary of Election Study Weights, by Type of Weight. | | Sample Demog Political No Weight | Weight Weight Weight Provided | | POLITY NAME (ELEC YEAR) | | AUSTRALIA (2007) AUS_2007 | AUSTRIA (2008) AUT_2008 | BELARUS (2008) BLR_2008 | BRAZIL (2006) BRA_2006 | BRAZIL (2010) BRA_2010 | CANADA (2008) CAN_2008 | CHILE (2009) CHL_2009 | CROATIA (2007) HRV_2007 HRV_2007 | CZECH REPUBLIC (2006) CZE_2006 | CZECH REPUBLIC (2010) CZE_2010 | DENMARK (2007) DNK_2007 | ESTONIA (2011) EST_2011 | FINLAND (2007) FIN_2007 | FINLAND (2011) FIN_2011 | FRANCE (2007) FRA_2007 FRA_2007 FRA_2007 | GERMANY (2005) DEU_2005 DEU_2005 | GERMANY (2009) DEU_2009 DEU_2009 | GREECE (2009) GRC_2009 | HONG KONG (2008) HKG_2008 | ICELAND (2007) ISL_2007 | ICELAND (2009) ISL_2009 | IRELAND (2007) IRL_2007 | ISRAEL (2006) ISR_2006 | JAPAN (2007) JPN_2007 | LATVIA (2010) LVA_2010 | MEXICO (2006) MEX_2006 MEX_2006 | MEXICO (2009) MEX_2009 MEX_2009 | NETHERLANDS (2006) NLD_2006 NLD_2006 | NETHERLANDS (2010) NLD_2010 NLD_2010 | NEW ZEALAND (2008) NZL_2008 NZL_2008 | NORWAY (2005) NOR_2005 | NORWAY (2009) NOR_2009 | PERU (2011) PER_2011 PER_2011 PER_2011 | PHILIPPINES (2010) PHL_2010 | POLAND (2005) POL_2005 | POLAND (2007) POL_2007 | PORTUGAL (2009) PRT_2009 | ROMANIA (2009) ROU_2009 | SLOVAKIA (2010) SVK_2010 | SLOVENIA (2008) SVN_2008 | SOUTH AFRICA (2009) ZAF_2009 | SOUTH KOREA (2008) KOR_2008 | SPAIN (2008) ESP_2008 | SWEDEN (2006) SWE_2006 | SWITZERLAND (2007) CHE_2007 CHE_2007 | TAIWAN (2008) TWN_2008 | THAILAND (2007) THA_2007 | TURKEY (2011) TUR_2011 | UNITED STATES (2008) USA_2008 | URUGUAY (2009) URY_2009 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C1010_2 | | Because of non-response the sample is not an exact | representation in terms of equal distribution of known | demographic characteristics of the Austrian population. | A demographic sample weight is included that adjusts sample | characteristics to known population estimates, which were taken | from census data carried out by Statistics Austria. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C1010_2 | | The election study has been weighed to correct for demographic | characteristics of the population as reported in the official | demographic census PNAD2003. Weights were calculated on basis | of 1000 respondents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2008): C1010_1 | | In order to produce national estimates it is advisable to | correct for both the unequal probabilities of selection at the | household stage and the unequal probabilities of selection based | on province of residence. The National Weight is the product of | the household weight and the provincial weight and should be | used when national estimates are required. | | The aforementioned National Weight was provided by the Canada | collaborators only for respondents who were participating for | the first time in the 2008 study (C1007=1-3). The 1238 panel | respondents carried forward from past studies (C1007=4-5) | were assigned a weight of zero (0) for the variable by the | Canadian collaborators. Thus, any time that the weight | is used, the panel respondents will be dropped out of the | analysis. To get around this, the CSES Secretariat assigned | to the 1238 panel respondents a weight which is the mean of | the weights used for the remainder of the (non-panel) | respondents in the Canada (2008) study. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009): C1010_2 | | The sample was designed with the proportions of the population | in terms of sex and age as registered on the electoral district | and occupation. The weight corrects sex and age for the national | distributions of the registered voters. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CROATIA (2007): C1010_2 | | A weight has to be used to control for the demographic marginal | (region, settlement, size, sex, age, etc.). The weight has been | calculated on the base of the Croatian Census data of 2001. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CROATIA (2007): C1010_3 | | A weight is necessary to control for the political | marginal (region, settlement, size, sex, age, education) | according to the election results. The weight has been | calculated on the base of the Croatian Census data of 2001. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C1010_1 | | Researchers should note that the original Danish | data contains of two subsamples, as explained in the codebook | introduction. The employed sample weight (C1010_1) depends on | both subsamples. Consequently, the exclusion of the web-panel | part of the Danish data might slightly bias this weight. | See also description of the Danish sampling process in the | introduction part of the current CSES codebook. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): C1010_2 | | A weight combining gender, ethnicity, region and rural-urban | nature of settlement was calculated based on data from the | Population Register. No subpopulation was purposefully | oversampled. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2011): C1010_3 | | The Finnish data include a political weight, controlling for the | electoral outcome of the parliament election in 2011 | (C3023_LH_PL). Its effect on other variables in the CSES is only | marginal. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C1010_1 | | This weight controls for unequal probabilities of selection, | especially due to random draw in households of unequal size, | defined as the product of the probability of selection of the | i-th observation in its PSU and the corresponding probability of | selecting this observation in its household. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C1010_2 | | The demographic weight is designed to match the population | distribution on gender, age, education, occupation and | household size. | | All these variables have been considered in their French | definition, which do not match international classifications. | Existence of bias after weighting depends on these various | definitions of categories. | | The CSES Secretariat is aware that some of the minimum values | of the weight are very low (0.0001) compared to the maximum | values of the weight (23.0556) but this was determined to be | intentional by the collaborator. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C1010_3 | | The political weight controls for political skewness, computed | to correct for a bias on the aggregate electoral results of | legislative elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C1010_1 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C1010_1 | | Due to the German history, the eastern part of the country is | over-sampled. To study Germany as a whole, C1010_1 is needed to | correct for this kind of the sample selection. | In addition, C1010_1 also controls for skewness in relevant | socio-demographic characteristics within each of the German | federal state, as it is done by C1010_2. | In contrast, researchers interested in comparing both parts of | Germany separately, should not make use of C1010_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C1010_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C1010_2 | | According to drop-outs, non-responds and incomplete interviews, | C1010_2 controls for potential skewness in relevant socio- | demographic characteristics. The weight corrects for age-groups | and sex within each region. To study Germany as whole, C1010_1 | has to be used exclusively to control for the over-sampling of | East Germany as well as for potential skewness of socio- | demographic characteristic. Consequently, a combination of both | weights is not necessary. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): C1010_3 | | The weight is based on vote in current elections: Each voter of | party i is weighted by Wi=VSi/PRi, where VSi is the vote share | of party i and PRi is the proportion of respondents in the data | file who have responded that they have voted for party i. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C1010_2 | | A sample weight is included to correct for skewness in the | distribution by age, sex, and the region of residence, according | to the sampling process. As a benchmark, the "Age and Sex | profile of registered electors by Legislative Council | Constituencies in 2010" has been used, available at the website | of the Hong Kong Registration and Electoral Office. | Note that there were 63 cases with missing values in the | submitted weight variable. These cases are coded zero (0) in | C1010_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007): C1010_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2009): C1010_2 | | The data set includes a weight variable (C1010_2) for age, as | proportionally fewer in the younger age groups replied to the | survey compared to the distribution of age in the population | according to information from Statistics Iceland. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2007): C1010_2 | | A cross-sectional weight variable (C1010_2) was included to | adjust sample totals to the population using the Gross minimum | distance algorithm. These population totals are from the 2006 | Census and the Quarterly National Household Survey in terms of | household size (number of adults age 18 and over), age, sex, | education, economic status, marital status and region. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): C1010_1 | | As the implementation of the CSES Module 3 points out, Japan | used two different samples. Consequently a weight is necessary | to make the sample representative of the population being | studied and to compensate bias of potential skewness in relevant | demographic factors. The weight included in the original data | file was constructed by strata of six layers of age (20s, 30s, | 40s, 50s, 60s, and over 70) and gender, based on the frequencies | of Population Census of Japan 2005. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2010): C1010_2 | | To make the survey data representative to the universe, the data | weighting in this survey was performed with an aim to get the | sample division as close as possible to the universe. Criteria | that were used for the data weighting were: age, nationality, | region, type of residence and gender. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C1010_1 | | Sampling units were selected with unequal probabilities. Weights | are estimated and used to correct for this unequal | probabilities. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C1010_2 | | Poststratification weights were estimated to correct for | non-response and to match known demographic characteristics of | the population gender and age. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C1010_1 | | C1010_1 corrects for unequal probability of selection of | sampling units. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C1010_2 | | C1010_2 is post-stratification weight that adjusts for non- | response and matches the sample to known demographic | characteristics of the population (gender and age). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C1010_2 | | The demographic weight includes the characteristics age, | gender, marital status, urbanization, region, ethnicity. It | is based on all respondents participating in wave I and II | (the original weight variable wgt3). | | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C1010_3 | | The political weight includes voting turnout as an additional | population characteristic. It is based on all respondents | participating in wave I and II (the original weight variable | wgt4). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C1010_2 | | The demographic weight includes the characteristics age, | gender, marital status, urbanization, region, ethnicity. It | is based on all respondents participating in wave I and II | (the original weight variable wgt3). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C1010_3 | | The political weight includes voting turnout as an additional | population characteristic. It is based on all respondents | participating in wave I and II (the original weight variable | wgt4). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C1010_2 | | The weights are designed to match known age and sex | distributions in the electoral roll from which the sample | was taken. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C1010_3 | | (Additional details about the political weight were not present | in the Design Report for New Zealand.) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2011): C1010_1 and C1010_2 | | The sample was weighted according to the number of population | in each region and urban-rural distribution. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2011): C1010_3 | | (Additional details about the political weight were not present | in the Design Report for Peru.) | | Note that according to compulsory voting in Peru, non-voters are | coded "0" in C1010_3 and are thus excluded from any analysis, | employing the political weight. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C1010_1 | | To yield representative figures at the national level, | census-based population weights are applied to the survey data. | The weight projection is computed by dividing the projected | population in the area by the sample size of the same area. | Appropriate projected factors were applied so that original | population proportions were reflected in the data tables using | this formula. | | Since the sample is equally allocated across the four major | areas (National Capital Region or NCR, the rest of Luzon | outside NCR, Visayas and Mindanao, weights are used to adjust to | known area population distributions. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): C1010_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C1010_2 | | Both Polish datasets include a demographic weight to make the | sample comparable to the overall Polish population. | Researchers should be aware of the fact that the construction | rules as well as the data used for benchmarking are actually | unknown. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2009): C1010_2 | | The data include a demographic weight to make the sample | comparable to the overall Portuguese population aged 18 years or | older. The weight is based on the distribution of the target | population in terms of gender, age, and education, according to | the Portuguese National Statistics Office Census 2001. | In the source file, 13 cases had system missing values in the | weight variable. The reason is that in these cases, at least one | variable used to calculate the weight (gender, age and | education) is a missing value. In CSES dataset, these cases are | imputed the average weight score from the source file (.999881). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C1010_2 | | Due to differential response rates across socio-demographic | categories, weights are necessary. The weight was created | based on gender, age, urban/rural, and education. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2010): C1010_2 | | The weights were created using gender, age, education, size of | settlement, and region . | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2009): C1010_1 | | People living in Northern Cape province, and coloured and | Indian race group members were oversampled and then weighted | downward. Other variables (e.g. household size) were also used | to adjust for any discrepancies between the original and | realized sample. | | The CSES Secretariat is aware that some of the minimum values | of the weight are very low (0.0033) compared to the maximum | values of the weight (6.9694) but this was determined to be | intentional by the collaborator. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2008): C1010_2 | | Weighting by sex (2) and age groups (4) = 8 cells. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C1010_1 | | The sample weight is based on the size of the electorate of each | canton and adjusts for over-sampling of certain cantons in the | survey sample. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C1010_3 | | This is a cumulative weight that corrects for sample biases in | party choice and turnout while taking cantonal over-sampling | into account. | | The CSES Secretariat is aware that some of the minimum values | of the weight are very low (0.0417) compared to the maximum | values of the weight (8.3235) but this was determined to be | intentional by the collaborator. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C1010_2 | | Weights were implemented to control for demographic | characteristics of age (5 groups), education (5 groups), and | area (6 regions). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): C1010_2 | | There are deviations from the known population characteristics | in terms of gender, age group and education level. So, an | appropriate weight was calculated. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2008): C1010_1 | | Weights account for the sampling design and match population | benchmark for selected variables. ANES data are based on complex | sample designs and must be weighted to adjust for the sample | design in order to generalize to the population. Weights for | such analysis must adjust for unequal probability of household | selection and for respondent selection within households. | Additionally, the weights take into account nonresponse | adjustment and post-stratification raking when needed to match | known population benchmarks. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): C1010_3 | | (Additional details about the political weight were not present | in the Design Report for Uruguay.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C1011_1 >>> FACTOR: MEAN OF SAMPLE WEIGHT C1011_2 >>> FACTOR: MEAN OF DEMOGRAPHIC WEIGHT C1011_3 >>> FACTOR: MEAN OF POLITICAL WEIGHT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | NOTES: C1011 | | These variables report the mean weight of each type, within | each polity (election study). The resulting factors are then | used to create the derivative "Polity Weights" in variables | C1012_1 through C1012_3. | | To follow is the STATA code used to create variables | C1011_1, C1011_2, and C1011_3: | | local elec AUS_2007 BLR_2008 BRA_2006 CHE_2007 DEU_2005 FIN_2007 | HRV_2007 ISR_2005 JPN_2007 KOR_2008 NOR_2005 SWE_2006 THA_2007 | TWN_2008 | | forvalues i=1/3 { | foreach x of local elec { | su C1010_`i' if C1004=="`x'" | replace C1011_`i' = r(mean) if C1004=="`x'" | } | } | | The STATA code to create the derivative variables in the CSES | dataset was run on the original, unrounded version of | the original weight variables (C1010_1-C1010_3). Thereafter | the derivative variables were rounded to four decimal places at | maximum (i.e. 1.1234) using STATA. | | It is due to this rounding that the mean values of derivative | weight variables C1011_1-C1011_3 for individual election studies | and for the full dataset are close to, but not necessarily | exactly equal to, 1.0000. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C1012_1 >>> POLITY WEIGHT: SAMPLE C1012_2 >>> POLITY WEIGHT: DEMOGRAPHIC C1012_3 >>> POLITY WEIGHT: POLITICAL --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | NOTES: C1012 | | See also Variable and Election Study Notes for C1010-C1011. | | These variables report standardized versions (with a mean 1 | within the polity) of the original weights provided with the | component election studies, described in C1010. They are the | ratio of each weighting factor to the mean weight (C1011) of | each type, calculated within each polity. | | The derivative "Polity Weight" (C1012) has been created so | that for each weight (sample, demographic, political), each | respondent within the election study has a mean weight of "1". | If you are running a frequency, for instance, this weight | will work so that the N in your frequency table comes out to | approximately the same as the number of interviews in the | study. This derivative weight is created by dividing the | individual weight for each respondent within an election | study by the mean for that weight for all respondents in that | election study. | | To follow is the STATA code used to create variables | C1012_1, C1012_2, and C1012_3: | | gen C1012_1 = C1010_1 / C1011_1 | gen C1012_2 = C1010_2 / C1011_2 | gen C1012_3 = C1010_3 / C1011_3 | | The STATA code to create the derivative variables in the CSES | dataset was run on the original, unrounded version of | the original weight variables (C1010_1-C1010_3). Thereafter | the derivative variables were rounded to four decimal places at | maximum (i.e. 1.1234) using STATA. | | It is due to this rounding that the mean values of derivative | weight variables C1012_1-C1012_3 for individual election studies | and for the full dataset are close to, but not necessarily | exactly equal to, 1.0000. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C1013 >>> FACTOR: SAMPLE SIZE ADJUSTMENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | NOTES: C1013 | | This variable reports the ratio of the average sample size to | each election study sample. Note that this factor is calculated | on the basis of the samples appearing in the CSES data files | (i.e. does not incorporate booster samples, panel respondents | who did not participate in the CSES wave of multi-wave studies, | etc.). Further, this factor treats elections, and not political | systems, as the unit of analysis. Analysts wishing to compare | across-countries, instead of across-election studies, should | adjust this weight accordingly. | | The resulting factor is then used to create the derivative | "Dataset Weights" in variables C1014_1 through C1014_3. | | To follow is the STATA code used to create variable C1013: | | gen n=1 | gen tot_obs = _N /*Number of observations*/ | gen estudies = 14 /*Number of election studies*/ | gen mean_res = tot_obs/estudies | | gen n_cases = . | foreach x of local elec { | su n if C1004=="`x'" | replace n_cases = r(sum) if C1004=="`x'" | } | | replace C1013 = mean_res / n_cases | drop n-Ncases | | The STATA code to create the derivative variables in the CSES | dataset was run on the original, unrounded version of | the original weight variables (C1010_1-C1010_3). Thereafter | the derivative variables were rounded to four decimal places at | maximum (i.e. 1.1234) using STATA. | | It is due to this rounding that the mean value of derivative | weight variable C1013 for the full dataset is close | to, but not necessarily exactly equal to, 1.0000. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C1014_1 >>> DATASET WEIGHT: SAMPLE C1014_2 >>> DATASET WEIGHT: DEMOGRAPHIC C1014_3 >>> DATASET WEIGHT: POLITICAL --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | NOTES: C1014 | | See also Variable and Election Study Notes for C1010-C1013. | | These variables are intended for micro-level analyses involving | the entire CSES sample. Using the sample size adjustment | (C1013), the centered weights (C1012) are corrected such that | each election study component contributes equally to the | analysis, regardless of the original sample size. Users are | advised to read the notes of the preceding variables carefully | so as to ensure that their analyses will be weighted | appropriately. | | The derivative "Dataset Weight" (C1014) has been created so | that each election study in the dataset will contribute | equally to analyses of respondents, regardless of the number | of interviews in each election study. | | To follow is the SPSS code used to create variables | C1014_1, C1014_2, and C1014_3: | | replace C1014_1 = C1012_1 * C1013 | replace C1014_2 = C1012_2 * C1013 | replace C1014_3 = C1012_3 * C1013 | | The STATA code to create the derivative variables in the CSES | dataset was run on the original, unrounded version of | the original weight variables (C1010_1-C1010_3). Thereafter | the derivative variables were rounded to four decimal places at | maximum (i.e. 1.1234) using STATA. | | It is due to this rounding that the mean values of derivative | weight variables C1014_1-C1014_3 for the full dataset are close | to, but not necessarily exactly equal to, 1.0000. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C1015 >>> ELECTION TYPE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Type of election. .................................................................. 10. PARLIAMENTARY/LEGISLATIVE 12. PARLIAMENTARY/LEGISLATIVE AND PRESIDENTIAL 13. PARLIAMENTARY/LEGISLATIVE AND PRIME MINISTER 20. PRESIDENTIAL 30. HEAD OF GOVERNMENT | NOTES: C1015 | | The following table gives an overview of which type of elections | are included for which country. | | Table: Summary of the Election Type. | | President Lower House Upper House | | POLITY NAME (ELEC YEAR) | | AUSTRALIA (2007) - X X | AUSTRIA (2008) - X - | BELARUS (2008) - X - | BRAZIL (2006) X X - | BRAZIL (2010) X X X | CANADA (2008) - X - | CROATIA (2007) - X - | CHILE (2009) X X - | CZECH REPUBLIC (2006) - X - | CZECH REPUBLIC (2010) - X - | DENMARK (2007) - X - | ESTONIA (2011) - X - | FINLAND (2007) - X - | FINLAND (2011) - X - | FRANCE (2007) - X - | GERMANY (2005) - X - | GERMANY (2009) - X - | GREECE (2009) - X - | HONG KONG (2008) - X - | ICELAND (2007) - X - | ICELAND (2009) - X - | IRELAND (2007) - X - | ISRAEL (2006) - X - | JAPAN (2007) - - X | LATVIA (2010) - X - | MEXICO (2006) X X X | MEXICO (2009) - X - | NETHERLANDS (2006) - X - | NETHERLANDS (2010) - X - | NEW ZEALAND (2008) - X - | NORWAY (2005) - X - | NORWAY (2011) - X - | PERU (2011) X X - | PHILIPPINES (2010) X - - | POLAND (2005) - X X | POLAND (2007) - X X | PORTUGAL (2009) - X - | ROMANIA (2009) X - - | SLOVAKIA (2010) - X - | SLOVENIA (2008) - X - | SOUTH AFRICA - X - | SOUTH KOREA (2008) - X - | SPAIN (2008) - X - | SWEDEN (2006) - X - | SWITZERLAND (2007) - X X | TAIWAN (2008) X - - | THAILAND (2007) - X - | TURKEY (2011) - X - | UNITED STATES (2008) X X (X) | URUGUAY (2009) X X X | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C1015 | | In 2006, the presidency, seats in the National Congress (Chamber | of Deputies and Senate), the governorship of the 26 states and | the Federal District, and the seats in the state and Federal | District legislatures were all up for election. The primary | focus of this election study are the election of the President | and of the lower house (Chamber of Deputies) of the Brazilian | Parliament. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C1015 | | In 2010, the presidency, seats in the National Congress (Chamber | of Deputies and two thirds of the seats in the Senate), the | governorship of the 26 states and the Federal District, and the | seats in the state and Federal District legislatures were all up | for election. The primary focus of this election study are the | election of the President and of the lower house (Chamber of | Deputies) of the Brazilian Parliament. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009): C1015 | | Note that although most of the questions refer to the | parliamentary election, which had taken place on 13/12/2009, | some concern the presidential election which was held at the | same day (first round only). The second round of the | presidential election took place after the interviews were | finished (on 17.1.2010), and there are no questions concerning | this second round of presidential election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): C1015 | | The July 29, 2007 elections were held to renew half of the | House of Councilors, the Upper House of the Parliament. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2008): C1015 | | Note that elections for the Senate, i.e. the Upper House, were | held only in some states (see notes on C3023_UH_DC). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C1016 >>> DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - MONTH C1017 >>> DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - DAY C1018 >>> DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YEAR C1019 >>> DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - MONTH C1020 >>> DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - DAY C1021 >>> DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YEAR --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date [first round/second round] election began. .................................................................. MONTH 01. JANUARY 02. FEBRUARY 03. MARCH 04. APRIL 05. MAY 06. JUNE 07. JULY 08. AUGUST 09. SEPTEMBER 10. OCTOBER 11. NOVEMBER 12. DECEMBER 99. MISSING DAY 01-31. DAY OF MONTH 99. MISSING YEAR 2005-2011. YEAR 9999. MISSING | NOTES: C1016-C1021 | | Variables C1016-C1018 represent the start date of the election. | If the election involved a second round, variables C1019-1021 | are used to represent the start date of the second round. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C1016-C1018 | | This date refers to the parliamentary election and the first | round of the presidential election. | | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C1019-C1021 | | This date refers to the second round of the presidential | election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C1016-C1018 | | This date refers to the parliamentary election and the first | round of the presidential election. | | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C1019-C1021 | | This date refers to the second round of the presidential election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009): C1019-C1021 | | Note that the interviewing phase for the Chilean election study | took place in between the two rounds of the presidential | election. Apart from the date for the second round, the study | thus only contains data which refers to the legislative | and the first round of the presidential election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2006): C1016-C1021 | | The election took place from 02.-03.06.2006. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2010): C1016-C1021 | | The election took place from 28.-29.05.2010. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - Latvia (2010): C1016-C1018 | | The interview of one respondent was started on 2nd and ended | on 4th of November 2010. The ending date is reported. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C1022 >>> STUDY TIMING --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Timing of study relative to election. .................................................................. 1. POST-ELECTION STUDY 2. PRE-ELECTION AND POST-ELECTION STUDY 3. BETWEEN ROUNDS | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): C1022 | | The CSES questionnaire was administered as the post-election | portion of a two-wave panel study. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2008): C1022 | | The US-American Election Study is a pre-/post-panel study. | Socio-demographic variables included in the CSES (C2001 to | C2031) were part of the pre-election survey, which took place | between September 2nd and November 3rd, 2008. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C1023 >>> MODE OF INTERVIEW --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mode of interview. .................................................................. 1. FACE-TO-FACE 2. TELEPHONE 3. SELF-ADMINISTERED (MAIL-BACK; SELF-COMPLETED SUPPLEMENT) 4. COMBINATION OF TELEPHONE AND SELF-ADMINISTERED 5. COMBINATION OF FACE-TO-FACE AND SELF-ADMINISTERED 9. MISSING | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2007): C1023 | | Note that the bigger part of the sample was selected respondents | who had taken part in the previous study (in 2002). This | resulted in 1013 interviews and 139 replies to a shortened mail | version. This was supplemented by a new, three-stage sample. | For more details see point (2) in the study description. | Also see C1024. Note that some variables have a relatively high | proportion of missing data partly due to some questions missing | in the mail questionnaire. | Also see C1024. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C1023 | | An additional mail/postal survey which included some of the | CSES questions was sent to respondents who had participated in | the telephone interview and declared that they were willing to | fill out an additional questionnaire (which was the case in 3009 | of 3164 cases). Of those respondents 2291 actually responded in | the paper/online survey. Percent total panel attrition: 27.59%. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C1024 >>> INTERVIEWER WITHIN ELECTION STUDY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Interviewer identification variable, within election study. .................................................................. 00000-999995. INTERVIEWER IDENTIFIER 999999. MISSING | NOTES: C1024 | | This variable uniquely identifies an interviewer within an | election study. It is not unique across the entire dataset. | | Data are not available for AUSTRALIA (2007), BRAZIL (2006), | BRAZIL (2010), GERMANY (2005), HONG KONG (2008), ICELAND (2007), | ICELAND (2009), ISRAEL (2006), SOUTH KOREA (2008), NETHERLANDS | (2006), NETHERLANDS (2010), NORWAY (2005), NEW ZEALAND (2008), | SWEDEN (2006), THAILAND (2007). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C1024 | | In the case of Australia, the CSES Module 3 was implemented | as a self administrated questionnaire. Hence, information about | interviewers is not applicable. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2008): C1024 | | Interviewer IDs refer to the post election survey. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C1024 | | Note that interviewer-IDs are only available for those | respondents, who were interviewed in person (face-to-face). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2007): C1024 | | The major number of the respondents were interviewed | face-to-face. 139 respondents answered a shortened mail | questionnaire. Also see point (2) in the study description. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C1025 >>> INTERVIEWER GENDER --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gender of interviewer. .................................................................. 1. MALE 2. FEMALE 9. MISSING | NOTES: C1025 | | Data are not available for AUSTRALIA (2007), BRAZIL (2006), | BRAZIL (2010), CANADA (2008), CHILE (2009), CZECH REPUBLIC | (2006), CZECH REPUBLIC (2010), DENMARK (2007), GERMANY (2005), | GERMANY (2009), HONG KONG (2008), ICELAND (2007), ICELAND | (2009), IRELAND (2007), JAPAN (2007), MEXICO (2006), NETHERLANDS | (2006), NETHERLANDS (2010), NEW ZEALAND (2008), NORWAY (2005), | NORWAY (2009), PERU (2011), PORTUGAL (2009), SOUTH AFRICA | (2009), SOUTH KOREA (2008), SWEDEN (2006), TAIWAN (2008), | THAILAND (2007). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C1025 | | In the case of Australia, the CSES Module 3 was implemented | as a self administrated questionnaire. Hence information about | interviewers is not applicable. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C1025 | | According to the collaborator, virtually all interviewers | are women, marking on or two male interviewers would | identify them. Hence, the variable was dropped. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C1026 >>> DATE QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTERED - MONTH C1027 >>> DATE QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTERED - DAY C1028 >>> DATE QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTERED - YEAR --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date questionnaire administered. .................................................................. MONTH 01. JANUARY 02. FEBRUARY 03. MARCH 04. APRIL 05. MAY 06. JUNE 07. JULY 08. AUGUST 09. SEPTEMBER 10. OCTOBER 11. NOVEMBER 12. DECEMBER 99. MISSING DAY 01-31. DAY OF MONTH 99. MISSING YEAR 2005-2011. YEAR 9999. MISSING | NOTES: C1026-C1028 | | Election study notes on C1026-C1028 reflect the period of | interviewing, according to the corresponding Design Report, | available at http://www.cses.org. | | Researchers should note that in some cases the | current dates of interviewing, coded in C1026-C1028, differs from | the field period mentioned in the Design Reports. | For more details, see Election Study Notes, below. | | Data are not available for GERMANY (2005), NETHERLANDS (2010), | PERU (2011), PORTUGAL (2009), SOUTH KOREA (2008), THAILAND | (2007). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C1026-C1028 | | The survey was administered between November, 23, 2007 and | March, 14, 2008. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C1026-C1028 | | The survey was administered between May, 5 and July, 2, 2009. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2008): C1026-C1028 | | The survey was administered between February, 2 and February, | 24, 2009. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C1026-C1028 | | These variables report the date data collection began. The | survey was administered between December, 17 and December, 27, | 2006. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C1026-C1028 | | The survey was administered between November, 4 and November, | 20, 2010. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2008): C1026-C1028 | | C1026 through C1028 refer to post election interviews (PES). | The post election survey was administered between October 15, | 2008 and December 23, 2008. | | The 806 missing cases in C1026 trough C1028 refer to respondents | that participated in the pre-election study, exclusively. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009): C1026-C1028 | | The survey was administered between December, 26th, 2009 and | January, 7th , 2010. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CROATIA (2007): C1026-C1028 | | The survey was administered between March, 10 and April, 03, | 2008. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2006): C1026-C1028 | | The survey was administered between June, 9 and June, 21, 2006. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2010): C1026-C1028 | | The survey was administered between May, 31 and June, 18, 2010. | Due to a mistake at the stage of interviewing, for 13 cases exact | information about the day of the interview (C1027) is missing. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C1026-C1028 | | The survey was administered between November, 21, 2007 and June, | 12, 2008. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): C1026-C1028 | | The survey was administered between March, 7 and March, 25, | 2011. | According to C1026-C1028, interviews were held between March, | 17, and April, 18, 2008. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2007): C1026-C1028 | | The part of the survey for the Finnish speaking respondents | was administered between March, 20 and April, 23, 2007. | The Swedish speaking respondents were interviewed between | April 1 - May 20, 2007 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2011): C1026-C1028 | | The part of the survey for the Finnish speaking respondents | was administered between April, 18 and May, 28, 2011. | The Swedish speaking respondents were interviewed between | May, 05 and May 24, 2011. | In fact, the last interview was held on May, 25, 2011. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C1026-C1028 | | The survey was administered between June, 18 and July, 07, 2007. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C1026-C1028 | | The survey was administered between September, 21 and October, | 5, 2005. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C1026-C1028 | | The survey was administered between September, 28 and November, | 23, 2009. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): C1026-C1028 | | The survey was administered between December, 10 and December, | 18, 2009. | According to C1026-C1028, interviews were held between December, | 10, and 19, 2009. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C1026-C1028 | | The post-election survey was administrated between November, 03 | and November, 30, 2008. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007): C1026-C1028 | | The study was administered between June, 2 and August, 22, 2007. | Due to a data collection problem, the interview date for each | respondent is indicated as of this starting date. In fact, the | true dates could not be retrieved anymore. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2009): C1026-C1028 | | The survey was administered between May, 7 and August, 31, 2009. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2007): C1026-C1028 | | The survey was administered between May, 31 and November, 2, | 2007. | Note that the exact date is missing for persons who completed a | paper-and-pencil interview, also see C1024. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): C1026-C1028 | | The survey was administered between July, 17 and 28, 2006. | According to C1026-C1028, interviews were held between July, 11 | and 28, 2006. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): C1026-C1028 | | The survey was administered between July, 31 and August, 13, | 2007. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2010): C1026-C1028 | | The survey was administered between October, 16 and November, 7, | 2010. Note that for one respondent the finishing date was | different from the starting one. The finishing date was used. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C1026-C1028 | | The survey was administered between July 23 and August 2, | 2006. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C1026-C1028 | | The survey was administered between July, 12 and July 23, 2009. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C1026-C1028 | | These variables report the date of interview after the election, | i.e. of the second-wave interview. | The survey was administered between November, 23, 2006 and | January, 4, 2007. | According to C1026-C1028, interviews were held between November, | 23, 2006 and January, 5, 2007. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C1026-C1028 | | These variables report the month and year of interview after | the election, i.e. of the second-wave interview. | The survey was administered between June, 10 and July, 22, | 2010. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C1026-C1028 | | These variables report the month and year of interview after | the election, i.e., of the second-wave interview. | The survey was administered between June, 10 and July, 22, 2010. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C1026-C1028 | | The survey was administered between November, 10, 2008 and | February, 27, 2009. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C1026-C1028 | | The survey was administered between September 13 and December 20, | 2005. In addition, six interviews were held between December 23, | 2005 and January 02, 2006. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C1026-C1028 | | The survey was administered between September, 15, 2009 and | February, 04, 2010. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2011): C1026-C1028 | | The survey was administered between April, 30th and May, 3rd, | 2011. The concrete date of the interview is not available | (see notes on C2032). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C1026-C1028 | | The survey was administered between June, 25 and June, 28, 2010. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): C1026-C1028 | | Included interviews were collected between September, 27 and | October, 08, 2005, according to C1026-C1028. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C1026-C1028 | | Included interviews were collected between November, 8 and | December, 1, 2007, according to C1026-C1028. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2009): C1026-C1028 | | The survey was administered between October, 2, 2009 and | February, 8, 2010. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C1026-C1028 | | The survey was administered between December, 07, 2009 and | December, 20, 2009. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2010): C1026-C1028 | | The survey was administered between June, 18 and July, 20, | 2010. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): C1026-C1028 | | According to C1026-C1028, interviews were held between March, | 24 and June, 4, 2009. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2009): C1026-C1028 | | The survey was administered between October, 2 and November 4, | 2009. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2008): C1026-C1028 | | TThe survey was administered between April, 10 and 21, 2008. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2008): C1026-C1028 | | The survey was administered between April, 11 and 21, 2009. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C1026-C1028 | | The survey was administered between September, 18 and October, | 31, 2006. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C1026-C1028 | | The survey was administered between October, 22 and December, | 31, 2007. | These dates make reference to the telephone survey. Application | dates of the self-completion questionnaires are not available. | However, the last one registered was on December, 07 of 2007. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C1026-C1028 | | Note that these variables report the date of first contact | to respondents, between June and August 2008. The survey was | administered between June and September 2008. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C1026-C1028 | | The survey was administered between January, 9 and 31, 2008. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): C1026-C1028 | | The survey was administered between July, 21 and August, 26, | 2011. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2008): C1026-C1028 | | According to the data, the post election survey was administered | between November 5th and December 30th, 2008. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): C1026-C1028 | | The survey was administered between August, 13 and 31, 2010. =========================================================================== ))) CSES MODULE 3 MICRO-LEVEL DATA: DEMOGRAPHIC, VOTE CHOICE, AND ELECTION VARIABLES =========================================================================== --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C2001 >>> AGE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D1. Age of respondent (in years). .................................................................. 010-150. AGE, IN YEARS 001. AGE RANGE 1 - SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES 002. AGE RANGE 2 - SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES 003. AGE RANGE 3 - SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES 004. AGE RANGE 4 - SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES 005. AGE RANGE 5 - SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES 997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 999. MISSING | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): C2001 | | Note that the sample was restricted to respondents aged 18 to | 89, which consequently defines the range of C2001. | For more details on the Greek sampling process, see the | introductory part of the current codebook. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007): C2001 | | Age is reported as a continuous variable, ranging from 18 to 80 | years old. It was calculated from the respondent's year of birth | according to information from the sample. Corresponding to | information from the Icelandic Election Study, there are 13 | persons in the sample who were born in 1989 and reported to be | not yet eligible to vote. It can be assumed that those | respondents had either only just turned 18 or were not 18 years | old yet. (Compare to Election Study Notes of C3021_1). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2009): C2001 | | Age is reported as a continuous variable, ranging from 18 to 80 | years old. It was calculated from the respondent's year of birth | according to information from the sample. Corresponding to | information from the Icelandic Election Study, there are 2 | persons in the sample who were born in 1991 and reported to be | not (yet) eligible to vote. It can be assumed that those | respondents had either only just turned 18 or were not 18 years | old yet. (Compare to Election Study Notes of C3021_1). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): C2001 | | 13 cases had respondents with ages 18.5, 19.5, 20.5, 21.5 and | 22.5. These 13 cases were rounded up to values without decimals. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C2001 | | Note that respondents aged 76 years or older are captured in a | single category. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 76. Older than 75 years | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C2001 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. AGE RANGE 1 - 20-29 | 02. AGE RANGE 2 - 30-39 | 03. AGE RANGE 3 - 40-49 | 04. AGE RANGE 4 - 50-59 | 05. AGE RANGE 5 - 60 and over | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2008): C2001 | | Detailed information on C2001 for respondents aged 90 years or | older are not available. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. 90 years or older --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C2002 >>> GENDER OF RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D2. Gender of Respondent. .................................................................. 1. MALE 2. FEMALE 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 9. MISSING --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C2003 >>> EDUCATION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D3. Education of respondent. .................................................................. 01. NONE 02. INCOMPLETE PRIMARY 03. PRIMARY COMPLETED 04. INCOMPLETE SECONDARY 05. SECONDARY COMPLETED 06. POST-SECONDARY TRADE/VOCATIONAL SCHOOL 07. UNIVERSITY UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE INCOMPLETE 08. UNIVERSITY UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE COMPLETED 09. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | NOTES: C2003 | | The categories listed were constructed to indicate the | following: | | Incomplete primary: R left school before completing the | level of education required (at the time R left school) | for entry into secondary school. | | Primary completed: R completed the level of education | required (at the time respondent left school) for entry | into secondary school, but has never attended secondary | school. | | Incomplete secondary: R attended secondary school, but | has never achieved the minimum level of qualifications | normally required (at the time R left school) for entry | into university or other degree level higher education. | Respondents currently studying for such qualifications | should also be included in this category. | | Secondary completed: R has at least the minimum | qualifications normally required (at the time R left | school) for entry into university or other degree | level higher education but has never entered a | university or other degree level course of higher | education. | | Post-secondary trade/vocational school: R has attended | a non-degree granting institution teaching a skilled | trade, or providing sub-degree professional or technical. | | University incomplete: R has attended university or | entered other degree level of course of higher education | but either left before successful completion of an | undergraduate level degree, or has yet to complete a | degree upon which currently embarked. | | University degree completed: R has undergraduate level | or higher degree. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C2003 | | Four variables have been used to derive C2003: Age left school | (G1); Number of years of tertiary education (G2); Highest | qualification since leaving school (H3); and Occupation last | week (H4). | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01.* None | R answered "no formal schooling" to H1, | and no further information available | from H2 and H3 | [NO FREQUENCIES] | 02.* Incomplete Primary: | R completed school at age 10, and no | further information available from H2 | and H3 | [NO FREQUENCIES] | 03. Primary Completed: | R answered "went to primary school only" | to H1, or R completed school between ages | of 11-13, or if R answered "still at school" | to H1 and reported 0 years of tertiary | education or "no qualification since | leaving school" to H3 | 04. Incomplete Secondary: | R completed school between ages of 14-16, | and no further information about higher | qualification or degree; or if missing | answer to H1 but had completed one or | more years of "tertiary" education | 05. Secondary Completed: | R completed school at age 17 or above, and | no further information about higher | qualification or degree | 06. Post-Secondary Trade/Vocational School: | R completed school at age 17 or above, had | "Trade" or "Non-trade" qualifications, and | had completed one or more years of "tertiary" | education, or R had an "Associate Diploma" | qualification, or R had an "Undergraduate | Diploma" qualification | 07. University Incomplete | R completed school at age 17 or above, was | "full-time school or university student", | had not previously completed a university | or higher degree, and HAD completed one or | more years of "tertiary" education, or R | completed school at age 17 or above, had not | completed a qualification, and had completed | one or more years of "tertiary" | education | 08. University Degree Completed | R had a "Bachelor Degree" qualification, | or R had a "Postgraduate Degree or Diploma" | qualification | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C2003 | | Note that the Austrian Election Study did not provide the | answer categories "none", "incomplete primary" and "primary | completed" but only a category "compulsory education | incomplete" and "compulsory education completed". | The Austrian education system matched the CSES categories only | with great difficulty. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. [NOT IN USE IN AUSTRIAN DATA] | 02. [NOT IN USE IN AUSTRIAN DATA] | 03. [NOT IN USE IN AUSTRIAN DATA] | 04. 1 Incomplete compulsory education | 05. 2 Compulsory education; | 3 Post-secondary trade/vocational school; | 4 Secondary completed (academic secondary); | 5 Secondary completed (technical and vocational | school) | 06. 6 Post-secondary college | 07. [NOT IN USE IN AUSTRIAN DATA] | 08. 7 University degree completed | 09. 8 Other | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2008): C2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Category/Categories: | 03. Primary complete | 04. Secondary incomplete | 05. Secondary complete | 06. Post-secondary trade/ vocational school | 07. University undergraduate degree incomplete | 08. University undergraduate degree complete | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01.* [NOT IN USE IN BRAZIL DATA] | 02. Illiterate/Primary incomplete | 03. Primary completed | 04. Incomplete secondary (Ginásio/Colégio) | 05. Secondary completed (Colégio) | 06.* [NOT IN USE IN BRAZIL DATA] | 07. University undergraduate degree incomplete | 08. University undergraduate degree completed or more | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C2003 | | The submitted variable classifies respondents into 10 | categories. The following shows the adjustment of the original | codes to the CSES standard. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Illiterate/Never gone to school | 02. Basic 1 incomplete (up to 3rd grade) | Basic 1 completed (4rd grade) | Basic 2 incomplete (up to 7th grade) | 03. Basic 2 completed (8th grade) | 04. Secondary (high school incomplete (up to 2nd | grade) | 05. Secondary-high school completed (3rd grade) | 06. [NOT IN USE IN BRAZIL DATA] | 07. Undergraduate incomplete or Technical incomplete | 08. Undergraduate completed | Post-graduate or more | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2008): C2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. No schooling | 02. Some elementary school | 03. Completed elementary school | 04. Some secondary / high school | 05. Completed secondary / high school | 06. Some technical, community college, CEGEP, | College Classique | Completed technical, community college, | CEGEP, College Classique | 07. Some university | Bachelor's degree | 08. Master's degree | Professional degree or doctorate | | Note that CEGEP (code 6) relates to vocational training (3 year | programs) as well as to pre-university programs (2 year). The | 2nd year of a pre-university program is equivalent to the first | year of university. | College Classique (code 6) is only relevant for older | respondents in Quebec, which is (more or less) equivalent to the | CEGEP pre-university program. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009): C2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. 97. None, did not go to school (original: | Ninguno, no estúdio) | 02. 02-08 1-7° Básico | 03. 09 - Básico, segundo humanidades | 04. 10-12 Enseñanza media, tercero-quinto | humanidades | 05. 13 Enseñanza media, sexto humanidades | 06. 16 Técnico-profesional incompleto | 17 Técnico-profesional completo | 07. 14 University incomplete | 08. 15 University complete | 09. 01 Analphabet | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CROATIA (2007): C2003 | | In the case of the educational variable, Croatia used the | original categories of CSES in their questionnaire. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2006): C2003 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2010): C2003 | | The Czech election study asked for more details. The answer | categories were collapsed to match CSES in the following way: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. [NOT IN USE IN CZECH DATA] | 02. incomplete primary | 03. primary completed | 04. secondary vocational without leaving exam | secondary without leaving exam | 05. secondary with leaving exam | secondary general with leaving exam | 06. post-secondary trade/vocational school; | 08. Bc / MA. / PhD. | 09. "Other" refers to situations in which the | education category was non standard. It may be | for example some kind of artistic education, | conservatories etc. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C2003 | | C2003 depends on the combination of two questions: a) "What is | your school education?" ("Hvad er din skoleuddannelse?")and b) | "What kind of education do you have beyond school?" ("Hvilken | uddannelse har du ud over skoleuddannelsen?"). | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 03. Primary school/basic school | 05. Secondary school/high school | 06. Vocational training | Higher education, short | 07. Higher education, middle | 08. Higher education, long | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2007): C2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. No formal education | 03. Primary education | 04. Lower secondary education, still at school | Vocational school or course, still at school | 05. Upper secondary (general) | /Short vocational training | 06. College level vocational education | 07. Some university studies (university | or polytechnic) | 08. University of applied sciences (polytechnic) | University degree | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C2003 | | Certificates attained are noted in parentheses. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 02. Without a diploma | 03. Primary certificate (Certificat | d'etudes primaires) | 04. Vocational certificates (Certificat | d'aptitude professionel, Ancien Brevet BEPC) | 05. Complete upper secondary (Baccalaureat | general, Baccalaureat technologique) | d'enseignement professionel) | 07. Complete Secondary plus two years | post-secondary training | 08. Complete university degree | "Grandes Ecoles/Ecoles d'Igenieurs" | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C2003 | | Due to the compulsory school attendance, covering pupils aged | 6 to 15, a category for 1 "no education" was not used in the | German questionnaire. Researchers interested in the German | compulsory school attendance should take note that Germany | is a federal state and that the regulations for education | are in the hand of the federal state governments. | Hence, the length of compulsory education may vary across | federal states. | Furthermore, code 4 "incomplete secondary" was not in use in | Germany. People who have not achieved the minimum level of | qualification normally required to enter university are instead | coded as 3 "primary completed". | Finally it has to be noted, that Germany distinguishes between | two different types of university, a general university as well | as an university of applied sciences and an university of | engineering. | The classification of these types of educational institutes to | the CSES codes are: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 02. Incomplete primary | 03. Primary completed, includes primary schools, | junior high schools and the so-called polytechnic | schools of the former federal republic of Germany | 05. Secondary completed covers all persons who | achieved the minimum level of education to enter | any kind of university | 06. Post-secondary trade / vocational school, | includes all persons completed an university | degree of applied sciences or an university of | engineering. | 07. University undergraduate degree incomplete, | covers people going to a general university but | have not finished it (yet). | 08. University undergraduate degree completed | including persons having achieved a minimum level | of university education, e.g. bachelor, master or | the German diploma. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C2003 | | To classify respondent's level of education Germany used a | modified scheme of the ISCED-1997. First, the CSES level | 4 INCOMPLETE SECONDARY was replaced by the ISCED-code 2 for | LOWER SECONDARY. In detail, this category includes people with | a full implementation of basic skills, entering after some 6 | years of primary education, or those who left school after the | compulsory education, ending after 9 years since the beginning of | primary education. | | Second, the CSES category 5 SECONDARY COMPLETED was replaced by | the ISCED category 3 HIGHER SECONDARY, covering respondents, who | have at least the minimum qualifications normally required to | enter into university, or any other degree level of higher | education, but who have never entered a university or other | degree level course of higher education. | Finally, according to the compulsory schooling in Germany, the | use of CSES categories 2 INCOMPLETE PRIMARY and 3 COMPLETE | PRIMARY is not applicable. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. None | 04. Lower secondary isced code 2 | 05. Higher secondary isced code 3 | 06. Post-secondary trade / vocational school | 08. University undergraduate degree completed | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): C2003 | | Respondents' educational status was asked exactly in | according to the categories included in the CSES codebook | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. None (no formal education) | 02. Incomplete primary (primary incomplete) | 03. Primary completed (primary completed) | 04. Incomplete secondary (secondary incomplete) | 05. Secondary completed (secondary completed) | 06. Post-secondary trade/vocational school | (matriculation incomplete, matriculated, | vocational education / sub-degree incomplete, | vocational education / sub-degree completed, pro- | secondary diploma incomplete, pro-secondary | diploma completed) | 07. University undergraduate degree incomplete | (university degree or above incomplete) | 08. University undergraduate degree completed | (university degree or above completed) | 09. Others (not specified) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2009): C2003 | | Note that in the Icelandic election Study respondents were asked | three questions regarding education: | a) if he/she was attending school, | b) at what degree/education respondent had finished and | c) if respondent had started a school or studying for a degree | but not finished (dropped out). | The response categories for each question were a list of 54 | different degrees or level of education and possibility to write | in an explanation about respondent's education. These variables | were then used to calculate the education level as used by CSES. | Due to a coding problem there may be single cases of persons | on a vocational training who already hold a university degree, | which is not reported. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2007): C2003 | | Note that the Irish election study data does not contain | a category "primary incomplete". | | CSES Code Election Study Category/Categories: | 01. 1 none | 02. [NOT IN USE IN IRISH DATA] | 03. 2 completed primary | 04. 3 junior/inter group or eqiv. | 05. 4 leaving cert or equiv | 06. 5 diploma or certificate | 07. [NOT IN USE IN IRISH DATA] | 08. 6 university degree or | equivalent degree completed | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): C2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. None | 02. Incomplete primary | 03. Primary completed | 04. Incomplete secondary | 05. Secondary completed | 06. Post-secondary trade / vocational school | 07. University undergraduate degree incomplete | 08. B.A. | M.A. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): C2003 | | The original wording for the education question in Japan was: | "What is your highest level of education? (If you had | quit school or are currently in school, please choose that | school as your latest background)." In a second question | respondents were separately asked if they completed the type | of school mentioned before. The combination of both answers | approximates the following CSES categories: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 02. new junior high school, former elementary school, | former higher, elementary school - not completed | 03. new junior high school, former elementary school, | former higher, elementary school - completed | 04. new high school, former junior high school - | not completed | 05. new high school, former junior high school - | completed, as well as higher professional | school (kousen), junior college, vocational | school (senshuu gakko), trade school - not | completed | 06. higher professional school (kousen), junior | college, vocational school (senshuu gakko), | trade school - completed | 07. university - not completed | 08. university - completed | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2010): C2003 | | Note that category 0 - no education was not given in the Latvian | election study. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C2003 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. None | 02. Incomplete Primary (Elementary school) | Complete Primary (Elementary school) | Incomplete Secondary (Middle School) | or technical education | 03. Complete Secondary (Middle School) | or technical education | 04. Incomplete Preparatory (High School) | or technical education | 05. Complete Preparatory (High School) | or technical education | 07. Incomplete university degree | 08. Complete university degree or more | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C2003 | | The submitted variable reports "Highest education (completed)" | of respondent", classified into 5 categories. The following | shows the adjustment of the original codes to the CSES standard. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 03. Elementary | 04. (Lower) Vocational | 05. Secondary | 06. Middle level vocational, higher level | secondary | 08. Higher level vocational, university | 99. Don't know / no answer | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C2003 | | The submitted variable reports "Highest education (completed) | of respondent", classified into 5 categories. The following shows | the adjustment of the original codes to the CSES standard. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 03. Elementary | 04. (Lower) Vocational | 05. Secondary | 06. Middle level vocational, higher level secondary | 08. Higher level vocational, university | 98. Don't know / Not answered | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C2003 | | "No education" and "Primary Only" were collapsed into one | category in the 2008 Election Study, all respondents coded as 2, | "Primary only or less". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C2003 | | The construction of education was provided by Statistic | Norway; five variables were used to derive C2003: | Bak27: What kind of general education have you completed? | (7 years of 7 years of primary school or less, 1 year of | practical training, 2 years of practical training, 9 or 10 years | of primary school, 1 year course of college without any formal | education, lower secondary school, 2 years of college, without | formal education, high school, no education). | Bak28: Have you completed another education where the studies | normally take more than 4 to 5 months full-time? | Bak29a: What is the duration of this education? Specify Year | Bak29b: What is the duration of this education? Specify Month | Bak30: Is any of this on the university or college level? | | The final variable contains only three categories which | correspond to the CSES categories as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 03. Primary completed | 05. Secondary completed | 08. University undergraduate completed | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C2003 | | Note that the Norwegian variable on education differentiates | only between three categories. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 03. Primary completed | 05. Secondary completed | 08. University undergraduate degree completed | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2011): C2003 | | The Peruvian question on respondents education bases on the | the years of formal education. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. No education (0 years) | 02. Incomplete primary (1 trough 5 years) | 03. Primary completed (6 years) | 04. Incomplete secondary (7 trough 10 years) | 05. Secondary completed (11 through 13 years) | 06. Post secondary trade / vocational school | (14 years) | 07. University undergraduate degree incomplete | (15 through 18 years) | 08. University undergraduate degree complete | (more than 18 years) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C2003 | | Respondent's education was asked in the CSES manner, including | an additional category for post university degrees. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 09. Post University | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): C2003 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. No education | 02. Incomplete primary | 03. Primary | 04. Basic vocational school | Secondary incomplete | 05. Secondary vocational | Secondary school | 06. Post-secondary | 07. Higher incomplete (6 semesters or more) | 08. Three-year college or vocational studies | Higher education | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2009): C2003 | | The Portuguese questionnaire 2009 follows the implementation of | CSES to ask for respondent's education, including some further | information; however, a category for post-secondary trade / | vocational school was not included. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. None | 02. Primary incomplete | 03. Primary school (4th grade) | 04. Incomplete secondary | 05. Full secondary (former 7th grade / current 12th | grade) | 07. University undergraduate degree incomplete | 08. University undergraduate degree complete | (bachelor / graduated) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Pre-school education (Kindergarten) | 02. Primary school incomplete | 03. Primary education (4 years) - Primary school | 04. Lower secondary education (6 years), including | Lower secondary school - Gymnasium (4 years) | High school lower cycle (2 years) | 05. Upper secondary education (2 years) - | High school upper cycle | 06. Post-secondary education - | Post high school education | 07. University education, including Bachelor | (3-6 years) and Master (2 years) | 08. Post university education: Doctorate (3 years) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2010): C2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 02. Incomplete primary | 03. Primary completed | 04. Incomplete secondary | 05. Secondary completed specific | Secondary completed general | 06. Vocational 1 | Vocational 2 | Vocational 3 | 07. Post-secondary | University - Bachelor-Degree | 08. University - Master Degree | 09. University - PhD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2009): C2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 09. Post university | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2008): C2003 | | Questioning for the education level followed the schema provided | for CSES Module 3. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2008): C2003 | | The question on education slightly differs from the CSES | manner, providing nine different answer categories. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Less than primary, illiterate, doesn't know | how to read | Less than primary, literate, knows how to read | 02. Complete primary | 03. Former Elementary School, Compulsory Primary | 04. Vocational, Professional Education | 05. Former High School, Compulsory Secondary | 06. Pre-University Year, Present High School | 07. Undergraduate University (Bachelor's) | 08. Graduate University and Engineering | (M.A., M.S., PhD.) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C2003 | | This variable was constructed from the original dataset by the | collaborator. The original eleven categories include the | following: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 03. Primary School: 6 or 7-year primary/ | secondary school (old system) | Comprehensive School: 8 or 9-year | comprehensive school (current system) | 04. Vocational School: Various forms of | vocational and apprentice education | received in publicly organized school, | 1-year trade college | Secondary School: 2-year secondary | school (old) system), total: 9 | years education | Secondary/High School: 2-year secondary | school (current system), total:11 years | education | Upper Secondary/High School: 3 or 4-year | secondary school (current system), total: | 12 years education. No Degree studying at | this level | 05. Upper Secondary/High School: As above. | Completed degree. | 06. Post-Secondary/High School, not university | (No degree studying at this level) | 06. Post-Secondary/High School, not university | (completed degree) | 07. University: No degree studying at this | level | 08. University: Completed degree/continued | education | 98. Volunteered: don't know/refused | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C2003 | | The Swiss survey only used five categories. They correspond to | the CSES categories as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. None | 03. Primary school | 05. Secondary school | 06. Basic vocational training | Vocational training, apprenticeship | Diploma school | Trading school | Secondary school vocational diploma | High school, school preparing for the | Baccalaureate | Higher vocational education | Higher vocational education with master | Diploma | Higher vocational college | 08. University | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Illiterate | Literate but no formal schooling | 02. Some primary school | 03. Primary school graduate | 04. Some junior high school | Junior high school graduate | Some high school or vocational school | Some technical college | 05. High school or vocational school graduate | 06. Technical college graduate | 07. Some university | 08 University graduate | Post-graduate education | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. None | 02. Primary school not completed | 03. Finished primary school | 04. Secondary, high school not completed | 05. Finished secondary, high school | 06. Vocational training | 07. University level not completed | 08. University level | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): C2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. No formal education | 02. Primary school dropout | 03. Primary school graduate | 04. Secondary school dropout | 05. Secondary school graduate | 06. High school dropout | High school graduate | 07. College dropout | 08. College graduate | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2008): C2003 | | Respondent's education was constructed in the use of three | different variables, asking for | 1. The highest grade of school or years of college completed, | 2. Achieving a high school diploma, and | 3. The highest school degree respondent's has earned. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. 0-8 grades - no HS diploma/equivalency | 02. 9-12 grades - no HS diploma/equivalency | 03. 0-12 grades - HS diploma/equivalency | 04. 13+ grades, no degree | 05. Junior or community college level degrees | (AA degrees) | 06. BA level degrees or 17+ grades with no advanced | degree | 07. Advanced degree (including LLB) | 08. University undergraduate degree, completed --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C2004 >>> MARITAL OR CIVIL UNION STATUS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D4. Respondent's marital or civil union status. .................................................................. 1. MARRIED OR LIVING TOGETHER AS MARRIED 2. WIDOWED 3. DIVORCED OR SEPARATED (MARRIED BUT SEPARATED/ NOT LIVING WITH LEGAL SPOUSE) 4. SINGLE, NEVER MARRIED 5. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | NOTES: C2004 | | This variable reports the respondent's current marital | status. For instance, a person who is both divorced and | living together as married would be coded 1. | | Note that C2004 is a filter question for spouses' occupational | variables (C2015 through C2019), which was not applied for all | countries in the final release of the CSES. For more details | see Elections Study Notes, below, as well as Election Study | Notes on C2015 through C2019. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C2004 | | Note some differences in the Austrian Election Study data: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Married or living together as married | 02. Widowed | 03. Divorced or separated | Married but separated/not living with legal | spouse | 04. Single, never married | 05. Long-term relationship | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C2004 | | The Brazilian election study distinguished between more | categories which were collapsed to the CSES standard as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Married | Lives together | 02. Widowed | 03. Divorced | Separated | 04. Bachelor | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C2004 | | The original marital status variable had separate response | categories for 'Married' ("Marié(e)"), 'Living together | as married' ("Vit en concubinage") and PACSÉ, (Pacte Civil de | solidarité) which is a contractual partnership between 2 people | of legal age to organize their life in common. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007): C2004 | | Note that one respondent reported not to be married in C2004, | but presented occupational information for a spouse in C2015 | through C2019. This may be due to some problem with | interviewing. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2007): C2004 | | Note that in Ireland C2004 lays emphasis on the legal status | of marriage, thereby under-representing in code 1 those who | are not married, but are living together as married. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C2004 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C2004 | | As most of the demographic variables, the marital status | variable has been added to the data-file by Statistics | Netherlands on the basis of population records. Therefore, the | variable is based on the legal definition of being married or in | registered partnership. As a result, there is a number of | respondents coded as not married in V422 but also as having "a | partner that is a member of the household" according to V440 | (the variable based on interview records). | In order to bring this variable closer to the CSES definition of | C2004, respondents with a partner in household were coded as | "1." in C2004 regardless of their code in the original marital | status variable, unless they were coded "2. Single" or "7. | Parent in single parent household" in variable "V423 Place of | respondent in household". In the latter case the cases remained | in their original marital status categories. | Note that this adjustment reduces the skip pattern inconsistency | between C2004 and variables dealing with spouse's socioeconomic | status (C2015), but does not eliminate it. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2010): C2004 | | Note that category 3, "divorced or separated" were two | separate code categories in the Slovakian Election Study. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): C2004 | | Note that the Slovenian data include several respondents that | mentioned neither to be married nor to live with a partner, but | that present information on spouses' occupation. According to | the Slovenian collaborators, this might have happened due to | interviewer errors in the occupational variables (C2015 through | C2019). These data remained unchanged. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2008): C2004 | | The question on marital status slightly differs from the CSES | manner, providing six different answer categories. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. 02. Married (Casado) | 03. Coupled (en pareja) | 02. 06. Widowed (viudo) | 03. 04. Separated (Separado) | 05. Divoreced (divorciado) | 04. 01. Single (soltero) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C2004 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 08. Volunteered: don't know/refused | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C2004 | | In the Swiss survey, category "01. Married or Living Together as | Married" does not include those "Living Together as Married". | In contrast living together with a partner was asked in a single | variable. The combination of both equates the given category | "01. Married or Living Together as Married". | The combination yields some cases that mentioned | widowed (eleven cases), divorced (90 cases) or single (244 | cases), but are living together with a (new) partner. These 345 | observations have been defined as "01. Married or Living | Together as Married". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C2004 | | The Taiwanese election study distinguished between more | categories which were collapsed to the CSES standard as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Married or living as married | Cohabitation without legal marrying | 02. Widowed | 03. Separated | Divorced | 04. Single --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C2005 >>> UNION MEMBERSHIP --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D5. Union membership of respondent. .................................................................. 1. R IS MEMBER OF A UNION 2. R IS NOT A MEMBER OF A UNION 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | NOTES: C2005 | | Data are not available for CHILE (2009), SPAIN (2008). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C2005 | | The original question related to union membership included | responses for both professional associations and unions | combined. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C2005 | | In general the membership in a trade union and a business or | employer association is unusual for a single person in Germany. | However, there are several cases, e.g. pilots or public | employees unions, which are close to associations of | professions. Consequently, the German data include some | observations, which mentioned a membership in both types of | organizations. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2007): C2005-C2009 | | The Irish election study does not differentiate between | different kinds of unions or associations for employees or | self-employed respondents. | Also note that persons currently not working (e.g. unemployed, | or retired) were systematically asked to answer this question | according to their former occupation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C2005 | | The Polish data of 2007 include three persons that are both a | member of a union (C2005) and also in a business or employer | association (C2007). However, even if this is unusual, it is | possible in several circumstances. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C2005 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 08. Volunteered: don't know/refused --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C2006 >>> UNION MEMBERSHIP OF OTHERS IN HOUSEHOLD --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D6. Someone in household other than respondent is a member of a union. .................................................................. 1. SOMEONE ELSE (OTHER THAN R) IS MEMBER OF A UNION 2. NO ONE ELSE (OTHER THAN R) IS A MEMBER OF A UNION 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | NOTES: C2006 | | See also notes for variable C2005. | | Data are not available for CHILE (2009), DENMARK (2007), FINLAND | (2007), FINLAND (2011), ICELAND (2007), ICELAND (2009), IRELAND | (2007), NORWAY (2005), NORWAY (2009), PERU (2011), POLAND | (2005), POLAND (2007), SLOVAKIA (2010), SLOVENIA (2008), SPAIN | (2008), SWITZERLAND (2007). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C2006 | | In contrast to the CSES implementation, Australia only covers | the membership for spouses but not for other household members. | The original wording of the Australian questionnaire had been: | "Does your partner belong to a trade union?" | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C2006 | | The original question related to union membership included | responses for both professional associations and unions | combined, of the respondent's partner. This question does not | ask whether someone else in the household other than the partner | is a member of a union. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 98. 997 Don't know / Not answered | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 08. Volunteered: don't know/refused --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C2007 >>> BUSINESS OR EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D7. R is a member of a business or employers' association. .................................................................. 1. R IS A MEMBER OF A BUSINESS OR EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATION 2. R IS NOT A MEMBER OF A BUSINESS OR EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATION 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | NOTES: C2007 | | Data are not available for AUSTRALIA (2007), AUSTRIA (2008), | CHILE (2009), DENMARK (2007), FINLAND (2011), ICELAND (2007), | ICELAND (2009), IRELAND (2007), PERU (2011), SLOVAKIA (2010), | SLOVENIA (2008), SPAIN (2008), UNITED STATES (2008). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C2007 | | This question was not asked in the Austrian Election Study due | to compulsory memberships. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2008): C2007 | | The Canadian election study used a slightly different wording | in the context of respondent's business or employers' | association membership: "Been active during the past five | years: Business association, yes or no" | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2006): C2007 | | Note that round 21% of respondents in a trade union also report | membership in an employer's association. This could be partly | due to the similarity of the words employer and employee in the | Czech language. Some respondents may thus have misunderstood | question C2007. However, this may only affect answers to C2007 | and not C2005 since in C2005 the wording was "trade union | membership". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C2007 | | In general the membership in a trade union and a business or | employer association is unusual for a single person in Germany. | However, there are several cases, e.g. pilots or public | employees unions, which are close to associations of | professions. Consequently, the German data include some | observations that mentioned a membership in both types of | organizations. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C2007 | | This item and the subsequent questions about organizational | membership were asked in the following manner: "Can you please | tell me if you belong to any of the following associations? | Business or employers association." | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. R is a member | 02. R is not a member | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C2007 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 8. 997 Don't know / Not answered | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C2007 | | Note that 9 members of a Business or Employers' Association | are also members of a Union (in C2005). Although single cases | of response error are possible, being a member in both | kinds of organizations may also be reasonable for specific | situations (e.g. for managers in the public sector, school | principals or private sector contractors such as truck drivers, | who may want their own work interests as well as contracting | issues addressed). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C2007 | | The Polish data of 2007 include three persons that are both a | member of a union (C2005) and also in a business or employer | association (C20077). However, even if this is unusual, it is | possible in several circumstances. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C2007 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 08. Volunteered: don't know/refused | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C2007 | | Note that there are 107 respondents who are members of a union | as well as a business or employers' association.In Taiwan, it is | quite common that people who own small businesses also have | part-time jobs. They may well join both associations. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C2008 >>> FARMERS' ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D8. R is a member of a farmers' association. .................................................................. 1. R IS A MEMBER OF A FARMERS' ASSOCIATION 2. R IS NOT A MEMBER OF A FARMERS' ASSOCIATION 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | NOTES: C2008 | | Data are not available for AUSTRALIA (2007), AUSTRIA (2008), | BRAZIL (2006), BRAZIL (2010), CHILE (2009), DENMARK (2007), | FINLAND (2011), FRANCE (2007), ICELAND (2007), ICELAND (2009), | IRELAND (2007), NETHERLANDS (2006), NETHERLANDS (2010), SLOVAKIA | (2010), SLOVENIA (2008), SPAIN (2008), SWITZERLAND (2007), | (2008). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C2008 | | This question was not asked in the Austrian Election Study due | to compulsory memberships. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2008): C2008 | | The Canadian election study used a slightly different wording | in the context of respondent's farmers' association membership: | "Been active during the past five years: Farmer's association, | yes or no" | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C2008 | | This item and the subsequent questions about organizational | membership were asked in the following manner: "Can you please | tell me if you belong to any of the following associations? | Farmers or agricultural organization." | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. R is a member | 02. R is not a member | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C2008 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 08. Volunteered: don't know/refused --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C2009 >>> PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D9. R is a member of a professional association. .................................................................. 1. R IS A MEMBER OF A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 2. R IS NOT A MEMBER OF A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | NOTES: C2009 | | Data are not available for AUSTRALIA (2007), AUSTRIA (2008), | CHILE (2009), DENMARK (2007), FINLAND (2011), ICELAND (2007), | ICELAND (2009), IRELAND (2007), SLOVAKIA (2010), SLOVENIA | (2008), SPAIN (2008), SWEDEN (2006), SWITZERLAND (2007), | UNITED STATES (2008). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C2009 | | This question was not asked in the Austrian Election Study due | to compulsory memberships. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2008): C2009 | | The Canadian election study used a slightly different wording | in the context of respondent's professional association | membership: "Been active during the past five years: | Professional association, yes or no" | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C2009 | | This item and the subsequent questions about organizational | membership were asked in the following manner: "Can you please | tell me if you belong to any of the following associations? | Professional association." | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. R is a member | 02. R is not a member | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C2009 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 8. 997 Don't know / Not answered --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C2010 >>> CURRENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D10. Current employment status of respondent. .................................................................. IN LABOR FORCE: 01. EMPLOYED - FULL-TIME (32+ HOURS WEEKLY) 02. EMPLOYED - PART-TIME (15-32 HOURS WEEKLY) 03. EMPLOYED - LESS THAN 15 HOURS 04. HELPING FAMILY MEMBER 05. UNEMPLOYED NOT IN LABOR FORCE: 06. STUDENT, IN SCHOOL, IN VOCATIONAL TRAINING 07. RETIRED 08. HOUSEWIFE, HOME DUTIES 09. PERMANENTLY DISABLED 10. OTHERS, NOT IN LABOR FORCE 11. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 12. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | NOTES: C2010 | | Data are not available for BRAZIL (2006). | | Respondents who are temporarily unemployed are coded | UNEMPLOYED. Respondents on "workfare" or enrolled in | a government job training program are coded EMPLOYED. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C2010 | | The Australian questionnaire divided up the category of | unemployment, asking if respondent is looking for a full or part | time job: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories | 01. Working full-time for pay | 02. Working part-time for pay | 05. Unemployed-looking for full-time work | Unemployed-looking for part-time work | 06. A full-time school or university student | 07. Retired from paid work | 08. Keeping house | 10. Others | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C2010 | | Note some differences in the Austrian election Study data: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Employed - full time | 02. Employed - part time | 03 Employed - less than 15 hours | 04. [NOT IN USE IN AUSTRIAN DATA] | 05. Unemployed | 06. Student, | In school | Apprentice | 07. Retired | 08. Housewife, homemaker, home duties | 09. Permanently disabled | 10. Military/civilian service | 11. Parental leave or other leave of absence | 12. Professional/vocational retraining | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2008): C2010 | | For current employment status in Belarus, there are no | frequencies in the choice option 4. "helping family member" | although this option was offered to respondents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C2010 | | The Brazilian 2010 election study does not differentiate | full-time and part-time employment. Variable from the original | data file are recoded in the following way: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Employed | Autonomous | Liberal professional (medecin, lawer, etc) | Employer | 04. Helps someone in the family and receives | remuneration | Helps someone in the family with no | remuneration | 05. Unemployed | 06. Student | Apprentice with remuneration | Apprentice with no remuneration | 07. Retired | Retired for medical reasons | Receives pension | 08. Housewife | 10. Is not working, Social Security decision | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2008): C2010 | | Note that the Canadian study provided slightly different answer | categories, in comparison to the CSES. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Working for pay (full- or part-time) | 05. Unemployed / looking for work | 06. Student | Student and working for pay | 07. Retired | Retired and working for pay | 08. Caring for a family | Caring for family and working for pay | 09. Disabled | 10. Other | 11. Self-employed (with / without employees) | 12. Work at two or more jobs | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009): C2010 | | The question was asked with different answer categories | Note that code 1 is used here for all persons working in spite | of not knowing for how many hours. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2007): C2010 | | The Finish survey originally included more detailed | information that could be subsumed into CSES categories. | Note the following information on categories 7-10: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories | 01. Employed - full time (32 or more hours weekly) | 02. Employed - part time (15 to less than 32 hours | weekly) | 03. Employed - less than 15 hours | 04. Helping family member | 05. Unemployed | 06. Student, in school, in vocational training | 07. Retired (because of age or other reasons) | 08. Housewife, homemaker, home duties (including | persons on parental leave) | 10. (presently) in army or civil service | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C2010 | | Variable from the original | French data file are recoded in the following way: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Employed | 05. Unemployed | 06. Student or internship | 07. Retired | 08. Housewife/house duties | 09. Permanently disabled | 98. Refused | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C2010 | | The German classification of full- and part-time working differs | slightly from the original CSES coding schema: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories | 01. Employed - full-time (35+ hours weekly) | 02. Employed - part-time (15-35 hours weekly) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 11. Not applicable (never employed) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007): C2010 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2009): C2010 | | The variable was calculated basing on replies to two questions: | a) how many hours per week the respondent worked in the last | month and b) if the respondent had not been working last month, | which of the following applied to them: unemployed, student, | retired, housewife or permanently disabled. | Note that respondents could have answered as per option 3 | (employed less than 15 hours) while 4 - "Helping family member" | was not included as an answer category in the Icelandic | election study. | 10 - other is a "catch-all" category for those temporarily not | working, for example due to health reasons, vacation, or | parental leave. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2007): C2010 | | Note that different from the CSES definition, in the Irish | election study full-time work means up to 30 hours and part-time | less than 30 hours weekly. A category for part time "less than | 15 hours" was not in the Irish election study data. | Also note a slightly different wording in some of the answers. | | CSES Code Election Study Category/Categories: | 01. At work full-time (30+ hrs) | 02. At work part-time (<30hrs) | 03. [NOT IN USE IN IRISH DATA] | 04. Relative assisting/unpaid family worker | 05. Unemployed and seeking work | 06. Student | 07. Retired | 08. Engaged in home duties | 09. Long term sick or disabled | 10. Other | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): C2010 | | For current employment status in Israel, there are no | frequencies in the choice option 4. "helping family member" | although this option was offered to respondents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2010): C2010 | | The Latvian data in this question is a composition from | originally three questions (D14, D141, D142O). For this reason | some decisions on collapsing the answers into the CSES | categories had to be taken. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories | 01. Works full time (D141) and is | - an entrepreneur (D14), or | - a salaried worker (D14), or | - currently on maternity leave (D14) | 04. All helping family members (D14), even if working | full time (D141) | 05. Includes persons on maternity leave (D14) who | also said they had not worked (D142O) or | they have no job (D142O) | 08. Including one person on maternity leave (D14) who | also said I'm taking care of my children (D142O) | 10. Others not in labor force, including persons | on maternity leave (D14) who also said they did | not have a job before birth of a child (D142O) | 11. Persons on maternity leave (D14) who answered | - refused/don't know/missing in D141 | and on a paid child-care leave in D142O | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Employed - full-time | 02. Employed - half-time | 03. Employed - just at some times | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C2010 | | The DPES provides a reduced number of categories for this | variable: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Works 36 or more hours per week | 02. Works 12-35 hours per week | 03. Works less than 12 hours per week | 11. Does not work | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C2010 | | This variable is constructed on the basis of two variables from | the DPES study: "V415 Position in work community" and "V446 | Social economic category respondent". The following table | shows the construction of this variable. | variable: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. 03. Paid employment (V415) | 04. Co-working (V415) | 05. Self-employed (V415) | 02. 02. Works less than 12 hours per week (V415) | 05. 01. Does not work (V415) | 06. 12. Student (V446) | 07. 10. Pensioner, under 65 (V446) | 11. Pensioner, 65 and older (V446) | 09. 09. Disabled (V446) | 10. 13. Other not active (V446) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C2010 | | Ten variables have been used to derive C2010: | Bak4 How many hours a week do you usually work in your job? | Bak5a Do you consider yourself as working, student, retired, | pensioner or receiving disability benefit, domestic worker, | unemployed, conscript, draftee? | Bak5c Do you have tasks that involve leading/supervising the | work of others? | Bak5d What is your primary occupation? | Bak6 Description of job in primary occupation (employed, | independent with hired help, independent without hired help, | family member) | Bak7 Employer description (privately owned firm, joint-stock | company, organization, local service, county service, public | service) | Bak9b Did you have any tasks which involved supervising the work | of others? | Bak9c What was your last primary occupation? | Bak11 Former job description (employed, independent with hired | help, independent without hired help, family member) | Bak13 Former employer description privately owned firm, joint- | stock company, organization, local service, county service, | public service) | | Furthermore, C2012 does not include a category for helping | family members, as well as permanently disabled persons. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Employed - full-time (32+ hours weekly) | 02. Employed - part-time (15-32 hours weekly) | 03. Employed - less than 15 hours weekly | 05. Unemployed | 06. Student, in school, in vocational training | 07. Retired | 08. Housewife, home duties | 10. Others, not in labor force | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2011): C2010 | | Note that categories "2. Employed - part time (15-32 hours | weekly)", "3. Employed - less than 15 hours", and "4. Helping | family members" is not used in the Peruvian data, due to the | informal sector in Peru, which makes it hard to classify the | weekly working hours. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C2010 | | Note that categories on employment differ slightly from the CSES | manner. Moreover, the Romanian data include several additional | categories. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Employed - full-time (30+ hours weekly) | 02. Employed - part-time (15-30 hours weekly) | 03. Employed - less than 15 hours | 04. Helping family member | 05. Unemployed | 06. Student, in school, in vocational training | 07. Retired | 08. Housewife, home duties | 09. Permanently disabled | 10. Others, not in labor force, parental leave | 11. Entrepreneur, business owner, self-employees | 12. Day laborer | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): C2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 11. Self-Employed | 12. Retired, but with additional work | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2009): C2010 | | Note that the current employment status of South African | citizens covers only the current labor force status, without any | further differentiations. The questionnaire asked: "Do you have | a job that pays a cash income? Is it full-time or part-time? And | are you presently looking for a job (even if you are presently | working)?" Codes "06. Student" and "08. Home duties" are from | the original variables on respondent's occupational status | (q134). | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 01. Full time (not looking) | Full time (looking) | 02. Part time (not looking) | Part time (looking) | 05. No (looking) | 06. Student (from q134) | 08. Housewife / works in the household (from q134) | 10. No (not looking) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2008): C2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 11. Self-employed | 12. Employer | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 98. Volunteered: don't know/refused | | For current employment status in Sweden, there are no | frequencies in the choice option 4. "helping family member" | although this option was offered to respondents | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C2010 | | The original categories, used in the Swiss questionnaire, differ | slightly from the general CSES coding, which is especially true | for code 2 "Employed - Part Time (5-39 hours)". | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Employed - full-time (40 hours or more) | 02. Employed - part-time (5-39 hours) | 04. Helping family member | 05. Unemployed | 06. Vocational training | 07. Retired | 08. Housewife, homemaker | 09. Permanently disabled | 10 Others, not in labor force | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2008): C2010 | | The US-data of origin includes an additional category for | temporarily unemployment (code 11). | The weekly hours of work were asked separately and combined for | C2010. If the information on working hours were not available, | an additional category (code 12) was used. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 11. Temporarily Laid Off | 12. Employed - no weekly hours specified --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C2011 >>> MAIN OCCUPATION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D11. Main occupation of respondent. .................................................................. ARMED FORCES 01. ARMED FORCES LEGISLATORS, SENIOR OFFICIALS, AND MANAGERS 11. LEGISLATORS AND SENIOR OFFICIALS 12. CORPORATE MANAGERS 13. GENERAL MANAGERS PROFESSIONALS 21. PHYSICAL, MATHEMATICAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCE 22. LIFE SCIENCE AND HEALTH PROFESSIONALS 23. TEACHING PROFESSIONALS 24. OTHER PROFESSIONALS TECHNICIANS AND ASSOCIATED PROFESSIONALS 31. PHYSICAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCE ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 32. LIFE SCIENCE AND HEALTH ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 33. TEACHING ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 34. OTHER ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS CLERKS 41. OFFICE CLERKS 42. CUSTOMER SERVICES CLERKS 43. ADMINISTRATION OF CHARITABLE OR NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS SERVICES WORKERS AND SHOP AND MARKET SALES WORKERS 51. PERSONAL AND PROTECTIVE SERVICE WORKERS 52. MODELS, SALES PERSONS AND DEMONSTRATORS 53. TRADE, CONSUMER SERVICES SKILLED AGRICULTURAL AND FISHERY WORKERS 61. MARKET-ORIENTED SKILLED AGRICULTURAL AND FISHERY WORKERS 62. SUBSISTENCE AGRICULTURAL AND FISHERY WORKERS CRAFT AND RELATED TRADE WORKERS 71. EXTRACTION AND BUILDING TRADE WORKERS 72. METAL, MACHINERY AND RELATED TRADE WORKERS 73. PRECISION, HANDICRAFT, PRINTING AND RELATED TRADE WORKERS 74. OTHER CRAFT AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS PLANT AND MACHINE OPERATORS AND ASSEMBLERS 81. STATIONARY-PLANT AND RELATED OPERATORS 82. MACHINE OPERATORS AND ASSEMBLERS 83. DRIVERS AND MOBILE-PLANT OPERATORS 84. OTHER PLANT AND MACHINE OPERATORS AND ASSEMBLERS ELEMENTARY OCCUPATIONS 91. SALES AND SERVICES ELEMENTARY OCCUPATIONS 92. AGRICULTURAL, FISHERY AND RELATED LABORERS 93. LABORERS IN MINING, CONSTRUCTION, MANUFACTURING AND TRANSPORT 94. OTHER POSITIONS IN ELEMENTARY OCCUPATIONS 96. OTHER OR NON-CLASSIFIABLE OCCUPATIONS (NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO CLASSIFY) 10. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 20. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 30. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 40. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 50. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 60. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 70. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 80. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 90. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | NOTES: C2011 | | Data are not available for BRAZIL (2006), BRAZIL (2010), CHILE | (2009), SLOVAKIA (2010), SLOVENIA (2008). | | See also notes for C2010. | | This variable reports the respondent's main occupation; that | is, the job at which the respondent spends the most time or | if the respondent spends an equal amount of time on two jobs, | it is the one from which the respondent earns the most money. | For respondents who are currently employed, this variable | reports their current occupation. For respondents who are | retired or not currently working, this variable reports | respondent's last occupation. | | Coding conventions employ the first two-digits of 1988 | ISCO / ILO International Standard Classification of Occupations | Code from the International Labor Office, CH-1211, Geneva 22, | Switzerland. | | In some cases it has not been possible to strictly adhere to the | ISCO/ILO conventions. Users will find that some categories have | been added to the ISCO/ILO list in order to accommodate the | occupations of respondents who were not easily classified. | Please refer to specific Election Study Notes for clarification | of additional codes. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C2011 | | Australia used the AZNSCO-2, a modified version of the ISCO- | 88 COM, which had been transformed into the CSES standard coding | scheme. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 12. Generalist Managers | 13. Managers and Administrators | Specialist Managers | Farmers and Farm Managers | Hospitality, Retail and Service Manager | 13. Hospitality, Retail and Service Manager | 21. Science, Building and Engineering | Professionals | 22. Health Professionals | 23. Education Professionals | 24. Professionals | Business and Information Professionals | Social, Arts and Miscellaneous | Professionals | ICT Professionals | Legal, Social and Welfare Professionals | 31. Science, Engineering and Related | Professionals | 32. Health and Welfare Associate Professionals | 34. Associate Professionals | Business and Administration Associate | Professionals | Managing Supervisors (Sales and Service) | Other Associate Professionals | 41. Secretaries and Personal Assistants | Other Advanced Clerical and Service Workers | Intermediate Clerical Workers | General Clerical Workers | Inquiry Clerks and Receptionists | Numerical Clerks | Clerical and Office Support Workers | Personal Assistants and Secretaries | 42. Intermediate Clerical, Sales and Service | Workers | Intermediate Sales and Related Workers | Intermediate Service Workers | 52. Store persons | 53. Food Trades Workers | 61. Skilled Agricultural and Horticultural | Workers | 61. Skilled Animal and Horticultural Worker | 62. Farm, Forestry and Garden Workers | 71. Construction Tradespersons | 72. Mechanical and Fabrication Engineering | Tradespersons | Automotive Tradespersons | Electrical and Electronics Tradespersons | 74. Tradespersons and Related Workers | Food Tradespersons | Other Tradespersons and Related Workers | 82. Intermediate Machine Operators | 83. Intermediate Production and Transport Workers | Road and Rail Transport Drivers | 84. Intermediate Plant Operators | Other Intermediate Production and Transport | Workers | 91. Elementary Clerical, Sales and Service | Workers | Elementary Clerks | Elementary Sales Workers | Elementary Service Workers | Food Preparation Assistants | 93. Factory Labourers | 94. Labourers and Related Workers | Cleaners | Other Labourers and Related Workers | 96. Other Labourers | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C2011 | | Respondents who were currently not in labor force were | systematically asked what had been their main occupation before. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 20. Professionals, not further distinguished | 30. Technicians and Associated Professionals, | not further distinguished | 40. Clerks, not further distinguished | 50. Services Workers and Shop And Market Sales | Workers, not further distinguished | 80. Plant and Machine Operators and Assemblers, | not further distinguished | 90. Elementary Occupations, not further | distinguished | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2008): C2011 | | A number of people, who pointed out that they are not currently | employed in the labor force (C2010), nevertheless answered the | question about their current employment status. The question | in the Belarussian questionnaire referred to present employment | or last employment. For respondents who are currently employed, | this variable reports their current occupation. For | respondents who are retired or not currently working, this code | captures their last occupation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C2011 | | The two variables from the deposited Brazil data do not match | the ISCO - 88 convention. | | Employment issues were only defined in sector categories. This | does not allow any detailed conclusions (e.g. a person's job | training background). Hence, the level of details does not allow | matching or even collapsing for C2011. The variable is therefore | coded missing. | | The two variables of the Brazilian election study read as | follows: | | Variable d4b In which place do you work? | | Industry | Commerce | Services | Civil Servant | Public/State enterprises | Aid Organizations, NGO | Agriculture/fish/animal farm | Don't know / no answer | | Variable d4c (Only if "Services" is the answer for question d4b) | Which of these categories fits to the kind of services you do? | | Banks and financial institutions | Hotel, lodge, tourism, restaurants | Informatics and information organization | General services of house and building maintenance | Cleaners | Maintenance of car and machines | Health | People and charge transportation and distribution | Media, advertising and research | Safety | Education | Other (open-ended) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2008): C2011 | | The Canadian study asked for respondent's occupational status in | use of the National Occupational Classification (NOC) 2011, | which was transferred into the ISCO-88 scale, according to the | concordance table, provided by Statistics Canada. | | Some of the respondents that mentioned to be retired, to care | for family, or to be a student, but who also work in a paid job | (see C2010), report their main occupational status in C2011. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009): C2011 | | Note that the Chilean Election Study contains a question of | respondents occupations with broader answer categories which | could not be fitted into the ISO/ILO list of C2011. However, the | answers were used for C2012. See the Election Study Notes of | C2012. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CROATIA (2007): C2011 | | Note that the Latvian election study asked respondents to | categorize themselves in broader categories which do not fully | fit to the ISCO table, especially in the values 60 to 96. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 10. Higher managers and administrators | Lower managers and administrators | 20. Self-employed professionals | Employed professionals | 40. Office clerks and lower white collar employees | 50. Skilled workers in services and industry | 60. Farmers and fishermen | 90. Unskilled workers | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2006): C2011 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2010): C2011 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 20. Professionals, not further distinguished | 30. Technicians and Associated Professionals, | not further distinguished | 70. Craft and related trades workers, | not further distinguished | 80. Plant and Machine Operators and Assemblers, | not further distinguished | 90. Elementary occupations, | not further distinguished | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2007): C2011 | | For respondents who are currently employed, this variable | reports their current occupation. For respondents who are | retired or not currently working, this variable reports | respondents' last occupation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): C2011 | | Note that respondents' occupational status was asked only for | those who were currently in the labor force (excluding | unemployed persons), according to variable C2010. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007): C2011 | | Note that due to filtering mistakes within the data collection | there are no occupation codes for respondents working part-time. | Socioeconomic status (C2012) was asked, see below. | For full-time students, persons with home duties and permanently | disabled were not ask for their former occupation. | However, respondents who reported that they were retired, | could answer C2011, indicating their previous main occupation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2009): C2011 | | Note that in the Icelandic election study 2009, respondents | who had reported that they were not currently employed, | could not answer C2011. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 10. Legislators, senior officials and managers | not further distinguished | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2007): C2011 | | Note that the categorization in the data originally | contained 4 digits. This was shortened to our two-digits use | of the ISCO-88. For a greater level of details we refer to | the original data in the Irish Election Study. Some values of | the original codes suggest that ISCO-08 from 2008 was used. | However, since the broader two-digit code stayed largely the | same with the change from ISCO-88 to ISCO-08, the transfer of | the codes looks appropriate. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): C2011 | | A number of people, who pointed out that they are not currently | employed in the labor force (C2010), nevertheless answered the | question about their current employment status. The question | in the questionnaire referred to present employment | or last employment. For respondents who are currently employed, | this variable reports their current occupation. For respondents | who are retired or not currently working, this code captures | their last occupation. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 99. Never Worked | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2010): C2011 | | Note that the Latvian election study asked respondents to | categorize themselves in broader categories which do not fully | fit to the ISCO table, especially in the values 60 to 96. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 10. Top level and mid level managers | 20. Highly skilled specialist ((doctor, lawyer, | teacher etc) | 30. Skilled specialist (nurse, technician, inspector) | 50. Service and sales person | 60. Skilled worker | 90. Unskilled worker | 96. Other | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C2011 | | Due to the way C2010 is constructed here, some respondents | who are coded as not being in labor force in C2010 have valid | occupation codes in C2011. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 90. Elementary Occupations, nothing otherwise | specified | 98. Don't know / Not answered | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C2011 | | Respondent's main occupation is available only for persons in | labor force, according to C2010. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C2011 | | Note that the Romanian data provides information on respondent's | occupational status only in broader categories. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Army forces | 10. Manager, entrepreneur | 20. Liberal / intellectual professions (teacher, | physician, economist, lawyer, engineer) | 30. Technician, foreman | 40. Office clerk | 50. Sales and services occupation | 60. Agricultural and fishery worker, subsistence | agricultural and fishery worker | 70. Craftsman | 80. Skilled worker | 90. Unskilled worker in non-agricultural sectors | Day laborer in agriculture | 96. Others, not specified | Works abroad (unspecified) | 99. inactive (in school, student, housewife, home | duties) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2009): C2011 | | Note that the respondents main occupation of South African | citizens bases on slightly different list of categories that do | not perfectly match with the ISCO scale, used in CSES. | Moreover, take care about the fact that the listed categories | also include employment in the informal sector. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 01. Armed service | 10. Professional - businessperson | (owns small or larger business) | Professional - manager / foreman / supervisor | 20. Professional - businessperson | (works in company for others) | Professional - mid level professional worker | - upper level professional worker | 40. Worker - clerical worker | 50. Retail worker | 61. Agrarian - small scale commercial farmer | - medium scale commercial farmer | - large scale commercial farmer | 62. Agrarian - subsistence farmer | - peasant farmer | 70. Worker - artisan / skilled manual worker | in the formal sector | and in the informal sector | 90. Worker - unskilled manual worker | in the formal sector | and in the informal sector | 52. Worker - trader / hawker / vendor, selling | goods at the market / street | 92. Agrarian - farm worker | Worker - fisherman | 93. - miner | 94. Worker - domestic worker / maid / char / | house help | 96. Other, (not specify) | 99. Other - student | - housewife / works in the household | Never had a job | | The distinction between the formal and the informal sector is | of great importance in South Africa. The informal sector | primarily refers to e.g. traders, hawkers, or vendors, not | being officially registered, selling things like phone cards, | cigarettes. Appropriate persons do not have formal eight hour | working day, are paid in cash, and their place of the business | may shift from time to time, or even from day to day. | Politically most important, people working in the informal | sector do not pay VAT. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C2011 | | This variable was constructed from the original data set by the | collaborator. However, we do not have the original categories | that were employed because the matching was performed by the | Swedish collaborator. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 97. Never been working | 98. Volunteered: don't know/refused | | A number of respondents, who pointed out that they are not | currently employed in the labor force (C2010), nevertheless | answered this question, meaning their last place of work. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C2011 | | In contrast to the CSES implementations for skip pattern on | C2010, Switzerland asked the follow up question C2011 only for | those who were full or at least part time employed, while | housewives, students, etc. were excluded. | | Furthermore, the ISCO88-code 13 "GENERAL MANAGERS" is not in use | in Switzerland; instead general managers are included in code 10 | "LEGISLATORS, SENIOR OFFICIALS AND MANAGERS", while code 11 | "LEGISLATORS AND SENIOR OFFICIALS" is exclusive to statutory | major corporations and code 12 "CORPORATE MANAGERS" only | includes enterprises. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 10. Legislators, senior officials and managers | 11. Legislators and senior officials in statutory | Corporations | 12. Corporate managers of major enterprises | 40. Clerks, not specified | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C2011 | | Additional scale numbers were used as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 50. Servicemen | 51. Housekeeping, with domestic crafting | 51. Housekeeping, without domestic crafting | 90. Housekeeping, helping familial business with pay | | Note that for respondents who are retired or currently | not working, this variable reports respondent's last | occupation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C2011 | | The Thai data defined the major part of respondents currently | not in labor force (according to C2010) as "NON-CLASSIFIABLE | OCCUPATION" (code 96). All these observations are defined as | missing values in the CSES data. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C2012 >>> SOCIO ECONOMIC STATUS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D12. Respondent's socio economic status. .................................................................. 1. WHITE COLLAR 2. WORKER 3. FARMER 4. SELF-EMPLOYED 5. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 6. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | NOTES: C2012 | | The categories are intended to distinguish among the following | groups: | | 1. White Collar: | Broad occupational grouping of workers engaged in non-manual | labor: Managers, salaried professionals, office workers, | sales personnel, and proprietors are generally included in | the category. | | 2. Worker: | Broad occupational grouping of workers engaged in manual labor. | | 3. Farmer: | Normally persons self-employed in farming. | | 4. Self-Employed: | Self-employed occupations of all kinds, excluding self-employed | farming. Includes, for example entrepreneurs, shop keeper, | professionals like lawyers, medical doctors etc. | | Data are not available for BRAZIL (2006), BRAZIL (2010), CANADA | (2008), DENMARK (2007), PORTUGAL (2009), SLOVAKIA (2010), SOUTH | AFRICA (2009), SPAIN (2008), SWITZERLAND (2007), TAIWAN (2008), | UNITED STATES (2008). | | Note that there is some inconsistency between studies in the way | the responses to the questions about current employment status | (C2010) affected the application of the follow-up occupation | variables (C2011-C2014). The CSES standard is that the | occupation variables are asked from those in labor force. | However, in some cases, for respondents categorized as not in | labor force in C2010 (codes 6-12) the occupation variables may | report respondent's last occupation. Hence, the responses | concerning occupation that belong to respondents not in labor | force presumably reflect their previous or last occupation. | | Data on C2012 for respondents out of labor force are available | for AUSTRALIA (2007), BELARUS (2008), CROATIA (2007), CZECH | REPUBLIC (2006), CZECH REPUBLIC (2010), FINLAND (2007), FINLAND | (2011), FRANCE (2007), GERMANY (2005), GERMANY (2009), ICELAND | (2007), IRELAND (2007), ISRAEL (2006), JAPAN (2007), NETHERLANDS | (2010), NEW ZEALAND (2008), NORWAY (2005), NORWAY (2009), POLAND | (2005), POLAND (2007), ROMANIA (2009), SLOVENIA (2008), SOUTH | KOREA (2008), SWEDEN (2006), THAILAND (2007). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C2012 | | Response categories 1-3 were created from C2011, according to | ISCO codes. In addition, using the deposited detailed occupation | variable (G6EMPLOY), farmers are extracted from the original | category "13. Farmers and Farm Managers" | (see ELECTION STUDY NOTES on C2011). | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. ISCO codes 10-42, 52, 91; | 02. ISCO codes 51, 71-84, 92-94; | 03. ISCO codes 61, 62 (plus farmers from 13) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C2012 | | The Austrian Election Study had further categories which | were collapsed the following way to correspond to the CSES | values: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. White collar | 02. Worker | 03. Farmer | 04. Self-employed without employees | Self-employed with employees | 05. Public sector/official | 06. Contract worker | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009): C2012 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Publicly or privately paid: | - as professionals (doctor, lawyer, accountant | and others) | - senior executive (management, director) | - middle management executive | 02. Publicly paid farmer | privately paid farmer | publicly paid others in type of work | migratory workers | workers who are not self-employed | 03. Self-employed farmer | 04. Self-employed | - as professionals (doctor, lawyer, accountant | and others) | - as publicly or privately paid business owners | - as senior executives (management, directors) | - in middle management | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2006): C2012 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2010): C2012 | | The variable was constructed with the help of two other existing | variables. The categories were constructed as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Category/Categories: | 01. Respondents with codes 2-43 in C2011, | or "Owner of a company" | 02. Respondents with codes bigger 44 in C2011, | or "Owner of a company", or "Self employed" but | excluding "Farmers" | 03. Respondents with codes 61-62 in C2011, except | "Self employed" and "Owner of a company" | 04. "Self employed" | 05. Armed forces | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2007): C2012 | | For respondents who are currently employed, this variable | reports their present socio-economic status. Those respondents | who reported in this question that they are retired or currently | not working (Finish election study codes 7-11, see below) were | coded as missing. | However, note that there are several cases of persons who | report being unemployed or retired in C2010, but do report a | socio-economic status with values 1-3 in C2012. According to the | collaborator for the Finish election study, there is a high | probability that respondents answered question C2012 in | compliance with their last status before unemployment/retirement | - and, thereby responded to C2012 in the same way in which the | previous question (C2011) had been asked. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Higher managerial occupation | Lower managerial/ professional employee | Intermediate level employee (clerical, | technical, admin.) | 02. Worker | 03. Farmer | 04. Other employer, self-employed, | own account worker | 09. Pensioner | Student | Housewife, house husband, homemaker | Unemployed | Something else | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2011): C2012 | | Note that C2012 was asked irrespectively of respondent's | current labor force status, according to C2010. | See also notes on C2013. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C2012 | | Variable from the original French data file are recoded in the | following way: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Executives of the Public, Professional | Business Executives (cadres de la fonction | publique, profess cadres d'entreprise) | Teaching Associate Professionals (professions | intermédiaires de l enseignement) | Administration Associate Professionals | (professions intermédiaires administration) | Technicians (techniciens) | Foremen (contremaitres) | Supervisors (agents de maitrise) | 02. Workers (ouvriers) | 03. Farmers (agriculteurs exploitants) | 04. Artisans (artisans) | Merchants (commercants et assimilés) | Chief of enterprises with 10 or more employees | (chef d entreprises de 10 salariés et plus) | Liberal Professions (professions liberals) | Entrepreneur (chef d'entreprise ) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C2012 | | This variable only includes respondents who were at least | "employed - less than 15 hours", according to C2010. | The German questionnaire includes two additional categories for | respondent's socio-economic status. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 05. Academic | 06. Civil servant | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): C2012 | | Note that respondents' socio economic status was asked only for | those who were currently in the labor force (excluding | unemployed persons), according to variable C2010. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007): C2012 | | Of those not in labor force, only retired and persons who were | for only a short term not working were consistently asked this | question. See also note on C2011. | Note that only self-employed persons in agri-business are | coded as farmers here. Other respondents employed in | agri-business were coded as "workers". This differentiation was | possible due to a great level of detail on employment | situations in the Icelandic election study. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2009): C2012 | | Note that only persons in labor-force were consistently asked | this question. However, some respondents answered C2012 although | they refused to answer C2010 or were unsure about their | current employment status. | | Further note that only self-employed persons in agri-business | are coded as farmers here. Other respondents employed in | agri-business were coded as "workers". | This distinction was possible due to a great level | of detail on employment situations in the Icelandic election | study. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2007): C2012 | | Note that the level of detail in the Irish Election study data | was not as high as the usual CSES level of details. | Also note that persons currently not working (e.g. unemployed, | retired) were asked to answer this question according | to their former occupation. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 05. Employed, not further specified | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2010): C2012 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. White collar (non-manual workers, operators, for | example Office staff, various specialists, sales | representatives, etc | 02. worker (physical-employed, for example Skilled, | unskilled workers, nursing assistants, etc.) | 03. Self-employed person (entrepreneur) as sole | propreitor, self-employed in agriculture, small | farms or fisheries sectors | 04. self-employed person (entrepreneur), | self-employed in other sectors | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C2012 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C2012 | | Note that in the Mexican study of 2006, four respondents refused | to answer C2010, but reported a socio-economic status in C2012. | The same is true for the study of 2009, where 15 cases were | coded as missing value in C2010, but included in C2012. This | data remained unchanged. | | Moreover, in both Mexican studies, the first category differs | slightly from the CSES standard: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Owner | White collar (office employee, bureaucrat, | manager, professional, sales agent) | 02. Worker (manual labor) | 03. Farmer | 04. Self-employed | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C2012 | | Response categories 1-3 were created from C2011, according to | the ISCO codes. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. ISCO codes 0-42, 52; | 02. ISCO codes 51 52 70-83 90 91 93; | 03. ISCO codes 61 | | Note that there are 3 respondents who answered "Don't know" to | the current employment status variable (C2010) and who provided | an answer concerning their occupation (reported in C2011). | Hence, they have valid codes in C2012 as well. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C2012 | | Due to the way C2010 is constructed here, some respondents | who are coded as not being in labor force in C2010 have valid | codes for socio economic status in C2013. | Response categories 1-3 were created from C2011, according to | the ISCO codes. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 1. ISCO codes 1-42; | 2. ISCO codes 51-53, 70-84, 90-94; | 3. ISCO codes 61 62 | 8. Don't know / Not answered | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C2012 | | Seven variables have been used to derive C2012 | Bak5c Do you have tasks that involve leading/supervising the | work of others? | Bak5d What is your primary occupation? | Bak6 Description of job in primary occupation (employed, | independent with hired help, independent without hired help, | family member) | Bak7 Employer description (privately owned firm, joint-stock | company, organization, local service, county service, public | service) | Bak9b Did you have any tasks which involved supervising the work | of others? | Bak9c What was your last primary occupation? | Bak11 Former job description (employed, independent with hired | help, independent without hired help, family member) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C2012 | | Note that respondent's socio economic status was asked | irrespectively of the current employment status (C2010). | Respondents actually out of the labor force were asked about | their previous occupation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2011): C2012 | | Response categories 1-3 were created from C2011, according to | ISCO codes. Self-employment was are extracted from the original | variable on C2012. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. ISCO codes 10-42, 52; | 02. ISCO codes 51, 71-84, 91, 92-94; | 03. ISCO codes 61, 62 | 04. Self-employment | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C2012 | | Respondent's socio economic status is available only for | persons in labor force, according to C2010. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C2012 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 5. Others, not specified | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): C2012 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. White collar - lower education | White collar - medium education | White collar - high education | 02. Unqualified worker | Semi-qualified worker | Qualified worker | Highly qualified worker | 03. Farmer | 04. Self-employed - employing others | Self-employed - not employing others | 05. Freelance | 06. Others, not specified | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2008): C2012 | | Information for helping family members (code 4 at C2010) were | not available for South Korea. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C2012 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 06. Never been working | 08. Volunteered: don't know/refused | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C2012 | | In contrast to the CSES implementations for skip patterns on | C2010, Switzerland asked the follow-up question C2012 only for | those who were full or at least part time employed, while | housewives, students, etc., were excluded. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C2013 >>> EMPLOYMENT TYPE - PUBLIC OR PRIVATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D13. Whether respondent's employment is private or public. .................................................................. 1. PUBLIC SECTOR 2. PRIVATE SECTOR 3. MIXED 4. "THIRD SECTOR"/NON-PROFIT SECTOR 5. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 6. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | NOTES: C2013 | | Data are not available for AUSTRIA (2008), BRAZIL (2006), | NETHERLANDS (2006), NETHERLANDS (2010). | | Note that there is some inconsistency between studies in the way | the responses to the questions about current employment status | (C2010) affected the application of the follow-up occupation | variables (C2011-C2014). The CSES standard is that the | occupation variables are asked from those in the labor force. | However, in some cases, for respondents categorized as not in | the labor force in C2010 (codes 6-12) the occupation variables | may report respondent's last occupation. Hence, the responses | concerning occupation that belong to respondents not in the | labor force presumably reflect their previous or last | occupation. | | Data on C2013 for respondents out of labor force are available | for AUSTRALIA (2007), BELARUS (2008), BRAZIL (2010), CANADA | (2008), CROATIA (2007), CZECH REPUBLIC (2006), CZECH REPUBLIC | (2010), FRANCE (2007), GERMANY (2005), GERMANY (2009), ICELAND | (2007), IRELAND (2007), ISRAEL (2006), JAPAN (2007), NEW ZEALAND | (2008), NORWAY (2005), NORWAY (2009), POLAND (2005), POLAND | (2007), PORTUGAL (2009), ROMANIA (2009), SLOVAKIA (2010), | SLOVENIA (2008), SOUTH AFRICA (2009), SOUTH KOREA (2008), SPAIN | (2008), SWEDEN (2006), SWITZERLAND (2007), TAIWAN (2008), | THAILAND (2007), UNITED STATES (2008). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C2013 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Employee of Federal/State/Local Government | 02. Employee in private company or business | 05. Self-employed | 06. Employee in family business or farm | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C2013 | | Note that this question was not asked in Austria. | However, part of the information can be taken from C2012. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C2013 | | The Brazilian election study did not employ the "mixed" | category. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Public servant | 02. Autonomous | Employee | 04. Third sector/NGO | | There are also four respondents coded as not being in labor | force in C2010 (code 06. STUDENT, IN SCHOOL, IN VOCATIONAL | TRAINING), who answered this question. This data remain | unchanged. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2008): C2013 | | Some of the respondents that mentioned to be retired, to care | for family, or to be a student, but who also work in a paid job | (see C2010), report their employment type in C2013. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009): C2013 | | The Chilean Election Study offered the answer self-employed in | this question. Since it is unknown of these 192 respondents | if they are privately or publicly paid, this answer could | not be sorted into the CSES answer scheme of this variable. | The 192 self-employed were thus coded as missing, here. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2006): C2013 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2010): C2013 | | CSES Code Election Study Category/Categories: | 05. State, State Administration And Self-Government | Administration | 06. Other | | Note that "Other" was used by interviewers if they were unable | to code the answer into the existing categories. This | especially applies to self-employed respondents. Also see C2018. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C2013 | | Note that the Danish question on respondent's employment type | differs slightly from the CSES wording. | The Danish question of origin was: "Er du privat ansat, | offentligt ansat eller selvstændig?" (Are you a private | employee, public official or independent?), including the | following categories: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Public Servant | 02. Private Employee | Self-employed | 09. Not employed / out of business | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2011): C2013 | | Note that C2013 was only asked, if respondent was currently | in labor force, according to C2010. | See also notes on C2012. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C2013 | | This variable only includes respondents who were at least | "employed - less than 15 hours", according to C2010. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): C2013 | | Note that respondents' employment type was asked only for those, | those who were currently in the labor force (excluding | unemployed persons), according to variable C2010. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007): C2013 | | Note that as in C2011 persons working part-time were | accidentally not asked this question. | For full-time students, persons with home duties and permanently | disabled, it had been intended not to ask for their (former) | employment type. | However, respondents who reported that they were retired, | could answer C2011, indicating their previous main occupation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2009): C2013 | | Note that in the Icelandic election study, respondents who had | reported that they were not currently employed could not answer | C2013. However, there are a few cases with respondents having | refused to answer C2010 or being unsure about their current | employment status who answered C2013. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2007): C2013 | | Note that within this question the level of detail originally | was higher in the Irish Election Study data. The categories | were collapsed in the following way: | | CSES Code Election Study Category/Categories: | 01. Public sector | Civil Service, Local authority health board | or Vocational Education Committee (VEC) | 02. Private sector Private sector | 03. Mixed | Non-commercial semi-state body/ | Commercial semi-state body | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C2013 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C2013 | | In the Mexican study of 2006, four respondents refused to report | their actual labor force status (C2010), but mentioned their | current employment status. These data remain unchanged. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Government | 02. Private Company | Own business | Independent | 03. Government owned enterprise or | decentralized organization | 04. Third Sector / Non-lucrative institution or | organization | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C2013 | | Mixed and non-profit were collapsed into mixed code 3. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C2013 | | The Norwegian questionnaire asked for the employment type in a | slightly different manner: "Are you employed by a privately | owned firm, a joint-stock company, an organization, in | municipal, counties or public service?" Given answers were coded | due to public versus private sector, other categories had not | been used. (See also variable notes on C2014). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C2013 | | Note that respondent's employment type was asked irrespectively | of the current employment status (C2010). Respondents actually | out of the labor force were asked about their previous | occupation. | | Moreover, the Norwegian questionnaire offered respondents six | answer categories, which were grouped into two CSES categories | by our Norwegian collaborators: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Municipal service | County service | Public service | 02. A privately owned firm | A joint-stock company | An organization | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2011): C2013 | | Note that the original variable includes an additional category | for self-employment. According to C2012, appropriate cases were | coded as missing values in C2013. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C2013 | | Respondent's employment type is available only for | persons in labor force, according to C2010. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 05. Self-employed | 06. Unpaid family worker | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): C2013 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C2013 | | The Polish questionnaires of origin did not include a category | for the "third sector / non-profit sector". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): C2013 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Public administration, military, police | Public institution (health, education, etc.) | Public company (energetic, traffic, etc.) | 03. Company (mainly) owned by state | Company (mainly) privately owned | 05. Agricultural cooperative | Farmer | 06. Self-employed, sector not specified | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2008): C2013 | | Information for helping family members (code 4 at C2010) were | not available for South Korea. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C2013 | | In Sweden, there are only public and private sectors. No mixed | nor third sector/non-profit. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Public sector | 02. Private sector | 06. Never been working | 08. Volunteered: don't know/refused | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C2013 | | The Swiss survey did not contain the category "4. Third Sector | /Non-Profit sector". They did add another category, labeled | "Other (i.e. joint ventures, third sector)". | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 05. Other (i.e. joint ventures, third sector) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C2013 | | Note that the information about public or private sector was | retrieved from the more detailed ILO occupation codes. | In this more detailed ILO occupation coding all four-digit codes | ending with 1 refer to an occupation in the public sector, all | codes ending 2 refer to an occupation in the private sector. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2008): C2013 | | Note that the US question on the employment type differs from | the CSES manner. C2013 sets up on two questions, asking "Are | you employed by a federal, state or local government?" (v083237) | and "Were you employed by a federal, state or local | government?" (v083230). | 1. Respondents who are actually in labor force (C2010<6) were | coded according to v083237, as | "1. public sector", if the answer on v083237 was "yes"; | "2. private sector", if the answer on v083237 was "no" or | "not applicable"; | "7. refused", if the answer on v083237 was "refused" | 2. Respondents who are actually not in labor force (C2010>5) | were coded according to v083230, as | "1. public sector", if the answer on v083230 was "yes"; | "2. private sector", if the answer on v083230 was "no"; | "7. refused", if the answer on v083237 was "refused"; | "8. don't know", if the answer on v083237 was "don't know". | Consequently, C2013 allows distinguishing only between the "1. | public sector" and "2. private sector". There are no categories | for "3. mixed sector" or "4. third sector" in the US data. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Respondent works for the government, if actually | in labor force | Respondent worked for the government, if actually | not in labor force | 02. Respondent doesn't work for the government, if | actually in labor force | Respondent never worked for the government, if | actually not in labor force | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): C2013 | | Researchers should note that the distinction | between the public and the private sector is determined by law. | As well, there is no mixed sector (code 3.), by law. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C2014 >>> INDUSTRIAL SECTOR --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D14. Industrial sector of respondent's employment. .................................................................. 1. PRIMARY SECTOR: AGRICULTURAL, FORESTRY, FISHERIES 2. SECONDARY SECTOR: INDUSTRY: MINING, CONSTRUCTION MANUFACTURING 3. TERTIARY SECTOR: TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION AND OTHER PUBLIC UTILITIES, WHOLESALE TRADE, RETAIL TRADE, PERSONAL SERVICES, FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, AND REPAIR SERVICES, ENTERTAINMENT AND REPAIR SERVICES, PROFESSIONAL AND RELATED SERVICES, PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ACTIVE MILITARY DUTY 4. OTHER 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | NOTES: C2014 | | Data are not available for AUSTRALIA (2007), AUSTRIA (2008), | CANADA (2008), CHILE (2009), CZECH REPUBLIC (2006), CZECH | REPUBLIC (2010), DENMARK (2007), FINLAND (2007), FINLAND (2011), | FRANCE (2007), IRELAND (2007), PERU (2011), POLAND (2005), | PORTUGAL (2009), SLOVAKIA (2010), SLOVENIA (2008), SPAIN (2008), | SWITZERLAND (2007), TAIWAN (2008), UNITED STATES (2008). | | Note that there is some inconsistency among studies in the way | the responses to the questions about current employment status | (C2010) affected the application of the follow-up occupation | variables (C2011-C2014). The CSES standard is that the | occupation variables are asked from those in the labor force. | However, in some cases, for respondents categorized as not in | labor force in C2010 (codes 6-12), the occupation variables may | report respondent's last occupation. Hence, the responses | concerning occupation that belong to respondents not in labor | force presumably reflect their previous or last occupation. | | Data on C2014 for respondents out of labor force are available | for BELARUS (2008), BRAZIL (2010), CROATIA (2007), GERMANY | (2005), GERMANY (2009), ICELAND (2007), ISRAEL (2006), JAPAN | (2007), NETHERLANDS (2010), NEW ZEALAND (2008), NORWAY (2009), | POLAND (2007), ROMANIA (2009), SOUTH AFRICA (2009), SOUTH KOREA | (2008), SWEDEN (2006), THAILAND (2007). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C2014 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Agriculture/Fishery/Animal Farm | 02. Industry | 03. Commerce/Services/Civil Services | 04. Public/State enterprises/NGOP | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C2014 | | There are five respondents coded as not being in labor force | in C2010 (code 06. STUDENT, IN SCHOOL, IN VOCATIONAL TRAINING), | who answered this question. This data remain unchanged. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C2014 | | This variable only includes respondents, who were at least | "employed - less than 15 hours", according to C2010. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): C2014 | | Note that respondents' industrial sector was asked only for | those who were currently in the labor force (excluding | unemployed persons), according to variable C2010. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007): C2014 | | Note that as in C2011 persons working part-time were | accidentally not asked this question. | For full-time students, persons with home duties and permanently | disabled it had been intended not to ask for their (former) | employment type. | However, respondents who reported that they were retired, | could answer C2014, indicating their previous industrial sector. | The Icelandic election study covered a greater level of detail, | asking for the "field of work" with 15 answer categories. Those | were collapsed into the 4 CSES codes. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2009): C2014 | | Note that in the Icelandic election study, respondents who had | reported that they were not currently employed, could not answer | C2014. However, there are a few cases with respondents having | refused to answer C2010 or being unsure about their current | employment status, who answered C2014. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C2014 | | In the Mexican study of 2006, four respondents refused to report | their actual labor force status (C2010), but mentioned their | current employment status. These data remain unchanged. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C2014 | | Note that the Dutch study includes two respondents in C2014, who | failed to report their actual labor force status (C2010). These | data remain unchanged. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Agriculture/Fishery/Animal Farm | 02. Industry | 03. Commerce/Services/Civil Services | 04. Public/State enterprises/NGOP | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C2014 | | Due to the way C2010 is constructed here, some respondents | who are coded as not being in labor force in C2010 have valid | industrial sector codes in C2014. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 1. Agriculture and Fishery | 2. Industry (including construction) | 3. Commercial services/Non-commercial services | 8. Don't know / Not answered | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C2014 | | The Norwegian questionnaire asked for the industrial sector in a | slightly different way: "Are you employed by a privately owned | firm, a joint-stock company, an organization, in municipal, | county or public service?" Given answers were coded due to the | primary, secondary or tertiary sector, while an additional | categories, "others", was not used. (See also variable notes | on C2013). | Moreover, 13 respondents, who failed to report their actual | labor force status, mentioned their current employment status in | C2014. These data remain unchanged. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C2014 | | Note that respondent's industrial sector was asked | irrespectively of the current employment status (C2010). | Respondents actually out of the labor force were asked about | their previous occupation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C2014 | | Respondent's industrial sector is available only for | persons in labor force, according to C2010. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2008): C2014 | | Information for helping family members (code 4 at C2010) was | not available for South Korea. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C2014 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 04. Never been working | 08. Volunteered: don't know/refused --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C2015 >>> SPOUSE: CURRENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D15. Current employment status of respondent's spouse. .................................................................. IN LABOR FORCE: 01. EMPLOYED - FULL TIME (32+ HOURS WEEKLY) 02. EMPLOYED - PART TIME (15-32 HOURS WEEKLY) 03. EMPLOYED - LESS THAN 15 HOURS 04. HELPING FAMILY MEMBER 05. UNEMPLOYED NOT IN LABOR FORCE: 06. STUDENT, IN SCHOOL, IN VOCATIONAL TRAINING 07. RETIRED 08. HOUSEWIFE, HOME DUTIES 09. PERMANENTLY DISABLED 10. OTHERS, NOT IN LABOR FORCE 11. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 12. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | NOTES: C2015 | | Data are not available for AUSTRIA (2008), BRAZIL (2006), CANADA | (2008), CHILE (2009), DENMARK (2007), FINLAND (2007), FINLAND | (2011), ICELAND (2007), ICELAND (2009), NETHERLANDS (2010), PERU | (2011), SLOVAKIA (2010), SOUTH AFRICA (2009), SWEDEN (2006). | | Spouses who are temporarily unemployed are coded UNEMPLOYED. | Spousess on "workfare" or enrolled in a government job | training program are coded EMPLOYED. | | Note that there is some inconsistency among studies in the way | responses to the questions about current employment status | of spouses (C2015) were administered, affecting the application | of the follow-up occupation variables (C2016-C2019). The CSES | standard is that the occupation variables are asked for those in | the labor force. However, in some cases, for spouses categorized | as not in the labor force in C2015 (codes 6-12), the occupation | variables may report their previous or last occupation. | | There is variation in the manner in which the questions about | respondent's spouse were administered in different election | studies. In some cases only those categorized as "married or | living together" in C2004 were asked the spouse questions, | while in some surveys other responses could also lead to a | respondent being asked these questions. Consequently C2015 | sometimes includes information of spouses from respondents | who reported neither being married nor living together with a | partner (C2004 is not code 1.). These data remained unchanged. | For further details and explanations see Elections Study Notes | on C2004. | | Table: Frequencies on C2015 for respondents without partner | or spouse living in their household | | POLITY NAME (ELEC YEAR) | | AUSTRALIA (2007) 44 | CZECH REPUBLIC (2006) 48 | CZECH REPUBLIC (2010) 58 | GERMANY (2005) 221 | HONG KONG (2008) 273 | IRELAND (2007) 72 | NETHERLANDS (2006) 50 | NEW ZEALAND (2008) 35 | POLAND (2005) 138 | POLAND (2007) 119 | ROMANIA (2009) 9 | SLOVENIA (2008) 30 | SPAIN (2008) 227 | THAILAND (2007) 79 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C2015 | | The Australian questionnaire divided up the category of | unemployment, asking if the respondent is looking for a full or | part time job: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories | 01. Working full-time for pay | 02. Working part-time for pay | 05. Unemployed-looking for full-time work | Unemployed-looking for part-time work | 06. A full-time school or university student | 07. Retired from paid work | 08. Keeping house | 10. Others | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2008): C2015 | | For current employment status in Belarus, there are no | frequencies in the choice option 4. "helping family members" | although this option was offered to respondents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C2015 | | The Brazilian 2010 election study does not differentiate | full-time and part-time employment. Variable from the original | data file are recoded, as explained in C2010. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009): C2015 | | Note that the election study asked about the head of household. | However, since that is not necessarily the spouse but could be | any person in the household, this variable could not be coded. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C2015 | | The variable from the original French data file is recoded | in the following way: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Employed | 05. Unemployed | 06. Student or internship | 07. Retired | 08. Housewife/house duties | 09. Permanently disabled | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C2015 | | The German classification of full and part-time working differs | slightly from the original CSES coding schema: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Employed - full-time (35+ hours weekly) | 02. Employed - part-time (15-35 hours weekly) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C2015 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 11. Not Applicable (never employed) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2007): C2015 | | Occupational codes for persons not married according to C2004, | value 1, may be due to a possible underrepresentation of | unmarried partners in value 1 of C2004. Also see C2004. | | Moreover, in difference to the CSES manner, full-time work means | up to 30 hours and part-time less than 30 hours weekly. | A category for part time "less than 15 hours" was not in the | Irish election study data. | Also note a slightly different wording in the Irish answer | categories. Also see C2010 (respondent's employment status). | | CSES Code Election Study Category/Categories: | 01. At work full-time(30+ hrs) | 02. At work part-time(<30 hrs) | 03. [NOT IN USE IN IRISH DATA] | 04. Relative assisting/unpaid family worker | 05. Unemployed and seeking work | 06. Student | 07. Retired | 08. Engaged in home duties | 09. Long term sick or disabled | 10. Other | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): C2015 | | For current employment status of spouse in Israel, there are no | frequencies in the choice option "4. Helping family member" | although this option was offered to respondents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2010): C2015 | | This variable was coded in the same way as C2010. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C2015 | | In the DPES, Marital status (V422) and presence of a partner in | household (V440) are separate variables. Since the former | emphasized the legal status of being (not) married, there are | several respondents coded "never been married" in V422 and | having a partner present in the household. As a result, there | are a number of cases in CSES who are not coded as married in | C2004 but with valid codes in the spouse variables | (C2015-C2019). | | The DPES provides a reduced number of categories for this | variable: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Employer private company | Civil servant | General manager - major share holder | Self-employed | Other active | 05. Receiver of unemployment benefit | 06. Student | 07. Pensioner, under 65 | Pensioner, 65 and older | 09. Disabled | 10. Receiver of social allowance (Bijstand) | Receiver of other social benefit | 11. No income | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C2015 | | Note that code 9 in the election study from New Zealand is | labeled "temporarily disabled" instead of "permanently | disabled". | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 09. Temporarily disabled | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C2015 | | Five variables were used to derive C2015: | Bak1 What is your current marital status? | Bak14 Is your spouse/partner currently in a paid employment? | Bak15a What is your spouse/partner's most important activity or | source of income? (Student, domestic worker, old-age pensioner, | unemployed, early retiree, receiving disability benefits, | conscript, draftee) | Bak16b Does/did he/she have any tasks which involved supervising | the work of others? | Bak16c What is your spouse/partner primary occupation? | | Furthermore, C2015 does not include a category for employed 15 - | 32 hours weekly, less than 15 hours weekly, helping family | members, as well as permanently disabled persons. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Employed - full-time (32+ hours weekly) | 05. Unemployed | 06. Student, in school, in vocational training | 07. Retired | 08. Housewife, home duties | 10. Others, not in labor force | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C2015 | | Note that spouses currently in labor force were not separated | according to their weekly working hours. Instead, all spouses | currently in labor force are coded 1. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Employed - full time (32+ hours weekly) | Employed - part time (15-32 hours weekly) | Employed - less than 15 hours | 04. Helping family member | 05. Unemployed | 06. Student, in school, in vocational training | 07. Retired | 08. Housewife, home duties | 09. Permanently disabled | 10. Others, not in labor force | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C2015 | | Categories on employment differ slightly from the CSES | manner, including several additional categories. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Employed - full-time (30+ hours weekly) | 02. Employed - part-time (15-30 hours weekly) | 03. Employed - less than 15 hours | 04. Helping family member | 05. Unemployed | 06. Student, in school, in vocational training | 07. Retired | 08. Housewife, home duties | 09. Permanently disabled | 10. Others, not in labor force, parental leave | 11. Entrepreneur, business owner, self-employees | 12. Day laborer | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): C2015 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 11. Self-Employed | 12. Retired, but with additional work | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2008): C2015 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 11. Self-employed | 12. Employer | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C2015 | | In contrast to the general CSES guidelines, C2015 was only | asked for spouses, if the respondents was not the main earner of | the household or if both, respondent and spouse earn equally | much. | Furthermore, the original categories used in the Swiss | questionnaire, differ slightly from the general CSES coding, | which is especially true for code 2 "Employed - Part Time | (5-39 hours)". | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Employed - Full Time (40 hours or more) | 02. Employed - Part Time (5-39 hours) | 04. Helping family member | 05. Unemployed | 06. Vocational training | 07. Retired | 08. Housewife, homemaker | 09. Permanently disabled | 10 Others, not in labor force | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2008): C2015 | | The US-questionnaire does not ask for the hours of work for | spouses. All employed spouses had been coded into an additional | category (code 12). | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 11. Temporarily Laid Off | 12. Employed - no weekly hours specified --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C2016 >>> SPOUSE: OCCUPATION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D16. Spouse's occupation. .................................................................. ARMED FORCES 01. ARMED FORCES. LEGISLATORS, SENIOR OFFICIALS, AND MANAGERS 11. LEGISLATORS AND SENIOR OFFICIALS 12. CORPORATE MANAGERS 13. GENERAL MANAGERS PROFESSIONALS 21. PHYSICAL, MATHEMATICAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCE 22. LIFE SCIENCE AND HEALTH PROFESSIONALS 23. TEACHING PROFESSIONALS 24. OTHER PROFESSIONALS TECHNICIANS AND ASSOCIATED PROFESSIONALS 31. PHYSICAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCE ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 32. LIFE SCIENCE AND HEALTH ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 33. TEACHING ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 34. OTHER ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS CLERKS 41. OFFICE CLERKS 42. CUSTOMER SERVICES CLERKS 43. ADMINISTRATION OF CHARITABLE OR NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS SERVICES WORKERS AND SHOP AND MARKET SALES WORKERS 51. PERSONAL AND PROTECTIVE SERVICE WORKERS 52. MODELS, SALES PERSONS AND DEMONSTRATORS 53. TRADE, CONSUMER SERVICES SKILLED AGRICULTURAL AND FISHERY WORKERS 61. MARKET-ORIENTED SKILLED AGRICULTURAL AND FISHERY WORKERS 62. SUBSISTENCE AGRICULTURAL AND FISHERY WORKERS CRAFT AND RELATED TRADE WORKERS 71. EXTRACTION AND BUILDING TRADE WORKERS 72. METAL, MACHINERY AND RELATED TRADE WORKERS 73. PRECISION, HANDICRAFT, PRINTING AND RELATED TRADE WORKERS 74. OTHER CRAFT AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS PLANT AND MACHINE OPERATORS AND ASSEMBLERS 81. STATIONARY-PLANT AND RELATED OPERATORS 82. MACHINE OPERATORS AND ASSEMBLERS 83. DRIVERS AND MOBILE-PLANT OPERATORS 84. OTHER PLANT AND MACHINE OPERATORS AND ASSEMBLERS ELEMENTARY OCCUPATIONS 91. SALES AND SERVICES ELEMENTARY OCCUPATIONS 92. AGRICULTURAL, FISHERY AND RELATED LABORERS 93. LABORERS IN MINING, CONSTRUCTION, MANUFACTURING AND TRANSPORT 94. OTHER POSITIONS IN ELEMENTARY OCCUPATIONS 96. OTHER OR NON-CLASSIFIABLE OCCUPATIONS (NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO CLASSIFY) 10. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 20. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 30. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 40. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 50. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 60. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 70. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 80. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 90. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | NOTES: C2016 | | Data are not available for AUSTRIA (2008), BRAZIL (2006), BRAZIL | (2010), CANADA (2008), CHILE (2009), FINLAND (2007), FINLAND | (2011), NETHERLANDS (2006), NETHERLANDS (2010), PERU (2011), | POLAND (2005), SLOVAKIA (2010), SLOVENIA (2008), SOUTH AFRICA | (2009), SWEDEN (2006), UNITED STATES (2008). | | See also notes for variable C2015. | | (1) This variable reports the respondent's spouse's main | occupation; that is, the job at which the respondent's | spouse spends most of the time, or if the respondent's | spouse spends an equal amount of time on two jobs, it is | the one from which the respondent's spouse earns the most | money. For spouses who are currently employed, this variable | reports their current occupation. For spouses who are retired | or not currently working, this variable reports the spouse's | last occupation. | | (2) Coding conventions employ the first two-digits of 1988 | ISCO / ILO International Standard Classification of | Occupations Code from the International Labor Office, CH-1211, | Geneva 22, Switzerland. | | In some cases it has not been possible to strictly adhere to the | ISCO/ILO conventions. Users will find that some categories have | been added to the ISCO/ILO list in order to accommodate the | occupations of respondents who were not easily classified. | Please refer to specific Election Study Notes for clarification | of additional codes. | | There is variation in the ways in which the questions about | respondent's spouse were administered in different election | studies. In some cases only those categorized as "married or | living together" in C2004 were asked the spouse questions, | while in some surveys other responses could also lead to a | respondent being asked these questions. Consequently C2016 | sometimes includes information of spouses from respondents who | reported neither being married nor living together with a | partner (C2004 is not code 1.). These data remained unchanged. | For further details and explanations see Elections Study Notes | on C2004. | | Table: Frequencies on C2016 for respondents without partner | or spouse living in their household: | | POLITY NAME (ELEC YEAR) | | AUSTRALIA (2007) 54 | CZECH REPUBLIC (2006) 47 | CZECH REPUBLIC (2010) 40 | GERMANY (2005) 208 | HONG KONG (2008) 3 | ICELAND (2007) 1 | IRELAND (2007) 69 | NEW ZEALAND (2008) 22 | POLAND (2007) 92 | ROMANIA (2009) 9 | SPAIN (2008) 217 | THAILAND (2007) 71 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C2016 | | Australia used the AZNSCO-2, a modified version of the ISCO- | 88 COM, which had been transformed into the CSES standard coding | scheme. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 12. Generalist Managers | 13. Managers and Administrators | Specialist Managers | Farmers and Farm Managers | Hospitality, Retail and Service Manager | 13. Hospitality, Retail and Service Manager | 21. Science, Building and Engineering | Professionals | 22. Health Professionals | 23. Education Professionals | 24. Professionals | Business and Information Professionals | Social, Arts and Miscellaneous | Professionals | ICT Professionals | Legal, Social and Welfare Professionals | 31. Science, Engineering and Related | Professionals | 32. Health and Welfare Associate Professionals | 34. Associate Professionals | Business and Administration Associate | Professionals | Managing Supervisors (Sales and Service) | Other Associate Professionals | 41. Secretaries and Personal Assistants | Other Advanced Clerical and Service Workers | Intermediate Clerical Workers | General Clerical Workers | Inquiry Clerks and Receptionists | Numerical Clerks | Clerical and Office Support Workers | Personal Assistants and Secretaries | 42. Intermediate Clerical, Sales and Service | Workers | Intermediate Sales and Related Workers | Intermediate Service Workers | 52. Store persons | 53. Food Trades Workers | 61. Skilled Agricultural and Horticultural | Workers | 61. Skilled Animal and Horticultural Worker | 62. Farm, Forestry and Garden Workers | 71. Construction Tradespersons | 72. Mechanical and Fabrication Engineering | Tradespersons | Automotive Tradespersons | Electrical and Electronics Tradespersons | 74. Tradespersons and Related Workers | Food Tradespersons | Other Tradespersons and Related Workers | 82. Intermediate Machine Operators | 83. Intermediate Production and Transport Workers | Road and Rail Transport Drivers | 84. Intermediate Plant Operators | Other Intermediate Production and Transport | Workers | 91. Elementary Clerical, Sales and Service | Workers | Elementary Clerks | Elementary Sales Workers | Elementary Service Workers | Food Preparation Assistants | 93. Factory Labourers | 94. Labourers and Related Workers | Cleaners | Other Labourers and Related Workers | 96. Other Labourers | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CROATIA (2010): C2016 | | Note that the Latvian election study asked respondents to | categorize themselves in broader categories which do not fully | fit to the ISCO table, especially in the values 60 to 96. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 10. Higher managers and administrators | Lower managers and administrators | 20. Self-employed professionals | Employed professionals | 40. Office clerks and lower white collar employees | 50. Skilled workers in services and industry | 60. Farmers and fishermen | 90. Unskilled workers | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2006): C2016 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 30. Other technicians and associated professionals | 90. Elementary Occupations, not further | distinguished | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C2016 | | The status of spouses had only been sampled if the respondent | was not at least "employed - part time (15-32 hours weekly)", | according to C2010. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2007): C2016 | | Occupational codes for persons not married according to C2004, | value 1, may be due to a possible underrepresentation of | unmarried partners in value 1 of C2004. Also see C2004. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): C2016 | | Note that 13 respondents failed to answer C2004 and refused to | report the occupation of their spouses (C2016). These data | remain unchanged. | Moreover, the corresponding question in the Israeli | questionnaire referred to present employment or last employment, | exclusively. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 99. Never Worked | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2010): C2016 | | The variable was coded in the same way as C2011. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C2016 | | Spouse's main occupation is available only for spouses | in labor force, according to C2015. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C2016 | | Note that the Romanian data provides information on the | occupational status of spouses only on broader categories. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Army forces | 10. Manager, entrepreneur | 20. Liberal / intellectual professions (teacher, | physician, economist, lawyer, engineer) | 30. Technician, foreman | 40. Office clerk | 50. Sales and services occupation | 60. Agricultural and fishery worker, subsistence | agricultural and fishery worker | 70. Craftsman | 80. Skilled worker | 90. Unskilled worker in non-agricultural sectors | Day laborer in agriculture | 96. Others, not specified | Works abroad (unspecified) | 99. inactive (in school, student, housewife, home | duties) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C2016 | | In contrast to the general CSES implementation, C2016 was only | asked for spouses, if the respondent was not the main earner of | the household or if both respondent and spouse earn the same. | | Furthermore, the ISCO88-code 13 "GENERAL MANAGERS" is not in use | in Switzerland; instead general managers are included in code 10 | "LEGISLATORS, SENIOR OFFICIALS AND MANAGERS", while code 11 | "LEGISLATORS AND SENIOR OFFICIALS" is exclusive to statutory | corporations and code 12 "CORPORATE MANAGERS" only includes | major enterprises. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 10. Legislators, senior officials and managers | 11. Legislators, senior officials in statutory | Corporations | 12. Corporate managers of major enterprises | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C2016 | | Note that respondents who do or did housekeeping either | with or without domestic crafting as their main occupation | were categorized under code 51, even if their current | employment status (C2015) was "housewife". | Scale numbers and additional codes were used as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 50. 10. Servicemen | 51 32. housekeeping, with domestic crafting | 51 31. housekeeping, without domestic crafting | 90 34. housekeeping, helping familial business with | pay --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C2017 >>> SPOUSE: SOCIO ECONOMIC STATUS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D17. Spouse's socio-economic status. .................................................................. 1. WHITE COLLAR 2. WORKER 3. FARMER 4. SELF-EMPLOYED 5. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 6. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | NOTES: C2017 | | The categories are intended to distinguish among the | following groups: | | 1. White Collar: | Broad occupational grouping of workers engaged in non-manual | labor: Managers, salaried professionals, office workers, | sales personnel, and proprietors are generally included in | the category. | | 2. Worker: | Broad occupational grouping of workers engaged in manual labor. | | 3. Farmer: | Normally persons self-employed in farming. | | 4. Self-Employed: | Self-employed occupations of all kinds, excluding self-employed | farming. Included, for example, entrepreneurs, shopkeeper, | professionals, such as lawyers, medical doctors etc. | | Data are not available for AUSTRIA (2008), BRAZIL (2006), BRAZIL | (2010), CANADA (2008), CHILE (2009), DENMARK (2007), FINLAND | (2007), FINLAND (2011), ICELAND (2007), ICELAND (2009), | NETHERLANDS (2006), NETHERLANDS (2010), PERU (2011), POLAND | (2005), PORTUGAL (2009), SLOVAKIA (2010), SOUTH AFRICA (2009), | SPAIN (2008), SWEDEN (2006), SWITZERLAND (2007), TAIWAN (2008), | UNITED STATES (2008). | | There is variation in the manner the questions about | respondent's spouse were administered in different election | studies. In some cases only those categorized as "married or | living together" in C2004 were asked the spouse questions, | while in some surveys other categories could also get these | questions (see Election Study Notes). | Moreover that there is some inconsistency among studies in the | way the responses to the questions about current employment | status of souses (C2015) affected the application of the follow- | up occupation variables (C2017-C2019). The CSES standard is that | the occupation variables are asked from those in the labor | force. However, in some cases, for spouses categorized as not in | labor force in C2015 (codes 6-12), the occupation variables may | report respondent's last occupation. Hence, the responses | concerning occupation that belong to respondents not in labor | force presumably reflect their previous or last occupation. | | Data on C2017 for respondents out of labor force are available | for AUSTRALIA (2007), BELARUS (2008), CROATIA (2007), CZECH | REPUBLIC (2006), CZECH REPUBLIC (2010), FRANCE (2007), GERMANY | (2005), IRELAND (2007), ISRAEL (2006), JAPAN (2007), NEW ZEALAND | (2008), NORWAY (2005), NORWAY (2009), POLAND (2007), ROMANIA | (2009), SLOVENIA (2008), SOUTH KOREA (2008), THAILAND (2007). | | There is variation in the ways in which the questions about | respondent's spouse were administered in different election | studies. In some cases only those categorized as "married or | living together" in C2004 were asked the spouse questions, | while in some surveys other responses could also lead to a | respondent being asked these questions. Consequently C2017 | sometimes includes information of spouses from respondents who | reported neither being married nor living together with a | partner (C2004 is not code 1.). These data remained unchanged. | For further details and explanations see Elections Study Notes | on C2004. | | Table: Frequencies on C2017 for respondents without partner | or spouse living in their household: | | POLITY NAME (ELEC YEAR) | | AUSTRALIA (2007) 50 | CZECH REPUBLIC (2006) 799 | CZECH REPUBLIC (2010) 777 | GERMANY (2005) 203 | IRELAND (2007) 69 | NEW ZEALAND (2008) 20 | POLAND (2007) 95 | ROMANIA (2009) 9 | SLOVENIA (2008) 26 | THAILAND (2007) 70 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C2017 | | Response categories 1-3 were created from C2016, according to | ISCO codes. Farmers are extracted from the original | "13. Farmers and Farm Managers" category. | (see ELECTION STUDY NOTES on C2016). | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. ISCO codes 10-42, 52, 91; | 02. ISCO codes 51, 71-84, 92-94; | 03. ISCO codes 61, 62 (plus farmers from 13) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009): C2017 | | Note that the election study asked about the head of household. | However, since that is not necessarily the spouse but could be | any person in the household, this variable could not be coded. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2006): C2017 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2010): C2017 | | The variable was constructed with the help of two other | existing variables. The categories were built in the same scheme | as C2012, see above. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C2017 | | This variable only includes respondents' spouses who were at | least "employed - less than 15 hours", according to C2015. | Moreover, the status of spouses had only been sampled if the | respondent was not at least "employed - part time (15-32 hours | weekly)", according to C2010. | The German questionnaire includes one additional category for | the socio-economic status of respondent's spouse. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 06. Civil servant | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2007): C2017 | | Note that within this question, the level of details in the | Irish Election study data was not as extensive as the usual CSES | level of details. Also see C2012. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 05. Employed, not further specified | | Occupational codes for persons not married according to C2004, | value 1, may be due to a possible underrepresentation of | unmarried partners in value 1 of C2004. Also see C2004. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): C2017 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 09. Never Worked | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C2017 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 05. Inapplicable (not in labor force, | never had a job) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C2017 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 5. Others, not specified | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): C2017 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. White collar - lower education | White collar - medium education | White collar - high education | 02. Unqualified worker | Semi-qualified worker | Qualified worker | Highly qualified worker | 03. Farmer | 04. Self-employed - employing others | Self-employed - not employing others | 05. Freelance | 06. Others, not specified | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2008): C2017 | | Information for spouses, working as helping family members | (code 4 at C2015) was not available for South Korea. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C2018 >>> SPOUSE: EMPLOYMENT TYPE - PUBLIC OR PRIVATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D18. Whether spouse's employment is private or public. .................................................................. 1. PUBLIC SECTOR 2. PRIVATE SECTOR 3. MIXED 4. "THIRD SECTOR"/NON-PROFIT SECTOR 5. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 6. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | NOTES: C2018 | | Data are not available for AUSTRIA (2008), BRAZIL (2006), CANADA | (2008), CHILE (2009), DENMARK (2007), FINLAND (2007), FINLAND | (2011), ICELAND (2007), ICELAND (2009), NETHERLANDS (2006), | NETHERLANDS (2010), PERU (2011), POLAND (2005), POLAND (2007), | SLOVAKIA (2010), SLOVENIA (2008), SOUTH AFRICA (2009), SWEDEN | (2006), TAIWAN (2008), UNITED STATES (2008). | | There is variation in the manner the questions about | respondent's spouse were administered in different election | studies. In some cases only those categorized as "married or | living together" in C2004 were asked the spouse questions, | while in some surveys other categories could also get these | questions. (see Election Study Notes). | Moreover that there is some inconsistency among studies in the | way the responses to the questions about current employment | status of souses (C2015) affected the application of the follow- | up occupation variables (C2017-C2019). The CSES standard is that | the occupation variables are asked from those in the labor | force. However, in some cases, for spouses categorized as not in | labor force in C2015 (codes 6-12), the occupation variables may | report respondent's last occupation. Hence, the responses | concerning occupation that belong to respondents not in labor | force presumably reflect their previous or last occupation. | | Data on C2018 for respondents out of labor force are available | for AUSTRALIA (2007), BELARUS (2008), BRAZIL (2010), CROATIA | (2007), CZECH REPUBLIC (2006), CZECH REPUBLIC (2010), FRANCE | (2007), GERMANY (2005), GERMANY (2009), IRELAND (2007), ISRAEL | (2006), JAPAN (2007), NEW ZEALAND (2008), NORWAY (2005), NORWAY | (2009), PORTUGAL (2009), ROMANIA (2009), SOUTH KOREA (2008), | SPAIN (2008), SWITZERLAND (2007), THAILAND (2007). | | There is variation in the ways in which the questions about | respondent's spouse were administered in different election | studies. In some cases only those categorized as "married or | living together" in C2004 were asked the spouse questions, | while in some surveys other responses could also lead to a | respondent being asked these questions. Consequently C2018 | sometimes includes information of spouses from respondents who | reported neither being married nor living together with a | partner (C2004 is not code 1.). These data remained unchanged. | For further details and explanations see Elections Study Notes | on C2004. | | Table: Frequencies on C2018 for respondents without partner | or spouse living in their household: | | POLITY NAME (ELEC YEAR) | | AUSTRALIA (2007) 54 | CZECH REPUBLIC (2006) 40 | CZECH REPUBLIC (2010) 45 | GERMANY (2005) 205 | IRELAND (2007) 444 | NEW ZEALAND (2008) 191 | ROMANIA (2009) 8 | SPAIN (2008) 209 | THAILAND (2007) 61 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C2018 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Employee of Federal/State/Local Government | 02. Employee in private company or business | 05. Self-employed | 06. Employee in family business or farm | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C2018 | | The Brazilian election study did not employ the "mixed" | category. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Public servant | 02. Employee | Autonomous | 04. Third sector/ NGO | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2006): C2018 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2010): C2018 | | CSES Code Election Study Category/Categories: | 05. State, State Administration And Self-Government | Administration | 06. Other | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C2018 | | This variable only includes respondents' spouses, who were at | least "employed - less than 15 hours", according to C2015. | Moreover, the status of spouses had only been sampled, if the | respondent was not at least "employed - part time (15-32 hours | weekly)", according to C2010. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2007): C2018 | | Occupational codes for persons not married according to C2004, | value 1, may be due to a possible underrepresentation of | unmarried partners in value 1 of C2004. Also see C2004. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C2018 | | Mixed and non-profit were collapsed into mixed code 3. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C2018 | | The Norwegian questionnaire asked for the employment type in a | slightly different manner: "Is/was this business/industry a | privately owned firm, a joint-stock company, an organization, in | municipal, county or public service?" Given answers were coded | due to public versus private sector, other categories had not | been used. (See also variable notes on C2019). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C2018 | | Note that the Norwegian questionnaire offered respondents six | answer categories, which were grouped into two CSES categories | by our Norwegian collaborators: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Municipal service | County service | Public service | 02. A privately owned firm | A joint-stock company | An organization | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C2018 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 05. Self-employed | 06. Unpaid family worker | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2008): C2018 | | Information for spouses, working as helping family members | (code 4 at C2015) were not available for South Korea. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C2018 | | In contrast to the general CSES implementation, C2018 was only | asked for spouses, if the respondents was not the main earner of | the household or if both, respondent and spouse the same | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 05. Other (i.e. joint ventures, third sector) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): C2018 | | Researchers should note that the distinction | between the public and the private sector is determined by law. | As well, there is no mixed sector (code 3.), by law. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C2019 >>> SPOUSE: INDUSTRIAL SECTOR --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D19. Industrial sector of spouse's employment. .................................................................. 1. PRIMARY SECTOR: AGRICULTURAL, FORESTRY, FISHERIES 2. SECONDARY SECTOR: INDUSTRY: MINING, CONSTRUCTION MANUFACTURING 3. TERTIARY SECTOR: TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION AND OTHER PUBLIC UTILITIES, WHOLESALE TRADE, RETAIL TRADE, PERSONAL SERVICES, FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, AND REPAIR SERVICES, ENTERTAINMENT AND REPAIR SERVICES, PROFESSIONAL AND RELATED SERVICES, PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ACTIVE MILITARY DUTY 4. OTHER 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | NOTES: C2019 | | Data are not available for AUSTRALIA (2007), AUSTRIA (2008), | BRAZIL (2006), CANADA (2008), CHILE (2009), CZECH REPUBLIC | (2006), CZECH REPUBLIC (2010), DENMARK (2007), FINLAND (2007), | FINLAND (2011), FRANCE (2007), ICELAND (2007), ICELAND (2009), | IRELAND (2007), NETHERLANDS (2006), NETHERLANDS (2010), PERU | (2011), POLAND (2005), PORTUGAL (2009), SLOVAKIA (2010), | SLOVENIA (2008), SOUTH AFRICA (2009), SPAIN (2008), SWEDEN | (2006), SWITZERLAND (2007), TAIWAN (2008), UNITED STATES (2008). | | There is variation in the manner the questions about | respondent's spouse were administered in different election | studies. In some cases only those categorized as "married or | living together" in C2004 were asked the spouse questions, | while in some surveys other categories could also get these | questions. (see Election Study Notes). | Moreover that there is some inconsistency among studies in the | way the responses to the questions about current employment | status of souses (C2015) affected the application of the follow- | up occupation variables (C2017-C2019). The CSES standard is that | the occupation variables are asked from those in the labor | force. However, in some cases, for spouses categorized as not in | labor force in C2015 (codes 6-12), the occupation variables may | report respondent's last occupation. Hence, the responses | concerning occupation that belong to respondents not in labor | force presumably reflect their previous or last occupation. | | Data on C2019 for respondents out of labor force are available | for BELARUS (2008), BRAZIL (2010), CROATIA (2007), GERMANY | (2005), GERMANY (2009), ISRAEL (2006), JAPAN (2007), NEW ZEALAND | (2008), NORWAY (2005), NORWAY (2009), POLAND (2007), ROMANIA | (2009), SOUTH KOREA (2008), THAILAND (2007). | | There is variation in the ways in which the questions about | respondent's spouse were administered in different election | studies. In some cases only those categorized as "married or | living together" in C2004 were asked the spouse questions, | while in some surveys other responses could also lead to a | respondent being asked these questions. Consequently C2019 | sometimes includes information of spouses from respondents who | reported neither being married nor living together with a | partner (C2004 is not code 1.). These data remained unchanged. | For further details and explanations see Elections Study Notes | on C2004. | | Table: Frequencies on C2019 for respondents without partner | or spouse living in their household: | | POLITY NAME (ELEC YEAR) | | GERMANY (2005) 205 | NEW ZEALAND (2008) 21 | POLAND (2007) 76 | ROMANIA (2009) 7 | THAILAND (2007) 63 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C2019 | | This variable only includes respondents' spouses, who were at | least "employed - less than 15 hours", according to C2015. | Moreover, the status of spouses had only been sampled, if the | respondent was not at least "employed - part time (15-32 hours | weekly)", according to C2010. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C2019 | | The Norwegian questionnaire asked for the industrial sector in a | slightly different way: "Is/was this business/industry a | privately owned firm, a joint-stock company, an organization, in | municipal, county or public service?" Given answers were coded | due to the primary, secondary or tertiary sector, while an | additional categories "others" had not been used. (See also | variable notes on C2018). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2008): C2019 | | Information for spouses, working as helping family members | (code 4 at C2015) were not available for South Korea. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C2020 >>> HOUSEHOLD INCOME --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D20. Household income quintile appropriate to the respondent. .................................................................. 1. LOWEST HOUSEHOLD INCOME QUINTILE 2. SECOND HOUSEHOLD INCOME QUINTILE 3. THIRD HOUSEHOLD INCOME QUINTILE 4. FOURTH HOUSEHOLD INCOME QUINTILE 5. HIGHEST HOUSEHOLD INCOME QUINTILE 6. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | NOTES: C2020 | | Data are not available for LATVIA (2010) and SOUTH AFRICA (2009) | | Income ranges shown are as originally reported by | collaborators, including gaps between contiguous | sets of ranges. | | In some instances, deposited income data were not grouped | into income categories or quintiles. For these cases, the | data have been coded into quintiles, according to sample | proportions (and not national statistics). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C2020 | | This variable was derived from original variable H16. | Respondents were asked: "What is the gross annual income, before | tax or other deductions, for you and your family living with you | from all sources? Please include any pensions and allowances, | and income from interest or dividends". | Respondents were offered a choice of 18 income categories: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Less than 15,000 AU$/year | 02. 15,001 - 40,000 AU$/year | 03. 40,001 - 60,000 AU$/year | 04. 60,001 - 100,000 AU$/year | 05. More than 100,001 AU$/year | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Less than 1,350 Euro | 02. 1,350 - 1,949 Euro | 03. 1,950 - 2,399 Euro | 04. 2,400 - 3,599 Euro | 05. More than 3,600 Euro | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2008): C2020 | | For this question, respondents in Belarus were asked to rate | their income on the following non-numeric scale instead of | proposing a quintile distribution based on the sample. 56% of | respondent chose the middle category, 93% of respondents are | located between categories 1 and 3. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Very low | 02. Rather low | 03. Medium | 04. Rather high | 05. High | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C2020 | | Quintile ranges were calculated proportional to the sample. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Less than - 400 R$ | 02. 418 - 650 R$ | 03. 680 - 900 R$ | 04. 950 - 1,500 R$ | 05. More than 1,600 R$ | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C2020 | | Quintile ranges were calculated proportional to the sample. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Less than 600 R$ | 02. 610 - 1,020 R$ | 03. 1,021 - 1,500 R$ | 04. 1,510 - 2,500 R$ | 05. More than 2,510 R$ | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2008): C2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. less than 30.000 C$ | 02. 30.000 - 49.999 C$ | 03. 50.000 - 69.999 C$ | 04. 70.000 - 99.999 C$ | 05. more than 100.000 C$ | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009): C2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. less than $165,000 Pesos | 02. $ 165,000 - $ 200,000 Pesos | 03. $ 200,001 - $ 300,000 Pesos | 04. $ 300,001 - $ 700,000 Pesos | 05. $ 700,001 - $1,000,000 Pesos | $1,500,001 - $2,000,000 Pesos | $2,000,001 - $3,000,000 Pesos | more than $3,000,000 Pesos | | Note that quintiles could not be calculated because the income | of respondents was asked in ranges. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CROATIA (2007): C2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Less than 2,000 Kuna | 02. 2,001 - 4,000 Kuna | 03. 4,001 - 6,000 Kuna | 04. 6,001 - 8,000 Kuna | 05. More than 8,000 Kuna | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2006): C2020 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2010): C2020 | | Monthly income of household, in Czech Crowns (CZK): | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. 0 CZK - 13,999 CZK | 02. 14,000 - 22,999 CZK | 03. 23,000 - 29,999 CZK | 04. 30,000 - 39,999 CZK | 05. 40,000 CZK and more | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. less than 349,999 Danish Kroner | 02. 350,000 - 499,999 Danish Kroner | 03. 450,000 - 599,999 Danish Kroner | 04. 600,000 - 799,999 Danish Kroner | 05. more than 800,000 Danish Kroner | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): C2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Less than 3,300 Euro | 02. 3,312 - 5,100 Euro | 03. 5,112 - 6,900 Euro | 04. 6,912 - 12,000 Euro | 05. More than 12,000 Euro | | The Estonian question of origin refers to the monthly household | income, which was extrapolated to the yearly income. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2007): C2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Less than 15,001 Euro/year | 02. 15,001 - 30,000 Euro/year | 03. 30,001 - 40,000 Euro/year | 04. 40,001 - 55,000 Euro/year | 05. More than 55,000 Euro/year | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2011): C2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. less than 15,001 Euros | 02. 15,001 - 25,000 Euros | 03. 25,001 - 40,000 Euros | 04. 40,001 - 60,000 Euros | 05. more than 60,000 Euros | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Less than 1,500 Euro | 02. 1,501 - 2,300 Euro | 03. 2,301 - 3,000 Euro | 04. 3,001 - 4,000 Euro | 05. More than 4,000 Euro | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Less than 1,000 Euro | 02. 1,001 - 1,500 Euro | 03. 1,501 - 2,100 Euro | 04. 2,101 - 3,000 Euro | 05. More than 3,001 Euro | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Less than 1,200 Euro | 02. 1,201 - 1,499 Euro | 03. 1,500 - 1,999 Euro | 04. 2,000 - 2,799 Euro | 05. More than 2,799 Euro | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): C2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Less than 10,000 Euro/year | 02. 10,001 - 15,000 Euro/year | 03. 15,001 - 25,000 Euro/year | 04. 25,001 - 40,000 Euro/year | 05. More than 40,000 Euro/year | | Note that the distribution of respondents' income does not match | quintiles. However, the Greek questionnaire asked for the income | categories in the way mentioned above. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C2020 | | Hong Kong implemented two additional categories (see below) | while no missing data were included. Here, the value "9 | MISSING" refers to all observations reporting "NO FIXED INCOME". | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Less than 9,999 US$ | 02. 10,000 - 19,999 US$ | 03. 20,000 - 29,999 US$ | 04. 30,000 - 49,999 US$ | 05. More than 50,000 US$ | 06. No income | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007): C2020 | | Monthly household income, before tax and other deductions | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Less than 200,000 Kronur | 02. 201,000 - 345,000 Kronur | 03. 346,000 - 490,000 Kronur | 04. 491,000 - 650,000 Kronur | 05. More than 650,000 Kronur | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2009): C2020 | | Monthly household income, before tax and other deductions | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Less than 192,000 Kronur | 02. 193,000 - 350,000 Kronur | 03. 351,000 - 500,000 Kronur | 04. 501,000 - 700,000 Kronur | 05. More than 700,000 Kronur | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2007): C2020 | | Household income per week. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Less than 240 Euros | 02. 241 - 450 Euros | 03. 451 - 700 Euros | 04. 701 - 1,000 Euros | 05. More than 1,000 Euros | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): C2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Less than 3,999 NIS | 02. 4,000 - 5,499 NIS | 03. 5,500 - 8,000 NIS | 04. 8,001 - 12,999 NIS | 05. More than 12,999 NIS | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): C2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Less than 3 Million Yen | 02. 3 - 5 Million Yen | 03. 5 - 7 Million Yen | 04. 7 - 10 Million Yen | 05. More than 10 Million Yen | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C2020 | | Ranges reflect annual family income. | Research should take care about the distribution of | observations, which are not grouped into income quintiles. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Less than 52,560 Mexican Pesos | 02. 52,561 - 87,600 Mexican Pesos | 03. 87,601 - 122,640 Mexican Pesos | 04. 122,641 - 175,200 Mexican Pesos | 05. More than 175,200 Mexican Pesos | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C2020 | | Quintile ranges reflect annual family income. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Less than 29,400 Mexican Pesos | 02. 29,400 - 45,600 Mexican Pesos | 03. 45,600 - 70,800 Mexican Pesos | 04. 70,800 - 94,800 Mexican Pesos | 05. More than 94,800 Mexican Pesos | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C2020 | | The original variable "V413 Disposable income of household | (after taxes)" was coded in 20 categories each containing | approximately 5% of respondents. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Less than 19,592 Euro | 02. 19,592 - 26,878 Euro | 03. 26,879 - 34,895 Euro | 04. 34,896 - 45,682 Euro | 05. More than 45,683 Euro | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C2020 | | The original variable "V451 Spendable income of household" | was coded in 20 categories each containing approximately | 5% of respondents. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Less than 24,889 Euro | 02. 24,889 - 34,120 Euro | 03. 34,121 - 44,127 Euro | 04. 44,128 - 60,354 Euro | 05. More than 60,354 Euro | 08. Don't know / Not answered | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Less than 27,000 NZ$ | 02. 27,000 - 45,999 NZ$ | 03. 46,000 - 70,999 NZ$ | 04. 71,000 - 108,999 NZ$ | 05. More than 109,000 NZ$ | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Less than 190,999 NOK | 02. 191,000 - 300,999 NOK | 03. 301,000 - 450,999 NOK | 04. 451,000 - 570,999 NOK | 05. More than 570,999 NOK | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. less than 340,001 NOK | 02. 340,001 - 500,000 NOK | 03. 500,001 - 700,000 NOK | 04. 700,001 - 900,000 NOK | 05. more than 900,001 NOK | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2011): C2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. less than 450 PEN | 02. 450 - 1000 PEN | 03. 1000 - 1600 PEN | 04. 1600 - 2700 PEN | 05. more than 2700 PEN | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. less than 3,999 Philippines Pesos | 02. 4,000 - 5,999 Philippines Pesos | 03. 6,000 - 9,999 Philippines Pesos | 04. 10,000 - 14,999 Philippines Pesos | 05. more than 14,999 Philippines Pesos | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): C2020 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C2020 | | CSES Code Election study code/category | 01. Less than 849 Zloty | 02. 850 - 1,200 Zloty | 03. 1,201 - 1,699 Zloty | 04. 1,700 - 2,299 Zloty | 05. More than 2,299 Zloty | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2009): C2020 | | In general CSES guidelines request that income be | categorized in quintiles. However, the Portuguese questionnaire | asked for categories as mentioned below. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Less than 300 Euros | 02. 301 - 750 Euros | 03. 751 - 1,500 Euros | 04. 1,501 - 2,500 Euros | 05. More than 2,500 Euros | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. less than 500 RON per month | 02. 501 - 1000 RON per month | 03. 1001 - 1408 RON per month | 04. 1409 - 2000 RON per month | 05. more than 2001 RON per month | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2010): C2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Less than 400 Euros | 02. 401 - 600 Euros | 03. 601 - 800 Euros | 04. 800 - 1,200 Euros | 05. More than 1,200 Euros | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): C2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Less than 801 Euros | 02. 801 - 1,200 Euros | 03. 1,201 - 1,700 Euros | 04. 1,701 - 2,500 Euros | 05. More than 2,500 Euros | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2008): C2020 | | Quintile ranges were not provided by national collaborator. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2008): C2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. less than 600 Euros | 02. 601 - 900 Euros | 03. 901 - 1200 Euros | 04. 1201 - 2100 Euros | 05. more than 2101 Euros | | The Spanish questionnaire covers for total monthly income | of the household, taking all sources into account. | The coded CSES-variable does not fit income quintiles, due to | the original coding of the Spanish income-variable. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C2020 | | The income variable (D20) is divided into 20-20-20-20-20 and | includes all respondents in the data set. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Less than 161,253 Swedish Kroner | 02. 161,254 - 244,408 Swedish Kroner | 03. 244,409 - 337,166 Swedish Kroner | 04. 337,167 - 432,251 Swedish Kroner | 05. More than 432,251 Swedish Kroner | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C2020 | | Income in Switzerland was measured using the following question: | "Could you please tell me what is the monthly income of your | household? Please include the income of all the persons who | contribute to the household budget, taking into account not | only salaries but also all other sources of income." Respondents | were offered a choice of 11 income categories, which were then | recoded into quintiles. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Less than 4,000 CHF | 02. 4,001 - 6,000 CHF | 03. 6,001 - 8,000 CHF | 04. 8,001 - 10,000 CHF | 05. More than 10,000 CHF | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C2020 | | Note that in the Taiwanese sample income was not coded into | even quintiles but was calculated to reflect the real income | distribution. The original data contained 10 value codes: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Less than 47,000 TWD | 02. 47,001 - 65,000 TWD | 03. 65,001 - 88,000 TWD | 04. 88,001 - 138,000 TWD | 05. More than 138,000 TWD | 08. Hard to say | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C2020 | | Note that the coding of C2020 does not follow the CSES manner | for Thailand (2007). The variable includes a category for no | income and only four additional categories on the actual income | of respondents. Moreover, the distribution of the data does not | reflect income quintiles. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. No income | 02. Less than 5,000 Bath/month | 03. 5,001 - 10,000 Bath/month | 04. 10,001 - 10,000 Bath/month | 05. More than 15,000 Bath/month | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): C2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. less than 600 TL | 02. 600 - 850 TL | 03. 851 - 1000 TL | 04. 1001 - 1700 TL | 05. more than 1700 TL | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2008): C2020 | | The US-American questionnaire asked for the monthly household | income of married respondents. Incomes for the remaining | respondents base on the complete household, as long as all other | household members were under age 18, or on the respondents' | income, exclusively. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 1. Less than $16,999 per year | 2. $17,000 to $34,999 per year | 3. $35,000 to $49,999 per year | 4. $50,000 to $89,999 per year | 5. more than $90,000 per year | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): C2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Less than 11,200 US$ | 02. 11,201 - 17,400 US$ | 03. 17,401 - 25,000 US$ | 04. 25,001 - 38,700 US$ | 05. More than 38,700 US$ | | Research should care about the fact that for those respondents | who refused to report a household income, C2020 was imputed | by the Uruguayan collaborators, based on respondents occupation | and the "wage agreements that determine the official level of | pay of that occupation". --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C2021 >>> NUMBER IN HOUSEHOLD --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D21. The exact number of persons in household - that is, the number of persons living together in the housing unit excluding paid employees and persons who pay rent for a room. .................................................................. 01.-90. NUMBER OF PERSONS 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | NOTES: C2021 | | Data are not available for AUSTRALIA (2007), CHILE (2009), | DENMARK (2007), ISRAEL (2006), SPAIN (2008). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2008): C2021 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 08. Eight and more household members | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C2021 | | The German data for 2005 does not provide single values for | more than eight people in one household | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 08. Eight or more persons | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C2021 | | Note that there are two respondents, who reported a number of | zero household members, although the question of origin | explicitly asks for the number of household members, including | the current respondent. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C2021 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 98. Volunteered: don't know/refused | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C2021 | | This question was asked slightly different in Thailand 2007: | "Number of household members. (Living together in the household, | excluding employees in the home and roomers)". | | One consequence of the different wordings, the final data | includes three empty households. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C2022 >>> NUMBER IN HOUSEHOLD UNDER AGE 18 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D22. Number of persons in household under the age of 18. .................................................................. 00.-90. NUMBER OF PERSONS 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | NOTES: C2022 | | Data are not available for AUSTRALIA (2007), BRAZIL (2006), | CHILE (2009), ISRAEL (2006), PERU (2011), SPAIN (2008), | SWITZERLAND (2007). | | There are some instances in which the number of persons | in household is equal to or less than the number of persons | under age 18. These data remained unchanged. For further details | and explanations see Elections Study Notes on C2021 and C2022. | | Table: Frequencies on C2022 for households, where the | number children under age 18 is equal or even bigger | than the total number of household members (C2021): | | EQUAL BIGGER | | POLITY NAME (ELEC YEAR) | | AUSTRIA (2008) 17 1 | BELARUS (2008) 2 0 | CANADA (2008) 2 0 | CZECH REPUBLIC (2010) 0 1 | FINLAND (2007) 2 1 | FINLAND (2011) 12 4 | GERMANY (2005) 48 2 | ICELAND (2007) 5 0 | IRELAND (2007) 4 0 | JAPAN (2007) 7 0 | LATVIA (2010) 7 0 | MEXICO (2006) 13 0 | MEXICO (2009) 7 0 | NETHERLANDS (2006) 1 0 | NEW ZEALAND (2008) 3 0 | POLAND (2007) 90 0 | PORTUGAL (2009) 10 0 | ROMANIA (2009) 1 0 | SWEDEN (2006) 0 1 | THAILAND (2007) 13 3 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C2022 | | Brazilian variable is constructed by subtracting a variable that | records the number of persons in household that are 16 years or | older from the total number of person in household. Thus, the | C2022 reports the number of persons in household under age 16. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2008): C2022 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 08. Eight and more household members under age 18 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C2022 | | There was no direct question asked to respondents concerning | this item. It was computed by subtracting the number of people | over 18 years, registered on the electoral lists, to the total | amount of individuals in the household. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2011): C2022 | | Note that the Finnish data include several cases where the | number of household members under age 18 (C2022) is equal or | even bigger than the total number of household members (C2021). | According to the Finnish collaborators this has happened during | the data coding process of the interviewing institution. These | data remained unchanged. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C2022 | | The German data of 2005 does not provide single values for | more than eight people in one household. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C2022 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 98. Don't know / no answer | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C2022 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C2022 | | In the Norwegian studies, this question asks about individuals | in the household under the age of 16, not 18. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C2022 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 98. Volunteered: don't know/refused | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C2022 | | See ELECTION STUDY NOTES on C2021. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C2023 >>> RELIGIOUS SERVICES ATTENDANCE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D23. Attendance at religious services. .................................................................. 1. NEVER 2. ONCE A YEAR 3. TWO TO ELEVEN TIMES A YEAR 4. ONCE A MONTH 5. TWO OR MORE TIMES A MONTH 6. ONCE A WEEK/MORE THAN ONCE A WEEK 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | NOTES: C2023 | | This variable is an optional variable in the CSES battery. | As a result, it was not carried in all of the studies. | In some studies, this item was included but with different | response categories. | | Data are not available for BRAZIL (2006), BRAZIL (2010), CANADA | (2008), CHILE (2009), DENMARK (2007), ESTONIA (2011), FINLAND | (2007), FINLAND (2011), NORWAY (2005), NORWAY (2009), PERU | (2011), SPAIN (2008). | | Researchers should note that the CSES questionnaire of origin | does not include any filter instructions in the demographic | section. Consequently, C2023 is asked irrespectively of | individuals' religious denomination. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C2023 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Never | 02. Less than once a year | At least once a year | 03. Several times a year | 04. At least once a month | 06. At least once a week | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C2023 | | Note that the categories 02, 03 and 06 in Austria are somewhat | different. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Never | 02. Once or twice a year | 03. Three to eleven times a year | 04. Once a month | 05. Two or three times a month | 06. Once a week/more than once a week | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C2023 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Never | 02. Only for ceremonies and feasts | 03. From time to time, in important holidays | 04. Once or twice per month | 05. Once a week | 06. Several times a week | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C2023 | | Please note that respondents who mentioned not to belong to a | religious denomination (code 93 in C2025) were excluded | from the question on religious service attendance (C2023) in the | German sample of 2009. In coordination with our German | collaborators, those respondents were coded "1. NEVER" in | C2023. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C2023 | | Respondents, who mentioned to have no religious beliefs, due to | C2024, were excluded from C2023, in the data of origin. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2007): C2023 | | Note that the Irish election study used a greater level of | detail for this question or slightly different wording. | Answer categories were collapsed to meet the CSES standard | in the following way: | | CSES Code Election Study Categories: | 01. Never | 02. Once a year / less frequently | 03. Several times a year | 04. Once a month | 05. 2-3 times a month | 06. Once a week | Several times a week | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C2023 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C2023 | | This question was applied after respondents were asked their | religious denomination. Those respondents who mentioned "Doesn't | have a religion" skipped the current question and were assigned | code "1. NEVER". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): C2023 | | For religious services attendance in Israel, there are no | frequencies in the choice option 5. "two or more times a month" | although this option was offered to respondents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): C2023 | | Data for Japan includes several cases, where respondents did not | identify themselves as "religious" (see C2024) but report a | continuous religious service attendance. Japanese | collaborators pointed out, that "this is nothing strange for | Japanese. In many homes, especially in the country side, people | have their own small Buddhist temple, or small Shinto altar. | These are the targets of their daily religious practice, even | they are not much religious in their mind. This is a kind of | custom." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C2023 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C2023 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. (Almost) never | 03. Several times a year | 04. Once a month | 05. 2 or 3 times a month | 06. Once a week or more | 08. Don't know / no answer | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2010): C2023 | | Note that some of the Slovakian categories differ | From the CSES codes. They were categorized in the | following way: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Never | 02. Rarely | Once a year | 03. Several times a year | 04. Once a month | 05. 2-3 times a month | 06. Once a week | Several times a week | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): C2023 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Never | 02. Once a year | Less frequently | 03. Couple of times a year | 04. At least once per month | 05. 2 to 3 times per month | 06. Once a week | More than once a week | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2009): C2023 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 1. Never | 3. Two or three times a year | 4. Once a month | 5. Two or three times a month | 6. At least once a week | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C2023 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 08. Volunteered: don't know/refused | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C2023 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Never | 02. Only on special occasions/Once a year | 03. Several times a year | 05. Once or twice per month | 06. Once a week/Several times a week | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2008): C2023 | | Categories for religious service attendance differ slightly | from the common CSES codes. Moreover a category for "once a | year" (code 2) was not included in the US-questionnaire. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 3. A few times a year | 4. Once or twice a month | 5. Almost every week --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C2024 >>> RELIGIOSITY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D24. Religiosity. .................................................................. 1. HAVE NO RELIGIOUS BELIEFS 2. NOT VERY RELIGIOUS 3. SOMEWHAT RELIGIOUS 4. VERY RELIGIOUS 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | NOTES: C2024 | | Data are not available for AUSTRALIA (2007), BRAZIL (2006), | BRAZIL (2010), CHILE (2009), CZECH REPUBLIC (2010), DENMARK | (2007), IRELAND (2007), NORWAY (2005), NORWAY (2009), PERU | (2011), SLOVENIA (2008), SWITZERLAND (2007), UNITED STATES | (2008). | | Researchers should note that the CSES questionnaire of | origin does not include any filter instructions in the | demographic section. Consequently, C2024 is asked irrespectively | of individuals' religious denomination. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2008): C2024 | | Note that the Canadian question on religiosity differs from the | CSES question wording: "In your life, would you say religion | is:" | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Not important at all/no religion | 02. Not very important | 03. Somewhat important | 04. Very important | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007): C2024 | | Due to a mistake only a small proportion of the sample was | asked about their religiosity. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): C2024 | | Data for Japan includes several cases, where respondents did not | mention themselves as "religious" (see C2024) but report a | continuous religious service attendance. Japanese | collaborators pointed out, that "this is nothing strange for | Japanese. In many homes, especially in country side, people have | their own small Buddhist temple, or small Shinto altar. These | are the targets of their daily religious practice, even they are | not much religious in their mind. This is a kind of custom." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2010): C2024 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Not religious at all | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C2024 | | This question was applied after respondents were asked their | religious denomination. Those respondents who mentioned "Doesn't | have a religion" skipped the current question and were assigned | code "1. HAVE NO RELIGIOUS BELIEFS". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C2024 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C2024 | | Note that the original DPES variable contains only two | categories (Yes and Now). | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. No | 04. Yes | 08. Don't know / no answer | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2010): C2024 | | Note that in the Slovakian Questionnaire, "not decided" was | given as a valid answer option, unlike the volunteered "don't | know". | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. No religious beliefs | Atheist | 03. Religious | 04. Very religious | 08. Not decided | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2008): C2024 | | The Spanish question on respondent's religiosity differs | from the CSES manner: "According to your religiosity, using this | scale, where would you place yourself, whereat 1 means "never | practicing" and 5 means "strongly practicing"?" ("Y en cuanto a | su grado de práctica religiosa me gustaría que se situase Vd. en | la escala que le muestro en esta TARJETA DE RELIGIOSIDAD, donde | 1 significa No practicante y 5 Muy practicante"), providing five | substantial answer categories. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. 1. No practicante | 02. 2. | 03. 3. | 4. | 04. 5. Muy practicante | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C2024 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 08. Volunteered: don't know/refused | | In Sweden, there are no frequencies in the category 4. "very | religious." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C2025 >>> RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D25. Religious denomination. .................................................................. CHRISTIANISM 1000. CHRISTIAN (NO DENOMINATION GIVEN) CATHOLIC 1101. ROMAN CATHOLIC 1102. EASTERN (GREEK RITE) CATHOLIC CHURCHES 1199. CATHOLIC, OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] PROTESTANT 1200. PROTESTANT, NO DENOMINATION GIVEN 1201. ADVENTIST 1203. BAPTIST 1204. CONGREGATIONAL 1205. EUROPEAN FREE CHURCH (ANABAPTISTS, MENNONITES) 1206. HOLINESS 1207. FUNDAMENTALIST 1208. LUTHERAN 1209. METHODIST 1210. PENTECOSTAL 1211. PRESBYTERIAN 1212. CALVINIST 1213. SALVATION ARMY/SALVATIONIST 1214. CHRISTIAN BRETHEN 1215. CHURCHES OF CHRIST 1216. REFORMED CHURCHES 1217. PROTESTANT CHURCH OF THE NETHERLANDS 1298. PROTESTANT, OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 1299. PROTESTANT, OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] ANGLICAN 1300. EPISCOPALIAN, ANGLICAN, CHURCH OF ENGLAND, CHURCH OF IRELAND INDEPENDENTS-NON-AFFILIATED 1401. INDEPENDENT-FUNDAMENTALIST 1410. APOSTOLIC 1420. UNITED CHURCHES 1499. INDEPENDENT, OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] NON-TRADITIONAL PROTESTANTS 1501. CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS 1502. MORMONS, CHURCH OF LATTER DAY SAINTS 1503. UNITARIAN UNIVERSALISTS 1504. JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES 1599. NON-TRADITIONAL PROTESTANT, OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] ORTHODOX 1600. EASTERN ORTHODOX 1699. ORTHODOX, OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] JEWISH 2000. JEWISH ISLAM 3000. MUSLIM; MOHAMMEDAN; ISLAM (NO DENOMINATION GIVEN) 3100. SUNNI 3200. SHI'ISM 3210. ISMA'ILIS 3211. DRUSE BUDDHISM 4000. BUDDHIST 4100. THERAVADA 4200. MAHAYANA HINDUISM AND OTHER RELIGIONS OF INDIA 5000. HINDU 5010. PARSIISM 5020. VAISHNAVISM 5030. SHAIVISM 5040. SHAKTISM 5500. JAINISM 5600. SIKHISM INDIGENOUS RELIGIONS OF EAST ASIA 6100. CONFUCIANISM 6200. TAOISM 6300. SHINTO 6400. NEW RELIGIONSISTS 6401. I-KUAN-TAO 6500. TRADITIONAL FOLK BELIEF/NICHIREN SHSHU ETHNORELIGIONS/OTHER BELIEVER 7100. PAGAN, HEATHEN, TRIBAL RELIGIONSIST, TRADITIONAL RELIGIONIST, ANIMISM, SHAMANISM 7110. RATANA, MAORI 7200. SPIRITISM 7500. BAHAI 7900. EHTNORELIGIONIST, OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7901. EHTNORELIGIONIST, OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] NON BELIEVERS 8100. AGNOSTIC 8200. ATHEIST 8300. NONE OTHERS 9001. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 9002. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 9003. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 9004. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 9600. OTHER: NOT SPECIFIED 9997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 9998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9999. MISSING | NOTES: C2025 | | Data are not available for DENMARK (2007), ICELAND (2007), | ICELAND (2009), NORWAY (2005), NORWAY (2009), PERU (2011), | SWEDEN (2006). | | Researchers should note that the CSES questionnaire of | origin does not include any filter instructions in the | demographic section. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C2025 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 1410. Armenian Apostolic | 9001. Other Non-Christian | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C2025 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 1199. Old Catholic | 1410. Armenian Apostolic | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C2025 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 7100. Afro-Brazilian beliefs (Umbandista/Candomblé) | 7200. Spiritist beliefs (Espirita Kardecista, Espirita) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C2025 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 1599. Mórmon, Adventista, Testemunha de Jeová | 7100. Candomblé | Umbanda | 7200. Espírita kardecista, espiritualista | 7900. Seisho-No-Iê, Messiânica, Perfeita Liberdade | 7901. Santo Daime, Esotérica | Rastafari | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2008): C2025 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 1216. Christian reform | 1420. United church of Canada | [Congregationalist / Methodist] | 8300. None, don't have one, atheist | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009): C2025 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 9001. Believer without specific religious denomination | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2006): C2025 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2010): C2025 | | CSES Code Election Study Category/Categories: | 1298. Czech Brothers Evangelical Church (Protestants) | 1299. Brothers Church (Hussites, Protestants) | 9001. Other non-Christian religions | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C2025 | | Besides the most important religious denominations for Germany, | no further information was given when an observation did not fit | in one of the broad denominational categories. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C2025 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 9001. Christian Alliance | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007, 2009): C2025 | | Note that the respondents were not asked their religious | denomination since the Icelandic population is very homogenous | in that sense. Around 80% of the Icelandic population are | members of the protestant church. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): C2025 | | Rather than an open-ended question, Japan provides a closed | list, including denominations for Roman Catholics, | Protestants, Christians (no denomination given), Buddhist, | Shinto and a reference category for other religion. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2010): C2025 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 9001. Old Believers | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C2025 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C2025 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 1216. Dutch Reformed | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C2025 | | CSES Code Election Study Category/Categories: | 1210. (Pentecostal) subsumes | Apostolic, Assembly of God, | Church of Christ, Open Brethren, | Church of Nazarene, Born Again Christian | 1000. Includes "Destiny" | 7100. Pagan spiritualism | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C2025 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 9001. Other non-Christian denomination (not specified) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2009): C2025 | | The Portuguese questionnaire asked only for Roman Catholics as | a single category, while all other religious denominations were | summarized in a reference group for others (code 96). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C2025 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 1699. Romanian Orthodox | 1299. Neo-Protestant (Pentecostal, Adventist, Baptist) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2010): C2025 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 1216. Reformed Christian Church in Slovakia | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): C2025 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 9001. Other Non-Christian denomination, not specified | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2009): C2025 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 1299. Quaker | 1499. Zionist Christian church | 1699. Coptic | 7900. Traditional / ethnic religion | 1000. Independent Christians | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2008): C2025 | | Researchers may wonder about the fact, that all in all, Christian | denominations cover about 32.2% of all respondents, in contrast | to Buddhist denominations that covers only 27.7%. However, | this distribution is in line with the CIA World Factbook, based | on the Korean Census 1995 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C2025 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 6500. Traditional Folk belief/Nichiren Shshu | 9001. Buddhism and Taoism (multiple beliefs)/all | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2008): C2025 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 1298. Assembly of God | 1299. Church of God | 7900. Native American | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): C2025 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 1299. Waldensians | 7100. Umbanda / Afro-Brazilians Religions | 7200. Basilio's Spirits | 9002. Pantheistic | 9003. Unification Church (Rev Moon) | 9004. Miracles Of Jesus / New Apostolic / | Assembly Of God | 9001. Christian, none religion | | The category "Christian, none religious" (code 87.) covers | respondents without an official religious denomination that feel | somehow affiliated to a Christian denomination. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C2026 >>> LANGUAGE USUALLY SPOKEN AT HOME --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D26. This variable reports the language usually spoken in the respondent's household. If more than one language is spoken at home, this variable reports the language spoken most of the time. .................................................................. 001. AFRIKAANS 002. ALBANIAN, ARVANITIKA 003. ALBANIAN, GHEG 004. ALBANIAN, TOSK 005. ALLEMANNISCH 006. ALSATIAN 007. ARABIC, JUDEO-MOROCCAN 008. ARABIC, LEVANTINE (ISRAEL) 009. ARMENIAN 201. ASHANTI (GHANA) 237. ASYRIAN 010. AVAR (RUSSIA) 011. AWADHI (INDIA) 012. AYMARA, CENTRAL (ARGENTINA, PERU) 231. AZERI 013. BASQUE 234. BALKAR 014. BELORUSSIAN 015. BEMBA (ZAMBIA) 016. BENGALI, BANGLADESHI, BANGLA (INDIA) 017. BHOJPURI (INDIA) 244. BICOLANO (PHILIPPINES) 265. BISAYA (PHILIPPINES) 270. B'LAAN (PHILIPPINES) 202. BLUCH (PAKISTAN) 263. BOHOLANO (PHILIPPINES) 018. BOSNIAN 019. BRETON 020. BULGARIAN 260. CAGAYANO (PHILIPPINES) 258. CANTILAGNON (PHILIPPINES) 273. CAPIZNON (PHILIPPINES) 021. CATALAN 241. CEBUANO (PHILIPPINES) 276. CENTRAL THAI 022. CHECHEN (RUSSIA) 203. CHINESE, CANTONESE 023. CHINESE, HAKKA 024. CHINESE, MANDARIN 025. CHINESE, MIN NAN 026. CHUVASH (RUSSIA) 027. CROATIAN 028. CZECH 029. DANISH 030. DECCAN (INDIA) 204. DORIC (SCOTLAND) 031. DUTCH 032. ENGLISH 033. ERZYA (RUSSIA) 205. ESAN (NIGERIA) 034. ESTONIAN 206. EWE (GHANA) 209. FARSI (IRAN) 035. FINNISH 036. FRENCH 037. FRISIAN, WESTERN (NETHERLANDS) 038. FULACUNDA (SENEGAL) 207. GA (GHANA) 039. GAELIC, IRISH 208. GAELIC (SCOTLAND) 040. GAGAUZ (MOLDOVA) 041. GALICIAN 042. GASCON 043. GEORGIAN 044. GERMAN, STANDARD 045. GREEK 046. GUARANI, PARAGUAYAN 047. GUJARATI (SOUTH AFRICA, INDIA) 048. HEBREW 266. HIGAONON (PHILIPPINES) 274. HILIGAYNON (PHILIPPINES) 049. HUNGARIAN 051. HINDI 050. ICELANDIC 259. IFUGAO (PHILIPPINES) 242. ILOCANO (PHILIPPINES) 243. ILONGGO (PHILIPPINES) 210. INDONESIAN 211. IRANIAN 254. IRANUN (PHILIPPINES) 278. ISAN THAI 052. ITALIAN 249. ITAWES (PHILIPPINES) 212. IWO (UGANDA) 053. JAKATI (MOLDOVA) 213. JAMAICAN PATOIS 275. JAMINDANON (PHILIPPINES) 054. JAPANESE 280. KAMAE (THAILAND) 257. KAMAYO (PHILIPPINES) 055. KANNADA (INDIA) 056. KAONDE (ZAMBIA) 245. KAPAMPANGAN (PHILIPPINES) 057. KARAIM (LITHUANIA) 261. KARAY-AY (PHILIPPINES) 233. KARBADIN 058. KIRMANJKI (TURKEY) 235. KOMI 279. KORATCH (THAILAND) 066. KOREAN 232. KURDISH 059. KURMANJI (TURKEY) 060. LADINO (ISRAEL) 061. LALA-BISA (ZAMBIA) 062. LAMBA (ZAMBIA) 277. LANNA THAI 063. LATVIAN 064. LENJE (ZAMBIA) 065. LESSER ANTILLEAN CREOLE 268. LEYTENO (PHILIPPINES) 067. LIGURIAN 068. LITHUANIAN 069. LOMBARD 070. LOZI (ZAMBIA) 071. LUNDA (ZAMBIA) 072. LUVALE (ZAMBIA) 073. MACEDONIAN 251. MAGUINDANAON (PHILIPPINES) 074. MAITHILI (INDIA) 229. MALLORQUIN 267. MALAUEG (PHILIPPINES) 075. MALAY 076. MALAYALAM (INDIA) 077. MALINKE (SENEGAL) 214. MALTESE 253. MANOBO (PHILIPPINES) 250. MASBATEÑO (PHILIPPINES) 215. MENDE (SIERRA LEONE) 216. MIRPUARY/MIRPUIR (PAKISTAN) 217. MNADINGGO (GAMBIA) 078. MAMBWE-LUNGU (ZAMBIA) 079. MANDINKA (SENEGAL) 080. MAORI 081. MAPUDUNGUN (CHILE) 082. MARATHI (INDIA) 083. MBOWE (ZAMBIA) 084. MINGRELIAN (GEORGIA) 085. MONTENEGRIAN 255. MUSLIM (PHILIPPINES) 086. MWANGA (ZAMBIA) 087. NEAPOLITAN-CALABRESE 088. NORWEGIAN 089. NSENGA (ZAMBIA) 090. NYANJA (ZAMBIA) 091. NYIHA (ZAMBIA) 092. ORIYA (INDIA) 093. OSETIN (GEORGIA) 218. PAHARI (PAKISTAN) 246. PANGASINENSE (PHILIPPINES) 094. PANJABI, EASTERN (INDIA) 236. PERSIAN 095. PIEMONTESE 096. POLISH 097. PORTUGUESE 098. PROVENCAL 248. PULANGI-ON (PHILIPPINES) 219. PUSHTO (PAKISTAN) 099. QUECHUA, ANCASH, HUAYLAS 100. QUECHUA, SOUTH BOLIVIAN (ARGENTINA) 101. QUECH UA, AYACUCHO 102. QUICHUA, HIGHLAND, IMBABURA 103. ROMANI, BALKAN 104. ROMANI, CARPATHIAN 105. ROMANI, VLACH 106. RUMANIAN 107. RUMANIAN, ISTRO 108. RUMANIAN, MACEDO 109. RUSSIAN 110. SARDINIAN, LOGUDORESE 220. SARAKI (PAKISTAN) 111. SCHWYZERDUTSCH (SWITZERLAND) 112. SERB 113. SERBO-CROATIAN 114. SERERE-SINE (SENEGAL) 264. SIBANIN (PHILIPPINES) 115. SICILIAN 116. SINDHI (SINGAPORE, INDIA) 272. SIPIANON (PHILIPPINES) 117. SLOVAK 118. SLOVENIAN 221. SOMALI 262. SORIGAONON (PHILIPPINES) 119. SOTHO, NORTHERN (SOUTH AFRICA) 120. SOTHO, SOUTHERN (SOUTH AFRICA) 281. SOUTHERN THAI 121. SPANISH 222. SWAHILI 122. SWATI (SOUTH AFRICA) 123. SWEDISH 240. TAGALOG (PHILIPPINES) 256. TAGON-ON (PHILIPPINES) 124. TAMIL (INDIA) 125. TATAR (RUSSIA) 269. T'BOLI (PHILIPPINES) 126. TELUGU (INDIA) 127. TIBETAN 128. TICANESE (SWITZERLAND) 252. TIRURAY (PHILIPPINES_ 129. TONGA (ZAMBIA) 130. TOUCOULEUR (SENEGAL) 131. TSONGA (SOUTH AFRICA) 132. TSWANA (SOUTH AFRICA) 133. TUMBUKA (ZAMBIA) 134. TURKISH 223. TWI (GHANA) 135. UKRAINIAN 224. UGANDAN 230. UDMURT 136. URDU (INDIA) 228. VALENCIANO 225. VIETNAMESE 137. VENETIAN 247. WARAY (PHILIPPINES) 139. WELSH 140. WOLOF (SENEGAL) 138. XHOSA (SOUTH AFRICA) 141. YAHUDIC (ISRAEL) 142. YIDDISH 226. YORUBA (NIGERIA) 271. ZAMBAL (PHILIPPINES) 143. ZULU 980. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 981. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 982. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 983. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 984. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 985. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 986. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 987. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 988. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 989. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 990. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 991. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 992. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 993. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 994. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 995. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 996. OTHER LANGUAGE (NOT SPECIFIED) 997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 999. MISSING | NOTES: C2026 | | Data are not available for AUSTRALIA (2007), BRAZIL (2006), | BRAZIL (2010), CHILE (2009), CZECH REPUBLIC (2006), CZECH | REPUBLIC (2010), DENMARK (2007), GREECE (2009), ICELAND (2007), | ICELAND (2009), IRELAND (2007), JAPAN (2007), NETHERLANDS | (2006), NETHERLANDS (2010), NORWAY (2005), NORWAY (2009), PERU | (2011), POLAND (2005), POLAND (2007), PORTUGAL (2009), SLOVENIA | (2008), SOUTH KOREA (2008), SPAIN (2008), SWEDEN (2006). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C2026 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 980. Other Eastern European language | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2008): C2026 | | Note that the Canadian question on the language usually spoken | at home differs from the CSES question wording: "What is the | first language you learned and still understand?" | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 980. Other European | 981. Other Asian | 982. Other African | 983. English & French | 984. English & something else | 985. Inuit, native | 986. Lebanese | 987. Ethiopian | 988. Chinese (not further specified) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2011): C2026 | | Note that C2026 equals C2029 (Ethnicity), except for the missing | values in C2026. | See also notes on C2029. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C2026 | | Besides the most important languages spoken in Germany, no | further information was given when an observation did not fit in | one of the broad categories offered. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C2026 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 980. Transylvanian Saxon | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): C2026 | | Note that C2026 was not asked in the Greek questionnaire of | 2009, "due to very high percentages of racial and linguistic | homogeneity". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C2026 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 980. Chinese - Chaozhouese | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007, 2009): C2026 | | Note that the respondents were not asked about which language | they usually speak at home. The collaborator reported that this | was not applicable in Iceland. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2007): C2026 | | Note that respondents were not asked which language they | usually speak at home due to a low variance. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): C2026 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 980. Caucasian | 981. Bukharan | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): C2026 | | This question was not asked in Japan 2007, as the collaborators | pointed out that the overwhelming majority of the population | speaks Japanese. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2010): C2026 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 980. Romani, Baltic | 981. Two languages, typically Russian and Latvian | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C2026 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C2026 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 980. Dialect | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C2026 | | CSES Code Election Study Category/Categories: | 995. Philippine | 996. Other, subsuming for NZ: | Pacific Island generic, Samoan, Tongan, | Cook Island, and Nuiean | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): C2026 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C2026 | | Note that the Polish respondents were not asked about the | language usually spoken at home. The Polish collaborators | pointed out that questions like these "are no important | issues in Poland - more than 90% of population speaks polish". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C2026 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 980. Romanian and Hungarian equally | 981. Romanian and Romanian equally | 982. Hungarian and Romanian equally | 983. Romanian, Hungarian, and Romanian equally | 984. Other language (except for Romanian, Hungarian) | 985. Romanian and other equally | 986. Romanian, Hungarian, and other equally | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2010): C2026 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 980. Ruthenian (Slavish language spoken in | Eastern-Slovakia and Western-Ukraine) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): C2026 | | Data on C2026 are not available for Slovenia (2008). According | to our Slovenian collaborators, this question is more or less | irrelevant for Slovenia, since "Slovenian is the most | spoken language - over 90%". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2009): C2026 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 980. Ndebele | 981. Venda / Tshivenda / Luvenda | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2008): C2026 | | The language spoken at home was not collected in South Korea, | for as pointed out by the Korean collaborators, 100% of | respondents speak Korean at home. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C2026 | | The Swiss questionnaire did not include a question about the | language usually spoken at home. As a proxy C2026 reports the | language the interview language, according to the above list. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C2026 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 980. Both Mandarin and Taiwanese | Mandarin and Taiwanese and other | Chinese dialect | Mandarin and Taiwanese and Japanese | 981. Both Mandarin and Hakka | 982. Both Taiwanese and Hakka | 983. Both Mandarin and other Chinese dialect | 984. Mandarin and Aboriginal language | 985. Aboriginal language | 986. Other Chinese dialect | 987 Mandarin and Taiwanese and Hakka | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C2026 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 980. Chinese, not further specified | 981. Mountain People | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2008): C2026 | | The US-American questionnaire asked only the Latino population | about the language usually spoken at home. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 980. English and Spanish, equally | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): C2026 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 980. Portunol (mixture of Portuguese and Spanish) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C2027 >>> REGION OF RESIDENCE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D27. This variable reports the respondent's region of residence. Regions are usually (but not always) based upon the social, cultural, or historical differences (though some correspond to administrative regions) that manifest themselves in political cleavages. .................................................................. 01.-80. REGION CODES [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 99. MISSING | NOTES: C2027 | | Data are not available for IRELAND (2007), ISRAEL (2006), PERU | (2011). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. New South Wales | 02. Victoria | 03. Queensland | 04. South Australia | 05. Western Australia | 06. Tasmania | 07. Australian Capital Territory | 08. Northern Territory | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Vorarlberg | 02. Tirol | 03. Salzburg | 04. Oberösterreich | 05. Kärnten | 06. Steiermark | 07. Burgenland | 08. Niederösterreich | 09. Wien | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2008): C2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Category/Categories: | 01. Brest | 02. Vitebsk | 03. Gomel | 04. Grodno | 05. Minsk (County) | 06. Mogilev | 07. Minsk (Capital) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Alagoas | 02. Bahia | 03. Ceará | 04. Maranhão | 05. Paraíba | 06. Pernambuco | 07. Piauí | 08. Rio Grande do Norte | 09. Sergipe | 10. Amazonas | 11. Distrito Federal | 12. Goiás | 13. Mato Grosso | 14. Mato Grosso do Sul | 15. Pará | 16. Espiríto Santo | 17. Minas Gerais | 18. Rio de Janeiro | 19. São Paulo | 20. Paraná | 21. Rio Grande do Sul | 22. Santa Catarina | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. North | 02. North-east | 03. Center-east | (sometimes referred to as | Center West or Midwest) | 04. South east | 05. South | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009): C2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01 Region de Tarapaca | 02 Region de Antofagasta | 03 Region de Atacama | 04 Region de Coquimbo | 05 Region de Valparaiso | 06 Region del Libertador Bernardo OHiggins | 07 Region del Maule | 08 Region del Bío Bío | 09 Region de la Araucanía | 10 Region de Los Lagos | 11 Region de Aisen del General Carlos Ibanez del | Campo | 12 Region de Magallanes y la Antartica Chilena | 13 Region Metropolitana | 14 Region de los Rios | 15 Arica y Parinacota | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2008): C2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 10. Newfoundland | 11. Prince Edward Island | 12. Nova Scotia | 13. New Brunswick | 24. Quebec | 35. Ontario | 46. Manitoba | 47. Saskatchewan | 48. Alberta | 59. British Columbia | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CROATIA (2007): C2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Zagreb and Zagreb County | 02. Northern Croatia | 03. Slavonia | 04. Lika and Banovina | 05. Istria, Rijeka, Northern Croatian Maritimes and | Gorski Kotar | 06. Dalmatia | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2006): C2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Hlavní mìsto Praha | 02. Benesov | 03. Kladno | 04. Kutná Hora | 05. Mìlník | 06. Mladá Boleslav | 07. Nymburk | 08. Praha - východ | 09. Praha - západ | 10. Pøíbram | 11. Rakovník | 12. Èeské Budìjovice | 13. Èeský Krumlov | 14. Jindøichùv Hradec | 15. Prachatice | 16. Strakonice | 17. Tábor | 18. Domazlice | 19. Klatovy | 20. Plzeò - mìsto | 21. Plzeò - sever | 22. Rokycany | 23. Cheb | 24. Karlovy Vary | 25. Sokolov | 26. Dìèín | 27. Chomutov | 28. Litomìøice | 29. Louny | 30. Most | 31. Teplice v Èechách | 32. Ústí nad Labem | 33. Èeská Lípa | 34. Jablonec nad Nisou | 35. Liberec | 36. Semily | 37. Hradec Králové | 38. Jièín | 39. Náchod | 40. Rychnov nad Knìznou | 41. Trutnov | 42. Chrudim | 43. Pardubice | 44. Svitavy | 45. Havlíèkùv Brod | 46. Jihlava | 47. Pelhøimov | 48. Tøebíè | 49. Zïár nad Sázavou | 50. Blansko | 51. Brno - mìsto | 52. Brno - venkov | 53. Bøeclav | 54. Hodonín | 55. Vyskov | 56. Znojmo | 57. Jeseník | 58. Olomouc | 59. Prostìjov | 60. Pøerov | 61. Sumperk | 62. Kromìøíz | 63. Uherské Hradistì | 64. Vsetín | 65. Zlín | 66. Bruntál | 67. Frýdek - Místek | 68. Karviná | 69. Nový Jièín | 70. Opava | 71. Ostrava - mìsto | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2010): C2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Prague | 02. Central Bohemia | 03. South Bohemia | 04. Pilsen region | 05. Karlovy Vary region | 06. Usti region | 07. Liberec region | 08. Hradec Kralove region | 09. Pardubice region | 10. Vysocina region | 11. South Moravia | 12. Olomouc region | 13. Zlin region | 14. Moravian-Silesian region | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Copenhagen (Capital City) | 02. Zealand | 03. South Denmark | 04. Mid Jutland | 05. North Jutland | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): C2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 01. North Estonia | 02. West Estonia | 03. Central Estonia | 04. North-East Estonia | 05. South Estonia | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2007): C2027 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2011): C2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Uusimaa | 02. Varsinais-Suomi | 03. Itä-Uusimaa | 04. Satakunta | 05. Kanta-Häme | 06. Pirkanmaa | 07. Päijät-Häme | 08. Kymenlaakso | 09. South Karelia | 10. Etelä-Savo | 11. Pohjois-Savo | 12. North Karelia | 13. Central Finland | 14. South Ostrobothnia | 15. Ostrobothnia | 16. Central Ostrobothnia | 17. North Ostrobothnia | 18. Kainuu | 19. Lapland | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Alsace | 02. Aquitaine | 03. Auvergne | 04. Bretagne | 05. Bourgogne | 06. Centre | 07. Champagne-Ardenne | 08. Corse | 09. Franche-Comté | 10. Languedoc-Roussillon | 11. Limousin | 12. Lorraine | 13. Basse-Normandie | 14. Midi-Pyrénées | 15. Nord-Pas-de-Calais | 16. Ile-de-France | 17. Pays-de-la-Loire | 18. Picardie | 19. Poitou-Charentes | 20. Provence-Alpes-Côte D'Azur | 21. Rhône-Alpes | 22. Haute-Normandie | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C2027 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C2027 | | The German data of 2005 did not include information about the | region of residence. As an approximation, the federal states of | Germany (the so called Bundeslaender) had been used: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Schleswig-Holstein | 02. Hamburg | 03. Niedersachsen (Lower Saxony) | 04. Bremen | 05. Nordrhein-Westfalen (North Rhine-Westphalia) | 06. Hessen (Hesse) | 07. Rheinland-Pfalz (Rhineland-Palatinate) | 08. Baden-Württemberg | 09. Bayern (Bavaria) | 10. Saarland | 11. Berlin | 12. Brandenburg | 13. Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Mecklenburg-West | Pomerania) | 14. Sachsen (Saxony) | 15. Sachsen-Anhalt (Saxony-Anhalt) | 16. Thüringen (Thuringia) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): C2027 | | Note that the categories for the region of residence equal those | of the primary electoral districts, coded in C2031. However, | researchers should note that according to Greek law, | it is possible to vote in a district different than the one of | residence. Consequently, C2027 and C2031 do not perfectly | match. | For the labels of C2027, see appendices of the current codebook. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C2027 | | The region of residence, given by C2027, equals the electoral | districts of respondents, according to C2031 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Hong Kong Island | 02. Kowloon West | 03. Kowloon East | 04. New Territories West | 05. New Territories East | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007, 2009): C2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Capital area (Reykjavik, Hafnarfjörður, Garðabær, | Kópavogur, Álftanes, Seltjarnarnes, Mosfellsbær) | 02. Southwest peninsula (Suðurnes) | 03. West | 04. West Fjords | 05. North West | 06. North East | 07. East | 08. South | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): C2027 | | In the case of Japan 2007 the region of residence equals the | PRIMARY ELECTORAL DISTRICT in C2031. (See codebook appendices). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2010): C2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Riga | 02. Vidzeme | 03. Kurzeme | 04. Zemgale | 05. Latgale | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C2027 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/ | 01. North | 02. Center West | 03. Center | 04. Southeast | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C2027 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. North | 02. East | 03. West | 04. South | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C2027 | | New Zealand regional differences are weak, primarily based on | historical settlement patterns, and political differences | between them. They can usually be decomposed into | socio-demographic variables. | | Regions have been defined by grouping electoral districts into | the following: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Northland (north of Auckland) | 02. Auckland City and Suburbs | 03. Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Central North Island | 04. Other North Island | 05. Wellington City and Suburbs | 06. South Island | | Of these, Auckland and the South Island stand out as the most | distinctive politically, with the South Island assumed to be | more conservative in its voting habits and Auckland, the largest | city and commercial centre, tending to be associated with | change. Wellington, the capital, is to some extent shaped by its | greater concentration of public sector employment. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C2027 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Oslofjord | 02. Inner East of Norway | 03. Southern Norway | 04. Western Norway | 05. Trøndelag | 06. Northern Norway | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C2027 | | The regions of residence had been the baseline for the | Philippine sampling process (for further details, see | introduction of the current codebook). All four regions include | a similar amount of respondents (n=300). | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. National capital region | 02. Balance Luzon | 03. Visayas | 04. Mindanao | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): C2027 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C2027 | | Polish regions are due to the administrative districts | ("voivodship"). | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Lower Silesian (dolnoslaskie) | 02. Kuyavian-Pomeranian (kujawsko-pomorskie) | 03. Lublin (lubelskie) | 04. Lubusz (lubuskie) | 05. Lódz (lódzkie) | 06. Lesser Poland (malopolskie) | 07. Masovian (mazowieckie) | 08. Opole (opolskie) | 09. Subcarpathian (podkarpackie) | 10. Podlaskie (podlaskie) | 11. Pomeranian (pomorskie) | 12. Silesian (slaskie) | 13. Swietokrzyskie | 14. Warmian-Masurian (warminsko-mazurskie) | 15. Greater Poland (wielkopolskie) | 16. West Pomeranian (zachodniopomorskie) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2009): C2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. North | 02. Center | 03. Lisbon and Tagus Valley | 04. Alentejo | 05. Algarve | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Bucuresti | 02. Muntenia | 03. Oltenia | 04. Dobrogea | 05. Moldova | 06. Banat | 07. Crisana-Maramures | 08. Transylvania | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2010): C2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Bratislava | 02. Trnava | 03. Trencín | 04. Nitra | 05. Zilina | 06. Banska Bystrica | 07. Kosice | 08. Presov | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): C2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 01. Pomurska | 02. Podravska | 03. Koroska | 04. Savinjska | 05. Zasavska | 06. Spodnjeposavska | 07. JV Slovenija | 08. Osrednjeslovenska | 09. Gorenjska | 10. Notranjsko - Kraska | 11. Goriska | 12. Obalno - Kraska | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2009): C2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 01. Eastern Cape | 02. Free State | 03. Gauteng | 04. Kwazulu Natal | 05. Limpopo | 06. Mpumalanga | 07. Northern Cape | 08. North West | 09. Western Cape | | Note that the region of residence (C2027) equals respondents‘ | primary electoral district, coded in C2031 (also see codebook | appendices). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2008): C2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Seoul | 02. Busan | 03. Daegu | 04. Incheon | 05. Gwangju | 06. Daejeon | 07. Ulsan | 08. Gyunggi | 09. Gangwon | 10. Chungbuk | 11. Chungnam | 12. Jeonbuk | 13. Jeonnam | 14. Gyungbuk | 15. Gyungnam | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2008): C2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Andalucia | 02. Aragón | 03. Asturias | 04. Baleares | 05. Cataluña | 06. Canarias | 07. Cantabria | 08. Castilla-León | 09. Castilla-Lamancha | 10. Extremadura | 11. Galicia | 12. La Rioja | 13. Madrid | 14. Murcia | 15. Navarra | 16. País Vasco | 17. Comunidad Valenciana | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Stockholms | 03. Uppsala | 04. Södermanlands | 05. Östergötlands | 06. Jönköpings | 07. Kronobergs | 08. Kalmar | 09. Gotland | 10. Blekinge | 12. Skåne | 13. Halland | 14. Våstra götaland | 17. Värmland | 18. Örebro | 19. Västmanland | 20. Kopparberg | 21. Gävleborg | 22. Västernorrland | 23. Jämtland | 24. Västerbotten | 25. Norrbotten | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. German Speaking Part of Switzerland | 02. French Speaking Part of Switzerland | 03. Italian Speaking Part of Switzerland | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C2027 | | Region of Residence represents the respondents' big cities or | counties of origin. Note that there were no respondents from | 02 Tayyuan City, 05 Miao Li, 16 Peng Hu, and 20 Chiayi City. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Taipei County | 02. Yi Lan County | 03. Taoyuan County | 04. Hsinchu County | 05. Miao Li County | 06. Taichung County | 07. Changhua County | 08. Nantou County | 09. Yunlin County | 10. Chiayi County | 11. Tainan County | 12. Kaohsiung County | 13. Pingtung County | 14. Taitung County | 15. Hualien County | 16. Peng Hu County | 17. Keelung City | 18. Hsinchu City | 19. Taichung City | 20. Chiayi City | 21. Tainan City | 63. Taipei City | 64. Kaoshiung City | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. North | 02. Northeast | 03. East | 04. Central | 05. South | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): C2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 01. Istanbul | 02. Aegean | 03. Mediterranean | 04. Southeast Anatolian | 05. West Anatolia | 06. Marmara | 07. Black Sea | 08. Central Anatolia | 09. Eastern Anatolia | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2008): C2027 | | C2027 reports the federal state, respondent is living in, | according to the US-FIPS-codes of the NIST.. | It reflects the first two digits of respondent's electoral | district (see Election Study Note on C2031.) | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Alabama | 04. Arizona | 06. California | 08. Colorado | 09. Connecticut | 10. Delaware | 11. District of Columbia | 12. Florida | 13. Georgia | 17. Illinois | 18. Indiana | 20. Kansas | 22. Louisiana | 25. Massachusetts | 26. Michigan | 27. Minnesota | 28. Mississippi | 32. Nevada | 34. New Jersey | 35. New Mexico | 36. New York | 37. North Carolina | 38. North Dakota | 39. Ohio | 40. Oklahoma | 41. Oregon | 42. Pennsylvania | 44. Rhode Island | 45. South Carolina | 47. Tennessee | 48. Texas | 51. Virginia | 53. Washington | 55. Wisconsin | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): C2027 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Metropolitan | 02. East | 03. North-Center | 04. West | 05. South --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C2028 >>> RACE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D28. This item reports the respondent's race. This variable is coded according to national standards. .................................................................. 001.-995. RACE CODES [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 996. OTHER RACE (NOT SPECIFIED) 997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 999. MISSING | NOTES: C2028 | | Data are not available for AUSTRALIA (2007), AUSTRIA (2008), | BELARUS (2008), BRAZIL (2006), CHILE (2009), CROATIA (2007), | CZECH REPUBLIC (2006), CZECH REPUBLIC (2010), DENMARK (2007), | ESTONIA (2011), FINLAND (2007), FINLAND (2011), FRANCE (2007), | GERMANY (2005), GERMANY (2009), GREECE (2009), HONG KONG (2008), | ICELAND (2007), ICELAND (2009), IRELAND (2007), ISRAEL (2006), | JAPAN (2007), LATVIA (2010), NETHERLANDS (2006), NETHERLANDS | (2010), NORWAY (2005), NORWAY (2009), PERU (2011), POLAND | (2005), POLAND (2007), ROMANIA (2009), SLOVAKIA (2010), SLOVENIA | (2008), SPAIN (2008), SWEDEN (2006), SWITZERLAND (2007), TAIWAN | (2008), TURKEY (2011). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C2028 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. White | 02. Black | 03. Brunet | 04. Yellow | 05. Indigenous | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2008): C2028 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 01. Non-racial minority | 02. Racial minority | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): C2028 | | Note that C2028 was not asked in the Greek questionnaire of | 2009, "due to very high percentages of racial and linguistic | homogeneity". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C2028 | | The Hong Kong questionnaire of origin does not include a | question about the race of respondents. As our collaborators | pointed out, "Hong Kong is a racially homogenous society, with | over 95% of its population ethnic Chinese. To serve as a proxy, | [one] may consult [C2026], which asked the main language usually | spoken at home." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007, 2009): C2028 | | Note that the respondents were not asked their race. | The collaborator reported that this question was not applicable | in Iceland. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2007): C2028-C2029 | | Note that respondents were not asked for their race or | ethnicity due to a low variance for Irish citizens. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): C2028 | | This question was not asked in Japan 2007, as the collaborators | pointed out that "almost all respondents had been Japanese and | consequently of Asian race." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C2028 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C2028 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Native | 02. Mixed Race | 03. White | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C2028 | | CSES Code Election Study Category/Categories: | 01. Not Maori | 02. Maori | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C2028 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. European (Caucasian) | 02. Asian | 03. African (Negroid) | 04. Indian | 05. Polynesian | 06. Micronesian | 07. Melanesian | 08. Australoid | 09. American Indian | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): C2028 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C2028 | | Note that the Polish respondents were not asked about their | race. In contrast, C2028 has been coded afterwards by the Polish | collaborators, who pointed out that questions like these "are | no important issues in Poland - more than 90% of population | (...) are of European race (...)". | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. European | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2009): C2028 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. European | 02. Asian | 03. African | 04. Indian | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): C2028 | | Data for C2026 are not available for Slovenia (2008). According | to our Slovenian collaborators, this question is "not relevant | in Slovenia since we have 99% Caucasian race". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2009): C2028 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 01. Black | 02. Colored | 03. Asian | 04. White | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2008): C2028 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 02. Asian | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C2028 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Thai | 02. China | 03. Malay | 04. India | 05. Cambodia | 06. Laos | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): C2028 | | A question about respondent's race was not included in the | Turkish survey. According to the CSES collaborators, researchers | might code all Turkish respondents as belonging to the Caucasian | race. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2008): C2028 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 1. White | 2. Black / African-American | 3. Latino | 4. Asian | 5. Native Americans | 6. Hispanics | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): C2028 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. White | 02. Black | 03. Mixed with India / Indigenous | 04. Yellow --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C2029 >>> ETHNICITY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D29. This variable reports the ethnic identity of respondents. .................................................................. 001.-995. ETHNICITY CODES [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 996. OTHER ETHNICITY (NOT SPECIFIED) 997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 999. MISSING | NOTES: C2029 | | See also notes for variable C2028. | | Data are not available for AUSTRALIA (2007), AUSTRIA (2008), | BRAZIL (2006), BRAZIL (2010), CHILE (2009), CZECH REPUBLIC | (2006), CZECH REPUBLIC (2010), DENMARK (2007), FRANCE (2007), | GERMANY (2005), HONG KONG (2008), ICELAND (2007), ICELAND | (2009), IRELAND (2007), JAPAN (2007), LATVIA (2010), MEXICO | (2006), MEXICO (2009), NETHERLANDS (2006), NETHERLANDS (2010), | NORWAY (2005), NORWAY (2009), POLAND (2005), POLAND (2007), | PORTUGAL (2009), SOUTH AFRICA (2009), SOUTH KOREA (2008), SPAIN | (2008), SWEDEN (2006), SWITZERLAND (2007), TURKEY (2011). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2008): C2029 | | CSES Code Election Study Category/Categories: | 001. Byelorussian | 002. Russian | 003. Pole | 004. Ukrainian | 005. Tartar | 006. Jew | 007. Georgian | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2008): C2029 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. Canadian | 002. Australian | 003. Austrian | 004. Bahamian | 005. Bangladeshi | 006. Black / African | 007. British | 008. Chinese | 009. Croatian | 010. Czech | 011. Danish | 012. Dutch | 013. English | 014. Salvadoran | 015. Ethiopian | 016. French | 017. Finnish | 018. German | 019. Greek | 020. Guyanese | 021. Haitian | 022. Holland | 023. Hungarian | 024. Irish | 025. Italian | 026. Indian | 027. Israeli | 028. Jamaican | 029. Japanese | 030. Jewish | 031. Korean | 032. Lebanese | 033. Macedonian | 034. New Zealander | 035. Netherlands | 036. Nigerian | 037. Norwegian | 038. Pakistani | 039. Filipino | 040. Polish | 041. Portuguese | 042. Russian | 043. Scottish | 044. Serbian | 045. Sikh | 046. Somalia | 047. Slovakian | 048. Spanish | 049. Sri Lankan | 050. Swedish | 051. Tamil | 052. Trinidadian | 053. Ukrainian | 054. Vietnamese | 055. Yugoslavian | 056. Welsh | 057. American | 058. Other European ethnicity | 059. Other Asian ethnicity | 060. Other central American ethnicity | 061. Other south American ethnicity | 062. Other African ethnicity | 063. Other Caribbean ethnicity | 064. Arabic/middle eastern ethnicity | 065. Other north African ethnicity | 066. Mennonite | 067. Anglo Saxon / White Anglo-Saxon Protestant / | Caucasian / white, etc. | 068. Acadian | 069. Inuit, Métis, Aboriginal, native | 070. Quebecois | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CROATIA (2007): C2029 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 018. Bosnian | 027. Croatian | 049. Hungarian | 052. Italian | 103. Roma | 112. Serbian | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2010): C2029 | Not asked. Almost everybody is expected to be Czech. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): C2029 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. Estonian | 002. Russian | 003. Ukrainian | 004. Belorussian | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2007): C2029 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. Finns | 002. Finno-Swedes | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2011): C2029 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. Finnish speaking Finns | 002. Swedish speaking Finns | | Note that C2029 equals C2026 (Language usually spoken at home), | except the missing values in C2026. | See also notes on C2026. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C2029 | | Respondents of Germany were not asked about their ethnicity. | As a proxy, CSES-data include respondent's country of birth. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. Germany | 002. Germans of the former Regions of Germany in | Eastern Europe | 005. Turkey | 006. Italy | 007. Poland | 008. Serbia | 010. Croatia | 013. Netherlands | 014. Belgium | 015. France | 017. Austria | 018. Czech Republic | 020. United States | 021. Russia | 023. India | 024. Iran | 025. Kazakhstan | 026. Hungary | 027. Rumania | 028. Great Britain | 029. Kyrgyzstan | 030. Colombia | 031. Morocco | 032. Norway | 033. Pakistan | 035. Spain | 036. Ukraine | 037. Albania | 039. Lebanon | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): C2029 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. Greek | 002. Albanian | 003. Kurdish | 004. Armenian | 005. Austrian | 006. German | 007. Hungarian | 008. Polish | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C2029 | | The Hong Kong questionnaire of origin does not include a | question about the ethnicity of respondents. As our | collaborators pointed out, "Hong Kong is a racially homogenous | society, with over 95% of its population ethnic Chinese. To | serve as a proxy, [one] may consult [C2026], which asked the | main language usually spoken at home." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007, 2009): C2029 | | Note that the respondents were not asked their ethnicity. | The collaborator reported that this question was not applicable | in Iceland. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2007): C2028-C2029 | | Note that respondents were not asked for their race or | ethnicity due to a low variance for Irish citizens. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): C2029 | | CSES CODE Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. North Africa/Ethiopia | 002. Asia | 003. East Europe | 004. West and Central Europe | 005. America/Australia/South Africa | 006. R. native of Israel-father native of Israel | 007. R. native of Israel-father native of North Africa | 008. R. native of Israel-father native of Asia | 009. R. native of Israel-father native of East-Europe | 010. R. native of Israel-father native of W. or | central Europe | 011. R. native of Israel-father native of | America/Australia/South Africa | 012. Arab Sample | 997. No answer for himself and/or father [sic] | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): C2029 | | This question was not asked in Japan 2007, as the collaborators | pointed out that "almost all respondents had been Japanese." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C2029 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. European | 002. Maori | 003. Polynesian/Melanesian | 004. Generic Asian | 005. None of the above | 006. African | 007. Asian North East (Chinese, Korean) | 008. Indian, Sri Lankan | 009. South East Asian | 010. 'New Zealander' | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2011): C2029 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. Indigenous | 002. Afro Peruvian | 003. White | 004. Mestizo | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C2029 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. Bicolano | 002. Ifugao | 003. Igorot | 004. Ilocano | 005. Ilonggo | 006. Cebuano | 007. Chinese | 008. Japanese | 009. Maguindanao | 010. Maranao | 011. Spanish | 012. Tagalog | 013. Tausug | 014. Yakan | 021. Waray | 022. Bisaya | 023. Kapampangan | 024. Subano | 025. Leyte Ño | 026. Higaonon | 027. Kenkaney | 028. Siquijodnon | 029. Aklanon | 030. Kamayo | 031. Boholano | 032. Surigaonon | 033. Mandaya | 034. Bagobo | 035. Zambalenya | 036. Pangasinense | 037. B'Laan | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): C2029 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C2029 | | Note that the Polish respondents were not asked about their | ethnicity. Polish collaborators pointed out that questions like | these "are no important issues in Poland - more than 90% of | population (...) are (...) of Polish ethnicity". | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. Polish | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C2029 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. Romanian | 002. Hungarian | 003. Roma | 004. German | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2010): C2029 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. Slovak | 002. Hungarian | 003. Roma | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): C2029 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. Slovenian | 002. Italian | 003. Hungarian | 004. Austrian | 005. German | 006. Croatian | 007. Serbian | 008. Montenegrin | 009. Bosnian, Muslim | 010. Macedonian | 011. Albanian | 012. Gipsy | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2009): C2029 | | According to our collaborators, language is a common measure for | the ethnicity in South Africa. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C2029 | | Note that in the Taiwanese election study respondents were asked | to tell their mothers' and fathers' but not their own ethnicity. | The below list of respondents' ethnicity represents a | combination, calculated from their parents' ethnicity. | Codes 01-04 are respondents whose parents are of the same | ethnicity. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. Taiwanese Hakka | 002. Taiwanese Min-Nan | 003. Mainlander | 004. Aboriginal | 005. Foreigner | 006. Overseas Chinese | 007. Taiwanese Hakka/Min-Nan | 008. Taiwanese Hakka/Mainlander | 009. Taiwanese Hakka/Aboriginal | 010. Taiwanese Hakka/Overseas Chinese | 011. Taiwanese Min-Nan/Mainlander | 012. Taiwanese Min-Nan/Aboriginal | 013. Taiwanese Min-Nan/Foreigner | 014. Mainlander/Aboriginal | 015. Mainlander/Foreigner | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C2029 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. Thai | 002. Chinese | 005. Cambodian | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): C2029 | | A question about respondent's ethnicity was not included in the | Turkish survey. According to the CSES collaborators, researchers | might use the language question (C2026) as a proxy for C2029. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2008): C2029 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 010. American Indian or Native American; tribal | mentions | 020. Canadian; not specified as French-Canadian | 030. Canadian, of French origin | 040. Mexican [excl 863 explicit mention "Chicano" / | "Mexican-American"] | 050. Central American | 080. Cuban | 090. Dominican Republic | 100. Haitian | 110. Jamaican | 120. Puerto Rican | 130. West Indian--not from one of the above countries | 140. West Indian--NA which country | 160. South American--any country | 180. English, British | 190. Irish [not specified Northern Ireland, 220] | 200. Scottish | 210. Welsh | 230. Scot-Irish | 240. British Isles; from 2 or more countries of the | British Isles | 280. French | 290. German; also Pennsylvania Dutch | 310. Netherlands, Holland; Dutch | 320. Swiss | 330. From Western Europe; 2 or more countries of | Western Europe | 350. Danish | 360. Finn, Finnish | 370. Norwegian | 380. Swedish | 390. Icelander | 400. Scandinavian; reference to 2 or more Scandinavian | countries | 430. Czechoslovakian, Slavic | 432. Czech (specific); Bohemian (part of Czech | Republic) | 433. Slovenian | 450. Hungarian | 470. Lithuanian | 480. Polish | 490. Russian; from U.S.S.R. | 500. Ukrainian | 510. Eastern Europe; reference to 2 or more countries | of Eastern | 550. Greek | 570. Yugoslavian | 600. Italian | 610. Portuguese | 620. Spanish | 640. European; general mention of Europe; reference to | 2 or more countries of Europe not codeable above | 670. Indian [East Indian; not American Indian 010] | 680. Southeast Asia--from Indochina, Thailand, Malaya, | Burma, | 690. Chinese | 700. Japanese; Japanese American | 710. Korean | 720. Asian | 730. Egyptian | 740. Iranian, Persian | 780. Lebanese | 820. Armenian | 825. Middle-Eastern; general mention of Middle East; | reference to 2 or more Near-East/Middle-Eastern | countries not codeable above | 830. African; from any African country excluding only | Egypt [see 730] | 840. South Pacific Islander, excluding native Hawaiian | 860. White, Caucasian | 861. 'Anglo' | 862. Black; Negro; American Black; African American | 863. Chicano; Mexican-American; Hispanic; Latin | American | 864. Asian-American, excluding Japanese American | 865. "Bi-racial" | 869. Other U.S. ethnic group mentioned | 872. Jewish | 873. Other religious groups | 890. "American" specifically mentioned as only | mention; "Just American" as only mention; "U.S. | citizen" as only mention | 891. U.S. region (e.g. 'Southerner') or state mentioned | 899. None | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): C2029 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. Spaniard | 002. Lusitanian | 003. Italian | 004. Other Europeans | 005. Middle East | 006. Creole | 007. Afro --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C2030 >>> RURAL OR URBAN RESIDENCE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D30. Rural/Urban Residence. .................................................................. 1. RURAL AREA OR VILLAGE 2. SMALL OR MIDDLE-SIZED TOWN 3. SUBURBS OF LARGE TOWN OR CITY 4. LARGE TOWN OR CITY 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | NOTES: C2030 | | Instead of using the CSES-schema, some countries employ the | amount of inhabitants for the size of respondent's place of | residence. These measurements do not fit the categories | generally used for C2030. Consequently, we advice users to | carefully read the Election Study Notes of the current variable. | | Data are not available for CANADA (2008), CHILE (2009), HONG | KONG (2008), TAIWAN (2008), UNITED STATES (2008). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C2030 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 01. A rural area or village | A small country town (under 10,000 people) | 02. A larger country town (over 10,000 people) | 03. A large town (over 25,000 people) | 04. A major city (over 100,000 people) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C2030 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Rural area or village | Rural area or village close to a city | Rural small town | 02. Small industrialized town | Middle-sized town with little industry | Middle-sized town little industry with much | industry | 03. Suburbs of large town or city | 04. Centre of large town or city | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2008): C2030 | | The original variable contained five categories | that somewhat differ from the CSES categories. The following | table shows adjustments of the codes to the CSES standards: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Rural area or village | 02. Own population is less than 50,000 | 03. Town population is from 50,000-200,000 | 04. Population is over 200,000 | City population is over 1 000,000 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C2030 | | The original variable in the data from Brazil contained three | categories that somewhat differ from the CSES categories. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 01. [NOT IN USE IN BRAZILIAN DATA] | 02. Interior | 03. Metropolitan Region | 04. Capital | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C2030 | | The original variable contained five categories that | somewhat differ from the CSES categories. The following | table shows adjustments of the codes to the CSES standards: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Small | 02. Medium | 03. Metropolitan area | 04. Capital | Big | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2008): C2030 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Less than 10,000 inhabitants | 02. 10,000 through 99,999 inhabitants | 03. 100,000 through 499,999 inhabitants | 04. 500,000 and more inhabitants | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2006): C2030 | | This variable was constructed from another variable | "size of the municipality you live in". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2010): C2030 | | This variable was constructed from another variable "type of | place you live in". Note that 14 respondents did not find | themselves represented within the existing categories. Those 14 | answers were assigned with the ‘missing' value 9. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C2030 | | Note that the Danish question on respondent's type of residence | differs slightly from the CSES wording. | The Danish question of origin was: "Hvilken type by bor du i?" | (What kind of city do you live in?), including the following | categories: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. A rural area ("Et land distrikt") | 02. Town with less than 10,000 inhabitants | ("En by med under 10.000 indbyggere") | town between 10,000 and 50,000 inhabitants | ("En by med 10.000 - 50.000 indbyggere") | 04. City between 50,001 and 500,000 inhabitants | ("En by med 50.001 - 500.000 indbyggere") | Metropolitan area ("Hovedstadsområdet") | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2007): C2030 | | The original variable in the data from Finland differs somewhat | from CSES in the value labels' definitions: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 01. Sparsely populated rural area | 02. Population centre in a rural area | 03. City/town suburb | 04. In a city center/town center | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2011): C2030 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Sparsely populated rural area | 02. Population centre in a rural area | 03. City or town suburb | 04. City or town center | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C2030 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Rural (less than 2,000) | 02. Urban units (2,000-20,000) | 03. Urban units (20,000-100,000) | 04. Urban units (100,000-200,000) | Urban units (200,000 and more) | Paris and its suburbs | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): C2030 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Rural areas and small villages in the Greek | mainland and islands | 02. Semi-rural areas in the Greek mainland and | islands | 03. Suburban areas in the Greek mainland and islands | 04. Urban areas in the Greek mainland and islands: | Large towns or cities, including Athens and other | metropolitan cities | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C2030 | | The Hong Kong questionnaire of origin does not include a | question about "rural or urban residence". As our collaborators | pointed out, "Hong Kong is a small and modern city, and most of | the area can be regarded as urban, with divisions between rural | and urban very unclear." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007): C2030 | | This variable was calculated by the Icelandic collaborator | based on information about postal codes. The distinction between | respondents living in a rural area or village and a small or | middle sized town could be biased, as the postal codes do not | in all instances make a distinction between a town and the rural | area surrounding it. In those instances it is due to that in the | postal area includes a village and the rural area surrounding | it. However, this sample should be close to the population, as | 8.3% are categorized in the sample as living in a rural area or | a village, and according to information from Statistics Iceland, | the percent of the population living in rural areas was 7.4% | on January 1, 2007. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Rural area or village (less than 200 persons) | 02. Small or middle sized town (200-19.999 persons) | 03. Suburbs of large town or city | (20 000-99.999 persons) | 04. Large town or city (more than 100 000 persons) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2009): C2030 | | This variable was calculated by the Icelandic collaborator | based on information about postal codes. The distinction between | respondents living in a rural area or village and a small or | middle sized town could be biased, as the postal codes do not | in all instances make a distinction between a town and the rural | area surrounding it. In those instances it is due to that in the | postal area includes a village and the rural area surrounding | it. However, this sample should be close to the population, as | 10.1% is categorized as living in a rural area or a village, and | according to information from Statistics Iceland the percent | of the population living in rural areas was 6.5% in 2009. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Rural area or village (less than 200 persons) | 02. Small or middle sized town (200-19.999 | persons) | 03. Suburbs of large town or city | (20 000-99.999 persons) | 04. Large town or city (more than 100 000 | persons) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2007): C2030 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Open country | Village (200-1,499) | 02. Town (1,500-2,999) | Town (3,000-4,999) | Town (5,000-9,999) | Town (10,000 or more) | 03. Dublin County (outside Dublin City) | 04. Waterford City | Galway City | Limerick City | Cork City | Dublin City | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): C2030 | | Category 3, "Suburbs of Large Town or City" was not included in | the Israeli survey instrument. Respondents were asked to choose | between categories 1, 2, or 4. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 01. Rural area or village | (including Kibbutzim, Moshavim) | 02. Small or middle-sized town | (all cities except Tel-Aviv, Jerusalem, Haifa) | 04. Large city (Tel-Aviv, Jerusalem, Haifa) | 07. REFUSED | 08. Don't KNOW | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2010): C2030 | | The following codes were used from the Latvian election study: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 01. Village, rural area | 02. Urban setting other than in category 4, or | district centre | 04. Daugavpils, Liepaja, Jelgava, Ventspils, Jurmala, | Riga | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C2030 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C2030 | | Classification of residence follows the National Institute of | Statistics and Geography. Categories are: | | CSES Code Election Study Code | 01. Locality with less than 2500 inhabitants. | 04. Urban locality with more than 2500 inhabitants. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C2030 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C2030 | | Note that the DPES study used 5 categories for this variable. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Very low | 02. Low | 03. Medium | High | 04. Very high | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C2030 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. A rural area or settlement (under 10,000) | 02. A country town (under 10,000) | 03. A larger country town (10,000-25,000) | 04. A large town (over 25,000) | A major city (over 100,000) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C2030 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 01. Rural area or village (less than 199 persons) | 02. Small or middle sized town (200-19.999 persons) | 03. Suburbs of large town or city (20 000-99.999 | persons) | 04. Large town or city (more than 100 000 persons)´ | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C2030 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. less than 1,000 inhabitants | 02. 1,000 - 19,999 inhabitants | 03. 20,000 - 99,999 inhabitants | 04. more than 99,999 inhabitants | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2011): C2030 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 01. Rural area | 03. Urban area - non capital | 04. Urban area - capital city | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C2030 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Rural area or village | 02. Small town (<30,000) | Middle-sized town (30,000-100,000) | 04. Large town (100,000-200,000) | City (>200,000) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2009): C2030 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 01. Rural, not further specified | 04. Urban, not further specified | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2008): C2030 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Less than 2,000 inhabitants | 02. Between 2,000 and 10,000 inhabitants | 03. Between 10,001 and 100,000 inhabitants | 04. More than 100,001 inhabitants | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C2030 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 08. Volunteered: don't know/refused | | In Sweden there is no detailed information on how these | categories were compiled by the collaborator. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C2030 | | There were two categories in the Swiss survey. Towns over | 10,000 inhabitants as well as municipalities and towns situated | within a metropolitan area were coded 2 (urban). The rest were | coded 1 (rural municipalities). | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Rural area or village | 02. Town or city | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C2030 | | In contrast to the CSES schema, the Thai questionnaire did not | include a category 1 "rural area of village". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): C2030 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 01. A rural farm or a stand-alone rural house | A village | 02. A small city / town | 03. The outer neighborhoods, slums of a big city | 04. A big city center --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C2031 >>> PRIMARY ELECTORAL DISTRICT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D31. Primary electoral district of respondent. .................................................................. 00001.-90000. [SEE APPENDIX II FOR CODE VALUE LABELS] 99999. MISSING | NOTES: C2031 | | Wherever possible, this variable uses official district | identification numbers. | | In some cases, respondents' electoral districts were | identified "indirectly," through postal codes, etc., | by the CSES staff (always with the help of the appropriate | collaborator(s)). Where postal codes, etc., were ambiguous, | cases are coded missing. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C2031 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C2031 | | Note that the electoral districts in Brazil are equivalent to | the states, with the exception of one: the Federal District. For | procedural reasons, five electoral districts in the region North | (Acre, Amapa, Rondonia, Roraima) and Center (Tocantins) were | left out of the data sampling procedure. According to the | National Household Survey PNAD2003 these 5 states represent 2% | of the population. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2008): C2031 | | Note that the electoral district is unknown for several | respondents. For such observations, the first two digits of | C2031 reflect the province, according to C2027, while the | remaining three digits are "999". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009): C2031 | | The 15 regions were used as electoral districts. A region | usually includes several electoral districts. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): C2031 | | Note that the CSES coding schema does not distinguish between | the three electoral districts of Tallinn City. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 1. Tallinn West (district 1) | Tallinn East (district 2) | Tallinn South (district 3) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2007): C2031 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2011): C2031 | | Note that the electoral district Åland was excluded from | sampling. | For more details on the sampling process, see introduction part | of the current codebook, as well as the official Finnish Design | Report, available at the CSES-website (www.cses.org). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): C2031 | | Note that the categories of the primary electoral districts | equal those of the regions of residence, coded in C2027. | However, research should care about the fact, that according to | Greek law it is possible to vote in a district different than | the one of residence. Consequently, C2027 and C2031 do not | perfectly match. | Moreover, C2031 includes missing values for 69 respondents. | Research, interested in the district results of respondents | might use C2027 as a proxy for the missing cases of C2031, but | should keep in mind that C2027 does not necessarily reflect the | real electoral district of respondents. | For the labels of C2031, see appendices of the current codebook. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C2031 | | The electoral district of respondents, given by C2031, equals | the region of residence, according to C2027 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): C2031 | | In Israel, the entire country is a single electoral district. | All cases are coded "00001". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C2031 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C2031 | | In the Netherlands, the entire country functions as a single | electoral district. Hence, it is coded "00001". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C2031 | | Researchers should note that C2031 actually includes 183 | missing values. This also affects the information on the | district variables C4001 to C4005. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2010): C2031 | | Slovakian Elections are held in one nationwide electoral | district. C2031 is hence coded "1" for all respondents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C2031 | | The Taiwan collaborator was unable to provide primary electoral | districts for the respondents. However, in Taiwan the | residential regions closely relate to primary electoral | districts. Accordingly, the region variable (C2027) has been | employed as a proxy for C2031. It should be noted that some | regions were divided into multiple electoral districts. | Specifically, Taipei County (code 00001) contains three | primary districts, Taipei City (code 00063) contains two primary | districts and Kaohsiung City (code 00064) contains two primary | districts. | Also note that there were no respondents from 02 Tayyuan City, | 05 Miao Li, 16 Peng Hu, and 20 Chiayi City. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C2031 | | Note, at the time of the third data release, labels for the | Thai districts according to the micro data were not available. | (See also variable notes on C4001 - C4005). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): C2031 | | Note that for three observations the official electoral district | is unknown. Instead, the respondent's city of living, i.e. | Ankara (code 6), Istanbul (code 34) and Izmir (code 35), is | coded in C2031. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C2032 >>> DAYS INTERVIEW CONDUCTED POST ELECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of days after the election interview conducted. .................................................................. 001.-900. NUMBER OF DAYS 999. MISSING | NOTES: C2032 | | If the election was held on more than one day or involved | multiple rounds, this variable reports the number of days | from the first day of the election and/or the first round. | | Data are not available for GERMANY (2005), ICELAND (2007), | ISRAEL (2006), MEXICO (2006), NETHERLANDS (2010), PERU (2011), | PHILIPPINES (2010), PORTUGAL (2009), SOUTH KOREA (2008), | THAILAND (2007). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2010): C2032 | | The first day of the election, 28.05.2010, was used to | calculate C2032. For 13 respondents whose day of interview | was not reported in C1027, the variable C2032 is missing. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007): C2032 | | Since the date of interview was accidentally not collected, this | variable could not be calculated. However, all interviews were | held within three months after the election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C2032 | | Since the source data contain information about the month | of interview, but not day, this variable is coded missing. | However, interviews were within a month after the election | (the election were on June 9, and all interviews were | completed in the month of June). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2011): C2032 | | Note that the day of the interview is unknown (see notes on | C1027). Consequently, C2032 cannot be calculated. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C2032 | | Note that C2032 refers to the first round of presidential | elections, November 22nd, 2009. =========================================================================== ))) CSES MODULE 3 MICRO-LEVEL DATA: SURVEY VARIABLES =========================================================================== --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3001_1 >>> Q1a. MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM-EGOCENTRIC-FIRST MENTION C3001_2 >>> Q1B. MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM-EGOCENTRIC-SECOND MENTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q1a. What has been the most important issue to you personally in this election? Q1b. What has been the second most important issue to you personally in this election? .................................................................. 001.-899. MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM CODES [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 900. OTHER PROBLEM (NOT SPECIFIABLE) 901. NO PROBLEM 997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 999. MISSING | NOTES: C3001_1-C3001_2 | | This is usually an open-ended question. Collaborators coded this | variable in a detailed way and with a minimum of at least | twenty categories. | | Data are not available for AUSTRIA (2008), GERMANY (2005), PERU | (2011), POLAND (2005), SOUTH AFRICA (2009). | | Coding Strategy: | A. The order of responses was kept, except if the response on | the first question was missing and the response on the | second question included a substantial answer. Then the | substantial answer was coded in C3001_1, while C3001_2 was | coded as missing (code 99). | B. Common answers, such as "other problem" (code 900) or "no | problem" (code 901) were coded into common categories | C. Repeated mentions in C3001_1 and C3001_2 were kept. | | Table: Frequencies on C3001_2 for respondents that repeated | their problem mention of C3001_1: | | POLITY NAME (ELEC YEAR) | | AUSTRALIA (2007) 1 | BELARUS (2008) 6 | BRAZIL (2010) 78 | CROATIA (2007) 68 | CZECH REPUBLIC (2006) 90 | CZECH REPUBLIC (2010) 68 | DENMARK (2007) 577 | ESTONIA (2011) 50 | FINLAND (2007) 42 | FINLAND (2011) 42 | FRANCE (2007) 59 | GERMANY (2009) 222 | ICELAND (2007) 31 | ICELAND (2009) 82 | IRELAND (2007) 339 | ISRAEL (2006) 34 | JAPAN (2007) 33 | LATVIA (2010) 128 | MEXICO (2006) 60 | MEXICO (2009) 84 | NETHERLANDS (2006) 33 | NETHERLANDS (2010) 19 | NORWAY (2009) 34 | PHILIPPINES (2010) 64 | POLAND (2007) 96 | PORTUGAL (2009) 19 | ROMANIA (2009) 62 | SLOVAKIA (2010) 52 | SLOVENIA (2008) 15 | SPAIN (2008) 2 | SWEDEN (2006) 2 | SWITZERLAND (2007) 2 | THAILAND (2007) 153 | TURKEY (2011) 42 | UNITED STATES (2008) 133 | URUGUAY (2009) 29 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C3001_1-C3001_2 | | Australia offered a closed-list of items for C3001. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. Taxation | 002. Immigration | 003. Education | 004. The environment | 005. Industrial relations | 006. Health and Medicare | 007. Defense and national security | 008. Global warming | 009. Management of water | 010. Unemployment | 011. Treatment of aborigines | 012. Interest rates | 013. The war in Iraq | 014. Terrorism | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2008): C3001_1-C3001_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. A low retirement benefit, salary, the lack of | money | 002. Problems with health (personal and close people) | 003. High tuition fees | 004. Inefficient functioning of the housing / | community amenities | 005. problems in finding a job, with employment | 006. Problems of the lost investments | 007. Cancelling reduced payment provided to retirees | and students | 008. Problem of the possible prolongation of the | retirement age | 009. Little information about the candidates before | the elections | 010. Problem of making the living conditions better | 011. Legitimacy of the elections, their fairness | 012. A low level of public health services | 013. A low level of education | 014. The problem of going abroad, of getting a visa | 015. The fear of losing a job | 016. The absence of democracy in the country | 017. The growth of prices | 018. There is no assurance in tomorrow, the fear of | future | 019. Bureaucracy, corruption | 020. The relations between our country and the EU | 021. Family relations | 022. Ecological problems | 023. Changing power | 024. The absence of worthy candidates | 025. The problems of business development, high taxes | 026. Depression | 027. Lack of free time, the absence of possibilities | to have rest | 028. Criminality | 029. The spread of alcoholism | 030. The necessity to enforce the country's defense | potential | 031. The necessity to improve ecology | 032. Fighting crime | 033. To improve the conditions for business | 034. Violating human rights | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C3001_1-C3001_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. Rebellions in prisons | 002. Combat of corruption / Money laundering | 003. Social programs of income redistribution | / projects of federal government | (Bolsa Family Grant / Bolsa School Grant / Zero | Hunger / University for All) | 004. Scandals involving government | 005. The state investment of collected money | 006. Employment / new Jobs / unemployment | 007. Salary / low salaries / raise of salaries | 008. Public Safety / Violence / improvements in safety | 009. Education / improvement in education | 010. Health / improvements in hospitals / lack of | health investments | 011. Improvement of highways / improvements of streets | 012. Ethics in politics | 013. Party coalitions / political coalitions | 014. Combat of hunger | 015. Combat of poverty | 016. New candidates / new options of candidates | 017. Economy growth in 2007 / Economy / Changes in | Economy | 018. Reduction of public expenditures | 019. The buying of the corruption dossier (a fake | dossier that would incriminate opposition | candidates) | 020. Null vote campaign | 021. General Issues related to the election | 022. Corruption involving the Workers' party | 023. Imprisonment of corrupt politicians | 024. Debates among politicians | 025. policies for young people | 026. Proposals of politicians / promises of | politicians / candidacy of Lula | 027. Reelection of president | 028. The victory of Cid Gomes (running for governor in | the state of Ceará) | 029. The Brazilian oil Company in Bolivia | 030. Prohibition of campaign at the polling place | 031. Social Security reform | 032. Investments in shipyards | 033. The modernity of Electronic vote / the velocity | of vote counting / the ballot box | 034. The construction of steel industry in the state | of Ceará | 035. The ending of subway construction | 036. The absence of Lula at the TV debate | 037. Inflation | 038. Impunity / the lack of justice | 039. Disarmament | 040. The basic sanitation conditions | 041. Victory of PSDB | 042. The agrarian reform | 043. The laws in defense of women | 044. Chances that Lula loses election | 045. To combat organized crime | 046. Lula does not answer to the corruption problems | 047. Drugs / fighting drug crime | 048. Attacks among candidates | 049. The victory of Palocci (former PT minister of | treasure) | 050. The victory of Maluf (former conservative | governor of the state of Sao Paulo) | 051. The payment of the external debt | 052. Popular housing | 053. The National Institute of Social Security | 054. Candidate Alcides turned the electoral trends | (PP governor candidate of the state of Goias) | 055. The reduction of taxes | 056. The victory of Requião (PMDB governor candidate | of the state of Paraná) | 057. The defeat of Osmar (PMDB federal deputy of the | state of Paraná) | 058. The fact that Lula says he does not know about | corruption | 059. The fact that Lula always worked | 060. People's desire for change | 061. Defeat of governor Lucio (PSDB candidate running | for reelection in the state of Ceará) | 062. Victory of Wagner (PT governor candidate of the | state of Bahia) | 063. The defeat of Alckmin (the opposition candidate | to presidency in the 2nd round) | 064. Privatization of firms | 065. PCC / "the first command of capital" (the most | important crime organization) | 066. The attempt to remove the president Lula | 067. Highway toll | 068. Support to agriculture | 069. Surprises of the election 2nd round | 070. The election of a woman to government | 071. The maintenance of the free tax zone | 072. Democracy | 073. The adviser of Lula - Jose Dirceu (former | ministry of Civil House) | 074. The leaving of Zeca (PT governor of the state of | Mato Grosso do Sul) | 075. Deputies' salaries | 076. The entrance of Clodovil in politics as deputy | (Clodovil was a fashion designer) | 077. Increase the number of public universities | 078. The presidential election | 079. The defamation of Lula | 080. The prostitution of minor age people | 081. The shift of politicians | 082. The indifference to the Brazilian people | 083. The government promises of Geraldo Alckmin | (PSDB former governor of Sao Paulo) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C3001_1-C3001_2 | | The original questionnaire provided an open answer question. | Problem mentions were categorized subsequently by the CSES | (national) collaborator. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. Education | 002. Heath | 004. Salary and employment | 005. Abortion debate | 006. Safety | 010. Income transfer programs | 018. Woman in presidency | 021. Lula government and Workers'Party in power | 026. Economic stability | 032. Development and stability | 077. Electoral campaign in general | 082. General issues, values | 102. Social policy and public services | 185. Corruption | 209. Presidential campaign | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2008): C3001_1-C3001_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 005. Who wins, general interest in outcome | 006. Party platform / what the parties stand for | 010. Create jobs | 020. General mention: debt, finances | 025. Government spending, government waste | 026. Balance the budget / budget | 030. Economy | 031. Economy & health | 032. Economy & environment | 033. Health care & environment' | 035. Agriculture | 036. BSE | 039. Oil & gas (fuel) prices | 045. Afghan war | 046. Election timing | 047. Canada wheat board | 048. Military / military spending / defense | 049. Arts & culture | 050. Taxation issues | 057. Health care issues | 058. Health & taxes combined | 059. Health & jobs combined | 060. Social programs, services, welfare / health & | programs | 061. Seniors: pensions / retirement issues & health | 062. Family benefits, childcare funding & programs | 063. Jobs & health & welfare combined | 064. Health care & education combined | 065. Educational issues, programs & funding | 070. Same sex marriage issue | 071. Crime / violence, gun crime, justice system | 072. Poverty as agenda issue | 073. Abortion (pro or con) | 074. Rights / justice issues: aboriginal, women, | immigrants, etc. | 075. Environmental / ecological issues | 076. Moral issues, family values (regardless of | direction) | 077. Gun control / registry, bill c68 | 078. Immigration as an issue | 079. Foreign affairs / us relations, security issues | 080. Quebec sovereignty / interests | 081. National unity | 082. Federal / provincial relations, "fiscal | inequality" | 083. Electoral reform & procedural reform issues | 084. Canada's future, stability | 090. Sponsorship issue, corruption, dishonesty / | honesty | 091. Ethics & Effectiveness: accountability / | transparency / leadership | 092. Desire for majority government | 093. Desire for minority government | 094. Defeat conservatives / elect liberals | 095. Defeat liberals / elect conservatives | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009): C3001_1-C3001_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. Unemployment, Not enough Jobs | 002. Work, Labor situation | 003. Firing, instability at work | 004. Poverty, extreme poverty | 005. Economy, economic problems, bad situation | 006. Economic Crisis | 007. Inflation, high prices, cost of living | 008. Low income, bad income, not enough Money | 009. Retired People, pensions, bad pensions | 010. Inequality, social inequality, inequality between | Rich and poor | 011. Strikes, problems with unions, labor conflicts | 012. Crime, assaults, burglaries, insecurity, safety | 013. Drug Addiction, drugs, drug | 014. ‘Transantiago', transport, transport problems | Santiago | 015. Congestion, traffic jam | 016. Domestic violence, violence against women, | femicide | 017. Education, studies, little money for education, | credit | 018. Poor quality of education, poor education | 019. Health, Auge plan, public health | 020. Bad hospital care, poor health care | 021. Housing | 022. Corruption, bribes, weird things, government | corruption | 023. Lack of leadership from the president, without | leadership | 024. political, politicians, politics, bad | Administration | 025. Alcoholism | 026. Pollution, environmental problems, smog | 027. Lack of opportunities / little chance for Youth | 028. Justice, bad justice, justice system, | 029. Pedophilia, attacks on children | 030. Problem with Bolivia, Argentina gas problem | 031. Problems bordering Peru, tensions with Peru | 032. Gas, gas crisis, fuel, energy issues | 033. International Problems (Venezuela, Bolivia, etc.) | 038. Cash Transfer | 899. Other economical problems | 898. Other social problems | 897. Other political problems | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CROATIA (2007): C3001_1-C3001_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. Unemployment | 002. Economy | 003. Pensions | 004. Health care | 005. Wages and living standard | 006. Agriculture | 007. European Union accession | 008. Protected ecological zone in the Adriatic | 009. Joining the NATO | 010. War veterans | 011. Corruption | 012. Justice system and crime | 013. Concern if favored or least favored party will | win | 014. Social justice | 015. National pride and patriotism | 016. Competence and quality of government | 017. Schools | 018. Taxes | 019. Foreign Policy | 020. Privatization | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2006): C3001_1-C3001_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2010): C3001_1-C3001_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 010. Elections - turnout | 011. Elections - campaign | 012. Elections - media | 013. Elections - success of particular parties | 014. Elections - results | 015. Elections - party manifestos, policies | 016. Problems of electoral and constitutional systems | 017. KSCM | 018. Elections - change | 019. Other related to politics (not dissatisfaction) | 020. Taxes | 021. Budget | 022. Business | 023. Salaries and income, living standards | 024. Economy and economic reforms (generally) | 025. Inflation | 026. Underground / gray economy and its solutions | 027. Stock-market, shares, banks | 028. Bankruptcy, company take-over from foreign | companies | 031. Healthcare | 032. Education | 033. Unemployment, work and employment | 034. Pensions | 035. Family policy | 036. Housing policy | 037. Social policy (general) | 038. Environment | 039. Agriculture | 040. Culture | 041. Corruption | 042. Criminality | 043. Drugs, drug policy | 044. Courts, judiciary | 045. Minorities, minorities policy | 046. Transport policy | 047. Energy policy | 048. Migration | 049. Information policy | 050. EU | 051. Foreign policy | 052. Defense and security of country | 053. Police | 061. Bad politicians | 062. Bad laws | 078. Orientation towards future | 079. Democracy | 080. Moral issues | 081. Norms and values | 082. Religion | 083. Sport | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C3001_1-C3001_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. Government formation, including composition | 002. Consensus | 003. Progress for the country (not specified) | 004. The future | 005. Stability | 006. Planning | 007. Enhance the understanding of political questions | 008. Enhance the understanding of EU questions | 009. Domestic politics | 010. Moral and ethical issues | 011. Trust/credibility | 012. Other non-political answers | 020. Credibility of politicians | 021. Fulfillment of election promises | 022. Political consensus | 023. Self-interest of politicians | 024. Increase the electoral threshold | 025. Politicians looking after the interest of | citizens | 026. Democracy/human rights | 027. Public administration (the dominance of the | capital etc.) | 028. Municipalities | 029. Bureaucracy | 030. Simplification of the law | 031. Reduction in committees, councils etc. | 032. Other specific answers about politicians, public | administration and democracy | 033. The Municipality Reform | 040. The economy | 041. Income policy | 042. Employment, unemployment (including employment | policies) | 043. Youth unemployment | 044. Maintain employment in country | 045. Privatization | 046. Balance of payments/ external debt | 047. Global competitiveness | 048. Interest rates | 049. Inflation | 050. Production and investment | 051. Competition and property | 052. Early retirement scheme (maintaining it) | 053. Abolishing the early retirement scheme | 054. "The pension bomb" | 055. The devaluation of private pensions | 056. Other specific answers about the economy | 060. Industrial policy | 061. Agriculture/ fishery | 062. Ecology | 063. Conditions for industries | 064. Trade problems | 065. Small business owners | 066. Reduction in working hours | 067. Salary (including collective bargaining) | 068. Equal pay, equal rights for women | 069. Moonlighting (evading taxes) | 070. Other specific answers about industry and trade | unions | 071. Workers from Eastern Europe | 072. Lack of workers | 080. Taxes generally | 081. VAT and tariffs | 082. Public sector | 083. Increase in public expenditure | 084. Redistribution of public expenditure | 085. Reduction in public expenditure | 086. Other answers about the public sector | 087. Tax reform/ tax level | 088. Income tax (levels of income tax) | 089. Tax cuts | 090. Tax freeze | 091. Coordination tax (reduction) | 092. House ownership | 093. Regulations | 094. Budgetary polices | 095. The budget | 096. Other specific answers about taxes | 100. Too many refugees/immigrants | 101. No more refugees/immigrants | 102. Expulsion of refugees/immigrants | 103. Family reunification (negative) | 104. Asylum and immigration policy too soft | 105. Economic refugees (negative) | 106. Crime committed by immigrants/refugees | 107. Forced marriages | 108. Second generation immigrants | 109. Other negative comments about immigrants and | Muslims in Denmark | 110. Integration of refugees/immigrants | 111. Refugees and immigrants | 112. Immigration, asylum and integration policies | 113. Ensure better integration of refugees/immigrants | (positive remarks) | 114. Fighting racism | 115. Too restrictive immigration / asylum policies | 116. Unemployment amongst refugees and immigrants | 117. Other positive comments about refugees / | immigrants | 118. Other specific answers about refugees / | immigrants | 120. Social problems (including social policies) | 121. Poverty | 122. Conditions for the disabled | 123. Homelessness | 124. Drug addiction/ alcoholism | 125. Care for the mentally ill | 126. Illness | 127. Polarization | 128. Elderly people | 129. Pensions | 130. Nursing homes | 131. Policies for the elderly | 132. Families with children/ child care | 133. Children's rights | 134. Maternity leave | 135. Policies regarding children | 136. Education | 137. Schools | 138. Vocational training | 139. Higher education | 140. Research | 141. Further education, re-training | 142. Financial support for students | 143. Health care | 144. Waiting lists | 145. Private hospitals | 146. No cuts in the health care system | 147. Health care generally | 148. Housing problems | 149. Housing for young people | 150. Welfare (welfare state) | 151. Inequality and redistribution | 152. Maintaining welfare policies | 153. Cutting welfare policies | 154. Citizen's salary | 155. User payment | 156. Outsourcing | 157. Transfer payments | 158. Welfare reforms, benefits etc. | 159. Maintaining the welfare state | 160. Violence | 161. Crime | 162. Law and order | 163. Legal affairs | 164. Police | 165. Other specific answers about welfare policies | 166. Youth problems | 167. Regional problems | 168. Culture policies | 169. Church issues | 180. Foreign policy | 181. EU, common market, EMU | 182. EU opt-outs | 183. EU enlargement | 184. Skepticism towards the EU | 185. EU generally (including the EU Constitution) | 186. EU (positive) | 187. NATO, Middle East | 188. Cuts in defense expenditure | 189. Defense/ security policies | 190. Defense policies | 191. Development Aid (global inequality) | 192. Stopping development aid | 193. World peace | 194. War | 195. Terror | 196. Iraq war | 197. Globalization | 198. Improved international relations | 199. Other specific foreign policy answers | 210. Environment (including energy policy) | 211. Pollution | 212. Food | 213. Animal welfare | 214. Other specific environment questions | 215. Infrastructure | 216. Traffic, speed limits | 217. Public transport | 218. Bridges | 219. Other specific traffic answers | 230. Personal freedom | 231. Respect for the individual | 232. Acceptance of other people | 233. Solidarity | 234. Everyone can and should contribute to society | 235. Maintain Danish culture | 236. Unseat the current government/administration | 237. Get a centre-right government/administration | 238. Get a socialistic government/administration | 239. Keep current government/administration | 240. Other specific political statements | 899. Diffuse answers; everything | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): C3001_1-C3001_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. Unemployment | 002. Economic crisis, economic sustainability | 003. Living standard, people's welfare | 004. Low salaries | 005. Low pensions, situation of pensioners | 006. Price increase, high cost of living, inflation | 007. Housing costs, costs related to home ownership | 008. General problems of educational system | 009. Free education, free higher education, | availability of education | 010. Mother's pension, parental benefit | 011. Child allowance, family allowance, birth | allowance | 012. The situation of families with children, family | policy | 013. Tax system, tax politics, high taxes | 014. Abolition of land tax | 015. Progressive income tax, income tax reform | 016. Corruption | 017. Social inequality, social stratification | 018. Social matters, social guarantees, social | benefits | 019. Emigration of workforce | 020. Medicine and healthcare, healthcare financing | 021. Russian-language schools' transmission to | Estonian language, survival of Russian-language | education | 022. Integration, the situation of minorities in | Estonia | 023. Immigration | 024. The situation of Russians in Estonia, "Russian | matters" | 025. Survival of Estonian nationality, language, | culture | 026. Relations with neighboring countries | 027. Relations with Russia | 028. Security policy, state security | 029. Administrative reform, administrative capacity | 030. Regional policy | 031. Fading of rural areas, stimulation of rural life | 032. Agricultural policy | 033. Party constellation in parliament | 034. Political feud, battles over power, lack of | Consensus | 035. Imperfect electoral system, alteration of | electoral system | 036. Imperfect political system | 037. Need to increase turnout in voting, low turnout | 038. Unreliability of politicians, not keeping | promises, lying | 039. State remains distant from public | 040. Honest, fair elections | 041. Raising of retirement age | 042. Citizenship issues | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2007): C3001_1-C3001_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2011): C3001_1-C3001_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. Pensioner issues / pensions | 002. Taxation of pensioners, subsistence | 003. Health care resources / labor shortage / working | conditions | 004. social and health care in general | 005. wage level in health care | 006. Care of the elderly | 007. Status of family caregivers, home care | 008. Mental health care | 009. Employment / unemployment | 010. Special issues of labor policy, coping at work | 011. Status and support of families with children | 012. Education | 013. Taxation / tax policy | 014. Correcting individual taxes, tax deductions | 015. Maintaining welfare / the welfare state, social | policy | 016. Special issues of welfare / social policy | 017. Low income / poverty issues | 018. Growth of income disparity / social inequality / | social justice | 019. Social security | 020. Status of students | 021. Increasing the study grants / subsistence of | students | 022. Energy policy | 023. Nuclear power | 024. Climate / climate change, natural disasters | 025. Nature conservation / environmental issues | 026. Traffic policy | 027. Housing policy, rents | 028. Regional policy / keeping the whole of Finland | inhabited | 029. Municipal policy / issues | 030. Agricultural issues | 031. Entrepreneur issues, prerequisites for | entrepreneurship | 032. Fairer wages / social justice | 033. worker issues, worker welfare | 034. Equality / (gender) equality | 035. Status / issues of minorities / special groups | 036. Immigrant policy | 037. Finnishness, Finland for Finns | 038. Economy / economic policy / special issues of | Finnish economic policy | 039. Development of Finland in general | 040. NATO | 041. Foreign and security policy | 042. EU / EU policy, in general | 043. Peace | 044. Swedish language | 045. Government base and prime minister | 046. Other issues connected to elections and voting | 047. Values, morals | 048. Beating racism / tolerance / value | pluralism / multiculturalism | 049. Changing Finnish policies / regime change / | protest | 050. Animal protection | 051. Giving up economic growth / reducing consumption | 052. Gender-neutral marriage law | 053. Crime / domestic security / more police officers | 054. Grey economy | 055. Human rights | 056. Cultural policy | 057. Finnish economy / sustaining welfare / | raising retirement age | 058. Poverty / universal basic income / exclusion / | marginalization | 059. Negative EU issues / support indebted countries / | stability funds | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C3001_1-C3001_2 | | The original questionnaire provided an open answer question. | Problem mentions were categorized afterwards, which yield | repeated mentions in C3001_1 and C3001_2. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. Work and employment | 002. Purchasing power, wages and inflation | 003. Pensions, elderly people | 004. Poverty and social justice | 005. Housing and urban policy | 006. Health and welfare | 007. Immigration and integration | 008. Law and order | 009. Europe | 010. Foreign policy | 011. Education and research | 012. Environment and ecology | 013. Taxes and fiscal policy | 014. National debt and public deficits | 015. Economic development and competitiveness | 016. Justice | 017. Public services | 018. Politics and institutions | 019. Other social issues | 020. Other economic issues | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C3001_1-C3001_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 010. Health situation | 020. Financial situation | 030. Unemployment Hartz IV | 040. Problems at work | 050. Security law | 060. Infrastructure | 070. Education | 080. Adjustments on politics | 100. Political processes | 110. Political conflicts and scandals | 120. Federal election campaign | 140. Federal election | 150. Regional elections | 170. Further mentions political processes | 200. Political structures | 210. Reform of governance | 220. Formal institutions | 230. Principles of state organization | 240. Normative order | 250. Further mentions political structures | 310. Foreign policies | 330. Defense policies | 340. Inner security policies | 350. Infrastructure policies | 360. Environment policies | 370. Social policies | 380. Labor market policies | 381. Unemployment | 387. Employment | 390. Economy policies | 391. Economy financial crisis | 410. Education policies | 420. Culture leisure policies | 430. Financial policies | 440. East German policies | 450. Further mentions policies | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): C3001_1-C3001_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. Economic crisis | 002. Corruption | 003. Unemployment | 004. Pensions | 005. Public administration | 006. Failure of the government | 007. The need for change of government | 008. Education | 009. Foreign policy | 010. Health | 011. Immigration | 012. Crime | 013. Environment | 014. Cost of life | 015. Poverty | 016. Tax evasion | 017. Poor public administration | 018. Agriculture | 019. Low birth rates | 020. Drugs | 022. No cooperation of parties | 026. Election of the president of the republic | 027. Lack of trust towards politicians | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C3001_1-C3001_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. Universal suffrage | 002. Performance of LegCo members | 003. Past performance of LegCo members | 004. Political institutions and their reform and | development | 005. Whether LegCo members truly represent the public | 006. Whether LegCo members keep their election pledges | 007. Whether LegCo members help the public | 008. Whether LegCo members help the respondent | 009. Party affiliation of the candidates | 010. Quality or ability of LegCo members | 011. Beloved candidates elected | 012. Monitoring of the government | 013. Campaign or policy platforms | 014. Dominance of the LegCo by one party or political | balance | 015. Good governance of the government | 016. Executive-legislature relationship | 017. Other political issues | 018. Economy | 019. Minimum wage | 020. (Un)employment | 021. Taxes | 022. Inflation | 023. Lehman incident | 024. Livelihood of the public | 025. Old-age allowance | 026. Social welfare | 027. Healthcare services | 028. Tax on foreign domestic servants | 029. Housing | 030. Education | 031. Transportation fees | 032. Social harmony | 033. Fair or open election | 034. Rule of law | 035. Environmental protection | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007): C3001_1-C3001_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2009): C3001_1-C3001_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. Foreign Policy | 002. Joining the European Union / adopting the euro | 003. Not joining the European Union / | not adopting the euro | 004. The Economic crisis / bank crisis / currency | crisis | 005. The Economy | 006. Economical stability | 008. Reducing public expenditure / fair | distribution of public expenditure | 009. Taxes | 010. Wages / living standards / taxes | 011. Change of government / throwing the rascals out / | voting in parties that have been in opposition | 012. Prices / inflation / interest rates | 013. Agriculture | 014. Fisheries | 015. The fishery quota system | 016. Holding those accountable who were responsible | for the bank crisis | 017. Continuation of building up power stations | / energy issues / big industry | 018. Reducing / stopping big industry | 019. Restoration / saving the country / nation | 020. Social welfare | 021. Equality, gender issues | 022. Equality, living standards | 023. Icesave (bank) | 024. Education | 025. Health matters | 026. Family matters | 027. Improving the image of Iceland (internationally) | 028. Welfare of companies | 029. Welfare of the households / the people | (the Economic crisis) | 030. Employment | 031. Regional policy | 032. Transportation / Regional policy | 033. Democracy / democratic reform / honesty / | political trust | 034. European issues / European Union / EEA / EFTA / | the Euro | 035. Environmental issues | 036. The elderly / people with disability | 037. Immigration | 039. Energy issues / power stations | 040. Nationalistic issues / guard the independency | of the country | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2007): C3001_1-C3001_2 | | See codes on C3002_1-C3002_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): C3001_1-C3001_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 008. General security | 009. The Palestinian problem | 010. Leaving the occupied territories | 011. The settlements | 012. Palestinian terror | 013. Solutions for the evacuated people | 014. The governing of the Hamas at the PLO | 015. The demographic problem / the wall | 016. The Arabs | 017. The nuclear Iranian threat | 018. Foreign policy | 019. Israeli status in the world | 020. Independent foreign policy | 021. Peace process | 022. The building of Palestinian state | 023. Better relations with the Arab states | 024. Economy | 025. Better standard of living | 026. Unemployment | 027. Internal and society problems | 028. Poverty, welfare | 029. Young couples, x-soldier, residence | 030. Education | 031. Teenagers | 032. Old people | 033. Health | 034. Crime, drugs | 035. Violence | 036. Violence in the family, between young people | 037. Transportation | 038. Immigration problems | 039. Environmental issues | 040. The religious character of Israel | 041. The separation of religion from state | 042. Problems between the Jewish and the Arabs in | Israel | 043. Foreign workers | 044. Corruption | 045. Enforcement of rule of law | 046. Personal rights | 047. Election rules, candidate selection | 048. The government functioning | 049. Civil war | 050. Security / society, security / economy | 051. Everything | 053. Returning the kidnapped soldiers | 054. Personal security / internal security | 056. Engagement | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): C3001_1-C3001_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. Administrative reform | 002. Employment issues | 003. Pension | 004. Tax | 005. Agriculture | 006. Evaluation of minister | 007. Change of government | 008. Constitutional revision | 009. Corruption | 010. Political reform | 011. Economic stimulus package | 012. Public work | 013. Economic issues | 014. Untroubled living conditions | 015. Foreign affairs | 016. War in Iraq | 017. Abduction by North Korea agents | 018. Defense | 019. Education | 020. Welfare | 021. Aging society | 022. Birth dearth | 023. Public safety | 024. Environmental issues | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2010): C3001_1-C3001_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. Employment, jobs | 001. Personal or family income | 003. Old-age pensions | 004. Economic development, overcoming the crisis | 005. Ethnic issues | 006. Social welfare | 007. Taxes | 008. Selection of competent, reputable politicians | 009. Lack of trustworthy politicians | 010. Voting in elections | 011. Education | 012. Health care | 013. Corruption | 014. Honest politics | 015. Influx of new faces in to politics | 016. Choosing the least of evils | 017. Emigration | 018. Delivering on promises of politicians | 019. State budget, public finances | 020. Strategy for development of Latvia | 021. Relations with Russia | 022. General development, well-being of the country | 023. Citizenship issues | 024. Farming | 025. Social, income inequality | 026. Living conditions, like preces, costs etc | 027. Youth issues | 028. Child-care benefits, family policy issues | 029. Public infrastructure, roads | 030. Immigration | 031. Culture, sports | 032. Environmental issues | 033. Attitudes, inertia, distrust in population and | Parliament | 034. Criminality | 035. Foreign policy | 036. Bureaucracy | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C3001_1-C3001_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 011. Employment | 012. Crime | 013. Clean election | 014. Uncontested election | 015. Electoral turnout | 016. Change of President | 017. Education | 018. Senior citizens | 019. Poverty | 020. Democracy | 021. Post electoral Conflict | 022. Candidates offers | 023. Better wages | 024. Credit for living quarters | 025. Problems among candidates | 026. See if AMLO wins | 027. Assistance to women | 028. Honesty | 029. Continuity of government policies | 030. Assistance to farmers | 031. Economy | 032. Health services | 033. Change of power | 034. Lower the expenses | 035. Corruption | 036. Drug consumption | 037. Lower prices | 038. NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) | 039. Human Rights | 040. Video scandals | 041. Not privatize electricity | 042. Migration | 043. Drug trafficking | 044. Change in the economic model | 045. Handicapped | 046. The future | 047. Assistance to neighborhoods | 048. Lower salaries of public servants | 049. Family integration | 050. The debate | 051. Not making clear the electoral preferences | 052. Drinkable water service | 053. Kidnapping | 054. The problem of the women killed at Cd. Juarez | 055. Violence | 056. Pavement / roads | 057. Assistance to the youth | 058. That for the first time the Mexicans could vote | from abroad | 059. The international observers should not intervene | 060. Election of deputies & senators | 061. Social programs | 062. The dirty electoral campaign of the PAN | 063. Remove pensions to the ex presidents / | government employees | 064. Equality | 066. Good job from the observers of parties | 067. Foreign debt | 068. Respect the vote of the citizens | 069. Not to affect the foreign investment | 070. Inflation | 071. Drug pushing | 072. Giving grants | 073. Credibility of the institutions / IFE | 074. Taxes | 075. Pensioners | 076. Economic Stability | 077. State-owned petroleum company: Petróleos | Mexicanos (PEMEX) | 078. Government corruption | 079. Bad organization of the electoral commission | (IFE) | 080. Participation of the member staff voting booth | 081. Stability in the country | 082. That Calderon is supported by the businessmen | 083. Uncertainty for the results | 084. The intervention of President Fox in the | elections | 085. The elections for president municipal | 086. Fulfill the campaign promises | 087. Improve the standard of living | 088. Popular health services | 089. Choosing the Mexico City major | 090. Implement more rigid laws | 091. Social equality | 092. Intervention of the media | 094. Pollution | 095. The PRI lost votes | 100. Conflict between Obrador and Calderón | 101. Public services | 102. Support to the fishing industry | 103. Bureaucracy | 104. Support to the street boys | 105. That they try to buy the vote with | money / provisions | 106. Public works | 107. Respect laws | 108. Economic Crisis | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C3001_1-C3001_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 002. Victory of the PRI | 003. Drinking Water | 004. Combat Drug Trafficking | 005. Corruption of Police / Politicians / Government | 006. Public Works / Infrastructure | 007. Paving | 008. Promote Voting | 009. Abstention | 010. Elections | 011. Fight Crime | 012. Lighting | 013. Rising Prices / Inflation | 014. Cancel Vote | 015. Support for the Elderly | 016. Communication Channels | 017. Unemployment / Employment Generating | 018. Support for Students / Scholarships | 019. Education / Support for Schools | 020. Support for Single Mothers / Women Support | 021. Support for Agriculture | 022. Youth Support | 023. Helps Communities / Rural Support | 024. Help the Poor | 025. Help People / Financial Aid | 026. Wage Increase | 027. Proposals Candidate / Proposals Party | 028. Fighting Crime | 029. Economics / Economic Crisis | 030. Democracy | 031. Drugs / Drug Addiction | 032. Better Jobs | 033. Deputies / Election of Deputies | 034. Poverty | 035. Death Penalty | 036. Improve Clinics / Hospitals / free Medicines | 037. Transparency / That Votes are Legal / Legality | 038. Kidnapping | 039. Governor Election | 040. Change in Government / Rulers Change | 041. Election Results | 042. Attacks between the Parties | 043. Improving Public Services | 044. Parties do not Fulfill their Promises | 045. Housing | 046. My Vote | 047. Security at the Polling Station | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C3001_1-C3001_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 011. Democratic reform | 012. Bureaucracy | 013. State control | 014. Process of voting | 021. Europe | 022. Admission Turkey | 023. European constitution | 024. Foreign policy | 031. Military missions | 032. Defense policies | 041. Economy / economic growth | 051. Taxes | 052. Mortgage rate deduction | 053. Financial policies | 061. Crime | 062. Safety | 063. Terrorism | 064. Punishment / justice system | 067. Ethical subjects | 071. Immigration policy | 072. Integration policy | 073. General pardon | 074. Islam | 075. Foreigners | 080. Agriculture | 081. Environment | 090. Education | 091. Culture | 101. Elderly policy | 102. Pensions | 103. Ageing population | 104. Family policy / childcare | 105. Policy on poverty | 106. Social policy | 107. Welfare services | 108. Distribution of income | 109. Attention lowest incomes | 110. Employment | 120. Traffic | 121. Traffic jams / public transport | 122. Mobility | 131. (Health)Care | 132. Market forces health care | 133. New health care system | 140. Environment | 141. Animal rights | 142. Nuclear energy | 143. Housing | 150. Norms and values | 155. Sharing | 160. Christian politics | 161. Social policies | 170. Functioning politics | 171. Cabinet formation | 172. Too many parties | 173. Continuation / change of policy | 174. Distribution of seats | 175. More social Netherlands | 998 Don't know / no answer | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C3001_1-C3001_2 | | Note that there are several cases whose answers are categorized | in the same way in C3001_1 and C3001_2. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 011 Democratic reform | 012 Bureaucracy | 013 State control | 021 Europe | 024 Foreign policy | 031 Military missions | 032 Defense policy | 041 Economy/Economic growth | 042 Financial crisis/Economic crisis | 051 Taxes | 052 Mortgage rate reduction | 053 Financial policies | 054 Cut-backs | 055 Debt/Deficit | 061 Crime | 062 Safety | 063 Terrorism | 064 Punishment/Justice system | 067 Ethical subjects (abortion/euthanasia e | 071 Immigration policy | 072 Integration policy | 074 Islam | 075 Foreigners | 076 Discrimination | 080 Agriculture | 090 Education | 091 Culture | 092 Student support | 101 Elderly policy | 102 Pensions | 103 Retirement age/Ageing population | 104 Family policy/Childcare/Youth policy | 105 Policy on poverty | 106 Social policy | 107 Welfare services | 108 Distribution of income | 109 Attention lowest incomes | 110 Employment | 120 Traffic | 121 Road pricing | 122 Mobility | 131 Health Care | 132 Market forces health care | 133 New health care system/No claim/Health | 140 Environment | 141 Animal rights | 142 Nuclear energy | 143 Housing (housing market/rent/social hou | 150 Norms and values/Moral standards | 160 Christian politics | 170 Functioning politics | 171 Cabinet formation | 173 Continuation/Change of policy | 174 Distribution of seats | 175 (Lack of) Solidarity/Social cohesion | 176 Wilders/PVV | 998 Don't know / Not answered | 999 Impossible to code | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C3001_1-C3001_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. Health | 002. Education | 003. Economy | 004. Welfare | 005. Law and Order | 006. Maori | 007. Tax | 008. Political Discontent | 009. Social Discontent | 010. Unemployment | 011. Rights | 012. Elderly | 013. Immigration | 014. Wages | 015. Foreign Policy | 016. Environment | 017. MMP and Coalitions | 018. Defense | 019. Transport | 020. Privatization | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C3001_1-C3001_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C3001_1-C3001_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 011. Employment | 012. Taxes | 013. Social equalization / distribution | 015. Industrial / trade politics | 016. Interest rates | 017. Oil funds | 018. Raising prices | 019. (Other) economic issues | 021. Care for the elderly | 022. Health service | 023. Age pensioners | 024. Welfare benefits | 025. Sickness benefits | 026. Modernization of public sector | 027. Housing | 028. Poverty | 029. (Other) health / social issues | 031. Kindergartens | 032. Cash benefit for families with small children | 035. (Other) child and family issues | 039. School and educational issues | 041. Abortion | 042. Gay rights | 043. (Other) welfare issues | 045. (Other) moral / religious issues | 046. EU | 051. NATO | 052. Disarmament of nuclear weapons | 053. Defense and security policy issues | 054. Climate change / policy | 055. (Other) foreign policy issues | 056. Environmental issues | 057. public transportation | 058. Oil politics / distribution of national recourses | 059. Communication / transport | 061. Decentralization / support for sparsely populated | areas | 062. Agricultural / fishery policies | 066. Criminal policy | 067. Immigration / refugee policy | 068. Aid to developing countries | 069. Party politics | 071. The question of government alternatives | 072. Gender equality | 073. Fighting bureaucracy | 074. Public vs. Private | 076. Working life | 077. Vehicle excise duty | 078. Local government | 079. Culture | 081. UN | 082. Fight against terrorism | 083. Peace | 084. National income after the oil-age | 085. Trade | 086. Alternative energy sources | 087. Financial crisis | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C3001_1-C3001_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. Election fraud (vote buying, fraud in counting | votes using PCOS machine) | 002. Better election experience due to automation | (cleaner and faster election results, election | process is easier and more peaceful) | 003. Issues about the accuracy and efficiency of the | PCOS machine and how secured it is against | fraudulent activities | 004. Long waiting lines (due to many voters, few PCOS | machine compared to no. Of voters, consolidation | of some precincts etc) | 005. Problems with the PCOS machine and / or PCOS | memory card(defective, reject some ballots) | 006. Name not found in the voter's in the precinct / | hard to find their names in the precinct | 007. New election technology/automated election using | PCOS machine | 008. Corruption (general) | 009. Training of Bei's / orientation of voters on how | to use the PCOS machine | 010. PCOS machine (general) | 011. Media killings and politics-related crimes | (includes massacre, bombing) | 012. PCOS machines and memory cards anomalies (some | machines/cards were stolen, replaced or hidden) | 013. Looking forward on the election results (who will | win as president, vice-president, etc.) | 014. Conflict among political parties and candidates / | exposing the issues involving the candidate to | the public | 015. Winning of Noynoy Aquino as president | 016. Issues about Noynoy (vices , psychological | problem) | 017. Transition to new administration/ expectations | from the new administration that they would | fulfill their promises | 018. Losing candidates can't accept defeat / some | filed complaints | 019. Issues on vice-pres. Election (Binay won as vice- | pres / vp candidate Roxas complained about the | results/ delayed proclamation of vice-pres) | 020. Issues involving former president arroyo (running | for congressman post, midnight appointment, hello | Garci) | 021. Happy with the results of the election / | candidates they voted won | 022. Many weren't able to vote during election | 023. Not well organized election / some Bei's not | trained well / voter's not knowledgeable about | the new system | 024. Doubt on the counting of votes / results of | election | 025. Issues about the contract with Smartmatic / | edible ink and the large amount of money spent | for automation | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): C3001_1-C3001_2 | | The implemented Polish election survey 2005 was a pilot study | for the third module of CSES. The questions about the most important | egocentric problems facing the country were not included. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C3001_1-C3001_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. Unemployment: no workplaces, no work for educated | people... | 002. Problem of poverty: social assistance... | 003. Low wages, undignified wages, raise wages, better | wages etc. | 004. Increase of pensions, revalorization, problems of | pensioners... | 005. Increasing prices, high prices, too high prices | 006. Social and economic inequalities | 007. Accommodation problems | 008. Better conditions of life - in general, material | situation.. | 009. Education system, reform of education system, | education... | 010. Health service, malfunctioning of health | service, reform | 011. Problems of countryside and agriculture | 012. Problems of young people, no perspectives for | young people.. | 013. Migration, departure of specialists from country | 014. Bad conditions of work, bad labor law, | exploitation | 015. Moral issues, 'sex-affair' | 016. Assurance of security, assurance of order, crime | 017. Bad law, bad regulations | 018. Bad governance, conflicts between politicians, | unstable government | 019. Bringing back calm into politics, criticism of | governing... | 020. Corruption, thieving, bribery, affairs, swindle, | scandals | 021. Bureaucracy, incompetent clerks, reform of state | admin. | 022. State - church relations | 023. Lustration, problems with past, dealing with | politicians past | 024. Budget, budget deficit, public finances, | economy... | 025. Economy, economic development, maintaining | economic growth | 026. Taxes | 027. Bad condition of roads, construction of roads, | motorways... | 028. Euro 2012 - general + constructions of stadiums | 029. Low enterprise development | 030. To make good use of European Union grants and | funds | 031. Lack of independence of state's energy | management, oil, gas | 032. Bad condition of roads, construction of roads, | motorways... | 033. Euro 2012 - general + constructions of stadiums | 034. Launch of the euro cash | 035. Withdrawal of polish troops from Iraq, | Afghanistan | 036. Poland in EU, integration with EU, satisfying EU | criteria | 037. Foreign policy of Poland, international relations | 038. Peace in the world - generally | 039. Anti-rocket shield | 040. Confrontation of parties in the campaign; | who - Po or PiS? | 041. Removal of PiS from power, voices against PiS and | coalition | 042. Voices for continuation of PiS government | 043. Voices for PO | 044. General answers regarding elections - debates, | manifestos... | 045. General answers such as: 'providing better | future'... | 046. Position of the church, state - church relations | 047. Realization of pre-election promises, democracy | 048. Lustration, problems with the past, politicians' | past | 049. Bad conditions of work, bad labor law, | exploitation | 050. Protection of polish identity, polish traditions, | culture, faith | 051. General answers such as: 'it should be better'... | 052. General answers regarding positive aspects of | campaign | 053. General answers regarding negative aspects of | campaign | 899. Everything is important, there is a lot of | important issues / problems | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2009): C3001_1-C3001_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. Unemployment | 002. Economic / financial situation | 003. Education | 004. Health | 005. Security / criminality | 006. Public work | 007. Governance of the country | 008. The reforms | 009. Corruption | 010. Absolute majority | 011. Tax reduction | 012. Country's development | 013. Abstention / call to vote | 014. Justice | 015. Crises | 016. Wages | 017. Maintenance of PS in the government | 018. Support for the elderly, children and other | groups | 019. Failure of political promises | 020. National minimum wage | 021. Teacher's situation | 022. Change of government | 023. Social security | 024. Lack of understanding between the parties | 025. Agriculture | 026. Control deficit | 027. Poverty | 028. Support for small and medium enterprises | 029. Wiretapping | 030. Political stability | 031. Foreign debt | 032. Marriage between same-sex | 033. Environment | 034. EU funds | 035. Bad investments | 036. The allocation of subsidies to those who do not | need | 037. Allocation of houses to those who need the most | 038. The price increase / decrease in purchasing power | 039. Better treatment for the disabled | 040. Living expenditure | 041. Social inequality | 042. The opposition is weak | 043. State budget | 044. Urbanism | 045. Increase in the unemployment fund | 046. Political program of parties | 047. Formation of government | 048. The country's future | 049. Improvement of living standards | 050. Housing support | 051. Public investments | 052. Policies towards work | 053. Abortion | 054. Freedom of speech | 055. Migration policies | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C3001_1-C3001_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. Economy | 002. Agriculture | 003. Social policy / protection | 004. Government formation | 005. Fairness of elections | 006. Election of the president | 007. Elections outcome | 008. Wages / pensions / living standard / poverty | 009. Employment / unemployment | 010. Economic crisis | 011. Electoral fight between the candidates | 012. Political issues / reform | 013. Country welfare / stability | 014. Education | 015. Corruption | 016. Candidates (personality / projects) | 017. Health / health system | 018. Positive change | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2010): C3001_1-C3001_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. Standard of living | Prices, high costs of living, lack of money | Low income, low pensions | Social inequality, social injustice in the | society Social care, social benefits, pensioners, | young families | Social policies, social security | Uncertainty, fear from the future | 002. Housing | Lack of apartments | Expensive housing | Public policies (national, regional, local) for | housing | 003. Health care | Expensive medicaments | Insufficient quality of health care and health | services | Corruption of medical doctors and medical | personnel | Immoral reform of health care system | 004. Education system | Fees in schools | Poor quality of education system | Reform of education system | Low wages of teachers | 005. Unemployment | Lack of job opportunities (in general, in | regions, for specific social groups, e.g. young | people, graduates) | Releasing from jobs, cancelling of jobs | Fears from losing the jobs | 006. Politics, political culture | quality of democracy | Conduct of politicians | 007. Economy | Economic reforms (tax reform, pension's reform | etc.) | Economic and fiscal development (exchange rate, | GDP, inflation; public debt, state budget) | High income taxes and mandatory payroll taxes | Privatization (unfair in terms of rules, as an | unsocial policy) | Barriers for private companies, for entrepreneurs | and small stakeholders | Public debt, insolvency, state insolvency | Investments, FDI | 008. Security, crime | Mafia, murders, organized crime | Security of citizens, critiques on police | 009. Ethical issues | Interpersonal relations without trust | Alcohol and drugs abuse (of youth) | Divorces, insufficient respect for families | 010. Corruption | 011. Foreign policy | Relations between EU and NATO | Bad image of Slovakia abroad | International relations | Relations with the neighboring countries - above | all Hungary | 012. Relations with Hungarian minority | Tensions in the relations between Slovaks and | Hungarian minority | Weak guarantees for the rights of minorities | Security of borders | 013. Environmental issues | protection of nature and environment | 014. Regional and local problems | Marginalization of regions, politicians in | capital do not care about other parts of Slovakia | 015. Roma minority | relations with Roma | Problems of cohabitation with Roma minority | 016. Bureaucracy | Bureaucracy in public administration | 017. Racism, discrimination | 018. Judiciary | legislation, rule of law | 019. Greek loan | 020. General election | 021. Global crises | Economic and financial global crises (in general | terms) | 022. Transport issues | payments for using roads, construction of roads, | infrastructure | 023. Floods | 024. Coalition building | Post-election development, quarrels among | political parties | 025. Left parties did not win | Former PM Fico/former coalition/leftists did not | win the elections | 889. All issues | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): C3001_1-C3001_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. Economic crisis, recession | 002. Crisis in Slovenia | 003. (Un)Employment | 004. Political culture, political parties | 005. Erased | 006. Relations, border with Croatia | 007. Tajcoon, privatization, economic criminal | 008. Patria | 009. Political human resources | 010. Corruption | 011. Legislation, law-equality | 012. Workers rights | 013. After-war executions, past, reconciliation | 014. Housing proclamation | 015. Social security, equality, justice | 016. Poverty, high costs of living | 017. Health | 018. Pensions, pensioners | 019. Higher income, standard | 020. Education | 021. Young people | 022. Church, influence in society | 023. Pre-electoral promises | 024. Electoral results, change of government | 025. Ecology | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2008): C3001_1-C3001_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 100. Economy | 110. Economic development | 111. Economic recovery | 112. Economic stability | 113. Stabilization of ordinary people's living | 114. Price stability | 115. Employment | 116. Unemployment | 117. Youth unemployment | 200. Politics | 210. Political ideology | 211. Political stability | 212. Political apathy | 213. Women's political participation | 214. Broadcasters' political participation | 215. Electoral and political participation | 216. Management of government affairs | 217. Regime change | 220. Party policy | 221. Internal strife within party | 222. Inter-party strife | 223. Party preference | 224. Other party-related issues | 310. Public policy pledge | 311. Candidate nomination | 312. Turnout rate | 313. Candidates morality and qualification | 314. Absence of fair election | 320. Number of seats for each party | 321. Election results for each party | 322. Emergence of minor political parties | 323. Pro-Park Geun-Hye alliance | 324. Election results of independent candidate | 325. Election results of famous politicians | 326. Evaluation on Roh Moo-hyun administration | 327. Other Election-related issues | 410. Stability | 420. Education | 430. Welfare | 440. Rectitude and morality | 441. Corruption | 450. Social polarization | 451. Ideological conflict | 460. Regional conflict | 461. Regional development | 462. Regionalism | 470. Crimes against children | 480. Environmental problems | 490. North Korea nuclear problems | 491. North-South Korean problem | 492. South Korea-U.S. Relations | 500. Government policy | 510. Real Estate policy | 511. Crematorium construction | 512. Grand Korean waterway | 513. Re-development and re-construction | 514. Deregulation on business | 515. Other policy-related issues | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2008): C3001_1-C3001_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. Economy | 002. Employment | 003. Prices | 004. Taxes | 005. Mortgages | 006. Agriculture | 010. Social policies | 011. Pensions | 012. Health | 013. Education | 014. Immigration | 015. Dependency | 016. Family policy | 017. Gender violence | 020. Foreign policy | 021. International cooperation | 022. Defense | 023. Terrorism | 024. Citizen's security | 030. Institutional policy | 031. Form of government | 032. Constitutional reforms | 033. Institutional cooperation | 034. Rights | 035. Justice | 036. Political agreements | 037. Corruption | 040. Future challenges | 041. Research | 042. Climate change | 043. Infrastructures and urbanism | 044. Housing | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C3001_1-C3001_2 | | The Swedish study of 2006 includes 144 respondents in C3001_1 | that answered "ingen viktig fråga för val av parti" | (No important question which would influence the vote choice). | These cases have been coded as "901. NO PROBLEM". | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. Taxes | 002. Lower taxes | 003. Higher taxes for rich people / high-income | earners | 004. Marginal taxes | 006. VAT on food | 007. Fight tax evasion / economic crime, introduce a | general clause, fight speculative profits | 009. Indirect taxes / selective purchase taxes / | share tax | 010. Local taxation issues | 011. Tax deductions (not including deductions for | housing, see code 121) | 012. Temporary austerity tax | 013. Balancing of one tax against another | 014. Capital tax | 015. Tax on real estate | 020. Swedish economy | 021. Financial and currency policy, interest levels, | foreign loans | 022. Wage level, wage policy | 023. Trade policy, free trade, trade balance, open | competition | 025. Costs in general. Increased prices, inflation | 026. Private economy | 028. Recession | 029. Budget deficit, national debt | 030. Public sector | 031. Reduction of public service | 035. Privatization | 040. Social policy / security issues | 041. Social reforms | 042. Social benefits | 043. Care | 044. Welfare society, social security | 047. Distribution policy | 048. Homelessness | 049. Segregation | 050. Pensions - pensioner issues | 051. Swedish pension fund - Tilläggspension (ATP) | 052. Private pension insurance | 053. The new pension system | 054. Pension fund | 060. Care of elderly | 063. Private room for people that are hospitalized | over a long period | 068. Home-help service | 069. Transportation service | 070. Health care / health insurance | 071. Dental service / dental reform services | 072. Disability issues | 073. Sickness benefit / qualifying period (not | qualifying period for care of child, see code 78) | 074. Private health care / privatization of health | care | 075. Care center | 076. Queues within the health care system | 077. AIDS-problem | 078. Qualifying period for care of sick child | 079. Psychiatric Care | 085. Family policy / child care | 086. Child-care allowance | 089. Parents' insurance | 092. Daycare centre | 100. Educational policy, research | 101. More discipline and orderliness in school | 103. Compulsory school, school in general | 107. University / research | 108. Student's economy | 111. Youth's and children's future and problems | 115. Cultural issues | 120. Housing policy in general | 130. Decentralization - regional industrial location | - regional policy | 140. Agricultural policy | 145. Fisheries (n.b. not related to environment) | 150. Bureaucracy - too much bureaucracy, complications | with forms, corporatism | 153. Personal integrity, social security number | 160. Environment / environmental control / environment | protection | 162. Traffic, motorism, exhaust emissions and unleaded | petrol | 168. Greenhouse effect, global warming, climate change | 170. Communications, traffic, speed limits, Swedish | state railways, airlines, low prices, public | transportation | 177. Congestion charges | 180. Law and order, treatment of offenders, police, | criminality | 181. Juvenile crime | 182. Violence in public places | 183. Law and order | 186. Violence against women | 190. Religion, moral and ethics, Christian upbringing | in school, spiritual values, women priests | 192. Abortion | 206. Copyright on the web | 210. Peace issue, international disarmament | 220. Swedish foreign and security policy | 222. Defense policy / defense expenditure | 224. Aid to developing countries, issues related to | developing countries | 227. NATO-membership | 230. International issues in general | 240. Employment, unemployment | 241. Juvenile unemployment | 243. Employment in the public sector | 244. Working environment / strain | 247. Unemployment benefit fund | 248. Sick leave, early retirement, occupational health | service | 249. Other labour market issues | 250. Commercial policy, industrial policy, ship yards, | textile, steel, forests | 251. Conditions for businesses (including small | business) | 260. Energy policy, coal, oil, renewable sources of | energy, energy-saving | 261. Nuclear power in general | 262. Start of nuclear phase-out | 281. Labour legislation | 295. Equal opportunity for women and men, women's | rights, allocation of quotas, sexism | 296. Equal opportunity for women and men in working | life | 299. Homosexual couple's right to adopt children | 300. Community governed by law / rule of law | 310. Immigration policy | 311. Refugee issues | 312. Racism, hostility towards foreigners | 313. Language test for immigrants | 315. Segregation, integration immigrants / Swedish | people | 320. Other concrete issues | 325. Issues on the future, visions | 330. Ideology (general, other) | 331. Socialism | 335. Equality, equalization, solidarity | 338. Democracy | 340. Right-wing politics / right-wing extremism | 342. Change of system | 343. Green ideas, green ideology, non-growth, | ecological balance | 344. Justice | 346. Freedom of choice, liberty | 347. Democratic liberties and rights; freedom of | speech, freedom | of assembly, property rights | 348. Feminism | 350. Party politics (general opinion on parties) | 351. Party-political collaboration | 360. Confidence in parties and politics | 370. Party leader | 372. Other Candidate issues | 380. Class society (group references) | 390. Government issue, composition of cabinet | 392. Government alternatives crossing the border of | the usual block division | 393. Stability and continuity | 394. Renewal, Change of power | 500. Local and municipal issues | 598. All questions | 800. EU- General | 803. EU - The European Economic and Monetary Union | 805. EU - Employment issues | 835. EU - Self government / federal state | 839. Withdraw / Stay as a member of the EU | 889. No important question which would influence | the vote for a party | 998. Don't Know / No Answer | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C3001_1-C3001_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. Pension | 002. Retirement provisions | 003. Unemployment | 004. Poverty | 005. Asylum seekers | 006. Foreigners | 007. Drugs | 008. EU, Europe | 009. Right extremism | 010. Finances | 011. Refugees | 012. Xenophobia | 013. Heath system | 014. Globalization | 015. Inflation | 016. Integration | 017. Climate | 018. Consociationalism | 019. Health insurances | 020. Crime | 021. Neutrality | 022. Politicians | 023. Political style | 024. Political system | 025. Racism | 026. Pensions | 027. Pension age | 028. Security | 030. Social security | 031. Social inequality | 032. Taxes | 033. Terrorism | 034. Environment | 035. Economic development | 036. Education | 037. Gender equality | 038. Relation to other countries | 039. Individual freedom | 040. Youth crime | 041. Crime by foreigners | 042. Transportation, Traffic | 043. Energy | 044. Swiss People's Party (SVP) and Christoph Blocher | 045. Federal council climate | 046. Family policy | 047. Youth unemployment | 048. Lack of cohesion in society | 049. Islam | 050. Guarantee of social security | 051. Abuse of social security | 052. Security of work place | 053. Political polarization | 054. Freedom of movement | 055. Violence | 056. Lack of tolerance | 057. Loss of common values | 058. Agriculture | 059. Grievances in businesses | 060. Language | 061. Youth general | 062. Basic right, human rights | 063. Demography | 064. Land use planning | 065. Airport | 066. Army | 067. Right wing policy | 068. International solidarity | 069. Swiss identity | 070. Nuclear power | 071. Salaries | 072. Living conditions | 073. Image of Switzerland | 074. Child protection | 075. Overpopulation | 076. National cohesion | 077. Smoking | 078. Media | 079. Consumer society | 080. Industrial peace | 081. Future | 082. Culture | 083. Bank Secret | 084. Peace | 085. Cross-border commuters | 086. Dog laws | 087. The left | 097. Several most important problems | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C3001_1-C3001_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. Economic development problem | 002. Cross-Strait direct link | 003. Problem about unification and independence | 004. National identification | 005. Alternation of power | 006. Political stability problem | 007. Diplomacy or international status problem | 008. Judicial reform problem | 009. Educational reform problem | 010. Environmental protection problem | 011. Problem about the gap between the rich and the | poor | 012. Unemployment problem | 013. Aborigines problem | 014. Social welfare problem | 015. Crime problem | 016. Government administration | 017. Candidate's personal morality | 018. Candidate's ability | 019. National defense security problem | 020. Grand china market | 021. People's livelihood question | 022. Ethnic groups problems | 023. The State Affairs Fund Scandal | 024. Democracy problems | 025. Public infrastructure | 026. Referendums | 027. Cross-Strait relations | 028. Keep Taiwan's sovereignty | 029. Vote-buying problems | 030. Fairness of election | 031. Result of election | 032. Bribery problem | 033. Social stability problem | 034. Government personnel | 035. MA Ying-jeou's policy | 036. Resuming (joining) the United Nations | 037. Green card problems | 038. Officer's salary | 039. Country competency | 040. Open up the cross-Strait sightseeing | 041. Dictatorial leadership | 042. Taiwan future problem | 043. Media chaos | 044. Financial reform | 045. Tax cuts | 046. Denizen bride's right ensuring | 047. Open up the mainland china's record of formal | schooling | 048. Illegal lobbying and corrupt practices by means | of privilege | 049. Fairness and justice | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C3001_1-C3001_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. Economy | 002. Unemployment | 003. Violence and Crime | 004. Corruption | 005. AIDS | 006. Sufficiency Economy | 007. Safety of Life and Property | 008. Education | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): C3001_1-C3001_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. AKP's success / AKP, incumbent government | in power | 002. Discussion of constitutional changes | 003. Arguments and bickering between the parties | 004. Independent candidates supported by the peace | 005. AKP's failure | 006. Problems of democracy/democratization | 007. Prime minister Erdogan | 008. Problem of turban / hat / headdress | 009. CHP's success | 010. CHP's failure | 011. Economy | 012. Court cases of Ergenekon / Balyoz | 013. Unemployment | 014. Tape scandals | 015. Kurdish problem | 016. Terror | 017. Various projects/empty promises | 018. Election results | 019. MPs in prison | 020. Education | 021. Stability | 022. Nationalist action party (MHP) | 023. Military / intervention of military into politics | 024. EU, USA, foreign affairs and problems with other | countries | 025. Women's' rights | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2008): C3001_1-C3001_2 | | Note that although the most and the second most important | problems were asked separately, respondents were allowed to give | multiple answers on both questions. Unfortunately the order of | response is not available. Instead the lowest answer category is | included in C3001_. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. Defense spending | 002. Middle East | 003. Iraq | 004. War | 005. Terrorism | 006. Veterans | 007. National defense (all other) | 008. Foreign aid | 009. Foreign trade | 010. Protection of US jobs | 011. Serbia/Balkans | 012. China | 013. International affairs (all other) | 014. Energy crisis | 015. Energy prices | 016. Energy (all other) | 017. Environment | 018. Natural resources (all other) | 019. Education and training | 020. School funding | 021. Education (all other) | 022. Aids | 023. Medicare | 024. Health (all other) | 025. Welfare | 026. Poverty | 027. Employment | 028. Housing | 029. Social security | 030. Income (all other) | 031. Crime | 032. Race relations | 033. Illegal drugs | 034. Police problems | 035. Guns | 036. Corporate corruption | 037. Justice (all other) | 038. Budget | 039. Size of government | 040. Taxes | 041. Immigration | 042. Campaign finance | 043. Political corruption | 044. Ethics | 045. Government power | 046. Budget priorities | 047. Partisan politics | 048. Politicians | 049. Government (all other) | 050. The economy | 051. Stock market | 052. Economic inequality | 053. Recession | 054. Inflation | 055. Economics (all other) | 056. Agriculture | 057. Science | 058. Commerce | 059. Transportation | 060. Community development | 061. Abortion | 062. Child care | 063. Overpopulation | 064. Public morality | 065. Domestic violence | 066. Family | 067. Young people | 068. Homosexuality | 069. The media | 070. Everything | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): C3001_1-C3001_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. Retirement / Pensions | 002. Economic / Economic Policy | 003. Economy | 004. Public Safety | 005. Drugs | 006. Poverty | 007. Taxation | 008. Equality / Social Matters | 009. Human Rights / Amnesty Law | 010. Employment / Unemployment | 011. Wage Level / Salary | 012. Education | 013. Welfare Policies | 014. Health Policies / National Health System | 015. National Budget | 016. Housing | 017. Smoking Policy | 018. Public Administration Reform | 019. Corruption | 020. Jails / Prison System | 021. Abortion Law | 022. Condition Of The City | 023. Public Employees / Bureaucracy | 024. Local Government | 025. Woman's Rights / Equal Rights | 026. Unfairness Campaign | 027. Foreign Policy | 028. Opportunities For Young | 029. Union / Strikes | 030. Investments | 031. Political Commitment | 032. Political Inefficacy | 033. Childhood | 034. Inflation | 035. Tough On Crime / Immutability Age | 036. Public Policies | 897. Other Politic Problem | 898. Other Social Problem | 899. Other Economic Problem --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3002_1 >>> Q2A. MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM-SOCIOTROPIC-FIRST MENTION C3002_2 >>> Q2B. MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM-SOCIOTROPIC-SECOND MENTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q2a. What do you think is the most important political problem facing [COUNTRY] today? Q2b. What do you think is the second most important political problem facing [COUNTRY] today? .................................................................. 