=========================================================================== COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ELECTORAL SYSTEMS (CSES) - MODULE 5 (2016-2021) CODEBOOK PART 2: VARIABLES DESCRIPTION FOURTH ADVANCE RELEASE - MARCH 1, 2022 CSES Secretariat www.cses.org =========================================================================== HOW TO CITE THE STUDY: The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (www.cses.org). CSES MODULE 5 FOURTH ADVANCE RELEASE [dataset and documentation]. MARCH 1, 2022 version. doi:10.7804/cses.module5.2022-03-01. These materials are based on work supported by the American National Science Foundation (www.nsf.gov) under grant numbers SES-1420973 and SES-1760058, the GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, the University of Michigan, in-kind support of participating election studies, the many organizations that sponsor planning meetings and conferences, and the numerous organizations that fund national election studies by CSES collaborators. Any opinions, findings and conclusions, or recommendations expressed in these materials are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding organizations. =========================================================================== =========================================================================== TABLE OF CONTENTS =========================================================================== ))) IMPORTANT NOTE REGARDING ADVANCE RELEASES ))) OVERVIEW OF "CODEBOOK PART 2: VARIABLES DESCRIPTION" ))) HOW TO NAVIGATE THE CSES MODULE 5 CODEBOOK ))) CSES CODEBOOK - VARIABLE NOTES AND ELECTION STUDY NOTES ))) CSES MODULE 5 CODING OF PARTIES/COALITIONS & LEADERS ))) CSES DATA BRIDGING: NEW FRONTIERS ))) LIST OF TABLES IN CODEBOOK PART 2 ))) CSES MODULE 5 VARIABLE LIST ))) CSES MODULE 5 VARIABLES: IDENTIFICATION, WEIGHT, AND STUDY ADMINISTRATION DATA ))) CSES MODULE 5 VARIABLES: MICRO-LEVEL (SURVEY) DATA DEMOGRAPHIC DATA ))) CSES MODULE 5 VARIABLES: MICRO-LEVEL (SURVEY) DATA THE CSES MODULE 5 QUESTIONNAIRE ))) CSES MODULE 5 VARIABLES: DISTRICT-LEVEL DATA ))) CSES MODULE 5 VARIABLES: MACRO-LEVEL DATA ))) CSES MODULE 5 VARIABLES: DATA BRIDGING WITH CSES PRODUCTS =========================================================================== ))) IMPORTANT NOTE REGARDING ADVANCE RELEASES =========================================================================== This dataset and all accompanying documentation is the "Fourth Advance Release" of CSES Module 5 (2016-2021). By definition, an Advance Release is a preliminary version of a dataset, and thus lacks some of the checking, cleaning, processing, documentation, data, and variables that are usual to the Full Release of a dataset. Many election studies that will eventually be present in the CSES Module 5 Full Release are not available in this file. Advance Releases are provided as a service to the CSES user community, for those analysts who find it valuable to work with preliminary versions of the dataset. We would appreciate being notified of any errors in the dataset or documentation by email to "cses@umich.edu". Users should expect future changes and improvements to the naming, data, and documentation of variables and election studies that appear in an Advance Release file. If users wish to re-use their programming code on a future release of the file, the code should be written in a way that is flexible and can be accommodating of these future changes. Users of the Advance Release may also wish to monitor the errata for CSES Module 5 on the CSES website, to check for known errors which may impact their analyses. To view errata for CSES Module 5, go to Data Download on the CSES website, navigate to the CSES Module 5 download page, and click on the Errata link in the white box to the right of the page. We hope that until such time as the Full Release of CSES Module 5 is available, users will find this and future CSES Module 5 Advance Releases to be helpful in their work. =========================================================================== ))) OVERVIEW OF "CODEBOOK PART 2: VARIABLES DESCRIPTION" =========================================================================== Part 2 of the CSES Codebook provides users with information about the variables in the CSES dataset as well as accompanying information about each polity's election study. =========================================================================== ))) HOW TO NAVIGATE THE CSES MODULE 5 CODEBOOK =========================================================================== In the CSES Module 5 dataset, all variables begin with the letter "E" (E being the fourth letter of the English alphabet and thus signifying Module 5). The CSES Codebook is especially extensive and users are advised that the best way to navigate it is electronically. It is a .txt format which allows it to be accessed via a variety of programs. In this part of the Codebook (Part 2), the headers for individual variables are surrounded by two lines of dashes. For e.g., --------------------------------------------------------------------------- VARIABLE NAME VARIABLE DESCRIPTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The CSES Codebook can be navigated quickly in the electronic files, with the following commands allowing for quick searching: ))) = Section Header >>> = Sub-section Header 1 <<>> = Sub-section Header 2 +++ = Tables VARIABLE NOTES = Notes for particular variables ELECTION STUDY NOTES = Notes for a particular election study DERIVATIVE VARIABLE = Highlights a variable derived from another variable or variables within the CSES. POTENTIAL POLITY LEVEL BRIDGING IDENTIFIER = Highlights a variable that may be used for data bridging at polity level. POTENTIAL REGIONAL LEVEL BRIDGING IDENTIFIER = Highlights a variable that may be used for data bridging at regional level. POTENTIAL TIME BRIDGING IDENTIFIER = Highlights a variable that may be used for data bridging by time. POTENTIAL PARTY/COALITION LEVEL BRIDGING IDENTIFIER = Highlights a variable that may be used for data bridging at party/coalition level. POTENTIAL CSES PRODUCT BRIDGING IDENTIFIER = Highlights a variable that may be used for data bridging with other CSES products. For further details on the CSES Module 5 documentation, users are advised to consult Part 1 of the CSES Codebook. =========================================================================== ))) CSES CODEBOOK - VARIABLE NOTES AND ELECTION STUDY NOTES =========================================================================== <<>> VARIABLE NOTES Variable notes provide information on the rationale of a variable as well as source information for that variable. It also details the polities for which no data for that particular variable are available. VARIABLE NOTES are listed below the descriptive information for the said variable and can be navigated in the Codebook by searching for "VARIABLE NOTES" in Part 2 of the CSES Codebook. <<>> ELECTION STUDY NOTES A unique dimension of the CSES are the inclusion of ELECTION STUDY NOTES. They are notes which are attached to each variable included in the dataset and refer to case-specific information regarding a particular variable. Their purpose is to provide users with more detailed information on the case or explain essential deviations specific to cases from CSES conventions. They are also used to provide source data information for users. Where applicable, ELECTION STUDY NOTES are listed below a particular variable and any VARIABLE NOTES in Part 2 and 3 of the CSES Codebook. They can be navigated in the Codebook by searching for "ELECTION STUDY NOTES" in Parts 2-4 of the CSES Codebook. =========================================================================== ))) CSES MODULE 5 CODING OF PARTIES/COALITIONS & LEADERS =========================================================================== CSES codes parties/coalitions in its dataset numerically and alphabetically. Below we provide explanations of both of these coding schemes. The details of each party/leader classification are available in Part 3 of the Codebook. <<>> CSES NUMERICAL PARTY/COALITION CODING Each party is assigned a unique numerical code which consists of two components and six digits in total: - the first three digits indicate the numerical country UN code - the latter three digits indicate the numerical party code within the given election study. All parties/coalitions or presidential candidates, where applicable, participating in the election or the previous election receive a numerical code. These codes are used to identify the following: - who respondents feel best represented by (variable E3010_2). - who a respondent voted for in the current election (variable E3013). - who the respondent voted for in the previous election (variable E3015). - the respondent's party identification (variable E3024). The numeric coding is also used to identify macro level information about the parties/coalitions, namely: - numeric party code identifiers for relational data (E5000) - which party/coalition held the presidency before and after the elections (variable E5009 and E5013). - which party/coalition held the prime ministership before and after the elections (variable E5010 and E5014). Numerical codes assigned to parties/coalitions are consistent for the current and previous election. <<>> CSES ALPHABETICAL PARTY/COALITION CODING Parties A through F are the six most popular parties/coalitions, ordered in descending order of their share of the popular vote in the parliamentary election (unless otherwise stated). Thus Party A is the party/coalition that received the most votes in the election, party B the second most votes, etc... Parties/coalitions who achieve at least 1% of the vote nationally are eligible for an alphabetical A-F assignment. In countries with multiple electoral tiers and where one vote is cast, parties are ordered according to their vote share in tier 1 (the lowest tier), unless otherwise stated. In countries where voters have two votes (i.e., a constituency and a list vote) simultaneously, for example Germany, parties are ordered by the national share of the party list vote (tier 2). Parties G, H, and I are supplemental parties. They may, but do not have to, accord with how parties A-F are ordered, that is ordered on the popular share of the vote in a country. More often, they are codified in no particular order. These parties are voluntarily provided by each country's election study and often reflect important or notable parties within a country. They may also include data about individual parties within a coalition, where data about the coalition and the individual parties, or some of these parties that make it up, are provided. These codes are used to identify the following in the micro component of the CSES dataset: - Respondent's likeability of the party/coalition (variable E3017). - Respondent's left-right placement of the party/coalition (variable E3019). - Respondent's placement of the party/coalition on an alternative scale, if applicable (variable E3021). These alphabetical codes are used to identify district and macro level information about these said parties/coalitions, namely: - The said party/coalition's vote share in the respondent's electoral district (variable E4004). - the said party/coalition's share of the seats in the election in the respondent's electoral district (variable E4005) - the said party/coalition's share of the vote in the election (variable E5001, E5003, and E5005). - the said party/coalition's share of the seats in the election (variable E5002 and E5004). - the said party/coalition's share of cabinet portfolios before and after the election (variable E5011 and E5015). - expert judgments by the national collaborators of the said party/ coalition's ideological family (variable E5017). - expert judgments by the national collaborators of the said party/ coalition's left-right placement (variable E5018). - expert judgments by the national collaborators of the said party/ coalition's placement on an alternative scale, if applicable (variable E5019). - expert judgments by the national collaborators of the said party/ coalition's level of populism (variable E5020). - The said party/coalition's Manifesto Research on Political Representation (MARPOR/CMP) Identifier (variable E5200). - The said party/coalition's Parliaments and Government Database (ParlGov) Identifier (variable E5201). - The said party/coalition's Chapel Hill Expert Survey (CHES) Identifier (variable E5202). - The said party/coalition's Party Facts Identifier (variable E5203). <<>> CSES ALPHABETICAL LEADER CODING Leaders A through F tend to be the leaders of the six most popular parties/ coalitions or the presidential candidates of these parties. They correspond to parties A-F (i.e., Leader A will be related to Party A in some way, Leader B will be related to Party B, etc.). Leaders G, H, and I are supplemental leaders. They may be related to parties G, H, I, but they do not have to be. These leaders are voluntarily provided by each country's election study and often include data about additional personalities of interest. For example, in a parliamentary system, data about a President might be provided, even if the Presidency is not being contested. On many occasions, slots Leader G, H, and I will include additional data for parties/coalitions that have multiple leaders. These codes are used to identify the following in the micro and macro components of the CSES dataset: - Respondent's likeability of the leader/personality in question (variable E3018). =========================================================================== ))) CSES DATA BRIDGING: NEW FRONTIERS =========================================================================== Data Bridging enables users to bring together information from CSES with other data sources. The concept is part of CSES Data Linkage efforts. CSES has been a pioneer of Data Linkage with the inclusion of various macro-level data originating from other sources (e.g., The World Bank, the IDEA) directly in CSES data products, including in CSES MODULE 5. These macro data classify the political system's characteristics and contextual conditions of a polity at the election time. Data Bridging gives users the power to build on the direct data linkage in CSES products by enabling users to easily link other data with CSES products. CSES MODULE 5 enables users to bridge data with other prominent datasets in political science by including standard identifiers at the polity, year, and party level used by other projects to facilitate merging. CSES MODULE 5 facilitates data bridging with other datasets at the polity level with the following variables: - E1006_UN ID COMPONENT - POLITY UN ISO_3166-1 NUMERIC CODE - E1006_UNALPHA2 ID COMPONENT - POLITY UN ISO_3166-1 ALPHABETIC TWO LETTER CODE - E1006_NAM ID COMPONENT - POLITY NAME - E1006_VDEM ID COMPONENT - V-Dem POLITY IDENTIFIER More details can be found on all these variables in CSES Codebook Part 2 by searching for the variable name (e.g., "E1006_UN") or using the search term "POTENTIAL POLITY LEVEL BRIDGING IDENTIFIER". CSES MODULE 5 facilitates data bridging with other datasets at the regional level through the following variables: - E1006_REG ID COMPONENT - POLITY UN GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS NUMERIC CODES More details can be found on all these variables in CSES Codebook Part 2 by searching for the variable name (e.g., "E1006_REG") or using the search term "POTENTIAL REGIONAL LEVEL BRIDGING IDENTIFIER". CSES MODULE 5 facilitates data bridging with other datasets by date through the following variables: - E1008_YEAR ID COMPONENT - ELECTION YEAR - E1016 DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - MONTH - E1017 DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - DAY - E1018 DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YEAR - E1018_1 DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YYYY-MM-DD - E1018_2 DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YYYYMM - E1019 DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - MONTH - E1020 DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - DAY - E1021 DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YEAR - E1021_1 DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YYYY-MM-DD - E1021_2 DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YYYYMM More details can be found on all these variables in CSES Codebook Part 2 by searching for the variable name (e.g., "E1008_YEAR") or using the search term "POTENTIAL TIME BRIDGING IDENTIFIER". CSES MODULE 5 facilitates data bridging with other datasets at the party/coalition level with the following variables: - E5200_A-I MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY A-I - E5201_A-I PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (PARLGOV) IDENTIFIER - PARTY A-I - E5202_A-I CHAPEL HILL EXPERT SURVEY (CHES) IDENTIFIER - PARTY A-I - E5203_A-I PARTY FACTS IDENTIFIER - PARTY A-I More details can be found on all these variables in CSES Codebook Part 2 by searching for the variable name (e.g., "E5200_A") or using the search term "POTENTIAL PARTY/COALITION LEVEL BRIDGING IDENTIFIER." Users can also see the specific bridging codes for each party/coalition assigned an alphabetical code in CSES by other projects in Part 3 of the CSES Module 5 Codebook. CSES MODULE 5 facilitates data bridging with other CSES products at the party/coalition level with the following variables: - E6000_PR_1 IMD BRIDGING VARIABLE: CURRENT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - 1ST ROUND - E6000_PR_2 IMD BRIDGING VARIABLE: CURRENT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - 2ND ROUND - E6000_LH_PL IMD BRIDGING VARIABLE: CURRENT LOWER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE: PARTY LIST - E6000_LH_DC IMD BRIDGING VARIABLE: CURRENT LOWER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE: DISTRICT CANDIDATE More details can be found on all these variables in CSES Codebook Part 2 by searching for the variable name (e.g., "E6000_PR_1") or using the search term "POTENTIAL CSES PRODUCT BRIDGING IDENTIFIER". =========================================================================== ))) LIST OF TABLES IN CODEBOOK PART 2 =========================================================================== Below, we list the Tables located in Codebook Part 2. Tables can be accessed in the electronic version of the CSES Codebook by searching for "+++". - TYPE OF ORIGINAL WEIGHTS BY INDIVIDUAL ELECTION STUDIES - ELECTION STUDIES BY TYPE OF ELECTION - DATES OF FIELDWORK BY POLITY - INCOME MEASURE TYPE BY ELECTION STUDY - LANGUAGES (E3006_3) AND RELIGIONS (E3006_6_PT) ASKED ABOUT IN THE ELECTION STUDIES - FREQUENCIES ON E3010_2 FOR RESPONDENTS REPORTING NOT TO HAVE A PARTY REPRESENTING THEIR VIEWS BEST - ELECTION STUDIES BY TYPE OF MAIN ELECTION - ELECTION STUDIES BY TYPE OF MAIN ELECTION - PREVIOUS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION (1ST ROUND) AND THE YEAR IN WHICH IT WAS HELD - PREVIOUS LOWER HOUSE ELECTION AND THE YEAR IN WHICH IT WAS HELD - PREVIOUS UPPER HOUSE ELECTION AND THE YEAR IN WHICH IT WAS HELD - FREQUENCIES OF RESPONDENTS REPORTING THAT THEY HAD NOT HEARD OF A SPECIFIC PARTY BUT PROVIDE AN EVALUATION OF THE PARTY ON ANY OTHER SCALE - FREQUENCIES ON E3019_ AND E3020 FOR RESPONDENTS REPORTING THAT THEY DID NOT KNOW OF THE LEFT-RIGHT SCALE BUT PROVIDE AN EVALUATION OF A PARTY ON THE LEFT-RIGHT SCALE - FREQUENCIES ON E3021_ AND E3022 FOR RESPONDENTS WHO SAID THEY DID NOT KNOW OF THE OPTIONAL SCALE IN ONE VARIABLE, BUT EVALUATING OTHER PARTIES ON THE OPTIONAL SCALE - FREQUENCIES ON E3024_3 FOR RESPONDENTS THAT DO NOT FEEL CLOSE (E3024_1) OR AT LEAST CLOSER (E3024_2) TO A PARTY - FREQUENCIES ON E3024_4 FOR RESPONDENTS THAT DO NOT MENTION A PARTY IN E3024_3 - SUMMARY OF POLITY AND WHICH ELECTION IN THAT POLITY THAT THE DISTRICT DATA REFERS TO - TOTAL NUMBER OF ELECTORAL DISTRICTS PER POLITY AND TOTAL NUMBER OF ELECTORAL DISTRICTS REPRESENTED IN CSES DATA - SUMMARY OF LEVEL/TIER ELECTION DISTRICT VARIABLES REFER TO - GINI COEFFICIENT YEAR OF CALCULATION BY ELECTION STUDY - POPULATION CLASSIFICATIONS SOURCE DATA YEAR BY ELECTION STUDY - LINGUISTIC FRACTIONALIZATION SOURCE DATA YEAR BY ELECTION STUDY - RELIGIOUS FRACTIONALIZATION SOURCE DATA YEAR BY ELECTION STUDY - ETHNIC FRACTIONALIZATION METRIC SOURCE DATA YEAR BY ELECTION STUDY - PARTIES INCLUDED IN E3013_PR_ FOR WHICH IMD NUMERIC PARTY CODES HAVE NOT BEEN ASSIGNED YET - PARTIES INCLUDED IN E3013_LH_PL FOR WHICH IMD NUMERIC PARTY CODES HAVE NOT BEEN ASSIGNED YET - PARTIES INCLUDED IN E3013_LH_DC FOR WHICH IMD NUMERIC PARTY CODES HAVE NOT BEEN ASSIGNED YET =========================================================================== ))) CSES MODULE 5 VARIABLE LIST =========================================================================== ))) CSES MODULE 5 VARIABLES: IDENTIFICATION, WEIGHT, AND STUDY ADMINISTRATION DATA E1001 >>> DATASET E1002_VER >>> DATASET VERSION E1002_DOI >>> DIGITAL OBJECT IDENTIFIER E1003 >>> ID VARIABLE - ELECTION STUDY (NUMERIC POLITY) E1004 >>> ID VARIABLE - ELECTION STUDY (POLITY ALPHABETIC AND YEAR OF ELECTION) E1005 >>> ID VARIABLE - RESPONDENT E1006 >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY CSES CODE E1006_UN >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY UN ISO_3166-1 NUMERIC CODE E1006_UNALPHA2 >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY UN ISO_3166-1 ALPHABETIC TWO LETTER CODE E1006_NAM >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY NAME E1006_REG >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY UN GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS NUMERIC CODES E1006_OECD >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY MEMBER OF OECD E1006_EU >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY MEMBER OF EUROPEAN UNION E1006_VDEM >>> ID COMPONENT - V-Dem POLITY IDENTIFIER E1007 >>> ID COMPONENT - SAMPLE COMPONENT E1008 >>> ID COMPONENT - ELECTION YEAR E1009 >>> A01 ID COMPONENT - RESPONDENT WITHIN ELECTION STUDY E1009_P1 >>> ID COMPONENT - WHETER RESPONDENT COMPLETED CSES MODULE MULTIPLE TIMES IN PANEL STUDY E1009_P2 >>> ID COMPONENT - PANEL ID FOR R THAT COMPLETED CSES MODULE MULTIPLE TIMES IN PANEL STUDY E1010_1 >>> A05 ORIGINAL WEIGHT: SAMPLE E1010_2 >>> A05 ORIGINAL WEIGHT: DEMOGRAPHIC E1010_3 >>> A05 ORIGINAL WEIGHT: POLITICAL E1011_1 >>> FACTOR: MEAN OF SAMPLE WEIGHT E1011_2 >>> FACTOR: MEAN OF DEMOGRAPHIC WEIGHT E1011_3 >>> FACTOR: MEAN OF POLITICAL WEIGHT E1012_1 >>> POLITY WEIGHT: SAMPLE E1012_2 >>> POLITY WEIGHT: DEMOGRAPHIC E1012_3 >>> POLITY WEIGHT: POLITICAL E1013 >>> FACTOR: SAMPLE SIZE ADJUSTMENT E1014_1 >>> DATASET WEIGHT: SAMPLE E1014_2 >>> DATASET WEIGHT: DEMOGRAPHIC E1014_3 >>> DATASET WEIGHT: POLITICAL E1015 >>> ELECTION TYPE E1016 >>> DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - MONTH E1017 >>> DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - DAY E1018 >>> DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YEAR E1018_1 >>> DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YYYY-MM-DD E1018_2 >>> DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YYYYMM E1019 >>> DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - MONTH E1020 >>> DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - DAY E1021 >>> DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YEAR E1021_1 >>> DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YYYY-MM-DD E1021_2 >>> DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YYYYMM E1022 >>> STUDY TIMING E1023 >>> STUDY CONTEXT E1024_1 >>> MODE OF INTERVIEW - STUDY - FIRST E1024_2 >>> MODE OF INTERVIEW - STUDY - SECOND E1024_3 >>> MODE OF INTERVIEW - STUDY - THIRD E1025_1 >>> MODE OF INTERVIEW - RESPONDENT - FIRST E1025_2 >>> MODE OF INTERVIEW - RESPONDENT - SECOND E1025_3 >>> MODE OF INTERVIEW - RESPONDENT - THIRD E1026 >>> SELF-SELECTION INTO MODE OF INTERVIEW E1027 >>> DURATION OF INTERVIEW E1028 >>> A02 INTERVIEWER ID WITHIN ELECTION STUDY E1029 >>> A03 INTERVIEWER GENDER E1030 >>> DAYS FIELDWORK STARTED POST ELECTION E1031 >>> DURATION OF FIELDWORK E1032 >>> A04a DATE QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTERED - MONTH E1033 >>> A04b DATE QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTERED - DAY E1034 >>> A04c DATE QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTERED - YEAR E1035_1 >>> DAYS INTERVIEW CONDUCTED POST FIRST ROUND OF ELECTION E1035_2 >>> DAYS INTERVIEW CONDUCTED POST SECOND ROUND OF ELECTION E1036 >>> A06 LANGUAGE OF QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTRATION E1037 >>> QUESTIONNAIRE VERSION E1038 >>> STUDY TIMING WITH RESPECT TO COVID-19 PANDEMIC ))) CSES MODULE 5 VARIABLES: MICRO-LEVEL (SURVEY) DATA DEMOGRAPHIC DATA E2001_M >>> D01a DATE OF BIRTH OF RESPONDENT - MONTH E2001_Y >>> D01b DATE OF BIRTH OF RESPONDENT - YEAR E2002 >>> D02 GENDER E2003 >>> D03 EDUCATION E2004 >>> D04 MARITAL STATUS OR CIVIL UNION STATUS E2005 >>> D05 UNION MEMBERSHIP E2006 >>> D06 CURRENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS E2007 >>> D07 MAIN OCCUPATION E2008 >>> D07a SOCIO ECONOMIC STATUS E2009 >>> D08 EMPLOYMENT TYPE - PUBLIC OR PRIVATE E2010 >>> HOUSEHOLD INCOME - QUINTILES E2011 >>> D09 HOUSEHOLD INCOME - ORIGINAL VARIABLE E2012 >>> D20 NUMBER IN HOUSEHOLD E2013 >>> D10 RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION E2014 >>> D11 RELIGIOUS SERVICES ATTENDANCE E2015 >>> D12 RACE E2016 >>> D13 ETHNICITY E2017 >>> D14 COUNTRY OF BIRTH E2018 >>> D15 WAS EITHER BIOLOGICAL PARENT BORN OUTSIDE OF THE COUNTRY E2019 >>> D16 LANGUAGE USUALLY SPOKEN AT HOME E2020 >>> D17 REGION OF RESIDENCE E2021 >>> D18 PRIMARY ELECTORAL DISTRICT E2022 >>> D19 RURAL OR URBAN RESIDENCE ))) CSES MODULE 5 VARIABLES: MICRO-LEVEL (SURVEY) DATA THE CSES MODULE 5 QUESTIONNAIRE E3001 >>> Q01 POLITICAL INTEREST E3002 >>> Q02 POLITICS IN THE MEDIA E3003 >>> Q03 INTERNAL EFFICACY E3004_1 >>> Q04a ATTITUDES ABOUT ELITES: COMPROMISE IS SELLING OUT ONE'S PRINCIPLES E3004_1_PT >>> Q04a_PT ATTITUDES ABOUT ELITES: IMPORTANT TO SEEK COMPROMISE E3004_2 >>> Q04b ATTITUDES ABOUT ELITES: DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE PEOPLE E3004_3 >>> Q04c ATTITUDES ABOUT ELITES: ARE TRUSTWORTHY E3004_4 >>> Q04d ATTITUDES ABOUT ELITES: ARE THE MAIN PROBLEM E3004_5 >>> Q04e ATTITUDES ABOUT ELITES: STRONG LEADER BENDS THE RULES E3004_6 >>> Q04f ATTITUDES ABOUT ELITES: PEOPLE SHOULD MAKE POLICY DECISIONS E3004_7 >>> Q04g ATTITUDES ABOUT ELITES: RICH AND POWERFUL E3004_8_PT >>> Q04h_PT ATTITUDES ABOUT ELITES: POOR PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE GREATER VOICE - PRE-TEST E3005_1 >>> Q05a OUT-GROUP ATTITUDES: MINORITIES - CUSTOMS AND TRADITIONS E3005_2 >>> Q05b OUT-GROUP ATTITUDES: MINORITIES - WILL OF THE MAJORITY E3005_3 >>> Q05c OUT-GROUP ATTITUDES: IMMIGRANTS GOOD FOR ECONOMY E3005_4 >>> Q05d OUT-GROUP ATTITUDES: CULTURE HARMED BY IMMIGRANTS E3005_5 >>> Q05e OUT-GROUP ATTITUDES: IMMIGRANTS INCREASE CRIME E3006_1 >>> Q06a NATIONAL IDENTITY: TO HAVE BEEN BORN IN COUNTRY E3006_2 >>> Q06b NATIONAL IDENTITY: ANCESTRY E3006_3 >>> Q06c NATIONAL IDENTITY: TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK COUNTRY LANGUAGES E3006_4 >>> Q06d NATIONAL IDENTITY: TO FOLLOW CUSTOMS AND TRADITIONS COUNTRY E3006_5_PT >>> Q06e_PT NATIONAL IDENTITY: TO HAVE LIVED IN COUNTRY FOR MOST OF LIFE - PRE-TEST E3006_6_PT >>> Q06f_PT NATIONAL IDENTITY: TO BE COUNTRY DOMINANT RELIGION - PRE-TEST E3006_7_PT >>> Q06g_PT NATIONAL IDENTITY: TO RESPECT POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS AND LAWS - PRE-TEST E3006_8_PT >>> Q06h_PT NATIONAL IDENTITY: TO FEEL COUNTRY NATIONALITY - PRE-TEST E3007 >>> Q07 HOW WIDESPREAD IS CORRUPTION E3008 >>> Q08 GOVERNMENT ACTION - DIFFERENCES IN INCOME LEVELS E3008_PT >>> Q08_PT GOVERNMENT ACTION - ATTITUDES TOWARDS REDISTRIBUTION - PRE-TEST E3009 >>> Q09 GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE: GENERAL E3010_1 >>> Q10a IS THERE A PARTY THAT REPRESENTS RESPONDENT'S VIEWS E3010_2 >>> Q10b PARTY THAT REPRESENTS RESPONDENT'S VIEWS BEST E3011 >>> Q11 STATE OF THE ECONOMY E3012 >>> TURNOUT: MAIN ELECTION E3012_PR_1 >>> Q12P1-a CURRENT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT - 1ST ROUND E3012_PR_2 >>> Q12P2-a CURRENT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT - 2ND ROUND E3012_LH >>> Q12LH-a CURRENT LOWER HOUSE ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT E3012_UH >>> Q12UH-a CURRENT UPPER HOUSE ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT E3012_TS >>> TURNOUT SWITCHER BETWEEN CURRENT ELECTION AND PREVIOUS ELECTION E3013_PR_1 >>> Q12P1-b CURRENT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - 1ST ROUND E3013_PR_2 >>> Q12P2-b CURRENT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - 2ND ROUND E3013_LH_PL >>> Q12LH-b CURRENT LOWER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - PARTY LIST E3013_LH_DC >>> Q12LH-c CURRENT LOWER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - DISTRICT CANDIDATE E3013_LH_PF >>> Q12LH-d CURRENT LOWER HOUSE ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST CANDIDATE PREFERENCE VOTE E3013_UH_PL >>> Q12UH-b CURRENT UPPER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - PARTY LIST E3013_UH_DC_1 >>> Q12UH-c CURRENT UPPER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - DISTRICT CANDIDATE 1 E3013_UH_DC_2 >>> Q12UH-c CURRENT UPPER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - DISTRICT CANDIDATE 2 E3013_UH_PF >>> Q12UH-d CURRENT UPPER HOUSE ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST CANDIDATE PREFERENCE VOTE E3013_OUTGOV >>> CURRENT MAIN ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - OUTGOING GOVERNMENT (INCUMBENT) E3013_VS_1 >>> VOTE SWITCHER BETWEEN CURRENT ELECTION AND PREVIOUS ELECTION E3013_LR_CSES >>> CURRENT MAIN ELECTION - VOTE FOR LEFTIST/CENTER/RIGHTIST - CSES E3013_IF_CSES >>> CURRENT MAIN ELECTION - VOTE CHOICE BY IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY CLASSIFICATION - CSES E3014_PR_1 >>> Q13a PREVIOUS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT - 1ST ROUND E3014_PR_2 >>> Q13a PREVIOUS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT - 2ND ROUND E3014_LH >>> Q13a PREVIOUS LOWER HOUSE ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT E3014_UH >>> PREVIOUS UPPER HOUSE ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT E3015_PR_1 >>> Q13b PREVIOUS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - 1ST ROUND E3015_PR_2 >>> Q13b PREVIOUS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - 2ND ROUND E3015_LH_PL >>> Q13b PREVIOUS LOWER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - PARTY LIST E3015_LH_DC >>> Q13c PREVIOUS LOWER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - DISTRICT CANDIDATE E3015_UH_PL >>> PREVIOUS UPPER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - PARTY LIST E3015_UH_DC_1 >>> PREVIOUS UPPER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - DISTRICT CANDIDATE 1 E3015_UH_DC_2 >>> PREVIOUS UPPER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - DISTRICT CANDIDATE 2 E3016_1 >>> Q14a WHO IS IN POWER CAN MAKE DIFFERENCE E3016_2 >>> Q14b WHO PEOPLE VOTE FOR MAKES A DIFFERENCE E3017_A >>> Q15a LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY A E3017_B >>> Q15b LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY B E3017_C >>> Q15c LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY C E3017_D >>> Q15d LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY D E3017_E >>> Q15e LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY E E3017_F >>> Q15f LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY F E3017_G >>> Q15g LIKE-DISLIKE - ADDITIONAL - PARTY G E3017_H >>> Q15h LIKE-DISLIKE - ADDITIONAL - PARTY H E3017_I >>> Q15i LIKE-DISLIKE - ADDITIONAL - PARTY I E3018_A >>> Q16a LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER A E3018_B >>> Q16b LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER B E3018_C >>> Q16c LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER C E3018_D >>> Q16d LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER D E3018_E >>> Q16e LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER E E3018_F >>> Q16f LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER F E3018_G >>> Q16g LIKE-DISLIKE - ADDITIONAL - LEADER G E3018_H >>> Q16h LIKE-DISLIKE - ADDITIONAL - LEADER H E3018_I >>> Q16i LIKE-DISLIKE - ADDITIONAL - LEADER I E3019_A >>> Q17a LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY A E3019_B >>> Q17b LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY B E3019_C >>> Q17c LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY C E3019_D >>> Q17d LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY D E3019_E >>> Q17e LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY E E3019_F >>> Q17f LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY F E3019_G >>> Q17g LEFT-RIGHT - ADDITIONAL - PARTY G E3019_H >>> Q17h LEFT-RIGHT - ADDITIONAL - PARTY H E3019_I >>> Q17i LEFT-RIGHT - ADDITIONAL - PARTY I E3020 >>> Q18 LEFT-RIGHT - SELF E3021_A >>> Q19a OPTIONAL ALTERNATIVE SCALE - PARTY A E3021_B >>> Q19b OPTIONAL ALTERNATIVE SCALE - PARTY B E3021_C >>> Q19c OPTIONAL ALTERNATIVE SCALE - PARTY C E3021_D >>> Q19d OPTIONAL ALTERNATIVE SCALE - PARTY D E3021_E >>> Q19e OPTIONAL ALTERNATIVE SCALE - PARTY E E3021_F >>> Q19f OPTIONAL ALTERNATIVE SCALE - PARTY F E3021_G >>> Q19g OPTIONAL ALTERNATIVE SCALE - ADDITIONAL - PARTY G E3021_H >>> Q19h OPTIONAL ALTERNATIVE SCALE - ADDITIONAL - PARTY H E3021_I >>> Q19i OPTIONAL ALTERNATIVE SCALE - ADDITIONAL - PARTY I E3022 >>> Q20 OPTIONAL ALTERNATIVE SCALE - SELF E3023 >>> Q21 SATISFACTION WITH DEMOCRACY E3024_1 >>> Q22a ARE YOU CLOSE TO ANY POLITICAL PARTY E3024_2 >>> Q22b DO YOU FEEL CLOSER TO ONE PARTY E3024_3 >>> Q22c WHICH PARTY DO YOU FEEL CLOSEST TO E3024_4 >>> Q22d DEGREE OF CLOSENESS TO THIS PARTY E3100_LR_CSES >>> CURRENT MAIN ELECTION - VOTE CHOICE LINKED WITH CSES COLLABORATOR EXPERT JUDGMENT L-R E3100_IF_CSES >>> CURRENT MAIN ELECTION - VOTE CHOICE LINKED WITH CSES COLLABORATOR EXPERT JUDGMENT IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY ))) CSES MODULE 5 VARIABLES: DISTRICT-LEVEL DATA E4001 >>> NUMBER OF SEATS IN DISTRICT E4001_N >>> NUMBER OF SEATS IN DISTRICT - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT E4002 >>> NUMBER OF CANDIDATES IN DISTRICT E4002_N >>> NUMBER OF CANDIDATES IN DISTRICT - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT E4003 >>> NUMBER OF PARTY LISTS IN DISTRICT E4003_N >>> NUMBER OF PARTY LISTS IN DISTRICT - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT E4004_A >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY A E4004_B >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY B E4004_C >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY C E4004_D >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY D E4004_E >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY E E4004_F >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY F E4004_G >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY G E4004_H >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY H E4004_I >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY I E4004_A_N >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY A - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT E4004_B_N >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY B - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT E4004_C_N >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY C - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT E4004_D_N >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY D - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT E4004_E_N >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY E - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT E4004_F_N >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY F - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT E4004_G_N >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY G - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT E4004_H_N >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY H - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT E4004_I_N >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY I - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT E4005_A >>> SEATS IN DISTRICT - PARTY A E4005_B >>> SEATS IN DISTRICT - PARTY B E4005_C >>> SEATS IN DISTRICT - PARTY C E4005_D >>> SEATS IN DISTRICT - PARTY D E4005_E >>> SEATS IN DISTRICT - PARTY E E4005_F >>> SEATS IN DISTRICT - PARTY F E4005_G >>> SEATS IN DISTRICT - PARTY G E4005_H >>> SEATS IN DISTRICT - PARTY H E4005_I >>> SEATS IN DISTRICT - PARTY I E4005_A_N >>> SEATS IN DISTRICT - PARTY A - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT E4005_B_N >>> SEATS IN DISTRICT - PARTY B - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT E4005_C_N >>> SEATS IN DISTRICT - PARTY C - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT E4005_D_N >>> SEATS IN DISTRICT - PARTY D - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT E4005_E_N >>> SEATS IN DISTRICT - PARTY E - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT E4005_F_N >>> SEATS IN DISTRICT - PARTY F - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT E4005_G_N >>> SEATS IN DISTRICT - PARTY G - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT E4005_H_N >>> SEATS IN DISTRICT - PARTY H - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT E4005_I_N >>> SEATS IN DISTRICT - PARTY I - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT E4006 >>> TURNOUT IN DISTRICT E4006_N >>> TURNOUT IN DISTRICT - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT E4007 >>> SIZE OF ELECTORATE OR POPULATION IN DISTRICT E4007_N >>> SIZE OF ELECTORATE OR POPULATION IN DISTRICT - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT ))) CSES MODULE 5 VARIABLES: MACRO-LEVEL DATA I. RELATIONAL DATA - ALPHABETICAL IDENTIFIERS E5000_A >>> PARTY A IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL E5000_B >>> PARTY B IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL E5000_C >>> PARTY C IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL E5000_D >>> PARTY D IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL E5000_E >>> PARTY E IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL E5000_F >>> PARTY F IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL E5000_G >>> PARTY G IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL E5000_H >>> PARTY H IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL E5000_I >>> PARTY I IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL E5000_L_A >>> LEADER A IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL E5000_L_B >>> LEADER B IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL E5000_L_C >>> LEADER C IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL E5000_L_D >>> LEADER D IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL E5000_L_E >>> LEADER E IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL E5000_L_F >>> LEADER F IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL E5000_L_G >>> LEADER G IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL E5000_L_H >>> LEADER H IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL E5000_L_I >>> LEADER I IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL II. ELECTION SPECIFIC AND ELECTORAL RULES DATA E5001_A >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY A E5001_B >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY B E5001_C >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY C E5001_D >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY D E5001_E >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY E E5001_F >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY F E5001_G >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY G E5001_H >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY H E5001_I >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY I E5002_A >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY A E5002_B >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY B E5002_C >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY C E5002_D >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY D E5002_E >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY E E5002_F >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY F E5002_G >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY G E5002_H >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY H E5002_I >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY I E5003_A >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY A E5003_B >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY B E5003_C >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY C E5003_D >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY D E5003_E >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY E E5003_F >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY F E5003_G >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY G E5003_H >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY H E5003_I >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY I E5004_A >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY A E5004_B >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY B E5004_C >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY C E5004_D >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY D E5004_E >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY E E5004_F >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY F E5004_G >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY G E5004_H >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY H E5004_I >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY I E5005_A >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY A E5005_B >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY B E5005_C >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY C E5005_D >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY D E5005_E >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY E E5005_F >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY F E5005_G >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY G E5005_H >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY H E5005_I >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY I E5006_1 >>> ELECTORAL TURNOUT - TURNOUT AS A PERCENTAGE OF REGISTERED VOTERS (ER) E5006_2 >>> ELECTORAL TURNOUT - TURNOUT AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE VOTING AGE POPULATION (VAP) E5007_1 >>> ELECTORAL MANAGEMENT: ELECTORAL ADMINISTRATION MODEL E5007_2 >>> ELECTORAL MANAGEMENT: COMPULSORY VOTER REGISTRATION E5008_1 >>> M04c VOTING OPERATIONS: EARLY/ADVANCE VOTING E5008_2 >>> M04d VOTING OPERATIONS: VOTE BY MAIL/POSTAL E5008_3 >>> M04e VOTING OPERATIONS: VOTE ONLINE/INTERNET E5009 >>> M02a PARTY OF THE PRESIDENT BEFORE E5010 >>> M02b PARTY OF THE PRIME MINISTER BEFORE E5011_A >>> M02c NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY A E5011_B >>> M02c NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY B E5011_C >>> M02c NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY C E5011_D >>> M02c NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY D E5011_E >>> M02c NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY E E5011_F >>> M02c NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY F E5011_G >>> M02c NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY G E5011_H >>> M02c NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY H E5011_I >>> M02c NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY I E5012 >>> M02d SIZE OF THE CABINET BEFORE ELECTION E5013 >>> M03a PARTY OF THE PRESIDENT AFTER ELECTION E5014 >>> M03b PARTY OF THE PRIME MINISTER AFTER ELECTION E5015_A >>> M03c NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER ELECTION - PARTY A E5015_B >>> M03c NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER ELECTION - PARTY B E5015_C >>> M03c NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER ELECTION - PARTY C E5015_D >>> M03c NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER ELECTION - PARTY D E5015_E >>> M03c NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER ELECTION - PARTY E E5015_F >>> M03c NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER ELECTION - PARTY F E5015_G >>> M03c NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER ELECTION - PARTY G E5015_H >>> M03c NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER ELECTION - PARTY H E5015_I >>> M03c NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER ELECTION - PARTY I E5016 >>> M03d SIZE OF THE CABINET AFTER ELECTION E5017_A >>> M05a.a IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY A E5017_B >>> M05a.b IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY B E5017_C >>> M05a.c IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY C E5017_D >>> M05a.d IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY D E5017_E >>> M05a.e IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY E E5017_F >>> M05a.f IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY F E5017_G >>> M05a.g IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY G E5017_H >>> M05a.h IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY H E5017_I >>> M05a.i IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY I E5018_A >>> M06a1.a LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY A E5018_B >>> M06a1.b LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY B E5018_C >>> M06a1.c LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY C E5018_D >>> M06a1.d LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY D E5018_E >>> M06a1.e LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY E E5018_F >>> M06a1.f LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY F E5018_G >>> M06a1.g LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY G E5018_H >>> M06a1.h LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY H E5018_I >>> M06a1.i LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY I E5019 >>> M06b1 ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION E5019_A >>> M06b1.a ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY A E5019_B >>> M06b1.b ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY B E5019_C >>> M06b1.c ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY C E5019_D >>> M06b1.d ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY D E5019_E >>> M06b1.e ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY E E5019_F >>> M06b1.f ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY F E5019_G >>> M06b1.g ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY G E5019_H >>> M06b1.h ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY H E5019_I >>> M06b1.i ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY I E5020 >>> M06c POPULISM BY PARTY E5020_A >>> M06c.a POPULISM SCALE - PARTY A E5020_B >>> M06c.b POPULISM SCALE - PARTY B E5020_C >>> M06c.c POPULISM SCALE - PARTY C E5020_D >>> M06c.d POPULISM SCALE - PARTY D E5020_E >>> M06c.e POPULISM SCALE - PARTY E E5020_F >>> M06c.f POPULISM SCALE - PARTY F E5020_G >>> M06c.g POPULISM SCALE - PARTY G E5020_H >>> M06c.h POPULISM SCALE - PARTY H E5020_I >>> M06c.i POPULISM SCALE - PARTY I E5021_1 >>> M07.1 MOST SALIENT FACTORS IN ELECTION - 1ST E5021_2 >>> M07.2 MOST SALIENT FACTORS IN ELECTION - 2ND E5021_3 >>> M07.3 MOST SALIENT FACTORS IN ELECTION - 3RD E5021_4 >>> M07.4 MOST SALIENT FACTORS IN ELECTION - 4TH E5021_5 >>> M07.5 MOST SALIENT FACTORS IN ELECTION - 5TH E5022 >>> M08a FAIRNESS OF THE ELECTION E5023 >>> M08b FORMAL COMPLAINTS AGAINST NATIONAL LEVEL RESULTS E5024 >>> M08c ELECTION IRREGULARITIES REPORTED E5025_1 >>> M08d DATE ELECTION SCHEDULED - MONTH E5025_2 >>> M08d DATE ELECTION SCHEDULED - DAY E5025_3 >>> M08d DATE ELECTION SCHEDULED - YEAR E5026_1 >>> M08e DATE ELECTION HELD - MONTH E5026_2 >>> M08e DATE ELECTION HELD - DAY E5026_3 >>> M08e DATE ELECTION HELD - YEAR E5027 >>> M08e ELECTION DATE IRREGULARITIES E5028 >>> M09a ELECTION VIOLENCE E5029 >>> M09b GEOGRAPHIC CONCENTRATION OF VIOLENCE E5030 >>> M09c POST-ELECTION VIOLENCE E5031 >>> M09d POST-ELECTION PROTEST E5032 >>> M10a ELECTORAL ALLIANCES PERMITTED IN ELECTION E5033 >>> M10b ELECTORAL ALLIANCES IN PRACTICE E5034 >>> M10c DID ANY ELECTORAL ALLIANCES FORM? E5035 >>> M11 REQUIREMENTS FOR JOINT PARTY LISTS E5036 >>> M12a THE POSSIBILITY OF APPARENTEMENT E5037 >>> M12b TYPES OF APPARENTEMENT AGREEMENTS E5038 >>> M13a MULTI-PARTY ENDORSEMENTS E5039 >>> M13b MULTI-PARTY ENDORSEMENTS ON BALLOT E5040_1 >>> M15a VOTES CAST - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) E5040_2 >>> M15a VOTES CAST - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) E5040_3 >>> M15a VOTES CAST - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) E5040_4 >>> M15a VOTES CAST - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) E5041_1 >>> M15b VOTING PROCEDURE - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) E5041_2 >>> M15b VOTING PROCEDURE - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) E5041_3 >>> M15b VOTING PROCEDURE - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) E5041_4 >>> M15b VOTING PROCEDURE - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) E5042_1 >>> M15c VOTING ROUNDS - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) E5042_2 >>> M15c VOTING ROUNDS - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) E5042_3 >>> M15c VOTING ROUNDS - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) E5042_4 >>> M15c VOTING ROUNDS - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) E5043_1 >>> M15d PARTY LISTS - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) E5043_2 >>> M15d PARTY LISTS - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) E5043_3 >>> M15d PARTY LISTS - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) E5043_4 >>> M15d PARTY LISTS - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) E5044_1 >>> M16 TRANSFERABLE VOTES - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) E5044_2 >>> M16 TRANSFERABLE VOTES - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) E5044_3 >>> M16 TRANSFERABLE VOTES - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) E5044_4 >>> M16 TRANSFERABLE VOTES - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) E5045_1 >>> M17 CUMULATED VOTES - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) E5045_2 >>> M17 CUMULATED VOTES - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) E5045_3 >>> M17 CUMULATED VOTES - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) E5045_4 >>> M17 CUMULATED VOTES - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) E5046_1 >>> M18 COMPULSORY VOTING - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) E5046_2 >>> M18 COMPULSORY VOTING - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) E5046_3 >>> M18 COMPULSORY VOTING - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) E5046_4 >>> M18 COMPULSORY VOTING - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) E5047_1 >>> M20a IS THERE PARTY THRESHOLD - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) E5047_2 >>> M20a IS THERE PARTY THRESHOLD - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) E5047_3 >>> M20a IS THERE PARTY THRESHOLD - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) E5047_4 >>> M20a IS THERE PARTY THRESHOLD - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) E5048_1 >>> M20b PARTY THRESHOLD - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) E5048_2 >>> M20b PARTY THRESHOLD - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) E5048_3 >>> M20b PARTY THRESHOLD - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) E5048_4 >>> M20b PARTY THRESHOLD - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) E5049_1 >>> M20c UNIT FOR THE THRESHOLD - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) E5049_2 >>> M20c UNIT FOR THE THRESHOLD - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) E5049_3 >>> M20c UNIT FOR THE THRESHOLD - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) E5049_4 >>> M20c UNIT FOR THE THRESHOLD - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) E5050 >>> AGE OF THE CURRENT REGIME E5051 >>> REGIME: TYPE OF EXECUTIVE E5052 >>> NUMBER OF MONTHS SINCE LAST LOWER HOUSE ELECTION E5053 >>> NUMBER OF MONTHS SINCE LAST PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION E5054 >>> PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS ELECTORAL FORMULA E5055 >>> ELECTORAL FORMULA IN ALL ELECTORAL SEGMENTS (TIERS) E5056 >>> NUMBER OF ELECTORAL SEGMENTS (TIERS) E5057 >>> LINKED ELECTORAL SEGMENTS (TIERS) E5058 >>> DEPENDENT FORMULAE IN MIXED SYSTEMS E5059 >>> SUBTYPES OF MIXED ELECTORAL SYSTEMS E5060 >>> NUMBER OF ELECTORAL DISTRICTS - LOWEST SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE E5061 >>> AVERAGE DISTRICT MAGNITUDE - LOWEST SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE E5062 >>> ELECTORAL FORMULA - LOWEST SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE E5063 >>> NUMBER OF ELECTORAL DISTRICTS - SECOND SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE E5064 >>> AVERAGE DISTRICT MAGNITUDE - SECOND SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE E5065 >>> ELECTORAL FORMULA - SECOND SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE E5066 >>> NUMBER OF ELECTORAL DISTRICTS - THIRD SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE E5067 >>> AVERAGE DISTRICT MAGNITUDE - THIRD SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE E5068 >>> ELECTORAL FORMULA - THIRD SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE E5069 >>> NUMBER OF SEATS ABOVE THE FIRST SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE E5070 >>> PERCENTAGE OF SEATS ABOVE THE FIRST SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE E5071 >>> FUSED VOTE E5072 >>> SIZE OF THE LOWER HOUSE E5073 >>> CONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL STRUCTURE E5074 >>> NUMBER OF LEGISLATIVE CHAMBERS E5075 >>> PERCENTAGE OF WOMEN IN PARLIAMENT E5076_1 >>> PARTY FUNDING: DIRECT PUBLIC FUNDING E5076_2 >>> PARTY FUNDING: INDIRECT PUBLIC FUNDING E5077 >>> NUMBER OF PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN ELECTION E5078 >>> EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF ELECTORAL PARTIES E5079 >>> CORRECTED EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF ELECTORAL PARTIES E5080 >>> EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF PARLIAMENTARY PARTIES E5081 >>> CORRECTED EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF PARLIAMENTARY PARTIES E5082_1 >>> DIRECT DEMOCRACY: REFERENDUM MANDATORY E5082_2 >>> DIRECT DEMOCRACY: REFERENDUM OPTIONAL E5082_3 >>> DIRECT DEMOCRACY: REFERENDUMS BY CITIZEN INITIATIVE E5082_4 >>> DIRECT DEMOCRACY: REFERENDUM RESULT BINDING OR CONSULTATIVE III. OTHER MACRO-LEVEL DATA E5090_1 >>> FREEDOM HOUSE RATING - TIME T E5090_2 >>> FREEDOM HOUSE RATING - TIME T-1 E5090_3 >>> FREEDOM HOUSE RATING - TIME T-2 E5091_1 >>> DEMOCRACY-AUTOCRACY - POLITY IV RATING - TIME T E5091_2 >>> DEMOCRACY-AUTOCRACY - POLITY IV RATING - TIME T-1 E5091_3 >>> DEMOCRACY-AUTOCRACY - POLITY IV RATING - TIME T-2 E5092 >>> GINI COEFFICIENT OF EQUALIZED DISPOSABLE INCOME -(YEAR CLOSEST TO ELECTION YEAR AVAILABLE) E5093_1 >>> GDP GROWTH - ANNUAL % (WORLD BANK) - TIME T E5093_2 >>> GDP GROWTH - ANNUAL % (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-1 E5093_3 >>> GDP GROWTH - ANNUAL % (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-2 E5094_1 >>> GDP PER CAPITA, PPP (WORLD BANK) - TIME T E5094_2 >>> GDP PER CAPITA, PPP (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-1 E5094_3 >>> GDP PER CAPITA, PPP (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-2 E5095_1 >>> INFLATION, GDP DEFLATOR (ANNUAL %) (WORLD BANK) - TIME T E5095_2 >>> INFLATION, GDP DEFLATOR (ANNUAL %) (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-1 E5095_3 >>> INFLATION, GDP DEFLATOR (ANNUAL %) (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-2 E5096_1 >>> CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DEBT, TOTAL (% GDP) TIME T E5096_2 >>> CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DEBT, TOTAL (% GDP) TIME T-1 E5096_3 >>> CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DEBT, TOTAL (% GDP) TIME T-2 E5097_1 >>> HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX (UNPD) - TIME T E5097_2 >>> HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX (UNPD) - TIME T-1 E5097_3 >>> HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX (UNPD) - TIME T-2 E5098_1 >>> POPULATION, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T E5098_2 >>> POPULATION, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-1 E5098_3 >>> POPULATION, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-2 E5099_1 >>> UNEMPLOYMENT, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T E5099_2 >>> UNEMPLOYMENT, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-1 E5099_3 >>> UNEMPLOYMENT, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-2 E5100_1 >>> UNEMPLOYMENT, TOTAL FOR PEOPLE AGED 15-24 YEARS (WORLD BANK) - TIME T E5100_2 >>> UNEMPLOYMENT, TOTAL FOR PEOPLE AGED 15-24 YEARS (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-1 E5100_3 >>> UNEMPLOYMENT, TOTAL FOR PEOPLE AGED 15-24 YEARS (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-2 E5101 >>> COUNTRY SUBJECT TO IMF CONDITIONALITY AT ELECTION E5102 >>> TI CORRUPTION PERCEPTION INDEX E5103_1 >>> CONTROL OF CORRUPTION INDEX - TIME T E5103_1se >>> CONTROL OF CORRUPTION INDEX - TIME T STANDARD ERROR E5103_2 >>> CONTROL OF CORRUPTION INDEX - TIME T-1 E5103_2se >>> CONTROL OF CORRUPTION INDEX - TIME T-1 STANDARD ERROR E5103_3 >>> CONTROL OF CORRUPTION INDEX - TIME T-2 E5103_3se >>> CONTROL OF CORRUPTION INDEX - TIME T-2 STANDARD ERROR E5104_1 >>> QOG EXPERT JUDGEMENT OF PUBLIC SECTOR: FIRMS PROVIDE KICKBACKS TO PUBLIC SERVANTS E5104_2 >>> QOG EXPERT JUDGEMENT OF PUBLIC SECTOR: PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES AND HOW THEY TREAT SOCIETY E5104_3 >>> QOG EXPERT JUDGEMENT OF PUBLIC SECTOR: TREAT CASES IMPARTIALLY E5104_4 >>> QOG EXPERT JUDGEMENT OF PUBLIC SECTOR: STRIVE TO FOLLOW RULES E5105_1 >>> NET MIGRATION RATE 2000-2005 E5105_2 >>> NET MIGRATION RATE 2005-2010 E5105_3 >>> NET MIGRATION RATE 2010-2015 E5105_4 >>> NET MIGRATION RATE 2015-2020 E5106_1 >>> POPULATION BY CITIZENSHIP: PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION WHO ARE CITIZENS E5106_2 >>> POPULATION BY CITIZENSHIP: PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION FOREIGN BORN/NOT CITIZEN E5106_3 >>> POPULATION BY CITIZENSHIP: PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION UNKNOWN CITIZENSHIP STATUS E5107 >>> LINGUISTIC FRACTIONALIZATION INDEX: ALESINA ET AL. 2003 E5108 >>> RELIGIOUS FRACTIONALIZATION INDEX: ALESINA ET AL. 2003 E5109 >>> ETHNIC FRACTIONALIZATION INDEX: ALESINA ET AL. 2003 E5110 >>> POLITY FRAGMENTATION INDEX E5111 >>> PERCENTAGE OF INDIVIDUALS USING THE INTERNET E5112 >>> MOBILE PHONE SUBSCRIPTIONS PER 100 INHABITANTS E5113 >>> FIXED TELEPHONE LINES PER 100 INHABITANTS IV. MACRO DATA: ADDITIONAL DATA BRIDGING VARIABLES E5200_A >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY A E5200_B >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY B E5200_C >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY C E5200_D >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY D E5200_E >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY E E5200_F >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY F E5200_G >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY G E5200_H >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY H E5200_I >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY I E5201_A >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (ParlGov) IDENTIFIER - PARTY A E5201_B >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (ParlGov) IDENTIFIER - PARTY B E5201_C >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (ParlGov) IDENTIFIER - PARTY C E5201_D >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (ParlGov) IDENTIFIER - PARTY D E5201_E >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (ParlGov) IDENTIFIER - PARTY E E5201_F >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (ParlGov) IDENTIFIER - PARTY F E5201_G >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (ParlGov) IDENTIFIER - PARTY G E5201_H >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (ParlGov) IDENTIFIER - PARTY H E5201_I >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (ParlGov) IDENTIFIER - PARTY I E5202_A >>> CHAPEL HILL EXPERT SURVEY (CHES) IDENTIFIER - PARTY A E5202_B >>> CHAPEL HILL EXPERT SURVEY (CHES) IDENTIFIER - PARTY B E5202_C >>> CHAPEL HILL EXPERT SURVEY (CHES) IDENTIFIER - PARTY C E5202_D >>> CHAPEL HILL EXPERT SURVEY (CHES) IDENTIFIER - PARTY D E5202_E >>> CHAPEL HILL EXPERT SURVEY (CHES) IDENTIFIER - PARTY E E5202_F >>> CHAPEL HILL EXPERT SURVEY (CHES) IDENTIFIER - PARTY F E5202_G >>> CHAPEL HILL EXPERT SURVEY (CHES) IDENTIFIER - PARTY G E5202_H >>> CHAPEL HILL EXPERT SURVEY (CHES) IDENTIFIER - PARTY H E5202_I >>> CHAPEL HILL EXPERT SURVEY (CHES) IDENTIFIER - PARTY I E5203_A >>> PARTY FACTS IDENTIFIER - PARTY A E5203_B >>> PARTY FACTS IDENTIFIER - PARTY B E5203_C >>> PARTY FACTS IDENTIFIER - PARTY C E5203_D >>> PARTY FACTS IDENTIFIER - PARTY D E5203_E >>> PARTY FACTS IDENTIFIER - PARTY E E5203_F >>> PARTY FACTS IDENTIFIER - PARTY F E5203_G >>> PARTY FACTS IDENTIFIER - PARTY G E5203_H >>> PARTY FACTS IDENTIFIER - PARTY H E5203_I >>> PARTY FACTS IDENTIFIER - PARTY I ))) CSES MODULE 5 VARIABLES: DATA BRIDGING WITH CSES PRODUCTS E6000_PR_1 >>> IMD BRIDGING VARIABLE: CURRENT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - 1ST ROUND E6000_PR_2 >>> IMD BRIDGING VARIABLE: CURRENT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - 2ND ROUND E6000_LH_PL >>> IMD BRIDGING VARIABLE: CURRENT LOWER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE: PARTY LIST E6000_LH_DC >>> IMD BRIDGING VARIABLE: CURRENT LOWER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE: DISTRICT CANDIDATE =========================================================================== ))) CSES MODULE 5 VARIABLES: IDENTIFICATION, WEIGHT, AND STUDY ADMINISTRATION DATA =========================================================================== --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1001 >>> DATASET --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dataset. .................................................................. CSES-MODULE-5. CSES MODULE 5 | VARIABLE NOTES: E1001 | | This variable reports the CSES module applied in each election | study. CSES Module 5 was intended to be administered during the | the years 2016 and 2021, inclusive. One study was administered | in 2015 as part of a pre-test. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1002_VER >>> DATASET VERSION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dataset version. .................................................................. VER2022-MAR-01. Version of dataset, released on March 01, 2022. | VARIABLE NOTES: E1002_VER | | The version number corresponds to the date of the dataset's | release. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1002_DOI >>> DIGITAL OBJECT IDENTIFIER --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digital Object Identifier. .................................................................. doi: 10.7804/cses.module5.2022-03-01. | VARIABLE NOTES: E1002_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 E1002_VER) has a | unique, persistent DOI. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1003 >>> ID VARIABLE - ELECTION STUDY (NUMERIC POLITY) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Election Study Identifier: Numeric Polity Code and Election Year. .................................................................. 03602019. AUSTRALIA (2019) 04002017. AUSTRIA (2017) 05612019. BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019) 05622019. BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019) 07602018. BRAZIL (2018) 12402019. CANADA (2019) 15202017. CHILE (2017) 18802018. COSTA RICA (2018) 20802019. DENMARK (2019) 24602019. FINLAND (2019) 25002017. FRANCE (2017) 27602017. GERMANY (2017) 82602017. GREAT BRITAIN (2017) 30002015. GREECE (2015) 34402016. HONG KONG (2016) 34802018. HUNGARY (2018) 35202016. ICELAND (2016) 35202017. ICELAND (2017) 37202016. IRELAND (2016) 37602020. ISRAEL (2020) 38002018. ITALY (2018) 39202017. JAPAN (2017) 44002016. LITHUANIA (2016) 49902016. MONTENEGRO (2016) 52802017. NETHERLANDS (2017) 55402017. NEW ZEALAND (2017) 55402020. NEW ZEALAND (2020) 57802017. NORWAY (2017) 62002019. PORTUGAL (2019) 70302020. SLOVAKIA (2020) 41002016. SOUTH KOREA (2016) 75202018. SWEDEN (2018) 75602019. SWITZERLAND (2019) 15802016. TAIWAN (2016) 15802020. TAIWAN (2020) 76402019. THAILAND (2019) 78802019. TUNISIA (2019) 79202018. TURKEY (2018) 84002016. UNITED STATES (2016) 84002020. UNITED STATES (2020) 85802019. URUGUAY (2019) | VARIABLE NOTES: E1003 | | This eight-digit variable uniquely identifies an election study | within the CSES. | | The variable is constructed from two components, variable E1006 | (CSES polity code) and E1008 (election year). | | The first three digits are the numeric version of the country | codes created by the United Nations Statistics Division | ("countries or areas, codes and abbreviations", revised February | 13, 2002), except for Taiwan (see Election Study Note). | | The fourth digit distinguishes between multiple studies | conducted within a single country, for the same election. | | The fifth through eighth digits correspond to the election year | as specified in variable E1008. | | Election studies above are listed in alphabetical order. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016 & 2020): E1003 | | The country code for Taiwan is taken from ISO 3166-1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1004 >>> ID VARIABLE - ELECTION STUDY (POLITY ALPHABETIC AND YEAR OF ELECTION) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Election Study Identifier: Alphabetic Polity Code and Election Year. .................................................................. AUS_2019. AUSTRALIA (2019) AUT_2017. AUSTRIA (2017) BELF2019. BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019) BELW2019. BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019) BRA_2018. BRAZIL (2018) CAN_2019. CANADA (2019) CHL_2017. CHILE (2017) CRI_2018. COSTA RICA (2018) DNK_2019. DENMARK (2019) FIN_2019. FINLAND (2019) FRA_2017. FRANCE (2017) DEU_2017. GERMANY (2017) GBR_2017. GREAT BRITAIN (2017) GRC_2015. GREECE (2015) HKG_2016. HONG KONG (2016) HUN_2018. HUNGARY (2018) ISL_2016. ICELAND (2016) ISL_2017. ICELAND (2017) IRL_2016. IRELAND (2016) ISR_2020. ISRAEL (2020) ITA_2018. ITALY (2018) JPN_2017. JAPAN (2017) LTU_2016. LITHUANIA (2016) MNE_2016. MONTENEGRO (2016) NLD_2017. NETHERLANDS (2017) NZL_2017. NEW ZEALAND (2017) NZL_2020. NEW ZEALAND (2020) NOR_2017. NORWAY (2017) PRT_2019. PORTUGAL (2019) SVK_2020. SLOVAKIA (2020) KOR_2016. SOUTH KOREA (2016) SWE_2018. SWEDEN (2018) CHE_2019. SWITZERLAND (2019) TWN_2016. TAIWAN (2016) TWN_2020. TAIWAN (2020) THA_2019. THAILAND (2019) TUN_2019. TUNISIA (2019) TUR_2018. TURKEY (2018) USA_2016. UNITED STATES (2016) USA_2020. UNITED STATES (2020) URY_2019. URUGUAY (2019) | VARIABLE NOTES: E1004 | | This eight-character variable uniquely identifies an election | study within the CSES. | | The variable is constructed from two components, variable E1006 | (CSES polity code) and E1008 (election year). | | The first three characters are the alphabetic country codes | 'alpha-3' created by the International Organization for | Standardization in their ISO 3166 Standard and shared by the | United Nations Statistics Division ("Countries or areas, codes | and abbreviations", revised February 13, 2002). | | If appropriate, the fourth character distinguishes between | multiple studies conducted within a single country, for the same | election. If only one study is in place for the election, this | character appears as an underscore (_). | | The fifth through eighth characters correspond to the election | year as specified in variable E1008. | | Election studies above are listed in alphabetical order. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1005 >>> ID VARIABLE - RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Respondent Identifier. .................................................................. | VARIABLE NOTES: E1005 | | This eighteen-character variable uniquely identifies a | respondent within the CSES data file. | | The variable is constructed from three components: variable | E1006 (CSES polity code), E1008 (election year), and E1009 | (respondent within election study). | | The first three characters are the numeric version of the | country codes created by the United Nations Statistics | Division ("countries or areas, codes and abbreviations", | revised February 13, 2002). | | If appropriate, the fourth character distinguishes between | multiple studies conducted within a single country, for the same | election. If only one study is in place for the election, this | character appears as a zero (0). | | The fifth through eighth characters correspond to the election | year as specified in variable E1008. | | The last ten characters are the respondent identifier from | E1009, which is unique within each election study. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2017): E1005 | | For the Japanese study, respondent identifiers are originally | composed of three variables: Branch (2 digits), Point (3 digits), | and RID (2 digits). The value of Branch starts from "00", Point | starts from "000", and RID begins from "00." Thus, there is one | respondent in the Japanese study with a respondent ID of all 0s. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1006 >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY CSES CODE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Polity Identifier. .................................................................. 0360. AUSTRALIA 0400. AUSTRIA 0561. BELGIUM-FLANDERS 0562. BELGIUM-WALLONIA 0760. BRAZIL 1240. CANADA 1520. CHILE 1880. COSTA RICA 2080. DENMARK 2460. FINLAND 2500. FRANCE 2760. GERMANY 8260. GREAT BRITAIN 3000. GREECE 3440. HONG KONG 3480. HUNGARY 3520. ICELAND 3720. IRELAND 3760. ISRAEL 3800. ITALY 3920. JAPAN 4400. LITHUANIA 4990. MONTENEGRO 5280. NETHERLANDS 5540. NEW ZEALAND 5780. NORWAY 6200. PORTUGAL 7030. SLOVAKIA 4100. SOUTH KOREA 7520. SWEDEN 7560. SWITZERLAND 1580. TAIWAN 7640. THAILAND 7880. TUNISIA 7920. TURKEY 8400. UNITED STATES 8580. URUGUAY | VARIABLE NOTES: E1006 | | This four-character variable uniquely identifies a polity | conducting an election study that is present in CSES | MODULE 5. | | The first three characters are the numeric version of | the country codes created by the United Nations Statistics | Division ("countries or areas, codes and abbreviations", | revised February 13, 2002). | | The fourth character distinguishes between multiple studies | conducted with a single country, for the same election. | | Polities above are listed in alphabetical order. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1006_UN >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY UN ISO_3166-1 NUMERIC CODE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Polity Identifier UN Country Code. .................................................................. 036. AUSTRALIA 040. AUSTRIA 056. BELGIUM 076. BRAZIL 124. CANADA 152. CHILE 188. COSTA RICA 208. DENMARK 246. FINLAND 250. FRANCE 276. GERMANY 826. GREAT BRITAIN 300. GREECE 344. HONG KONG 348. HUNGARY 352. ICELAND 372. IRELAND 376. ISRAEL 380. ITALY 392. JAPAN 440. LITHUANIA 499. MONTENEGRO 528. NETHERLANDS 554. NEW ZEALAND 578. NORWAY 620. PORTUGAL 703. SLOVAKIA 410. SOUTH KOREA 752. SWEDEN 756. SWITZERLAND 158. TAIWAN 764. THAILAND 788. TUNISIA 792. TURKEY 840. UNITED STATES 858. URUGUAY | VARIABLE NOTES: E1006_UN | | POTENTIAL POLITY LEVEL BRIDGING IDENTIFIER | | This three-character variable uniquely identifies a polity | conducting an election study that is present in CSES | MODULE 5. | | It consists of the numeric version of the country codes created | by the United Nations Statistics Division ("Countries or areas, | codes and abbreviations", revised February 13, 2002). | | Polities above are listed in alphabetical order. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1006_UNALPHA2 >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY UN ISO_3166-1 ALPHABETIC TWO LETTER CODE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- United Nations (UN) ISO Alpha-2 country codes. .................................................................. AT. Austria AU. Australia BE. Belgium BR. Brazil CA. Canada CH. Switzerland CL. Chile CR. Costa Rica DE. Germany DK. Denmark FI. Finland FR. France GB. Great Britain GR. Greece HK. Hong Kong HU. Hungary IE. Ireland IL. Israel IS. Iceland IT. Italy JP. Japan KR. Republic of Korea LT. Lithuania ME. Montenegro NL. Netherlands NO. Norway NZ. New Zealand PT. Portugal SE. Sweden SK. Slovakia TH. Thailand TN. Tunisia TR. Turkey TW. Taiwan US. United States of America UY. Uruguay | VARIABLE NOTES: E1006_UNALPHA2 | | POTENTIAL POLITY LEVEL BRIDGING IDENTIFIER | | Source: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#search | Date accessed: September 1, 2020 | | Polities are listed in alphabetical order. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1006_NAM >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY NAME --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Polity Identifier Country Name. .................................................................. Australia Austria Belgium Brazil Canada Chile Costa Rica Denmark Finland France Germany Great Britain Greece Hong Kong Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Lithuania Montenegro Netherlands New Zealand Norway Portugal Republic of Korea Slovakia Sweden Switzerland Taiwan Thailand Tunisia Turkey United States of America Uruguay | VARIABLE NOTES: E1006_NAM | | POTENTIAL POLITY LEVEL BRIDGING IDENTIFIER | | This variable uniquely identifies a polity conducting an | election study that is present in CSES MODULE 5. | | It consists of country names based on those used by the United | Nations Statistics Division ("Countries or areas, codes and | abbreviations", revised February 13, 2002). However, in some | instances, country names deviate from those used by the United | Nations. | | Polities above are listed in alphabetical order. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1006_REG >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY UN GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS NUMERIC CODES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Geographic region of polity .................................................................. AFRICA 014. EASTERN AFRICA 015. NORTHERN AFRICA 018. SOUTHERN AFRICA AMERICAS 005. SOUTH AMERICA 013. CENTRAL AMERICA 021. NORTHERN AMERICA ASIA 030. EASTERN ASIA 035. SOUTH EASTERN ASIA 143. CENTRAL ASIA 145. WESTERN ASIA EUROPE 039. SOUTHERN EUROPE 151. EASTERN EUROPE 154. NORTHERN EUROPE 155. WESTERN EUROPE 009. OCEANIA | VARIABLE NOTES: E1006_REG | | POTENTIAL REGIONAL LEVEL BRIDGING IDENTIFIER | | Source: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/ | Date accessed: February 11, 2020 | | It consists of the geographical region codes applied by the | United Nations Statistics Division. The geographic regions are | based on continental regions which are further subdivided into | subdivisions. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016 & 2020): E1006_REG | | Taiwan is not included in UN classification, as it is not a | member of the United Nations (UN) or its sub-organizations. | Given its geographic location, the polity has been classified | as "030. Eastern Asia." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1006_OECD >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY MEMBER OF OECD --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Polity a member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) at the time of the election. .................................................................. 0. POLITY NOT A MEMBER OF OECD AT THE TIME OF ELECTION 1. POLITY A MEMBER OF OECD AT THE TIME OF ELECTION | VARIABLE NOTES: E1006_OECD | | Source: www.oecd.org | Date accessed: February 10, 2020 | | The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) | is an intergovernmental economic organization founded in 1961 to | stimulate economic progress and world trade. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1006_EU >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY MEMBER OF EUROPEAN UNION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Polity a member of the European Union (EU) at the time of the election. .................................................................. 0. POLITY NOT EU MEMBER AT THE TIME OF ELECTION 1. POLITY A MEMBER OF EU AT THE TIME OF ELECTION 7. NOT APPLICABLE: NOT IN CONTINENTAL EUROPE | VARIABLE NOTES: E1006_EU | | Source: https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/countries_en | Date accessed: February 26, 2020 | | The European Union (EU) is a political and economic union of | polities located primarily in Europe. The EU came into being | in 1993 as the Maastrict Treaty came into force. The Union | traces its origins to the European Coal and Steel Community | (ECSC) established in 1951 and the European Economic | Community (EEC) established in 1957 under the Treaty of Rome. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1006_VDEM >>> ID COMPONENT - V-Dem POLITY IDENTIFIER --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Polity identifier in the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) project .................................................................. 005. SWEDEN 006. SWITZERLAND 009. JAPAN 019. BRAZIL 020. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 021. PORTUGAL 042. REPUBLIC OF KOREA 048. TAIWAN 049. THAILAND 066. CANADA 067. AUSTRALIA 072. CHILE 073. COSTA RICA 076. FRANCE 077. GERMANY 081. IRELAND 082. ITALY 091. NETHERLANDS 098. TUNISIA 099. TURKEY 101. GREAT BRITAIN 102. URUGUAY 144. AUSTRIA 148. BELGIUM 158. DENMARK 163. FINLAND 164. GREECE 167. HONG KONG 168. ICELAND 169. ISRAEL 173. LITHUANIA 183. MONTENEGRO 185. NEW ZEALAND 186. NORWAY 201. SLOVAKIA 210. HUNGARY | VARIABLE NOTES: E1006_VDEM | | POTENTIAL POLITY LEVEL BRIDGING IDENTIFIER | | Source: www.v-dem.net/en/ | Data accessed: July 15, 2020 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1007 >>> ID COMPONENT - SAMPLE COMPONENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In some cases, analysts may wish to consider regions of countries or other sample components units of analysis, rather than the countries themselves. We use this variable to capture information about subsets of respondents that are meaningful but that are not captured by other variables. This may, for instance, refer to different sample components or respondents from different panel components. For all other cases, this variable is coded 001. .................................................................. 01.-25. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 999. MISSING | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E1007 | | The data collection organization programmed the questionnaire | incorrectly and consequently, 288 respondents were not asked | several items in the Finnish study. This affected two CSES | items: turnout and vote choice variables. | The error was detected after the data collection had concluded. | To amend the problem, the data collection organization attempted | to re-contact the affected respondents by phone and ask the | questions that had not been included during the initial | interview. The affected respondents did not retake the entire | interview. | Thus, E1007 distinguishes between the following three categories | of respondents: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Asked the entire questionnaire in the original | interview | 02. Asked several items during the second data | collection round in a phone interview | 03. The second data collection round should have been | conducted, but R could not be reached | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E1007 | | E1007 provides an exact geographic differentiation between | respondents living in territories of former East Germany | ("German Democratic Republic", GDR) and former West Germany | ("Federal Republic of Germany", FRG), as the current federal | state lines are not an accurate representation of these | territories. East and West Germany were sampled separately with | an oversampling of East Germans. | The sample components are coded as 1='West' and 2='East'. The | final data contains 1,368 respondents from West and 664 | respondents from East Germany. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. West Germany | 02. East Germany | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): E1007 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Respondents sampled for the previous election | study (January 2015 elections) | 02. Respondents sampled newly for the September 2015 | election study | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E1007 | | Interviews for the Hungarian study were collected in two rounds | of data collection. After the first round, invalid interviews | were excluded, and the sample was heavily distorted in terms of | gender and age. This was compensated with an additional round of | data collection. Variable E1007 distinguishes between respondents | interviewed in the first and second round. For more information, | see Codebook Part 6. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. First round of data collection | 02. Second round of data collection | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E1007 | | The Italian study consists of two different components, each | randomly selected at the second stage of the sampling procedure. | For more information, see Codebook Part 6. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Respondents sampled from web panel | 02. Respondents sampled through random digit dialing | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2017): E1007 | | The Dutch 2017 study consists of two independent sampling | components, a simple random sample drawn from population | registers (N = 723) and a sample drawn from the ongoing "LISS" | online panel (Langlopende Internet Studies voor de Sociale | wetenschappen, N = 1,180). The LISS panel was launched in 2007 | and refreshed in four subsequent waves, all based on probability | sampling. For more information, users are referred to the study | design overview provided in Codebook Part 6. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Respondents sampled from population registers | (face-to-face interviews with drop-off | questionnaire) | 02. Respondents sampled from LISS web panel | (online interviews) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2020): E1007 | | The fieldwork for the Slovakian study was conducted from June to | August 2020, as a face-to-face study, in the midst of the | COVID-19 pandemic. Due to lockdown measures in some parts of the | country and a shortage of interviewers because of the pandemic, | about 20% of selected primary sampling units (PSUs) were not | reachable. To compensate for this, Slovakian collaborators | decided to conduct a second round of PSU-selection again based | on the whole country. This resulted in a second round of | fieldwork to collect the missing approx. 33% of the sample. | E1007 distinguishes between the two rounds of fieldwork. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Interview conducted during the first part of | fieldwork (N = 668) | 02. Interview conducted during the second part of | fieldwork (N = 335) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E1007 | | The Thai 2019 study was administered as a multistage systematic | random sample, in which substitution of individuals was | permissible at the final stage of selection. | The substitution process was coordinated by collaborators and | was applied in case interviewers could not contact the sampled | person, due to relocation, decease, illnesses etc. Substituted | individuals were sampled in the same manner as regular | respondents, and matched the age and gender of the originally | sampled person. | E1007 distinguishes respondents who were selected via | substitution from other persons in the sample. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Respondent selected as a substitution for another | non-reachable person (N = 370) | 02. Respondent selected for initial sample, | no substitution (N = 1,166) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): E1007 | | E1007 differentiates between two sample components in the U.S. | 2016 data, namely voters who cast their vote early prior to the | pre-election interview (N=131) and voters who cast their ballot | after the pre-election interview. Respondents who affirmed to | have voted early were asked to report their vote choice in the | pre-election survey. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Voted after the pre-election interview | 02. Voted early before the pre-election interview | | Furthermore, the ANES 2016 Time Series is composed of two | independently drawn probability samples split along modes (one | sample for face-to-face interviews, one sample for interviews | administered on the web). For more information, see E1025_ | (Mode of Interview, Respondent). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E1007 | | E1007 differentiates between ten sample components in the 2020 | study. These ten sample components comprise two-digit identifiers | which represent the following distinctions. The first digit | (a "1" or a "2") differentiates between voters that report | casting their ballot before the pre-election and those who report | doing so after the pre-election interview. Voters who report the | former receive a code of "2" (and thus are represented by codes | 21-25, N=371). Voters who report the latter receive a code of "1" | and thus are represented by codes 11-15. | | The second digit of the identifier classifies the respondent | mode of interview and in certain circumstances, the timing period | in which the respondent was invited to undertake the interview. | Respondents part of the 2020 sample are classified with a second | digit (i.e., codes 11-14 and codes 21-24 respectively). The two | replicates (codes 11 & 12 and 21 and 22) comprise respondents | invited to undertake the interview before the party conventions | (replicate 1 - codes 11 and 21 respectively) and after the party | conventions (replicate 2 - codes 12 and 22 respectively). | Respondents originating from the ANES 2016 study and | re-interviewed in 2020 are classified in codes 15 and 25. | Further details on the 2020 sampling components are provided in | Part 6 of the CSES Module 5 Codebook. | For further information on the 2016-2020 Panel component, see | ELECTION STUDY NOTES for variables E1009_P1 and E1009_P2. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | VOTED AFTER THE PRE-ELECTION INTERVIEW: | 11. Fresh 2020 sample: web only, replicate 1 | 12. Fresh 2020 sample: web only, replicate 2 | 13. Fresh 2020 sample: web or phone | 14. Fresh 2020 sample: video, web, or phone | 15. 2016-2020 Panel | | VOTED EARLY BEFORE THE PRE-ELECTION INTERVIEW: | 21. Fresh 2020 sample: web only, replicate 1 | 22. Fresh 2020 sample: web only, replicate 2 | 23. Fresh 2020 sample: web or phone | 24. Fresh 2020 sample: video, web, or phone | 25. 2016-2020 Panel --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1008 >>> ID COMPONENT - ELECTION YEAR --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Election year. .................................................................. 2015-2021. ELECTION YEAR | VARIABLE NOTES: E1008 | | POTENTIAL TIME BRIDGING IDENTIFIER | | The official period covered in Module 5 is from 2016 to 2021. | Deviating from the official time period is GREECE (2015) which | fielded the Module 5 pilot questionnaire as part of the CSES | pretests. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1009 >>> ID COMPONENT - RESPONDENT WITHIN ELECTION STUDY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A01. Respondent identifier. .................................................................. | VARIABLE NOTES: E1009 | | This variable is ten characters in length. It is unique | for each survey respondent within an election. | | While this variable uniquely identifies a respondent within | an election study, it is not unique across the entire dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E1009 | | The ID variable in the original dataset consisted of 11 digits. | The CSES uses 10-digit ID variables for the E1009 variable. To | derive E1009, we cut the 7th digit from the original ID variable | (named "sorszam" in the deposited dataset) using the following | Stata commands: | | tostring sorszam, gen(E1009a) format(%11.0f) | gen E1009_1 = substr(E1009a,1,6) | gen E1009_2 = substr(E1009a,8,11) | gen str E1009 = E1009_1 + E1009_2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2016): E1009 | | The deposited identifier had a length of 12 digits. The last | four digits uniquely identify the respondents. To preserve | the ten-digit character of E1009, the last ten digits of | the original variable are used. The original Iceland election | study identifier can be recreated by using "20" (first two | digits in the original identifier) and adding E1009. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2017): E1009 | | The deposited identifier had a length of 12 digits. The last | four digits uniquely identify the respondents. To preserve | the ten-digit character of E1009, the last ten digits of | the original variable are used. The original Iceland election | study identifier can be recreated by using "20" (first two | digits in the original identifier) and adding E1009. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E1009 | | The ID variable in the original dataset consisted of 13 digits. | The CSES uses a 10-digit ID variable for E1009. To derive E1009, | we used the first ten digits from the original ID (A1) which | uniquely identifies the respondents (we added zeros in cases | where the ID length was shorter than ten digits). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2017): E1009 | | For the Japanese study, this variable was originally composed of | three variables: Branch (2 digits), Point (3 digits), and RID | (2 digits). The value of Branch starts from "00", Point starts | from "000", and RID begins from "00." Thus, there is one | respondent in the Japanese study with an ID of all 0s. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1009_P1 >>> ID COMPONENT - WHETHER RESPONDENT COMPLETED CSES MODULE MULTIPLE TIMES IN PANEL STUDY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether or not a respondent completed a CSES Module multiple times. .................................................................. 0. R DID NOT COMPLETE MODULE MULTIPLE TIMES (CSES ADMINISTERED PANEL) 1. R COMPLETED MODULE MULTIPLE TIMES (CSES ADMINISTERED PANEL) 7. NOT APPLICABLE: MODULE ADMINISTERED AS CROSS-SECTION 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E1009_P1 | | This variable specifies whether a respondent completed the | CSES Module 5 Questionnaire multiple times or not. A CSES Module | is often administered multiple times within one polity but | conventionally, it is administered on fresh cross-sectional | samples of the polity's population. However, in rare | circumstances, the module has been administered multiple times to | the same respondent at different time intervals. Consequently, | E1009_P1 applies only to respondents originating from studies | that administered CSES Module 5 in a panel design, including | it in at least two consecutive waves. | | Respondents coded 1 in E1009_P1 completed the Module 5 | Questionnaire on two occasions (at different time points). In the | dataset, they are represented by two separate observations, | the first classifying their responses at Time 1 (T1) and the | second classifying their responses at Time 2 (T2). | Respondents coded 0 in E1009_P1 did not complete the Module 5 | Questionnaire twice, even though they were part of a study which | had a panel component. Alternatively, it may classify | respondents recruited in studies combining respondents from | multiple electoral cycles with freshly sampled individuals to the | universe of already existing respondents. | Respondents coded 7 in E1009_P1 are part of regular cross- | sectional designs, which applies to the vast majority of studies | included in CSES. | | This variable facilitates researchers who wish to study intra- | respondent behavior (i.e., the behavior of a respondent at T1 and | T2). For more details on how to connect respondents interviewed | on two occasions, and which are represented in the Module 5 | dataset as two separate observations, please consult | variable E1009_P2 which classifies the respondent ID at T1 for | respondents interviewed the second time (T2). | | Researchers interested in analyzing cross-sectional data only | may do so by dropping all cases coded 1 in E1009_P1 from the | CSES Module 5 dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E1009_P1 | | The American National Election Study (ANES) 2020 Time Series has | a pre- post-election panel design in which 4,779 respondents were | interviewed twice: Once before the election and once after the | election. Another 2,670 individuals were sampled for the 2016 | ANES time series study and were re-interviewed in 2020 before | and after the election. | Respondents who were sampled in 2016 and took part in both rounds | of the 2020 studies are coded 1 in E1009_P1. Respondents freshly | sampled in 2020 are coded 0. | Panel identifiers for respondents sampled in 2016 are available | in E1009_P2. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Respondent sampled in 2016 and re-interviewed in | 2020, included in UNITED STATES 2016 and 2020 | study | 00. Respondent freshly sampled for UNITED STATES | 2020 study, no re-interview --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1009_P2 >>> ID COMPONENT - PANEL ID FOR R THAT COMPLETED CSES MODULE MULTIPLE TIMES IN PANEL STUDY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Panel respondent ID for respondents who completed CSES Module 5 multiple times. .................................................................. 1 - 90000000000. RESPONDENT-LEVEL PANEL ID 99999999997. NOT APPLICABLE: R COMPLETED MODULE ONLY ONCE/ MODULE ADMINISTERED AS CROSS-SECTION 99999999999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E1009_P2 | | This variable applies only to respondents who completed the | Module 5 Questionnaire at least twice and at two different time | points. A CSES Module is often administered multiple | times within one polity but conventionally, it is administered | on fresh cross-sectional samples of the polity's population. | However, in rare circumstances, the module has been administered | multiple times to the same respondent at different time | intervals. E1009_P1 classifies those respondents who have been | interviewed twice - i.e., respondents originating from studies | that administered CSES Module 5 in a panel design, including | it in at least two consecutive waves. | | Respondents that completed the Module 5 Questionnaire on two | occasions(at different time points) are represented by two | separate observations, the first classifying their responses | at Time 1 (T1) and the second classifying their responses at | Time 2 (T2). E1009_P2 allows researchers to connect these two | observations. It lists the respondent ID applied to the | respondent at T1 for respondents interviewed at T2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E1009_P2 | | All respondents that are represented both in the UNITED STATES | 2016 and 2020 studies are assigned their respondent ID from the | 2016 study in E1009_P2. Therefore, researchers interested in | connecting the respondent observations at T1 and T2 are advised | to replace E1009 with E1009_P2 for respondents who are part | of the 2016-2020 panel. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1010_1 >>> ORIGINAL WEIGHT: SAMPLE E1010_2 >>> ORIGINAL WEIGHT: DEMOGRAPHIC E1010_3 >>> ORIGINAL WEIGHT: POLITICAL --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Original Weights provided by the national election study .................................................................. | VARIABLE NOTES: E1010 | | These variables report the original weights provided with | the respective deposited data files. | | Sample weights include those intended to correct for unequal | selection probabilities resulting from "booster" samples, | procedures for selection within the household, non-response, | as well as other features of the sample design. | | Demographic weights adjust sample distributions of socio- | demographic characteristics to more closely resemble the | characteristics of the population. | | Political weights reconcile discrepancies in the reported | electoral behavior of the survey respondents from the | official vote counts. | | In cases where a collaborator provides a single weight that | is a combination of one or more of the three weight categories | (sample, demographic, and political), the weight is duplicated | in the two or more appropriate variables. Thus, analysts using | two or more of the weights simultaneously will need to account | for this duplication. | | Use of weights is at the discretion of the analyst based upon | the considerations of her/his individual research question. | We recommend that analysts familiarize themselves with the | weights, their components, and their methods of creation | before applying them. | | Additionally, analysts will want to keep in mind that these | weights are prepared to be election study weights, not country | weights. To convert the weights to country weights requires an | adjustment for those countries for which one or more polities | or election studies appear in the dataset. | | Where a weight of a particular type is unavailable, these | variables are coded 1. | | Collaborators provided the original weights with a varying | number of decimal places. In this CSES dataset, however, all | of the original weights have been rounded to four decimal | places at maximum (i.e. 1.1234) using STATA. | | +++ TABLE: TYPE OF ORIGINAL WEIGHTS BY INDIVIDUAL ELECTION | STUDIES | | Sample Demographic Political | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) Weight Weight Weight | ----------------------------------------------------------- | AUSTRALIA (2019) X - - | AUSTRIA (2017) - X X | BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019) - X X | BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019) - X X | CANADA (2019) - X - | CHILE (2017) - X - | COSTA RICA (2018) - X - | DENMARK (2019) - X X | FINLAND (2019) - - X | FRANCE (2017) - X X | GERMANY (2017) X X - | GREAT BRITAIN (2017) - X - | GREECE (2015) - X - | HONG KONG (2016) - X - | HUNGARY (2018) - X - | IRELAND (2016) - X - | ISRAEL (2020) - X - | ITALY (2018) X X X | JAPAN (2017) X X - | LITHUANIA (2016) - X - | MONTENEGRO (2016) - X - | NETHERLANDS (2017) - X X | NEW ZEALAND (2017) - X - | NEW ZEALAND (2020) - X - | NORWAY (2017) - X - | PORTUGAL (2019) - X X | SLOVAKIA (2020) X X - | SWEDEN (2018) - X - | SWITZERLAND (2019) X - X | TAIWAN (2016) - X - | TAIWAN (2020) - X - | TURKEY (2018) - X - | UNITED STATES (2016) X X - | UNITED STATES (2020) X X - | URUGUAY (2019) X X X | ----------------------------------------------------------- | KEY: X = available; - = not available. | | Weights are unavailable for BRAZIL (2018), ICELAND (2016 & 2017), | SOUTH KOREA (2016), THAILAND (2019) and TUNISIA (2019). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): E1010_1 | | The sample weight adjusts for unequal probability of selection. | Since some units in the population may not have a chance of | selection (for instance, persons without a telephone have no | chance of selection for a telephone survey) and there may be | different rates of response across unit characteristics, sample | weights reduce the extent of any biases introduced through | non-coverage. | For Australia 2019, weights are constructed in the following two | steps: | 1. Compute a base weight for each respondent as the product of | two weights: a. their enrolment weight, accounting for the | initial chances of selection and subsequent post-stratification | to key demographic benchmarks; b. their response propensity | weight, estimated from enrolment information available for both | respondents and non-respondents to the present wave. | 2. Calibrate the base weights so that they satisfy the latest | population benchmarks for several demographic characteristics. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): E1010_2 & E1010_3 | | The demographic weight (E1010_2) adjusts the data to match | known demographic characteristics in the voting age population | (age, gender, education, region, household size, and employment | type). The political weight (E1010_3) is a combined weight that | adjusts the data to match the national election results on top | of the demographic weight. The deposited, combined weight | (E1010_3) is a winsorized weight in which upper and lower | boundaries were determined by the field institute. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019): E1010_2 & E1010_3 | | The demographic weight (E1010_2) was constructed based on the | most recent available data for age, gender, and education level. | | The political weight (E1010_3) includes the same variables as for | the demographic weight, and the vote choice as reported by the | respondents compared to the official election results. Where | necessary, Belgian collaborators calculated distributions | themselves to make sure all information was correct for the | specific geographical region. Available information was | subdivided by age so that the distributions are corrected for the | population older than 18 (which should give a better estimate for | educational level, for instance). | Political weights were not constructed for 146 respondents due | to the missing information on the variables used for constructing | weights. These cases were recoded to 0 for the political weight | variable and thus, are dropped from analyses if E1010_3 is | applied. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019): E1010_2 & E1010_3 | | The demographic weight (E1010_2) was constructed based on the | most recent available data for age, gender, and education level. | | The political weight (E1010_3) includes the same variables as for | the demographic weight, and the vote choice as reported by the | respondents compared to the official election results. Where | necessary, Belgian collaborators calculated distributions | themselves to make sure all information was correct for the | specific geographical region. Available information was | subdivided by age so that the distributions are corrected for the | population older than 18 (which should give a better estimate for | educational level, for instance). | Political weights were not constructed for 149 respondents due | to the missing information on the variables used for constructing | weights. These cases were recoded to 0 for the political weight | variable and thus, are dropped from analyses if E1010_3 is | applied. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E1010_ | | The Brazilian sample is proportional to the universe of voters, | both geographically and demographically, so there is no need to | weight it. Thus, all weights are set to 1 for Brazil (2018). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2019): E1010_2 | | The 2019 Canadian Election Study contains a DEMOGRAPHIC WEIGHT | for the post-election survey. The collaborators decided that | the weight is required due to the stratification and the dual- | frame (cell/ landline phone). | | In order to produce national estimates, it is necessary to | correct for both the province of residence and the phone | ownership type as these are both factors that influenced the | sample design for the Canadian Election Study. | To determine the phone ownership type and hence the probability | of inclusion of a particular respondent in the study, each | respondent was asked at the end of the pre-election survey if | they have a wireless phone (if they completed on landline) or | a landline phone (if they completed on wireless). | Respondents were then assigned an ownership type of landline | only, wireless only, both, or refused/don't know. Population | proportions among the ten provinces were taken from the 2016 | Census and 2017 data for phone ownership by province was used to | create a joint probability for phone ownership among each of the | provinces. Respondents who refused to provide details about | their phone ownership were given a phone ownership type | population proportion equal to their sample proportion within | province, so as not to artificially create the population | proportions for this subset. Weights are calculated by dividing | the population proportion by the sample proportion for each | subgroup so that each is "adjusted up" or "adjusted down" in | the overall picture to provide a sample distribution | representative of the joint population proportion on the | province and phone ownership metrics. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2017): E1010_2 | | The demographic weight (E1010_2) adjusts the data to match the | population in terms of age and gender of respondents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - COSTA RICA (2018): E1010_2 | | The 2018 Costa Rican Election Study contains a DEMOGRAPHIC | WEIGHT. The weight was constructed after collaborators compared | expected values of demographic characteristics (gender, age and | education) of the general population to the sample population. | The expected values of those characteristics of the population | were obtained from the National Household Survey. Collaborators | found that over- and underrepresentation in the survey was | related to the educational level. Respondents with higher | education, namely university degrees, were overrepresented | compared to those with lower education, namely primary education. | | The weight adjusts for educational differences. The weight | was constructed by dividing the value obtained in the sample | by the expected value of the population. For those | respondents for which no information on their education is | available, the demographic weight is coded 1. | | We alert users that the weight was constructed on all 1,456 | respondents. However, the study contains 28 respondents who | did not provide information on their year of birth (E2001_Y). | The voting eligibility of those 28 respondents can thus not | be ascertained. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2019): E1010_2 & E1010_3 | | The demographic weight (E1010_2) corrects distributions in the | sample to known socio-demographic population characteristics | (age, region, gender, and education). | The political weight (E1010_3) was created using raking and | builds upon the demographic weight, additionally adjusting the | sample according to vote choice in the 2019 Danish general | election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E1010_3 | | The political weight (E1010_3) is constructed according to the | results of the 2019 General Election. Weights correct any over- | or underrepresentation in the political party support data. | Gender, age, language, party choice, and electoral district are | variables that are used for the construction of the political | weight in the Finland (2019) dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2017): E1010_2 & E1010_3 | | The demographic weight (E1010_2) corrects distributions in the | sample to known socio-demographic population characteristics | (gender, age, occupation, region, size of agglomeration, and | respondents' diploma). | The political weight (E1010_3) builds upon the demographic weight | and additionally adjusts the sample according to the official | election results of the first and second rounds of the 2017 | presidential election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E1010_1 & E1010_2 | | The sample weight (E1010_1) adjusts for the oversampling of | respondents in East Germany. | The demographic weight (E1010_2) adjusts for education, age, | gender and "BIK-Gemeindegroessenklassen" (size of communities). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2017): E1010_2 | | To ensure that the respondents who took part in the study | represent the views of the population, the data were weighted. | There were two weights which were applied: selection weights | to correct for unequal selection probabilities and post- | stratification weights which account for differing levels of | response from various groups in the population. | | The 2017 British Election Study contains a DEMOGRAPHIC WEIGHT. | The weight was constructed after collaborators found that | several demographics need to be considered for the non-response | weighting. They decided that the demographics that should be | corrected were age, gender and region. The targets for these | were taken from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) | mid-year population estimates and weights were calculated after | the selection weights had been applied. | | For 20 respondents, no weight value was provided by the British | National Election Study because one or multiple of the variables | used for the weight calculation were missing. These cases are | assigned the mean value of the provided demographic weight. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): E1010_2 | | The demographic weight (E1010_2) adjusts the data to match | known demographic characteristics in the voting population | (gender, age and education). Weights were constructed using the | raking method. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E1010_2 | | The demographic weight (E1010_2) adjusts the data to match | known demographic characteristics of registered voters (gender | and age). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E1010_2 | | The demographic weight (E1010_2) adjusts the data to compensate | demographic distortions and is based on census data. The weight | is calculated based on four dimensions: gender, age, place of | residence and education. | Extreme values on weight variable are recoded to the interval | between 0.3 (minimal) and 3.5 (maximal). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2016): E1010_2 | | The demographic weight (E1010_2) adjusts the data to match | known demographic characteristics in the voting age population | (age, class, gender, and region). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2020): E1010_2 | | The Israeli Election Study provides a DEMOGRAPHIC WEIGHT. This | weight adjusts the sample to match known demographic | characteristics in the voting age population (age, gender, | education, and ethnic group). The post-stratification weight was | calculated using an iterative proportional fitting algorithm | (raking). To ensure that no single respondent receives too much | influence over-weighted estimates, the final weights were | trimmed using an upper threshold of four. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E1010_ | | The sample weight (E1010_1) adjusts the data to correct for | the different selection probabilities of clusters (i.e., | constituencies and large cities) within different macro-areas as | well as for the different probabilities of selection of | individuals within clusters. The demographic weight (E1010_2) | adjusts the data to match known demographic characteristics | namely gender (male, female), age group (18-44, 45-59, 60+), | geographical area (north, center, south), and education (low, | middle, high). The political weight (E1010_3) adjusts the data | to the population frequencies by vote shares of the major | coalitions and parties (center-right and center-left) in the | lower house election and abstainers at the regional level. In | the original deposited political weight, 671 respondents were | coded as system missing because there was no information | available for them on lower house vote choice variables. After | consulting with the collaborator, these cases were recoded to | zero such that they will drop out of any analyses in which the | weight is applied. | Because the voting age differs between the lower house (18 years | and older) and the upper house (25 years and older), applying | the weights adjusts the data for the lower house electorate but | not the upper house electorate. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2017): E1010_1 & E1010_2 | | The sample weight (E1010_1) corrects for variations in response | rates between geographic regions and demographic characteristics, | while demographic weight (E1010_2) only corrects for demographic | characteristics. The sample weight was constructed using the | categories gender by age by location. The age variable was | grouped into five categories, and the location was grouped into | six categories to avoid using 11 locations and small weighting | cells, given that the Japanese sample includes only 1,688 | respondents in total. The demographic weight was constructed | using gender by age, with age being grouped into five categories. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E1010_2 | | The demographic weight (E1010_2) adjusts the data to match | known demographic characteristics in the total population | (gender, age and urban/rural population). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E1010_2 | | The demographic weight (E1010_2) adjusts the data to match | known demographic characteristics namely gender, nationality | (Montenegrins, Serbs, Albanians, and Bosniaks-Muslims), and age. | The weight was created based on national census statistics. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2017): E1010_2 & E1010_3 | | The demographic weight (E1010_2) corrects distributions in the | sample to known socio-demographic population characteristics | (age, gender, municipality's degree of urbanization, region of | residence, marital status, and country of origin). | The political weight (E1010_3) builds upon the demographic | weight and additionally adjusts the sample according to | vote choice (party vote shares and abstention). | | For 41 respondents in E1010_2 and 90 respondents in E1010_3, | no weight value was provided because one or multiple of the | variables used for calculating the weights were missing. | For example, some respondents did not indicate their vote choice | and a smaller number of respondents also had missing values on | demographic variables such as country of origin. | The 41 cases in E1010_2 were assigned the mean value of the | provided demographic weight. | Following other Module 5 studies, the 90 respondents in E1010_3 | were recoded to 0 for the political weight variable and are | hence dropped from analyses upon applying E1010_3. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017): E1010_2 | | The demographic weight (E1010_2) adjusts the data to match | known demographic characteristics in the total population | (gender and age). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2020): E1010_2 | | The 2020 New Zealand Election Study provides a DEMOGRAPHIC | WEIGHT. The weight controls for gender, age and Maori descent as | some groups were under or over-represented even after re- | sampling the oversamples. Therefore, the weight makes the survey | representative of the electoral roll from which it was sampled. | For the weight construction, respondents' age, gender and | descent were used. It was generated from a table breaking down | the entire roll by those three factors. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2017): E1010_2 | | The weight (E1010_2) adjusts for gender, age, and education, | dividing the sample into 18 different strata. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2019): E1010_2 & E1010_3 | | The demographic weight (E1010_2) is designed to match known | demographic characteristics of the population and incorporates | region, gender, age and education. | The political weight (E1010_3) is a combined weight that adjusts | the sample to match the national election results on top of the | demographic weight. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2020): E1010_1 & E1010_2 | | The combined sample and demographic weight (included in E1010_1 | and E1010_2) compensates for disproportionate probability of | selection and additionally adjusts the data to match known | demographic characteristics, namely gender (two categories), | age (five categories), region (eight categories), education | (five categories) and community size (five categories). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2018): E1010_2 | | The demographic weight (E1010_2) adjusts the data to match known | demographic characteristics, namely gender (male, female), age | group (18-25, 26-40, 41-64, 65-80), and education (seven | categories based on the Swedish education classification scheme | "Svensk utbildningsnomenklatur (SUN)"). | Weights were calculated using an iterative proportional fitting | algorithm (raking). | In general, collaborators used public register data on | respondents to calculate the demographic weight, with the | following exceptions: | For age group, no public records data were available for one | respondent and the survey information was used instead. | For education, public records data were unavailable for 857 | respondents, due to the respondents not approving to the use of | public records data. For these 857 individuals, collaborators | imputed data based on sex and age groups. | Collaborators note they chose to make imputations based on census | data even though survey data was available because they found an | unexpectedly low correlation between survey responses and census | register data on education in previous analyses. Particularly | older age groups tend to overestimate their formal level of | education. To get a cleaner measure, collaborators hence decided | against mixing survey responses with census data. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2019): E1010_1 & E1010_3 | | The sample weight (E1010_1) corrects for the oversampling of | small cantons and two larger cantons (Ticino and Zurich). | This weight was calculated as the quotient of the proportion | of eligible voters in the population of each canton and the | proportion of respondents in the sample that fall within the | canton. | The political weight (E1010_3) corrects biases that result from | oversampling, turnout and party choice in the data. The weight | is calculated by multiplying three weights, namely the Design, | Turnout and Party Choice Weights. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016): E1010_2 | | The demographic weight (E1010_2) was constructed by raking with | gender, age, education, and area, to fit the sample to eligible | voters in the 2016 presidential and legislative elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2020): E1010_2 | | The 2020 Taiwanese Election Study contains a DEMOGRAPHIC WEIGHT. | The collaborators decided that the weight is needed to adjust | the sample to the general population of eligible voters in the | 2020 presidential and legislative elections. | | Therefore, the survey data are weighted by gender, age (five | groups), education (five groups), and area (six regions). The | population parameters are taken from the Statistical Yearbook of | Interior which is published by the Ministry of the Interior | Republic of China in 2019. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2018): E1010_2 | | The demographic weight (E1010_2) included in the 2018 Turkish | election study adjusts the sample to known population | distributions of gender (two groups), age (six groups) and | educational attainment (five groups). The resulting 60 cells | (2 x 6 x 5) were filled with the respective respondents from | within the sample to calculate the weight and to obtain the | national aggregates. | Because there are minor variations in the geographic planned | distribution of observations and realized interviews, | collaborators calculated a separate geographic weight which they | multiplied by the demographic weight to obtain the final weight | included in the CSES. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): E1010_1 & E1010_2 | | The United States 2016 dataset includes one combined sample | and demographic weight included in E1010_1 and E1010_2. | The weight adjusts for unequal probability of selection, | non-response, age by gender, race/ethnicity by educational | attainment, marital status by gender, race/ethnicity by census | region, nation of birth, and home tenure by metropolitan status. | The weight deposited with CSES is targeted to the complete U.S. | 2016 dataset (including both web and face-to-face modes). Users | interested in conducting analyses with either face-to-face or | web interviews only are referred to the ANES 2016 Time Series | Study, which provides individual weights per mode. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E1010_1 & E1010_2 | | The combined sample and demographic weight (included in E1010_1 | and E1010_2) adjusts for unequal probability of selection, | non-response, age by gender, marital status by gender, race/ | ethnicity by educational attainment, race/ethnicity by Census | region, nation of birth, home tenure by metropolitan status, | population density, household income, and early voter status. | The weight deposited with CSES (variable V200010b in the ANES | 2020 Time Series data) is targeted to the full post-election | dataset, namely all three mode conditions from the 2020 fresh | cross-sectional sample and sample members from the 2016 ANES | Time Series Study. Users interested in conducting analyses with | a subset of these sample components only are referred to the | ANES 2020 Time Series Study, which provides individual weights | for selected components. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E1010_ | | The 2019 Uruguayan Election Study provides three weights: a | SAMPLE WEIGHT, a DEMOGRAPHIC WEIGHT, and a POLITICAL WEIGHT. The | sample weight (E1010_1) is designed to account for a sampling | bias related to the different Uruguayan territories (based on | variable E2022 - Rural or Urban Residence). The demographic | weight (E1010_2) controls for gender and age. The political | weight (E1010_3) adjusts for discrepancies in the reported | electoral behavior of respondents and the official electoral | results. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1011_1 >>> FACTOR: MEAN OF SAMPLE WEIGHT E1011_2 >>> FACTOR: MEAN OF DEMOGRAPHIC WEIGHT E1011_3 >>> FACTOR: MEAN OF POLITICAL WEIGHT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mean Weight of Weights provided by the national election study .................................................................. | VARIABLE NOTES: E1011 | | 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 | E1012_1 through E1012_3. | | To follow is the STATA code used to create variables | E1011_1, E1011_2, and E1011_3: | | forvalues i=1/3 { | foreach x of local elec { | su E1010_`i' if E1004=="`x'" | replace E1011_`i' = r(mean) if E1004=="`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 (E1010_1-E1010_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 E1011_1-E1011_3 for individual election studies | and for the full dataset are close to, but not necessarily | exactly equal to, 1.0000. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1012_1 >>> POLITY WEIGHT: SAMPLE E1012_2 >>> POLITY WEIGHT: DEMOGRAPHIC E1012_3 >>> POLITY WEIGHT: POLITICAL --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Polity Weight of Weights provided by the national election study .................................................................. | VARIABLE NOTES: E1012 | | See also Variable and Election Study VARIABLE NOTES for E1010- | E1011. | | These variables report standardized versions (with a mean 1 | within the polity) of the original weights provided with the | component election studies, described in E1010. They are the | ratio of each weighting factor to the mean weight (E1011) of | each type, calculated within each polity. | | The derivative "Polity Weight" (E1012) 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 | E1012_1, E1012_2, and E1012_3: | | gen E1012_1 = E1010_1 / E1011_1 | gen E1012_2 = E1010_2 / E1011_2 | gen E1012_3 = E1010_3 / E1011_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 (E1010_1-E1010_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 E1012_1-E1012_3 for individual election studies | and for the full dataset are close to, but not necessarily | exactly equal to, 1.0000. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1013 >>> FACTOR: SAMPLE SIZE ADJUSTMENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Factor Weight of Weights provided by the national election study .................................................................. | VARIABLE NOTES: E1013 | | This variable reports the ratio of the average sample size to | each election study sample. 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 E1014_1 through E1014_3. | | This variable will not be available until the Final Release of | CSES Module 5. | | To follow is the STATA code used to create variable E1013: | | gen n=1 | gen tot_obs = _N /*Number of observations*/ | gen estudies = _S /*Number of election studies*/ | gen mean_res = tot_obs/estudies | | gen n_cases = . | foreach x of local elec { | su n if E1004=="`x'" | replace n_cases = r(sum) if E1004=="`x'" | } | | replace E1013 = 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 (E1010_1-E1010_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 E1013 for the full dataset is close | to, but not necessarily exactly equal to, 1.0000. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1014_1 >>> DATASET WEIGHT: SAMPLE E1014_2 >>> DATASET WEIGHT: DEMOGRAPHIC E1014_3 >>> DATASET WEIGHT: POLITICAL --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dataset Weight of Weights provided by the national election study .................................................................. | VARIABLE NOTES: E1014 | | See also Variable and Election Study VARIABLE NOTES for E1010- | E1013. | | These variables are intended for micro-level analyses involving | the entire CSES sample. Using the sample size adjustment | (E1013), the centered weights (E1012) 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 VARIABLE NOTES of the preceding variables | carefully so as to ensure that their analyses will be weighted | appropriately. | | The derivative "Dataset Weight" (E1014) 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. | | This variable will not be available until the Final Release of | CSES Module 5. | | To follow is the STATA code used to create variables | E1014_1, E1014_2, and E1014_3: | | replace E1014_1 = E1012_1 * E1013 | replace E1014_2 = E1012_2 * E1013 | replace E1014_3 = E1012_3 * E1013 | | The STATA code to create the derivative variables in the CSES | dataset was run on the original, unrounded version of | the original weight variables (E1010_1-E1010_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 E1014_1-E1014_3 for the full dataset are close | to, but not necessarily exactly equal to, 1.0000. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1015 >>> ELECTION TYPE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Type of election. .................................................................. 10. PARLIAMENTARY/LEGISLATIVE 12. PARLIAMENTARY/LEGISLATIVE AND PRESIDENTIAL 13. PARLIAMENTARY/LEGISLATIVE AND PRIME MINISTER 20. PRESIDENTIAL 30. HEAD OF GOVERNMENT | VARIABLE NOTES: E1015 | | The following table gives an overview of which type of elections | are included for which country. | | +++ TABLE: ELECTION STUDIES BY TYPE OF ELECTION | | Presidential Lower House Upper House | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) Election Election Election | ------------------------------------------------------------- | AUSTRALIA (2019) - X X | AUSTRIA (2017) - X - | BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019) - X - | BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019) - X - | BRAZIL (2018) X X X | CANADA (2019) - X - | CHILE (2017) X X X | COSTA RICA (2018) X X - | DENMARK (2019) - X - | FINLAND (2019) - X - | FRANCE (2017) X - - | GERMANY (2017) - X - | GREAT BRITAIN (2017) - X - | GREECE (2015) - X - | HONG KONG (2016) - X - | HUNGARY (2018) - X - | ICELAND (2016) - X - | ICELAND (2017) - X - | IRELAND (2016) - X - | ISRAEL (2020) - X - | ITALY (2018) - X X | JAPAN (2017) - X - | LITHUANIA (2016) - X - | MONTENEGRO (2016) - X - | NETHERLANDS (2017) - X - | NEW ZEALAND (2017) - X - | NEW ZEALAND (2020) - X - | NORWAY (2017) - X - | PORTUGAL (2019) - X - | SLOVAKIA (2020) - X - | SOUTH KOREA (2016) - X - | SWEDEN (2018) - X - | SWITZERLAND (2019) - X X | TAIWAN (2016) X X - | TAIWAN (2020) X X - | THAILAND (2019) - X - | TUNISIA (2019) X X - | TURKEY (2018) X X - | UNITED STATES (2016) X X X | UNITED STATES (2020) X X X | URUGUAY (2019) X X X | ------------------------------------------------------------- | KEY: X = yes; - = no. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1016 >>> DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - MONTH E1017 >>> DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - DAY E1018 >>> DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YEAR --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date [first 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 2015-2021. YEAR 9999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E1016-E1018 | | POTENTIAL TIME BRIDGING IDENTIFIER | | Variables E1016-E1018 represent the start date of the election. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1018_1 >>> DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YYYY-MM-DD --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date [first round] election began. .................................................................. | VARIABLE NOTES: E1018_1 | | POTENTIAL TIME BRIDGING IDENTIFIER | | Variable E1018_1 classifies the start date of the election in | the format YYYY-MM-DD. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1018_2 >>> DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YYYYMM --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date [first round] election began. .................................................................. | VARIABLE NOTES: E1018_2 | | POTENTIAL TIME BRIDGING IDENTIFIER | | Variable E1018_2 classifies the start date of the election in | the format YYYYMM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1019 >>> DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - MONTH E1020 >>> DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - DAY E1021 >>> DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YEAR --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date [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 96. NOT APPLICABLE: NO SECOND ROUND 99. MISSING DAY 01-31. DAY OF MONTH 96. NOT APPLICABLE: NO SECOND ROUND 99. MISSING YEAR 2015-2021. YEAR 9996. NOT APPLICABLE: NO SECOND ROUND 9999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E1019-E1021 | | POTENTIAL TIME BRIDGING IDENTIFIER | | Variables E1016-E1018 represent the start date of the election. | If the election involved a second round, variables E1019-E1021 | are used to represent the start date of the second round. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E1019-E1021 | | The second round of the Lithuanian 2016 Parliamentary election | was held in constituencies where no candidate won a majority | (more than half of votes cast by the voters who participated for | elections, if at least 40 percent of voters turned out) in the | first round of voting. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E1019-E1021 | | The U.S. 2020 Presidential election did not feature a second | round, which is why E1019 - E1021 are coded "NOT APPLICABLE: | NO SECOND ROUND". However, users are advised that runoff | elections were held for two Senate seats in Georgia on January | 5, 2021, as none of the candidates achieved a majority of the | vote in the first round. Respondents from Georgia are identified | in variable E2020 (Region of Residence). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1021_1 >>> DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YYYY-MM-DD --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date [second round] election began. .................................................................. 9996. NOT APPLICABLE: NO SECOND ROUND | VARIABLE NOTES: E1021_1 | | POTENTIAL TIME BRIDGING IDENTIFIER | | If the election involved a second round, variable E1021_1 | classifies the start date of the second round in the format | YYYY-MM-DD. | | Users are advised to consult ELECTION STUDY NOTES for variables | E1019, E1020, and E1021. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1021_2 >>> DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YYYYMM --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date [second round] election began. .................................................................. 999996. NOT APPLICABLE: NO SECOND ROUND | VARIABLE NOTES: E1021_2 | | POTENTIAL TIME BRIDGING IDENTIFIER | | If the election involved a second round, variable E1021_2 | classifies the start date of the second round in the format | YYYYMM. | | Users are advised to consult ELECTION STUDY NOTES for variables | E1019, E1020, and E1021. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1022 >>> STUDY TIMING --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Timing of study relative to election. .................................................................. 1. POST-ELECTION STUDY 2. PRE-ELECTION AND POST-ELECTION STUDY 3. BETWEEN ROUNDS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1023 >>> STUDY CONTEXT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Study context in which CSES module was conducted. .................................................................. 1. CSES CONDUCTED AS PART OF A LARGER STUDY 2. CSES CONDUCTED AS STAND-ALONE STUDY 9. MISSING | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2018): E1023 | | Collaborators note that in 2018, the CSES Module was fielded in | a sample separate from the traditional general national election | survey for the first time. However, since the questionnaire | fielded for this separate sample includes additional questions | to those envisaged by CSES, E1023 has been coded "1. CSES | conducted as part of a larger study". --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1024_1 >>> MODE OF INTERVIEW - STUDY - FIRST E1024_2 >>> MODE OF INTERVIEW - STUDY - SECOND E1024_3 >>> MODE OF INTERVIEW - STUDY - THIRD --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mode of interview used in study. For mixed-mode studies, the different modes used are coded into E1024_1-E1024_3 in no particular order. .................................................................. 0. NOT APPLICABLE 1. IN PERSON, FACE-TO-FACE - USING A QUESTIONNAIRE ON PAPER 2. IN PERSON, FACE-TO-FACE - USING AN ELECTRONIC/COMPUTERIZED QUESTIONNAIRE 3. TELEPHONE 4. MAIL OR SELF-COMPLETION SUPPLEMENT 5. INTERNET 6. IN PERSON, USING VIDEO CALL 9. MISSING | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2019): E1024_ | | The Canadian Election Study distributed the questions for the | CSES among two different survey components. The first component, | the campaign period survey (CPS), which was fielded pre- | election, was conducted as a phone survey. In the second | component, the post-election survey (PES), respondents had the | option to complete the post-election wave online. 2.067 (72%) | respondents completed the PES over the phone and 822 (28%) | completed it online. | Wherever possible, the post-election phone survey was used for | the CSES variables. For variables in which this is not the | case, there is a reference in the Election Study Notes. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E1024_ | | The Finnish study was conducted with face-to-face interviews. | However, after data collection, an error was discovered for | 288 respondents and it was realized that some answers are | missing. These respondents were asked the missing items in a | subsequent telephone interview. For more information, please | consult ELECTION STUDY NOTES for Finland (2019) for variable | E1007 (Sample Component). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016): E1024_ | | For a small number of interviewers, the collaborators report | that due to technical difficulties such as tablet power failure | or system re-set, the interview shifted to a paper questionnaire | with the data inputted into the system at a later time. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1025_1 >>> MODE OF INTERVIEW - RESPONDENT - FIRST E1025_2 >>> MODE OF INTERVIEW - RESPONDENT - SECOND E1025_3 >>> MODE OF INTERVIEW - RESPONDENT - THIRD --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mode of interview used by respondent. For mixed-mode studies, the different modes used are coded into E1025_1-E1025_3 in no particular order. .................................................................. 0. NOT APPLICABLE 1. IN PERSON, FACE-TO-FACE - USING A QUESTIONNAIRE ON PAPER 2. IN PERSON, FACE-TO-FACE - USING AN ELECTRONIC/COMPUTERIZED QUESTIONNAIRE 3. TELEPHONE 4. MAIL OR SELF-COMPLETION SUPPLEMENT 5. INTERNET 6. IN PERSON, USING VIDEO CALL 9. MISSING | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019): E1025_1 | | Respondents were offered to fill in the questionnaire online, or | to use the mail-back questionnaire. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019): E1025_1 | | Respondents were offered to fill in the questionnaire online, or | to use the mail-back questionnaire. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2019): E1025_1 | | For the 2019 Canadian post-election study, respondents were | either interviewed via telephone (CATI) or online. All | participants were interviewed by phone for the campaign | period (pre-election) wave of the survey. They had the option | to complete the post-election wave online. E1025_1 distinguishes | between modes selected by respondents for the post-election wave. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E1025_2 | | The Finnish study was conducted with face-to-face interviews. | However, after data collection, an error was discovered for | 288 respondents and it was realized that some answers are | missing. These respondents were asked the missing items in a | subsequent telephone interview. For more information, please | consult ELECTION STUDY NOTES for Finland (2019) for variable | E1007 (Sample Component). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2017): E1025_1 & E1025_2 | | All respondents in the British 2017 study were initially | interviewed face-to-face using computer-assisted personal | interviews (CAPI), as coded in E1025_1. | Some CSES questions were included in a supplementary, | self-completion questionnaire. Respondents had the option of | completing this section of the survey either via the internet or | a mail-back paper questionnaire. Variable E1025_2 distinguishes | respondents who filled this additional questionnaire component | online or using mail-back questionnaire. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2017): E1025_1 & E1025_2 | | The CSES sample of the Dutch 2017 election study is comprised of | two components: a face-to-face component and an online component | with respondents selected from an ongoing panel. Further, | respondents from both components received a main and a | supplementary questionnaire that was administered either as | mail or web questionnaire. E1025_1 refers to the mode of the | main questionnaire, while E1025_2 refers to the supplementary | questionnaire. | Respondents from the face-to-face component were provided with | the supplementary drop-off questionnaire upon completing the | main survey and asked to return it by mail. In a final attempt | to increase response rates, a small number of cases were | provided with a link to complete the supplementary questionnaire | online. Eight respondents in the sample made use of this | opportunity and are hence coded "5. INTERNET" in E1025_2. | All respondents from the online panel component completed the | supplementary questionnaire online. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016): E1027 | | For a small number of interviewers, the collaborators report | that due to technical difficulties such as tablet power failure | or system re-set, the interview shifted to a paper questionnaire | with the data inputted into the system at a later time. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): E1025_1 | | For the 2016 American National Election Study, respondents were | either interviewed face-to-face (CAPI) or on the internet. | Respondents were assigned to modes and did not switch modes in | between pre- and post-election interviews. | As questions assessing the respondent's gender (E2001) and | household income (E2010, E2011) were regarded as being sensitive, | respondents assigned to the face-to-face mode answered these | questions privately. For these questions, the respondent used the | interviewer's computer while the interviewer stepped away, such | that the screen was out of the interviewer's view. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E1025_1 | | In response to challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the | 2020 American National Election Study implemented a contactless, | sequential mixed-mode design. This design comprised self- | administered online surveys, live video interviews conducted | online and telephone interviews. | Sampling components for the 2020 study correspond to the survey | mode sequence employed. The 2,670 respondents that were sampled | for the 2016 study re-interviewed in 2020 all completed the | survey online. The remaining 4,779 respondents freshly sampled | in 2020 were randomly assigned to one of three groups: | One web-only group released in two replicates for the pre- | election survey, one mixed-web group in which non-responding or | refusing cases were shifted to the telephone, and a third mixed- | video group in which respondents were invited to complete the | survey by live video interview. Non-responding or refusing cases | in the third group were first pushed to web-interviews and | eventually to telephone at the end of the pre-election field | period. Respondents were assigned to modes and did not switch | modes in between pre- and post-election interviews. | For each respondent, E1025_1 provides the mode pre- and post- | election interviews were conducted in. The sampling components | described above are available in variable E1007 (Sampling | Component). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1026 >>> SELF-SELECTION INTO MODE OF INTERVIEW --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable distinguishes between studies where respondents were assigned to the study mode and those studies where different characteristics of respondents led to de-facto self-selection into a survey mode. The variable operates on the study level and is only applicable for mixed-mode studies. .................................................................. 0. NOT APPLICABLE 1. RESPONDENTS SELF-SELECTED INTO MODE 2. RESPONDENTS WERE ASSIGNED TO MODE, NO SELF-SELECTION 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E1026 | | Researchers are advised to have a look at section 6 of the | Codebook, "Study Designs and Weights", which provides more | information about the mode of interview and selection into mode | of interview for each election study. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): E1026 | | Respondents for the study were contacted and recruited via their | landline or mobile phone. They were offered to fill the | questionnaire online. For those without Internet access, or | those who are not comfortable completing surveys over the | Internet, there was an option to complete the survey by | telephone. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019): E1026 | | Respondents were offered to fill in the questionnaire online, or | to use the mail-back questionnaire. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019): E1026 | | Respondents were offered to fill in the questionnaire online, or | to use the mail-back questionnaire. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): E1026 | | For Greece (2015), respondents were approached via phone and | offered to fill out the online questionnaire, which would be | provided to them via e-mail. Respondents who did not have an | e-mail address or Internet access were offered a telephone | interview. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2018): E1026 | | For the Swedish 2018 study, respondents were initially contacted | via mail. All respondents then had the choice of participating | in the survey by filling out the paper questionnaire or filling | out the web survey online. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2019): E1026 | | All Swiss respondents were initially invited to fill the | questionnaire online. After that, those that did not participate | in the study received up to three reminders. Those who had not | filled in the online questionnaire by the time of the second | reminder received a paper questionnaire together with the second | reminder. Thus, for Swiss respondents, variable E1026 indicates | whether respondents had the chance to self-select into the | interview mode or not. This variable codes those respondents as | "1. Respondents self-selected into mode" who had not filled out | the online questionnaire by the date of reception of the paper | questionnaire because these respondents had the choice between | participating online or on paper. All respondents who filled out | the online questionnaire before receiving the second reminder, | did not have the choice to fill in the paper version and are | coded "2. Respondents were assigned to mode, no self-selection." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E1026 | | Upon initial refusal or non-response, parts of the fresh 2020 | sample were shifted to a different mode. These groups are | detailed in ELECTION STUDY NOTES for variables E1025_. | However, since cases were randomly assigned to mode conditions | and were shifted only upon refusal or non-response, E1026 is | coded "2. NO SELF-SELECTION" for the U.S. 2020 study. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1027 >>> DURATION OF INTERVIEW --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Duration of interview. .................................................................. 001-500. NUMBER OF MINUTES 99999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E1027 | | For a small number of cases, the duration of interview exceeds | the limit provided in the codes provided above. In most of these | cases, Election Study Notes provide further information about | why the duration of interviews was so long. | | Data are unavailable for AUSTRALIA (2019), AUSTRIA (2017), | CHILE (2017), COSTA RICA (2018), FRANCE (2017), GREAT BRITAIN | (2017), ICELAND (2016 & 2017), IRELAND (2016), ISRAEL (2020), | LITHUANIA (2016), SOUTH KOREA (2016), THAILAND (2019) and | TURKEY (2018). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019): E1027 | | Data for E1027 is only available for respondents who filled the | questionnaire online. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019): E1027 | | Data for E1027 is only available for respondents who filled the | questionnaire online. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2019): E1027 | | The 140 respondents that are coded missing in E1027 interrupted | the interview and finished it at a later date. | Collaborators note that they tracked the start and end times of | the interview for calculating E1027, such that deriving E1027 | for interrupted interviews that were completed at a different | day than the start date was not possible. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E1027 | | For the Finnish 2019 election study, the duration of about | 15 interviews is significantly longer than average. | Collaborators suggest that large values for E1027 (> 180 minutes) | might not reflect actual interview length, but might have | resulted from interviewers forgetting to close the session in | the CAPI-software after completion of the interview. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E1027 | | Due to minor technical difficulties during the data collection, | the interview duration could not be retrieved for a number of | respondents. These interviews are coded as missing. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E1027 | | There are four respondents for whom the interview duration | exceeds 1,000 minutes. These reflect potential technical | issues during the survey administration. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E1027 | | For the 2016 Montenegrin election study, the duration of about | 20 interviews is significantly longer than average. | According to the collaborators, large values for E1027 | (> 180 minutes) do not reflect actual interview length but may | occur because surveyors sometimes forgot to exit the application | used for data collection after the interview ended. | Additionally, there are four cases where the interview time was | not recorded due to technical difficulties. These cases are set | to missing. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017): E1027 | | Data on the duration of interviews could not be collected for | those respondents who were surveyed via mail. However, data | on the duration of interview exists for the respondents who | completed the survey online (about 14% of the sample). | There are six respondents for whom the interview duration | exceeds 1,000 minutes. These reflect potential technical | issues. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2020): E1027 | | Data for E1027 are only available for respondents who completed | the questionnaire online. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2017): E1027 | | The data on the duration of interviews refers to the time | that respondents needed to complete the survey online. | For some respondents, the start time and end time are on | different dates. In these cases, the duration is set to | missing. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2018): E1027 | | For the Swedish (2018) study, data on E1027 is only available | for the 887 respondents who filled the questionnaire online | (23.4 percent of the sample). | Respondents with unusually high values for E1027 are presumably | those respondents who did not fill in the questionnaire in one go | but took breaks when responding to the questions, leaving their | browser window open for days before hitting the "send"-button. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2019): E1027 | | For the Switzerland (2019) study, this variable is only | available for respondents who filled the questionnaire online. | The variable indicates the total amount of time (in minutes) | between the respondents' very first click when logging into the | online questionnaire to the very last click when submitting the | completed questionnaire. | Respondents were explicitly told that they do not have to fill | in the questionnaire in one go but could also take breaks and | resume the questionnaire later on. Swiss collaborators also sent | specific reminders for those respondents that had already | started the questionnaire but not answered all the questions yet | to tell them that they can easily continue from where they last | stopped filling the questionnaire. | Respondents with unusually high values for the E1027 variable | (i.e., 200 minutes or more) are presumably those respondents who | did not fill in the questionnaire in one go but took breaks when | responding to the questions or resumed the questionnaire after a | few days/weeks when they were reminded that they had not finished | the whole questionnaire yet. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016): E1027 | | For a small number of cases, the interview time does not exceed | 15 minutes. The collaborators note that these are a result of | technical difficulties during the interview, such as tablet | power failure or unexpected system shutdown. In these situations | interviewer shifted to a paper questionnaire to collect data and | then put in the collected data later in the system. These rare | occasions are the reason why the duration of the interview was | less than 15 minutes for some cases. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E1027 | | For the U.S. 2020 study, interview length was calculated by | question-level interview session and audit trail data. | Collaborators note that in some instances, the source data | provided by the vendor did not contain complete records for all | interview cases, such that the interview length could be very | short in some cases. Specifically, there are several cases where | the vendor's system failed to record part of the interview | session timing data. | Users are advised that missing question-level timing data could | mean either that the respondent was intentionally not asked the | question or that the system failed to record the timing of the | variable due to a system error or similar. Further, an | unrealistically short response time could have been recorded in | certain branching questions by the data collection vendor's | system reloading the survey screen. | Hence, providing an estimate on the case-level of how many | respondents are affected would be misleading. The portion of | records that are incomplete varies - it might be one question | missing, or many. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1028 >>> INTERVIEWER ID WITHIN ELECTION STUDY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A02. Interviewer identification variable, within election study. .................................................................. 00000-999998. INTERVIEWER IDENTIFIER 999999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E1028 | | This variable uniquely identifies an interviewer within an | election study. It is not unique across the entire dataset. | | Data are unavailable for AUSTRALIA (2019), BELGIUM-FLANDERS | (2019), BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019), CHILE (2017), DENMARK (2019), | GREAT BRITAIN (2017), GREECE (2015), HUNGARY (2018), ICELAND | (2016 & 2017), NETHERLANDS (2017), NEW ZEALAND (2017 & 2020), | NORWAY (2017), PORTUGAL (2019), SWEDEN (2018) and | SWITZERLAND (2019). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2017): E1028 | | The survey institute conducting the French election study did | not assign ID-codes to interviewers. Collaborators created | interviewer IDs ex-post by using the Primary Sampling Units | (electoral districts for lower house elections) that were | available in the original file. IDs were assigned if the | variance of Interviewer experience was equal to 0 within a | PSU. Those for whom this was not the case were deemed missing | (corresponding to four PSUs). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): E1028 | | The deposited dataset contained an interviewer ID variable in | string format. Specifically, each interviewer ID started with | the acronym "ANES", followed by a four-digit number. | For the CSES Module 5 dataset, only the digits from the original | interviewer ID were kept. Furthermore, in case the four-digit | code started with one or several zeros, these zeros were | dropped. | Recoding was realized in Stata 14.2 using the following commands: | | gen E1028a = V168301 | gen E1028b = substr(E1028a, 5, 8) /// | if E1028a != "-1. INAP, web interview" | gen E1028 = real(E1028b) | recode E1028 (. = 999999) | drop E1028a E1028b | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E1028 | | The deposited dataset contained an interviewer ID variable in | string format. Specifically, each interviewer ID started with | "DC", followed by a four-digit number. | For the CSES Module 5 dataset, only the digits from the original | interviewer IDs were kept. Furthermore, in case the four-digit | code started with a zero, the zero was dropped. | Recoding was realized in Stata 16.1 using the following commands: | | gen E1028a = V203410 | replace E1028a = "999999" if V203410 == "-1. Inapplicable" | replace E1028a = substr(V203410, 3, 4) /// | if V203410 != "-1. Inapplicable" | gen E1028 = real(E1028a) | drop E1028a --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1029 >>> INTERVIEWER GENDER --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A03. Gender of interviewer. .................................................................. 1. MALE 2. FEMALE 5. OTHER 9. MISSING | VARIABLES NOTES: E1029 | | Data are unavailable for AUSTRALIA (2019), BELGIUM-FLANDERS | (2019), BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019), DENMARK (2019), GERMANY (2017), | GREAT BRITAIN (2017), GREECE (2015), HUNGARY (2018), IRELAND | (2016), NETHERLANDS (2017), NEW ZEALAND (2017 & 2020), NORWAY | (2017), PORTUGAL (2019), SWEDEN (2018) and SWITZERLAND (2019). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1030 >>> DAYS FIELDWORK STARTED POST ELECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of days after the election fieldwork started. .................................................................. 001.-900. NUMBER OF DAYS 999. MISSING | VARIABLES NOTES: E1030 | | 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1031 >>> DURATION OF FIELDWORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Duration of fieldwork. .................................................................. 001-900. NUMBER OF DAYS 999. MISSING | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2017): E1031 | | The Japanese 2017 study conducted an initial face-to-face | segment, from January 12, 2018 to February 1, 2018. Respondents | who could not be reached in this initial segment of interviewing | received a copy of the questionnaire, mailed out to them on | February 14, 2018. Respondents were asked to complete the survey | and return it via post. These mail-back surveys were postmarked | from February 20, 2018 to March 13, 2018. This variable counts | the duration of fieldwork as number of days between face-to-face | starting and the date when the mail-back component was completed. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1032 >>> DATE QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTERED - MONTH E1033 >>> DATE QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTERED - DAY E1034 >>> DATE QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTERED - YEAR --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A04.a-c. Date questionnaire administered. .................................................................. MONTH 01. JANUARY 02. FEBRUARY 03. MARCH 04. APRIL 05. MAY 06. JUNE 07. JULY 08. AUGUST 09. SEPTEMBER 10. OCTOBER 11. NOVEMBER 12. DECEMBER 99. MISSING DAY 01-31. DAY OF MONTH 99. MISSING YEAR 2015-2021. YEAR 9999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E1032-E1034 | | Election study VARIABLE NOTES on E1032-E1034 reflect the period | of interviewing according to the corresponding Design Report, | available at http://www.cses.org. | | In some cases the current dates of interviewing, coded in E1032- | E1034, differ from the field period mentioned in the Design | Reports. | | Data for E1033 are unavailable for FINLAND (2019). | | +++ TABLE: DATES OF FIELDWORK BY POLITY | | POLITY (ELEC YR) Fieldwork Begins Fieldwork Ends | ----------------------------------------------------------- | AUSTRALIA (2019) Jun 03, 2019 Jun 19, 2019 | AUSTRIA (2017) Oct 19, 2017 Nov 30, 2017 | BEL-FLANDERS (2019) May 24, 2019 Sep 24, 2019 | BEL-WALLONIA (2019) May 29, 2019 Sep 24, 2019 | BRAZIL (2018) Nov 11, 2018 Nov 24, 2018 | CANADA (2019) Oct 22, 2019 Nov 21, 2019 | CHILE (2017) Dec 18, 2017 Jan 31, 2018 | COSTA RICA (2018) Feb 27, 2019 Mar 06, 2019 | DENMARK (2019) Jun 06, 2019 Sep 28, 2019 | FINLAND (2019) Apr 17, 2019 Oct 05, 2019 | FRANCE (2017) May 09, 2017 May 23, 2017 | GERMANY (2017) Sep 25, 2017 Nov 30, 2017 | GREAT BRITAIN (2017) Jun 26, 2017 Oct 02, 2017 | GREECE (2015) Nov 16, 2015 Feb 29, 2016 | HONG KONG (2016) Sep 06, 2016 Sep 18, 2016 | HUNGARY (2018) Apr 23, 2018 May 05, 2018 | ICELAND (2016) Oct 30, 2016 Jan 25, 2017 | ICELAND (2017) Oct 30, 2017 Feb 02, 2018 | IRELAND (2016) Mar 01, 2016 Mar 06, 2016 | ISRAEL (2020) Jun 07, 2020 Aug 06, 2020 | ITALY (2018) Mar 08, 2018 May 02, 2018 | JAPAN (2017) Jan 12, 2018 Mar 13, 2018 | LITHUANIA (2016) Nov 11, 2016 Dec 10, 2016 | MONTENEGRO (2016) Dec 08, 2016 Jan 16, 2017 | NETHERLANDS (2017) Mar 16, 2017 Jul 04, 2017 | NEW ZEALAND (2017) Sep 26, 2017 Feb 28, 2018 | NEW ZEALAND (2020) Oct 21, 2020 May 01, 2021 | NORWAY (2017) Sep 20, 2017 Oct 16, 2017 | PORTUGAL (2019) Oct 12, 2019 Dec 15, 2019 | SLOVAKIA (2020) Jun 09, 2020 Aug 31, 2020 | SOUTH KOREA (2016) Apr 14, 2016 Apr 23, 2016 | SWEDEN (2018) Sep 10, 2018 Nov 06, 2018 | SWITZERLAND (2019) Oct 21, 2019 Jan 05, 2020 | TAIWAN (2016) Jan 17, 2016 Apr 21, 2016 | TAIWAN (2020) Jan 13, 2020 May 30, 2020 | THAILAND (2019) Apr 25, 2019 Jun 05, 2019 | TUNISIA (2019) Jul 18, 2020 Jul 30, 2020 | TURKEY (2018) Jul 23, 2018 Sep 09, 2018 | UNITED STATES (2016) SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES BELOW | UNITED STATES (2020) SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES BELOW | URUGUAY (2019) Jan 28, 2020 Feb 27, 2020 | ------------------------------------------------------------- | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E1032 | | According to data available for the E1032 variable, the last | interview for the Finnish study was conducted in July 2019. | However, after the data collection, it was realized that due to | a programming error 288 respondents were not asked several items | from the questionnaire. These respondents were approached again | afterwards in the second round of data collection, which ended on | October 5, 2019. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2017): E1032-E1034 | | The post-election interviewing started on June 26, 2017, but | the first interview (E1032, E1033, E1034) was conducted on | June 28, 2017. Those dates differ because the start date | originates from the whole British Election Survey sample but | the person interviewed on June 26, 2017, did not take the CSES | module. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2018): E1032-E1033 | | The original dataset includes one respondent from the mail-back | component who stated to have been interviewed on September 7, | 2018, two days before the Swedish 2018 election. E1032 - E1033 | have been recoded to missing for that respondent, as the reason | for the early date of interview is unknown. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): E1032-E1034 | | The survey was administered between November 9, 2016, and | January 9, 2017. For demographic variables as well as for | respondents who had voted early, the CSES includes questions of | the pre-election questionnaire, administered between | September 7 and November 8, 2016. | Respondents were asked in the pre-election survey whether they | voted early. Respondents who affirmed this were asked the | questions about their voting behavior (E3012_PR_1-E3013_UH_DC) | already in the pre-election survey. All other respondents were | asked the questions about their voting behavior in the post- | election part of the survey. Early voters are indicated as | belonging to a different sample component in variable E1007. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E1032-E1034 | | The post-election survey was administered between November 8, | 2020, and January 4, 2021. For demographic variables as well as | for respondents who had voted early, the CSES includes questions | from the pre-election questionnaire, administered between | August 18 and November 3, 2020. | Respondents were asked in the pre-election survey whether they | voted early. Respondents who affirmed this were asked the | questions about their voting behavior (E3012_PR_1-E3013_UH_DC) | already in the pre-election survey. All other respondents were | asked the questions about their voting behavior in the post- | election part of the survey. Early voters are indicated as | belonging to a different sample component in variable E1007. | E1032 - E1034 indicate the start date for each interview. | 1,548 respondents (20.8% of post-election interviews) completed | the interview on a later date than the start date. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1035_1 >>> DAYS INTERVIEW CONDUCTED POST FIRST ROUND OF ELECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of days after the election interview conducted. .................................................................. 001.-900. NUMBER OF DAYS 9995. NOT ASCERTAINED 9999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E1035_1 | | If the election was held on more than one day or involved | multiple rounds, this variable reports the number of days | from the first day of the election and/or the first round. | | Data are unavailable for FINLAND (2019). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2018): E1035_1 | | One respondent from the mail-back component stated to have been | interviewed on September 7, 2018, two days before the Swedish | 2018 election. As there is no explanation for this irregularity, | E1035 has been recoded to 9995. NOT ASCERTAINED for the affected | respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1035_2 >>> DAYS INTERVIEW CONDUCTED POST SECOND ROUND OF ELECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of days after the election interview conducted. .................................................................. 001.-900. NUMBER OF DAYS 9995. NOT ASCERTAINED 9996. NOT APPLICABLE: NO SECOND ROUND 9999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E1035_2 | | 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 of the second round. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1036 >>> LANGUAGE OF QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTRATION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A06. Language of questionnaire administration. .................................................................. 001. AFRIKAANS 002. ALBANIAN, ARVANITIKA 003. ALBANIAN, GHEG 004. ALBANIAN, TOSK 005. ALLEMANNISCH 006. ALSATIAN 007. ARABIC, JUDEO-MOROCCAN 008. ARABIC, LEVANTINE (ISRAEL) 009. ARMENIAN 201. ASHANTI (GHANA) 237. ASYRIAN 010. AVAR (RUSSIA) 011. AWADHI (INDIA) 012. AYMARA, CENTRAL (ARGENTINA, PERU) 231. AZERI 013. BASQUE 234. BALKAR 014. BELORUSSIAN 015. BEMBA (ZAMBIA) 016. BENGALI, BANGLADESHI, BANGLA (INDIA) 017. BHOJPURI (INDIA) 244. BICOLANO (PHILIPPINES) 265. BISAYA (PHILIPPINES) 270. B'LAAN (PHILIPPINES) 202. BLUCH (PAKISTAN) 263. BOHOLANO (PHILIPPINES) 018. BOSNIAN 019. BRETON 020. BULGARIAN 260. CAGAYANO (PHILIPPINES) 258. CANTILAGNON (PHILIPPINES) 273. CAPIZNON (PHILIPPINES) 021. CATALAN 241. CEBUANO (PHILIPPINES) 276. CENTRAL THAI 022. CHECHEN (RUSSIA) 203. CHINESE, CANTONESE 023. CHINESE, HAKKA 024. CHINESE, MANDARIN 025. CHINESE, MIN NAN 026. CHUVASH (RUSSIA) 027. CROATIAN 028. CZECH 029. DANISH 030. DECCAN (INDIA) 204. DORIC (SCOTLAND) 031. DUTCH 032. ENGLISH 033. ERZYA (RUSSIA) 205. ESAN (NIGERIA) 034. ESTONIAN 206. EWE (GHANA) 209. FARSI (IRAN) 035. FINNISH 036. FRENCH 037. FRISIAN, WESTERN (NETHERLANDS) 038. FULACUNDA (SENEGAL) 207. GA (GHANA) 039. GAELIC, IRISH 208. GAELIC (SCOTLAND) 040. GAGAUZ (MOLDOVA) 041. GALICIAN 042. GASCON 043. GEORGIAN 044. GERMAN, STANDARD 045. GREEK 046. GUARANI, PARAGUAYAN 047. GUJARATI (SOUTH AFRICA, INDIA) 048. HEBREW 266. HIGAONON (PHILIPPINES) 274. HILIGAYNON (PHILIPPINES) 049. HUNGARIAN 051. HINDI 050. ICELANDIC 259. IFUGAO (PHILIPPINES) 242. ILOCANO (PHILIPPINES) 243. ILONGGO (PHILIPPINES) 210. INDONESIAN 211. IRANIAN 254. IRANUN (PHILIPPINES) 278. ISAN THAI 052. ITALIAN 249. ITAWES (PHILIPPINES) 212. IWO (UGANDA) 053. JAKATI (MOLDOVA) 213. JAMAICAN PATOIS 275. JAMINDANON (PHILIPPINES) 054. JAPANESE 280. KAMAE (THAILAND) 257. KAMAYO (PHILIPPINES) 055. KANNADA (INDIA) 056. KAONDE (ZAMBIA) 245. KAPAMPANGAN (PHILIPPINES) 057. KARAIM (LITHUANIA) 261. KARAY-AY (PHILIPPINES) 233. KARBADIN 058. KIRMANJKI (TURKEY) 235. KOMI 279. KORATCH (THAILAND) 066. KOREAN 232. KURDISH 059. KURMANJI (TURKEY) 060. LADINO (ISRAEL) 061. LALA-BISA (ZAMBIA) 062. LAMBA (ZAMBIA) 277. LANNA THAI 063. LATVIAN 064. LENJE (ZAMBIA) 065. LESSER ANTILLEAN CREOLE 268. LEYTENO (PHILIPPINES) 067. LIGURIAN 068. LITHUANIAN 069. LOMBARD 070. LOZI (ZAMBIA) 071. LUNDA (ZAMBIA) 072. LUVALE (ZAMBIA) 073. MACEDONIAN 251. MAGUINDANAON (PHILIPPINES) 074. MAITHILI (INDIA) 229. MALLORQUIN 267. MALAUEG (PHILIPPINES) 075. MALAY 076. MALAYALAM (INDIA) 077. MALINKE (SENEGAL) 214. MALTESE 253. MANOBO (PHILIPPINES) 250. MASBATENO (PHILIPPINES) 215. MENDE (SIERRA LEONE) 216. MIRPUARY/MIRPUIR (PAKISTAN) 217. MNADINGGO (GAMBIA) 078. MAMBWE-LUNGU (ZAMBIA) 079. MANDINKA (SENEGAL) 080. MAORI 081. MAPUDUNGUN (CHILE) 082. MARATHI (INDIA) 083. MBOWE (ZAMBIA) 084. MINGRELIAN (GEORGIA) 085. MONTENEGRIN 255. MUSLIM (PHILIPPINES) 086. MWANGA (ZAMBIA) 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] 996. OTHER: NOT SPECIFIED 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E1036 | | Coding of E1036 follows the scheme of E2019 (language usually | spoken at home). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E1036 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 980. Putonghua | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E1036 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 980. Hill tribe language | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016 & 2020): E1036 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 980. Taiwanese | 981. Mandarin and Taiwanese | 982. Mandarin and Hakka | 983. Taiwanese and Hakka | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TUNISIA (2019): E1036 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 980. Tunisian dialect | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016 & 2020): E1036 | | Ten respondents in 2016 and seven respondents in the 2020 study | switched languages between the pre- and the post-election survey | from either English to Spanish or vice versa. These respondents | were coded 980 in E1036. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 980. Language of questionnaire administration | switched between pre- and post-election | interview --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1037 >>> QUESTIONNAIRE VERSION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version of the CSES Module 5 questionnaire that was fielded. .................................................................. 1. PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE 2. FINALIZED QUESTIONNAIRE | VARIABLE NOTES: E1037 | | Studies included in the CSES Module 5 fielded one of two | versions of the CSES questionnaire. The pilot questionnaire | was fielded among pre-test studies and in cases where national | election studies were administered prior to the finalization of | the CSES Module 5 questionnaire in September of 2016. All other | studies fielded the finalized version. | The differences between the two versions are documented | in the VARIABLE NOTES, applicable to variables E2008, E2012, | E3004_, E3005_, E3006_, E3008_, and E3016_1. Users are advised | to consult the VARIABLE NOTES of these variables for further | information. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E1038 >>> STUDY TIMING WITH RESPECT TO COVID-19 PANDEMIC --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Timing of election/study relative to COVID-19 pandemic. .................................................................. 0. ELECTION/STUDY CONDUCTED ENTIRELY BEFORE COVID-19 PANDEMIC 1. ELECTION/STUDY CONDUCTED BEFORE & DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC 2. ELECTION/STUDY CONDUCTED ENTIRELY DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC | VARIABLE NOTES: E1038 | | A pandemic is an epidemic of infectious disease that has spread | across a large region or multiple or worldwide and affecting a | substantial number of individuals. | | At the time of writing, COVID-19 was first discovered in November | 2019. However, it is possible human-to-human transmission of the | disease was occurring before this discovery. On January 11, 2020 | the World Health Organization (WHO) was notified by Chinese | authorities of a virus outbreak in Wuhan, China. On January 30, | 2020, the World Health Organization classified COVID-19 as a | Public Health Emergency of Concern before eventually declaring | the Health situation as a pandemic on March 11, 2020. | | An election (or election study) is classified as taking place | during the COVID-19 pandemic if the election itself took place | and/or the entire study fieldwork was administered on or after | March 11, 2020 to December 31, 2021, the end of the | CSES Module 5 fieldwork. March 11, 2020 is the day on which | the World Health Organization (WHO) officially classified the | COVID-19 Health Crisis as a pandemic. | An election (or election study) is classified as taking place | entirely pre the COVID-19 pandemic if the election was held and | the election study fieldwork was completed before March 11, 2020. | An election which took place before March 11, 2020 but in which | the fieldwork took place both before and/or after March 11, 2020 | is classified as an election taking place both pre and during the | COVID-19 pandemic. | | Source: World Health Organization (WHO) | https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/health-emergencies/ | coronavirus-covid-19/novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov | (Date accessed: January 11, 2022). =========================================================================== ))) CSES MODULE 5 VARIABLES: MICRO-LEVEL (SURVEY) DATA DEMOGRAPHIC DATA =========================================================================== | Users should note that the CSES questionnaire of origin | does not include any filter instructions in the demographic | section. | | The use of filter instructions/variables in the demographic | section follows primary researchers' applications. Where they | appear, an election study note will inform on their use and | function. | | For several variables, instructions for the administration of | the CSES Questionnaire were given. See >>> CSES MODULE 5 | COLLABORATOR INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE | CSES QUESTIONNAIRE, in Part 1 of the Codebook. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E2001_M >>> DATE OF BIRTH OF RESPONDENT - MONTH E2001_Y >>> DATE OF BIRTH OF RESPONDENT - YEAR --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D01.a-b. Date of birth of respondent. .................................................................. MONTH 01. JANUARY 02. FEBRUARY 03. MARCH 04. APRIL 05. MAY 06. JUNE 07. JULY 08. AUGUST 09. SEPTEMBER 10. OCTOBER 11. NOVEMBER 12. DECEMBER 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING YEAR 1800-2021. YEAR 9997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 9998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E2001_ | | Data for E2001_M are unavailable for AUSTRALIA (2019), | BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019), BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019), FINLAND (2019), | GREAT BRITAIN (2017), HONG KONG (2016), ITALY (2018), NETHERLANDS | (2017), NORWAY (2017), SLOVAKIA (2020), SOUTH KOREA (2018), | SWEDEN (2018), SWITZERLAND (2019), TAIWAN (2016), UNITED STATES | (2016) and UNITED STATES (2020). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): E2001_Y | | Respondents were not asked their year and month of birth, but | their age as of June 30, 2019. The variable represents the | calculated year of birth, using the year of the interview and | the age of the respondent. For persons whose birthday was | after the interview, the year of birth will hence be incorrect. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2019): E2001_Y | | This variable is from the pre-election survey. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2017): E2001_Y | | There are two respondents born in 2000, meaning that they were 17 | at the time of election and interview for the Chilean study, and | thus neither eligible to vote nor to participate in the study. | Data remain unchanged in the dataset. Chilean collaborators note | that this is most likely a typo. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - COSTA RICA (2018): E2001_Y | | For 28 respondents, the year of birth is missing. The | eligibility of those 28 respondents is therefore unknown. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E2001_Y | | There is one respondent born in 2002, meaning that she was 17 at | the time of election and interview for the Finnish study, and | thus not eligible to vote nor to participate in the study. Data | remain unchanged in the dataset. Finnish collaborators note that | this is most likely a typo by the surveyor, and this respondent | was most likely born in 2001. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E2001_Y | | The Hong Kong Election Study asked for age rather than | Month/Year of birth. E2001_Y was approximated by subtracting | respondents' age at the time of the interview from 2016. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2017): E2001_Y | | The Norwegian Election Study asked for age rather than | Month/Year of birth. E2001_Y was approximated by subtracting | respondents' age at the time of the interview from 2017. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E2001_Y | | For 153 respondents, the year of birth is missing. The | eligibility of those 153 respondents is therefore unknown. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): E2001_Y | | Respondents who were 90 years or older at the time of the | interview, that is, all respondents born in 1926 or earlier, are | coded as 1926 (N = 22). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E2001_Y | | The ANES 2020 Time Series study does not disclose respondents' | year and month of birth, but their age as of election day. | E2001_Y was approximated by subtracting respondents' age from | 2020. Respondents who were 80 years or older at the time of the | election, that is, all respondents born before November 3, 1940, | are coded as 1940 (N = 359). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E2002 >>> GENDER --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D02. Gender of Respondent. .................................................................. 1. MALE 2. FEMALE 3. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): E2002 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 03. Other | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2019): E2002 | | This variable is from the pre-election survey. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 03. Other | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E2002 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 03. Other | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E2002 | | The respondent's gender was not posed as a question but assessed | by the interviewer. Gender was assessed as a binary variable, | such that a third option was not included in the questionnaire. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017 & 2020): E2002 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 03. Gender diverse | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2020): E2002 | | The fieldwork agency for the Slovakian study notes that female | respondents participated in significantly higher numbers in the | survey than male respondents, especially in smaller communities. | This led to a distorted distribution of the gender variable for | the Slovakian study. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): E2002 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 03. Other --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E2003 >>> EDUCATION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D03. Education of respondent. .................................................................. 01. ISCED LEVEL 0 - EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 02. ISCED LEVEL 1 - PRIMARY 03. ISCED LEVEL 2 - LOWER SECONDARY 04. ISCED LEVEL 3 - UPPER SECONDARY 05. ISCED LEVEL 4 - POST-SECONDARY NON-TERTIARY 06. ISCED LEVEL 5 - SHORT-CYCLE TERTIARY 07. ISCED LEVEL 6 - BACHELOR OR EQUIVALENT 08. ISCED LEVEL 7 - MASTER OR EQUIVALENT 09. ISCED LEVEL 8 - DOCTORAL OR EQUIVALENT 96. NONE (NO EDUCATION) 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E2003 | | The presented categories base on International Standard | Classification of Education (ISCED 2011), provided by the | UNESCO. An English-language description of the ISCED 2011 | standard can be found here: | http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Documents/ISCED_2011_EN.pdf | (Date accessed: April 5, 2019) | | Unless specified otherwise in the Election Study Notes, studies | included the original ISCED 2011 scale in their questionnaires | to measure respondents' education. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): E2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 03. Certificate I and II level | Secondary education, years 9 and below | 04. Secondary education, years 10 and 11 | Secondary education, year 12 | 05. Certificate III and IV level | 06. Advance Diploma and Diploma level | 07. Bachelor diploma level | Graduate diploma and graduate certificate level | 08. Post-graduate degree level | 96. Did not go to school | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): E2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Did not complete any school | 02. Elementary school or lower | 03. Secondary school, new secondary school, or lower | grade grammar school (AHS) | Special Needs School | Polytechnic | 04. Apprenticeship, vocational school | Vocational School (e.g. HASCH) | Grammar School with Higher Education Entrance | Qualification (Matura) | Higher Vocational School with Higher Education | Entrance Qualification (Matura) | 06. Academy | College | 07. Bachelor | 08. Master | 09. Ph.D./Doctoral | 96. Did not attend any school | 99. Other | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019): E2003 | | Respondents' highest educational attainment was asked in | accordance with ISCED scale, used by CSES for E2003. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019): E2003 | | Respondents' highest educational attainment was asked in | accordance with ISCED scale, used by CSES for E2003. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Basic 1 incomplete (up to 3rd grade) | 02. Basic 1 complete (4th grade) | Basic 2 incomplete (7th grade) | 03. Basic 2 complete (8th grade) | High school incomplete (2nd grade) | 04. High school complete (3rd grade) | Undergraduate incomplete or technical | incomplete | 07. Undergraduate | 08. Graduate or more | 96. Illiterate/ Never been to school | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2019): E2003 | | This variable is from the pre-election survey. It was | differently coded in the original study. The original values | were recoded as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Some elementary school | 02. Completed elementary school | 03. Some secondary/high school | 04. Completed secondary/high school | Some technical, community college, CEGEP, | College Classique | Some university | 06. Completed technical, community college, CEGEP, | College Classique | 07. Bachelor's degree | 08. Master's degree | 09. Professional degree or doctorate | 96. No schooling | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - COSTA RICA (2018): E2003 | | The 2018 Costa Rican measure of education deviates somewhat | from the conventional ISCED standards and does not make the | differentiation of lower and upper secondary education. | Respondents who reported secondary education are coded as | "03. ISCED LEVEL 2 - LOWER SECONDARY". | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |------------------------------------------------------------ | 01. Unschooled or primary school not completed | 02. Primary school | 03. Secondary school | 07. Bachelor degree; University degree (Licenciatura | Universitaria) | 08. Master degree | 09. Doctorate | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2019): E2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 02. Primary school (up to and including 6th grade) | 03. Primary school (7th-10th grade) | 04. General upper secondary education (e.g. HF, | upper secondary school leaving examination) | Vocational high school education (e.g. HTX, HHX) | Vocational training (e.g., EUD, SOSU, trade and | office, construction or agricultural education) | 05. Short-cycle higher education (under three years, | e.g. laboratory technician, dental hygienist) | 07. Medium-term higher education (3 to 4 years, e.g. | bachelor, HD, HA, nurse or teacher) | 08. Long-term higher education (5 years or more, e.g. | master's degree or MBA) | 09. Researcher education (e.g. Ph.d.) | 96. No education | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 02. Primary education | 03. Lower secondary education | 04. Short vocational training | (vocational school or course) | College level vocational education | (post-secondary) | Upper secondary education (general) | 07. Polytechnic degree or equivalent | 08. University degree (Bachelor or Master) | 09. Doctoral degree or equivalent | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2017): E2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |------------------------------------------------------------ | 01. Unschooled or primary school not completed | 02. Primary school only | Primary school certificate | 03. Schooling from 6th to 9th grade | Middle school certificate (Brevet elementaire, | Brevet d'etudes du premier cycle, Brevet des | colleges) | 04. Schooling from 10th to 12th grade | CAP, BEP, completed an apprenticeship | Diploma as a caregiver, childcare assistant | or medical assistant | Professional baccalaureate | Technical Baccalaureate (BEA, BEC, BEI, BES) | General baccalaureate | 06. Diploma granting access to university (DAEU) | General Academic Studies Degree (DEUG), | Preparatory classes for the Grandes Ecoles | Professional certificates in the fields of | social work, pedagogy, and education | Technological university diploma (DUT) | Paramedical diploma (laboratory assistant, | nurse, etc.) | 07. Professional degree (licence professionnelle) | Three-year academic degree (licence) | 08. Engineer's degree | DESS, professional master's degree | Various higher professional qualifications | (notary, architect, journalist,...) | Grandes Ecoles diploma | Maitrise, CAPES, CRPE | DEA, DES, research master, Agregation (competitive | examination for high school teachers) | 09. Doctorate in medicine or equivalent (dentistry, | pharmacy,...) | Doctorate | 99. Others | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E2003 | | For Germany 2017, collaborators assigned ISCED codes based on | two survey questions, one covering general schooling and the | other one covering vocational training. In two instances, the | survey instruments used by the German Election Study allowed a | match to more than one ISCED level. Specifically, respondents | with a master craftsman's or a technician's diploma were coded | to ISCED level 6, although they might have been coded into ISCED | level 5. Likewise, respondents without a school diploma or lower | secondary schooling who obtained a vocational school diploma | (Berufsfachschule) were coded into ISCED level 3, although they | could have also been coded into ISCED level 4. | Respondents who were still attending school at the time of the | interview were coded as missing, as were respondents who stated | to have a school or vocational training diploma other than those | specified in the given answer categories. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 02. Neither school diploma nor completed vocational | training; | No school diploma, but internship or traineeship | 03. No school diploma, but certified training | on-the-job or vocational training program | (no full apprenticeship); | Lower secondary schooling only; | Lower secondary schooling with an internship, | traineeship, certified training on-the-job or | vocational training program | (no full apprenticeship); | 04. No school diploma or lower secondary schooling | and vocational school diploma (without dual | system completed); | No school diploma or lower secondary schooling | and apprenticeship in agriculture, industry or | commerce (dual system); | Upper secondary schooling only; | Upper secondary schooling with an internship, | traineeship, certified training on-the-job or | vocational training program | (no full apprenticeship); | 05. No school diploma or lower secondary schooling | and vocational school diploma (with a dual system | completed); | Upper secondary schooling and vocational school | diploma; | Upper secondary schooling and apprenticeship in | agriculture, industry or commerce (dual system) | Vocational college diploma (Fachschule), without | dual system completed | 07. Vocational academy diploma (Fach/Berufsakademie); | Dual system completed and vocational college | diploma (Fachschule); | Master craftsman's diploma (Meister) or | technician's diploma; | Degree from a University of Applied Sciences; | Bachelor's degree | 08. Master's degree or equivalent | 09. Doctorate | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2017): E2003 | | E2003 was differently coded in the original study. The original | values were recoded as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 02. Completed elementary school | 03. GCSE D-G, CSE grades 2-5, O level D-E | City & Guilds level 1, NVQ/ SVQ 1 and equivalent | Clerical and commercial qualifications | Recognized trade apprenticeship | 04. ONC/OND, City & Guilds level 3, NVQ/SVQ 3 | GCSE A*-C, CSE grade 1, O level grade A-C | Scottish Standard grades, Ordinary bands | City & Guilds level 2, NVQ/ SVQ 2 and equivalent | 05. A level or equivalent | Scottish Higher or equivalent | 06. Univ/poly diploma | Teaching qualification | Nursing qualification | HNC/ HND, City & Guilds level 4, NVQ/SVQ 4/5 | College Classique | 07. First degree | 08. Postgraduate degree | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E2003 | | Respondents' highest educational attainment was asked in | accordance with ISCED 11. Four respondents stated to have | another education level. They were set to missing. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 99. Others (not further specified) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2016 & 2017): E2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 02. Primary education | 03. Lower secondary education, 2 years | Paramedic | Certificate for working in the fish industry; | processing | Certificate for employers in post or banks or | secretaries | The police academy | House duties | Certificate in cooking (not chef) | Commercial driver's license and equivalent | Other short courses for commerce - not trade | Certificate in commerce for retail and wholesale | The co-op's high school | Certificate in gardening, agriculture | Technical drawing (Taekniteiknun) | 04. High school | Old; teacher certificate | Old; nurse certificate | Old; midwife | 05. Vocational training in trade finished with a | certificate | Vocational training in trade, license to instruct | Certificate for deputy captains for freight and | charters, engine managers | Commercial pilot licenses, airline transport | license | Old; certification in the making of telephones | 06. Diploma, university level | 07. BA, BS-degree or equivalent | 08. MA, MSc-degree or equivalent | 09. PhD or equivalent | 99. Other, not enough information to categorize | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2017): E2003 | | The education variable for the Japanese study is composed of two | questions from the national election study. The first question | asked about the last level of education a respondent attended or | is attending. The second question asked if the respondent | graduated from that level, withdrew or is still attending. These | questions are recoded in the following way to match ISCED scale: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 03. Graduated Middle school (including ordinary and | higher primary school under the pre-1947 system) | Withdrew High school (including middle school, | girls' high school, and vocational school under | the pre-1947 system) | 04. Graduated High school (including middle school, | girls' high school, and vocational school under | the pre-1947 system) | Withdrew Technical college or junior college | (including high school, normal school, and higher | normal school under the pre-1947 system) | Withdrew Specialized training college | Withdrew Four-year college | 05. Graduated Specialized training college | 06. Graduated Technical college or junior college | (including high school, normal school, and higher | normal school under the pre-1947 system) | 07. Graduated Four-year college | Withdrew Graduate school master's degree program | 08. Graduated Graduate school master's degree program | Withdrew Graduate school doctoral degree program | 09. Graduated Graduate school doctoral degree program | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2017): E2003 | | After consultation with collaborators, respondents with an MBO | degree were classified as "ISCED LEVEL 4 - POST-SECONDARY | NON-TERTIARY". Collaborators note that a completed secondary | education is an entry requirement for MBO programs. | Further, respondents with an HBO degree were coded as "ISCED | LEVEL 6 - BACHELOR OR EQUIVALENT". HBO's resemble universities | of applied science, and they award bachelor's degrees as a | diploma. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 02. Elementary/primary school | 03. Secondary lower vocational (e.g., VMBO-B, VMBO-K, | praktijkonderwijs, VGLO, LAVO, LTS, | Huishoudschool); | Secondary higher vocational (e.g., VMBO-T, MAVO, | MULO, 3-jarige HBS) | 04. Higher secondary (i.e., HAVO, VWO, HBS, | Gymnasium, Atheneum) | 05. Tertiary vocational (i.e., MBO, MTS) | 07. University Bachelor | Tertiary higher vocational (i.e., HBO, HTS, HEAO, | Kweekschool, Sociale of Pedagogische Academie) | 08. University Master | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017): E2003 | | For New Zealand 2017, collaborators assigned ISCED codes based | on two survey questions, one covering the highest secondary | school qualification and the other one covering any post- | secondary school qualifications. | In one instance, the survey instruments used by the New Zealand | Election Study allowed a match to more than one ISCED level. | Specifically, respondents with a tertiary degree at institute, | polytechnic or Wananga were coded to ISCED level 5, although | they might have been coded into ISCED level 6. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 02. No secondary qualification | 03. NZ School Certificate in one or more subjects or | National Certificate level 1 | 04. NZ Sixth Form Certificate in one or more | subjects or National Certificate level 2; | NZ UE before 1986 in one or more subjects; | NZ Higher School Certificate or Higher Leaving | Certificate; | University Entrance Qualification from NZ | University Bursary; | NZ A or B Bursary, Scholarship, or National | Certificate level 3; | Another secondary school qualification gained in | New Zealand; | Another secondary school qualification gained | overseas; | 05. National Certificate level 4 or other non-degree | qualification; Tertiary Degree at Institute, | Polytechnic or Wananga | 07. University Undergraduate Degree | 08. University Honors or Masters Degree | 09. University Doctorate | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2020): E2003 | | The 2020 New Zealand election study includes two survey | questions on education, one covering the highest secondary | school qualification and the other one covering the highest | qualification overall. For E2003, collaborators assigned ISCED | codes based on the second survey question asking for the highest | qualification overall. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 02. No secondary qualification | 03. Level 1 Certificate; Level 2 Certificate | Level 3 Certificate | 04. Level 4 Certificate | 05. Level 5 Diploma | 06. Level 6 Diploma; Level 7 Qualification | 07. Bachelor's Degree; Honours or Postgraduate | Diploma | 08. Master's Degree | 09. PhD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2017): E2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 02. Primary school/elementary school | 03. "Realschule"; One or two years of education after | lower secondary school | Upper secondary school with a duration of one | year | Upper secondary school with a duration of two | years | 04. Upper secondary school of three years or more; | University and university college education of | less than two years | 05. Vocational training; Extensions to upper | secondary school | 06. University or university college education with | a duration of two years (e.g. university college | candidate) | 07. University or university college education with a | duration of three to four years (e.g. bachelor | degree, Cand. Mag., teacher, nurse, engineer) | 08. University or university college education with a | duration of more than four years (e.g. master | degree, major, graduate engineer, MBA) | 09. Ph.D./research training program | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2019): E2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Incomplete primary | 02. Complete primary | 03. Incomplete Secondary | 04. Complete Secondary | Incomplete higher education | 07. Complete higher education | 96. None | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2020): E2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Unfinished primary | 02. Primary | Lower secondary (without matura) | Vocational (without matura) | 03. Higher vocational (without matura) | Vocational (with matura) | 04. Upper secondary vocational (with matura) | Upper secondary general (with matura) | 05. Post-secondary | 07. Bachelor | 08. Master or equivalent | 09. Doctoral | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2016): E2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 03. Complete /incomplete middle school | 04. Complete/incomplete high school | 06. Complete/incomplete college | 07. Complete university | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2018): E2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |-------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Not completed primary, or equivalent school | 02. Primary school or corresponding compulsory school | 03. Studies at upper secondary school, | folk high school, junior secondary school (or | equivalent) | 04. Degree from upper secondary school, folk | high school, junior secondary school (or | equivalent); | Studies at college/university | 05. Tertiary education, not college/university | 07. Degree from college/university | 08. Studies or degree at the postgraduate education | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2019): E2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 02. Primary school | 04. Secondary school | Basic voluntary training (with contract) | 05. Apprenticeship or vocational school | Diploma school | Trading school | Secondary school vocational diploma | High school or school preparing for the | baccalaureate | Higher vocational education with master diploma | | Additionally, the Swiss study included three additional | categories for the education variable. These were: | - Higher vocational college for technology, economy, social | issues or similar | - University of Applied Sciences, University of Teacher | Education | - University or Federal Institute of Technology | These respondents got a follow-up question to determine the | level of the highest diploma. Accordingly, they were coded into | the following categories: | - 07. ISCED LEVEL 6 - BACHELOR OR EQUIVALENT | - 08. ISCED LEVEL 7 - MASTER OR EQUIVALENT | - 09. ISCED LEVEL 8 - DOCTORAL OR EQUIVALENT | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016 & 2020): E2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Some primary school | 02. Primary school graduate | Some junior high school | Some high school or vocational school | 03. Junior high school graduate | 04. High school or vocational school | graduate | Some technical college | Some university | 06. Technical college graduate | 07. University graduate | 08. Post-graduate education | 96. Illiterate | Literate but no formal schooling | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Early childhood education (Kindergarten) | 02. Graduated from primary school | 03. Graduated from junior high school | (lower secondary level) | 04. Graduated from high school (upper secondary level) | 05. Graduation at the post-secondary level before | tertiary education | 06. Graduated with an associate's degree | 07. Higher education with a bachelor's degree or | equivalent | 08. Higher education at the master's degree or | equivalent | 09. Higher education at the doctoral level or | equivalent | 96. No education | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TUNISIA (2019): E2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Did not finish elementary school | 02. Elementary school | 03. Middle school | 04. Secondary school | 05. Post secondary, no triple | 06. Short courses series | 07. Bachelor's degree and equivalent | 08. Master and equivalent | 09. PhD and equivalent | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2018): E2003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 02. Primary school graduate (five years) | 03. Secondary school/elementary school graduate | 04. High school graduate; | High school graduate who continued to higher | education, but could not finish it | 07. University graduate | 08. Master of Arts | 09. Doctorate | 96. Illiterate, no formal education; | Literate, but no formal education | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): E2003 | | Respondents who indicated having finished "9th grade" were | classified as only having completed primary education. The | decision is based on the ISCED Mapping of National Educational | Programmes for the U.S., which classifies secondary/high school | education in the U.S. to run from grade 10 to grade 12. For more | information see: | http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/ISCEDMappings/Pages/ | default.aspx (Date accessed: February 12, 2019). | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Less than 1st grade | 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th grade | 5th or 6th grade | 02. 7th or 8th grade | 9th grade | 03. 10th grade | 11th grade | 12th grade no diploma | 04. High school graduate - high school diploma or | equivalent (for example: GED) | Some college but no degree | 06. Associate degree in college - | occupational/vocational program | Associate degree in college - academic program | 07. Bachelor's degree (for example: BA, AB, BS) | 08. Master's degree (for example: MA, MS, MENG, MED, | MSW, MBA) | Professional school degree (for example: MD, DDS, | DVM, LLB, JD) | 09. Doctorate degree (for example: PHD, EDD) | 99. Other (not specified) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E2003 | | Unlike the 2016 study, the U.S. 2020 study subsumes all | respondents who indicated having obtained "less than a high | school credential" into one general category. These respondents | were classified as having completed primary education. | The decision is based on the ISCED Mapping of National | Educational Programs for the U.S., which classifies | secondary/high school education in the United States to run from | grade 10 to grade 12. For more information, see: | http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/ISCEDMappings/Pages/ | default.aspx (Date accessed: February 12, 2019). | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 02. Less than high school credential | 04. High school graduate - high school diploma or | equivalent (e.g. GED) | Some college but no degree | 06. Associate degree in college - | occupational/vocational program | Associate degree in college - academic program | 07. Bachelor's degree (e.g. BA, AB, BS) | 08. Master's degree (e.g. MA, MS, MEng, MEd, MSW, MBA) | Professional school degree (e.g. MD, DDS, DVM, | LLB, JD) / Doctoral degree (e.g. PHD, EDD) | 99. Other --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E2004 >>> MARITAL STATUS OR CIVIL UNION STATUS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D04. Respondent's marital or civil union status. .................................................................. 1. MARRIED OR LIVING TOGETHER AS MARRIED 2. WIDOWED 3. DIVORCED OR SEPARATED (MARRIED BUT SEPARATED/ NOT LIVING WITH LEGAL SPOUSE) 4. SINGLE, NEVER MARRIED 5. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E2004 | | 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. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E2004 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Living together as married/Co-habiting | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2017): E2004 | | In the 2017 French election study, the marital status of | respondents was assessed with three survey questions. | The first asked whether respondents were living together with a | partner. | Respondents living with a partner were asked about the | legal status of their relationship in a follow-up question | (married, civil union, cohabiting, divorced). | Respondents not living with a partner received a separate | follow-up question detailing their marital status (married, | civil union, divorced/separated, widowed, single). | | The following table shows how answers were recoded for CSES: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |-------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Married and living together with a partner | Civil Union (PACS) and living together with a | partner | Living together with a partner /Co-habiting | 02. Widowed, not living together with a partner | 03. Divorced, not living together with a partner | Married / Civil Union (PACS) but not living | together with a partner | Divorced, but living together with a partner | 04. Single, never married, never been in a | civil union (PACS) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E2004 | | E2004 was constructed by collaborators based on two survey | questions. The first asked for the respondent's marital status | (legally married or civil partnership). | If respondents were not living together with a spouse or civil | union-partner, a follow-up question was asked if they are in an | unmarried relationship and further if they were living together | in this relationship. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2016): E2004 | | This variable was differently coded in the original study. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Married/Civil Partnership | Living as married/Co-habiting | 04. Single | 05. Widowed/Divorced/Separated | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2017): E2004 | | In the Dutch 2017 study, data on respondents' marital status has | not been collected in the survey but was obtained from | population registers. Respondents provided consent before data | collection. | Generally, register data are based on the most recent available | data, usually the year preceding data collection. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2020): E2004 | | In the 2020 New Zealand election study, the marital status of | respondents was asked differently in the original study. The | question asked respondents whether they were currently living | with a spouse or partner (coded as 1) or not (coded as 2). In | the CSES, respondents who answered "Yes" were recoded into "1. | MARRIED OR LIVING TOGETHER AS MARRIED". Respondents who answered | "No" were recoded into "5. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES]". This | category could thus include respondents who were widowed, | divorced or separated, or single or never married. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Currently living with a spouse or partner | 05. Currently not living with a spouse or partner | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2018): E2004 | | The possible answer categories in the original study diverged | slightly from the CSES standard. They were recoded as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |-------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Married/partnership | Cohabitant | 02. Widow/widower | 04. Single | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016 & 2020): E2004 | | This variable was constructed using the two original items | 'marital status' and 'domestic partnership status.' Respondents | who indicated not being married in the first item but in the | second item refused to indicate whether they were living with a | partner or not were coded as 'refused'. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Married: Spouse present/living together with | a partner | 02. Widowed, not living together with a partner | 03. Divorced or separated, not living together with | a partner | 04. Never married, not living together with a partner | 05. Married: Spouse absent (volunteered, face-to-face, | video and phone interviews only) | 07. Refused / Not married, refused to say whether | living with a partner | | Additionally, four respondents in the 2016 study did indicate | not to live with a partner but refused to name their marital | status. They were set to missing. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E2005 >>> UNION MEMBERSHIP --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D05. Union membership of respondent. .................................................................. 0. R IS NOT A MEMBER OF A UNION 1. R IS MEMBER OF A UNION 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E2005 | | Data are unavailable for SOUTH KOREA (2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E2005 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 0. I don't belong to any | 1. I belong, but I don't participate in the | activities | I belong and participate in the activities to | some extent | I belong and actively participate in the | activities | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2020): E2005 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 0. Was a union member but now it is not | It is not and never was a union member | 1. Union member | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2018): E2005 | | This variable was constructed using two original items. In the | first, respondents were asked whether they were a member of a | union or any other entrepreneur or professional organization. | In a follow-up question, respondents were invited to give the | name of the organization of which they were a member. | Respondents were coded as being a union member in E2005 if they | stated to be a member of one of the following: LO - The Swedish | Trade Union Confederation, TCO - The Swedish Confederation of | Professional Employees, Saco - The Swedish Confederation of | Professional Associations, or another union organization. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016 & 2020): E2005 | | This variable was constructed using two original items. In the | first, the respondent was asked whether anyone in the household | belonged to a labor union. In a follow-up item, the respondent | was asked which household member belonged to a union. | Respondents refusing to answer to the first item or stating not | to know the answer were coded as 'refused' or 'don't know' for | E2005, respectively. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 0. No one, spouse/partner, someone else in household | belongs to a labor union | 1. Respondent belongs to a labor union | 7. Refused to say whether anyone / who in household | belongs to a labor union | 8. Don't know whether anybody in household belongs | to a labor union --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E2006 >>> CURRENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D06. Current employment status of respondent. .................................................................. IN LABOR FORCE: 01. EMPLOYED - FULL-TIME (32 OR MORE HOURS WEEKLY) 02. EMPLOYED - PART-TIME (15-32 HOURS WEEKLY) 03. EMPLOYED - LESS THAN 15 HOURS 04. HELPING FAMILY MEMBER 05. UNEMPLOYED NOT IN LABOR FORCE: 06. STUDENT, IN SCHOOL, IN VOCATIONAL TRAINING 07. RETIRED 08. HOUSEWIFE, HOME DUTIES 09. PERMANENTLY DISABLED 10. OTHERS, NOT IN LABOR FORCE 11. ON TEMPORARY JOB LEAVE (MATERNITY LEAVE, SICK LEAVE, ETC.) 12. CIVIL / MILITARY SERVICE 13. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 14. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E2006 | | Respondents who are temporarily unemployed are coded | UNEMPLOYED. Respondents on "workfare" or enrolled in | a government job training program are coded EMPLOYED. | | There is some inconsistency between studies in the way | the responses to the questions about current employment status | (E2006) affected the application of the follow-up occupation | variables (E2007-E2009). 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 E2006 (codes 6-12) the occupation variables may | report respondent's last occupation. Hence, the responses | concerning occupation that belong to respondents not in labor | force presumably reflect their previous or last occupation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): E2006 | | The Australian study had an additional option "other" for this | question, followed by the open-ended question where respondents | had a chance to write their current employment status. | These open-ended answers were recoded into the following | categories: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 13. Casual | Casual employment | Casual employment (0-24 hours per week) | Contract when available | Contracted | Semi-retired | Semi-retired but still contracts to government | and industry | Semi-retired self-employed | Very part-time / retired | Work cover | 14. Mainly volunteer work | Teach and edit on a mainly voluntary basis | Volunteer secretary of the body corporate for my | unit block of 39 units | Volunteering work | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): E2006 | | In the original study, there was no separate answer category for | "unemployed." Thus respondents who were unemployed at the time | of the study primarily fell into the category "10. OTHERS, NOT | IN LABOR FORCE." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E2006 | | The Brazilian questionnaire included more categories than the | CSES answer options. Answers were coded to the CSES categories | in the following way: | | CSES code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Registered | Unregistered employee | Autonomous | Liberal professional | Employer | 04. Helps someone in the family and receives | remuneration | Helps someone in the family and does not receive | remuneration | 05. Unemployed (looking for a job) | 06. Apprentice with remuneration | Apprentice without remuneration | Student | 07. Retired (time off work) | Retired (disability) | Receives pension | 08. Housewife | 10. Unemployed (not looking for a job) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2019): E2006 | | The variable is from the pre-election study. | The codes, which are mentioned below, have a somewhat different | meaning compared to the standard CSES coding. The number of | working hours was not asked and is thus unknown. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Working for pay full-time | Self-employed (with or without employees) | 02. Working for pay part-time | 03. Student and working for pay | 05. Unemployed/ looking for work | 06. Student | 07. Retired | 08. Caring for a family | 09. Disabled | 11. Retired and working for pay | 12. Caring for family and working for pay | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2019): E2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. More than full time (more than 37 hours weekly) | Full time (32 - 37 hours weekly) | 02. Part-time (15 to less than 32 hours weekly) | 03. Less than 15 hours weekly | 04. Helping family member | 05. Unemployed | 06. Student, in school, in vocational training | 07. Retired | 08. Housewife, homemaker, home duties | 09. Permanently disabled | 10. On maternity or parental leave | Long-term sick leave | Military conscription | Others, not in labor force | | Categories summarized under code 10 "OTHERS, NOT IN LABOR FORCE" | were summarized for the CSES deposit and hence could not be | differentiated for E2006. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 04. Informal career | 05. Unemployed | 06. Student or school-goer | 07. Pensioner/Retired on account of age or working | years | 08. Homemaker | On parental leave or child care leave | 10. Conscripted for military service or in civilian | service | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E2006 | | The original coding scheme contains a category denoting short- | time working (while being employed in a full-time contract, | "Kurzarbeit"). Since there is no equivalent in CSES, respondents | in this category (N=2) were set to missing by the collaborators. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |-------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Full-time employment (30 or more hours weekly) | 02. Part-time employment (up to 30 hours weekly) | 05. Unemployed | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2017): E2006 | | The codes, which are mentioned below, have a somewhat different | meaning compared to the standard CSES coding. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Working full time - employee (30+ hours) | Working full time - self-employed (30+ hours) | 02. Working part time - employee (8-29 hours) | Working part time - self-employed (8-29 hours) | 05. Unemployed and actively seeking work | 06. A full-time student or pupil | 07. Retired from paid work | 08. Looking after the family or home | 09. Not working because temporary sick or injured | Not working because long-term sick or disabled | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 10. Others, not further specified | 13. Not applicable (never employed) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 11. Maternity leave | 13. Other, inactive earner | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2016): E2006 | | The answer categories differed slightly in the original study. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Working full time (30 hours or more) | 02. Working part-time | 05. Unemployed | 06. Full-time student | 07. Retired | 08. Homemaker, housekeeper or house person | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E2006 | | Respondents were first asked if they had a paid job (no | information on working hours available) and if not, were asked | about their current status. The answers to these two questions | were used to code E2006, as shown below. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 1. Respondent has a paid job | 5. Unemployed | Not active (does not work, does not look for a | job) | Looking for the first job | Redundancy payment | 6. Student | 7. Retired | 8. Housework | 9. Not able to work | 10. Working Leave | Military/Civil Service | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2017): E2006 | | In the Dutch 2017 study, respondents' employment status was | assessed by several successive survey questions. | Respondents were first asked if they currently had a paid job. | Respondents stating to have a paid job were then asked to | indicate the number of their weekly working hours, excluding | unpaid overtime. Respondents without a paid job at the time | of the interview were asked to provide further details on their | current situation. | The answers to these two questions were used to code E2006, as | shown below: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 1. Paid job, more than 32 working hours | 2. Paid job, 15 - 32 working hours | 3. Paid job, less than 15 working hours | 5. No paid job, unemployed | 6. No paid job, study / school | 7. No paid job, (pre-)pension | 8. No paid job, housekeeping / child care | 9. No paid job, illness / disability | 10. No paid job, other | 12. No paid job, volunteer work | 13. Paid job, number of working hours unknown | | Further, respondents stating to have a paid job but refusing to | name their weekly working hours were asked to group their | working hours in one of four broad categories, that have been | recoded as follows (N = 14): | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 1. Paid job, 30 hours a week or more | 2. Paid job, less than 30 hours | 3. Paid job, less than 12 hours | Paid job, less than 4 hours | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2020): E2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 13. Unpaid outside home | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2020): E2006 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 13. Employed, number of working hours unknown | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2018): E2006 | | As the Swedish 2018 study consists of web and postal interviews, | respondents could mark multiple answers. Collaborators | classified these answers into one single variable, which was | used for coding E2006. Following their suggestion, students, | pensioners and respondents on sickness/activity compensation | working for pay were classified as students, pensioners, and | being permanently disabled, respectively. | Further, respondents were asked about their weekly working hours | in a separate survey question. Answers to this follow-up | question were used for specifying working hours of those in the | labor force. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |--------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Gainfully employed, full time | 02. Gainfully employed, part-time (at least 15 hours | per week) | 03. Gainfully employed, part-time (less than 15 hours | per week) | 05. Unemployed | 06. Student | Student and working for pay | 07. Old age pensioner / retired / agreement pensioner | Pensioner and working for pay | 09. Sickness and activity compensation (former early | retirement pension, sickness allowances) | Sickness/activity compensation and working for pay | 10. Other | 13. Work/training in employment policy measures | 14. Gainfully employed, no information on working | hours available | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2019): E2006 | | Swiss collaborators note that in Switzerland, a full time | employment generally starts from 40 hours per week. Hence, | the first two response categories are slightly different | from the CSES categories: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 1. Employed: Full Time (40 or more hours weekly) | 2. Employed: Part-Time (15 to 39 hours weekly) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): E2006 | | Coding for E2006 is based on the respondents' initial employment | status (variable V161277 in the original ANES dataset). | The original ANES dataset includes an additional category for | temporary unemployment (code 13). | The weekly working hours were asked separately and combined for | E2006. 12 respondents stated to be working now, but did not | indicate their weekly working hours. These respondents were | coded 14. | Some of the respondents who are coded as unemployed, retired, | permanently disabled, housewife/home duties, or student did | nevertheless indicate certain amounts of working hours per week. | Analysts interested in these data are advised to refer to the | original ANES dataset. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 13. Temporarily laid off | 14. Working, number of working hours unknown | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E2006 | | Coding for E2006 is based on the respondents' 2-digit occupation | status (variable V201533x in the original ANES 2020 dataset). | The original ANES dataset includes an additional category for | temporary unemployment (code 13). | The weekly working hours were asked separately and combined for | E2006. 43 respondents stated to be working now but did not | indicate their weekly working hours. These respondents were | coded 14. | Some of the respondents who are coded as unemployed, retired, | permanently disabled, housewife/home duties, or student did | nevertheless indicate certain amounts of working hours per week. | Analysts interested in these data are advised to refer to the | original ANES dataset. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Working now only, more than 32 hours a week | 02. Working now only, 15 - 32 hours a week | 03. Working now only, 14 hours or less a week | 05. Unemployed, no mention of retired, disabled, | homemaker or student | 06. Student, no other occupation | Student and working now, working <20 hours per | week or DK/RF hours | Working now and student, working 20+ hours/week | 07. Retired, no other occupation | Retired and working now, working <20 hours per | week or DK/RF hours | Working now and retired, working 20+ hours/week | 08. Homemaker, no other occupation | Homemaker and working now, working <20 hours per | week or DK/RF hours | Working now and homemaker, working 20+ hours/week | 09. Permanently disabled, not working | Perm. disabled and working now, working <20 hours | per week or DK/RF hours | Working now and perm. disabled, working 20+ | hours/week | 13. Temporarily laid off | 14. Working, number of working hours unknown | 99. Refused/Don't know/Inapplicable --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E2007 >>> MAIN OCCUPATION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D07. Main occupation of respondent. .................................................................. ARMED FORCES OCCUPATIONS 00. ARMED FORCES OCCUPATIONS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 01. COMMISSIONED ARMED FORCES OFFICERS 02. NON-COMMISSIONED ARMED FORCES OFFICERS 03. ARMED FORCES OCCUPATIONS, OTHER RANKS MANAGERS 10. MANAGERS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 11. CHIEF EXECUTIVES, SENIOR OFFICIALS AND LEGISLATORS 12. ADMINISTRATIVE AND COMMERCIAL MANAGERS 13. PRODUCTION AND SPECIALIZED SERVICES MANAGERS 14. HOSPITALITY, RETAIL AND OTHER SERVICES MANAGERS PROFESSIONALS 20. PROFESSIONALS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 21. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS 22. HEALTH PROFESSIONALS 23. TEACHING PROFESSIONALS 24. BUSINESS AND ADMINISTRATION PROFESSIONALS 25. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONALS 26. LEGAL, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL PROFESSIONALS TECHNICIANS AND ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 30. TECHNICIANS AND ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 31. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 32. HEALTH ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 33. BUSINESS AND ADMINISTRATION ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 34. LEGAL, SOCIAL, CULTURAL AND RELATED ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 35. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNICIANS CLERICAL SUPPORT WORKERS 40. CLERICAL SUPPORT WORKERS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 41. GENERAL AND KEYBOARD CLERKS 42. CUSTOMER SERVICES CLERKS 43. NUMERICAL AND MATERIAL RECORDING CLERKS 44. OTHER CLERICAL SUPPORT WORKERS SERVICE AND SALES WORKERS 50. SERVICE AND SALES WORKERS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 51. PERSONAL SERVICE WORKERS 52. SALES WORKERS 53. PERSONAL CARE WORKERS 54. PROTECTIVE SERVICES WORKERS SKILLED AGRICULTURAL, FORESTRY AND FISHERY WORKERS 60. SKILLED AGRICULTURAL, FORESTRY AND FISHERY WORKERS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 61. MARKET-ORIENTED SKILLED AGRICULTURAL WORKERS 62. MARKET-ORIENTED SKILLED FORESTRY, FISHING AND HUNTING WORKERS 63. SUBSISTENCE FARMERS, FISHERS, HUNTERS AND GATHERERS CRAFT AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS 70. CRAFT AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 71. BUILDING AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS, EXCLUDING ELECTRICIANS 72. METAL, MACHINERY AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS 73. HANDICRAFT AND PRINTING WORKERS 74. ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC TRADES WORKERS 75. FOOD PROCESSING, WOOD WORKING, GARMENT AND OTHER CRAFT AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS PLANT AND MACHINE OPERATORS, AND ASSEMBLERS 80. PLANT AND MACHINE OPERATORS, AND ASSEMBLERS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 81. STATIONARY PLANT AND MACHINE OPERATORS 82. ASSEMBLERS 83. DRIVERS AND MOBILE PLANT OPERATORS ELEMENTARY OCCUPATIONS 90. ELEMENTARY OCCUPATIONS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED] 91. CLEANERS AND HELPERS 92. AGRICULTURAL, FORESTRY AND FISHERY LABORERS 93. LABORERS IN MINING, CONSTRUCTION, MANUFACTURING AND TRANSPORT 94. FOOD PREPARATION ASSISTANTS 95. STREET AND RELATED SALES AND SERVICE WORKERS 96. REFUSE WORKERS AND OTHER ELEMENTARY WORKERS OTHER CSES CODES 996. OTHER OR NON-CLASSIFIABLE OCCUPATIONS (NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO CLASSIFY) 997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E2007 | | 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 2008 | ISCO / ILO International Standard Classification of Occupations | Code from the International Labor Office, CH-1211, Geneva 22, | Switzerland. | | An English-language description of the ISCO-08 standard can be | found here: | http:// | www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/isco/docs/resol08.pdf | (Date accessed: April 5, 2019) | | In some cases, it has not been possible to strictly adhere to the | two-digit 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. These include categories referring to the first digit | of the 2008 ISCO / ILO occupations code. In these cases, zeros | were added to preserve the two-digit structure (e.g., | 90. ELEMENTARY OCCUPATIONS [NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED]). Please | refer to the Election Study Notes for clarification of the | meaning of the additional codes. | | See also VARIABLE NOTES for E2006. | | Data are unavailable for BRAZIL (2018), DENMARK (2019), GREAT | BRITAIN (2017), HUNGARY (2018), UNITED STATES (2020) and URUGUAY | (2019). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019): E2007 | | Respondents' occupation was asked in a series of open-ended | questions. Respondents were asked to write down their job title, | their most important tasks, and in which branch they work. This | was later recoded to ISCO scale by Belgium collaborators. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019): E2007 | | Respondents' occupation was asked in a series of open-ended | questions. Respondents were asked to write down their job title, | their most important tasks, and in which branch they work. This | was later recoded to ISCO scale by Belgium collaborators. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2019): E2007 | | Students, housewives and retired respondents were set to | missing, as these respondents already indicated their current | employment status in E2006. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2016 & 2017): E2007 | | In the original study, 20 respondents were coded as "Sailors." | These were coded into code "83. DRIVERS AND MOBILE PLANT | OPERATORS" which includes ships' deck crews and related workers | according to the ILO coding scheme. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E2007 | | The possible answer categories in the original study diverged | from the CSES ISCO codes. These were recoded accordingly where | sufficient information was available to place respondents in one | of the ISCO categories. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 10. Manager | Management Career | 40. High-Level Clerk | Low-Level Clerk | 23. Teacher | 63. Farmer | 996. Skilled Worker | Manual Worker | Entrepreneur (6 or more employees) | Small Entrepreneur (5 or fewer employees) | Shop-Owner | Freelance Worker | Partner in cooperative business | Occasional Freelance Worker | Working in the family business | 997. Refused | 998. Don't know/Don't remember | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2017): E2007 | | The occupation of respondents was asked using the ISCO-08 scale | in the original Japanese questionnaire. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E2007 | | The study contained the category "0. Never worked." These | respondents are recoded into "999. MISSING" for E2007. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2017): E2007 | | The Dutch 2017 study groups respondents according to the ten | major ISCO-08 groups, the most general groups comprising only | the first digit of the ISCO coding scheme. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2020): E2007 | | In the original Slovakian study, respondents' main occupation | was asked as a set of the following three open-ended questions: | - Title/Name of the occupation | - Area/Field | - Content of your job (describe what you are doing in your job) | | These questions were recoded by Slovakian collaborators into a | single item for respondents' occupation, coded based on ISCO. | In so doing, collaborators created a joint code for | non-classifiable occupations and other missing values reading | as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 998. Don't know, no response, cannot be classified | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2016): E2007 | | Students and housewives were set to missing, as these | respondents already indicated their current employment status | in E2006. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 50. Sales and service worker | 60. Agricultural, forestry and fishery worker | 996. Public officer, working in public organizations | Manager and professional | Office worker | Labor worker | Own business | 999. Student | Housewife | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): E2007 | | In the 2016 American National Election Study, respondents' main | occupation was coded according to the 97 minor groups identified | by the 2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system. | SOC codes were translated to ISCO 08 with a correspondence | table provided by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which can | be accessed here: https://www.bls.gov/soc/soccrosswalks.htm | (Date last accessed: March 17, 2019). | As SOC codes do not translate well into ISCO 08 codes, only 35 | out of 97 SOC-categories could be recoded to ISCO 08. | Therefore, E2007 is available for 830 respondents only. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E2008 >>> SOCIO ECONOMIC STATUS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D07a. Respondent's socio economic status. .................................................................. 1. WHITE COLLAR 2. WORKER 3. FARMER 4. SELF-EMPLOYED 5. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E2008 | | 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. | | This variable was not part of the CSES Module 5 pilot | questionnaire. | | There is some inconsistency between studies in the way | the responses to the questions about current employment status | (E2006) affected the application of the follow-up occupation | variables (E2008, E2009). 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 E2006 (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 E2008 for respondents out of labor force are available | for COSTA RICA (2018), DENMARK (2019), FINLAND (2019), FRANCE | (2017), GERMANY (2017), GREAT BRITAIN (2017), HUNGARY (2018), | ICELAND (2016 & 2017), ISRAEL (2020), MONTENEGRO (2016), | NETHERLANDS (2017), NEW ZEALAND (2017 & 2020), NORWAY (2017), | SLOVAKIA (2020), SWEDEN (2018), THAILAND (2019) and URUGUAY | (2019). | | Data are unavailable for AUSTRALIA (2019), BELGIUM-FLANDERS | (2019), BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019), BRAZIL (2018), CANADA (2019), | CHILE (2017), GREECE (2015), HONG KONG (2016), IRELAND (2016), | PORTUGAL (2019), SWITZERLAND (2019), TAIWAN (2016 & 2020), | TUNISIA (2019) and UNITED STATES (2016 & 2020). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - COSTA RICA (2018): E2008 | | The Costa Rican study did not apply a skip pattern. This | resulted in 16 respondents who reported not to be in labor | force (E2006) to be asked about their socio-economic status. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2019): E2008 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Salaried employee without management | responsibility | Salaried employee with management responsibility | 02. Worker, unskilled (not specialist worker) | Worker, unskilled (specialist worker) | Worker, skilled | 04. Self-employed (including farmers) | | Respondents out of the labor force have been asked this question | concerning their previous occupation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E2008 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Lower managerial/professional employee | Intermediate level employee | Higher managerial employee | 02. Worker | 03. Farmer | 04. Employer, self-employed, own account worker | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2017): E2008 | | Respondents' socio-economic status was pre-coded by collaborators | based on a combination of respondents' occupation and their | professional status. | All farmers, including those stating to be self-employed, were | coded into the 'farmers' category. All other independent workers | were classified as being self-employed. | | Retired or unemployed respondents were asked this question with | regards to their previous occupation (applies to 708 cases). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E2008 | | Only respondents currently employed part-time or full-time were | asked this question although four respondents who reported to be | students report their socio-economic status as well. Respondents | under vocational training and helping family members were set to | missing. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2017): E2008 | | For respondents who were not in the labor force, E2008 refers | to their previous occupation resulting in 446 respondents who | reported not to be in the labor force (E2006) to be asked about | their socio-economic status. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E2008 | | This variable was derived from two separate variables in the | original Election Study. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Clerical or other non-manual labor | 02. Manual labor | 03. (was) self-employed, worker/farmer | 04. (was) self-employed, white-collar (doctors, | lawyers, etc.) | Agriculture, forestry, water management | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2016 & 2017): E2008 | | This variable was derived by the collaborators from two separate | variables, one asking respondents if they owned a business (and | if yes, if they had employees) and the other one asking about | the respondents' occupation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2020): E2008 | | The Israeli study did not apply a skip pattern. This resulted | in 203 respondents who reported not to be in labor force (E2006) | to be asked about their socio-economic status. Most likely, | respondents who are retired or unemployed interpreted this | question in terms of their previous occupation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E2008 | | This variable was derived from three separate variables in the | original Election Study and its categories were recoded as | follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Manager | Management Career | Teacher | High-level Clerk | Lower-level Clerk | Skilled Worker | 02. Manual worker | 03. Farmer (Self-employed) | 04. Self-employed | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2017): E2008 | | The high number of missing cases for this variable is because | Japanese collaborators decided not to ask this question to those | respondents who said that they did not work for payment. In total | 549 respondents answered that, and are thus classified as missing | for E2008. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E2008 | | The Montenegrin study did not apply a skip pattern due to a high | unemployment rate at the time of the survey. This resulted in | 115 respondents who reported not to be in labor force (E2006) | to be asked about their socio-economic status. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2017): E2008 | | The variable assessing respondents' socio-economic status in the | Dutch 2017 study only distinguishes between self-employed and | salaried respondents. For E2008, it has been recoded as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 04. Independent | 05. Salaried employee | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017): E2008 | | This variable was derived from three separate variables. Two | from the original Election Study, and E2007. | For respondents who were not in the labor force, E2008 refers | to their previous occupation, resulting in 650 respondents who | reported not to be in the labor force (E2006) to be asked about | their socio-economic status. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Labor (Occupation (E2007) < 60) | 02. Labor (Occupation (E2007) > 60) | 03. (was) self-employed, farmer | 04. (was) self-employed, worker/ white collar | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2020): E2008 | | For respondents who were not in the labor force, E2008 refers | to their previous occupation, resulting in 563 respondents who | reported not to be in the labor force (E2006) to be asked about | their socio-economic status. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2017): E2008 | | For respondents who were not in the labor force, E2008 refers | to their previous occupation resulting in 389 respondents | who reported not to be in the labor force (E2006) to be asked | about their socio-economic status. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2020): E2008 | | The deposited variable on respondents' socio-economic status in | the Slovakian study did not match the categories CSES uses for | E2008. Thus, this variable is created from the deposited | variable and ISCO codes for the variable E2007. The following | recodes have been made: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Employee and ISCO occupation codes 59 and lower | 02. Employee and ISCO occupation codes 60 and higher | 04. Self-employed (without employees) | Self-employed/enterpreneur wih employee | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2016): E2008 | | Because South Korea ran the pilot questionnaire, E2008 was not | included in the 2016 South Korean election study. However, | E2008 was constructed from E2007, as indicated below. | Students and housewives were set to missing, as these | respondents already indicated their current employment status | in E2006. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Public officer, working in public organizations | Manager and professional | Office worker | Sales and service worker | 02. Labor worker | 03. Agricultural, forestry and fishery worker | 04. Own business | 09. Student | Housewife | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2018): E2008 | | Respondents out of the labor force have been asked this question | with respect to their previous occupation. | Further, the coding scheme employed by the Swedish 2018 study to | classify occupational groups is more fine-grained than that | envisaged by CSES. The following table lists how the original | variable has been recoded for E2008: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |-------------------------------------------------------- | 01. White-collar worker | White-collar worker with a leading organizational | function | White-collar worker with an executive function | 02. Blue-collar worker | Blue-collar worker with a leading function | 03. Farmer: no employees | Farmer: one or more employees | 04. Self-employed: no employees | Self-employed: 1-9 employees | Self-employed: 10 or more employees | 05. Other answer | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E2008 | | Retired or unemployed respondents were asked this question with | respect to their previous occupation (applies to 105 cases). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E2008 | | For respondents who were either "05. UNEMPLOYED" or "07. | RETIRED" (E2006), E2008 refers to their previous occupation | resulting in 307 respondents who reported not to be in the labor | force (E2006) to be asked about their socio-economic status. | Data on 162 respondents who reported to be "06. STUDENT", "08. | HOUSEWIFE" or "10. OTHERS, NOT IN LABOR FORCE" (E2006) are | unavailable and therefore coded as "9. MISSING" for E2008. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E2009 >>> EMPLOYMENT TYPE - PUBLIC OR PRIVATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D08. Whether respondent's employment is private or public. .................................................................. 1. PUBLIC SECTOR 2. PRIVATE SECTOR 3. MIXED 4. "THIRD SECTOR"/NON-PROFIT SECTOR 5. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 6. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E2009 | | There is some inconsistency between studies in the way | the responses to the questions about current employment status | (E2006) affected the application of the follow-up occupation | variables (E2008, E2009). 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 E2006 (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. | | See also VARIABLE NOTES for E2006. | | Data on E2009 for respondents out of labor force are available | for BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019), BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019), | BRAZIL (2018), CANADA (2019), CHILE (2017), COSTA RICA (2018), | DENMARK (2019), FINLAND (2019), FRANCE (2017), GERMANY (2017), | GREECE (2015), HUNGARY (2018), ICELAND (2016), ISRAEL (2020), | MONTENEGRO (2016), NETHERLANDS (2017), NEW ZEALAND (2017 & 2020) | PORTUGAL (2019), SWEDEN (2018), SWITZERLAND (2019), TAIWAN (2016 | & 2020), THAILAND (2019), UNITED STATES (2020) and URUGUAY | (2019). | | Data are unavailable for GREAT BRITAIN (2017), SLOVAKIA (2020), | SOUTH KOREA (2016) and UNITED STATES (2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): E2009 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 05. Self-employed | 06. An employee in a family business or farm | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E2009 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Employee/public sector | 02. Owner/employee/private sector | 04. Owner/employee/third sector/NGO | 05. Autonomous | 06. Agricultural worker | Registered home stay employee | Unregistered home stay employee | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2017): E2009 | | For respondents not in the labor force (E2006), the question was | asked with respect to their previous employment. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - COSTA RICA (2018): E2009 | | The Costa Rican study did not apply a skip pattern. This | resulted in 11 respondents who reported not being in the labor | force (E2006) to be asked about their employment type. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2019): E2009 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Public: state | Public: region | Public: municipality | 02. Private | 03. Mixed | 04. Non-profit organization | | Respondents out of the labor force have been asked this question | concerning their previous occupation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2017): E2009 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. State worker | Employee in public firm | 02. Independent worker | Head of business, auto-entrepreneur | Collaborator in the family business | Employee in private firm | 04. Employee in an association or nonprofit | organization | | Retired or unemployed respondents were asked this question | with regards to their previous occupation (applies to 705 | cases). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E2009 | | This variable only includes respondents who were at least part- | time employed or in vocational training based on E2006 and those | that were not self-employed according to E2008. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2020): E2009 | | The Israeli study did not apply a skip pattern. This resulted | in 210 respondents who reported not to be in the labor force | (E2006) to be asked about their employment type. Most likely, | respondents who are retired or unemployed interpreted this | question in terms of their previous occupation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2017): E2009 | | The variable assessing respondents' employment type in the | Dutch 2017 study only distinguishes between respondents employed | in government and respondents employed in the private sector by | a company or an institution. Other answer options were not | available to respondents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017 & 2020): E2009 | | For respondents not in the labor force (E2006), the question was | asked with respect to their previous employment. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E2009 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. (was) employee of state-owned company (state | ownership min. 50%) | (was) employee in public administration, law | enforcement or armed forces | (was) employee in the public sector (e.g. health, | education, etc.) | 02. (was) employee of a private company with no | shares in the firm exceeding 1% | (was) owner or shareholder of a company | (was) self-employed, white-collar (doctors, | lawyers, etc.) | (was) self-employed, worker/farmer | (was) individual entrepreneur | 03. (was) member of a cooperative | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E2009 | | The Montenegrin study did not apply a skip pattern due to a high | unemployment rate at the time of the survey. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2019): E2009 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Public worker (local or central administration/ | public entities/ public enterprise) | 02. Private sector worker (employee) | Private sector worker (self-employed) | 03. Mixed sector work (public-private) | 04. Non-profit worker | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2018): E2009 | | Respondents out of the labor force have been asked this question | with respect to their previous occupation. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. State service | Local government service | Regional government service | 02. Private sector | 04. Non-profit organization or foundation | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016 & 2020): E2009 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 05. Others | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E2009 | | Retired or unemployed respondents were asked this question with | respect to their previous occupation (applies to 35 cases). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E2009 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Local government (for example: city or county | school district) | State government (including state colleges/ | universities) | Federal government civilian employee | 02. For-profit company or organization | Owner of non-incorporated business, professional | practice, or farm | Owner of incorporated business, professional | practice, or farm | Worked without pay in a for-profit family | business or farm for 15 hours or more | 04. Non-profit organization (including tax-exempt and | charitable organizations) | 05. Active duty U.S. Armed Forces or Commissioned | Corps | 07. Refused | 09. Inapplicable | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TUNISIA (2019): E2009 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 05. Parallel sector (Shadow economy) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E2009 | | For respondents who were either "05. UNEMPLOYED" or "07. | RETIRED" (E2006), E2009 refers to their previous occupation | resulting in 307 respondents who reported not to be in the labor | force (E2006) to be asked about their employment type. | Data on 162 respondents who reported to be "06. STUDENT", "08. | HOUSEWIFE" or "10. OTHERS, NOT IN LABOR FORCE" (E2006) are | unavailable and therefore coded as "9. MISSING" for E2009. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E2010 >>> HOUSEHOLD INCOME - QUINTILES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Household income quintile appropriate to the respondent. .................................................................. 1. LOWEST HOUSEHOLD INCOME QUINTILE 2. SECOND HOUSEHOLD INCOME QUINTILE 3. THIRD HOUSEHOLD INCOME QUINTILE 4. FOURTH HOUSEHOLD INCOME QUINTILE 5. HIGHEST HOUSEHOLD INCOME QUINTILE 6. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E2010 | | Income ranges shown represent sample quintiles (not population | quintiles). | | Where data were deposited in this format, income ranges shown | are as originally reported by collaborators including gaps | between contiguous sets of ranges. | | Where deposited income data were not grouped into sample | quintiles, the data have been recoded into quintiles, according | to sample proportions (not national statistics). For cases where | it was not possible to compute sample quintiles, the income | categories approximating sample quintiles the closest have been | used. Consequently, this variable may contain distributions that | do not really represent quintiles. | | Depending on how the income data was deposited, the variable | reports either monthly or annual income. The table below shows | which of the two applies to the election studies: | | +++ TABLE: INCOME MEASURE TYPE BY ELECTION STUDY | | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) MONTHLY INCOME ANNUAL INCOME | ------------------------------------------------------------- | AUSTRIA (2017) X - | BRAZIL (2018) X - | BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019) X - | BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019) X - | CANADA (2019) X - | CHILE (2017) X - | COSTA RICA (2018) X - | DENMARK (2019) - X | FINLAND (2019) - X | FRANCE (2017) X - | GERMANY (2017) X - | GREAT BRITAIN (2017) X - | GREECE (2015) - X | HONG KONG (2016) X - | HUNGARY (2018) X - | IRELAND (2016) - X | ICELAND (2016) X - | ICELAND (2017) X - | ISRAEL (2020) X - | ITALY (2018) - X | JAPAN (2017) - X | LITHUANIA (2016) X - | MONTENEGRO (2016) X - | NEW ZEALAND (2017) - X | NEW ZEALAND (2020) - X | NORWAY (2017) - X | PORTUGAL (2019) X - | SLOVAKIA (2020) X - | SOUTH KOREA (2016) X - | SWEDEN (2018) - X | SWITZERLAND (2019) - X | TAIWAN (2016) X - | TAIWAN (2020) X - | THAILAND (2019) - X | TUNISIA (2019) - X | TURKEY (2018) X - | UNITED STATES (2016) - X | UNITED STATES (2020) - X | URUGUAY (2019) X - | ------------------------------------------------------------- | KEY: X = yes; - = no. | | In the Election Study Notes below, currency abbreviations are | given in the three-letter alphabetical ISO-4217 format as | described by the International Organization for Standardization. | An English-language description of the ISO-4217 standard can be | found here: | https://www.iso.org/iso-4217-currency-codes.html | (Date accessed: April 5, 2019) | | Data are unavailable for AUSTRALIA (2019) and NETHERLANDS (2017). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): E2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 1,350 EUR | 02. 1,350 - 1,950 EUR | 03. 1,950 - 2,400 EUR | 04. 2,400 - 3,300 EUR | 05. more than 3,300 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019): E2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |------------------------------------------------------------------ | 01. up to 1,500 EUR | 02. 1,501 - 2,000 EUR | 03. 2,001 - 3,000 EUR | 04. 3,001 - 4,000 EUR | 05. more than 4,000 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019): E2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |------------------------------------------------------------------ | 01. up to 1,500 EUR | 02. 1,501 - 2,000 EUR | 03. 2,001 - 3,000 EUR | 04. 3,001 - 4,000 EUR | 05. more than 4,000 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. up to 954 BRL | 02. 955 - 1,500 BRL | 03. 1,501 - 2,000 BRL | 04. 2,001 - 3,200 BRL | 05. more than 3,200 BRL | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2019): E2010 | | The variable is from the pre-election study. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 40,001 CAD | 02. 40,001 - 67,000 CAD | 03. 67,001 - 100,000 CAD | 04. 100,001 - 150,000 CAD | 05. more than 150,000 CAD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2017): E2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 224,000 CLP | 02. 224,001 - 358,000 CLP | 03. 358,001 - 448,000 CLP | 04. 448,001 - 1,000,000 CLP | 05. more than 1,000,000 CLP | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - COSTA RICA (2018): E2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 200,001 CRC | 02. 200,001 - 310,000 CRC | 03. 310,001 - 500,000 CRC | 04. 500,001 - 1,000,000 CRC | 05. more than 1,000,001 CRC | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2019): E2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 200,000 DKK | 02. 200,000 - 299,999 DKK | 03. 300,000 - 399,999 DKK | 04. 400,000 - 499,999 DKK | 05. more than 499,999 DKK | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. up to 20,000 EUR | 02. 21,000 - 35,000 EUR | 03. 36,000 - 50,000 EUR | 04. 51,000 - 80,000 EUR | 05. more than 80,000 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2017): E2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 1501 EUR | 02. 1501 - 2000 EUR | 03. 2001 - 3000 EUR | 04. 3001 - 4000 EUR | 05. more than 4000 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 1250 EUR | 02. 1250 - less than 2000 EUR | 03. 2000 - less than 3000 EUR | 04. 3000 - less than 4000 EUR | 05. more than 4000 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2017): E2010 | | Quintiles were calculated on the basis of an originally | 15-scaled variable. The resulting distributions are not even. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 15,600 GBP | 02. 15,600 - 25,999 GBP | 03. 26,000 - 36,399 GBP | 04. 36,400 - 59,999 GBP | 05. more than 59,999 GBP | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): E2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 10,000 EUR | 02. 10,001 - 15,000 EUR | 03. 15,001 - 25,000 EUR | 04. 25,001 - 40,000 EUR | 05. more than 40,000 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 10,000 HKD | 02. 10,000 - 29,999 HKD | 03. 30,000 - 39,999 HKD | 04. 40,000 - 59,999 HKD | 05. more than 59,999 HKD | 06. No fixed income | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 136,000 HUF | 02. 137,000 - 200,000 HUF | 03. 201,000 - 275,000 HUF | 04. 276,000 - 350,000 HUF | 05. more than 350,000 HUF | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2016): E2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 380,000 ISK | 02. 381,000 - 600,000 ISK | 03. 601,000 - 899,000 ISK | 04. 900,000 - 1,190,000 ISK | 05. more than 1,200,000 ISK | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2017): E2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 400,000 ISK | 02. 401,000 - 650,000 ISK | 03. 651,000 - 900,000 ISK | 04. 901,000 - 1,200,000 ISK | 05. more than 1,200,000 ISK | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2016): E2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 20,000 EUR | 02. 20,000 - 34,999 EUR | 03. 35,000 - 49,999 EUR | 04. 50,000 - 74,999 EUR | 05. more than 75,000 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2020): E2010 | | Quintiles were calculated on the basis of an originally | 10-scaled variable. The resulting distributions are not even. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 7,501 NIS | 02. 7,501 - 12,500 NIS | 03. 12,501 - 16,000 NIS | 04. 16,001 - 22,000 NIS | 05. more than 22,000 NIS | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 9,990 EUR | 02. 10,000 - 19,990 EUR | 03. 20,000 - 29,990 EUR | 04. 30,000 - 39,990 EUR | 05. more than 40,000 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2017): E2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. up to 2 million JPY | 02. 2-4 million JPY | 03. 4-6 million JPY | 04. 6-10 million JPY | 05. more than 10 million JPY | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 300 EUR | 02. 301 - 500 EUR | 03. 501 - 800 EUR | 04. 801 - 1,000 EUR | 05. more than 1,000 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 201 EUR | 02. 201 - 350 EUR | 03. 351 - 550 EUR | 04. 551 - 800 EUR | 05. more than 800 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017): E2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 35,699 NZD | 02. 35,700 - 62,199 NZD | 03. 62,200 - 93,599 NZD | 04. 93,600 - 180,199 NZD | 05. more than 180,200 NZD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2020): E2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 38,000 NZD | 02. 38,001 - 67,000 NZD | 03. 67,001 - 102,000 NZD | 04. 102,001 - 149,000 NZD | 05. more than 149,000 NZD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2017): E2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 370,000 NOK | 02. 370,001 - 620,000 NOK | 03. 620,001 - 900,000 NOK | 04. 900,001 - 1,200,000 NOK | 05. more than 1,200,000 NOK | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2019): E2010 | | Respondents were asked to indicate their average monthly net | income. As the original survey question is composed of five | income brackets, E2010 equals E2011 (Household Income: Original | variable), although the resulting distribution does not equal | sample quintiles. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 301 EUR | 02. 301 - 750 EUR | 03. 751 - 1,500 EUR | 04. 1,501 - 2,500 EUR | 05. more than 2,500 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2020): E2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Less than 550 EUR | 02. 551 - 850 EUR | 03. 850 - 1,050 EUR | 04. 1,051 - 1,400 EUR | 05. More than 1,400 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2016): E2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 3,000,000 KRW | 02. 3,000,000 - 3,990,000 KRW | 03. 4,000,000 - 4,990,000 KRW | 04. 5,000,000 - 5,990,000 KRW | 05. more than 5,990,000 KRW | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2018): E2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 300,001 SEK | 02. 300,001 - 500,000 SEK | 03. 500,001 - 700,000 SEK | 04. 700,001 - 900,000 SEK | 05. more than 900,000 SEK | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2019): E2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. up to 60,000 CHF | 02. 60,001 - 84,000 CHF | 03. 84,001 - 108,000 CHF | 04. 108,001 - 156,000 CHF | 05. more than 156,000 CHF | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016): E2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 39,000 TWD | 02. 39,001 - 59,000 TWD | 03. 59,001 - 80,000 TWD | 04. 80,001 - 111,000 TWD | 05. more than 111,000 TWD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2020): E2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 30,000 TWD | 02. 30,001 - 53,000 TWD | 03. 53,001 - 74,000 TWD | 04. 74,001 - 100,000 TWD | 05. more than 100,000 TWD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 65,000 THB | 02. 65,000 - 100,000 THB | 03. 100,001 - 120,000 THB | 04. 120,001 - 190,000 THB | 05. more than 190,000 THB | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TUNISIA (2019): E2010 | | Respondents were asked to indicate their annual net income. | As the original survey question is composed of eight very | unequally distributed income brackets, E2010 results in | distributions that do not equal sample quintiles. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 500 TND | 02. 500 - 999 TND | 03. 1,000 - 1,499 TND | 04. 1,500 - 1,999 TND | 05. more than 2,000 TND | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2018): E2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Up to 1600 TRY | 02. 1601 - 2000 TRY | 03. 2001 - 2900 TRY | 04. 2901 - 3500 TRY | 05. more than 3500 TRY | | In the 2018 Turkish election study, collaborators asked | respondents to name their monthly household income in an open | question. However, 60 respondents refusing to name their | income received a follow-up question, asking them to place their | income in one of fifteen categories. | Income quintiles provided in E2010 are based on the continuous | data. For the 60 respondents for whom continuous data is not | available, data were imputed by using the midpoint of their | stated income category. For example, a respondent stating to | have a monthly household income between 1.501 and 2.000 TRY | is assumed to have a household income of 1.750 TRY - thus | falling into the second quintile. | | Stated Income Imputed income | CSES Code (Categorical) (Midpoint) |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. 751 - 1.000 TRY 875 TRY | 1.001 - 1.500 TRY 1.250 TRY | 02. 1.501 - 2.000 TRY 1.750 TRY | 03. 2.001 - 3.000 TRY 2.500 TRY | 05. 3.001 - 5.000 TRY 4.000 TRY | 5.001 - 7.000 TRY 6.000 TRY | | Also see Election Study Notes for E2011. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): E2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 22,500 USD | 02. 22,500 - 44,999 USD | 03. 45,000 - 74,999 USD | 04. 75,000 - 109,999 USD | 05. more than 110,000 USD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 25,000 USD | 02. 25,000 - 49,999 USD | 03. 50,000 - 79,999 USD | 04. 80,000 - 124,999 USD | 05. 125,000 or more USD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E2010 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 22,001 UYU | 02. 22,001 - 30,000 UYU | 03. 30,001 - 42,000 UYU | 04. 42,001 - 60,000 UYU | 05. more than 60,000 UYU --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E2011 >>> HOUSEHOLD INCOME - ORIGINAL VARIABLE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D09. Household income for the respondent's household. .................................................................. 0-99999999. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 99999997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 99999998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99999999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E2011 | | This variable contains the original data for household income | in the format collected by the collaborators. | | In the Election Study Notes below, currency abbreviations are | given in the three-letter alphabetical ISO-4217 format as | described by the International Organization for Standardization. | An English-language description of the ISO-4217 standard can be | found here: | https://www.iso.org/iso-4217-currency-codes.html | (Date accessed: April 5, 2019) | | Data are unavailable for AUSTRALIA (2019). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): E2011 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Less than 400 EUR | 02. 450 - 600 EUR | 03. 600 - 750 EUR | 04. 750 - 900 EUR | 05. 900 - 1,050 EUR | 06. 1,050 - 1,200 EUR | 07. 1,200 - 1,350 EUR | 08. 1,350 - 1,500 EUR | 09. 1,500 - 1,650 EUR | 10. 1,650 - 1,800 EUR | 11. 1,800 - 1,950 EUR | 12. 1,950 - 2,100 EUR | 13. 2,100 - 2,250 EUR | 14. 2,250 - 2,400 EUR | 15. 2,400 - 2,700 EUR | 16. 2,700 - 3,000 EUR | 17. 3,000 - 3,300 EUR | 18. 3,300 - 3,600 EUR | 19. 3,600 - 3,900 EUR | 20. 3,900 or more EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019): E2011 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |------------------------------------------------------------------ | 01. Less than 1,000 EUR | 02. 1,001 - 1,500 EUR | 03. 1,501 - 2,000 EUR | 04. 2,001 - 3,000 EUR | 05. 3,001 - 4,000 EUR | 06. 4,001 - 5,000 EUR | 07. More than 5,000 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019): E2011 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |------------------------------------------------------------------ | 01. Less than 1,000 EUR | 02. 1,001 - 1,500 EUR | 03. 1,501 - 2,000 EUR | 04. 2,001 - 3,000 EUR | 05. 3,001 - 4,000 EUR | 06. 4,001 - 5,000 EUR | 07. More than 5,000 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E2011 | | Brazil (2018) provides household income, original variable, as | continuous variable, measured in Brazilian Real (BRL). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2017): E2011 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Less than 35,000 CLP | 02. 35,001 - 56,000 CLP | 03. 56,001 - 78,000 CLP | 04. 78,001 - 101,000 CLP | 05. 101,001 - 134,000 CLP | 06. 134,001 - 179,000 CLP | 07. 179,001 - 224,000 CLP | 08. 224,001 - 291,000 CLP | 09. 291,001 - 358,000 CLP | 10. 358,001 - 448,000 CLP | 11. 448,001 - 1,000,000 CLP | 12. 1,000,001 - 2,000,000 CLP | 13. 2,000,001 - 3,000,000 CLP | 14. More than 3,000,000 CLP | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2019): E2011 | | The variable is from the pre-election study. | The monthly household income is provided as a continuous | variable, measured in Canadian dollar (CAD). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - COSTA RICA (2018): E2011 | | The monthly household income is provided as a continuous | variable, measured in Costa Rican Colon (CRC). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2019): E2011 | | Respondents were asked to provide their annual gross income. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 100,000 DKK | 02. 100,000 - 149,999 DKK | 03. 150,000 - 199,999 DKK | 04. 200,000 - 249,999 DKK | 05. 250,000 - 299,999 DKK | 06. 300,000 - 349,999 DKK | 07. 350,000 - 399,999 DKK | 08. 400,000 - 449,999 DKK | 09. 450,000 - 499,999 DKK | 10. 500,000 - 599,999 DKK | 11. 600,000 - 699,999 DKK | 12. 700,000 - 799,999 DKK | 13. 800,000 - 999,999 DKK | 14. 1,000,000 - 1,199,999 DKK | 15. 1,200,000 DKK or more | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E2011 | | Finland (2019) provides household income, original variable, as | continuous variable, measured in Euros (EUR). | Some respondents reported an annual income of "0" or "1" EUR. | Collaborators note that it is very likely that these respondents | were not willing to report their annual income in the survey. | Data remain unchanged in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2017): E2011 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 1000 EUR | 02. 1001 - 1500 EUR | 03. 1501 - 1750 EUR | 04. 1751 - 2000 EUR | 05. 2001 - 2500 EUR | 06. 2501 - 3000 EUR | 07. 3001 - 4000 EUR | 08. 4001 - 5000 EUR | 09. 5001 - 7000 EUR | 10. more than 7000 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E2011 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 500 EUR | 02. 500 to less than 750 EUR | 03. 750 to less than 1,000 EUR | 04. 1,000 to less than 1,250 EUR | 05. 1,250 to less than 1,500 EUR | 06. 1,500 to less than 2,000 EUR | 07. 2,000 to less than 2,500 EUR | 08. 2,500 to less than 3,000 EUR | 09. 3,000 to less than 4,000 EUR | 10. 4,000 to less than 5,000 EUR | 11. 5,000 to less than 7,500 EUR | 12. 7,500 to less than 10,000 EUR | 13. 10,000 EUR and above | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2017): E2011 | | The monthly household income is provided as a continuous | variable, measured in Great Britain Pound (GBP). | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Less than 2,600 GBP | 02. 2,600 - 5,199 GBP | 03. 5,200 - 10,399 GBP | 04. 10,400 - 15,599 GBP | 05. 15,600 - 20,799 GBP | 06. 20,800 - 25,999 GBP | 07. 26,000 - 31,199 GBP | 08. 31,200 - 36,399 GBP | 09. 36,400 - 39,999 GBP | 10. 40,000 - 44,999 GBP | 11. 45,000 - 49,999 GBP | 12. 50,000 - 59,999 GBP | 13. 60,000 - 74,999 GBP | 14. 75,000 - 99,999 GBP | 15. More than 99,999 GBP | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): E2011 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Less than 10,000 EUR | 02. 10,001 - 15,000 EUR | 03. 15,001 - 25,000 EUR | 04. 25,001 - 40,000 EUR | 05. More than 40,000 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E2011 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. no income | 02. 5,999 or less HKD | 03. 6,000 - 9,999 HKD | 04. 10,000 - 19,999 HKD | 05. 20,000 - 29,999 HKD | 06. 30,000 - 39,999 HKD | 07. 40,000 - 49,999 HKD | 08. 50,000 - 59,999 HKD | 09. 60,000 or more HKD | 10. No fixed income | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E2011 | | Hungary (2018) provides household income, original variable, as | continuous variable, measured in Hungarian Forints (HUF). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2016 & 2017): E2011 | | The monthly household income is provided as a continuous | variable, measured in Icelandic Crowns (ISK). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2016): E2011 | | Respondents were asked two questions with respect to household | income. First, they were asked in an open-ended question what | their annual household income was before taxes. If respondents | refused to answer, they were asked in a follow-up question to | place themselves in one of ten income brackets provided in the | questionnaire. For CSES, respondents who provided an answer to | the open-ended income question were recoded to match the income | brackets in the follow-up question. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Less than 20,000 EUR | 02. 20,000 - 24,999 EUR | 03. 25,000 - 29,999 EUR | 04. 30,000 - 34,999 EUR | 05. 35,000 - 39,999 EUR | 06. 40,000 - 49,999 EUR | 07. 50,000 - 74,999 EUR | 08. 75,000 - 99,999 EUR | 09. 100,000 - 149,000 EUR | 10. 150,000 or more EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2020): E2011 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 5,001 NIS | 02. 5,001 - 7,500 NIS | 03. 7,501 - 10,000 NIS | 04. 10,001 - 12,500 NIS | 05. 12,501 - 14,500 NIS | 06. 14,501 - 16,000 NIS | 07. 16,001 - 19,500 NIS | 08. 19,501 - 22,000 NIS | 09. 22,001 - 25,500 NIS | 10. more than 25,500 NIS | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E2011 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 9,990 EUR | 02. 10,000 - 19,990 EUR | 03. 20,000 - 29,990 EUR | 04. 30,000 - 39,990 EUR | 05. 40,000 - 49,990 EUR | 06. 50,000 - 59,990 EUR | 07. 60,000 - 69,990 EUR | 08. 70,000 - 79,990 EUR | 09. 80,000 - 89,990 EUR | 10. 90,000 - 99,990 EUR | 11. more than 100,000 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2017): E2011 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Less than 2 million JPY | 02. 2-4 million JPY | 03. 4-6 million JPY | 04. 6-8 million JPY | 05. 8-10 million JPY | 06. 10-12 million JPY | 07. More than 12 million JPY | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E2011 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Up to 150 EUR | 02. 151 - 200 EUR | 03. 201 - 250 EUR | 04. 251 - 300 EUR | 05. 301 - 350 EUR | 06. 351 - 400 EUR | 07. 401 - 450 EUR | 08. 451 - 500 EUR | 09. 501 - 550 EUR | 10. 551 - 600 EUR | 11. 601 - 700 EUR | 12. 701 - 800 EUR | 13. 801 - 900 EUR | 14. 901 - 1,000 EUR | 15. 1,001 - 1,200 EUR | 16. 1,201 - 1,400 EUR | 17. 1,401 - 1,600 EUR | 18. 1,601 - 1,800 EUR | 19. 1,801 - 2,000 EUR | 20. More than 2,000 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E2011 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. no income | 02. less than 100 EUR | 03. 101 - 125 EUR | 04. 126 - 150 EUR | 05. 151 - 200 EUR | 06. 201 - 250 EUR | 07. 251 - 300 EUR | 08. 301 - 350 EUR | 09. 351 - 400 EUR | 10. 401 - 450 EUR | 11. 451 - 500 EUR | 12. 501 - 550 EUR | 13. 551 - 600 EUR | 14. 601 - 650 EUR | 15. 651 - 700 EUR | 16. 700 - 800 EUR | 17. 801 - 900 EUR | 18. 901 - 1,050 EUR | 19. 1,051 - 1,200 EUR | 20. more than 1,200 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2017): E2011 | | For the Dutch 2017 study, income measures differ considerably | between the two sampling components, that is, the face-to-face | sample drawn from population registers (N = 723) and the sample | drawn from the ongoing "LISS" online panel (N = 1,180). | In what follows, data generation processes are described | separately for each component. Researchers interested in | differentiating between sample components are referred to | variable E1007 (Sampling Component) for further information. | | Data in E2011 for the face-to-face component have not been | collected in the survey but were obtained from population | registers. Respondents provided consent before data collection. | Generally, register data are based on the most recent available | data, usually the year preceding data collection. | | Further, the vendor split register data into quintiles, | which are coded as follows in E2011: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Lowest Household Income Quintile ( 0- 20%) | 02. Second Household Income Quintile (21- 40%) | 03. Third Household Income Quintile (41- 60%) | 04. Fourth Household Income Quintile (61- 80%) | 05. Highest Household Income Quintile (81-100%) | | As the cutoff values for the above scale remain unknown, data | have not been transferred to E2010. | | Data for the online-panel component are based on survey | responses from the LISS-Panel. For this purpose, respondents | were asked to report their gross household income in EUR on | a continuous scale. If gross income was missing but net income | was reported to LISS, E2011 was imputed based on the group that | reported both gross and net income, and for whom both were non- | zero and non-bracketed. For respondents who only provided | bracketed net income information, LISS imputed the midpoint | value of the bracket. The imputed values have been rounded. | For a small percentage of the respondents, both gross and net | income were unavailable. In these cases, no imputation was done. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017): E2011 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. no income | 02. less than 23,800 NZD | 03. 23,801 - 35,699 NZD | 04. 35,700 - 62,199 NZD | 05. 62,200 - 76,999 NZD | 06. 77,000 - 93,599 NZD | 07. 93,600 - 136,599 NZD | 08. 136,600 - 180,199 NZD | 09. more than 180,200 NZD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2020): E2011 | | CSES Code Election Study Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. no income | 02. less than 38,000 NZD | 03. 38,001 - 67,000 NZD | 04. 67,001 - 102,000 NZD | 05. 102,001 - 149,000 NZD | 06. 149,001 - 196,000 NZD | 07. more than 196,000 NZD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2017): E2011 | | The annual household income is provided as a continuous | variable, measured in Norwegian Krone (NOK). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2019): E2011 | | Respondents were asked to indicate their average monthly net | income. As the original survey question was composed of five | income brackets, E2011 equals E2010 (Household Income: | Quintiles). | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 301 EUR | 02. 301 - 750 EUR | 03. 751 - 1,500 EUR | 04. 1,501 - 2,500 EUR | 05. more than 2,500 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2020): E2011 | | The Slovakian 2020 study included separate questions for | respondents' personal and household income. Respondents living | in single-member households were not asked about their household | income, as their household income is assumed to be equal to their | personal income. Hence, for these respondents from single-member | households, E2011 includes data originating from the personal | income question. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Less than 350 EUR | 02. 351 - 550 EUR | 03. 551 - 850 EUR | 04. 851 - 1,050 EUR | 05. 1,051 - 1,400 EUR | 06. 1,401 - 2,500 EUR | 07. 2,501 - 3,500 EUR | 08. 3,501 - 4,500 EUR | 09. More than 4,500 EUR | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2016): E2011 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 1,000,000 KRW | 02. 1,000,000 - 1,990,000 KRW | 03. 2,000,000 - 2,990,000 KRW | 04. 3,000,000 - 3,990,000 KRW | 05. 4,000,000 - 4,990,000 KRW | 06. 5,000,000 - 5,990,000 KRW | 07. 6,000,000 - 6,990,000 KRW | 08. more than 7,000,000 KRW | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2018): E2011 | | The question used in the Swedish survey asked respondents to | provide a rough estimate of the total annual income of all | individuals in their household before taxes, including pensions, | student grants, etc. The following 12 categories were offered | to respondents: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. 100,000 or less SEK | 02. 100,001 - 200,000 SEK | 03. 200,001 - 300,000 SEK | 04. 300,001 - 400,000 SEK | 05. 400,001 - 500,000 SEK | 06. 500,001 - 600,000 SEK | 07. 600,001 - 700,000 SEK | 08. 700,001 - 800,000 SEK | 09. 800,001 - 900,000 SEK | 10. 900,001 - 1,000,000 SEK | 11. 1,000,001 - 1,100,000 SEK | 12. more than 1,100,000 SEK | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2019): E2011 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Less than 24,000 CHF | 02. 24,001 - 36,000 CHF | 03. 36,001 - 48,000 CHF | 04. 48,001 - 60,000 CHF | 05. 60,001 - 72,000 CHF | 06. 72,001 - 84,000 CHF | 07. 84,001 - 96,000 CHF | 08. 96,001 - 108,000 CHF | 09. 108,001 - 120,000 CHF | 10. 120,001 - 132,000 CHF | 11. 132,001 - 144,000 CHF | 12. 144,001 - 156,000 CHF | 13. 156,001 - 168,000 CHF | 14. 168,001 - 180,000 CHF | 15. More than 180,000 CHF | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016): E2011 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Less than 28,000 TWD | 02. 28,001 - 39,000 TWD | 03. 39,001 - 49,000 TWD | 04. 49,001 - 59,000 TWD | 05. 59,001 - 69,000 TWD | 06. 69,001 - 80,000 TWD | 07. 80,001 - 93,000 TWD | 08. 93,001 - 111,000 TWD | 09. 111,001 - 141,000 TWD | 10. More than 141,001 TWD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2020): E2011 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Less than 30,000 TWD | 02. 30,001 - 42,000 TWD | 03. 42,001 - 53,000 TWD | 04. 53,001 - 63,000 TWD | 05. 63,001 - 74,000 TWD | 06. 74,001 - 86,000 TWD | 07. 86,001 - 100,000 TWD | 08. 100,001 - 120,000 TWD | 09. 120,001 - 156,000 TWD | 10. More than 156,000 TWD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E2011 | | The annual household income is provided as a continuous | variable, measured in Thai baht (THB). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TUNISIA (2019): E2011 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Less than 500 TND | 02. 500 - 999 TND | 03. 1,000 - 1,499 TND | 04. 1,500 - 1,999 TND | 05. 2,000 - 2,499 TND | 06. 2,500 - 2,999 TND | 07. 3,000 - 5,000 TND | 08. More than 5,000 TND | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2018): E2011 | | In the 2018 Turkish election study, collaborators asked | respondents to name their monthly household income in an open | question. However, 60 respondents refusing to name their | income received a follow-up question, asking them to place their | income in one of the following fifteen categories, which were | coded as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |--------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Less than 150 TRY | 02. 151 - 250 TRY | 03. 251 - 350 TRY | 04. 351 - 450 TRY | 05. 451 - 550 TRY | 06. 551 - 750 TRY | 07. 751 - 1,000 TRY | 08. 1,001 - 1,500 TRY | 09. 1,501 - 2,000 TRY | 10. 2,001 - 3,000 TRY | 11. 3,001 - 5,000 TRY | 12. 5,001 - 7,000 TRY | 13. 7,001 - 9,000 TRY | 14. 9,001 - 11,000 TRY | 15. 11,001 or more TRY | | The 60 respondents who placed themselves in one of the | categories rather than naming their detailed household income | all placed themselves in categories 7 to 12. | For all other respondents in the sample, E2011 provides the | monthly household income on a continuous scale, as indicated by | respondents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): E2011 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 5,000 USD | 02. 5,000 - 9,999 USD | 03. 10,000 - 12,499 USD | 04. 12,500 - 14,999 USD | 05. 15,000 - 17,499 USD | 06. 17,500 - 19,999 USD | 07. 20,000 - 22,499 USD | 08. 22,500 - 24,999 USD | 09. 25,000 - 27,499 USD | 10. 27,500 - 29,999 USD | 11. 30,000 - 34,999 USD | 12. 35,000 - 39,999 USD | 13. 40,000 - 44,999 USD | 14. 45,000 - 49,999 USD | 15. 50,000 - 54,999 USD | 16. 55,000 - 59,999 USD | 17. 60,000 - 64,999 USD | 18. 65,000 - 69,999 USD | 19. 70,000 - 74,999 USD | 20. 75,000 - 79,999 USD | 21. 80,000 - 89,999 USD | 22. 90,000 - 99,999 USD | 23. 100,000 - 109,999 USD | 24. 110,000 - 124,999 USD | 25. 125,000 - 149,999 USD | 26. 150,000 - 174,999 USD | 27. 175,000 - 249,999 USD | 28. more than 250,000 USD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E2011 | | Respondents were asked to provide the combined gross income of | all family members during the past 12 months. This included | money from jobs, net income from business, farm or rent, | pensions, dividends, interest, Social Security payments and any | other money income received by family members being 15 years of | age or older. | Further, the ANES 2020 includes two variable groups measuring | household income, one from the pre-election interview and | another one combining information from pre- and post-election | interviews. CSES uses the latter variable for E2011 (V202468x). | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. less than 9,999 USD | 02. 10,000 - 14,999 USD | 03. 15,000 - 19,999 USD | 04. 20,000 - 24,999 USD | 05. 25,000 - 29,999 USD | 06. 30,000 - 34,999 USD | 07. 35,000 - 39,999 USD | 08. 40,000 - 44,999 USD | 09. 45,000 - 49,999 USD | 10. 50,000 - 59,999 USD | 11. 60,000 - 64,999 USD | 12. 65,000 - 69,999 USD | 13. 70,000 - 74,999 USD | 14. 75,000 - 79,999 USD | 15. 80,000 - 89,999 USD | 16. 90,000 - 99,999 USD | 17. 100,000 - 109,999 USD | 18. 110,000 - 124,999 USD | 19. 125,000 - 149,999 USD | 20. 150,000 - 174,999 USD | 21. 175,000 - 249,999 USD | 22. 250,000 or more USD | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E2011 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Less than 15,001 UYU | 02. 15,001 - 22,000 UYU | 03. 22,001 - 30,000 UYU | 04. 30,001 - 42,000 UYU | 05. 42,001 - 60,000 UYU | 06. 60,001 - 95,000 UYU | 07. More than 95,000 UYU --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E2012 >>> NUMBER IN HOUSEHOLD --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D20. The total number of persons in household - that is, the number of persons living together in the housing unit excluding paid employees and persons who pay rent for a room. .................................................................. 01.-90. NUMBER OF PERSONS 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E2012 | | This variable was not part of the CSES Module 5 pilot | questionnaire. | | Data are unavailable for AUSTRALIA (2019), GREAT BRITAIN (2017), | GREECE (2015), HONG KONG (2016), IRELAND (2016), SOUTH KOREA | (2016) and TAIWAN (2016 & 2020). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019): E2012 | | There is one respondent who answered "zero," although the | question was asked correctly in the questionnaire. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2019): E2012 | | This variable is from the pre-election survey. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E2012 | | There are five respondents who answered "0" to this question, | even though this question has been asked correctly in the survey. | Finnish collaborators note that this is most likely the case of | insincere responses. Data remain unchanged in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2017): E2012 | | In the French 2017 study, code 7 refers to "seven household | members or more." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E2012 | | Respondents were asked to report the number of people living in | their household, including themselves and all children. However, | there was no reference to the CSES convention that paid | employees and people paying rent for a room should be excluded. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2020): E2012 | | Respondents were asked to indicate the number of adults and | children living in their household in two consecutive survey | questions. Both variables were added together to create E2012. | Respondents who left the question on the number of children | living in their household blank are assumed not to have any | children living with them. For these cases, E2012 has been | coded based on the indicated number of adults only. | Further, there are 16 respondents who answered "0", "nil" or | "none" to the number of adults living in their household, | even though this question has been asked correctly in the survey. | Data remain unchanged. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2019): E2012 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 7. 7 household members or more | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): E2012 | | E2012 was constructed using two original survey questions: As | part of the screening interview, respondents were asked to | indicate the number of adults in their household, while they | named the number of children living in their household in the | pre-election interview. Both variables were added to create | E2012. While the number of adults living in the household was | topcoded at "8. eight or more people", the number of children | was topcoded at "9. More than eight children." That applies to | the following four respondents: | | Respondent-ID (E1005) Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 840020160000000920. Eight or more adults in household | 840020160000003101. Eight or more adults in household | 840020160000000373. Eight or more children in household | 840020160000002884. Eight or more children in household | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E2012 | | Respondents were asked how many family members were living with | them at the time of the pre-election interview. E2012 adds 1 | to each of these answers for counting the respondent. | Code 6 refers to "Five or more". | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 06. R lives with five family members or more --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E2013 >>> RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D10. Religious denomination. .................................................................. CHRISTIAN 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 BRETHREN 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 1698. ORTHODOX, OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 1699. ORTHODOX, OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] JEWISH 2000. JEWISH ISLAM 3000. MUSLIM; MOHAMMEDAN; ISLAM (NO DENOMINATION GIVEN) 3100. SUNNI 3200. SHI'ISM 3210. ISMA'ILIS 3211. DRUSE BUDDHISM 4000. BUDDHIST 4100. THERAVADA 4200. MAHAYANA HINDUISM AND OTHER RELIGIONS OF INDIA 5000. HINDU 5010. PARSIISM 5020. VAISHNAVISM 5030. SHAIVISM 5040. SHAKTISM 5500. JAINISM 5600. SIKHISM INDIGENOUS RELIGIONS OF EAST ASIA 6100. CONFUCIANISM 6200. TAOISM 6300. SHINTO 6400. NEW RELIGIONSISTS 6401. I-KUAN-TAO 6500. TRADITIONAL FOLK BELIEF/NICHIREN SHSHU ETHNORELIGIONS/OTHER BELIEVER 7100. PAGAN, HEATHEN, TRIBAL RELIGIONSIST, TRADITIONAL RELIGIONIST, ANIMISM, SHAMANISM 7110. RATANA, MAORI 7200. SPIRITISM 7500. BAHAI 7900. EHTNORELIGIONIST, OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7901. EHTNORELIGIONIST, OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] NON BELIEVERS 8100. AGNOSTIC 8200. ATHEIST 8300. NONE OTHERS 9001. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 9002. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 9003. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 9004. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 9005. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 9006. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 9600. OTHER: NOT SPECIFIED 9997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 9998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E2013 | | Data are unavailable for HUNGARY (2018). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): E2013 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 1420. Uniting Church in Australia | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E2013 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 1599. Mormon Church, Jehovah Witness | 7100. Candombla (African religion) | Umbanda | 7200. Espiritualism | 7900. Seisho-No-Ie, World Messianic Church, Perfect | Liberty | 7901. Santo Daime, Esoteric | 8300. Atheist/agnostic/ Doesn't believe in God | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2019): E2013 | | This variable is from the pre-election survey. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2019): E2013 | | Respondents stating to identify as Sunni or Shia were coded | as 3000. MUSLIM; MOHAMMEDAN; ISLAM (NO DENOMINATION GIVEN). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E2013 | | CSES-Code Election study code/category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 1298. Evangelical Church in Germany (excluding Free | Churches) | 1299. Protestant Free Church | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2017): E2013 | | CSES-Code Election study code/category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 1298. Other - Protestant | 9001. Other - non-Christian | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E2013 | | Before being asked about their religious denomination, | respondents were asked to specify whether they hold any religious | beliefs. Only respondents reporting to hold such beliefs answered | to E2013. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 1199. Catholics (not further specified) | 9001. Local religions (ancestor worship, guanyin - tudi worship, etc.) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2016): E2013 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 1298. Quaker | 9001. Humanist | 9002. Jedi Knight | 9003. Pastafarianism | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E2013 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 9001. Asian Religion | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E2013 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 1698. Montenegrin Orthodox | 1699. Serbian Orthodox | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2016): E2013 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 1199. Catholic (not further specified) | 8300. Do not belong to any religious denomination | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2018): E2013 | | Respondents were only asked to specify their religious | denomination if they previously stated to "have a belief, creed | or religious affiliation". Respondents answering not to have | such a religious affiliation have been coded to "8300. None". | Further, respondents stating to have a Catholic or Orthodox | denomination without further specification were coded as | follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 1199. Catholic, not further specified | 1699. Orthodox, not further specified | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016): E2013 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 9001. Buddhist and Taoist | 9002. Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2020): E2013 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 9001. Buddhist and Taoist | 9002. Falun Gong | 9003. Buddhism and Christianity | 9004. Nine Lotus Sacred Path | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2018): E2013 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 9001. Zoroastrian | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016 & 2020): E2013 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 1000. Christian, not further specified, inter- or non- | denominational | 1298. Evangelical Churches (Evangelical Covenant | Church, Evangelical Free Church, EFC, or EFCA) | 1299. Quakers; Friends | 1699. Syrian Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox | 7900. American Indian religions; Native American | religions | 9001. Catholic and Protestant | 9002. Messianic Judaism; Jews for Jesus | 9003. More than one major religion (e.g., Christian, | Jewish, Muslim, etc.) | 9004. Religious Science; Science of Mind (not | Scientology; not Christian Scientists); Centers | for Spiritual Living | 9005. Unity; Unity Church; Christ Church Unity | 9006. Scientology | 9600. Other non-Christian/non-Jewish, other tradition | not codable, R indicates having an affiliation | but does not specify one | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E2013 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 9001. Believers without religion --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E2014 >>> RELIGIOUS SERVICES ATTENDANCE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D11. Attendance at religious services. .................................................................. 1. NEVER 2. ONCE A YEAR 3. TWO TO ELEVEN TIMES A YEAR 4. ONCE A MONTH 5. TWO OR MORE TIMES A MONTH 6. ONCE A WEEK/MORE THAN ONCE A WEEK 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E2014 | | Because the CSES questionnaire of origin does not include | filter instructions in the demographic section, E2014 is asked | irrespectively of individuals' religious denomination. | | Data are unavailable for SOUTH KOREA (2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E2014 | | The Brazilian questionnaire included response options | that differed slightly from the CSES categories. | The variable was recoded as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Never goes to a church | 02. Rarely | 03. Sometimes a year | 04. Once or twice a month | 06. More than once a week | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2017): E2014 | | The original French questionnaire included answer options that | differed from the CSES categories. The variable was recoded as | follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Never | 02. Only for special ceremonies | 03. Sometimes | 04. Once or twice a month | 06. Once a week | Several times a week | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E2014 | | In the German questionnaire, the interviewer instruction refers | to religious service in a church, mosque or synagogue, excluding | prayer during Ramadan. No instruction not to count special | occasions such as funerals and weddings was provided. There are | also some slight differences in two of the categories used in | Germany compared to the CSES convention (see below): | | CSES-Code Election study code/category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 03. Several times a year | 05. Two to three times a month | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E2014 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 03. Only for family events or major holidays | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2017): E2014 | | Only respondents indicating a religious denomination in a | preceding question were asked about their religious service | attendance. | Further, the original Dutch questionnaire included answer options | that differed from the CSES categories. The variable was recoded | as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. (Almost) never | 03. Several times a year | 04. Once a month | 05. Two or three times a month | 06. Once a week or more | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2017): E2014 | | The original Norwegian questionnaire includes answer options | that slightly differ from the CSES categories. Specifically, a | category for "two or more times a month" (CSES code 5) was not | included in the Norwegian questionnaire. The variable was | recoded in the following way: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Never | 02. More rarely | 03. Only on special occasions | 04. At least once a month | 06. Once a week/ more than once a week | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2019): E2014 | | Only respondents indicating a religious denomination in a | preceding question were asked about their religious service | attendance. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2020): E2014 | | For the E2014 variable, the Slovakian study included one | additional category - "Less often than once a year." This | category has been recoded to CSES category "2. Once a year." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2018): E2014 | | The original Swedish questionnaire included answer options that | differed from the CSES categories. The variable was recoded as | follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Never | 02. About once in the last 12 months | 03. About once every six months | About once every three months | 04. About once every month | 06. About once every week | Several times a week | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016 & 2020): E2014 | | The original U.S. questionnaire includes answer options that | slightly differ from the CSES categories. Specifically, a | category for "once a year" (CSES code 2) was not included. | Further, respondents stating in a preceding question that they | never attended religious services apart from occasional | weddings, baptisms or funerals were coded "01. NEVER" for E2014. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Never | 03. A few times a year | 04. Once or twice a month | 05. Almost every week | 06. Every Week | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E2014 | | The Uruguayan questionnaire includes some slight differences in | two answer categories used in Uruguay compared to the CSES | convention. The CSES convention differentiates between the two | categories "4. Once a month" and "5. Two or more times a month". | In the Uruguayan election study, both categories were combined | into "5. Once or more times a month" (see below). Category 4 | does thus not exist for Uruguay. | | CSES-Code Election study code/category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 05. Once or more times a month --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E2015 >>> RACE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D12. This item reports the respondent's race. .................................................................. 001.-995. RACE CODES [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 996. OTHER: NOT SPECIFIED 997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E2015 | | This variable is coded according to national standards. | | See also VARIABLE NOTES for variable E2016. | | Data are unavailable for AUSTRALIA (2019), AUSTRIA (2017), | BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019), BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019), CANADA (2019), | CHILE (2017), DENMARK (2019), FINLAND (2019), FRANCE (2017), | GERMANY (2017), GREAT BRITAIN (2017), GREECE (2015), HONG KONG | (2016), HUNGARY (2018), IRELAND (2016), ISRAEL (2020), ITALY | (2018), JAPAN (2017), NETHERLANDS (2017), NORWAY (2017), PORTUGAL | (2019), SLOVAKIA (2020), SOUTH KOREA (2016), SWEDEN (2018), | SWITZERLAND (2019), TAIWAN (2016), TAIWAN (2020), TUNISIA (2019) | and TURKEY (2018). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E2015 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 001. White | 002. Black | 003. Brown | 004. Yellow | 005. Indigenous | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - COSTA RICA (2018): E2015 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 001. Black or African Descent | 002. Mulatto | 003. Chinese | 004. White or mestizo | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2016 & 2017): E2015 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 001. White | 002. Other | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E2015 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 001. White | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E2015 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 001. White | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017 & 2020): E2015 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 001. Maori Descent | 002. Not Maori | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E2015 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 001. Thai | 002. Chinese | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): E2015 | | For E2015, respondents were allowed to name more than one race | they considered themselves to belong to. The answers were | precoded by the ANES as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 001. White, non-Hispanic | 002. Black, non-Hispanic | 003. Asian, native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, | non-Hispanic | 004. Native American or Alaska Native, non-Hispanic | 005. Hispanic | 006. Other non-Hispanic including multiple races; | Web-interviews: blank 'Other' counted as a race | | Respondents in web-interviews who indicated to identify with | another race than those given in the survey question, but who | did not specify which one, were coded as "06. Other." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E2015 | | For E2015, respondents were allowed to name more than one race | they considered themselves to belong to. The answers were | pre-coded by the ANES as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 001. White, non-Hispanic | 002. Black, non-Hispanic | 003. Hispanic | 004. Asian or Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander, | non-Hispanic alone | 005. Native American/Alaska Native or other race, | non-Hispanic alone | 006. Multiple races, non-Hispanic | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E2015 | | For E2015, respondents were allowed to name more than one race | they considered themselves to belong to. The answers were | precoded as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 001. White | 002. Afro/Black | 003. Indigenous | 004. Asiatic/ Yellow | 005. Mixed-White/Black | 006. Mixed-White/Indigenous | 007. Mixed-White/Asiatic | 008. Mixed-Black/Indigenous | 009. Mixed-Black/Asiatic --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E2016 >>> ETHNICITY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D13. This variable reports the ethnic identity of respondents. .................................................................. 001.-995. ETHNICITY CODES [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 996. OTHER: NOT SPECIFIED 997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E2016 | | This variable is coded according to national standards. | | See also VARIABLE NOTES for variable E2015. | | Data are unavailable for AUSTRALIA (2019), AUSTRIA (2017), | BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019), BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019), BRAZIL (2018), | COSTA RICA (2018), DENMARK (2019), FINLAND (2019), FRANCE (2017), | GERMANY (2017), HONG KONG (2016), ICELAND (2016 & 2017), IRELAND | (2016), ITALY (2018), JAPAN (2017), NETHERLANDS (2017), NORWAY | (2017), SOUTH KOREA (2016), SWEDEN (2018), SWITZERLAND (2019), | TURKEY (2018) and UNITED STATES (2016 & 2020). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2019): E2016 | | The variable is from the pre-election study. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 001. Canadian | 002. English | 003. Irish | 004. British | 005. French | 006. Italian | 007. Chinese | 008. German | 009. Polish | 010. Dutch | 011. Indian | 012. Scottish | 013. Ukrainian | 014. French Canadian | 015. Inuit, Metis, Aboriginal | 016. Quebecois | 017. Greek | 018. Haitian | 019. Portuguese | 020. Pakistani | 021. Austrian | 022. Hungarian | 023. Philippines | 024. US American | 025. Korean | 026. Danish | 027. Icelandic | 028. Turkish | 029. Jamaican | 030. Somalian | 031. Swiss | 032. Egyptian | 033. Romanian | 034. Spanish | 035. Russian | 036. Belgian | 037. Swedish | 038. Norwegian | 039. Lebanese | 040. Finish | 041. Czech | 042. Mexican | 043. Armenian | 044. Serbian | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2017): E2016 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 001. Alacalufe (Kawashkar) | 002. Atacameno | 003. Aimara | 004. Colla | 005. Mapuche | 006. Quechua | 007. Rapa Nui | 008. Diaguita | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2017): E2016 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 001. English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish/British | 002. Irish | 003. Gypsy or Irish traveler | 004. White and Black Caribbean | 005. White and Black African | 006. White and Asian | 007. Indian | 008. Pakistani | 009. Bangladeshi | 010. Chinese | 011. African | 012. Caribbean | 013. Arab | 014. Polish | 015. Any other ethnic group | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): E2016 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 001. Greek | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E2016 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 001. Hungarian | 002. Romany (Gypsy) | 003. Serbian, Croatian, Slovenian | 004. German (Swabian) | 005. Romanian | 006. Slovakian | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2020): E2016 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 001. Jewish | 002. Arab | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E2016 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 001. Lithuanian | 002. Russian | 003. Pole | 004. Belorussian | 005. Ukrainian | 006. Latvian | 007. German | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E2016 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 001. Montenegrin | 002. Serbian | 003. Albanian | 004. Bosniak | 005. Muslim | 006. Croatian | 007. Other | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017): E2016 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 001. NZ European | 002. Maori | 003. Maori and European | 004. Chinese | 005. Samoan | 006. Cook Island | 007. Tongan | 008. Nuie | 009. Other Pacific | 010. UK Irish | 011. Other European | 012. Indian | 013. Other Asian | 014. Kiwi NZ | 015. Others | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2020): E2016 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 001. European | 002. Maori | 003. Pasifika | 004. Chinese | 005. Indian | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2019): E2016 | | In the Portuguese 2019 study, respondents could select multiple | ethnicities they identified with from a list. Data were recoded | as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 001. White | 002. Black | 003. Roma | 004. White and Roma | 005. None of the above | | Additional to the answer options listed above, respondents could | choose an Asian or "Other" ethnicity. However, none of the | respondents in the sample selected any of these two options. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2020): E2016 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 001. Slovak | 002. Hungarian | 003. Roma | 004. Czech | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016): E2016 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 001. Taiwanese Hakka | 002. Taiwanese Min-Nan | 003. Mainlander | 004. Aboriginal | 005. Recent mainland immigrant | 006. Recent foreign immigrant | 007. Vietnamese | 008. Indonesian | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2020): E2016 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 001. Taiwanese Hakka | 002. Taiwanese Min-Nan | 003. Mainlander | 004. Aboriginal | 005. Recent mainland immigrant | 006. Recent foreign immigrant | 007. Vietnamese | 008. Indonesian | 009. Burmese | 010. Japanese | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E2016 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 001. Thai | 002. Chinese | 003. Lao | 004. Karen | 005. Lisu | 996. Others | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TUNISIA (2019): E2016 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 001. Arabic | 002. African | 003. Berber | 004. Spanish | 005. Persian | 006. Aloui | 007. Tunisian | 008. Turkish | 009. Moroccan | 010. European | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E2016 | | For the previous variable E2015, respondents were allowed to | name more than one race they considered themselves to belong to. | E2016 consists of the race that the respondent considered as | the main one. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 001. White | 002. Afro/Black | 003. Indigenous | 004. Asiatic/ Yellow --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E2017 >>> COUNTRY OF BIRTH --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D14. Respondent's country of birth. .................................................................. 004. AFGHANISTAN 012. ALGERIA 024. ANGOLA 028. ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA 031. AZERBAIJAN 032. ARGENTINA 036. AUSTRALIA 040. AUSTRIA 044. BAHAMAS 050. BANGLADESH 056. BELGIUM 060. BERMUDA 068. BOLIVIA (PLURINATIONAL STATE OF) 070. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 072. BOTSWANA 076. BRAZIL 100. BULGARIA 104. MYANMAR 112. BELARUS 116. CAMBODIA 120. CAMEROON 124. CANADA 144. SRI LANKA 152. CHILE 156. CHINA 158. TAIWAN 170. COLOMBIA 178. CONGO 184. COOK ISLANDS 188. COSTA RICA 191. CROATIA 192. CUBA 196. CYPRUS 200. CZECHOSLOVAKIA 203. CZECHIA 204. BENIN 208. DENMARK 214. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 218. ECUADOR 222. EL SALVADOR 231. ETHIOPIA 232. ERITREA 234. FAROE ISLANDS 238. FALKLAND ISLANDS (MALVINAS) 242. FIJI 246. FINLAND 250. FRANCE 258. FRENCH POLYNESIA 262. DJIBOUTI 268. GEORGIA 270. GAMBIA 275. STATE OF PALESTINE 276. GERMANY 288. GHANA 296. KIRIBATI 300. GREECE 304. GREENLAND 320. GUATEMALA 328. GUYANA 332. HAITI 340. HONDURAS 344. CHINA, HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION 348. HUNGARY 352. ICELAND 356. INDIA 360. INDONESIA 364. IRAN (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF) 368. IRAQ 372. IRELAND 376. ISRAEL 380. ITALY 384. COTE D'IVOIRE 388. JAMAICA 392. JAPAN 398. KAZAKHSTAN 400. JORDAN 404. KENYA 410. REPUBLIC OF KOREA 414. KUWAIT 418. LAO PEOPLE'S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC 422. LEBANON 428. LATVIA 434. LIBYA 438. LIECHTENSTEIN 440. LITHUANIA 442. LUXEMBOURG 446. CHINA, MACAO SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION 454. MALAWI 458. MALAYSIA 470. MALTA 480. MAURITIUS 484. MEXICO 498. REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA 499. MONTENEGRO 504. MOROCCO 516. NAMIBIA 524. NEPAL 528. NETHERLANDS 554. NEW ZEALAND 558. NICARAGUA 566. NIGERIA 578. NORWAY 586. PAKISTAN 591. PANAMA 598. PAPUA NEW GUINEA 600. PARAGUAY 604. PERU 608. PHILIPPINES 616. POLAND 620. PORTUGAL 626. TIMOR-LESTE 630. PUERTO RICO 642. ROMANIA 643. RUSSIAN FEDERATION 682. SAUDI ARABIA 688. SERBIA 690. SEYCHELLES 702. SINGAPORE 703. SLOVAKIA 704. VIET NAM 705. SLOVENIA 706. SOMALIA 710. SOUTH AFRICA 716. ZIMBABWE 724. SPAIN 729. SUDAN 752. SWEDEN 756. SWITZERLAND 760. SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC 762. TAJIKISTAN 764. THAILAND 772. TOKELAU 776. TONGA 780. TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO 788. TUNISIA 792. TURKEY 795. TURKMENISTAN 804. UKRAINE 807. NORTH MACEDONIA 810. USSR 818. EGYPT 826. UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND 834. UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA 840. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 858. URUGUAY 860. UZBEKISTAN 862. VENEZUELA (BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF) 882. SAMOA 887. YEMEN 890. SOCIALIST FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA 891. SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO 894. ZAMBIA 900. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 901. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 902. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 903. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 904. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 905. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E2017 | | The country codes base on the United Nations Statistics Division | ("countries or areas, codes and abbreviations", revised | February 13, 2002), similar to E1003 and E1006_UN, except for | Taiwan (see Election Study Note on E1003). | | Whenever this is not possible, due to referring to a country | that does not exist anymore, earlier country codes, according to | https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49chang.htm were | employed. | | As long as a question on respondents' country of birth was | included in the questionnaire, native-born citizens were coded | according to the country code of the appropriate state. | | Data are unavailable for FINLAND (2019), NORWAY (2017), SOUTH | KOREA (2016) and UNITED STATES (2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): E2017 | | The Australian study did not ask about specific country of birth | of respondents for all those born outside of Australia. They have | grouped all other countries into two following categories: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 900. Mainly Non-English speaking background | 901. Mainly English speaking background | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): E2017 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 900. Other | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2019): E2017 | | The variable is from the pre-election study. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 900. Other | 901. China, Hong Kong, Taiwan | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - COSTA RICA (2018): E2017 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 900. Other | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2019): E2017 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 900. Other | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2017): E2017 | | The French 2017 study only distinguishes between respondents | being born in vs. outside of France. Persons who were born | outside of France were coded to 900. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 900. Born outside of France | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E2017 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 900. Former German Territories in Eastern EU | 901. Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2017): E2017 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 900. Other | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E2017 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 900. Other | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E2017 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 900. Not in Hungary | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2016): E2017 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 900. Africa | Other (Not further specified) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2020): E2017 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 900. Other | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2017): E2017 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 900. Not Japan | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E2017 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 900. Kosovo | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2017): E2017 | | In the Dutch 2017 study, data on respondents' country of birth | has not been collected in the survey but was obtained from | population registers. Respondents provided consent before data | collection. | Generally, register data are based on the most recent available | data, usually the year preceding data collection. | | Further, the study only distinguishes between respondents with | Dutch, Western, and non-Western origin. For E2017, data have | been recoded as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 528. Dutch origin | 900. Western origin | 901. Non-Western origin | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017): E2017 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 900. Channel Islands | 901. Nive Islands | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2020): E2017 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 900. Other Europe | 901. Other Africa | 902. Other Asia | 903. Latin America | 904. Middle East | 905. Pacific | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2019): E2017 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 900. Former Portuguese Colony (Angola, Cabo Verde, | Guinea-Bissau, Goa, Macao, Mozambique, Sao Tome) | 901. Other | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2020): E2020 | | The Slovakian 2020 study only distinguishes between respondents | being born in Slovakia, Czechia or other countries. Respondents | born outside of Slovakia and Czechia were coded to 900. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 900. Born outside of both Slovakia and Czechia | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2018): E2017 | | Rather than stating their country of birth, respondents were | asked where they primarily grew up, distinguishing between | several areas in Sweden, Europe and outside of Europe. These | answer categories have been recoded as follows for the Swedish | 2018 study: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 752. In the countryside in Sweden | In a small urban area in Sweden | In a city or larger urban area in Sweden | In Stockholm, Gothenburg or Malmo | 900. In another country in the Nordics | 901. In another country in Europe | 902. In another country outside of Europe | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2019): E2017 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 900. Kosovo | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E2017 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 840. A U.S. state or Washington D.C. | 630. Puerto Rico | 900. Another U.S. territory (Guam, American Samoa, | U.S. Virgin Islands) | 901. Another country --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E2018 >>> WAS EITHER BIOLOGICAL PARENT BORN OUTSIDE OF THE COUNTRY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D15. Was either biological parent born outside of [COUNTRY]? .................................................................. 0. NO 1. YES 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E2018 | | Data are unavailable for AUSTRALIA (2019), JAPAN (2017), | NETHERLANDS (2017), NORWAY (2017), SOUTH KOREA (2016) and URUGUAY | (2019). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2019): E2018 | | In the 2019 Danish election study, respondents were asked | separately for each parent whether they were born in Denmark. | The following table lists how answers to both questions were | combined for E2018: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 0. Both father and mother were born in Denmark | 1. At least one parent born outside of Denmark | 7. Refused to answer for both mother and father | whether born in or outside of Denmark | 8. Don't know for both parents whether born in or | outside of Denmark | First parent born in Denmark, don't know whether | second parent born in or outside of Denmark | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2017): E2018 | | The French election study asked respondents whether they had | one or more foreign parents. Answers were coded as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 0. None of the parents | 1. Yes, one parent | Yes, both parents | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E2018 | | In the 2016 Hong Kong election study, interviewers asked | respondents separately for each parent whether they were | born in Hong Kong. The following table lists how answers to both | questions were combined for E2018: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 0. Both father and mother born in Hong Kong | 1. At least one parent born outside of Hong Kong | 7. Refused to answer for both mother and father | whether born in or outside of Hong Kong | 8. Don't know for both parents whether born in or | outside of Hong Kong | First parent born in Hong Kong, don't know whether | second parent born in or outside of Hong Kong | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2019): E2018 | | The Portuguese study asked respondents whether either biological | parent was born outside of Portugal. Answers were coded as | follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 0. No | 1. Yes, one of them | Yes, both | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2020): E2018 | | In the 2020 Slovakian study, interviewers asked respondents | separately for each parent whether they were born in or outside | of Slovakia. The following table lists how answers to both | questions were combined for E2018: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 0. Both father and mother born in Slovakia | 1. At least one parent born outside of Slovakia | 8. Don't know for both parents whether born in or | outside of Slovakia | First parent born in Slovakia, don't know whether | second parent born in or outside of Slovakia | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2018): E2018 | | In the 2018 Swedish election study, respondents were not asked | about their parent's country of birth, but where their parents | mainly grew up. Specifically, respondents were asked separately | for each parent whether they grew up in Sweden or any other | country, distinguishing between the Nordics, Europe and | countries outside of Europe. The following table lists how | answers to both questions were combined for E2018: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 0. Both father and mother grew up in Sweden | 1. At least one parent grew up outside of Sweden | 9. First parent grew up in Sweden, R did not | provide information on second parent | R did not answer question for any of the parents | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E2018 | | The ANES 2020 study asked respondents whether they had one or | more parents born in the U.S. Answers were coded as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 0. Both parents born in the US | 1. One parent born in the US | Both parents born in another country | 7. Refused | 8. Don't know --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E2019 >>> LANGUAGE USUALLY SPOKEN AT HOME --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D16. This variable reports the language usually spoken in the respondent's household. If more than one language is spoken at home, this variable reports the language spoken most of the time. .................................................................. 