001.-899. MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM CODES [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 900. OTHER PROBLEM (NOT SPECIFIABLE) 901. NO PROBLEM 997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 999. MISSING | NOTES: C3002_1-C3002_2 | | This is an open-ended question. Collaborators coded this | variable in a detailed way and with a minimum of at least | twenty categories. | | Coding Strategy: | A. The order of responses was kept, except if the response on | the first question was missing and response on the second | question included a substantial answer. Then the substantial | answer was coded in C30021_1, while C3002_2 was coded as | missing (code 99). | B. Common answers, such as "other problem" (code 900) or "no | problem" (code 901)were coded into common categories | C. Repeated mentions in C3002_1 and C3002_2 were kept. | | Table: Frequencies on C3002_2 for respondents that repeated | their problem mention of C3002_1: | | POLITY NAME (ELEC YEAR) | | AUSTRIA (2008) 37 | BRAZIL (2010) 83 | CHILE (2009) 3 | CROATIA (2007) 42 | CZECH REPUBLIC (2006) 194 | CZECH REPUBLIC (2010) 102 | DENMARK (2007) 14 | ESTONIA (2011) 47 | FINLAND (2007) 71 | FINLAND (2011) 89 | FRANCE (2007) 79 | GERMANY (2009) 136 | ICELAND (2007) 27 | ICELAND (2009) 67 | IRELAND 380 | ISRAEL (2006) 68 | JAPAN (2007) 31 | LATVIA (2010) 53 | MEXICO (2006) 42 | MEXICO (2009) 64 | NETHERLANDS (2006) 72 | NETHERLANDS (2010) 60 | NEW ZEALAND (2008) 43 | NORWAY (2009) 23 | PERU (2011) 77 | PHILIPPINES (2010) 44 | POLAND (2005) 34 | POLAND (2007) 38 | PORTUGAL (2009) 16 | ROMANIA (2009) 52 | SLOVAKIA (2010) 35 | SLOVENIA (2008) 38 | SPAIN (2008) 3 | SWEDEN (2006) 15 | THAILAND (2007) 36 | TURKEY (2011) 35 | UNITED STATES (2008) 66 | URUGUAY (2009) 5 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | Australia offered a closed-list of items for C3002. | | See codes on C3001_1-C3001_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | Note that in the Austrian Election Study 92 respondents | mentioned up to 6 problems for C3002_1 and 35 respondents up | to 5 mentions for C3002_2. For both variables only the first | mention was used. An exception was made for a few singular | cases in C3001_1 which only gave a meaningful second mention. | In those cases, the second mention of the most important | problem was used. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 010. Unemployment | 011. Youth unemployment / apprenticeship positions | 020. Economy | 021. Wages / pay | 030. Inflation / price increases | 040. Finances / budget | 050. Taxes | 060. Social security / social justice | 070. Education policy | 080. Health policy | 090. Retirement provision | 091. Pensions | 092. Elderly care | 100. Family policy | 101. Youth / young people / students | 110. Immigration / migration | 111. Foreigners | 112. Criminality of foreigners | 113. EU and foreigners / EU's eastern borders | 114. Integration | 115. Islam | 120. Environment | 121. Climate change | 122. Floods | 123. Genetic engineering | 130. Energy | 131. Energy supply | 132. Renewable energy | 140. Traffic | 141. Public transport | 142. Transit traffic | 150. Cooperation of political parties | 160. Crime | 170. Equal rights of men and women | 180. Agriculture | 190. Racism / xenophobia | 191. Demonization and negative image of the right | 200. EU | 201. EU positive | 202. EU negative | 203. EU enlargement | 210. Administrative reform | 220. Institutional order | 221. Political system | 222. Politicians | 223. Corruption | 224. Disenchantment with politics | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2008): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | See codes on C3001_1-C3001_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. Unemployment | 002. Corruption | 003. Lack of ethics | 004. Health / lack of health investments | 005. Violence / lack of safety investments | 006. Politicians that do not fulfill their promises | 007. Unequal income distribution / social inequality | 008. High salaries of deputies / increase of deputies | salaries | 009. Lack of punishment for corrupt politicians | 010. Lack of political union / lack of political | parties union | 011. Lack of money for public investments | 012. Drug dealers / to combat drug dealers | 013. Low salaries / low minimum salary | 014. Combat of hunger | 015. Growing of the country / economic development | 016. Lack of political reform / too many political | parties | 017. Education / investments in education | 018. Bureaucracy in public services | 019. Taking decisions without popular consultation | 020. Lack of infrastructure | 021. Agrarian reform | 022. Bad public administration | 023. Organized crime | 024. Lack of popular housing | 025. Social responsibility | 026. Lack of investments in civil construction | 027. Lack of attention to what population needs | 028. Impunity / lack of justice | 029. Inflation / price of food | 030. Poverty / misery | 031. Holes in highways | 032. Politicians that only think about themselves | / do not solve problems | 033. Increase of school transportation costs | 034. Political disorganization | 035. Lack of honesty | 036. Corrupt policemen | 037. Lack of sensibility | 038. Assistance to street children | 039. Lack of shame of politicians / lack of character | 040. Legislation | 041. The powerful men that are arrested | 042. Lack of proposals of the candidates | 043. Disrespect to institutions | 044. Beggars | 045. Slow process to approve amendments | 046. High taxes | 047. The buying of dossiers | 048. Accidents in transit | 049. The universities still are for few people | 050. The minimum age to retire | 051. External debt | 052. Nepotism | 053. Lula does not have power to decide | 054. Lack of support to agriculture | 055. The tributes | 056. Democracy | 057. Politicians / the 'mob' of politicians | 058. High interests taxes | 059. Depreciation of the REAL | 060. Basic sanitation conditions | 061. Lack of will to work | 062. The incompetence of politicians | 063. The Bolsa Familia' program (family grant program) | 064. The capitalists that explore the poor | 065. Politicians who do not have party fidelity | 066. The Worker's Party | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 001. Corruption in general | 002. Political corruption | 006. Drugs and criminality | 007. Fight against inequality | 010. Employment and salary | 011. Functioning of the political system | 013. Health policy | 016. Bad quality of education | 024. Problems in economy and investment | 036. Bad health services | 073. Development and economic situation | 098. Problems in electoral system | 130. Unethical behavior of politicians | 152. Bad public administration | 162. Values and issues in general | 311. Organization of political system | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2008): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | See Election Study Notes on C3001. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | See Election Study Notes on C3001. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CROATIA (2007): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. Unemployment | 002. Economy | 003. Pensions | 004. Health care | 005. Education | 006. Agriculture | 007. Inflation | 008. Infrastructure | 009. Taxes | 010. Foreign debt | 011. Privatization | 012. Crime | 013. Corruption | 014. Justice system | 015. European Union accession | 016. Joining the NATO | 017. Protected ecological zone in the Adriatic | 018. Relations with Slovenia | 019. Foreign policy | 020. Domestic policy in general | 021. War veterans | 022. International Criminal Tribunal for the former | Yugoslavia (ICTY) | 023. National pride and patriotism | 024. Social justice | 025. Poverty | 026. Actions of political parties | 027. Quality of government | 028. Behavior of politicians | 029. Wages and living standard | 030. Political rights and equality | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2006): C3002_1-C3002_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2010): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | See codes on C3001_1-C3001_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | See codes on C3001_1-C3001_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | See codes on C3001_1-C3001_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2007): C3002_1-C3002_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2011): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code / Categories: | 001. Foreign and security policy / international | Relations / development aid / Russia | 002. EU / EU policy / bailouts / financial stability | funds | 003. NATO membership | 004. Peace / threats to peace | 005. Functioning of democracy / democracy / | bureaucracy / corruption | 006. Politicians' and officials' actions / competence / | impeccability / or fairness | 007. Economic development / global economy / economic | globalization | 008. Employment / unemployment / youth unemployment | 009. Entrepreneur issues / prerequisites for | Entrepreneurship | 010. Health care in general | 012. Education and know-how | 013. Poverty / low income issues / inequality / income | disparity / social exclusion / suffering | 014. Housing situation / homelessness / housing prices | 015. Equality / (gender) equality | 016. Taxation and national economy | 017. Status of municipalities / municipal economy | 018. Regional policy / regional development / Regional | inequality | 019. Nature conservation / environmental issues / | Ecological lifestyle | 020. Elderly issues / care of the elderly | 021. Youth issues | 022. Issues of families with children | 024. Single parent issues | 025. Employee issues / subsistence / prices / | cost of living | 026. Agriculture / agricultural issues | 027. Criminality / insecurity / the preservation of | law and order / beggars / criminal sentences | 028. Selfishness / values / the lack or preservation | of morals | 029. Immigrants / foreigner issues / multiculturalism: | positive attitude / more multiculturalism and | tolerance | 030. Nuclear power | 032. Alcohol / (illegal) drugs / other intoxicants | 034. Independence / loss of independence | 035. Social security / the conservation of welfare / | the support for special groups | 036. Welfare services and securing of services | (in general) | 037. Shortage of nurses / nurse salaries / the shortage | of doctors | 038. Pensioner issues / pensions / pensions are too | small | 039. Status of young people and students / inadequacy | of grants / benefits | 040. Special issues of employment opportunities and | workplaces (e.g. age racism / burn out / | insecurity) | 041. Retirement / baby boomers / aging | 042. Energy policy / energy prices | 043. Correct allocation of political decisions | 044. Climate change / natural disasters | 045. Immigrants / refugees: neutral attitude | 046. Immigrants / refugees: negative attitude | 047. Nationalism / rise of the true Finns | 048. Weakened status of Swedish language | 049. Mental health problems / mental health services | 050. Poor protection of minority rights / support by | legislation | 051. Growing racism | 052. Taxation | 053. National economy / public economy / debts | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | See codes on C3001_1-C3001_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | The original questionnaire provided an open answer question. | Problem mentions had been categorized afterwards, which yield | repeated mentions in C3002_1 and C3002_2. | | See codes on C3001_1-C3001_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | Germany provided a closed-list of issues to the respondents: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. Unemployment / labor market | 002. Hostility towards foreigners | 003. Foreigners / applicants for political asylum | 004. Petrol / gas / electricity / energy / oil price | 005. Education / school / vocational training | 006 Family promotion / -polities | 007. Health care system reform | 008. Budget / indebtedness of state | 009. Street crime / violence / drugs / public security | 010. Pensions (reforms) / old-age provision | 011. Social injustice | 012. Taxes / tax reforms | 013. Fight against terrorism / public security | 014. Environmental pollution / -problems / climate | 015. Economic situation | 021. Problems of government formation | 022. Chancellor question | 023. Election results | 024. Questions of coalition formation | 025. Politicians should not ... | 026. Political apathy / discontent | 027. Foreign- / European-policy | 028. German unification | 029. Welfare state / social policy | 030. Necessity of reform / reform blockades | 031. Bureaucratization of Germany | 032. Price stability / raising cost of living | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | See codes on C3001_1-C3001_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | See codes on C3001_1-C3001_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. Universal suffrage | 002. Performance of LegCo members | 003. Hong Kong - mainland relationship | 004. Political institutions and their reform and | development | 005. Whether LegCo members truly represent the public | 006. Whether LegCo members keep their election pledges | 007. Whether LegCo members help the public | 008. Whether LegCo members help the respondent | 009. Party affiliation of the candidates | 010. Quality or ability of LegCo members | 011. Beloved candidates elected | 012. Monitoring of the government | 013. Campaign or policy platforms | 014. Dominance of the LegCo by one party or political | balance in the LegCo | 015. Good governance of the government | 016. Executive-legislature relationship | 017. Political quarrels | 018. Economy | 019. Minimum wage | 020. (Un)employment | 021. Taxes | 022. Inflation | 023. Lehman incident | 024. Livelihood of the public | 025. Whether LegCo members are pro-mainland | 026. Social harmony | 027. Fair or open election | 028. Rule of law | 029. Environmental protection | 030. Article 23 legislation | 031. Too much subordination of Hong Kong to mainland | 032. Government favoritism toward the business or | Government-business conspiracy | 033. Unequal income distribution | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007): C3002_1-C3002_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2009): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | See codes on C3001_1-C3001_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2007): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. Abortion | 002. Crime | 003. Northern Ireland | 004. Corruption | 005. Infrastructure | 006. Health | 007. Inflation | 008. Unemployment | 009. Taxes | 010. Environment | 011. EU | 012. Immigration | 013. Economy | 014. Policy | 015. Rural | 016. Education | 017. Political | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): C3002 | | The Russian version of the questionnaire speaks of problems but | not political problems. This might also apply to other | questionnaires (Hebrew, Arabic). | | See codes on C3001_1-C3001_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | See codes on C3001_1-C3001_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2010): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | See codes on C3001_1-C3001_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 011. Corruption | 012. Electoral Fraud | 013. Arguments between parties | 014. The elections in general | 015. The election of President | 016. López Obrador / protests / PRD / AMLO | 017. Economic crisis | 018. Honesty | 019. Unemployment | 020. Insecurity | 021. Economy | 022. Parties' ambitions | 023. Poverty | 024. Democracy | 025. Relation with the United States | 026. They don't keep promises | 027. Land | 028. Bad organization | 029. Bad politicians | 030. Housing | 031. Inflation | 032. Education | 033. To attend the commerce | 034. Support to the natives | 035. Foreign debt | 036. Migration | 037. Low salaries | 038. Recount of the votes in the election | 039. Political assassinations | 040. Drug pushing | 041. Political instability | 042. Bad use of power | 043. Support to the women | 044. Not to accept that he lost the elections | 045. Raise of services prices | 046. The public servants rob | 047. Drug trafficking | 048. Social inequality | 049. Lack of credibility in the institutions | 050. Party unifications | 051. Conflict with the result / popular unhappiness | 052. Respect for the authorities | 053. Lack of credibility in the politics | 054. No elected President | 055. Problems with the magister of Oaxaca | 056. Lack of organization of the electoral court | (TRIFE) | 057. Respect among politicians | 058. Drug consumption | 059. Laws should be applied | 060. Lack of business growth | 061. The bad influence of the mass media | 062. Campaign proposals | 063. Violence / murders | 064. Kidnapping | 065. Implement a communist government | 066. Pollution | 067. Mismanagement of the resources | 068. Corruption in the electoral commission | 069. Respect the winner | 070. Social instability | 071. Social programs | 072. Public services | 073. Corruption among politics | 074. Health services | 075. International conflicts | 076. Political debate | 077. Banking Fund for the Protection of Savings | (FOBAPROA - Fondo Bancario de Protección al | Ahorro) | 078. Support for senior citizens | 079. Change of government | 080. Attract more investments | 081. Future of the country | 082. Annul the elections | 083. Party divisions | 084. There's no support from the Congress | 085. Country stability | 086. Corrupt policemen | 087. Smuggling | 088. Reduce the number of legislators at the Congress | 089. Child abduction | 090. Let AMLO (Andrés Manuel López Obrador) work | 091. Candidates badly prepared | 092. Corruption in the government | 093. Corruption / favoritism | 094. Public works | 095. Felipe Calderón / PAN | 096. None | 100. Vicente Fox | 101. Vandalism / gangs | 102. Lower the salaries to the government employees | 103. The problem of the Puebla's governor | 104. Bureaucracy | 105. Too many candidates | 107. Guerrillas' conflicts | 108. Drainage | 109. Doesn't help people | 110. They only seek their own benefit | 111. Pavement / roads | 112. Alcoholism | 113. No to accept that AMLO (Andrés Manuel López | Obrador) won | 114. Improve the diet | 115. That Felipe Calderón declares himself as the | winner | 116. Respect the citizens' votes | 117. Human rights | 118. Overpopulation | 120. state-owned petrleum company: Petróleos | Mexicanos (PEMEX) (C3002_) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 002. Rising Prices / Inflation | 003. Unemployment / Better Jobs | 004. Corruption / Stop Corruption | 005. Drug Trafficking / Organized Crime | 006. Credibility of Political Parties / Politicians | 007. Crisis / Economic Crisis / Shortage | 008. Crime / Fight Crime / More Surveillance / | Organized Crime | 009. Democracy-Enhancing / Democracy | 010. Disagree in the Chamber of deputies / | No Political Agreements | 011. Mistrust in Politicians / Political Leaders | 012. Drugs / Drug Addiction | 013. Economy / Improve the Economy / Economic Growth | 014. Education | 015. Bad Government / Bad Decisions of Government / | Bad Governments | 016. Insecurity / Insecurity in Country / Security / | Violence | 017. Poverty / Extreme Poverty | 018. Kidnappings / Abductions Combat | 019. Influenza | 020. Tragedy in the Nursery ABC in Sonora | 021. Divisions within the Parties / Fighting among | Parties | 022. Fights between Party / Party Disputes / Dirty War | 023. Too many Political Parties / Political Parties | 024. Politics / Politicians' Fight / Bad Politicians | 025. Lack of Money / Money | 026. Unaccomplished Promises / Default | 027. They are (all) Thieves / They are not Honest | 028. Everything and Everyone | 029. Oil | 030. Governance | 031. Health | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | See codes on C3001_1-C3001_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 011 Democratic reform | 012 Bureaucracy | 013 State control | 021 Europe | 024 Foreign policy | 031 Military missions | 032 Defense policy | 041 Economy/Economic growth | 042 Financial crisis/Economic crisis | 051 Taxes | 052 Mortgage rate reduction | 053 Financial policies | 054 Cut-backs | 055 Debt/Deficit | 061 Crime | 062 Safety | 063 Terrorism | 064 Punishment/Justice system | 071 Immigration policy | 072 Integration policy | 074 Islam | 075 Foreigners | 076 Discrimination | 090 Education | 092 Student support | 101 Elderly policy | 102 Pensions | 103 Retirement age/Ageing population | 104 Family policy/Childcare/Youth policy | 105 Policy on poverty | 106 Social policy | 107 Welfare services | 108 Distribution of income | 110 Employment | 120 Traffic | 121 Road pricing | 122 Mobility | 131 Health Care | 133 New health care system/No claim/Health | 140 Environment | 142 Nuclear energy | 143 Housing (housing market/rent/social hou | 150 Norms and values/Moral standards | 160 Christian politics | 170 Functioning politics | 171 Cabinet formation | 172 Too many parties | 173 Continuation/Change of policy | 174 Distribution of seats | 175 (Lack of) Solidarity/Social cohesion | 176 Wilders/PVV | 998 Don't know / Not answered | 999 Impossible to code | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | See codes on C3001_1-C3001_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C3002_1-C3002_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | See codes on C3001_1-C3001_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2011): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. Corruption | 002. Crime and insecurity | 003. Poverty | 004. Unemployment | 005. Terrorism | 006. Drug traffic | 007. Bad justice administration | 008. Social inequality | 009. Poor quality of public education | 010. Poor quality of health system | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. Graft and corruption (general) | 002. Poverty / economic crisis | 003. Inflation / higher prices of commodities | 004. Income/wages / salaries too low | 005. Debt of Philippines | 006. Maguindanao massacre | 007. Election fraud / vote buying | 008. Unemployment / lack of job opportunities | 009. Education problem (general) | 010. Media killings and politics-related crimes | 011. Crime (general) | 012. Hunger / food poverty / malnutrition | 013. Political dynasty | 014. Transition to new administration / expectations | from the new administration that they would | fulfill their promises | 015. Unfulfilled promises of politicians | 016. Insurgency due to NAP's, Abu Sayyaf etc. / | conflict between Christians and Muslims | 017. Growing population | 018. Switching of members of political parties / | conflict among political parties and candidates | 019. Bureaucracy problems/ no unity among elected | officials | 020. Housing problems | 021. Illegal activities (gambling, smuggling, drugs) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. unemployment | 002. poverty, social assistance | 003. low wages | 004. problems of the retired, pensioners | 005. increasing prices, high prices | 006. social and economic inequalities | 007. uncertain future | 008. housing construction problems | 009. poor life conditions | 010. unequal access to education | 011. health service functioning | 012. social insurance reform | 013. rural/agricultural situation | 014. women discrimination | 015. civic rights: insufficient, etc. | 021. security, crime | 022. law and judicial problems | 023. terrorism | 031. bad rule, coalition/party conflicts | 032. strikes, protests, blockades | 033. corruption, bribery | 034. bureaucracy, incompetent officials | 035. public money waste (also from EU) | 036. political scandals, corruption | 037. parliamentary investigation commissions failure | 041. budget deficit, public finance | 042. economy | 043. taxes | 044. mining, steel industry, railways | 045. companies liquidation | 046. privatization and re-privatization | 047. FDI, wholesale of polish property | 048. obstacles for entrepreneurship | 049. ue subventions | 050. energy sovereignty (oil, gas) | 051. poor roads | 061. war in Iraq, polish troops presence | 062. EU - Poland relationship | 063. relations with foreign countries | 064. relations with Russia | 065. policy towards Ukraine and Belarus; minorities | 066. relations with Germany | 067. relations with USA | 071. low population growth/birth rate | 072. minority rights & tolerance | 073. social anomy, disintegration | 074. problems with and of young people | 075. ecology, environmental pollution | 076. natural disasters, flood | 077. abortion | 078. role of church in the state/country | 079. elections, democracy | 080. unnecessary disorganized lustration | 081. speeding and finalizing lustration | 082. emigration in search of better jobs | 083. family pathology: alcoholism, narcotics | 084. workplace exploitation | 085. liquidation of senate, cutting number of mps | 086. value crisis, lack of authority | 087. other problems | 088. there are no problems | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | The original data for Poland (2007) included nine observations, | which did not mention a most important sociotropic problem in | C3002_1, but named a second problem in C3002_2. | In contrast, the corresponding respondents mentioned a party to | solve the given problem in C3003_1, but not in C3003_2. | In the actual CSES data, reported answers on the second | sociotropic problem were coded as most important problems, while | the second mention was defined as a missing value for all of | these nine observations. | Data on C3003_1-C3003_2 remained unchanged. | | See codes on C3001_1-C3001_2 for POLAND (2007). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2009): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | See codes on C3001_1-C3001_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. Economy | 002. Economic crisis | 003. Political crisis / instability | 004. Election of the president / validation | 005. Election fraud | 006. Corruption | 007. Poverty / income / living standard | 008. Employment / unemployment | 009. Agriculture | 010. External debt / loan | 011. Political / institutional reform | 012. Fight between politicians / political parties | 013. Government formation/lack of government | 014. Human quality of the political class (lack of | competence, morality) | 015. Health | 016. Foreign policy | 017. Education | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2010): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | See codes and remarks on C3001_1-C3001_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | For codes on C3002_1-C3002_2 see C3001_1-C3001_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2009): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | Note that the wording of the questions on C3011_ differ slightly | from the CSES manner: "At the time of the election, what | would you say were the most important problems facing the | country at that time?" | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. Management of the economy | 002. Wages, incomes and salaries | 003. Unemployment | 004. Poverty / destitution | 005. Rates and taxes | 006. Loans / credit | 007. Farming / agriculture | 008. Food shortage / famine | 009. Drought | 010. Land | 011. Transportation | 012. Communications | 013. Infrastructure / roads | 014. Education | 015. Housing | 016. Electricity | 017. Water supply | 018. Orphans / street children / homeless children | 019. Services (other) | 020. Health | 021. Aids | 022. Crime and security | 023. Corruption | 024. Political violence | 025. Discrimination / inequality | 026. Democracy / political rights | 027. Discipline | 028. Lack of services | 029. Country is ruled by capitalist | 030. Law is in favor of the richer | 031. Respect | 032. Social service grand | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2008): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 110. Economic problem | 111. Economic development | 112. Economic stability | 113. Economic recovery | 114. Rising prices | 115. Stabilization of ordinary people's living | 116. Income disparity | 117. Unemployment | 118. Other problems about economy | 211. Political apathy | 212. Political distrust | 213. Political instability | 214. Corrupt relations between politics and business | 215. Abuse of political power | 216. Self-interestedness of politicians and parties | 217. Qualification of politicians | 218. Politics not for people | 219. Other problems about politics | 220. Inter-party strife | 221. Internal strife within party | 222. problems of party politics | 223. Emergence of minor political parties | 224. Politics led by a gigantic ruling party | 225. Factional Politics | 226. Other party-related problems | 230. Conflict surrounding the candidate nomination | 231. Absence of fair election | 232. Unfulfilled public pledge | 310. Lack of morality | 311. Corruption | 312. National security | 313. Social instability | 314. Social polarization | 315. Ideological conflict | 316. Regional conflict | 317. Regional disparity | 318. Regionalism | 319. Environmental problems | 320. Education problems | 321. Welfare problems | 322. Real Estate problems | 323. Private education problems | 324. Tax burden | 410. Lack of policy alternatives | 411. Grand Korean waterway project | 412. Privatization of Medical insurance | 413. Other policy-related problems | 510. Diplomacy | 511. North-South Korean problem | 512. Reunification of North and South Korea | 513. North Korea nuclear problems | 514. South Korea-U.S. Relations | 515. FTA(Free Trade Agreement) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2008): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | For codes on C3002_1-C3002_2 see C3001_1-C3001_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | The Swedish study of 2006 includes 47 respondents in C3002_1, | as well as 1 case in C3002_2, that answered "ingen viktig | fråga för val av parti" (No important question which would | influence the vote choice). These cases have been coded as | "901. NO PROBLEM". | | See codes on C3001_1-C3001_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | A question for the second most important sociotropic problem was | not included in the Swiss questionnaire. | | See codes on C3001_1-C3001_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 101. Black-and-gold politics problem | 102. Bribery problem | 103. Illegal lobbying and corrupt practices by | means of privilege | 104. Problem about administrative degeneration | and corruption | 105. Military nationalization problem | 106. Unfair judiciary or judicial reform problem | 107. Political stability problem | 108. Constitutional reform problem | 109. Problem about ¡ublack¡v intervening politics | 110. Incapability of government | 111. Ideological problem | 112. Media chaos | 113. Neutral administration | 114. Government personnel | 115. Election of justice | 116. Political trust problem | 117. Separation of power | 118. Social justice | 201. Cross-Strait problem | 202. Problem about unification and independence or | National identity | 203. Cross-Strait direct link | 204. Cross-Strait trade | 301. Taiwan future problem | 302. Diplomacy or international status problem | 303. Problem about resuming the United Nations | 304. Problem about China's military assaulting | Taiwan | 305. National defense security problem | 401. Traffic problem | 402. Problem about houses or price of houses | 403. Public order problem | 404. Social welfare problem | 405. Medical insurance problem | 406. Social morality problem | 407. Problem about the labor and capital | 408. Aborigines problem | 409. Ethnic harmony problem | 501. Economic development problem | 502. Industry moving abroad problem | 503. Problem about prices of commodities | 504. Unemployment problem | 505. Problem about stock market stability | 506. Public infrastructure | 507. Tax problem | 508. People's livelihood question | 509. Country competency | 510. Social stability problem | 511. An agricultural product import | 512. Financial reform | 601. Agricultural problem | 602. Problem about the gap between the rich and | the poor | 603. Educational reform problem | 604. Recreation problem | 605. Environmental protection problem | 701. Mayoral special expense fund | 702. State fund embezzlement scandal of Chen | hui-bian | 703. Democracy stability | 704. Candidate's ability | 705. Candidate's personal morality | 706. Dictatorial leadership | 707. Alternation of power | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 001. Revolution against the government | 002. Lack of Public Hearings | 003. Government controlled by business | 004. Instability of politics | 005. Corruption | 006. Political Violence | 007. Political Rights | 008. Social Disruption and Inequality | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | See codes on C3001_. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2008): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | | Note that although the most and the second most important | problems were asked separately, respondents were allowed to give | multiple answers on both questions. Unfortunately the order of | response is not available. Instead the lowest answer category is | included in C3002_. | | For codes on C3002_, see C3001_. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): C3002_1-C3002_2 | | For Codes of C3002-1-C3002_2 see notes on C3001-1-C3001_2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3003_1 >>> Q3a. PARTY/CANDIDATE COMPETENCE-FIRST SOCIOTROPIC PROBLEM C3003_2 >>> Q3b. PARTY/CANDIDATE COMPETENCE-SECOND SOCIOTROPIC PROBLEM --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q3a. Thinking of the most important political problem facing [COUNTRY]: which [party/presidential candidate] do you think is best in dealing with it? Q3b. And the second most important political problem facing [COUNTRY]: which [party/presidential candidate] do you think is best in dealing with it? .................................................................. 01-88. [SEE APPENDIX I FOR PARTY AND LEADER CODES] 89. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 90. OTHER PARTY/CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 91. NONE OF THE PARTIES/CANDIDATES 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | NOTE: C3003_1-C3003_2 | | Note that the CSES standard does not require respondents to | say which party/candidate is best to solve the most | important sociotropic problems if they gave an answer | in C3002_1-C3002_2. In contrast, C3003_1-C3003_2 could be | asked to each respondent, irrespective of the mention in | C3002_1-C3002_2. | | Table: Frequencies on C3003_1/_2 for respondents that did | not mention a problem or that mentioned "no problem" | (code 901) in C3002_1/_2: | | C3002_1 C3002_2 | no mention no problem no mention no problem | | POLITY NAME (ELEC YEAR) | | AUSTRALIA (2007) 33 0 30 0 | AUSTRIA (2008) 6 1 9 0 | BELARUS (2008) 5 0 0 0 | BRAZIL (2006) 80 17 248 0 | BRAZIL (2010) 0 0 2 0 | CANADA (2008) 408 0 0 0 | CROATIA (2007) 24 0 47 0 | DENMARK (2007) 9 0 17 0 | ESTONIA (2011) 93 0 148 0 | FINLAND (2007) 16 0 20 0 | FINLAND (2011) 44 0 82 0 | FRANCE (2007) 255 0 23 0 | GREECE (2009) 0 0 87 0 | HONG KONG (2008) 96 2 108 0 | ICELAND (2007) 46 0 76 0 | LATVIA (2010) 4 5 31 6 | MEXICO (2006) 201 0 361 0 | MEXICO (2009) 0 5 0 4 | NETHERLANDS (2006) 8 0 19 0 | NETHERLANDS (2010) 25 0 37 0 | NEW ZEALAND (2008) 159 0 311 0 | NORWAY (2005) 0 0 36 0 | NORWAY (2009) 0 0 8 0 | PERU (2011) 58 0 66 0 | PHILIPPINES (2010) 92 0 653 0 | POLAND (2005) 1 0 0 0 | POLAND (2007) 11 0 29 0 | ROMANIA (2009) 118 0 233 0 | SLOVAKIA (2010) 1 0 10 0 | SLOVENIA (2008) 4 0 17 0 | SOUTH AFRICA (2009) 5 5 0 0 | SPAIN (2008) 23 0 49 0 | SWITZERLAND (2007) 0 7 0 0 | THAILAND (2007) 25 0 48 0 | UNITED STATES (2008) 79 0 131 0 | URUGUAY (2009) 25 0 57 2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C3003_1-C3003_2 | | The question was not asked open-ended. Instead, respondents | could choose their answer from a party list with seven parties | and the options to choose "other party" and "no party". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C3003_2 | | In Brazil, this was a close-ended question with the choices made | available to the respondents shown on the list below. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 04. Dilma (PT) | 08. José Serra (PSDB) | 14. Marina Silva (PV) | 17. Zé Maria (PSTU) | 18. Ivan Pinheiro (PCB) | 19. Levy Fidelix (PRTB) | 21. Eymael (PSDC) | 22. Rui Costa Pimenta (PCO) | 26. Plínio (PSOL) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009): C3003_1-C3003_2 | | Code 90 includes the answer "a DC" | Code 98 includes one answer: "Depends on the candidate, the | personality is important". | Code 99 includes one respondent who answered "someone of the | left" (C3003_1) and one who answered ‘someone of the governing | coalition' (C3003_2). Further, it includes one answer "I'm | disillusioned, it does not interest me" (C3003_1). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C3003_1-C3003_2 | | In France this was a close-ended question. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2007): C3003_1-C3003_2 | | See the Election Study Notes on C3002_1-C3002_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): C3003_1-C3003_2 | | Rather than an open-ended question, Japan provides a closed | list for the five major Japanese parties (see codebook | appendices). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2010): C3003_1-C3003_2 | | LATVIA provided a closed list of parties of which the | respondents could choose their answer. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 88. Parties have to cooperate to solve it, one party | cannot do it. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C3003_1 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 98. Don't know / Not answered | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2011): C3003_1-C3003_2 | | Note that the Peruvian study asks for the presidential | candidates that are best to deal with the sociotropic | problems, as listed in the Peruvian party table (see | codebook appendices). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C3003_1-C3003_2 | | The Philippine questionnaire of origin asked for the | presidential candidate that is best to deal with the most | important problem, according in C3002_. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C3003_1-C3003_2 | | See notes on C3002. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C3003_1-C3003_2 | | The Romanian questionnaire of origin asked for presidential | candidates that are best to deal with the most important | political problem. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2009): C3003_1-C3003_2 | | The South African questionnaire of origin includes an initial | filter question on C3003_1. First, respondent were asked if any | other party than the African National Congress (ANC) could have | handled the problems, mentioned in C3002_, better. | Second, respondents were asked which party this would be. | The coding of C3003_1 reflects the ANC if respondents did negate | the first question. If respondents mentioned yes in the first | question, the response on the second question is coded as the | party to deal with the mentioned problem of C3002_, best. | | Note that these questions were asked generally about both | problem mentions of C3002_. Consequently, C3003_2 is coded as | missing (code 99) for all cases. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): C3003_1-C3003_2 | | Note that the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP, code 4) did not | run for election as an officially listed party. Instead, their | members contested as independent candidates. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): C3003_1-C3003_2 | | Respondents were asked, which candidate they expect to be best | in dealing with the most important sociotropic problems, as | presented in the Uruguayan party table in the current Codebook | Appendices. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3004 >>> Q4. WHO IS IN POWER CAN MAKE DIFFERENCE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q4. Some people say that it doesn't make any difference who is in power. Others say that it makes a big difference who is in power. Using the scale on this card, (where ONE means that it doesn't make any difference who is in power and FIVE means that it makes a big difference who is in power), where would you place yourself? .................................................................. 1. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE WHO IS IN POWER 2. 3. 4. 5. IT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE WHO IS IN POWER 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | NOTES: C3004 | | Data are not available for IRELAND (2007), SWITZERLAND (2007). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): C3004 | | Question wording from the Russian questionnaire | was somewhat different from the CSES original questionnaire | (this might apply to other questionnaires (Hebrew, Arabic)). | The scale ranges from "it is not important" (or "it does not | matter") who is in power to "it is important" (or "it matters") | who is in power. | | In the Russian questionnaire, question reads: "In your opinion, | to what degree it matters or it does not matter who is in power? | Please make your answer according to the following 5 point | scale, where ONE means that it doesn't matter who is in power, | and FIVE means that it matters who is in power." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C3004 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C3004 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 08. Don't know / no answer | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2011): C3004 | | See note on C3005. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3005 >>> Q5. WHO PEOPLE VOTE FOR MAKES A DIFFERENCE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q5. Some people say that no matter who people vote for, it won't make any difference to what happens. Others say that who people vote for can make a big difference to what happens. Using the scale on this card, (where ONE means that voting won't make any difference to what happens and FIVE means that voting can make a big difference), where would you place yourself? .................................................................. 1. WHO PEOPLE VOTE FOR WON'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE 2. 3. 4. 5. WHO PEOPLE VOTE FOR CAN MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | NOTES: C3005 | | Data are not available for GERMANY (2005), POLAND (2005). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): C3005 | | Question wording from the Russian questionnaire | was somewhat different from the CSES original questionnaire. | (this might apply to other questionnaires (Hebrew, Arabic)). | The scale ranges from "for whom people vote for is not important | (or it does not matter)," to "for whom people vote for is | important (or it matters)." | In the Russian questionnaire, it reads: "Some people consider | that it does not matter for who people vote for because it does | not make a difference. Others say that it matters for who to | vote for because it makes a difference. What is your opinion? | Please locate your position on a five-point scale, where ONE | means that it does not matter for who to vote for, and FIVE | means that it matters for who to vote for." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C3005 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C3005 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 08. Don't know / no answer | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2011): C3005 | | Note that about one half of the Peruvian sample answered that | "5. Who people vote for makes a big difference". In contrast, | frequencies on C3004 ("Who people vote for ...") are relatively | equal distributed. Both variables had been double checked with | the raw data and remain unchanged. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): C3005 | | The Polish election survey 2005 was a pilot | study for the third module of CSES. The questions about the | political efficacy of the vote choice ("who people vote for | makes a difference") were not included. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C3005 | | Notice that this variable was asked to a subset of the sample | which responded by a follow-up mail/online questionnaire. See | study description and variable note C1007 for further details. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3006 >>> Q6. GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE: GENERAL --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q6. Now thinking about the performance of the [government in [CAPITAL]/president] in general, how good or bad a job do you think the [government/president in [CAPITAL]] has done over the past [NUMBER OF YEARS SINCE LAST GOVERNMENT TOOK OFFICE, BEFORE THE CURRENT ELECTION] years? Has [it/he/she] done a very good job? A good job? A bad job? A very bad job? .................................................................. 1. VERY GOOD JOB 2. GOOD JOB 3. BAD JOB 4. VERY BAD JOB 6. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | NOTES: C3006 | | Data are not available for CHILE (2009). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2010): C3006 | | Note that this variable refers to the caretaker government | which came into office in May 2009, after the previous government | had failed a vote of confidence. | However, the Czech Election Study asked this question twice, for | both, the caretaker government, and the previous one. Researchers | who are interested in the evaluation of the government which had | been in office right after the 2006 election are advised to ask | for the data at the Czech Election Study. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C3006 | | The Danish question on the general government performance was | "Og tilsvarende vil vi gerne høre din vurdering af regeringens | arbejde generelt de sidste 3 år." (And accordingly, we want to | hear your assessment of government performance in general the | last 3 years.), including the following categories: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 01. Very good (meget godt) | 02. Good (godt) | 03. Bad (dårligt) | 04. Very bad (meget dårligt) | 08. Neither good nor bad | (hverken godt eller dårligt) | | Note that the data of origin did not include a category | "8. DON'T KNOW". Consequently, the CSES-category 8. refers to | those respondents, who mentioned "neither good nor bad". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C3006 | | Wording of the Hong Kong 2008 question slightly differs from | the questions of origin of CSES: | "Overall speaking, how satisfied are you with the performance | of the HKSAR Government over the past year?" | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Very satisfied | 02. Satisfied | 03. Unsatisfied | 04. Very unsatisfied | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2009): C3006 | | Note that due to the breakdown of the government coalition, | there were two governments in power. This question only | refers to the first, majority coalition of the Independence | Party and the Social Democratic Alliance which was formed after | the election in 2007 and lasted until February 1, 2009. | The Icelandic election study also contains a separate question | concerning the second, minority coalition between the Social | Democratic Alliance and the Left Green Movement, which was in | power from February 1, 2009 until the new government after | elections on April, 25, 2009 was formed. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2007): C3006 | | Note that the question in Ireland referred explicitly to the | government's parties Fiana Faíl and PD instead of just using | the word "government". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): C3006 | | Response options from the Russian questionnaire | were somewhat different from the CSES original questionnaire. | This might apply to other questionnaires (Hebrew, Arabic). While | options 1 and 2 are equivalent to CSES original coding scheme, | option 3 (bad job) translates into "not very good job", while | option 4 (very bad job) translates into "poor job" in the | Russian questionnaire. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C3006 | | In 2009, the Mexican questionnaire included a fifth answer. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 06. Regular (more or less) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C3006 | | Question wording of C3006 in the DPES questionnaire was | somewhat different than in the original CSES formulation: | "When we look at the achievements of the government in The | Hague in the past three years. Has the government according to | you done a very good; good; bad; or very bad job?" | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 08. 997. Don't know / no answer | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C3006 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 8. Don't know / Not answered | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C3006 | | Question wording of C3006 in the Norwegian questionnaire was | somewhat different than in the original CSES formulation. The | question was: "We have in the last four years had a | government consisting of the Christian Peoples Party, the | Conservative Party, and the Liberal Party. How well did this | government perform in general?" | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C3006 | | Note that the Norwegian question on the government performance | was asked slightly different from the CSES wording: "In the | last four years, we had a government consisting of Labor | Party, Social Left Party and Centre Party. How well did this | government perform in general?" ("Vi har de fire siste årene | hatt en regjering bestående av Arbeiderpartiet, Sosialistisk | Venstreparti og Senterpartiet. Hvor god jobb synes du denne | regjeringen i alminnelighet har gjort? Har den gjort en..."). | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 01. Very good job | 02. Good job | 03. Bad job | 04. Very bad job | 06. Neither good nor bad | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2009): C3006 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 6. Neither good nor bad | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C3006 | | Note that this variable was asked to a subset of the sample | which responded by a follow-up mail/online questionnaire. See | study description and variable note C1007 for further details. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C3006 | | Note that the question wording in this variable was slightly | different from the CSES formulation. The Taiwan (2008) question | wording is as follows: "Concerning Chen Shui-bian's overall | performance during his presidency, are you very satisfied, | somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very | dissatisfied?" | The supplementary codes "It depends" and "no opinion" were | recoded as "Don't know". | | CSES Code Election Study Category/Categories: | 01. very satisfied | 02. somewhat satisfied | 03. somewhat dissatisfied | 04. very dissatisfied | | 08. VOLUNTEERED: don't know/it depends/no opinion --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3007_1 >>> Q7. IS THERE A PARTY THAT REPRESENTS R'S VIEWS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q7. Would you say that any of the parties in [COUNTRY] represent your views reasonably well? .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | NOTES: C3007_1 | | Data are not available for NETHERLANDS (2006), NETHERLANDS | (2010). | | C3007_1 is a filter question for C3007_2. Respondents who | mentioned that no party that represents their views | best (C3007_1 is code 5) are not allowed to name a party in | C3007_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C3007_1 | | This question has not been included in the Australian | questionnaire 2007; instead C3007_1 was created due to the | answer of B21P6 "No party represents views well" | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C3007_1 | | Note that the Norwegian question on parties, representing | respondent's views best, was asked slightly different from the | CSES manner: "Would you say that there is a party in Norway that | represents your views reasonably well?" ("Vil du si at det er | noe parti i Norge som representerer dine synspunkter rimelig | bra?"). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C3007_1 | | Notice that this variable was asked to a subset of the sample | which responded a follow-up mail/online questionnaire. See | study description and variable note C1007 for further details. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3007_2 >>> Q7A. PARTY THAT REPRESENTS R'S VIEWS BEST --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q7A. Which party represents your views best? .................................................................. 01-88. [SEE APPENDIX I FOR PARTY AND LEADER CODES] 89. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 90. OTHER PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 91. NONE OF THE PARTIES 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | NOTES: C3007_2 | | Data are not available for AUSTRALIA (2007), NETHERLANDS (2006), | NETHERLANDS (2010). | | C3007_2 is filtered by C3007_1. | For further details see Variable Notes on C3007_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C3007_2 | | The question was not open-ended. Instead, respondents | could choose their answer from a party list with seven parties | containing the options "other party" and "no party". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009): C3007_2 | | Code 99 also included one respondent's answer ‘I don't vote for | parties but only for persons'. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2010): C3007_2 | | Code 90 refers to mentions of parties which were not running in | the election, but also refers to answers which did not make | sense, such as the ‘King' | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C3007_2 | | Note that the underlying question on C3007_2 was asked | independently from the previous question about a party that | represents respondent's views best (C3007_1). Respondents who | did not explicitly report that there is a party which represents | their views best C3007_1) were coded as missing values in | C3007_2. As a consequence, substantial party mentions of 487 | respondents were coded as missing values in C3007_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C3007_2 | | Note that this variable was asked to a subset of the sample | which responded by a follow-up mail/online questionnaire. See | study description and variable note C1007 for further details. | | Furthermore, this question was asked slightly differently in | Switzerland. Instead of asking for a party that represents the | respondent's views best, the Swiss questionnaire evaluated each | party separately. | As a consequence, C3007_2 includes 164 respondents who mentioned | more than one party representing their views best (code 88). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): C3007_2 | | Note that the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP, code 4) did not | run for election as an officially listed party. Instead, their | members contested as independent candidates. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3008_1 >>> Q8. IS THERE A LEADER WHO REPRESENTS R'S VIEWS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q8. Regardless of how you feel about the parties, would you say that any of the [individual party leaders/presidential candidates] at the last election represents your views reasonably well? ................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | NOTES: C3008_1 | | Data are not available for SLOVENIA (2008), SWITZERLAND (2007). | | C3008_1 is a filter question for C3008_2. Respondents who | mentioned that no party leader represents their | views best (C3008_1 is code 1) are not allowed to name the | appropriate leader in C3008_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C3008_1 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C3008_1 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 08. Don't know / no answer | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C3008_1 | | Note that the Norwegian question on party leaders, | representing respondent's views best, was asked slightly | different from the CSES manner: "No matter of the parties, do | you think there is any party leader who represents your views | reasonably well?" ("Uansett hvordan du ser på partiene, synes du | det er noen partileder som representerer dine synspunkter | rimelig bra?"). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C3008_1 | | Note that the question wording in this variable was slightly | different than the CSES question. In Taiwan it was asked as | follows:"Regardless of how you feel about the parties, would you | say that any of the presidential candidates in this election | represents your views?" --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3008_2 >>> Q8A. LEADER WHO REPRESENTS R'S VIEWS BEST --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q8a. Which [party leader/presidential candidate] represents your views best? ................................................................. 0001-8899. [SEE APPENDIX I FOR PARTY AND LEADER CODES] 8900. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 8901-8999. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE (SPECIFIED) [SEE APPENDIX I FOR PARTY AND LEADER CODES] 9000. OTHER LEADER (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9100. NONE OF THE LEADERS 9997. REFUSED 9998. DON'T KNOW 9999. MISSING | NOTES: C3008_2 | | For value labels of party leaders/candidates/members, see party | tables in Appendix I. The first two digits of the given codes | correspond to the party with which the politician is associated. | | Data are not available for SWITZERLAND (2007). | | C3008_2 is filtered by C3008_1. | For further details see Variable Notes on C3008_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C3008_2 | | In France this was a close-ended question in randomized order. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C3008_2 | | As a representative of party E (The Greens) Joschka Fischer was | was mentioned in the German questionnaire. However, researchers | should note that J. Fischer resigned from leadership in 1998 | already, but still remained the most important politician of | the German Greens. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C3008_2 | | The official leader of The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions | in 2008 has been Cheng Yiu-Tong, who was not mentioned in | C3008_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): C3008_2 | | Rather than an open-ended question, Japan provides a closed- | list for the five major Japanese parties. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C3008_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C3008_2 | | These data were coded as "mentioned/not mentioned", and multiple | mentions were allowed. As a result, the respondents' rank | ordering of the leaders could not be determined. Leaders are | reported in order of their popularity in the sample (e.g., if | there were 3 respondents mentioning leaders A and B, they were | ascribed to the one with the larger number of mentions overall). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C3008_2 | | Jeanette Fitzsimmons was one of the Greens two co-leaders, and | the senior of the two. The other was Russell Norman. | Tania Turia was Maori Party co-leader, again the most senior. | The other was Pita Sharples. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C3008_2 | | Between 2005 and 2007, Wladyslaw Frasyniuk changed from Unia | Wolnosci to Partia Demokratyczna. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): C3008_2 | | The Slovenian data do not allow differing between | a) Andrej Bajuk and Ljudmila Novak, who replaced Andrej Bajuk | as the party leader of New Slovenia - Christian People's | Party after the parliamentarian election of 2008. | b) Bojan Srot, who is the president of the Slovenian People's | Party, and Radovan Zerjav, the Slovenian Minister of | Transport. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C3008_2 | | Note that the first person mentioned, code starting with 01 | is the president or presidential candidate, while the second | one, starting with 02, is the vice-president or vice | presidential candidate (for details see party table in the | current Codebook Appendices). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): C3008_2 | | Note that the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) did not run | for election as an officially listed party. Instead, their | members contested as independent candidates. | However, the Turkish survey asks respondents to evaluate | Selahattin Demirtas (code 0401) as the leader of the BDP. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3009_A >>> Q9A. LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY A C3009_B >>> Q9B. LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY B C3009_C >>> Q9C. LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY C C3009_D >>> Q9D. LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY D C3009_E >>> Q9E. LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY E C3009_F >>> Q9F. LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY F C3009_G >>> Q9G. LIKE-DISLIKE - ADDITIONAL - PARTY G C3009_H >>> Q9H. LIKE-DISLIKE - ADDITIONAL - PARTY H C3009_I >>> Q9I. LIKE-DISLIKE - ADDITIONAL - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q9a-i. I'd like to know what you think about each of our political parties. After I read the name of a political party, please rate it on a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 means you strongly dislike that party and 10 means that you strongly like that party. If I come to a party you haven't heard of or you feel you do not know enough about, just say so. The first party is [PARTY A]. Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY B]? Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY C]? Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY D]? Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY E]? Using the same scale, where would you place, [PARTY F]? .................................................................. 00. STRONGLY DISLIKE 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. STRONGLY LIKE 96. HAVEN'T HEARD OF PARTY 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT/DON'T KNOW WHERE TO RATE 99. MISSING | NOTES: C3009 | | Researchers should pay attention to the fact that C3009 includes | several observations in which parties are scored equally. | | Table: Frequencies on C3009_ for respondents that scored all | parties equally. These data remain unchanged. | | POLITY NAME (ELEC YEAR) | | AUSTRALIA (2007) 113 | AUSTRIA (2008) 11 | BELARUS (2008) 57 | BRAZIL (2006) 27 | BRAZIL (2010) 17 | CANADA (2008) 24 | CHILE (2009) 9 | CROATIA (2007) 5 | CZECH REPUBLIC (2006) 12 | CZECH REPUBLIC (2010) 5 | DENMARK (2007) 3 | ESTONIA (2011) 5 | FINLAND (2007) 8 | FINLAND (2011) 2 | FRANCE (2007) 4 | GERMANY (2005) 2 | GERMANY (2009) 12 | GREECE (2009) 6 | HONG KONG (2008) 16 | ICELAND (2007) 6 | ICELAND (2009) 3 | IRELAND (2007) 18 | ISRAEL (2006) 22 | JAPAN (2007) 33 | LATVIA (2010) 3 | MEXICO (2006) 13 | MEXICO (2009) 44 | NETHERLANDS (2006) 5 | NETHERLANDS (2010) 7 | NEW ZEALAND (2008) 12 | NORWAY (2005) 2 | NORWAY (2009) 7 | PERU (2011) 13 | PHILIPPINES (2010) 7 | POLAND (2005) 27 | POLAND (2007) 73 | PORTUGAL (2009) 20 | ROMANIA (2009) 3 | SLOVAKIA (2010) 8 | SLOVENIA (2008) 18 | SOUTH AFRICA (2009) 5 | SOUTH KOREA (2008) 19 | SPAIN (2008) 7 | SWEDEN (2006) 2 | SWITZERLAND (2007) 14 | TAIWAN (2008) 406 | THAILAND (2007) 101 | TURKEY (2011) 5 | UNITED STATES (2008) 255 | URUGUAY (2009) 16 | Several respondents mentioned not to know a certain party in | one of the appropriate variables on C3009_, C3011_ or C3014_, | but evaluated the same party in another variable. | These data remain unchanged. | | Table: Frequencies on C3009_, C3011_, and C3014_ for | respondents, not to know a certain party in one variable, | but evaluating the same party in another variable: | | PARTY _A _B _C _D _E _F _G _H _I | | POLITY NAME (ELEC YEAR) | BRAZIL (2006) 34 21 37 42 51 45 0 0 0 | BRAZIL (2010) 3 20 25 0 90 0 0 73 69 | CHILE (2009) 4 5 4 4 4 0 5 0 0 | CZECH REPUBLIC (2010) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 | DENMARK (2007) 6 5 4 17 7 22 50 26 72 | FINLAND (2007) 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 | FINLAND (2011) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 | FRANCE (2007) 3 0 9 0 3 2 33 0 0 | GREECE (2009) 0 0 2 1 2 13 0 0 0 | HONG KONG (2008) 7 10 11 18 0 6 19 16 0 | ICELAND (2007) 13 14 17 22 30 63 0 0 0 | ICELAND (2009) 6 7 13 12 123 63 0 0 0 | ISRAEL (2006) 2 3 3 3 8 9 0 0 0 | JAPAN (2007) 96 96 99 94 92 0 0 0 0 | LATVIA (2010) 12 11 11 15 20 23 0 0 0 | MEXICO (2006) 4 7 2 31 52 51 57 64 0 | MEXICO (2009) 35 40 48 96 101 127 121 127 0 | NETHERLANDS (2006) 176 178 200 195 392 233 373 328 493 | NETHERLANDS (2010) 11 14 18 9 34 26 29 58 192 | NORWAY (2005) 1 2 0 2 2 2 2 29 0 | NORWAY (2009) 2 3 2 3 3 2 3 19 0 | POLAND (2005) 17 18 16 19 34 26 184 97 0 | POLAND (2007) 3 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 | ROMANIA (2009) 2 0 3 7 10 0 11 0 0 | SLOVAKIA (2010) 0 1 32 3 15 1 8 0 0 | SLOVENIA (2008) 80 83 88 98 88 85 81 92 0 | SOUTH AFRICA (2009) 11 16 21 22 27 24 30 27 0 | SOUTH KOREA (2008) 2 2 8 4 3 15 19 0 0 | SPAIN (2008) 6 9 67 87 69 9 92 89 98 | SWEDEN (2006) 0 0 3 0 1 2 0 7 27 | SWITZERLAND (2007) 19 17 24 21 22 20 3 0 0 | THAILAND (2007) 2 3 3 16 18 19 30 36 0 | TURKEY (2011) 2 3 2 6 7 18 6 10 7 | UNITED STATES (2008) 69 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C3009_D, C3009_F, C3009_G | | Respondents' evaluation of parties D (PR), F (PSB), and G (PP) | were not part of the micro-questionnaire. In contrast, data | about these parties are included in the district-as well as in | the macro-part of the CSES data. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C3009 A-C3009_I | | The Danish questionnaire offered a slightly different answer | for code "96. HAVEN'T HEARD OF PARTY". The original wording | was "Does not have sufficient knowledge about the party to | answer the question" ("Ved ikke nok om partiet"). Thus, there | are several respondents that mentioned not to know a party in | C3009_ who were able to answer C3011_ on that same party. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 96. Does not have sufficient knowledge about the | party to answer the question | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C3009_G | | Respondent's evaluation on the National Democratic Party (NPD), | was not part of the micro-questionnaire. | In contrast, the NPD is included in the district-as well as in | the macro-part of the CSES data. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C3009_E | | In general, the order of parties A to I follow the election | results of parties' vote share. In contrast, respondents were | not asked to evaluate the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions | (PARTY E), which only consists of missing values. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): C3009 A-C3009_I | | In the Russian questionnaire, the wording refers more to | support, rather than strongly like- strongly dislike. The | question ranges between "does not support at all" to "greatly | support." While in Hebrew, the chosen terminology varies in | terms of "attraction/repulsion". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C3009_ | | The Philippine part of the CSES mainly focuses on the | presidential election of 2010, which defines the order of | parties (A through I) in C3009_ (see codebook appendices). | Consequently, there is no party affiliation of the two | independent presidential candidates (J. Perlas and J.Madrigal). | Thus, parties G and H remain unobserved and are coded as missing | values (code 99) in C3009_G and C3009_H. | See also notes on C3011_ and C3014_. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C3009_A-C3009_I | | Notice that this variable was asked to a subset of the sample | which responded by a follow-up mail/online questionnaire. See | study description and variable note C1007 for further details. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): C3009_D | | Note that the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) did not run | for election as an officially listed party. Instead, their | members contested as independent candidates. | However, the Turkish survey asks respondents to evaluate | the BDP on the like-dislike scale. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3010_A >>> Q10A. LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER A C3010_B >>> Q10B. LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER B C3010_C >>> Q10C. LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER C C3010_D >>> Q10D. LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER D C3010_E >>> Q10E. LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER E C3010_F >>> Q10F. LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER F C3010_G >>> Q10G. LIKE-DISLIKE - ADDITIONAL - LEADER G C3010_H >>> Q10H. LIKE-DISLIKE - ADDITIONAL - LEADER H C3010_I >>> Q10I. LIKE-DISLIKE - ADDITIONAL - LEADER I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q10a-i. And what do you think of the presidential candidates/party leaders? After I read the name of a presidential candidate/party leader, please rate them on a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 means you strongly dislike that candidate and 10 means that you strongly like that candidate. If I come to a presidential candidate/party leader you haven't heard of or you feel you do not know enough about, just say so. The first is [LEADER A]. Using the same scale, where would you place, [LEADER B]? Using the same scale, where would you place, [LEADER C]? Using the same scale, where would you place, [LEADER D]? Using the same scale, where would you place, [LEADER E]? Using the same scale, where would you place, [LEADER F]? .................................................................. 00. STRONGLY DISLIKE 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. STRONGLY LIKE 96. HAVEN'T HEARD OF LEADER 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT/DON'T KNOW WHERE TO RATE 99. MISSING | NOTES: C3010 | | Data are not available for AUSTRIA (2008). | | Researchers should note that C3010 includes | several observations for which all leaders are scored equally, | namely for BELARUS (2008), GERMANY (2009), HONG KONG (2008), | SOUTH KOREA (2008), MEXICO (2006 & 2009), POLAND (2005), SWEDEN | (2006), and TAIWAN (2008). | | Table: Frequencies on C3010_ for respondents that scored all | parties equally. These data remain unchanged. | | POLITY NAME (ELEC YEAR) | | AUSTRALIA (2007) 28 | BELARUS (2008) 83 | BRAZIL (2010) 5 | CANADA (2008) 27 | CHILE (2009) 6 | CROATIA (2007) 5 | CZECH REPUBLIC (2006) 24 | CZECH REPUBLIC (2010) 3 | DENMARK (2007) 2 | ESTONIA (2011) 8 | FINLAND (2007) 4 | FINLAND (2011) 11 | FRANCE (2007) 3 | GERMANY (2005) 2 | GERMANY (2009) 2 | GREECE (2009) 6 | HONG KONG (2008) 24 | ICELAND (2007) 5 | ICELAND (2009) 9 | IRELAND (2007) 19 | ISRAEL (2006) 21 | JAPAN (2007) 50 | LATVIA (2010) 6 | MEXICO (2006) 11 | MEXICO (2009) 8 | NETHERLANDS (2006) 7 | NETHERLANDS (2010) 16 | NEW ZEALAND (2008) 5 | NORWAY (2005) 5 | NORWAY (2009) 6 | PERU (2011) 10 | PHILIPPINES (2010) 20 | POLAND (2005) 4 | POLAND (2007) 47 | PORTUGAL (2009) 16 | ROMANIA (2009) 3 | SLOVAKIA (2010) 7 | SLOVENIA (2008) 10 | SOUTH AFRICA (2009) 6 | SOUTH KOREA (2008) 3 | SPAIN (2008) 10 | SWITZERLAND (2007) 24 | TAIWAN (2008) 8 | THAILAND (2007) 145 | TURKEY (2011) 8 | UNITED STATES (2008) 169 | URUGUAY (2009) 16 | | Several respondents mentioned not to know a certain party leader | in one of the following variables (C3010_, C3012_ or C3015_) | but still evaluated the same party in another variable. | These data remain unchanged. | | Table: Frequencies on C3010_, C3012_, and C3015_ for | respondents who did not know a certain party leader in one | variable, but evaluated the same party leader in another | variable: | | PARTY _A _B _C _D _E _F _G _H _I | | POLITY NAME (ELEC YEAR) | | BRAZIL (2006) 0 7 20 0 57 0 0 0 32 | BRAZIL (2010) 1 0 1 0 0 46 0 0 0 | CHILE (2009) 0 4 3 0 0 0 3 2 0 | FINLAND (2007) 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 | FINLAND (2011) 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 | FRANCE (2007) 1 0 1 1 9 12 6 0 0 | ICELAND (2007) 23 27 26 33 39 55 0 0 0 | MEXICO (2006) 6 3 2 0 0 0 53 48 0 | MEXICO (2009) 47 37 62 0 49 0 0 0 0 | ROMANIA (2009) 2 0 1 8 16 6 11 0 0 | SLOVENIA (2008) 82 87 76 82 88 90 87 100 0 | SOUTH KOREA (2008) 2 5 3 0 23 3 0 0 0 | THAILAND (2007) 3 3 2 9 11 27 4 40 0 | UNITED STATES (2008) 52 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 | URUGUAY (2009) 1 6 7 57 92 0 0 0 0 | | Likewise, some respondents mentioned that they never heard | about the left-right scale before, in C3011_, C3012_ or | C3013, but evaluated some of the parties in C3011_. | These data remain unchanged. For further details, see Variable | Notes on C3013. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C3010_E | | C3010_E refers to Julia Gillard, member of the Australian Labor | Party and Australian Prime minister since 2010. | | C3010_F refers to Peter Costello, the former Australian Minister | of Finance (Treasurer of Australia). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C3010 | | This variable was not included in the Austrian Election Study | because it was considered to be less applicable in Austria. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C3010_I | | Note that the A-F scheme of parties and party leaders here | represents the most popular parties according to the | parliamentary elections' vote shares in descending order. | For party F we do not have any information. Heloísa Helena, | from party P-Sol only played a minor role in the parliamentary | votes' results but was important in the presidential election. | She was thus added to letter I. | Note that in the election study from Brazil there were also | questions about two candidates from governor's elections, José | Serra (PSDB) from São Paolo and Aécio Neves (PSDB) from Minas | Gerais. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C3010 | | Respondents' evaluation of parties B (PMDB), D (PR), E | (Democrats), G (PP), H (PDT), and I (PTB) were not part of the | micro-questionnaire. In contrast, data about these parties is | included in the district-as well as in the macro-part of the | CSES data. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C3010 | | Although Party D (PDS) had a double leadership in 2005, the | German collaborators selected Oskar Lafonatine as the party | leader for PDS. | | As a representative of party E (The Greens) Joschka Fischer | was mentioned in the German questionnaire. However, researchers | should note that J. Fischer resigned from leadership in 1998 | but still remains the most important politician of the | German Greens. | | Respondent's evaluation on the National Democratic Party, | (C3010_G) was not part of the micro-questionnaire. | In contrast, the NPD is included in the district- as well as in | the macro-part of the CSES data. | | C3010_H refers to Mr. Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg of the Bavarian | CSU. Even if he is no official leader of this party, he is | the most important minister and most popular politician | of the CSU. | | C3010_I refers to Mr. Gregor Gysi who forms a double leadership | of the Left-Party together with Oskar Lafontaine, mentioned in | C3010_D. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C3010_E | | In general, the order of parties A to I follow the election | results of parties' vote share. In contrast, respondents were | not asked to evaluate the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions | (PARTY E), thus it consists of missing values. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2010): C3010_A-C3010_F | | In parties or alliances with two leaders the question was asked | about Janis Urbanovics (B), Roberts Zile (D) and Ainars Slesers | (E). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): C3010 | | The Polish questionnaire did not evaluate the like-dislike scale | for a leader of the Polish Peasant Party (PSL). | | The Polish questionnaire did not evaluate the like-dislike scale | for a leader of the Democratic Party (PD). | | The Polish study asked respondents to evaluate both of the | Kaczynski brothers on the like-dislike-scale. Due to the fact | that both played a major role in the 2005 election, information | for Jaroslaw Kaczynski was kept in an additional variable | C3010_I, while Lech Kaczynski was kept in C3010_A. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): C3010_F | | Data on C3010_F refer to Bojan Srot. | | Data on C3010_H refer to Ljudmila Novak. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2008): C3010_G | | This question was asked slightly differently in South | Korea. Instead of an open-ended question, important | politicians were named in the questionnaire, | excluding leaders form party G (New Progressive Party). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C3010 | Note that unlike other countries, the question considered two | leaders from each parties. Given that in this presidential | election, voters select both president and vice president, | both figures are important here. | Also note that answers "It's hard to say" and "No opinion" were | recoded as "Don't know". | | CSES Code Election Study Category/Categories: | 3010_A. Ma Ying-Jeou (presidential candidate) KMT | 3010_B. Frank Hsieh (presidential candidate) DPP | 3010_H. Vincent Siew (vice-pres. candidate) KMT | 3010_I. Su Tseng-Chang (vice-pres. candidate) DPP | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): C3010_D | | Note that the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) did not run | for election as an officially listed party. Instead, their | members contested as independent candidates. | However, the Turkish survey asks respondents to evaluate | Selahattin Demirtas on the like-dislike scale as the leader of | the BDP. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3011_A >>> Q11A. LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY A C3011_B >>> Q1Bb. LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY B C3011_C >>> Q11D. LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY C C3011_D >>> Q11D. LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY D C3011_E >>> Q11E. LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY E C3011_F >>> Q11F. LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY F C3011_G >>> Q11G. LEFT-RIGHT - ADDITIONAL - PARTY G C3011_H >>> Q11H. LEFT-RIGHT - ADDITIONAL - PARTY H C3011_I >>> Q11I. LEFT-RIGHT - ADDITIONAL - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q11a-i. In politics people sometimes talk of left and right. Where would you place [PARTY A] on a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 means the left and 10 means the right? Using the same scale, where would you place [PARTY B]? Where would you place [PARTY C]? Where would you place [PARTY D]? Where would you place [PARTY E]? Where would you place [PARTY F]? .................................................................. 00. LEFT 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. RIGHT 95. VOLUNTEERED: HAVEN'T HEARD OF LEFT-RIGHT 96. VOLUNTEERED: HAVEN'T HEARD OF PARTY 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW WHERE TO PLACE 99. MISSING | NOTES: C3011 | | Researchers should note that C3011_ includes | several observations where parties are all scored equally. | | Table: Frequencies on C3011_ for respondents that scored all | parties equally. These data remain unchanged. | | POLITY NAME (ELEC YEAR) | | AUSTRALIA (2007) 161 | AUSTRIA (2008) 15 | BELARUS (2008) 17 | BRAZIL (2006) 50 | BRAZIL (2010) 7 | CANADA (2008) 83 | CHILE (2009) 3 | CROATIA (2007) 11 | CZECH REPUBLIC (2006) 17 | CZECH REPUBLIC (2010) 1 | DENMARK (2007) 2 | ESTONIA (2011) 15 | FINLAND (2007) 20 | FINLAND (2011) 11 | FRANCE (2007) 5 | GERMANY (2005) 13 | GERMANY (2009) 22 | GREECE (2009) 5 | HONG KONG (2008) 5 | ICELAND (2007) 27 | ICELAND (2009) 15 | IRELAND (2007) 53 | ISRAEL (2006) 57 | JAPAN (2007) 79 | LATVIA (2010) 29 | MEXICO (2006) 38 | MEXICO (2009) 75 | NETHERLANDS (2006) 12 | NETHERLANDS (2010) 18 | NEW ZEALAND (2008) 15 | NORWAY (2005) 10 | NORWAY (2009) 8 | PERU (2011) 20 | PHILIPPINES (2010) 3 | POLAND (2005) 47 | POLAND (2007) 45 | PORTUGAL (2009) 20 | ROMANIA (2009) 3 | SLOVAKIA (2010) 27 | SLOVENIA (2008) 30 | SOUTH AFRICA (2009) 18 | SOUTH KOREA (2008) 30 | SPAIN (2008) 5 | SWEDEN (2006) 3 | SWITZERLAND (2007) 35 | TAIWAN (2008) 248 | THAILAND (2007) 378 | TURKEY (2011) 9 | UNITED STATES (2008) 212 | URUGUAY (2009) 11 | | Several respondents mentioned not to know a certain party in one | of the appropriate variables on C3009_, C3011_ or C3014_, | but evaluated the same party in another variable. | These data remain unchanged. For further details, see Variable | Notes on C3009_. | | Likewise, some respondents mentioned that they never heard | about the left-right scale before, in C3011_, C3012_ or | C3013, but evaluated some of the party in C3011_. | These data remain unchanged. For further details, see Variable | Notes on C3013. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C3011 | | Respondents Left-Right ratings of parties D (PR), F (PSB), | and G (PP)were not part of the micro-questionnaire. In contrast, | data about these parties were included in the district-as well | as in the macro-part of the CSES data. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C3011_ | | The Danish questionnaire offered a slightly different answer | for code "96. HAVEN'T HEARD OF PARTY". The original wording | was "Does not have sufficient knowledge about the party to | answer the question" ("Ved ikke nok om partiet"). Thus, there | are several respondents that mentioned not to know a party in | C3009_ who were able to answer C3011_ on that same party. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 96. Does not have sufficient knowledge about the | party to answer the question | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): C3011_D | | Researchers should take note of a difference between the mean- | scoring of respondents and the expert evaluation of the Social | Democrats on the left-right-scale. As our Estonian collaborators | mentioned, "The Social Democrats are programmatically clearly | leftwing, they have however frequently been a junior partner in | a coalition with the conservative Pro Patria and Res Publica | Union and with the liberal Reform Party. This has contributed | towards a public perception of being more centrist than their | program and policy statements would actually indicate. The | different score therefore reflects a slight contradiction | between their formal position and their actions while being a | coalition partner." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C3011_G | | Respondent's evaluation on the National Democratic Party (NPD), | was not part of the micro-questionnaire. | In contrast, the NPD is included in the district- as well as in | the macro-part of the CSES data. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C3011 | | Researchers should be aware that there are some differences | between the sample mean of party evaluation on the | 'left-right'-scale and the expert scoring, especially for the | League of Democrats, the Hong Kong Association for Democracy and | People's Livelihood, and the Liberal Party. Accordingly, our | collaborators pointed out that the "Left-Right division has a | complicated meaning in Hong Kong. There are at least 3 | dimensions: (1) 'left' for 'pro-Beijing' (...), and 'right' for | 'pro-KMT' (KMT stands for Kuomintang, the ruling party in China | before 1949 and Taiwan after 1949); (2) 'left' for advocating | liberal / socialist / anti-market socio-economic policies, and | 'right' for advocating conservative / capitalist / pro-market | policies; and (3) 'left' for approving a radical approach to | fighting for rights and changes, and 'right' for disapproving a | radical approach. The three dimensions do not coincide for | individual parties. Some parties are pro-Beijing, advocating | liberal / socialist / anti-market socio-economic policies, but | disapprove a radical approach (e.g. Democratic Alliance for | Betterment of Hong Kong). Other parties are advocating liberal / | socialist / anti-market socio-economic policies, and approve a | radical approach to fighting for rights and changes (e.g. League | of Social Democrats)." | In contrast, the expert score was based on the assessment of the | parties according to the second dimension, while respondents | might have given their score based on one rather than other | dimensions. | | In general, the order of parties A to I follows the election | results of parties' vote share. Respondents were | not asked to evaluate the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions | (PARTY E), thus it consists of missing values. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C3011 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C3011 | | Note the somewhat unusual distribution of the Left-Right ratings | of the parties, leaning towards the extremes. Note also that the | party placements highly correlate with the evaluation of the | corresponding parties on the like-dislike scale. The | authenticity of the data have been verified with the | collaborators . These features seem to represent relatively | consistent features of the survey results in Mexico, reported | across time, and by various survey projects (e.g., | Latinobarometro, WVS). | For more insight into the results obtained using Left-Right | scales in Mexico, consult Beltrán, 2009. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C3011_ | | The Philippine part of the CSES mainly focuses on the | presidential election of 2010, which defines the order of | parties (A through I) in C3011_ (see codebook appendices). | Consequently, there is no party affiliation of the two | independent presidential candidates (J. Perlas and J.Madrigal). | Thus, parties G and H remain unobserved and are coded as missing | values (code 99) in C3011_G and C3011_H. | See also notes on C3009_ and C3014_. | | Moreover, respondents' party evaluation on the left-right scale | (C3011_) differs from the expert scoring, coded in C5017_. | According to our collaborators, the left-right scale is mainly | unknown in the Philippines. In addition, Philippine elections are | highly personalized, diminishing the relevance of political | parties in the electoral campaigns. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2009): C3011_G | | Researchers should note that in comparison with the expert | evaluation, respondents' mean differs by about 1.5 points. | Our Portuguese collaborators emphasize that this might | be due to differences in the criteria of evaluation: "Experts | made their evaluation taking into account not only the position | of the party regarding economic issues but also regarding (...) | moral issues, and others like the position of CDS/PP facing | criminality. This positions the party the right spectrum, (...). | In the case of the respondents, their evaluation probably | concentrated on more salient issues - namely economy - where the | position of the party is closer to the center, (...)." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2009): C3011 | | Note that the wording of the questions on C3011_ differ slightly | from the CSES questionnaire: "In politics, people sometimes talk | of "left" (or "radical") and "right" (or "conservative"). Where | would you place [PARTY] on a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 means | the lef[t] and 10 means the right?" | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C3011_ | | Note that a majority of respondents tend to the neutral mid- | point (code 5), when evaluating political parties. | Also see Election Study Notes on C3012_. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): C3011_D | | Note that the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) did not run | for election as an officially listed party. Instead, their | members contested as independent candidates. | However, the Turkish survey asks respondents to evaluate | the BDP on the like-dislike scale. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3012_A >>> Q12A. LEFT-RIGHT - LEADER A C3012_B >>> Q12B. LEFT-RIGHT - LEADER B C3012_C >>> Q12C. LEFT-RIGHT - LEADER C C3012_D >>> Q12D. LEFT-RIGHT - LEADER D C3012_E >>> Q12E. LEFT-RIGHT - LEADER E C3012_F >>> Q12F. LEFT-RIGHT - LEADER F C3012_G >>> Q12G. LEFT-RIGHT - ADDITIONAL - LEADER G C3012_H >>> Q12H. LEFT-RIGHT - ADDITIONAL - LEADER H C3012_I >>> Q12I. LEFT-RIGHT - ADDITIONAL - LEADER I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q12a-i. And again, using the same scale where would you place [LEADER A]? Where would you place [LEADER B]? Where would you place [LEADER C]? Where would you place [LEADER D]? Where would you place [LEADER E]? Where would you place [LEADER F]? .................................................................. 00. LEFT 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. RIGHT 95. VOLUNTEERED: HAVEN'T HEARD OF LEFT-RIGHT 96. VOLUNTEERED: HAVEN'T HEARD OF LEADER 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW WHERE TO PLACE 99. MISSING | NOTES: C3012 | | Data are not available for AUSTRALIA (2007), AUSTRIA (2008), | BELARUS (2008), CANADA (2008), CROATIA (2007), CZECH REPUBLIC | (2006), CZECH REPUBLIC (2010), DENMARK (2007), GERMANY (2005), | GREECE (2009), HONG KONG (2008), ICELAND (2009), IRELAND (2007), | ISRAEL (2006), JAPAN (2007), LATVIA (2010), NETHERLANDS (2006), | NETHERLANDS (2010), NEW ZEALAND (2008), NORWAY (2005), NORWAY | (2009), POLAND (2005), POLAND (2007), PORTUGAL (2009), SLOVAKIA | (2010), SOUTH AFRICA (2009), SPAIN (2008), SWEDEN (2006), | SWITZERLAND (2007), TURKEY (2011). | | Researchers should note that C3012 includes several observations | where respondents scored all party leaders equally. | These data remain unchanged. | | Table: Frequencies on C3012_ for respondents who scored all | party leaders equally. | | POLITY NAME (ELEC YEAR) | | BRAZIL (2006) 1 | BRAZIL (2010) 4 | ESTONIA (2011) 14 | FINLAND (2007) 44 | FINALND (2011) 15 | FRANCE (2007) 4 | GERMANY (2009) 23 | ICELAND (2007) 22 | MEXICO (2006) 9 | MEXICO (2009) 13 | PERU (2011) 19 | PHILIPPINES (2010) 22 | ROMANIA (2009) 6 | SLOVENIA (2008) 21 | SOUTH KOREA (2008) 1 | TAIWAN (2008) 277 | THAILAND (2007) 333 | UNITED STATES (2008) 164 | URUGUAY (2009) 8 | | Several respondents mentioned not to know a certain party leader | in one of the following variables (C3010_, C3012_ or C3015_) | but still evaluated the same party leader in another variable. | These data remain unchanged. For further details, see Variable | Notes on C3010_. | | Likewise, some respondents mentioned that they have never heard | about the left-right scale before, in C3011_, C3012_ or | C3013, but evaluated some of the party leaders in C3012_. | These data remain unchanged. For further details, see Variable | Notes on C3013. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C3012 | | This variable was not included in the Austrian Election Study | because it was considered to be less applicable to Austria. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C3012_I | | Please note that we do not have any information party F. | Heloísa Helena from party P-Sol only played a minor role in the | parliamentary votes' result but was important in the | presidential election. She was thus added additionally to letter | I. Note that in the election study from Brazil, there were also | questions about two candidates from governor's elections, José | Serra (PSDB) from São Paolo and Aécio Neves (PSDB) from Minas | Gerais. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C3012 | | Respondents' Left-Right rating of parties B (PMDB), D (PR), E | (Democrats), G (PP), H (PDT), and I (PTB) were not part of the | micro-questionnaire. In contrast, data about these parties were | included in the district-as well as in the macro-part of the | CSES data. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2010): C3012_A-C3012_I | | The question was not asked in the Czech election study. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C3012_G | | Respondent's evaluation on the National Democratic Party (NPD), | was not part of the micro-questionnaire. | In contrast, the NPD is included in the district- as well as in | the macro-part of the CSES data. | | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C3012_H | | C3012_G refers to Mr Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg of the Bavarian | CSU. Even if he is no official leader of this party, he is | the most important minister and most popular politician | of the CSU. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C3012_I | | C3012_H refers to Mr Gregor Gysi who forms a double leadership | of the Left-Party, together with Oskar Lafontaine, mentioned in | C3010_D. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C3012 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C3012 | | Note the somewhat unusual distribution of the Left-Right ratings | of the leaders, leaning towards the extremes. Note also that the | leader placements highly correlate with the evaluation of the | corresponding leaders on the like-dislike scale. The | authenticity of the data have been verified with the | collaborators. These features seem to represent relatively | consistent features of the survey results in Mexico, reported | across time, and by various survey projects (e.g., | Latinobarometro, WVS). | For more insight into the results obtained using Left-Right | scales in Mexico, consult Beltrán, 2009. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C3012_D-C3012_F | | The party leader of the PRD [Party B] (Andrés Manuel López | Obrador) was also the official party nominee of the PT [Party E] | and Convergencia [Party F]. These three parties contested the | election as the "Alianza por el Bien de Todos". | There is no question asking about leaders/candidates for these | last two parties. | The same applies for the PV [Party D] who's candidate was | Roberto Madrazo (from the PRI [Party C]). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): C3012_F | | Data refer to Bojan Srot. | | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): C3012_H | | Data refer to Ljudmila Novak. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2008): C3012 | | This question was asked slightly differently in South | Korea. Instead of an open-ended question, important | politicians were named in the questionnaire, | excluding leaders from party G (New Progressive Party). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C30121_ | | Note that a majority of respondents tends to the neutral mid- | point (code 5), evaluating political parties. | Also see Election Study Notes on C3011_. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3013 >>> Q13. LEFT-RIGHT - SELF --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q13. Where would you place yourself on this scale? .................................................................. 00. LEFT 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. RIGHT 95. VOLUNTEERED: HAVEN'T HEARD OF LEFT-RIGHT 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW WHERE TO PLACE 99. MISSING | NOTES: C3013 | | Researchers should note that C3013 includes several respondents | who say they have never heard about the left-right-scale, but | evaluated parties and leader on it, according to variables C3011 | and C3012. These data remain unchanged. | | Table: Frequencies on C3011_, C3012_ and C3013 for respondents | who have never heard about the left-right-scale, but | evaluated parties and leaders on it in any other variable. | | POLITY NAME (ELEC YEAR) | | BELARUS(2008) 3 | BRAZIL (2006) 96 | BRAZIL (2010) 110 | CROATIA (2007) 8 | CZECH REPUBLIC (2006) 11 | CZECH REPUBLIC (2010) 6 | FINLAND (2007) 10 | FINLAND (2011) 10 | GREECE (2009) 16 | ISRAEL (2006) 26 | JAPAN (2007) 1 | ROMANIA (2009) 7 | SLOVAKIA (2010) 40 | SOUTH AFRICA (2009) 68 | SPAIN (2008) 11 | SWEDEN (2006) 175 | TAIWAN (2008) 7 | THAILAND (2007) 76 | TURKEY (2011) 16 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C3013 | | Note the somewhat unusual distribution of the Left-Right | self-ratings of the respondents leaning towards | the right. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C3013 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C3013 | | Note the somewhat unusual distribution of the Left-Right | self-ratings of the Mexican respondents, strongly skewed towards | the right. The authenticity of the data have been verified with | the collaborators ("the scales represent the actual self- | positioning of Mexicans in the scales"). This feature seems to | represent a relatively consistent characteristics of the survey | results in Mexico, reported across time, and by various survey | projects (e.g., Latinobarometro, WVS). | For more insight into the results obtained using Left-Right | scales in Mexico, consult Beltrán, 2009. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C3013 | | Note the somewhat unusual distribution of the Left-Right | self-ratings of the respondents leaning towards | the right. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C3013 | | Note that the average of C3013 is about 6.2, exceeding the | neutral mid-point of five. In the case of Romania, our | collaborators assume "some sort of ‘post-communism effect'. | People are still sensitive to self-placing on the Left of the | political spectrum, as they place the sign of equal between Left | and communism. As the topic of communist (Russia-oriented) vs. | anti-communist (West-oriented) has been a matter of political | debate during the campaign, it is likely that this effect | introduced a stronger bias towards Right than usually." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3014_A >>> Q14a. OPTIONAL SCALE - PARTY A C3014_B >>> Q14b. OPTIONAL SCALE - PARTY B C3014_C >>> Q14c. OPTIONAL SCALE - PARTY C C3014_D >>> Q14d. OPTIONAL SCALE - PARTY D C3014_E >>> Q14e. OPTIONAL SCALE - PARTY E C3014_F >>> Q14f. OPTIONAL SCALE - PARTY F C3014_G >>> Q14g. OPTIONAL SCALE - ADDITIONAL - PARTY G C3014_H >>> Q14h. OPTIONAL SCALE - ADDITIONAL - PARTY H C3014_I >>> Q14i. OPTIONAL SCALE - ADDITIONAL - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q14a-i. In politics people sometimes talk of [SCALE VALUE AT POINT 0] and [SCALE VALUE AT POINT 10]. Where would you place [PARTY A] on a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 means [SCALE VALUE AT POINT 0] and 10 means [SCALE VALUE AT POINT 10]? Using the same scale, where would you place [PARTY B]? Where would you place [PARTY C]? Where would you place [PARTY D]? Where would you place [PARTY E]? Where would you place [PARTY F]? .................................................................. 00. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 95. VOLUNTEERED: HAVEN'T HEARD OF [SCALE] 96. VOLUNTEERED: HAVEN'T HEARD OF PARTY 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW WHERE TO PLACE 99. MISSING | NOTES: C3014 | | Note that an optional scale to evaluate parties was only asked | in some elections studies. Data are available for CHILE (2009), | ESTONIA (2011), ICELAND (2007), LATVIA (2010), MEXICO (2006), | MEXICO (2009), PHILIPPINES (2010), TAIWAN (2008). | | Researchers should note that C3014 includes several observations | where respondents scored all party leaders equally. | These data remain unchanged. | | Table: Frequencies on C3014_ for respondents who scored all | party leaders equally. | | POLITY NAME (ELEC YEAR) | | CHILE (2009) 9 | ESTONIA (2011) 7 | ICELAND (2007) 18 | LATVIA (2010) 12 | MEXICO (2006) 24 | MEXICO (2009) 53 | PHILIPPINES (2010) 17 | TAIWAN (2008) 147 | | Several respondents mentioned not to know a certain | party in C3009_ or C3011_ but evaluated them in C3014_. | These data remain unchanged. | See Variable Notes on C3009. | | Likewise, some respondents mentioned that they never heard about | the corresponding optional scale, but evaluated parties on it. | These data remain unchanged. | See Variable Notes on C3016. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009): C3014_A-C3014_I | | Respondents should evaluate on the scale from 0-10 how liberal | or conservative the parties are. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 00. Liberal | ... | 10. Conservative | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): C3014_A-C3014_F | | The optional scale refers to Russia as a security threat for | Estonia. The question of origin was: "In politics people | sometimes talk of Russia being a security threat to Estonia or | a trustworthy partner. Where would you place "PARTY" on a scale | from 0 to 10 where 0 means Russia is a security threat and 10 | means Russia is a trustable partner?". | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 00. Russia is a security threat | ... | 10. Russia is a trustworthy partner | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): C3014_E | | Researchers should take note of a difference between the mean- | scoring of respondents and the expert evaluation of the People's | Union on the optional scale. As our Estonian collaborators | mentioned, "The Peoples Union is not emphasizing their foreign | policy agenda (it is a clearly rural party), but in actual | questions on Russia (such as a discussion over signing a border | treaty with Russia) they have usually sided with the | conservative parties. I assume the divergence between the | positions is caused by them being largely absent from public | discussions on foreign policy issues, i.e. there is not much | easily accessible information on their stance and hence also the | more likely placement closer to the centre on the anti- or pro- | Russia axis by the population. Their actual voting records in | parliament, on the other hand, show a more anti-Russian bias, | which the experts took into account." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C3014 | | According to the length of the telephone interviews, an optional | scale for the party evaluation was not included in the micro | questionnaire of Hong Kong 2008. However, experts' evaluations | are available in C5018_A to C5018_H, referring to the "pro- | Beijing versus pro-Hong Kong"-scale. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007): C3014 | | Respondents were asked for their placement of political parties | (C3014) and self (C3016) on a scale of environmentalism: | "Political parties differ on how environmentalist they are. | Now I ask you to place the political parties on a scale from | 0 to 10, where 0 means that the party is not environmentalist | at all but 10 that it is very environmentalist. Where would | you would you place (randomized order of the political | parties) on such a scale?" | | CSES Code Election Study Category/Categories: | 00. Not at all environmentalist | ... | 10. Very environmentalist | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2010): C3014 | | "People sometimes talk about parties advocating interests of | Latvians, and of parties advocating interests of Russophone | residents. I will read a number of party names and will ask to | evaluate position of each party on this. Please use scale from 0 | to 10 where 0 stands for "advocates interests of Russophone | residents" but 10 stands for "advocates interests of Latvians"." | | CSES Code Election Study Category/Categories: | 00. Advocates interests of Russophone residents | ... | 10. Advocates interests of Latvians | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C3014 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C3014 | | Question text: "People also talk about liberal and | conservatives. Using the scale that appears on card 5 | where 0 means liberal and 10 means conservative, where | would you place...?" | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 00. Liberal | ... | 10. Conservative | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C3014_ | | The optional scale, used in the Philippine data, refers to the | question: "Where would you place each political party I will | mention, if number 0 means that the only thing important to | [NAME OF PARTY] is eradicating graft and corruption in | government and number 10 means that the only thing important to | [NAME OF PARTY] is helping the poor?" | These two dimensions illustrate the two most important issues in | the electoral campaigns, reflecting political positions of the | main contenders. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 00. Only eradicating graft and corruption in | government is important | ... | 10. Only helping the poor is important | | Note that the Philippine part of the CSES mainly focuses on the | presidential election of 2010, which defines the order of | parties (A through I) in C3011_ (see codebook appendices). | Consequently, there is no party affiliation of the two | independent presidential candidates (J. Perlas and J.Madrigal). | Thus, parties G and H remain unobserved and are coded as missing | values (code 99) in C3011_G and C3011_H. | See also notes on C3009_ and C3012_. | | Moreover, respondents' party evaluation on the alternative scale | (C3014_) differs from the expert scoring, coded in C5018_. | According to our collaborators, Philippine elections are | highly personalized, diminishing the relevance of political | parties in the electoral campaigns. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C3014 | | See notes on C3016. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C3014_A-B | | Sometimes people will talk about the question of Taiwan's | independence or the unification with China. Some people say that | Taiwan should declare independence immediately. Other people say | that Taiwan and China should unify immediately. Other people | have opinions between these two positions. This card lists | eleven positions from independence (0) to unification (10). | | C3014_A What position do you think KMT occupies? | C3014_B What position do you think DPP occupies? | | CSES Code Election Study Category/Categories: | 00. Independence | ... | 10. Unification | | 98. Don't know / hard to say --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3015_A >>> Q15a. OPTIONAL SCALE - LEADER A C3015_B >>> Q15b. OPTIONAL SCALE - LEADER B C3015_C >>> Q15c. OPTIONAL SCALE - LEADER C C3015_D >>> Q15d. OPTIONAL SCALE - LEADER D C3015_E >>> Q15e. OPTIONAL SCALE - LEADER E C3015_F >>> Q15f. OPTIONAL SCALE - LEADER F C3015_G >>> Q15g. OPTIONAL SCALE - ADDITIONAL - LEADER G C3015_H >>> Q15h. OPTIONAL SCALE - ADDITIONAL - LEADER H C3015_I >>> Q15i. OPTIONAL SCALE - ADDITIONAL - LEADER I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q15a-i. And again, using the same scale where would you place [LEADER A]? Where would you place [LEADER B]? Where would you place [LEADER C]? Where would you place [LEADER D]? Where would you place [LEADER E]? Where would you place [LEADER F]? .................................................................. 00. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 95. VOLUNTEERED: HAVEN'T HEARD OF [SCALE] 96. VOLUNTEERED: HAVEN'T HEARD OF LEADER 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW WHERE TO PLACE 99. MISSING | NOTES: C3015 | | Note that an optional scale to evaluate leaders was only asked | in some elections studies. Data are available for CHILE (2009), | ESTONIA (2011), MEXICO (2006), MEXICO (2009), PHILIPPINES | (2010), TAIWAN (2008). | | Researchers should note that C3015 includes several observations | in which respondents scored all party leaders equally. | These data remain unchanged. | | Table: Frequencies on C3015_ for respondents who scored all | party leaders equally. | | POLITY NAME (ELEC YEAR) | | CHILE (2009) 12 | ESTONIA (2011) 5 | MEXICO (2006) 17 | MEXICO (2009) 29 | PHILIPPINES (2010) 40 | TAIWAN (2008) 180 | | Several respondents mentioned not to know a certain | party in C3010_ or C3012_ but evaluated them in C3015_. | These data remain unchanged. | See Variable Notes on C3010. | | Likewise, some respondents mentioned that they have never heard | about the corresponding optional scale, but evaluated parties on | it. These data remain unchanged. | See Variable Notes on C3016. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009): C3015_A-C3015_I | | The evaluation of leaders on the optional scale was not asked. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): C3015_A-C3015_F | | The optional scale refers to Russia as a security threat for | Estonia. The question of origin was due to the former questions | about party positions: "And again, using the same scale where | would you place "LEADER". | For further details see notes on C3015_A-C3015_F. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 00. Russia is a security threat | ... | 10. Russia is a trustworthy partner | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C3015 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C3015 | | Question text: "People also talk about liberal and | conservatives. Using the scale that appears on card 5 | where 0 means liberal and 10 means conservative, where | would you place...?" | | The party leader of the PRD (Andrés Manuel López Obrador) was | also the official party nominee of the PT and Convergencia. | These three parties contested the election as the "Alianza por | el Bien de Todos". Accordingly, there is no question asking | about leaders/candidates for these last two parties. The same | situation applies for the PVEM whose candidate was Roberto | Madrazo (from the PRI). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C3015 | | See Election Study Notes on C3016. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C3015_ | | The optional scale, used in the Philippine data, refers to the | question: "Where would you place each Presidential candidate I | will mention, if number 0 means that the only thing important | to [NAME OF CANDIDATE] is eradicating graft and corruption in | government and number 10 means that the only thing important to | [NAME OF CANDIDATE] is helping the poor?" | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 00. Only eradicating graft and corruption in | government is important | ... | 10. Only helping the poor is important | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C3015_A-B | | Sometimes people will talk about the question of Taiwan's | independence or the unification with China. Some people say that | Taiwan should declare independence immediately. Other people say | that Taiwan and China should unify immediately. Other people | have opinions between these two positions. This card lists | eleven positions from independence (0) to unification (10). | | C3015_A What position do you think MA Ying-jeou occupies? | C3015_B What position do you think Frank HSIEH occupies? | | CSES Code Election Study Category/Categories: | 00. Independence | ... | 10. Unification | | 98. Don't know / hard to say --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3016 >>> Q16. OPTIONAL SCALE - SELF --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q16. Where would you place yourself on this scale? .................................................................. 00. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 95. VOLUNTEERED: HAVEN'T HEARD OF [SCALE] 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW WHERE TO PLACE 99. MISSING | NOTES: C3016 | | Note that respondent's self-evaluation on an optional scale was | only asked in some elections studies. Data are available for | CHILE (2009), ESTONIA (2011), ICELAND (2007), LATVIA (2010), | MEXICO (2006), MEXICO (2009), PHILIPPINES (2010), POLAND (2007), | TAIWAN (2008). | | Researchers should be aware that C3016 includes | several respondents that say they have never heard about | the optional scale, but evaluated parties and leaders on it, | according to C3014 and C3015. These data remain unchanged. | | Table: Frequencies on C30141_, C3015_ and C3016 for respondents | that never heard about the left-right-scale, but | evaluated parties and leader on it in any other variable. | | POLITY NAME (ELEC YEAR) | | CHILE (2009) 2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009): C3016 | | Respondents should evaluate on the scale from 0-10 how liberal | or conservative they are. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 00. Liberal | ... | 10. Conservative | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): C3016 | | The optional scale refers to Russia as a security threat for | Estonia. The question of origin was due to the former questions | about party positions: "Where would you place yourself on this | scale?". | For further details see notes on C3014_A-_F. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 00. Russia is a security threat | ... | 10. Russia is a trustworthy partner | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007): C3016 | | Question text: "Political parties differ on how environmentalist | they are.Now I ask you to place yourself on a scale from 0 to | 10,where 0means that you are not environmentalist at all but 10 | that you are very environmentalist. Where would you place | yourself on such a scale?" | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 00. Not at all environmentalist | ... | 10. Very environmentalist | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C3016 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C3016 | | Question text: "And using the scale that appears on card 5 | where 0 means liberal and 10 means conservative, where | would you place yourself?" | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 00. Liberal | ... | 10. Conservative | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C3016_ | | The optional scale, used in the Philippine data, refers to the | question: "Where would you place yourself on a scale from 0 to | 10 where the number 0 means that the only thing important is | eradicating graft and corruption and the number 10 means that | the only thing important is helping the poor?" | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 00. Only eradicating graft and corruption in | government is important | ... | 10. Only helping the poor is important | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C3016 | | The Polish study of 2007 asked for a self-placement of | respondents on an optional scale, called "Liberal - Solidary". | In contrast, respondents were not ask to evaluate Polish parties | on this optional scale. | The question of origin was: "Politycy ostatnio czesto mówili o | podziale na Polske liberalna i Polske solidarna. Gdzie | umiescil(a)by siebie Pani na skali od 0 do 10, na której 0 | oznacza Polske solidarna a 10 Polske liberalna?" ("Politicians | often talk about recent division of Poland, contrasting liberal | versus solidarity. Where would you place yourself on this scale, | whereat 0 means solidarity and 10 means liberal?"). | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 00. Solidary | ... | 10. Liberal | | 95. Haven't heard of Liberal-Solidary | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C3016 | | Question text: "Sometimes people will talk about the question of | Taiwan's independence or the unification with China. Some people | say that Taiwan should declare independence immediately. Other | people say that Taiwan and China should unify immediately. Other | people have opinions between these two positions. This card | lists eleven positions from independence (0) to unification | (10). Which position do you occupy? " | | CSES Code Election Study Category/Categories: | 00. Independence | ... | 10. Unification | | 98. Don't know / hard to say --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3017 >>> Q17. DIFFERENCES OF CHOICE OPTIONS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q17. During the election campaign, would you say that there were major differences between the [parties/candidates], minor differences, or no differences at all? .................................................................. 1. MAJOR DIFFERENCES 2. MINOR DIFFERENCES 3. NO DIFFERENCES AT ALL 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | NOTES: C3017 | | Data are not available for DENMARK (2007), NORWAY (2005), NORWAY | (2009). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C3017 | | Australia 2007 asked for "differences of choice options" on a | four-point-scale that has been recoded as the following: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. A good deal of difference between the parties | 02. Some difference between the parties | Not much difference between the parties | 03. No difference between the parties | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C3017 | | Note that in the original Austrian Election Study this question | had a 4-point scale. It was recoded as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. 01. Major differences 02 notable differences | 02. 03. Minor differences | 03. 04. No differences at all | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C3017 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C3017 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 08. Don't know / no answer | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C3017 | | Notice that this variable was asked to a subset of the sample | which responded by a follow-up mail/online questionnaire. See | study description and variable note C1007 for further details. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3018 >>> Q18. CAMPAIGN INVOLVEMENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q18. How closely did you follow the election campaign? Very closely, fairly closely, not very closely, or not closely at all? .................................................................. 1. VERY CLOSELY 2. FAIRLY CLOSELY 3. NOT VERY CLOSELY 4. NOT CLOSELY AT ALL 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | NOTES: C3018 | | Data are not available for TAIWAN (2008). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C3018 | | Australia 2007 asked a slightly different question: "And how | much interest would you say you took in the election campaign | overall?" | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. A good deal | 02. Some | 03. Not much | 04. None at all | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): C3018 | | The Russian version speaks of following "pre-election | propaganda," not the "campaign." Please note that this might | apply to other questionnaires (Hebrew, Arabic). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C3018 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 8. Don't know / Not answered | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C3018 | | Notice that this variable was asked to a subset of the sample | which responded by a follow-up mail/online questionnaire. See | study description and variable note C1007 for further details. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3019 >>> Q19. SATISFACTION WITH DEMOCRACY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q19. On the whole, are you very satisfied, fairly satisfied, not very satisfied, or not at all satisfied with the way democracy works in [COUNTRY]? .................................................................. 1. VERY SATISFIED 2. FAIRLY SATISFIED 4. NOT VERY SATISFIED 5. NOT AT ALL SATISFIED 6. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | NOTES: C3019 | | Data are not available for CHILE (2009) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2008): C3019 | | The wording of this question in Russian refers to the level of | democracy in Belarus, rather than the way democracy works. | This formulation was chosen by the collaborator for the reason | that it would be more understandable for the respondents in | the new post-soviet countries. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C3019 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C3019 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 06. Neither satisfied nor unsatisfied | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): C3019 | | Question in the Russian questionnaire differs from | the original English question: in the English, very satisfied, | fairly satisfied, not very satisfied and not at all satisfied | are options placed in the actual body of the question, while in | Russian, it simply asks the respondents if they are satisfied or | not satisfied, without the nuances. the nuances are read as | answer options only. This applies to other questionnaires | (Hebrew, Arabic). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C3019 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C3019 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 08. Don't know / no answer | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2009): C3019 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 7. South Africa is no democracy --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3020_1 >>> Q20. ARE YOU CLOSE TO ANY POLITICAL PARTY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q20. Do you usually think of yourself as close to any particular party? .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C3020_1 | | This variable was reconstructed from party identification | question B1: "Generally speaking, do you usually think of | yourself as Liberal, Labor, National or what?" | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C3020_1 | | The wording in the Brazilian questionnaire slightly deviates | from the original CSES question. It was asked as follows: "In | general, is there any political party that you like?" | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2010): C3020_1 | | The wording in the Latvian questionnaire deviates from the CSES | standard. The question asked was: "Do you feel yourself a little | closer to one of the political parties than the others?" | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C3020_1 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C3020_1 | | Note that the Mexican wording deviates from the original CSES | question. It was asked as follows: "Regardless of which party | you voted for during the last election, in general, do you | sympathize with any political party in particular?" | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C3020_1 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C3020_1 | | Question text: "Do you think of yourself as an adherent to | a certain political party?" | Note that this set of items was part of the pre-election | survey. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 08. Don't know / no answer | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C3020_1 | | Note that both C3020_1 and C3020_2 included a party list from | which respondents could choose the one they felt close(r) to or | add another party not listed. The answer 'no' was coded with 5, | a party mention was coded with 1 - 'Yes'. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C3020_1 | | This item was not asked in the Norwegian Election Study; rather, | it is reconstructed from the question (SPM.49A in original | questionnaire): "Many people think of themselves as adherents to | a particular party, while others feel no affiliation with any | party. Would you say that you in general think of yourself as a | Conservative, a Laborite, a SV supporter, etc., or don't you | consider yourself affiliated with any particular party?" If a | respondent identified a party, the case is coded "1. Yes" to | this item. If respondents reported "No such ties," they are | coded "2. No". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C3020_1 | | Note that questions on respondent's party ID was asked slightly | different in the Norwegian sample: | a) C3020_2 was not asked; | b) C3020_1 and C3020_3 were combined into a single question; | c) C3020_4 differs in regard to the provided answer-categories. | See also notes on C3020_4. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C3020_1 | | Note that in the Taiwanese election study specific parties were | named within the question text. It was asked as follows: | Among the main political parties in our country, including the | KMT, DPP, NP, PFP, and TSU, do you think of yourself as leaning | toward any particular party? | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2008): C3020_1 | | Questions on C3020_1 trough C3020_4 differs from the CSES- | schema: | 1. "Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a | Democrat, a Republican or an Independent?" | 2. "If R considers self a Democrat / Republican: | Would you call yourself a strong or a not very strong | Democrat / Republican?" | 3. "If R's party preference is independent, no preference, | other, don't know: Do you think of yourself as closer to | the Republican party or to the democratic party?" --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3020_2 >>> Q20A. DO YOU FEEL CLOSER TO ONE PARTY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q20a. Do you feel yourself a little closer to one of the political parties than the others? .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | NOTES: C3020_2 | | Data are not available for LATVIA (2010), NORWAY (2005), | NORWAY (2009), SLOVENIA (2008), SWITZERLAND (2007). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C3020_2 | | The wording in the Brazilian questionnaire slightly deviates | from the original CSES question. It was asked as follows: "And | is there any party that you like, even if just a little bit?" | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2010): C3020_2 | | Note that respondents who answered 'No' in variable C3020_1 | were not asked this follow up question. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C3020_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C3020_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 08. Don't know / no answer | | A small number of cases do not follow the skip patterns for | the Q20 series of questions (C3020_1 - C3020_4). Specifically, | 9 respondents answered "Yes" to C3020_1 and were still asked | C3020_2. These data remain unchanged. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C3020_2 | | Note that both C3020_1 and C3020_2 included a party list from | which respondents could choose the one they felt close(r) to or | add another party not listed. The answer 'no' was coded with 5, | a party mention was coded with 1 - 'Yes'. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C3020_2 | | This variable is not available for Norway. See note C3020_1 | for details. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2008): C3020_2 | | See codebook remarks on C3020_1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3020_3 >>> Q20B. WHICH PARTY DO YOU FEEL CLOSEST TO --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 01-88. [SEE APPENDIX I FOR PARTY AND LEADER CODES] 89. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 90. OTHER PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 91. NONE OF THE PARTIES/CANDIDATES 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | NOTES: C3020_3 | | Respondents' party mentions in C3020_3 depend on the two former | questions (C3020_1 and C3020_2). The party mention in C3020_3 is | kept only for those respondents that reported to be close | (C3020_1) or at least closer (C3020_2) to one party. All other | respondents are coded as missing values (code 99) in C3020_3. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C3020_3 | | The question was not open-ended. Instead, respondents | could choose their answer from a party list with seven parties | and the option "other party". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C3020_3 | | Note that the Brazil data in C3020_3 is a combination of two | questions, which are different from the original CSES | question. These are: "Which party do you like?" and the question | "Which party?" if the respondent gave a positive answer to | "Is there any party that you like, even if just a little bit?" | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C3020_3 | | In France this was a close-ended question. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2007): C3020_3 | | There is only data for those respondents who reported to be | "close" to any party in C3020_1, but not for those, who | reported to "feel closer to one party" (C3020_2). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): C3020_3 | | Rather than an open-ended question, Japan provides a closed- | list for the five major Japanese parties (see codebook | appendices). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C3020_3 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C3020_3 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 98. Don't know / no answer | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C3020_3 | | For the construction on C3020_3 see remark on C3020_1. | Moreover, if respondents refused or mentioned "don't know" in | C3020_1, this answer is repeated in C3020_3. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C3020_3 | | Note that questions on respondent's party ID was asked slightly | different in the Norwegian sample. C3020_1 (respondent feels | close to a party) and C3020_3 (party respondent feels close to) | were combined in a single question. | See also notes on C3020_1 and on C3020_4. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C3020_3 | | Note that the underlying question on C3020_3 was asked | independently from the previous questions about a party | respondent's feels close (C3020_1) or at least closer to | (C3020_2). Respondents who did not explicitly report that they | feel close (C3020_1) or at least closer to (C3020_2), were coded | as missing values in C3020_3. As a consequence, substantial | party mentions of 388 respondents were coded as missing values | in C3020_3. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): C3020_3 | | Note that the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP, code 4) did not | run for election as an officially listed party. Instead, their | members contested as independent candidates. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2008): C3020_3 | | See codebook remarks on C3020_1, first. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3020_4 >>> Q20C. DEGREE OF CLOSENESS TO THIS PARTY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q20c. Do you feel very close to this party, somewhat close, or not very close? .................................................................. 1. VERY CLOSE 2. SOMEWHAT CLOSE 3. NOT VERY CLOSE 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | NOTES: C3020_4 | | Respondents' party mentions in C3020_3 depend on the two former | questions (C3020_1 and C3020_2). The degree of closeness to the | party, mentioned in C3020_3, is kept only for those respondents | that reported to be close (C3020_1) or at least closer (C3020_2) | to one party. All other respondents are coded as missing values | (code 99) in C3020_3. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C3020_4 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C3020_4 | | In the Brazilian studies, this questions was asked only to those | respondents who answered affirmatively to the first question | about closeness to a party (YES to C3020_1). Note also that | rather than "degree of closeness" the respondents were asked | how strongly they liked the party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C3020_4 | | Note that the degree of closeness to a certain party was only | asked to those respondents who mentioned that they feel close | to a party according to C3020_1, but not to those, who mentioned | that they feel closer to a party according to C3020_2. | | Moreover, the Danish question differs from the CSES wording: | "Nogle er stærkt overbeviste tilhængere af deres parti, mens | andre ikke er så overbeviste. Betragter du dig selv som stærkt | overbevist tilhænger eller ikke stærkt overbevist?" (Some are | strongly convinced adherents of their party, while others are | not so convinced. Do you consider yourself as strongly convinced | supporter or not strongly convinced?), including only two | categories: | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 01. Strongly convinced (staerkt overbevist) | 03. Not very convinced (ikke staekt overbevist) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): C3020_4 | | Question wording in the Russian questionnaire differs | from the original English question. In English it reads: "do | you feel very close to this party, somewhat close, or not very | close." In Russian, it reads: "to what extent is this party close | to you," without the nuances offered in the body of the | question. The nuances are read as answer options only. This | also applies to other questionnaires (Hebrew, Arabic). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C3020_4 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C3020_4 | | The DPES study used somewhat different wording for the | answer options (the question asks for party adherence, see | C3020_1): | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Very convinced | 02. Convinced | 03. Not convinced | 08. Don't know / no answer | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C3020_4 | | The original question asked "Do you consider yourself to be a | strongly convinced supporter, or are you not a particularly | convinced supporter of this party?" The Norwegian survey | included two possible responses. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Strongly convinced | 03. Not particularly convinced | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C3020_4 | | Note that questions on respondent's party ID was asked slightly | different in the Norwegian sample. The original question on | C3020_4 (degree of closeness) includes only two answer- | categories. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Categories: | 01. Very close | 03. Not very close | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2008): C3020_4 | | See codebook remarks on C3020_1, first. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 1. Strong (according to the first question) | 2. Weak (according to the first question) | 3. Independent (according to the third question) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3021_1 >>> Q21. CURRENT ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT 1 C3021_2 >>> Q21. CURRENT ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT 2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q21. The wording of this item, which is to record voting in the national election, follows national standards. This item ascertains whether or not the respondent cast a ballot, regardless of whether or not it was valid. .................................................................. 1. R CAST A BALLOT 5. R DID NOT CAST A BALLOT 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | NOTES: C3021 | | According to the different types of elections included in the | current CSES release, the following table gives an overview of | respondent's electoral participation. C3021_1 and | C3021_2 are based on this table. | For further information and restrictions, researchers are | encouraged to look at the country specific notes for | each of the variables. | | Table: Summary of Type of Election Ballot Cast refers to. | | President Lower House Upper House | | POLITY NAME (ELEC YEAR) | | AUSTRALIA (2007) C3021_1 | AUSTRIA (2008) C3021_1 | BELARUS (2008) C3021_1 | BRAZIL (2006) C3021_1 | BRAZIL (2010) C3021_1 C3021_1 C3021_1 | C3021_2 | CANADA (2008) C3021_1 | CROATIA (2007) C3021_1 | CHILE (2009) C3021_1 C3021_1 | CZECH REPUBLIC (2006) C3021_1 | CZECH REPUBLIC (2010) C3021_1 | DENMARK (2007) C3021_1 | ESTONIA (2011) C3021_1 | FINLAND (2007) C3021_1 | FINLAND (2011) C3021_1 | FRANCE (2007) C3021_1 | C3021_2 | GERMANY (2005) C3021_1 | GERMANY (2009) C3021_1 | GREECE (2009) C3021_1 | HONG KONG (2008) C3021_1 | ICELAND (2007) C3021_1 | ICELAND (2009) C3021_1 | IRELAND (2007) C3021_1 | ISRAEL (2006) C3021_1 | JAPAN (2007) C3021_1 | LATVIA (2010) C3021_1 | MEXICO (2006) C3021_1 C3021_2 | MEXICO (2009) C3021_1 | NETHERLANDS (2006) C3021_1 | NETHERLANDS (2010) C3021_1 | NEW ZEALAND (2008) C3021_1 | C3021_2 | NORWAY (2005) C3021_1 | NORWAY (2009) C3021_1 | PERU (2011) C3021_1 C3021_1 | PHILIPPINES (2010) C3021_1 | POLAND (2005) C3021_1 | POLAND (2007) C3021_1 | PORTUGAL (2009) C3021_1 | ROMANIA (2009) C3021_1 | C3021_2 | SLOVAKIA (2010) C3021_1 | SLOVENIA (2008) C3021_1 | SOUTH AFRICA (2009) C3021_1 | SOUTH KOREA (2008) C3021_1 | SPAIN (2008) C3021_1 | SWEDEN (2006) C3021_1 | SWITZERLAND (2007) C3021_1 C3021_1 | TAIWAN (2008) C3021_1 | THAILAND (2007) C3021_1 | TURKEY (2011) C3021_1 | UNITED STATES (2008) C3021_1 | URUGUAY (2009) C3021_1 C3021_1 C3021_1 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C3021 | | Australia has compulsory voting, hence this questions was not | part of the Australian questionnaire in 2007. C3021_1 was | created using the actual vote choice for the House of | Representatives (B11REPS), defining all observations as non- | voters that reported a "vote blank". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C3021_1-C3021_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C3021_1-C3021_2 | | The 2006 and 2010 elections took place on the same day on | multiple levels. This variable reports voting in the first round | of the elections, not specifying whether the respondent skipped | voting on some of the levels. | Due to compulsory voting, non-voters have to officially justify | non-voting behavior on election day. The original election | study data from Brazil contained more specific information for | those who did not vote. For the sake of comparability, in the | CSES study these were all recoded into value 5: | | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C3021_1-C3021_2 | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Yes | 05. No, more than 70 years old | (voting then voluntary) | No, between 16 and 17 years old (voting | (voting then voluntary) | No, I did not want to | No, I had to justify the absence | | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C3021_1-C3021_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Yes | 05. No, more than 70 years old (voting then | voluntary) | Didn't vote for personal option | No, showed justification in 1st round | No, and didn't showed justification | No, didn't have the necessary documentation | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009): C3021_1-C3021_2 | | The second round of the presidential election took place after | the election study interviewing was finished and could thus | not be captured. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C3021_1-C3021_2 | | C3021_1 report to voting in the first round of the | parliamentary elections. | C3021_2 variable reports voting in the second round of the | parliamentary elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C3021_1-C3021_2 | | Differences between C3021_1 and C3021_2 may be due to several | motives, i.e. registered voters living away from their district, | and depending how far they are located, may only be able to vote | for president, or president and senate, or president, senate and | party list of deputy candidates. | Given these differences certain inconsistencies may occur for | those respondents who cast vote for one but not the other. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C3021_1-C3021_2 | | C3021_1 refers to the vote for a party list. | C3021_2 refers to the vote for a district candidate. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C3021_1 | | Data from this variable are from self reported behavior. | However, when compared to official registers, some cases | show differences between self-reported behavior and | actual behavior. Of the people who have mentioned not having | voted, 6 did differently according to the official records. | The respondent ids of the 6 individuals are (variable C1009): | 0000000376 0000001182 0000001405 0000001883 0000002238 | 0000002859. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C3021_1 | | Data from this variable are from self reported behavior. | However, when compared to official registers, some cases | show differences between self-reported behavior and | actual behavior. Of the people who have mentioned not having | voted, 16 did differently according to the official records. | The respondent ids of the 16 individuals are (variable C1009): | 0000000108 0000000251 0000000303 0000000306 0000000429 | 0000000436 0000000441 0000000474 0000000500 0000000604 | 0000001004 0000001311 0000001403 0000001411 0000001414 | 0000001775. | | Conversely, of the people having mentioned that | they voted, 89 have not voted according to the official | records. The respondent ids of the 89 individuals are (variable | C1009): 0000000015 0000000051 0000000055 0000000072 0000000075 | 0000000079 0000000140 0000000169 0000000184 0000000213 | 0000000247 0000000340 0000000415 0000000433 0000000463 | 0000000473 0000000554 0000000555 0000000556 0000000559 | 0000000560 0000000562 0000000624 0000000680 0000000686 | 0000000695 0000000725 0000000726 0000000743 0000000745 | 0000000754 0000000761 0000000784 0000000801 0000000804 | 0000000814 0000000820 0000000826 0000000827 0000000838 | 0000000842 0000000854 0000000867 0000000880 0000000890 | 0000000893 0000000900 0000000913 0000000921 0000000950 | 0000000977 0000000986 0000000998 0000001051 0000001053 | 0000001058 0000001078 0000001090 0000001108 0000001123 | 0000001129 0000001146 0000001173 0000001181 0000001216 | 0000001248 0000001335 0000001353 0000001379 0000001380 | 0000001436 0000001451 0000001487 0000001501 0000001513 | 0000001524 0000001530 0000001634 0000001637 0000001656 | 0000001657 0000001659 0000001665 0000001679 0000001684 | 0000001687 0000001723 0000001736 0000001769. | | Moreover, for twelve respondents a comparison with the official | register was not possible. The respondent ids of the 12 | individuals are (variable C1009): 0000000160 0000000305 | 0000000324 0000000428 0000001070 0000001071 0000001073 | 0000001204 0000001363 0000001392 0000000210 0000001075. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): C3021_1 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C3021_1 | | Note that C3021_1 refers to the elections of the Sejm, the Lower | House of the Polish Parliament, as well as to the Polish Senate. | Both elections took place simultaneously. | Moreover, C3021_1 includes 17 missing values in 2005 and another | 6 cases in 2007. All these observations mentioned that they | would not have been eligible to vote. According to the | explanations of our Polish collaborators, this might be caused | by different reasons: "1) people who turned 18 just after the | election day (...); 2) (...) people who are officially and | legally taken their eligibility to vote (...); 3) (...) an | interviewer's mistake". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C3021_ | | Respondent's ballot cast refers to the first (C3021_1) and | second (C3021_2) round of the Romanian presidential elections | in 2009. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C3021_1 | | Data from this variable are from self-reported behavior. | However, when compared to official registers, some cases | show differences between self-reported behavior and | actual behavior. Of the people who have mentioned having | voted, 36 did differently according to the official | records. Conversely, of the people having mentioned that | they did not vote, 2 have voted according to the official | records. | the respondent ids of the 36 individuals who over reported | vote are (variable C1009): | 0000200019, 0000200086, 0000200439, 0000200573, 0000200736, | 0000200886, 0000200915, 0000200928, 0000201294, 0000201345, | 0000201348, 0000201387, 0000201501, 0000201578, 0000201729, | 0000201801, 0000201965, 0000202187, 0000202399, 0000202447, | 0000221082, 0000221086, 0000221178, 0000221181, 0000221265, | 0000221412, 0000221445, 0000221501, 0000221535, 0000221572, | 0000221587, 0000221662, 0000221710, 0000221746, 0000221758, | 0000221822 | the respondent ids of the 2 individuals who under reported | vote are (variable C1009): | 0000201650, 0000221418. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2008): C3021_1 | | According to the US electoral system, the data included 499 | registered citizens which were not registered as a voter. These | cases were defined as "no answer" (code 8) in C3021_. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): C3021_1 | | Note that voting is strictly compulsory in Uruguay (see | C5044_1). Thus, the Uruguayan data include only voters, i.e. | C3021_1 reports a ballot cast (code 1.) for all respondents. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3022_1 >>> Q21A. CURRENT ELECTION: IF YOU HAD VOTED - FIRST MENTION C3022_2 >>> Q21A. CURRENT ELECTION: IF YOU HAD VOTED - SECOND MENTION C3022_3 >>> Q21A. CURRENT ELECTION: IF YOU HAD VOTED - THIRD MENTION C3022_4 >>> Q21A. CURRENT ELECTION: IF YOU HAD VOTED - FOURTH MENTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q21a. If you would have voted, which [party or parties/candidate or candidates] would you have voted for? .................................................................. 01-88. [SEE APPENDIX I FOR PARTY AND LEADER CODES] 89. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 90. OTHER PARTY/CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 91. NONE OF THE PARTIES/CANDIDATES 92. R CAST INVALID BALLOT 93. R CAST BLANC BALLOT 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | NOTES: C3022 | | Data are not available for AUSTRALIA (2007), CANADA (2008), | CHILE (2009), NETHERLANDS (2006), URUGUAY (2009). | | The coding of C3022_ depends on C3021_1. Responses are kept for | non-voters, only, according to C3021_1 (is not code 1). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C3022 | | Because Australia has compulsory voting (see | remarks on C3021_1), this question was not part of the | Australian questionnaire. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C3022_1 | | The question was not open-ended. Instead, respondents could | choose their answer from a party list with seven parties and the | options "other party" and "no party". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C3022_1 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C3022_1 | | This variable reports voting intentions in the first round of | the presidential elections. The question was asked in a closed | format with 6 candidates on the list. Only a single answer to | this question was possible. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CROATIA (2007): C3022 | | In contrast to the general coding of the Croatian parties, C3022 | does not divide between the Hrvatska seljacka stranka (HSS) and | the Hrvatska socijalno liberalna stranka (HSLS) which formed an | electoral coalition for the Croatian parliamentary election in | 2007 (for more details, see Codebook Appendices). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2007): C3022 | | Rather than an open-ended question, Finland provided a | closed-list from which up to four parties were chosen by | respondents. Instead of providing a choice rank 1-4 here, in | C3022_1 are respondents' answers with one or more choices; | in C3022_2 those with 2 or more; in C3022_3 the ones who chose 3 | or more and in _4 those who chose 4 parties. Due to this coding | no rank order could be provided. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C3022_1 | | This variable reports voting intentions in the first round of | the parliamentary elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C3022 | | The German questionnaire of 2005 allowed respondents to mention | only one party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): C3022 | | Rather than an open-ended question, Japan provides a close | list for the five major Japanese parties (see codebook | appendices). | | Furthermore, the provided data does not allow preference | ordering of the mentioned parties. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C3022_1 | | The Dutch survey allowed respondents to mention only | one party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C3022_1 | | The wording in the Norwegian questionnaire is somewhat | different: "If there was compulsory voting in Norway, what | party or parties would you have voted for?" | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C3022_ | | Note that the question on C3022_ was asked separately for each | of the eight major Norwegian parties. However, none of the | respondents mentioned more than three of them. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2011): C3022_1 | | C3022_1 refers to the presidential election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C3022_1 | | In origin, the Philippine question on C3022 asked for | presidential candidates, non-voter would have voted for. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): C3022_1-C3022_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C3022_1-C3022_2 | | Note that the Polish studies used closed lists to ask | respondents about their potential vote choice. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C3022_ | | Note that the Romanian questionnaire asked for presidential | candidates, according to the party table in the appendices of | the CSES codebook. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C3022 | | In Thailand this question was asked separately for each party. | The variables for C3022 do not reflect any preference order. | | Additionally, one respondent (C1005=764020070000000269) | mentioned eight parties in this question which correspond | to parties A through H. The data offer responses that | refer to parties A through D only (responses that | pertained to parties E though H were deleted). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): C3022_1 | | Note that the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP, code 4) did not | run for election as an officially listed party. Instead, their | members contested as independent candidates. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): C3022_1-C3022_4 | | According to the fact that voting is strictly compulsory in | Uruguay (see 5044_1), C3022_ was not asked. | See also notes on C3021_1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3023_PR_1 >>> Q21b. CURRENT ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - PRESIDENT 1 C3023_PR_2 >>> Q21b. CURRENT ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - PRESIDENT 2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If applicable and respondent cast a ballot in the presidential election: Q21b. This variable reports the respondent's vote choice for president. .................................................................. 01-88. [SEE APPENDIX I FOR PARTY AND LEADER CODES] 89. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 90. OTHER CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 91. NONE OF THE CANDIDATES 92. R CAST INVALID BALLOT 93. R CAST BLANC BALLOT 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | NOTES: C3023_PR_ | | The coding of C3023_PR_ depends on C3021_1. Responses are kept | for voters, according to C3021_1 (is not code 5), if C3021_1 | refers to presidential elections. | For further details see Variable Note on C3021_. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C3023_PR_1 | | Note that the more detailed answers in the election | study from Brazil were collapsed to fit the CSES standard | (for more details see Codebook Appendices). | In addition, the following values where recoded due to CSES | standards. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 98. 55. I don't remember | 08. I did not vote | 99 99. Not answered | | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C3023_PR_1 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C3023_PR_1 | | This variable reports the respondent's vote choice for | president in the first round of elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C3023_PR_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C3023_PR_2 | | This variable reports the respondent's vote choice for | president in the second round of elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009): C3023_PR_2 | | This question was not asked in the Chilean election study. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): C3023_PR_2 | | C3023_PR_1 refers to the first round of the Uruguayan | presidential elections of October 25th, 2009 | C3023_PR_2 refers to the second round of the Uruguayan | presidential elections of November 29th, 2009 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3023_LH_PL >>> Q21c. CURRENT ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE LOWER HOUSE - PARTY LIST C3023_LH_DC >>> Q21d. CURRENT ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE LOWER HOUSE - DISTRICT CANDIDATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If applicable and respondent cast a ballot in the Lower House legislative election: Q21c/d. These variable reports the respondent's vote choice for party list and/or district candidate in Lower House elections. See Election Study Notes for more information. .................................................................. 01-88. [SEE APPENDIX I FOR PARTY AND LEADER CODES] 89. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 90. OTHER PARTY/CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 91. NONE OF THE PARTIES/CANDIDATES 92. R CAST INVALID BALLOT 93. R CAST BLANC BALLOT 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | NOTES: C3023_LH_ | | The coding of C3023_LH_ depends on C3021_1. Responses are kept | for voters, according to C3021_1 (is not code 5), if C3021_1 | refers to Lower House elections. | For further details see Variable Note on C3021_. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C3023_LH_DC | | Australia has compulsory voting. Consequently, there was no | question about the participation in the election in the | questionnaire. | In contrast, non-voters, according to C3021_1, were defined | on the basis of actual vote choice (B11REPS) - see C3021_1. | Moreover, respondents who reported an informal vote choice | were defined as non-voters according to C3021_1, but | coded as "voted blank" in C3023_LH_DC. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C3023_LH_PL | | The question was not open-ended. Instead, respondents | could choose their answer from a party list with seven parties | and the options "other party" and "no party". Respondents who | answered "no party" but had reported that they had cast a | ballot, were coded to having cast an invalid ballot. | Note that one respondent reports a party whom to have voted | for, although the question if he/she did cast a ballot (C3021_1) | had been answered negatively. It is unknown in which of the two | questions the error/misunderstanding occurred in the interview. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2008): C3023_LH_DC | | This variable reports first-round vote choice (there was no | second round in 2008). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C3023_LH_PL | | Brazil has a party-list proportional system with seats | allocated according to the simple quotient and highest average | calculations. Respondents were asked for their vote | choice of deputy candidates. The variable was later created by | using the respective candidates' party affiliations. | Since giving a candidate preference is optional for the voter, | the data in this variable contains a lot of missing values. | 7 respondents answered that they voted for a party list. Those | answers have missing party affiliations, too. | Also the high number of respondents who do not know whom they | voted for may be partially resulted by the question, because it | is usually more difficult to remember a candidate's name than a | party voted for. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 88. The respondent mentioned a candidate who did not | contest on the question's level of election, e.g. | a candidate from the state level and not the | federal level. | 90. The party affiliation of the mentioned name was | not found. The person could be either an | independent candidate or the answer might be | inappropriate. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C3023_LH_PL | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 88. Incorrect information on the candidate, e.g. the | respondent mentioned a wrong party affiliation for | a candidate or mentioned a candidate who did not | participate on the electoral level to which the | question refers. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CROATIA (2007): C3023_LH_PL | | In contrast to the general coding of the Croatian parties, | C3023_LH_PL does not divide between the Hrvatska seljacka | stranka (HSS) and the Hrvatska socijalno liberalna stranka | (HSLS) which formed an election coalition for the Croatian | parliamentary election 2007 (for more details see Codebook | Appendices). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C3023_LH_PL | | Researchers should note that the data of origin | includes 12 cases which are defined as non-voters in C3021_1, | but who reported an invalid vote choice in C3023_LH_PL. | These data remain unchanged. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C3023_LH_DC | | This variable reports voting in the first round of the | parliamentary elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007): C3023_LH_PL | | Note that all persons who refused to answer if they had | cast a ballot (C3021_1) or answered "don't know" to this | question, have the same answer codes in the follow-up | question C3023_LH_PL. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C3023_LH_DC | | The electoral system of Hong Kong Legislative Council | distinguishes between geographical and functional | constituencies. In both constituencies 30 members are | elected. The functional constituencies are professionals | or economical and social interest groups. | For the CSES data, only the vote choice of the geographical | constituencies is included, in which all registered citizens are | eligible to vote. | Researchers interested in the individual vote choices within the | functional constituencies might want to contact our collaborator | in Hong Kong (see introduction part) to get access to the data of | origin. | Finally, researchers should note that in contrast to the given | coding schema, referring to parties, the original answers had | been candidate mentions. Compared to C3028_LH_ and C3030_LH_, | C3023_LH_DC only includes candidates' parties that have been | registered for respondents' geographical constituencies. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2010): C3023_LH_PL | | 92 means invalid or empty ballot. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C3023_LH_PL | | Despite having a mixed electoral system, in congressional | elections Mexican voters cast a single vote in a simple | plurality election. The PR seats are allocated according | to the national distribution of votes. Thus, only the district | vote choice variable is employed. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C3023_LH_ | | The study of New Zealand 2008 included 1 respondent in | C3023_LH_PL, as well as another one in C3023_LH_DC_1, that | mentioned an unspecified party. Both cases have been coded as | "90. OTHER PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED)". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C3023_LH_PL | | See Election Study Notes on C3021_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): C3023_LH_PL | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C3023_LH_PL | | Note that the Polish studies used closed lists to ask | respondents about their actual vote choice for the Lower House. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): C3023_LH_PL | | Note that the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP, code 4) did not | run for election as an officially listed party. Instead, their | members contested as independent candidates. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3023_UH_PL >>> Q21c. CURRENT ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE UPPER HOUSE - PARTY LIST C3023_UH_DC_1 >>> Q21d. CURRENT ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE UPPER HOUSE - DISTRICT CANDIDATE - 1 C3023_UH_DC_2 >>> Q21d. CURRENT ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE UPPER HOUSE - DISTRICT CANDIDATE - 2 C3023_UH_DC_3 >>> Q21d. CURRENT ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE UPPER HOUSE - DISTRICT CANDIDATE - 3 C3023_UH_DC_4 >>> Q21d. CURRENT ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE UPPER HOUSE - DISTRICT CANDIDATE - 4 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If applicable and respondent cast a ballot in the Upper House legislative election: Q21c/d. These variable reports the respondent's vote choice for party list and/or district candidate in Upper House elections. See Election Study Notes for more information. .................................................................. 01-88. [SEE APPENDIX I FOR PARTY AND LEADER CODES] 89. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 90. OTHER PARTY/CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 91. NONE OF THE PARTIES/CANDIDATES 92. R CAST INVALID BALLOT 93. R CAST BLANC BALLOT 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | NOTES: C3023_UH_ | | The coding of C3023_UH_ depends on C3021_1. Responses are kept | for voters, according to C3021_1 (is not code 5), if C3021_1 | refers to Upper House elections. | For further details see Variable Note on C3021_. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C3023_UH_PL | | A lot of missing values in this variable may be due to the | fact that respondents were not asked for the party, they had | voted for, but only for their choice of a candidate for senate. | However, the candidate preference vote is optional in the | election. This variable was later created by using the senators' | party affiliations. Also see the codebook entry on C3023_LH_PL. | | Moreover, 248 voters did not know or could not remember the | candidate they had voted for. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C3023_UH_DC | | Despite having a mixed electoral system, in congressional | elections Mexican voters cast a single vote in a simple | plurality election. The PR seats are allocated according | to the national distribution of votes. Thus, only the district | vote choice variable is employed. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): C3023_UH_DC_1-C3023_4 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C3023_UH_DC_1-C3023_4 | | Note that the Polish studies used closed lists to ask | respondents about their actual vote choice for the Upper House. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2008): C3023_UH_DC_1 | | Senate elections had only been held for about one third of the | seats (35 out of 100) in some of the federal states. | | In the federal states of Mississippi and Wyoming Senate | elections were held for extraordinary vacant seats, coded in | C3023_UH_2 (see remarks on C3023_UH_2). | To identify respondent's federal sate, see C2027. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2008): C3023_UH_DC_2 | | C3023_UH_DC_2 captures the vote choice of extraordinary vacant | seats in the federal states of Mississippi and Wyoming, | exclusively. | To identify respondent's federal state, see C2027. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3026 >>> Q21E. CURRENT ELECTION: DID R CAST CANDIDATE PREFERENCE VOTE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If an open-list electoral system was used for the legislative election in question and respondent cast a ballot: Q21e. This variable reports whether or not the respondent cast a preference vote for a candidate. For instance, if votes are cast for party lists, but citizens can, in addition to that, mark a preference for one or more candidates on the party list, then Q21e may show answers to a question like this: "Did you simply vote for a party or did you also express a candidate preference?" In party list systems where voters have to vote directly for a candidate and cannot cast a vote just for the party list as such (e.g. Estonia, Finland, the Netherlands, Poland), the question for Q21e should read like this: "Do you consider the vote that you cast merely a vote for the party, or did you also mean it as a vote for a particular candidate?" .................................................................. 0. CANDIDATE PREFERENCE VOTE IS NOT APPLICABLE 1. RESPONDENT EXERCISED CANDIDATE PREFERENCE 5. RESPONDENT DID NOT EXERCISE CANDIDATE PREFERENCE 6. RESPONDENT CAST INVALID BALLOT 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | NOTES: C3026 | | Data are not available for AUSTRALIA (2007), BRAZIL (2010), | CHILE (2009), FINLAND (2007), GREECE (2009), UNITED STATES | (2008). | | The coding of C3026 depends on C3021_1. Responses are kept for | voters, according to C3021_1 (is not code 5). | For further details see Variable Note on C3021_. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C3026 | | The question was not asked as such in the multiple election | of 2006. However, the variable was created using the original | answers to the question which candidate the respondent had | voted for in the lower house election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2010): C3026 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 06. Invalid or empty ballot. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C3026 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C3026 | | Question text: "V520 Did you vote for the first candidate | on the party list or for another candidate?" | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Other candidate | 02. First candidate | 08. Don't know / no answer --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3027_PR>>> Q22a. DID R CONSIDER VOTING FOR OTHERS, PRESIDENT C3027_LH>>> Q22a. DID R CONSIDER VOTING FOR OTHERS, LOWER HOUSE C3027_UH>>> Q22a. DID R CONSIDER VOTING FOR OTHERS, UPPER HOUSE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q22a. Did you consider voting for any other [party or parties/candidate or candidates]? In the case of simultaneous elections (for instance, both presidential and parliamentary [Lower and/or Upper house contest), question Q22a was repeated for each relevant election. See Election Study Notes for more information. .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | NOTES: C3027 | | Data are not available for CANADA (2008), CHILE (2009), SOUTH | KOREA (2008), TAIWAN (2008). | | The CSES questionnaire skips non-voters, according to | C3021_1-C3021_2, from C3027_PR-C3027_UH, as well as from the | follow-up questions C3028_PR_1-C3028_UH_9. In contrast, several | country studies asked these questions to all respondents, | irrespective of their current electoral participation. | These data have been cleaned, according to the CSES skip pattern | structure. | | See Variable Notes on C3021, in addition. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C3027_LH | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 08. Don't know / Not answered | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C3027_LH | | Note that in the case of New Zealand this variable refers to | both party and candidate vote. If respondents considered voting | for either party or candidate, the question was coded with | 1 - yes. | | To distinguish between party and candidate vote considerations | of respondents, researchers are advised to look at | C3028_LH_1-8. Within C3028_LH_1 to C3028_LH_4 respondents' | answers to the question if they considered for other party | votes are included. C3028_LH_5 to C3028_LH_9 is meant for | respondents' answers to the question if they considered for | other candidate votes. See also note C3028_LH_01-C3028_LH_08. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2008): C3027_LH | | A question on C3027_LH was not included in the Spanish | questionnaire of origin. Instead C3027_LH was produced out of | C3028_LH_1 through C3028_LH_5. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C3027_LH | | The Swiss 2007 election was held simultaneously for both lower | and upper houses (with the exception of 5 of the 46 seats of | this last one). However, the employed question to measure the | current variable makes explicit reference to the lower chamber. | The translation is: "At the recent National Council elections, | did you consider the possibility of voting for some other party | than the one you actually voted for?" | | Also, please take note that this variable was asked to a subset | of the sample which responded to a follow-up mail/online | questionnaire. See study description and variable note C1007 | for further details. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESIDENT C3028_PR_1 >>> Q22b. R DID CONSIDER VOTING FOR OTHERS-FIRST MENTION C3028_PR_2 >>> Q22b. R DID CONSIDER VOTING FOR OTHERS-SECOND MENTION C3028_PR_3 >>> Q22b. R DID CONSIDER VOTING FOR OTHERS-THIRD MENTION C3028_PR_4 >>> Q22b. R DID CONSIDER VOTING FOR OTHERS-FOURTH MENTION LOWER HOUSE C3028_LH_1 >>> Q22b. R DID CONSIDER VOTING FOR OTHERS-FIRST MENTION C3028_LH_2 >>> Q22b. R DID CONSIDER VOTING FOR OTHERS-SECOND MENTION C3028_LH_3 >>> Q22b. R DID CONSIDER VOTING FOR OTHERS-THIRD MENTION C3028_LH_4 >>> Q22b. R DID CONSIDER VOTING FOR OTHERS-FOURTH MENTION C3028_LH_5 >>> Q22b. R DID CONSIDER VOTING FOR OTHERS-FIFTH MENTION C3028_LH_6 >>> Q22b. R DID CONSIDER VOTING FOR OTHERS-SIXTH MENTION C3028_LH_7 >>> Q22b. R DID CONSIDER VOTING FOR OTHERS-SEVENTH MENTION C3028_LH_8 >>> Q22b. R DID CONSIDER VOTING FOR OTHERS-EIGHTH MENTION C3028_LH_9 >>> Q22b. R DID CONSIDER VOTING FOR OTHERS-NINTH MENTION UPPER HOUSE C3028_UH_1 >>> Q22b. R DID CONSIDER VOTING FOR OTHERS-FIRST MENTION C3028_UH_2 >>> Q22b. R DID CONSIDER VOTING FOR OTHERS-SECOND MENTION C3028_UH_3 >>> Q22b. R DID CONSIDER VOTING FOR OTHERS-THIRD MENTION C3028_UH_4 >>> Q22b. R DID CONSIDER VOTING FOR OTHERS-FOURTH MENTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q22b. Which ones? In the case of simultaneous elections (for instance, both presidential and parliamentary [Lower and/or Upper house contest), question Q22b was repeated for each relevant election. See Election Study Notes for more information. .................................................................. 01-88. [SEE APPENDIX I FOR PARTY AND LEADER CODES] 89. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 90. OTHER PARTY/CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 91. NONE OF THE PARTIES/CANDIDATES 92. R CAST INVALID BALLOT 93. R CAST BLANC BALLOT 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | NOTES: C3028_ | | Data are not available for CANADA (2008), CHILE (2009), SOUTH | KOREA (2008), TAIWAN (2008). | | In the original questionnaire these questions were intended to | capture spontaneous answers, with the respondent mentioning a | set of parties, and the recorded values indicating the order of | response. However, some studies have been asking these questions | with a predetermined list of political parties, and asking about | one party at a time. By asking these questions in this way, the | order of the responses is lost. | | Table: Summary of Availability of Preference Order. | | Yes NO | | POLITY NAME (ELEC YEAR) | | AUSTRALIA (2007) X | AUSTRIA (2008) X | BELARUS (2008) X | BRAZIL (2006) X | BRAZIL (2010) X | CANADA (2008) - - | CHILE (2009) - - | CROATIA (2007) X | CZECH REPUBLIC (2006) X | CZECH REPUBLIC (2010) X | DENMARK (2007) X | ESTONIA (2011) X | FINLAND (2007) X | FINLAND (2011) X | FRANCE (2007) X | GERMANY (2005) X | GERMANY (2009) X | GREECE (2009) X | HONG KONG (2008) X | ICELAND (2007) X | ICELAND (2009) X | IRELAND (2007) X | ISRAEL (2006) X | JAPAN (2007) X | LATVIA (2010) X | MEXICO (2006) X | MEXICO (2009) X | NETHERLANDS (2006) X | NETHERLANDS (2010) X | NEW ZEALAND (2008) X | NORWAY (2005) X | NORWAY (2009) X | PERU (2011) X | PHILIPPINES (2010) X | POLAND (2005) X | POLAND (2007) X | PORTUGAL (2009) X | ROMANIA (2009) X | SLOVAKIA (2010) X | SLOVENIA (2008) X | SOUTH AFRICA (2009) X | SOUTH KOREA (2008) - - | SPAIN (2008) X | SWEDEN (2006) X | SWITZERLAND (2007) X | TAIWAN (2008) - - | THAILAND (2007) X | TURKEY (2011) X | UNITED STATES (2008) X | URUGUAY (2009) X | | Additionally, when asked about one party at a time, a minority | of respondents end up mentioning many more parties than usual. | To avoid adding many columns with extremely sparse data, we have | included up to 9 variables for C3028_LH with the intention to | secure registering, if applicable, responses that refer to | parties A through I. | Moreover, whenever a respondent mentioned more than 9 parties | we included only those responses that refer to parties | A to I. With this coding rule, we are only dropping the | responses from two survey respondents (each from Finland and | Sweden). | | The coding on C3028_ depends on C3027_. Respondents that | mentioned not having considered to vote for someone else (C3027 | is code 5) are excluded from C3028_. | | See also variable note on C3027_PR-C3027_UH. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C3028_LH | | The Australian questionnaire of 2007 allowed mentioning of only | one party respondents would have voted for. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C3028_LH | | The question was not asked open-ended. Instead, respondents | could choose their answer from a party list with seven parties | and the options "other party" and "no party". Respondents who | answered "no party" but had reported that they had considered | voting for others were coded as missing. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C3028_LH | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C3028_UH | | Brazil has a party-list proportional system with seats | allocated according to the simple quotient and highest average | calculations. Respondents were asked for their alternative vote | choice of deputy or senate candidates, respectively. The | variable was later created by using the respective candidates' | party affiliations. Since giving a candidate preference is | optional for the voter, the data in this variable contains a lot | of missing values. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 90. The party affiliation of the mentioned name was | not found. The person could be either an | independent candidate or the answer might be | inappropriate. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CROATIA (2007): C3028_LH | | The Croatian questionnaire of 2007 allowed respondents to | mention up to five parties. However, no more than three | mentions were given by any single respondent. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2010): C3028_LH | | Although answers reflect the order in which respondents answered | this question, respondents were provided with a list of parties | which ran in the election and they answered with that list in | mind. The order of responses might thus reflect the order in the | list. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C3028_LH_ | | The Danish questionnaire asks C3028_LH_ for each party, | separately. Thus, a preference order in C3028_LH_ is not | applicable. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2007): C3028_LH | | Finland provided a closed-list of answers in which up to four | parties could be chosen by respondents. Instead of providing a | choice rank 1-4 here, in C3028_1 are respondents' answers with | one or more choices; in C3028_2 those with 2 or more; in C3028_3 | the ones who chose 3 or more and in C3028_4 those who chose 4 | parties. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C3028_LH | | The German questionnaire of 2005 allowed mentioning only one | party respondents would have voted for. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C3028_LH | | Researchers should note that in contrast to | the CSES coding scheme, referring to parties, the original | answers had been candidate mentions. Compared to C3023_LH_DC, | C3028_LH_ also includes candidates' parties outside respondents' | geographical constituencies. | For further information see variable note on C3023_LH_DC. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007): C3028_LH | | Note that all persons who refused to answer if they did | consider voting for another party (C3027_LH) or answered | "don't know" to this question, have the same answer codes | in the follow-up question C3028_LH_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C3028_LH | | The Polish study of 2007 used a closed list to ask for | C3028_LH_1. Respondents who mentioned a party out of this list | were coded as "OTHER PARTY" (for more detail see Codebook | Appendices). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): C3028_UH | | Rather than an open-ended question, Japan provides a closed- | list for the five major Japanese parties. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C3028_LH | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 98. Don't know / no answer | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C3028_LH | | The Dutch survey reports this question separately for each | party. The variables for C3028 do not reflect any preference | order, but rather, if each party was mentioned by respondents. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 98. Don't know / Not answered | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C3028_LH | | Respondents' choices of "other parties" appear in variables | C3028_LH_1 - C3028_LH_4 if they chose from 1 up to 4 other | parties. | | C3028_LH_5 - C3028_LH_8 were used as variables for the choice | of other candidates from the candidate list vote. | C3028_LH_5 contains respondents' one "other choice", | C3028_6 a second "other choice", and so forth up to C3028_LH_8 | with respondents' fourth "other choices" but all not rank | ordered. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 90. Means that the person chose one of the "other | parties" or "other candidates" which are not | represented in parties 1-8 "Legalize Cannabis", | "Family", "Kiwi", "Libertarianz", "NZ Pacific", | "Bill and Ben", "Workers" and "Other party, | not specified". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C3028_LH | | The Norwegian questionnaire of 2005 allowed mentioning only one | party respondents would have voted for. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C3028_LH | | Note that the question on C3028_LH was asked separately for each | of the eight major Norwegian parties. Thus, a rank order of | response is not applicable. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): C3028_LH_1- C3028_LH | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C3028_LH_1- C3028_LH | | Note that the Polish studies used closed lists to ask | respondents about parties they considered voting for in the | Lower House. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2009): C3028_LH | | The South African questionnaire of origin asked for each single | party separately. As a consequence, preference order is not | applicable. Moreover, even though respondents had to respond for | each party, none of them mentioned more than two parties in the | variable set of C3028_LH. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2008): C3028_LH_ | | Questions on C3028_LH_ were asked separately for each of the | major parties, as reported in the current codebook appendices. | Consequently, C3028_LH_1 through C3028_LH_5 do not reflect any | preference order of respondents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C3028_LH | | Sweden asked this question separately for each party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C3028_LH | | This variable was applied differently in the Switzerland survey. | Respondents were asked whether they considered voting for each | party separately. | Additionally, responses make reference to lower house contest. | See note C3027_LH for further details. | However, the additional mention variables C3028_LH_5 to | C3028_LH_9 refer to party mentions. | Also notice that this variable was asked to a subset of the | sample which responded by a follow-up mail/online questionnaire. | See study description and variable note C1007 for further | details. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C3028_LH | | The additional mention variables C3028_LH_5 to C3028_LH_8 refer | to party mentions. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): C3028_LH_ | | Note that the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP, code 4) did not | run for election as an officially listed party. Instead, their | members contested as independent candidates. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3029_PR >>> Q22c. ARE THERE OTHERS FOR WHICH R WOULD NEVER VOTE, PRESIDENT C3029_LH >>> Q22c. ARE THERE OTHERS FOR WHICH R WOULD NEVER VOTE, LOWER HOUSE C3029_UH >>> Q22c. ARE THERE OTHERS FOR WHICH R WOULD NEVER VOTE, UPPER HOUSE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q22c. And were there any [party or parties/candidate or candidates] that you would never vote for? In the case of simultaneous elections (for instance, both presidential and parliamentary [Lower and/or Upper house contest), question Q22c was repeated for each relevant election. See Election Study Notes for more information. .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | NOTES: C3029 | | Data are not available for CHILE (2009), FRANCE (2007), NORWAY | (2005), SOUTH KOREA (2008), TAIWAN (2008). | | The CSES questionnaire of origin skips non-voters, according to | C3021_1-C3021_2, from C3029_PR-C3029_UH, as well as from the | follow-up questions C3030_PR_1-C3030_UH_4. | In contrast, several country studies asked these questions to | all respondents, irrespective of their current electoral | participation. | These data remained unchanged. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CROATIA (2007): C3029_LH | | The original CSES questionnaire instructs interviewers to ask | this question to each person, no matter if the respondent | participated in the current election or not. However, in the | case of Croatia, C3029_LH was only asked to current voters. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C3029_LH | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C3029_LH | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 98. Don't know / no answer | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2008): C3029_LH | | A question on C3029_LH was not included in the Spanish | questionnaire of origin. Instead C3029_LH was produced out of | C3030_LH_1 through C3030_LH_9. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C3029_LH | | The Swiss 2007 election was held simultaneously for both lower | and upper houses (with the exception of 5 of the 46 seats of | this last one). However, the question (translated as "Is | there one or more parties that you would not ever vote for?") | was applied immediately after variables C3027_LH and C3028_LH, | which explicitly refers to the lower chamber in the question | wording. See note C3027_LH for further details. | Also notice that this variable was asked to a subset of the | sample which responded by a follow-up mail/online questionnaire. | See study description and variable note C1007 for further | details. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESIDENT C3030_PR_1 >>> Q22d. OTHERS FOR WHICH R WOULD NEVER VOTE-FIRST MENTION C3030_PR_2 >>> Q22d. OTHERS FOR WHICH R WOULD NEVER VOTE-SECOND MENTION C3030_PR_3 >>> Q22d. OTHERS FOR WHICH R WOULD NEVER VOTE-THIRD MENTION C3030_PR_4 >>> Q22d. OTHERS FOR WHICH R WOULD NEVER VOTE-FOURTH MENTION LOWER HOUSE C3030_LH_1 >>> Q22d. OTHERS FOR WHICH R WOULD NEVER VOTE-FIRST MENTION C3030_LH_2 >>> Q22d. OTHERS FOR WHICH R WOULD NEVER VOTE-SECOND MENTION C3030_LH_3 >>> Q22d. OTHERS FOR WHICH R WOULD NEVER VOTE-THIRD MENTION C3030_LH_4 >>> Q22d. OTHERS FOR WHICH R WOULD NEVER VOTE-FOURTH MENTION C3030_LH_5 >>> Q22d. OTHERS FOR WHICH R WOULD NEVER VOTE-FIFTH MENTION C3030_LH_6 >>> Q22d. OTHERS FOR WHICH R WOULD NEVER VOTE-SIXTH MENTION C3030_LH_7 >>> Q22d. OTHERS FOR WHICH R WOULD NEVER VOTE-SEVENTH MENTION C3030_LH_8 >>> Q22d. OTHERS FOR WHICH R WOULD NEVER VOTE-EIGHTH MENTION C3030_LH_9 >>> Q22d. OTHERS FOR WHICH R WOULD NEVER VOTE-NINTH MENTION UPPER HOUSE C3030_UH_1 >>> Q22d. OTHERS FOR WHICH R WOULD NEVER VOTE-FIRST MENTION C3030_UH_2 >>> Q22d. OTHERS FOR WHICH R WOULD NEVER VOTE-SECOND MENTION C3030_UH_3 >>> Q22d. OTHERS FOR WHICH R WOULD NEVER VOTE-THIRD MENTION C3030_UH_4 >>> Q22d. OTHERS FOR WHICH R WOULD NEVER VOTE-FOURTH MENTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q22d. Which ones? In the case of simultaneous elections (for instance, both presidential and parliamentary [Lower and/or Upper house contest), question Q22d was repeated for each relevant election. See Election Study Notes for more information. .................................................................. 01-88. [SEE APPENDIX I FOR PARTY AND LEADER CODES] 89. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 90. OTHER PARTY/CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 91. NONE OF THE PARTIES/CANDIDATES 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | NOTES: C3030 | | Data are not available for FRANCE (2007), NORWAY (2005), SOUTH | KOREA (2008), TAIWAN (2008). | | In the original questionnaire these questions were intended to | capture spontaneous answers, with the respondent mentioning a | set of parties, and the recorded values indicating the order of | response. However, some studies asked these questions | with a predetermined list of political parties, and asked about | one party at a time. By asking these questions in this way, the | order of the responses is lost. | | Table: Summary of Availability of Preference Order. | | Yes NO | | POLITY NAME (ELEC YEAR) | | AUSTRALIA (2007) X | AUSTRIA (2008) X | BELARUS (2008) X | BRAZIL (2006) X | BRAZIL (2010) X | CANADA (2008) X | CHILE (2009) - - | CROATIA (2007) X | CZECH REPUBLIC (2006) X | CZECH REPUBLIC (2010) X | DENMARK (2007) X | ESTONIA (2011) X | FINLAND (2007) X | FINLAND (2011) X | FRANCE (2007) - - | GERMANY (2005) X | GERMANY (2009) X | GREECE (2009) X | HONG KONG (2008) X | ICELAND (2007) X | ICELAND (2009) X | IRELAND (2007) X | ISRAEL (2006) X | JAPAN (2007) X | LATVIA (2010) X | MEXICO (2006) X | MEXICO (2009) X | NETHERLANDS (2006) X | NETHERLANDS (2010) X | NEW ZEALAND (2008) X | NORWAY (2005) - - | NORWAY (2009) X | PERU (2011) X | PHILIPPINES (2010) X | POLAND (2005) X | POLAND (2007) X | PORTUGAL (2009) X | ROMANIA (2009) X | SLOVAKIA (2010) X | SLOVENIA (2008) X | SOUTH AFRICA (2009) X | SOUTH KOREA (2008) - - | SPAIN (2008) X | SWEDEN (2006) X | SWITZERLAND (2007) X | TAIWAN (2008) - - | THAILAND (2007) X | TURKEY (2011) X | UNITED STATES (2008) X | URUGUAY (2009) X | | Additionally, when asked about one party at a time, a minority | of respondents end up mentioning many more parties than usual. | To avoid adding many columns with extremely sparse data, we have | included up to 9 variables with the intention to secure | registering, if applicable, responses that refer to parties A | through I. Moreover, whenever a respondent mentioned more than | 9 parties we included only those responses that refer to parties | A to I. With this coding rule we are only dropping less than | 1% of the responses contained in the entire sample. | | The coding on C3030_ depends on C3029_. Respondents that | mentioned that there are no parties they would never vote for | (C3027 is code 5) are excluded from C3030_. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C3030_LH | | Australia asked this question separately for each party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C3030_LH | | The question was not open-ended. Instead, respondents | could choose their answer from a party list with seven parties | and the option "other party". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C3030_LH | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C3030_UH | | Brazil has a party-list proportional system with seats | allocated according to the simple quotient and highest average | calculations. Respondents were asked for the deputy or senate | candidate for whom they would never vote for. The variable was | later created by using the respective candidates' party | affiliations. Since giving a candidate preference is optional | for the voter, the data in this variable contains a lot of | missing values. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 90. The party affiliation of the mentioned name | was not found. The person could be either an | independent candidate or the answer might be | inappropriate. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CROATIA (2007): C3030_LH | | The Croatian questionnaire followed the implementation for CSES | closely, allowing respondents up to five party mentions at most. | However, no more than four parties have been mentioned by any | single respondent. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2010): C3030_LH | | Although answers reflect the order in which respondents answered | this question, respondents were provided with a list of parties | which ran in the election and they answered with that list in | mind. The order of responses might thus reflect the order in the | list. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C3030_LH_ | | The Danish questionnaire asks C3030_LH_ for each party, | separately. Thus, a preference order in C3030_LH_ is not | applicable. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2007): C3030_LH | | Rather than an open-ended question, Finland provided a | closed-list from which respondents could choose as many answers | as they wished. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C3030_LH | | The German questionnaire of 2005 asked this question separately | for each of the parties which contested in the national | election. | The additional mention variables C3030_LH_5 to C3030_LH_9 refer | to party mentions. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C3030_LH | | Variables C3030_LH_5 to C3030_LH_9 refer to additional mentions | of parties respondent would never vote for. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C3030_LH | | Researchers should note that in contrast to | the given coding schema, referring to parties, the original | answers had been candidate mentions. Compared to C3023_LH_DC, | C3030_LH_ also includes candidates' parties outside respondents' | geographical constituencies. | For further information see variable note on C3023_LH_DC. | Moreover, according to the explanations of our collaborators, | the label "'independents' in Hong Kong means 'not affiliated | with any political parties' and does not necessarily mean that | the candidates' political inclinations are different from those | of major political parties". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): C3030_UH | | Rather than an open-ended question, Japan provides a closed- | list for the five major Japanese parties (see codebook | appendices). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C3030_LH | | The Dutch survey reports this question separately for each | party. Up to 13 mentions were recorded. CSES retained mentions | of parties A through I. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 98. Don't know / no answer | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C3030_LH | | The Dutch survey reports this question separately for each | party. Up to 11 mentions were recorded. CSES dropped mentions | of the category "Others", and of the party with lowest vote | return (Trots op Nederland, Rita Verdonk). The variables for | C3030_LH do not reflect any preference order, but rather, if | each party was mentioned by respondents. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 98. Don't know / Not answered | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C3030_LH | | Respondents' choices of "parties never vote for" appear in | variables C3028_LH_1 - C3028_LH_4 if they chose from 1 up to 4 | other parties. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 90. Means that the person chose one of the "other | parties" or "other candidates" which are not | represented in parties 1-8 "Legalize Cannabis", | "Family", "Kiwi", "Libertarianz", "NZ Pacific", | "Bill and Ben", "Workers" and "Other party, not | specified". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C3030_LH | | Note that the question on C3030_LH was asked separately for each | of the eight major Norwegian parties. Thus, a rank order of | response is not applicable. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): C3030_LH_1 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C3030_LH_1 | | Note that the Polish studies used closed lists to ask | respondents about parties they would never vote for in the Lower | House. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2009): C3030_LH | | The South African questionnaire of origin asked for each single | party separately. As a consequence, preference order is not | applicable. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2008): C3030_LH_ | | Questions on C3030_LH_ were asked separately for each of the | major parties, as reported in the current codebook appendices. | Consequently, C3030_LH_1 through C3030_LH_7 do not reflect any | preference order of respondents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C3030_LH | | Sweden asked this question separately for each party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C3030_LH | | This variable was applied differently in the Switzerland survey. | Respondents were asked which parties they would not vote for | by asking for each party separately. | Additionally, responses make reference to lower house contest. | See note C3029_LH for further details. | Also note that this variable was asked to a subset of the | sample which responded by a follow-up mail/online questionnaire. | See study description and variable note C1007 for further | details. | However, the additional mention variables C3030_LH_5 to | C3030_LH_9 refer to party mentions. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C3030_LH | | The additional mention variables C3030_LH_5 to | C3030_LH_8 refer to party mentions. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): C3030_LH_ | | Note that the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP, code 4) did not | run for election as an officially listed party. Instead, their | members contested as independent candidates. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3031 >>> Q23. PREVIOUS ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q23. The wording of this item, which is to record voting in the previous national election, follows national standards. This item ascertains whether or not the respondent cast a ballot, regardless of whether or not it was valid in the PREVIOUS election. .................................................................. 1. RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT 5. RESPONDENT DID NOT CAST A BALLOT 6. VOLUNTEERED: NOT ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN LAST ELECTION 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | NOTES: C3031 | | Data are not available for AUSTRIA (2008), PORTUGAL (2009), | SOUTH AFRICA (2009), SPAIN (2008), TAIWAN (2008). | | Table: Summary of Type and Year of Previous Election. | | President Lower House Upper House | | POLITY NAME (ELEC YEAR) | | AUSTRALIA (2007) 2004 | AUSTRIA (2008) - - - | BELARUS (2008) 2006 2004 | BRAZIL (2006) 2002 | BRAZIL (2010) 2006 2006 2006 | CANADA (2008) 2006 | CHILE (2009) 2006 | CROATIA (2007) 2005 2003 | CZECH REPUBLIC (2006) 2002 | CZECH REPUBLIC (2010) 2006 | DENMARK (2007) 2005 | ESTONIA (2011) 2007 | FINLAND (2007) 2003 | FINLAND (2011) 2007 | FRANCE (2007) 2007 | GERMANY (2005) 2002 | GERMANY (2009) 2005 | GREECE (2009) 2007 | HONG KONG (2008) 2004 | ICELAND (2007) 2003 | ICELAND (2009) 2007 | IRELAND (2007) 2002 | ISRAEL (2006) 2003 | JAPAN (2007) 2005* 2005 | LATVIA (2010) 2006 | MEXICO (2006) 2003 | MEXICO (2009) 2006* 2006 | NETHERLANDS (2006) 2003 | NETHERLANDS (2010) 2006 | NEW ZEALAND (2008) 2005 | NORWAY (2005) 2001 | NORWAY (2009) 2005 | PERU (2011) 2006 | PHILIPPINES (2010) 2004 | POLAND (2005) 2001 | POLAND (2007) 2005 2005 | PORTUGAL (2009) - - - | ROMANIA (2009) 2008 (2008) | SLOVAKIA (2010) 2006 | SLOVENIA (2008) 2004 | SOUTH AFRICA (2009) - - - | SOUTH KOREA (2008) 2007 | SPAIN (2008) - - - | SWEDEN (2006) | SWITZERLAND (2007) 2003 | TAIWAN (2008) 2004 | THAILAND (2007) 2005 | TURKEY (2011) 2007 | UNITED STATES (2008) 2004 | URUGUAY (2009) 2004 2004 2004 | | * Ballot Cast mentioned in C3031 | | Not that the above table refers to the entire bloc of | C3031-C3032_ items. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C3031 | | Australia has compulsory voting, hence this questions was not | part of the Australian questionnaire in 2007. C3031 was | created using the actual vote choice for the House of | Representatives (B17), defining all observations as non- voters | that did not report a vote choice, according to C3032_LH_DC. | Researchers should note that some of the included | non-voters in C3031 might not have been eligible to participate | in the previous election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C3031 | | This variable was dropped in the Austrian Election Study because | of the late timing of the study and the considered likelihood | of inaccurate recall. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C3031 | | Although elections on multiple levels took place on the same | day, this question did not further specify the election nor the | ballot cast (1 or 2). | As the follow-up question "whom did you vote for" was asked for | all electoral levels (presidential, legislative candidate etc.) | separately, it is also not impossible to draw conclusions to | which part of the election respondents probably refer to with | C3021_1. Also see C3021_1. | Also note that due to compulsory voting, non-voters have to | officially justify non-voting behavior on election day, if e.g. | they are absent from the city where they are registered. If for | other reasons they do not vote, and do not justify this, they | get fined with a symbolic amount of about US$2. | The original election study data from Brazil contained more | specific information for those who did not vote. For the sake | of comparability, these were all collapsed under value 5 as | detailed below: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Yes | 05. No, more than 70 years old | (voting then voluntary) | No, between 16 and 17 years old (voting | (voting then voluntary) | No, I did not want to | No, I had to justify the absence | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C3031 | | C3031 refers to the first round of presidential elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C3031 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C3031 | | Note that this question was part of the first wave, i.e. | pre-election, survey. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 08. Don't know / no answer | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C3031 | | The questionnaire of origin asked about the participation the | following way: | "So in the last ‘Storting' election in 2001. Who did you vote | for? ", followed by a list of parties and the additional options | "Didn't have right to vote", "Wasn't able to vote/away", "Didn't | vote for other reasons", which were used to process C3031. | Moreover, Respondents who "refused" or mentioned "don't know" in | the question of origin were coded similar in C3031 and | C3032_LH_PL refers to the Norwegian parliament election in 2001. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2009): C3031 | | The Portuguese questions about the ballot cast and the vote | choice in the previous election refer to the EU parliamentary | (EP) election of June 7th, 2009. In general CSES does not | include data from any other electoral tier than the national | one. Hence, the information about previous Portuguese election | is not included. | Researchers, who are interested in the data about the EP- | election might get back to our Portuguese collaborators, as | listed in the introduction part of this codebook. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C3031 | | Note that C3031 refers to the legislative elections in 2008, | without any specific reference to the Lower or Upper House. | See also Election Study Notes on C3032_LH_DC. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C3031 | | Data for this variable are from self-reported behavior. | However, when compared to official registers, some cases | show differences between self-reported behavior and | actual behavior. Of the people who have mentioned having | voted, 94 did differently according to the official | records. Conversely, of the people having mentioned that | they did not vote, 12 have voted according to the official | records. As well, of the people who reported not having been | eligible to vote in the previous election 1 actually voted, | and last, 6 respondent have answered that they voted in the | previous elections despite but the official registers | indicate that they were not eligible. | The respondent id's of the 94 individuals who over reported | vote are (variable C1009): | 0000200028, 0000200086, 0000200306, 0000200338, 0000200348, | 0000200353, 0000200381, 0000200465, 0000200495, 0000200597, | 0000200630, 0000200645, 0000200672, 0000200851, 0000200928, | 0000200963, 0000201004, 0000201038, 0000201117, 0000201284, | 0000201326, 0000201330, 0000201396, 0000201403, 0000201440, | 0000201443, 0000201574, 0000201578, 0000201585, 0000201729, | 0000201750, 0000201862, 0000201913, 0000201964, 0000202108, | 0000202109, 0000202258, 0000202283, 0000202399, 0000221037, | 0000221048, 0000221055, 0000221082, 0000221112, 0000221120, | 0000221140, 0000221156, 0000221178, 0000221199, 0000221226, | 0000221250, 0000221252, 0000221292, 0000221307, 0000221310, | 0000221317, 0000221322, 0000221342, 0000221412, 0000221414, | 0000221430, 0000221431, 0000221455, 0000221492, 0000221495, | 0000221503, 0000221531, 0000221533, 0000221567, 0000221576, | 0000221578, 0000221635, 0000221643, 0000221655, 0000221663, | 0000221667, 0000221671, 0000221676, 0000221682, 0000221696, | 0000221740, 0000221768, 0000221777, 0000221778, 0000221796, | 0000221801, 0000221817, 0000221860, 0000221914, 0000221915, | 0000221934, 0000221952, 0000221970, 0000221974. | The respondent id's (C1009) of the 12 individuals who under- | reported, vote are (variable C1009):, 0000200520, 0000200605, | 0000200714, 0000200798, 0000200820, 0000200833, 0000200935, | 0000201502, 0000201650, 0000201844, 0000202144, 0000202444. | The respondent id's (C1009) of the 6 individuals who said | they voted, but were not eligible according to the official | registers, are (variable C1009): 0000210119, 0000210190, | 0000210194, 0000210199, 0000210202, 0000221746. | The respondent id of the individual said he/she was not | eligible to vote in the last elections, but voted according | to the official registers is: 0000202207. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): C3031 | | Note that voting is strictly compulsory in Uruguay (see | C5044_1). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3032_PR_1 >>> Q23a. PREVIOUS ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - PRESIDENT 1 C3032_PR_2 >>> Q23a. PREVIOUS ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - PRESIDENT 2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If applicable and respondent cast a ballot in the presidential election: Q23a. This variable reports the respondent's vote choice for president in the PREVIOUS election. .................................................................. 01-88. [SEE APPENDIX I FOR PARTY AND LEADER CODES] 89. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 90. OTHER CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 91. NONE OF THE CANDIDATES 92. R CAST INVALID BALLOT 93. R CAST BLANC BALLOT 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | NOTES: C3032 | | Data are not available for AUSTRIA (2008), PORTUGAL (2009), | SOUTH AFRICA (2009), SPAIN (2008). | | The coding of C3032_PR_ depends on C3031. Responses are kept | for voters, according to C3031 (is not code 5), if C3031 refers | to presidential elections. | For further details see Variable Note on C3031. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2008): C3032_PR_1 | | Note that C3031 refers to the district candidate vote choice of | the Lower House election (C3032_LH_DC). C3031 is thus no filter | variable for C3032_PR_1 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 04. A. Kazulin - Belarussian Social Democratic Party | 08. S. Gaidukevich - Liberal Democratic Party of | Belarus | 16. A. Milinkievic - United Democratic Forces of | Belarus | 17. A. Lukashenko | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C3032_PR_1 | | Note that the more detailed answers of non-voting | were recoded to the CSES standard: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. 01. Lula | 02. 02. José Serra | 03. 03. Antony Garotinho | 04. 04. Ciro Gomez | 05. 05. Zé Maria | | 92. 09. White Ballot | 98. 55. I don't remember | 77. I don't know | 99. 08. I voted none | 10. I did not vote | 99. Not answered | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C3032_PR_2 | | Note that the more detailed answers of non-voting | were recoded to the CSES standard: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. 01. Lula | 02. 02. Serra | | 92. 09. White Ballot | 98. 55. I don't remember | 77. I don't know | 99. 08. I voted none | 10. I did not vote | 99. Not answered | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C3032_PR_1 | | This variable reports the voting in the first round of the | 2006 presidential election. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 03. 2 Cristovam Buarque (PDT) | 04. 7 Lula (PT) | 08. 3 Geraldo Alckmin (PSDB) | 12. 1 Ana Maria Rangel (PRP) | 21. 5 José Maria Eymael (PSDC) | 26. 4 Heloísa Helena (PSOL) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C3032_PR_2 | | This variable reports the voting in the second round of the | 2006 presidential election. | Since C3031 reports voting in the first round of the | presidential elections, there are some respondents who | answered negatively to C3031 and reported vote choice in | C3032_PR_1. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 04. 02. Lula (PT) | 08. 01. Geraldo Alckmin (PSDB) | 92. 50. Invalidated vote | 93. 60. Blank vote | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009): C3032_PR_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Michelle Bachelet | 02. Sebastian Pinera | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CROATIA (2007): C3032_PR_1 | | Candidates of the previous presidential elections are | listed below. CSES codes reflect the parties as mentioned | in the codebook appendices. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Jadranka Kosor (HDZ) | 02. Stjepan Mesic (HNS) | 03. Doris Kosta (HSS) | 04. Ðurda Adlesic (HSLS) | 05. Slaven Letica (HSP) | 11. Anto Kovacevic (HKDU) | 12. Ivic Pasalic (HB) | 13. Tomislav Petrak (HPS) | 14. Miroslav Rajh (HSM) | 85. Miroslav Blazevic (Independent) | 86. Ljubo Sesic (Independent) | 87. Mladen Keser (Independent) | 88. Boris Miksic (Independent) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C3032_PR_1 | | This question refers to the first round of the 2007 presidential | elections. In France this was a close-ended question with | the following choices (in randomized order): | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Dominique Voynet | 02. Olivier Besancenot | 03. Marie-George Buffet | 04. Ségolène Royal | 05. François Bayrou | 06. Nicolas Sarkozy | 07. Jean-Marie Le Pen | 09. Philippe de Villiers | 10. Frédéric Nihous | 11. Arlette Laguiller | 12. José Bové | 13. Gérard Schivardi | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C3032_PR_2 | | This question refers to the second round of the 2007 | presidential elections. In France this was a close-ended | question with the following choices (in randomized order): | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 04. Ségolène Royal | 06. Nicolas Sarkozy | | Note that C3031 refers to the first round of the presidential | elections. Instead, C3032_PR_2 includes the vote choice of | several respondents who said no in C3031. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C3032_PR_1 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Roberto Madrazo / PRI-PVEM | 02. Felipe Calderón Hinojosa / PAN | 03. López Obrador / PRD-PT-Convergencia | 06. Roberto Campa / Nueva Alianza | 08. Patricia Mercado / Alternativa | | Andrés Manuel López Obrador was the candidate of the left-wing | Coalition for the Good of All, which grouped PRD, PT and | Convergencia. Roberto Madrazo ran as the candidate of the | Alliance for Mexico coalition which joined the PRI and PVEM. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C3032_PR_1-C3032_PR_2 | | Note that the Polish study of 2007 used closed lists to ask | respondents about their previous vote choice for the | Presidential Election of 2005. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Henryka Bochniarz | 02. Marek Borowski | 04. Maciej Giertych | 06. Lech Kaczynski | 07. Jaroslaw Kalinowski | 08. Janusz Korwin-Mikke | 09. Andrzej Lepper | 12. Adam Slomka | 13. Donald Tusk | | Note that C3031 refers to the first round of the presidential | elections. Instead, C3032_PR_2 includes the vote choice of | several respondents who said no in C3031. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2008): C3032_PR_1 | | Response codes represent the party of each competing candidate. | The candidates were: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Jung, Dong-Young | 02. Lee, Myeong-Bak | 03. Lee, Hoi-Chang | 04. Kwon, Young-Ghil | 05. Moon, Kuk-Hyun | 08. Lee, In-Je | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C3032_PR_1 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Lien Chan and James Soong (KMT) | 02. Chen Shu-Bian and Anette Lu (DPP) | 98. forgot --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3032_LH_PL >>> Q23B. PREVIOUS ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE LOWER HOUSE - PARTY LIST C3032_LH_DC >>> Q23C. PREVIOUS ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE LOWER HOUSE - DISTRICT CANDIDATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- q23b. If applicable and respondent cast a ballot in the Lower House legislative election: The Q23b item reports the respondent's vote choice for party list and/or district candidate in the PREVIOUS election. .................................................................. 01-88. [SEE APPENDIX I FOR PARTY AND LEADER CODES] 89. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 90. OTHER PARTY/CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 91. NONE OF THE PARTIES/CANDIDATES 92. R CAST INVALID BALLOT 93. R CAST BLANC BALLOT 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | NOTES: C3032 | | Data are not available for AUSTRIA (2008), PORTUGAL (2009), | SOUTH AFRICA (2009), SPAIN (2008). | | The coding of C3032_LH_ depends on C3031. Responses are kept | for voters, according to C3031 (is not code 5), if C3031 refers | to Lower House elections. | For further details see Variable Note on C3031. | | If party codes are not listed in the ELECTION STUDY NOTES, users | should fall back on the codes listed in the party tables of the | appendices. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C3032_LH_PL | | This variable was dropped in the Austrian Election Study because | of the late timing of the study and the likelihood of inaccurate | recall. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2008): C3032_LH_DC | | Note that most of the Belarusian opposition parties are | unregistered. Hence, we are not able to provide information | about the party affiliations of candidates. | | CSES Code Election Study Category/Categories: | 01. M.I. Rusyi (Agrarian Party of Belarus) | 04. S.S. Shushkevich (Belarusian social-democratic | party - Hramada) | 06. Karpenko (Communist Party of Belarus) | 08. S.V. Gaidukevich (Liberal Democratic party) | 09. A.B. Lebedko (The Unified Civil Party) | 50. Shatko (No information) | 51. Janukovich (No information) | 52. Vnuchko (No information) | 53. Marachkin (No information) | 54. Vorontsevich (No information) | 55. Korol (No information) | 56. Shekel (No Information) | 70. Glukhovskyi (Independent candidate) | 71. Khrol (Independent candidate) | 72. Isaev (Independent candidate) | 73. Abramova (Independent candidate) | 74. Goncharenko ((Independent candidate) | 75. Pàvlovich (Independent candidate) | 76. Zdanovich (Independent candidate) | 77. Kachan (Independent candidate) | 78. Soloviev (Independent candidate) | 79. Belashevskyi (Independent candidate) | 80. Orda (Independent candidate) | 81. Dubovik (Independent candidate) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C3032_LH | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C3032_LH | | Respondents were asked for their vote of deputy candidate, but | the candidates' party was not reported. This variable | could not be used in this study. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2006): C3032_LH_PL | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Národne demokratická strana | National Democratic Party | 02. Demokratická liga | Democratic League | 03. Ceská strana sociálne demokratická | Czech Social Democratic Party (CSSD) | 04. Balbínova poetická strana | Balbin Poetic Party | 05. Obcanská demokratická alliance | Civic Democratic Alliance (ODA) | 06. Volba pro budoucnost | Vote for Future | 07. Humanistická aliance | Humanistic Alliance | 09. Nadeje | Hope | 10. Nové hnutí | New Movement | 11. Republikáni Miroslava Sládka | Republicans of Miroslav Sladek | 12. Cesta zmeny | The Way of Change | 13. Ceská strana národne sociální | Czech National Social Party | 14. Romská obcanská iniciativa CR | Roma Civic Initiative | 15. Strana zdravého rozumu | Common Sense Party | 17. Ceskoslovenská strana socialistická (CS) | Czechoslovak Socialist Party | 20. Republikáni | Republicans | 21. Sdruzení nezávislých | Association of Independents | 22. Obcanská demokratická strana | Civic Democratic Party (ODS) | 23. Komunistická strana Cech a Moravy | Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia (KSCM) | 24. Moravská demokratická strana | Moravian Democratic Party | 25. Koalice KDU-CSL, US-DEU | Coalition KDU-CSL and US-DEU | KDU-CSL - Krestanská a demokratická unie- | Ceskoslovenská strana lidová - US-DEU - | Unie svobody-Demokratická unie | Christian Democratic Union-Czechoslovak Peoples' | party - Freedom Union-Democratic Union | 26. Strana za zivotní jistoty | Party for Life Securities | 27. Pravý Blok | Right Block | 28. Strana zelených | Green Party | | Note that party 17 only existed until 1993 with this name. | Its successor in Czech Republic is party 13 "Ceská strana | národne sociální" - Czech National Social Party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2010): C3032_LH_PL | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Strana zdraveho rozumu | Common Sense Party | 02. Ceske hnuti za narodni jednotu | Czech Movement for National Unity | 03. Balbinova poeticka strana | Balbin Poetic Party | 04. Liberalni reformni strana | Liberal Reform Party | 05. Pravo a Spravedlnost | Law and Justice | 06. Nezávislí (independents) | 07. Ceska pravice | Czech Right | 08. Koruna Ceska (monarch.strana) | Czech Crown (royal party) | 09. Obcanska demokraticka strana | Civic Democratic Party (ODS) | 10. Ceska strana socialne demokraticka | Czech Social Democratic Party (CSSD) | 11. SNK Evropsti demokrate | SNK European Democrats (SNK ED) | 12. Unie svobody-Demokraticka unie | Freedom Union-Democratic Union (US-DEU) | 13. Helax-Ostrava se bavi | Helax-Ostrava has fun | 14. Pravy Blok | Right Bloc | 15. 4 VIZE-www.4vize.cz | 4 Visions-www.4vize.cz | 16. Ceska strana narodne socialisticka | Czech National Socialistic Party | 17. Moravane | Moravians | 18. Strana zelenych | Green Party (SZ) | 19. Humanisticka strana | Humanistic Party | 20. Komunisticka strana Cech a Moravy | Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia (KSCM) | 21. Koalice pro Ceskou republiku | Coalition for the Czech Republic | 22. Narodni strana | National Party | 23. Folklor i Spolecnost | Folklore and Society | 24. Krestanska a demokraticka unie-Ceskoslovenska | strana lidova | Christian Democratic Union-Czechoslovak Peoples' | party (KDU-CSL) | 25. NEZ.DEMOKRATÉ (predseda Vladimir Zelezny) | Independent Democrats (leader Vladimir Zelezny) | 26. Strana rovnost sanci | Party of Equal Chances | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): C3032_LH_DC | | Note, there is one respondent, who mentioned to cast a ballot | for "Küllike Sallik", a candidate that was not included in any | district or party lists in the Estonian election of 2007. | The respondent's answer was coded as "90. OTHER CANDIDATE", | which is the only observation included in this category in | C3032_LH_DC. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C3032_LH_DC | | Only the vote choice of the geographical constituencies is | included in the CSES data. | For further information see variable note on C3023_LH_DC. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2010): C3032_LH | | One answer category was originally coded "94". Since it is | unclear what it represents, it was recoded into missing. | Considering the Latvian questionnaire, it is likely that the | code does not belong to a substantial answer of a party which | the respondents voted for. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C3032_LH_DC | | This variable reports vote for the 2003 Lower House | elections of 2003. | Note that for the previous election the alliance between PRI | and PVEM was called "Alianza para todos". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C3032_LH_DC | | Note that a few respondents that mention a party also | respond not having voted in C3031. The reason is that C3031 | refers to presidential election exclusively. While most voters | who cast a ballot for president also voted for lower and upper | house candidates, some voters located away from their districts | may not been able to vote for one contest. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C3032_LH_PL | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 98. Don't know / Not answered | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C3032_LH | | See notes on C3031. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): C3032_LH_PL | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C3032_LH_PL | | Note that the Polish study used closed lists to ask respondents | about their previous vote. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2009): C3032_LH_PL | | See remarks on C3031. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C3032_LH_DC | | Note that the Romanian questionnaire asked about the previous | legislative election in 2008, without any references to the | Lower or Upper House. Respondents' mentions on their previous | vote choice is coded in C3032_LH_DC. | See Election Study Notes on C3031. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C3032_LH_PL | | Note that party PFP was not mentioned, here, because as | candidates from the pan-blue coalition (KMT, NP, PFP), | they were listed in party KMT. | | Moreover, in the Taiwanese election study only the candidates' | parties and not candidate names were mentioned. | | CSES Code Election Study Category/Categories: | 98. Forgot | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C3032_LH | | Parliament election that had been annulled by a military- | appointed tribunal (see also Election Study Notes on Thailand | in the introduction of the current codebook). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3032_UH_PL >>> Q23B. PREVIOUS ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE UPPER HOUSE - PARTY LIST C3032_UH_DC >>> Q23C. PREVIOUS ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE UPPER HOUSE - DISTRICT CANDIDATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- q23c. If applicable and respondent cast a ballot in the Upper House legislative election: The Q23c item reports the respondent's vote choice for party list and/or district candidate in the PREVIOUS election. .................................................................. 01-88. [SEE APPENDIX I FOR PARTY AND LEADER CODES] 89. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 90. OTHER PARTY/CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 91. NONE OF THE PARTIES/CANDIDATES 92. R CAST INVALID BALLOT 93. R CAST BLANC BALLOT 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | NOTES: C3032 | | Data are not available for AUSTRIA (2008), PORTUGAL (2009), | SOUTH AFRICA (2009), SPAIN (2008). | | The coding of C3032_UH_ depends on C3031. Responses are kept | for voters, according to C3031 (is not code 5), if C3031 refers | to Upper House elections. | For further details see Variable Note on C3031. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C3032_UH_PL | | As respondents were asked for their vote for Upper House | candidates and not candidates' parties, this variable | unfortunately could not be used in this study. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C3032_UH_DC | | The Republic Party (Partido da Republica, PR, code 27 in CSES) | was founded on December 21, 2006 by the merger of the Liberal | Party (Partido Liberal, PL) and PRONA. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 29. PL | 30. PRONA | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): C3032_UH_PL | | Rather than an open-ended question, Japan provides a closed- | list for the five major Japanese parties (see CODEBOOK | APPENDICES). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C3032_UH_DC | | Notice that a few respondents that mention a party also | responds not having voted in C3031. The reason is that C3031 | refers to presidential election exclusively. While most voters | who cast a ballot for president also voted for lower and upper | house candidates, some voters located away from their districts | may not been able to vote for one contest. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C3032_UH | | See Election Study Notes on C3031 and C3032_LH_DC. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3035 >>> Q23D. PREVIOUS ELECTION: DID R CAST CANDIDATE PREFERENCE VOTE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If an open-list electoral system was used for the legislative election in question and respondent cast a ballot: Q23d. This variable reports whether or not the respondent cast a preference vote for a candidate in the PREVIOUS election. For instance, if votes are cast for party lists, but citizens can, in addition to that, mark a preference for one or more candidates on the party list, then Q23d may show answers to a question like this: "Did you simply vote for a party or did you also express a candidate preference?" In party list systems where voters have to vote directly for a candidate and cannot cast a vote just for the party list as such (e.g. Estonia, Finland, the Netherlands, Poland), the question for Q23d should read like this: "Do you consider the vote that you cast merely a vote for the party, or did you also mean it as a vote for a particular candidate?" .................................................................. 0. CANDIDATE PREFERENCE VOTE IS NOT APPLICABLE 1. RESPONDENT EXERCISED CANDIDATE PREFERENCE 5. RESPONDENT DID NOT EXERCISE CANDIDATE PREFERENCE 6. RESPONDENT CAST INVALID BALLOT 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | NOTES: C3035 | | Data are not available for AUSTRALIA (2007), BRAZIL (2006), | BRAZIL (2010), CHILE (2009), DENMARK (2007), FINLAND (2007), | GREECE (2009), PERU (2011), SWEDEN (2006), SWITZERLAND (2007), | UNITED STATES (2008). | | The coding of C3035 depends on C3031. Responses are kept for | voters, according to C3031 (is not code 5). | For further details see Variable Note on C3031. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C3035 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C3035 | | Question text: "V223 When you vote for a party you can | choose from a list of candidates. Did you vote in 2003/2006 for | the number 1 on the list or for another candidate? | Note that this question was part of the first wave, i.e. | pre-election, survey. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | 01. Other candidate | 02. First candidate | 08. Don't know / no answer --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C3036_1 >>> Q24A. POLITICAL INFORMATION ITEM - 1ST C3036_2 >>> Q24B. POLITICAL INFORMATION ITEM - 2ND C3036_3 >>> Q24C. POLITICAL INFORMATION ITEM - 3RD --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q25-Q27. Political information items. .................................................................. 1. CORRECT 5. INCORRECT 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | NOTES: C3036 | | Some studies include a series of political information items, | designed to test respondents' general knowledge. These items are | of varying difficulty and responses are simply reported as | correct or incorrect. The questions used, and their correct | answers, are reported below. | | Data are not available for BELARUS (2008), SLOVENIA (2008), | TURKEY (2011), URUGUAY (2009). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C3036 | | Australia asked six questions about political knowledge out of | which three were selected. To do so, the one with | the highest as well as the one with the lowest number of correct | answers were chosen. The third question was selected by | calculating the minimal gap between the mean of all correctly | given answers and the current frequencies of correct answer for | the remaining four questions. | | Question Text (C3036_1): For each of the following statements, | please say whether it is true or false. Australia became a | federation in 1901. [Correct Answer: true] | | Question Text (C3036_2): For each of the following statements, | please say whether it is true or false. The longest time allowed | between Federal elections for the House of Representatives is | four years. [Correct Answer: false] | | Question Text (C3036_3): For each of the following statements, | please say whether it is true or false. No-one may stand for | Federal parliament unless they pay a deposit. | [Correct Answer: true] | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C3036 | | Respondents were asked for party positions on the policy area | of the opening of the Austrian job market to the new EU member | states: What do these parties think concerning the opening of | the Austrian job market to the New Member States of the EU? | Please tell me if you do not know the position. | Note that the variables' order was rearranged according to the | percentage of correct answers. | | C3036_1: The FPÖ (is against is correct). | C3036_2: The ÖVP (is in favor is correct). | C3036_3: The SPÖ (is in favor is correct). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C3036 | | In Brazil, respondents had to answer a set of four multiple | choice questions of which for CSES three were chosen according | to their prospected difficulty (correct and false proportion | of answers) | | Statements to be answered were as follows: | C3036_1 The president has a 4 year mandate. (is true) | C3036_2 Geraldo Alckmin belongs to the PTB. (is false) | C3036_3 The Chamber of deputies is elected by majoritarian vote. | (is false) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C3036 | | Question Text (C3036_1): The president has a 4 year mandate. | [Correct Answer: Correct.] | | Question Text (C3036_2): Geraldo Alckmin belongs to the PTB. | [Correct Answer: Wrong.] | | Question Text (C3036_3): The deputies of the House of | Representatives are elected by majoritarian system. [Correct | Answer: Wrong.] | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2008): C3036 | | Question Text (C3036_1): Do you happen to recall the name of the | Premier of your Province? | [Correct Answers depending on C2027: | 10. Newfoundland: Danny Williams | 11. Prince Edward Island: Robert Ghiz | 12. Nova Scotia: Rodney MacDonald | 13. New Brunswick: Shawn Graham | 24. Quebec: Jean Charest | 35. Ontario: Dalton McGuinty | 46. Manitoba: Gary Doer | 47. Saskatchewan: Brad Wall | 48. Alberta: Ed Stelmach | 59. British Columbia: Gordon Campbell] | | Question Text (C3036_2): Can you recall the name of the | Republican running for president of the United States? | [Correct Answer: John McCain] | | Question Text (C3036_3): Do you happen to recall the name of a | current cabinet Minister in the federal government? | [Multiple Correct Answer: Ambrose Rona, Baird John, Blackburn | Jean-Pierre, Cannon Lawrence, Clement Tony, Day Stockwell, | Emerson David, Finley Diane, Flaherty Jim, Fortier Michael] | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009): C3036 | | Note that respondents were only asked two knowledge questions. | | Question Text (C3036_1): Name the cameras of the Congress. | [Correct Answer: Camara dos Deputados, Senado] | | Question Text (C3036_2): For how long does a deputy in general | stay in office? [Correct Answer: For four years ] | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CROATIA (2007): C3036 | | Question Text (C3036_1): Who was the Croatian prime minister | before Ivo Sanader, from 2000. to 2003.? | [Correct Answer: Ivica Racan] | | Question Text (C3036_2): For how many years is the Croatian | president elected? [Correct Answer: for 5 years] | | Question Text (C3036_3): What is the legal electoral threshold | in Croatia, i.e. how many percentage a party must get in the | constituency in order to be counted for distribution of seats? | [Correct Answer: 5%] | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2006): C3036 | | Question Text (C3036_1): Was current President Vaclav Klaus | elected based on the vote of the Chamber of Deputies and the | Senate? | [Correct Answer: True] | | Question Text (C3036_2): Does the EU have 25 member states? | [Correct Answer: True] | | Question Text (C3036_3): Is the Chamber of Deputies elected | based on proportional representation or the majoritarian system? | [Correct Answer: PR] | | Note that there are relatively high proportions of respondents | who answer "Don't know". This may be due to the Czech question | text explicitly not insisting on an answer if the respondents | were unsure. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2010): C3036 | | Note that respondents were asked that if they don't know the | answer they should not guess but answer don't know. | | Question Text (C3036_1): Was current President Vaclav Klaus | elected based on the vote of the Chamber of Deputies and the | Senate? | [Correct Answer: True] | | Question Text (C3036_2): Is the Chamber of Deputies elected | based on proportional representation or majoritarian system? | | [Correct Answer: PR] | | Question Text (C3036_3): Does the EU have 25 member states? | [Correct Answer: FALSE] | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C3036 | | Question Text (C3036_1): Which parties does the current | government consist of? | [Correct answer: Konservative Folkeparti and Venstre] | | Question Text (C3036_2): How many members are there in | parliament, when you don't count the four members from Greenland | and Faroe Islands? | [Correct answer: 175] | | Question Text (C3036_3): Which of the following public expenses | do you think is biggest: Expenses to primary schools, expenses | to old age pension, or to the defense? | [Correct answer: Expenses to old age pension] | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): C3036 | | Question Text (C3036_1): According to your knowledge, how many | members are in the Estonian parliament? | [Correct answer: 101] | | Question Text (C3036_2): According to your knowledge, who is the | president of the Bank of Estonia? | [Correct answer: Andres Lipstok] | | Question Text (C3036_3): According to your knowledge, in which | What year did Estonia join the European Union? | [Correct answer: 2004] | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2007): C3036_1-C3036_3 | | Question Text (C3036_1): Who is eligible to vote in Finnish | parliamentary elections? | [Correct Answer: All adult citizens of Finland] | | Question Text (C3036_2): Which of the following parties has the | second largest number of seats in the newly elected Parliament? | [Correct Answer: National Coalition Party (KOK)] | | Question Text (C3036_3): What in your opinion does a | parliamentary system of government mean? | [Correct Answer: That the government is dependent on the | confidence of the parliament] | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2011) C3036_1- C3036_3 | | Question text (C3036_1): Who of the following was the Finnish | Foreign Minister in 2010? Erkki Tuomioja / Astrid Thors / Olli | Rehn / 4 Alexander Stubb? | [Correct Answer: Alexander Stubb] | | Question text (C3036_2): Who is entitled to vote in Finnish | parliamentary elections? Over 18 year old Finnish citizens | living in Finland / Over 18 year old Fin. citizens regardless of | country of residence / Besides Finns, over 18 year old EU | citizens living in Finland / Over 18 Fin citizens who haven't | lost the right due to crime? | [Correct Answer: Over 18 year old Fin. citizens regardless of | country of residence] | | Question text (C3036_3): What is the European Union (EU) treaty | that came into force at the end of the year 2009 called? | Geneva Convention / Schengen Agreement / Lisbon Treaty / | Maastricht Treaty | [Correct Answer: Lisbon Treaty] | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007) C3036_1- C3036_3 | | Question text (C3036_1): "President has the right to dissolve | national assembly." [Correct Answer: True.] | | Question text (C3036_2): "The deputies are elected by | proportional representation." [Correct Answer: False.] | | Question text (C3036_3): "Michelle Alliot Marie is the president | of RPR." [Correct Answer: True.] | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C3036 | | Question Text (C3036_1): The election campaign, among other | things, proposed to introduce a new citizens' insurance scheme | for the health insurance, in which all citizens, including | self-employed and civil servants pay for it. Can you tell me | which party made this proposal? [Correct Answer: SPD] | | Question Text (C3036_2): It was also suggested that the labor | market reforms - the so-called Hartz IV Reformen - should be | canceled. Can you tell me which made this proposal? | [Correct Answer: Left.PDS] | | Question Text (C3036_3): Furthermore, it was suggested to cancel | the escape of nuclear power. Can you tell me which party made | this proposal? [Correct Answer: Left.PDS] | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C3036 | | Question Text (C3036_1): We would like to know the actual | threshold a party has to reach to achieve seats in the national | parliament. [Correct answer: 5 percent] | | Question Text (C3036_2): For the parliament election of Germany, | each voter has two votes. Could you please tell us, which of | these two votes is crucial for the distribution of seats within | the parliament? [Correct answer: second vote] | | Question Text (C3036_3): In which election are European | citizens that do not have the German citizenship allowed to | vote? [Correct answer: communal election] | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): C3036 | | Question Text (C3036_1): Could you tell me how many parties are | represented in parliament today? | [Correct Answer: 5 parties] | | Question Text (C3036_2): How many years does one term of the | President of the Republic last? | [Correct Answer: 5 years] | | Question Text (C3036_3): Based on the current electoral law, | what percentage of votes constitutes the threshold for entry of | a political party into parliament? | [Correct Answer: 3%] | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C3036 | | Question text (C3036_1): Correct or incorrect: Currently, the | Chief Executive of the Hong Kong SAR is elected by a 800-member | Election Committee. [Correct answer: The statement is correct]. | | Question text (C3036_2): Correct or incorrect: Currently, the | geographical constituency elections of LegCo Elections adopt the | proportional representation system. [Correct answer: The | statement is correct]. | | Question text (C3036_3): Correct or incorrect: The terms of | office of the Chief Executive and Legislative Council members in | Hong Kong SAR both last for four years. [Correct answer: The | statement is not correct]. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007): C3036 | | Question Text (C3036_1): Do you know in what party Jónína | Bjartmarz is? | [Correct answer: Progressive Party] | | Question Text (C3036_2): Can you tell me who is the | vice-chairman of the Independence Party? | [Correct answer: Þorgerður Katrín Gunnarsdóttir] | | Question Text (C3036_3): And can you tell me how many electoral | districts are in Iceland? [Correct answer: Six] | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2009): C3036 | | Question Text (C3036_1): Do you know in what party Kolbrún | Halldórsdóttir is? | [Correct answer: Left Green Movement] | | Question Text (C3036_2): Can you tell me who is the | vice-chairman of the Independence Party? | [Correct answer: Þorgerður Katrín Gunnarsdóttir] | | Question Text (C3036_3): And can you tell me how many electoral | districts are in Iceland? [Correct answer: Six] | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2007): C3036 | | Question text (C3036_1): Who was the Minister for Finance at | the time when the last Dail was dissolved? | [Ccorrect answer: Brian Cowen]. | | Question text (C3036_2): Which Government Department received | the most money in last year's budget? [Correct answer: Social | Welfare]. | | Question text (C3036_3): Which was the first party to announce | that it would cut the standard rate of tax in the 2007 campaign? | [Correct answer: Labour]. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): C3036 | | Question text (C3036_1): "To the best of your knowledge, which | party got weaker in the 2006 elections? [Correct answer: Likud] | | Question text (C3036_2): "To the best of your knowledge, who is | the Knesset's chairman? (Correct answer: Dalia Itzik] | | Question text (C3036_3): "To the best of your knowledge, what | percentage of the government's budget is allotted to security? | [Correct answer: between 10% - 40%] | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): C3036 | | Question Text (C3036_1): Who is eligible for the Japanese prime | minister? | 1 the person who is the member of the lower house | (the House of Representatives) only | 2 the person who is the member of the lower house | (the House of Representatives) or the upper house | (The House of Chancellors) | 3 every voter | [Correct Answer: 2.] | | Question Text (C3036_2): Which is the requirement to have the | initiative for proposing constitutional amendments? | 1 more than two-thirds approval of the all members at the both | house | 2 more than majority approval of the all members at the both | house | 3 more than two-thirds approval of the attending members at | both houses | 4 more than majority approval of the attending members at the | both house | [Correct Answer: 1.] | | Question Text (C3036_3): Which is the name of the current | electoral system of the lower house in Japan? | 1 "chu-senkyoku-sei" | 2 "shou-senkyoku-hirei-daihyo-heiyou-sei" | 3 "shou-senkyoku-hirei-daihyo-heiritsu-sei" | [Correct Answer: 3. - Japan has changed the electoral system in | 1994, and the earliest election under the new system was 1996] | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2010): C3036 | | Question text (C3036_1): "Who is the current Latvian President?" | [correct answer: Valdis Zatlers] | | Question text (C3036_2): "When was the Latvian Republic | established?" [Correct answer: 1918] | | Question text (C3036_3): "What is the name of the electoral | system which is used in the election of the members of | parliament? [correct answer: proportional (electoral) system] | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C3036 | | Question text (C3036_1): "Which are the chambers of Mexico's | Congress?" [Correct answer: Deputies and Senators.] | | Question text (C3036_2): "Could you tell me the name of the | governor of your state?" [The interviewer had a list of state- | governors' names and classify the answer as correct or | incorrect, directly] | | Question text (C3036_3): "On the whole, how many years does | a Deputy stay on his charge?" [Correct answer: Three years.] | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C3036 | | Question text (C3036_1): "Could you tell me the name of the | governor of your state?" [The interviewer had a list of state- | governors' names and classify the answer as correct or | incorrect, directly] | | Question text (C3036_2): "On the whole, how many years does | a Deputy stay on his charge?" [Correct answer: Three years] | | Question text (C3036_3): "Which are the chambers of Mexico's | Congress?" [Correct answer: Deputies and Senators] | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C3036 | | The Dutch respondents were shown photographs of politicians | and asked for their name, the party, and the function. In | C3036, those respondents who provided correct answers to all | three sub-questions were coded as providing the correct answers. | Note that the political knowledge questions were part of the | first wave, i.e. pre-election, survey. | | Question Text (C3036_1): "I will now show you photographs of | politicians. Could you tell me for each person the name; | the party; and the function?" [Correct answer: Photo 1; Wouter | Bos; PvdA; party leader.] | | Question Text (C3036_2): "I will now show you photographs of | politicians. Could you tell me for each person the name; | the party; and the function?" [Correct answer: Photo 2; Rita | Verdonk; VVD; minister.] | | Question Text (C3036_3): "I will now show you photographs of | politicians. Could you tell me for each person the name; | the party; and the function?" [Correct answer: Photo 3; Maxime | Verhagen; CDA; MP, leader of party group.] | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C3036 | | The Dutch respondents were shown photographs of politicians | and asked for their name, the party, and the function. In | C3036, those respondents who provided correct answers to all | three sub-questions were coded as providing the correct answers. | Note that the political knowledge questions were part of the | first wave, i.e. pre-election, survey. | | Question Text (C3036_1): "I will now show you photographs of | politicians. Could you tell me for each person the name; | the party; and the function?" [Correct answer: Photo 1; | Alexander Pechtold; D66; party leader.] | | Question Text (C3036_2): "I will now show you photographs of | politicians. Could you tell me for each person the name; | the party; and the function?" [Correct answer: Photo 2; Camiel | Eurlings; CDA; minister.] | | Question Text (C3036_3): "I will now show you photographs of | politicians. Could you tell me for each person the name; | the party; and the function?" [Correct answer: Photo 3; Gerdi | Verbeet; PvdA; MP, Speaker.] | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C3036_1-C3036_3 | | Question text (C3036_1): For the MMP electoral system, party | votes are used to allocate seats in parliament for all parties | that cross the threshold. | Can you recall which of the following a party has to do in order | to cross that threshold? Win 5% of all party votes OR win at | least one electorate? [Correct answer: True]. | | Question text (C3036_2): The term of Parliament is four years. | [Correct answer: False] | | Question text (C3036_3): It is not necessary to be a New Zealand | citizen to be eligible to vote in New Zealand? | [Correct answer: True] | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C3036_1-C3036_3 | | Question C3036_1 is a "double" question. If the respondent is | correct on both, it was registered as a correct answer. If the | respondents only responds one of them correct, it is registered | as incorrect. The same holds for incorrect answering on both. | | Question text (C3036_1): "Do you recall who the Minister of | Modernization was the last year before the election?" | [Correct Answer: Morten A. Meyer] | | Question text (C3036_2): "Six national referendums have been | conducted in Norway. Do you happen to know when the last of | them was, and what it was about?" | [Correct Answer: 1994, EU-referendum] | | Question text (C3036_3): "Do you happen to know how many | representatives there are on the Storting? [Correct Answer: 169] | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C3036 | | Note that correct response on all three Norwegian knowledge | items includes multiple answers. Response was defined as a | correct answer if all appropriate items have been mentioned. | | Question Text (C3036_1): Do you happen to know which parties | have been in government in the last election period? | [Correct Answer: Labor Party, Social Left Party and Centre | Party] | | Question Text (C3036_2): Do you know who was minister of | transport in the last year before the election, and which party | the person in question represent? | [Correct Answer: Liv Signe Navarsete and Centre Party] | | Question Text (C3036_3): In recent years there has been | disagreement about the development of new fields of oil and gas | exploration on the Norwegian continental shelf. Can you say | which two areas that have been particularly controversial? | [Correct Answer: Lofoten and Vesteraalen] | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2011): C3003_1-C3003_2 | | Question Text (C3036_1): Who is the current president of | Ecuador? [Correct answer: Rafael Correa]. | | Question Text (C3036_2): What public position does Magdalena | Chu currently occupy? [Correct answer: Head of the National | Office of Electoral Processes (ONPE)]. | | Question Text (C3036_3): In what year was the current | Constitution of Peru enacted? [Correct answer: 1993]. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C3036 | | Question Text (C3036_1): What is minimum voting age requirement? | [Correct Answer: 18 years.] | | Question Text (C3036_2): And how many years, in your knowledge, | is a Senator's term of office? | [Correct Answer: 6 years.] | | Question Text (C3036_3): Who, based on your knowledge, has the | final responsibility to decide if a law is constitutional or | not? Is it the President, the Congress, or the Supreme Court? | [Correct Answer: the Supreme Court.] | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): C3036_1-C3036_3 | | Question text (C3036_1): "A proposal about introducing linear | tax was mentioned during the electoral campaign. Which party | proposed such a solution? [Correct Answer: PO] | | Question text (C3036_2): "Which party wants to change state | regime by strengthening the position of the president?" | [Correct answer: PiS, Samoobrona] | | Question text (C3036_3): "Which party wants to transfer the | majority of the foreign exchange reserves to the state budget | to help the economy? [Correct answer: Samoobrona] | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C3036_1-C3036_3 | | Question Text (C3036_1): To which military alliance Poland | belongs? | Answer categories: 1) Warsaw Pact; 2) ASEAN; 3) Visegrád Group; | 4) NATO; 5) Weimar Triangle; 6) ANZUS; 7) Hard to say. | [Correct Answer: NATO] | | Question Text (C3036_2): Who is currently the Chancellor of | Germany? | Answer categories: 1) Helmut Kohl; 2) Gerhard Schroeder; 3) | Angela Merkel; 4) Hans Dietrich-Genscher; 5) Edmund Stoiber; 6) | Konrad Adenauer; 7) Hard to say. | [Correct Answer: Angela Merkel] | | Question Text (C3036_3): Which institutional body is established | in Poland to resolve disputes on the constitutionality of the | acts of Parliament? | Answer categories: 1) the High Court; 2) the State Tribunal; 3) | the Supreme Administrative Court; 4) the General Prosecutor's | Office; 5) The Constitutional Tribunal; 6) Minister of Justice; | 7) hard to say. | [Correct Answer: The Constitutional Tribunal] | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2009): C3036 | | Question Text (C3036_1): Do you remember, which was the most | voted party of the 2005 legislative election? | [Correct Answer: Partido Socialista (PS)] | | Question Text (C3036_2): How many countries are parts of the | European Union? [Correct Answer: 27] | | Question Text (C3036_3): Do you remember who the prime minister | before Jose Socrates was? [Correct Answer: Pedro Santana Lopes] | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C3036_ | | Question Text (C3036_1): In Romania, polling stations close | at 9 PM. [Correct Answer: True.] | | Question Text (C3036_2): According to the Romanian legislation, | electoral campaigns start 30 days before the election day. | [Correct Answer: True.] | | Question Text (C3036_3): EU countries have an equal number of | members in the European Parliament. [Correct Answer: False.] | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2010): C3036 | | Question Text (C3036_1): In your opinion, is the number of MPs | in the National Parliament 200? (Only one response) | [Correct Answer: No (150 members)] | | Question Text (C3036_2): Who was the speaker of the National | Parliament until this June election? | [Correct Answer: Pavol Paska] | | Question Text (C3036_3): The European Union currently consists | of 25 member states? | [Correct Answer: No (27 member states] | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2009): C3036 | | Initial question text: "We would now like to know to what degree | South Africans are familiar with certain public figures. | For example, do you remember the name of the ..." | | Question Text (C3036_1): Deputy President? | [Correct Answer: Kgalema Motlanthe.] | | Question Text (C3036_2): Leader of COSATU? | [Correct Answer: Zwelinzima Vai].] | | Question Text (C3036_3): Speaker of Parliament? | [Correct Answer: Pravin Gordhan.] | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2008): C3036 | | Question Text (C3036_1): Which party is the governing party | currently? [Correct Answer: Grand National Party] | | Question Text (C3036_2): How long does the President stay in | office once elected? [Correct Answer: five years] | | Question Text (C3036_3): What is the name of the current Prime | Minister? [Correct Answer: Seung-Su] | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2008): C3036_1-C3036_3 | | Question Text (C3036_1): In this list of persons I will read out | now, could you tell me for each of them if you know of her/him | or not? | [Correct Answer: NOT APPLICABLE] | | Question Text (C3036_2): Do you remember what PP voted in each | of the two votes regarding the parliamentary election of | Rodríguez Zapatero as President of the Government of Spain? | [Correct Answer: Against] | | Question Text (C3036_3): Do you know what is the interest rate | that you are paying to your financial institution for postponing | payments with your credit card? | [Correct Answer is not available, yet] | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C3036 | | Question Text (C3036_1): On this card there are a number of | statements. Could you say whether each of them is true or false. | If you are not certain of the answer, you may say that you do | not know whether the statement is true or false. | The Swedish parliament has 349 members. | [Correct Answer: CORRECT] | | Question Text (C3036_2): On this card there are a number of | statements. Could you say whether each of them is true or false. | If you are not certain of the answer, you may say that you do | not know whether the statement is true or false. | During the 2002 - 2006 election period, Sweden had a single | party Social Democratic government. | [Correct Answer: CORRECT] | | Question Text (C3036_3): Here is a list with names of different | persons. Could you tell me which party each of them belongs to? | [Correct Answer: NOT APPLICABLE] | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C3036 | | Question text (C3036_1): What's the name of the current | president of the Federal Council? [Correct answer: Micheline | Calmy-Rey] | | Question text (C3036_2): How many parties are in the Federal | Council? [Correct answer: 4] | | Question text (C3036_3): How many signatures do you need for a | people's initiative at the federal level? | [Correct answer: 100,000] | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C3036_1-C3036_3 | | Question text (C3036_1): Who is the current president of the | United States? [Correct answer: George W. Bush] | | Question text (C3036_2): Who is the current premier of our | country? [Correct answer: Chao-Shiuan Liu] | | Question text (C3036_3): What institution has the power to | interpret the constitution? [Correct answer: Grand Justices | Council] | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C3036 | | Question text (C3036_1): How many MPs are required under the | New Constitution? [Correct answer: 480 MPs] | | Question text (C3036_2): How many cluster (districts) are there | under the proportional election system? [Correct answer: 8] | | Question text (C3036_3): Which cluster (district) number are you | in (in MPs election)? [Correct answer depends on the place of | residence of the current respondent, e.g. if the respondent is | in Tak province, then he or she has to answer 1 to be correct.] | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2008): C3036 | | The US questionnaire asked respondents about the current | political position of different persons. The initial question | text was: What job or political office does [...] now hold?. | | Question Text (C3036_1): Dick Cheney | [Correct Answer: Vice president of the United States.] | | Question Text (C3036_2): Nancy Pelosi | [Correct Answer: Speaker of the House of Representatives.] | | Question Text (C3036_3): John Roberts | [Correct Answer: U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice.] =========================================================================== ))) CSES MODULE 3 DISTRICT-LEVEL VARIABLES =========================================================================== | NOTES: | | (1) All variables in this section pertain to the first segment | of the lower house. In elections in which the lower house was | not elected, no data are reported here. | | (2) Respondents' electoral districts are reported in C2031, | with labels listed in Appendix II. | | (3) According to the different types of elections, included in | the current CSES release, the following table gives an overview | of the election, district variables C4001 to C4005 refer to. | For further information and restrictions, researchers are | appealed to have a closer look at the country specific notes for | each of the variables. | | Table: Summary of Type of Election District Variables refers to. | | President Lower House Upper House | | POLITY NAME (ELEC YEAR) | | AUSTRALIA (2007) X | AUSTRIA (2008) X | BELARUS (2008) X | BRAZIL (2006) X | BRAZIL (2010) X | CANADA (2008) X | CHILE (2009) - X - | CROATIA (2007) X | CZECH REPUBLIC (2006) X | CZECH REPUBLIC (2010) X | DENMARK (2007) X | ESTONIA (2011) X | FINLAND (2007) X | FINLAND (2011) X | FRANCE (2007) X | GERMANY (2005) X | GERMANY (2009) X | GREECE (2009) X | HONG KONG (2008) X | ICELAND (2007) X | ICELAND (2009) X | IRELAND (2007) X | ISRAEL (2006) X | JAPAN (2007) X | LATVIA (2010) X | MEXICO (2006) X | MEXICO (2009) X | NETHERLANDS (2006) X | NETHERLANDS (2010) X | NEW ZEALAND (2008) X | NORWAY (2005) X | NORWAY (2005) X | PERU (2011) X | PHILIPPINES (2010) - - - | POLAND (2005) X | POLAND (2007) X | PORTUGAL (2009) X | ROMANIA (2009) X | SLOVAKIA (2010) X | SLOVENIA (2008) X | SOUTH AFRICA (2009) X | SOUTH KOREA (2008) X | SPAIN (2008) X | SWEDEN (2006) X | SWITZERLAND (2007) X | TAIWAN (2008) X | THAILAND (2007) - - - | TURKEY (2011) X | UNITED STATES (2008) X | URUGUAY (2009) X | | | Table: Summary of Used Sources on Election District Variables. | [For more details on sources see CODEBOOK INTRODUCTION]. | | POLITY NAME (ELEC YEAR) SOURCE | | AUSTRALIA (2007) Australian Election Commission | AUSTRIA (2008) Bundesministerium für Inneres | BELARUS (2008) Central Commission of the Republic of | Belarus | BRAZIL (2006) Tribunal Superior Electoral | BRAZIL (2010) Tribunal Superior Electoral | Election Resources on the Internet | CROATIA (2007) Psephos - Adam Carr's Election Archive | CANADA (2008) Psephos - Adam Carr's Election Archive | Election Canada (for C4002) | CHILE (2009) Servicio Electoral Republica de Chile | CZECH REPUBLIC (2006) Czech Statistical Office | CZECH REPUBLIC (2010) Czech Statistical Office | DENMARK (2007) Statistical Office of Denmark | ESTONIA (2011) Estonian National Electoral Committee | FINLAND (2007) Finnish Ministry of Justice | FINLAND (2011) Finnish Ministry of Justice | FRANCE (2007) French Electoral Commission | GERMANY (2005) The Federal Returning Officer | GERMANY (2009) The Federal Returning Officer | GREECE (2009) Hellenic Ministry of Interior | HONG KONG (2008) Chief Electoral Officer of Hong Kong / | Psephos - Adam Carr's Election Archive | ICELAND (2007) NSD European Election Database | ICELAND (2009) NSD European Election Database | IRELAND (2007) General Election for the National | Parliament of the Republic of | Ireland 2007 | ISRAEL (2006) The Knesset | JAPAN (2007) Psephos - Adam Carr's Election Archive | LATVIA (2010) Central Elections Commission | MEXICO (2006) Mexican Institute of Federal Elections | MEXICO (2009) Mexican Institute of Federal Elections | NETHERLANDS (2006) The Dutch Parliamentary Electoral | Studies website | NETHERLANDS (2010) The Dutch Parliamentary Electoral | Studies website | NEW ZEALAND (2008) New Zealand elections website | NORWAY (2005) Statistics Norway | NORWAY (2009) Statistics Norway | PERU (2011) Oficina Nacional de Procesos | Electorales | PHILIPPINES (2010) - (presidential election) | POLAND (2005) National Election Commission of Poland | 2005 | POLAND (2007) National Election Commission of Poland | 2007 | PORTUGAL (2009) Portuguese Minister of Interior | ROMANIA (2009) - (presidential election) | SLOVAKIA (2010) Statistical Office of the Slovak | Republic | SLOVENIA (2008) National Electoral Commission, | Republic of Slovenia | SOUTH AFRICA (2009) Electoral Commission of South Africa | SOUTH KOREA (2008) National Election Commission of the | Republic of Korea | SPAIN (2008) Spanish Minister of Interior | SWEDEN (2006) Valmyndigheten | SWITZERLAND (2007) Federal Statistical Office of | Switzerland | TAIWAN (2008) Central Level Public Officials | Election Result by Party Votes | THA (2007) The Announcement of the Election | Commission of Thailand. | TURKEY (2011) Psephos - Adam Carr's Election Archive | UNITED STATES (2008) Statistics of the Presidential and | Congressional Election of November 4, | 2008 | URUGUAY (2009) Electoral Court of Uruguay --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C4001 >>> NUMBER OF SEATS IN DISTRICT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports the number of seats contested in each district of the first segment of the lower house of the legislature. .................................................................. 001-900. NUMBER OF SEATS CONTESTED IN ELECTORAL DISTRICT 999. MISSING | NOTES: C4001 | | Data are not available for PERU (2011), PHILIPPINES (2010), | ROMANIA (2009), TAIWAN (2008), URUGUAY (2009). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C4001 | | Note that the electoral districts are sub districts within | regions or bigger communities. The number of seats in district | is thus very small and sometimes no seat is won. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): C4001 | | Due to the cumulative coding of the electoral districts in | C2031, respondents' districts in Tallinn City (districts 1, | 2 & 3) are not distinguishable. Hence, seats in the three | electoral districts of Tallinn City are missing. | | Number of seats in the three districts of Tallinn City: | District 1: Haabersti , Kristiine, Põhja-Tallinn 09 | District 2: Kesklinn, Lasnamäe, Pirita 11 | District 3: Mustamäe, Nõmme 08 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): C4001 | | Note that C4001 reflects the seats in the 56 single- or multi- | member district, 288 seats in total. In contrast, the remaining | 12 seats of the Hellenic parliament originate from a single | multi-member nationwide constituency for the State Deputies, | which are not listed here. | See also notes on C2031. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): C4001-C4005 | | In Israel, the entire country functions as a single electoral | district. Hence, figures entered in these variables correspond | to the national election results. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C4001 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C4001 | | The variable refers to the 300 single-member plurality | districts. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C4001 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C4001 | | In The Netherlands, the entire country functions as a single | electoral district. Hence, figures entered in these variables | correspond to the national election results. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C4001 | | See notes on C2031. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2010): C4001 | | Slovakia has only one nationwide district. Consequently, the | data reported on district results are quite similar to the | national results of the macro-section. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C4001 | | Note, at the time of the first data release, labels for the Thai | districts on C2031 were not available. (See also variable notes | on C2031). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2008): C4001 | | Note that C4001 reports the number of electoral colleges, instead | of the number of contested seats. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C4002 >>> NUMBER OF CANDIDATES IN DISTRICT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports the number of candidates who contested seats in each district. These data are reported for systems in which electors vote for candidates directly as well as for systems in which electors may cast a preference ballot (i.e., where a voter can indicate a candidate from a party list, in addition to casting a ballot for a party list). .................................................................. 0001-9000. NUMBER OF CANDIDATES WHO CONTESTED THE ELECTION IN THIS ELECTORAL DISTRICT 9999. MISSING 0000. NOT APPLICABLE | NOTES: C4002 | | Data are not available for AUSTRIA (2008), BELARUS (2008), | CHILE (2009), CROATIA (2007), CZECH REPUBLIC (2006), CZECH | REPUBLIC (2010), GERMANY (2005), MEXICO (2006), MEXICO (2009), | NORWAY (2009), PERU (2011), PHILIPPINES (2010), ROMANIA (2009), | SOUTH KOREA (2008), SWEDEN (2006), TAIWAN (2008), | THAILAND (2007), TURKEY (2011), URUGUAY (2009). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): C4002 | | Due to the cumulative coding of the electoral districts in | C2031, respondents' districts in Tallinn City (districts 1, | 2 & 3) are not distinguishable. Hence, C4002 is missing for | these three electoral districts of Tallinn City. | | Number of candidates in the three districts of Tallinn City: | District 1: Haabersti , Kristiine, Põhja-Tallinn 68 | District 2: Kesklinn, Lasnamäe, Pirita 82 | District 3: Mustamäe, Nõmme 62 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): C4002 | | This variable is coded "0000. Not Applicable", because the | entire country is a single electoral district and voters vote | for party lists, not candidates. The actual vote choice of | voters is represented by party lists. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C4002 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C4002 | | This variable is coded "0000. Not Applicable", because the | entire country is a single electoral district and voters vote | for party lists, not candidates. The actual vote choice of | voters is represented by party lists. | | See Election Study Notes for C4001. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): C4002 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C4002 | | District variables reflect information for the Lower House | election. Because of voting on the bases of party lists, this | variable is not applicable for the Polish Lower House election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2010): C4002 | | Slovakia has only one nationwide district. Consequently, the | data reported on district results are quite similar to the | national results of the macro- section. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C4002 | | Note, at the time of the first data release, labels for the Thai | districts on C2031 were not available. (See also variable notes | on C2031). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2008): C4002 | | Note that C4002 reports the number of candidates in the federal | state instead of in respondent's electoral district. | To obtain the federal states, in use of C2031, users of the CSES | have to delete the last two digits of C2031 (see also C2027). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C4003 >>> NUMBER OF PARTY LISTS IN DISTRICT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports the number of parties that presented lists and, thereby, contested seats in the district. These data are reported for those systems in which electors cast ballots for party lists. .................................................................. 001-900. NUMBER OF PARTIES THAT PRESENTED A LIST OF CANDIDATES IN THE ELECTION IN THIS ELECTORAL DISTRICT 999. MISSING 000. NOT APPLICABLE | NOTES: C4003 | | Data are not available for AUSTRALIA (2007), BELARUS (2008), | CANADA (2008), CHILE (2009), FRANCE (2007), ICELAND (2007), | ICELAND (2009), JAPAN (2007), NORWAY (2005), PHILIPPINES (2010), | ROMANIA (2009), SWEDEN (2006), TAIWAN (2008), THAILAND (2007), | URUGUAY (2009). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): C4003 | | The problem of cumulative coding of the electoral districts of | Tallinn City (districts 1, 2 & 3) does not cause any problems in | C4003, due to an equal number of contesting parties in all | electoral districts. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C4003 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C4003 | | According to the German electoral system, candidates are voted | at the district level, while party lists are voted at the level | of federal states (Laender). This variable is therefore coded | '000. NOT APPLICABLE'. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): C4003 | | Note that C4003 does not report the number of parties contesting | within each electoral district, but the amount of parties, which | gained at least one vote, according to the database of the | Hellenic Ministry of Interior. | See also notes on C2031. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): C4003 | | See Election Study Notes for C4001. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C4003 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C4003 | | See Election Study Notes for C4001. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C4003 | | See notes on C2031. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2010): C4003 | | Slovakia has only one nationwide district. Consequently, the | data reported on district results are quite similar to the | national results of the macro- section. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C4003 | | Note, at the time of the first data release, labels for the Thai | districts on C2031 were not available. (See also variable notes | on C2031). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): C4003 | | Note that C4003 reflects the number of major parties in each | electoral district. Smaller parties were coded as "others" and | taken into account only once. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C4004_A >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY A C4004_B >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY B C4004_C >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY C C4004_D >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY D C4004_E >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY E C4004_F >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY F C4004_G >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY G C4004_H >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY H C4004_I >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports the proportion of votes cast in favor of party [A/B/C/D/E/F] in this district. In majoritarian systems, in which more than one round of elections are held, this variable reports the proportion of the popular vote cast in favor of party [A/B/C/D/E/F] in the FIRST round. .................................................................. 000.00-100.00 PERCENT (0.00% TO 100.00%) OF THE VALID BALLOTS CAST IN THIS DISTRICT THAT WERE CAST IN FAVOR OF PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F] 999.00. MISSING | NOTES: C4004 | | Parties are identified in Appendix I. | | Data are not available for BELARUS (2008), PHILIPPINES (2010), | ROMANIA (2009), SOUTH KOREA (2008), THAILAND (2007). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2008): C4004_A-C4004_E | | Note that party C, the Bloc Québécois, only contests in the | province of Quebec (see C2027). | Parties not contesting in any of the electoral districts are | coded as missing values (code 999.00) in C4004_. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CROATIA (2007): C4004_D | | In contrast to the general coding of the Croatian parties | C4004_D includes the results for the election coalition of | Hrvatska seljacka stranka (HSS) and Hrvatska socijalno | liberalna stranka (HSLS). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CROATIA (2007): C4004_D-C4004_G | | In the 2007 parliament election Hrvatska seljacka stranka | (HSS) and Hrvatska socijalno liberalna stranka (HSLS) ran | a coalition together. While the micro questionnaire asked for | the two parties separately, district results are only | available for the joint coalition. Its results had been coded | to C4004_D, while C4004_G was defined as a missing value. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): C4004_A-C4004_F | | Due to the cumulative coding of the electoral districts in | C2031, respondents' districts in Tallinn City (districts 1, | 2 & 3) are not distinguishable. Hence, C4004_A to C4004_F base | on the cumulated votes for each single party within the three | districts, divided by the absolute amount of active voters: | | Party DISTRICT 1 DISTRICT 2 DISTRICT 3 Total | Votes % Votes % Votes % Votes % | --------------------------------------------------------------- | C4004_A 12396 23.5 15468 21.8 16309 32.3 44173 25.4 | C4004_B 17072 32.4 28440 40.0 12796 25.3 58308 33.5 | C4004_C 10984 20.8 12337 17.4 10188 20.2 33509 19.2 | C4004_D 7210 13.7 7870 11.1 7648 15.1 22728 13.0 | C4004_E 324 0.6 392 0.6 237 0.5 953 0.6 | C4004_F 1128 2.1 2782 3.9 1564 3.1 5474 3.1 | Others 3608 6.8 3784 5.3 1740 3.4 9132 5.2 | --------------------------------------------------------------- | Total 52722 71073 50482 174277 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007) C4004 | | Percentage votes for each party reported only for the first | round of the elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C4004 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C4004 | | German voters got two votes for the election of the national | Lower House, the first one to vote for a candidate within each | district, and the second vote for the party list at the level of | the federal states (the so called Bundeslaender). While the | first vote equals the conditions of pluralism, the second vote | gives the overall distribution of the Lower House. | The given "percent vote in district by parties A to I", reflects | the first vote. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C4004_A | | The CDU, mentioned in C4004_A is not eligible for election in | Bavaria (districts 213 to 257) and is consequently defined as a | missing value for these districts (see also remarks on C4004_F). | | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C4004_F | | The CSU, mentioned in C4004_F is only eligible for election in | Bavaria (districts 213 to 257) and is consequently defined as a | missing value in all other districts (see also remarks on | C4004_A). | | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C4004_G | | C4004_G reports the district results for the National Democratic | Party (NPD), which was not included in the micro-questionnaire | (see remarks on C3009, C3010, C3011, and C3012). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): C4004_ | | See notes on C2031. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2007): C4004 | | Reported are the percentages of the 1st preferences of the | preference vote, parties A-F. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): C4004 | | See Election Study Notes for C4001. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C4004_A-C4004_H | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C4004_A-C4004_H | | These variables refer to the 300 single-member plurality | districts. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C4004_B, C4004_E, C4004_F | | These entries refer to the election result of the Coalition | for the Good of All (Parties B, E and F - PRD, PT and | Convergencia, respectively). | | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C4004_C / C4004_D | | These entries refer to the election result of the coalition | Alliance for Mexico (Parties C and D - PRI and Mexican Green | Ecological Party (PVEM)). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C4004 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C4004 | | See Election Study Notes for C4001. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C4004 | | Although party D "New Zealand First" was positioned fourth in | the votes for party list, its vote is not listed in the official | documents since the party did not enter parliament due to | failing to meet either threshold for gaining seats - 5 per cent | of the party vote or one or more electorate/constituency seats. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C4004 | | District results for the 2005 elections were not available. As | an approximation, the results of 2009 had been used and cleaned | up by gains/losses of each party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C4004_A-C4004_D | | See Election Study Notes on C2031. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2010): C4004_A-C4004_H | | Slovakia has only one nationwide district. Consequently, the | data reported on district results are quite similar to the | national results of the macro- section. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2008): C4004_H | | Note that the Canarian Coalition (CC-PNC) was only available at | Gran Canaria (district 35: 6.19%) and Santa Cruz de Tenerife | (district 38: 39.35%). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C4004 | | Note, at the time of the first data release, labels for the Thai | districts on C2031 were not available. (See also variable notes | on C2031). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): C4004 | | Note that district results were available only for the three | major parties, i.e. AKP, CHP and MHP. The variables C4004_D | through C4004_I are coded as missing values. | | Moreover, the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP - C4004_D) did not | run for election as an officially listed party. Instead, their | members contested as independent candidates. | Consequently, the BDP is not included as a party in the | district data. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2008): C4004_ | | Note that several district results are coded as missing values | (code 999.00) due to different reasons: | C4004_A is missing for the electoral district codes 0619 and 4821 | due to a marginal vote share for the Democrats. | C4004_B is missing for the electoral district codes 0632 and 0637 | due to a marginal vote share for the Republicans | C4004_A & C4004_B are missing for the electoral district codes | 1203 and 2205 due to not available information. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C4005 >>> TURNOUT IN DISTRICT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports official voter turnout in each district. .................................................................. 001.00-100.00 PERCENT OF VOTER TURNOUT BY DISTRICT 999.00. MISSING | NOTES: C4005 | | Please note: official turnout figures are calculated using | different formulas. For instance, the denominator sometimes | includes the total number of the voting age population, while | other times it is the total number of registered voters. | | Data are not available for CANADA (2008), CHILE (2009), LATVIA | (2010), NORWAY (2005), PHILIPPINES (2010), ROMANIA (2009), SOUTH | KOREA (2008), TAIWAN (2008), THAILAND (2007), UNITED STATES | (2008). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): C4005 | | Due to the cumulative coding of the electoral districts in | C2031, respondents' districts in Tallinn City (districts 1, | 2 & 3) are not distinguishable. Instead, C4005 reports the | overall turnout for the three districts of Tallinn City, based | on the amount of voters within the these districts: | | eligible active Turnout | Voters Voters | ------------------------------------------------ | DISTRICT 1 76,189 53,136 69.74% | DISTRICT 2 104,478 71,406 68.35% | DISTRICT 3 69,816 50,823 72.80% | ------------------------------------------------ | Total Voters 250,483 175,365 70.01% | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007) C4005 | | Figures report turnout from registered population in each | electoral district in the first round. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C4005 | | German voters got two votes for the election of the national | Lower House, the first one to vote for a candidate within each | district, and the second vote for the party list at the level of | the federal states (the so called Bundeslaender). While the | first vote equals the conditions of pluralism, the second vote | gives the overall distribution of the Lower House. | The given "turnout in district by parties A to I", reflects | the first vote. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): C4005 | | See Election Study Notes on C2031. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): C4005 | | See Election Study Notes for C4001. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C4005 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C4005 | | The variable refers to the 300 single-member plurality | districts. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C4005 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C4005 | | See Election Study Notes for C4001. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C4005 | | For New Zealand turnout report includes only valid votes. | If you would like to see the percentages for invalid votes and | include those in turnout, we refer to the following website: | http://2008.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2008/e9/html | /e9_part9_1.html (website last checked on 07/12/2010). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C4005 | | Note that the Norwegian electoral system allows voting in | advance. In contrast, C4005 reports the turnout at the polling | station, exclusively. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): C4005 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C4005 | | District variables reflect information for the Lower House | election. | See Election Study Notes on C2031. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2010): C4005 | | Slovakia has only one nationwide district. Consequently, the | data reported on district results are quite similar to the | national results of the macro- section. | | In the case of C4005, researchers should note that | the turnout reported C4005 differs from C5006_1. While the later | one includes envelopes sent from abroad, the current variable | is based on the vote share within the country. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C4005 | | Information on turnout is only available on the Internet, on a | website in Chinese. See: http://db.cec.gov.tw/histQuery.jsp? | voteCode=20080301P1A1&qryType=ctks&prvCode=00 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C4005 | | Note, at the time of the first data release, labels for the Thai | districts on C2031 were not available. (See also variable notes | on C2031). =========================================================================== ))) CSES MODULE 3 MACRO-LEVEL VARIABLES =========================================================================== I. DATA FROM THE MODULE 3 MACRO QUESTIONNAIRE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5001_A >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY A C5001_B >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY B C5001_C >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY C C5001_D >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY D C5001_E >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY E C5001_F >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY F C5001_G >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY G C5001_H >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY H C5001_I >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Percent of popular vote received by PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I] in current (lower house) legislative election: .................................................................. 000.00-100.00 PERCENT OF THE POPULAR VOTE THAT PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I] RECEIVED 999.00. MISSING | NOTES: C5001-5009 | | Parties are identified in Appendix I. | | All cases are coded missing if the election type (i.e. | parliamentary) was not the focus of the election study. For | example, all cases for Senate would be coded missing if the | election was a presidential contest. | | In case of electoral alliances/coalitions, returns | of an alliance are entered for all its members. | | For countries with mixed electoral systems (see C5058) the | entries report the results from the segment containing the most | seats. If there are an equal amount of seats in each segment | the results come from the proportional representation segment. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C5001 | | The entries represent the percentage of first preference votes. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2008): C5001 | | Please note that more than 85 percent of votes in the 2008 | parliamentary election were allotted to independent candidates. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CROATIA (2007): C5001_D and C5001_G | | The entries refer to the combined election result obtained by | the coalition Croatian Social Liberal Party (HSLS) and Croatian | Peasant Party (HSS). Despite the joint entries for percent vote, | both parties hold separate seats in the legislative assembly, | hence the entries in C5002_D and C5002_G refer to the seats | they obtained separately. | In 4 electoral districts this alliance also includes the | following regional parties: | Zagorska stranka (ZS) (Party of Zagorje) | Zagorska demokratska stranka (ZDS) (Democratic Party of Zagorje) | Primorsko-goranski savez (PGS) (Primorje Gorski kotar Alliance) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C5001 | | These data report first round vote shares. These figures report | first round election results. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C5001 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C5001 | | These data report the share of party list, or the "second" votes | each party won nationally. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C5001 | | The Legislative Council (LegCo) in Hong Kong is composed of 60 | members, 30 of which are returned by geographical constituency | elections and another 30 by functional constituency elections. | These entries show the party vote of the geographical | constituency part of the 2008 LegCo Elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): C5001 | | The July 29, 2007 elections were held to renew half of the | House of Councillors, the upper house of Parliament. Thus | lower house electoral results are not reported. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C5001 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C5001 | | The entries refer to the vote shares of the single member | districts. Note that the results from the proportional | representation lists are calculated using the national | distribution of votes from the single member districts but | excludes non valid votes, votes for parties that obtained | less than 2% and votes for non-registered candidates. | | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C5001_B/ C5001_E/ C5001_F | | These entries refer to the election result of the Coalition | for the Good of All (Parties B, E and F - PRD, PT and | Convergencia, respectively). | | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C5001_C/ C5001_D | | These entries refer to the election result of the coalition | Alliance for Mexico (Parties C and D - PRI and Mexican Green | Ecological Party (PVEM)). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C5001 | | These data report each party's share of the party vote for | Parliament. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C5001_A | | This entry represents vote returns of one of the members of | the coalition that is coded as a single entity in presidential | elections. This party is Liberal Party coalition (LP). The | second member of this coalition is Nationalist People's | Coalition (NPC), who won 15.9% of the votes for the House of | Representatives. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5001 | | The 2009 contest only elected the president | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2008): C5001 | | These election results correspond to the proportional tier of | the Parliament (the second segment). They reflect the nationwide | proportion of votes cast for party lists. This data is provided | since the results from single-member constituencies was not | available. Notice that only 22% of the total amount of seats are | allocated through the second segment. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C5001 | | These election results correspond to the proportional tier of | the Parliament (the second segment). They reflect nationwide | proportion of votes cast for party lists, namely 80 seats out of | 480 seats. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C5001 | | The March 22, 2008 elections were held to elect the | president of the Republic. Thus lower house electoral | results are not reported. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): C5001_D | | The Peace and Democracy party (BDP) did not participate in the | elections as a political party, but fielded its candidates as | independents. We therefore have no way of separating the % vote | for genuine independent candidates from those of the BDP. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): C5001 | | The Lower Chamber (Cámara de Representantes; House of | Representatives) of the Uruguayan General Assembly consists of | 99 members. Seats are assigned among parties in a single | nationwide district, based on a proportional (d'Hondt) system. | The system uses closed lists and Double Simultaneous Vote (DSV) | in regional districts. | DVS is the system by which the voter votes synchronously in a | logical order: first by a party ("lema" or label or motto) and | then a list of candidates ("lista" or list). | There are two assignation levels: parties ("lemas") and lists | (there are no "sublemas" as in the Senate votes). Voters cast a | ballot with a "lema" and closed and blocked list. Votes by party | ("lema") are counted in a single nationwide district by d'Hondt | method, and this count determines the number of seats a party | obtains. Votes by lists are counted by districts (following | d'Hondt method), and this count determines the seat distribution | within parties. Each party typically has several lists in each | district. | In order to contest the election, each electoral agent presents | its own ballot (in the 2009 election there were 21 to 39 ballots | by district). One electoral agent can be a party, a party | fraction or a fraction of party fraction. Voters select one | ballot (among these 21 to 39 ballots in each district, in the | 2009 national election), and puts it in the ballot box. | Ballot contains a presidential ticket, a closed list for Senate, | and a closed list for the Lower Chamber. Each ballot must | necessarily contain lists of a single party. Electors cast | votes necessarily (for President and 2 chambers) for the same | party. Hence, the elections results are basically identical for | all three institutions - both houses of the Parliament, and for | the President (first round). DVS is a mechanism which allows an | intra-partisan contest at the time of the national election. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5002_A >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY A C5002_B >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY B C5002_C >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY C C5002_D >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY D C5002_E >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY E C5002_F >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY F C5002_G >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY G C5002_H >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY H C5002_I >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Percent of seats in lower house received by PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I] in current (lower house) election: .................................................................. 000.00-100.00 PERCENT OF THE SEATS THAT PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I] RECEIVED 999.00. MISSING | NOTES: C5002 | | Parties are identified in Appendix I. | | In case of electoral alliances/coalitions, returns | of an alliance are entered for all its members. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2008): C5002 | | Please note that most seats in the 2008 Belarus | parliamentary election were allotted to independent candidates. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CROATIA (2007): C5002_D / C5002_G | | Despite reporting combined voting results in C5001_D and C5001_G | the entries in C5002_D and C5002_G refer to how many seats both | parties hold independently. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C5002 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C5002 | | These data report the total number of seats allocated to each | party after the election, resulting from both party list and | candidate votes. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C5002 | | Legislative Council (LegCo) in Hong Kong is composed of 60 | members, 30 of which are returned by geographical constituency | elections and another 30 by functional constituency elections. | These entries show the party seat compositions of the | geographical constituency part of the 2008 LegCo Elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): C5002 | | The July 29, 2007 elections were held to renew half of the | House of Councillors, the upper house of Parliament. Thus | lower house electoral results are not reported. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C5002 | | These data report the total percentage of seats allocated to each | party after the election, resulting from both party list and | candidate votes. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C5002_A | | This entry represents percent of the seats won by of one of | the members of the coalition that is coded as a single entity | in presidential elections. This party is Liberal Party coalition | (LP). The second member of this coalition is Nationalist | People's Coalition (NPC), who won 10.14% of the votes for the | House of Representatives. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C5002 | | These data report the total number of seats allocated to each | party after the election, resulting from both party list and | candidate votes. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C5002 | | The March 22, 2008 elections were held to elect the | president of the Republic. Thus lower house electoral | results are not reported. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): C5002 | | See note for C5001. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): C5002_D | | The Peace and Democracy party (BDP) did not participate in the | elections as a political party, but fielded its candidates as | independents. The party has obtained 35 seats this way. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5003_A >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY A C5003_B >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY B C5003_C >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY C C5003_D >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY D C5003_E >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY E C5003_F >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY F C5003_G >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY G C5003_H >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY H C5003_I >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Percent of popular vote received by PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I] in current (upper house) legislative election: .................................................................. 000.00-100.00 PERCENT OF THE POPULAR VOTE THAT PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I] RECEIVED 999.00. MISSING | NOTES: C5003 | | Parties are identified in Appendix I. | | In case of electoral alliances/coalitions, returns | of an alliance are entered for all its members. | | For countries with mixed electoral systems (see C5058) the | entries report the results from the segment containing the most | seats. If there are an equal amount of seats in each segment | the results come from the proportional representation segment. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C5003 | | The November 24th election was a half senate election whereby | six senators were elected for each state (6 districts) and two | for each Federal Territory (2 districts). The entries represent | the percentage of first preference votes. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C5003_B / C5003_C | | These figures report the combined results for LP (Liberal Party | of Australia) and LNP (Liberal-National Party - combined | ticket). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C5003_A - C5003_F | | Senators are elected by simple majority for 8 year terms. Only | part of the senate is renewed at each elections, two thirds in | one elections and one third in the following election. In 2006, | only one senator was elected for each state. Hence data for this | variable represents percent vote for these 27 seats. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C5003_A - C5003_F | | The Brazilian Senate has 81 members, three for each state. The | states elect two Senators each at one election, and one Senator | each at the successive election, by simple majority for 8 year | terms. 2010 was a two-Senator election, with each voter entitled | to two votes. Since voters could cast two votes, the number of | valid votes cast in each state can be up to twice the number of | voters who cast votes. Hence data for this variable represents | nominal percent vote for these 54 seats. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C5003 | | The entries refer to the vote shares of the single member | districts. Note that the results from the proportional | representation lists are calculated using the national | distribution of votes from the single member districts but | excludes non-valid votes, votes for parties that obtained | less than 2% and votes for non-registered candidates. | | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C5003_B/ C5003_E/ C5003_F | | These entries refer to the election result of the Coalition | for the Good of All (Parties B, E and F - PRD, PT and | Convergencia, respectively). | | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C5003_C/ C5003_D | | These entries refer to the election result of the coalition | Alliance for Mexico (Parties C and D - PRI and Mexican Green | Ecological Party (PVEM)). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C5003 | | The 2009 contest only elected lower house members. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5003 | | The 2009 contest only elected the president | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): C5003 | | The Upper chamber (Cámara de Senadores; Senate) of the Uruguayan | General Assembly consists of 31 members. Thirty members are | elected by proportional representation (d'Hondt) in a single | nationwide district, using closed list system and Triple | Simultaneous Vote (TVS) mechanism. There is also one ex officio | member - the Vice-President of the Republic (directly elected on | ticket with President of the Republic). | In TVS the voter votes synchronously in a complex logical order: | first by a party ("lema"), second by a fraction (called | "sublema", means under-label or under-motto) and then by a | closed and blocked list. | In TVS the votes are counted (and seats are distributed): | a. First. The votes are counted exclusively at the level of | parties ("lemas"). All seat are distributed exclusively at the | level of parties ("lemas"), independently of the votes cast by | fractions ("sublemas") and lists | b. Second. Within each party ("lema"), the votes are counted | exclusively at level of fractions ("sublemas"). All seats of the | party are distributed exclusively at the level of fractions | ("sublemas"), independently of the votes cast by lists and | independently of the votes cast by other parties. | c. Third. Within each fraction ("sublema") the votes are counted | only at the level of lists. All seats of the fraction | ("sublema") are distributed exclusively at the level of lists, | independently of the votes cast by other fractions ("sublemas") | of the same party and independently of the votes cast by other | parties. | Multiple Simultaneous Vote (MVS) is the generic name of the | system, comprising the Double Simultaneous Vote (used in | elections for the Uruguayan lower House) and TVS. The MVS is the | inverse of apparentement, in which votes are cast by lists, | which are added by the effect of apparentement. | In order to contest the election, each electoral agent presents | its own ballot (in the 2009 election there were 21 to 39 ballots | by district). | One electoral agent can be a party, a party fraction or a | fraction of party fraction. Voters select one ballot (among | these 21 to 39 ballots in each district, in the 2009 national | election), and puts it in the ballot box. Ballot contains a | presidential ticket, a closed list for Senate, and a closed list | for the Lower Chamber. Each ballot must necessarily contain | lists of a single party. Electors cast votes necessarily (for | President and 2 chambers) for the same party. Hence, the | elections results are basically identical for all three | institutions - both houses of the Parliament, and for the | President (first round). | Votes are counted by the above described Double Simultaneous | Vote (DSV; Lower House), and Multiple Simultaneous Vote (MVS; | Upper House). DVS or MVS is a mechanism which allows an intra- | partisan contest at the time of the national election. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5004_A >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY A C5004_B >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY B C5004_C >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY C C5004_D >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY D C5004_E >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY E C5004_F >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY F C5004_G >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY G C5004_H >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY H C5004_I >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Percent of seats in upper house received by PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I] in current (upper house) election: .................................................................. 000.00-100.00 PERCENT OF THE SEATS THAT PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I] RECEIVED 999.00. MISSING | NOTES: C5004 | | Parties are identified in Appendix I. | | In case of electoral alliances/coalitions, returns | of an alliance are entered for all its members. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C5004 | | The 24 November 2007 election was a half senate election whereby | six senators were elected for each state (6 districts) and two | for each Federal Territory (2 districts). The entries represent | the proportion of seats each party won on election day, not | the senate party composition. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C5004_B/ C5004_C | | These figures report the combined results for LP (Liberal Party | of Australia) and LNP (Liberal-National Party - combined | ticket). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C5004_A - C5004_F | | Senators are elected by simple majority for 8 year terms. Only | part of the senate is renewed at each elections, two thirds in | one elections and one third in the following election. In 2006, | only one senator was elected for each state. Hence data for this | variable represents percent seats for these 27 seats. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C5004_A - C5004_F | | The Brazilian Senate has 81 members, three for each state. The | states elect two Senators each at one election, and one Senator | each at the successive election, by simple majority for 8 year | terms. 2010 was a two-Senator election, with each voter entitled | to two votes. Since voters could cast two votes, the number of | valid votes cast in each state can be up to twice the number of | voters who cast votes. Hence data for this variable represents | the percentage of these 54 seats that each party won. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): C5004 | | The July 29, 2007 elections were held to renew half of the | House of Councilors, the upper house of Parliament. Of | the 121 seats, 73 were filled using a simple majority system | in geographical constituencies, while 48 were determined | using a proportional representation system based on a single | constituency covering the whole country. These figures | represent election results from the simple majority districts. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C5004 | | The 2009 contest only elected lower house members. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): C5004 | | See note for C5003. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5005_A >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY A C5005_B >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY B C5005_C >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY C C5005_D >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY D C5005_E >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY E C5005_F >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY F C5005_G >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY G C5005_H >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY H C5005_I >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If multiple rounds, percent of vote received in first round. .................................................................. 000.00-100.00 PERCENT OF THE POPULAR VOTE THAT PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I] RECEIVED 999.00. MISSING | NOTES: C5005 | | Parties are identified in Appendix I. | | In case of electoral alliances/coalitions, returns | of an alliance are entered for all its members. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C5005_A - C5005_F | | These figures report results of the first round of the | presidential election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C5005_A - C5005_F | | These figures report results of the first round of the | presidential election. | | Candidate of Party A (Dilma Roussef - PT) was supported by the | following parties: | PT (Party A), | PMDB (Party B), | PDT (Party H), | PSB (Party F), | PR (Party D), | PCdoB, | PRB, | PTN, | PSC, and PTC. | Electoral return of this alliance is entered for all its members | (parties A, B, D, F, and H) | | Candidate of Party C (José Serra - PSDB) was supported by the | following parties: | PSDB (Party C), | DEM (Party E), | PTB (Party I), | PPS, | PMN, and PTdoB. | Electoral return of this alliance is entered for all its members | (parties C, E, and I) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009): C5005 | | These figures report the first round of the presidential | elections held in December 2009. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C5005_B/ C5005_E/ C5005_F | | These entries refer to the election result of the Coalition | for the Good of All (Parties B, E and F - PRD, PT and | Convergencia, respectively). The presidential candidate of the | coalition was from the PRD. | | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C5005_C/ C5005_D | | These entries refer to the election result of the coalition | Alliance for Mexico (Parties C and D - PRI and Mexican Green | Ecological Party (PVEM)). The presidential candidate of the | coalition was from the PRI. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2011): C5005 | | These figures report results of the first round of the | presidential elections. In the second round, Ollanta Humala won | the contest with 51.4% of the vote against Keiko Fujimori. | | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2011): C5005_F | | APRA did not field a candidate in the presidential elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5005_A - C5005_F | | These figures report results of the first round of the | presidential elections. In the second round Trian Basescu | obtained 50,33 of the vote, and Mircea Geoana 49,67% | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): C5005_A - C5005_F | | These figures report results of the first round of the | presidential election. See notes for C5001 and C5003. | Voters vote by selecting one ballot and putting it into the | ballot box. | A ballot contains a presidential ticket, a closed list for | Senate, and a closed list for the Lower Chamber. Each ballot | must necessarily contain lists of a single party. Electors cast | votes necessarily (for President and 2 chambers) for the same | party. Hence, the elections results are basically identical for | all three institutions - both houses of the Parliament, and for | the President (first round). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5006_1 >>> ELECTORAL TURNOUT - VERSION 1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Official voter turnout - Percentage of registered voters. .................................................................. 000.00-100.00 PERCENT OF REGISTERED VOTERS 999.00 MISSING | NOTES: C5006_1 | | Source for this variable: CSES Macro Report Questions 4d-4e, | and/or IDEA International Compulsory Voting Website | (http://www.idea.int/vt/compulsory_voting.cfm). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C5006_1 | | In Austria all eligible voters are registered automatically, | thus, C5006_2 is equal to C5006_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C5006_1 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C5006_1 | | Turnout refers to the figure recorded for the lower house | election. | In Brazil voting is mandatory; but not for people 16-17 years | old and above 70 years old. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009): C5006 | | Figures reported are for the first round of the presidential | elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CROATIA (2007): C5006_1 | | This number refers to the voters in the 10 general electoral | districts in Croatia. The turnout in the special 11th electoral | districts for the Croatian citizens living abroad was 22.2% and | in the special 12th electoral district for national minority | voters it was 18.03 %. The turnout for the total electorate, in | Croatia and abroad, was 57.17%. | The number of registered voters in Croatia is 4,073,630, which | is 494,630 more than the estimated number of voting age | population who live in Croatia. The difference may be caused by | two factors: voters living temporarily abroad, but registered | as voters in Croatia (and not in the 11th district for Diaspora | voters) and inaccuracy of voters registers. Additional 404.950 | voters are registered as Diaspora voters, who live permanently | abroad and have no residence in Croatia. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2006): C5006_1 | | In Czech Republic all eligible voters are registered | automatically, thus, C5006_1 is equal to C5006_2. The official | turnout (64.47) is slightly higher than the one reported by the | CSES (64.42) because the former is based on the number of voters | that turned out at the polling stations, and the CSES used the | number of those who submitted their votes. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2010): C5006_1 | | In Czech Republic all eligible voters are registered | automatically, thus, C5006_1 is equal to C5006_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C5006_1 | | In Denmark all eligible voters are registered automatically, | thus, C5006_1 is equal to C5006_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C5006_1 | | This variable reports first round turnout. Turnout at the second | round of the French presidential election was 59.98% | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2007): C5006_1 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2011): C5006_1 | | In Finland all eligible voters are registered automatically | by the Ministry of Justice, thus, 5006_1 is equal to 5006_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C5006_1 | | In Germany, people do not have to register to be able to | vote. Hence, the turnout is calculated with respect to the | number of persons entitled to vote rather than to the | number of registered voters. The official turnout is also | calculated in this manner. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): C5006_1 | | In Greece all eligible voters are registered automatically, | thus C5006_1 is equal to C5006_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C5006_1 | | These entries refer to the turnout in the geographical | constituency part of the 2008 Legco Elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): C5006_1 | | In Israel the total number of citizens eligible to vote | is inferior to that of the registered voters. Hence, turnout | considering voting age population is higher than among | registered voters. (from IDEA) | The explanation for this apparent anomaly usually lies either | in the inaccuracy of the electoral roll or in the estimated | number of eligible voters (VAP) (according to the IDEA website) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2010): C5006_1 | | Voters' Register was not used in the Saeima elections in | 2010. Voters could vote at any polling station at their choice. | To participate in the Saeima elections a voter needed to have | a valid Latvian citizen's passport where a mark about | participation in elections was made. As a result, there is | no basis to differentiate 5006_1 and 5006_2. | The reported figure represents the official turnout, and is | based on the estimated total number of voting age citizens. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C5006_1 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C5006_1 | | Entries reflect the number of registered voters with valid ID. | More specifically, and according to collaborator, in Mexico | after citizens register to vote in offices of the Electoral | Commission (IFE), they have to go back to pick up a valid ID | that IFE issues called "Padrón" (Electoral Roll). Some | citizens who requested their voting ID-Card do not claim it | afterwards, and these ID's are destroyed since they can not | show a valid ID on election day, and thus, they cannot vote. | The list of those who registered and got their valid ID is | called the "lista nominal" which is the actual list of voters. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C5006_1 | | Note from the Collaborator: Notice that the number of registered | voters is larger than the voting age population (8%). In an | extraordinary effort done in the 1990's, in a house by house | visit the Electoral Commission made a census of all eligible | voters. Independent estimates found that this original census | covered close to 98% of the voting age population of the time | (persons 18 years older and more). These differences indicate | that the actual list of eligible voters ("lista nominal") has | not been fully updated, most likely because of deceased voters | who are not erased from the list. Another likely source of error | might be due to errors in the estimate of age in limited census | of 2005. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C5006_1 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C5006_1 | | In Norway all eligible voters are registered automatically, | thus, C5006_1 is equal to C5006_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2011): C5006_1 | | The number of registered voters is slightly higher than the | number of voting age population since it contains citizens | who live and vote outside the country. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2009): C5006_1 | | In Portugal all eligible voters are registered automatically, | thus, C5006_2 is equal to C5006_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5006_1 | | In Romania all voters are registered automatically. The | numbers used by the Electoral Permanent Authority are supposed | to include Romanian citizens living and working abroad. | However, the electoral register is generally regarded as | poorly updated by the authorities, holding many errors. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): C5006_1 | | Every citizen of the Republic of Slovenia who is 18 years | old by the election day and has not been declared legally | incompetent has the right to vote and be elected a National | Assembly deputy. The right to vote is exercised in the | electoral unit of a person's permanent residence. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2008): C5006_1 | | The Electoral Census Office, under the supervision of the CEC, | is responsible for compiling the state-wide voter register under | a passive system and for certifying postal voting registrations. | The voter register includes voters residing both in Spain and | abroad. the number of voter abroad being small, | thus, C5006_2 is equal to C5006_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C5006_1 | | Voting is compulsory in Thailand. However there remains | differences between the calculations of voting age population | and registered voters due to inaccuracies in one of the | component values. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): C5006_1 | | In Turkey all eligible voters are registered | automatically, thus, C5006_1 is equal to C5006_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): C5006_1 | | In Uruguay, voting is compulsory and all eligible voters | are registered automatically. However, C5006_1 is not equal | to C5006_2 because the latter figure includes persons living | outside of the country. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5006_2 >>> ELECTORAL TURNOUT - VERSION 2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Official voter turnout - Percentage of voting age population. .................................................................. 000.00-100.00 PERCENT OF VOTING AGE POPULATION 999.00 MISSING | NOTES: C5006_2 | | Source for this variable: CSES Macro Report Questions 4d-4e, | and/or IDEA International Compulsory Voting Website | (http://www.idea.int/vt/compulsory_voting.cfm). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C5006_1 | | Estimated number of voting age population taken from IDEA. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C5006_1 | | In Austria all eligible voters are registered automatically, | thus, C5006_2 is equal to C5006_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C5006_2 | | Turnout refers to the figure recorded for the lower house | election. | In Brazil voting is mandatory; but not for people 16-17 years | old and above 70 years old. Total voting age populations (16 | years and older) is based on an estimate. | (Source: http://www.ibge.gov.br/). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009): C5006 | | Figures reported are for the first round of the presidential | elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CROATIA (2007): C5006_2 | | This number refers to overall national figures, where the voting | age population is 3.579.000 according to 2006 estimates. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2006): C5006_2 | | In Czech Republic all eligible voters are registered | automatically, thus, C5006_1 is equal to C5006_2. The official | turnout (64.47) is slightly higher than the one reported by the | CSES (64.42) because the former is based on the number of voters | that turned out at the polling stations, and the CSES used the | number of those who submitted their votes. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2010): C5006_2 | | In Czech Republic all eligible voters are registered | automatically, thus, C5006_1 is equal to C5006_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C5006_2 | | The reported turnout figure is slightly different from the | official one (86.59%) because the CSES figure is based on | the estimate of total voting age population, and the official | figure on total number of voting age citizens. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2007): C5006_1 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2011): C5006_1 | | In Finland all eligible voters are registered automatically | by the Ministry of Justice, thus, 5006_2 is equal to 5006_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C5006_2 | | This variable reports first round turnout. Turnout at the second | round of the French presidential election was | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C5006_2 | | These entries refer to the turnout in the geographical | constituency part of the 2008 Legco Elections. Note that there | is a substantial difference between Number of Registered Voters | (3,372,007 registered electors) and the Total Number of Voting | Age Citizens (5.8 million). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): C5006_2 | | In Greece all eligible voters are registered automatically, | thus C5006_1 is equal to C5006_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): C5006_2 | | In Israel the total number of citizens eligible to vote | is less than the number of registered voters. Hence, turnout | considering voting age population is higher than among | registered voters. (from IDEA) | The explanation for this apparent anomaly lies either | in the inaccuracy of the electoral roll or in the estimated | number of eligible voters (VAP) (according to the IDEA website). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2010): C5006_2 | | See Election Study Notes for C5006_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C5006_2 | | Note from the Collaborator: Notice that the number of registered | voters is larger than the voting age population (8%). In an | extraordinary effort done in the 1990's, in a house by house | visit the Electoral Commission made a census of all eligible | voters. Independent estimates found that this original census | covered close to 98% of the voting age population of the time | (persons 18 years older and more). These differences indicate | that the actual list of eligible voters ("lista nominal") has | not been fully updated, most likely because of deceased voters | who are not erased from the list. Another likely source of error | might be due to errors in the estimate of age in the limited | census of 2005. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C5006_2 | | This figure is based on the number of Voting Age Citizens, since | according to the collaborator, it is difficult to separate is | from the Voting Age Population. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C5006_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C5006_2 | | In Norway all eligible voters are registered automatically, | thus, C5006_2 is equal to C5006_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2011): C5006_2 | | The number of registered voters is slightly higher than the | number of voting age population since it contains citizens | who live and vote outside the country. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2009): C5006_2 | | In Portugal all eligible voters are registered automatically, | thus, C5006_2 is equal to C5006_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5006_2 | | In Romania all voters are registered automatically. The | numbers used by the Electoral Permanent Authority are supposed | to include Romanian citizens living and working abroad. | However, the electoral register is generally regarded as | poorly updated by the authorities, holding many errors. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): C5006_2 | | See notes on C5006_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2008): C5006_2 | | The Electoral Census Office, under the supervision of the CEC, | is responsible for compiling the state-wide voter register under | a passive system and for certifying postal voting registrations. | The voter register includes voters residing both in Spain and | abroad. the number of voter abroad being small, | thus, C5006_2 is equal to C5006_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C5006_2 | | Calculated from figures provided by IDEA international. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C5006_2 | | Voting is compulsory in Thailand. However there remains | differences between the calculations of voting age population | and registered voters due to inaccuracies in either values. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): C5006_2 | | In Turkey all eligible voters are registered | automatically, thus, C5006_1 is equal to C5006_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2008): C5006_2 | | This figure is based on the number of Voting Age Citizens, since | according to the collaborator, it is difficult to separate is | from the Voting Age Population. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): C5006_2 | | In Uruguay, voting is compulsory and all eligible voters are | registered automatically. However, C5006_1 is not equal to | C5006_2 because the surplus of Registered Voters above the | Voting Age Citizens is due to persons living outside the | country. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5007 >>> Party of the president before --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q2a. Party of the president before the election. .................................................................. 01-89. [SEE APPENDIX I FOR PARTY AND LEADER CODES] 97. NOT APPLICABLE 99. MISSING | NOTES: C5007 | | Source: Macro report Q2a. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2008): C5007 | | The President of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko does not hold a | formal party affiliation. Also note that the presidential | elections in Belarus were held 19 March 2006. Thus, | the president before and after the current parliamentary | election was the same. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): C5007 | | The President of the Republic shall be elected by the Riigikogu | by default. His/Her term does not coincide with that of the | parliament, which is four years. From http://www.vvk.ee/past- | elections/president-of-state-elections/ | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2007): C5007 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2011): C5007 | | The Finnish President is elected directly by popular vote for a | six-year term. The previous presidential election was held on | January 15, 2006 (next was held in January 2012). Thus, the | president before and after the 2007 and 2011 parliamentary | elections was the same. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C5007 | | "The Chief Executive (CE) in Hong Kong (some equivalent of the | president elsewhere) is the highest government official of the | HKSAR Government and does not belong to any political | party, which is required by the Chief Executive Election | Ordinance (Chapter 569, Laws of Hong Kong)." (From the Macro | Report.) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007): C5007 | | The Icelandic President is elected directly by popular vote for | a four-year term. The current incumbent is Ólafur Ragnar | Grímsson, who is now in his third term and was reelected in 2004 | with 67.5% of the votes. Thus, the president before | and after the 2007 parliamentary election was the same. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2009): C5007 | | The Icelandic President is elected directly by popular vote for | a four-year term. The current incumbent is Ólafur Ragnar | Grímsson, who is now in his fourth term and returned unopposed | in the last presidential contest of 2008. Thus, the | president before and after the 2009 parliamentary election was | the same. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2007): C5007 | | The Irish President is elected directly by popular vote for a | seven-year term. The last presidential election was held on 1st | October 2004 (when Mary McAleese was re-elected for her second | term). Thus, the president before and after the current | parliamentary election was the same. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2010): C5007 | | Latvian president is elected indirectly, in the Latvian Saeima. | On 31 May 2007, the government candidate Valdis Zatlers | defeated Aivars Endzins. Zatlers is conisdered to be a | non-partisan president. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5007 | | From a legal point of view, the president is not allowed to be | a member of a political party during his term in office. | However, he/she may be publicly endorsed by a specific party. | Traian Basescu raced for his second term with the endorsement | of the Democrat-Liberal Party (PD-L), as he had been the head of | the party (at that time Democrat Party - PD) before his first | term in office. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2010): C5007 | | The Slovak President is elected directly by popular vote for a | five-year term. The last presidential election was held on March | 21 (second round on April 4) 2009. Ivan Gasparovic, nominated by | parties Smer, SNS, and HZD, was re-elected for his second term). | Thus, the president before and after the current parliamentary | election was the same. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): C5007 | | The President's term does not coincide with that of the | parliament. The two rounds of the presidential elections were | held in 2007. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2009): C5007 | | The President serves as both head of state and head of government | in south Africa. Like Prime Ministers in other countries, the | the president is elected by the lower house and must enjoy the | confidence of parliament to govern. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2008): C5007 | | The President's term does not coincide with that of the | parliament. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): C5007 | | The president of Turkey is indirectly elected for a period | of 7 years. The last presidential elections were held in | 2007. As of 2014, presidential elections will be direct. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): C5007 | | Before the current election, the President of Uruguay was Tabaré | Vázquez, elected in 2004 (Broad Front/Frente Amplio). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5008 >>> Party of the Prime Minister before --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q2b. Party of the Prime Minister before the election. .................................................................. 01-89. [SEE APPENDIX I FOR PARTY AND LEADER CODES] 97. NOT APPLICABLE 99. MISSING | NOTES: C5008 | | Source: Macro report Q2b. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2008): C5008 | | The Prime Minister of Belarus, Sergei Sidorsky, does not hold | a formal party affiliation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2010): C5008 | | The prime minister prior to the elections, Jan Fischer, | was non-partisan (in position from 08/05/2009 to 13/07-2010). | He succeeded Mirek Topolànek (in position between 16/08/2006 | to 08/05/2009) from the Civic Democratic Party. This was | a caretaker government established after Topolanek and his | government lost a confidence vote. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2009): C5008 | | Immediately before the 2009 election the prime minister (PM) was | Ms. Johanna Sigurdardottir from the Social Democratic Alliance. | However, she took office only two months before the election | after the resignation of Geir Haarde (from the Independence | Party) who had been in office since the previous election in | May, 2007. His resignation was related to the economic crisis | of 2008. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5008 | | The Prime Minister was selected after the 2008 Legislative elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): C5008 | | 2004-2008: Prime Minister Janez Jansa, the president of the | Slovenian Democratic Party (SDS). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2009): C5008 | | There is no Prime Minister in South Africa. See C5007. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2008): C5008 | | Note from the Collaborator: "The Prime Minister did not have | party affiliation. (Note that prime minister is simply chosen | by the President. Usually he/she is not a political figure. In | a broad sense, you could say that the Prime Minister belonged | to the Grand National Party, simply because he was chosen by | the President.)" | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C5008 | | There is no formal PM in Switzerland. Instead, executive power | is exercised by a collective organism called the Federal Council | of Switzerland. This organism has seven members and is elected | by the Federal Assembly (which is composed of two organs, the | Council of States and National Council) for a four-year term. | Since 1959 the Federal Council has been composed of a coalition | of all major parties (SVP/UDC, SP/PS, FDP/PRD, and CVP/PDC), an | arrangement called the "magic formula". Currently all parties | have two members in the Federal Council, but the CVP/PDC which | has only one. The Council elects each year among its members a | president, but this position is presumably largely ceremonial. | Consequently, this variable is coded with 97 "Not-applicable". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C5008 | | Party of the Premier is the same as president since the | president appoints the Premier. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C5008 | | The party of the Prime minister in the period preceding the | elections was the Thai Rak Thai (TRT). However, the TRT had been | dissolved by the Constitutional Tribunal in May 2006, and the | former prime minister Thaksin was exiled and barred from running | in the 2007 elections, along with 111 former TRT executives. As a | response, Thaksin's supporters formed the People's Power Party | (PPP) prior to the elections, whose candidates included children | of barred former TRT members. An interim legislative body was | appointed by the King, the National Legislative Assembly on 12 | October 2006, until the adoption of a new constitution on 19 | August 2007 that would pave the road to a return to democracy. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): C5008 | | Uruguay is a presidential republic. President of Republic is | simultaneously the President of Council of Minister (and member | of that). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5009_A >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY A C5009_B >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY B C5009_C >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY C C5009_D >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY D C5009_E >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY E C5009_F >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY F C5009_G >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY G C5009_H >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY H C5009_I >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q2c. Number of cabinet posts (portfolios) held by PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I] before the election. .................................................................. 00.00-99.00 NUMBER OF CABINET POSTS BEFORE ELECTION. 999.00 MISSING | NOTES: C5009 | | Parties are identified in Appendix I. Source: Macro report Q2c. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C5009 | | This variable shows the composition of the Cabinet on October | 29, 2010. | In addition to the portfolios coded in the entries, there | was one post held by PCdoB, one post held PV, and 10 additional | independent cabinet members. Note that Brazil has a presidential | system. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2010): C5009 | | The were three cabinets between April 2006 and 2010. | The figure reported in these variables are about the | caretaker government established after Topolànek and his | government lost a confidence vote, and was established on M | May 2009. These figures represent the numbers of portfolios | nominated to non-partisans by each party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C5009 | | In Hong Kong, the Executive Council (equivalent to the | cabinet elsewhere) consists of the CE (1), official members (15 | principal government officials known as "secretaries", who | are CS, Financial Secretary, Secretary for Justice and 12 bureau | secretaries) and unofficial members (15 before the 2008 | Election). Altogether, the Executive Council had 31 members | before the 2008 LegCo Elections. | Before the Election, the CE and the official members were not | members of any political parties; 4 of the 15 unofficial | members were members of political parties (groups). (From the | Macro Report.) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2009): C5009 | | Immediately before the 2009 election, government was in hands | of a coalition between the Social Democratic Alliance and the | Left Green Movement (in addition to 2 non-partisan cabinet | members). However, this was a caretaker government that took | office in February, 2009 after the breakdown of the previous | government (a coalition between the Independence party and the | Social Democratic with 6 seats each). The previous government | led by Mr. Haarde, had taken office in May, 2007. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): C5009_A to C5009_G | | Some ministers were in charge of 2 ministries, hence the higher | count of portfolios than ministers. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C5009_A-C5009_H | | In addition to the portfolios (State Secretaries) coded in the | entries, there were 4 additional independent ministers and 2 | with unknown affiliation. | | Note that Mexico has a presidential system. The cabinet is made | up of eighteen portfolios held by state secretaries directly | appointed by the President, and the Attorney-General (19 in | total). Only the Secretary of Foreign Relations and the General | Attorney need approval from the Senate. There is no voting in | the cabinet, and the positions are not necessarily political. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C5009 | | In addition to the 12 portfolios (State Secretaries) coded in | the entries, there were 7 additional independent cabinet | members. Note that Mexico has a presidential system. The cabinet | is made up of eighteen portfolios held by state secretaries | directly appointed by the President, and the Attorney-General | (19 in total). Only the Secretary of Foreign Relations and the | General Attorney need approval from the Senate. There is no | voting in the cabinet, and the positions are not necessarily | political. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C5009 | | After the resignation of the cabinet (Balkeneende-2) on 30 | June, 2006, a caretaker government (Balkenende-3) was formed | of 9 CDA (Party A)-and 8 VVD (Party D) ministers, which was | installed on July 7, 2006. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): C5009 | | This variable shows party affiliation of six Cabinet Ministers. | Out of the remaining 11 Ministers, one is a member of Unia | Lewicy, and 10 are Independents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C5009 | | This variable shows party affiliation of 12 Cabinet Ministers. | Out of the remaining 11 Ministers, one was a member of | Stronnictwo Konserwatywno-Liberalne (SKL), and 10 are | Independents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5009 | | The figures represent the interim cabinet that was formed after the | 2008 legislative elections fell. 10 ministers | from the Democrat-Liberal Party hold 19 portfolios, and 2 | independents hold the remaining 2 portfolios. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C5009_D | | This entry refers to the Lakas-Kampi coalition. Lakas had 6 | cabinet posts, while KAMPI had 2 cabinet posts. One additional | seat belonged to PDSP (Philippine Social Democratic Party). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C5009 | | To additional cabinet posts have been held by Akbayan | (Citizens' Action Party) (party with the code 32. in the | CSES list). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C5009 | | 4 Ministers were from the KMT, 21 from the DDP, and 20 were | independents, for a total of 45 ministers including premier and | vice premier | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C5009_A to C5009_G | | These have no party entries because the Council for National | Security, a military junta, had overthrown Thailand's elected | government and abrogated the constitution on September 19 2006 | and the ministers were appointed by the perpetrators of the | coup. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): C5009_A | | There were 14 cabinet members (13 ministers plus the President | of the Republic, who is simultaneously the President of the | Council of Ministers and a member of it, with an equal vote to | each minister. The entire cabinet came from Party A (Broad | Front/Frente Amplio). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5010 >>> SIZE OF THE CABINET BEFORE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q2d. The size of the cabinet before the election. .................................................................. 00.00-99.00 SIZE OF THE CABINET 999.00 MISSING | NOTES: C5010 | | Source: Macro report Q2d. | | Definitions: | a) Parliamentary and Semi-Presidential Regimes: | Cabinet size is defined by the total number of ministers | (persons, not posts) in a defined government. Ministers are | considered members of a cabinet when they exercise voting | rights. This number includes both ministers with and without | portfolio, but excludes deputy ministers, undersecretaries, | parliamentary secretaries, ministerial alternates, given that | in the majority of cases, they do not exercise full voting | rights. | b) Presidential Regimes: | Cabinet size is defined by the total number of ministers or | secretaries who head a ministry. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C5010 | | 17 ministerial posts plus the prime minister for a | total of 18. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2008): C5010 | | 38 individuals including the prime minister. | The number specified here represents the total number | of ministerial positions in a Presidential cabinet. None of | the cabinet members were from a formal political party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CROATIA (2007): C5010 | | 18 ministers including the prime minister. The number | specified here represents the total number of ministers. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2006): C5010 | | Three unaccounted portfolios were held by the Union of | Freedom-Democratic Union (Unie svobody-Demokraticka unie; | US-DEU). US-DEU received 0.3% of the vote in the 2006 elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2010): C5010 | | The were three cabinets between April 2006 and 2010. | The figure reported in these variables are about the | caretaker government established after Topolànek and his | government lost a confidence vote, and was established on M | May 2009. These figures represent the numbers of portfolios | nominated to non-partisans by each party in the caretaker | government. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): C5010 | | The cabinet prior to the parliamentary election of 2011 was | composed of 13 persons in total; 12 cabinet ministers and 1 | Prime Minister. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C5010 | | 32 ministers including the prime minister. | The number specified here represents the total number of | ministers. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C5010 | | 13 ministerial posts, plus the Chancellor (from SPD) for | a total of 14. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C5010 | | 15 ministerial posts, plus the Chancellor (from CDU) for | a total of 16. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): C5010 | | The cabinet prior to the parliamentary election of the | 4th October 2009 was composed of 17 cabinet ministers in total: | the Prime Minister (Kostas Karamanlis) and 16 ministers. | Not counted are 1 alternate minister and 26 deputy ministers. | This cabinet composition is based on the latest reshuffling of | that government (as of 8/29 January 2009). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C5010 | | See Election Study Notes for C5009. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2009): C5010 | | In addition to the Social Democratic Alliance and the Left Green | Movement members there were also two non-party affiliated | cabinet members. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): C5010 | | 12 ministers including the prime minister. The | number specified here represents the total number of ministers. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): C5010 | | One unaccounted portfolio was held by an independent. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C5010 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C5010 | | Note that Mexico has a presidential system. The cabinet is made | up of eighteen portfolios held by state secretaries directly | appointed by the President, and the Attorney-General (19 in | total). Only the Secretary of Foreign Relations and the General | Attorney need approval from the Senate. There is no voting in | the cabinet, and the positions are not necessarily political. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C5010 | | The caretaker government had 17 ministers. See note for C5009. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2009): C5010 | | Including the Prime Minister, the size of the Cabinet | prior to the election was 16. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2010): C5010 | | The cabinet prior to the parliamentary election of 2010 | was composed of 15 members including the prime minister. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): C5010 | | The cabinet prior to the parliamentary election of 2008 was | composed of 18 persons in total; 15 cabinet ministers, 2 | ministers without portfolio, and 1 Prime Minister. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2008): C5010 | | The cabinet prior to the parliamentary election of 2008 was | composed of 16 persons in total; including 2 vice-presidents | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C5010 | | Total of 45 ministers including premier and vice premier | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C5010 | | These figures contain 26 ministers plus the prime minister for a | total of 27. | These have no party entries because the Council for National | Security, a military junta, had overthrown Thailand's elected | government and abrogated the constitution on September 19 2006 | and the ministers were appointed by the perpetrators of the | coup. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5011 >>> Party of the president AFTER --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q3a. Party of the president AFTER the election. .................................................................. 01-89. [SEE APPENDIX I FOR PARTY AND LEADER CODES] 97. NOT APPLICABLE 99. MISSING | NOTES: C5011 | | Source: Macro report Q3a. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2008): C5011 | | The President of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, does not hold a | formal party affiliation. Also note that the presidential | elections in Belarus were held 19 March 2006. Thus, | the president before and after the current parliamentary | election was the same. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): C5011 | | The President of the Republic shall be elected by the Riigikogu | by default. His/Her term does not coincide with that of the | parliament, which is four years. From http://www.vvk.ee/past- | elections/president-of-state-elections/ | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2007): C5011 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2011): C5011 | | The Finnish President is elected directly by popular vote for a | six-year term. The previous presidential election was held on | January 15, 2006 (next was held in January 2012). Thus, the | president before and after the 2007 and 2011 parliamentary | elections was the same. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C5011 | | See Election Study Notes for C5007. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007): C5011 | | The Icelandic President is elected directly by popular vote for | a four-year term. The current incumbent is Ólafur Ragnar | Grímsson, who is now in his third term and was reelected in 2004 | with 67.5% of the votes. Thus, the president before | and after the 2007 parliamentary election was the same. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007): C5011 | | The Icelandic President is elected directly by popular vote for | a four-year term. The current incumbent is Ólafur Ragnar | Grímsson, who is now in his fourth term and returned unopposed | in the last presidential contest of 2008. Thus, the | president before and after the 2009 parliamentary election was | the same. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2010): C5011 | | See Election Study Notes for C5007. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2010): C5011 | | The Slovak President is elected directly by popular vote for a | five-year term. The last presidential election was held on March | 21 (second round on April 4) 2009. Ivan Gasparovic, nominated by | parties Smer, SNS, and HZD, was re-elected for his second term. | Thus, the president before and after the current parliamentary | election was the same. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): C5011 | | The President's term does not coincide with that of the | parliament. The two rounds of the presidential elections were | held in 2007. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2009): C5011 | | The President serves as both head of state and head of government | in south Africa. Like Prime Ministers in other countries, the | the president is elected by the lower house and must enjoy the | confidence of parliament to govern. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2008): C5011 | | The President's term does not coincide with that of the | parliament. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): C5011 | | After the 2009 election, President of Uruguay became José Mujica | (Broad Front/Frente Amplio). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5012 >>> Party of the Prime Minister AFTER --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q3b. Party of the Prime Minister AFTER the election. .................................................................. 01-89. [SEE APPENDIX I FOR PARTY AND LEADER CODES] 97. NOT APPLICABLE 99. MISSING | NOTES: C5012 | | Source: Macro report Q3b. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2008): C5012 | | The Prime Minister of Belarus, Sergei Sidorsky, does not hold | a formal party affiliation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5012 | | The Prime Minister remained the same after the presidential | election (even if the government had suffered a motion of no | confidence in October 2009). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2009): C5012 | | There is no Prime Minister in South Africa. See C5011. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2008): C5012 | | Note from the Collaborator: "The Prime Minister did not have a | party affiliation. (Note that prime minister is simply chosen | by the President. Usually he/she is not a political figure. In | a broad sense, you could say that the Prime Minister belonged | to the Grand National Party, simply because he was chosen by | the President.)" | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C5012 | | There is no formal PM in Switzerland. Instead, executive power | is exercised by a collective organism called the Federal Council | of Switzerland. This organism has seven members and is elected | by the Federal Assembly (which is composed of two organs, the | Council of States and National Council) for a four-year term. | Since 1959 the Federal Council has been composed of a coalition | of all major parties (SVP/UDC, SP/PS, FDP/PRD, and CVP/PDC), an | arrangement called the ``magic formula"". Currently all parties | have two members in the Federal Council, but the CVP/PDC which | has only one. The Council elects each year among its members a | president, but this position is presumably largely ceremonial. | Consequently, this variable is coded with 99 "Not-applicable". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C5012 | | Party of the Premier is the same as president because the | president appoints the Premier. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): C5012 | | Uruguay is a presidential republic. President of Republic is | simultaneously the President of Council of Minister (and member | of that). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5013_A >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION AFTER ELECTION - PARTY A C5013_B >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION AFTER ELECTION - PARTY B C5013_C >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION AFTER ELECTION - PARTY C C5013_D >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION AFTER ELECTION - PARTY D C5013_E >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION AFTER ELECTION - PARTY E C5013_F >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION AFTER ELECTION - PARTY F C5013_G >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION AFTER ELECTION - PARTY G C5013_H >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION AFTER ELECTION - PARTY H C5013_I >>> GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION AFTER ELECTION - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q3c. Number of cabinet posts (portfolios) held by PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I] after the election. .................................................................. 00.00-99.00 NUMBER OF CABINET POSTS BEFORE ELECTION 999.00 MISSING | NOTES: C5013 | | Parties are identified in Appendix I. Source: Macro report Q2c. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C5013_B | | One of the seven posts that belong to Party B (Austrian People's | Party) is represented by one non-partisan minister, nominated by | ÖVP (Austrian People's Party) and filling an ÖVP slot. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C5013 | | This variable shows the composition of the in December 2010. | In addition to the portfolios coded in the entries, there | was one post held by PCdoB, and 10 additional independent | cabinet members. Note that Brazil has a presidential system. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2006): C5013 | | From 04/09/2006- to 09/01/2007 there were 9 cabinet | ministers from the Civic Democratic Party (ODS) and 6 | non-partisans nominated by ODS. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C5013 | | See Election Study Notes for C5009. | After the Election, the CE and the 15 official members were not | members of any political parties; 2 of the 14 unofficial members | were members of political parties (groups). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C5013 | | In addition to the portfolios (State Secretaries) coded in the | entries, there were 4 additional independent ministers and 2 | with unknown affiliation. | | Note that Mexico has a presidential system. The cabinet is made | up by eighteen portfolios held by state secretaries directly | appointed by the President, and the Attorney-General (19 in | total). Only the Secretary of Foreign Relations and the General | Attorney need approval from the Senate. There is no voting in | the cabinet, and the positions are not necessarily political. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C5013 | | In addition to the 12 portfolios (State Secretaries) coded in | the entries, there were 7 additional independent ministers . | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): C5013 | | This variable shows party affiliation of 11 Cabinet Ministers. | Out of the remaining 7 Ministers, one is a member of Partia | Centrum (pa party that received 0.19% of votes), while 6 are | Independents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C5013 | | This variable shows party affiliation of 13 Cabinet Ministers. | The remaining 7 Ministers were Independents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5013 | | The cabinet changes are not due to the presidential election | but are the results of a motion of no confidence voted in | October 2009. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): C5013_A | | The collaborator lists 9 individuals (Excluding the Prime | Minister). Two of which without a portfolio. | | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): C5013_D | | The collaborator lists 3 persons, one of which without a | portfolio. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C5013 | | After the elections 24 Ministers were from the KMT, 1 from the | DDP, and 20 were independents, for a total of 45 ministers | including premier and vice premier. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): C5013_A | | There are 14 cabinet members - 13 ministers plus the President | of the Republic, who is simultaneously the President of the | Council of Ministers and a member of it, with an equal vote to | each minister. The entire cabinet came from Party A (Broad | Front/Frente Amplio). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5014 >>> SIZE OF THE CABINET AFTER --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q3d. The size of the cabinet after the election. .................................................................. 00.00-99.00 SIZE OF THE CABINET 999.00 MISSING | NOTES: C5014 | | Source: Macro report Q3d. | | Definitions: | a) Parliamentary and Semi-Presidential Regimes: | Cabinet size is defined by the total number of ministers | (persons, not posts) in a defined government. Ministers are | considered members of a cabinet when they exercise voting | rights. This number includes both ministers with and without | portfolio, but excludes deputy ministers, undersecretaries, | parliamentary secretaries, ministerial alternates, given that | in the majority of cases, they do not exercise full voting | rights. | b) Presidential Regimes: | Cabinet size is defined by the total number of ministers or | secretaries who head a ministry. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C5014 | | 20 ministerial posts plus the prime minister for a | total of 21. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2008): C5014 | | 38 individuals including the prime minister. | The number specified here represents the total number | of ministerial positions in a Presidential cabinet. None of | the cabinet members were from a political party | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2006): C5014 | | Six unaccounted portfolios were held by non-partisans nominated | by the Civic Democratic Party (ODS) (Party A). That was the so | called Topolanek I cabinet (04/09/2006-09/01/2007). In Topolanek | II cabinet, the following shows the distribution of portfolios: | | Party A Civic Democratic Party (ODS) 9 | Party D Christian-Democratic Union-Czechoslovak | People's Party (KDU-CSL) 4 | Party E Green Party (SZ) 3 | Non-partisans nominated by KDU-CSL 1 | Non-partisans nominated by SZ 1 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): C5014 | | The cabinet formed after the parliamentary election of 2011 was | composed of 13 persons in total; 12 cabinet ministers and 1 | Prime Minister. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C5014 | | 16 ministers including the prime minister. | The number specified here represents the total number of | ministers. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C5014 | | 15 ministerial positions, plus one minister without portfolio, | but with voting rights in cabinet meetings (Federal Minister for | Special Affairs Thomas de Maiziere (CDU). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C5014 | | 15 ministerial posts, plus the Chancellor (from CDU) for | a total of 16. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): C5014 | | The cabinet which was formed after the parliamentary election | of the 4th October 2011 was composed of 16 persons. The | Prime Minister (George Papandreou), the vice-President of the | government (Theodoros Pagalos), 15 ministers (including | Papandreou as minister of foreign affairs). Not counted are 2 | alternate ministers and 19 deputy ministers. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C5014 | | See Election Study Notes for C5009. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2009): C5014 | | In addition to the Social Democratic Alliance and the Left Green | Movement members, there were two non-party affiliated | cabinet members. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): C5014 | | 25 ministers plus the prime minister. In addition to the parties | mentioned in C5013, two remaining cabinet posts were held | by members of the Pensioners Party (Gil). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): C5014 | | Two unaccounted portfolios were held by independents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C5014 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C5014 | | Mexico has a Presidential System in which portfolios (State | Secretaries) are designated directly by the president. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2009): C5014 | | Including the Prime Minister, the size of the cabinet is 17. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5014 | | The cabinet changes are not due to the presidential election | but are the results of a motion of no confidence voted in | October 2009. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2010): C5014 | | The cabinet following the parliamentary election of 2010 | was composed of 15 cabinet ministers, one prime-minister | and once vice-prime minister for a total of 15 members. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): C5014 | | The cabinet following the parliamentary election of 2008 was | composed of 19 persons in total including the Prime Minister, | and one minister without portfolio. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2008): C5014 | | The cabinet prior to the parliamentary election of 2008 was | composed of 18 persons in total; including 2 vice-presidents | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C5014 | | These figures contain 35 ministers plus the prime minister for a | total of 36. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5015 >>> Number of parties participating in election --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q4a. How many political parties received votes in the election? .................................................................. 001-900. NUMBER OF PARTIES 999. MISSING | NOTES: C5015 | | Source: Macro report Q4a. | This variable reports number of participating political parties, | not merely alliances or coalitions of political parties about | which official information was available. | Independent candidates are not counted. Where coalitions are | present member parties are counted separately. | This variable primarily concerns the Lower House election. | However, if a particular study is focused on the Upper House, or | presidential election, it may report results for these | elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C5015 | | The entry refers to the number of parties competing in the | lower house election. In the upper house election (senate) there | were 28 competing parties. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C5015 | | 29 parties obtained votes in the electoral contest. From this | number, 17 obtained 1 percent of the vote or more. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C5015 | | There are no official figures on this. However, there were 7634 | candidates (in 577 constituencies) and 70 parties were eligible | for public subsidies. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C5015 | | This figure reflects the number of parties participating in the | geographical constituency elections. Political parties do not | participate in the functional constituency elections. | In addition to the 11 participating parties, the Independent | candidates received 10% of the total vote on aggregate. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): C5015 | | This entry refers to the number of parties competing in the | proportional representation nation-wide segment. In the | single member district contest, nine parties competed. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2010): C5015 | | This entry (26) refers to the number of parties taking part in | the 2010 Latvian elections. However, they participated within | various electoral coalitions. There were 13 electoral lists | that competed in the election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C5015 | | This entry (29 parties) refers to the total number of | participating parties, including non-registered parties. | There were 19 registered parties. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C5015 | | This figure reflects the total number of parties participating | in the election that obtained more than 0.01% of the popular | vote. Very small joint party lists and coalitions are excluded | from the calculations. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C5015 | | Political parties in the Philippines are numerous and diverse | ideologically. Different subsets of parties participated in | the Presidential, Senate and Congress elections of 2010. | Electoral Commission lists 131 registered/accredited political | parties, as of January 11, 2010. | In the Congress election, 29 parties participated in the | congressional districts elections, while there are 43 parties | (listed by the CSES collaborator) participating in the Party | List elections (the secondary or proportional segment). The | entry in this variable refers to the number of parties | participating in the Congressional district elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): C5015 | | This entry refers to the number of parties competing in the | Lower House election. In the Senate 108 Election Committees | competed. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C5015 | | This entry refers to the number of parties competing in the | Lower House election. There were 10 electoral lists, one of | which consisted of a coalition of 4 parties. In the Senate 29 | Election Committees competed. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5015 | | 10 political parties (individually or as part of electoral | alliances) were represented by candidates in the presidential | elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C5015 | | This entry only counts parties obtaining more 0.1% of the vote | or more. There were also a number of mostly local parties | obtaining less than 0.1% that competed in a few cantons. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C5015 | | In addition to the 7 parties listed, there is an aggregate | category "other" that obtained 2.74% of the vote. There is no | available information as to how many parties are contained in | this category. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C5015 | | In addition to the 7 parties listed, there is an aggregate | category "other" that obtained 3.8% of the vote. There is no | available information as to how many parties are contained in | this category. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2008): C5015 | | The entry refers to parties participating as separate | entities. Thus, for example, an entry in the election results | list such as "Democratic; Working Families", is counted as | being Democratic Party. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5016_A >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY A C5016_B >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY B C5016_C >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY C C5016_D >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY D C5016_E >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY E C5016_F >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY F C5016_G >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY G C5016_H >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY H C5016_I >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q5.a-f. Ideological Family Party is Closest to: .................................................................. 01. ECOLOGY PARTIES 02. COMMUNIST PARTIES 03. SOCIALIST PARTIES 04. SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTIES 05. LEFT LIBERAL PARTIES 06. LIBERAL PARTIES 07. RIGHT LIBERAL PARTIES 08. CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC PARTIES 09. CONSERVATIVE PARTIES 10. NATIONAL PARTIES 11. AGRARIAN PARTIES 12. ETHNIC PARTIES 13. REGIONAL PARTIES 14. INDEPENDENT PARTIES 15. OTHER 97. NOT APPLICABLE 98. NO IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY MENTIONED 99. MISSING | NOTES: C5016 | | Parties are identified in Appendix I. Source: Macro report Q5. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C5016_B & C5016_D | | Party B (Austrian People's Party) was also characterized as a | Christian Democratic party. Party D (Alliance for the Future | of Austria) was also characterized as a National party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2008): C5016_C | | The Bloc Quebecois was classified as both a National and | Regional party by the collaborator, since it has both | a regionalist and nationalist platform. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CROATIA (2007): C5016_E | | HSU is a party of pensioners. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CROATIA (2007): C5016_F | | HSP is a right wing party (extreme, radical, far right). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C5016_G | | "New Alliance (H) (Party G) had at the time of the election | only existed for 6 months. They have later moved in the | direction towards being a Right Liberal Party and have changed | their name to Liberal Alliance." (From the Macro report.) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C5016_H | | Enhedslisten (Party H) was characterized as a "Social Party". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2007): C5016_A | | Party A (Centre party) was also characterized as a Liberal | Party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): C5016_D | | The collaborator considers the Popular Orthodox Rally (LAOS) | as an (extreme) right-wing populist party family. No response | category matched the ideological profile of this party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007): C5016_C | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2009): C5016_C | | Party C (Left Green Movement) is characterized as an | Left-Socialist/Ecology" party. Only the first | characterization is coded in the data set. . | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007): C5016_D | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2009): C5016_D | | Party D (Progressive Party) is characterized as an | "Agrarian/Liberal Center" party. Only the first | characterization is coded in the data set. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2009): C5016_F | | Party F (Civic Movement) is characterized as an | "Protest" party | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): C5016 | | Party A is referred to by collaborator as a "center party". | Party C is referred to by collaborator as a "Religious | party (Ultra Orthodox)". | Party F is referred to by collaborator as a "Religious | nationalist party". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): C5016_C | | Party C (Komei) was originally characterized as "Religious". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2010): C5016_B & C5016_C | | Party B (Harmony Centre) was also characterized as an | Ethnic Party (code 12). Party C (Union of Greens and Farmers) | was also characterized as an Agrarian Party (code 11). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C5016_C | | Party C (PRI) was also characterized as a Social | Democratic Party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C5016_A | | PRI is characterized as belonging to "Social Democratic | (moderate)" ideological family. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C5016_C | | Party A (PRD) was also characterized as a Social Democratic | (radical) party | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C5016_G | | Party G (Christian Union) is characterized as Orthodox- | Protestant. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C5016_G | | Party G (GroenLinks) was fully characterized as | Ecology/Socialist | | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C5016_H | | Party H (Christian Union) is characterized as Orthodox- | Protestant party. | | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C5016_I | | Party I (Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij, SGP) is characterized | as Orthodox-Protestant party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C5016_D | | Party D (New Zealand First) was characterized as a | "Populist/Nationalist" party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C5016_H | | Party H (United Future) was characterized as a "Centre Liberal" | party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C5016_B | | Party B (Progress Party - FrP) was also characterized as a | Populist party". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C5016_H | | Party H (Red Electoral Alliance - Rød Valgallianse) was fully | characterized as a "Radical socialist" party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): C5016_A | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C5016_A | | Full characterization for Party A (Prawo i Sprawiedliwosc) was | "National Parties/Conservative Parties (also slightly | populist)". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2009): C5016_B | | "The assignment of PSD to an ideological family is difficult | because, although it belongs to the center-right of the | political spectrum, it has both liberal and conservative | factions within it. It is assigned to the liberal family." | (From the Macro report.) | | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2009): C5016_D | | Bloco de Esquerda (Left Block) is originally characterized as | "Extreme Left" party, with the following clarification: | "Left-libertarian on social/moral issues, close to Communist | positions on the economy." | | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2009): C5016_E | | Coligação Democrática Unitária (CDU) is an electoral | alliance formed by the Portuguese Communist Party (PCP) (CSES | category 02) and the Greens (PEV) (CSES category 01). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5016_D | | The Romanian collaborator identified this political party as | "Nationalist Left". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5016_G | | The Romanian collaborator identified this political party as | combining "Christian" and "Nationalist" values. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2010): C5016_B | | Party B (Slovak Democratic and Christian Union-Democratic Party | (SDKÚ-DS)) is characterized as "Christian Democratic party" and | as "Center-right". Only the first characterization is coded in | the data set. | | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2010): C5016_D | | Party D (Christian Democratic Movement (KDH)) is characterized | as "Christian Democratic party" and as "Conservative party". | Only the first characterization is coded in the data set. | | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2010): C5016_E | | Party E (Most- Híd) is fully characterized as "Hungarian | minority interest - ethnic party, more center-right". | | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2010): C5016_F | | Party F (Slovak National Party (SNS)) is fully characterized | as "Radical national party". | | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2010): C5016_G | | Party G (Party of Hungarian Coalition (SMK)) is fully | characterized as "Ethnic based party, rather conservative". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): C5016_D | | The Democratic Party of retired persons is "issue specific" | (source: macro report). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2009): C5016_E | | Independent Democrats is considered an ethnic party in terms | of support base amongst colored citizens in Western Cape, but | not party platform (source: macro report). | | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2009): C5016_F | | United Democratic Movement is considered an ethnic party in | terms if support base amongst Xhosa speakers in Eastern Cape | but not party platform (source: macro report). | | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2009): C5016_G | | According to the collaborator, Freedom Front Plus is probably | more ethnic/racial but also conservative. | | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2009): C5016_H | | According to the collaborator, ACDP explicitly Christian | and evangelical, so more important than conservative. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C5016_A to G | | None of the proposed categories fit the political parties | in Thailand. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): C5016_E | | The political party SP (Felicity Party) was categorized as | a "religious (Sunni Islamist)" political party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): C5016_F | | The political party HAS parti (People's voice party) | was categorized as a "Social Liberal Religious" party | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): C5016 | | Most Uruguayan parties actually represent coalitions of parties, | organizations, and/or movements. Hence their ideological | character is complex. | Taking this into account, the Uruguayan collaborator described | ideological profile of the parties using multiple designations, | as shown below. Only the first characterization listed is | entered into the data-set. | | Variable / Party CSES code | | C5016_A - Party A 03. Socialist | 04. Social Democratic | 02. Communist | Left Libertarian | | C5016_B - Party B 10. Nationalist | 08. Christian Democratic | 09. Conservative | 07. Right Liberal | | C5016_C - Party C 09. Conservative | 07. Right Liberal | (Center Right) Social Democratic | | C5016_D - Party D 04. Social Democratic | (Center Left) Christian Democratic | | C5016_E - Party E 15. Revolutionary | Left Libertarian --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5017_A >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY A C5017_B >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY B C5017_C >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY C C5017_D >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY D C5017_E >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY E C5017_F >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY F C5017_G >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY G C5017_H >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY H C5017_I >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q6a. A-F. Parties' positions on the left-right scale (in the expert judgment of the CSES Collaborator): .................................................................. 