001. AFRIKAANS 002. ALBANIAN, ARVANITIKA 003. ALBANIAN, GHEG 004. ALBANIAN, TOSK 005. ALLEMANNISCH 006. ALSATIAN 007. ARABIC, JUDEO-MOROCCAN 008. ARABIC, LEVANTINE (ISRAEL) 009. ARMENIAN 201. ASHANTI (GHANA) 237. ASYRIAN 010. AVAR (RUSSIA) 011. AWADHI (INDIA) 012. AYMARA, CENTRAL (ARGENTINA, PERU) 231. AZERI 013. BASQUE 234. BALKAR 014. BELORUSSIAN 015. BEMBA (ZAMBIA) 016. BENGALI, BANGLADESHI, BANGLA (INDIA) 017. BHOJPURI (INDIA) 244. BICOLANO (PHILIPPINES) 265. BISAYA (PHILIPPINES) 270. B'LAAN (PHILIPPINES) 202. BLUCH (PAKISTAN) 263. BOHOLANO (PHILIPPINES) 018. BOSNIAN 019. BRETON 020. BULGARIAN 260. CAGAYANO (PHILIPPINES) 258. CANTILAGNON (PHILIPPINES) 273. CAPIZNON (PHILIPPINES) 021. CATALAN 241. CEBUANO (PHILIPPINES) 276. CENTRAL THAI 022. CHECHEN (RUSSIA) 203. CHINESE, CANTONESE 023. CHINESE, HAKKA 024. CHINESE, MANDARIN 025. CHINESE, MIN NAN 026. CHUVASH (RUSSIA) 027. CROATIAN 028. CZECH 029. DANISH 030. DECCAN (INDIA) 204. DORIC (SCOTLAND) 031. DUTCH 032. ENGLISH 033. ERZYA (RUSSIA) 205. ESAN (NIGERIA) 034. ESTONIAN 206. EWE (GHANA) 209. FARSI (IRAN) 035. FINNISH 036. FRENCH 037. FRISIAN, WESTERN (NETHERLANDS) 038. FULACUNDA (SENEGAL) 207. GA (GHANA) 039. GAELIC, IRISH 208. GAELIC (SCOTLAND) 040. GAGAUZ (MOLDOVA) 041. GALICIAN 042. GASCON 043. GEORGIAN 044. GERMAN, STANDARD 045. GREEK 046. GUARANI, PARAGUAYAN 047. GUJARATI (SOUTH AFRICA, INDIA) 048. HEBREW 266. HIGAONON (PHILIPPINES) 274. HILIGAYNON (PHILIPPINES) 049. HUNGARIAN 051. HINDI 050. ICELANDIC 259. IFUGAO (PHILIPPINES) 242. ILOCANO (PHILIPPINES) 243. ILONGGO (PHILIPPINES) 210. INDONESIAN 211. IRANIAN 254. IRANUN (PHILIPPINES) 278. ISAN THAI 052. ITALIAN 249. ITAWES (PHILIPPINES) 212. IWO (UGANDA) 053. JAKATI (MOLDOVA) 213. JAMAICAN PATOIS 275. JAMINDANON (PHILIPPINES) 054. JAPANESE 280. KAMAE (THAILAND) 257. KAMAYO (PHILIPPINES) 055. KANNADA (INDIA) 056. KAONDE (ZAMBIA) 245. KAPAMPANGAN (PHILIPPINES) 057. KARAIM (LITHUANIA) 261. KARAY-AY (PHILIPPINES) 233. KARBADIN 058. KIRMANJKI (TURKEY) 235. KOMI 279. KORATCH (THAILAND) 066. KOREAN 232. KURDISH 059. KURMANJI (TURKEY) 060. LADINO (ISRAEL) 061. LALA-BISA (ZAMBIA) 062. LAMBA (ZAMBIA) 277. LANNA THAI 063. LATVIAN 064. LENJE (ZAMBIA) 065. LESSER ANTILLEAN CREOLE 268. LEYTENO (PHILIPPINES) 067. LIGURIAN 068. LITHUANIAN 069. LOMBARD 070. LOZI (ZAMBIA) 071. LUNDA (ZAMBIA) 072. LUVALE (ZAMBIA) 073. MACEDONIAN 251. MAGUINDANAON (PHILIPPINES) 074. MAITHILI (INDIA) 229. MALLORQUIN 267. MALAUEG (PHILIPPINES) 075. MALAY 076. MALAYALAM (INDIA) 077. MALINKE (SENEGAL) 214. MALTESE 253. MANOBO (PHILIPPINES) 250. MASBATENO (PHILIPPINES) 215. MENDE (SIERRA LEONE) 216. MIRPUARY/MIRPUIR (PAKISTAN) 217. MNADINGGO (GAMBIA) 078. MAMBWE-LUNGU (ZAMBIA) 079. MANDINKA (SENEGAL) 080. MAORI 081. MAPUDUNGUN (CHILE) 082. MARATHI (INDIA) 083. MBOWE (ZAMBIA) 084. MINGRELIAN (GEORGIA) 085. MONTENEGRIN 255. MUSLIM (PHILIPPINES) 086. MWANGA (ZAMBIA) 087. NEAPOLITAN-CALABRESE 088. NORWEGIAN 089. NSENGA (ZAMBIA) 090. NYANJA (ZAMBIA) 091. NYIHA (ZAMBIA) 092. ORIYA (INDIA) 093. OSETIN (GEORGIA) 218. PAHARI (PAKISTAN) 246. PANGASINENSE (PHILIPPINES) 094. PANJABI, EASTERN (INDIA) 236. PERSIAN 095. PIEMONTESE 096. POLISH 097. PORTUGUESE 098. PROVENCAL 248. PULANGI-ON (PHILIPPINES) 219. PUSHTO (PAKISTAN) 099. QUECHUA, ANCASH, HUAYLAS 100. QUECHUA, SOUTH BOLIVIAN (ARGENTINA) 101. QUECH UA, AYACUCHO 102. QUICHUA, HIGHLAND, IMBABURA 103. ROMANI, BALKAN 104. ROMANI, CARPATHIAN 105. ROMANI, VLACH 106. ROMANIAN 107. ROMANIAN, ISTRO 108. ROMANIAN, 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] 996. OTHER: NOT SPECIFIED 997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E2019 | | Coding of E2019 follows the scheme of E1035 (language of | questionnaire administration). | | Data are unavailable for IRELAND (2016), JAPAN (2017), | NETHERLANDS (2017), NORWAY (2017), SLOVAKIA (2020), SOUTH KOREA | (2016), SWEDEN (2018) and UNITED STATES (2016 & 2020). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): E2019 | | The question in the Australian study was "Do you speak a language | other than English at home?" | Respondents answering "No" are coded as those speaking English. | Respondents answering "Yes" are coded as "996. Other language | (not specified)" since there was not a follow-up question about | what other language they speak at home. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E2019 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 980. Esperanto | 981. Indigenous language / "caipanga" / "tupi guarani" | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2017): E2019 | | The French 2017 study only distinguishes between respondents | who speak French or any other language at home. Persons who | stated not to speak French at home were coded to 996. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 996. Another language than French | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E2019 | | In the German 2017 study, E2019 was assessed by two survey | questions. In a first question, respondents were asked whether | they usually speak either German or any other language at home. | Only respondents stating to speak a language other than German | at home were asked to specify that language in a follow-up | question. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2017): E2019 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 980. Other (not English and not Welsh) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2016): E2019 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 980. Icelandic and English | 981. Faroese | 982. Sign Language | 983. Icelandic and Bulgarian | 984. Icelandic and Danish | 985. Icelandic and Norwegian | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2017): E2019 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 980. Nepalese | 981. Faroese | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E2019 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 980. Dialect/Regional language | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017): E2019 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 980. Amharic | 981. Khmer | 982. Fijian | 983. Nepali | 984. Samoan | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2020): E2019 | | E2019 was differently asked in the 2020 New Zealand Election | Study. The question was "In which language(s) could you have a | conversation about a lot of everyday things?" | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 980. Samoan, Nuiean, Tongan, and the native language | of Vanuatu | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2019): E2019 | | The Portuguese 2019 study only distinguishes between respondents | who speak Portuguese or any other language at home. Persons who | stated not to speak Portuguese at home were coded to 996. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 996. Language other than Portuguese | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2019): E2019 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 980. Romansh (Switzerland) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016): E2019 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 980. Taiwanese | 981. Both Mandarin and Taiwanese | 982. Both Mandarin and Hakka | 983. Both Mandarin and other Chinese dialect | 984. Both Taiwanese and Hakka | 985. Aboriginal language | 986. Other Chinese dialect | 987. Both Mandarin and Aboriginal language | 988. Mandarin, Taiwanese and Hakka | 989. Burmese | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2020): E2019 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 980. Taiwanese | 981. Aboriginal language | 982. Other Chinese dialect | 983. Both Mandarin and Taiwanese | 984. Both Mandarin and Hakka | 985. Both Taiwanese and Hakka | 986. Both Mandarin and other Chinese dialect | 987. Mandarin, Taiwanese and English | 988. Both Mandarin and English | 989. Mandarin, Taiwanese and Hakka | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E2019 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 980. Hill tribe language | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TUNISIA (2019): E2019 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 980. Tunisian dialect | 981. Berber language | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2018): E2019 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 980. Uzbek | 981. Turkmen | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E2019 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 980. Portunol (mixed Spanish and Portuguese) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E2020 >>> REGION OF RESIDENCE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D17. This variable reports the respondent's region of residence. Regions are usually (but not always) based upon the social, cultural, or historical differences (though some correspond to administrative regions) that manifest themselves in political cleavages .................................................................. 01.-80. REGION CODES [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E2020 | | Data are unavailable for BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019), | BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019), HONG KONG (2016) and ISRAEL (2020). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): E2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. New South Wales | 02. Victoria | 03. Queensland | 04. South Australia | 05. Western Australia | 06. Tasmania | 07. Northern Territory | 08. Australian Capital Territory | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): E2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Vorarlberg | 02. Tyrol | 03. Salzburg | 04. Upper Austria | 05. Carinthia | 06. Styria | 07. Burgenland | 08. Lower Austria | 09. Vienna | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. North | 02. Northeast | 03. Southeast | 04. South | 05. Midwest | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2019): E2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Alberta | 02. British Columbia | 03. Manitoba | 04. New Brunswick | 05. Newfoundland and Labrador | 06. Nova Scotia | 07. Ontario | 08. Prince Edward Island | 09. Saskatchewan | 10. Quebec | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2017): E2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Tarapaca | 02. Antofagasta | 03. Atacama | 04. Coquimbo | 05. Valparaiso | 06. O'Higgins | 07. Maule | 08. Bio Bio | 09. Araucania | 10. Los Lagos | 11. Aysen | 12. Magallanes | 13. Metropolitana | 14. Los Rios | 15. Artica y Parinacota | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - COSTA RICA (2018): E2020 | | For the Costa Rican 2018 election study, the region of residence | categories are the same as the primary electoral district | categories (E2021). | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Alajuela | 02. Cartago | 03. Guanacaste | 04. Heredia | 05. Limon | 06. Puntarenas | 07. San Jose | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2019): E2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Capital Region of Denmark (Hovedstaden) | 02. Zealand Region (Sjaelland) | 03. Region of Southern Denmark (Syddanmark) | 04. Central Denmark Region (Midtjylland) | 05. North Denmark Region (Nordjylland) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Uusimaa | 02. Southwest Finland | 04. Satakunta | 05. Kanta-Hame | 06. Pirkanmaa | 07. Paijaet-Hame | 08. Kymenlaakso | 09. South Karelia | 10. South Savo | 11. North Savo | 12. North Karelia | 13. Central Finland | 14. South Ostrobothnia | 15. Ostrobothnia | 16. Central Ostrobothnia | 17. North Ostrobothnia | 18. Kainuu | 19. Lapland | | The region Aland Islands was not sampled. Approximately 0.65% of | the population are therefore not included in the sample frame. | | Region of residence was not asked in the survey. The data for | E2020 were derived from municipality codes. The original | municipality variable was removed from the data because of | confidentiality issues. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2017): E2020 | | The codes documented below refer to the strata used for sampling. | These strata are larger than any French administrative region. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. West | 02. South West | 03. South East | 04. Center | 05. East | 06. Paris Area | 07. North | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E2020 | | Respondents were not asked a question regarding their region of | residence. Instead, the variable was created using the | respective information from the interviewer protocols. | | CSES-Code Election study code/category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Baden-Wuerttemberg | 02. Bavaria | 03. Berlin | 04. Brandenburg | 05. Bremen | 06. Hamburg | 07. Hesse | 08. Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania | 09. Lower Saxony | 10. North Rhine-Westphalia | 11. Rhineland Palatinate | 12. Saarland | 13. Saxony | 14. Saxony-Anhalt | 15. Schleswig-Holstein | 16. Thuringia | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2017): E2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. East Midlands | 02. Eastern | 03. London | 04. North East | 05. North West | 06. Scotland | 07. South East | 08. South West | 09. Wales | 10. West Midlands | 11. Yorkshire & Humber | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): E2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 02. Prefecture of Aitoloakarnania | 03. Prefecture of Argolida | 04. Prefecture of Arcadia | 05. Prefecture of Arta | 06. Prefecture of Attica | 07. Prefecture of Achaia | 08. Prefecture of Voiotia | 10. Prefecture of Drama | 11. Prefecture of Dodecanese | 12. Prefecture of Evros | 13. Prefecture of Evoia | 15. Prefecture of Zakynthos | 16. Prefecture of Ilia | 17. Prefecture of Imathia | 18. Prefecture of Heracleion | 19. Prefecture of Thesprotia | 20. Prefecture of Thessaloniki | 21. Prefecture of Ioannina | 22. Prefecture of Kavala | 23. Prefecture of Karditsa | 24. Prefecture of Kastoria | 25. Prefecture of Kerkyra | 26. Prefecture of Kefallinia | 27. Prefecture of Kilkis | 28. Prefecture of Kozani | 29. Prefecture of Corithia | 30. Prefecture of Cyclades | 31. Prefecture of Lakonia | 32. Prefecture of Larisa | 33. Prefecture of Lasithi | 34. Prefecture of Lesbos | 36. Prefecture of Magnesia | 37. Prefecture of Messinia | 38. Prefecture of Xanthi | 39. Prefecture of Pella | 40. Prefecture of Pieria | 41. Prefecture of Preveza | 42. Prefecture of Rethimnon | 43. Prefecture of Rodopi | 44. Prefecture of Samos | 45. Prefecture of Serres | 46. Prefecture of Trikala | 47. Prefecture of Fthiotida | 48. Prefecture of Florina | 49. Prefecture of Fokida | 50. Prefecture of Chalkidiki | 51. Prefecture of Chania | 52. Prefecture of Chios | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Budapest | 02. Baranya | 03. Bacs-Kiskun | 04. Bekes | 05. BAZ | 06. Csongrad | 07. Fejer | 08. Gyor-Moson-Sopron | 09. Hajdu-Bihar | 10. Heves | 11. Komarom-Eszter | 12. Nograd | 13. Pest | 14. Somogy | 15. Szabolcs-Szatmar-Bereg | 16. Jasz-Nagykun-Szolnok | 17. Tolna | 18. Vas | 19. Veszprem | 20. Zala | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2016 and 2017): E2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Capital area | 02. Reykjanes Peninsula | 03. West | 04. Westfjords | 05. North-West | 06. North-East | 07. East | 08. South | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2016): E2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Carlow | 02. Cavan | 03. Clare | 04. Cork | 05. Donegal | 06. Dublin | 07. Galway | 08. Kerry | 09. Kildare | 10. Kilkenny | 11. Laois | 12. Leitrim | 13. Limerick | 14. Longford | 15. Louth | 16. Mayo | 17. Meath | 18. Monaghan | 19. Offaly | 20. Roscommon | 21. Sligo | 22. Tipperary | 23. Waterford | 24. Westmeath | 25. Wexford | 26. Wicklow | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Piemonte | 02. Lombardia | 03. Trentino Alto Adige | 04. Veneto | 05. Friuli Venezia Giulia | 06. Liguria | 07. Emilia Romagna | 08. Toscana | 09. Umbria | 10. Marche | 11. Lazio | 12. Abruzzo | 13. Molise | 14. Campania | 15. Puglia | 16. Calabria | 17. Sicilia | 18. Sardegna | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2017): E2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Hokkaido | 02. Aomori | 03. Iwate | 04. Miyagi | 05. Akita | 06. Yamagata | 07. Fukushima | 08. Ibaraki | 09. Tochigi | 10. Gunma | 11. Saitama | 12. Chiba | 13. Tokyo | 14. Kanagawa | 15. Niigata | 16. Toyama | 17. Ishikawa | 18. Fukui | 19. Yamanashi | 20. Nagano | 21. Gifu | 22. Shizuoka | 23. Aichi | 24. Mie | 25. Shiga | 26. Kyoyo | 27. Osaka | 28. Hyogo | 29. Nara | 30. Wakayama | 31. Tottori | 32. Shimane | 33. Okayama | 34. Hiroshima | 35. Yamaguchi | 36. Tokushima | 37. Kagawa | 38. Ehime | 39. Kochi | 40. Fukuoka | 41. Saga | 42. Nagasaki | 43. Kumamoto | 44. Oita | 45. Miyazaki | 46. Kagoshima | 47. Okinawa | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Altyus county | 02. Kaunas county | 03. Klaipeda county | 04. Marijampole county | 05. Penevezys county | 06. Siauliai county | 07. Taurage county | 08. Telsiai county | 09. Utena county | 10. Vilnus county | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E2020 | | The regions of residence listed below correspond to the three | geographical regions used as primary sampling units for the 2016 | Montenegrin election study. For further information, see | Codebook Part 6, and the Design Report for Montenegro 2016. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. South | 02. Center | 03. North | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2017): E2020 | | In the Dutch 2017 study, data on respondents' region of residence | has not been collected in the survey but was obtained from | population registers. Respondents provided consent before data | collection. | Generally, register data are based on the most recent available | data, usually the year preceding data collection. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. North | 02. East | 03. West | 04. South | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017 & 2020): E2020 | | CSES-Code Election study code/category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Northland | 02. Auckland | 03. Waikato | 04. Bay of Plenty | 05. Gisborne | 06. Hawke's Bay | 07. Taranaki | 08. Manawatu-Wanganui | 09. Wellington | 12. West Coast | 13. Canterbury | 14. Otago | 15. Southland | 16. Tasman | 17. Nelson | 18. Marlborough | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2017): E2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Oslofjord | 02. Inner East of Norway | 03. Southern Norway | 04. Western Norway | 05. Trondelag | 06. Northern Norway | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2019): E2020 | | The regions of residence listed below correspond to EU NUTS II | regions, used as primary sampling units for the 2019 Portuguese | election study. For further information, see Codebook Part 6, | and the Design Report for Portugal 2019. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Norte | 02. Centro | 03. Grande Lisboa | 04. Alentejo | 05. Algarve | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2020): E2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Bratislavsky | 02. Trnavsky | 03. Treneiansky | 04. Nitriansky | 05. Zilinsky | 06. Banskobystricky | 07. Presovsky | 08. Kosicky | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2016): E2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Seoul | 02. Busan | 03. Daegu | 04. Incheon | 05. Gwangju | 06. Daejeon | 07. Ulsan | 08. Sejong | 09. Gyeonggi | 10. Gangwon | 11. Chungbuk | 12. Chungnam | 13. Jeonbuk | 14. Jeonnam | 15. Gyeongbuk | 16. Gyeongnam | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2018): E2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Stockholm county | 03. Uppsala county | 04. Sodermanland county | 05. Ostergotland county | 06. Jonkoping county | 07. Kronoberg county | 08. Kalmar county | 09. Gotland county | 10. Blekinge county | 12. Skane county | 13. Halland county | 14. Vastra Gotaland county | 17. Varmland county | 18. Orebro county | 19. Vastmanland county | 20. Dalarna county | 21. Gavleborg county | 22. Vasternorrland county | 23. Jamtland county | 24. Vasterbotten county | 25. Norrbotten county | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2019): E2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Zurich | 02. Bern | 03. Lucerne | 04. Uri | 05. Schwyz | 06. Obwalden | 07. Nidwalden | 08. Glarus | 09. Zug | 10. Fribourg | 11. Solothurn | 12. Basel-Stadt | 13. Basel-Landschaft | 14. Schaffhausen | 15. Appenzell Ausserrhoden | 16. Appenzell Innerrhoden | 17. St. Gallen | 18. Graubuenden | 19. Aargau | 20. Thurgau | 21. Ticino | 22. Vaud | 23. Valais | 24. Neuchatel | 25. Geneva | 26. Jura | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016 & 2020): E2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Taipei, New Taipei, Keelung and Ilan | 02. Taoyuan, Hsinchu and Miaoly | 03. Taichung, Changhua and Nantou | 04. Yunlin, Chiayi and Tainan | 05. Kaoshiung, Pingtung and Penghu | 06. Hualien, Taitung and Offshore Islands | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. North | 02. Northeast | 03. Central | 04. South | 05. Bangkok | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TUNISIA (2019): E2020 | | For the Tunisian 2019 election study, the regions of residence | are almost identical to the primary electoral districts (E2021). | The only difference is that the governorates Tunis, Nabeul and | Sfax are subdivided into Tunis 1 and Tunis 2, Nabeul 1 and | Nabeul 2, and Sfax 1 and Sfax 2 in the primary electoral | districts (E2021). | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Beja | 02. Ben Arous | 03. Bizerte | 04. Gabes | 05. Gafsa | 06. Jendouba | 07. Kairouan | 08. Kasserine | 09. Kebili | 10. Ariana | 11. Mahdia | 12. Manouba | 13. Medenine | 14. Monastir | 15. Nabeul | 16. Sfax | 17. Sidi Bouzid | 18. Siliana | 19. Sousse | 20. Tataouine | 21. Tozeur | 22. Tunis | 23. Zaghouan | 24. Kef | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2018): E2020 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Istanbul | 02. Western Marmara | 03. Aegean | 04. Eastern Marmara | 05. Western Anatolia | 06. Mediterranean | 07. Central Anatolia | 08. Western Black Sea | 09. Eastern Black Sea | 10. North-Eastern Anatolia | 11. Central Eastern Anatolia | 12. South-Eastern Anatolia | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016 & 2020): E2020 | | E2020 reports the federal state a respondent is living in, | according to US-FIPS codes. | District data for CSES Module 5 were collected for the U.S. | Presidential Elections, i.e., the main elections. The United | States use an electoral college system for Presidential | elections operating on the state level. Hence, users are advised | to use E2020 for linking district data provided in variables | E4001 - E4007 to individual respondents, as E2020 corresponds | to the U.S. states. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Alabama | 02. Alaska | 04. Arizona | 05. Arkansas | 06. California | 08. Colorado | 09. Connecticut | 10. Delaware | 11. Washington, D.C. | 12. Florida | 13. Georgia | 15. Hawaii | 16. Idaho | 17. Illinois | 18. Indiana | 19. Iowa | 20. Kansas | 21. Kentucky | 22. Louisiana | 23. Maine | 24. Maryland | 25. Massachusetts | 26. Michigan | 27. Minnesota | 28. Mississippi | 29. Missouri | 30. Montana | 31. Nebraska | 32. Nevada | 33. New Hampshire | 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 | 46. South Dakota | 47. Tennessee | 48. Texas | 49. Utah | 50. Vermont | 51. Virginia | 53. Washington | 54. West Virginia | 55. Wisconsin | 56. Wyoming | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E2020 | | For the Uruguayan 2019 election study, the region of residence | categories are the same as the primary electoral district | categories (E2021). However, as people can register in | departments other than their place of residence, E2020 and E2021 | can show slight deviations in their distributions. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Artigas | 02. Canelones | 03. Cerro Largo | 04. Colonia | 05. Durazno | 06. Flores | 07. Florida | 08. Lavalleja | 09. Maldonado | 10. Montevideo | 11. Paysandu | 12. Rio Negro | 13. Rivera | 14. Rocha | 15. Salto | 16. San Jose | 17. Soriano | 18. Tacuarembo | 19. Treinta y Tres --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E2021 >>> PRIMARY ELECTORAL DISTRICT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D18. Primary electoral district of respondent. .................................................................. 00001.-90000. [SEE CODEBOOK PART 4 FOR CODE VALUE LABELS] 99996. NATIONWIDE DISTRICT 99999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E2021 | | Wherever possible, this variable uses official district | identification numbers. Deviances from this CSES convention are | detailed when applicable in the ELECTION STUDY NOTES. | | In some cases, not all districts in a polity are sampled by | the election study. More specific information regarding this | is detailed in the tables in the District Data section of the | Codebook. | | In some cases, respondents' electoral districts were | identified "indirectly," through postal codes, etc., | by the CSES Secretariat (always with the help of the appropriate | collaborator(s)). Where postal codes, etc., were ambiguous, | cases are coded missing. Refusals and "don't know" are coded | missing. | | Data are unavailable for HUNGARY (2018). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): E2021 | | The data represents the first electoral tier (Regionalwahl- | kreis). Seats in Austria are distributed across three tiers | (Regionalwahlkreis-tier 1; Landwahlkreis-tier 2; and the | federal level-tier 3). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019): E2021 | | District identifier was not asked in the survey. It was retrieved | from National Register, used for sampling. However, due to | privacy regulations, Belgian collaborators were not allowed to | access respondents' addresses or to ask in the survey for full | (four-digit) postal codes. By the study design, all respondents | in Flanders received a Dutch questionnaire only. Some of them | reported in the survey postal codes belonging to Brussels (not | sampled) or the Wallonia region. Since the postal codes are | incomplete (respondents reported two-digit postal codes and not | full four-digit codes) and were self-reported, collaborators | relied on the language of the questionnaire to divide respondents | into regions and later relied on two-digit postal codes to assign | respondents to districts. It has to be noted that the number of | cases that do not adhere to this strict logic is minimal. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019): E2021 | | District identifier was not asked in the survey. It was retrieved | from National Register, used for sampling. However, due to | privacy regulations, Belgian collaborators were not allowed to | access respondents' addresses or to ask in the survey for full | (four-digit) postal codes. By the study design, all respondents | in Wallonia received the French questionnaire only. Some of them | reported in the survey postal codes which belong to Brussels | (not sampled) or the Flanders region. Since the postal codes are | incomplete (respondents reported two-digit postal codes and not | full four-digit codes) and were self-reported, collaborators | relied on the language of the questionnaire to divide respondents | into regions and later relied on two-digit postal codes to assign | respondents to districts. It has to be noted that the number of | cases that do not adhere to this strict logic is minimal. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E2021 | | The primary electoral district identifier was not asked in the | survey. The data for E2021 were derived from municipality codes. | The original municipality variable was removed from the data | because of confidentiality issues. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E2021 | | As interviews were conducted via telephone, respondents were | asked to name their electoral district in a survey question. | However, only respondents who said to have voted in the 2016 | geographical constituency elections for the Legislative Council | were requested to name their district (E3012_LH). Therefore, | those respondents who either claimed not to have voted or who | refused to answer to E3012_LH were coded missing in E2021 | (N = 132). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2020): E2021 | | The size of New Zealand's electorates is determined such that | all electorates have approximately the same population. The | number of electorates increases at regular intervals in line | with national population growth. Beginning with the 2020 general | election, the number of electorates increased from 71 to 72. | Thus, the number of primary electoral districts varies between | 2017 and 2020. Apart from the additional electoral district, | some electorates have been renamed by the Representation | Commission, which determines the names of each electorate | following the most recent census. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2018): E2021 | | Sweden has two electoral segments: The lower tier returns 310 | seats from 29 multi-member districts, the upper tier consists of | 39 adjustment seats. District data on the number of seats | per district (E4001) and the number of seats won by PARTY A-I | in each district (E4005_A-I) refer to the lower tier. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TUNISIA (2019): E2021 | | The Tunisian parliament consists of 217 seats. 27 constituencies | are based on the governorates of Tunisia. However, there are six | additional overseas constituencies representing Tunisians abroad | and electing 18 of those 217 seats. These overseas constituencies | are located in Europe, America and Arabia. The Tunisian election | study solely consists of the constituencies located in Tunisia. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016 & 2020): E2021 | | This variable reports the electoral districts for the U.S. Lower | House elections, the House of Representatives. The first two | digits of the district codes indicate the federal state (U.S.- | FIPS-codes as used in E2020). | However, the district data for CSES Module 5 were collected for | the U.S. Presidential Elections, i.e., the main elections. | Considering that the United States uses an electoral college | system for Presidential elections that operates on the U.S. | state level, the data was collected accordingly. Hence, to link | district data to respondents in the CSES dataset, users are | advised to make use of the variable E2020 (Region of Residence) | which corresponds to the U.S. states. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E2022 >>> RURAL OR URBAN RESIDENCE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D19. Rural/Urban Residence. .................................................................. 1. RURAL AREA OR VILLAGE 2. SMALL OR MIDDLE-SIZED TOWN 3. SUBURBS OF LARGE TOWN OR CITY 4. LARGE TOWN OR CITY 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E2022 | | 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 E2022. Consequently, we advise users to | carefully read the ELECTION STUDY NOTES of the current variable. | | Data are unavailable for AUSTRALIA (2019), GREAT BRITAIN (2017), | HONG KONG (2016), ITALY (2018) and TAIWAN (2016 & 2020). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019): E2022 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |------------------------------------------------------------------ | 01. Rural area or village | 02. A small or mid-sized town | 03. A city with less than 100.000 inhabitants | 04. A large city with more than 100.000 inhabitants | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019): E2022 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |------------------------------------------------------------------ | 01. Rural area or village | 02. A small or mid-sized town | 03. A city with less than 100.000 inhabitants | 04. A large city with more than 100.000 inhabitants | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E2022 | | The Brazilian data includes only two categories for E2022. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Rural | 04. Urban | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2019): E2022 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 1. A small village with less than 200 inhabitants | or farm / house in the countryside | A town with 200 - 999 inhabitants | A town with 1,000 - 2,999 inhabitants | 2. A town with 3,000 - 9,999 inhabitants | A town with 10,000 - 19,999 inhabitants | A town with 20,000 - 39,999 inhabitants | A town with over 40,000 inhabitants | 3. In a suburb of Aarhus / Aalborg / Odense | In a suburb of Copenhagen / Greater Copenhagen | 4. Aarhus / Aalborg / Odense | Copenhagen / Greater Copenhagen | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E2022 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. In a sparsely populated rural area | In a municipal center or other population centers | in a rural area | 02. In the center of a smaller town | 03. In a city/town suburb | 04. In the center of a large town | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E2022 | | This question was part of the interviewer protocol and therefore | answered by the interviewer and not the respondent. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E2022 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Village | 02. Other city | 04. Budapest | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2017): E2022 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Towns and Villages | 02. Cities with a population of less than 100,000 | Cities with a population 100,000-200,000 | 03. Cities with a population of more than 200,000 | 04. 21 big cities | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2017): E2022 | | In the Dutch 2017 study, data on E2022 has not been collected in | the survey, but was obtained from population registers. | Respondents provided consent before data collection. | Generally, register data are based on the most recent available | data, usually the year preceding data collection. | | Further, E2022 measures the degree of urbanization in terms of | the number of addresses per square kilometer rather than rural | or urban residence. For E2022, data were recoded as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Very low - fewer than 500 addresses per square | kilometer | Low - 500 to 1,000 addresses per square kilometer | 02. Medium - 1,000 to 1,500 addresses per square | kilometer | High - 1500 to 2,000 addresses per square | kilometer | 04. Very high - 2,500 addresses or more per square | kilometer | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017): E2022 | | In the original survey question, respondents were offered | five response categories: rural area or settlement, country | town, larger country town, large town, and major city. As the | CSES coding only includes four categories, large town and | major city were collapsed into the fourth category (large town | or city). | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Rural area or settlement | 02. Country town (under 10,000) | 03. Larger country town (10,000-25,000) | 04. Large town (25,000-99,999), | Major city (over 100,000) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2016): E2022 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Rural area or village | 03. Small or middle-sized city | 04. Seoul, metropolitan city | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2018): E2022 | | For E2022, Swedish respondents were asked in which type of area | they lived. Answer options for E2022 differed from the CSES | standard, and were recoded as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Rural area | Village | 02. Town | City: outer area | City: central area | 03. Large city: outer area/suburb | 04. Large city: central area | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2019): E2022 | | Respondents in the Swiss study were not asked this question | directly. Instead, the variable was calculated based on | respondents' residence using classification schemes of the | Federal Statistical Office (FSO). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): E2022 | | Rural or urban residence of respondents was assessed by | interviewers and is therefore available only for respondents who | were interviewed face-to-face. Respondents interviewed on the | web were coded missing. | Furthermore, answer options for E2022 differ from the CSES | standard, as listed below: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Rural farm or undeveloped land | 02. Rural town | 03. Suburban | 04. Urban =========================================================================== ))) CSES MODULE 5 VARIABLES: MICRO-LEVEL (SURVEY) DATA THE CSES MODULE 5 QUESTIONNAIRE =========================================================================== --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3001 >>> Q01. POLITICAL INTEREST --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q01. How interested would you say you are in politics? Are you very interested, somewhat interested, not very interested, or not at all interested? .................................................................. 1. VERY INTERESTED 2. SOMEWHAT INTERESTED 3. NOT VERY INTERESTED 4. NOT AT ALL INTERESTED 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2019): E3001 | | The 2019 Canadian election study asked respondents to rate | their political interest on an 11-point scale. This diverges | from the original CSES scheme ranging from 1 to 4. The 11-point | scale runs from "0. No interest at all" to "10. A great deal of | interest". The categories were assigned as listed below. Please | note that the middle category 5 was assigned to "3. NOT VERY | INTERESTED". The decision is based on the comparison of | distributions between the Canadian political interest variable | and the political interest variable of other Module 5 election | studies. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Codes 8 to 10 | 02. Codes 6 to 7 | 03. Codes 3 to 5 | 04. Codes 0 to 2 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E3001 | | The 2017 German election study asked respondents to rate their | interest in politics on a 5-point scale, additionally | differentiating between a "very strong" and "strong" interest in | politics. To match the CSES 4-point scale, the original | categories 1 and 2 were collapsed into the CSES code 1 ("VERY | INTERESTED"). The remaining categories were assigned as listed | below. According to collaborators, the resulting distribution is | overall consistent with those seen in other studies that have | used the 4-point scale in Germany (e.g., European Election Study | 2014), assuring the recode does not adversely impact the data's | validity. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Very strongly/ strongly | 02. Moderately | 03. Less strongly | 04. Not at all | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2016 & 2017): E3001 | | In the original surveys, respondents were asked a question which | slightly differed in its wording from the CSES Module 5 | questionnaire. The question read: "Do you consider your interest | in politics very great, great, some, little, or are you not | interested in politics at all?" The five answer categories were | recoded as below to match CSES conventions. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Very great | Great | 02. Some | 03. Little | 04. None | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2016): E3001 | | The question wording for E3001 differed from the CSES convention. | Instead of stating their interest in politics, respondents were | asked about their interest in the upcoming election. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3002 >>> Q02. POLITICS IN THE MEDIA --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q02. And how closely do you follow politics on TV, radio, newspapers, or the Internet? Very closely, fairly closely, not very closely, or not at all? .................................................................. 1. VERY CLOSELY 2. FAIRLY CLOSELY 3. NOT VERY CLOSELY 4. NOT AT ALL 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E3002 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Regularly | 02. Often | 03. Occasionally | 04. Never | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2019): E3002 | | Respondents in the Swiss study were not asked one single | question about attention to politics across different media | sources. Instead, six questions were used to cover the following | media separately: | - TV | - Newspapers (print or e-paper) | - Free newspapers (print or e-paper) | - Social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) | - Online news sites (e.g., watson.ch, srf.ch, 20min.ch) | - Radio | The answer scales for the six items were 4-point Likert scales | and respondents had to indicate for each item whether they are | "very attentive", "rather attentive", "rather not attentive" or | "not at all attentive" to each media item. | The variable E3002 was thus constructed by calculating the mean | of these six questions. For the E3002 variable, Swiss | collaborators took everyone into consideration who answered at | least one of the six items, i.e., mean values were calculated | for all respondents. Respondents who had a mean value of 1.5, | 2.5 or 3.5 were rounded downwards since the lowest value (1) | indicates the most attention to politics in the media and the | highest value (4) indicates the least attention. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3003 >>> Q03. INTERNAL EFFICACY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q03. Please tell me whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with each of the following statements: You feel you understand the most important political issues of this country. .................................................................. 1. STRONGLY AGREE 2. SOMEWHAT AGREE 3. NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE 4. SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 5. STRONGLY DISAGREE 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2017): E3003 | | For France 2017, the question wording for E3003 diverged from | the CSES standard. While the CSES item "You feel you understand | the most important political issues of this country" is worded | positively, the item employed by the French study translates to | "Politics is too complicated for people like me", being | negatively worded. Therefore, the scale for E3003 was reversed | before integrating the question into the CSES dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E3003 | | For Germany 2017, the question wording for E3003 diverged from | the CSES standard. While the CSES item "You feel you understand | the most important political issues of this country" is worded | positively, the item employed by the German study translates to | "I often have difficulties in understanding political issues", | being negatively worded. Therefore, the scale for E3003 was | reversed before integrating the question into the CSES dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E3003 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Completely | 02. Rather yes | 03. Neither yes, nor no | 04. Rather no | 05. Not at all --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3004_1 >>> Q04a. ATTITUDES ABOUT ELITES: COMPROMISE IS SELLING OUT ONE'S PRINCIPLES E3004_1_PT >>> Q04a_PT. ATTITUDES ABOUT ELITES: IMPORTANT TO SEEK COMPROMISE - PRE-TEST E3004_2 >>> Q04b. ATTITUDES ABOUT ELITES: DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE PEOPLE E3004_3 >>> Q04c. ATTITUDES ABOUT ELITES: ARE TRUSTWORTHY E3004_4 >>> Q04d. ATTITUDES ABOUT ELITES: ARE THE MAIN PROBLEM E3004_5 >>> Q04e. ATTITUDES ABOUT ELITES: STRONG LEADER BENDS THE RULES E3004_6 >>> Q04f. ATTITUDES ABOUT ELITES: PEOPLE SHOULD MAKE POLICY DECISIONS E3004_7 >>> Q04g. ATTITUDES ABOUT ELITES: RICH AND POWERFUL E3004_8_PT >>> Q04h_PT. ATTITUDES ABOUT ELITES: POOR PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE GREATER VOICE - PRE-TEST --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statement?) Q04a. What people call compromise in politics is really just selling out on one's principles. HELP: At their discretion, the interviewer may use the optional phrase (the phrase which is in parentheses) if they perceive it would be helpful to the respondent in remembering the possible answer choices. Q04a_PT. In a democracy, it is important to seek compromise among different viewpoints. HELP: At their discretion, the interviewer may use the optional phrase (the phrase which is in parentheses) if they perceive it would be helpful to the respondent in remembering the possible answer choices. Q04b. Most politicians do not care about the people. HELP: At their discretion, the interviewer may use the optional phrase (the phrase which is in parentheses) if they perceive it would be helpful to the respondent in remembering the possible answer choices. Q04c. Most politicians are trustworthy. HELP: At their discretion, the interviewer may use the optional phrase (the phrase which is in parentheses) if they perceive it would be helpful to the respondent in remembering the possible answer choices. Q04d. Politicians are the main problem in [COUNTRY]. HELP: At their discretion, the interviewer may use the optional phrase (the phrase which is in parentheses) if they perceive it would be helpful to the respondent in remembering the possible answer choices. Q04e. Having a strong leader in government is good for [COUNTRY] even if the leader bends the rules to get things done. HELP: At their discretion, the interviewer may use the optional phrase (the phrase which is in parentheses) if they perceive it would be helpful to the respondent in remembering the possible answer choices. Q04f. The people, and not politicians, should make our most important policy decisions. HELP: At their discretion, the interviewer may use the optional phrase (the phrase which is in parentheses) if they perceive it would be helpful to the respondent in remembering the possible answer choices. Q04g. Most politicians care only about the interests of the rich and powerful. HELP: At their discretion, the interviewer may use the optional phrase (the phrase which is in parentheses) if they perceive it would be helpful to the respondent in remembering the possible answer choices. Q04h_PT. Poor people should have a greater voice in politics. HELP: At their discretion, the interviewer may use the optional phrase (the phrase which is in parentheses) if they perceive it would be helpful to the respondent in remembering the possible answer choices. .................................................................. 1. STRONGLY AGREE 2. SOMEWHAT AGREE 3. NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE 4. SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 5. STRONGLY DISAGREE 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E3004_ | | Variable E3004_1_PT was principally collected in election studies | which fielded the CSES Module 5 pilot questionnaire. Its initial | wording was changed to create E3004_1, which was fielded by | studies using the CSES Module 5 finalized version of the | questionnaire. | | Variable E3004_8_PT was principally collected in election studies | which fielded the CSES Module 5 pilot questionnaire. The item | was dropped for the final version of the CSES Module 5 | questionnaire. | | Data for E3004_1 are unavailable for SWEDEN (2018) and URUGUAY | (2019). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2017): E3004_3 | | In the Norwegian questionnaire, the wording of this question is | a bit different from the CSES and reads as: "What proportion | of our politicians do you believe are trustworthy?" | Furthermore, there are three reply categories, instead of five | as in the CSES questionnaire. These three categories were coded | as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Most are trustworthy | 02. Generally trustworthy | 05. Few trustworthy politicians | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E3004_ | | For some variables in the Thai 2019 election study, such as | E3004_, an unusually high share of respondents did not provide | substantive answers (> 20% of data coded refused, don't know, or | missing). Collaborators note two potential reasons for this | peculiarity: | | At the time of the election, Thailand's incumbent Prime | Minister was Prayut Chan-o-cha, leader of the State Power Party | (PPRP, PARTY A). As Commander-in-Chief of the Royal Thai Army, | Prayut headed a coup d'etat in May 2014. The 2019 election was | conducted under the new 2017 constitution designed by the | military junta government. Collaborators note that parts of the | population dissatisfied with the current situation might have | been reluctant or cautious to provide information on party | preferences and political attitudes closely before or after the | election day. This situation was amplified by official election | results being published only weeks after the election. | | Further, other parts of the population might have been less | knowledgeable concerning political issues such as parties' | ideological classifications and hence might have had difficulties | answering related questions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3005_1 >>> Q05a. OUT-GROUP ATTITUDES: MINORITIES - CUSTOMS AND TRADITIONS E3005_2 >>> Q05b. OUT-GROUP ATTITUDES: MINORITIES - WILL OF THE MAJORITY E3005_3 >>> Q05c. OUT-GROUP ATTITUDES: IMMIGRANTS GOOD FOR ECONOMY E3005_4 >>> Q05d. OUT-GROUP ATTITUDES: CULTURE HARMED BY IMMIGRANTS E3005_5 >>> Q05e. OUT-GROUP ATTITUDES: IMMIGRANTS INCREASE CRIME --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q05a. Now thinking about minorities in [COUNTRY]. (Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statement?) Minorities should adapt to the customs and traditions of [COUNTRY]. HELP: At their discretion, the interviewer may use the optional phrase (the phrase which is in parentheses) if they perceive it would be helpful to the respondent in remembering the possible answer choices. Q05b. The will of the majority should always prevail, even over the rights of minorities. HELP: At their discretion, the interviewer may use the optional phrase (the phrase which is in parentheses) if they perceive it would be helpful to the respondent in remembering the possible answer choices. Q05c. And now thinking specifically about immigrants: (Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statement?) Immigrants are generally good for [COUNTRY]'s economy. HELP: At their discretion, the interviewer may use the optional phrase (the phrase which is in parentheses) if they perceive it would be helpful to the respondent in remembering the possible answer choices. Q05d. [COUNTRY]'s culture is generally harmed by immigrants. HELP: At their discretion, the interviewer may use the optional phrase (the phrase which is in parentheses) if they perceive it would be helpful to the respondent in remembering the possible answer choices. Q05e. Immigrants increase crime rates in [COUNTRY]. HELP: At their discretion, the interviewer may use the optional phrase (the phrase which is in parentheses) if they perceive it would be helpful to the respondent in remembering the possible answer choices. .................................................................. 1. STRONGLY AGREE 2. SOMEWHAT AGREE 3. NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE 4. SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 5. STRONGLY DISAGREE 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E3005_ | | The wording for E3005_1 in the pilot version of the CSES | Module 5 questionnaire differed from the final wording above and | read as follows: "Ethnic minorities should adapt to [COUNTRY]'s | way of life." In addition, E3005_2 and E3005_5 were not part of | the CSES Module 5 pre-test questionnaire and are missing for all | studies in which the pre-test version of the CSES Module 5 | questionnaire was administered (see variable E1037). | | Data for E3005_2 and E3005_5 are unavailable for TAIWAN (2020). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E3005_1 | | The collaborators note in the Design Report that the concept | of "ethnic minority" in Italy commonly refers to people | residing near the borders to Austria, France, and Slovenia | (page 6 in the Design Report). The concept is not used much in | other contexts, and it is more common to use the term | "foreigners." To ensure consistency across CSES studies, | however, the Italian Study used the terms "ethnic minority" | ("minoranze etniche"). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E3005_ | | For some variables in the Thai 2019 election study, such as | E3005_, an unusually high share of respondents did not provide | substantive answers (> 20% of data coded refused, don't know, or | missing). Collaborators note two potential reasons for this | peculiarity: | | At the time of the election, Thailand's incumbent Prime | Minister was Prayut Chan-o-cha, leader of the State Power Party | (PPRP, PARTY A). As Commander-in-Chief of the Royal Thai Army, | Prayut headed a coup d'etat in May 2014. The 2019 election was | conducted under the new 2017 constitution designed by the | military junta government. Collaborators note that parts of the | population dissatisfied with the current situation might have | been reluctant or cautious to provide information on party | preferences and political attitudes closely before or after the | election day. This situation was amplified by official election | results being published only weeks after the election. | | Further, other parts of the population might have been less | knowledgeable concerning political issues such as parties' | ideological classifications and hence might have had difficulties | answering related questions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3006_1 >>> Q06a. NATIONAL IDENTITY: TO HAVE BEEN BORN IN COUNTRY E3006_2 >>> Q06b. NATIONAL IDENTITY: ANCESTRY E3006_3 >>> Q06c. NATIONAL IDENTITY: TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK COUNTRY LANGUAGES E3006_4 >>> Q06d. NATIONAL IDENTITY: TO FOLLOW CUSTOMS AND TRADITIONS COUNTRY E3006_5_PT >>> Q06e_PT NATIONAL IDENTITY: TO HAVE LIVED IN COUNTRY FOR MOST OF LIFE - PRE-TEST E3006_6_PT >>> Q06f_PT NATIONAL IDENTITY: TO BE COUNTRY DOMINANT RELIGION - PRE-TEST E3006_7_PT >>> Q06g_PT NATIONAL IDENTITY: TO RESPECT POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS AND LAWS - PRE-TEST E3006_8_PT >>> Q06h_PT NATIONAL IDENTITY: TO FEEL COUNTRY NATIONALITY - PRE-TEST --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q06a. Now changing the topic. Some people say that the following things are important for being truly [NATIONALITY]. Others say they are not important. How important do you think the following is for being truly [NATIONALITY]... very important, fairly important, not very important, or not important at all? To have been born in [COUNTRY]. Q06b. (How important do you think the following is for being truly [NATIONALITY]... very important, fairly important, not very important, or not important at all?) To have [NATIONALITY] ancestry. HELP: At their discretion, the interviewer may use the optional phrase (the phrase which is in parentheses) if they perceive it would be helpful to the respondent in remembering the possible answer choices. Q06c. (How important do you think the following is for being truly [NATIONALITY]... very important, fairly important, not very important, or not important at all?) To be able to speak [COUNTRY NATIONAL LANGUAGES]. HELP: At their discretion, the interviewer may use the optional phrase (the phrase which is in parentheses) if they perceive it would be helpful to the respondent in remembering the possible answer choices. Q06d. (How important do you think the following is for being truly [NATIONALITY]... very important, fairly important, not very important, or not important at all?) To follow [COUNTRY]'s customs and traditions. HELP: At their discretion, the interviewer may use the optional phrase (the phrase which is in parentheses) if they perceive it would be helpful to the respondent in remembering the possible answer choices. Q06e_PT. (How important do you think the following is for being truly [NATIONALITY]... very important, fairly important, not very important, or not important at all?) To have lived in [COUNTRY] for most of one's life. HELP: At their discretion, the interviewer may use the optional phrase (the phrase which is in parentheses) if they perceive it would be helpful to the respondent in remembering the possible answer choices. Q06f_PT. (How important do you think the following is for being truly [NATIONALITY]... very important, fairly important, not very important, or not important at all?) To be [COUNTRY DOMINANT RELIGION]. HELP: At their discretion, the interviewer may use the optional phrase (the phrase which is in parentheses) if they perceive it would be helpful to the respondent in remembering the possible answer choices. Q06g_PT. (How important do you think the following is for being truly [NATIONALITY]... very important, fairly important, not very important, or not important at all?) To respect [COUNTRY NATIONALITY] political institutions and laws. HELP: At their discretion, the interviewer may use the optional phrase (the phrase which is in parentheses) if they perceive it would be helpful to the respondent in remembering the possible answer choices. Q06h_PT. (How important do you think the following is for being truly [NATIONALITY]... very important, fairly important, not very important, or not important at all?) To feel [COUNTRY NATIONALITY]. HELP: At their discretion, the interviewer may use the optional phrase (the phrase which is in parentheses) if they perceive it would be helpful to the respondent in remembering the possible answer choices. .................................................................. 1. VERY IMPORTANT 2. FAIRLY IMPORTANT 3. NOT VERY IMPORTANT 4. NOT IMPORTANT AT ALL 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E3006_ | | Variables E3006_5_PT, E3006_6_PT, E3006_7_PT and E3006_8_PT | report national identity items that were asked in the pilot | version of the CSES Module 5 questionnaire. These items were | generally not fielded as part of the final version of the CSES | Module 5 questionnaire although some studies did include | selected items (see table below). | E3006_4 was only part of the finalized questionnaire version and | hence is missing for all studies that fielded the pre-test | version (see variable E1037). | | The table below details the languages (E3006_3) and religions | (E3006_6_PT) respondents were asked about: | | +++ TABLE: LANGUAGES (E3006_3) AND RELIGIONS (E3006_6_PT) ASKED | ABOUT IN THE ELECTION STUDIES | | E3006_3 E3006_6_PT | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) Language Religion | ----------------------------------------------------------- | AUSTRALIA (2019) English - | AUSTRIA (2017) German - | BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019) Dutch - | French | German | BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019) Dutch - | French | German | BRAZIL (2018) Portuguese - | CANADA (2019) French - | English | CHILE (2017) Spanish - | COSTA RICA (2018) Spanish - | DENMARK (2019) Danish - | FINLAND (2019) Finnish - | FRANCE (2017) French - | GERMANY (2017) German - | GREAT BRITAIN (2017) English - | GREECE (2015) Greek Christian Orthodox | HONG KONG (2016) Putonghua - | HUNGARY (2018) Hungarian Christian | ICELAND (2016) Icelandic - | ICELAND (2017) Icelandic - | IRELAND (2016) Irish Roman Catholic | ISRAEL (2020) Hebrew - | ITALY (2018) Italian - | JAPAN (2017) Japanese - | LITHUANIA (2016) Lithuanian - | MONTENEGRO (2016) Montenegrin - | NETHERLANDS (2017) Dutch - | NEW ZEALAND (2017) English - | NEW ZEALAND (2020) English - | NORWAY (2017) Norwegian - | PORTUGAL (2019) Portuguese - | SLOVAKIA (2020) Slovak - | SOUTH KOREA (2016) Korean - | SWEDEN (2018) Swedish Christian | SWITZERLAND (2019) French - | German | Italian | TAIWAN (2016) Chinese, Religion* | Taiwanese, | Hakka, | or aboriginal* | TAIWAN (2020) Chinese, - | Taiwanese, | Hakka, | or aboriginal* | THAILAND (2019) Thai - | TUNISIA (2019) Tunisian - | Arabic (Derja) | TURKEY (2018) Turkish - | UNITED STATES (2016) English - | UNITED STATES (2020) English - | ----------------------------------------------------------- | KEY: - = not available; * = see Election Study Notes. | | Data for E3006_ are unavailable for URUGUAY (2019). Data for | E3006_6_PT are unavailable for HONG KONG (2016) and SOUTH KOREA | (2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019): E3006_3 | | This item was asked in the Belgium-Flanders questionnaire as: "to | speak Dutch, French, or German" - i.e., referring to the three | official languages in Belgium, and using "or" to indicate any | of the languages. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019): E3006_3 | | This item was asked in the Belgium-Wallonia questionnaire as: "to | speak Dutch, French, or German" - i.e., referring to the three | official languages in Belgium, and using "or" to indicate any | of the languages. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - COSTA RICA (2018): E3006_2 | | The questionnaire contained two items regarding the | importance of ancestry. To be a true Costa Rican, it is | important (1) for one's grandparents to have been born in | Costa Rica, and (2) to have Costa Rican ancestry. The coding of | E3006_2 relies on the ancestry version (2) of the question. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E3006_ | | Before answering to E3006_, respondents were asked whether | they identified as Chinese. Only respondents who affirmed | to regard themselves as Chinese were asked E3006_. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E3006_ | | E3006_ refers to Montenegrin nationality. Collaborators report | that translating E3006_ to the Montenegrin context was | challenging because the main political cleavage in Montenegro is | "pro-Montenegrin" vs. "pro-Serbian". Thus, asking respondents | what is important for being truly Montenegrin might have | alienated parts of the population who do not identify as | Montenegrin (at least 30% of the population). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017): E3006_2 | | The questionnaire contained two items regarding the | importance of ancestry. To be a true New Zealander, it is | important (1) for one's grandparents to have been born in | New Zealand, and (2) to have Maori ancestry. The coding of | E3006_2 relies on the grandparent version (1) of the question. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2016): E3006_6_PT | | E3006_6_PT was not part of the South Korean questionnaire | because according to collaborators, there is no dominant | religion in South Korea. Instead, several religions are | evenly spread among the population. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016): E3006_3 & E3006_6_PT | | For E3006_3, respondents were asked about multiple languages | (Chinese, Taiwanese, Hakka, or aboriginal languages). For | E3006_6_PT, respondents were asked about "the country's dominant | religion" without further specification and reference to any | particular religion. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2020): E3006_3 | | For E3006_3, respondents were asked about multiple languages | (Chinese, Taiwanese, Hakka, or aboriginal languages). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3007 >>> Q07. HOW WIDESPREAD IS CORRUPTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q07. Now on to another topic. How widespread do you think corruption such as bribe taking is among politicians in [COUNTRY]: very widespread, quite widespread, not very widespread, or it hardly happens at all? .................................................................. 1. VERY WIDESPREAD 2. QUITE WIDESPREAD 3. NOT VERY WIDESPREAD 4. IT HARDLY HAPPENS AT ALL 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2020): E3007 | | The New Zealand answer categories for E3007 slightly differ from | the CSES convention. The categories were the following: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Very widespread | 02. Quite widespread | 03. Quite unusual | 04. Very unusual | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E3007 | | For some variables in the Thai 2019 election study, such as | E3007, an unusually high share of respondents did not provide | substantive answers (> 20% of data coded refused, don't know, or | missing). Collaborators note two potential reasons for this | peculiarity: | | At the time of the election, Thailand's incumbent Prime | Minister was Prayut Chan-o-cha, leader of the State Power Party | (PPRP, PARTY A). As Commander-in-Chief of the Royal Thai Army, | Prayut headed a coup d'etat in May 2014. The 2019 election was | conducted under the new 2017 constitution designed by the | military junta government. Collaborators note that parts of the | population dissatisfied with the current situation might have | been reluctant or cautious to provide information on party | preferences and political attitudes closely before or after the | election day. This situation was amplified by official election | results being published only weeks after the election. | | Further, other parts of the population might have been less | knowledgeable concerning political issues such as parties' | ideological classifications and hence might have had difficulties | answering related questions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3008 >>> Q08. GOVERNMENT ACTION - DIFFERENCES IN INCOME LEVELS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q08. Please say to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statement: "The government should take measures to reduce differences in income levels." Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree? .................................................................. 1. STRONGLY AGREE 2. SOMEWHAT AGREE 3. NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE 4. SOMEWHAT DISAGREE 5. STRONGLY DISAGREE 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E3008 | | This question was not asked in the pilot version of the CSES | Module 5 questionnaire (see variable E1037). | | Data are unavailable for TAIWAN (2020). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3008_PT >>> Q08_PT. GOVERNMENT ACTION - ATTITUDES TOWARDS REDISTRIBUTION - PRE-TEST --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q08_PT. Some people think that the government should cut taxes even if it means spending less on social services such as health and education. Other people feel that the government should spend more on social services such as health and education even if it means raising taxes. Where would you place yourself on this scale where 0 is "Governments should decrease taxes and spend less on services" and 10 is "Governments should increase taxes and spend more on services"? .................................................................. 00. GOVERNMENTS SHOULD DECREASE TAXES AND SPEND LESS ON SERVICES 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. GOVERNMENTS SHOULD INCREASE TAXES AND SPEND MORE ON SERVICES 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E3008_PT | | This question was only asked in the pilot version of the CSES | Module 5 questionnaire. The item was not fielded as part of the | final version of the CSES Module 5 questionnaire (see variable | E1037). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3009 >>> Q09. GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE: GENERAL --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q09. 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]] did 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 | VARIABLE NOTES: E3009 | | Data are unavailable for ICELAND (2017). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019): E3009 | | In the answers on the paper survey, some respondents wrote a | cross between two numbers instead of indicating a number on the | offered scale. To avoid losing any information, these respondents | were coded as respondents in-between the previous and following | number. These respondents wrote a cross between numbers "2. GOOD | JOB" and "3. BAD JOB" and are recoded to value 6 for E3009. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019): E3009 | | In the answers on the paper survey, one respondent wrote a | cross between two numbers instead of indicating a number on the | offered scale. To avoid losing any information, this respondent | was coded as respondent in-between the previous and following | number. This respondent wrote a cross between numbers "2. GOOD | JOB" and "3. BAD JOB" and is recoded to value 6 for E3009. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E3009 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 06. Regular | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E3009 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 06. Neither good nor bad job | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2017): E3009 | | The question wording for E3009 differs for the French 2017 | election study, asking about satisfaction with the government | rather than government performance: "Overall, are you very | satisfied, quite satisfied, not satisfied or not satisfied at | all by Francois Hollande's actions during his presidency?" | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 1. Very satisfied | 2. Satisfied | 3. Not satisfied | 4. Not satisfied at all | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E3009 | | The collaborators note in the Design Report that the reference | to "CAPITAL" was not included in the questionnaire to avoid | that respondents would conflate their rating of the governments' | performance with the performance by the city government of Rome | (Design Report, page 6). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2017): E3009 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 06. Other | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2017): E3009 | | The question wording for E3009 differs for the Dutch 2017 | election study, asking about satisfaction with the government | rather than government performance: "How satisfied or | dissatisfied are you with what the last government has done in | the past four years. Are you: very satisfied; satisfied, neither | satisfied nor dissatisfied; dissatisfied or very dissatisfied?" | Hence, the question wording included a middle category, | diverging from the CSES standard. | For CSES Module 5, data has been recoded as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 1. Very satisfied | 2. Satisfied | 3. Dissatisfied | 4. Very dissatisfied | 6. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied | | Furthermore, respondents were asked to indicate government | satisfaction twice: Once in the main questionnaire and once in | the supplementary questionnaire. E3009 is based on answers from | the supplementary questionnaire, as it contains most of the CSES | questions. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2020): E3009 | | The New Zealand answer categories for E3009 slightly differ from | the CSES convention. The categories were the following: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Very good job | 02. Fairly good job | 03. Fairly bad job | 04. Very bad job | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2017): E3009 | | In the Norwegian questionnaire, the wording of this question is | a bit different from the CSES and reads as: "We have for the | last four years had a government consisting of The Conservative | Party and The Progress Party. How good a job do you think this | government in general has done?" | Furthermore, there are five reply categories, instead of four | as in the CSES questionnaire and the wording is the following: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Very good job | 02. Good job | 03. Bad job | 04. Very bad job | 06. Neither good nor bad | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2018): E3009 | | In the Swedish questionnaire, the wording of this question | diverges slightly from CSES and reads as: "How do you think | that the Social Democrats and the Green Party have performed as | governing parties during the 2014-2018 election period?" | Answer categories are similar to those envisaged by CSES, as | listed below: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Very good | 02. Good | 03. Bad | 04. Very bad | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016): E3009 | | For Taiwan (2016), the question refers to the performance of | President Ma. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2020): E3009 | | For Taiwan (2020), the question refers to the performance of | President Tsai. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3010_1 >>> Q10a. IS THERE A PARTY THAT REPRESENTS RESPONDENT'S VIEWS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q10a. Would you say that any of the parties in [COUNTRY] represent your views reasonably well? .................................................................. 0. NO -> GO TO Q11 1. YES 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E3010_1 | | Data are unavailable for HUNGARY (2018) and SWITZERLAND (2019). | | +++ TABLE: FREQUENCIES ON E3010_2 FOR RESPONDENTS REPORTING NOT | TO HAVE A PARTY REPRESENTING THEIR VIEWS BEST | | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) NUMBER | ------------------------------------------------------------- | BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019) 18 | BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019) 5 | COSTA RICA (2018) 16 | GREAT BRITAIN (2017) 285 | MONTENEGRO (2016) 3 | NETHERLANDS (2017) 17 | ------------------------------------------------------------- | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2020): E3010_1 | | The New Zealand 2020 election study combined E3010_1 and E3010_2 | into one single survey question, reading as "Would you say that | any of the parties in New Zealand represent your views reasonably | well? If so, which one represents your views best?" | In the answer options, respondents were offered a list of | parties to choose from, or state "Don't know". | Code "0. No" was not a valid answer option and hence has not | been awarded to respondents from the New Zealand 2020 study. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3010_2 >>> Q10b. PARTY THAT REPRESENTS RESPONDENT'S VIEWS BEST --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q10b. Which party represents your views best? .................................................................. 000001-999987. [SEE CODEBOOK PART 3 FOR PARTY AND LEADER CODES] 999988. NONE OF THE PARTIES 999989. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 999990. OTHER LEFT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY 999991. OTHER RIGHT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY 999992. OTHER CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 999997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 999998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 999999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E3010_2 | | Parties and their numerical classifications for each election | study are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | | Data are unavailable for HUNGARY (2018) and SWITZERLAND (2019). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E3010_2 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 999990. Animal Justice Party of Finland | Feminist Party | Communist Party of Finland | 999991. Liberal Party | Movement Now | Finnish People First | 999992. Seven Star Movement | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E3010_2 | | Code 276001 refers to the Union, the unofficial political | alliance between the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the | Christian Social Union in Bavaria (CSU). | 238 respondents initially named the CDU as the party representing | their views best. These answers are subsumed under code 276001 | together with respondents who stated to feel best represented by | the Union. Code 276007 identifies respondents stating to feel | best represented by the CSU. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E3010_2 | | Code 440005 refers to Lithuanian Center Party for E3010_2. This | is the largest member of the Anti-Corruption Coalition. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016): E3010_2 | | Code 158004 refers to Green Party for E3010_2. The Green Party | is the largest member of the Green Party - Social Democratic | Party alliance. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3011 >>> Q11. STATE OF THE ECONOMY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q11. Would you say that over the past twelve months, the state of the economy in [COUNTRY] has gotten much better, gotten somewhat better, stayed about the same, gotten somewhat worse, or gotten much worse? .................................................................. 1. GOTTEN MUCH BETTER 2. GOTTEN SOMEWHAT BETTER 3. STAYED ABOUT THE SAME 4. GOTTEN SOMEWHAT WORSE 5. GOTTEN MUCH WORSE 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2020): E3011 | | The New Zealand answer categories for E3011 slightly differ from | the CSES convention. The categories were the following: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Got a lot better | 02. Got a little better | 03. Stayed the same | 04. Got a little worse | 05. Got a lot worse | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2017): E3011 | | The Norwegian answer categories for E3011 differ from the | CSES convention. Instead of a 5-point scale, the state of the | economy was measured on a 3-point scale, distinguishing | between gotten better, stayed the same, and gotten worse. | These categories were recoded as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 02. Gotten better | 03. Stayed the same | 04. Gotten worse | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2016): E3011 | | The South Korean answer categories for E3011 differ from the | CSES convention. Instead of a 5-point scale, the state of the | economy was measured on a 3-point scale, distinguishing | between "gotten better", "stayed the same", and "gotten worse". | These categories were recoded as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 02. Gotten better | 03. Stayed the same | 04. Gotten worse --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3012 >>> TURNOUT: MAIN ELECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 in the main election, regardless of whether or not it was valid. In case of a single election taking place, e.g., a lower house election only, then this variable reports the turnout decision for that particular election. In cases where multiple elections took place, e.g., a presidential and a lower house election, this variable reports the turnout decision in the main election. See variable notes for more information. .................................................................. 0. RESPONDENT DID NOT CAST A BALLOT 1. RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT 93. VOLUNTEERED: RESPONDENT NOT REGISTERED ON ELECTORAL LISTS [IF APPLICABLE] 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E3012 | | +++ TABLE: ELECTION STUDIES BY TYPE OF MAIN ELECTION | | Presidential Lower House Upper House | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) Election Election Election | ------------------------------------------------------------- | AUSTRALIA (2019) - X - | AUSTRIA (2017) - X - | BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019) - X - | BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019) - X - | BRAZIL (2018) X - - | CANADA (2019) - X - | CHILE (2017) X - - | COSTA RICA (2018) X - - | DENMARK (2019) - X - | FINLAND (2019) - X - | FRANCE (2017) X - - | GERMANY (2017) - X - | GREAT BRITAIN (2017) - X - | GREECE (2015) - X - | HONG KONG (2016) - X - | HUNGARY (2018) - X - | ICELAND (2016) - X - | ICELAND (2017) - X - | IRELAND (2016) - X - | ISRAEL (2020) - X - | ITALY (2018) - X - | JAPAN (2017) - X - | LITHUANIA (2016) - X - | MONTENEGRO (2016) - X - | NETHERLANDS (2017) - X - | NEW ZEALAND (2017) - X - | NEW ZEALAND (2020) - X - | NORWAY (2017) - X - | PORTUGAL (2019) - X - | SLOVAKIA (2020) - X - | SOUTH KOREA (2016) - X - | SWEDEN (2018) - X - | SWITZERLAND (2019) - X - | TAIWAN (2016) X - - | TAIWAN (2020) X - - | THAILAND (2019) - X - | TUNISIA (2019) - X - | TURKEY (2018) X - - | UNITED STATES (2016) X - - | UNITED STATES (2020) X - - | URUGUAY (2019) X - - | ------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3012_PR_1 >>> Q12P1-a. CURRENT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT - 1ST ROUND --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 in the first round of the presidential elections, regardless of whether or not it was valid. .................................................................. 0. RESPONDENT DID NOT CAST A BALLOT/WILL NOT CAST A BALLOT 1. RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT/WILL CAST A BALLOT 93. VOLUNTEERED: RESPONDENT NOT REGISTERED ON ELECTORAL LISTS / NOT ELIGIBLE [IF APPLICABLE] 95. NOT APPLICABLE: NO ROLE OF PRESIDENT 96. NOT APPLICABLE: NO PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E3012_PR_1 | | In order to differ between respondents who already voted and | those who express their will to vote, please consider E1022 | (STUDY TIMING). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E3012_PR_1 | | The question of whether respondents voted in the "first round" | of the current election did not differentiate between the | presidential, lower house and upper house elections. Since | voting is compulsory, it can be assumed that most persons who | answered "yes" voted in all of the elections, and those who | answered "no" did not vote in any of the elections, which took | place simultaneously. Furthermore, there were different kinds of | "no" answers in the original dataset which showed why | respondents did not vote. These values were recoded as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 0. No, more than 70 years old (voluntary) | No, 16-17 years old (voluntary) | No, showed justification in 1st round | Neither voted nor showed justification at first | round | No, didn't have the necessary documentation | 1. Yes, voted | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): E3012_PR_1 | | Only respondents who indicated that they were registered to vote | and who indicated that they voted in the General Elections 2016 | were asked this question. 'Refused' answers to the registration | question were coded as 'refused' in E3012_PR_1. 'Don't know' | answers to the registration question were coded as 'missing' in | E3012_PR_1. 'Refused' answers to the general elections question | were coded as 'refused' in E3012_PR_1. 'Don't know' answers | to the general turnout question were coded as 'don't know'. | | The original data show that 25 respondents reported their | voting behavior inconsistently. When asked before the elections | whether they had already participated in early voting, they | answered yes. However, when asked after the elections, they | reported not to have voted early. For the CSES coding, the | answer given before the elections is assumed to be valid. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E3012_PR_1 | | Only respondents who indicated that they were registered to vote | and who indicated that they voted in the General Elections 2020 | were asked this question. 'Refused' answers to the registration | question were coded as 'refused' in E3012_PR_1. | 'Refused' answers to the general elections question were coded | as 'refused' in E3012_PR_1. | | The original data show that 20 respondents reported their voting | behavior inconsistently. When asked before the elections whether | they had already participated in early voting, they answered yes. | However, when asked after the elections, they reported having | voted on election day. For the CSES coding, the answer given | before the elections is assumed to be valid. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3012_PR_2 >>> Q12P2-a. CURRENT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT - 2ND ROUND --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 in the second round of the presidential elections, regardless of whether or not it was valid. If the data collection occurs between rounds in a two round election, this item should ascertain whether or not the respondent intends to cast a ballot in the second round, regardless of whether or not it will be valid. If the data collection occurs after the second round in a two round election, this item should ascertain whether or not the respondent cast a ballot in the second round, regardless of whether or not it was valid. .................................................................. 0. RESPONDENT DID NOT CAST A BALLOT/WILL NOT CAST A BALLOT 1. RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT/WILL CAST A BALLOT 93. VOLUNTEERED: RESPONDENT NOT REGISTERED ON ELECTORAL LISTS / NOT ELIGIBLE [IF APPLICABLE] 95. NOT APPLICABLE: NO ROLE OF PRESIDENT 96. NOT APPLICABLE: NO PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS / NO SECOND ROUND 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E3012_PR_2 | | In order to differ between respondents who already voted and | those who express their will to vote, please consider E1022 | (STUDY TIMING). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E3012_PR_2 | | The Brazilian study differentiates between various kinds of "no" | answers in the original dataset, showing why respondents did not | vote. These values were recoded as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 0. No, more than 70 years old (voluntary) | No, 16-17 years old (voluntary) | No, showed justification in 1st round | Neither voted nor showed justification at first | round | No, didn't have the necessary documentation | 1. Yes, voted --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3012_LH >>> Q12LH-a. CURRENT LOWER HOUSE ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The wording of this item, which is to record voting in the national election, follows national standards. This item ascertains whether or not the respondent cast a ballot in the lower house election, regardless of whether or not it was valid. If the data collection occurs between rounds in a two round election, this item should ascertain whether or not the respondent intends to cast a ballot in the second round, regardless of whether or not it will be valid. If the data collection occurs after the second round in a two round election, this item should ascertain whether or not the respondent cast a ballot in the second round, regardless of whether or not it was valid. .................................................................. 0. RESPONDENT DID NOT CAST A BALLOT/WILL NOT CAST A BALLOT 1. RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT/WILL CAST A BALLOT 93. VOLUNTEERED: RESPONDENT NOT REGISTERED ON ELECTORAL LISTS / NOT ELIGIBLE [IF APPLICABLE] 96. NOT APPLICABLE: NO LOWER HOUSE ELECTION 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E3012_LH | | In order to differ between respondents who already voted and | those who express their will to vote, please consider E1022 | (STUDY TIMING). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): E3012_LH | | Several respondents reported voting for "No party" in the | Australian study. Following the advice of Australian | collaborators, these are recoded to non-voters in the turnout | variable. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E3012_LH | | The question of whether respondents voted in the "first round" of | the current election did not differentiate between presidential, | lower house and upper house elections. Since voting is | compulsory, it can be assumed that most persons who answered | "yes" voted in all of the elections, and those who answered "no" | did not vote in any of the elections, which took place | simultaneously. Furthermore, there were different kinds of "no" | answers in the original dataset which showed why respondents did | not vote. These values were recoded as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 0. No, more than 70 years old (voluntary) | No, 16-17 years old (voluntary) | No, showed justification in 1st round | Neither voted nor showed justification at first | round | No, didn't have the necessary documentation | 1. Yes, voted | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E3012_LH | | The data collection organization programmed the questionnaire | incorrectly and consequently, 288 respondents were not asked | several items in the Finnish study. This affected two CSES | items: turnout and vote choice variables. | The error was detected after the data collection had concluded. | To amend the problem, the data collection organization attempted | to re-contact the affected respondents by phone and ask the | questions that had not been included during the initial | interview. The affected respondents did not retake the entire | interview. | Variable E1007 (Sample component) includes information that | enables users to distinguish these respondents in the Finland | (2019) study. Please see ELECTION STUDY NOTES for E1007 for | further information. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E3012_LH | | E3012_LH reflects turnout for the geographical constituency | election, which returns 35 out of 70 seats for the unicameral | legislature of Hong Kong, the Legislative Council (LegCo). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E3012_LH | | Turnout for the lower (E3012_LH) and upper (E3012_UH) house | elections was derived from a single question asking respondents | whether they had cast a ballot in the current elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2019): E3012_LH | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 0. I did not vote because I couldn't find the time to | I thought about voting this time but didn't | Usually I vote, but this time I didn't | 1. I voted in the 2019 elections | | While 48.6 percent of voters turned out in the 2019 Portuguese | lower house 2019 election according to official election | results, 66.6 percent of respondents in the sample claim to | have voted. Apart from social desirability bias, collaborators | note that the observed discrepancy may partly originate from the | sample design and a change in electoral rules preceding the 2019 | election: In 2019, eligible voters living abroad were added | automatically to the electoral registers for the first time, | resulting in an increase of 1.2 million registered voters. | However, these newly registered voters, whose turnout is | traditionally low, were not part of the sampling frame. | Collaborators note that turnout within the national territory of | Portugal, the study's universe, was 54.6 percent in 2019 and | thus considerably higher than the overall turnout. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): E3012_LH | | Only respondents who indicated that they were registered to vote | and who indicated that they voted in the General Elections 2016 | were asked this question. 'Refused' answers to the registration | question were coded as 'refused' in E3012_LH. 'Don't know' | answers to the registration question were coded as 'missing' in | E3012_LH. 'Refused' answers to the general elections question | were coded as 'refused' in E3012_LH. 'Don't know' answers | to the general turnout question were coded as 'don't know'. | | The original data show that 25 respondents reported their | voting behavior inconsistently. When asked before the elections | whether they had already participated in early voting they | answered yes. However, when asked after the elections they | reported not to have voted early. For the CSES coding, the | answer given before the elections is assumed to be valid. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E3012_LH | | Only respondents who indicated that they were registered to vote | and who indicated that they voted in the General Elections 2020 | were asked this question. 'Refused' answers to the registration | question were coded as 'refused' in E3012_LH. | 'Refused' answers to the general elections question were coded | as 'refused' in E3012_LH. | | The original data show that 20 respondents reported their | voting behavior inconsistently. When asked before the elections | whether they had already participated in early voting they | answered yes. However, when asked after the elections they | reported having voted on election day. For the CSES coding, the | answer given before the elections is assumed to be valid. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3012_UH >>> Q12LH-a. CURRENT UPPER HOUSE ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The wording of this item, which is to record voting in the national election, follows national standards. This item ascertains whether or not the respondent cast a ballot in the upper house election, regardless of whether or not it was valid. If the data collection occurs between rounds in a two round election, this item should ascertain whether or not the respondent intends to cast a ballot in the second round, regardless of whether or not it will be valid. If the data collection occurs after the second round in a two round election, this item should ascertain whether or not the respondent cast a ballot in the second round, regardless of whether or not it was valid. .................................................................. 0. RESPONDENT DID NOT CAST A BALLOT/WILL NOT CAST A BALLOT 1. RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT/WILL CAST A BALLOT 93. VOLUNTEERED: RESPONDENT NOT REGISTERED ON ELECTORAL LISTS / NOT ELIGIBLE [IF APPLICABLE] 95. NOT APPLICABLE: UNICAMERAL SYSTEM 96. NOT APPLICABLE: NO UPPER HOUSE ELECTION 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E3012_UH | | In order to differ between respondents who already voted and | those who express their will to vote, please consider E1022 | (STUDY TIMING). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): E3012_UH | | Several respondents reported voting for "No party" in the | Australian study. Following the advice of Australian | collaborators, these are recoded to non-voters in the turnout | variable. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E3012_UH | | The question of whether respondents voted in the "first round" of | the current election did not differentiate between presidential, | lower house and upper house elections. Since voting is | compulsory, it can be assumed that most persons who answered | "yes" voted in all of the elections, and those who answered "no" | did not vote in any of the elections, which took place | simultaneously. Furthermore, there were different kinds of "no" | answers in the original dataset which showed why respondents did | not vote. These values were recoded as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 0. No, more than 70 years old (voluntary) | No, 16-17 years old (voluntary) | No, showed justification in 1st round | Neither voted nor showed justification at first | round | No, didn't have the necessary documentation | 1. Yes, voted | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E3012_UH | | Turnout for the lower (E3012_LH) and upper (E3012_UH) house | elections was derived from a single question asking respondents | whether they had cast a ballot in the current elections. | Because the voting age for Italian Upper House Elections is | 25, respondents younger than that were coded as "999993. | VOLUNTEERED: RESPONDENT NOT REGISTERED ON ELECTORAL LISTS [IF | APPLICABLE]" (N=114) for E3012_UH. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): E3012_UH | | Only respondents who indicated that they were registered to vote | and who indicated that they voted in the General Elections 2016 | were asked this question. 'Refused' answers to the registration | question were coded as 'refused' in E3012_UH. 'Don't know' | answers to the registration question were coded as 'missing' in | E3012_UH. 'Refused' answers to the general elections question | were coded as 'refused' in E3012_UH. 'Don't know' answers | to the general turnout question were coded as 'don't know'. | | The original data show that 25 respondents reported their | voting behavior inconsistently. When asked before the elections | whether they had already participated in early voting they | answered yes. However, when asked after the elections they | reported not to have voted early. For the CSES coding, the | answer given before the elections is assumed to be valid. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E3012_UH | | Only respondents who indicated that they were registered to vote | and who indicated that they voted in the General Elections 2020 | were asked this question. 'Refused' answers to the registration | question were coded as 'refused' in E3012_UH. | 'Refused' answers to the general elections question were coded | as 'refused' in E3012_UH. | | The original data show that 20 respondents reported their | voting behavior inconsistently. When asked before the elections | whether they had already participated in early voting they | answered yes. However, when asked after the elections they | reported having voted on election day. For the CSES coding, the | answer given before the elections is assumed to be valid. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3012_TS >>> TURNOUT SWITCHER BETWEEN CURRENT ELECTION AND PREVIOUS ELECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This item ascertains whether or not the respondent reports voting in the current and previous election. .................................................................. 0. RESPONDENT ABSTAINED IN BOTH ELECTIONS 1. RESPONDENT ABSTAINED IN CURRENT ELECTION BUT VOTED IN PREVIOUS ELECTION 2. RESPONDENT VOTED IN CURRENT ELECTION BUT ABSTAINED IN PREVIOUS ELECTION 3. RESPONDENT VOTED IN BOTH CURRENT AND PREVIOUS ELECTION 5. RESPONDENT ABSTAINED IN CURRENT ELECTION BUT INELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN PREVIOUS ELECTION 6. RESPONDENT VOTED IN CURRENT ELECTION BUT INELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN PREVIOUS ELECTION 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E3012_TS | | DERIVATIVE VARIABLE | | This variable is constructed based on the respondent's reported | turnout in the current and previous main election. | In polities where multiple elections took place simultaneously, | this variable reports the turnout decision in the main election. | The classifications of the main election by election study are | listed in the variable notes for variable E3013_OUTGOV. | | In instances when the previous turnout refers to a different type | of election, e.g., current main elections are presidential but | previous turnout variable refers to lower house election only, | these studies are set to missing for the E3012_TS variable. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - COSTA RICA (2018): E3012_TS | | This variable is based on the turnout variables of the first | round of the current and previous presidential election | (E3012_PR_1 and E3014_PR_1). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2020): E3012_TS | | The main election in Taiwan is the presidential election. Data | on respondents' turnout of the second round of the presidential | election was, however, not available. Therefore, E3012_TS is | based on turnout variables of the current and previous lower | house election. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3013_PR_1 >>> Q12P1-b. CURRENT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - 1ST ROUND --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If applicable and respondent cast a ballot in the presidential election: This variable reports the respondent's vote choice for President in the first round of election. .................................................................. 000001-999987. [SEE CODEBOOK PART 3 FOR PARTY AND LEADER CODES] 999988. NONE OF THE CANDIDATES/PARTIES 999989. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 999990. OTHER LEFT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY 999991. OTHER RIGHT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY 999992. OTHER CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 999993. INVALID/BLANK BALLOT 999995. NOT APPLICABLE: NO ROLE OF PRESIDENT 999996. NOT APPLICABLE: NO PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 999997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 999998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 999999. MISSING/ABSTAINED (DID NOT VOTE) | VARIABLE NOTES: E3013_PR_1 | | Parties and their numerical classifications for each election | study are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E3013_PR_1 | | Presidential candidates were supported by their own as well as | other parties. | | Jair Bolsonaro, the Presidential candidate of the Social Liberal | Party (PSL) was also endorsed by the Brazilian Labor Renewal | Party (PRTB). | | Fernando Haddad, the Presidential candidate of the Workers' | Party (PT) was also endorsed by the Republican Party of the | Social Order (PROS) and the Communist Party of Brazil (PCdoB). | | Ciro Gomes, the Presidential candidate of the Democratic Labor | Party (PDT) was also endorsed by the Forward (Avante). | | Henrique Meirelles, the Presidential candidate of the Brazilian | Democratic Movement (MDB) was also endorsed by the Humanist | Party of Solidarity (PHS). | | Marina Silva, the Presidential candidate of the Sustainability | Network (REDE) was also endorsed by the Green Party (PV). | | Alvaro Dias, the Presidential candidate of the We Can (PODE) | was also endorsed by Social Christian Party (PSC), the Christian | Labor Party (PTC) and the Progressive Republican Party (PRP). | | Geraldo Alckmin, the Presidential candidate of the Brazilian | Social Democracy Party (PSDB) was also endorsed by the Democrats | (DEM), the Progressives (PP), the Liberal Party (PL), the | Republicans (PRB), the Solidarity (SD), the Brazilian Labor | Party (PTB), the Social Democratic Party (PSD), and the | Citizenship (PPS). | | Guilherme Boulos, the Presidential candidate of the Socialism | and Liberty Party (PSOL) was also endorsed by the Brazilian | Communist Party (PCB). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2017): E3013_PR_1 | | Four Presidential Candidates were endorsed by more than their | own party: | | Emmanuel Macron, the Presidential candidate of the Republic | Onwards! (LaREM) was endorsed by the Democratic Movement (MoDem). | | Francois Fillon, the Presidential candidate of the Republicans | (LR) was endorsed by the Union of Democrats and Independents | (Union des democrates et independants, UDI) and the Christian | Democratic Party (Parti Chretien-Democrate, PCD). | | Jean-Luc Melenchon, the Presidential candidate of Indomitable | France (FI) was endorsed by the French Communist Party (PCF). | | Benoit Hamon, the Presidential candidate of the Socialist Party | (PS) was endorsed by Europe Ecology - The Greens (EELV), after | their own candidate, Yannick Jadot, withdrew his candidacy on | February 23, 2017. Hamon was also supported by the Radical Party | of the Left (Parti radical de gauche, PRG). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TUNISIA (2019): E3013_PR_1 | | The following candidates contested in the 2019 Tunisian | Presidential election: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 788001. Abdelfattah Mourou (Ennahda Movement) | 788002. Nabil Karoui (Heart of Tunisia) | 788003. Abir Moussi (Free Destourian Party) | 788004. Mohamed Abbou (Democratic Current) | 788005. Seifeddine Makhlouf (Dignity Coalition) | 788007. Youssef Chahed (Long Live Tunisia) | 788008. Lotfi Mraihi (Republican People's Union) | 788010. Mehdi Jomaa (Tunisian Alternative) | 788013. Mongi Rahoui (Popular Front) | 788016. Hechmi Hamdi (Current of Love) | 788019. Moncef Marzouki (Movement Party) | 788020. Kais Saied (Independent) | 788021. Abdelkrim Zbidi (Independent) | 788022. Safi Said (Independent) | 788023. Hamma Hammami (Independent) | 788024. Elyes Fakhfakh (Democratic Forum for Labour | and Liberties) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2018): E3013_PR_1 | | The following candidates contested in the 2018 Turkish | Presidential election: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 792001. Recep Tayyip Erdogan (AKP) | 792002. Muharrem Ince (CHP) | 792003. Selahattin Demirtas (HDP) | 792005. Meral Aksener (IYI) | 792006. Temel Karamollaoglu (SP) | 792008. Dogu Perincek (VP) | | Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his party, the Justice and Development | Party (PARTY A) fared considerably better in the sample than | expected given official election results for both the | Presidential and the Lower House election. | Collaborators state that respondents might have been more | inclined to pick the winner in the post-election phase, a trend | they also observed in an additional panel survey not included in | CSES. Further, they suggest that Erdogan's and the AKP's | popularity in the sample might be a misrepresentation of party | preferences rather than a sampling mistake since vote switching | appeared primarily across the opposition parties in the separate | panel study. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E3013_PR_1 | | Respondents were asked in the pre-election survey whether they | had voted already. Respondents who affirmed this were asked the | questions about their voting behavior (E3012_PR_1-E3013_UH_DC) | already in the pre-election survey. All other respondents were | asked the questions about their voting behavior in the post- | election part of the survey. Early voters are indicated as | belonging to a different sample component in variable E1007. | | The original data show that 20 respondents reported their | voting behavior inconsistently. When asked before the elections | whether they had already participated in early voting they | answered yes. However, when asked after the elections they | reported having voted on election day. For the CSES coding, the | answer given before the elections is assumed to be valid. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3013_PR_2 >>> Q12P2-b. CURRENT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - 2ND ROUND --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If applicable and respondent cast a ballot in the presidential election: This variable reports the respondent's vote choice for President in the second round of election. If the data collection occurs between rounds in a two round election, this item should report the respondent's vote choice intention for president in the second round. .................................................................. 000001-999987. [SEE CODEBOOK PART 3 FOR PARTY AND LEADER CODES] 999988. NONE OF THE CANDIDATES/PARTIES 999989. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 999990. OTHER LEFT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY 999991. OTHER RIGHT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY 999992. OTHER CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 999993. INVALID/BLANK BALLOT 999995. NOT APPLICABLE: NO ROLE OF PRESIDENT 999996. NOT APPLICABLE: NO PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION / NO SECOND ROUND 999997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 999998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 999999. MISSING/ABSTAINED (DID NOT VOTE) | VARIABLE NOTES: E3013_PR_2 | | Parties and their numerical classifications for each election | study are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3013_LH_PL >>> Q12LH-b. CURRENT LOWER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - PARTY LIST --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If applicable and respondent cast a ballot in the Lower House legislative election: This variable reports the respondent's vote choice for party list in Lower House elections. See Election Study VARIABLE NOTES for more information. If more than one candidate have one party's affiliation, please provide choice for individual candidates. For preferential voting systems, please provide the first two preferences (Q12LH-c1 and Q12LH-c2). .................................................................. 000001-999987. [SEE CODEBOOK PART 3 FOR PARTY AND LEADER CODES] 999988. NONE OF THE CANDIDATES/PARTIES 999989. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 999990. OTHER LEFT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY 999991. OTHER RIGHT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY 999992. OTHER CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 999993. INVALID/BLANK BALLOT 999995. NOT APPLICABLE: NOT A LIST SYSTEM 999996. NOT APPLICABLE: NO LOWER HOUSE ELECTION 999997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 999998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 999999. MISSING/ABSTAINED (DID NOT VOTE) | VARIABLE NOTES: E3013_LH_PL | | Parties and their numerical classifications for each election | study are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | | Respondents that mentioned not casting a ballot in the current | lower house election (E3012_LH) but report a vote choice | are included as it is not possible to identify why this | inconsistency occurred. Users may identify these cases by | cross-tabulating E3012_LH and E3013_LH_PL in their statistical | software. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2017): E3013_LH_PL | | Even though voters in Chile cast votes for candidates in an open | list proportional system, alliances play the most important role | in work of parliament and government formation. Some respondents | reported voting for an electoral alliance or an independent | candidate affiliated with the electoral coalition. These | respondents are coded as voting for the coalition, which is the | reason why coalitions are assigned a separate code. For more | information about coalitions in Chile, see Part 3 of the CSES | Codebook - Parties and Leaders. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - COSTA RICA (2018): E3013_LH_PL | | In the Costa Rican election study, four respondents reported a | vote choice although they stated that they did not vote. | Users can detect these respondents if they look at the | cross-tabulation between turnout (E3012_LH) and vote choice | (E3013_LH_PL). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E3013_LH_PL | | The data collection organization programmed the questionnaire | incorrectly and consequently, 288 respondents were not asked | several items in the Finnish study. This affected two CSES | items: turnout and vote choice variables. | The error was detected after the data collection had concluded. | To amend the problem, the data collection organization attempted | to re-contact the affected respondents by phone and ask the | questions that had not been included during the initial | interview. The affected respondents did not retake the entire | interview. | Variable E1007 (Sample component) includes information that | enables users to distinguish these respondents in the Finland | (2019) study. Please also see ELECTION STUDY NOTES for E1007 for | further information. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E3013_LH_PL | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 999990. Animal Justice Party of Finland | Feminist Party | Communist Party of Finland | 999991. Liberal Party | Movement Now | Finnish People First | 999992. Seven Star Movement | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E3013_LH_PL | | E3013_LH_PL reflects vote choice for geographical constituency | elections, which return 35 out of 70 seats for the unicameral | legislature of Hong Kong, the Legislative Council (LegCo). | Voters cast one vote for closed party lists, which are compiled | separately for each of the five electoral districts and in some | instances feature more than one list per party per district. | The original vote choice variable assigned an individual code to | each party list. E3013_LH_PL summarizes vote choice for each | combination of parties forming a joint party list. | | 22 respondents stated to have voted for a party list that did | not compete in their electoral district. As it could not be | assessed with certainty which lists these respondents actually | voted for, E3013_LH_PL was set to missing for these cases. | | Further, the 2016 Hong Kong study employed additional codes for | missing values, which were recoded as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 999988. Did not vote for any candidate list | 999998. Forgotten | Don't know | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E3013_LH_PL | | For all vote choice variables, the Hungarian study had a category | "Will not say which party I voted for." These respondents are | recoded into CSES category "999997. Volunteered: Refused." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E3013_LH_PL | | In the 2018 lower house elections, voters could vote for a party | list only, a party list and a district candidate, or a district | candidate only. For voters who voted for a party list and a | district candidate, split-ticket voting was not permitted. The | ballots of voters who voted for either a party list or a | district candidate were treated as a fused vote, i.e., the vote | for a party list was automatically extended to the lists' | respective district candidate (and vice-versa, i.e., a vote for | a district candidate was extended to the candidate's party | list). E3013_LH_PL reports the votes of those reporting to have | cast a list vote and those who reported voting for both a party | list and a district candidate. Respondents' vote choices for | those who reported voting only for a district candidate were | coded in E3013_LH_DC. | The original wording for what is coded here as "999997. REFUSED" | was "I would rather not say." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017): E3013_LH_PL | | The NZES also collected the "validated" vote. Users interested | in these data are referred to contact the New Zealand election | study directly. In order to make the study more comparative | across countries, the CSES makes use only of the unvalidated | respondents' answers. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2017): E3013_LH_PL | | The Norwegian collaborators also collected the "validated" vote. | Users interested in these data are referred to contact the | Norwegian election study directly. In order to make the study | more comparative across countries, the CSES makes use only of | the unvalidated respondents' answers. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2020): E3013_LH_PL | | 703001. OLaNO contested the 2020 Slovakian Parliamentary election | as biggest and dominant member of an electoral alliance | consisting of the following additional parties: | - Christian Union (numerical code. 703019) | - NOVA | - Change from Bottom, Democratic Union of Slovakia | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2019): E3013_LH_PL | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 999992. Voted for persons, not parties | Voted for several parties | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E3013_LH_PL | | In the 2019 election to the Thai House of Representatives, | 350 members were elected by plurality vote in single-member | constituencies (district candidate vote) and 150 members | were elected through a closed-list proportional representation | system (party-list vote). However, voters cast a single fused | vote for both segments. Hence, citizens are unable to split | their vote among the candidates or lists of different parties. | As variables E3013_LH_PL and E3013_LH_DC indicate respondents' | vote choice based on this single fused vote cast, they can be | used interchangeably. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2018): E3013_LH_PL | | Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his party, the Justice and Development | Party (PARTY A) fared considerably better in the sample than | expected given official election results for both the | Presidential and the Lower House election. | Collaborators state that respondents might have been more | inclined to pick the winner in the post-election phase, a trend | they also observed in an additional panel survey not included in | CSES. Further, they suggest that Erdogan's and the AKP's | popularity in the sample might be a misrepresentation of party | preferences rather than a sampling mistake since vote switching | appeared primarily across the opposition parties in the separate | panel study. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3013_LH_DC >>> Q12LH-c. CURRENT LOWER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - DISTRICT CANDIDATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If applicable and respondent cast a ballot in the Lower House legislative election: This variable reports the respondent's vote choice for district candidate in Lower House elections. See Election Study VARIABLE NOTES for more information. If more than one candidate have one party's affiliation, please provide choice for individual candidates. For preferential voting systems, please provide the first two preferences (Q12LH-c1 and Q12LH-c2). .................................................................. 000001-999987. [SEE CODEBOOK PART 3 FOR PARTY AND LEADER CODES] 999988. NONE OF THE CANDIDATES/PARTIES 999989. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 999990. OTHER LEFT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY 999991. OTHER RIGHT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY 999992. OTHER CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 999993. INVALID/BLANK BALLOT 999995. NOT APPLICABLE: NO DISTRICT CANDIDATE VOTE 999996. NOT APPLICABLE: NO LOWER HOUSE ELECTION 999997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 999998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 999999. MISSING/ABSTAINED (DID NOT VOTE) | VARIABLE NOTES: E3013_LH_DC | | Parties and their numerical classifications for each election | study are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | | Respondents that mentioned not casting a ballot in the current | lower house election (E3012_LH) but report a vote choice | are included as it is not possible to identify why this | inconsistency occurred. Users may identify these cases by | cross-tabulating E3012_LH and E3013_LH_DC in their statistical | software. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): E3013_LH_DC | | The Australian study included a category "no party" for the vote | choice variable. Since that was not an option on the ballot, | the Australian voting system does not allow this possibility, | and following the advice of Australian collaborators, these | respondents were recoded to missing. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E3013_LH_DC | | For all vote choice variables, the Hungarian study had a category | "Will not say which party I voted for." These respondents are | recoded into CSES category "999997. Volunteered: Refused." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2016): E3013_LH_DC | | Three respondents reported having voted for a candidate of the | Independent Alliance (IA). These respondents were coded as | "999989. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE" because the IA was not formally | registered as a political party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E3013_LH_DC | | In the 2018 lower house elections, voters could vote for a party | list only, a party list and a district candidate, or a district | candidate only. For those who voted for a party list and a | district candidate, split-ticket voting was not permitted. The | ballots of voters who voted for either a party list or a | district candidate were treated as a fused vote, i.e., the vote | for a party list was automatically extended to the lists' | respective district candidate (and vice-versa, i.e., a vote for | a district candidate was extended to the candidate's party | list). E3013_LH_DC reports the votes of those reporting to have | cast a district candidate vote. Respondents' vote choices for | those who reported having cast a party list vote or both a party | list and a district candidate vote were coded in E3013_LH_PL. | Respondents who reported a district candidate vote were asked to | to name the party list or coalition of the candidate they voted | for which was used to code E3013_LH_DC. | 56 Respondents named a candidate of one of the two large | coalitions, i.e., the center-right and the center-left | coalition. They were further asked which of the coalition | members they liked most. The answer to the latter was coded as | the respondent's vote choice in E3013_LH_DC as coalitions were | not assigned numerical party codes. Finally, 13 respondents who | reported to have voted for one of the two coalitions did not | like any particular party from the coalition. These respondents | were coded to have voted for the leading party of the respective | coalition, namely, Lega (LN - 380003) for the center-right | coalition and the Democratic Party (PD - 380002) for the center- | left coalition. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E3013_LH_DC | | The data refers to the first round of the elections, held on | October 9, 2016. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | --------------------------------------------------------------- | 999988. Did not vote for a candidate | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E3013_LH_DC | | In the 2019 election to the Thai House of Representatives, | 350 members were elected by plurality vote in single-member | constituencies (district candidate vote) and 150 members | were elected through a closed-list proportional representation | system (party-list vote). However, voters cast a single fused | vote for both segments. Hence, citizens are unable to split | their vote among the candidates or lists of different parties. | As variables E3013_LH_PL and E3013_LH_DC indicate respondents' | vote choice based on this single fused vote cast, they can be | used interchangeably. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E3013_LH_DC | | Respondents were asked in the pre-election survey whether they | had voted already. Respondents who affirmed this were asked the | questions about their voting behavior (E3012_PR_1-E3013_UH_DC) | already in the pre-election survey. All other respondents were | asked the questions about their voting behavior in the post- | election part of the survey. Early voters are indicated as | belonging to a different sample component in variable E1007. | | The original data show that 20 respondents reported their | voting behavior inconsistently. When asked before the elections | whether they had already participated in early voting they | answered yes. However, when asked after the elections they | reported having voted on election day. For the CSES coding, the | answer given before the elections is assumed to be valid. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3013_LH_PF >>> Q12LH-d. CURRENT LOWER HOUSE ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST CANDIDATE PREFERENCE VOTE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports whether a respondent cast a preference vote. .................................................................. 1. RESPONDENT CAST PREFERENCE VOTE IN PR-LIST SYSTEM 2. RESPONDENT CAST PREFERENCE VOTE IN AV/STV SYSTEM 5. RESPONDENT DID NOT CAST PREFERENCE VOTE 6. RESPONDENT CAST INVALID BALLOT 95. NOT APPLICABLE: NOT A PREFERENCE VOTE SYSTEM 96. NOT APPLICABLE: NO LOWER HOUSE ELECTION 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E3013_LH_PF | | For more detailed information on how CSES codes | parties/coalitions, please see Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | | There are two different types of preference vote. The first is | associated with open PR-List systems. These systems allow | citizens to vote for a party list and to mark a "preference" for | one or more candidates within the party list. In these systems, | this type of vote is known as a preference vote (or a candidate | vote). The second is associated with STV and AV systems, where | citizens rank-order candidates in descending order of their | preference. In these systems, a distinction is made between a | voter's first preference (i.e., who voters allocate their | "number 1" preference to) and their subsequent lower preferences. | These latter preferences (i.e., all the voter's preferences aside | from their first preference) are also known as preference votes. | We distinguish between these two different types of preference | votes in the below categorization. | | In party list systems, the question asked of respondents should | read like this: | "Did you simply vote for a party or did you also express a | candidate preference?" | | In party list systems where voters have to vote directly for a | candidate and cannot cast a vote for the party list only (e.g., | Estonia, Finland, and Poland), the question asked of respondents | should read like this: | "Do you consider the vote that you cast merely a vote for the | party, or did you also mean it as a vote for a particular | candidate?" | | In STV/AV systems, the question asked of respondents should be | akin to this: | "Which of the parties/candidates did you give your | preference vote to?" | or | "To whom did you give your second (or lower) preference vote to?" | | Respondents that mentioned not casting a ballot in the current | lower house election (E3012_LH) but reported a preference vote | are included as it is not possible to identify why this | inconsistency occurred. Users may identify these cases by | cross-tabulating E3012_LH and E3013_LH_PF in their statistical | software. | | Data are unavailable for IRELAND (2016) and FINLAND (2019). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2017): E3013_LH_PF | | One respondent reported to have cast a preference vote after | also indicating not to have voted in the lower house election | (E3012_LH). Data remain unchanged. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E3013_LH_PF | | Voters in Lithuania can cast a preference vote in the | multi-member constituency, proportional segment (party list | vote). Under the Lithuanian electoral law, a "voter shall mark | the list of candidates whom he is voting for and, expressing his | opinion about the candidates on the list, shall enter the | election numbers of the 5 chosen candidates in the designated | spaces of the ballot paper. In this way preference votes are | given for the candidates." Voters are not required to express | preferences regarding the candidates. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2018): E3013_LH_PF | | 14 respondents reported whether they cast a preference vote | after also indicating they did not vote in the lower house | election (E3012_LH). Data remain unchanged. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3013_UH_PL >>> Q12UH-b. CURRENT UPPER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - PARTY LIST --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If applicable and respondent cast a ballot in the Upper House legislative election: This variable reports the respondent's vote choice for party list in Upper House elections. See Election Study VARIABLE NOTES for more information. .................................................................. 000001-999987. [SEE CODEBOOK PART 3 FOR PARTY AND LEADER CODES] 999988. NONE OF THE CANDIDATES/PARTIES 999989. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 999990. OTHER LEFT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY 999991. OTHER RIGHT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY 999992. OTHER CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 999993. INVALID/BLANK BALLOT 999995. NOT APPLICABLE: UNICAMERAL SYSTEM 999996. NOT APPLICABLE: NO UPPER HOUSE ELECTION OR LIST VOTE 999997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 999998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 999999. MISSING/ABSTAINED (DID NOT VOTE) | VARIABLE NOTES: E3013_UH_PL | | Parties and their numerical classifications for each election | study are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E3013_UH_PL | | In the 2018 upper house elections, voters could vote for a party | list only, a party list and a district candidate, or a district | candidate only. For those who voted for a party list and a | district candidate, split-ticket voting was not permitted. The | ballots of voters who voted for either a party list or a | district candidate were treated as a fused vote, i.e., the vote | for a party list was automatically extended to the lists' | respective district candidate (and vice-versa, i.e., a vote for | a district candidate was extended to the candidate's party | list). E3013_UH_PL reports the votes of those reporting to have | cast a list vote and those who reported voting for both a party | list and a district candidate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3013_UH_DC_1 >>> Q12UH-c. CURRENT UPPER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - DISTRICT CANDIDATE 1 E3013_UH_DC_2 >>> Q12UH-c. CURRENT UPPER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - DISTRICT CANDIDATE 2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If applicable and respondent cast a ballot in the Upper House legislative election: This variable reports the respondent's vote choice for district candidate/s in Upper House elections. See Election Study VARIABLE NOTES for more information. .................................................................. 000001-999987. [SEE CODEBOOK PART 3 FOR PARTY AND LEADER CODES] 999988. NONE OF THE CANDIDATES/PARTIES 999989. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 999990. OTHER LEFT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY 999991. OTHER RIGHT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY 999992. OTHER CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 999993. INVALID/BLANK BALLOT 999995. NOT APPLICABLE: UNICAMERAL SYSTEM 999996. NOT APPLICABLE: NO UPPER HOUSE ELECTION OR CANDIDATE VOTE 999997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 999998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 999999. MISSING/ABSTAINED (DID NOT VOTE) | VARIABLE NOTES: E3013_UH_DC_ | | Parties and their numerical classifications for each election | study are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E3013_UH_DC_1 | | In the 2018 upper house elections, voters could vote for a party | list only, a party list and a district candidate, or a district | candidate only. For those who voted for a party list and a | district candidate, split-ticket voting was not permitted. The | ballots of voters who voted for either a party list or a | district candidate were treated as a fused vote, i.e., the vote | for a party list was automatically extended to the lists' | respective district candidate (and vice-versa, i.e., a vote for | a district candidate was extended to the candidate's party | list). E3013_UH_DC_1 reports the votes of those reporting to | have cast a district candidate vote. Respondents' vote choices | for those who reported having cast a party list vote or both a | party list and a district candidate vote were coded in | E3013_UH_PL. | Respondents who reported a district candidate vote were asked to | to name the party list or coalition of the candidate they voted | for which was used to code E3013_UH_DC_1. | 48 Respondents named a candidate of one of the two large | coalitions, i.e., the center-right and the center-left | coalition. They were further asked which of the coalition | members they liked most. The answer to the latter was coded as | the respondent's vote choice in E3013_LH_DC_1 as coalitions were | not assigned numerical party codes. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E3013_UH_DC_1 | | Respondents were asked in the pre-election survey whether they | had voted already. Respondents who affirmed this were asked the | questions about their voting behavior (E3012_PR_1-E3013_UH_DC) | already in the pre-election survey. All other respondents were | asked the questions about their voting behavior in the post- | election part of the survey. Early voters are indicated as | belonging to a different sample component in variable E1007. | | The original data show that 20 respondents reported their | voting behavior inconsistently. When asked before the elections | whether they had already participated in early voting they | answered yes. However, when asked after the elections they | reported having voted on election day. For the CSES coding, the | answer given before the elections is assumed to be valid. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3013_UH_PF >>> Q12UH-d. CURRENT UPPER HOUSE ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST CANDIDATE PREFERENCE VOTE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports whether a respondent cast a preference vote. .................................................................. 1. RESPONDENT CAST PREFERENCE VOTE IN PR-LIST SYSTEM 2. RESPONDENT CAST PREFERENCE VOTE IN AV/STV SYSTEM 5. RESPONDENT DID NOT CAST PREFERENCE VOTE 6. RESPONDENT CAST INVALID BALLOT 95. NOT APPLICABLE: UNICAMERAL SYSTEM 96. NOT APPLICABLE: NO UPPER HOUSE ELECTION OR PREFERENCE VOTE SYSTEM 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E3013_UH_PF | | For more detailed information on how CSES codes | parties/coalitions, please see Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | | There are two different types of preference vote. The first is | associated with open PR-List systems. These systems allow | citizens to vote for a party list and to mark a "preference" for | one or more candidates within the party list. In these systems, | this type of vote is known as a preference vote (or a candidate | vote). The second is associated with STV and AV systems, where | citizens rank-order candidates in descending order of their | preference. In these systems, a distinction is made between a | voter's first preference (i.e., who voters allocate their | "number 1" preference to) and their subsequent lower preferences. | These latter preferences (i.e., all the voter's preferences aside | from their first preference) are also known as preference votes. | We distinguish between these two different types of preference | votes in the below categorization. | | In party list systems, the question asked of respondents should | read like this: | "Did you simply vote for a party or did you also express a | candidate preference?" | | In party list systems where voters have to vote directly for a | candidate and cannot cast a vote for the party list only (e.g., | Estonia, Finland, & Poland), the question asked of respondents | should read like this: | "Do you consider the vote that you cast merely a vote for the | party, or did you also mean it as a vote for a particular | candidate?" | | In STV/AV systems, the question asked of respondents should be | akin to this: | "Which of the parties/candidates did you give your preference | vote to?" | or | "To whom did you give your second (or lower) preference vote to?" | | Respondents that mentioned not casting a ballot in the current | upper house election (E3012_UH) but reported a vote choice are | included as it is not possible to identify why this | inconsistency occurred. Users may identify these cases by | cross-tabulating E3012_UH and E3013_UH_PF in their statistical | software. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E3013_UH_PF | | 479 respondents reported having cast a preference vote after | also indicating they had not voted in the upper house election | (E3012_UH). Data remain unchanged. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3013_OUTGOV >>> CURRENT MAIN ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - OUTGOING GOVERNMENT (INCUMBENT) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This item ascertains whether or not the respondent cast a ballot for the outgoing incumbent, regardless of whether or not it was valid. .................................................................. 0. DID NOT VOTE FOR THE OUTGOING GOVERNMENT (INCUMBENT) 1. VOTED FOR THE OUTGOING GOVERNMENT (INCUMBENT) 999996. NOT ASCERTAINED / INCUMBENT CANDIDATE/PARTY DID NOT CONTEST 999997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 999998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 999999. MISSING/ABSTAINED (DID NOT VOTE) | VARIABLE NOTES: E3013_OUTGOV | | DERIVATIVE VARIABLE | | In case of a single election taking place, e.g., a lower house | election only, this variable reports the voting decision for | that particular election. In cases where multiple elections took | place, e.g., a presidential and a lower house election, this | variable reports the voting decision in the main election. These | are listed in the table below. | | In case of a presidential election, the variable refers to the | incumbent president and/or the incumbent president's party. In | all other cases, the variable refers to the party/parties which | was/were part of the outgoing cabinet. | | In mixed electoral systems where voters have a list vote and a | district candidate vote, the list vote was used to determine if | the respondent voted for the outgoing government or not. | | In case of a caretaker government, the party affiliations of its | members were used to code this variable. Cabinet members without | a formal party affiliation were not considered for this variable. | | Respondents who reported to have cast an invalid ballot are coded | as "0. DID NOT VOTE FOR THE OUTGOING GOVERNMENT (INCUMBENT)." | | +++ TABLE: ELECTION STUDIES BY TYPE OF MAIN ELECTION | | Presidential Lower House Upper House | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) Election Election Election | ------------------------------------------------------------- | AUSTRALIA (2019) - X - | AUSTRIA (2017) - X - | BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019) - X - | BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019) - X - | BRAZIL (2018) X - - | CANADA (2019) - X - | CHILE (2017) X - - | COSTA RICA (2018) X - - | DENMARK (2019) - X - | FINLAND (2019) - X - | FRANCE (2017) X - - | GERMANY (2017) - X - | GREAT BRITAIN (2017) - X - | GREECE (2015) - X - | HONG KONG (2016) - X* - | HUNGARY (2018) - X - | ICELAND (2016) - X - | ICELAND (2017) - X - | IRELAND (2016) - X - | ISRAEL (2020) - X - | ITALY (2018) - X - | JAPAN (2017) - X - | LITHUANIA (2016) - X - | MONTENEGRO (2016) - X - | NETHERLANDS (2017) - X - | NEW ZEALAND (2017) - X - | NEW ZEALAND (2020) - X - | NORWAY (2017) - X - | PORTUGAL (2019) - X - | SLOVAKIA (2020) - X - | SOUTH KOREA (2016) - X - | SWEDEN (2018) - X - | SWITZERLAND (2019) - X* - | TAIWAN (2016) X - - | TAIWAN (2020) X - - | THAILAND (2019) - X* - | TUNISIA (2019) - X - | TURKEY (2018) X - - | UNITED STATES (2016) X - - | UNITED STATES (2020) X - - | URUGUAY (2019) X - - | ------------------------------------------------------------- | KEY: X = yes; - = no | * = Incumbent not identified - see ELECTION STUDY NOTES | below. | | The incumbent could not be identified for HONG KONG (2016), | SWITZERLAND (2019) and THAILAND (2019). | Further explanations are provided in the ELECTION STUDY NOTES | below. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019): E3013_OUTGOV | | This variable is coded for outgoing incumbents in the Belgium | national government. Thus, all respondents who reported voting | for "Christian Democratic and Flemish (CD&V)" or "Open Flemish | Liberals and Democrats (Open Vld)" are set to "1. VOTED FOR THE | OUTGOING GOVERNMENT (INCUMBENT)" for E3013_OUTGOV for the | Belgium-Flanders study. | The Belgium Government was also composed of "Reformist Movement | (MR)" from Wallonia. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019): E3013_OUTGOV | | This variable is coded for outgoing incumbents in the Belgium | national government. Thus, all respondents who reported voting | for "Reformist Movement (MR)" are set to "1. VOTED FOR THE | OUTGOING GOVERNMENT (INCUMBENT)" for E3013_OUTGOV for the | Belgium-Wallonia study. | The Belgium Government was also composed of "Christian Democratic | and Flemish (CD&V)" and "Open Flemish Liberals and Democrats | (Open Vld)" from Flanders. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E3013_OUTGOV | | For Brazil 2018, respondents are coded as having voted for the | incumbent if they voted for Dilma Rousseff's party, the workers' | party (PT), in the current Presidential election. | Rousseff was elected as President of Brazil in the 2014 election. | However, she was impeached in 2016. Former Vice President Michel | Temer (Brazilian Democratic Movement Party) succeeded Rousseff | in office. | Nevertheless, E3013_OUTGOV is coded based on voters for the | workers' party because more respondents reported having voted for | the PT and because Dilma Rousseff was the elected leader in the | 2014 election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E3013_OUTGOV | | Finland went through a government crisis in 2017 when the Finns | Party split. The Finns Party was a member of the governing | coalition in Finland. In 2017, after Jussi Halla-aho was elected | as the Finns Party president, other coalition members (Center | Party and National Coalition Party) declared that they did not | want to continue cooperation with the Finns Party. As a result, | the Finns Party went into opposition. However, 20 MPs abandoned | the Finns Party and formed a new parliamentary group, which | continued to support the governing coalition and hold ministers | in Finland's government. This group became a new political party | in Finland - Blue Reform. | Thus, supporters of the Center Party, National Coalition Party | and Blue Reform are coded as voters of outgoing incumbents. | Voters of the Finns Party were coded as those who did not vote | for the outgoing incumbent government. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E3013_OUTGOV | | The Chief Executive (CE) in Hong Kong is the highest government | official, but they do not belong to any political party. Hence, | E3013_OUTGOV was coded as "9999996. NOT ASCERTAINED /INCUMBENT | CANDIDATE/PARTY DID NOT CONTEST." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2020): E3013_OUTGOV | | The March 2020 election was the third general election in Israel | in the space of 12 months. Previous elections in April 2019 and | September 2019 resulted in a hung parliament, where no new | coalition government could be formed. Consequently, from April | 9, 2019, Israel was governed by a caretaker coalition led by | Benjamin Netanyahu as caretaker prime minister, and comprising | the following parties: Likud, Kulanu, Shas, United Torah | Judaism, Jewish Home, and the New Right. The outgoing government | variable for Israel classifies this caretaker government as the | incumbent administration for the 2020 contest. | Respondents who are classified as "999992. OTHER CANDIDATE/PARTY | (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED)" in variable E3013_LH_PL are coded as | "999996. NOT ASCERTAINED/INCUMBENT CANDIDATE/PARTY DID NOT | CONTEST" in E3013_OUTGOV. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E3013_OUTGOV | | In the 2018 lower house elections, voters could vote for a party | list only, a party list and a district candidate, or a district | candidate only. For those respondents reporting to have cast a | list vote and those who reported voting for both a party list | and a district candidate, E3013_OUTGOV was coded based on | E3013_LH_PL. For respondents who reported voting for a district | candidate only, E3013_OUTGOV was coded based on E3013_LH_DC. | Users are advised to consult ELECTION STUDY NOTES on E3013_LH_PL | and E3013_LH_DC for further details on the Italian electoral | system. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2019): E3013_OUTGOV | | The Federal Council of Switzerland functions as the collective | executive in Switzerland. Because the Federal President rotates | among its members from each of the parties on a fixed, annual | basis, no incumbent was coded. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E3013_OUTGOV | | At the time of the election, Thailand's incumbent Prime Minister | was Prayut Chan-o-cha, leader of the State Power Party (PPRP). | As Commander-in-Chief of the Royal Thai Army, Prayut headed a | coup d'etat in May 2014. Since the outset of the resulting | junta government, Prayut acted as Prime Minister. As Prayut | was not a popularly elected leader at the time of the 2019 | election, E3013_OUTGOV is coded "999996. NOT ASCERTAINED / | INCUMBENT CANDIDATE/PARTY DID NOT CONTEST". --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3013_VS_1 >>> VOTE SWITCHER BETWEEN CURRENT ELECTION AND PREVIOUS ELECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This item ascertains whether or not the respondent reports voting for the same party/coalition in the current and previous election or whether the respondent reports voting for a different party/ coalition in the current election from the previous election. .................................................................. 0. DID NOT SWITCH (VOTED FOR SAME PARTY/COALITION IN CURRENT & PREVIOUS ELECTION) 1. SWITCHER (CHANGED VOTE IN CURRENT ELECTION FROM PREVIOUS ELECTION) 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E3013_VS_1 | | DERIVATIVE VARIABLE | | This variable is constructed based on the respondent's reported | vote choice in the current and previous main election. | In polities where multiple elections took place simultaneously, | this variable reports the vote switching behavior in the main | election. The classifications of the main elections by election | study are listed in the VARIABLE NOTES for variable E3013_OUTGOV. | | Respondents are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" when they | expressed a vote choice for the same party/coalition in the | current and previous election. In instances where a coalition is | competing in the current or previous election, and the parties | that comprise that coalition are competing individually in the | previous/current election, respondents who report voting for | the coalition and/or one of the parties comprising the coalition | are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH." Details of these cases | are specified in ELECTION STUDY NOTES below. | | Respondents are classified as "1. SWITCHER" when their reported | vote in the current election differs from their reported vote | in the previous election. Further, respondents are classified as | "1. SWITCHER" when they report voting in one election (current | or previous) for a party/coalition that did not exist or | contest in the other (current or previous) election. | | Respondents are classified as "9. MISSING" when data about | their vote choice in the current and/or previous election is | unavailable, if they report that they don't know who they | voted for, or if they refused to answer the question. | Additionally, respondents who report voting for an independent | candidate or other parties without further specification are | classified as "9. MISSING." | In instances where current and previous vote choice refer to | different types of elections, e.g., a current main election is | presidential but previous vote choice refers to the lower | house election only, these studies are set to "9. MISSING". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): E3013_VS_1 | | 040008. Communist Party of Austria and Platform PLUS - Open List | was a joint party list between 040013. Communist Party of Austria | (KPOE) and an independent political youth organization, the Young | Greens, formed for the current lower house election. | Respondents who reported voting for the KPOE in the previous | election, and for the joint list in the current election are | classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for E3013_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E3013_VS_1 | | In the current 2018 Presidential election, 076001. Social Liberal | Party (PSL) formed an alliance with 076027. Brazilian Labour | Renewal Party (PRTB). | Respondents who reported voting for the Brazilian Labour Renewal | Party in the previous election, and for the Social Liberal Party | in the current election are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for | E3013_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2017): E3013_VS_1 | | In the current 2017 Presidential election, 152002. Independent | Democratic Union (UDI) formed a coalition with 152001. National | Renewal (RN), in support of RN's presidential candidate, | Sebastian Pinera. | Respondents who reported voting for the Independent Democratic | Union in the previous election, and for National Renewal in the | current election are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for | E3013_VS_1. | | In the current 2017 Presidential election, 152012. Equality Party | and the 152013. Green Ecologist Party formed an alliance "Broad | Front" with 152006. Democratic Revolution (RD). | Respondents who reported voting for one of these parties in the | previous election, and for Democratic Revolution in the current | election are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for E3013_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - COSTA RICA (2018): E3013_VS_1 | | This variable is based on the vote choice variables of the | first round of the current and previous presidential election | (E3013_PR_1 and E3015_PR_1). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2017): E3013_VS_1 | | In the current 2017 Presidential election, 250012. Democratic | Movement (MoDem) supported 250001. The Republic Onwards' | candidate, Emmanuel Macron. | Respondents who reported voting for the Democratic Movement in | the previous election, and for The Republic Onwards in the | current election are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for | E3013_VS_1. | | Jean-Luc Melenchon, the former head of the Left Party (PG) | competed for the newly founded 250004. Indomitable France (FI) | in the current 2017 Presidential election. Respondents who | reported voting for Indomitable France in the current election | and for 250015. Left Front (FG), Melenchon's preceding platform, | in the previous election are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" | for E3013_VS_1. | | After withdrawing their own candidate from the current 2017 | Presidential election, 250014. Europe Ecology - The Greens (EELV) | supported Benoit Hamon, from 250005. Socialist Party (PS). | Respondents who reported voting for the Greens in the previous | election, and for the Socialist Party in the current election | are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for E3013_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): E3013_VS_1 | | 300004. Democratic Coalition (PASOK-DIMAR) was an electoral | coalition that formed for the current 2015 lower house election. | This coalition was comprised of the following parties: | 300016. Panhellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK) and 300017. | Democratic Left (DIMAR). | Respondents who reported voting for one of these parties in the | previous election, and for the Democratic Coalition in the | current election are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for | E3013_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E3013_VS_1 | | 344006. People Power - League of Social Democrats (PP - LSD) was | a joint list by 344007. People Power and 344008. League of Social | Democrats (LSD) for the current 2016 election. | Respondents who reported voting for one of these parties in the | previous election, and for the joint list in the current election | are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for E3013_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E3013_VS_1 | | 348010. Unity was an electoral coalition that formed for the | previous lower house election. This coalition was composed of | the following parties: 348003. Hungarian Socialist Party (MSZP) - | Dialogue for Hungary, 348005. Democratic Coalition (DK) and the | Hungarian Liberal Party (MLP). | Respondents who reported voting for one of these parties in the | current election, and for Unity in the previous election are | classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for E3013_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2020): E3013_VS_1 | | 376006. Labor-Gesher-Meretz was a joint electoral list formed to | run in the 2020 Israeli legislative election. The list was | composed of three parties: The Israeli Labor Party, Gesher and | Meretz. Respondents who reported voting for 376010. Labor-Gesher | or 376011. Democratic Union in the previous election, and for | the electoral list in the current election are classified as | "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for E3013_VS_1 because 376011. Democratic | Union included party Meretz in their electoral alliance in 2019 | that was part of the electoral list Labor-Gesher-Meretz in the | 2020 election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E3013_VS_1 | | In the 2018 Italian lower house elections, voters could vote for | a party list only, a party list and a district candidate, or a | district candidate only. However, in the previous 2013 election, | Italy used a list vote system only, such that there is no data | on district candidate vote for the previous election. Therefore, | E3013_VS_1 is based on party-list votes only for Italy (2018). | | 380008. Us with Italy - Christian Democratic Union (NcI-UdC) | was an electoral alliance for the current 2018 lower house | election formed between Us with Italy (NcI) and 380017. Union of | the Centre (UdC). | Respondents who reported voting for one of these parties in the | previous election, and for Us with Italy - Christian Democratic | Union in the current election are classified as "0. DID NOT | SWITCH" for E3013_VS_1. | | 380019. Left Ecology Freedom (SEL) merged into Italian Left (SI) | before the current 2018 lower house election, a member of the | joint list 380006. Free and Equal (LeU). | Respondents who reported voting for Left Ecology Freedom in the | previous election, and for Free and Equal in the current election | are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for E3013_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E3013_VS_1 | | Before the current 2016 lower house election, 440015. Liberal and | Centre Union (LiCS) and 440016. Political Party "Yes" merged to | form 440009. Lithuanian Freedom Union (Liberals) (LLS). | Respondents who reported voting for LiCS or "Yes" in the previous | election and for the Lithuanian Freedom Union in the current | election are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for E3013_VS_1. | | 440013. Coalition of Anti-Corruption and Poverty (JL-LTS) was an | electoral alliance formed by 440018. Young Lithuania (JL) and | the Lithuanian Nationalist and Republican Union (LTS). | Respondents who reported voting for one of these parties in the | previous election, and for the Coalition of Anti-Corruption and | Poverty in the current election are classified as "0. DID NOT | SWITCH" for E3013_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E3013_VS_1 | | 499003. Key Coalition was an electoral coalition participating in | the current 2016 lower house election. This coalition consisted | of the following parties: 499018. Democratic Alliance (DEMOS), | 499019. Socialist Peoples Party of Montenegro (SNP) and 499020. | United Reform Action (URA). | Respondents who reported voting for one of these parties in the | previous election, and for the Key Coalition in the current | election are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for E3013_VS_1. | | 499008. Albanians Decisively (FORCA-DUA-AA) was an electoral | coalition that formed for the current lower house election. This | coalition was composed of the following member parties: | 499022. New Democratic Power - Forca, 499023. Democratic Union | of Albanians (DUA), and 499021. Albanian Alternative (AA). | Respondents who reported voting for one of these parties in the | previous election, and for Albanians Decisively in the current | election are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for E3013_VS_1. | | 499026. Coalition "For a European Montenegro" was an electoral | coalition formed for the previous lower house election. This | coalition was composed of the following parties: | 499001. Democratic Party of Socialists of Montenegro (DPS), | 499005. Social Democratic Party of Montenegro (SDP) and the | Liberal Party (LP). | Respondents who reported voting for one of these parties in the | current election, and for "For a European Montenegro" in the | previous election are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for | E3013_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2020): E3013_VS_1 | | 703009. Hungarian Community Togetherness was an electoral | coalition participating in the current 2020 lower house | election. This coalition consisted of the following parties: | 703026. Party of the Hungarian Community (SMK-MKP), Hungarian | Forum (MF), and Osszefogas-Spolupatricnost. | Respondents who reported voting for SMK-MKP in the previous | election, and for Hungarian Community Togetherness in the | current election are classified as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for | E3013_VS_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2016): E3013_VS_1 | | Before the current 2016 lower house election, 410005. Democratic | United Party (DUP) and the New Political Vision Party (NPVP) | merged to form 410002. Democratic Party of Korea (DP). | Respondents who reported voting for the DUP in the previous | election and for the DP in the current election are classified | as "0. DID NOT SWITCH" for E3013_VS_1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3013_LR_CSES >>> CURRENT MAIN ELECTION - VOTE FOR LEFTIST/CENTER/RIGHTIST - CSES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This item classifies whether or not the respondent reports voting for a leftist / center / rightist party/candidate of the party. The classification is based on CSES Collaborators experts' judgment of parties' ideology and the respondents' reported vote choice. .................................................................. 1. VOTED FOR LEFTIST PARTY/CANDIDATE 2. VOTED FOR CENTER PARTY/CANDIDATE 3. VOTED FOR RIGHTIST PARTY/CANDIDATE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E3013_LR_CSES | | DERIVATIVE VARIABLE | | This variable is available for voters who reported voting for a | party where expert judgments are available (i.e., for parties | receiving an alphabetical classification by CSES). For more | details on which parties/coalitions receive alphabetical | classification, see "CSES MODULE 5 CODING OF PARTIES/COALITIONS | & LEADERS" in Codebook Part 2. | | This variable differentiates voters based on expert judgments | of the CSES Collaborators on the left-right ideology scale. | Collaborators assign parties scores on an 11-point scale ranging | from "0. LEFT" to "10. RIGHT" for all parties assigned an | alphabetical code by CSES. The expert judgment data by party | is available in variable E5018_. | | The coding of E3013_LR_CSES is based on E3100_LR_CSES. | For E3100_LR_CSES, CSES linked the CSES Collaborator expert | judgment with the reported vote choice of the respondent in the | main election. A respondent who reports voting for a party/ | candidate of PARTY A is assigned the value the CSES Collaborator | gave to PARTY A in the said election on the left-right scale | (and so on for PARTY B, PARTY C etc...). CSES reports these | values in variable E3100_LR_CSES. | | These scores provided in E3100_LR_CSES have then been | re-classified for E3013_LR_CSES to establish whether a | respondent voted for a leftist, center or rightist party/ | candidate. Scores assigned by collaborators are recoded into a | trichotomy as follows: | | E3013_LR_CSES CSES Collaborators Rating |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. 0 - 3 | 02. 4 - 6 | 03. 6 - 10 | | In polities where multiple elections took place simultaneously, | this variable reports the vote choice in the main election. The | classifications of the main elections by election study are | listed in the variable notes for variable E3013_OUTGOV. | | Data are unavailable primarily because collaborator expert | judgments of parties were not provided for certain election | studies. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3013_IF_CSES >>> CURRENT MAIN ELECTION - VOTE CHOICE BY IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY CLASSIFICATION - CSES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This item classifies respondents' reported vote choice by the ideological family of the party/candidate of the party. The classification is based on CSES Collaborators experts' judgments of the party's ideological family and the respondents' reported vote choice. .................................................................. 01. VOTED FOR A SOCIALIST PARTY 02. VOTED FOR AN ECOLOGY PARTY 03. VOTED FOR A SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY 04. VOTED FOR A LIBERAL PARTY 05. VOTED FOR A CHRISTIAN DEMOCRAT PARTY 06. VOTED FOR A CONSERVATIVE PARTY 07. VOTED FOR A NATIONAL PARTY 10. VOTED FOR A PARTY OF OTHER CLASSIFICATION 97. NOT APPLICABLE 98. NO IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY MENTIONED 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E3013_IF_CSES | | DERIVATIVE VARIABLE | | This variable is available for voters who reported voting for a | party where expert judgments are available (i.e., for parties | receiving an alphabetical classification by CSES). For more | details on which parties/coalitions receive alphabetical | classification see "CSES MODULE 5 CODING OF PARTIES/COALITIONS | & LEADERS" in Codebook Part 2. | | This variable differentiates voters based on the expert judgment | of the CSES Collaborators on the ideological family | classification. The expert judgment data by party is available | in variable E5017_. | | The coding of E3013_IF_CSES is based on E3100_IF_CSES. | For E3100_IF_CSES, CSES linked the CSES Collaborator expert | judgment with the reported vote choice of the respondent in the | main election. A respondent who reports voting for a party/ | candidate of PARTY A is assigned the value the CSES Collaborator | gave to PARTY A in the said election on the ideological family | classification (and so on for PARTY B, PARTY C etc...). | CSES reports these values in variable E3100_IF_CSES. | | These classifications provided in E3100_IF_CSES have then been | re-classified for E3013_IF_CSES to establish an ideological | family a respondent voted for. Scores assigned by collaborators | are recoded as follows: | | E3013_IF_CSES CSES Collaborators score |----------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Socialist parties | 02. Ecology parties | 03. Social Democratic parties | 04. Left Liberal parties | Liberal parties | Right Liberal parties | 05. Christian Democratic parties | 06. Conservative parties | 07. National parties | 10. Communist parties | Agrarian parties | Ethnic parties | Regional parties | Independent parties | Other | | In polities where multiple elections took place simultaneously, | this variable reports the vote choice in the main election. The | classifications of the main elections by election study are | listed in the variable notes for variable E3013_OUTGOV. | | Data are unavailable primarily because collaborator expert | judgments of parties were not provided for certain election | studies. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3014_PR_1 >>> Q13a. PREVIOUS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT - 1ST ROUND --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This item ascertains whether or not the respondent cast a ballot in the first round of the previous presidential elections, regardless of whether or not it was valid, in the PREVIOUS election to be considered (see instructions). .................................................................. 0. RESPONDENT DID NOT CAST A BALLOT 1. RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT 93. VOLUNTEERED: RESPONDENT NOT REGISTERED ON ELECTORAL LISTS / NOT ELIGIBLE [IF APPLICABLE] 95. NOT APPLICABLE: NO ROLE OF PRESIDENT 96. NOT APPLICABLE: NO PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E3014_PR_1 | | +++ TABLE: PREVIOUS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION (1ST ROUND) | AND THE YEAR IN WHICH IT WAS HELD | | Presidential | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) Election | ----------------------------------------------------------- | BRAZIL (2018) 2014 | CHILE (2017) 2013 | COSTA RICA (2018) 2014 | FRANCE (2017) 2012 | SOUTH KOREA (2016) 2012 | TAIWAN (2020) 2016 | TURKEY (2018) 2014 | UNITED STATES (2016) 2012 | UNITED STATES (2020) 2016 | URUGUAY (2019) 2014 | ----------------------------------------------------------- | | Data are unavailable for TAIWAN (2016) and TUNISIA (2019). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E3014_PR_1 | | The question if respondents voted in the "first round" of the | previous election did not differentiate between the | presidential, lower house and upper house elections. Since | voting is compulsory, it can be assumed that most persons who | answered "yes" voted in all of the elections, and those who | answered "no" did not vote in any of the elections, which took | place simultaneously. Furthermore, there were different kinds of | "no" answers in the original dataset which showed why | respondents did not vote. These values were recoded as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 0. No, more than 70 years old (voluntary) | No, 16-17 years old (voluntary) | No, showed justification in 1st round | Neither voted nor showed justification at first | round | No, didn't have the necessary documentation | 1. Yes, voted | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): E3014_PR_1 | | Respondents were not given the answer option "not eligible to | vote." As a consequence, respondents who were ineligible to vote | in the 2012 Presidential Election were coded as "didn't vote" | in the original study and 0. RESPONDENT DID NOT CAST A BALLOT | in CSES, respectively. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E3014_PR_1 | | Respondents were not given the answer option "not eligible to | vote." Therefore, respondents who were ineligible to vote | in the 2016 Presidential Election could report turnout. | Six respondents born after 1998 reported having cast a vote | in 2016, even though they were below voting age. Data remain | unchanged. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3014_PR_2 >>> Q13a. PREVIOUS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT - 2ND ROUND --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This item ascertains whether or not the respondent cast a ballot in the second round of the previous presidential elections, regardless of whether or not it was valid, in the PREVIOUS election to be considered (see instructions). .................................................................. 0. RESPONDENT DID NOT CAST A BALLOT 1. RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT 93. VOLUNTEERED: RESPONDENT NOT REGISTERED ON ELECTORAL LISTS / NOT ELIGIBLE [IF APPLICABLE] 95. NOT APPLICABLE: NO ROLE OF PRESIDENT 96. NOT APPLICABLE: NO PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS / NO SECOND ROUND 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E3014_PR_2 | | Data are unavailable for COSTA RICA (2018) and TUNISIA (2019). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E3014_PR_2 | | The Brazilian study differentiates between various kinds of "no" | answers in the original dataset, showing why respondents did not | vote. These values were recoded as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 0. No, more than 70 years old (voluntary) | No, 16-17 years old (voluntary) | No, showed justification in 1st round | Neither voted nor showed justification at first | round | No, didn't have the necessary documentation | 1. Yes, voted --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3014_LH >>> Q13a. PREVIOUS LOWER HOUSE ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This item ascertains whether or not the respondent cast a ballot in the previous lower house elections, regardless of whether or not it was valid, in the PREVIOUS election to be considered (see instructions). .................................................................. 0. RESPONDENT DID NOT CAST A BALLOT 1. RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT 93. VOLUNTEERED: RESPONDENT NOT REGISTERED ON ELECTORAL LISTS / NOT ELIGIBLE [IF APPLICABLE] 96. NOT APPLICABLE: NO LOWER HOUSE ELECTION 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E3014_LH | | +++ TABLE: PREVIOUS LOWER HOUSE ELECTION AND THE YEAR IN | WHICH IT WAS HELD | | Lower House | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) Election | ----------------------------------------------------------- | AUSTRALIA (2019) 2016 | AUSTRIA (2017) 2013 | BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019) 2015 | BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019) 2015 | BRAZIL (2018) 2014 | CANADA (2019) 2015 | DENMARK (2019) 2015 | FINLAND (2019) 2015 | GERMANY (2017) 2013 | GREAT BRITAIN (2017) 2015 | GREECE (2015) 2015 | HONG KONG (2016) 2012 | HUNGARY (2018) 2014 | ICELAND (2016) 2013 | ICELAND (2017) 2016 | IRELAND (2016) 2011 | ISRAEL (2020) 2019 | ITALY (2018) 2013 | JAPAN (2017) 2014 | LITHUANIA (2016) 2012 | MONTENEGRO (2016) 2012 | NETHERLANDS (2017) 2012 | NEW ZEALAND (2017) 2014 | NEW ZEALAND (2020) 2017 | NORWAY (2017) 2013 | PORTUGAL (2019) 2015 | SLOVAKIA (2020) 2016 | SOUTH KOREA (2016) 2012 | SWEDEN (2018) 2014 | SWITZERLAND (2019) 2015 | TAIWAN (2016) 2012 | TAIWAN (2020) 2016 | THAILAND (2019) 2011 | TUNISIA (2019) 2014 | TURKEY (2018) 2015 | URUGUAY (2019) 2014 | ----------------------------------------------------------- | | Data are unavailable for CHILE (2017), COSTA RICA (2018), | FRANCE (2017) and UNITED STATES (2016 & 2020). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E3014_LH | | The question if respondents voted in the "first round" of the | previous election did not differentiate between the | presidential, lower house and upper house elections. Since | voting is compulsory, it can be assumed that most persons who | answered "yes" voted in all of the elections, and those who | answered "no" did not vote in any of the elections, which took | place simultaneously. Furthermore, there were different kinds of | "no" answers in the original dataset which showed why | respondents did not vote. These values were recoded as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 0. No, more than 70 years old (voluntary) | No, 16-17 years old (voluntary) | No, showed justification in 1st round | Neither voted nor showed justification at first | round | No, didn't have the necessary documentation | 1. Yes, voted | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2019): E3014_LH | | This variable is from the pre-election survey. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): E3014_LH | | The data refer to the election held on January 25, 2015. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E3014_LH | | E3014_LH reflects turnout for geographical constituency | elections in 2012, which returned 35 out of 70 seats for the | unicameral legislature of Hong Kong, the Legislative Council | (LegCo). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2019): E3014_LH | | The Portuguese 2019 study asked respondents how certain they | were about their turnout in the previous lower house election | on a four-point scale. For CSES, data were recoded as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 0. I am sure that I did not vote in the 2015 | legislative elections | I am not sure if I voted, but it is more likely | that I did not vote | 1. I am not sure if I voted, but it is more likely | that I voted | I am sure I voted in the 2015 legislative | elections | | Further, respondents were not given the answer option "not | eligible to vote." As a consequence, respondents who were | ineligible to vote in the 2015 election are coded as | 0. RESPONDENT DID NOT CAST A BALLOT in E3014_LH. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2016): E3014_LH | | For the 2012 South Korean legislative elections, turnout and | vote choice were assessed simultaneously, such that there was | no standalone question assessing turnout. Respondents were | coded as having voted in case they stated to have cast a vote | for a district candidate, a party list, or for both. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E3014_LH | | Turnout and vote choice for the previous lower house election | refer to the Thai 2011 general election. The February 2, 2014 | election for the House of Representatives was disrupted | by protests against the government and invalidated by the | Constitutional Court almost two months after the election. | The caretaker government installed in early May 2014 was deposed | two weeks later, following a coup d'etat by the Thai armed | forces. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2018): E3014_LH | | In 2015, parliamentary elections were held twice in Turkey, | the first time on June 7. After unsuccessful attempts to | form a coalition government, early elections were held on | November 1. | The variable E3014_LH refers to the 2015 Turkish election which | took place on November 1, 2015. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3014_UH >>> Q13a. PREVIOUS UPPER HOUSE ELECTION: DID RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This item ascertains whether or not the respondent cast a ballot, regardless of whether or not it was valid, in the PREVIOUS election to be considered (see instructions). .................................................................. 0. RESPONDENT DID NOT CAST A BALLOT 1. RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT 93. VOLUNTEERED: RESPONDENT NOT REGISTERED ON ELECTORAL LISTS / NOT ELIGIBLE [IF APPLICABLE] 95. NOT APPLICABLE: UNICAMERAL SYSTEM 96. NOT APPLICABLE: NO UPPER HOUSE ELECTION 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E3014_UH | | +++ TABLE: PREVIOUS UPPER HOUSE ELECTION AND THE YEAR IN | WHICH IT WAS HELD | | Upper House | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) Election | ----------------------------------------------------------- | BRAZIL (2018) 2014 | URUGUAY (2019) 2014 | ----------------------------------------------------------- | | Data are unavailable for AUSTRALIA (2019), CHILE (2017), | ITALY (2018), SWITZERLAND (2019), UNITED STATES (2016) and | UNITED STATES (2020). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E3014_UH | | The question if respondents voted in the "first round" of the | previous election did not differentiate between the | presidential, lower house and upper house elections. Since | voting is compulsory, it can be assumed that most persons who | answered "yes" voted in all of the elections, and those who | answered "no" did not vote in any of the elections, which took | place simultaneously. Furthermore, there were different kinds of | "no" answers in the original dataset which showed why | respondents did not vote. These values were recoded as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 0. No, more than 70 years old (voluntary) | No, 16-17 years old (voluntary) | No, showed justification in 1st round | Neither voted nor showed justification at first | round | No, didn't have the necessary documentation | 1. Yes, voted --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3015_PR_1 >>> Q13b. PREVIOUS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - 1ST ROUND --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If applicable and respondent cast a ballot in the presidential election: This variable reports the respondent's vote choice for president in the first round of the PREVIOUS election to be considered (see instructions). .................................................................. 000001-999987. [SEE CODEBOOK PART 3 FOR PARTY AND LEADER CODES] 999988. NONE OF THE CANDIDATES/PARTIES 999989. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 999990. OTHER LEFT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY 999991. OTHER RIGHT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY 999992. OTHER CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 999993. INVALID/BLANK BALLOT 999995. NOT APPLICABLE: NO ROLE OF PRESIDENT 999996. NOT APPLICABLE: NO PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 999997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 999998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 999999. MISSING/ABSTAINED (DID NOT VOTE) | VARIABLE NOTES: E3015_PR_1 | | Parties and their numerical classifications for each election | study are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. To see | which election this variable refers to, see Variable Notes for | E3014_PR_1. | | Respondents that mentioned not casting a ballot in the first | round of the previous Presidential election (E3014_PR_1) but | report a vote choice are included as it is not possible to | identify why this inconsistency occurred. Users may identify | these cases by cross-tabulating E3014_PR_1 and E3015_PR_1 in | their statistical software. | | Data are unavailable for TUNISIA (2019). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E3015_PR_1 | | Codes in E3015_PR_1 refer to the Brazilian 2014 Presidential | elections and to the following candidates: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 076001. Luciana Genro | 076002. Dilma Rousseff | 076003. Aecio Neves | 076007. Marina Silva | 076019. Everaldo Pereira | 076020. Eduardo Jorge | 076027. Levy Fidelix | 076031. Jose Maria Eymael | 076033. Mauro Iasi | 076034. Jose Maria de Almeida | 076035. Rui Costa Pimenta | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2017): E3015_PR_1 | | Codes in E3015_PR_1 refer to the French 2012 Presidential | elections and to the following candidates: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 250002. Marine Le Pen | 250003. Nicolas Sarkozy | 250005. Francois Hollande | 250006. Nicolas Dupont-Aignan | 250008. Philippe Poutou | 250010. Nathalie Arthaud | 250011. Jacques Cheminade | 250012. Francois Bayrou | 250014. Eva Joly | 250015. Jean-Luc Melenchon | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2016): E3015_PR_1 | | Codes in E3015_PR_1 refer to the South Korean 2012 Presidential | elections and to the following candidates: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 410001. Geun-hye Park | 410005. Jae-in Moon | 999989. Ji-won Kang | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2018): E3015_PR_1 | | The following candidates contested in the 2014 Turkish | Presidential election: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 792001. Recep Tayyip Erdogan (AKP) | 792002. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu (CHP) | 792003. Selahattin Demirtas (HDP) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): E3015_PR_1 | | Codes in E3015_PR_1 refer to the U.S. 2012 Presidential | elections and to the following candidates: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 840001. Barack Obama | 840002. Mitt Romney | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E3015_PR_1 | | Codes in E3015_PR_1 refer to the U.S. 2016 Presidential | elections and to the following candidates: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 840101. Hillary Clinton | 840102. Donald Trump --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3015_PR_2 >>> Q13b. PREVIOUS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - 2ND ROUND --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If applicable and respondent cast a ballot in the presidential election: This variable reports the respondent's vote choice for president in the second round of the PREVIOUS election to be considered (see instructions). .................................................................. 000001-999987. [SEE CODEBOOK PART 3 FOR PARTY AND LEADER CODES] 999988. NONE OF THE CANDIDATES/PARTIES 999989. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 999990. OTHER LEFT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY 999991. OTHER RIGHT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY 999992. OTHER CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 999993. INVALID/BLANK BALLOT 999995. NOT APPLICABLE: NO ROLE OF PRESIDENT 999996. NOT APPLICABLE: NO PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION / NO SECOND ROUND 999997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 999998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 999999. MISSING/ABSTAINED (DID NOT VOTE) | VARIABLE NOTES: E3015_PR_2 | | Parties and their numerical classifications for each election | study are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. To see | which election this variable refers to, see Variable Notes for | E3014_PR_2. | | Data are unavailable for COSTA RICA (2018) and TUNISIA (2019). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E3015_PR_2 | | Codes in E3015_PR_2 refer to the second round of the Brazilian | 2014 Presidential elections and to the following candidates: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 076002. Dilma Rousseff | 076003. Aecio Neves --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3015_LH_PL >>> Q13b. PREVIOUS LOWER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - PARTY LIST --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If applicable and respondent cast a ballot in the Lower House legislative election: This variable reports the respondent's vote choice for party list in the PREVIOUS election. .................................................................. 000001-999987. [SEE CODEBOOK PART 3 FOR PARTY AND LEADER CODES] 999988. NONE OF THE CANDIDATES/PARTIES 999989. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 999990. OTHER LEFT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY 999991. OTHER RIGHT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY 999992. OTHER CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 999993. INVALID/BLANK BALLOT 999995. NOT APPLICABLE: NOT A LIST SYSTEM 999996. NOT APPLICABLE: NO LOWER HOUSE ELECTION 999997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 999998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 999999. MISSING/ABSTAINED (DID NOT VOTE) | VARIABLE NOTES: E3015_LH_PL | | Parties and their numerical classifications for each election | study are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. To see | which election this variable refers to, see Variable Notes for | E3014_LH. | | Respondents that mentioned not casting a ballot in the previous | lower house election (E3014_LH) but report a vote choice | are included as it is not possible to identify why this | inconsistency occurred. Users may identify these cases by | cross-tabulating E3014_LH and E3015_LH_PL in their statistical | software. | | Data are unavailable for COSTA RICA (2018). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E3015_LH_PL | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 999990. Animal Justice Party of Finland | Feminist Party | Communist Party of Finland | 999991. Liberal Party | Movement Now | Finnish People First | 999992. Seven Star Movement | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E3015_LH_PL | | E3015_LH_PL reflects vote choice for the 2012 geographical | constituency elections, which returned 35 out of 70 seats for the | unicameral legislature of Hong Kong, the Legislative Council | (LegCo). | Voters cast one vote for closed party lists, which were compiled | separately for each of the five electoral districts and in some | instances featured more than one list per party per district. | The original vote choice variable assigned each party list an | individual code. E3015_LH_PL summarizes vote choice for each | combination of parties forming a joint party list. | | Further, the 2016 Hong Kong study employed additional codes for | missing values, which were recoded as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 999988. Did not vote for any candidate list | 999993. Cast invalid ballot or abstained | 999998. Forgotten | Don't know | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E3015_LH_PL | | For all vote choice variables, the Hungarian study had a category | "Will not say which party I voted for." These respondents are | recoded into CSES category "999997. Volunteered: Refused." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E3015_LH_PL | | In the previous election in 2013, Italy used a list vote system | only, which is why there is no data for E3015_LH_DC. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 999991. A center-right party (N=1) | 999990. Socialist Party, Greens (N=2) | A left party (N=2) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E3015_LH_PL | | Two respondents reported a party list vote choice after also | indicating they had not voted in the previous lower house | election (E3014_LH). Data remain unchanged. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2019): E3015_LH_PL | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 999992. Voted for persons, not parties | Voted for several parties --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3015_LH_DC >>> Q13c. PREVIOUS LOWER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - DISTRICT CANDIDATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If applicable and respondent cast a ballot in the Lower House legislative election: This variable reports the respondent's vote choice for district candidate in the PREVIOUS election. .................................................................. 000001-999987. [SEE CODEBOOK PART 3 FOR PARTY AND LEADER CODES] 999988. NONE OF THE CANDIDATES/PARTIES 999989. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 999990. OTHER LEFT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY 999991. OTHER RIGHT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY 999992. OTHER CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 999993. INVALID/BLANK BALLOT 999995. NOT APPLICABLE: NO DISTRICT CANDIDATE VOTE 999996. NOT APPLICABLE: NO LOWER HOUSE ELECTION 999997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 999998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 999999. MISSING/ABSTAINED (DID NOT VOTE) | VARIABLE NOTES: E3015_LH_DC | | Parties and their numerical classifications for each election | study are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. To see | which election this variable refers to, see Variable Notes for | E3014_LH. | | Respondents that mentioned not casting a ballot in the previous | lower house election (E3014_LH) but report a vote choice | are included as it is not possible to identify why this | inconsistency occurred. Users may identify these cases by | cross-tabulating E3014_LH and E3015_LH_DC in their statistical | software. | | Data are unavailable for FRANCE (2017), UNITED STATES (2016), | UNITED STATES (2020) and URUGUAY (2019). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2019): E3015_LH_DC | | This variable is from the pre-election survey. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E3015_LH_DC | | For all vote choice variables, the Hungarian study had a category | "Will not say which party I voted for." These respondents are | recoded into CSES category "999997. Volunteered: Refused." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E3015_LH_DC | | In the previous election in 2013, Italy used a list vote system | only, which is why there is no data for E3015_LH_DC. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E3015_LH_DC | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 999988. Did not vote for a candidate | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017): E3015_LH_DC | | One respondent reported a district candidate vote choice after | also indicating not to have voted in the previous lower house | election (E3014_LH). Data remain unchanged. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3015_UH_PL >>> PREVIOUS UPPER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - PARTY LIST --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If applicable and respondent cast a ballot in the Upper House legislative election: This variable reports the respondent's vote choice for party list in the PREVIOUS election. .................................................................. 000001-999987. [SEE CODEBOOK PART 3 FOR PARTY AND LEADER CODES] 999988. NONE OF THE CANDIDATES/PARTIES 999989. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 999990. OTHER LEFT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY 999991. OTHER RIGHT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY 999992. OTHER CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 999993. INVALID/BLANK BALLOT 999995. NOT APPLICABLE: UNICAMERAL SYSTEM 999996. NOT APPLICABLE: NO UPPER HOUSE ELECTION OR LIST VOTE 999997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 999998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 999999. MISSING/ABSTAINED (DID NOT VOTE) | VARIABLE NOTES: E3015_UH_PL | | Parties and their numerical classifications for each election | study are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. To see | which election this variable refers to, see Variable Notes for | E3014_UH. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3015_UH_DC_1 >>> PREVIOUS UPPER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - DISTRICT CANDIDATE 1 E3015_UH_DC_2 >>> PREVIOUS UPPER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - DISTRICT CANDIDATE 2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If applicable and respondent cast a ballot in the Upper House legislative election: This variable reports the respondent's vote choice for district candidate/s in the PREVIOUS election. .................................................................. 000001-999988. [SEE CODEBOOK PART 3 FOR PARTY AND LEADER CODES] 999988. NONE OF THE CANDIDATES/PARTIES 999989. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 999990. OTHER LEFT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY 999991. OTHER RIGHT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY 999992. OTHER CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 999993. INVALID/BLANK BALLOT 999995. NOT APPLICABLE: UNICAMERAL SYSTEM 999996. NOT APPLICABLE: NO UPPER HOUSE ELECTION OR CANDIDATE VOTE 999997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 999998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 999999. MISSING/ABSTAINED (DID NOT VOTE) | VARIABLE NOTES: E3015_UH_DC_ | | Parties and their numerical classifications for each election | study are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | | Respondents that mentioned not casting a ballot in the previous | upper house election (E3014_UH) but report a vote choice | are included as it is not possible to identify why this | inconsistency occurred. Users may identify these cases by | cross-tabulating E3014_UH and E3015_UH_DC_ in their statistical | software. | | Data are unavailable for UNITED STATES (2016), UNITED STATES | (2020) and URUGUAY (2019). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E3015_UH_DC_ | | 543 respondents reported a district candidate vote choice after | also indicating they had not voted in the previous upper house | election (E3014_UH). Data remain unchanged. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3016_1 >>> Q14a. WHO IS IN POWER CAN MAKE DIFFERENCE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q14a. Some people say that it doesn't make any difference who is in power. Others say that it makes a big difference who is in power. Using the scale on this card, (where ONE means that it doesn't make any difference who is in power and FIVE means that it makes a big difference who is in power), where would you place yourself? .................................................................. 1. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE WHO IS IN POWER 2. 3. 4. 5. IT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE WHO IS IN POWER 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E3016_1 | | This item was not part of the CSES Module 5 pilot questionnaire. | | Data are unavailable for TAIWAN (2020). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E3016_1 | | For some variables in the Thai 2019 election study, such as | E3016_, an unusually high share of respondents did not provide | substantive answers (> 20% of data coded refused, don't know, or | missing). Collaborators note two potential reasons for this | peculiarity: | | At the time of the election, Thailand's incumbent Prime | Minister was Prayut Chan-o-cha, leader of the State Power Party | (PPRP, PARTY A). As Commander-in-Chief of the Royal Thai Army, | Prayut headed a coup d'etat in May 2014. The 2019 election was | conducted under the new 2017 constitution designed by the | military junta government. Collaborators note that parts of the | population dissatisfied with the current situation might have | been reluctant or cautious to provide information on party | preferences and political attitudes closely before or after the | election day. This situation was amplified by official election | results being published only weeks after the election. | | Further, other parts of the population might have been less | knowledgeable concerning political issues such as parties' | ideological classifications and hence might have had difficulties | answering related questions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3016_2 >>> Q14b. WHO PEOPLE VOTE FOR MAKES A DIFFERENCE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q14b. Some people say that no matter who people vote for, it won't make any difference to what happens. Others say that who people vote for can make a big difference to what happens. Using the scale on this card, (where ONE means that voting won't make any difference to what happens and FIVE means that voting can make a big difference), where would you place yourself? .................................................................. 1. WHO PEOPLE VOTE FOR WON'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE 2. 3. 4. 5. WHO PEOPLE VOTE FOR CAN MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017): E3016_2 | | The wording of the response categories slightly differs from | CSES standards. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | --------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Voting won't make any difference to what happens | ... | 05. Voting can make a big difference to what happens | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016 & 2020): E3016_2 | | The wording of the response categories slightly differs from | CSES standards. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | --------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Voting won't make any difference to what happens | ... | 05. Voting can make a big difference | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E3016_2 | | For some variables in the Thai 2019 election study, such as | E3016_, an unusually high share of respondents did not provide | substantive answers (> 20% of data coded refused, don't know, or | missing). Collaborators note two potential reasons for this | peculiarity: | | At the time of the election, Thailand's incumbent Prime | Minister was Prayut Chan-o-cha, leader of the State Power Party | (PPRP, PARTY A). As Commander-in-Chief of the Royal Thai Army, | Prayut headed a coup d'etat in May 2014. The 2019 election was | conducted under the new 2017 constitution designed by the | military junta government. Collaborators note that parts of the | population dissatisfied with the current situation might have | been reluctant or cautious to provide information on party | preferences and political attitudes closely before or after the | election day. This situation was amplified by official election | results being published only weeks after the election. | | Further, other parts of the population might have been less | knowledgeable concerning political issues such as parties' | ideological classifications and hence might have had difficulties | answering related questions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3017_A >>> Q15a. LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY A E3017_B >>> Q15b. LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY B E3017_C >>> Q15c. LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY C E3017_D >>> Q15d. LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY D E3017_E >>> Q15e. LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY E E3017_F >>> Q15f. LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY F E3017_G >>> Q15g. LIKE-DISLIKE - ADDITIONAL - PARTY G E3017_H >>> Q15h. LIKE-DISLIKE - ADDITIONAL - PARTY H E3017_I >>> Q15i. LIKE-DISLIKE - ADDITIONAL - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q15a-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 | VARIABLE NOTES: E3017_ | | Parties and their alphabetical classifications for each election | study are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | | In some cases, parties were assigned an alphabetical CSES code | but data for E3011_ is not available for these parties. These | instances are documented in an election study note below the | party/leader table of the Election Study to which this applies | in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | | Several respondents mentioned not to know a certain party | in one of the appropriate variables on E3017_, E3019_ or E3021_ | but evaluated even this party on any other scale. These data | remain unchanged. | | +++ TABLE: FREQUENCIES OF RESPONDENTS REPORTING THAT THEY HAD | NOT HEARD OF A SPECIFIC PARTY BUT PROVIDE AN | EVALUATION OF THE PARTY ON ANY OTHER SCALE | | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) _A _B _C _D _E _F _G _H _I | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | AUSTRALIA (2019) 6 4 5 27 - 15 - - - | BRAZIL (2018) 366 95 280 413 456 381 409 432 461 | CANADA (2017) - - 1 - 1 18 - - - | CHILE (2017) 77 87 76 90 93 147 83 207 135 | COSTA RICA (2018) 1 3 2 2 7 9 - - - | DENMARK (2019) - 2 2 2 3 1 4 4 3 | FINLAND (2019) 1 2 - - 3 - 1 1 6 | FRANCE (2017) 7 1 3 13 5 - - - - | HONG KONG (2016) 2 4 2 3 5 - - - 13 | HUNGARY (2018) 18 27 34 37 36 - - - - | ICELAND (2016) 4 12 43 8 75 36 17 - - | ICELAND (2017) 9 20 20 113 21 68 170 76 - | IRELAND (2016) 1 2 2 1 14 18 6 - - | ISRAEL (2020) 1 3 4 3 9 7 4 9 - | ITALY (2018) 25 17 23 16 42 101 - - - | JAPAN (2017) 1 5 1 1 1 3 - - - | LITHUANIA (2016) 9 10 8 14 28 22 17 12 - | MONTENEGRO (2016) 16 14 20 16 13 12 11 - - | NETHERLANDS (2017) 15 29 13 16 20 16 13 36 48 | PORTUGAL (2019) 5 6 5 6 8 46 - - - | SLOVAKIA (2020) 2 3 2 4 8 3 3 - - | TAIWAN (2016) 1 1 7 - - 1 3 - - | TAIWAN (2020) 14 15 20 20 16 - - - - | TUNISIA (2019) 11 43 68 112 93 124 - - - | TURKEY (2018) 1 1 1 1 2 1 - - - | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | KEY: - = Alphabetical code not assigned to party/No cases. | | Data are unavailable for SWITZERLAND (2019). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - COSTA RICA (2018): E3017_ | | In the Costa Rican 2018 election study, 109 respondents | evaluated all parties equally on the like/dislike scale. | One potential reason is that in Cost Rica, the support of | political parties has eroded in the last two decades. Therefore, | individuals are less likely to identify with parties. Asking | them to evaluate parties or leaders can thus show odd results. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017): E3017_ | | The wording of the response categories slightly deviates from | CSES standards. The original questionnaire labeled category 05. | as 'neutral'. In the CSES questionnaire, this category is not | labeled as 'neutral'. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E3017_ | | For some variables in the Thai 2019 election study, such as | E3017_, an unusually high share of respondents did not provide | substantive answers (> 20% of data coded refused, don't know, or | missing). Collaborators note two potential reasons for this | peculiarity: | | At the time of the election, Thailand's incumbent Prime | Minister was Prayut Chan-o-cha, leader of the State Power Party | (PPRP, PARTY A). As Commander-in-Chief of the Royal Thai Army, | Prayut headed a coup d'etat in May 2014. The 2019 election was | conducted under the new 2017 constitution designed by the | military junta government. Collaborators note that parts of the | population dissatisfied with the current situation might have | been reluctant or cautious to provide information on party | preferences and political attitudes closely before or after the | election day. This situation was amplified by official election | results being published only weeks after the election. | | Further, other parts of the population might have been less | knowledgeable concerning political issues such as parties' | ideological classifications and hence might have had difficulties | answering related questions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3018_A >>> Q16a. LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER A E3018_B >>> Q16b. LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER B E3018_C >>> Q16c. LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER C E3018_D >>> Q16d. LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER D E3018_E >>> Q16e. LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER E E3018_F >>> Q16f. LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER F E3018_G >>> Q16g. LIKE-DISLIKE - ADDITIONAL - LEADER G E3018_H >>> Q16h. LIKE-DISLIKE - ADDITIONAL - LEADER H E3018_I >>> Q16i. LIKE-DISLIKE - ADDITIONAL - LEADER I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q16a-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 | VARIABLE NOTES: E3018_ | | Leaders and their alphabetical classifications for each election | study are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | | In some cases, leaders were assigned an alphabetical | CSES code but data for E3018_ is not available for these | leaders. These instances are documented in an election study | note below the party/leader table of the Election Study to | which this applies in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2017): E3018_ | | The like-dislike evaluations of leaders refer to the | Presidential candidates of the parties/coalitions. For more | information on the candidates, see Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - COSTA RICA (2018): E3018_ | | In the Costa Rican 2018 election study, 68 respondents | evaluated all leaders equally on the like/dislike scale. | For more information, see ELECTION STUDY NOTES of E3017_. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2017): E3018_ | | In the French 2017 election study, leader ratings refer to | presidential candidates. | To increase response rates, respondents were shown pictures of | candidates and were asked to rate the respective candidate on | the picture. Those respondents declaring not to know the | candidate after seeing the picture were told the candidate's | name. | For variables E3018_A to E3018_E, collaborators combined both | modes (picture and name) into one variable per candidate. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E3018_ | | The question for E3018_ differs slightly from the CSES Module 5 | questionnaire, using an 11-point scale ranging from -5 to +5. | It translates to: | | "And what do you think of some of the leading politicians? | Please rate them using again the scale from -5 to +5, where -5 | means you strongly dislike that politician and +5 means that you | strongly like that politician. If you feel you do not know | enough about a politician you do not need to evaluate him/her. | What do you think of ... ". | | In the original study, respondents were asked to evaluate 10 | politicians of 6 parties. Adhering to the CSES scheme, only one | leader for each party was chosen by collaborators to be included | in E3018_. For further information about party and leader | codes, see Codebook Part 3. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E3018_A/E3018_I | | LEADER I (Paolo Gentiloni) replaced Matteo Renzi (LEADER A) as | Prime Minister of Italy on December 12, 2016. Renzi, however, | remained leader of the Democratic Party. Data for E3018_ (LIKE- | DISLIKE LEADER A/I) is available for both. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017): E3018_ | | The wording of the response categories slightly deviates from | CSES standard. The original questionnaire labeled category 05. | as 'neutral'. In the CSES questionnaire, this category is not | labeled as 'neutral'. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2020): E3018_ | | LEADER B (Peter Pellegrini) was the leader of SMER-Social | Democracy. However, he left the party after the election and | formed a new party, "Voice-Social Democracy" (numerical code | 703025). | | LEADER H (Robert Fico) is a former Prime Minister of Slovakia. | He is from SMER-Social Democracy and has been the first leader | of that political party, since 1999. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2019): E3018_ | | LEADER A (Guy Parmelin), LEADER B (Alain Berset), LEADER C | (Karin-Keller Sutter), and LEADER E (Viola Amherd) are Federal | Councilors from the four parties represented in the outgoing | federal government. The Federal Councilors are members and | ministers of the government, but they are not party leaders. | Swiss collaborators asked the question about Federal Councilors | rather than party leaders because citizens know Federal | Councilors much better than party leaders - a lot of citizens | do not even know the party leaders. Additionally, the Swiss | Election Study has always asked about the Federal Councilors and | not party leaders, which allows for comparisons over time. | | The exception is E3018_D, which refers to Regula Rytz, the party | leader of the Green Party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016 & 2020): E3018_ | | The like-dislike evaluations of leaders in Taiwan refer to | candidates in the Presidential elections. For more | information on the candidates, see part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | | The Taiwan studies, apart from "Don't know", offered the category | "No opinion" to respondents for leader evaluations. This | category was recoded into CSES category "99. Missing." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E3018_ | | For some variables in the Thai 2019 election study, such as | E3018_, an unusually high share of respondents did not provide | substantive answers (> 20% of data coded refused, don't know, or | missing). Collaborators note two potential reasons for this | peculiarity: | | At the time of the election, Thailand's incumbent Prime | Minister was Prayut Chan-o-cha, leader of the State Power Party | (PPRP, PARTY A). As Commander-in-Chief of the Royal Thai Army, | Prayut headed a coup d'etat in May 2014. The 2019 election was | conducted under the new 2017 constitution designed by the | military junta government. Collaborators note that parts of the | population dissatisfied with the current situation might have | been reluctant or cautious to provide information on party | preferences and political attitudes closely before or after the | election day. This situation was amplified by official election | results being published only weeks after the election. | | Further, other parts of the population might have been less | knowledgeable concerning political issues such as parties' | ideological classifications and hence might have had difficulties | answering related questions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3019_A >>> Q17a. LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY A E3019_B >>> Q17b. LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY B E3019_C >>> Q17c. LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY C E3019_D >>> Q17d. LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY D E3019_E >>> Q17e. LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY E E3019_F >>> Q17f. LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY F E3019_G >>> Q17g. LEFT-RIGHT - ADDITIONAL - PARTY G E3019_H >>> Q17h. LEFT-RIGHT - ADDITIONAL - PARTY H E3019_I >>> Q17i. LEFT-RIGHT - ADDITIONAL - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q17a-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 | VARIABLE NOTES: E3019_ | | Parties and their alphabetical classifications for each election | study are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | | In some cases, parties were assigned an alphabetical | CSES code but data for E3019_ is not available for these | parties. These instances are documented in an election study | note below the party/leader table of the Election Study to | which this applies in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | | Note that the CSES asks collaborators to ask the left-right | scale questions even if left-right is not considered to be | meaningful/important/widely understood in the area being | studied. However, it was possible to add an optional | alternative scale question. See E3021_ and E3022. | | Several respondents mentioned not to know the left-right scale | in one of the appropriate variables on E3019_ or E3020, but | evaluated the other parties on even that scale. | These data remain unchanged. | | +++ TABLE: FREQUENCIES ON E3019_ AND E3020 FOR RESPONDENTS | REPORTING THAT THEY DID NOT KNOW OF THE LEFT-RIGHT | SCALE BUT PROVIDE AN EVALUATION OF A PARTY ON THE | LEFT-RIGHT SCALE | | PARTY _A _B _C _D _E _F _G _H _I self | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | BRAZIL (2018) 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 66 | COSTA RICA (2018) 1 3 2 2 3 1 - - - 4 | DENMARK (2019) 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 4 4 2 | FINLAND (2019) 6 5 7 3 3 3 2 3 6 4 | HUNGARY (2018) 8 12 11 19 15 - - - - 19 | IRELAND (2016) 2 2 5 6 7 5 6 - - 3 | ISRAEL (2020) 4 4 8 9 9 8 6 9 - 2 | JAPAN (2017) 5 11 8 7 5 10 - - - 4 | MONTENEGRO (2016) 3 3 2 3 4 3 6 - - 6 | SLOVAKIA (2020) 14 7 6 11 11 12 11 - - - | TUNISIA (2019) 30 23 25 31 28 23 - - - 13 | TURKEY (2018) 1 1 2 1 7 2 - - - 1 | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | KEY: - = Alphabetical code not assigned to party/No cases. | | Data are unavailable for TAIWAN (2016 & 2020). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - COSTA RICA (2018): E3019_ | | In the Costa Rican 2018 election study, 43 respondents rated | all parties equally on the left/right scale. | For more information, see ELECTION STUDY NOTES of E3017_. | | Furthermore, some respondents are split on whether to rate a | party as left or right. An overview of mean voter and expert | placements shows that voters and the experts disagree | significantly on average where to place parties on the left- | right scale. | Those divergences on party placements are based on various | factors. Individuals in Costa Rica have very ambivalent ideas | or opinions regarding parties' ideologies. Mean voters have | serious difficulties classifying parties based on ideological | principles. Furthermore, parties do not have clear policy | positions that would help respondents to evaluate what parties | stand for. This has been this way since the 1980s. In part, the | transformation of the party system in the last two decades (from | a two-party system into a multi-party one) is related to the | erosion of parties' ideological principles. | Experts' opinions are quite different from mean voters. Experts | use their judgments and professional knowledge to label parties. | In sum, ideology is not a straightforward factor among | respondents for classifying parties. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2017): E3019_ | | Left-Right party placements for the 2017 French election study | are available for PARTY C (The Republicans) and PARTY E | (Socialist Party). | For PARTY A (The Republic Onwards), PARTY B (National Front) and | PARTY D (Indomitable France) respondents were asked to place | presidential candidates, not parties, on the left-right scale. | These placements of presidential candidates are available in | E3021_ (Optional Alternative Scale). | Collaborators state that the reasoning behind that decision is | the empirical observation that respondents do not differentiate | between party and leader placements in France | (presidentialisation of parties). However, collaborators | expected respondents to differentiate between the candidates | of the Republicans and the Socialist Party and their parties, | which is why they included party placements for these two | parties. | | For E3019_ - E3021_, answers coded as 99 "Missing" apply to all | missing respondents or blank answers (no additional precision in | the data). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017): E3019_ | | The wording of the response categories slightly deviates from | CSES standards. The original questionnaire labeled category 05. | as 'center'. In the CSES questionnaire, this category is not | labeled as 'center'. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E3019_ | | For some variables in the Thai 2019 election study, such as | E3019_, an unusually high share of respondents did not provide | substantive answers (> 20% of data coded refused, don't know, or | missing). Collaborators note two potential reasons for this | peculiarity: | | At the time of the election, Thailand's incumbent Prime | Minister was Prayut Chan-o-cha, leader of the State Power Party | (PPRP, PARTY A). As Commander-in-Chief of the Royal Thai Army, | Prayut headed a coup d'etat in May 2014. The 2019 election was | conducted under the new 2017 constitution designed by the | military junta government. Collaborators note that parts of the | population dissatisfied with the current situation might have | been reluctant or cautious to provide information on party | preferences and political attitudes closely before or after the | election day. This situation was amplified by official election | results being published only weeks after the election. | | Further, other parts of the population might have been less | knowledgeable concerning political issues such as parties' | ideological classifications and hence might have had difficulties | answering related questions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3020 >>> Q18. LEFT-RIGHT - SELF --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q18. Where would you place yourself on this scale? .................................................................. 00. LEFT 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. RIGHT 95. VOLUNTEERED: HAVEN'T HEARD OF LEFT-RIGHT 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW WHERE TO PLACE 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E3020 | | The CSES asks collaborators to ask the left-right scale | questions even if left-right is not considered to be | meaningful/important/widely understood in the area being | studied. However, it was possible to add an optional | alternative scale question. See E3021_ and E3022. | | Several respondents mentioned not to know the left-right scale | in one of the appropriate variables on E3019_ or E3020, but | evaluated the other parties on even that scale. These data | remain unchanged. For further information, see VARIABLE NOTES | on E3019_. | | Data are unavailable for TAIWAN (2016 & 2020). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2017): E3020 | | For E3019_ - E3021_, answers coded as 99 "Missing" apply to all | missing respondents or blank answers (no additional precision in | the data). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E3020 | | 180 respondents said they would not place themselves on the | left-right scale ("I don't place myself on left-right"). These | respondents are coded as "97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017): E3020_ | | The wording of the response categories slightly deviates from | CSES standards. The original questionnaire labeled category 05. | as 'center'. In the CSES questionnaire, this category is not | labeled as 'center'. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3021_A >>> Q19a. OPTIONAL ALTERNATIVE SCALE - PARTY A E3021_B >>> Q19b. OPTIONAL ALTERNATIVE SCALE - PARTY B E3021_C >>> Q19c. OPTIONAL ALTERNATIVE SCALE - PARTY C E3021_D >>> Q19d. OPTIONAL ALTERNATIVE SCALE - PARTY D E3021_E >>> Q19e. OPTIONAL ALTERNATIVE SCALE - PARTY E E3021_F >>> Q19f. OPTIONAL ALTERNATIVE SCALE - PARTY F E3021_G >>> Q19g. OPTIONAL ALTERNATIVE SCALE - ADDITIONAL - PARTY G E3021_H >>> Q19h. OPTIONAL ALTERNATIVE SCALE - ADDITIONAL - PARTY H E3021_I >>> Q19i. OPTIONAL ALTERNATIVE SCALE - ADDITIONAL - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q19a-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. [SCALE VALUE AT POINT 0] 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. [SCALE VALUE AT POINT 10] 95. VOLUNTEERED: HAVEN'T HEARD OF [SCALE] 96. VOLUNTEERED: HAVEN'T HEARD OF PARTY 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW WHERE TO PLACE 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E3021_ | | In contexts where left-right is not considered | meaningful/important/widely understood, IN ADDITION TO ASKING | THE LEFT-RIGHT QUESTION, the collaborator had the option of also | administering the optional alternative question, which is thought | to best summarize the main ideological division in the country. | | Parties and their alphabetical classifications for each election | study are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | | In some cases, parties were assigned an alphabetical | CSES code but data for E3021_ is not available for these | parties. These instances are documented in an election study | note below the party/leader table of the election study to | which this applies in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | | Several respondents mentioned not to know the optional scale | in one of the appropriate variables on E3021_ or E3022, but | evaluated the other parties on even that scale. | These data remain unchanged. | | +++ TABLE: FREQUENCIES ON E3021_ AND E3022 FOR RESPONDENTS WHO | SAID THEY DID NOT KNOW OF THE OPTIONAL SCALE IN ONE | VARIABLE, BUT EVALUATING OTHER PARTIES ON THE | OPTIONAL SCALE | | PARTY _A _B _C _D _E _F _G _H _I self | ------------------------------------------------------------- | DENMARK (2019) 9 9 9 13 12 12 11 16 13 - | JAPAN (2017) - 4 2 3 4 4 - - - 3 | MONTENEGRO (2016) 1 1 3 5 1 2 - - - 2 | SLOVAKIA (2020) 10 10 11 10 14 10 14 - - 2 | TUNISIA (2019) 18 19 17 18 19 21 - - - 2 | ------------------------------------------------------------- | KEY: - = Alphabetical code not assigned to party/No cases. | | Data are available for DENMARK (2019), FRANCE (2017), GREAT | BRITAIN (2017), HONG KONG (2016), JAPAN (2017), MONTENEGRO | (2016), SLOVAKIA (2020), TAIWAN (2016), TAIWAN (2020), THAILAND | (2019) and TUNISIA (2019). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2019): E3021_ | | In this item battery, respondents were asked to place parties on | a value-oriented left-right scale. The question was worded as | follows: | "In politics people sometimes talk about a value-based | left-right scale, where 'left' represents being open to | immigrants, focusing on prevention over strict punishment as a | solution to crime, and focusing on the climate and protection of | the environment, while 'right' represents a strict judicial | policy and immigration policy, as well as economic issues being | prioritized over the environment and the climate. | Where would you place the following parties on a scale of 0-10, | where 0 means most left and 10 means most right?" | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 00. Being open to immigrants, strict punishment is | not a solution to crime, as well as protection | climate and environment (Left) | ... | 10. A strict judicial and immigration policy as well | as prioritization of economic issues over the | environment and the climate (Right) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2017): E3021_ | | E3021_A, E3021_B and E3021_D refer to respondents' placements | of presidential candidates on the left-right scale. | For PARTY A (The Republic Onwards), PARTY B (National Front) and | PARTY D (Indomitable France) respondents were asked to place | presidential candidates, not parties, on the left-right scale. | Collaborators state that the reasoning behind that decision is | the empirical observation that respondents do not differentiate | between party and leader placements in France | (presidentialisation of parties). However, collaborators | expected respondents to differentiate between the candidates | of the Republicans and the Socialist Party and their parties, | which is why they included party placements for these two | parties. | Left-Right party placements are available for PARTY C (The | Republicans) and PARTY E (Socialist Party) in E3019_C and | E3019_E, respectively. | | For E3019_ - E3021_, answers coded as 99 "Missing" apply to all | missing respondents or blank answers (no additional precision in | the data). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2017): E3021_ | | In this item battery, respondents were asked about the party | placement related to redistribution. This is the original | question wording: "Some people feel that government should | make much greater efforts to make people's incomes more equal. | Other people feel that government should be much less concerned | about how equal people's incomes are. On a scale where 0 | means the government should make much greater efforts to make | people's incomes more equal, and 10 means that government should | be much less concerned about how equal people's incomes are | where would you place the policies of the following parties on | this scale?" | The alternative scale placements are available for PARTY A | (Conservative Party), PARTY B (Labor Party), PARTY C | (Liberal Democrats), PARTY E (UKIP) and PARTY F (Green Party). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E3021_ | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 00. pro Hong-Kong | ... | 10. pro Beijing | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2017): E3021_ | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 00. Liberal | ... | 10. Conservative | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E3021_ | | Respondents were not asked to rank PARTY G (Bosniak Party) on | this dimension because the Bosniak Party is an ethnic party that | represents interests of another national minority, Bosniaks, in | Montenegro. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 00. Pro-Montenegrin | ... | 10. Pro-Serbian | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2020): E3021_ | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 00. Liberal views | ... | 10. Conservative views | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016 & 2020): E3021_ | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 00. Independence | ... | 10. Unification with China | 99. It's hard to say | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E3021_ | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 00. Red shirt group | ... | 10. Yellow shirt group | | For some variables in the Thai 2019 election study, such as | E3021_, an unusually high share of respondents did not provide | substantive answers (> 20% of data coded refused, don't know, or | missing). Collaborators note two potential reasons for this | peculiarity: | | At the time of the election, Thailand's incumbent Prime | Minister was Prayut Chan-o-cha, leader of the State Power Party | (PPRP, PARTY A). As Commander-in-Chief of the Royal Thai Army, | Prayut headed a coup d'etat in May 2014. The 2019 election was | conducted under the new 2017 constitution designed by the | military junta government. Collaborators note that parts of the | population dissatisfied with the current situation might have | been reluctant or cautious to provide information on party | preferences and political attitudes closely before or after the | election day. This situation was amplified by official election | results being published only weeks after the election. | | Further, other parts of the population might have been less | knowledgeable concerning political issues such as parties' | ideological classifications and hence might have had difficulties | answering related questions. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TUNISIA (2019): E3021_ | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 00. Secular | ... | 10. Islamist --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3022 >>> Q20. OPTIONAL ALTERNATIVE SCALE - SELF --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q20. Where would you place yourself on this scale? .................................................................. 00. [SCALE VALUE AT POINT 0] 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. [SCALE VALUE AT POINT 10] 95. VOLUNTEERED: HAVEN'T HEARD OF [SCALE] 97. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 98. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW WHERE TO PLACE 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E3022 | | In contexts where left-right is not considered | meaningful/important/widely understood, IN ADDITION TO ASKING | THE LEFT-RIGHT QUESTION, the collaborator had the option of also | administering the optional alternative question, which is thought | to best summarize the main ideological division in the country. | | Several respondents mentioned not to know the optional scale | in one of the appropriate variables on E3021_ or E3022, but | evaluated the other parties on even that scale. These data | remain unchanged. For further information, see VARIABLE NOTES | on E3021_. | | Data are available for DENMARK (2019), HONG KONG (2016), JAPAN | (2017), MONTENEGRO (2016), SLOVAKIA (2020), TAIWAN (2016), | TAIWAN (2020), THAILAND (2019) and TUNISIA (2019). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2019): E3022 | | Respondents were asked to place themselves on a value-oriented | left-right scale. | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 00. Being open to immigrants, strict punishment is | not a solution to crime, as well as protection | climate and environment (Left) | ... | 10. A strict judicial and immigration policy as well | as prioritization of economic issues over the | environment and the climate (Right) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E3022 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 00. pro Hong-Kong | ... | 10. pro Beijing | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2017): E3022 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 00. Liberal | ... | 10. Conservative | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E3022 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 00. Pro-Montenegrin | ... | 10. Pro-Serbian | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2020): E3022 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 00. Liberal views | ... | 10. Conservative views | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016 & 2020): E3022 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | --------------------------------------------------------------- | 00. Independence | ... | 10. Unification with China | 99. It's hard to say | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E3022 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 00. Red shirt group | ... | 10. Yellow shirt group | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TUNISIA (2019): E3022 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 00. Secular | ... | 10. Islamist --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3023 >>> Q21. SATISFACTION WITH DEMOCRACY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q21. 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 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): E3023 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | --------------------------------------------------------------- | 06. Neither satisfaction nor dissatisfied | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E3023 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category | --------------------------------------------------------------- | 06. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3024_1 >>> Q22a. ARE YOU CLOSE TO ANY POLITICAL PARTY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q22a. Do you usually think of yourself as close to any particular party? .................................................................. 0. NO 1. YES -> GO TO Q22c 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E3024_1 | | Data are unavailable for TUNISIA (2019). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017): E3024_1 | | Response categories were not simple 0. (no) and 1. (yes) but | respondents were asked to tick the box of the party that | they think of close to. If they had ticked the box with | no, they were coded as 0. Whereas, if they had ticked a | box with any party, they were coded as 1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3024_2 >>> Q22b. DO YOU FEEL CLOSER TO ONE PARTY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q22b. Do you feel yourself a little closer to one of the political parties than the others? .................................................................. 0. NO -> GO TO QUESTION AFTER Q22d 1. YES 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED -> GO TO QUESTION AFTER Q22d 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW -> GO TO QUESTION AFTER Q22d 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E3024_2 | | Data are unavailable for NORWAY (2017), TUNISIA (2019) and | URUGUAY (2019). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E3024_2 | | There are 18 respondents who were asked this question | despite answering with "1. YES" to E3024_1. Data remain | unchanged. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017): E3024_2 | | Response categories were not simple 0. (no) and 1. (yes) but | respondents were asked to tick the box of the party that | they feel themselves a little closer to than the other parties. | If they had ticked the box with no, they were coded as 0. | Whereas, if they had ticked a box with any party, they | were coded as 1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): E3024_2 | | For E3024_2, the 2016 ANES adopted the exact question wording | from the CSES MODULE 5 questionnaire. However, unlike suggested | by the CSES convention, the ANES directly coded the party a | respondent leaned to as answer to E3024_2. Therefore, | respondents who stated not to feel a little closer to one of the | political parties were not coded separately and cannot be | distinguished from refusals in E3024_2 (N = 59). Party mentions | as answer to E3024_2 were coded into E3024_3 (WHICH PARTY DO YOU | FEEL CLOSEST TO). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3024_3 >>> Q22c. WHICH PARTY DO YOU FEEL CLOSEST TO --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q22c. Which party do you feel closest to? .................................................................. 000001-999995. [PLEASE PROVIDE PARTY CODES] 999988. NONE OF THE CANDIDATES/PARTIES 999989. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 999990. OTHER LEFT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 999991. OTHER RIGHT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 999992. OTHER CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 999997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 999998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 999999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E3024_3 | | Parties are identified in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | | Respondents' party mentions in E3024_3 depend on the two former | questions (E3024_1 and E3024_2). The party mention in E3024_3 | should have only been asked for those respondents that reported | to be close (E3024_1) or at least closer (E3024_2) to a party. | However, there are several respondents that mentioned a party | (E3024_3), without feeling close (E3024_1) or closer (E3024_2) | to a party. These data remained unchanged. | | +++ TABLE: FREQUENCIES ON E3024_3 FOR RESPONDENTS THAT DO NOT | FEEL CLOSE (E3024_1) OR AT LEAST CLOSER (E3024_2) TO | A PARTY | | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) NUMBER | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019) 33 | BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019) 23 | COSTA RICA (2018) 4 | MONTENEGRO (2016) 6 | NETHERLANDS (2017) 30 | SWEDEN (2018) 167 | THAILAND (2019) 2 | TURKEY (2018) 5 | URUGUAY (2019) 125 | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | | Data are unavailable for TUNISIA (2019). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E3024_3 | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 999990. Animal Justice Party of Finland | Feminist Party | Communist Party of Finland | 999991. Liberal Party | Movement Now | Finnish People First | 999992. Seven Star Movement | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E3024_3 | | Code 276001 refers to the unofficial political alliance between | the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the Christian Social | Union in Bavaria (CSU). 292 respondents initially named the | CDU as the party they felt closest to. These answers were coded | into code 276001. Code 276007 identifies respondents stating to | feel closest to the CSU. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2016): E3024_3 | | Respondents were not given the answer option for the | alliance between the Anti-Austerity Alliance (AAA) and the | People Before Profit (PBP) party. Instead, they were given a | separate answer option for each party of the coalition. | The two parties were thus assigned two separate numerical codes, | 372011 (Anti-Austerity Alliance) and 372012 (People Before | Profit). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E3024_3 | | Code 440005 refers to Lithuanian Center Party for the | variable E3024_3. This party is the largest member of Anti- | Corruption Coalition. | | Code 440013 refers to Young Lithuania (JL) for the variable | E3024_3. This party is the largest constituting member of the | Coalition of Anti-Corruption and Poverty. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2017): E3024_3 | | The Norwegian survey asked respondents if they supported a | party (E3024_1), and which one (E3024_3) within one question. | The wording of the question is the following: "Some people feel | like supporters of one specific party, while others feel less | tied to any of the parties. Would you say that you think of | yourself as a Hoyremann [Conservative party supporter], an | Arbeiderpartimann [Labor party supporter] and so on, or do you | not feel attached to any of the parties?" Reply categories | included each possible party and "not attached to any party". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016): E3024_3 | | For E3024_3, 158004 refers to the Green Party, the largest | member of the Green Party - Social Democratic Party alliance. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E3024_3 | | For some variables in the Thai 2019 election study, such as | E3024_, an unusually high share of respondents did not provide | substantive answers (> 20% of data coded refused, don't know, or | missing). Collaborators note two potential reasons for this | peculiarity: | | At the time of the election, Thailand's incumbent Prime | Minister was Prayut Chan-o-cha, leader of the State Power Party | (PPRP, PARTY A). As Commander-in-Chief of the Royal Thai Army, | Prayut headed a coup d'etat in May 2014. The 2019 election was | conducted under the new 2017 constitution designed by the | military junta government. Collaborators note that parts of the | population dissatisfied with the current situation might have | been reluctant or cautious to provide information on party | preferences and political attitudes closely before or after the | election day. This situation was amplified by official election | results being published only weeks after the election. | | Further, other parts of the population might have been less | knowledgeable concerning political issues such as parties' | ideological classifications and hence might have had difficulties | answering related questions. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): E3024_3 | | Unlike suggested by the CSES convention, the 2016 ANES directly | coded the party a respondent stated to feel a little closer to | as answer to E3024_2 (also see Election Study Note to E3024_2). | Party mentions as answer to E3024_2 were coded into E3024_3. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3024_4 >>> Q22d. DEGREE OF CLOSENESS TO THIS PARTY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q22d. Do you feel very close to this party, somewhat close, or not very close? .................................................................. 1. VERY CLOSE 2. SOMEWHAT CLOSE 3. NOT VERY CLOSE 7. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 8. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E3024_4 | | The degree of closeness to the party, mentioned in E3024_4, | should have only been asked for those respondents that mentioned | a party in E3024_3. However, there are several respondents that | reported the degree of closeness (E3024_4), without mentioning a | party (E3024_3). These data remained unchanged. | Also see VARIABLE NOTES on E3024_3. | | +++ TABLE: FREQUENCIES ON E3024_4 FOR RESPONDENTS THAT DO NOT | MENTION A PARTY IN E3024_3 | | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | POLITY (YEAR) NUMBER | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019) 79 | BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019) 25 | CHILE (2017) 10 | COSTA RICA (2018) 3 | DENMARK (2019) 28 | FINLAND (2019) 42 | GREECE (2015) 22 | HONG KONG (2016) 10 | ITALY (2018) 104 | JAPAN (2017) 1 | MONTENEGRO (2016) 3 | NETHERLANDS (2017) 7 | NEW ZEALAND (2020) 35 | SLOVAKIA (2020) 43 | SWEDEN (2018) 107 | THAILAND (2019) 6 | TURKEY (2018) 1 | URUGUAY (2019) 4 | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | | Data are unavailable for TUNISIA (2019). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E3024_4 | | Finnish collaborators note that only respondents who answered | "1. Yes" to E3024_1 received the question about the degree of | closeness to the party (E3024_4). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2017): E3024_4 | | In the French election study, the question asking about party ID | strength included four categories ("very close", "somewhat | close", "not very close", "not close at all") while the CSES | standard question only differentiates between "very close", | "somewhat close", and "not very close". For E3024_4, the | original answer categories "not very close" and "not close at | all" were summarized into "not very close": | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 1. Very close | 2. Somewhat close | 3. Not very close | Not close at all | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2017): E3024_4 | | In the Norwegian questionnaire, the question reads as: "Do you | consider yourself as a strongly convinced supporter of this | party, or are you not very convinced by this party?" | Furthermore, the wording of the reply categories is different | and they consist of two, instead of three categories as in the | CSES questionnaire. These two categories were coded as follows: | | CSES Code Election Study Code/Category |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 01. Strongly convinced | 03. Not very convinced --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3100_LR_CSES >>> CURRENT MAIN ELECTION - VOTE CHOICE LINKED WITH CSES COLLABORATOR EXPERT JUDGMENT L-R --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This item links the respondents' reported vote choice in the main election with the CSES Collaborators experts' judgment of the party the respondent reported voting for on the ideological left-right scale (0-10). .................................................................. 00. VOTED FOR PARTY SCORED 0 L-R SCALE 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. VOTED FOR PARTY SCORED 10 L-R SCALE 97. NOT APPLICABLE 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E3100_LR_CSES | | DERIVATIVE VARIABLE | | This variable is available for voters who reported voting for a | party where expert judgments are available (i.e., for parties | receiving an alphabetical classification by CSES). For more | details on which parties/coalitions receive alphabetical | classification see "CSES MODULE 5 CODING OF PARTIES/COALITIONS | & LEADERS" in Codebook Part 2. | | This variable assigns respondents a score based on respondent | reported vote choice and the corresponding expert judgment | of the CSES Collaborators on the left-right ideology scale for | the party the respondent reports voting for. | Collaborators assign parties scores on an 11-point scale ranging | from "0. LEFT" to "10. RIGHT" for all parties assigned an | alphabetical code by CSES. The expert judgment data by party | is available in variable E5018_. | | Some parties/coalitions have scores that are not round numbers, | e.g., 1.5 or 3.5. These scores can reflect collaborator | judgments or reflect the classification of a coalition. | Sometimes respondents report voting for a coalition, but | collaborators score parties that comprise this coalition | separately on the L-R scale. The score used for E3100_LR_CSES | is the mean of L-R scores of parties that comprise the given | coalition. | All of these instances are detailed in ELECTION STUDY NOTES | below. | | This variable links the CSES Collaborator expert judgment with | the reported vote of the respondent in the main election. Here, | a respondent who reports voting for a party/candidate of PARTY A | is assigned the value the CSES Collaborator gave to PARTY A in | the said election on the left-right scale (and so on for PARTY B, | PARTY C etc...). The classifications of the main elections by | election study are listed in the variable notes for variable | E3013_OUTGOV. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E3100_LR_CSES | | 276001. Christian Democratic Union / Christian Social Union is | a long-standing unofficial political alliance of the Christian | Democratic Union of Germany (CDU) and the Christian Social Union | in Bavaria (CSU). | | In CSES Module 5, collaborators rated each coalition member | separately on the L-R scale. | | For the 2017 study, German collaborators assigned the following | L-R scores: | - Christian Democratic Union (L-R score = 6) | - Christian Social Union in Bavaria (L-R score = 7) | Thus, the score for the Union in 2017 for the E3100_LR_CSES is | 6.5. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E3100_LR_CSES | | There are 11 respondents in the Hungarian dataset, coded "97. Not | applicable" for E3100_LR_CSES. These respondents are voters | of PARTY G (Hungarian Two-tailed Dog Party; MKKP), which is coded | "97. Not applicable" for the variable E5018_G (Left-Right - | Party G). The MKKP was described in the Macro Report as a | 'Joke party', and therefore was not evaluated on the left-right | scale. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E3100_LR_CSES | | In the 2018 lower house elections, voters could vote for a party | list only, a party list and a district candidate, or a district | candidate only. For those respondents reporting to have cast a | list vote and those who reported voting for both a party list | and a district candidate, E3100_LR_CSES was coded based on | E3013_LH_PL. For respondents who reported voting for a district | candidate only, E3100_LR_CSES was coded based on E3013_LH_DC. | Users are advised to consult ELECTION STUDY NOTES on E3013_LH_PL | and E3013_LH_DC for further details on the Italian electoral | system. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E3100_LR_CSES | | 499003. Key Coalition was an alliance formed for the 2016 | Montenegrin lower house election. Its members were: | - 499018. Democratic Alliance (DEMOS) (L-R score = 5) | - 499019. Socialist Peoples Party of Montenegro (SNP) | (L-R score = 4) | - 499020. Civic Movement - United Reform Action (URA) | (L-R score = 4) | | Thus, the score for the Key Coalition for E3100_LR_CSES is 4.3. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E3100_IF_CSES >>> CURRENT MAIN ELECTION - VOTE CHOICE LINKED WITH CSES COLLABORATOR EXPERT JUDGMENT IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This item links the respondents' reported vote choice in the main election with the CSES Collaborators experts' judgment of the ideological family of the party the respondent reported voting for. .................................................................. 01. VOTED PARTY CLASSIFIED AS ECOLOGY 02. VOTED PARTY CLASSIFIED AS COMMUNIST 03. VOTED PARTY CLASSIFIED AS SOCIALIST 04. VOTED PARTY CLASSIFIED AS SOCIAL DEM 05. VOTED PARTY CLASSIFIED AS LEFT LIBERAL 06. VOTED PARTY CLASSIFIED AS LIBERAL 07. VOTED PARTY CLASSIFIED AS RIGHT LIBERAL 08. VOTED PARTY CLASSIFIED AS CHRISTIAN DEM 09. VOTED PARTY CLASSIFIED AS CONSERVATIVE 10. VOTED PARTY CLASSIFIED AS NATIONAL 11. VOTED PARTY CLASSIFIED AS AGRARIAN 12. VOTED PARTY CLASSIFIED AS ETHNIC 13. VOTED PARTY CLASSIFIED AS REGIONAL 14. VOTED PARTY CLASSIFIED AS INDEPENDENT 90. VOTED PARTY CLASSIFIED AS OTHER 97. NOT APPLICABLE 98. NO IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY MENTIONED 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E3100_IF_CSES | | DERIVATIVE VARIABLE | | This variable is available for voters who reported voting for a | party where expert judgments are available (i.e., for parties | receiving an alphabetical classification by CSES). For more | details on which parties/coalitions receive alphabetical | classification see "CSES MODULE 5 CODING OF PARTIES/COALITIONS | & LEADERS" in Codebook Part 2. | | This variable assigns respondents a score based on respondent | reported vote choice and the corresponding CSES Collaborators | expert judgments of the party's ideological family. | This variable links the CSES Collaborator expert judgment with | the reported vote of the respondent in the main election. Here, | a respondent who reports voting for a party/candidate of PARTY A | is assigned the value the CSES Collaborator gave to PARTY A in | the said election on the left-right scale (and so on for PARTY B, | PARTY C etc...). The classifications of the main elections by | election study are listed in the variable notes for variable | E3013_OUTGOV. | | Source of data: CSES Macro Reports. | The expert judgment data by party is available in variable | E5017_. | | In some instances, CSES Collaborators provide additional | information to the characterization, and when applicable, these | are detailed in the ELECTION STUDY NOTES for variable E5017_. | | Users are advised that the same party might have been coded as | belonging to different party families across different | elections. These differences may reflect actual changes in | parties' ideological positions across time. | Alternatively, they might reflect disagreement on different | experts on which ideological family the respective party | belongs to, whenever national collaborators changed between | election studies. | | Data are unavailable primarily because collaborator expert | judgments of parties were not provided for certain election | studies. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E3100_IF_CSES | | In the 2018 lower house elections, voters could vote for a party | list only, a party list and a district candidate, or a district | candidate only. For those respondents reporting to have cast a | list vote and those who reported voting for both a party list | and a district candidate, E3100_IF_CSES was coded based on | E3013_LH_PL. For respondents who reported voting for a district | candidate only, E3100_IF_CSES was coded based on E3013_LH_DC. | Users are advised to consult ELECTION STUDY NOTES on E3013_LH_PL | and E3013_LH_DC for further details on the Italian electoral | system. =========================================================================== ))) CSES MODULE 5 VARIABLES: DISTRICT-LEVEL DATA =========================================================================== | VARIABLE NOTES: | | (1) Respondents' electoral districts are reported in E2021, | with labels listed in Part 4 of the Codebook. | | (2) According to the different types of elections included in | this CSES release, the tables below provide an overview of | each polity and to which election the district data | pertains to, detail the number of districts in total in | each state and the number of these districts which are | sampled by studies included in CSES, and provide information | about the electoral tier (where applicable) to which the | district data pertain to. Users are advised to consult these | tables carefully to decide which data is appropriate for | their analyses. | | (3) In mixed systems, such as Germany or New Zealand, district | data refers to the constituency vote (as opposed to the | list-PR vote). | | (4) There are two versions of each district-level variable. | Most election studies are coded into E4001-E4007. For | polities that operate one nationwide electoral district, | district data are coded into variables E4001_N-E4007_N | to specifically highlight one nationwide district polities. | | +++ TABLE: SUMMARY OF POLITY AND WHICH ELECTION IN THAT POLITY | THAT THE DISTRICT DATA REFERS TO | | Presidential Lower House Upper House | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) Election Election Election | ------------------------------------------------------------- | AUSTRALIA (2019) - X - | AUSTRIA (2017) - X - | BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019) - X - | BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019) - X - | BRAZIL (2018) - X - | CANADA (2019) - X - | CHILE (2017) - X - | COSTA RICA (2018) - X - | DENMARK (2019) - X - | FINLAND (2019) - X - | FRANCE (2017) X - - | GERMANY (2017) - X - | GREAT BRITAIN (2017) - X - | GREECE (2015) - X - | HONG KONG (2016) - X - | ICELAND (2016) - X - | ICELAND (2017) - X - | IRELAND (2016) - X - | ISRAEL (2020) - X - | ITALY (2018) - X - | JAPAN (2017) - X - | LITHUANIA (2016) - X - | MONTENEGRO (2016) - X - | NETHERLANDS (2017) - X - | NEW ZEALAND (2017) - X - | NEW ZEALAND (2020) - X - | NORWAY (2017) - X - | PORTUGAL (2019) - X - | SLOVAKIA (2020) - X - | SOUTH KOREA (2016) - X - | SWEDEN (2018) - X - | SWITZERLAND (2019) - X - | TAIWAN (2016) - X - | TAIWAN (2020) - X - | TUNISIA (2019) - X - | TURKEY (2018) - X - | UNITED STATES (2016) X - - | UNITED STATES (2020) X - - | URUGUAY (2019) - X - | ------------------------------------------------------------- | KEY: X = yes; - = no. | | | +++ TABLE: TOTAL NUMBER OF ELECTORAL DISTRICTS PER POLITY AND | TOTAL NUMBER OF ELECTORAL DISTRICTS REPRESENTED IN | CSES DATA | | Total number of Total number of | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) Electoral Districts Electoral Districts | in Polity in CSES (%) | ------------------------------------------------------------- | AUSTRALIA (2019) 151 150 (99%) | AUSTRIA (2017) 39 39 (100%) | BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019) 5 5 (100%) | BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019) 5 5 (100%) | BRAZIL (2018) 27 27 (100%) | CANADA (2019) 338 327 (97%) | CHILE (2017) 28 28 (100%) | COSTA RICA (2018) 7 7 (100%) | DENMARK (2019) 10 10 (100%) | FINLAND (2019) 13 12 (92%) | FRANCE (2017) 1 1 (100%) | GERMANY (2017) 299 167 (56%) | GREAT BRITAIN (2017) 650 222 (34%) | GREECE (2015) 56 54 (96%) | HONG KONG (2016) 5 5 (100%) | ICELAND (2016) 6 6 (100%) | ICELAND (2017) 6 6 (100%) | IRELAND (2016) 40 40 (100%) | ISRAEL (2020) 1 1 (100%) | ITALY (2018) 232 120 (52%) | JAPAN (2017) 289 183 (63%) | LITHUANIA (2016) 71 65 (92%) | MONTENEGRO (2016) 1 1 (100%) | NETHERLANDS (2017) 1 1 (100%) | NEW ZEALAND (2017) 71 71 (100%) | NEW ZEALAND (2020) 72 72 (100%) | NORWAY (2017) 19 19 (100%) | PORTUGAL (2019) 22 15 (68%) | SLOVAKIA (2020) 1 1 (100%) | SOUTH KOREA (2016) 253 116 (46%) | SWEDEN (2018) 29 29 (100%) | SWITZERLAND (2019) 26 26 (100%) | TAIWAN (2016) 74 37 (50%) | TAIWAN (2020) 74 36 (49%) | THAILAND (2019) 350 72 (21%) | TUNISIA (2019) 27 27 (100%) | TURKEY (2018) 87 47 (54%) | UNITED STATES (2016) 51 51 (100%) | UNITED STATES (2020) 51 51 (100%) | URUGUAY (2019) 19 19 (100%) | ------------------------------------------------------------- | | District identifier and data are unavailable for HUNGARY (2018). | | The table below provides information about the electoral tier | that the district data pertain to. Polities using only a single | electoral tier (e.g., Ireland) are not listed (see variable | E5056 for information about the number of electoral tiers and | further details about the tiers). | | +++ TABLE: SUMMARY OF LEVEL/TIER ELECTION DISTRICT VARIABLES | REFER TO | | Lower Tier Upper Tier | ------------------------------------------------------------- | AUSTRIA (2017) X - | DENMARK (2019) X - | GERMANY (2017) X - | GREECE (2015) X - | HONG KONG (2016) X - | ICELAND (2016) X - | ICELAND (2017) X - | ITALY (2018) X - | JAPAN (2017) X - | LITHUANIA (2016) X - | NEW ZEALAND (2017) X - | NEW ZEALAND (2020) X - | NORWAY (2017) X - | SOUTH KOREA (2016) X - | SWEDEN (2018) X - | TAIWAN (2016) X - | TAIWAN (2020) X - | TUNISIA (2019) X - | URUGUAY (2019) X - | ------------------------------------------------------------- | KEY: X = yes; - = no; * = See notes below. | | District data are unavailable for HUNGARY (2018). | ISRAEL (2020), MONTENEGRO (2016), the NETHERLANDS (2017) and | SLOVAKIA (2020) use a single, nationwide district and hence, | do not appear in the table above. | AUSTRALIA (2019), BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019), BELGIUM- | WALLONIA (2019), BRAZIL (2018), CANADA (2019), CHILE (2017), | COSTA RICA (2018), FINLAND (2019), GREAT BRITAIN (2017), | IRELAND (2016), PORTUGAL (2019), SWITZERLAND (2019) and TURKEY | (2018) have only one electoral tier. | The district data for FRANCE (2017), UNITED STATES (2016) and | UNITED STATES (2020) refer to the Presidential Election. | | District data for THAILAND (2019) will be available in a | subsequent release of CSES. | | | Used Sources on Election District Variables, if possible | including URL and date accessed. | [For more details on sources, see CODEBOOK INTRODUCTION]. | | AUSTRALIA (2019) | Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) | https://results.aec.gov.au/24310/Website/HouseDivisionalResults | -24310.htm | Date accessed: February 08, 2021 | | AUSTRIA (2017) | Austrian Minister of Interior | https://wahl17.bmi.gv.at/ | Date accessed: March 19, 2019 | | BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019) | Federal Public Services Home Affairs | IBZ Official Results | https://elections2019.belgium.be/en | Date accessed: June 02, 2021 | | BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019) | Federal Public Services Home Affairs | IBZ Official Results | https://elections2019.belgium.be/en | Date accessed: June 02, 2021 | | BRAZIL (2018) | Federal Electoral Court | http://www.tse.jus.br | Date accessed: March 30, 2020 | | CANADA (2019) | Elections Canada | https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=ele&document=index | &dir=pas/43ge&lang=e | Date accessed: February 20, 2021 | | CHILE (2017) | Chile Electoral Commission - Servicio Electoral (SERVEL) | https://historico.servel.cl/ | Date accessed: March 25, 2019 | | COSTA RICA (2018) | Tribunal Supremo De Elecciones (TSE) - Republica de Costa Rica | https://www.tse.go.cr/zip/elecciones/computovotos_febrero_abril_ | 2018.zip | Date accessed: February 09, 2021 | | DENMARK (2019) | Statistics Denmark | https://www.dst.dk/valg/Valg1684447/other/startside.htm | Date accessed: December 10, 2021 | | FINLAND (2019) | Ministry of Justice | Information and Results Service | https://tulospalvelu.vaalit.fi/EKV-2019/en/lasktila.html | Date accessed: June 02, 2021 | | FRANCE (2017) | French Ministry of the Interior | https://www.interieur.gouv.fr/Elections/Les- | resultats/Presidentielles/elecresult__presidentielle- | 2017/(path)/presidentielle-2017/FE.html | Date accessed: January 16, 2020 | | GERMANY (2017) | The Federal Returning Officer | https://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/en/bundestagswahlen/2017/ | ergebnisse.html | Date accessed: January 21, 2019 | | GREAT BRITAIN (2017) | House of Commons Library | https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7979/ | Date accessed: April 15, 2021 | | GREECE (2015) | Greek Ministry of Interior | http://ekloges.ypes.gr/current/v/public/index.html#{%22cls%22:% | 22eps%22,%22params%22:{}} | Date accessed: March 29, 2019 | | HONG KONG (2016) | Registration and Electoral Office Hong Kong (2016). 2016 | Legislative Council Election - Election Results. | https://www.elections.gov.hk/legco2016/eng/rs_ | gc.html?1557348070641 | Date accessed: April 03, 2019 | | Registration and Electoral Office Hong Kong (2016). 2016 | Legislative Council Election - Introduction to Candidates. | https://www.elections.gov.hk/legco2016/eng/intro_to_can.html | Date accessed: April 03, 2019 | | ICELAND (2016) | Statistics Iceland (n.d.). Results of general elections to the | Althingi by constituency 2016. Available at: https://px. | hagstofa.is/pxen/pxweb/en/Ibuar/Ibuar__kosningar__althingi__ | althurslit/KOS02118b.px/?rxid=e8953ff6-758f-48f2-a403- | 836c64d6302f | Date accessed: June 27, 2019 | | Statistics Iceland (2016): General elections to the Althingi 29 | October 2016. Statistical Series, Vol.101(35). Available at: | https://statice.is/publications/publication/elections/general- | elections-to-the-althingi-29-october-2016/ | Date accessed: June 29, 2019 | | ICELAND (2017) | Statistics Iceland (n.D.): Participation by sex, age and | constituency in general elections 2016 and 2017. Available at: | https://px.hagstofa.is/pxen/pxweb/en/Ibuar/Ibuar__kosningar__ | althingi__althkjosendur/KOS02101a.px/?rxid=535ef7b1-ee20- | Date accessed: September 10, 2019 | | Statistics Iceland (n.D.): Results of general elections to the | Althingi by constituency 2017, available at: https://px.hagstofa | .is/pxen/pxweb/en/Ibuar/Ibuar__kosningar__althingi__althurslit/ | KOS02118a.px/?rxid=535ef7b1-ee20-41c0- | Date accessed: September 10, 2019 | | IRELAND (2016) | Houses of the Oireachtas (2016): Election 2016. 32nd Dail | General Election 26 February 2016. Election Results. | https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/electoralProcess/ | electionResults/dail/2016/2016-04-28_32nd-dail-general-election- | results_en.pdf | Date accessed: January 28, 2019 | | Elections Ireland (n.D.): General Election of 26 February 2016. | https://www.electionsireland.org/results/general/32dail.cfm | Date accessed: January 18, 2019 | | ITALY (2018) | Italian Department of Internal and Territorial Affairs | https://elezionistorico.interno.gov.it/index.php?tpel=C&dtel=04/ | 03/2018&tpa=I&tpe=I&lev0=0&levsut0=0&lev1=1&levsut1=1&ne1=1&es0= | S&es1=S&ms=S | Date accessed: February 10, 2019 | | JAPAN (2017) | Japan Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications | https://www.soumu.go.jp/senkyo/48sansokuhou/ | Date accessed: December 17, 2021 | | LITHUANIA (2016) | The Central Electoral Commission of the Republic of Lithuania | https://www.vrk.lt/en/2016-seimo/rezultatai | Date accessed: March 24, 2019 | | MONTENEGRO (2016) | Electoral Commission of Montenegro | http://www.dik.co.me/ | Date accessed: January 19, 2019 | | NETHERLANDS (2017) | Kiesraad (Dutch Electoral Council) | Uitslag van de verkiezing van de leden van de Tweede Kamer van | 15 maart 2017. Kerngegevens. | https://www.kiesraad.nl/adviezen-en-publicaties/rapporten/2017/3/ | kerngegevens-tweede-kamerverkiezing-2017/kerngegevens-tweede- | kamerverkiezing-2017 | Date accessed: October 13, 2021 | | NEW ZEALAND (2017) | New Zealand Electoral Commission | https://www.electionresults.org.nz/electionresults_2017/ | Date accessed: October 29, 2019 | | NEW ZEALAND (2020) | New Zealand Electoral Commission | https://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2020/ | Date accessed: November 30, 2021 | | NORWAY (2017) | Norwegian Directorate of Elections (VALG) | https://valgresultat.no/(menu:navigate)?type=ko&year=2017 | Date accessed: January 15, 2020 | | PORTUGAL (2019) | Portuguese National Election Commission (CNE) | https://www.cne.pt/content/eleicoes-para-assembleia-da- | republica-2019 | Date accessed: April 06, 2021 | | SLOVAKIA (2020) | National Council of the Slovak Republic | https://volby.statistics.sk/nrsr/nrsr2020/en/index.html | Date accessed: September 29, 2021 | | SOUTH KOREA (2016) | Republic of Korea National Election Commission | http://info.nec.go.kr/electioninfo/electionInfo_report.xhtml | Date accessed: April 05, 2019 | | SWEDEN (2018) | Swedish Election Authority (Valmyndigheten) | https://data.val.se/val/val2018/slutresultat/R/rike/index.html | Date accessed: March 05, 2021 | | SWITZERLAND (2019) | Federal Statistical Office | https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/statistiken/politik/wahlen | /eidg-wahlen-2019.html | Date accessed: March 12, 2021 | | TAIWAN (2016) | Constituency-Level Elections Archive (CLEA) | http://www.electiondataarchive.org/ | Date accessed: March 26, 2019 | | TAIWAN (2020) | Election Study Center, NCCU | http://vote.nccu.edu.tw/engcec/cechead.asp | Date accessed: June 01, 2021 | | TUNISIA (2019) | Instance Superieure Independante pour les Elections | http://www.isie.tn/actualites/2019/11/08/les-resultats- | definitifs-des-elections-legislatives-2019/ | Date accessed: November 17, 2021 | | TURKEY (2018) | Turkish Supreme Election Council | http://www.ysk.gov.tr/tr/24-haziran-2018-secimleri/77536 | Date accessed: December 16, 2019 | | UNITED STATES (2016) | Federal Election Commission | https://transition.fec.gov/general/FederalElections2016.shtml | Date accessed: May 08, 2019 | | United States Elections Project | http://www.electproject.org/2016g | Date accessed: March 17, 2019 | | UNITED STATES (2020) | Federal Election Commission | https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/ | 2020presgeresults.pdf | Date accessed: September 16, 2021 | | United States Elections Project | http://www.electproject.org/2020g | Date accessed: September 17, 2021 | | URUGUAY (2019) | Electoral Court of Uruguay | https://www.corteelectoral.gub.uy/ | Date accessed: September 14, 2021 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E4001 >>> NUMBER OF SEATS IN DISTRICT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports the number of seats contested in each district of the first segment of the lower house of the legislature. .................................................................. 001-900. NUMBER OF SEATS CONTESTED IN ELECTORAL DISTRICT 997. NOT APPLICABLE 999. MISSING | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): E4001 | | The data represents the first electoral tier (Regionalwahl- | kreis). Seats in Austria are distributed across three tiers | (Regionalwahlkreis-tier 1; Landwahlkreis-tier 2; and the | federal level-tier 3). To win seats (the constituencies at the | Regionalwahlkreis are multi-seat constituencies), a party | must reach a quota(s). The quota is calculated by dividing | the number of valid votes cast in the Landwahlkreis (tier 2) | that the said Regionalwahlkreis is in, by the number of seats | allocated to the Landwahlkreis (tier 2) in total. If no party | surpasses this quota, no seat is allocated at tier 1 and these | votes go into the mix in deciding the allocation of seats at | the Landwahlkreis (tier 2). Hence, the number of seats that | parties may have won (E4005_A-E4005_F) in a district may differ | from the number of seats which parties compete for at the lowest | tier (E4001). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2018): E4001 | | For Sweden 2018, data provided in E4001 refer to the lower | electoral tier that returns 310 seats from 29 multi-member | districts. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016 & 2020): E4001 | | E4001 reports the number of electoral college votes | allocated to each state in the U.S. Presidential election and not | the number of congressional seats in each district. | Considering that the United States uses an electoral college | system that operates on the state level, district data was | collected accordingly. The U.S. state a respondent lives in is | coded in E2020 (REGION OF RESIDENCE). Variable E2021 reports the | respondent's lower house district. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E4001_N >>> NUMBER OF SEATS IN DISTRICT - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports the number of seats contested in each district of the first segment of the lower house of the legislature. This variable is used instead of E4001 for countries operating only one nationwide electoral district. .................................................................. 001-900. NUMBER OF SEATS CONTESTED IN ELECTORAL DISTRICT 997. NOT APPLICABLE: NO NATIONWIDE DISTRICT 999. MISSING --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E4002 >>> NUMBER OF CANDIDATES IN DISTRICT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports the number of candidates who contested seats in each district. .................................................................. 0001-9000. NUMBER OF CANDIDATES WHO CONTESTED THE ELECTION IN THIS ELECTORAL DISTRICT 9997. NOT APPLICABLE 9999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E4002 | | These data are reported for electoral systems where voters cast | ballots for candidates directly and in PR-list systems where | voters may cast a candidate preference vote (i.e., where a voter | can indicate a candidate from a party list, in addition to | casting a ballot for a party list). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): E4002 | | This variable reports the number of candidates in the federal | state instead of in respondents' electoral district. | | For some states, the official election results | published by the Federal Election Commission | (https://transition.fec.gov/general/FederalElections2016.shtml; | Date accessed: May 08, 2019) indicate that there were more | candidates than named in the document by including a 'scattered', | 'others', or 'miscellaneous' category. | This is the case for the states of Alabama, Alaska, | Delaware, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Maryland, | Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, | New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, | Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and | Wyoming. Such candidates are not included in E4002. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E4002 | | This variable reports the number of candidates in the federal | state instead of in respondents' electoral district. | | For some states, the official election results | published by the Federal Election Commission | (https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/ | 2020presgeresults.pdf; Date accessed: September 16, 2021) | indicate that there were more candidates than named in the | document by including a 'scattered' category summarizing | write-in votes. Such candidates are not included in E4002. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E4002_N >>> NUMBER OF CANDIDATES IN DISTRICT - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports the number of candidates who contested seats in each district. This variable is used instead of E4002 for countries operating only one nationwide electoral district. .................................................................. 0001-9000. NUMBER OF CANDIDATES WHO CONTESTED THE ELECTION IN THIS ELECTORAL DISTRICT 9997. NOT APPLICABLE: NO NATIONWIDE DISTRICT 9999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E4002_N | | These data are reported for electoral systems where voters cast | ballots for candidates directly and in PR-list systems where | voters may cast a candidate preference vote (i.e., where a voter | can indicate a candidate from a party list, in addition to | casting a ballot for a party list) nationwide. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E4003 >>> NUMBER OF PARTY LISTS IN DISTRICT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports the number of parties that presented lists and, thereby, contested seats in the district. .................................................................. 001-900. NUMBER OF PARTIES THAT PRESENTED A LIST OF CANDIDATES IN THE ELECTION IN THIS ELECTORAL DISTRICT 997. NOT APPLICABLE 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E4003 | | These data are only relevant for PR-list electoral systems | where voters cast ballots for party lists. Countries that do not | employ a pure PR-list system or any form of mixed electoral | system are classified as "997. NOT APPLICABLE". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2018): E4003 | | For Sweden 2018, this variable provides the number of parties | which registered participation before the election, as required | by the Swedish Election Authority. | The Swedish system allows for apparentment in which multiple | lists with the same party label in a given constituency can form | a cartel. In these cases, parties were only counted once, in | line with this variable's intention to count the parties that | presented lists rather than the total number of lists provided | by parties. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E4003_N >>> NUMBER OF PARTY LISTS IN DISTRICT - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports the number of parties that presented lists and, thereby, contested seats in the district. This variable is used instead of E4003 for countries operating only one nationwide electoral district. .................................................................. 001-900. NUMBER OF PARTIES THAT PRESENTED A LIST OF CANDIDATES IN THE ELECTION IN THIS ELECTORAL DISTRICT 997. NOT APPLICABLE: NO NATIONWIDE DISTRICT 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E4003_N | | These data are only relevant for PR-list electoral systems | where voters cast ballots for party lists and where the country | has a single electoral constituency with the country operating | as a nationwide district. Countries that do not employ a PR-list | system are classified as "997. NOT APPLICABLE." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E4004_A >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY A E4004_B >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY B E4004_C >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY C E4004_D >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY D E4004_E >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY E E4004_F >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY F E4004_G >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY G E4004_H >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY H E4004_I >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports the proportion of votes cast in favor of party [A/B/C/D/E/F] in this district. In majoritarian systems, in which more than one round of elections are held, this variable reports the proportion of the popular vote cast in favor of party [A/B/C/D/E/F] in the FIRST round. .................................................................. 000.00-100.00 PERCENT (0.00% TO 100.00%) OF THE VALID BALLOTS CAST IN THIS DISTRICT THAT WERE CAST IN FAVOR OF PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F] 997.00 NOT APPLICABLE 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E4004_ | | Parties and their alphabetical classifications for each election | study are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): E4004_ | | E4004_ report the percentage of first preference votes by | district in the election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E4004_E | | District data for PARTY E refers to the Lithuanian Center Party | for the variable E4004_E. This party is the biggest constituting | member of the Anti-Corruption Coalition. They competed | independently in single-member constituencies, and as a member | of the Anti-Corruption Coalition in Nationwide constituency. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016): E4004_F & E4004_G | | Parties 158006. People First Party - PFP (PARTY F), and | 158007. Taiwan Solidarity Union - TSU (PARTY G) did not | contest in the districts sampled for the Taiwan (2016) study. | Hence E4004_F and E4004_G are coded "997. Not applicable." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): E4004_ | | E4004_ reports the results of the presidential election | in the federal states. The results published reflect those | as published by the Federal Election Commission | (https://transition.fec.gov/general/FederalElections2016.shtml). | (Date accessed: April 30, 2020) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E4004_ | | E4004_ reports the results of the presidential election | in the federal states. The results published reflect those | as published by the Federal Election Commission | (https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/ | 2020presgeresults.pdf, Date accessed: September 16, 2021) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E4004_A_N >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY A - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT E4004_B_N >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY B - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT E4004_C_N >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY C - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT E4004_D_N >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY D - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT E4004_E_N >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY E - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT E4004_F_N >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY F - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT E4004_G_N >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY G - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT E4004_H_N >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY H - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT E4004_I_N >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY I - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports the proportion of votes cast in favor of party [A/B/C/D/E/F] in this district. In majoritarian systems, in which more than one round of elections are held, this variable reports the proportion of the popular vote cast in favor of party [A/B/C/D/E/F] in the FIRST round. These variables are used instead of E4004_A-E4004_I for countries operating only one nationwide electoral district. .................................................................. 000.00-100.00 PERCENT (0.00% TO 100.00%) OF THE VALID BALLOTS CAST IN THIS DISTRICT THAT WERE CAST IN FAVOR OF PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F] 997.00 NOT APPLICABLE: NO NATIONWIDE DISTRICT 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E4004_A-I_N | | Parties and their alphabetical classifications for each election | study are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E4005_A >>> SEATS IN DISTRICT - PARTY A E4005_B >>> SEATS IN DISTRICT - PARTY B E4005_C >>> SEATS IN DISTRICT - PARTY C E4005_D >>> SEATS IN DISTRICT - PARTY D E4005_E >>> SEATS IN DISTRICT - PARTY E E4005_F >>> SEATS IN DISTRICT - PARTY F E4005_G >>> SEATS IN DISTRICT - PARTY G E4005_H >>> SEATS IN DISTRICT - PARTY H E4005_I >>> SEATS IN DISTRICT - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports the number of seats gained by party [A/B/C/D/E/F] in each district. .................................................................. 00-99. SEATS 997. NOT APPLICABLE 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E4005_ | | Parties and their alphabetical classifications for each election | study are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): E4005_ | | For the Australian 2019 lower house election, there are five | districts in which candidates not affiliated with PARTY A-F won: | Clark, Indi, Kennedy, Mayo, and Warringah. | Hence, variables E4005_A-F are coded 0 for all respondents from | these five districts. The table below lists the winning | candidates in these districts and their party affiliation, if | applicable: | | E2021 Code and District Winning Candidate (Party) |---------------------------------------------------------------- | 00144. Clark Andrew Wilkie (Independent) | 00069. Indi Helen Haines (Independent) | 00102. Kennedy Bob Katter (Katter's Australia Party) | 00123. Mayo Rebekha Sharkie (Centre Alliance) | 00043. Warringah Zali Steggall (Independent) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E4005_A-E4005_F | | Parties which fielded a district candidate as part of one of the | two alliances were coded as having won the district seat if the | alliance candidate won. Consequently, districts with only | one seat will classify all parties members of the alliance | as having won the district. For example, if a candidate from the | Centre-Right coalition won a district, all members of the | alliance are classified as having won the district and assigned a | score of 1 on this variable. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E4005_E | | District data for PARTY E refer to Lithuanian Center Party for | the variable E4005_E. This party is the largest party comprising | the Anti-Corruption Coalition. They competed independently | in single-member constituencies, and as a member of the Anti- | Corruption Coalition in the nationwide constituency. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2018): E4005_ | | These data report the number of seats won by PARTY A to PARTY I | in the lower electoral tier that returns 310 seats from 29 | multi-member districts. The Swedish Election Authority | refers to these seats as "fasta mandaten" ("fixed seats"). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): E4005_ | | Instead of the number of seats gained by party, E4005_ reports | the number of electoral college votes obtained by the | Presidential candidates of the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. | Instead of voting for a nominated candidate, ten electors | deviated by voting for John Kasich (Texas, one vote), | Ron Paul (Texas, one vote), Bernie Sanders (Hawaii, one vote), | Colin Powell (Washington, three votes) and Faith Spotted Eagle | (Washington, one vote). These votes were disregarded for E4005_. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E4005_ | | Instead of the number of seats gained by party, E4005_ reports | the number of electoral college votes obtained by the | Presidential candidates of the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. | Unlike in 2016, there were no faithless electors for the 2020 | election. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E4005_A_N >>> SEATS IN DISTRICT - PARTY A - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT E4005_B_N >>> SEATS IN DISTRICT - PARTY B - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT E4005_C_N >>> SEATS IN DISTRICT - PARTY D - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT E4005_E_N >>> SEATS IN DISTRICT - PARTY E - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT E4005_F_N >>> SEATS IN DISTRICT - PARTY F - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT E4005_G_N >>> SEATS IN DISTRICT - PARTY G - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT E4005_H_N >>> SEATS IN DISTRICT - PARTY H - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT E4005_I_N >>> SEATS IN DISTRICT - PARTY I - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports the number of seats gained by party [A/B/C/D/E/F] in each district. These variables are used instead of E4005_ for countries operating only one nationwide electoral district. .................................................................. 00-99. SEATS 997. NOT APPLICABLE: NO NATIONWIDE DISTRICT 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E4005_A-I_ | | Parties and their alphabetical classifications for each election | study are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E4006 >>> TURNOUT IN DISTRICT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports official voter turnout in each district. .................................................................. 000.00-100.00 PERCENT OF VOTER TURNOUT BY DISTRICT 997.00. NOT APPLICABLE 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E4006 | | Users should note that 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. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): E4006 | | For the 2019 Australian legislative election, turnout by district | is calculated with the denominator being the number of enrolled | voters, as provided by the Australian Electoral Commission: | https://results.aec.gov.au/24310/Website/Downloads/HouseTurnout | ByDivisionDownload-24310.csv (Date accessed: February 08, 2021). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017): E4006 | | This variable indicates the turnout in the parliamentary | election by district. | | The turnout is calculated with the denominator being | the electoral population. | | Data from the New Zealand Electoral Commission is used | (see: https://www.electionresults.org.nz/electionresults_2017/, | Date accessed: October 17, 2019). | The webpage also provides information on the electors on | master roll on which their calculated turnout is based. | However, we want to consider the complete electoral | population. Analysts may refer to the website link above to | access this data. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2018): E4006 | | On the electoral district level, data on the number of | registered voters for the 2018 general Turkish election slightly | differ between the Supreme Electoral Council, Turkey's electoral | management body, and the Turkish Statistical Institute, the | Turkish government agency publishing official statistics. | Consequently, estimates for turnout based on the percentage of | registered voters (ER) also differ between the two sources. | Our estimates for E4006 and E4007 are based on data from the | Supreme Electoral Council. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): E4006 | | This variable indicates the turnout in the presidential | election by federal state. | | The turnout is calculated with the denominator being | the Voting Age Population (VAP). | | A different source other than the Federal Election Commission | had to be consulted for E4006 as the Federal Election | Commission does not provide an estimate of the size of the | the electorate, hence making an estimate of turnout impossible. | Instead, data from the United States Elections | Project by Michael McDonald is used | (see: http://www.electproject.org/2016g, Date accessed: March | 17, 2019). For some states, the total number of votes in the | presidential elections differed from the numbers indicated by | the U.S. Federal Election Commission. | The American Elections Project also provides information | on the Voting Eligible Population (VEP), which calculates | turnout based on eligibility, rather than the Voting Age | Population. Analysts may refer to the website link above to | access this data. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E4006 | | This variable indicates the turnout in the presidential | election by federal state. The turnout is calculated with the | denominator being the Voting Age Population (VAP). | | A different source other than the Federal Election Commission | had to be consulted for E4006 as the Federal Election | Commission does not provide an estimate of the size of the | the electorate, hence making an estimate of turnout impossible. | Instead, data from the United States Elections Project by Michael | McDonald is used (see: http://www.electproject.org/2020g, | Date accessed: September 17, 2021). | | For some states, the total number of votes in the presidential | election differed from the numbers indicated by the U.S. Federal | Election Commission. | Users are advised that for Montana, McDonald reported turnout for | the U.S. Senate election as the highest office since that race | had the highest turnout. Further, turnout for Pennsylvania does | not yet include write-in votes, while Kansas reported write-in | votes for Sedgwick and Wyandotte counties only in their precinct | results, which are included in the highest office vote total. | | The American Elections Project also provides information | on the Voting Eligible Population (VEP), which calculates | turnout based on eligibility, rather than the Voting Age | Population. Analysts may refer to the website link above to | access this data. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E4006_N >>> TURNOUT IN DISTRICT - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports official voter turnout in each district. This variable is used instead of E4006 for countries operating only one nationwide electoral district. .................................................................. 000.00-100.00 PERCENT OF VOTER TURNOUT BY DISTRICT 997.00. NOT APPLICABLE: NO NATIONWIDE DISTRICT 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E4006_N | | Users should note that 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E4007 >>> SIZE OF ELECTORATE OR POPULATION IN DISTRICT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports the size of the electorate in each district. .................................................................. 00,000,000.-90,000,000. SIZE OF ELECTORATE 99,999,997. NOT APPLICABLE 99,999,999. MISSING | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2017): E4007 | | Data refers to the number of enrolled voters in each electoral | district. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): E4007 | | Data refers to the number of eligible voters in each electoral | district. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2018): E4007 | | On the electoral district level, data on the number of | registered voters for the 2018 general Turkish election slightly | differ between the Supreme Electoral Council, Turkey's electoral | management body, and the Turkish Statistical Institute, the | Turkish government agency publishing official statistics. | Our estimates for E4007 are based on data from the | Supreme Electoral Council. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): E4007 | | This variable indicates the Voting Age Population (VAP) in the | 2016 presidential election by federal state. | | A different source other than the Federal Election Commission | had to be consulted for E4007 as the Federal Election | Commission does not provide an estimate of the size of the | the electorate. Instead, data from the United States Elections | Project by Michael McDonald is used | (see: http://www.electproject.org/2016g, Date accessed: March | 17, 2019). | The American Elections Project also provides information | on the Voting Eligible Population (VEP). Analysts may refer to | the website link above to access this data. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E4007 | | This variable indicates the Voting Age Population (VAP) in the | 2020 presidential election by federal state. | | A different source other than the Federal Election Commission | had to be consulted for E4007 as the Federal Election | Commission does not provide an estimate of the size of the | the electorate. Instead, data from the United States Elections | Project by Michael McDonald is used | (see: http://www.electproject.org/2020g, Date accessed: | September 17, 2021). | The American Elections Project also provides information | on the Voting Eligible Population (VEP). Analysts may refer to | the website link above to access this data. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E4007_N >>> SIZE OF ELECTORATE OR POPULATION IN DISTRICT - NATIONWIDE ELECTORAL DISTRICT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports the size of the electorate in each district. This variable is used instead of E4007 for countries operating only one nationwide electoral district. .................................................................. 00,000,000.-90,000,000. SIZE OF ELECTORATE 99,999,997. NOT APPLICABLE: NO NATIONWIDE DISTRICT 99,999,999. MISSING =========================================================================== ))) CSES MODULE 5 VARIABLES: MACRO-LEVEL DATA =========================================================================== I. RELATIONAL DATA - ALPHABETICAL IDENTIFIERS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5000_A >>> PARTY A IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL E5000_B >>> PARTY B IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL E5000_C >>> PARTY C IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL E5000_D >>> PARTY D IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL E5000_E >>> PARTY E IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL E5000_F >>> PARTY F IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL E5000_G >>> PARTY G IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL E5000_H >>> PARTY H IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL E5000_I >>> PARTY I IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Numeric Party Code Identifier for Parties A-I (see variable notes). .................................................................. 036001-858009. PARTY CODES 999999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5000_ | | CSES policy is that for alphabetical codes, parties A through F | are the six most popular parties/coalitions, ordered in | descending order of their share of the popular vote in the | parliamentary election (unless otherwise stated). Parties G, H, | and I are supplemental parties. They may, but do not have to, | accord with how parties A-F are ordered and often reflect | important or notable parties within a country or members of | party coalitions. | As codes in E5000_ are labeled with the corresponding party | names, they allow for easy identification of the relational data. | | For the CSES M5 dataset, alphabetical codes are used to | identify the following: | - Respondent's likability of the party/coalition | (variable E3017_). | - Respondent's left-right placement of the party/coalition | (variable E3019_). | - Respondent's placement of the party/coalition on optional scale | (variable E3021_). | - District data: percentage of vote for each party/coalition | in district (variable E4004_). | - District data: number of seats for each party/coalition | in district (variable E4005_). | - Election Results: percentage of vote for each party/coalition | in lower house (variable E5001_). | - Election Results: percentage of seats for each party/coalition | in lower house (variable E5002_). | - Election Results: percentage of vote for each party/coalition | in upper house (variable E5003_). | - Election Results: percentage of seats for each party/coalition | in upper house (variable E5004_). | - Election Results: percentage of vote for each party/coalition | in presidential election (variable E5005_). | - Number of cabinet portfolios held by each party/coalition | before the election (variable E5011_). | - Number of cabinet portfolios held by each party/coalition after | the election (variable E5015_). | - Expert judgments by the national collaborators of the said | party/coalition's ideological family placement | (variable E5017_). | - Expert judgments by the national collaborators of the | said party/coalition's left-right placement (variable | E5018_). | - Expert judgments by the national collaborators of the | said party/coalition's placement on alternative scale | (variable E5019_). | - Expert judgments by the national collaborators of the | said party/coalition's placement on populism scale | (variable E5020_). | - Manifesto research on political representation identifier | for each party/coalition (variable E5200_). | - Parliaments and Governments (ParlGov) identifier for each | party/coalition (variable E5201_). | - The said party/coalition's Chapel Hill Expert Survey (CHES) | Identifier (variable E5202). | - The said party/coalition's Party Facts Identifier | (variable E5203). | | In most cases, the alphabetical party codes correspond to the | alphabetical code for the leader of that same party (e.g., | LEADER A is the leader of PARTY A). However, there are | exceptions, such as in instances in which data is available for | two leaders of the same party. For more detailed information on | how CSES codes parties/coalitions and leaders, please see Part 3 | of the CSES Codebook. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5000_L_A >>> LEADER A IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL E5000_L_B >>> LEADER B IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL E5000_L_C >>> LEADER C IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL E5000_L_D >>> LEADER D IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL E5000_L_E >>> LEADER E IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL E5000_L_F >>> LEADER F IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL E5000_L_G >>> LEADER G IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL E5000_L_H >>> LEADER H IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL E5000_L_I >>> LEADER I IDENTIFIER - NUMERICAL --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Numeric Party Code Identifier for Leaders A-I (see variable notes). .................................................................. 036001-858003. PARTY CODES 999999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5000_L_ | | CSES policy is that for alphabetical codes, leaders A through F | tend to be the leaders of the six most popular parties/ | coalitions or the presidential candidates of these parties. | They correspond to parties A-F (i.e., Leader A will be related to | Party A in some way, Leader B will be related to Party B, etc.). | Leaders G, H, and I are supplemental leaders. They may be related | to parties G, H, I, but they do not have to be. These leaders are | voluntarily provided by each country's election study and often | include data about additional personalities of interest. | For example, in a parliamentary system, data about a President | might be provided, even if the Presidency is not being contested. | On many occasions, slots Leader G, H, and I will include | additional data for parties/coalitions that have multiple | leaders. | As codes in E5000_L_ are labeled with the corresponding leader | surnames and acronyms of their associated parties, they allow for | easy identification of the relational data. | | For the CSES M5 dataset, alphabetical leader codes are used to | identify the following: | - Respondent's likeability of the leader/personality in question | (variable E3018_). | | For more detailed information on how CSES codes parties/ | coalitions and leaders, please see Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. II. ELECTION SPECIFIC AND ELECTORAL RULES DATA --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5001_A >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY A E5001_B >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY B E5001_C >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY C E5001_D >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY D E5001_E >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY E E5001_F >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY F E5001_G >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY G E5001_H >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY H E5001_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 997.00 NOT APPLICABLE: NO LOWER HOUSE ELECTION 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5001_ | | Parties and their alphabetical classifications for each election | study are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | | Source: Publicly available data. | | Data are unavailable for UNITED STATES (2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): E5001 | | The data represents the percentage of first preference votes | in the election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): E5001_A | | PARTY A (The Liberal Party) combines the results for | Liberal National Party (who ran only in Queensland state) and | the Liberal Party (who ran in all other states) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): E5001_D | | PARTY D (National Party) combines the results for the Nationals | and the Country Liberals, as the latter only ran in the | Northern Territory. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019): E5001 | | Almost all Belgian parties are divided into linguistic groups, | and therefore, few parties compete on a national basis (those | that do and that are assigned an alphabetical classification by | CSES are noted below). Instead, most parties compete in one of | two predominant linguistic regions of the country, namely | Belgium-Flanders (Dutch-speaking region) and Belgium-Wallonia | (French-speaking region). There is also a German-speaking region | which for elections to the Belgian Parliament (Chamber of | Representatives) is located within the Belgium-Wallonia | of Liege. Thus, elections to Belgium's national parliament | essentially operate as two distinct elections for one chamber. | Accordingly, the data represents the percentage of votes | received by parties standing in the Flanders regions only, | namely: Antwerp, East Flanders, Flemish Brabant, Limburg, and | West Flanders. Parties are allocated alphabetical classifications | on this basis. | | The percentage of votes achieved by each party standing in | the Belgium-Flanders region in Belgium as a unified entity is | as follows: | | PARTY A (New Flemish Alliance, N-VA) - 16.0% | PARTY B (Vlaams Belangm, VB) - 12.0% | PARTY C (Christen-Democratisch en Vlaams, CD&V) - 8.9% | PARTY D (Open Vlaamse Liberalen den Democratsen, Open-VLD) - 8.5% | PARTY E (Socialistische Partij Anders, Spa) - 6.7% | PARTY F (Green, Groen) - 6.1% | PARTY G (Workers Party of Belgium, PVDA/PTB) - 8.6% | | PARTY G (Workers Party of Belgium, PVDA/PTB) competed in both | the Belgian Flanders and Belgian Wallonia regions. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019): E5001 | | Almost all Belgian parties are divided into linguistic groups, | and therefore, few parties compete on a national basis (those | that do and that are assigned an alphabetical classification by | CSES are noted below). Instead, most parties compete in one of | two predominant linguistic regions of the country, namely | Belgium-Flanders (Dutch-speaking region) and Belgium-Wallonia | (French-speaking region). There is also a German-speaking region | which for elections to the Belgian Parliament (Chamber of | Representatives) is located within the Belgium-Wallonia | of Liege. Thus, elections to Belgium's national parliament | essentially operate as two distinct elections for one chamber. | Accordingly, the data represents the percentage of votes | received by parties standing in the Wallonia region only, | namely: Brabant, Hainaut, Liege, Luxembourg, and Namur. Data from | the Brussels Capital Region is not included. Parties are | allocated alphabetical classifications on this basis. | | The percentage of votes achieved by each party standing in | the Belgium-Wallonia region in Belgium as a unified entity is | as follows: | | PARTY A (Socialist Party, PS) - 9.5% | PARTY B (Reformist Movement, MR) - 7.6% | PARTY C (Ecolo) - 6.1% | PARTY D (Workers Party of Belgium, PVDA/PTB) - 8.6% | PARTY E (Humanist Democratic Centre, cdH) - 3.7% | PARTY F (Democrate, Federaliste, Independent, DeFi) - 2.2% | PARTY G (People's Party, PP) - 1.1% | | PARTY D (Workers Party of Belgium, PVDA/PTB) competed in both | the Belgian Flanders and Belgian Wallonia regions. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2017): E5001 | | Most Chilean parties participated in the election as members | of various coalitions. Presently parties A, B and H (RN, UDI, | Evopoli) were members of the Chile Vamos coalition. Parties D, E, | G and I (PSCH, PPD, PCCH, and PRSD) were members of The Force of | the Majority coalition. For more complete information about the | coalitions participating in the 2017 elections, see election | study notes for E5034. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2019): E5001 | | Total share of the vote is calculated including the votes cast | in the Faroe Islands and Greenland, two autonomous territories in | the Kingdom of Denmark. | | The percentage of votes achieved by each party standing in | mainland Denmark (excluding Greenland and Faroe Islands) is | as follows: | | PARTY A (Social Democratic Party, Sd - A) - 25.9% | PARTY B (Venstre, V) - 23.4% | PARTY C (Danish People's Party, DF - O) - 8.7% | PARTY D (Social Liberals, RV - B) - 8.6% | PARTY E (Socalist People's Party, SF - F) - 7.7% | PARTY F (Red Green Alliance, Rod/Green - En O) - 6.9% | PARTY G (Conservative People's Party, KF - C) - 6.6% | PARTY H (The Alternative, AI) - 3.0% | PARTY I (New Right, NB - D) - 2.4% | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E5001 | | These data report the national share of the "party list" or | the "second" votes that each party received. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2017): E5001 | | These data represent the national share of the vote attained by | parties who fielded candidates in England, Scotland, and Wales. | Northern Ireland data is not included as the 2017 British | Election Study did not include respondents from Northern | Ireland. | | The share of votes achieved by each party standing in the United | Kingdom, thus including Northern Ireland seats (n=17), and | totaling n=650 seats is as follows: | | PARTY A (Conservative Party, Con) - 42.5% | PARTY B (Labor Party, Lab) - 40.0% | PARTY C (Liberal Democrats, LibDem) - 7.4% | PARTY D (Scottish National Party) - 3.0% | PARTY E (United Kingdom Independence Party, UKIP) - 1.8% | PARTY F (Green Party, GP) - 1.6% | PARTY G (Plaid Cymru, PC) - 0.5% | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2017): E5001_A | | These data include the votes received by Speaker John Bercow | originally a Conservative, who was standing in the Buckingham | constituency. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E5001 | | The Legislative Council (LegCo) in Hong Kong is composed of 70 | members, 35 of which are returned by geographical constituency | elections and another 35 by functional constituency elections. | These entries show the party vote of the geographical | constituency part of the 2016 LegCo Elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E5001_I | | The data refers to the coalition ALLinHK (led by Youngspiration; | Party I). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E5001 | | Parties are ordered according to their share of votes in the | second segment - the proportional national party list tier. | According to the CSES rules, in countries where voters have | two votes (i.e., a constituency and a list vote) simultaneously, | parties are ordered by the national share of the party list | vote (tier 2). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E5001_A | | E5001_A refers to Fidesz - the dominant member of the | coalition represented here as PARTY A. The junior partner in the | coalition is the KDNP (Christian Democratic People's Party). In | every parliamentary election since 2006, the KDNP was in a | coalition with Fidesz. The last time the KDNP competed in a | parliamentary election on its own was in 1998. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E5001_C | | E5001_C refers to the MSZP (Hungarian Socialist Party) - the | dominant member of the coalition represented here as Party C. | The junior partner in the coalition is Parbeszed. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E5001 | | E5001_ reports party list votes for the Chamber of Deputies. In | this tier, 386 seats are elected through proportional | representation. In addition, 232 seats are elected in single | member districts, according to FPTP system, and 12 members are | elected from multi-member constituencies abroad, using the | proportional representation system. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2017): E5001 | | These data report the national share of the "party list" or | the proportional segment of the Lower House of the Japanese | Parliament. These votes provide for 176 seats out of a total of | 465 in the Lower House. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017): E5001 | | These data represent the national share of the "party list" | or "second" votes (tier 2) that each party received. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2020): E5001 | | These data represent the national share of the "party list" | or "second" votes (tier 2) that each party received. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E5001 | | Parties are ordered according to their share of votes in the | second segment - the proportional national party list tier. | According to the CSES rules, in mixed systems where voters have | two votes (i.e., a constituency and a list vote) simultaneously, | parties are ordered by the national share of the party list | vote (tier 2). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2019): E5001_D | | This entry refers to the Unitary Democratic Coalition, CDU. CDU | is an electoral alliance of the Portuguese Communist Party (PCP) | and the Ecologist Party - The Greens (PEV). Since the beginning | of the coalition in 1987, the member parties have always | participated jointly as an electoral coalition. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2016): E5001 | | The data refers to the election results of the 253 single member | districts, which provide 84% of seats in the National Assembly of | the Republic of Korea. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016): E5001 | | The data reports the share of the votes that each party received | in the first tier, which provides the majority (73) seats in the | Legislative Yuan (from geographical constituencies, which employ | first-past-the-post system). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2020): E5001 | | The data report the share of the votes that each party received | in the first tier, which provides the majority (73) seats in the | Legislative Yuan (from geographical constituencies, which employ | first-past-the-post system). However, the alphabetic party | ordering (A to F) is based on the proportional tier since it | reflects electoral strength of the parties more accurately (in | fact, this affected ordering of parties E and F only). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E5001 | | This reports the single vote that counts for two tiers of | the Lower House - majoritarian and proportional. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): E5001 | | Lower house election results unavailable. Data will be | available in a subsequent release of CSES. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E5001 | | Multiple estimates of the national election results are | available from a wide variety of sources. These sources | often differ in the final vote tallies provided for each | party, most probably a consequence of the fact that counting | is done at a state level, and accordingly votes are sometimes | reported in different ways and at different time points. The | estimates of party vote share in the US House of Representative | elections are based on the data reported by the US Congressional | Election Information Statistics of the Presidential and | Congressional Elections 2012. | | Source: | US Congressional Election Information Statistics of the | Presidential and Congressional Elections 2020 | http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/2012election.pdf | (Date accessed: December 14, 2021). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E5001 | | The Lower Chamber (Camara 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. One electoral agent can be a party, a party | fraction or a fraction of party fraction. Voters select one | Ballot, and put 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 two chambers) for the same | party. Hence, the election results are basically identical for | all three institutions - both houses of the Parliament, and for | the President (first round). DVS is a mechanism that allows an | intra-partisan contest at the time of the national election. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5002_A >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY A E5002_B >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY B E5002_C >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY C E5002_D >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY D E5002_E >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY E E5002_F >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY F E5002_G >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY G E5002_H >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY H E5002_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 997.00 NOT APPLICABLE: NO LOWER HOUSE ELECTION 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5002_ | | Parties and their alphabetical classifications for each election | study are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | | Source: Publicly available data. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): E5002_A | | PARTY A (The Liberal Party) combines the results for | Liberal National Party (who ran only in Queensland state) and the | Liberal Party (who ran in all other states). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): E5002_D | | PARTY D (National Party) combines the results for the Nationals | and the Country Liberals, as the latter only ran in the | Northern Territory. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019): E5002 | | Almost all Belgian parties are divided into linguistic groups, | and therefore, few parties compete on a national basis (those | that do and that are assigned an alphabetical classification by | CSES are noted below). Instead, most parties compete in one of | two predominant linguistic regions of the country, namely | Belgium-Flanders (Dutch-speaking region) and Belgium-Wallonia | (French-speaking region). There is also a German-speaking region | which for elections to the Belgian Parliament (Chamber of | Representatives) is located within the Belgium-Wallonia area of | of Liege. Thus, elections to Belgium's national parliament | essentially operate as two distinct elections for one chamber. | Accordingly, the data represents the percentage of seats | contested in the Flanders regions only (87 of the 150 seats in | total in the Chamber of Representatives), namely: Antwerp, East | Flanders, Flemish Brabant, Limburg, and West Flanders. | | The percentage of seats achieved by each party standing in | the Belgium-Flanders region in Belgium as a unified entity is | as follows: | | PARTY A (New Flemish Alliance, N-VA) - 16.7% | PARTY B (Vlaams Belangm, VB) - 12.0% | PARTY C (Christen-Democratisch en Vlaams, CD&V) - 8.0% | PARTY D (Open Vlaamse Liberalen den Democratsen, Open-VLD) - 8.0% | PARTY E (Socialistische Partij Anders, Spa) - 6.0% | PARTY F (Green, Groen) - 5.3% | PARTY G (Workers Party of Belgium, PVDA/PTB) - 8.0% | | PARTY G (Workers Party of Belgium, PVDA/PTB) competed in both | the Belgian Flanders and Belgian Wallonia regions. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019): E5002 | | Almost all Belgian parties are divided into linguistic groups, | and therefore, few parties compete on a national basis (those | that do and that are assigned an alphabetical classification by | CSES are noted below). Instead, most parties compete in one of | two predominant linguistic regions of the country, namely | Belgium-Flanders (Dutch-speaking region) and Belgium-Wallonia | (French-speaking region). There is also a German-speaking region | which for elections to the Belgian Parliament (Chamber of | Representatives) is located within the Belgium-Wallonia area | of Liege. Thus, elections to Belgium's national parliament | essentially operate as two distinct elections for one chamber. | Accordingly, the data represents the percentage of seats | contested in the Wallonia regions only (48 of the 150 seats in | total in the Chamber of Representatives), namely: Brabant, | Hainaut, Liege, Luxembourg, and Namur. Data from the Brussels | Capital Region is not included. Parties are allocated | alphabetical classifications on this basis. | | The percentage of seats achieved by each party standing in | the Belgium-Wallonia region in Belgium as a unified entity is | as follows: | | PARTY A (Socialist Party, PS) - 13.3% | PARTY B (Reformist Movement, MR) - 9.3% | PARTY C (Ecolo) - 8.7% | PARTY D (Workers Party of Belgium, PVDA/PTB) - 8.0% | PARTY E (Humanist Democratic Centre, cdH) - 3.3% | PARTY F (Democrate, Federaliste, Independent, DeFi) - 1.3% | PARTY G (People's Party, PP) - 0.0% | | PARTY D (Workers Party of Belgium, PVDA/PTB) competed in both | the Belgian Flanders and Belgian Wallonia regions. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2017): E5002 | | Most Chilean parties participated in the election as members of | various coalitions. Presently parties A, B and H (RN, UDI, | Evopoli) were members of the Chile Vamos coalition. Parties D, E, | G and I (PSCH, PPD, PCCH, and PRSD) were members of the coalition | "The Force of the Majority". For more complete information about | the coalitions participating in the 2017 elections, see election | study notes for E5034. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2019): E5002 | | Total share of seats is calculated including the seats (n=4) | in the Faroe Islands and Greenland, two autonomous territories in | the Kingdom of Denmark, making a total of 179 seats. | The two seats in the Faroe Islands were won by the Union Party | and the Social Democratic Party. The two seats in Greenland | were won by the Inuit Ataqatiguut and Siumut parties. | | The percentage of seats achieved by each party standing in | mainland Denmark (excluding Greenland and Faroe Islands, i.e., | n=175 seats) is as follows: | | PARTY A (Social Democratic Party, Sd - A) - 27.4% | PARTY B (Venstre, V) - 24.6% | PARTY C (Danish People's Party, DF - O) - 9.1% | PARTY D (Social Liberals, RV - B) - 9.1% | PARTY E (Socalist People's Party, SF - F) - 8.0% | PARTY F (Red Green Alliance, Rod/Green - En O) - 7.4% | PARTY G (Conservative People's Party, KF - C) - 6.9% | PARTY H (The Alternative, AI) - 2.9% | PARTY I (New Right, NB - D) - 2.3% | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E5002 | | These data report the percentage share of seats that each party | received resulting from both "party list" and "candidate" votes. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2017): E5002 | | These data represent the national share of the vote attained by | parties who fielded candidates in England, Scotland, and Wales. | Northern Ireland data is not included as the 2017 British | Election Study did not include respondents from Northern | Ireland. | | While the Conservative Party achieved a majority of seats | in Great Britain (318/333=50.2%), including the seats | from Northern Ireland (n=17 seats), the party fell short of | a parliamentary majority (318/650=48.9%), necessitating a | confidence and supply deal with the Democratic Unionist Party | (DUP). They are a religious party who contests seats in Northern | Ireland only, and had won 10 of the province's 17 seats. | Nonetheless, as Sinn Fein, an Irish Nationalist Party, won the | province's remaining seven seats on an abstentions policy of not | taking their seats in the House of Commons, to obtain a working | parliamentary majority in the House of Commons required control | of 322 seats, not the conventional 326. | | The share of seats achieved by each party standing in the United | Kingdom, thus including Northern Ireland seats (n=17), and | totaling n=650 seats is as follows: | | PARTY A (Conservative Party, Con) - 48.9% | PARTY B (Labor Party, Lab) - 40.3% | PARTY C (Liberal Democrats, LibDem) - 1.9% | PARTY D (Scottish National Party) - 5.4% | PARTY E (United Kingdom Independence Party, UKIP) - 0.0% | PARTY F (Green Party, GP) - 0.2% | PARTY G (Plaid Cymru, PC) - 0.6% | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2017): E5002_A | | These data include the votes received by Speaker John Bercow | originally a Conservative, who was standing in the Buckingham | constituency. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E5002 | | The Legislative Council (LegCo) in Hong Kong is composed of 70 | members, 35 of which are returned by geographical constituency | elections and another 35 by functional constituency elections. | These entries show the party seat compositions of the | geographical constituency part of the 2016 LegCo Elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E5002_I | | E5002_I refers to the coalition ALLinHK (led by Youngspiration; | PARTY I). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E5002 | | These data report the percentage share of seats that each party | received resulting from both the "party list" and "candidate" | votes. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E5002_A | | E5002_A refers to Fidesz - the dominant member of the coalition | represented here as PARTY A. The junior partner in the coalition | is the KDNP (Christian Democratic People's Party). In every | parliamentary election since 2006, the KDNP was in a coalition | with Fidesz. The last time the KDNP competed in a parliamentary | election on its own was in 1998. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E5002_C | | E5002_C refers to MSZP (Hungarian Socialist Party) - the | dominant member of the coalition represented here as Party C. | The junior partner in the coalition is Parbeszed. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E5002 | | This reports percentage of all 630 seats in the Chamber of | Deputies, including both domestic tiers, and the proportional | district for Italians residing abroad. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2017): E5002 | | These data report the percentage share of seats that each party | received resulting from both "party list" and "candidate" votes. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E5002 | | These data report the percentage share of seats that each party | received resulting from both the "party list" and "candidate" | votes. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017 & 2020): E5002 | | These data report the percentage share of seats that each | party received on the basis of both the "candidate" vote (tier 1) | and the "party list" vote (tier 2). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017): E5002_G | | PARTY G (ACT) were ineligible for seats based on the party list | but achieved parliamentary representation having won the | electorate of Epsom. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2019): E5002_D | | This entry refers to the Unitary Democratic Coalition, CDU). CDU | is an electoral alliance of the Portuguese Communist Party (PCP) | and the Ecologist Party - The Greens (PEV). Since the beginning | of the coalition in 1987, the member parties have always | participated jointly as an electoral coalition. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2020): E5002_E | | PARTY E (Progressive Slovakia-Together, PS-SPOLU) failed to | surpass the 7% electoral threshold imposed on 2-3 parties | competing together as an alliance and hence were ineligible to | receive seats. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2016): E5002 | | These data report the total number of seats in the Parliament | while E5001 reports the results for the majoritarian segment of | the Parliament. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016 & 2020): E5002 | | The data report the percentage share of seats that each party | received resulting from all tiers: the geographical | constituencies (General; 73 seats), a national-wide closed-list | proportional tier (34 seats), and two special segments for | aboriginal populations (six seats). | Note that the alphabetic party ordering (A to F) is based on the | proportional tier since it reflects electoral strength of the | parties more accurately (in fact, this affected ordering of | parties E and F only). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E5002 | | This reports the single vote that counts for two tiers of | the Lower House - majoritarian and proportional. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E5002 | | See note for E5001. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5003_A >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY A E5003_B >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY B E5003_C >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY C E5003_D >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY D E5003_E >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY E E5003_F >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY F E5003_G >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY G E5003_H >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY H E5003_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 996.00 NOT APPLICABLE: UNICAMERAL SYSTEM 997.00 NOT APPLICABLE: NO UPPER HOUSE ELECTION 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5003_ | | Parties and their alphabetical classifications for each election | study are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | | Source: Publicly available data. | | Data are unavailable for SWITZERLAND (2019) and UNITED STATES | (2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): E5003 | | The election on 18 May 2019 also included a half Senate | election whereby 40 senators were elected in total, six for each | state (6 districts) and two for each Federal Territory | (2 districts). The data represent the percentage of first | preference votes. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): E5003_A | | PARTY A (The Liberal Party) combines the results for | Liberal National Party (who ran only in Queensland state), the | Liberal Party (who ran in all other states), and candidates | who ran under the joint "Liberal-National" ticket. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): E5003_D | | PARTY D (National Party) combines the results for the Nationals | and the Country Liberals, as the latter only ran in the | Northern Territory. Many National candidates ran under the | combined Liberal/National banner and their results are included | under the Liberal Party results (PARTY A) for E5003. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): E5003 | | The Upper House of the Austrian Parliament (The Federal Council, | or Bundesrat) is elected indirectly, by each of the Austrian | states' legislatures (Landtage). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E5003 | | Members of the Brazilian Senate (Senado Federal) are elected | for an 8-years term and the chamber is composed of 81 members, | with each state in Brazil having three Senators each. | Members are elected in alternative electoral cycles: two thirds | of the Senate seats (n=54) are contested in one election cycle | while the remaining one third are contested in the other. The | 2018 elections saw two-thirds of the Senate seats contested | (n=54). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2017): E5003 | | The Senate of the Republic of Chile (Senado) is the upper house | of Chile's bicameral National Congress. It is elected directly, | for a term of 8 years. In 2017, 23 of 43 members of the Senate | were elected. | According to the 2015 constitutional reform, the number of seats | increased from 38 to 43 in 2017 election, and will go up to 50 | in 2021. | Most Chilean parties participated in the election as members of | various coalitions. Presently, parties A, B and H (RN, UDI, | Evopoli) were members of the Chile Vamos coalition. | Parties D, E, G and I (PSCH, PPD, PCCH, and PRSD) were members | of The Force of the Majority coalition. For more information | about the coalitions participating in the 2017 elections, see | election study notes for E5034. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E5003 | | This variable reports party list votes in the Senate election, | where 193 members are elected in multi-member constituencies, | using the proportional representation system. The remaining two | electoral tiers include 116 members elected in single-member | constituencies, using the majority system, and six seats | reserved for Italian citizens residing abroad, using the | proportional representation system. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2017): E5003 | | The 75 members of the Senate (Eerste Kamer) of the Dutch | Parliament (the States General) are elected indirectly by | the members of the twelve Provincial Councils and three | Caribbean electoral colleges, for a 4-years term. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2019): E5003 | | Council of States ("Staenderat", upper house) has 46 members. | Twenty of the country's cantons are represented by two | Councilors each. Six cantons, traditionally called "half | cantons", are represented by one Councilor each. | The electoral rules (except the number of seats to be filled) | are subject to cantonal regulations, so the electoral system | varies. Most cantons have two-round majoritarian elections, | where an absolute majority is required in the first round. | However, two cantons use a PR system for their two seats (Jura | and Neuchatel). | Since the elections to the Upper House are cantonal elections, | no national-level vote results are available. Variable E5004, | however, reports the seat distribution. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E5003 | | At the time of the election, Thailand had a Senate (Upper House) | that is not elected directly by the people. According to the | 2017 law, for its first five years, the Senate is to be composed | of 250 appointees, instead of 200 appointees for the period | beyond. While six seats are reserved for commanders of the armed | forces, the police, and the Defense secretary, the remaining 244 | are selected by the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) | through two different processes. Fifty Senators represent 10 | economic and social groups, and are selected by the NCPO after | an initial screening by the Election Commission of Thailand | (ECT), while the remaining 194 are nominated by the NCPO, | through an ad hoc screening committee. Senate nominees are | ultimately endorsed by the King. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): E5003 | | Upper house election results are unavailable. Data will be | available in a subsequent release of CSES. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E5003 | | The US Senate is composed of 100 members with members | elected for a six year term. One third of the Senate seats | (conventional n=33-34) are contested in election cycles every | two years. The 2020 elections saw 35 Senate seats contested - the | conventional 33 seats and two special Senate elections (in | Arizona and Georgia) caused by the death/retirement of sitting | members. | The data represents the percentage of votes won by | each Party on the basis of the 35 seats contested. | | Control of the United States Senate was not decided until | January 2021 when two special run-off elections were held in | Georgia. | The Democrats (PARTY A), with the support of two Independents, | who caucus with the Democrats in the Senate, gained control of | the Senate on the casting vote of the United States Vice | President, Kamala Harris (PARTY A) who was elected on a ticket | with Democratic President Joe Biden in November 2020. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E5003 | | The Upper chamber (Camara 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 seats 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 the 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. | One electoral agent can be a party, a party fraction or a | fraction of party fraction. Voters select one Ballot, 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 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). | 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 that allows an intra- | partisan contest at the time of the national election. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5004_A >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY A E5004_B >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY B E5004_C >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY C E5004_D >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY D E5004_E >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY E E5004_F >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY F E5004_G >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY G E5004_H >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY H E5004_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 996.00 NOT APPLICABLE: UNICAMERAL SYSTEM 997.00 NOT APPLICABLE: NO UPPER HOUSE ELECTION 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5004_ | | Parties and their alphabetical classifications for each election | study are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | | Source: Publicly available data. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): E5004 | | The election on May 19, 2019, also included a half Senate | election whereby 40 senators were elected in total, six for each | state (6 districts) and two for each Federal Territory | (2 districts). The data represent the percentage of seats won | in the election and does not include holdover seats. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): E5004_A | | PARTY A (The Liberal Party) combines the results for | Liberal National Party (who ran only in Queensland state)and the | Liberal Party (who ran in all other states), and candidates | who ran under the joint "Liberal-National" ticket. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): E5004_D | | PARTY D (National Party) combines the results for the Nationals | and the Country Liberals, as the latter only ran in the | Northern Territory. Many National candidates ran under the | combined Liberal/National banner and their seats are included | under the Liberal Party results (PARTY A) for E5004. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): E5004 | | The Upper House of the Austrian Parliament (The Federal Council, | or Bundesrat) is elected indirectly, by each of the Austrian | states' legislatures (Landtage). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E5004 | | The 2018 election saw two-thirds of the Senate seats contested | (27 in all representing two seats per state). The data | represents the percentage of seats won by each party (n=54) | and does not include holdover seats. | Also, see the election study note for E5003. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2017): E5004 | | The Senate of the Republic of Chile (Senado) is the upper house | of Chile's bicameral National Congress. It is elected directly, | for a term of 8 years. In 2017, 23 of 43 members of the Senate | were elected. | According to the 2015 constitutional reform, the number of seats | increased from 38 to 43 in 2017 election, and will go up to 50 | in 2021. | Most Chilean parties participated in the election as members of | various coalitions. Presently, parties A, B and H (RN, UDI, | Evopoli) were members of the Chile Vamos coalition. | Parties D, E, G and I (PSCH, PPD, PCCH, and PRSD) were members | of The Force of the Majority coalition. For more complete | information about the coalitions participating in the 2017 | elections, see election study notes for E5034. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E5004 | | This reports the distribution of all 315 Senate seats, including | both domestic tiers, and the proportional district for Italians | residing abroad. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2017): E5004 | | The 75 members of the Senate (Eerste Kamer) of the Dutch | Parliament (the States General) are elected indirectly by | the members of the twelve Provincial Councils and three | Caribbean electoral colleges, for a 4-years term. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E5004 | | For more details, see Election Study Note for E5003. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): E5004 | | The 2016 elections saw one-third of the Senate seats contested | (n=34). The data represents the percentage of seats won by each | party (n=34) and does not include holdover seats. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E5004 | | The 2020 elections saw 35 Senate seats contested of the 100 | total. The data represents the percentage of seats won by each | party (n=35) in the 2020 contest and does not include | holdover seats. | | Including holdover seats, the proportion of seats in the full | Senate held by each party post the run-off elections in Georgia | in January 2021 is as follows: | | PARTY A (Democratic Party, DEM) - 48.0% | PARTY B (Republican Party, GOP) - 50.0% | PARTY C (Libertarian Party, LP) - 0.0% | | The Democrats (PARTY A), with the support of two Independents, | who caucus with the Democrats in the Senate, gained control of | the Senate on the casting vote of the United States Vice | President, Kamala Harris (PARTY A) who was elected on a ticket | with Democratic President Joe Biden in November 2020. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E5004 | | See note for E5003. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5005_A >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY A E5005_B >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY B E5005_C >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY C E5005_D >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY D E5005_E >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY E E5005_F >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY F E5005_G >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY G E5005_H >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY H E5005_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 996.00. NOT APPLICABLE: NO ROLE OF PRESIDENT 997.00. NOT APPLICABLE: NO PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5005_ | | Parties and their alphabetical classifications for each election | study are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | | Source: Publicly available data. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): E5005 | | The President of Austria is directly elected, for a term of six | years, under the two-round system. The last presidential | election was on December 4, 2016 (after the re-run of the second | round of presidential election, the first round being held on | April 24, 2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E5005 | | Data refers to the results of the first round of the | Presidential elections. | In the second round, PSL candidate [Party A] won with 55.13% | votes, against the PT candidate [Party B] who obtained 44.87% | of the votes. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2017): E5005 | | The President of Chile is directly elected, for a term of four | years, under the two-round system. | This variable reports the results of the first round, held on | November 19, 2017. The second round was held on December 17, | 2017. In the second round, the candidate of Chile Vamos | coalition (Sebastian Pinera; coded under PARTY A - RN - National | Renewal), won the presidency against The Force of the Majority | coalition candidate (Alejandro Guillier), coded hereunder | PARTY D. | Most presidential candidates run as nominally independent | candidates, but were supported by various party coalitions. | Parties A, B and H (RN, UDI, Evopoli) were members of Chile | Vamos coalition, who supported Sebastian Pinera (a member of the | National Renewal party (RN; Party A). Parties D, E, G and I | (PSCH, PPD, PCCH, and PRSD) were members of The Force of the | Majority coalition. Their candidate was Alejandro Guillier, | coded under PARTY D. This party (PSCH - Socialist Party of | Chile) is the strongest party in the coalition, according to | the lower house election results. | Sanchez Munoz Beatriz (the third strongest candidate, coded here | under PARTY F) was supported by the coalition Broad Front, | comprising party Revolucion Democratica (PARTY F) and some | additional smaller parties. | For more complete information about the coalitions participating | in the 2017 elections, see election study notes for E5034. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2017): E5005_A | | This variable reports election results of Sebastian Pinera, the | candidate of the Chile Vamos coalition. Pinera was nominated | as a nominally independent candidate, and supported by parties | A, B and H (RN, UDI, Evopoli). H is a member of the National | Renewal party (RN; Party A). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2017): E5005_D | | This variable reports election results of Alejandro Guillier, | the candidate of The Force of the Majority coalition. The | coalitions was comprised of parties D, E, G and I (PSCH, PPD, | PCCH, and PRSD). Party D (PSCH - Socialist Party of Chile) is | the strongest party in the coalition, according to the lower | house election results. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2017): E5005_F | | This variable reports election results of Sanchez Munoz Beatriz, | the candidate of the Broad Front coalition, comprising party | Revolucion Democratica (Party F) and some additional smaller | parties. For more complete information about the coalitions | participating in the 2017 elections, see election study notes | for E5034. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2017): E5005 | | The President of France is directly elected, for a term of five | years, under the two-round system. | This variable reports the results of the first round, held on | April 23, 2017. The second round was held on May 7, | 2017. In the second round, Emmanuel Macron of La Republique En | Marche! ("The Republic on the move!"; coded here as Party A), | won the presidency against Marine Le Pen of the Front national | (National Front, coded here as Party B). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E5005 | | The Federal President is elected indirectly, by a specially | convened Federal Convention which mirrors the aggregated | majority position in the Bundestag (the federal parliament) and | in the parliaments of the 16 German states. | At the time of the Bundestag elections of 2017, the incumbent | president was Frank-Walter Steinmeier who was elected on | February 12, 2017. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E5005 | | The President is elected indirectly by the National Assembly | (Orszaggyules), for a term of five years. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E5005 | | The President of the Republic is elected indirectly, by an | electoral college comprising the two chambers of Parliament (the | Chamber of Deputies and the Senate of the Republic) meeting in | joint session, combined with 58 special electors appointed from | the 20 regions of Italy. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TUNISIA (2019): E5005_A | | PARTY A's (Ennahda Movement) presidential candidate in the first | round was Abdelfattah Mourou. In the second round this party | supported Kais Saied, who participated in the election as an | independent candidate. Kais Saied won the second round with | 72.71% of the valid vote. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TUNISIA (2019): E5005_B | | Presidential candidate of PARTY B (Heart of Tunisia) was Nabil | Karoui. In the second round, this candidate obtained 17.29% of | the valid vote. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TUNISIA (2019): E5005_F | | People's Movement (PARTY F) did not have their own presidential | candidate, but in the first round supported Safi Said, an | independent candidate. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E5005 | | These figures report results of the first round of the | presidential election. See notes for E5001 and E5003. | 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 two chambers) for the same | party. Hence, the election results are basically identical for | all three institutions - both houses of the Parliament, and for | the President (first round). | The share of votes achieved by the two candidates in the | second round is as follows: | | PARTY A (Broad Front - Frente Amplio) - 49.21% | PARTY B (National Party - Partido Nacional) - 50.79% --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5006_1 >>> ELECTORAL TURNOUT - TURNOUT AS A PERCENTAGE OF REGISTERED VOTERS (ER) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Official voter turnout - Percentage of registered voters (ER). .................................................................. 000.00-100.00 PERCENT OF REGISTERED VOTER WHO VOTED 999.00 MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5006_1 | | The Electoral Register (ER) is the total number of votes cast | (valid and invalid) divided by the number of names on the | voters' register, expressed as a percentage. | Turnout data refers to lower house elections unless otherwise | specified. Please refer to ELECTION STUDY NOTES. | | In Presidential elections with two rounds of voting, turnout | data refers to first round of elections. | | Turnout data primarily comes from the International Institute | for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) Voter Turnout | Database: http://www.idea.int/data-tools/data/voter-turnout | (Date accessed: May 17, 2018). | | If source deviates from the above, it is detailed in the | ELECTION STUDY NOTES. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019): E5006_1 | | E5006_1 refers to turnout in the Belgian-Flanders region only. | The official voter turnout for Belgium based on the percentage of | registered voters was 88.4%. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019): E5006_1 | | E5006_1 refers to turnout in the Belgian-Wallonia region only. | The official voter turnout for Belgium based on the percentage of | registered voters was 88.4%. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E5006_1 | | This is the official turnout of the Lower House (Federal | Deputies chamber) elections, as reported at the website of | the Brazilian Superior Electoral Court (http://www.tse.jus.br, | Date accessed: April 30, 2020). | In the presidential election, the turnout was 79.67%. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2019): E5006_1 | | The estimate for Electoral Register (ER) turnout in Canada is | based on the total number of votes (including spoilt) cast as | being 27,373,058 (Elections Canada, 2019). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2019): E5006_1 | | E5006_1 refers to turnout in Denmark including votes cast in the | the Faroe Islands and Greenland, two autonomous territories in | the Kingdom of Denmark. The official voter turnout for mainland | Denmark based on the percentage of registered voters was 84.6%. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - COSTA RICA (2018): E5006_1 | | This is the official turnout of the Lower House (The | Legislative Assembly, Asamblea Legislativa) elections. | In the presidential election, the turnout was 65.70%. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E5006_1 | | These entry reports the turnout for the entire electorate, | including Finnish citizens living abroad. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2017): E5006_1 | | Turnout data refers to turnout in the Presidential election. | This variable reports first round turnout (the entry is based | on our calculation using the official election results). | Turnout at the second round of the French presidential | election was 74.56%. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2017): E5006_1 | | These data refer to the turnout in Great Britain only, that is | the turnout in England, Scotland, and Wales combined. | Northern Ireland data is not included as the 2017 British | Election Study did not include respondents from Northern Ireland. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E5006_1 | | These entries refer to the turnout in the geographical | constituency part of the 2016 LegCo Elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E5006_1 | | This is the official turnout figure, based on the total vote | (including invalid and blank votes). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2016): E5006_1 | | E5006_1 refers to the turnout in the majoritarian segment. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2020): E5006_1 | | These entries refer to the turnout in the geographical | constituencies, which employ the first-past-the-post system. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E5006_1 | | This variable reports turnout based on our calculation using | the official election results. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TUNISIA (2019): E5006_1 | | This data refers to the turnout at the parliamentary elections | of October 6, 2019. Turnout at the presidential election, that | took part on September 15, 2019 (first round), was 48.98%. At | the second round, turnout was 55.02% | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): E5006_1 | | E5006_1 refers to turnout in the Presidential election. | Percentage of registered voters estimate is taken from the IDEA. | | Source: | IDEA Voter Turnout for the United States | https://www.idea.int/data-tools/country-view/295/40 | (Date accessed: March 23, 2019). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E5006_1 | | Turnout data refers to turnout in the Presidential election. | Percentage of registered voters estimate is taken from the IDEA. | | Source: | IDEA Voter Turnout for the United States | https://www.idea.int/data-tools/country-view/295/40 | (Date accessed: December 10, 2021). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E5006_1 | | In Uruguay, voting is compulsory, and all eligible voters | are registered automatically. However, E5006_1 is not equal | to E5006_2 because the latter figure includes persons living | outside of the country. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5006_2 >>> ELECTORAL TURNOUT - TURNOUT AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE VOTING AGE POPULATION (VAP) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Official voter turnout - Percentage of voting age population (VAP). .................................................................. 000.00-100.00 PERCENT OF VOTING AGE POPULATION 999.00 MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5006_2 | | The Voting Age Population (VAP) includes all citizens above the | legal voting age in a country. It is not intended to be a | precise measure of the number of citizens entitled to vote as it | does not take into account legal or systematic impediments such | as resident non-citizens. Rather, its intent is to provide an | estimate of turnout besides estimates based solely on an | electoral register. Voter registers are often outdated or | inaccurate or in some circumstances are not used for elections | (e.g., 1994 South African elections). | | In some polities, voters are registered automatically and hence | it might be expected that the electoral register measure and the | voting age population would be identical. This is not always the | case for the reasons set out above. However, and unless we can | verify the accuracy, CSES reports the voting age population as | listed by the IDEA. However, ELECTION STUDY NOTES below do alert | users to instances where voter registration is automatic and | thus to cases which in theory the ER and VAP estimates could be | identical. | | Turnout data refers to lower house elections unless otherwise | specified. Please refer to ELECTION STUDY NOTES. | | In Presidential elections with two rounds of voting, turnout | data refers to first round of elections. | | Turnout data primarily comes from the International Institute | for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) Voter Turnout | Database: http://www.idea.int/data-tools/data/voter-turnout | (Date accessed: May 17, 2018). | | If source deviates from the above, it is detailed in the | ELECTION STUDY NOTES. | | Data are unavailable for ICELAND (2017). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019): E5006_2 | | E5006_2 refers to turnout in the Belgium, as voting age | population data for Belgium-Flanders region is unavailable. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019): E5006_2 | | E5006_2 refers to turnout in the Belgium, as voting age | population data for Belgium-Wallonia region is unavailable. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - COSTA RICA (2018): E5006_2 | | The entry refers to the Lower House (The Legislative Assembly, | Asamblea Legislativa) election turnout. | In the presidential election, the VAP turnout was 59.92%. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2019): E5006_2 | | E5006_2 refers to turnout in mainland Denmark, as voting age | population data for Greenland and Faroe Islands region are | unavailable. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E5006_2 | | Voter registration in Finland is compulsory, so the figures for | E5006_1 and E5006_2 are identical. Note that IDEA's reported VAP | turnout is lower than the registered voters' turnout. This is | because the estimate of the voting age population does not | include Finnish citizens residing abroad who have voting rights. | Likewise, The Statistics Finland reports "statistics on the | structure of the population [which] describe Finnish and foreign | citizens permanently resident in Finland at the turn of the | year.", i.e., not including Finnish citizens residing abroad | (Official Statistics of Finland (OSF): Population structure | [e-publication]. Helsinki: Statistics Finland.) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2017): E5006_2 | | Turnout data is based on turnout in the Presidential election. | This variable reports first round turnout (the entry is based | on our calculation using the official election results). | Turnout at the second round of the French presidential | election was 67.93%. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2017): E5006_2 | | These data represent the voting age population of the United | Kingdom - England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2017): E5006_2 | | Data unavailable for 2017 at the time of publication. Data | will be available in subsequent release. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E5006_2 | | The data refers to the turnout in the geographical | constituency part of the 2016 LegCo Elections. The Voting Age | Population turnout is calculated using the official population | estimates, available at: http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hkstat/sub | /sp150.jsp?tableID=002&ID=0&productType=8; | (Date accessed: May 08, 2019). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E5006_2 | | This figure is based on the estimate of the voting age | population available at International IDEA site | (https://www.idea.int/data-tools/country-view/203/40). | (Date accessed: May 08, 2019). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E5006_2 | | This figure is based on the estimate of the voting age | population available at International IDEA site | (https://www.idea.int/data-tools/country-view/175/40). | (Date accessed: May 08, 2019). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E5006_2 | | This figure is based on the estimate of the voting age | population available at International IDEA site | (https://www.idea.int/data-tools/country-view/203/40). | (Date accessed: May 08, 2019). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017): E5006_2 | | The estimate for VAP turnout in New Zealand is based on | the total electoral population (including Maori electorates) | of 3,582,270 from Statistics NZ published in June 2017. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2020): E5006_2 | | The estimate for VAP turnout in New Zealand is based on | the total electoral population (including Maori electorates) | of 4,694,214 from the NZ Electoral Commission. | | Source: | New Zealand Election Commission 2020 Results | https://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2020/ | statistics/party-votes-and-turnout-by-electorate.html | (Date accessed: October 19, 2021) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2016): E5006_2 | | The data refers to the turnout in the majoritarian segment. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E5006_2 | | This variable reports turnout based on our calculation using | the IDEA's data about the voting age population of Thailand. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TUNISIA (2019): E5006_2 | | This data refers to the VAP turnout at the parliamentary | elections of October 6, 2019. VAP turnout at the presidential | election, that took part on September 15, 2019 (first round), | was 41.04%. At the second round, VAP turnout was 47.35%. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): E5006_2 | | Turnout data is based on turnout in the Presidential election. | Voting Age Population estimate is taken from the American | Federal Election Commission. | | Source: | American Federal Election Commission: | https://transition.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2016/ | federalelections2016.pdf | (Date accessed: March 23, 2019). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E5006_2 | | Turnout data is based on turnout in the Presidential election. | The Voting Age Population estimate comes from the United States | Elections Project. The Voting Age Population estimate often | includes citizens who are ineligible to vote (for example, | felons). The United States Elections Project also calculates | an estimate of the Voting Age Population excluding ineligible | citizens from the estimate, known as the Voting Eligible | Population (VEP). These data represent the VAP estimate, to | ensure cross-national comparability. | | The Voting Eligible Population (VEP) estimate is based on a | denominator of 239,247,182 and yields a VEP turnout rate of | 66.2%. | | Source: | United States Elections Project | http://www.electproject.org/2020g | (Date accessed: December 10, 2021). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E5006_2 | | In Uruguay, voting is compulsory and all eligible voters are | registered automatically. However, E5006_1 is not equal to | E5006_2 because the surplus of Registered Voters above the | Voting Age Citizens is due to persons living outside the | country. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5007_1 >>> ELECTORAL MANAGEMENT: ELECTORAL ADMINISTRATION MODEL --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports which type of body is responsible for the administration of an election in the polity. .................................................................. 1. INDEPENDENT BODY 2. GOVERNMENT 3. MIXED 6. INFORMATION UNAVAILABLE 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5007_1 | | Source: ACE Electoral Knowledge Network - see: http://aceproject. | org/epic-en/CDTable?view=country&question=EM012 | (Date accessed: October 30, 2018) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5007_2 >>> ELECTORAL MANAGEMENT: COMPULSORY VOTER REGISTRATION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports whether voter registration is compulsory. .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5007_2 | | Source: ACE Electoral Knowledge Network - see: http://aceproject. | org/epic-en/CDTable?view=country&question=EM012 | (Date accessed: October 30, 2018) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): E5007_2 | | "In Austria, there is no need to apply for registration as all | citizens with a permanent residence in the country are kept in | a permanent register, maintained by the municipalities" (Source: | https://www.bmi.gv.at/412_english/ | (Date accessed: February 27, 2019). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5008_1 >>> VOTING OPERATIONS: EARLY/ADVANCE VOTING --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M04c. Can voters cast a ballot before Election Day(s)? (i.e., Is early voting possible)? .................................................................. 1. YES, FOR THE WHOLE ELECTORATE 2. YES, BUT ONLY FOR SOME OF THE ELECTORATE [SEE ELECTION STUDY VARIABLE NOTES FOR SPECIFICATION] 5. NO 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5008_1 | | Source: CSES Macro Report Q4c. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2017): E5008_1 | | Early/advance voting available for citizens with a postal ballot. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E5008_1 | | Diaspora voters, i.e. Hungarians living abroad, without a | residence address in Hungary are allowed to vote before | Election Day. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2016): E5008_1 | | Some citizens are eligible for a postal vote, namely: | serving members of the Irish police and the army, an Irish | diplomat (or their family members) posted abroad, students | studying full-time at an educational institute in Ireland | which is away from their residential address, and if a voter | has a physical illness or disability which prevents them from | attending a polling station. | | Source: | Citizens Information Ireland | https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/ | elections_and_referenda/voting/registering_to_vote.html | (Date accessed: April 18, 2020). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2020): E5008_1 | | Available for soldiers and official representatives of Israeli | state abroad at the time of the poll. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E5008_1 | | The citizens residing abroad can vote via mail. Normally ballots | are shipped a few days before the election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2017): E5008_1 | | People who live abroad can vote by mail. They have to mail | their ballot in advance. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E5008_1 | | The eligible voters who have registered to vote in advance | of the March-24 general election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2018): E5008_1 | | Citizens living abroad can vote in embassies and consulates and | those who travel abroad could vote at the airports. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): E5008_1 | | Early voting in person is allowed without excuse in | 26 states and the District of Columbia. The states that do | not allow this are: AL, CO, CT, DE, KY, MA, MI, ME, MN, MO, MS, | MT, NH, NJ, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, VA, WA, WI, WY although in | some of the aforementioned states within a certain period of | time before election day, provisions exist allowing a voter to | apply in person for an absentee ballot (referred to as absentee | ballot without excuse) where a voter will cast the ballot in | an election office prior to election day. The count above | however only includes states that have the formal early | voting provisions in place. | | Source: | National Conference of State Legislatures: | http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/ | early-voting-in-state-elections.aspx | (Date accessed: March 25, 2019). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5008_2 >>> VOTING OPERATIONS: VOTE BY MAIL/POSTAL --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M04d. Can voters cast a ballot by mail? .................................................................. 1. YES, FOR THE WHOLE ELECTORATE 2. YES, BUT ONLY FOR SOME OF THE ELECTORATE [SEE ELECTION STUDY VARIABLE NOTES FOR SPECIFICATION] 5. NO 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5008_2 | | Source: CSES Macro Report Q4d. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E5008_2 | | Eligible voters living permanently abroad and eligible voters | staying abroad at the time of the elections have the right to | vote by post in general elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E5008_2 | | Diaspora voters, i.e. Hungarians living abroad, without a | residence address in Hungary can cast a ballot by mail. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2016): E5008_2 | | Some citizens are eligible for a postal vote, namely: | serving members of the Irish police and the army, an Irish | diplomat (or their family members) posted abroad, students | studying full-time at an educational institute in Ireland | which is away from their residential address, and if a voter | has a physical illness or disability which prevents them from | attending a polling station. | | Source: | Citizens Information Ireland | https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/ | elections_and_referenda/voting/registering_to_vote.html | (Date accessed: April 18, 2020). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E5008_2 | | Only citizens residing abroad can cast their ballot via mail. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2017): E5008_2 | | Only citizens with disabilities are eligible to vote by mail. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E5008_2 | | Citizens living abroad can cast a ballot by mail. In addition, | early voting and voting for institutionalized persons are | organized as postal voting at post offices set specially for | postal voting. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E5008_2 | | There is a procedure called "voting by mail" which refers to | cases in which a voter that is sick can ask that electoral | commission representatives come to her home during the election | day and bring a "mobile" voting booth. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2017): E5008_2 | | People who live abroad can vote by mail. They have to mail | their ballot in advance. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017 & 2020): E5008_2 | | Available for overseas citizens, disabled, or hospitalized. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2019): E5008_2 | | Portuguese citizens living abroad can vote by mail. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2020): E5008_2 | | Available for overseas citizens. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2018): E5008_2 | | Only available for citizens residing outside of Sweden. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): E5008_2 | | Colorado (CO), Oregon (OR), and Washington (WA) implement | mail only voting in their states and all implemented this | policy for the 2016 Presidential elections. Elsewhere, | Certain elections in certain states may be held entirely by | mail. The circumstances under which all-mail elections are | permitted to vary from state to state. The states which have | provisions for voting by mail in certain circumstances are: | AL, AK, AZ, CA, FL, HA, ID, KS, MD, MN, MO, MT, NB, NV, NJ, | NM, ND, and UT. Not all of these states implemented this | policy for the 2016 election. | | Source: | National Conference of State Legislatures: | http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/ | early-voting-in-state-elections.aspx | (Date accessed: March 25, 2019). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5008_3 >>> VOTING OPERATIONS: VOTE ONLINE/INTERNET --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M04e. Can voters cast a ballot online? .................................................................. 1. YES, FOR THE WHOLE ELECTORATE 2. YES, BUT ONLY FOR SOME OF THE ELECTORATE [SEE ELECTION STUDY VARIABLE NOTES FOR SPECIFICATION] 5. NO 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5008_3 | | Source: CSES Macro Report Q4e. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017 & 2020): E5008_3 | | Available for overseas citizens. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5009 >>> PARTY OF THE PRESIDENT BEFORE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M02a. Party of the president before the election, regardless of whether the election was presidential. .................................................................. 000001-999987. [SEE PART 3 OF CODEBOOK FOR NUMERICAL PARTY CODES] 999989. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 999997. NOT APPLICABLE 999999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5009 | | Parties and their numerical classifications for each election | study are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | | Source: CSES Macro Report M2a. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): E5009 | | The incumbent President, Alexander Van der Bellen, ran nominally | as an independent candidate. However, he is the former leader of | the Green Party and suspended his membership for the time period | of his presidency. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E5009 | | Before the election, the incumbent President was Michel Temer | of MDB - Movimento Democratico Brasileiro (Brazilian Democratic | Movement; Party F). | Dilma Rousseff of Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT, Worker's party; | Party B), who was elected president in previous elections of | 2014, was impeached in 2016. Vice President Michel Temer, of | the MDB, assumed her powers and duties as Acting President of | Brazil during the suspension. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2017): E5009 | | Before the election, the incumbent President was Michelle | Bachelet of the Socialist Party - PSCH (PARTY D). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - COSTA RICA (2018): E5009 | | Before the election, the incumbent President was Luis Guillermo | Solis of the Citizens' Action Party (Partido Accion Ciudadana, | PAC; Party C in CSES data). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E5009 | | The Finnish President is elected directly by popular vote | for a six-year term. The incumbent at the time of 2019 | elections was Sauli Niinisto, elected on January 18, 2018. For | this election, he run as a nominally independent candidate. For | his previous term in 2012, he was elected as a member of the | National Coalition Party (Party C). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E5009 | | The German Federal President is elected indirectly. Before | (and after) the Bundestag election of 2017, the incumbent | president was Frank-Walter Steinmeier, a member of the Social | Democratic Party of Germany (SPD). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): E5009 | | The President is elected indirectly by the Parliament for a term | of five years. | Before the elections, the incumbent Greek president was | Prokopis Pavlopoulos of New Democracy (PARTY B). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E5009 | | The Chief Executive (CE) in Hong Kong can be seen as an | equivalent of president elsewhere. It is the highest government | official of the HKSAR Government. However, the CE is not allowed | to be a member of any political party, according to the Chief | Executive Election Ordinance (Chapter 569, Laws of Hong Kong). | The Chief Executive is not elected by a popular vote, but by a | 1200-member Election Committee, an electoral college consisting | of individuals (i.e. private citizens) and bodies (i.e. special | interest groups) selected or elected within 28 Functional | Constituencies. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E5009 | | The President is elected indirectly by the National | Assembly (Orszaggyules), for a term of five years. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2016 & 2017): E5009 | | This question is not applicable, because the Icelandic | president is not affiliated with a political party. | The Icelandic President is elected directly by popular vote | for a four-year term. The current incumbent is Guoni | Johannesson, who was elected on 25 June 2016, after receiving a | 39.1% of the vote. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2016): E5009 | | The Irish President is elected directly by popular vote for a | seven-year term. The last presidential election was held on | in October 2011 when Michael D. Higgins of the Labor Party was | elected President until 2018. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E5009 | | The incumbent President, Sergio Mattarella, is an independent | politician (since 2008). On 31 January 2015, he was elected by | the Italian Parliament to serve as President of the Italian | Republic, After Giorgio Napolitano, who was re-elected for the | second 7-years term in 2013, resigned. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E5009 | | On May 11, 2014, Dalia Grybauskaite, an independent candidate, | was re-elected as the president of the Republic of Lithuania. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2019): E5009 | | Before the election, the incumbent President was Marcelo Rebelo | de Sousa, elected on January 24, 2016, as the candidate of | Partido Social Democrata (PSD) (Party B in this CSES module). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2020): E5009 | | The Slovak President is elected directly by popular vote for a | five-year term. Zuzana Caputova, of Progressive Slovakia-Together | (PS-SPOLU, PARTY E), was elected in 2019. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TUNISIA (2019): E5009 | | At the 2014 elections, President Beji Caid Essebsi was elected | President of Tunisia (founder and member of Nidaa | Tounes/Tunisia's Call). His death on 25 July 2019 triggered the | early presidential elections of 2019. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E5009 | | Before the election, the incumbent President was Tabare Vazquez | of the Broad Front (Frente Amplio) (PARTY A). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5010 >>> PARTY OF THE PRIME MINISTER BEFORE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M02b. Party of the Prime Minister before the election, regardless of whether the election was parliamentary. .................................................................. 000001-999987. [SEE PART 3 OF CODEBOOK FOR NUMERICAL PARTY CODES] 999989. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 999997. NOT APPLICABLE 999999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5010 | | Parties and their numerical classifications for each election | study are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | | Source: CSES Macro Report M2b. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019): E5010 | | The Prime Minister of Belgium before the 2019 elections was | Charles Michel of the Reformist Movement (MR). This party | does not contest elections in Flanders, instead contesting | elections in the Wallonia and the Brussels regions. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E5010 | | Before the current election, the Prime Minister was Juha | Sipila, of the Centre Party (Party D). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E5010 | | There is no such post in Hong Kong. See Election Study Notes for | Hong Kong (2016) for variable E5009. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2020): E5010 | | A new government failed to be formed after the March and | September 2019 elections, respectively. Post-the September 2019 | poll, incumbent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Likud, | National Liberal Party, PARTY A) and Benny Gantz (Kahol Lavan, | Blue and White, PARTY B) failed in their attempts to put | together majority coalition governments. On December 11, 2019 | the Israeli Parliament (the Knessett) voted to dissolve itself, | with new elections scheduled for March 2020. During this period, | Benjamin Netanyahu remained caretaker Prime Minister, and the | data characterizes him as the incumbent Prime Minister. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2016): E5010 | | Note from the Collaborator: "The Prime Minister of Korea is not | affiliated to any party by law. (Note: He/she is usually not a | political figure. The Prime Minister is appointed by the | President. In a broad sense, you could say that the Prime | Minister tend to be politically close to the ruling party | because he/she was chosen by the President. In other words, | the Prime Minister of Korea probably has the similar political | views with the President)." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2019): E5010 | | There is no formal PM in Switzerland. Instead, executive power | is exercised by a collective organism called the Federal Council | of Switzerland. This organism has seven members and is elected | by the Federal Assembly (which is composed of two organs, the | Council of States and National Council) for a four-year term. | Since 1959 the Federal Council has been composed of a coalition | of all major parties (SVP/UDC, SP/PS, FDP/PRD, and CVP/PDC), an | arrangement called the "magic formula". The Federal Assembly | elects each year among the members of the Federal Council a | president, but this position is presumably largely ceremonial. | Consequently, this variable is coded "999997. Not applicable". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TUNISIA (2019): E5010 | | Youssef Chahed served as the 14th Prime Minister of Tunisia from | 27 August 2016 to 27 February 2020. He used to be a member of | Nidaa Tounes/Tunisia's Call, while in June 2019 he formed a new | political party, under the name of Tahya Tounes/Long live | Tunisia, and became its president. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E5010 | | Uruguay is a presidential republic. The President of the | Republic is simultaneously the President of Council of Minister | (and member of that). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5011_A >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY A E5011_B >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY B E5011_C >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY C E5011_D >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY D E5011_E >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY E E5011_F >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY F E5011_G >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY G E5011_H >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY H E5011_I >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS BEFORE ELECTION - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M02c. Number of cabinet posts (portfolios) held by PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I] before the election. .................................................................. 00.00-99.00 NUMBER OF CABINET POSTS BEFORE ELECTION. 999.00 MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5011_ | | Parties and their alphabetical classifications for each election | study are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | | Ministers are considered those members of government who are | members of the Cabinet and who have Cabinet voting rights. | | Source: CSES Macro Report M2c. | | Data are unavailable for UNITED STATES (2016 & 2020). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): E5011 | | Two additional posts were held by independents, although | nominated by the OVP (PARTY A). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E5011 | | One additional post was held by Partido Verde (PV), and | another one by Podemos (PODE). Additionally, 16 posts | were held by independents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2017): E5011 | | Five additional posts were held by independents, and one | additional post was held by the Citizens Left (Izquierda | Ciudadana). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2017): E5011 | | Two additional posts were held by Parti radical de gauche | (Radical left), and one by Parti Ecologiste (Ecologists). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E5011 | | In Hong Kong, the Executive Council (ExCo), which is established | to assist the Chief Executive (CE; equivalent of Prime Minister, | or President) in policy making, is equivalent of the cabinet | elsewhere. However, the majority views of the ExCo, if any, are | not binding and it remains the CE's prerogative to accept | recommendations or not. Thus, it can be argued the ExCo members | do not have voting rights per se. | ExCo consisted of the CE and 30 members (16 official members and | 14 non-official members) prior to 2016 LegCo Election (as of 31 | December 2015). Only five of the ExCo members have party | affiliation, reported in this variable. | Source: Compiled from Hong Kong Year Book 2015, Appendix 1. | https://www.yearbook.gov.hk/2015/en/pdf/Appendices.pdf | (Date accessed: August 21, 2017). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2020): E5011_H | | The cabinet positions occupied by Habavit Hayehudi (The Jewish | Home) and the New Right, are included in the Yamina total as | these parties contested the 2020 elections in the Yamina | (PARTY H) alliance. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E5011 | | Additional posts were held by: New Center Right (2 posts), and | Christian Democratic Union (1 post). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E5011_C | | This data refers to DEMOS (acronym of Democratic | Alliance; Demokratski savez), a leading party in the | coalition Kljuc (Key Coalition), coded here as Party C. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2019): E5011 | | Independents held four additional posts. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2016): E5011_A | | Note from the Collaborator: "Most of the Ministers are not | affiliated to political parties, but they can be considered as | the members of the Saenuri Party because they were chosen by | the President belonging to the Saenuri party, which means the | Ministers probably have the same political view with the | President." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E5011 | | Additional portfolios were held by Phalang Chon Party (one | cabinet post) and Chart Pattana Party (one cabinet post). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TUNISIA (2019): E5011 | | The remaining 24 posts were held by independents (9 positions), | and members of various other parties and organizations that do | not have an alphabetic code in the CSES categorization. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E5011_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). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5012 >>> SIZE OF THE CABINET BEFORE ELECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M02d. The size of the cabinet before the election. .................................................................. 00.00-99.00 SIZE OF THE CABINET 999.00 MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5012 | | Source: CSES Macro Report M2d. | | Definitions: | a) Parliamentary and Semi-Presidential Regimes: | Cabinet size is defined by the total number of ministers | (persons, not posts) in a defined government. Ministers are | considered members of a cabinet when they exercise voting | rights. This number includes both ministers with and without | portfolio, but excludes deputy ministers, undersecretaries, | parliamentary secretaries, ministerial alternates, given that | in the majority of cases, they do not exercise full voting | rights. | b) Presidential Regimes: | Cabinet size is defined by the total number of ministers or | secretaries who head a ministry. | | Data are unavailable for UNITED STATES (2016 & 2020). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019): E5012 | | The Reformist Movement (MR), who only contests elections in | Wallonia (PARTY B, Belgium-Wallonia) occupied the remaining seven | cabinet positions, including the Prime Minister, bringing the | total number to 13. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019): E5012 | | The remaining cabinet ministries were occupied by the | Christen-Democratisch en Vlaams (CD&V, 5) and Open Vlaamse | Liberalen den Democratsen (Open-VLD, 3), both of whom primarily | contest elections in Flanders only (CD&V, PARTY C; Open-VLD, | PARTY D), bringing the total number to 13. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - COSTA RICA (2018): E5012 | | Independents occupied the remaining four cabinet positions, | bringing the total number to 22. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2019): E5012 | | The remaining six cabinet posts were held by the Liberal | Alliance. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E5012 | | The Executive Council (ExCo) had 30 members (16 official members | and 14 non-official members). However, both the official and | non-official members do not have voting rights in the ExCo (see | ES note for E5011). | In addition to the four ExCo members with party affiliations, | listed in E5011, one additional member was affiliated with BPA - | Business and Professionals Alliance for HK (party coded 344011). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E5012 | | The size of the cabinet is 14: 13 ministers and the Prime | Minister. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E5012 | | The size of the cabinet was 21 seats in total with four cabinet | positions occupied by Independents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2020): E5012 | | The remaining cabinet ministries were occupied by the Slovak | National Party (SNS, one position), Bridge (Most-Hid, three | positions), and two Independents (albeit one nominated by | Direction - Slovak Social Democracy (Smer-SD); and the other by | the SNS), but who were not members of the respective parties, | bringing the total number to 15. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5013 >>> PARTY OF THE PRESIDENT AFTER ELECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M03a. Party of the president AFTER the election, regardless of whether the election was presidential. .................................................................. 000001-999987. [SEE PART 3 OF CODEBOOK FOR NUEMRICAL PARTY /COALITION CODES] 999989. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 999997. NOT APPLICABLE 999999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5013 | | Parties and their numerical classifications for each election | study are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | | Source: CSES Macro Report M3a. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E5013 | | After the election, the new President became Jair Bolsonaro of | Partido Social Liberal - PSL (Liberal Social Party; Party A). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2017): E5013 | | After the election, the new President became Sebastian Pinera. | Pinera run as a nominally independent candidate, however he was | supported by the center-right coalition Chile Vamos, and he is a | member of the National Renewal party (RN; Party A). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - COSTA RICA (2018): E5013 | | After the election, the new President became Carlos Alvarado | Quesada of the Citizens' Action Party (Partido Accion Ciudadana, | PAC; Party C in CSES data). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E5013 | | The Finnish President is elected directly by popular vote | for a six-year term. The incumbent before and after the | parliamentary elections of 2019 was Sauli Niinisto, elected in | 2012 and re-elected in 2018. In 2018, he was nominated as a | nominally Independent candidate, although he is affiliated with | the National Coalition Party (Party C), | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E5013 | | The German Federal President is elected indirectly. After | (and before) the Bundestag election of 2017, the incumbent | president was Frank-Walter Steinmeier, a member of the Social | Democratic Party of Germany (SPD). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E5013 | | The Chief Executive (CE) in Hong Kong can be seen as an | equivalent of president elsewhere. It is the highest government | official of the HKSAR Government. However, CE cannot belong to | any political party, according to the Chief Executive Election | Ordinance (Chapter 569, Laws of Hong Kong). | The Chief Executive is not elected by a popular vote, but by a | 1200-member Election Committee, an electoral college consisting | of individuals (i.e. private citizens) and bodies (i.e. special | interest groups) selected or elected within 28 Functional | Constituencies. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E5013 | | The President is elected indirectly by the National | Assembly (Orszaggyules), for a term of five years. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2016): E5013 | | This question is not applicable, because the Icelandic | president is not affiliated with a political party. | The president before and after the 2016 parliamentary | election was the same. For more details see ES note for E5009. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2017): E5013 | | This question is not applicable, because the Icelandic | president is not affiliated with a political party. | The president before and after the 2017 parliamentary | election was the same. For more details see ES note for E5009. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E5013 | | Since the current election was not presidential, after the | elections the president remained the same: Sergio Mattarella, | an independent politician. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E5013 | | After the election, the president remained the same - Dalia | Grybauskaite, elected as an independent candidate on May 11, | 2014. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2020): E5013 | | See ELECTION STUDY NOTE - SLOVAKIA E5009. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TUNISIA (2019): E5013 | | After the election, the new President became Kais Saied, an | independent candidate. In the second round, Saied was supported | by Ennahda Movement (Party A) and some other parties. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E5013 | | After the election, the new President became Luis Lacalle Pou of | the National Party - White Party (Partido Nacional) (PARTY B). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5014 >>> PARTY OF THE PRIME MINISTER AFTER ELECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M03b. Party of the Prime Minister AFTER the election, regardless of whether the election was parliamentary. .................................................................. 000001-999987. [SEE PART 3 OF CODEBOOK FOR NUMERICAL PARTY CODES] 999989. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 999997. NOT APPLICABLE 999999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5014 | | Parties and their numerical classifications for each election | study are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | | Source: CSES Macro Report M3b. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019): E5014 | | The Prime Minister of Belgium after the 2019 elections was | Sophie Wilmes of the Reformist Movement (MR), who led a | caretaker government in the aftermath of the 2019 elections | after Charles Michel, the previous caretaker incumbent, resigned | to become President of the European Council. The Wilmes caretaker | administration lasted until October 2020 when Alexander De Croo | from the Open-VLD (PARTY D, Flanders) became Prime Minister | leading a Vivaldi coalition comprising the Open-VLD (PARTY D), | CD&V (PARTY C), and Groen (PARTY F) from Flanders, and the PS, | MRm and Ecolo parties from Wallonia. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019): E5014 | | The Prime Minister of Belgium after the 2019 elections was | Sophie Wilmes of the Reformist Movement (MR, PARTY B), who led a | caretaker government in the aftermath of the 2019 elections | after Charles Michel, the previous caretaker incumbent, resigned | to become President of the European Council. The Wilmes caretaker | administration lasted until October 2020 when Alexander De Croo | from the Open-VLD (PARTY D, Flanders) became Prime Minister | leading a Vivaldi coalition comprising the Open-VLD (PARTY D), | CD&V (PARTY C), and Groen (PARTY F) from Flanders, and the | Socialist Party (PS, PARTY A), Reformist Movement (MR, PARTY B), | and Ecolo (PARTY C) from Wallonia. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E5014 | | After the current election, the Prime Minister became Antti | Rinne, of the Social Democratic Party (Party A). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2017): E5014 | | The new Prime minister came from the Les Republicains (PARTY | C). However, Edouard Philippe (Prime Minister after the | election) was expelled from his party some months after he | accepted the position, and joined La Republique En Marche | (PARTY A). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E5014 | | There is no such post (the Prime Minister) in Hong Kong. See | also Election Study Note for E5013. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2020): E5014 | | Shortly after the 2020 election, the COVID-19 pandemic ramped up | globally, including Israel. Supposedly, this contributed to one | of the leaders of the Kahol Lavan (Blue and White, PARTY B) | alliance, Benny Gantz, reversing his position in the campaign | not to coalesce with Likud (National Liberal Party, PARTY A) | outgoing Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. In April 2020, | the Gantz faction of Kahol Lavan, formed a national unity | government with Likud and other parties, with a rotating | prime ministership arrangement, akin to a similar arrangement | in Israel in the 1980s between Yitzak Shamir (Likud) and Shimon | Peres (Labor). Incumbent premier Netanyahu (Likud, National | Liberal Party, PARTY A) would continue to serve as Prime Minister | for 18-months, with Gantz serving as Defense Minister. Later | Gantz was scheduled to replace Netanyahu as Prime Minister, with | himself also serving for 18-months. The national unity government | was sworn into office on May 17, 2020. However, the government | was short-lived and collapsed in December 2020 over failure to | agree on a new budget, with further elections taking place in | March 2021. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E5014 | | The current PM is an independent, supported by a government made | of the Five Star Movement (PARTY A) and the League (PARTY C). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2016): E5014 | | Note from the Collaborator: "The Prime Minister of Korea is not | affiliated to any party by law. (Note: He/she is usually not a | political figure. The Prime Minister is appointed by the | President. In a broad sense, you could say that the Prime | Minister tend to be politically close to the ruling party | because he/she was chosen by the President. In other words, | the Prime Minister of Korea probably has the similar political | views with the President)." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2019): E5014 | | There is no formal PM in Switzerland. Instead, executive power | is exercised by a collective organism called the Federal Council | of Switzerland. This organism has seven members and is elected | by the Federal Assembly (which is composed of two organs, the | Council of States and National Council) for a four-year term. | Since 1959 the Federal Council has been composed of a coalition | of all major parties (SVP/UDC, SP/PS, FDP/PRD, and CVP/PDC), an | arrangement called the "magic formula". The Federal Assembly | elects each year among the members of the Federal Council a | president, but this position is presumably largely ceremonial. | Consequently, this variable is coded "999997. Not applicable". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TUNISIA (2019): E5014 | | After the current election, the Prime Minister became | Elyes Fhakfakh of the Ettakatol Party (Democratic Forum for | Labour and Liberties). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2018): E5014 | | The constitutional amendments approved in the 2017 Turkish | constitutional referendum turned the presidency into executive | post, effective with the 2018 general election. Hence, the | office of prime minister was abolished. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E5014 | | Uruguay is a presidential republic. The President of the | Republic is simultaneously the President of Council of | Minister (and member of that). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5015_A >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER ELECTION - PARTY A E5015_B >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER ELECTION - PARTY B E5015_C >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER ELECTION - PARTY C E5015_D >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER ELECTION - PARTY D E5015_E >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER ELECTION - PARTY E E5015_F >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER ELECTION - PARTY F E5015_G >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER ELECTION - PARTY G E5015_H >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER ELECTION - PARTY H E5015_I >>> NUMBER OF PORTFOLIOS AFTER ELECTION - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M03c. Number of cabinet posts (portfolios) held by PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I] after the election. .................................................................. 00.00-99.00 NUMBER OF CABINET POSTS BEFORE ELECTION 999.00 MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5015_ | | Parties and their alphabetical classifications for each election | study are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | | Ministers are considered those members of government who are | members of the Cabinet and who have Cabinet voting rights. | | Source: CSES Macro Report M3c. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): E5015 | | Three additional posts were held by independents: two nominated | by the OVP (Party A), and one nominated by the FPO (party C). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E5015 | | Three additional posts were held by Democratas (DEM), and | one by Partido Novo (NOVO). Additionally, eight posts | were held by independents, and six by members of the military. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2017): E5015 | | Ten additional posts were held by independents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2017): E5015 | | In addition to the 6 listed posts, several other parties | obtained ministerial positions: Democratic Movement (MoDem) | - 3 posts; Ecologistes! - 1 post; Parti radical de gauche - 2 | posts; Diverse left-wing - 2 posts, Diverse right-wing - 1 | post, and 4 members without a party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): E5015 | | Four additional posts were held by independent cabinet members. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E5015 | | In Hong Kong, the Executive Council (ExCo), which is established | to assist the Chief Executive (CE; equivalent of Prime Minister, | or President) in policy making, is some equivalent of the cabinet | elsewhere. However, the majority views of the ExCo, if any, are | not binding and it is up to the CE to decide whether to accept | them or not. In this sense, the ExCo members do not have voting | rights. | The ExCo consisted of the CE and 31 members (16 official members | and 15 non-official members) after the 2016 LegCo Election (as | of 31 December 2016). Only five of the ExCo members had a party | affiliation which are reported here. | Source: Compiled from Hong Kong Year Book 2016, Appendix 1. | Available at: https://www.yearbook.gov.hk/2016/en/pdf/ | Appendices.pdf (Date accessed: August 21, 2017). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E5015 | | Six additional posts were held by independents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2019): E5015 | | Five additional posts were held by independents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2016): E5015_A | | Note from the Collaborator: "Most of the Ministers are not | affiliated to political parties, but they can be considered as | the members of the Saenuri Party because they were chosen by | the President belonging to the Saenuri party, which means the | Ministers probably have the same political view with the | President." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E5015 | | Additional portfolios were held by Action Coalition for | Thailand Party (one cabinet post) and Chart Pattana Party | (one cabinet post). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TUNISIA (2019): E5015 | | All the appointed cabinet members were independent, except for | the Prime Minister Elyes Fhakfakh of the Ettakatol Party | (Democratic Forum for Labour and Liberties). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E5015_B | | This number includes the President of the Republic as well. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5016 >>> SIZE OF THE CABINET AFTER ELECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M03d. The size of the cabinet after the election. .................................................................. 00.00-99.00 SIZE OF THE CABINET 999.00 MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5016 | | Source: CSES Macro Report M3d. | | Data are unavailable for NEW ZEALAND (2017), UNITED STATES | (2016), and UNITED STATES (2020). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019): E5016 | | The Reformist Movement (MR), who only contest elections in | Wallonia (PARTY B, Belgium-Wallonia) occupied the remaining five | cabinet positions, including the Prime Minister, bringing the | total number to 13. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019): E5016 | | The remaining cabinet ministries were occupied by the | Christen-Democratisch en Vlaams (CD&V, 3) and Open Vlaamse | Liberalen den Democratsen (Open-VLD, 3), both of whom primarily | contest elections in Flanders only (CD&V, PARTY C; Open-VLD, | PARTY D), bringing the total number to 13. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - COSTA RICA (2018): E5016 | | Two additional posts were held by independent cabinet members, | and one post was held by a member of a regionalist party Partido | Curridabat Siglo XXI (21st Century Curridabat). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): E5016 | | Four additional posts were held by independent cabinet members. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E5016 | | The Executive Council (ExCo) had 31 members (16 official members | and 15 non-official members). However, both the official and | non-official members do not have voting rights in the ExCo (see | ES note for E5015). | In addition to the three ExCo members with party affiliations, | listed in E5011 two additional members were affiliated with | political parties. One with BPA - Business and Professionals | Alliance for HK (party coded 344011), and another one with | Liberal Party (party coded 344015). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E5016 | | The size of the cabinet is 14, consisting of 13 ministers and | the Prime Minister. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2016): E5016 | | Independents occupied the remaining three cabinet positions, | bringing the total number to 15. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2020): E5016 | | One post was occupied by the Derekh Eretz (The Way of the Land) | party, bringing the total number of cabinet ministers to 34. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E5016 | | The size of the cabinet was 21 seats in total with seven | cabinet positions occupied by Independents, and one position | occupied by a member of Democratic Union of Albanians. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2020): E5016 | | The remaining cabinet ministries were occupied by two | Independents, bringing the total number to 16. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5017_A >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY A E5017_B >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY B E5017_C >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY C E5017_D >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY D E5017_E >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY E E5017_F >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY F E5017_G >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY G E5017_H >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY H E5017_I >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M05a.a-i. Ideological Family Party is closest to (in the expert judgment of the CSES Collaborator): .................................................................. 01. ECOLOGY PARTIES 02. COMMUNIST PARTIES 03. SOCIALIST PARTIES 04. SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTIES 05. LEFT LIBERAL PARTIES 06. LIBERAL PARTIES 07. RIGHT LIBERAL PARTIES 08. CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC PARTIES 09. CONSERVATIVE PARTIES 10. NATIONAL PARTIES 11. AGRARIAN PARTIES 12. ETHNIC PARTIES 13. REGIONAL PARTIES 14. INDEPENDENT PARTIES 15. OTHER 97. NOT APPLICABLE 98. NO IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY MENTIONED 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5017_ | | Parties and their alphabetical classifications for each election | study are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | | This variable represents the expert judgment of the national | collaborators as to which ideological family each party belongs | to. Often collaborators provide two characterizations for a | party. These multiple characterizations are detailed in | the ELECTION STUDY NOTES below with details of what | characterization is coded in the dataset. | Collaborators at times provide additional information to help | refine the characterization and when applicable these are | detailed in the ELECTION STUDY NOTES below. | | Source: CSES Macro Report M5a.a-i. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): E5017_E | | PARTY E (Liste Pilz) is a personalized list of a former Green | politician. As the Party did not publish a manifesto, the | classification is challenging. Some of the Austrian | collaborators suggest classifying it as a populist left party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019): E5017_G | | PARTY G (People's Party (PP)) was characterized as Right-Wing | Populist party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2017): E5017_D | | PARTY D (Socialist Party of Chile) was characterized as both a | "Socalist" and a "Social Democratic" party. Only the first | characterization is coded in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2019): E5017_D | | PARTY D (The Bloc Quebecois, BQ) was characterized as both a | "National" and a "Regional" party. Only the first | characterization is coded in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - COSTA RICA (2018): E5017_B | | PARTY B (PRN, Partido Restauracion Nacional) was characterized | as Evangelical party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E5017_B | | Party B (The Finns Party) is also described as | "15 Others: Right-wing populist party" by the collaborator. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E5017_I | | Party I (Blue Reform) is also described as | "15 Others: Right-wing populist party" by the collaborator. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2017): E5017_D | | PARTY D (La France Insoumise) was characterized as both a | "Other" and a "Radical Left" party. Only the first | characterization is coded in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): E5017_C | | PARTY C (Popular Association-Golden Dawn) was characterized | as both a "Other" and a "Extreme Right" party. Only the first | characterization is coded in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): E5017_G | | PARTY G (ANEL Independent Greeks-National Patriotic Alliance) | was characterized as both "Other" and a "Right-Wing Populist" | party. Only the first characterization is coded in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E5017_I | | The data refers to Youngspiration party, a leading member of | ALLinHK coalition. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E5017_A | | This classification refers to Fidesz - the dominant member of | the coalition coded here as PARTY A. The junior partner in the | coalition, the Christian Democrats (KDNP) is classified as a | "Christian Democratic" Party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E5017_C | | E5017_C refers to the MSZP (Hungarian Socialist Party) - the | dominant member of the coalition represented here as PARTY C. | The junior partner in the coalition, Parbeszed, is described as | belonging to the party family of "(1) Ecology Parties". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2016): E5017_D | | PARTY D (Progressive Party) was characterized as both "Agrarian" | and "Liberal Centre" party. Only the first characterization is | coded in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2017): E5017_E | | PARTY E (Progressive Party) was characterized as both "Agrarian" | and "Liberal Centre" party. Only the first characterization is | coded in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2020): E5017_A | | PARTY A (Likud, National Liberal Party) was characterized as both | "National" and "Conservative" party. Only the first | characterization is coded in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2020): E5017_B | | PARTY B (Kahol Lavan, Blue & White) was characterized as both | "Liberal" and "Centrist" party. Only the first characterization | is coded in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2020): E5017_D | | PARTY D (Shas, Sephardi Keepers of the Torah) was characterized | as both "Ethnic" and "Religious" party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2020): E5017_E | | PARTY E (Yahadut Hatorah, United Torah Judaism) was characterized | as both "Ethnic" and "Religious" party. Only the first | characterization is coded in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2020): E5017_H | | PARTY H (Yamina, New Right) was characterized as both "National" | and "Religious" party. Only the first characterization is coded | in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2017): E5017_A | | PARTY A (Five Star Movement) was characterized as both "Other | (Anti-political establishment)" party and "Ecology" party. Only | the first characterization is coded in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2017): E5017_B | | PARTY B (Democratic Party) was characterized as both "Social | Democratic" and "Left Liberal" party. Only the first | characterization is coded in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2017): E5017_C | | PARTY C (Lega) was characterized as both "National" and | "Conservative". Only the first characterization is coded in the | dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2017): E5017_E | | PARTY E (Brothers of Italy) was characterized as both "National" | and "Conservative". Only the first characterization is coded in | the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2017): E5017_F | | PARTY F (Free and Equal) was characterized as both "Socialist" | and "Left Liberal" party. Only the first characterization is | coded in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2017): E5017_D | | PARTY D (Komeito) was characterized as Religious Parties | (Buddhist). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E5017_A | | PARTY A (Homeland Union Lithuanian Christian Democrats) was | characterized as both "Conservative" and "Christian Democrat" | party. Only the first characterization is coded in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E5017_E | | PARTY E (Anti-Corruption Coalition of Puteikis and Krivickas) | was characterized as both "Other" and "Right Wing Populist" | party. Only the first characterization is coded in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E5017_G | | PARTY G (Order and Justice) was characterized as both "National" | and "Right Liberal" party. Only the first characterization is | coded in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E5017_H | | PARTY H (Labor Party) was characterized as both "Other" | and "Centrist" party. Only the first characterization is | coded in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E5017_A | | PARTY A (Democratic Party of Socialists; DPS) is also | described as "Ideologically diffuse - nominally socialist | party, in fact mix of right (in economic terms) and | national party. Technocrat, non-ideological party." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E5017_B | | PARTY B is also described as belonging to the family | of "National Parties". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E5017_C | | E5017_C refers to DEMOS (Democratic Alliance), a leading party | in the coalition Kljuc (Key Coalition), coded here as PARTY C. | DEMOS is also described as belonging to the family of | "Conservative Parties". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E5017_D | | PARTY D is also described as belonging to the family | of "Conservative Parties". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E5017_F | | PARTY F is more completely described as "Nominally social | democratic - no ideology." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E5017_H | | PARTY H (Albanians Decisively) is a coalition of three | parties: New Democratic Power FORCA, Albanian Alternative | (AA), and Democratic Union of Albanians (DUA). All three are | ethnic parties, so the entire coalition is coded as | "Ethnic" parties. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2017): E5017_B | | PARTY B (Party for Freedom, PVV) is characterized as "Far | right - anti-immigration" party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2017): E5017_H | | PARTY H (Christian Union, CU) is characterized as | "Fundamentalist Christian" party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2017): E5017_I | | PARTY I (Red Party) was characterized as both "Other" and | and "Radical Socialist" party. Only the first characterization | is coded in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017): E5017_H | | PARTY G (MANA) is characterized as an "Ethnic" and a | "Socialist". party. Only the first characterization | is coded in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2020): E5017_B | | PARTY B (National) is characterized as a Conservative and a | Liberal party. Only the first characterization is coded | in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2020): E5017_E | | PARTY E (New Zealand First) is characterized as a National and a | Populist party. Only the first characterization is coded | in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2020): E5017_G | | PARTY G (New Conservatives) is characterized as a Conservative | party but collaborator also notes it is a radical Christian | party. Only the first characterization is coded in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2019): E5017_D | | This entry refers to the Unitary Democratic Coalition, CDU. CDU | is an electoral alliance of the Portuguese Communist Party (PCP) | and the Ecologist Party - The Greens (PEV). | Individually, the CSES collaborator characterized PCP as | belonging to the "Communist Parties" family, while PEV was | described as "Green Parties". Since PCP is the principal member | of the coalition, we coded the coalition as belonging to the | family of "Communist Parties". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2019): E5017_G | | PARTY G (Chega!, English: "Enough") was characterized as | belonging to the category of "Extreme Right parties". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2020): E5017_A | | PARTY A (Ordinary People and Independent Personalities, OL'aNO) | was characterized as both a "Conservative" and an anti- | establishment party. Only the first characterization is coded in | the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2020): E5017_D | | PARTY D (Kotleba - People's Party/Our Slovakia, LsNS) is | characterized as an extreme right party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2020): E5017_G | | PARTY G (For the People, Za ludi) is characterized as a centre- | right party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2018): E5017_D | | PARTY D (Centre Party, C) was characterized as both "agrarian" | with a liberal standpoint. Only the first characterization is | coded in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2019): E5017_F | | PARTY F (GLP/PVL - Green Liberal Party) was categorized as both | 01. ECOLOGY PARTIES, and 06. LIBERAL PARTIES. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TUNISIA (2019): E5017_A | | PARTY A (Ennahda party) was characterized as Islamist | conservative party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TUNISIA (2019): E5017_B | | PARTY B (Heart of Tunisia/Kalb Tounes) was characterized as | Center-left party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TUNISIA (2019): E5017_C | | PARTY C (Free Constitutional Party or Free Destourian Party) was | characterized as Secular nationalist party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TUNISIA (2019): E5017_E | | PARTY E (Dignity Coalition) was characterized as Islamist | conservative party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TUNISIA (2019): E5017_F | | PARTY F (People's movement) was characterized as Secular | nationalist party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E5017_A | | PARTY A (Broad Front/Frente Amplio) was characterized as | "Social Democratic - Socialist - Communist - Revolutionary - | Left Libertarian" party. Only the first characterization | is coded in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E5017_B | | PARTY B (National Party - White Party/Partido Nacional) was | characterized as a "Right Liberal-Christian Democratic" party. | The first characterization is coded in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E5017_D | | PARTY D (Open Cabildo / Cabildo Abierto/People's Meeting) was | characterized as "Nationalist - Rightist - Popularist" party. | Only the first characterization is coded in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E5017_F | | PARTY F (People's Party/Partido de la Gente) was characterized | as a "Populist" party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E5017_G | | PARTY G (Partido Independiente/Independent Party) was | characterized as "Social Democratic - Christian Democratic" | party. Only the first characterization is coded in the dataset. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E5017_H | | PARTY H (Popular Unity/Unidad Popular) was characterized as a | "Revolutionary" party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E5017_I | | PARTY I (Green Animalist Party/Partido Verde Animalista) was | characterized as "Ecology and Animalistic Party" party. Only | the first characterization is coded in the dataset. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5018_A >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY A E5018_B >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY B E5018_C >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY C E5018_D >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY D E5018_E >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY E E5018_F >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY F E5018_G >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY G E5018_H >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY H E5018_I >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M06a1.a-i. Parties' positions on the left-right scale (in the expert judgment of the CSES Collaborator): .................................................................. 00. LEFT 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. RIGHT 97. NOT APPLICABLE 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5018_ | | Parties and their alphabetical classifications for each election | study are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | | This variable represents the expert judgment of the national | collaborators as to where parties are located on the left-right | ideological scale. Sometimes parties' ideological differences in | certain polities on the left-right scale are difficult to | detect, perhaps because party competition is not structured on | the left-right dimension. These instances are detailed in | ELECTION STUDY NOTES below. Moreover, E5019 details an | alternative expert judgment scale based on national | collaborators ratings of parties on a scale of their choice | which is related to relevant national political circumstances. | | Source: CSES Macro Report Q6a1.a-i. | | Data are unavailable for TAIWAN (2016 & 2020). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): E5018 | | The left-right party placements were done by 43 country experts. | "The values [...] reflect the median value of the responses | given by 43 (after cleaning) experts when they were asked to | position the Greek parties on the general Left/Right dimension. | The details of the expert survey are available at Andreadis, I. | (2018). Measuring Authoritarian Populism with Expert Surveys | Extending CHES estimates on populism and authoritarianism | (Electoral Integrity Project (EIP) Seminar Series | No. 29-5-2018). Sydney." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E5018_G & E5018_I | | According to the Macro report, the three political groups that | comprise the coalition coded as PARTY G occupy different | positions on the Left-Right scale: "(1) Civic Passion does not | have a clear position in this dimension, so cannot be rated; | (2) Proletariat Political Institute's position is rated to be 2; | and (3) Hong Kong Resurgence Order's position is rated to be 5." | E5018_I refers to the Youngspiration party, a leading member of | ALLinHK coalition. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E5018 | | According to the Macro report: "Left-right scale is largely | understood in cultural terms; economic understanding of left- | right scale is rare and there's also substantially less | variation along that lines. Left-right labels clearly refer | to positions on the libertarian - traditional/authoritarian | scale, i.e. ideological/cultural understanding is clearly | dominant over the economic one when it comes to left-right." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E5018_A | | This entry refers to Fidesz - the dominant member of the | coalition represented here as PARTY A. However, the junior | partner in the coalition, KDNP, is given the same left-right | rating: 9. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E5018_C | | E5018_C refers to the MSZP (Hungarian Socialist Party) - the | dominant member of the coalition represented here as PARTY C. | However, the junior partner in the coalition, Parbeszed, is | given the same left-right rating: 2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E5018_G | | PARTY G (Hungarian Two-tailed Dog Party; MKKP) was described in | the Macro Report as a 'Joke party', and therefore was not | evaluated on the left-right scale. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E5018 | | From the Macro Report: | - The 5 Star Movement ostensibly classifies itself as "neither | left, nor right", while in fact its platform contains policies | that are both left and right, hence its positioning in the | center. | - The League used to be a regional party until the previous | election, it became an anti-immigration party in recent times | (at the end of 2017 it changed the name from "Northern League" | to just "League", to appeal to voters in the south as well), and | in terms of left-right it is hardly distinguishable from | Brothers of Italy. | - A general point: the left-right positions that I chose here | take into account the issues of economic redistribution (where: | the 5 Star Movement would be positioned slightly on the left, | given the emphasis on what they call a "universal minimum | income", which is in fact a more generous unemployment benefit; | the League and Forza Italia would be positioned on the right, | given their emphasis on introducing a "flat tax"; the Democratic | Party would be positioned on the center-left, Free and Equal | would be positioned on the left) and immigration (League and | Brothers of Italy on the right, Democratic Party + Free and | Equal on the left, and 5 Star slightly on the right). | - For context, on the right, a few name changes and party splits | in the last 10 years deserve some explanation: in 2007, the | parties Forza Italia (of the former prime minister Silvio | Berlusconi) and National Alliance (heir of the far-right Italian | Social Movement) merged into the People of Freedom (PDL). In | 2012, some former member of National Alliance left the PDL to | form Brothers of Italy. In 2013, Berlusconi re-formed Forza | Italia, so the PDL as a party was extinguished. To a great | extent, the current situation (Forza Italia and Brothers of | Italy running as separate parties albeit in the same coalition) | mirrors the pre-PDL arrangement (although, importantly, while | Berlusconi remains the leader of Forza Italia, the current | leader of Brothers of Italy is not the same old leader of | National Alliance). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E5018 | | According to the Macro report: "It is extremely difficult to | place the Lithuanian parties on the left-right dimension, as the | content of the left-right in Lithuania was mostly related to the | ex-communist - anti-communist cleavage in 1992 - 1996, and most | of new parties (established after 2000) do not identify | themselves on this axis. In fact, the Union of Farmers and | Greens, the Anti-corruption Coalition of N. Puteikis and K. | Krivickas, the Lithuanian Polish Electoral Action - League of | Christian Families and the party "Order and Justice" are right- | wing on the moral dimension and left-wing on the economic | dimension, while the Labor Party is liberal in the moral | dimension and somewhat contradictory on the economic dimension | (combining left-wing and liberal rhetoric)." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E5018_C | | This entry refers to DEMOS (Democratic Alliance), a leading | party in the coalition Kljuc (Key Coalition), coded here as | PARTY C. | The two remaining members of the coalition (Socialist | Peoples Party and United Reform Action) were both placed | on position 4. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2019): E5018_D | | This entry refers to the Unitary Democratic Coalition, CDU. CDU | is an electoral alliance of the Portuguese Communist Party (PCP) | and the Ecologist Party - The Greens (PEV). Both parties | individually were given the left-right score of "1". --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5019 >>> ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M06b1. Were respondents asked to rank political parties on an alternative dimension, other than the left-right dimension? .................................................................. 1. YES [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES FOR THE DIMENSION LABELS] 5. NO 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5019 | | This variable represents the expert judgment of the national | collaborators as to where parties are located on a particular | scale unique to the polity. The decision as to what scale is | invoked is the decision of the national collaborator and is | designed to represent party positions on a scale relevant to | national political circumstances. | The type of scales and the labels assigned to each are | detailed below in the ELECTION STUDY NOTES. | | Source: CSES Macro Report M6b1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E5019 | | The alternative scale measures positions of parties in Hong | Kong's relationship with China based on expert judgements. | The dimension is classified as Pro-Periphery (Hong-Kong) versus | Pro-Centre (Beijing). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2017): E5019 | | Name of dimension: Liberal vs. Conservative | | Label for position 0: Liberal | Label for position 10: Conservative | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E5019 | | Name of dimension: Pro-Montenegrin vs. Pro-Serbian | | Label for position 0: Pro-Montenegrin | Label for position 10: Pro-Serbian | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2020): E5019 | | Name of dimension: Liberal vs. Conservative | | Label for left hand position (Code 0): Liberal | ... | Label for right hand position (Code 10): Conservative | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016 & 2020): E5019 | | Name of dimension: Independence vs. Unification | | Label for position 0: Taiwan should declare independence | immediately | Label for position 10: Taiwan and China should unify immediately | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E5019 | | Name of dimension: Political Movement Group | | Label for position 0: Red Shirt Group | Label for position 10: Yellow shirt group | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TUNISIA (2019): E5019 | | Name of dimension: Secular vs. Islamist dimension | | Label for position 0: Secular | Label for position 10: Islamist | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E5019 | | Name of dimension: Economically Statist vs. Liberal | | Label for position 0: Statist | Label for position 10: Liberal --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5019_A >>> ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY A E5019_B >>> ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY B E5019_C >>> ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY C E5019_D >>> ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY D E5019_E >>> ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY E E5019_F >>> ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY F E5019_G >>> ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY G E5019_H >>> ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY H E5019_I >>> ALTERNATIVE DIMENSION - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M06b1.a-i. Parties' positions on the alternative scale (in the expert judgment of the CSES Collaborator): .................................................................. 00. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES FOR THE DIMENSION LABELS] 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES FOR THE DIMENSION LABELS] 97. NOT APPLICABLE 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5019_ | | Parties and their alphabetical classifications for each election | study are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | | This variable represents the expert judgment of the national | collaborators as to where parties are located on a particular | scale unique to the polity. The decision as to what scale is | invoked is the decision of the national collaborator and is | designed to represent party positions on a scale relevant to | national political circumstances. | The type of scales invoked are detailed above in variable E5019. | The labels for each polity are detailed below in the | ELECTION STUDY NOTES. | | Source: CSES Macro Report M6b1.a-i. | | Data are available for HONG KONG (2016), JAPAN (2017), MONTENEGRO | (2016), SLOVAKIA (2020), TAIWAN (2016 & 2020), THAILAND (2019), | TUNISIA (2019) and URUGUAY (2019). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E5019_ | | Name of dimension: Centre-periphery. | | Label for left hand position (Code 0): Pro-Hong Kong. | ... | Label for right hand position (Code 10): Pro-Beijing. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E5019_I | | E5019_I refers to Youngspiration party, a leading member of | ALLinHK coalition. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2017): E5019_ | | Name of dimension: Liberal vs. Conservative | | Label for left hand position (Code 0): Liberal | ... | Label for right hand position (Code 10): Conservative | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E5019 | | Name of dimension: Pro-Montenegrin vs. Pro-Serbian | | 00. Pro-Montenegrin | ... | 10. Pro-Serbian | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E5019_C | | E5019_C refers to DEMOS (Democratic Alliance), a leading | party in the coalition Kljuc (Key Coalition), coded here as | PARTY C. | The two remaining members of the coalition, the Socialist | Peoples Party and United Reform Action, were placed on | values 8 and 4, respectively. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E5019_G | | PARTY G (Bosniak Party) was not ranked on this dimension. | According to the Macro report "Bosniak Party is an ethnic | party, that represent attitudes of Bosniaks in Montenegro | and is not relevant for this particular cleavage. That is | the reason we have not provided their position on this scale." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E5019_H | | PARTY H (Albanians Decisively, a coalition of three ethnic | Albanian parties) was not ranked on this dimension. The | Pro-Montenegrin vs. Pro-Serbian cleavage was judged not | applicable to this coalition. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E5019_I | | PARTY I (Croatian Civic Initiative, a party of ethnic | Croats) was not ranked on this dimension. The Pro-Montenegrin | vs. Pro-Serbian cleavage was judged not applicable to this | party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2020): E5019_ | | Name of dimension: Liberal vs. Conservative | | Label for left hand position (Code 0): Liberal | ... | Label for right hand position (Code 10): Conservative | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016 & 2020): E5019_ | | Name of dimension: Independence vs. Unification | | 00. Taiwan should declare independence immediately | ... | 10. Taiwan and China should unify immediately | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E5019_ | | Name of dimension: Political Movement Group | | 00. Red Shirt Group | ... | 10. Yellow shirt group | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TUNISIA (2019): E5019_ | | Name of dimension: Secular vs. Islamist dimension | | 00. Secular | ... | 10. Islamist | | The Tunisian collaborator provided the following additional | details: | - Ennahda party and Dignity Coalition have definitely a clear | Islamist agenda. | - Democratic Current, Free Constitutional Party, and People's | movement support secular policies. | - Kalb Tounes did not have a clear secular agenda, however, the | party had an anti-Islamist agenda before the 2019 elections. | After the elections, Ennahda party and Kalb Tounes together | with Dignity Coalition party, formed a joint parliamentary | front. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E5019_ | | Name of dimension: Economically Statist vs. Liberal | | 00. Statist | ... | 10. Liberal --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5020 >>> POPULISM BY PARTY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M06b1. Did national collaborators rank the political parties in their country on the populism scale? .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5020 | | This variable represents the expert judgment of the national | collaborators as to where parties are located on a | populism scale. Sometimes parties' levels of populism are hard | to determine. These instances are detailed in | ELECTION STUDY NOTES below. | | Data are unavailable for TAIWAN (2016 & 2020). | | Source: CSES Macro Report M6c. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E5020 | | According to the Macro Report: "Some Brazilian right and left | parties adopted populist discourse during the election campaign | (adopting the definition of CSES Module 5), although the | programmatic scope of most of the parties is not broadly | populist. The anti-corruption conjuncture of the political elite | strongly contributed to the campaign discourses being directed | to the "us against them" equation. This equation also added | strength to the anti-petist sentiment, noting that the PT was | the party that occupied the federal government between 2003 and | 2016 (President Dilma Rousseff elected in 2014 was impeached in | 2016). Given the definitions of populism used in Module 5, the | two main parties in contention for the presidency of the | republic - PT and PSL - can be considered populist, with a | significantly populist speech in the 2018 election. The party | classification in item 6c largely responds to this assessment of | campaign discourse from leaderships. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E5020 | | According to the Macro Report, party rankings were "Informed by | replication of the statistical analyses of the paper below with | current data: | Lewandowsky, Marcel & Giebler, Heiko & Wagner, Aiko. (2016). | Rechtspopulismus in Deutschland. Eine empirische Einordnung der | Parteien zur Bundestagswahl 2013 unter besonderer | Beruecksichtigung der AfD. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 57. | 247-275. doi: 10.5771/0032-3470-2016-2-247." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): E5020 | | According to the Macro Report: "The values [...] reflect the | median value of the responses given by 43 (after cleaning) | experts when they were asked to position the Greek parties on | two populist attitudes dimensions (anti-elite attitudes and | people centrism). The details of the expert survey are available | at Andreadis, I. (2018). Measuring Authoritarian Populism with | Expert Surveys Extending CHES estimates on populism and | authoritarianism (Electoral Integrity Project (EIP) Seminar | Series No. 29-5-2018). Sydney." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5020_A >>> POPULISM SCALE - PARTY A E5020_B >>> POPULISM SCALE - PARTY B E5020_C >>> POPULISM SCALE - PARTY C E5020_D >>> POPULISM SCALE - PARTY D E5020_E >>> POPULISM SCALE - PARTY E E5020_F >>> POPULISM SCALE - PARTY F E5020_G >>> POPULISM SCALE - PARTY G E5020_H >>> POPULISM SCALE - PARTY H E5020_I >>> POPULISM SCALE - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M06c.a-i. Parties' positions on the populism scale (in the expert judgment of the CSES Collaborator). .................................................................. 00. NOT AT ALL POPULIST 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. VERY POPULIST 97. NOT APPLICABLE 98. NO POPULISM SCORE MENTIONED 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5020_ | | Parties and their alphabetical classifications for each election | study are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES Codebook. | | This variable represents the expert judgment of the national | collaborators as to where parties are located on a | populism scale. | Definition: Populism can be defined as a thin-centered ideology | that pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of | elites and dangerous 'others' who are depicted as depriving | "the people" of their rights, values, prosperity, identity, and | voice. The emphasis on anti-elite/ anti-establishment rhetoric | and the contrast between the "pure people" and the "corrupt | elite" are thus indications of the degree to which a party is | populist. Populist parties can be found across the left-right | ideological spectrum. | | Sometimes parties levels of populism are hard to determine. | These instances are detailed in ELECTION STUDY NOTES below. | | Source: CSES Macro Report M6c.a-i. | | Data are unavailable for TAIWAN (2016 & 2020). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E5020_A | | E5020_A refers to Fidesz - the dominant member of the | coalition represented here as PARTY A. However, the junior | partner in the coalition, KDNP, is given the same populism | rating: 9. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E5020_C | | E5020_C refers to the MSZP (Hungarian Socialist Party) - the | dominant member of the coalition represented here as PARTY C. | The junior partner in the coalition, Parbeszed, is given the | populism rating: 5. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2016): E5020_C | | According to the Macro Report "The Pirate Party [Party C] is | clearly an anti-establishment, anti-elite party, but very | liberal on social issues, including immigration." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2017): E5020_D & E5020_G | | According to the Macro Report, Centre Party (Party D) and | People's Party (Party G) are "are both strongly anti-elitist, | and have been flirting with anti-immigration feelings." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2017): E5020_F | | According to the Macro Report "The Pirate Party [Party F] is | clearly an anti-establishment, anti-elite party, but very | liberal on social issues, including immigration." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E5020 | | From the Macro Report: "The 5 Star Movement is a textbook | example of a populist party, given the definition above. The | League uses populist tones, but conjugated in a more national- | anthropological sense (the emphasis on the interest of the | "Italians") rather than in an anti-establishment sense (also | because they have been part of the government with Berlusconi | in the periods 1994-1995, 2001-2006, and 2008-2011. About Forza | Italia, Berlusconi used a slightly populist narrative in the mid | 1990s, however the party was more characterized as a | conservative party." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E5020_C | | This entry refers to DEMOS (Democratic Alliance), a leading | party in the coalition Kljuc (Key Coalition), coded here as | PARTY C. | The two remaining members of the coalition, the Socialist | Peoples Party and United Reform Action, were placed on | values 6 and 3, respectively. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5021_1 >>> MOST SALIENT FACTORS IN ELECTION - 1ST E5021_2 >>> MOST SALIENT FACTORS IN ELECTION - 2ND E5021_3 >>> MOST SALIENT FACTORS IN ELECTION - 3RD E5021_4 >>> MOST SALIENT FACTORS IN ELECTION - 4TH E5021_5 >>> MOST SALIENT FACTORS IN ELECTION - 5TH --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M07.1-5. In your view, what are the five most salient factors that affected the outcome of the election (e.g., major scandals; economic events; the presence of an independent actor; specific issues)? .................................................................. 001.