00. LEFT 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. RIGHT 97. NOT APPLICABLE; NO LOWER HOUSE ELECTIONS 99. MISSING | NOTES: C5017 | | Parties are identified in Appendix I. Source: Macro report Q6a. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C5017_A - C5017_G | | Left-right positions are the result of a survey among the four | principal investigators of the election study. The standard | deviation of their responses are: Party A (.535), Party B | (.488), Party C (.690), Party D (.378), Party E (.690), Party F | (.900), Party G (.756). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5017_E | | according to the collaborator it is impossible to provide a | proper Left-Right placement of the UDMR. The Democratic Alliance | of Hungarians in Romania (UDMR) is a political organization | representing the Hungarian minority in Romania. Although not | officially registered as a political party, it is the equivalent | of an ethnic party that competes in every election and passes | the threshold. Although affiliated to the European People's Party | (EPP), it puts together several smaller platforms of different | ideological orientations (christian-democratic, social democratic, | liberal, etc.). These platforms stick together in order to pass | the electoral threshold, as they all represent primarily the | interests of the Hungarian minority. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): C5017_G | | The liberal party's policy positions and preferences | are not only oriented towards ‘pure' liberal economic ideals, | but importantly also to welfare issues, especially | in the protection of the minority groups. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C5017_A to G | | All political parties in Thailand were coded 5 by the | collaborator. This decision is largely based on the fact that, | for all the political parties, the average score on the left- | right scale is also 5 in the micro part of the data. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5018 >>> ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q6b. Were respondents asked to rank political parties on an alternative dimension, other than the left-right dimension? .................................................................. 1. YES [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES FOR THE DIMENSION LABELS] 5. NO 9. MISSING | NOTES: C5018_A-F | | See Variable Notes for the dimension labels. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): C5018 | | Label for left hand position: Russia is a security threat. | Label for right hand position: Russia is a trustworthy partner. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): C5018 | | Provided for information only in the macro report to give the | full ideological perspective of the parties. | Label for left hand position: Libertarianism. | Label for right hand position: Authoritarianism. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C5018 | | Name of dimension: Pro-Beijing vs. Pro-Hong Kong | | Label for left hand position: Pro-Beijing. | Label for right hand position: Pro-Hong Kong. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007): C5018 | | Name of dimension: Environmentalism | | Label for left hand position: Not at all environmentalist. | Label for right hand position: Very environmentalist. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): C5018 | | Name of dimension: Progressive vs Conservative | | Label for left hand position: Progressive. | Label for right hand position: Conservative. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2010): C5018 | | Name of dimension: Ethnic dimension | | Label for left hand position: Pro-Slavic. | Label for right hand position: Pro-Latvian. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C5018 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C5018 | | Name of dimension: Liberalism vs. Conservatism. | | Label for left hand position: Liberal. | Label for right hand position: Conservative. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): C5018 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C5018 | | Name of dimension: Liberal vs Solidary. | | Label for left hand position: Liberal. | Label for right hand position: Solidary. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C5018 | | In Taiwan a rating of political parties was provided on an | alternative dimension. The same of the dimension is: Stance on | Taiwan Independence vs. unification with mainland China. Scores | closer to 0 represent preference for the independence of Taiwan, | while scores closer to 10 signify preference for unification | with mainland China. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5018_A >>> ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY A C5018_B >>> ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY B C5018_C >>> ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY C C5018_D >>> ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY D C5018_E >>> ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY E C5018_F >>> ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY F C5018_G >>> ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY G C5018_H >>> ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY H C5018_I >>> ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q6b.a-f. Parties' positions on the alternative scale (in the expert judgment of the CSES Collaborator): .................................................................. 00. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES FOR THE DIMENSION LABELS] 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES FOR THE DIMENSION LABELS] 97. NOT APPLICABLE 99. MISSING | NOTES: C5018_A-F | | See Variable Notes for the dimension labels. | | Parties are identified in Appendix I. Source: Macro report Q6a. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5019_1 >>> MOST SALIENT FACTORS IN ELECTION - 1ST C5019_2 >>> MOST SALIENT FACTORS IN ELECTION - 2ND C5019_3 >>> MOST SALIENT FACTORS IN ELECTION - 3RD C5019_4 >>> MOST SALIENT FACTORS IN ELECTION - 4TH C5019_5 >>> MOST SALIENT FACTORS IN ELECTION - 5TH --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q7.1-5. In your view, what are the five most salient factors that affected the outcome of the election (e.g., major scandals; economic events; the presence of an independent actor; specific issues)? .................................................................. 001.-899. MOST SALIENT FACTORS CODES [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 999. MISSING | NOTES: C5019_1-5 | | Entries below are presented according to the order of salience | in the expert judgments of the CSES collaborators. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election is included here: | | 060. Industrial Relations | 004. Health | 001. Education | 061. Economic Management | 062. Environment/Global warming. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the five most salient factors | in the election is included here: | | 074. Severe intra-governmental conflicts between coalitional | parties regarding tax policies, appropriate measurements | fighting inflation and mandatory referendums about | further EU contracts. | 075. Time of realization and magnitude of the proposed tax | relief and compensation for rising inflation especially | for low income households. | 076. Growing EU-skepticism and disillusionment with EU | policies. | 077. Intensified anti-immigration and islamophobic resentments | in subgroups of the electorate. | 078. Disillusionment with performance and leading figures of | both coalitional parties. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2008): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election is included here: | | 031. Steps towards developing relations with the EU | 032. The oil and gas conflict with Russia in December 2007 | 033. The conflict between Russia and Georgia | 034. The neutral position of Belarus in terms of the | conflict between Russia and Georgia, non-recognition | of Abkhazia's and South Ossetia's independence. | 035. Cancelling social benefits | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election is included here: | | 055. Re-election of president Lula. (At the time of | election, President Lula had high levels of | government approval). | 056. Public debate about privatization and the role of state. | President Lula as candidate has emphasized the role of | state in economy and social policies. The main adversary | (PSDB Alckmin) emphasized the positive aspects of | privatization. | 057. The role of media. Some political specialists affirm | that the second round of election only happened because | President Lula didn't appear in a campaign debate at | television 3 days before the day of election. All surveys | reported that President Lula would win for Presidency in | the first round, due to his wide approval and popularity. | 058. Corruption crisis affecting the president Party (PT). In | 2005 there was a corruption scandal involving some | politicians in the National Congress and some political | parties, related to electoral financing campaign in 2002 | and benefits to politicians at Parliament. | 059. Social Programs. Bolsa Familia, a redistribution of | income program was the landmark of the government, it | changed the geographic distribution of votes for Lula to | the poor areas of the country; the vote for Lula was | historically concentrated in the richer areas of the | country, identified to left vote. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the five most salient factors | in the election is included here: | | 148. Continuity of President Lula's government. (At the time | of election, President Lula had high levels of government | approval, the highest in the 2 terms of mandate - 83% of | approval) | 149. Maintenance of federal social programs (specially the | income transfer programs) and economic policy. Economic | policy benefited middle classes and the consumption | opportunities; in 2010 socioeconomic data revealed that | the "C Class" was about 52% of the population. | 150. Abortion and Religion. Near to the election day the | campaign turned highly conservative, a strategy of the | opposition to differentiate itself from the government | electoral agenda. The government candidate Dilma Roussef | (Worker's Party) used to be a leftist militant in | terrorist organizations during the military regime, and | during the campaign publicly defined abortion as a public | health problem, not a Catholic or religious issue. The | main adversary (PSDB-Jose Serra) emphasized the role of | religion in public issues. Analysts agree to that was the | main cause the Government's candidate did not win the | election in the first round, she won in the second round. | 151. Corruption crisis affecting the government. In 2010 there | was scandals involving some ministries. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2008): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the five most salient factors | in the election is included here: | | 185. Healthcare | 188. Partisanship | 189. Party leaders | 190. The environment | 191. Strategic considerations (including minority government) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009): C5019 | | This figure represents the number of parties who participated | in the lower house elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election is included here: | | 214. Long tenure in office of the Concertacion (four | Presidents in a row) | 215. Splits and conflicts of the ruling parties, particularly | and social democrats | 216. Bad candidate and campaign of the Concertacion, former | president Eduardo Frei Ruiz Tagle. | 217. Modernizing campaigns of the right | 218. Impact of the financial crisis 2008 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CROATIA (2007): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election is included here: | | 026. Ideological and party loyalty of the voters of the two | major parties, HDZ and SDP | 027. New party leader of the SDP, who mobilized additional | volatile voters | 028. Favorable economic trends supporting the ruling HDZ | 029. Open support for the HDZ by the Catholic Church | 030. Several contested issues: voting rights for the Croatian | citizens living abroad questioned by the SDP, threat by | the SDP to introduce tax on profits from stock market | shares. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2006): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election is included here: | | 107. Economic issues concerning taxation, social welfare and | health care. | 108. The election campaign featured negative personal attacks | on political opponents: A week before Election Day, with | the assistance of MPs of the opposition ODS and governing | KDU-CSL, a secret report by Police Colonel Kubice was | published, pointing to possible links between the then | Prime Minister and CSSD Party leader, Paroubek, and | organized crime. For ODS and other parties, the | publishing of the secret report was a way to criticize | the corrupting and 'mafia-like' style of CSSD's politics. | 109. A day before the elections were to take place, in the | editorials of three out of four major dailies, the | editors in-chief recommended that voters did not vote for | the Communists or Social Democrats, but that they cast | their vote in favor of liberal and conservative parties. | 110. Unexpected increase in the support of Green party between | January to March 2006 from almost nothing to 7 percent. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2010): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election is included here: | | 192. Economic crisis and country's budgetary deficit was used | by the centre-right parties as a tool to strengthen their | position and proclaim the need of cutting spending against | often populist promises of the left in areas of social | spending, tax and healthcare. | 193. Rise of distrust to traditional, namely two largest | parties (ODS and CSSD), emergence of new political subjects | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the five most salient factors | in the election is included here: | | 152. Welfare policy | 153. Immigration policy (in particular treatment of children | of asylum seekers not granted asylum but being unable to | return to their home) | 154. Economic policy | 155. Tax reliefs | 156. Higher wages for public employees | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the elections is included here: | | 143. As Estonia had been hit very hard by the global economic | and financial crisis (the economy contracted by nearly | 15% in 2009; in 2010, GDP expanded by 3.1%), issues | related to economic recovery and job creation dominated | political debates. The key question dividing voters was | how to assess the government's response to the crisis. | 144. Edgar Savisaar, head of the biggest opposition party | (the Centre Party), was mired in a major scandal after | having allegedly requested and received funding for his | party from Russian sources connected to the Kremlin. The | allegations were officially confirmed by the Estonian | Security Police. All other major parties ruled out | cooperation with the Centre Party as long as Edgar | Savisaar remains its leader. The scandal contributed to | the polarization of the electorate along ethnic lines | and intensified security concerns. The scandal broke | three months before the election and was in the | headlines throughout the campaign period. | 145. High levels of unemployment, coupled with concerns about | rising prices made questions related to welfare | prominent in the press and in campaign manifestos. Many | voters attributed price hikes to the changeover to the | euro (on January 1, 2011) and critics accused the Ansip | government of being overeager in pleasing Brussels (e.g. | implementing ruthless budget cuts in order to comply | with the convergence criteria) while neglecting the | welfare of economically less-secure segments of the | population. | 146. An unusually large number of independent candidates, | some of them very prominent, ran on an anti-party | message contributing to a critical debate about the | complacency of party elites. Independent candidates were | encouraged by the success of Indrek Tarand in the 2009 | European Parliament elections (Tarand received over a | quarter of the nation-wide vote). | 147. The internal turmoil in the two smallest opposition | parties (the People's Union and the Greens) led to wide- | spread perditions of their demise, which in turn drove | small party supporters to vote for bigger parties (in | order to not waste their votes). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2007): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election is included here: | | 063. Cleavage between labour movement and non-socialist | parties, which was intensified by the campaign ads of the | central labour federation. | 064. Disagreements on the possibilities for increasing | welfare services and benefits, and on the possibilities | to reduce taxes | 065. Unemployment | 066. Benefits of the elderly people | 067. The so called premier campaign: the suitability of the | party leaders of the three biggest parties to serve as | the prime minister. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2011): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election is included here: | | 167. The European economic crisis and the bailouts of | Portugal and Greece. | 168. The party and candidate funding scandal after the | election of 2007. | 169. The cleavage between center and periphery. | 170. Increased income differences, even though still modest | in a global comparison, the Finnish electorate is | sensitive to increased economic inequalities. | 171. The campaigning for the position of the Prime Minister. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election is included here: | | 021. Result of the previous presidential elections | (won by Nikolas Sarkozy, UMP) | 022. Change in Party Strategy from the UDF (embodied in the | Change of name UDF MoDem): left the traditional | right-wing Alliance but no agreement came to force with | the left wing parties | 023. Debate about "Social VAT" (new government appointed by | the new President reasserted than an increase of VAT to | decrease salary charges was possible); more salient | between first and second round. | 024. Environment (new government was created with a | particularly large ministerial department for environment; | sustainable growth was put to the fore) | 025. European integration (after the no to the European | constitutional treaty in May 2005, debates about how | should the new treaty be designed and consequently | ratified in France) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election is included here: | | 068. Reform of the social security system in Germany | (Hartz IV) | 069. Economy and unemployment | 070. Tax Reform (Goods and services tax) | 071. Snap Elections | 072. Health System (Kopfpauschale) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election is included here: | | 104. Commercial Crisis | 049. Social Security | 105. Nuclear Power Phase-out | 106. Data Protection vs. Homeland Security | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the elections is included here: | | 133. Economic Crisis | 134. Political corruption | 135. Social upheaval-riots | 136. Immigration | 137. Educational reform | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election is included here: | | 111. Tensions between Hong Kong and Beijing: When the tensions | between Hong Kong and Beijing are high, more voters tend | to vote for candidates from pro-Hong Kong parties; when | tensions are low, more voters tend to vote for candidates | from pro-Beijing parties. | 112. Government performance: When the government performs | well, more voters tend to vote for candidates from pro- | government parties; when the government performs badly, | more voters tend to vote for candidates from anti- | government parties. | 113. Policy orientation or stance of parties (e.g. minimum | wage legislation). | 114. Strategic voting: When an imbalance of power favoring | pro-government forces in the Legislative Council is | perceived, more voters tend to vote for candidates from | anti-government parties and candidates who are more vocal | or radical. | 115. Candidates' quality and constituency services. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election is included here: | | 121. Economic Stability | 001. Education | 046. Environmental issues/concerns | 122. Social Welfare | 003. Taxes | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2009): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election is included here: | | 079. Economic crisis. | 080. Collapse of the three major Icelandic commercial banks | 081. Debate about democratic reform | 082. Holding those accountable who were responsible for the | bank crisis. | 083. Saving / helping households from going bankrupt | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2007): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election is included here: | | 084. Economic situation | 085. Perceived competence of government party | 086. Different views on main government party leader | 087. Concerns about the health service | 088. Traditional loyalties | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election is included here: | | 016. Disengagement, security | 017. Candidates (Sharon's illness, Amir Peretz) | 018. Social gaps, the economy | 019. Identity (religion, ethnicity) | 020. Disaffection from politics and corruption | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election is included here: | | 041. Discontent with politics (related to PM response to | "missing pensions records" issue) | 042. Compensation tax (VAT) issue | 043. Evaluation of "Structural Reform" of Koizumi Cabinet | (related to socioeconomic inequality) | 044. Political corruption | 001. Education | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2010): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election is included here: | | 176. Overseeing the economic recovery (Unity; UFG). | 177. Accusations of corruption (For a good Latvia) | 178. Blame for economic collapse | 179. Ethnic divide | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election is included here: | | 006. Ideological Polarization | 007. Loss of support of PRD candidate | 008. Intense Media Coverage of candidates | 009. Potential Impeachment of PRD candidate | 010. Business Advisory Center TV add against PRD candidate | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election is included here: | | 123. The government had to pay the consequences of the | financial crisis of 2007-2009. Even though, the public | finances did not suffer severe consequences, and the | exchange rate peso-dollar did not suffer sudden and | drastic changes, GNP dropped dramatically and | unemployment spread. Therefore, the perception that the | Government did not respond in the best way to solve these | problems extended, causing a great discontent and | frustration in the population. | 124. The problem of crime, specially the "Drug War" - an armed | conflict between rival drug cartels and government forces | -, produced a lack of credibility in the Government (PAN) | because the persistence of violence and murders related | to this issue. | 125. The former left candidate of the PRD, Andrés Manuel López | Obrador, did not recognize his defeat in 2006, and has | been campaigning across the country under two small | parties (Convergencia and PT). This has created strong | problems for the leftist parties in two senses. On the one | hand strong rejection of López Obrador among many | segments of the population and, strong divisions among | the parties. This deteriorated their credibility. | 126. General dissatisfaction with the political actors. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election is included here: | | 128. Immigration/integration of ethnic minorities debates | 129. Future of the European Union and position of Netherlands | in EU | 130. Conflict Minister Rita Verdonk - MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali | 131. Contested leadership of several parties | 132. Socio-economic issues | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election is included here: | | 185. Economic crisis and ways to get out of the crisis | 186. Age of retirement | 187. Healthcare (costs and coverage) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election is included here: | | 099. Attrition of support after three terms of government | 100. Economic recession | 101. Campaign funding restrictions | 102. Law and Order | 103. Tax Reform | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election is included here: | | 001. Education | 002. Care of the Elderly | 003. Taxes | 004. Health care | 005. Child care | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election is included here: | | 001. Education | 046. Environment | 004. Health care | 002. Care for the Elderly | 141. Immigration | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2011): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election is included here: | | 204. Social inclusion and redistributions of economic growth | 205. Social conflicts | 206. Crime and insecurity | 207. The role of the government in the economy and the | Economic development | 208. The legacy of Fujimori's authoritarian government | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election is included here: | | 172. Death of former Pres. Corazon Aquino. The death of former | Corazon Aquino changed the electoral landscape. Her death | led to a widespread clamor for her son Benigno "Noynoy" | Aquino III to run for President. | 173. Liberal Party Standard bearer stepping aside for Noynoy | Aquino. Mar Roxas who was then the standard bearer of | the Liberal Party was preparing for the campaign when | former Pres. Corazon Aquino died. He eventually gave in | to the clamor and step aside to in favor of Noynoy | Aquino. He was eventually offered the Vice-Presidency but | lost. | 174. Negative political campaigning. The negative ads that | were shown during the campaign affected the chances of | Sen. Manuel Villar, Jr. to win. He was in 2nd place | during the campaign but fell into 3rd place after the | election. | 175. Use of automated counting machine. The use of the | counting machines prevented the widespread cheating that | happened in the previous election. The results were also | announced in record time. Although there are some | apprehension in using the counting machines . | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors in the | election is included here: | | 089. Decomposition of the Left (Rywin affair) | 090. Social aspect of the PiS campaign (liberal Poland | vs. solidary Poland) | 091. The idea of the PO-PiS coalition | 092. Communist Poland vs. post-communist Poland | 093. Conception of moral renewal (especially PiS and PO) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors in the | election is included here: | | 094. PiS and its allies' style of governing | 095. Opposition against PiS government | 096. Social campaign (advocating higher voter turnout) | 097. Mobilization of the electorate | 098. Sawicka affair | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election is included here: | | 199. Scandal: Public issue and broadcasting of a short film | apparently showing president Traian Basescu hitting a | child during an electoral rally in 2004. Supporters of the | president accused it to be a fake. | 200. Political event: The vote of non-confidence for the Emil | Boc government on October 13th, 2009, after the withdrawal | of the Social Democrat Party (PSD) from the government | coalition. The government crisis continued until the | presidential elections, with Emil Boc's cabinet acting as | interim government. | 201. The economic crisis | 202. Scandal: Publication of a series of photos showing Mircea | Geoana in a late-night visit at the house of Sorin Ovidiu | Vântu, a highly controversial business man. It has been | used during the final debate. | 203. Issue: A severe outgrowth in the political discourse of a | divisive perspective on employees in public sector vs. | employees in private sector. It is particularly | significant for the case of the acting president, | Traian Basescu. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2010): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election is included here: | | 133. Economic and social situation, economic crises, social | uncertainty, crises of Euro currency. | 134. Corruption scandals of the governmental parties, above | all - junior coalition partner Slovak National Party. | 135. Floods in Eastern Slovakia. | 136. Frictions with Hungary (double citizenship law for | Hungarians living out of the country and the counter-law | passed in the Slovak Parliament immediately afterwards). | 137. Civic mobilization campaign, via Internet and social | networks which mobilized mostly urban young voters to | show up and cast the vote. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the elections is included here: | | 157. Patria scandal launched by/through the media in the | beginning of the electoral campaign: - the claims of | bribery of Slovenian officials by the Finnish company | Patria when buying the infantry armored vehicles. The | president of the 2004-2008 governmental coalition | Slovenian Democratic Party (SDS) was accused to be | involved in | 158. A vigorous government media campaign against ‘tycoons' | (managers who succeeded in becoming big capitalists with | the help of Slovenian bank loans, as then allowed by the | law and politics) had been underway since early 2008. | 159. The unsolved border dispute between Slovenia and Croatia, | existing since the independence of the two countries. | 160. The establishment of the new party Zares - new policy in | November 2007, majority of its key members came from the | decaying Liberal Democracy of Slovenia (LDS). The new | leader-ship of the long-time leading party of the Liberal | Democracy of Slovenia (LDS). Party got its first female | president Katarina Kresal, the attorney without any | political experiences from the past. | 161. The results of the presidential elections in 2007, where | the independent candidate with the support of the left- | centered parties' was elected in the second round, | defeated the right-centered governmental coalition | candidate. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2009): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the elections is included here: | | 180. The personality of the ANC presidential candidate Jacob | Zuma (e.g. the fact that until very recently he had faced | criminal charges on both corruption and rape; had been fired as | Deputy President of the country, and then conducted a come-back | campaign to oust President Thabo Mbeki as party president.) | 181. The recent split in the ANC and the formation of the new | Congress of the People. | 182. The inability of COPE to settle on a well-known national | leader | 183. The personality of the new leader of the Democratic Alliance, | Helen Zille | 184. The reinvigorated campaign efforts of the ANC to meet the new | challenge from COPE. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2008): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election is included here: | | 011. Voter punishment of former government (Roh Mu-hym | government) | 012. Timing of election | 013. Lack of interest and low turnout | 014. Problems of candidate nominating process (for most major | parties) | 015. Emergence of the Liberty Forward Party | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2008): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the elections is included here: | | 167. The failure of the peace talks held by the PSOE government | and the Spanish terrorist group ETA, and the breakdown of | the ceasefire. A former socialist councilman was assassinated | two days before the election. | 168. The dispute about the reform of the Autonomy Statutes in | several Spanish regions, especially in Catalonia. | 169. The high level of political confrontation between the PSOE | government and the PP, which polarized Spanish politics, | mass media, and civil society organizations. | 170. The economic situation and the prospects of economic crisis. | There was a high increase in prices of basic products during | the year before the election, and unemployment began to rise. | 171. Illegal immigration and the regularization program for | undocumented immigrants launched by the PSOE government. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election is included here: | | 219. Employment/Unemployment | 220. Social Welfare/healthcare | 221. Education | 222. Pensions/Elderly care | 223. Taxes | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election is included here: | | 045. Issues related to illegal immigration and crime | 046. Environmental concerns | 047. Future role of SVP member of government Christoph Blocher | 048. Campaign style of SVP | 049. Social Security | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election is included here: | | 050. Economy | 051. Cross-Strait Relations | 052. Political stability | 053. Ethnic relations (Taiwanese vs. mainlanders) | 054. Anti-corruption | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election is included here: | | 036. After the coup, a resurgence of democratic power in rural | areas of Thailand. | 037. The demise of minor parties. | 038. Some support for traditional parties at isolated local | levels | 039. Official ban on major political parties by the junta-led | government. | 040. Ability of dominant party (TRT) to reconstitute itself as | a new party, PPP. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election is included here: | | 194. Economy | 195. Terrorism | 196. Religiosity versus secularism | 197. Sectarianism | 198. Ethnic identity | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2008): C5019 | | 104. Commercial Crisis | 209. State of the economy | 210. Wars (on Terror, in Iraq, in Afghanistan) | 211. Performance of incumbent administration (George W. Bush) | 212. Size of welfare state/economic fairness/inequality | 213. "Social" issues (abortion, religion, race, immigration) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): C5019 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election is included here: | | 162. The high economic growth under the first government of | the Broad Front (2005-2010), at an average GDP rate of | 8-9% annually. The strongest growth in 70 years. In | contrast to the economic crisis of 2002, the most | important crisis in the country's history. | 163. Strong social policies in favor of the lower classes. | 164. The introduction of personal income tax affecting the | middle class. | 165. Bad performance and gross errors in electoral campaign of | the main challenger, the National Party leader and former | President Luis Alberto Lacalle. | 166. The high popularity of outgoing President Vázquez and the | great sympathy of the government candidate José Mujica, a | former guerrilla leader of the Tupamaros. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5020 >>> FAIRNESS OF THE ELECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q9a. How impartial was the body that administered the election law? .................................................................. 1. VERY IMPARTIAL 2. MOSTLY IMPARTIAL 3. NOT VERY IMPARTIAL 4. NOT IMPARTIAL AT ALL 9. MISSING --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5021 >>> FORMAL COMPLAINTS AGAINST NATIONAL LEVEL RESULTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q9b. Was there a formal complaint against the national level results? .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 9. MISSING --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5022 >>> ELECTION IRREGULARITIES REPORTED --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q9c. Were there irregularities reported by international election observers? .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 6. NO INTERNATIONAL ELECTION OBSERVERS 9. MISSING --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5023_1 >>> DATE ELECTION SCHEDULED - MONTH C5023_2 >>> DATE ELECTION SCHEDULED - DAY C5023_3 >>> DATE ELECTION SCHEDULED - YEAR C5024_1 >>> DATE ELECTION HELD - MONTH C5024_2 >>> DATE ELECTION HELD - DAY C5024_3 >>> DATE ELECTION HELD - YEAR --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q9d. On what date was the election originally scheduled to be held? Q9e. On what date was the election actually held? .................................................................. MONTH 01. JANUARY 02. FEBRUARY 03. MARCH 04. APRIL 05. MAY 06. JUNE 07. JULY 08. AUGUST 09. SEPTEMBER 10. OCTOBER 11. NOVEMBER 12. DECEMBER 99. MISSING DAY 01-31. DAY OF MONTH 99. MISSING YEAR 2006-2009. YEAR 9999. MISSING | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C5023_1 C5023_3 | | According to the collaborator, the elections had not been | scheduled. MPs are elected for terms of up to 3 years. | "The Prime Minister decides when an election is to be | held and gets the approval of the Governor General. When this is | done the Prime Minister can announce the intention to hold an | election. The Governor General will then dissolve the House of | Representatives and issue the writs for the election." | (Source: Australian Electoral Commission) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C5023_1 C5023_3 | | This date refers to the first round of elections. The second | round was scheduled for 29 October 2006. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C5023_1 C5023_3 | | This date refers to the first round of elections. The second | round was scheduled for 31 October 2010. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C5024_1 C5024_3 | | This date refers to the first round of elections. The second | round was held on 29 October 2006. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C5024_1 C5024_3 | | This date refers to the first round of elections. The second | round was held on 31 October 2010. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009): C5023_1 C5023_3 | | These report the date of the first round of elections | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009): C5023_1 C5023_3 | | These report the date of the first round of elections, the | Second round took place Sunday, January 17, 2010 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009): C5024_1 C5024_3 | | These report the date of the first round of elections, the | Second round took place Sunday, January 17, 2010 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2010): C5024_2 | | Elections were held over two days, 28-29 May 20100 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C5023 | | According to law, the elections were supposed to be held by the | date entered here (February 8, 2009), i.e., 4 years after the | previous elections. However, on 24 October 2007 Danish prime | minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen announced the early election to | be held in 13 November 2007. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C5024 | | The current elections were held ahead of time, on 13 November | 2007 instead in February 2009. Danish prime minister Anders Fogh | Rasmussen announced the early election date on 24 October 2007. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C5023-C5024 | | This represents the scheduled date for the first round of the | elections, the second round was scheduled 17 June 2007 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C5023_1 C5023_2 | | An exact date was not fixed. Legislative period is four | years. The election day is determined by the president of the | Federal Republic. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): C5023_1 C3023_3 | | An exact date had not been fixed. Legislative period is 4 years. | The election was originally scheduled for 2011 (after the | period of the four-year term of the Parliament, starting in | the aftermath of the Parliamentary election of 16th September | 2007, thus no earlier than September 2011). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): C5023_2 | | The exact day the parliamentary election was to be held is | not available. See C5023_1 in data set for the month. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): C5024 | | Due to political reasons the Diet session was extended beyond | the original schedule, because of which the 2007 Upper House | election was postponed, and thus, there is a mismatch between | the date the election was scheduled and actually held. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5023-C5024 | | 22 November is the first round of the presidential elections | The second round was held on December 6 2009, --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5025 >>> ELECTION DATE IRREGULARITIES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q9e. If the election was held on a different date than scheduled, please explain why? .................................................................. 000. ELECTION WAS HELD ON THE SAME DAY AS SCHEDULED 001. ELECTION WAS NOT HELD ON THE SAME DAY AS SCHEDULED [SEE VARIABLE NOTES] 999. MISSING | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C5025 | | The elections were held earlier than scheduled due to the | breakup of the coalition government SPÖ-ÖVP in July 2008. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2008): C5025 | | The Conservative Prime Minister claimed that the minority | parliament had become increasingly dysfunctional. The Governor- | General granted his request to dissolve Parliament and call | an election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2010): C5025 | | After the fall of Topolanek II cabinet in March 2009, a new | nonpartisan government was established on the basis of agreement | of parties, that early election is going to be held in autumn 2009 | as a way out of political crisis. President then called the election | date on October 9th - October 10th 2009. However, in the end of August, | a deputy elected for Czech Social Democratic Party Miroslav Melcak | (who later became independent and voted regularly with Topolanek's | government) put a complaint to the Constitutional Court against the | decision of President of Republic as well as against the bill on | shortening the current legislative term and dissolving the House of | Deputies. Surprisingly, the Constitutional court decided in favour | of Mr. Melcak's complaint, which provoked an extensive debate among | politicians, constitutional lawyers etc. The thing was that this kind | of procedure to get to early elections was already once used, without | being criticized. Nevertheless, the decision meant that the early | election cannot be held, because the bill about dissolving the lower | house was found to be unconstitutional. Intensive negotiations among | parties immediately started, but finally CSSD blocked any other | legislative options, which meant that the elections were to be held | in its regular term - spring 2010. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C5025 | | The current elections were held ahead of time, on 13 November | 2007 instead in February 2009. Danish prime minister Anders Fogh | Rasmussen announced the early election date on 24 October 2007. | The explanation was the need to secure stable government in | order to proceed with important welfare policy reforms. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C5025 | | September 18, 2005: Due to the results of the SPD in one federal | country. Gerhard Schröder, the chancellor in time, asked for a | vote of confidence in the parliament, which he wanted to loose | and did so. Background: The Coalition SPD/Greens reformed the | social security system which lead to Disaffection of the people, | Schröder wanted an election as decision about the reforms. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): C5025 | | "The election was actually held on 4th October 2009. | On 3th September 2009 Costas Karamanlis (Prime Minister of | Greece since 2004) two years into his second term of office, | announced an early election, due to the very difficult economic | circumstances that the country was experiencing. | His declared justification was that he needed to secure a | mandate that would enable him to pass austerity measures. The | government of New Democracy was deeply unpopular, facing | numerous scandals and having been denounced for the incompetent | handling of the forest fires in Greece. Therefore, his decision | for early elections was also related to the fact that his | administration had serious legitimacy problems. In the | background of this early election, we should add the prospective | election of the President of the Republic, scheduled for few | months later. According to the Greek Constitution, the President | is elected from the parliament for a five year term. The five | year term of Karolos Papoulias presidency was ending in March | 2010 and the opposition party of PASOK and its leader, George | Papandreou declared that the party would not renew its support | for Papoulias presidency. Therefore, an alternative explanation | for going to the country is that the PM tried to avoid an | unnecessarily prolonged pre-election period." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2009): C5025 | | Elections were held earlier than scheduled given that | Parliament was dissolved following the breakdown of the | Independence and Social Democratic Alliance majority | coalition in the end of January 2009 (officially dissolved on | February 1). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): C5025 | | The elections were held earlier than scheduled as the | composition of the Knesset made it impossible to govern. Ariel | Sharon (prime minister) sought the permission of the President | of Israel on 21 November 2005 to dissolve the Knesset. The | president approved the request on 8 December, setting the | election date on March 28 2006. | Source: Diskin and Hazan 2007. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): C5025 | | Due to political reasons the Diet session was extended beyond | the original schedule, because of which the 2007 Upper House | election was postponed, and thus, there is a mismatch between | the date the election was scheduled and actually held. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C5025 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C5025 | | Early election as result of cabinet crisis. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5026 >>> ELECTION VIOLENCE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q10a. To what extent was there violence and voter or candidate intimidation during the election campaign and the election day? .................................................................. 1. NO VIOLENCE AT ALL 2. SPORADIC VIOLENCE ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT 3. SPORADIC VIOLENCE ON THE PART OF OPPOSITION GROUPS 4. SPORADIC VIOLENCE ON ALL SIDES 5. SIGNIFICANT VIOLENCE ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT 6. SIGNIFICANT VIOLENCE ON THE PART OF OPPOSITION GROUPS 7. SIGNIFICANT VIOLENCE OF ALL SIDES 9. MISSING --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5027 >>> GEOGRAPHIC CONCENTRATION OF VIOLENCE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q10b. If there was violence, was it geographically concentrated or national? .................................................................. 1. NO ELECTION VIOLENCE 2. GEOGRAPHICALLY CONCENTRATED 3. NATIONAL 9. MISSING --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5028 >>> POST-ELECTION VIOLENCE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q10c. To what extent was there violence following the election? .................................................................. 1. NO VIOLENCE AT ALL 2. SPORADIC VIOLENCE ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT 3. SPORADIC VIOLENCE ON THE PART OF OPPOSITION GROUPS 4. SPORADIC VIOLENCE ON ALL SIDES 5. SIGNIFICANT VIOLENCE ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT 6. SIGNIFICANT VIOLENCE ON THE PART OF OPPOSITION GROUPS 7. SIGNIFICANT VIOLENCE OF ALL SIDES 9. MISSING --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5029 >>> POST-ELECTION PROTEST --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q10d. To what extent was there protest following the election? .................................................................. 1. NO PROTEST AT ALL 2. SPORADIC PROTEST 3. SIGNIFICANT PROTEST 9. MISSING --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5030 >>> ELECTORAL ALLIANCES PERMITTED IN ELECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q11.1. There are multiple types of electoral alliances/coalitions, but we are explicitly interested in those involving joint lists or candidates - i.e. those where parties compete as a unit during the election. Is this type of electoral coalition legally allowable? .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 9. MISSING | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C5030 | | While electoral alliances are not allowed to form for the | House of Representatives election (Lower House), they are | permitted for Senate (Upper House) election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2008): C5030 | | According to the Canada Elections Act, a political party may | endorse only one candidate per district. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C5030 | | Such alliances are not forbidden, but neither they are | explicitly allowed. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C5030 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C5030 | | Parties could nominate common candidates to some posts, but no | common logos were registered. Votes had to cast a vote for each | party, even where they registered the same candidate. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C5030 | | The Electoral Law does not allow political parties competing | against each other to present a joint list of candidates. In the | 2005 elections, the Left-PDS circumvented this restriction by | adding WAGS candidates on both their list and constituency | seats; the WASG was not participating as party as such. The PDS | named itself during the election Linkspartei. PDS or just | Linkspartei. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5030 | | The CSES survey was conducted for the 2009 Presidential Election. | Joint candidates are allowed both in Parliamentary and | Presidential elections. However, the alliance has to be legally | registered. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5031 >>> ELECTORAL ALLIANCES IN PRACTICE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q11.2. Is this type of electoral coalition [mentioned in Q11.1.] used in practice, even if not legally allowable? .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 9. MISSING | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C5031 | | This response refers to senatorial elections (Upper House). | Electoral alliances are prohibited for the House of | Representatives election (Lower House). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2008): C5031 | | According to the Canada Elections Act, a political party may | endorse only one candidate per district. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C5031 | | Although electoral alliances are not legally allowable, they | are occasionally used in practice, but not in the 2007 election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C5031 | | Such alliances are sued across constituencies (single member | districts). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C5031 | | Alliance 1: Die Linke: PDS/WASG | | The Electoral Law does not allow political parties competing | against each other to present a joint list of candidates. In the | 2005 elections, the Left-PDS circumvented this restriction by | adding WAGS candidates on both their list and constituency | seats; the WASG was not participating as party as such. The PDS | named itself during the election Linkspartei. PDS or just | Linkspartei. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5032 >>> DID ANY ELECTORAL ALLIANCES FORM? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q11.3. (If yes to Q11.1 or Q11.2) Did any electoral alliances form? .................................................................. 1. YES [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 5. NO 7. NOT APPLICABLE [NO ALLIANCES PERMITTED] 9. MISSING | NOTES: C5032 | | See below for names of alliances and party memberships. | Dominant members are indicated by an asterisk (*). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C5032 | | Alliance 1: The National Party and The Liberal Party*. | | Notice that this alliance took place only for the Senate | election. For the House of Representatives election both | parties contested independently. Electoral | alliances are not allowed for the Lower House election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C5032 | | Alliance 1: PT* - PRB - PC do B | Alliance 2: PSDB* - PFL | Alliance 3: PSOL* - PCB - PSTU | | NOTE: these alliances are only valid for the presidential | elections | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C5032 | | Alliance 1: "PT" - PT*/PMDB/PDT/PSB/PR/PCdoB/PRB/PTN/PSC/PTC | Alliance 2: "PSDB" - PSDB*/DEM/PPS/PTB/PMN/PTdoB | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2008): C5032 | | Although no formal alliance formed, The Liberal Party agreed | not to contest the district where the Green party leader was | running for election and the Green Party leader agreed not to | contest the Liberal leader's district. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009): C5032 | | Alliance 1: Concertacion por la Democracia: PDC*, PS*, PPD* PRSD | Alliance 2: Coalicion por Chile: UDI*, RN*, Chile Primero | Alliance 3: Nueva Mayoria para Chile: Partido Ecologista de | Chile, Partido Humanista | Alliance 4: Juntos Podemas Mas: Communist party*, Christian Left. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CROATIA (2007): C5032 | | Alliance 1: HSS-HSLS | Hrvatska seljacka stranka (HSS)* | Hrvatska socijalno liberalna stranka (HSLS)* | | In 4 electoral districts this alliance also includes the | following regional parties: | Zagorska stranka (ZS) (Party of Zagorje) | Zagorska demokratska stranka (ZDS) (Democratic Party of Zagorje) | Primorsko-goranski savez (PGS) (Primorje Gorski kotar Alliance) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2010): C5032 | | Alliance 1: "TOP09" : TOP09 and "Mayors and independents" | Alliance 2: "Sovereignty" - "Politics 21" and "Party of Common | sense" | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2007): C5032 | | Alliance 1: Christian Democrats* (KD) and True Finns | Alliance 2: True Finns* and Independence Party | Alliance 3: National Coalition (KOK)*, Christian Democrats (KD), | and True Finns | Alliance 4: Center Party (KESK) and Swedish People's Party (SFP) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2011): C5032 | | There are no national alliances in Finland. All alliances are | at the constituency level. There were 15 alliances at the | election of 2011. Only alliances that were successful in gaining | seats in the Parliament are listed below. Of all elected MPs, | seven represent the electoral alliances listed here. | | Alliance 1: Center Party* and Swedish People's Party; | Constituency of Varsinais-Suomi | Alliance 2: Center Party* and Christian Democrats; | Constituency of Satakunta | Alliance 3: National Coalition* and Christian Democrats; | Constituency of Etelä-Savo | Alliance 4: National Coalition* and Christian Democrats; | Constituency of Pohjois-Karjala | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C5032 | | Alliance 1: "Presidential majority" - UMP*, New Center | Alliance 2: "Left" - PS*, PRG, Verts | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C5032 | | Alliance 1: Die Linke: PDS/WASG (no dominant partner) | | The Electoral Law does not allow political parties competing | against each other to present a joint list of candidates. In | the 2005 elections, the Left-PDS circumvented this restriction | by adding WAGS candidates on both their list and constituency | seats; the WASG was not participating as a party as such. The | PDS named itself during the election Linkspartei. PDS or just | Linkspartei. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): C5032 | | ALLIANCE 1: Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA) which | includes: | Synaspismos*: Coalition of the Left of Movements and Ecology |(European Left). | AKOA: Renovative Communist Ecologic Left. KOE: Communist | Organization of Greece (ICMLPO). DEA: Internationalist Workers' | Left (ISO). Kokkino (4th International). Xekinima (CWI). Rosa. | KEDA: Movement for the Unity in Action of the Left || Energoi | Polites: Active Citizens. Ecosocialists Greece (Ecosocialist | International Network). DIKKI: Democratic Social Movement, and | several independent leftist activists | Source: http://www.syn.gr/en/profile.htm. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): C5032 | | Alliance 1: Ihud Leumi and Mafdal* | Alliance 2: Avoda* and Meimad | Alliance 3: Raam and Taal* | Alliance 4: Agudat Israel* and Degel Hatora | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2010): C5032 | | Alliance 1: UNITY - New Era*; Civic Union; Society for a | Different Politics | Alliance 2: Harmony Centre - Social Democratic Party "Harmony"; | Socialist Party of Latvia; Daugavpils City Party | Alliance 3: Union of Greens and Farmers - Farmers' Union of | Latvia; Green Party of Latvia | Alliance 4: For a Good Latvia - People's Party; Latvia's First | Party/Latvian Way | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C5032 | | Alliance 1: Alianza por el Bien de México: | (Alliance for the Good of Mexico) | PRI*-PVEM. | Alliance 2: Alianza por el Bien de Todos: | (Alliance for the Good of Everyone) | PRD*-PT-Convergencia | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C5032 | | Alliance 1: "Salvemos a Mexico": | (Let's Save Mexico)) | Partido del Trabajo*-Convergencia. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2010): C5032 | | Alliance 1: PvdA* and GreenLeft | Alliance 2: ChristenUnie and SGP | [According to the collaborator, there is no dominant party | in this list combination.] | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2011): C5032 | | Alliance 1: Alliance por el gran cambio: Alianza para el | Progreso , Partido Humanista Peruano, Partido | popular cristiano - PCC*, Restauración Nacional | Alliance 2: Allianza solidaridad Nacional: Cambio 90, | Siempre Unidos, Solidaridad Nacional*, Todos Por | El Perú | Alliance 3: Peru possible: Acción Popular, Partido Democrático | Somos Perú, Perú Posible* | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C5032 | | The coalitions listed here participated in the elections to the | the Philippine House of Representatives, the congressional | districts. | | Alliance 1: LAKAS-KAMPI: LAKAS-NUCD* and KAMPI | Alliance 2: Liberal Party coalition: LP* and KKK (Struggle | for Peace, Progress and Justice) | Alliance 3: Nacionalista Party coalition: Nationalist Party*, | Kusug (Promote Progress for Cebu), PCM (People's | Champ Movement), and Ugyon Kita Capiz (Unite Capiz) | Alliance 4: PMP coalition: PMP*, Navoteño (Party of the People | of Navotas), and Magdiwang (Magdiwang Party) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C5032 | | Alliance 1: Lewica i Demokraci: SLD* SDPL PD UP | | SLD: Sojusz Lewicy Demokratycznej (Left Democratic Alliance) | SDPL: Socjaldemokracja polska (Social Democracy of Poland) | PD: Partia demokratyczna (Democratic Party) | UP: Unia Pracy (Labour Union) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2009): C5032 | | Alliance 1: CDU (Coligação Democrática Unitária) | PCP* (Partido Comunista Português) and PEV (Partido | Ecologista "Os verdes") | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5032 | | The CSES survey was conducted for the 2009 Presidential | Election, thus alliances sharing a common presidential candidate | are listed. | Alliance 1: Social Democratic Party + Conservative Party Political | Alliance (PSD*+PC) Alianta Politica Partidul Social Democrat + Partidul | Conservator (PSD*+PC) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2010): C5032 | | In the 2010 election there were no regular coalitions running. | However, there were two case when candidates from one party (or | grouping) placed candidates on the list of another bigger party. | 1. First one - members of Civic conservative party were running | on the list of Most-Híd, four of them got into the Parliament | whereas 3 of those thanks to the preferential votes (each voter | could give 4 preferential votes, they are counted if the exceed | more than 3% of the votes for the relevant party). | 2. Four members of an association "Ordinary People" run ot the | list of Freedom and Solidarity on the lowest position of the | list (147. - 150.). Thanks to the preferential votes all four | got into the Parliament. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): C5032 | | Alliance 1: SLS* - SMS | Slovenian people's Party (SLS)* | Slovenian Youth Party (SMS) | | Alliance 2: Green Party*- Green Progress | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2009): C5032 | | The ANC is in a formal alliance with the Congress of South | African Trade Unions, and with the South African Communist Party. | But COSATU and SACP members stand for legislative office on the | ANC list, as ANC members. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5033 >>> REQUIREMENTS FOR JOINT PARTY LISTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q12. If joint lists are possible, are they subject to different regulations than single-party lists? For example higher thresholds, different numbers of candidates that may appear on the list, etc. .................................................................. 1. YES, JOINT PARTY LISTS MUST SATISFY HIGHER THRESHOLDS 2. YES, JOINT PARTY LISTS MAY PRESENT DIFFERENT NUMBERS OF CANDIDATES 3. YES, JOINT PARTY LISTS ARE SUBJECT TO OTHER REGULATIONS THAT ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING INDEPENDENT PARTIES 5. NO, JOINT PARTIES ARE GOVERNED BY THE SAME RULES AS OTHER PARTIES 7. NOT APPLICABLE; NO JOINT PARTY LISTS ARE ALLOWED 9. MISSING | NOTES: C5033 | | Please also refer to notes for variables C5030-C5032. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006 & 2010): C5033 | | This applies to lower house elections. C5033 for Brazil is coded | 2, because joint party lists may present different number of | candidates: | | When district magnitude >=20: | YES, when there is no joint list a political party can present | up to 1,5 candidates for each seat; when there is joint list a | political party can present up to 2 candidates for each seat. | | When district magnitude <20: | YES, when there is no joint list a political party can present | up to 2 candidates for each seat; when there is joint list a | political party can present up to 2,5 candidates for each seat. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C5033 | | Note that in the French electoral system there are no electoral | lists, so this question refers to multiple parties endorsing | 'joint' candidates. In practice, candidates may declare to | voters as many endorsements as they wish; yet, for party funding | (which is almost the only regulation on parties in France), | candidates can declare only one endorsement even if they receive | money from more than one party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C5033 | | Number of candidates may be higher than the number on the | list of separate parties (depends on previous election results). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5033 | | The CSES survey was conducted for the 2009 Presidential Election, | where joint candidates are not subject to different regulations. | For the last Parliamentary Elections in November 2008, in the case | of alliances 3% was added to the normal 5% threshold for the second | party and 1% for each additional party in the alliance. However, the | requested threshold for alliances could not exceed 10%. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5034 >>> THE POSSIBILITY OF APPARENTEMENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q13a. Is there apparentement or linking of lists? .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 9. MISSING --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5035 >>> TYPES OF APPARENTEMENT AGREEMENTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q13b. If apparentement is possible, what lists can participate in such agreements? .................................................................. 1. LISTS OF THE SAME PARTY IN THE SAME CONSTITUENCY 2. LISTS OF THE SAME PARTY FROM DIFFERENT CONSTITUENCIES 3. LISTS OF DIFFERENT PARTIES IN THE SAME CONSTITUENCY 7. NOT APPLICABLE; NO APPARENTEMENT 9. MISSING | NOTES: C5035 | | Please also refer to notes for variable C5034. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C5035 | | In the Macro report, the collaborator mentions that | in Sweden, lists of the same party in the same | constituency, or lists of different parties in the | same constituency can participate in apparentement. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): C5035 | | See note for C5034. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5036 >>> MULTI-PARTY ENDORSEMENTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q14a. Can candidates run with the endorsement of more than one party? .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 9. MISSING | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CROATIA (2007): C5036 | | Not applicable to the Croatian ballot: the ballot paper shows | the names and acronyms of parties which compete for votes in an | electoral district, but no candidate names. In addition, there | is the name of a "bearer of the list", i.e. a person (usually | the president of the respective party) who symbolizes the party | list but who is not necessarily candidate in the electoral | district. Joint party lists are possible and they also have only | one "bearer of the list". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): C5036 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C5036 | | According to Polish electoral law, subject of electoral | competition are Electoral Committees of parties, not parties as | such. Electoral committee can be formed by individual parties, | or coalition of parties. A candidate can be endorsed by ONLY ONE | electoral committee. However, list of candidates of an | electoral committee can contain candidates supported by (only | one) political party different than party which formed electoral | committee. Usually it means that candidate from smaller party is | a guest on the candidate list of electoral committee of a bigger | party. In this case, Official Electoral Announcement (posters | which one can find in the polling stations) contains information | that candidate is supported by different party than party of | his/her electoral committee. However, on the voting ballot one | can find only name of an electoral committee. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2009): C5036 | | Candidates cannot run with the endorsement of more than one | party, unless the parties run in a joint list with a common | label - pre-electoral coalition - and with several candidates, | from the corresponding political parties that integrate the | coalition. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5036 | | The only exception is the case of parties that formally | registered an electoral alliance and have joint candidates. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2008): C5036 | | This is variable by states. Candidates can be endorsed by more | than one party. Multiple party endorsement are generally rare | but do occur in states with active third parties. Theoretically | parties could withdraw candidates to optimize joint performance. | However, this is rare to non-existent in practice due to the | weakness of third parties. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5037 >>> MULTI-PARTY ENDORSEMENTS ON BALLOT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q14b. If candidates can run with the endorsement of more than one party, is this reflected on the ballot? .................................................................. 1. NO 2. NO PARTY ENDORSEMENTS ARE INDICATED ON THE BALLOT PAPER 3. YES, CANDIDATE'S NAME APPEARS ONCE, TOGETHER WITH THE NAMES OF ALL SUPPORTING PARTIES 4. YES, CANDIDATE'S NAME APPEARS AS MANY TIMES AS THERE ARE DIFFERENT PARTIES ENDORSING HIM/HER, EACH TIME WITH THE NAME OF THE ENDORSING PARTY 5. YES, OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | NOTES: C5037 | | Please also refer to notes for variable C5036. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CROATIA (2007): C5037 | | see note for C5036 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): C5037 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C5037 | | On voting ballots one can find only names of an electoral | committees endorsing supporting particular candidates. See | also note for D5036. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2008): C5037 | | This is variable by states, and nearly all of the above | options appear. See also note for C5036 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5038_1 >>> VOTES CAST - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) C5038_2 >>> VOTES CAST - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) C5038_3 >>> VOTES CAST - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) C5038_4 >>> VOTES CAST - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q16a. How many votes do voters cast or can cast? In systems where voters rank order the candidates, if there are 10 candidates (for example), the response to this question should be 10. .................................................................. 01-90. NUMBER OF VOTES 91. OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 97. NOT APPLICABLE 99. MISSING | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C5038_1 | | For lower house elections, Australia employs the Alternative | Vote system (see note C5065). In this system, voters are | required to list their preferences for as many candidates | as there are on the ballot. Thus, the total number of votes | varies across electoral districts. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C5038_3 | | For upper house elections, Australia employs a single- | transferable-vote form of proportional representation. In this | system each voter indicates the order of preference among all | the candidates in competing in her district, or alternatively, | she can indicate support for a party ticket (which determines | the order of preference of candidates within the party). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C5038_1 | | The Austrian electoral system is a proportional representation | system with three segments or tiers. These correspond to the | regional districts tier, the Land level tier (or state level) | and the federal (or national) level tier. Counting and | allocation of seats passes through each of these levels. | However, voters cast a single vote. In this vote, they can | express preferences for specific candidates, particularly, a | Lander level candidate and/or for a regional level candidate. | However, since voters cast a single vote only, this system is | different from systems with multiple tiers where voters vote | separately in different tiers. Hence, the system is coded as | consisting of a single tier in variables C5038-C5047. | See also ES note for C5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C5038_3 | | Members of the Brazilian Senate (Senado Federal) are elected | for 8-years term. One-third and two-thirds of the Senate are | renewed alternately every 4 years. In 2002, two-thirds of the | senate was renewed, and therefore voters had two votes in the | upper house election - each electoral district gave two | senators. By contrast, in 2006 only a third of the senate was | renewed, giving voters a single vote in these upper house | elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C5038_3 | | Members of the Brazilian Senate (Senado Federal) are elected | for 8-years term. One-third and two-thirds of the Senate are | renewed alternately every 4 years. In 2006, one-third of the | Senate was renewed, and therefore voters had a single vote in | the upper house election. In 2010, two-thirds of the Senate were | renewed, giving voters two votes in these upper house elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CROATIA (2007): C5038_1 | | General voters cast one vote. However Serbian minority voters | can cast up to three votes for individual candidates (no | cumulation allowed) in their national constituency (three | seats). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C5038_1 | | The unicameral Danish parliament, the Folketing, has 179 | members, 175 from Denmark proper and two each from the Faroe | Islands and Greenland. The members from these two parts of the | realm are elected according to separate rules. Voters cast a | single vote which affects seat distribution in two segments. | The first segment refers to the 135 seats elected in 10 primary | districts. An additional 40 seats are allocated in the | secondary, nationwide, district, and 4 seats are allocated to | the Faroe Islands and Greenland. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C5038_2 | | The secondary segment refers to 40 seats allocated in the | nationwide district. However voters cast only a single vote at | the constituency level, that is voters do not directly cast a | vote for this tier. Hence, this variable is coded "7. Not- | applicable." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): C5038_1 | | "There are 12 multi-member constituencies with district | magnitude ranging from 6 to 13 seats. There is a 5% threshold. | Seats are allocated in three rounds. In the first round, seats | are awarded to candidates who garner the same or more votes than | the simple quota in their electoral districts. In the second | round, seats are allocated in a traditional PR method. That is, | party lists are awarded seats based on their share of the vote | in the district, and candidates within the list receive seats in | the order of how many preferential votes they received. In the | third round of counting, all remaining mandates are distributed | between the national candidate lists with at least 5% of the | national vote." From | http://www.electionguide.org/country.php?ID=69. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C5038_1 C5038_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C5038_1 C5038_2 | | In the case of the Bundestag elections, each voter has 2 votes, | one in each segment: 1 ("first vote") for an individual | candidate in one of the primary constituencies, and 1 ("second | vote") for the party-list established, for each of the Länder, | by each political party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C5038_1 | | Hong Kong has a unicameral legislature. The legislative council | of the HKSAR has 60 members. Half of the legislative council is | returned by geographic constituency (popular) elections; the | other half is returned by functional constituency elections. | Data on Hong Kong electoral institutions refer to the | geographical constituency elections only. | Eligible individuals can register as an elector in both | Geographical Constituency and Function Constituency. But, | because of the restrictive franchise of the latter, there is | less than 8% of the electors in the Geographical Constituency | are eligible and registered in the Functional Constituency. In | geographical constituency elections, each elector can cast 1 | vote. | In functional constituency (FC) elections, electors normally | have 1 vote. But there are complications as the electors of some | functional constituencies are not "individuals", but | corporations or organizations of which their owners and/or | directors are entitled to vote. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007): C5038_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2009): C5038_2 | | There is one secondary district where 9 (out of 63) so called | "supplementary" seats are allocated to party lists receiving at | least 5% of the valid vote. However, voters cast only a single | vote, and these supplementary seats are allocated only to | parties that surpass the national 5% threshold, voters do | not directly cast a vote for this tier. Hence, this variable | was coded 7. Non-applicable. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): C5038_1-C5038_4 | | Japan has a bicameral Parliament (Kokkai, or National Diet). | The House of Representatives (Shugi-in) has 480 seats which are | elected in two electoral segments for a four-year term. The | first segment consists of 300 seats elected from roughly | equal-sized single member districts. The second segment is | comprised of 180 seats allocated on the basis of proportional | representation in 11 regional multi-member districts. The upper | house (House of Councilors) has 242 members who are elected in | two electoral segments, for 6 years term, where half of the | members (121) stand for re-election every three years. The first | segment consists of 47 prefecture-level districts where 73 | representatives in each election are chosen by simple majority. | Successful candidates are decided in the order of the number of | valid votes obtained on the basis of the comparative plurality. | The second segment is represented by a single nation-wide | district based on proportional representation (D'Hondt method), | where 48 representatives are elected in a single electoral | half-cycle. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C5038_1-C5038_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C5038_1-C5038_2 | | Mexican voters cast a single vote in a single member district | plurality election. However, this also counts for the allocation | of the proportional representation seats disputed in the larger | regional multi-member districts (five circumscriptions). Thus, | voters are not allowed to split their vote, in fact, the same | vote is subject to a double counting that produces two-seat | relevant vote totals. The first vote total determines who wins | the plurality in the single-member district (300 seats). The | second serves to allocate seats in the multi-member districts | (200 seats).The PR seats are allocated according to the | aggregate distribution of votes of multi-member districts, which | excludes non valid votes, votes for parties that obtained less | than 2% and votes for non-registered candidates. | | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C5038_3- C5038_4 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C5038_3- C5038_4 | | For senatorial (Upper House) elections, voters cast a single | vote in 3-seat multi-member districts (which correspond to the | country's 31 states plus the Federal District). The first two | seats are awarded to the plurality winner and the third seat is | given to the first runner-up. This vote also counts for the | allocation of proportional representation seats disputed in one | national district. Thus, each vote is subject to a double | counting that produces two-seat relevant vote totals. The first | vote total determines who wins the in the multi-member districts | (96 seats), and the second serves to allocate through | proportional representation the resting 32 seats. For the | allocation of the PR seats the national distribution of votes | excludes non valid votes, votes for parties that obtained less | than 2% and votes for non-registered candidates. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C5038_1 C5038_2 | | Voters in New Zealand have two votes, one for each of the | two segments/tiers: a party vote (C5038_1) and the electorate | vote (C5038_2). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C5038_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C5038_2 | | There is one secondary district where 19 seats (one seat from | each constituency) are proportionally allocated to party lists | receiving at least 4% of the total vote. However since voters | cast only a single vote, and these seats are allocated at the | national level, rather than at the constituency level, voters | do not directly cast a vote for this tier. Hence, this variable | was coded 7. Not-applicable. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C5038_1-C5038_2 | | The Congress of the Philippines has two chambers or houses: | the House of Representatives (Kapulungan Mga Kinatawan) and | the Senate (Senado). | | The House of Representatives is elected on the basis of two | electoral segments. In the first segment, 229 representatives | are elected in single-member districts, to a three-year term. | In addition, up to 20% of the total number of representatives | is elected through the party-list system in a single nation- | wide electoral district (second segment). After the 2010 | elections, there are 56 representatives elected on party-list | basis. Party-lists are to be proposed by indigenous, but non- | religious, minority groups. A maximum of three seats is awarded | to each party. Each elector casts two votes: one for the | district representative and the other for the party of his | choice. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C5038_3 | | The Philippines Senate (Senado) has 24 members, serving six- | years terms. Concurrently with presidential elections, half | of the Senate (12 members) is renewed each three years, in a | single nation-wide constituency. Senators are elected | according to the simple majority, and each voters can cast | up to 12 votes. Hence, vote percentages and national totals | are not meaningful figures. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): C5038_3 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C5038_3 | | In Senate election voters have as many votes as there are | candidates to be elected in a district (between 1 and 4). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5038 | | The CSES survey was conducted for the 2009 Presidential Election | the following figures are for the last parliamentary elections | in November 2008 (house and senate). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): C5038_1 | | "For the election of National Assembly deputies 8 electoral | units (constituencies) are formed. Each unit is divided into | 11 electoral districts. In each electoral unit eleven | deputies are elected. In each electoral district one | deputy is elected. | For the election of deputies of the Italian and Hungarian | national communities special electoral units are formed on | the territory where these communities live; one for the | Italian and one for the Hungarian national communities." | (source: macro report). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2008): C5038_1-C5038_2 | | Korea employs a mixed-member majoritarian system that combines | 245 single-member districts (SMD) with 54 proportional | representation (PR) seats, elected from a single nation-wide | district. Each voter casts two votes, one for an individual | candidate in the SMD segment, and one for a closed party list | in the PR segment. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2008): C5038_1 | | The Congreso de los Diputados contains 350 elected seats | There are 50 multi-member (2 seats minimum per province, the | rest allotted according to population) constituencies | corresponding to the country's provinces. There are in addition | 2 single-member constituencies (North African enclaves of | Ceuta and Melilla) from www.ipu.org | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2008): C5038_3 | | The Senate contains 208 directly elected seats and 56 | indirectly elected seats. This section refers to the directly | elected section. There are 52 multi-member constituencies | corresponding to the country's provinces, plus Ceuta and Melilla | The provinces elect 4 Senators each. In the case of insular | provinces, major islands elect 3 Senators each while small | islands elect 1 Senator each. The autonomous cities of Ceuta | and Melilla elect 2 Senators each. | from www.ipu.org | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C5038_1 | | The Swedish Riksdagen has 349 members, where 310 members are | elected from 29 multi-member (2 to 34 seats) constituencies. In | addition, there is one multi-member constituency for 39 "at | large" seats. | | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C5038_2 | | There is a second tier, that is, one multi-member constituency | for 39 "at large" seats. However since voters cast only a | single vote, and these seats are allocated at the | national level, rather than at the constituency level, | voters do not directly cast a vote for this tier. This variable | was hence coded "7. Not-applicable." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C5038_1 | | In Switzerland voters have as many votes as the number of seats | in their district (between 1 and 34 depending on the cantons). | Voters can choose one of the parties on the party lists, or they | can create their own list by filling an empty list on the ballot | with the candidates they prefer. Moreover, they can modify the | party (e.g. add candidates from other parties instead of a | candidates of the list [panachage]), delete candidates or vote | twice for a same candidate (cumulation). | | If a voter casts fewer votes than seats in the district, the | remaining votes go to the party indicated on the list. If | no party is indicated, the remaining votes are lost. Since all | candidates belong to a party, if a voters cast a single vote for | a candidate, that vote automatically counts for that candidate's | party list. | | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C5038_3 | | In 20 cantons of Switzerland voters have two votes, while in the | six so-called half-cantons (BL, BS, OW, NW, AI, AR) voters have | one vote. The number of votes is equal to the number of seats | elected in a particular canton (or half canton). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C5038_1 to C5038_4 | | Under the 2007 Constitution, a new electoral system was adopted, | reintroducing a modified version of a previous form of electoral | system (the one preceding the 1997 constitution). There are 400 | single-seat districts were combined into larger | districts: 4 single-seat, 63 with 2 seats, and 90 with 3 seats. | These constituencies use the Block Vote (BV) system which allows | voters to cast as many ballots as there are seats in a district. | Voters are not permitted to cast all their votes for a single | candidate but can split their votes between candidates nominated | by different parties, for a total of 400 seats. Parallel to this | tier, 80 seats are distributed according to PR list, in 8 | regional constituencies of roughly equivalent proportions, | without a threshold. Each party submits a list with 10 | candidates who are listed once, and who can also contest | constituency seats. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C5038_1 | | This indicator refers to the Block Vote (BV) segment: this | system allows voters to cast as many ballots as there are seats | in a district and these values vary by district in Thailand. | Given the dependence of how many votes can be cast on district | magnitude (and that this varies as well across districts), we | could not provide a single value for this indicator. There are | respectively, 4 constituencies with a single seat (1 vote), 63 | constituencies with 2 seats (2 votes) and the last 90 | constituencies with 3 seats (3 votes), for a total of 400 seats. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C5038_2 | | This indicator refers to the 80 PR (closed party-list system) | seats allotted in 8 regional constituencies (10 seats each). | Voters are allowed to vote for only one party list. The party | lists are submitted to the Election Commission before the | deadline for submission of candidacies to the constituency based | elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C5038_3 | | The Wuthisapha, or Senate, is constituted of 76 directly elected | and 74 indirectly elected members. The 76 members directly | elected are done upon the basis of election in each Changwat, | one elected senator for each Changwat (there are 76 Changwat, or | provinces) (Section 111 of the 2007 Constitution). There are no | reserved seats for women, ethnic minorities or other categories. | The remaining 74 senators are appointed from candidates | nominated by organizations from various sectors: academia(15), | government (14), the private sector (15), the professional | sector(15),and miscellaneous (15)(Section 114, Constitution | 2007). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5039_1 >>> VOTING PROCEDURE - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) C5039_2 >>> VOTING PROCEDURE - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) C5039_3 >>> VOTING PROCEDURE - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) C5039_4 >>> VOTING PROCEDURE - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q16b. Do they vote for candidates (not party lists) or party lists? Definition: Party bloc voting is used in multi-member districts where voters cast a single party-centered vote for their party of choice; the party with the most votes wins all of the district seats. .................................................................. 1. CANDIDATES 2. PARTY LISTS 3. PARTY BLOC VOTING 4. OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C5039_1 | | The Austrian electoral system is a proportional representation | system with three segments or tiers. These correspond to the | regional districts tier, the Land level tier (or state level) | and the federal (or national) level tier. Counting and | allocation of seats passes through each of these levels. | However, voters cast a single vote. In this vote, they can | express preferences for specific candidates, particularly, a | Lander level candidate and/or for a regional level candidate. | See also ES note for C5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C5039_1 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C5039_1 | | Each political party presents a list of candidates. Voters can | vote for a candidate or they can vote for a party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2007): C5039_1 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2011): C5039_1 | | Finland uses an open list system where the votes for candidates | per party list in each constituency form the basis for seat | allocation. Each voter must choose a candidate; it is not | possible to vote for a party as such. The method for seat | allocation is PR/d'Hondt. (From the macro Report.) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C5039_1 | | In geographical constituency elections, each voter can cast 1 | vote for a list that includes the names of one or more | candidates (up to the maximum number of Legco members returned | by that geographical constituency). The same political party | (group) may put up more than one list in a constituency, and | candidates on a list may belong to different political party | (group). | See also note for C5038_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C5039_1 | | Voters can choose to endorse a party, a candidate on a party | list, or an independent candidate. Parties can choose to have | either an open or a party ranked list of candidates. If the | list is open votes that are cast on the party (the voter has | not given a personal vote) are distributed between the | candidates based on the number of personal votes. If the list | is party ranked a vote cast on the party will be given to the | candidate listed first on the list until he or she has | received enough votes to be elected and so on. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C5039_2 | | See note for C5038_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007, 2009): C5039_2 | | See note for C5038_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): C5039_4 / C5039_4 | | To be precise, voters can choose to vote for either a single | candidate or a party of their choice. A vote for an individual | candidate is taken to mean a vote for the party to which the | candidate belongs. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C5039_1-C5039_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C5039_1-C5039_2 | | In Mexico each voters' vote is counted twice; once for the | single member district contest, and a second time for the | regional PR contest (see ES note C5038_1-2 for details). | Accordingly, the voting procedure is coded as voting for | candidates and for a party list for each respective contest. | | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C5039_3-C5039_4 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C5039_3-C5039_4 | | In Mexico each voters' choice for senator is counted | twice; once for the 3-seat multi-member districts contest, and a | second time for the regional PR contest (see ES note C5038_3-4 | for details). Accordingly, the voting procedure is coded as | voting for candidates and for a party list for each respective | contest. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C5039_1 | | A vote is always one for a list and for a candidate at the | same time (matrix). A majority of voters cast their vote on | the first candidate on the list | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C5039_1 C5039_2 | | In the first segment (Electorate Vote), voters vote for | candidates. In the second segment (Party Vote), voters for | closed party lists. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C5039_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C5039_2 | | See note for C5038_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C5039 | | See notes for C5038_1-C5038_3. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5039 | | The CSES survey was conducted for the 2009 Presidential Election, | the following figures are for the last parliamentary elections | in November 2008(house and senate). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2010): C5039_1 | | Slovak voters can vote for party lists of political subjects and | every voter has got 4 preferential votes, they are counted if | they reach 3% of all votes for the party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2008): C5039_1 | | "Multi-member constituencies: blocked party lists and the d'Hondt | system of proportional representation - each voter chooses one list | of those made available in the constituency (province)". | from: http://www.nsd.uib.no | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2008): C5039_3 | | For the directly elected Senators: simple majority vote. Lists | Are compiled at provincial level. | from: http://www.nsd.uib.no | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C5039_2 | | See note for C5038_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2008): C5039_1-C5039_2 | | Korean voters have two votes - one vote in the 245 single | member constituencies and one on a single nation-wide | proportional district. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C5039_1 | | Swiss voters can cast their vote in many different ways. Among | others they can a) simply vote for a party list, b) endorse | specific candidates from the party list, c) add candidates from | other parties instead of a candidates of the list [panachage]), | d) delete candidates or vote twice for a same candidate | (cumulation). | | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C5039_3 | | Cantonal law governs election to the Council of States. However, | candidates are generally chosen by absolute majority vote. One | exception is the canton of Jura that uses a PR system to elect | it's two seats. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5040_1 >>> VOTING ROUNDS - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) C5040_2 >>> VOTING ROUNDS - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) C5040_3 >>> VOTING ROUNDS - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) C5040_4 >>> VOTING ROUNDS - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q16c. How many rounds of voting are there? .................................................................. 01-90. NUMBER OF ROUNDS 97. NOT APPLICABLE 99. MISSING | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C5040 | | See also ES note for C5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2008): C5040_1 | | The electoral law of 15 March 1994 Constitution (Art. 64 - 72) | stipulates that Belarus has a majority/plurality electoral | systems composed of 2 rounds. | Parlines describes that "In the first round, voting is | considered valid if over 50 per cent of eligible voters take | part in the polls. Candidates who receive over 50 per cent of | votes are declared elected. If none of the candidates obtains 50 | per cent of votes, a run-off election between the two leading | candidates is held within two weeks. Run-off elections are | considered valid if more than 25 per cent of eligible voters | take part. The candidate securing a simple majority of votes | wins the seat. If the second round of voting is held for only | one candidate, the candidate needs to obtain the support of over | half of the voters taking part in the election.)" | Source: http://www.ipu.org/parline/reports/2027_B.htm | However in the course of the election of 2008, all 110 deputies | were elected in the first round of voting (more than 50 % | of voters took part, and each from 110 elected candidates | received more than 50 % of votes). Thus, the second round was | not necessary in any electoral district. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CROATIA (2007): C5040_1 | | General Croatian voters cast votes for party lists. However, in | the 12th electoral district for national minorities voters vote | for individual candidates. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C5040_2 | | See note for C5038_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C5040_1 | | In geographical constituency elections, there is only one round | of voting. | See also note for C5038_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007): C5040_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2009): C5040_2 | | See note for C5038_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C5040_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C5040_2 | | See note for C5038_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5040 | | The CSES survey was conducted for the 2009 Presidential Election, | the following figures are for the last parliamentary elections | in November 2008 (house and senate). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C5040_2 | | See note for C5038_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C5040_3 | | Although cantonal law governs election to the Council of States, | most cantons employ a two-round majoritarian system, where an | absolute majority is required in the first round. For the | 2007 elections 29 of the 41 members were elected in the first | round. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5041_1 >>> PARTY LISTS - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) C5041_2 >>> PARTY LISTS - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) C5041_3 >>> PARTY LISTS - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) C5041_4 >>> PARTY LISTS - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q16d. If there are lists, are they closed, open, flexible, or is there party bloc voting? .................................................................. 1. CLOSED (Order of candidates elected is determined by the party and voters are unable to express preference for a particular candidate) 2. OPEN (Voters can indicate their preferred party and their favored candidate within that party) 3. FLEXIBLE (Voters can allocate votes to candidates either within a single party list or across different party lists as they see fit) 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C5041 | | See also ES note for C5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2006): C5041_1 | | Voters cast a vote for a party, however, they may select | two candidates on the party list. If any candidate receives more | then 7% of those (preferential) votes cast for the whole party, | s/he skips all candidates and the seat is allocated to him/her. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2010): C5041_1 | | In 2006 there has been an increase in the number of preference | votes voters cast from 2 to 4. In clear, this means that | Voters cast a vote for a party, however, they may select | 4 candidates within a party list. A candidate who receives over 5 per | cent of the preferential votes at the regional level will be placed | at the top of the party list. In cases where several candidates | receive over 5 per cent of preferential votes, they will be placed | on the list in descending order based on the total number of | preferential votes they receive (from IPU.org). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C5041_2 | | See note for C5038_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007): C5041_1 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2009): C5041_1 | | Voters may change the ranking of candidates on the list, | or reject candidates by crossing their names out. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007): C5041_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2009): C5041_2 | | See note for C5038_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C5041_2 / C5041_4 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C5041_2 / C5041_4 | | Party lists used in the second segment (tier) for the Lower and | Upper Chambers are closed, as the order of the candidates on the | list is defined by the political parties. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C5041_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C5041_2 | | There are no party lists, but the system is in many respects | analogous to open lists. (From the Macro Report.) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C5041 | | See notes for C5038_1-C5038_3. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5041 | | The CSES survey was conducted for the 2009 Presidential Election, | the following figures are for the last parliamentary elections | in November 2008 (house and senate). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2010): C5041_1 | | Slovak voters can indicate their preferred party and their | favored candidate within that party. Every voter has got 4 | preferential votes, they are counted if they reach 3% of all | votes for the party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2008): C5041_3 | | For the Senate one votes for any individual candidates, but | in the ballot (where all candidates are listed, so that one | marks up to three names) candidates are identified as members | of a particular party. But they are not party lists, because | the list includes all candidates from all parties. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C5041_2 | | See note for C5038_2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5042_1 >>> TRANSFERABLE VOTES - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) C5042_2 >>> TRANSFERABLE VOTES - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) C5042_3 >>> TRANSFERABLE VOTES - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) C5042_4 >>> TRANSFERABLE VOTES - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q17. Are the votes transferable? Definition: In systems with preferential voting, a voter can express a list of preferences. For example, votes can be cast by putting a '1' in the column next to the voter's preferred candidate, a '2' beside their second favorite candidate and so on. Votes are counted according to the first preferences and any candidates who have achieved the predetermined quota are elected. To decide which of the remaining candidates are elected the votes are transferred from candidates who have more than the necessary number to achieve the quota and from the candidate with the least number of votes. An example of this is the election in Ireland in 2002. .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C5042 | | See also ES note for C5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C5042_2 | | See note for C5038_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007): C5042_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2009): C5042_2 | | See note for C5038_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C5042_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C5042_2 | | See note for C5038_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5042 | | See note for C5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C5042_2 | | See note for C5038_2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5043_1 >>> CUMULATED VOTES - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) C5043_2 >>> CUMULATED VOTES - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) C5043_3 >>> CUMULATED VOTES - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) C5043_4 >>> CUMULATED VOTES - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q18. If more than one vote can be cast, can they be cumulated? Definition: Cumulative voting refers to systems in which voters are allowed to cast more than one vote for a single candidate. .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C5043 | | See also ES note for C5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007): C5043_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2009): C5043_2 | | See note for C5038_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C5043_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C5043_2 | | See note for C5038_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C5042 | | See notes for C5038_1-C5038_3. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5043 | | See note for C5038, | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C5043_2 | | See note for C5038_2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5044_1 >>> COMPULSORY VOTING - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) C5044_2 >>> COMPULSORY VOTING - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) C5044_3 >>> COMPULSORY VOTING - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) C5044_4 >>> COMPULSORY VOTING - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q19. Is voting compulsory? Definition: Voting is compulsory if the law states that all those who have the right to vote are obliged to exercise that right. .................................................................. 1. YES; STRICTLY ENFORCED SANCTIONS 2. YES; WEAKLY ENFORCED SANCTIONS 3. YES; WITHOUT SANCTION FOR VIOLATION 5. NO 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | NOTES: C5044 | | Source for this variable: CSES Macro Report Question 19. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C5044 | | See also ES note for C5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C5044 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C5044 | | "Voting is mandatory for those aged 18-70 unless they are | illiterate. Voting is optional for the illiterate, those over | 70, and those aged 16-18. Those who do not vote must 'justify' | themselves to the Electoral Tribunal." (Bustani 2001, p. 306, | n. 2). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C5044_2 | | See note for C5038_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C5044_1 | | Voting is compulsory for the Senate only (indirect elections by | departmental electoral colleges). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007): C5044_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2009): C5044_2 | | See note for C5038_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C5044_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C5044_2 | | See note for C5038_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5044 | | See note for C5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C5044_2 | | See note for C5038_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C5044_1 | | Voting is compulsory in one canton (Schaffhausen). | Those who abstain without a justifiable reason are subject to | a small fine. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5045_1 >>> IS THERE PARTY THRESHOLD - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) C5045_2 >>> IS THERE PARTY THRESHOLD - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) C5045_3 >>> IS THERE PARTY THRESHOLD - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) C5045_4 >>> IS THERE PARTY THRESHOLD - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21a. Are there legally mandated thresholds that a party must exceed before it is eligible to receive seats? .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | NOTES: C5045 | | In some plurality systems, a threshold is established for a | declaration of "official party status" rather than for the | acquisition of seats in the legislature. Usually, these | thresholds are a certain number of seats, rather than a | percentage of the popular vote. For countries in which this | is the case, this variable was coded "97. NOT APPLICABLE". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C5045_1 | | The Austrian electoral system is a proportional representation | system with three segments or tiers. These correspond to the | federal level tier, the Land level tier (or state level) and the | regional districts tier. Counting and allocation of seats passes | through each of these levels, and as a consequence is a three | step process. An electoral threshold exists within them. In | first place, in each Lander a Hare quota is calculated and used | to distribute seats across the regional district level. Followed | by this seats are allocated at the Land level tier but only | those parties that obtained one seat at the regional district | level or 4% of the nationwide valid vote are qualified to | receive seats. Finally, at the national level seats are | distributed following the D'Hondt system and seats that have | been already allocated are discounted. | See also ES note for C5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C5045 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C5045 | | There is a threshold (quota hare - calculated from percent of | total votes) for the Federal Chamber of Deputies | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C5045 | | There is no formal threshold at the level of the ten multi- | member constituencies. On the level of the secondary national | district (see note C5038_2 for details), there are three | thresholds - of which only one has to apply: | 1. Winning a seat directly in any of the ten multi-member | constituencies; | 2. Obtaining in two of the three electoral provinces a number of | votes corresponding - at least - to the provincial | votes/seat ratio (using in the calculation of these ratios the | number of seats in the multi-member constituencies in the | electoral provinces in question, excluding the provinces' | compensatory seats); or | 3. Two percent of the valid, national vote. This rule is much | more influential than the other two, so this is entered as the | value in C5042_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): C5045_1 | | "There are 12 multi-member constituencies with district | magnitude ranging from 6 to 13 seats. There is a 5% threshold. | Seats are allocated in three rounds. In the first round, seats | are awarded to candidates who garner the same or more votes than | the simple quota in their electoral districts. In the second | round, seats are allocated in a traditional PR method. That is, | party lists are awarded seats based on their share of the vote | in the district, and candidates within the list receive seats in | the order of how many preferential votes they received. In the | third round of counting, all remaining mandates are distributed | between the national candidate lists with at least 5% of the | national vote." Source: | http://www.electionguide.org/country.php?ID=69. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): C5045 | | It should be noted that the parties that receive at least three | percent of all valid votes cast are entitled to participate in | the so-called first round of proportional allocation of 260 | seats at the national level. The remaining 40 seats are awarded | to the party that obtained the nation-wide plurality of votes | (thus PASOK for the election of 2009), regardless of its | obtained percentage or the difference with the second party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007): C5045_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2009): C5045_2 | | While there is no formal threshold at the primary district | level, in the secondary national district (see note C5038_2 for | details) only party lists receiving at least 5% of the national | vote are entitled to receive one of the 9 seats to be allocated. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2008): C5045_2 | | The threshold applies to the nation-wide proportional district: | 3% of the total valid votes for party lists, or at least 5 | primary district seats. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C5045_2 / C5045_4 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C5045_2 / C5045_4 | | If a party does not obtain more than 2% of the vote in the | plurality election it cannot receive any seats from the | proportional representation lists. However, if a candidate of | such party wins in any of the plurality seats, she would receive | the seat and be declared as "independent". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C5045_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C5045_2 | | While there is no formal threshold at primary district level, in | the secondary national district (see note C5038_2 for details) | only party lists receiving at least 4% of the total vote are | entitled to receive one of the 19 to be allocated. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C5045_2 | | In the second segment, i.e., for a sectorial representative via | closed party-list system, there is a 2% election threshold and | 3-seat cap. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5045 | | The CSES survey was conducted for the 2009 Presidential Election, | the following figures are for the last parliamentary elections | in November 2008 (house and senate). | | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): C5045 | | The Turkish electoral system employs list proportional | representation with a 10% threshold of percent valid votes. | However, independent candidates are exempt from the 10% | threshold. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5046_1 >>> PARTY THRESHOLD - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) C5046_2 >>> PARTY THRESHOLD - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) C5046_3 >>> PARTY THRESHOLD - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) C5046_4 >>> PARTY THRESHOLD - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21b. If YES in Question 21a, what is the threshold? .................................................................. 00. THERE IS NO THRESHOLD 0.1-95. A PARTY MUST RECEIVE THIS PERCENT (0.1% TO 95%) OF THE POPULAR VOTE IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR SEATS 96. OTHER THRESHOLD [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 97. NOT APPLICABLE 99. MISSING | NOTES: C5046 | | See also notes for C5045. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C5046_1 | | Strictly speaking the threshold is 4% of valid votes or one seat | of the 43 regional constituencies. | See also ES note for C5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C5046_1 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C5046_1 | | "to win representation, a party (or apparentement) must exceed | the Hare quota (total valid votes divided by number of seats) in | a constituency. Each party is entitled to as many seats as the | number of times its vote reaches the quota; unallocated seats | are apportioned according to the d'Hondt formula" | (Nicolau 2008, p.170) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2006): C5046_1 | | The threshold is 5% for a single party. It is higher for | coalitions: | 10% for coalition of 2 parties, | 15% for coalition of 3 parties, | 20% for coalition of 4 parties, etc. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C5046 | | See note for C5045. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): C5046_1 | | see note for C5045_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005 and 2009): C5046_2 | | Germany has a double threshold: Parties with more than 5% of the | valid votes ('second vote') nationally or who have won three | party of the 299 constituency seats receive a proportional seat | share of the 598 regular seat total based on their national vote | share." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): C5046_1 | | The threshold is 3% of valid votes for parties | to be entitled to participate in the so-called first round of | proportional allocation of 260 seats at the national level. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): C5046_2 | | To win representation in the remaining 40 seats, a party must | obtain the nation-wide plurality of votes (thus PASOK for the | election of 2009), regardless of its obtained percentage or | the difference with the second party. Thus the threshold is | nation-wide plurality of votes. See note C5047_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007, 2009): C5046_2 | | See note for C5045_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2006): C5046_1 | | The legal threshold was raised for the 2006 election from 1.5% | 2%. source: (Diskin and Hazan 2007) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): C5046_3 | | In the single-member districts of the lower house contest, as | well as for the prefecture-level districts of the upper house, | a candidate needs to obtain votes at least equal to one-sixth | of the quotient obtained by dividing the total of valid ballots | cast by the number of seats to be filled from the constituency | concerned. For all single member district of the lower house | contest this equals obtaining at least 1/6 (16.7 percent) of | the total valid votes. Instead the multi-member prefecture | -level districts of the upper house contest have variable | district magnitude with minimum of 1 and maximum 5. In this | case, this quotient varies from 16.6% to 3.33% of the valid | votes. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2010): C5046_1 | | The Saeima elections are held in five constituencies: Riga, | Vidzeme, Latgale, Zemgale and Kurzeme. Saeima elections are | also held in those foreign countries where a substantial number | of Latvia citizens reside. Thus, the Riga constituency also | includes the electorate residing outside of Latvia. | Four months before election day the Central Election Commission | determines the number of Saeima seats for each of the five | constituencies, based on the Population Register statistics. | Only those list of candidates which have received at least 5% of | the total number of votes cast in all five election | constituencies will be elected to the Saeima. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C5046_1 | | The threshold is 0.67 percent of the electoral quota, or | one seat. This has been rounded to 0.7 in the data. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES NEW ZEALAND (2008): C5046_2 | | The threshold is: 5% of the party vote or winning of one | or more electorates in the electorate vote tier. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C5046_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C5046_2 | | See note for C5045_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2011): C5046_1 | | 5% of national vote or 7 elected MPs in two or more electoral | districts. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C5046_2 | | In the second segment, i.e., for a sectoral representative via | closed party-list system, there is a 2% election threshold and | 3-seat cap. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): C5046_1 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C5046_1 | | Votes are first counted at the district level, the results then | go to the National Election Committee to determine which parties | and coalitions have cleared, respectively, the 5% and 8% | threshold. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5046_1 C5046_2 | | The CSES survey was conducted for the 2009 Presidential Election, | the following figures are for the last parliamentary elections | in November 2008 (house and senate). | | The new electoral legislation (Law no. 35/2008) established a | two-tier seat allocation for both Chambers of the Parliament. | However, the voter casts only one vote for each of the Chambers. | The division of seats between tiers is variable and depends on | the actual result of voting.In extreme theoretical circumstances | it is possible for one tier not to receive seats at all. | Overhang seats are allowed. | | On the first tier, seats are allocated to candidates receiving | a majority of 50%+1 of the votes cast within the representation | district. This district-level candidate threshold is cumulated | to a national-level party one: either (a) 5% for individual | parties, 8% for two-party electoral alliances, 9% for three-party | electoral alliances, 10% for 4+ parties alliances; or (b) gaining | simultaneously 6 districts for the Chamber of Deputies and 3 for | the Senate. | | On the second tier, the remaining seats are allocated according | to a complicated algorithm (for details, see Marian and King 2010) | to other candidates based on candidate results at district level | and party results at constituency level. At this level the same | threshold (alternatives (a) or (b) above) remains in place. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2010): C5046_1 | | The threshold is 5% for a single party. It is higher for | coalitions: | 7% for coalition of 2 or 3 political subjects/parties, | 10% for coalition of 4 or more political subjects/parties. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2008): C5046_2 | | See note C5045_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2008): C5046_1 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2008): C5046_3 | | Parties must receive a minimum of 3 % of valid vote at the | district level. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C5046_1 | | The Swedish electoral system includes barriers to exclude small | parties. To take part in the distribution of seats in the | Riksdag elections, a political party must gain at least 4 | percent of all votes cast in the country. A party gaining fewer | votes may, however, take part in the distribution of permanent | constituency seats in the constituency where it has gained at | least 12 percent of the votes cast in that constituency. [...] | The requirement (threshold) for election on the basis of total | number of personal votes cast for the candidate is at least 8 | percent of the total number of votes cast for the party in a | constituency in Riksdag elections." (Source: Valmyndigheten, | http://www.val.se/). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C5046_2 | | The remaining seats are allotted by the system of full | proportional representation based on the votes obtained | nationwide; to be awarded a seat in this national tier, | a party must obtain at least 4 per cent of the votes cast | throughout the country. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5047_1 >>> UNIT FOR THE THRESHOLD - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) C5047_2 >>> UNIT FOR THE THRESHOLD - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) C5047_3 >>> UNIT FOR THE THRESHOLD - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) C5047_4 >>> UNIT FOR THE THRESHOLD - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21c. If YES in Question 21a, what is the unit for the threshold mentioned in Question 21b? .................................................................. 1. PERCENT OF TOTAL VOTES 2. PERCENT OF VALID VOTES 3. PERCENT OF THE TOTAL ELECTORATE 4. OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C5047_1 | | Strictly speaking the threshold is 4% of valid votes or one | seat from one of the 43 regional constituencies. | See also ES note for C5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CROATIA (2007): C5047_1 | | The threshold consists of 5% of valid votes in the respective | electoral district. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C5047 | | See note for C5045. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): C5047_1 | | see note for C5045_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C5047_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C5047_2 | | Germany has a double threshold: Parties with more than 5% of the | valid party votes ('second vote') nationally or who have won | three of the 299 constituency seats receive a proportional seat | share of the 598 regular seat total based on their national vote | share. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): C5047_2 | | To win representation in the remaining 40 seats, a party must | obtain the nation-wide plurality of votes (thus PASOK for the | election of 2009), regardless of its obtained percentage or | the difference with the second party. Thus the threshold is | nation-wide plurality of votes. See note C5046_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007): C5047_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2009): C5047_2 | | See note for C5045_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C5047_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C5047_2 | | See note for C5045_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2011): C5047_1 | | 5% of national vote or 7 elected MPs in two or more electoral | districts. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C5047_2 | | The threshold for the party list representation is 2% of the | total votes cast for the party list. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5047_1 C5047_2 | | The CSES survey was conducted for the 2009 Presidential Election, | the following figures are for the last parliamentary elections | in November 2008 (house and senate). | Chamber of Deputies: The electoral legislation states two alternative | national-level party thresholds (both tiers): either (a) 5% | for individual parties, 8% for two-party electoral alliances, | 9% for three-party electoral alliances, 10% for 4+ parties alliances; | or (b) gaining simultaneously 6 districts for the Chamber of | Deputies and 3 for the Senate. | On the first tier, seats are allocated only to candidates | receiving a majority of 50%+1 of the votes cast within the | representation district. | | Senate: The electoral legislation states two alternative | national-level party thresholds (both tiers): either (a) 5% for | individual parties, 8% for two-party electoral alliances, 9% for | three-party electoral alliances, 10% for 4+ parties alliances; | or (b) gaining simultaneously 6 districts for the Chamber of | Deputies and 3 for the Senate. | On the first tier, seats are allocated only to candidates receiving a | majority of 50%+1 of the votes cast within the representation district. II. DATA FROM PUBLIC SOURCES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5050_1 >>> FREEDOM HOUSE RATING - TIME T C5050_2 >>> FREEDOM HOUSE RATING - TIME T-1 C5050_3 >>> FREEDOM HOUSE RATING - TIME T-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- These variables report Freedom House's rating of freedom in a country at three time periods: the election year (time T), one year before election (T-1), and two years before election (T-2). Each country and territory is assigned a numerical rating, on a scale of 1 to 7. A rating of 1 indicates the highest degree of freedom and 7 the least amount of freedom. CSES reports average of the "Political Rights" and "Civil Liberties" scores. .................................................................. 1.0-7.0 FREEDOM SCORE 9. MISSING | NOTES: C5050 | | Source: Freedom House's annual publications "Freedom in the | World" (http://www.freedomhouse.org/images/File/FIW%20All%20Scor | es,%20Countries,%201973-2010.xls and http://www.freedomhouse.org | /images/File/FIW%20All%20Scores,Territories,%201973-2010.xls. | Downloaded on October 13, 2010). | | Until 2003, countries whose combined average ratings for | Political Rights and for Civil Liberties fell between 1.0 and | 2.5 were designated "Free"; between 3.0 and 5.5 "Partly Free", | and between 5.5 and 7.0 "Not Free". Beginning with the ratings | for 2003, countries whose combined average ratings fall between | 3.0 and 5.0 are "Partly Free", and those between 5.5 and 7.0 are | "Not Free". | | More information about Freedom House's methodology available at: | http://freedomhouse.org/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5051_1 >>> DEMOCRACY-AUTOCRACY - POLITY IV RATING - TIME T C5051_2 >>> DEMOCRACY-AUTOCRACY - POLITY IV RATING - TIME T-1 C5051_3 >>> DEMOCRACY-AUTOCRACY - POLITY IV RATING - TIME T-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- These variables report POLITY IV ratings of institutionalized democracy versus autocracy in a country, at three time periods: the election year (time T), one year before election (T-1), and two years before election (T-2). CSES reports the original variable POLITY - Combined Polity Score. The variable is constructed by subtracting the autocracy score from the democracy score; the resulting scale ranges from +10 (strongly democratic) to -10 (strongly autocratic). .................................................................. 10. DEMOCRATIC 09. 08. 07. 06. 05. 04. 03. 02. 01. 00. -01. -02. -03. -04. -05. -06. -07. -08. -09. -10. AUTOCRATIC -66. INTERRUPTION PERIODS -77. INTERREGUM PERIODS -88. TRANSITION PERIODS 99. MISSING | NOTES: C5051 | | Source: POLITY IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics | and Transitions, 1800-2007, Monty G. Marshall and Keith Jaggers, | George Mason University and Colorado State University | (http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm). | | The Polity IV Dataset Users' Manual (downloaded on November 25, | 2010 | (http://www.systemicpeace.org/inscr/p4manualv2009.pdf). | | The Polity IV annual time-series dataset | (http://www.systemicpeace.org/inscr/p4v2009.xls). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5052 >>> AGE OF THE CURRENT REGIME --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The number of years since the most recent regime change (defined by a three-point change in the POLITY score over a period of three years or less) or the end of transition period defined by the lack of stable political institutions (denoted by a standardized authority score) [Variable "Durable" from Polity IV Project Dataset Users' Manual]. 001-500. AGE OF THE REGIME (YEARS) 999. MISSING | NOTES: C5051 | | Source: POLITY IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics | and Transitions, 1800-2007, Monty G. Marshall and Keith Jaggers, | George Mason University and Colorado State University | (http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm). | | The Polity IV Dataset Users' Manual (Downloaded on November 25, | 2010) | (http://www.systemicpeace.org/inscr/p4manualv2009.pdf). | | The Polity IV annual time-series dataset | (http://www.systemicpeace.org/inscr/p4v2009.xls). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5054 >>> REGIME: TYPE OF EXECUTIVE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Classification of political regimes in which democracies are distinguished by the type of executive (0 Dictatorship, 1 Parliamentary Democracy, 2 Mixed Democracy, 3 Presidential Democracy). The following decision rule is applied (see Cheibub, 2007): A. The system is parliamentary either (i) if there is no independently (indirectly or directly) elected president or (ii) if there is an independently (indirectly or directly) elected president but the government is not responsible to the president. B. The system is mixed either if there is an independently (indirectly or directly) elected president and government is responsible to the president. C. The system is presidential if government is not responsible to the elected legislature. NOTE: Responsibility refers to whether the survival of the executive depends directly on legislature (i.e. vote of confidence). .................................................................. 1. PARLIAMENTARY REGIME 2. MIXED REGIME 3. PRESIDENTIAL REGIME 9. MISSING | NOTES: C5054 | | Source: Publicly Available Sources. | Decision rule comes from: | Cheibub, Jose Antonio. 2007. "Presidentialism, | Parliamentarian, and Democracy". New York. Cambridge | University Press. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C5054 | | Austrian executive power is coded as a mixed or semi- | presidential regime given that the president can dissolve the | National Council. Article 29 of the Constitution states: | "(1) The Federal President can dissolve the National Council, | but he may avail himself of this prerogative only once for the | same reason". However, notice that in practice the system works | mostly as a parliamentary system (Müller, 2005). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C5054 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C5054 | | Brazil's legislature cannot cast a no confidence vote against | the government. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CROATIA (2007): C5054 | | Article 94 of the Croatian constitution provides for a directly | elected President. However, the legislature has the power to | vote no-confidence in the government, as described in article | 115 of the constitution. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): C5054 | | The president is elected by the Parliament for a term of five | years. The government is accountable to the parliament both | collectively and individually. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2007): C5054 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2011): C5054 | | Classifying the finish executive power is subject to some | controversy. Here it is coded as a mixed or semi-presidential | system. Some key features of the Finnish system that distinguish | it from a traditional parliamentary system are that by | constitution a) the president is popularly elected by direct | vote for a fixed term of six years, and for no more than two | consecutive terms of office; b) the president can, on | recommendation of the prime minister, dissolve the legislature; | c) the president can veto legislature, though parliament can | override the presidential veto with a simple majority; and | d) the president may issue decrees that have force of law. More | details can be found in Fish & Kroenig, 2009. That said, some | scholars argue that Finland -especially after constitutional | reforms in the 1990's- works in practice as a parliamentary | system. See Raunio, 2009 for an example. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): C5054 | | The president is elected by the Parliament for a term of five | years. According to article 84 of the Greek Constitution, the | government must enjoy the confidence of parliament. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C5054 | | Note that Hong Kong is not a sovereign state, but a Special | Administrative Region (SAR) in China. The Central Government | authorizes the HKSAR to exercise a high degree of autonomy and | enjoy executive, legislative and independent judicial power. | Therefore, the HKSAR Government is kind of local government. | The Chief Executive (CE) is the President of the Executive | Council of Hong Kong and head of the Government of the Hong | Kong Special Administrative Region. The Chief Executive is | elected by an 800-member Election Committee. The elected CE | must then be appointed by the Central People's Government. | Regarding the relationship between the CE and Legislative | Council, the type of executive may be regarded as some form of a | presidential system, because the CE and the Legco members are | returned by different elections. | According to the Article 52, the CE must resign in case of | refusal to sign a bill passed by a two-thirds majority of the | Legislative Council. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007): C5054 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2009): C5054 | | Iceland has a popularly elected president who can, among other | things, dissolve parliament, exercise emergency powers and | submit bill to parliament. Article 15 of the constitution | stipulates that "the president appoints Ministers and discharges | them. He determines their number and assignments." Regardless, | the position is considered mostly ceremonial and symbolic. | Further, it is common for presidential election to go | uncontested. Although according to the ACLP project's coding | rules Iceland is considered semi-presidential, the coding | for this country differs across different data sources. | (e.g. DPI considers it parliamentary, and Matt Golder codes it | semi-presidential). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2010): C5054 | | Latvian president is elected indirectly, in the Latvian Saeima. | On 31 May 2007, the government candidate Valdis Zatlers | defeated Aivars Endzins. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C5054 | | The Philippines is a republic with a presidential form of | government wherein power is equally divided among its three | branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. The Executive | branch is composed of the President and the Vice President who | are elected by direct popular vote and serve a term of six | years. The Constitution grants the President authority to | appoint his Cabinet. (source: http://www.gov.ph/about/gov/). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5054 | | With its directly elected president, Romania is a semi- | presidential system. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): C5054 | | "It is generally accepted that Slovenia has a parliamentary | system in which the focus of political decision-making lies | with the parliament and the government. As in most other | Central and East European countries in transition, in Slovenia | the formal powers of parliament remain very strong, but, unlike | the pure parliamentarism that certain countries opted for, the | Slovene arrangements belong more to a group that could be | characterized as parliamentarism with a directly (popularly) | elected (or semi-presidential) president. The role of the pres- | ident is relatively small, and is to act as the head of state, | whose function or powers are mainly of a representative, ini- | tiative, and protocol nature." Source (Cerar 1999). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2009): C5054 | | Despite having a president as both head of state and government | South Africa is considered a parliamentary democracy. The | president is elected by the national assembly (hence not | directly elected), and the government responsible to the | assembly. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C5054 | | Since 1992, the constitution provides for the direct election of | a president. Yet, the executive Yuan is responsible to the | legislative Yuan provided that the legislative Yuan is in | session, its members have the right to interpellate the | President of the Executive Yuan, and Ministers and chairmen of | the Commissions of the said Yuan (Article 57 of the | Constitution). However, the legislature cannot vote | no-confidence in the government and can be dissolved by the | president. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C5054 | | Thailand is a constitutional monarchy with a Prime Minister as | head of government and the King as head of state. The King holds | a number of powers over the legislative branch. The King | appoints ministers on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. | The King issues royal decrees that have the force of law. | The King also as Veto powers which the legislature can overturn | with a two-thirds majority. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): C5054 | | The political system in Turkey is parliamentary with an | indirectly elected president holding largely ceremonial | powers. As of 2014, the president will be directly elected. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5055 >>> NUMBER OF MONTHS SINCE LAST LOWER HOUSE ELECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Indicates the number of months between the current election and the previous national lower chamber election (if current election renews the national lower chamber), or the most recent national lower chamber election (if current election does not renew the national lower chamber). .................................................................. 1-200. NUMBER OF MONTHS SINCE LAST LOWER HOUSE ELECTION 999. MISSING | NOTES: C5055 | | If previous national lower chamber election was held in more | than one round (i.e. run-off election), the entry refers to | the number of months since the first round. | | Source: Publicly Available Sources. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C5055 | | Previous Parliamentary elections were held on 8 February 2005. | The current elections were held ahead of time, on 13 November | 2007 instead in February 2009. Danish prime minister Anders Fogh | Rasmussen announced the early election date on 24 October 2007. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): C5055 | | Regular Riigikogu elections shall be held on the first Sunday of | March of the fourth year following the preceding Riigikogu | election year. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2010): C5055 | | The elections for Parliament (Saeima) in Latvia are held every | four years on the first Saturday in October. The previous, 9th | Saeima elections were held on Saturday, October 7, 2006. | The next elections were held early, on the ground of the results | of the National Referendum on dissolution of the 10th Saeima | (held on 23 July 2011). The 11th Saeima elections took place | on 17 September 2011. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): C5055 | | Previous Parliamentary elections were held on September 23, | 2001. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C5055 | | Previous Parliamentary elections were held on September 25, 2005. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5056 >>> NUMBER OF MONTHS SINCE LAST PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Indicates the number of months between the current and previous presidential election. This variable does not signify that the election chose either the nominal or effective head of government. .................................................................. 1-200. NUMBER OF MONTHS SINCE LAST PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 997. NOT APPLICABLE 999. MISSING | NOTES: C5056 | | If previous presidential election was held in more than one | round (i.e. run-off election), the entry refers to the number | of months since the first round. | | Source: Publicly Available Sources. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009) C5056 | | This figure represents the number of months between the first | round of presidential elections in 2005, and the first round | of presidential elections in 2009. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2010): C5056 | | Latvian president is elected indirectly, in the Latvian Saeima. | Hence, this variable is coded "997. NOT APPLICABLE ". | The incumbent president, Valdis Zatlers, was elected on 31 | May 2007. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): C5056 | | Previous Presidential elections were held on October 9, 2000. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C5056 | | Previous Presidential elections were held on October 9, 2005. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2009): C5056 | | This entry refers to the number of months between the current | parliamentary election and the most recent presidential | election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2010): C5056 | | This entry refers to the number of months between the current | parliamentary election and the most recent presidential | election (the second round date is taken into account here | - April 4, 2009). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5057 >>> PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS ELECTORAL FORMULA --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable indicates what electoral formula was used to elect the president. The definition of this variable is taken from Matt Golder's database about Democratic Electoral Systems Around the World, 1946-2000 (http://homepages.nyu.edu/~mrg217/elections.html). PLURALITY - the candidate that obtains the most votes wins. ABSOLUTE MAJORITY RULE - A candidate must win over 50% of the vote to win. If no candidate wins this many votes, then there is a runoff between the top two candidates. QUALIFIED MAJORITY RULE - Each qualified majority system specifies a particular percentage of the vote that a candidate must win in order to be elected in the first round. If two or more candidates overcome these thresholds, then the one with the highest number of votes wins. The qualified majority systems vary in terms of the electoral procedure that applies when these thresholds are not met. ELECTORAL COLLEGE - The candidate that wins a plurality of the electoral college votes wins. SINGLE TRANSFERABLE VOTE - Requires voters to rank single candidates in order of the most to least preferred. Votes are transferred until candidates obtain the Droop quota. The candidates that obtains this quota first is elected. .................................................................. 1. PLURALITY 2. ABSOLUTE MAJORITY RULE 3. QUALIFIED MAJORITY RULE 4. ELECTORAL COLLEGE 5. SINGLE TRANSFERABLE VOTE 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | NOTES: C5057 | | Source: Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2008): C5057 | | The President and Vice President are not elected directly by | the voters. Voters cast their vote for President and Vice- | President by selecting a pair of candidates listed on a single | Presidential/Vice Presidential ticket. This vote selects slates | of electors to serve in the Electoral College. In forty-eight | of the fifty states and the District of Columbia, the list of | electors that gets a majority of all votes wins the state and | all the electors are from the winning ticket. Maine and Nebraska | allow the possibility for the state electors to be split. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5058 >>> ELECTORAL FORMULA IN ALL ELECTORAL SEGMENTS (TIERS) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a variable indicating whether the country uses (i) a majoritarian formula in all of its electoral segments (tiers), (ii) a proportional formula in all of its electoral segments (tiers), or (iii) a mixed formula. The definition of this variable is taken from Matt Golder's database about Democratic Electoral Systems Around the World, 1946-2000 (http://homepages.nyu.edu/~mrg217/elections.html). MAJORITARIAN systems require successful candidates to win either a plurality or majority of the vote. As a result, they are considered majoritarian. PROPORTIONAL systems can be divided into two types: those that use party lists and those like the single transferable vote that do not. Those systems employing lists can themselves be divided into two further categories: quota systems (with allocation of remainders) and highest average systems. MIXED systems use a mixture of majoritarian and proportional electoral rules. A country can be classified as having a mixed system whether it uses one or more electoral segments (tiers); in practice, most mixed systems have more than one segment (tier). Mixed electoral systems can be divided into those in which the two electoral formulas are dependent and those in which they are independent. .................................................................. 1. MAJORITARIAN 2. PROPORTIONAL 3. MIXED 9. MISSING | NOTES: C5058 | | Source: Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C5058 | | The Austrian electoral system is a proportional representation | system with three segments or tiers. These correspond to the | federal level tier, the Land level tier (or state level) and the | regional districts tier. Counting and allocation of seats passes | through each of these levels. However, voters cast a single | vote in which they can express preferences for specific | candidates, particularly, a Lander level candidate and/or for a | regional level candidate. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009) C5058 | | Political parties and coalitions of two or more parties submit | lists of up to two candidates in Chamber districts and Senate | constituencies (binomial system). Voters choose one candidate in | one list. The list with the largest number of votes wins two | seats if it obtains more than twice as many votes as the list | in second place; otherwise, the top two lists receive one seat | each. Within each list, seats are won by candidates with | the largest number of votes. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C5058 | | The Danish electoral system is proportional, with a small | exception: four out 179 seats, two each from the Faroe Islands | and Greenland, are elected on separate rules. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2007): C5058 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2011): C5058 | | There is one small exception. In addition to the 14 multi-member | districts there is one constituency (province of Aland) that | selects one seat by simple majority rule. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C5058 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C5058 | | Mixed: 299 members are elected under the majority (first-past- | the post) system and the remaining seats are filled through the | proportional representation system using the party list. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): C5058 | | Greece uses the Hagenbach-Bischoff system of "reinforced" | proportional representation, with voting for party lists and, | within each list, preferential vote. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C5058 | | This concerns the election of 30 representative in | geographical constituencies. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007): C5058 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2009): C5058 | | The Icelandic Althingi (Parliament) has 63 members, where 53 | members are elected from 6 multi-member (8 to 10 seats) | constituencies. In addition, there is one multi-member | constituency with 9 "supplementary" seats that are allocated | to parties in order to give them a number of seats in | proportion to its national vote. However, only party lists that | obtained at least 5% of the national vote are entitled to | receive these seats. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): C5058 | | See note C5038_1-C5038_4. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5058 | | According to the inter-parliamentary union (IPU parlines) | Romania has a mixed member proportional system. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): C5058 | | The electoral system in Slovenia employs proportional repre- | sentation using the simple quotient and the preferential | system with a threshold of a 4 per cent for 88 members | (simple majority preferential vote for the two Deputies | representing the Italian and Hungarian communities). | (source: Parlines). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2009): C5059 | | Parties present two lists for the 400 National Assembly seats: | 200 nominations on a ‘national list' and a further 200 candidates | representing the nine provinces in the Assembly. Despite the | two lists, voters have a single vote. There are 9 multi-member | (4 to 43 seats) constituencies corresponding to the provinces. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2008): C5058 | | Korea employs a mixed-member majoritarian system that combines | 245 single-member districts (SMD) with 54 proportional | representation (PR) seats, elected from a single nation-wide | district. Each voter casts two votes, one for an individual | candidate in the SMD segment, and one for a closed party list | in the PR segment. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2008): C5058 | | The electoral system in Spain employs proportional repre- | sentation in 50 multi-member constituencies corresponding to | the country's provinces; However, there are 2 single-member | constituencies (North African enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla) | that use a majoritarian formula. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C5058 | | The electoral law in the 2008 legislative election is mixed- | member majoritarian (MMM) system, and the total number of seats | is 113. Among them, 73 seats are elected based on the single- | member districts (SMD), 34 seats based on the proportional | representation (PR) in a nationwide district, and 6 seats for | the aboriginals. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): C5058 | | The Lower Chamber (Cámara de Representantes; House of | Representatives) of the Uruguayan General Assembly consists | of 99 members. Seats are assigned among parties in a single | nationwide district, based on a proportional (d'Hondt) system. | The system uses closed lists and Double Simultaneous Vote (DSV) | in regional districts. | DVS is the system by which the voter votes synchronously in a | logical order: first by a party ("lema" or label or motto) and | then a list of candidates ("lista" or list). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5059 >>> NUMBER OF ELECTORAL SEGMENTS (TIERS) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable indicates the number of electoral segments (tiers) in each country. .................................................................. 0-5. NUMBER OF ELECTORAL SEGMENTS (TIERS) 9. MISSING | NOTES: C5059 | | This variable primarily concerns the Lower House election. | However, if a particular study is focused on the Upper House, or | presidential election, it may report results for these | elections, respectively. | Source: Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C5059 | | See ES note C5058. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): C5059 | | "There are 12 multi-member constituencies with district | magnitude ranging from 6 to 13 seats. There is a 5% threshold. | Seats are allocated in three rounds (2 tiers).In the first round | seats are awarded to candidates who garner the same or more | votes than the simple quota in their electoral districts. In the | second round, seats are allocated in a traditional PR method. | That is, party lists are awarded seats based on their share of | the vote in the district, and candidates within the list receive | seats in the order of how many preferential votes they received. | In the third round of counting, | all remaining mandates are distributed between the national | candidate lists with at least 5% of the national vote." From | http://www.electionguide.org/country.php?ID=69. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C5059 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C5059 | | 2 tiers: 299 members are elected under the majority (first-past- | the post) system and the remaining seats are filled through the | proportional representation system using the party list. However | in the German case. If there are more constituency seats won by | a party in a state than a party's seat share would be based on | the party vote distribution, constituency winners remain in | parliament as so-called additional members (Überhangmandate). | The 2005 German election produced 16 overhang seats, that is 2.7 | percent of seats. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): C5059 | | Of the 300 members of parliament, 248 are elected in 56 | constituencies comprised of 48 multi- and 8 single-seat | constituencies,20 and 12 parliamentarians (state deputies) | are elected from closed party lists on a top-down basis, | proportionally to the number of votes each party receives | nationwide. The remaining 40 seats are awarded to the winning | party as a ‘premium'. The 40 'bonus' seats are intended to | enhance the stability of government through the formation of a | single party majority government (from OSCE report). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C5059 | | Legislative Council (Legco) in Hong Kong is composed of 60 | members, 30 of which are returned by geographical constituency | elections. The remaining 30 are elected by functional | constituency elections, i.e., not by public at large, hence | the system is coded as a single electoral segment. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2007): C5059 | | The Oireachtas/Parliament has two chambers. The Dail | Eireann/House of Representatives has 166 members, elected for a | five-year term by proportional representation (single | transferable vote) in multi-seat constituencies. The Seanad | Eireann/Senate has 60 members, 11 members nominated, 6 members | selected by the universities and 43 members elected from five | vocational panels, all in short time after the parliamentary | elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C5059 | | There are two segments/tiers. Each voter casts two votes - a | 'party vote', and an 'electorate vote'. The later refers to 70 | constituencies where each returns one representative according | to the plurality principle (63 single-member general electoral | districts and 7 single-member Maori electoral districts). The | remaining 52 seats are decided on the basis of 'party vote' cast | for closed party lists. To qualify for seats in the Parliament, | a party has to win at least 5% of the 'party vote', or at least | a single 'electorate' seat. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C5059 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C5059 | | The Norwegian Storting has 169 seats, where 150 members are | elected from 19 multimember constituencies. In addition, | another 19 "members at large" seats (one for each multimember | constituency) are distributed proportionally among the parties | after the election to party lists receiving at least 4% of the | national popular vote. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C5059 | | The Congress of the Philippines has two chambers or houses: | the House of Representatives (Kapulungan Mga Kinatawan) and | the Senate (Senado). | The House of Representatives is elected on the basis of two | electoral segments. In the first segment, 229 representatives | are elected in single-member districts, to a three-year term. | In addition, up to 20% of the total number of representatives | is elected through the party-list system in a single nation- | wide electoral district (second segment). After the 2010 | elections, there are 56 representatives elected on party-list | basis. Party-lists are to be proposed by indigenous, but non- | religious, minority groups. A maximum of three seats is awarded | to each party. Each elector casts two votes: one for the | district representative and the other for the party of his | choice. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5059 | | The CSES survey was conducted for the 2009 Presidential Election, | the following figures are for the last parliamentary elections | in November 2008 (house and senate). | | The new electoral legislation (Law no. 35/2008) established a | two-tier seat allocation for both Chambers of the Parliament. | However, the voter casts only one vote for each of the Chambers. | The division of seats between tiers is variable and depends on the | actual result of voting. In extreme theoretical circumstances, it is | possible for one tier not to receive seats at all. Overhang seats | are allowed. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C5059 | | The Swedish Riksdagen has 349 members, where 310 members are | elected from 29 multi-member (2 to 34 seats) constituencies. In | addition, there is one multi-member constituency for 39 "at | large" seats. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): C5059 | | See note for C5058. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5060 >>> LINKED ELECTORAL SEGMENTS (TIERS) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable indicates whether countries with multiple segments (tiers) have linked (connected) or unlinked (unconnected) segments (tiers). Linkage occurs whenever (i) unused votes from one electoral segment (tier) are used at another level or (ii) the allocation of seats in one segment (tier) is conditional on the seats received in another segment (tier). The definition of this variable is taken from Matt Golder's database about Democratic Electoral Systems Around the World, 1946-2000 (http://homepages.nyu.edu/~mrg217/elections.html). .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 6. SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | NOTES: C5060 | | This variable primarily concerns the Lower House election. | However, if a particular study is focused on the Upper House, or | presidential election, it may report results for these | elections, respectively. | Source: Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C5060 | | The Austrian electoral system is a (non-mixed) proportional | representation system with three segments or tiers. These | correspond to the federal level tier, the Land level tier (or | state level) and the regional districts tier. Counting and | allocation of seats passes through each of these levels, and as | a consequence is a three step process. In first place in each | Lander a Hare quota is calculated and used to distribute seats | across the regional districts. That is, parties are allocated | seats from each regional district depending on how often they | exceeded the Land level specified quota. Followed by this seats | are allocated at the Land level tier also following the Land | level quota. Finally, at the national level seats are | distributed following the D'Hondt system. Seats that have been | already allocated in the first and second tier are deducted from | from the number of seats each parties obtains at the national | level. Only those parties that obtain more than 4% of the | national valid votes or one seat from the regional | constituencies qualify to receive seats from the Lander and | National seat distribution. Given this last element the | electoral system is coded as linked. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): C5060 | | In Japan's mixed electoral system, seats of both tiers are | allocated separately; each party is allocated its proportionate | share of the PR seats plus the SMD seats won by its candidates. | However, it is important to notice that candidates may run in | both the SMD districts as well as in the party list of the PR | contest. These so-called "duplicate" candidates are restricted | to run only in SMD constituency located within their PR bloc. | While this feature might create some implicit interdependence | between the segments, Japan's system is coded as un-linked since | the allocation of seats of each segment in done independently, | without considering the marginal results of the other segment. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C5060 | | The two tiers are linked, with the party vote tier acting | as a compensatory mechanism, assigning total seats on the | basis of the party vote using the Sainte Lague formula. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2009): C5060 | | South Africa's electoral system is not mixed, but composed of | two linked tiers that use proportional representation. | Parties present two lists to fill the National Assembly's seats: | 200 nominations on a ‘national list' and a 200 candidates | representing the nine provinces in the Assembly. Despite the | two lists, voters have a single vote. The tiers are linked since | successful candidates on a party's national list depend on its | proportion of the national vote; successful candidates on its | provincial lists depend on the proportion of the national vote in | each province. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2008): C5060 | | In Korea's mixed electoral system seats of both tiers are | allocated separately; each party is allocated its proportionate | share of the PR seats plus the SMD seats won by its candidates. | Thus, it's segments are classified as not being linked. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C5060 | | There is one multi-member constituency for distribution of 39 | "at large" seats, that is nationally. "When the permanent seats | have been distributed between the parties within each | constituency, the permanent seats for the parties in all | constituencies (a total of 310 seats) are aggregated. | Thereafter, a new distribution of seats is conducted, based on | the grand total of votes in the country. This time, 349 seats | are distributed, taking the whole of Sweden as one single | constituency. (Source: Valmyndigheten, http://www.val.se/). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5061 >>> DEPENDENT FORMULAE IN MIXED SYSTEMS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This indicates whether the two electoral formulas used in a mixed system are dependent or independent. A dependent mixed system is one in which the application of one formula is dependent on the outcome produced by the other formula. An independent mixed system is one in which the two electoral formulas are implemented independently of each other. The definition of this variable is taken from Matt Golder's database about Democratic Electoral Systems Around the World, 1946-2000 (http://homepages.nyu.edu/~mrg217/elections.html). .................................................................. 1. INDEPENDENT 2. INDEPENDENT/DEPENDENT 3. DEPENDENT 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | NOTES: C5061 | | This variable primarily concerns the Lower House election. | However, if a particular study is focused on the Upper House, or | presidential election, it may report results for these | elections, respectively. | Source: Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C5061 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C5061 | | Mexico's mixed electoral system is classified as dependent | because the marginal distribution of votes of the lower level | segment determines how many seats each party obtains in the | higher level segment. We want to emphasize, however, that since | there are no other rules in effect that provide for an | interactive effect between the tiers, some also consider | Mexico's two tier to be independent (Mixed Member Majoritarian). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5062 >>> SUBTYPES OF MIXED ELECTORAL SYSTEMS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sub-types of mixed electoral systems. COEXISTENCE: This is a system in which some districts use a majoritarian formula, while others employ a proportional formula in a single electoral segment (tier). Coexistence systems are independent mixed systems. SUPERPOSITION: This is a system in which a majoritarian and proportional formula are applied in independent electoral districts. FUSION: This is a system in which majoritarian and proportional formulas are used in an independent manner within a single district. CORRECTION: This is a system in which seats distributed by proportional representation in one set of districts are used to correct the distortions created by the majoritarian formula in another. Correction systems are a dependent form of mixed system. CONDITIONAL: This is a system in which the actual use or not of one electoral formula depends on the outcome produced by the other. Conditional systems are a dependent form of mixed system. The definition of this variable is taken from Matt Golder's database about Democratic Electoral Systems Around the World, 1946-2000 (http://homepages.nyu.edu/~mrg217/elections.html). .................................................................. 1. COEXISTENCE 2. SUPERPOSITION 3. FUSION 4. CORRECTION 5. CONDITIONAL 6. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | NOTES: C5062 | | This variable primarily concerns the Lower House election. | However, if a particular study is focused on the Upper House, or | presidential election, it may report results for these | elections, respectively. | Source: Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C5062 | | See note for C5059. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5062 | | The CSES survey was conducted for the 2009 Presidential Election, | the following figures are for the last parliamentary elections | in November 2008 (house and senate). | | The new electoral legislation (Law no. 35/2008) established a | two-tier seat allocation for both Chambers of the Parliament. | However, the voter casts only one vote for each of the Chambers. | The division of seats between tiers is variable and depends on the | actual result of voting. In extreme theoretical circumstances, it is | possible for one tier not to receive seats at all. Overhang seats | are allowed. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C5062 | | The electoral law in the 2008 legislative election is mixed- | member majoritarian (MMM) system, and the total number of seats | is 113. Among them, 73 seats are elected based on the single- | member districts (SMD), 34 seats based on the proportional | representational (PR) in a nationwide district, and 6 seats for | the aboriginals. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5063 >>> NUMBER OF ELECTORAL DISTRICTS - LOWEST SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of electoral districts or constituencies in the first or lowest electoral segment (tier) for the lower house of the legislature. .................................................................. 001-900. NUMBER OF ELECTORAL DISTRICTS 999. MISSING | NOTES: C5063 | | Source: Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C5063 | | The Austrian electoral system consists of three overlapping | tiers. The first tier is made of 43 regional electoral | districts, the second tier of 9 Land or state level electoral | districts and the third tier of one nation-wide electoral | district. The number of seats allotted to each Land ahead of an | election depends on its census number of resident citizens plus | registered Austrian expatriates. The Hare electoral quota used | for seat allocation both in the first and second tier is | calculated at the level of the second tier. In each Land the | electoral quota is calculated from the number of allotted seats | divided by the number of valid votes cast. The electoral quota | thus varies by Land and the same quota is applied to the first | tier seat allocation in the Land's regional electoral districts. | Seats allocated (and votes used up) in the first tier are | subtracted from the number of seats (and votes) available for | subsequent second tier allocation. The number of seats available | for third tier allocation is 183 minus the number of seats | distributed during first and second tier allocation. The same | rule determines the number of remaining votes available for | third tier allocation. Participation in second and third tier | seat allocation is restricted to parties that have gained at | least one first tier seat or a minimum of 4% of valid votes | nation-wide. Seat allocation in the third tier is through the | D'Hondt divisor rule. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C5063 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C5063 | | In both upper and lower house elections, the country is divided | into 27 multi-member constituencies corresponding to the | country's 26 states and the Federal District. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009) C5063 | | There are 60 electoral districts at the lower house for | 120 seats, and 19 electoral districts at the upper house | for 18 seats (the 36 senators are elected for a period of | 8 years and half are reelected every 4 years). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2009) C5063 | | The D'Hondt formula is also applied at the upper house level. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CROATIA (2007): C5063_1 | | There a total of 12 electoral districts. 10 districts each | electing 14 representatives from party lists or independent | list. The two distinctive features of the Croatian electoral law | concern voting in special electoral districts: 11th district for | the so-called Diaspora voters (Croatian citizens who are not | resident in Croatia) and 12th district for representatives of | national minorities: | | In the 11th district there were 404 950 registered voters (2007) | who permanently live outside Croatia. Voters cast votes for | party lists registered in this electoral district. There is a | specific rule for determining the number of seats allocated in | this electoral district: the number of valid votes is divided by | the average number of necessary to win a seat in the electoral | districts 1-10. | | In the 12th district voters who are registered as members of | national minorities can cast votes for individual candidates. | For this purpose there are separate sub-districts for respective | national minorities or groups of minorities. The Serbian | minority elects three representatives and voters can cast up to | three votes for individual candidates. One representative is | elected by members of the following national minorities who cast | one vote for the individual candidates: Italian - Hungarian - | Czech and Slovak - Austrian, Bulgarian, German, Polish, Roma, | Romanian, Ruthenian, Russian, Turkish, Ukrainian, Valachian and | Jewish - Albanian, Bosniak, Montenegrin, Macedonian and | Slovenian. Voters registered as members of national minorities | can forgo their right to vote in the 12th electoral district and | register to vote in the respective general electoral district | with other Croatian citizens. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C5063 | | In the first tier, there are 10 multi-member districts, | electing 135 representatives in total. The number of multi- | member constituencies was reduced from 17 to ten after the | Electoral District Reform in 2007. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2007): C5063 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2011): C5063 | | There are altogether 15 constituencies and 200 MPs. The number | of MPs per constituency is decided before each election based | on the number of inhabitants in each constituency. In the | Parliamentary election of 2011 the number of MPs varied between | 6 (in the constituencies of Etelä-Savo and Pohjois-Karjala) and | 35 (Uusimaa). Of the 200 MPs, 199 are elected in mainland | Finland. Moreover, the constituency of the autonomous Aland | Islands has 1 MP according to the Election Act., elected on | the basis of the simple majority rule. (From the Macro Report.) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C5063 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C5063 | | There are 299 single-member constituencies. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): C5063 | | "Of the 300 members of parliament, 248 are elected in 56 | constituencies comprised of 48 multi- and 8 single-seat | constituencies, and 12 parliamentarians ("state deputies") | are elected from closed party lists on a top-down basis, | proportionally to the number of votes each party receives | nationwide. The remaining 40 seats are awarded to the winning | party as ‘premium'. The 40 'bonus' seats are intended to enhance | the stability of government through the formation of a single | party majority government." From | http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/greece/41001. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C5063 | | Thirty members of the legislative council of the HKSAR are | elected directly, on the basis of five geographic electoral | constituencies. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007, 2009): C5063 | | In the first tier, there are 6 multi-member districts, | electing 54 (out of 63) representatives in total. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2007): C5063 | | Each of the 43 constituencies elects between 3 and 5 candidates, | and the total number of elected representatives is 166. Note | that in 2002 election, there were 42 constituencies. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2010): C5063 | | The Saeima elections are held in five constituencies: Riga, | Vidzeme, Latgale, Zemgale and Kurzeme. Saeima elections are | also held in those foreign countries where a substantial number | of Latvia citizens reside. Thus, the Riga constituency also | includes the electorate residing outside of Latvia. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C5063 | | The 70 electorates are made up from 63 general and 7 Maori | electorates. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C5063 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C5063 | | In the first tier, there are 19 multi-member districts, | electing 150 representatives in total. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2011): C5063 | | Peru is composed of 24 departments, but for the purpose of | the province of Callao also has department status. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C5063 | | The House of Representatives is elected on the basis of two | electoral segments. In the first segment, 229 representatives | are elected in single-member districts. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): C5063 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C5063 | | There are 41 multi-member (7-19 seats) district constituencies. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2009): C5063 | | There are 22 constituencies (eighteen in mainland Portugal | corresponding to each district, one for each autonomous | regions, Azores, and Madeira, one for | Portuguese living in Europe and one for those living in the | rest of the world. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5063 | | The CSES survey was conducted for the 2009 Presidential Election, | the following figures are for the last parliamentary elections | in November 2008 (house and senate). | | The number represents the empirical result, based on the 2009 | elections, 245 seats were attributed at the first allocation. | the number of seats distributed at this tier varies from election | to election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): C5063 | | The are 8 electoral units each divided into 11 single-seat | constituencies (88 seats in all). There are special consti- | tuencies for two members, respectively representing the | Hungarian and Italian minorities. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C5063 | | In the first tier, there are 29 multi-member districts, | electing 310 representatives in total. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C5063 | | In Switzerland the 26 electoral districts correspond to the | country's 20 cantons and 6 half-cantons. The number of seats per | constituency varies according to population. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C5063 | A total of 157 seats, of which 4 single-seat, 63 with 2 | seats, and 90 with 3 seats. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): C5063 | | There are 85 multi-member constituencies corresponding to the | country's provinces, with the exception of the largest cities | who are split into 2 or 3 districts. The allocation of seats | is done in 2 steps. First, all votes are aggregated nationwide | to determine which parties exceed the 10% threshold. Seats are | then distributed in each constituency proportionally using the | d'Hondt method. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): C5063 | | See note for C5058. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5064 >>> AVERAGE DISTRICT MAGNITUDE - LOWEST SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average district magnitude in the first or lowest electoral segment (tier). This is calculated as the total number of seats allocated in the lowest segment (tier) divided by the total number of districts in that segment (tier). .................................................................. 001.00-900.00 NUMBER OF SEATS ELECTED PER DISTRICT 999. MISSING | NOTES: C5064 | | Source: Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C5064 | | The number is the empirical average district magnitude | calculated from the total number of seats allocated in the 43 | first tier districts in the 2008 election. Average district | magnitude varies over time based on electoral result. | | For more details see ES note for C5063. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CROATIA (2007): C5064 | | This figure was calculated excluding the 2 districts reserved | for minorities and citizens living abroad. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): C5064 | | "Direct party-list voting with proportional distribution of | seats in three rounds of counting according to a simple | electoral quotient. The distribution of leftover "compensation | mandates" (26 seats) takes place on the basis of a modified | d'Hondt method." from http://www.nsd.uib.no. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2007): C5064 | | Each of the 43 constituencies elects between 3 and 5 candidates, | and the total number of elected representatives is 166. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5064 | | The CSES survey was conducted for the 2009 Presidential Election, | the following figures are for the last parliamentary elections | in November 2008 (house and senate). | | The number represents the empirical result, based on the seat | allocation after the 2009 election. | The number of distributed seats within each tier varies from | election to election, depending on electoral result. | For more details see ES note for C5062. In the 2009 election | 245 seats were attributed at the first allocation in 245 | districts. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): C5064 | | This figure excludes the 2 seats/constituencies reserved for | the Hungarian and Italian minorities. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5065 >>> ELECTORAL FORMULA - LOWEST SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The precise electoral formula used in the first or lowest electoral segment (tier) of the lower house. .................................................................. 10. PLURALITY 11. PLURALITY - SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS 12. PLURALITY - MULTI MEMBER DISTRICTS 20. MAJORITY 21. MAJORITY - RUN-OFF 22. MAJORITY - ALTERNATIVE 30. PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION 31. PR - D'HONDT 32. PR - LARGEST REMAINDER - DROOP 33. PR - LARGEST REMAINDER - HARE 34. PR - MODIFIED STE-LAGUE 98. OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 99. MISSING | NOTES: C5065 | | Source: Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C5065 | | According to Parline: "Voters are required to express a | preference among all the candidates contesting the same seat. | A candidate is elected if he/she gains an absolute majority or | 50% + 1 vote. If none of the candidates in a division obtains | an absolute majority of the first preference votes, a second | round of counting is held. At this point, the candidate with the | least number of votes is eliminated and the votes which he/she | obtained in the first round are redistributed among the | remaining candidates on the basis of the electors' second | choices. This procedure is repeated until such time as one of | the candidates obtains an absolute majority." | For details: http://www.ipu.org/parline-e/reports/2015_B.htm | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C5065 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C5065 | | "to win representation, a party (or apparentement) must exceed | the Hare quota (total valid votes divided by number of seats) in | a constituency. Each party is entitled to as many seats as the | number of times its vote reaches the quota; unallocated seats | are apportioned according to the d'Hondt formula" | (Nicolau 2008, p.170). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C5065 | | In the lowest segment, seats are allocated to parties within | each multi-member constituency separately, by the d'Hondt | formula on the basis of all votes cast for the parties in the | multi-member constituency in question. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C5065 | | If the candidate obtains the absolute majority at the first | round and 25% of registered electors, he/she is elected. If | not, the relative majority at the second round is enough to be | elected. To be eligible at the second ballot, the candidate must | have obtained more than 12.5% of registered voters at the first | ballot. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C5065 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C5065 | | Constituency candidates with a relative majority (first vote) | in one of the 299 constituencies win a seat. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2009): C5065 | | the 248 seats are allocated proportionally using the Hare | quota (also called a method of the largest remainder) | (from OCSE report). | The distribution of remainder seats is complex in Greece. "Any | remaining unallocated seats were subsequently filled in two | stages. First, the party with the largest vote total at the | national level obtained all unallocated seats in constituencies | where it polled the largest number of votes. Then, the remaining | seats were distributed on a nationwide basis among parties (but | not coalitions) by the Hare method, disregarding fractions; if | there remained unallocated seats following this apportionment, | these were awarded as well to the party with the largest vote | total in the entire country. Finally, the twelve nationwide | seats were allocated according to the largest average method, | also known as the D'Hondt rule."From | http://electionresources.org/gr/. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2007): C5065 | | "The electoral system in Ireland is a proportional | representation single transferable vote system (PRSTV). Voters | put a '1' beside their most preferred candidate, a '2' beside | their second most preferred candidate, and so on. Voters can | express as many preferences as there are candidates running in | their constituency. On the first count, candidates are declared | elected if they attract enough first preference votes to pass a | specified threshold, which is defined separately for each | constituency according to the formula: [total valid votes/ | (total number of seats +1) +1]. If a candidate is declared | elected on the first count, the second preferences of the | candidate's surplus votes (i.e., votes over and above the | threshold) are then distributed among the other candidates. If | this redistribution does not push any of the remaining | candidates over the threshold, the candidate with the lowest | number of votes is eliminated, then the second preferences of | the eliminated candidate's votes are redistributed. This process | of redistribution of surpluses and elimination of candidates | continues until all the seats in a given constituency are | filled." (For details, see Gallagher et al., 2003, Appendix 4). | | Owing to the quota formula: [total valid votes/(total number | of seats "+1") +1], the STV system in Ireland works similarly | as the party-list proportional representation which uses | the largest-reminder method with droop quota. Consequently, | C5065 of IRL_2007 is coded as 32. | | Please be careful that because Ireland uses STV instead of PR, | there are non-trivial differences between the electoral system | of Ireland and the other countries with the PR, for example, | "residual" votes go to the next preferred candidates in the STV | but in the PR to the next listed/ranked candidates, even though | both systems employ "droop" quota for the seats allocation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LATVIA (2010): C5065 | | Although coded as modified Ste-Lague, Latvia uses Ste-Lague. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): C5065 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C5065 | | Modified St. Lague formula was used in 2001 election only. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5065 | | The CSES survey was conducted for the 2009 Presidential Election, | the following figures are for the last parliamentary elections | in November 2008 (house and senate). | | To obtain a seat, candidates must get 50% +1 of the votes cast. | The remaining seats are allocated according to a complicated | algorithm (for details, see Marian and King 2010) to other | candidates based on candidate results at district level and party | results at constituency level. At this level the same | threshold as discussed in C5047 remains in place. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2010): C5065 | | Slovakia employs PR with the Hagenbach-Bischoff method. However, | the entry in the data is coded with response 31 PR - D'Hondt. | The reason is that the Hagenbach-Bischoff method is considered | a variant of the D'Hondt method. Further, both systems return | identical results. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): C5065 | | Seats are distributed on a proportional basis. Remaining | seats are distributed at the national level using the | d'Hondt method, with Deputies being selected from those lists | which have the highest remainders. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2009): C5065 | | The conversion of votes into seats depends on the nationwide | district. The Droop quota is used to allocate seats. Surplus | seats are apportioned using the largest remainder method. | from: http://www.eisa.org.za/WEP/sousystem.htm | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2008): C5065 | | Seats are distributed on a proportional basis. "Multi-member | constituencies: blocked party lists and the d'Hondt | system of proportional representation - each voter chooses one | list of those made available in the constituency (province)" | from: http://www.nsd.uib.no | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C5065 | | Modified St-Laguë method. "The permanent constituency seats | are distributed on the basis of the total number of votes gained | by the political parties in each constituency. Comparative | numbers are calculated for the parties that will take part in | the distribution of seats. The first comparative number is | obtained by dividing the parties' respective total number of | votes by 1.4. The party which receives the highest comparative | number is awarded the first seat in the constituency. That party | is then allocated a new comparative number, obtained by dividing | the party's votes by 3. The other parties keep their comparative | numbers until they are awarded a seat. When a party obtains its | second seat, its votes are divided by 5 to calculate the next | comparative number. For the third seat by 7 etc. This method of | calculation is referred to as the 'adjusted odd-number method'." | (Source: Valmyndigheten, http://www.val.se/). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2007): C5065 | | Switzerland employs PR with the Hagenbach-Bischoff method in 21 | of the 26 cantons. In the remaining 5 cantons (3 cantons and 2 | half cantons) a single majority system is employed. However, | the entry in the data is coded with response 31 PR - D'Hondt. | The reason is that the Hagenbach-Bischoff method is considered | a variant of the D'Hondt method. Further, both systems return | identical results. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C5065 | | The Block Vote (BV) used in this electoral tier is considered | plurality (sometimes referred to plurality at large). The voting | is done via a series of check boxes (where there are multiple | winners) and votes are tallied in a way that is similar to a | plurality election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): C5065 | | The Lower Chamber (Cámara de Representantes; House of | Representatives) of the Uruguayan General Assembly consists | of 99 members. Seats are assigned among parties in a single | nationwide district, based on a proportional (d'Hondt) system. | The system uses closed lists and Double Simultaneous Vote (DSV) | in regional districts. | DVS is the system by which the voter votes synchronously in a | logical order: first by a party ("lema" or label or motto) and | then a list of candidates ("lista" or list). For more details | see notes for C5001 and C5003. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5066 >>> NUMBER OF ELECTORAL DISTRICTS - SECOND SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of electoral districts or constituencies in the second electoral segment (tier) for the lower house of the legislature. .................................................................. 001-900. NUMBER OF ELECTORAL DISTRICTS 997. NOT APPLICABLE 999. MISSING | NOTES: C5066 | | Source: Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C5066 | | The Austrian electoral system has three segments or tiers. These | correspond to the federal level tier, the Land or state level | tier (9 districts) and the regional tier (43 districts). | For more details see ES note for C5063. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C5066 | | The secondary segment refers to 40 seats allocated in the single | nationwide district. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C5066 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C5066 | | There are 16 electoral districts corresponding to the Länder, | that also elect 299 members in total. This is different from | Module 1, where the applied code indicated one district in the | second electoral segment. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2007): C5066 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2009): C5066 | | In addition to the 54 seats in 6 electoral districts, there is | 1 other multi-member constituency that proportionally allocates | 9 "supplementary" seats to the parties that obtained 5% or more | of the national vote. For this tier the remaining seats are also | allotted by the d'Hondt method. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C5066 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2009): C5066 | | In addition to the 150 seats in 19 electoral districts, there is | 1 other multi-member constituency for the 19 "members at large" | seats. For this tier, the remaining seats are also allotted by | the modified Saint-Lague method. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C5066 | | The House of Representatives is elected on the basis of two | electoral segments. In the first segment, 229 representatives | are elected in single-member districts. In addition, up to 20% of | the total number of representatives is elected through the | party-list system in a single nation-wide electoral district | (second tier). After the 2010 elections, there are 56 | representatives elected on party-list basis. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5066 | | The CSES survey was conducted for the 2009 Presidential Election, | the following figures are for the last parliamentary elections | in November 2008 (house and senate). | | The division of seats between tiers is variable and depends on the | actual result of voting. In extreme theoretical circumstances, it is | possible for one tier not to receive seats at all. Overhang seats | are allowed. The number represents the empirical result, based | on the seat allocation after the 2009 election. | The number of distributed seats within each tier varies from | election to election, depending on electoral result. | For more details see ES note for C5062. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C5066 | | In addition to the 310 seats in 29 electoral districts, there is | 1 other multi-member constituency for 39 "at large" seats. For | this tier, the remaining seats are allotted by the system of | full proportional representation based on the votes obtained | nationwide, following the "adjusted odd-number method" see note | for variable C5065.(Source: Valmyndigheten, http://www.val.se/). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5067 >>> AVERAGE DISTRICT MAGNITUDE - SECOND SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average district magnitude in the second electoral segment (tier). This is calculated as the total number of seats allocated in the second segment (tier) divided by the total number of districts in that segment (tier). .................................................................. 001.00-900.00 NUMBER OF SEATS ELECTED PER DISTRICT 997. NOT APPLICABLE 999. MISSING | NOTES: C5067 | | Source: Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C5067 | | The number is the average district magnitude | calculated from the number of seats allocated in the 9 second | tier districts in the 2008 election. The average district | magnitude varies over time, depending on the electoral results. | | For more details see ES note for C5063. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): C5067 | | These are compensation seats. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C5067 | | This value changes depending on weather overhang seats are | allotted or not. Without overhang seats, this value is 18. | 875. However with the 16 overhang seats, it rises to 19.68 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C5067 | | This value changes depending on weather overhang seats are | allotted or not. Without overhang seats, this value is 18. | 875. However with the 24 overhang seats, it rises to 20.1875. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C5067 | | This value changes depending on weather overhang seats are | allotted or not. Without overhang seats, this value is 50. | However with the 2 overhang seats, it rises to 52. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5067 | | The CSES survey was conducted for the 2009 Presidential Election, | the following figures are for the last parliamentary elections | in November 2008 (house and senate). | | The division of seats between tiers is variable and depends on the | actual result of voting. In extreme theoretical circumstances, it is | possible for one tier not to receive seats at all. Overhang seats | are allowed. For the 2008 parliamentary election, 71 seats were | allocated at the second tier. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C5067 | | See ES note for C5075. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5068 >>> ELECTORAL FORMULA - SECOND SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The precise electoral formula used in the second electoral segment (tier) of the lower house. .................................................................. 10. PLURALITY 11. PLURALITY - SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS 12. PLURALITY - MULTI MEMBER DISTRICTS 20. MAJORITY 21. MAJORITY - RUN-OFF 22. MAJORITY - ALTERNATIVE 30. PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION 31. PR - D'HONDT 32. PR - LARGEST REMAINDER - DROOP 33. PR - LARGEST REMAINDER - HARE 34. PR - MODIFIED STE-LAGUE 97. NOT APPLICABLE 98. OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 99. MISSING | NOTES: C5068 | | Source: Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C5068 | | The compensatory seats are allocated to parties which have | qualified for participation in this allocation in strict | proportionality to the number of votes obtained by these | parties. The calculation is done on the basis of the so-called | pure Hare quota; seats not allocated by the full quota are | allocated on the basis of largest remainders. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): C5068 | | "Direct party-list voting with proportional distribution of | seats in three rounds of counting according to a simple | electoral quotient. The distribution of leftover "compensation | mandates" (26 seats) takes place on the basis of a modified | d'Hondt method." from http://www.nsd.uib.no. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C5068 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C5068 | | Electoral formula: Until the 2005 election: Hare-Niemeyer, | equal to the Hare quota and largest remainder (d'Hondt method | until 1987). In 2008, Germany changed the electoral formula | and is now using the Sainte-Laguë Formula. | | "Party seats are distributed on the state level based on each | party's vote distribution (not: vote shares) among the 16 | states. Constituency seats already won in a state are subtracted | from each party's seat total in this state. The remaining party | seats are filled by the (closed) party lists for each state | (second segment) according to the ranking of the candidates. | If there are more constituency seats won by a party in a state | than a party's seat share would be based on the party vote | distribution, constituency winners remain in parliament as | so-called additional members (Überhangmandate). While regular MP | seats can be filled by alternates (in the case of death or | resignation of the MP), additional members are not replaced | during an electoral term." (Source: http://aceproject.org/). | There were 16 additional seats in 2005, and 24 additional seats | in 2009 (http://www.wahlrecht.de/ueberhang/ueberhist.html). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C5068 | | "The parties, organizations and coalitions receiving at least | two percent of the total votes cast for the party-list system | shall be entitled to one seat each, provided that those | garnering more than two percent of the votes shall be entitled | to additional seats in proportion to their total number of | votes." (Section 11 (B) and Section 12 of Republic Act (RA) 941 | or the Party-list System Act). Party-list groups are only | allowed a maximum of three seats. | | There are two formulae in determining the number of allocated | seats for each qualified party. The first formula is used to | compute the number of seats to which the first party (top vote | getter) is entitled to. | Proportion of the first party = | (Total votes for the first party-list) | / (total number of votes for the party-list system). | If the proportion of votes received by the top party without | rounding it off is equal to at least six percent of the total | valid votes cast for all party list groups, then the top party | is entitled to two additional seats for a total of three seats | overall. If the proportion of votes without rounding off is | equal to or greater than four percent, but less than six | percent, then the first party shall have one additional seats | for a total of two seats. If the proportion is less than four | percent, then the first party is not entitled to any additional | seat. | Formula for solving additional seats that other qualified | parties are entitled to: (Additional seats for concerned party) | = [ (Number. of votes of concerned party)/(Number of votes of | first party)] x (Number of additional seats allocated to the | first party). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2009): C5068 | | The conversion of votes into seats depends on the nationwide | district. The Droop quota is used to allocate seats. Surplus | seats are apportioned using the largest remainder method. | from: http://www.eisa.org.za/WEP/sousystem.htm | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C5068 | | For this tier, seats are allotted by the system of full | proportional representation based on the votes obtained | nationwide, following the "adjusted odd-number method" see | note for variable C5065.(Source: Valmyndigheten, | http://www.val.se/). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5069 >>> NUMBER OF ELECTORAL DISTRICTS - THIRD SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of electoral districts or constituencies in the third electoral segment (tier) for the lower house of the legislature. This variable is taken from Matt Golder's database about Democratic Electoral Systems Around the World, 1946-2000 (http://homepages.nyu.edu/~mrg217/elections.html). Original variable name: DISTRICTS3. .................................................................. 001-900. NUMBER OF ELECTORAL DISTRICTS 997. NOT APPLICABLE 999. MISSING | NOTES: C5069 | | Source: Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C5069 | | The Austrian electoral system has three segments or tiers. These | correspond to the federal level tier, the Land or state level | tier (9 districts) and the regional tier (43 districts). | For more details see ES note for C5063. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5070 >>> AVERAGE DISTRICT MAGNITUDE - THIRD SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average district magnitude in the third electoral segment (tier). This is calculated as the total number of seats allocated in the second segment (tier) divided by the total number of districts in that segment (tier). This variable is taken from Matt Golder's database about Democratic Electoral Systems Around the World, 1946-2000 (http://homepages.nyu.edu/~mrg217/elections.html). Original variable name: AVEMAG3. .................................................................. 001.00-900.00 NUMBER OF SEATS ELECTED PER DISTRICT 997. NOT APPLICABLE 999. MISSING | NOTES: C5070 | | Source: Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C5070 | | The number is the district magnitude calculated from | the number of seats allocated in the single third tier district | in the 2008 election. | District magnitude varies over time based on electoral result. | For more details see ES note for C5063. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5071 >>> ELECTORAL FORMULA - THIRD SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The precise electoral formula used in the third electoral segment (tier) of the lower house. .................................................................. 10. PLURALITY 11. PLURALITY - SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS 12. PLURALITY - MULTI MEMBER DISTRICTS 20. MAJORITY 21. MAJORITY - RUN-OFF 22. MAJORITY - ALTERNATIVE 30. PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION 31. PR - D'HONDT 32. PR - LARGEST REMAINDER - DROOP 33. PR - LARGEST REMAINDER - HARE 34. PR - MODIFIED STE-LAGUE 97. NOT APPLICABLE 98. OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 99. MISSING | NOTES: C5071 | | Source: Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5072 >>> NUMBER OF SEATS ABOVE THE FIRST SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The number of seats allocated in electoral districts or constituencies above the first or lowest segment (tier). This variable may include seats allocated in several different upper segments (tiers). .................................................................. 000-900. NUMBER OF SEATS 999. MISSING | NOTES: C5072 | | Source: Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C5072 | | The number is based on the seat allocation after the | 2008 election. | The number of distributed seats within each tier varies from | election to election, depending on the electoral result. | For more details see ES note for C5063. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): C5072 | | These are compensation seats. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C5072 | | This value changes depending on weather overhang seats are | allotted or not. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C5072 | | This value changes depending on weather overhang seats are | allotted or not. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C5072 | | This value changes depending on weather overhang seats are | allotted or not. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5072 | | The CSES survey was conducted for the 2009 Presidential Election, | the following figures are for the last parliamentary elections | in November 2008 (house and senate). | | The division of seats between tiers is variable and depends on the | actual result of voting. In extreme theoretical circumstances, it | is possible for one tier not to receive seats at all. Overhang | seats are allowed. In the present case 245 out of the 316 seats | were attributed after the first round of counting, and 71 after | the second. (these figures exclude the 18 minority seats) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): C5072 | | These are compensation seats. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5073 >>> PERCENTAGE OF SEATS ABOVE THE FIRST SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Percentage of seats allocated in electoral districts above the lowest segment (tier). .................................................................. 000.00-100.00 PERCENTAGE OF SEATS 999. MISSING | NOTES: C5073 | | Source: Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C5073 | | The number (111/183=60.66) is based on the seat allocation after | the 2008 election. | The number of seats distributed within each tier varies from | election to election, depending on electoral result. | For more details see ES note for C5063. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2007): C5073 | | The percentage is based on the 175 Parliament members from | Denmark strictu sensu. The remaining four members from the | Faroe Islands and Greenland are not taken into account here. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ESTONIA (2011): C5073 | | These are compensation seats. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C5073 | | The percentage of upper tier seats is 50% of the total in | theory. However given that overhang seats were allotted in 2005 | this means that there were more than 50% of the seats allotted | at this tier. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C5073 | | The percentage of upper tier seats is 50% of the total in | theory. However given that overhang seats were allotted in 2009 | this means that there were more than 50% of the seats allotted | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C5073 | | The percentage of upper tier seats is 41.66% of the total in | theory. However given that (2) overhang seats were allotted in | 2008, this means that there were 42.62% of the seats allotted | at this tier. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5073 | | The CSES survey was conducted for the 2009 Presidential Election, | the following figures are for the last parliamentary elections | in November 2008 (house and senate). | | The division of seats between tiers is variable and depends on the | actual result of voting. In extreme theoretical circumstances, it | is possible for one tier not to receive seats at all. Overhang | seats are allowed. In the present case 245 out of the 316 seats | were attributed after the first round of counting, and 71 after | the second. (these figures exclude the 18 minority seats) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): C5073 | | These are compensation seats. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5074 >>> FUSED VOTE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This indicates whether a fused vote was used for presidential and legislative elections. A fused vote is when a citizen casts a single ballot for the elections of more than one political office. This particular variable captures when the single ballot is for the presidency and the legislature. Citizens are unable to divide their votes among the candidates or lists of different parties. Split-ticket voting is expressly prohibited. .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 7. NOT APPLICABLE - PARLIAMENTARY REGIME 9. MISSING | NOTES: C50747 | | Source: Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): C5074 | | Voters have a single vote. However, each ballot contains a | presidential ticket, a closed list for Senate, and a closed | list for the Lower Chamber. Each ballot must necessarily | contain lists of a single party. Electors cast votes necessarily | (for President and two chambers) for the same party. Hence, the | elections results are basically identical for all three | institutions - both houses of the Parliament, and for the | President (first round). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5075 >>> SIZE OF THE LOWER HOUSE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total number of seats in the lower house of the legislature during the election year. 001-900. SEATS IN THE LOWER HOUSE 999. MISSING. | NOTES: C5075 | | Source: Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CROATIA (2007): C5075 | | There are 10 districts each electing 14 representatives from | party lists or independent list. In addition to these 140 | seats, 8 seats are attributed to national minorities through a | 12th district, of which 3 go to the national Serbian minority | and 5 go to other minorities. The 11th district is formed of | the Croatian nationals residing outside Croatia. | Representatives from this constituency are elected on | the basis of a non-fixed quota. That is, the number of | representatives is not fixed in advance for this constituency. | The number is attached to the amount of valid votes in the 10 | national constituencies: more votes in the national | constituencies lead to the election of less Diaspora MPs. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C5075 | | There are 577 single-member constituencies: 555 for metropolitan | France, 17 for overseas departments and "collectivités | territoriales", and 5 for overseas territories. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C5075 | | The Bundestag contains 598 seats in theory. However 16 | overhang seats increase the number of seats to 614 in 2005. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C5075 | | The Bundestag contains 598 seats in theory. However 24 | overhang seats increase the number of seats to 622 in 2009. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2008): C5075 | | Legislative Council (Legco) in Hong Kong is composed of 60 | members, 30 of which are returned by geographical constituency | elections and another 30 by functional constituency elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2008): C5075 | | Normally, the parliament has 120 members, however this can | sometimes increase due to an 'overhang', when a party gains more | electorate seats than those that are won on the basis of its | party vote. After the 2008 elections, the Parliament had 122 | members, reflecting a two-seat 'overhang' for the Maori party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C5075 | | The Congress of the Philippines has two chambers or houses: | the House of Representatives (Kapulungan Mga Kinatawan) and | the Senate (Senado). | The House of Representatives is elected on the basis of two | electoral segments. In the first segment, 229 representatives | are elected in single-member districts. In addition, up to 20% of | the total number of representatives is elected through the | party-list system in a single nation-wide electoral district | (second segment). After the 2010 elections, there are 56 | representatives elected on party-list basis. Thus, in total | after the 2010 elections there were 285 representatives in the | House of Representatives. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2009): C5075 | | "The Assembly of the Republic shall have not less than one | hundred and eighty, and not more than two hundred and thirty, | Deputies, as provided in the electoral law." (The Portuguese | Constitution, Article 148.) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5075 | | For the 2008 parliamentary elections, the Chamber of Deputies | elected 334 members (316 elected from districts, plus 18 again | allocated to otherwise unrepresented national minorities) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C5075 | | In the 113 seats contained in the lower house, 6 seats are | reserved for aborigines, | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2009): C5075 | | The Lower Chamber (Cámara de Representantes; House of | Representatives) of the Uruguayan General Assembly consists | of 99 members. Seats are assigned among parties in a single | nationwide district, based on a proportional (d'Hondt) system. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5080_1 >>> GDP GROWTH - ANNUAL % (WORLD BANK) - TIME T C5080_2 >>> GDP GROWTH - ANNUAL % (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-1 C5080_3 >>> GDP GROWTH - ANNUAL % (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- These variables report World Bank estimate of the annual GDP growth, at three time periods: the election year (time T), one year before election (T-1), and two years before election (T-2). Definition: Annual percentage growth rate of GDP at market prices based on constant local currency. Aggregates are based on constant 2000 U.S. dollars. GDP is the sum of gross value added by all resident producers in the economy plus any product taxes and minus any subsidies not included in the value of the products. It is calculated without making deductions for depreciation of fabricated assets or for depletion and degradation of natural resources. .................................................................. 00.00-90.00 % ANNUAL GROWTH 99. MISSING | NOTES: C5080 | | Source: World Development Indicators 2009 database | (http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/ | world-development-indicators). | | Note that CSES uses the most recent WB indicators available at | the time of data processing. However, since WB may change some | of its data retroactively, differences may occur between the | CSES entries and the WB indicators at later time points. | "Historical data in the World Development Indicators (WDI) | database often changes with each edition. We advise clients to | use our most current data set since it provides not only data | for the latest year available, but also revisions to previously | published data. In most cases, revisions are due to estimates | becoming more robust over time given better collection methods | and more recent surveys." Source: The World Bank web-site | http://data.worldbank.org/about/faq/data-publications | (retrieved on Nov 10, 2010). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C5080 | | The source of these data is the CIA world fact book. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5081_1 >>> GDP PER CAPITA, PPP (WORLD BANK) - TIME T C5081_2 >>> GDP PER CAPITA, PPP (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-1 C5081_3 >>> GDP PER CAPITA, PPP (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- These variables report World Bank estimate of the GDP per capita, at three time periods: the election year (time T), one year before election (T-1), and two years before election (T-2). Definition: GDP is gross domestic product at purchaser prices divided by midyear population. It is the sum of the gross value added by all resident producers in the economy plus any product taxes and minus any subsidies not included in the value of the products. It is calculated without deductions for depreciation of fabricated assets or for depletion and degradation of natural resources. PPP GDP is gross domestic product converted to international dollars using purchasing power parity rates. An international dollar has the same purchasing power over GDP as a U.S. dollar has in the United States. Data are in constant 2005 international dollars. .................................................................. 00000.00-89999.00 GDP PER CAPITA 99999. MISSING | NOTES: C5081 | | Source: World Development Indicators 2009 database | (http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/ | world-development-indicators). | | See also notes for C5080. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C5081 | | The source of these data is the CIA world fact book. Note, data | are in 2008 US dollars. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5082_1 >>> INFLATION, GDP DEFLATOR (ANNUAL %) (WORLD BANK) - TIME T C5082_2 >>> INFLATION, GDP DEFLATOR (ANNUAL %) (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-1 C5082_3 >>> INFLATION, GDP DEFLATOR (ANNUAL %) (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- These variables report World Bank estimate of Inflation at three time periods: the election year (time T), one year before election (T-1), and two years before election (T-2). Definition: Inflation as measured by the annual growth rate of the GDP implicit deflator shows the rate of price change in the economy as a whole. The GDP implicit deflator is the ratio of GDP in current local currency to GDP in constant local currency. .................................................................. -100.00-10000.00 INFLATION (ANNUAL %) 99999. MISSING | NOTES: C5082 | | Source: World Development Indicators 2009 database | (http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/ | world-development-indicators). | | See also notes for C5080. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C5082 | | The source of these data (2008) is the CIA world fact book. | For 2007 and 2006, data are from the IMF world economic outlook. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5083_1 >>> HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX (UNPD) - TIME T C5083_2 >>> HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX (UNPD) - TIME T-1 C5083_3 >>> HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX (UNPD) - TIME T-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- These variables report UNDP Human Development Index (HDI) at three time periods: the election year (time T), one year before election (T-1), and two years before election (T-2). Definition: The human development index (HDI) is a composite index that measures the average achievements in a country in three basic dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life; access to knowledge; and a decent standard of living. These basic dimensions are measured by life expectancy at birth, adult literacy and combined gross enrolment in primary, secondary and tertiary level education, and gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in Purchasing Power Parity US dollars (PPP US$), respectively. .................................................................. 00.00-99.00 HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX 999. MISSING | NOTES: C5083 | | Source: Human Development Report 2010 (Downloaded on December 9, | 2010, from: http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/indicators/49806.html). | | Note that as of 2010 HDI figures are different from the previous | reports, due to the revision of the HDI methodology. Hence, | figures for all the countries included in this CSES release are | updated accordingly. For more details about the change in the HDI | methodology, see http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/faq/. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C5083_3 | | In the 2010 HDI Report, data for the year 2004 are not | available. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2006): C5083_3 | | In the 2010 HDI Report, data for the year 2004 are not | available. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C5083_2 & C5083_3 | | In the 2010 HDI Report, data for years 2004 and 2003 are not | available. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2005): C5083_2 & C5083_3 | | In the 2010 HDI Report, data for years 2004 and 2003 are not | available. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2006): C5083_3 | | In the 2010 HDI Report, data for the year 2004 are not | available. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5084_1 >>> POPULATION, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T C5084_2 >>> POPULATION, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-1 C5084_3 >>> POPULATION, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- These variables report World Bank estimate of the total population size, at three time periods: the election year (time T), one year before election (T-1), and two years before election (T-2). Definition: Total population is based on the de facto definition of population, which counts all residents regardless of legal status or citizenship--except for refugees not permanently settled in the country of asylum, who are generally considered part of the population of their country of origin. .................................................................. 1000-1,000,000,000. POPULATION SIZE 999999995904. MISSING | NOTES: C5084 | | Source: World Development Indicators 2009 database | (http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/ | world-development-indicators). | | See also notes for C5080. | | Due to a data entry error, the missing data value for this | variable, which is used only in variable C5084_1 and only | for two election studies (Finland 2011 and Slovakia 2010) | is "999999995904" rather than the customary "999999999999". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2011): C5084_1 | | Population data was not available for this country-year as of | the original Full Release of CSES Module 3. | | The data has since become available, however, and the value is: | 5,388,272 | | This was discovered too late to be recoded in the re-release, | however, and so the value still appears as missing. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2010): C5084_1 | | Population data was not available for this country-year as of | the original Full Release of CSES Module 3. | | The data has since become available, however, and the value is: | 5,391,428 | | This was discovered too late to be recoded in the re-release, | however, and so the value still appears as missing. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C5084 | | Data is from Taiwan's Council for Economic Planning and | Development (CEPD)Figures for 2008 are from projected estimates, | medium variant. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5085_1 >>> UNEMPLOYMENT, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T C5085_2 >>> UNEMPLOYMENT, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-1 C5085_3 >>> UNEMPLOYMENT, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- These variables report World Bank estimate of the unemployment rate (% of total labor force), at three time periods: the election year (time T), one year before election (T-1), and two years before election (T-2). Unemployment is the share of the labor force without work but available for and seeking employment. Definitions of labor force and unemployment may differ by country. .................................................................. 00.00-100.00 UNEMPLOYMENT RATE (% OF TOTAL LABOR FORCE) 999. MISSING | NOTES: C5085 | | Source: World Development Indicators 2009 database | (http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/ | world-development-indicators). | | See also notes for C5080. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2008): C5085_1-C5085_3 | | Unemployment estimates are not available from the World Bank | for these years in Belarus. In this case, figures reported are | from the International Labor Organization (ILO), and represent | unemployment rates for men aged 16 to 59 years and women aged 16 | to 54 years, in December of each given years. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C5085 | | These data are from the World Labour Organization and represent | persons aged 10 years and over. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2008): C5085 | | The source of these data is the CIA world fact book. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C5085 | | These data are from the International Labor Organization. | The figures represent total, yearly unemployment rates, for | persons aged 15 years and over. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5090 >>> CONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL STRUCTURE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is the country federal? Federations are "compound polities, combining strong constituent units and strong general government, each possessing powers delegated to it by the people through a constitution and each empowered to deal directly with the citizens in the exercise of the legislative, administrative and taxing powers, and each directly elected by the citizens." (page 12, Watts, 2008). .................................................................. 1. YES [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 5. NO 9. MISSING | NOTES: C5090 | | Source: Ronald L. Watts, (2008). "Comparing Federal Systems". | Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, Queen's University, | Kingston, Ontario, Canada. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2006): C5090 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2010): C5090 | | Brazil's constitutional structure is Federal (Watts, 2008) with | 26 federated units and one federal capital district. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C5090 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C5090 | | Germany is a Federation according to Watts (2008). The | federation consists of 16 Laenders. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C5090 | | The Provinces of the Philippines are the primary political | and administrative divisions of the Philippines. There are | 80 provinces at present, further subdivided into component | cities and municipalities. The National Capital Region, as well | as independent cities, are autonomous from any provincial | government. Each province is administered by an elected | governor who oversees various local government entities. | The provinces are grouped into 17 regions based on geographical, | cultural, and ethnological characteristics. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): C5090 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2007): C5090 | | Article 3 of the Polish Constitution states that "The Republic | of Poland shall be a unitary State." The basic unit of local | government is the commune (Gmina). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2009): C5090 | | South Africa's constitutional structure is Federal | (Watts, 2008) with 9 provinces. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C5090 | | Although de facto, the Republic of China is functioning as a | unitary state, it is also de jure, a federated unit of the | People's Republic of China. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5091 >>> NUMBER OF LEGISLATIVE CHAMBERS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of legislative chambers: .................................................................. 1. ONE LEGISLATIVE CHAMBER; UNICAMERAL LEGISLATURE 2. TWO LEGISLATIVE CHAMBERS; BICAMERAL LEGISLATURE 9. MISSING | NOTES: C5091 | | Note that some of the countries have indirectly elected Upper | Chambers. | | Source: Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2007): C5091 | | The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia has two | chambers. The house of representatives has 150 members, elected | for a three-year term in single-seat constituencies with a | system of alternative vote. The senate consists of 76 Senators, | twelve from each of the six states and two from each of the | federal territories. The senate is elected for 6 years term. | One half is renewed every 3 years, except for the 4 senators | representing the federal territories, who are elected for a | maximum of 3 years. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2008): C5091 | | Austria has a bicameral system with two chambers: the | Nationalrat (or National Council) and the Bundesrat (or Federal | Council). However, only the Nationalrat is elected popularly. | This house has 183 members elected for five-year terms in | multimember constituencies with a proportional representation. | The Bundesrat consists of 62 members. These are elected | indirectly by the parties according to the number of seats they | hold in the provincial assemblies. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2008): C5091 | | The National Assembly (Natsionalnoe Sobranie) is a bicameral | legislature with a directly elected House of representatives | and an upper house, the Council of Republic, is made up of | (indirectly) elected representatives and presidential appointees | (from Fish and Kroenig 2009, p.65) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CROATIA (2007): C5091 | | The Croatian Parliament (Hrvatski sabor) is unicameral. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (2006): C5091 | | The Parlament Ceské republiky (Parliament of the Czech Republic) | has two chambers. Poslanecká snemovna (Chamber of | Representatives) has 200 members, elected for a four year term | by proportional representation. The Senát (Senat) has 81 members | elected for a six-year term in single-seat constituencies, in | which one-third is renewed every two years. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C5091 | | By article 24 of the Constitution of 4 October 1958 the National | Assembly and the Senate together constitute the French | Parliament. The National Assembly consists of 577 deputies | elected directly for five years. Members of the Senate (Senat) | are elected indirectly by popularly chosen departmental | electoral colleges, for nine-year terms. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2005): C5091 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2009): C5091 | | The Bundesrat is not a second chamber formally since it is | indirectly elected, but it is functionally because of its policy | implications. Hence, Germany is treated as a two-chamber system. | Individual elections in the 16 Länder (States) determine the | composition of each Land assembly (Landtag). Each Landtag elects | a Land government which then sends its members as delegates to | the Bundesrat | | "The Länder shall participate through the Bundesrat in the | legislation and administration of the Federation and in matters | concerning the European Union." (The Basic Law, Article 50). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2007): C5091 | | The Seanad Eireann/Senate, the upper house of the Oireachtas | (Irish parliament), is indirectly elected. It has 60 members, 11 | members nominated, 6 members selected by the universities and 43 | members elected from five vocational panels, all in short time | after the parliamentary elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2007): C5091 | | Japan has a bicameral Parliament (Kokkai, or National Diet). | There are 480 seats in the House of Representatives (Shugi-in), | elected in two electoral segments for a four-year term. | The upper chamber (House of Councilors) has 242 members who are | elected in two electoral segments, for 6 years term, where half | of the members (121) stand for re-election every three years. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C5091 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C5091 | | The Congreso de la Unión (Congress of the Union) has two | chambers. The Cámara de Diputados (Chamber of Deputies - The | Lower Chamber) has 500 members, elected for a three year term, | 300 members elected in single-seat constituencies and 200 | members elected by proportional representation in multi-seat | constituencies. The Cámara de Senadores (Chamber of Senators - | The Upper Chamber) has 128 members, elected for a six year | term, 96 of them in three seat constituencies and 32 by | proportional representation. In the constituencies two seats are | awarded to the plurality winner and one to the first runner-up. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2006): C5091 | | The 75 members of the Senate (Eerste Kamer) of the Dutch | Parliament (the States General) are elected by the members | of the twelve Provincial Councils, for a 4-years term. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2005): C5091 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (2009): C5091 | | Poland has a bicameral parliament consisting of a 460-member | lower house (Sejm) and a 100-member Senate (Senat). Both Houses | are directly elected by popular vote. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (2008): C5091 | | The parliament is composed of two chambers: the Drzavni Svet / | National Council, and the Drzavni Zbor / National Assembly. | The Drzavni Svet is composed of 40 indirectly elected members | for 5 years. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH AFRICA (2009): C5091 | | The South African Parliament is composed of two chambers. | Only one chamber, the National Assembly (lower house) | is directly elected. The upper chamber, the National | Council of provinces, is indirectly elected. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2008): C5091 | | The Kuk Hoe (National Assembly) is a unicameral parliament, | consisting of 299 members, elected for a four year term, 243 | members in single-seat constituencies and 56 members by | proportional representation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2008): C5091 | | Las Cortes Generales (The General Courts) have two chambers. The | Congress of Deputies (Congreso de los Diputados) has 350 | members. The Senate (Senado) has 264 senators. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C5091 | | National Assembly or Rathasapha is bicameral. It consists of the | Senate or Wuthisapha (150 seats; 76 members elected by popular | vote representing 76 provinces, 74 appointed by judges and | independent government bodies; all serve six-year terms) and the | House of Representatives or Sapha Phuthaen Ratsadon (480 seats; | 400 members elected from 157 multi-seat constituencies and 80 | elected on proportional party-list basis of 10 per eight zones | or groupings of provinces; all serve four-year terms). Prior to | 2007 all members of the legislature were elected: the new | constitution grants the King power to appoint members of the | Senate on the recommendation of a special commission. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2008): C5091 | | The United States Senate is the upper house of the bicameral | legislature of the United States. Together with the United | States House of Representatives it makes up the United States | Congress. Approximately one third of the Senate is renewed | every two years. Senators serve terms of six years each; the | terms are staggered so that approximately one-third of the | seats are up for election every two years. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5092 >>> ELECTORAL RESULTS DATA AVAILABLE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Are electoral results data available? .................................................................. 1. YES 3. INCOMPLETE 5. NO 9. MISSING | NOTES: C5092 | | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C5092 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C5092 | | This entry is calculated using the marginal vote distribution of | the single member districts. Recall that the proportional | representation vote distribution is calculated using the outcome | of the single member districts (for further details see ES note | C5038_1-C5038_2). Additionally, for the 2006 contest there were | two pre-electoral coalitions (see ES note C5032) whose results | are aggregated in the official electoral results, and thus are | calculated as a single entity, but in reality include 2 and 3 | parties each. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5093 >>> EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF ELECTORAL PARTIES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Effective number of electoral parties (ENEP). Formula: ENPP = 1/(SUM[V_i^2]) where V_i represents the vote share of party i, and all parties (i=1,2...n) receiving votes are included in the calculation. Definition based on Laakso, M.and R. Taagepera (1979). '"Effective" Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to West Europe', Comparative Political Studies 12: 3-27. .................................................................. 00.00-150.00 EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF ELECTORAL PARTIES 999. MISSING | NOTES: C5093 | | The electoral data employed to calculate this index comes | from lower house elections, unless the study is focused on | upper house election exclusively. | For countries with mixed electoral systems (see C5058) the | electoral returns come from the segment containing the most | seats. If there are an equal amount of seats in each segment | the results come from the proportional representation segment. | | Source of electoral data: Multiple. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2008): C5093 | | The large differences between the effective number of political | parties and the corrected measure stems from the very large | number of independent candidates gaining a seat. | The residual category "other" in Belarus encompasses more than | 86 percent of the vote, and is entirely composed of independent | candidates. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C5093-C5096 | | Electoral returns in France contain more than one "other" | category. The broader categories "regionalist", "Divers", "other | left wing" "other right wing" and "others" were treated as | single parties where appropriate and not amalgamated in a | broader "other" category. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2006): C5093 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2009): C5093 | | This entry is calculated using the marginal vote distribution of | the single member districts. Recall that the proportional | representation vote distribution is calculated using the outcome | of the single member districts (for further details see ES note | C5038_1-C5038_2). Additionally, for the 2006 contest there were | two pre-electoral coalitions (see ES note C5032) who's results | are aggregated in the official electoral results, and thus are | calculated as a single entity, but in reality include 2 and 3 | parties each. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C5093 | | These figures are based on the May 10, 2010 Philippine House | of Representatives election results for representatives from | congressional districts. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5093 | | These figures are based on the 2008 parliamentary elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C5093 | | These figures are calculated using the constituency level | returns from the 2008 legislative (Yuan) elections. | Source: Central Election Commission. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C5093 | | Effective number of political parties was calculated using vote | shares from the PR list tier. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): C5093 | | The Peace and Democracy party (BDP) did not participate in the | elections as a political party, but fielded its candidates as | independents. This figure takes into account the BDP as a | political party --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5094 >>> CORRECTED EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF ELECTORAL PARTIES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Corrected effective number of electoral parties (CENEP). Corrected Effective Number of Electoral Parties corrects for the "other" category using the least component method of bounds suggested by Taagepera (1997). The method requires calculating the ENEP (C5093) two times. One is treating the "other" category as a single party and the second is calculating the ENEP as if every vote in the "other" category belonged to a different party. The CENEP is the mean of both measures. Definition based on: Taagepera, R. (1997). 'Effective Number of Parties for incomplete Data', Electoral Studies 16: 145-151. .................................................................. 00.00-150.00 CORRECTED EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF ELECTORAL PARTIES 999. MISSING | NOTES: C5094 | | The electoral data employed to calculate this index comes | from lower house elections, unless the study is focused on | upper house election exclusively. | For countries with mixed electoral systems (see C5058) the | electoral returns come from the segment containing the most | seats. If there are an equal amount of seats in each segment | the results come from the proportional representation segment. | | Source of electoral data: Multiple. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2008): C5094 | | The large differences between the effective number of political | parties and the corrected measure stems from the very large | number of independent candidates gaining a seat. | The residual category "other" in Belarus encompasses more than | 86 percent of the vote and is entirely composed of independent | candidates. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C5093-C5096 | | Electoral returns in France contain more than one "other" | category. The broader categories "regionalist", "Divers", "other | left wing" "other right wing" and "others" were treated as | single parties where appropriate and not amalgamated in a | broader "other" category. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C5094 | | These figures are based on the May 10, 2010 Philippine House | of Representatives election results for representatives from | congressional districts. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5094 | | These figures are based on the 2008 parliamentary elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C5094 | | These figures are calculated using the constituency level | returns from the 2008 legislative (Yuan) elections. | Source: Central Election Commission. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2007): C5094 | | Effective number of political parties was calculated using vote | shares from the PR list tier. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): C5094 | | The Peace and Democracy party (BDP) did not participate in the | elections as a political party, but fielded its candidates as | independents. This figure does not take into account the BDP as | a political party. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5095 >>> EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF PARLIAMENTARY PARTIES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Effective number of parliamentary parties (ENPP). Formula: ENPP = 1/(SUM[S_i^2]) where S_i represents the seat share of party i, and all parties (i=1,2...n) receiving votes are included in the calculation. Definition based on Laakso, M.and R. Taagepera (1979). '"Effective" Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to West Europe', Comparative Political Studies 12: 3-27. .................................................................. 00.00-150.00 EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF PARLIAMENTARY PARTIES 999. MISSING | NOTES: C5095 | | The electoral data employed to calculate this index comes | from lower house elections, unless the study is focused on | upper house election exclusively. | | Source of electoral data: Multiple. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2008): C5095 | | the large differences between the effective number of political | parties and the corrected measure stems from the very large | number of independent candidates gaining a seat. | The residual category "other" in Belarus encompasses more than | 86 percent of the vote, and is entirely composed of independent | candidates. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C5093-C5096 | | Electoral returns in France contain more than one "other" | category. The broader categories "regionalist", "Divers", "other | left wing" "other right wing" and "others" were treated as | single parties where appropriate and not amalgamated in a | broader "other" category. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C5095 | | These figures are based on the May 10, 2010 Philippine House | of Representatives election results for representatives from | congressional districts. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5095 | | These figures are based on the 2008 parliamentary elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C5095 | | These figures are calculated using the constituency level | returns from the 2008 legislative (Yuan) elections. | Source: Central Election Commission. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): C5095 | | The Peace and Democracy party (BDP) did not participate in the | elections as a political party, but fielded its candidates as | independents. This figure takes into account the BDP as a | political party. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C5096 >>> CORRECTED EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF PARLIAMENTARY PARTIES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Effective number of parliamentary parties (CENPP). Corrected Effective Number of Parliamentary Parties corrects for the "other"" category using the least component method of bounds suggested by Taagepera (1997). The method requires calculating the ENPP two times. One is treating the "other" category as a single party and the second is calculating the ENPP as if every seat in the "other" category belonged to a different party. The CENPP is the mean of both measures. Definition based on: Taagepera, R. (1997). 'Effective Number of Parties for incomplete Data', Electoral Studies 16: 145-151. .................................................................. 00.000-150.000 CORRECTED EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF PARLIAMENTARY PARTIES 999. MISSING | NOTES: C5096 | | The electoral data employed to calculate this index comes | from lower house elections, unless the study is focused on | upper house election exclusively. | | Source of electoral data: Multiple. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2008): C5096 | | The large differences between the effective number of political | parties and the corrected measure stems from the very large | number of independent candidates gaining a seat. | The residual category "other" in Belarus encompasses more than | 86 percent of the vote, and is entirely composed of independent | candidates. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2007): C5093-C5096 | | Electoral returns in France contain more than one "other" | category. The broader categories "regionalist", "Divers", "other | left wing" "other right wing" and "others" were treated as | single parties where appropriate and not amalgamated in a | broader "other" category. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PHILIPPINES (2010): C5096 | | These figures are based on the May 10, 2010 Philippine House | of Representatives election results for representatives from | congressional districts. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (2009): C5096 | | These figures are based on the 2008 parliamentary elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2008): C5096 | | These figures are calculated using the constituency level | returns from the 2008 legislative (Yuan) elections. | Source: Central Election Commission. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2011): C5096 | | The Peace and Democracy party (BDP) did not participate in the | elections as a political party, but fielded its candidates as | independents. This figure does not take into account the BDP as | a political party. //END OF FILE