-899. MOST SALIENT FACTORS CODES [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5021_ | | This variable represents the expert judgment of the national | collaborators as to the most important issues at the time of the | election. Issues are listed in descending order of saliency | (i.e., most important issues are listed first). | Numerical allocation by CSES is random. Collaborators are asked | to provide up to five salient issues. In some cases, | collaborators provide fewer issues. | | Source: CSES Macro Report M7.1-5. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): E5021 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 100. Economic management | 101. Health | 102. Tax | 103. Climate Change | 104. Environment | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): E5021 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 020. Fight unemployment | 021. Fight crime | 022. Protect Austria against terrorist attacks | 023. Control immigration | 024. Asylum rules | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019): E5021 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 120. Immigration | 121. Economy | 122. Budget | 123. State Structure | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019): E5021 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 124. Immigration | 125. Economy | 126. Budget | 127. State Structure | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E5021 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 080. In April 2018, former President Lula was arrested on | charges of corruption schemes in a process he developed | in the context of federal police operations called Car | Wash. His arrest was strongly contested due to procedural | problems. Just weeks before the election, the Worker's | Party defined as the official candidate for the | presidency of the republic the university professor | Fernando Haddad. The PT ran for the fourth term in the | federal government and Lula was the party's main | candidate name. Even in prison, Lula obtained in the | polls the average preference of 35% of the voters in the | preferences for the presidency of the republic. | 081. Within a month of the first round of the presidential | election, right-wing Social Liberal Party candidate (Jair | Bolsonaro) suffered a knife attack in the middle of an | election campaign. This event provoked a great commotion | by political violence, and due to the period of medical | recovery in the hospital, triggered a virtual campaign | through social networks through which the candidate | communicated with the electorate. The recovery made it | possible for the candidate not to participate in the | election debates on television, greatly benefiting him. | 082. Strong left-to-right polarization (PT vs. PSL). The | campaign was marked by strong anti-petism (Workers' | Party), developed mainly through social networks. It is | important to mention that the political polarization | began in 2016, with the impeachment of President Dilma | Rousseff, elected in 2014. Polarization has provoked | violent situations in rallies and street campaigns, as | well as in social media channels. | 083. Denunciations of scandal and corruption against the | political class, affecting the most important parties of | the party system. | 084. Prominent role of social networks used by top candidates, | including the strong use of fake news. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (2019): E5021 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 115. Carbon Tax | 116. Immigration | 117. Pharmacare | 118. Economy | 119. Political scandals and leadership | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2017): E5021 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 025. Economic Growth | 026. Education | 027. Crime/Security | 028. Corruption | 029. Social Security | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - COSTA RICA (2018): E5021 | | The most salient factors in the election as perceived by the | collaborators were: | 105. LGTBI marriage rights | 106. Family issues | 107. Corruption case called "Cementazo" | 108. Unemployment | 109. Religious Issues. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2019): E5021 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 160. Climate Change | 161. Early retirement for workers | 162. Welfare | 163. Immigration and integration | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E5021 | | A description of the most salient factors in the election is | included here: | | 136. The previous government's (PM Sipila) failed social and | health care reform and the resignation of the government | just prior to the election. | 137. Widespread media reporting of prevalent neglect and lack | of staff by large nursing home operators and the | following public discussion about elderly care (late | 2018 - early 2019). | 138. IPCC climate report (September 2019) and the following | public discussion about environmental and climate issues. | 139. Sexual violence/crime scandal - in December 2018, it was | widely covered in the media that adult migrant men were | committing sexual crimes against young girls in Oulu. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2017): E5021 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 085. Elite and politicians' corruption | 086. The euro and French relation to the European Union | 087. Public service and its importance | 088. Immigration and refugee crisis | 089. Terrorism and social unrest | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E5021 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 030. Immigration/limiting immigration/monothematic debate | about migration | 031. Increasing popularity and respective media coverage of | the AfD | 032. Decreasing popularity of SPD/unconvincing chancellor | candidate Martin Schulz | 033. Societal polarization/segmentation | 034. Fear of ever-lasting grand coalition | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2017): E5021 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 145. Brexit - United Kingdom exit from the European Union. | 146. Party leader popularity. | 147. Social care. | 148. Terrorism/Security. | 149. Scottish independence. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): E5021 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 055. Austerity policies (linked to the Memorandums between | the Greek government and its creditors); | 056. Economic recession and unemployment; | 057. Rejection of the old two-party system and old | political personnel; against corruption and vested | interests; | 058. The refugee crisis and illegal immigration; | 059. Restoration of the role of Parliament: against growing | democratic deficit in Greece under the crisis. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E5021 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 060. Divisions within the opposition camp regarding campaign | strategy and attitudes towards the Central People's | Government of the People's Republic of China; | 061. Attitudes towards localism in Hong Kong / "Hong Kong | independence"; | 062. Whether to support the then Chief Executive Leung Chun | Ying seeking the second term of office; | 063. Attitudes towards Returning Officers' decisions to | deny the candidacy of some of the persons who intended | to run for the Legislative Council Election; | 064. Attitudes towards filibusters in the Legislative Council. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E5021 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 006. Immigration (refugees, asylum seekers, | migrants, issue of border control). | 007. Corruption (nepotism, public procurement, | government-related oligarchs, graft, | embezzlement, etc.). | 008. Economic conjuncture (low unemployment, increasing | real wages, tax cuts, distribution of non-monetary | benefits to particular groups like food vouchers | to pensioners, etc.). | 009. Electoral cooperation of the opposition (inability | and unwillingness to do so, bilateral withdrawals, | rare instances of coordination in single-member | districts, efforts by non-partisan actors to find | 'competitive candidates', etc.). | 010. Discrediting campaigns of pro-government media outlets | directed towards leaders of the opposition (accusations | of Gabor Vona's homosexuality, Jobbik parliamentary | group leader's hinted affair, luxurious way of life | of Botka, business affairs of Hadhazy's family and the | politician's conflicts with his neighbors, etc.). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2016): E5021 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 070. Health care system | 071. Social welfare system | 072. The Panama Scandal | 073. The economy | 074. Infrastructure, roads, airports etc. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2017): E5021 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 075. Health care system | 076. Housing | 077. Social welfare system | 078. The 'restored honor' scandal | 079. The economy | | According to the Macro Report: "The 'restored honor' scandal | [Issue 078.] refers to the fact, that the Prime Minister did not | inform the leaders of his coalition parties on information he | had concerning 'restored honor' for child-molesters that had | served their prison sentences. Bright Future considered this as | a break of confidence among the coalition partners, and resigned | from government. The Prime Minister then decided to call for new | elections." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2016): E5021 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 040. Health services | 041. Management of the economy | 042. Stable government | 043. Water charges | 044. Housing | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2020): E5021 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 180. Prime Minister Netanyahu corruption allegations and | upcoming judicial trial | 181. Instability of the Israeli political system | 182. Government's management of COVID-19 pandemic | 183. Economy | 184. US President Donald Trump's Middle East Peace Plan | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E5021 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 016. Immigration (conjugated more in terms of crime/security | rather than cultural identity or economy, in particular | the murder of Pamela Mastropietro at the end of January, | the following shooting by Luca Traini, and the reactions | of the political parties, boosted the salience of the | issue right before the elections). | 017. Jobs (in particular work protection), Poverty. | 018. Taxes/Social benefits (including retirement benefits). | 019. Europe (in particular the treaties about the | distribution of migrants and asylum seekers, and the | debt constraints given by Italy being Eurozone | member) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2017): E5021 | | A description of the most salient factors in the election is | included here: | 170. Constitution | 171. Economic policy (aka Abenomics) | 172. Sales tax raised to 10% | 173. Security issues (e.g., North Korean's missiles and | nuclear bombs) | 174. Maintaining or discontinuing nuclear power plants | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E5021 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 011. Corruption scandal related to the Liberals Movement of | the Republic of Lithuania and the Social Democratic | Party. | 012. Popular non-partisan political actor Saulius Skvernelis | joining the Lithuanian Union of Farmers and Greens. | 013. Change of party leaders. | 014. Strategic voting in the second round in single-member | districts. | 015. Economic policy of the incumbent Lithuanian Social | Democratic Party, adoption of pro-liberal Labor Code. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E5021 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 001. Montenegrins vs. Serbs cleavage and related | statehood issues. | 002. Electoral integrity. | 003. Unemployment. | 004. NATO integration. | 005. Crime. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2017): E5021 | | A description of the most salient factors in the election is | included here: | 140. Austerity | 141. Migration / integration | 142. Health care | 143. Pensions / retirement age | 144. The environment / global warming | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017): E5021 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election is included here: | 095. Economy. | 096. Housing. | 097. Health. | 098. Poverty. | 099. Tax. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2020): E5021 | | A more detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election is included here: | 164. COVID-19 pandemic. | 165. Economic stimulus. | 166. Leadership. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2017): E5021 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 090. Immigration | 091. Environment | 092. Education | 093. Taxes | 094. Economy, industry and employment | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2019): E5021 | | The most salient factors in the election as perceived by the | collaborators were: | 128. Healthcare | 129. Corruption | 130. Economic Issues | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2020): E5021 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 185. Corruption scandals. | 186. Quest for change. | 187. Justice and judicial system. | 188. Socio-economic issues: standard of living, employment, | social benefits. | 189. Socio-cultural issues: reproductive rights, sexual | minority rights. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2016): E5021 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 050. The gap between rich and poor | 051. Political Corruption | 052. South-North Korea relations | 053. Balanced regional development | 054. Human rights | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2018): E5021 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 150. Healthcare. | 151. Immigration and integration. | 152. Schools/Education. | 153. Environment. | 154. Elderly care/pensions. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2019): E5021 | | The most salient factors in the election as perceived by the | collaborators were: | 110. Climate change: Public debate on global climate change | and large mobilizations for numerous events (such as | school strikes and demonstrations for stricter climate | protection measures) across the country during the | election year. | 111. Women's strike: National women's strike on 14 June 2019, | which mobilized hundreds of thousands of women to | demonstrate against their persisting unequal treatment in | the Swiss society. During the election campaign, several | trade unions and women's associations called upon parties | to put more women on their lists and upon citizens to | deliberately vote for women in the federal elections. | 112. Old-age pensions: Voters mentioned problems regarding the | welfare state and social insurances as the second most | important political problem (after climate change). Due | to the aging of the population health costs are | increasing and a reform of the old-age pension system | becomes more and more urgent in order to secure pensions | in the future. | 113. Relations with EU: Even though the bilateral relationship | between Switzerland and the EU was not the most salient | topic during the election campaign, it still made it into | the top 3 of the most important political problems | according to voters. Especially the debate on the | institutional framework agreement played an important | role in the election year. | 114. Negative campaigning: There was some media attention when | the SVP unveiled a poster that showed a red apple with a | Swiss flag being eaten by worms wearing the colors of the | four other main political parties as well as the EU. | Another event of negative campaigning was the CVP's | Internet campaign, which criticized the positions of | candidates from other parties and promoted its own | candidates. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016): E5021 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 035. Party identification | 036. Personal traits and capability of the candidates | 037. Cross-Strait issues: 92 Consensus | 038. Economic issues | 039. President Ma's whole term in office | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2020): E5021 | | A description of the most salient factors in the election is | included here: | 131. Party identification | 132. Personal traits and capability of the candidates | 133. Cross-Strait issues | 134. Economic issues | 135. President Tsai's whole term in office | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E5021 | | A description of the most salient factors in the election is | included here: | 175. Electoral system. | 176. Populism policies before the election (the period of | Military junta) such as State Welfare Card Scheme | 177. Name of Prime Ministerial candidate. | 178. Moving party of the former member of the House of | Representatives. | 179. Using the Article 44 of the 2014 Constitution by the | Military junta. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TUNISIA (2019): E5021 | | A description of the most salient factors in the election is | included here: | 167. One of the candidates, Nabil Karoui, from the | presidential elections was held in jail for suspicion of | financial crimes. He was not allowed to take part in the | presidential debates with other candidates. He was | released when he won the first round. The move was | considered by media and analysts as a strategy to | undermine his popularity in the elections (both | presidential and legislative). Nabil Karoui was running | as a candidate in the presidential but also with his | party, Kalb Tounes, in the legislative elections. | 168. Scandal: Nabil Karoui was found dealing with Canadian | lobbyist, who is also a former Israeli intelligence | agent. The deal consisted of a contract of US$ 1million | to support Karoui's presidency and in return he would | play the role of a regional peace-maker in the Libyan | conflict. | 169. Death of the president of the country, Beji Caid Essebsi | in July 2019, which led to a change in the elections' | dates. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2018): E5021 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 065. The Economy | 066. The Welfare | 067. Terror | 068. Syrians, Security | 069. Regime debate | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): E5021 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 045. Candidate evaluations and scandals (For Donald Trump | his attitudes on several issues such as race and | immigration as well as his comments towards women | in a 2006 tape release; For Hillary Clinton the e-mail | scandal). | 046. Immigration and anti-elitism. | 047. Economy | 048. Healthcare. | 049. Race. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E5021 | | A detailed description of the most salient factors | in the election as perceived by the collaborators were: | 190. COVID-19 pandemic. | 191. Election integrity (mail-in voting; acceptance of the | result by the incumbent president; foreign interference | and misinformation). | 192. Racial injustice and inequality. | 193. Economy. | 194. Candidate evaluations and fitness for office. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E5021 | | A description of the most salient factors in the election is | included here: | 155. Public safety - crime | 156. Economy - fiscal deficit | 157. Public Administration - mismanagement of public | money | 158. Education | 159. International policy - Mercosur - Venezuela --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5022 >>> FAIRNESS OF THE ELECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M08a. How impartial was the body that administered the election law? .................................................................. 1. VERY IMPARTIAL 2. MOSTLY IMPARTIAL 3. NOT VERY IMPARTIAL 4. NOT IMPARTIAL AT ALL 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5022 | | Source: CSES Macro Report M8a. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E5022 | | As before, the body administering the election law in Hong Kong | (the Electoral Affairs Commission) in 2016 LegCo Election was | largely considered as impartial. However, in this election, | there was one incident that led to queries over the body's | impartiality: returning officers under the Electoral Affairs | Commission decided that six persons were not qualified for | running for LegCo on the ground that judging from their past | remarks and social media posts, the disqualified persons | advocated Hong Kong independence, so could not genuinely support | the Basic Law (according to which Hong Kong is an inalienable | part of China). Since in previous elections, returning officers | had never made this kind of political judgments, some perceived | their decisions as political censorship over who could run for | LegCo Election and rejection of the candidacy of some persons on | political grounds. (From the Macro Report.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5023 >>> FORMAL COMPLAINTS AGAINST NATIONAL LEVEL RESULTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M08b. Was there a formal complaint against the national level results? .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 6. OTHER - SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5023 | | Source: CSES Macro Report M8b. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): E5023 | | A formal complaint was filed by the list "Fuer Osterreich, | Zuwanderungsstopp, Grenzschutz, Neutralitaet, EU-Austritt | (EUAUS)". EUAUS received 693 votes (< 0.1% of the total vote). | They contested the election on a variety of reasons (e.g., the | ballot order). The constitutional court rejected the formal | complaint. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E5023 | | While there was no formal complaint against the national-level | results per se, there were many challenges by Republican Party | officials and President Trump’s supporters at the state level. | Sixty-three lawsuits were filed, including in states like | Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, all | states won by Democratic challenger Joe Biden (PARTY A), | challenging the election. Most legal challenges, some of which | the US Supreme Court considered, were dismissed or dropped due | to lack of evidence. | | Sources: | | Bloomberg Law: "Trump's election lawsuits: Where the Fights are | Playing Out" | https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/trumps-election- | lawsuits-where-the-fights-are-playing-out | (Date accessed: February 03, 2022). | | New York Times: "Supreme Court Rejects Republican Challenge to | Pennsylvania Vote" | https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/08/us/supreme-court-republican- | challenge-pennsylvania-vote.html | (Date accessed: February 03, 2022). | | New York Times: "Supreme Court Rejects Texas Suit Seeking to | Subvert Election" | https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/11/us/politics/supreme-court- | election-texas.html | (Date accessed: February 03, 2022). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5024 >>> ELECTION IRREGULARITIES REPORTED --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M08c. Were there irregularities reported by international election observers? .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 6. NO INTERNATIONAL ELECTION OBSERVERS 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5024 | | Source: CSES Macro Report M8c. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5025_1 >>> DATE ELECTION SCHEDULED - MONTH E5025_2 >>> DATE ELECTION SCHEDULED - DAY E5025_3 >>> DATE ELECTION SCHEDULED - YEAR E5026_1 >>> DATE ELECTION HELD - MONTH E5026_2 >>> DATE ELECTION HELD - DAY E5026_3 >>> DATE ELECTION HELD - YEAR --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M08d. On what date was the election originally legally scheduled to be held? M08e. On what date was the election actually held? .................................................................. MONTH 01. JANUARY 02. FEBRUARY 03. MARCH 04. APRIL 05. MAY 06. JUNE 07. JULY 08. AUGUST 09. SEPTEMBER 10. OCTOBER 11. NOVEMBER 12. DECEMBER 99. MISSING DAY 01-31. DAY OF MONTH 96. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 99. MISSING YEAR 2016-2021. YEAR 9999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5025_ & E5026_ | | Source: CSES Macro Report M8d-e. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E5025 & E5026 | | This date refers to the first round of elections. The second | round was held 3 weeks later on October 28, 2018. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2017): E5025 & E5026 | | These data refer to the first round of the presidential | election. The second round was held on May 7, 2017. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): E5025 | | The election was originally legally scheduled to be held in | January 2019. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2016): E5025 & E5026 | | The elections were due to be held on or before April 27, 2017, | that is four years after the 2013 elections. However, following | the publication of the Panama Papers and the 2016 Icelandic | anti-government protests, the ruling coalition announced that | early elections would be held before the end of 2016. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2017): E5025 & E5026 | | The elections were due to be held in or before October 2020, | because the previous elections were held on October 29, 2016. | The 2017 snap elections were triggered by the collapse of the | coalition government, when Bright Future left the coalition | citing a breach of confidence, following a scandal involving | the Prime Minister's father. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2017): E5025 & E5026 | | The elections were due to be held in December 2018, that | is four years after the 2014 elections. However, due to the | then-ongoing North Korea missile crisis, Prime Minister Shinzo | Abe called for the early general election. The snap election | was held on October 22, 2017. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E5025 & E5026 | | These were the first elections since the 2014 Thai coup d'etat | that installed coup leader General Prayut Chan-o-cha as prime | minister (leader of Palang Pracharath Party, PARTY A), and the | first held in accordance with the 2017 constitution, which was | drafted under the ruling military junta. | The final election date was selected in early 2019 after several | delays. Hence, the "date election scheduled" has a specific | meaning here. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TUNISIA (2019): E5025 & E5026 | | The entries refer to the parliamentary election. The | presidential election was originally scheduled to be held on | 17th and 24th of November 2019. However, due to death of | President Beji Caid Essebsi on 25th July 2019, early | presidential elections were scheduled for September 15th, 2019 | and October 14th, 2019. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2018): E5025 | | The election was originally legally scheduled to be held on | November 3, 2019. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E5025 & E5026 | | The elections were scheduled for the last Sunday of October | (27th) 2019, and the second round on the last Sunday (24th) of | November 2019, by constitutional rule. It was held as scheduled. | The entered date refers to the first round of elections. The | second round was held on November 24th, 2019. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5027 >>> ELECTION DATE IRREGULARITIES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M08e. If the election was held on a different date than scheduled, please explain why? .................................................................. 0. ELECTION WAS HELD ON THE SAME DAY AS SCHEDULED 1. ELECTION WAS NOT HELD ON THE SAME DAY AS SCHEDULED [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5027 | | Source: CSES Macro Report M8e. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2017): E5027 | | Under the Fixed Term Parliament Act, British parliamentary terms | are conventionally five years, with elections scheduled for the | first Thursday in May, five years from the previous election. As | the previous election had been held on May 7, 2015, the next | election was scheduled for May 2020. | However, Conservative incumbent Prime Minister Theresa May sought | an early election to strengthen her mandate for Brexit | negotiations with the EU. Under the Fixed Term Parliament Act, | Parliament can be dissolved for an early election if 2/3 of the | Parliament vote in favor. A House of Commons motion was passed on | 19 April 2017 facilitating the early election - supported by | the Conservatives, Labor, the Liberal Democrats, and the Greens, | on a vote of 522-13 (the SNP abstained). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): E5027 | | This was an early election, following Prime Minister Alexis | Tsipras' announced his resignation on August 20, 2015. | Almost one-third of Syriza's MPs were against the third bailout | agreement signed by Tsipras - consequently, after signing the | agreement, Tsipras lost the parliamentary majority. Previous | parliamentary elections were held on 25 January 2015. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2016): E5027 | | The current elections were held ahead of time, on October 29, | 2016. The elections were due to be held on or before 27 April | 2017, that is four years after the 2013 elections. | However, following the publication of the Panama Papers and the | 2016 Icelandic anti-government protests, the ruling coalition | announced that early elections would be held before the end | of 2016. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2017): E5027 | | The current elections were held ahead of time, on October 28, | 2017. The 2017 snap elections were triggered by the collapse of | the coalition government, when Bright Future left the coalition | citing a breach of confidence, following a scandal involving the | Prime Minister's father. | According to the Macro Report: "The 'restored honor' scandal | [Issue 078.] refers to the fact, that the Prime Minister did not | inform the leaders of his coalition parties on information he | had concerning 'restored honor' for child-molesters that had | served their prison sentences. Bright Future considered this as | a break of confidence among the coalition partners, and resigned | from government. The Prime Minister then decided to call for new | elections." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2020): E5027 | | Conventionally, the Israeli Basic Law provides for elections to | be held every four years, usually in the Jewish month of Cheshvan | (in the Roman calendar October-November). The 2020 elections | were held after two inconclusive elections in March 2019 and | September 2019 respectively, where no new majority coalition | government could be formed. The date scheduled for the election | by the dissolution of the 22nd Israeli Parliament (the Knesset, | (elected in September 2019) was March 2, 2020, the day the | election was held. This contest represented the first time | in Israeli history that three general elections had been held in | the space of 13-months. The date classified in the dataset as | the scheduled election date for 2020 does not capture this | tumult or that the term of the 22nd Israeli Parliament was cut | significantly short from its anticipated 4-year term, due to | the failure to form a majority coalition government. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2020): E5027 | | On January 28, 2020, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced that | the 2020 election would be held on September 19, 2020. However, | after a community transmission outbreak in Auckland in New | Zealand's North Island, on August 17, 2020 Prime Minister Ardern | announced the election would be delayed until October 17, 2020 | after consultations with the Electoral Commission and support of | the main opposition National Party. Any election held after | November 28, 2020 would have required a super-majority | legislative change in the House of Representatives. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2017): E5027 | | The current elections were held ahead of time, on October 22, | 2017. The elections were due to be held in December 2018, that | is four years after the 2014 elections. However, due to the | then-ongoing North Korea missile crisis, Prime Minister Shinzo | Abe called for the early general election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E5027 | | These were the first elections since the 2014 Thai coup d'etat | that installed coup leader General Prayut Chan-o-cha as prime | minister (leader of Palang Pracharath Party, PARTY A), and the | first held in accordance with the 2017 constitution, which was | drafted under the ruling military junta. | The final election date was selected in early 2019 after several | delays. Hence, the "date election scheduled" has a specific | meaning here. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TUNISIA (2019): E5027 | | The parliamentary elections were held as scheduled. However, the | presidential elections were originally scheduled to be held on | 17th and 24th of November 2019. However, due to death of | President Beji Caid Essebsi on 25th July 2019, early | presidential elections were scheduled for September 15th and | October 14th, 2019. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2018): E5027 | | This was an early election. The current parliamentary | elections were originally scheduled for November 3, 2019. | However, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan called a snap election | on 18 April, because of the passage of a series of | constitutional amendments in the 2017 referendum. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E5027 | | In a series of Twitter contributions on July 30, 2020, President | Donald Trump (PARTY B) suggested that the election be delayed | due to controversial integrity concerns over states adoption of | universal mail/absentee voting or mechanisms allowing citizens | to vote early in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The suggestions | by President Trump were criticized by Democratic Party (PARTY A) | politicians. Leading members of the Republican Party (PARTY B) | rejected the idea, and the election was held as originally | scheduled on November 3, 2020 (although early voting/mail-in | voting started before this date). | | While states have the authority to determine the date of primary | the Federal election date in the United States of America is | statutorily set by the Federal Government as "the Tuesday next | after the first Monday in the month of November", a law in place | since 1845. Article 2 of the United States Constitution empowers | the US Congress to choose the timing of the Federal election, | meaning the US President does not have the power to change | the election date without Congressional approval. | A change in the Federal Election date can only occur if the US | Congress (both House and Senate) enacts legislation to this | effect. Even if that were to occur, the US Constitution mandates | that a new Congress take office on January 3 in the year after | the election, and that a new president's term must begin on | January 20 in the year following the election in accordance with | the 20th Amendment to the US Constitution. In sum, a change in | the Federal election date is possible, but only with | Congressional agreement, and even with that, US constitutional | provisions limit the scope for how long any delay could occur. | | Sources: | | BBC News "Donald Trump suggests delay to 2020 US presidential | election" | https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53597975 | (Date accessed: December 10, 2021). | | National Constitution Centre: | https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/does-the-constitution | -allow-for-a-delayed-presidential-election | (Date accessed: December 10, 2021). | | National Geographic: History and Culture | https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/ | united-states-never-delayed-presidential-election-why-tricky | (Date accessed: December 10, 2021). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5028 >>> ELECTION VIOLENCE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M09a. To what extent was there violence and voter or candidate intimidation during the election campaign and the election day? .................................................................. 1. NO VIOLENCE AT ALL 2. SPORADIC VIOLENCE ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT 3. SPORADIC VIOLENCE ON THE PART OF OPPOSITION GROUPS 4. SPORADIC VIOLENCE ON ALL SIDES 5. SIGNIFICANT VIOLENCE ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT 6. SIGNIFICANT VIOLENCE ON THE PART OF OPPOSITION GROUPS 7. SIGNIFICANT VIOLENCE OF ALL SIDES 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5028 | | Source: CSES Macro Report M9a. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5029 >>> GEOGRAPHIC CONCENTRATION OF VIOLENCE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M09b. If there was violence, was it geographically concentrated or national? .................................................................. 1. NO ELECTION VIOLENCE 2. GEOGRAPHICALLY CONCENTRATED 3. NATIONAL 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5029 | | Source: CSES Macro Report M9b. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5030 >>> POST-ELECTION VIOLENCE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M09c. To what extent was there violence following the election? .................................................................. 1. NO VIOLENCE AT ALL 2. SPORADIC VIOLENCE ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT 3. SPORADIC VIOLENCE ON THE PART OF OPPOSITION GROUPS 4. SPORADIC VIOLENCE ON ALL SIDES 5. SIGNIFICANT VIOLENCE ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT 6. SIGNIFICANT VIOLENCE ON THE PART OF OPPOSITION GROUPS 7. SIGNIFICANT VIOLENCE OF ALL SIDES 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5030 | | Source: CSES Macro Report M9c. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E5030 | | The sporadic violence did not take the form of the government | using state apparatus such as the army and the police. Instead, | the sporadic violence came principally from supporters of | President Trump, including from groups such as the Proud Boys, | a far-right organization. In November and December 2020, after | repeated allegations of electoral fraud and malpractice by | President Trump (PARTY B), there were clashes in the capital | city, Washington D.C., between Trump supporters and counter | -protesters. While charges of such electoral malpractice | have not been sustained either through investigations or court | challenges, violence culminated on January 6, 2021, in a rally | held and addressed by President Trump in Washington, D.C., to | coincide with the U.S. Congress' certification of the election | results. After President Trump's speech, some attendees at the | President's rally marched on the U.S. Capitol building, breaking | through law enforcement, occupying the building. The sittings of | both chambers were suspended as politicians and staff were | evacuated from the building. After several hours of a standoff, | where those occupying the building vandalized property and | attacked law enforcement, law enforcement regained control and | ejected protestors from the Capitol. Five people died either | shortly before, during, or following the event. Many protestors | and 138 police were injured. Incumbent President Donald Trump | was impeached by the US House of Representatives for a second | time over his role in the events of January 6, 2021 on January | 13, 2021, eight days before leaving office. He was acquitted | in a vote of the US Senate in February 2021, having left office | although a majority of lawmakers (57-43), including seven | Republicans (PARTY B), voted to convict the former President. For | a President to be impeached, two-thirds of the Senate must vote | to convict. | | Sources: | | Reuters: Four officers who responded to U.S. Capitol Attack have | died by suicide | https://www.reuters.com/world/us/officer-who-responded-us- | capitol-attack-is-third-die-by-suicide-2021-08-02/ | (Date accessed: February 03, 2022). | | National Public Radio (NPR): Read Trump's January 6 Speech, a Key | Part of the Impeachment Trial | https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6- | speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial?t=1643892201680 | (Date accessed: February 03, 2022). | | Washington Post: 41 minutes of fear: A video timeline from inside | the Capitol Siege | https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2021/01/16/ | video-timeline-capitol-siege/ | (Date accessed: February 03, 2022). | | Time: Incited by the President, Pro-Trump Rioters Violently Storm | the Capitol | https://time.com/5926883/trump-supporters-storm-capitol/ | (Date accessed: February 03, 2022). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5031 >>> POST-ELECTION PROTEST --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M09d. To what extent was there protest following the election? .................................................................. 1. NO PROTEST AT ALL 2. SPORADIC PROTEST 3. SIGNIFICANT PROTEST 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5031 | | Source: CSES Macro Report M9d. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): E5031 | | On election day, a small protest (a few hundred participants) | took place in Vienna after the first predictions had been | published. It was directed against the Freedom Party's possible | participation in government and the rightward shift in general. | Further protests followed during and after the inauguration of | the new OVP-FPO government (in December 2017 and in January | 2018). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E5031 | | The opposition did not officially recognize the election results | and is not participating currently in the work of the | National Parliament (at the time of writing the Macro Report). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2018): E5031 | | Yet, before the official election results' declaration, in | certain public places, there were armed individuals who were | celebrating AKP's (Justice and Development Party) unofficial | election victory. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): E5031 | | Following Donald Trump's surprise victory, large protests broke | out across the United States and globally which continued | sporadically until Trump became President in January 2017. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E5031 | | See Election Study Notes for variable E5030. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5032 >>> ELECTORAL ALLIANCES PERMITTED IN ELECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M10a. There are multiple types of electoral alliances/coalitions, but we are explicitly interested in those involving joint lists or candidates - i.e. those where parties compete as a unit during the election. Is this type of electoral coalition legally allowable? .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5032 | | Definitions: A joint list refers to one on which candidates | of different parties run together. Apparentement refers to | a legal agreement between two or more lists to pool their | votes for the purposes of an initial seat allocation, with | seats initially allocated to the alliance then reallocated | to the lists in the alliance. | | Source: CSES Macro Report M10a. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): E5032 | | While electoral alliances are not allowed to form for the | House of Representatives election (Lower House), they are | permitted for Senate (Upper House) election. The coding in | the data reflects the Lower House situation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2017): E5032 | | Such alliances are not forbidden, but neither are they | explicitly allowed. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E5032 | | According to the Macro Report, there is no "law or regulation | that explicitly allows joint lists/election coalitions, but | Register maintained under section 20 of the Particulars | Relating to Candidates on Ballot Papers (Legislative Council | and District Councils) Regulation specifies that when a | candidate is endorsed by more than one party, the candidate's | name appears together with the names of all endorsing parties on | the ballot. Such a regulation implicitly recognizes that joint | list election coalitions are allowable." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2017): E5032 | | Electoral alliances with joint lists are not forbidden, but | they are not used in practice. However, parties can (and do) | form a list combination ("lijstverbinding", or Appartement, | see E5036) before the election. In the distribution of seats, | these alliances are seen as one party; only after the | distribution of seats over parties and alliances, the seats | within the alliances are distributed. It may give the alliance | an extra remainder seat, but it does not play a role in the | electoral campaign. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2018): E5032 | | According to an election alliance law approved in early 2018, | parties are given the ability to contest the election under | formal alliances as a means of jointly surpassing the | election threshold. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5033 >>> ELECTORAL ALLIANCES IN PRACTICE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M10b. Is this type of electoral coalition [mentioned in M10a.] used in practice, even if not legally allowable? .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5033 | | Source: CSES Macro Report M10b. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): E5033 | | Historically, this type of electoral coalition is not uncommon | in Austria but it was not used this time. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2017): E5033 | | Such alliances are not forbidden, but neither they are | explicitly allowed. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2017): E5033 | | Collaborator advises that while these alliances occur in | practice, they are relatively low salience - for example, Labor | candidates often running as Labor and Co-Operative Party | candidates, but this is not something which gets a lot of | attention among voters. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2017): E5033 | | See election study note for E5032. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2020): E5033 | | Historically, this type of electoral coalition is not uncommon | in Taiwan, but it was not used this time. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5034 >>> DID ANY ELECTORAL ALLIANCES FORM? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M10c. (If yes to M10a or M10b) Did any electoral alliances form? .................................................................. 1. YES [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 5. NO 7. NOT APPLICABLE [NO ALLIANCES PERMITTED] 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5034 | | Below, we detail the number of alliances and the party in each | alliance by country in English. | | * = Indicates the dominant member(s) of an alliance where | applicable. | | Source: CSES Macro Report M10c. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E5034 | | Seven alliances were formed in the 2018 election. They are | detailed below. | | ALLIANCE 1: | - PT*(PARTY B) | - PC do B | - PROS | - PCO | | ALLIANCE 2: | - PSL* (PARTY A) | - PRTB | | ALLIANCE 3: | - PSDB*(PARTY C) | - PP(PARTY E) | - PTB | - PSD(PARTY D) | - SD | - PRB(PARTY I) | - DEM | - PPS | - PR (PARTY H) | | ALLIANCE 4: | - PODEMOS* | - PSC | - PRP | - PTC | | ALLIANCE 5: | - PDT* | - AVANTE | | ALLIANCE 6: | - REDE* | - PV | | ALLIANCE 7: | - MDB* (PARTY F) | - PHS | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2017): E5034 | | Four major alliances were formed in the 2017 Chilean election. | They are relevant for both the parliamentary (Upper and Lower | House) elections, and for the presidential election. | | ALLIANCE 1: | Chile Vamos (Let's Go Chile) | This alliance supported Sebastian Pinera's presidential | candidacy, a nominally independent candidate, but affiliated | with the National Renewal party (RN; PARTY A). | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - RN - Renovacion Nacional* (PARTY A) | - UDI - Union Democrata Independiente* (PARTY B) | - Evopoli - Evolucion Politica (PARTY H) | - PRI - Partido Regionalista Independiente | | ALLIANCE 2: | Fuerza de Mayoria (The Force of the Majority) | This alliance supported Alejandro Guillier's presidential | candidacy (coded under PARTY D). | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - PSCH - Partido Socialista (PARTY D) | - PPD - Partido por la Democracia (PARTY E) | - PCCH - Partido Comunista De Chile (PARTY G) | - PRSD - Partido Radical Socialdemocrata (PARTY I) | | ALLIANCE 3: | Convergencia Democratica (Democratic Convergence) | This alliance supported presidential candidacy of Goic Boroevic | Carolina (PARTY C). | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - PDC - Partido Democrata Cristiano* (PARTY C) | - IC - Izquierda Ciudadana | - MAS - Movimiento al Socialismo | | ALLIANCE 4: | Frente Amplio (Broad Front) | This alliance supported presidential candidacy of Sanchez | Munoz Beatriz (coded under PARTY F). | | The alliance consists of 14 political parties and | movements, including: | | - RD - Revolucion Democratica* (PARTY F) | - PH - Partido Humanista* | - PODER - Poder Ciudadano | - MA - Movimiento Autonomista | - PI - Partido Igualdad | - PEV - Partido Ecologista-Verde | - IA - Izquierda Autonoma | - PL - Partido Liberal de Chile | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E5034 | | Four alliances formed in the 2019 election. They are | detailed below. | | ALLIANCE 1 (participated in the Constituency of Varsinais- | Suomi): | - Finns Party (Party B)* | - Christian Democrats (Party H) | | ALLIANCE 2 (participated in the Constituency of Satakunta): | - National Coalition Party (Party C)* | - The Swedish People's Party (Party G) | | ALLIANCE 3 (participated in the Constituency of Oulu): | - National Coalition Party (Party C)* | - The Swedish People's Party (Party G) | | ALLIANCE 4 (participated in the Constituency of Lapland): | - National Coalition Party (Party C)* | - Christian Democrats (Party H) | - The Swedish People's Party (Party G) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2017): E5034 | | Two informal alliances formed for the second round of the 2017 | French election. Note that these are unofficial alliances that | supported a certain candidate in the second round of the | presidential elections. Along with information about the | candidate they supported, the alliances are detailed below. | | ALLIANCE 1: | The alliance has no official name. It supported Emmanuel Macron | (En marche; PARTY A). | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - Emmanuel Macron (En marche; PARTY A)* | - Francois Fillon (Republicans; PARTY C) | - Benoit Hamon (Socialist Party; PARTY E) | | ALLIANCE 2: | The alliance has no official name. It supported Nicolas Marine | Le Pen (National Front; PARTY B). | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - Nicolas Marine Le Pen (National Front; PARTY B)* | - Nicolas Dupont-Aignan (Debout la France; PARTY F) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): E5034 | | One alliance formed in the 2015 Greek election. It is | detailed below. | | ALLIANCE 1: | Dimokratiki Symparataxi (PASOK-DIMAR; PARTY D) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - PA.SO.K.* | - DIM.AR. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E5034 | | Multiple alliances formed in the 2016 election. They are | detailed below. | | ALLIANCE 1: | (in Kowloon West) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong* | - Kowloon West New Dynamic | | ALLIANCE 2: | (in New Territories West and New Territories East) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of | Hong Kong* | - New Territories Association of Societies | | ALLIANCE 3: | PP-LSD (in New Territories West) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - League of Social Democrats* | - People Power* | | ALLIANCE 4: | (in New Territories East) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - Civic Passion* | - Hong Kong Resurgence Order | | ALLIANCE 5: | (in New Territories East) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - New People's Party* | - Civil Force | | ALLIANCE 6: | | ALLinHK (Party I) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - Youngspiration* | - Kowloon East Community | - Tin Shui Wai New Force | - Cheung Sha Wan Community Establishment Power | - Tsz Wan Shan Constructive Power | - Tuen Mun Community | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E5034 | | Two alliances formed in the 2018 Hungarian election. They are | detailed below. | | ALLIANCE 1: | Fidesz-KDNP (Magyar Szolidaritas Szovetsege) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | - Fidesz - Hungarian Civic Alliance (PARTY A)* | - Christian Democratic People's Party (KDNP; also | coded under PARTY A) | | ALLIANCE 2: | Hungarian Socialist Party - Dialogue for Hungary | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | - Hungarian Socialist Party (MSZP, PARTY C)* | - Dialogue for Hungary (also coded under PARTY C) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2016): E5034 | | One alliance formed in the 2016 Irish election. It is | detailed below. | | ALLIANCE 1: | United Left Alliance (ULA, PARTY E) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - Socialist Party (SP) | - People Before Profit Alliance (PBPA) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2020): E5034 | | Five alliances formed in the 2020 Israeli election. They are | detailed below. | | ALLIANCE 1: | Kahol Lavan (Blue & White, PARTY B) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - Israel Resilience Party | - Yesh Atid | - Telem | | ALLIANCE 2: | HaReshima HaMeshutefe (United Arab Joint List, PARTY C) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - Hadash | - Raam | - Taa'l | - Balad | | ALLIANCE 3: | Yahadut Hatorah (YH, United Torah Judaism, PARTY E) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - Banner of the Torah | - Union of Israel | | ALLIANCE 4: | Labor-Gesher-Meretz (PARTY F) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - Labor | - Gesher | - Meretz | | ALLIANCE 5: | Yamina (The New Right, PARTY G) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - The New Right | - The Jewish Home | - National Union | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E5034 | | Two alliances formed in the 2018 Italian election. They are | detailed below. | | ALLIANCE 1: | Center-right coalition (Coalizione di centro-destra) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | - League (coded under PARTY C)* | - Forza Italia (coded under PARTY D)* | - Brothers of Italy (coded under PARTY E) | - Us with Italy-Christian Democratic Union | | ALLIANCE 2: | Center-left coalition (Coalizione di centro-sinistra) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | - Democratic Party (coded under PARTY B)* | - +Europe | - Popular Civic List | - Together List | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E5034 | | Two alliances formed in the 2018 Lithuanian election. They are | detailed below. | | ALLIANCE 1: | Anti-corruption Coalition of N. Puteikis and K. Krivickas | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | - Lithuanian Center Party* (coded under PARTY H) | - Lithuanian Party of Pensioners (coded under PARTY H) | | ALLIANCE 2: | Coalition of S. Buskevicius and Nationalists "Against Corruption | and Poverty" (Party of Young Lithuanians, Union of Nationalists) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | - Party of Young Lithuanians | - Union of Nationalists* | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E5034 | | ALLIANCE 1: ALBANCI ODLUCNO FORCA-DUA-AA (Albanians | Decisively; Party H here): FORCA-DUA*-AA. | | ALLIANCE 2: ALBANSKA KOALICIJA "SA JEDNIM CILJEM" DP, GI, | DS U CG I PERSPEKTIVA (Albanian coalition | "With one goal"): DP*, GI, DS U CG I PERSPEKTIVA. | | ALLIANCE 3: "VELIKA KOALICIJA - KLJUC - DEMOS, SNP, URA - | NAJBOLJE ZA CRNU GORU" (Key Coalition; | Party C here): DEMOS*, SNP, URA. | | ALLIANCE 4: "DEMOKRATSKI FRONT - MI ILI ON" (Democratic | Front - We or Him; Party B here): NOVA SRPSKA | DEMOKRATIJA*, POKRET ZA PROMJENE, DEMOKRATSKA | NARODNA PARTIJA CRNE GORE, RADNICKA PARTIJA, | DEMOKRATSKA SRPSKA STRANKA, POKRET ZA PLJEVLJA, | SRPSKA RADIKALNA STRANKA, JUGOSLOVENSKA | KOMUNISTICKA PARTIJA CRNE GORE, PARTIJA UDRUZENIH | PENZIONERA I INVALIDA CRNE GORE I GRUPA BIRACA - | OTPOR BEZNADJU. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2017): E5034 | | Two alliances formed in the 2017 election. They are | detailed below. | Note that these parties did not have joint lists. Their | electoral alliance ("lijstverbinding") was only used for | the distribution of 'rest seats'. | | ALLIANCE 1: | - Christian Union (CU) (Party H)* | - Reformed Political Party (SGP) | | ALLIANCE 2: | - Labour Party (PvdA) (Party G)* | - Green Left (GL) (Party E) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2020): E5034 | | One alliances formed in the 2020 election. It is detailed below. | | ALLIANCE 1: | - New Zealand's People's Party | - Advance New Zealand | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2019): E5034 | | One alliance was formed in the 2019 Portuguese election. It is | detailed below. | | ALLIANCE 1: | Democratic Unity Coalition (CDU; coded here as PARTY D) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - Portuguese Communist Party* (PCP) | - The Green Party (PEV) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2020): E5034 | | Three alliances formed in the 2020 Slovak election. They are | detailed below. | | ALLIANCE 1: | Ordinary People and Independent Personalities (OLaNO, PARTY A) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - NOVA | - Christian Union | - Change from Below | As this alliance was contesting as one list, to gain seats, it | had to surpass the 5% electoral threshold. | | ALLIANCE 2: | Progressive Slovakia/Together (PS-SPOLU, PARTY E) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - Progressive Slovakia | - Together-Civic Democracy | As this alliance was contesting as a coalition of different | parties running with separate lists, the alliance had to surpass | the 7% electoral threshold. The alliance failed to do this and | won no seats. | | ALLIANCE 3: | Hungarian Community Togetherness (MKO, PARTY I) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - Hungarian Forum | - Party of the Hungarian Community (SMK-MKP) | - Oesszefogas-Spolupatricnos | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016): E5034 | | One alliance formed in the 2016 Taiwanese election. It is | detailed below. | | ALLIANCE 1: | GP - SDP Alliance (PARTY D) | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | | - Green Party (GP) | - Social Democratic Party (SDP) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2018): E5034 | | Two alliances formed in the 2018 Turkish election. They are | detailed below. | | ALLIANCE 1: | The People's Alliance | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | - Justice and Development Party (AKP; PARTY A)* | - Nationalist Action Party (MHP; PARTY D) | - Grand Unity Party (BBP) | | ALLIANCE 2: | The Nation Alliance | | The alliance consists of the following parties: | - Republican People's Party (CHP; PARTY B)* | - Good Party (IYIP; PARTY E) | - Felicity Party (SP; PARTY F) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5035 >>> REQUIREMENTS FOR JOINT PARTY LISTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M11. If joint lists are possible, are they subject to different regulations than single-party lists? For example higher thresholds, different numbers of candidates that may appear on the list, etc. .................................................................. 1. YES, JOINT PARTY LISTS MUST SATISFY HIGHER THRESHOLDS 2. YES, JOINT PARTY LISTS MAY PRESENT DIFFERENT NUMBERS OF CANDIDATES 3. YES, JOINT PARTY LISTS ARE SUBJECT TO OTHER REGULATIONS THAT ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING INDEPENDENT PARTIES 5. NO, JOINT PARTIES ARE GOVERNED BY THE SAME RULES AS OTHER PARTIES 7. NOT APPLICABLE; NO JOINT PARTY LISTS ARE ALLOWED 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5035 | | Source: CSES Macro Report M11. | | Please also refer to VARIABLE NOTES for variables E5031-E5033. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E5035 | | This applies to lower house elections. E5035 for Brazil is coded | 2, because joint party lists may present a different number of | candidates: | | When district magnitude >=20: a political party can present | up to 1.5 candidates for each seat. When there is a joint list a | political party can present up to 2 candidates for each seat. | | When district magnitude <20: a political party can present | up to 2 candidates for each seat. When there is a joint list a | political party can present up to 2.5 candidates for each seat. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): E5035 | | "2.a. The independent Party that came first in valid votes in | the electoral District of Greece, besides the seats that are | allocated to it according to paragraph 1, gains fifty (50) more | seats, which are derived from the electoral peripheries that | have seats not allocated after the conclusion of the procedure | in accordance with the provisions of article 6. | These extra fifty (50) seats could be also gained by a party | coalition, under the condition that the average of the | percentages that the Parties of the coalition gained is higher | than the percentage of the independent Party that came first in | valid votes. This average is obtained by the division of the | percentage that the fore mentioned party coalition gained | divided by the number of Parties that it consists of." [Excerpt | from Law 3636/2008: Article 1, Paragraph 2a (Amendment of law | 3231/2004 "Election of the Members of the Parliament").] | | This means that if a party coalition gets the relative | majority but its average power is less than the power of the | independent party that gets the higher percentage among the | independent parties the extra fifty seats are gained by this | independent party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E5035 | | In the proportional component of both Houses of the Parliament | (second segments), thresholds for obtaining seats are 3% for | parties running alone, 10% for coalitions, and 1% for parties | within coalitions. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2017): E5035 | | Number of candidates may be higher than the number on the | list of separate parties (depends on previous election results). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5036 >>> THE POSSIBILITY OF APPARENTEMENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M12a. Is there apparentement or linking of lists? .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5036 | | Source: CSES Macro Report M12a. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2017): E5036 | | Dutch political parties can (and do) form a list combination | ("lijstverbinding", or Appartement before the election. In the | distribution of seats, these alliances are seen as one party; | only after the distribution of seats over parties and | alliances, the seats within the alliances are distributed. It | may give the alliance an extra remainder seat, but it does not | play a role in the electoral campaign. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E5036 | | Apparentement exists approximately. Namely, the Multiple | Simultaneous Vote (MVS) can be seen as the inverse of | apparentement, in which votes are cast by lists, which are | added by the effect of apparentement. For more details about | the MVS system in Uruguay; see notes for E5001 and E5003. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5037 >>> TYPES OF APPARENTEMENT AGREEMENTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M12b. If apparentement is possible, what lists can participate in such agreements? .................................................................. 1. LISTS OF THE SAME PARTY IN THE SAME CONSTITUENCY 2. LISTS OF THE SAME PARTY FROM DIFFERENT CONSTITUENCIES 3. LISTS OF DIFFERENT PARTIES IN THE SAME CONSTITUENCY 7. NOT APPLICABLE; NO APPARENTEMENT 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5037 | | Source: CSES Macro Report M12b. | | Please also refer to VARIABLE NOTES for variable E5035. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2017): E5037 | | According to the Macro Report, "Apparentments are nationwide. | So, the parties that form an apparentement are part of the | same list in all districts." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2017): E5037 | | See election study note for E5036. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2018): E5037 | | In Sweden, it is also possible that lists of different parties | (code 3) can participate in an apparentement. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E5037 | | See note for E5036. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5038 >>> MULTI-PARTY ENDORSEMENTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M13a. Can candidates run with the endorsement of more than one party? .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5038 | | Source: CSES Macro Report M13a. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E5038 | | Voters vote for party lists, not directly for candidates. | Names of the official lists may but do not have to mention | any party names. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E5038 | | In Montenegrin parliamentary elections, voters vote for (closed) | party lists, not directly for candidates. Names of the official | lists may but do not have to mention any party names. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5039 >>> MULTI-PARTY ENDORSEMENTS ON BALLOT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M13b. If candidates can run with the endorsement of more than one party, is this reflected on the ballot? .................................................................. 1. NO 2. NO PARTY ENDORSEMENTS ARE INDICATED ON THE BALLOT PAPER 3. YES, CANDIDATE'S NAME APPEARS ONCE, TOGETHER WITH THE NAMES OF ALL SUPPORTING PARTIES 4. YES, CANDIDATE'S NAME APPEARS AS MANY TIMES AS THERE ARE DIFFERENT PARTIES ENDORSING HIM/HER, EACH TIME WITH THE NAME OF THE ENDORSING PARTY 5. YES, OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5039 | | Source: CSES Macro Report M13b. | | Please also refer to VARIABLE NOTES for variable E5037. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E5039 | | Voters vote for party lists, not directly for candidates. | Names of the official lists may but do not have to mention | any party names. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E5039 | | In Montenegrin parliamentary elections, voters vote for (closed) | party lists, not directly for candidates. Names of the official | lists may but do not have to mention any party names. Hence, | this variable is coded: 7. NOT APPLICABLE. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017 & 2020): E5039 | | A candidate standing in tier 1 ("constituency vote") may have | an endorsement from another party but it is usually tacit | rather than direct and usually the main party of the candidate | is the one that appears on the ballot paper. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016 & 2020): E5039 | | Nearly all of these options are possible in the United States | with the rules varying by state. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5040_1 >>> VOTES CAST - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) E5040_2 >>> VOTES CAST - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) E5040_3 >>> VOTES CAST - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) E5040_4 >>> VOTES CAST - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M15a. How many votes do voters cast or can cast? In systems where voters rank order the candidates, if there are 10 candidates (for example), the response to this question should be 10. .................................................................. 01-90. NUMBER OF VOTES 91. OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 97. NOT APPLICABLE 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5040_ | | Source: CSES Macro Report M15a. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): E5040_1 | | For lower house elections, Australia employs the Alternative | Vote system. In this system, voters are required | to list their preferences for as many candidates | as there are on the ballot. Thus, the total number of votes | varies across electoral districts. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): E5040_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 (2017): E5040_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. | 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 E5040-E5049. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E5040_3 | | Members of the Brazilian Senate (Senado Federal) are elected | for 8-years term and the chamber is composed of 81 members, with | each state in Brazil having three Senators each. | Members are elected in alternative electoral cycles: two thirds | of the Senate seats (n=54) are contested in one election cycle | while the remaining one-third are contested in the other. The | 2018 elections saw a two-thirds of the Senate seats contested | (n=54). Accordingly, voters therefore had two votes in this | election as two Senators per State were being selected. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - COSTA RICA (2018): E5040_1 | | For parliamentary elections, Costa Rica uses proportional, | closed party-list system. The 57 members of the Legislative | Assembly are elected by the largest remainder method from | seven multi-member constituencies, each of which contains between | four and 19 seats. | Parties that reach a quotient are entitled to receive seats. | Seats remaining unfilled by the quotient system are | distributed among parties in descending order of their | residual votes; parties that did not attain | the sub-quotient are also taken into account, their votes being | treated as residual votes. The quotient is the number obtained | by dividing the total of valid votes cast in a particular | province by the number of seats to be filled in the same | province; the sub quotient is the total of valid votes cast | for a party which, while not attaining the quotient, obtains | or exceeds 50% of it. | Voting is compulsory. Party lists were required to alternate | between male and female candidates, with parties, also required | to have three or four of their seven regional lists headed by | a female candidate. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2019): E5040_1 & E5040_2 | | The Danish Folketing has 179 members, 175 of which are elected | in mainland Denmark and the remaining four from the territories | of Greenland and the Faroe Islands. In mainland Denmark, 135 | members are elected from 10 multi-member constituencies across | three geographical regions, namely: Copenhagen, Northern Jutland, | an Seeland-Southern Denmark. Additionally, 40 supplementary seats | are distributed across these the three geographical regions in | order to achieve full proportionality. While voters do not | cast a ballot directly for this tier it is widely | acknowledged to constitute a separate tier of the electoral | system. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): E5040_1 | | In the Greek electoral system, representatives are elected | according to three methods of counting votes. First, 250 | representatives are elected proportionally in 56 constituencies. | Next, up to 1/20 of the Parliament (currently 12), may be | elected not in a specified constituency but throughout the | country at large. These are the State Deputies, whose exact | number depends on the total electoral strength of each party. | Finally, there are 50 'bonus' seats awarded to the party | receiving the largest share of the vote. | However, since voters cast a single vote only, this system is | different from systems with multiple tiers where voters vote | separately in different tiers. Hence, the system is coded as | consisting of a single tier in variables E5040-E5049. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E5040_1 & E5040_2 | | Hong Kong has a unicameral legislature. The Legislative Council | of the HKSAR has 70 members. Half of the legislative council is | returned by geographic constituency (popular) elections; the | other half is returned by functional constituency elections. | Election data on Hong Kong electoral institutions refer to the | geographical constituency elections only. | In the Geographical Constituency (GC) part of the Election, Hong | Kong is divided into 5 constituencies and voters elect | candidates by universal suffrage. The number of LegCo seats in | each constituency is decided according to the constituency | population. The voting system adopted is the closed list | proportional representation system. Geographical Constituency is | treated here as the first segment of the LegCo. | There are two parts of the Functional Constituencies (FCs): the | traditional FCs and the District Council (Second) FC. | The traditional FCs return 30 LegCo members. Registration as a | voter in some traditional FCs requires certain qualifications, | for example, registered medical practitioners or dentists for | the Medical FC. Note that in some FCs, voters are individuals, | while in others, 'voters' are not individuals but companies or | organizations. | The District Council (Second) FC is treated here as the second | segment of the LegCo. This segment returns 5 LegCo members. In | this part of the election, the whole of Hong Kong has one | constituency only and the voting system adopted is the closed | list proportional representation system. Candidates must be | elected District Council members who are nominated by no less | than 15 other elected District Council members; whereas voters | are registered GC electors who are not registered in other FCs. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E5040_1 & E5040_2 | | In elections in Hungary, each voter has two votes, one in each | segment: One vote an individual candidate in one of the | electoral constituencies (tier 1, 106 single-member | constituencies), and another vote (party list vote) for a | national party-list (tier 2). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2016 & 2017): E5040_2 | | There is a second tier where 9 (out of 63) so called | "supplementary" seats are allocated to party lists receiving | at least 5% of the valid vote. However, voters cast only a | single vote and voters do not directly cast a vote for | this tier. Hence, this variable is coded "97. NOT APPLICABLE". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2011): E5040_1 | | Voters have one ballot but can cast as many votes (first | preference and subsequent lower preferences) as there are | candidates running for election. However, a voter is only | required to express a first preference vote for the vote to be | valid with lower preferences optional. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E5040 | | Voters could make a sign (1) on the district candidate's name, | (2) on a party list supporting a district candidate, (3) on both | the candidate's name and the party list supporting the | candidate. Thus, voters have a vote for both electoral segments | (district candidates and party lists). | However, it is important to note that split-ballots are not | allowed, which makes the voting system nearly identical as if | voters had a single vote. | Voters residing abroad (3rd segment) vote only for the lists. | The same rules apply to both Chambers of the Italian Parliament. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2017): E5040 | | Kokkai (National Diet) is a Japanese bicameral parliament. Lower | house is Sangiin (House of Councilors), while the Upper house | is Shugiin (House of Representatives). | The Lower house (465 directly elected members) consists of two | segments - majoritarian and proportional. The first segment | consists of 289 single-member constituencies, elected via simple | majority voting system. The second segment (proportional) is | based on 11 multi-member (6 to 28 seats) constituencies, in total | giving 176 seats (party list system, using the d'Hondt method | for the allocation of the seats. | The Upper House has 242 members. The first segment is | represented by 45 multi-member constituencies (between two and | 12 seats each) for a total of 146 seats (43 formed on a | metropolitan or prefectural basis; and two other constituencies | covering two prefectures each). 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 one national constituency | for the remaining 96 seats, elected on the basis of party list | proportional system. At each election, half of the Upper house | is renewed | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E5040_1 | | In elections in Lithuania, each voter votes in two segments. | In the first segment, voters vote for an individual candidate | in one of 71 single-member constituencies. In the second | segment, voters vote for a national party-list in a nationwide | multi-member constituency (70 seats). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E5040_2 | | In elections in Lithuania, each voter votes in two segments. | In the first segment, voters vote for an individual candidate | in one of 71 single-member constituencies. In the second | segment, voters vote for a national party-list in a nationwide | multi-member constituency (70 seats). | In the proportional representation tier, voters can cast one | vote for a party list, and they have 5 preferential votes for | the candidates of the party they have voted for. Hence, for the | second segment, this variable was coded 5. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017): E5040_1 & E5040_2 | | In elections in New Zealand, each voter has 2 votes, | one in each segment: One vote ("first vote") for an individual | candidate in one of the electoral constituencies (tier 1), | and another vote ("second vote") for a national party-list | drawn up by each political party (tier 2). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2020): E5040_1 & E5040_2 | | In elections in New Zealand, each voter has 2 votes, | one in each segment: One vote ("first vote") for an individual | candidate in one of the electoral constituencies (tier 1), | and another vote ("second vote") for a national party-list | drawn up by each political party (tier 2). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2017): E5040_2 | | The Norwegian Parliament comprises 169 seats in two tiers: | 150 members are elected in 19 multi-member districts using | proportional representation. The remaining 19 seats are | compensatory and are allocated to parties that receive 4%+ of | the national vote. These seats are known as "members at large" | and are seen as a means of evening out discrepancies between | the number of votes received and the number of seats in the | Storting. The distribution is based on a comparison of the | actual distribution of seats with what would have been occurred | had the country been treated as on big constituency, thus | allowing a determination to be made as to which parties are | under-represented. These parties are then awarded "seats at | large" in the constituencies where they were closest to winning | an ordinary seat. While voters do not cast a ballot directly for | this tier and the seats are awarded at the national level | (albeit dispersed at the constituency level), it is widely | acknowledged to constitute a separate tier of the electoral | system. | For more see: | https://www.stortinget.no/en/In-English/About-the-Storting/ | Elections/ | (Date accessed: March 23, 2020). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2016): E5040_1 & E5040_2 | | Korea employs a mixed-member majoritarian system that combines | 253 single-member districts (SMD) with 47 proportional | representation (PR) seats, elected from a single nationwide | district. Each voter casts two votes, one for an individual | candidate in the SMD segment, and one for a closed party list | in the PR segment. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2018): E5040_1 & E5040_2 | | The Swedish Riksdag has 349 members, where 310 members are | elected from 29 multi-member constituencies. Additionally, | 39 supplementary seats are distributed in order to achieve full | proportionality which are equivalent to a second tier. While | voters do not cast a ballot directly for this tier it is widely | acknowledged to constitute a separate tier of the electoral | system. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2019): E5040_1 | | In Switzerland voters have as many votes as the number of seats | in their district (between 1 and 35 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 the 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 voter casts a single vote for | a candidate, that vote automatically counts for that candidate's | party list. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2019): E5040_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 - TAIWAN (2016): E5040_1 & E5040_2 | | Taiwan uses a mixed-member majoritarian (MMM) system, and the | total number of seats is 113. The seats are distributed via two | segments (tiers). The first segment is represented by 73 seats, | elected in single-member districts (SMD). The second segment is | a nationwide district employing a proportional representation | system. In addition, six seats reserved for aboriginal groups. | These seats are elected using the same system as the first | segment (SMD). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2020): E5040_1 & E5040_2 | | Taiwan uses a mixed-member majoritarian (MMM) system, and | the total number of seats is 113. The seats are distributed | via two segments (tiers). The first segment is represented | by 73 seats, elected in single-member districts | (SMD). The second segment is a nationwide district | employing a proportional representation system. In addition, | six seats reserved for aboriginal groups. These seats are | elected using the same system as the first segment (SMD). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E5040_1 & E5040_2 | | Thailand has a bicameral National Assembly (Rathasapha) | consisting of the Senate (Wuthisapha) with 250 seats and the | House of Representatives (Sapha Phuthael Ratsadon) with 500 | seats. In the House of Representatives (Sapha Phuthaen | Ratsadon), 350 members are elected by plurality vote in single- | member constituencies (1st segment) and 150 members are elected | through a closed-list proportional representation system (2nd | segment) to serve 4-year terms. | According to the 2017 Constitution, the Lower House uses a new | mixed member apportionment electoral system. Despite there being | two separate types of seats to fill in this new system voters | make only one "fused" choice on the ballot. A voter's mark on | the ballot will now indicate their choice of a constituency | representative and their choice of a political party as the | basis for the distribution of the 150 party list seats. These | decisions were separate under Thailand's previous mixed system. | Distribution of the party list seats are now determined by each | party's share of the popular fused vote. The number of single- | member seats won are subtracted from the share of all 500 seats | a party would receive based on the popular vote. The remainder | is roughly the number of PR seats awarded to that party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E5040_3 & E5040_4 | | In 2019, Thailand had a Senate (Upper House) not elected | directly by the people. According to the 2017 post-coup d'etat | law, for its first five years, the Senate is composed of 250 | appointees, instead of 200 appointees for the period beyond. | While six seats are reserved for commanders of the armed forces, | the police, and the Defense secretary, the remaining 244 are | selected by the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) | through two different processes. Fifty Senators represent 10 | economic and social groups, and are selected by the NCPO after | an initial screening by the Election Commission of Thailand | (ECT), while the remaining 194 are nominated by the NCPO itself, | through an ad hoc screening committee. Senate nominees are | ultimately endorsed by the King. | Since the Senate is not directly elected, but at the time of | this election, appointed by the military, variables E5040-E5049 | referring to the Upper House are all coded Not Applicable. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5041_1 >>> VOTING PROCEDURE - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) E5041_2 >>> VOTING PROCEDURE - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) E5041_3 >>> VOTING PROCEDURE - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) E5041_4 >>> VOTING PROCEDURE - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M15b. Do they vote for candidates (not party lists) or party lists? .................................................................. 1. CANDIDATES 2. PARTY LISTS 3. PARTY BLOC VOTING 4. OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5041_ | | 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. | | Source: CSES Macro Report M15b. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): E5041_1 | | Voting is by the full preferential system (also known as | instant-runoff system), where voters rank the candidates | in order of preference rather than vote for a single | candidate. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): E5041_3 | | Senators are popularly elected under a single transferable | vote system, where voters have as many votes as there are | candidates in a district. voters can also vote for an | individual party ('group voting ticket'). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): E5041_1 | | The Austrian electoral system is a proportional representation | system with three segments or tiers. These correspond to the | regional districts tier, the Land level tier (or state level) | and the federal (or national) level tier. Counting and | allocation of seats passes through each of these levels. | Voters can cast a (single) party vote on an open list and | indicate their preferred candidate on the respective party list. | See also Election Study Note for E5040. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E5041_1 | | For Federal deputy election, each political party presents | a list of candidates. Voters can vote for a candidate or | they can vote for a party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2019): E5041_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 for 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 for 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 - FINLAND (2019): E5041_1 | | Electoral system in Finland is based on open lists, where the | votes for candidates per party list in each constituency form | the basis for seat allocation. Each voter must choose a | candidate; it is not possible to vote for a party as such. | The method for seat allocation is PR/d'Hondt within each | constituency. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E5041_1 & E5041_2 | | Both in the Geographical Constituency (GC) and in the | District Council (Second) Functional Constituency, voters vote | for closed party lists. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E5041_1 & E5041_2 | | In the first segment (candidate vote), voters vote for | candidates. In the second segment (party list vote), | voters vote for closed party lists. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2016 & 2017): E5041_2 | | There is a second tier where 9 (out of 63) so called | "supplementary" seats are allocated to party lists receiving | at least 5% of the valid vote. However, voters cast only a | single vote and voters do not directly cast a vote for | this tier. Hence, this variable is coded "7. NOT APPLICABLE". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2017): E5041_1 | | First segments of each house is based on votes for candidates. | The second segment of each house is based on party list votes. | See also election study note for E5040. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E5041_1 & E5041_2 | | In the first segment (candidate vote), voters vote for | candidates. In the second segment (party list vote), | voters vote for open party lists. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2017): E5041_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 - NORWAY (2017): E5041_2 | | Voters in Norway cast only one single ballot in the election on | the basis of party lists. This vote directly impacts the | selection of the 150 members elected in the 19 multi-member | districts using proportional representation. However, the ballot | also influences the dispersion of the 19 "member at large seats" | (for more see E5041_2). As such, when voters are casting their | ballot for party lists they are also casting a ballot, albeit | indirectly for the allocation of the "member at large seats". | Accordingly, we code this as "2. PARTY LISTS". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2020): E5041_1 | | Slovak voters can vote for party lists of political parties and | every voter has got 4 preferential votes, they are counted if | they reach 3% of all votes for the party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2016): E5041_1 & E5041_2 | | Korean voters have two votes - one vote in the 253 single | member constituencies and one on a single nationwide | proportional district. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2019): E5041_1 | | An empty ballot paper has a line for the party/list name on top | and then as many lines as there are seats in a canton which can | be filled with candidates' names. Instead of an empty ballot | paper, voters can also use one of the pre-printed ballot papers | that already contains the list name and all the candidates of | this list/party. There are, however, differences across the | cantons. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2019): E5041_3 | | Cantonal laws govern elections 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 its two seats. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E5041_1 & E5041_2 | | For more details, see Election Study Note for E5040. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5042_1 >>> VOTING ROUNDS - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) E5042_2 >>> VOTING ROUNDS - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) E5042_3 >>> VOTING ROUNDS - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) E5042_4 >>> VOTING ROUNDS - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M15c. How many rounds of voting are there? .................................................................. 01-90. NUMBER OF ROUNDS 97. NOT APPLICABLE 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5042_ | | Source: CSES Macro Report M15c. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - COSTA RICA (2018): E5042_1 | | See variable note for E5041_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2016 & 2017): E5042_2 | | There is a second tier where 9 (out of 63) so called | "supplementary" seats are allocated to party lists receiving | at least 5% of the valid vote. However, voters cast only a | single vote and voters do not directly cast a vote for | this tier. Hence, this variable is coded "97. NOT APPLICABLE". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2017): E5042_2 | | See variable notes for E5040_2 and E5041_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2019): E5042_3 | | The electoral rules (except the number of seats to be filled) | are subject to cantonal regulations. Therefore, the electoral | system varies. Most cantons have two-round majoritarian | elections, where an absolute majority is required in the first | round. However, one canton uses a PR system for its two seats | (canton of Jura). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E5042_1 & E5042_2 | | For more details, see Election Study Note for E5040. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E5042_1 | | For the Presidential elections, there is only one round of | voting. In most states for Congressional elections (to the House | of Representatives and the Senate), there is also one round of | voting. The exceptions are for House and Senate elections in | Georgia and Louisiana. | | In the state of Georgia, winning candidates for all congressional | offices must win 50% of the popular vote. Failure to | do so results in a run-off election with the two most popular | candidates in vote share from the original election advancing | to the run-off contest. This occurred in the 2020 regular (as | opposed to special election) Senate election in Georgia when | incumbent Republican (PARTY B) David Purdue, lost to Democratic | (PARTY A) challenger Jon Ossoff in the run-off election held in | January 2021. In the original Senate contest in November 2020, | Purdue won more votes than Ossoff, but failed to achieve a | majority support, hence the need for a run-off contest. | For Senate special elections in the state of Georgia, a | non-partisan "jungle primary" operates, where all candidates for | the office, regardless of party affiliation, contest the | election. | A candidate must achieve 50% of the vote to win. If no candidate | does, the two most popular candidates in vote share, advance | to a run-off election. This occurred in 2020 when incumbent | Republican (PARTY B) Kelly Loeffler, appointed to the seat by | the Republican Governor of Georgia Brian Kemp, after the | resignation of long-time Senator Johnny Isakson in late 2019, | came second in vote share to Democratic (PARTY A) challenger | Raphael Warnock. Warnock failed to achieve a majority of votes | in the original contest and advanced with Loeffler to a run-off | contest in January 2021, in which Warnock defeated Loeffler. | | In the state of Louisiana, a "jungle primary" has been used since | 1977. If one candidate obtains a majority of the vote, they | win the office they are seeking outright, the only "primary" | where a candidate can actually achieve this without a runoff. | When a candidate does not win a majority of the vote, the top | two candidates in vote share, irrespective of party, | go forward to a run-off election, usually held one month later. | In 2020, incumbent Republican (PARTY B) Bill Cassidy was re- | elected, achieving a majority of the vote share in the jungle | primary, negating the need for a run-off contest. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5043_1 >>> PARTY LISTS - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) E5043_2 >>> PARTY LISTS - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) E5043_3 >>> PARTY LISTS - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) E5043_4 >>> PARTY LISTS - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M15d. If there are lists, are they closed, open, flexible, or is there party bloc voting? .................................................................. 1. CLOSED (Order of candidates elected is determined by the party and voters are unable to express preference for a particular candidate) 2. OPEN (Voters can indicate their preferred party and their favored candidate within that party) 3. FLEXIBLE (Voters can allocate votes to candidates either within a single party list or across different party lists as they see fit) 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5043_ | | Source: CSES Macro Report M15d. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - COSTA RICA (2018): E5043_1 | | See variable note for E5041_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2016 & 2017): E5043_2 | | There is a second tier where 9 (out of 63) so called | "supplementary" seats are allocated to party lists receiving | at least 5% of the valid vote. However, voters cast only a | single vote and voters do not directly cast a vote for | this tier. Hence, this variable is coded "7. NOT APPLICABLE". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2017): E5043_2 & E5043_4 | | In the Lower House elections, party lists (2nd segment) are | closed. Second segment of the Upper House uses open lists. | See also election study notes for E5040. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E5043_2 | | In the proportional representation tier, voters can cast one | vote for an open party list, and they have five preferential | votes for the candidates of the party they voted for. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2017): E5043_2 | | See variable notes for E5040_2 and E5041_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2019): E5043_1 | | See variable note for E5041_1 and E5040_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E5043_1 & E5043_2 | | For more details, see Election Study Note for E5040. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5044_1 >>> TRANSFERABLE VOTES - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) E5044_2 >>> TRANSFERABLE VOTES - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) E5044_3 >>> TRANSFERABLE VOTES - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) E5044_4 >>> TRANSFERABLE VOTES - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M16. Are the votes transferable? .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5044_ | | 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. | | Source: CSES Macro Report M16. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5045_1 >>> CUMULATED VOTES - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) E5045_2 >>> CUMULATED VOTES - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) E5045_3 >>> CUMULATED VOTES - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) E5045_4 >>> CUMULATED VOTES - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M17. If more than one vote can be cast, can they be cumulated? .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5045_ | | Definition: Cumulative voting refers to systems in which voters | are allowed to cast more than one vote for a single candidate. | | Source: CSES Macro Report M17 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2019): E5045_1 | | See variable note for E5040_1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5046_1 >>> COMPULSORY VOTING - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) E5046_2 >>> COMPULSORY VOTING - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) E5046_3 >>> COMPULSORY VOTING - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) E5046_4 >>> COMPULSORY VOTING - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M18. Is voting compulsory? .................................................................. 1. YES; STRICTLY ENFORCED SANCTIONS 2. YES; WEAKLY ENFORCED SANCTIONS 3. YES; WITHOUT SANCTION FOR VIOLATION 5. NO 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5046_ | | Definition: Voting is compulsory if the law states that all those | who have the right to vote are obliged to exercise that right. | | Source for this variable: CSES Macro Report M18. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E5046 | | Voting is compulsory for those aged 18-70 unless they are | illiterate. Voting is optional for the illiterate, those over | 70, and those aged 16-18. Those who do fail to vote must provide | a justification to the Brazilian Election Commission. | (Source: Bustani 2001, p. 306,n. 2). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - COSTA RICA (2018): E5046_1 | | See variable note for E5041_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2019): E5046_1 | | Voting is compulsory in one constituency/canton only | (Schaffhausen). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (2019): E5046_3 | | Voting is compulsory in one constituency/canton only | (Schaffhausen). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5047_1 >>> IS THERE PARTY THRESHOLD - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) E5047_2 >>> IS THERE PARTY THRESHOLD - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) E5047_3 >>> IS THERE PARTY THRESHOLD - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) E5047_4 >>> IS THERE PARTY THRESHOLD - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M20a. Are there legally mandated thresholds that a party must exceed before it is eligible to receive seats? .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5047_ | | Source: CSES Macro Report M20a. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): E5047_1 | | Parties that already won a seat in one of the 39 regional | districts ("Regionalwahlkreis") or received at least 4% of | the nationwide valid votes can enter the parliament. | See also Election Study Note for E5040. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - COSTA RICA (2018): E5047_1 | | There is no formal threshold. For the allocation of the seats | in the National Assembly the Electoral Court uses a modified | version of the Hare quota (half quota). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2017): E5047_2 | | The electoral threshold in Denmark only applies to | the compensatory seats (n=40 at second tier). Only | parties receiving at least 2% of the total vote are entitled | to receive one of the 40 seats to be allocated. Alternatively, | parties winning a seat directly in any of the ten multi-member | constituencies or who obtain a number of votes corresponding | - at least - to the provincial votes/seat ratio in two of the | three geographical regions (i.e., Copenhagen, Northern Jutland, | an Seeland-Southern Denmark, are also entitled to compensatory | seats. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E5047_2 | | In the second tier (party-list, national-level constituency), | the electoral threshold is 5% of the vote for individual | parties, 10% for coalitions of two parties and 15% for | coalitions of three or more parties. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2016 & 2017): E5047_1 & E5047_2 | | While there is no formal threshold at the first tier, in | the second tier (national district - see ES note E5040_2 | for details) only party lists receiving at least 5% of the | national vote are entitled to receive one of the 9 so called | compensatory seats to be allocated. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E5047_2 | | In the second tier (party-list, national-level constituency), | the electoral threshold is 5% of the total vote for individual | parties, and 7% for electoral coalitions. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2017): E5047_2 | | The electoral threshold in Norway only applies to | the "member at large" seats (n=19) at second tier). Only | parties receiving at least 4% of the total vote are entitled | to receive one of the 19 seats to be allocated. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2018): E5047_1 | | The threshold is 10% of the valid votes cast nationwide. In | addition, a political party can only be elected if the party | (a) is officially organized in at least half of the provinces | and one-third of the districts within these provinces; | (b) has nominated two candidates for each parliamentary seat | in at least half of the provinces. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5048_1 >>> PARTY THRESHOLD - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) E5048_2 >>> PARTY THRESHOLD - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) E5048_3 >>> PARTY THRESHOLD - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) E5048_4 >>> PARTY THRESHOLD - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M20b. If YES in M20a, what is the threshold? .................................................................. 00.00 THERE IS NO THRESHOLD 0.10-95.00 A PARTY MUST RECEIVE THIS PERCENT (0.1% TO 95%) OF THE POPULAR VOTE IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR SEATS 96.00 OTHER THRESHOLD [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 97.00 NOT APPLICABLE 99.00 MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5048_ | | Source: CSES Macro Report M20b. | | See also VARIABLE NOTES for E5047_. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): E5048_1 | | Parties that already won a seat in one of the 39 regional | districts ("Regionalwahlkreis") or received at least 4% of | the nationwide valid votes can enter the parliament. | See also Election Study Note for E5040. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E5048_1 | | The threshold is based on the Hare Quota. To win seats, a party | must exceed the quota (total valid votes divided by the number | of seats) in each electoral district. Each party is entitled to | as many seats as the number of times its vote reaches the quota. | Unallocated seats apportioned according to the d'Hondt formula. | (Source: ACE Electoral Knowledge Network | and Nicolau 2008, p.170). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E5048_3 | | The Senate is chosen by a simple majority. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - COSTA RICA (2018): E5048_1 | | There is no formal threshold. For the allocation of the seats | in the National Assembly the Electoral Court uses a modified | version of the Hare quota (half quota). | See also election study note for E5041_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E5048_1 | | Constituency candidates with a relative majority (first vote) | in one of the 299 constituencies win a seat. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E5048_2 | | Germany has a double threshold in the second (proportional) | segment: Parties with more than 5% of the valid votes nationally | on the basis of the party list votes ("second vote") or those | who have won three of the 299 constituency seats receive a | proportional share of the 299 list seats on the basis of their | national vote share. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): E5048_1 | | Parties that receive at least 3% of all valid votes cast are | entitled to participate in the so-called first round of | proportional allocation of 250 seats at the national level. The | remaining 50 seats are awarded to the party that obtained the | nationwide plurality of votes, regardless of its obtained | percentage or the difference with the second party. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E5048_2 | | The threshold for political parties to obtain seats is 5% of the | valid votes. However, it is higher for electoral alliances | comprising of more parties: | - A threshold of 10% of valid votes for coalitions | of 2 parties. | - A threshold of 15% of valid votes for coalitions | of 3 parties or more. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2016 & 2017): E5048_1 & E5048_2 | | While there is no formal threshold at the first tier, in | the second tier (national district - see ES note E5040_2 | for details) only party lists receiving at least 5% of the | national vote are entitled to receive one of the 9 so called | compensatory seats to be allocated. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2020): E5048_1 | | The legal threshold in Israel is 3.25% having been changed in | 2014 from 2%. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E5048_2 | | In the proportional components (2nd segments) of both Houses of | the Italian Parliament, thresholds for obtaining seats are 3% | for parties running alone, 10% for coalitions (with the | condition that at least one of the coalition members obtains at | least 3% of the votes), and 1% for parties within coalitions. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E5048_4 | | In the proportional components (2nd segments) of both Houses of | the Italian parliament, thresholds for obtaining seats are 3% | for parties running alone, 10% for coalitions, and 1% for | parties within coalitions. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2017): E5048_1 | | Electoral threshold in the first (majoritarian) segment of | the Lower House is one-sixth of the number of valid votes | in each single-member district (16.67% of the valid vote). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2017): E5048_3 | | In the majoritarian segment of the Upper House (Prefectural | Districts), successful candidates are decided in the order of | the number of valid votes obtained on the basis of the | comparative plurality. To have a seat, a candidate should | receive the number of votes which is equal to or more than | one-sixth of the quotient divided the total of valid ballots | cast by the number of seats to be filled from the constituency | concerned. | Note that the current Japanese CSES election study is concerned | with the Lower House elections of 2017. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E5048_2 | | In the second tier (party-list, national-level constituency), | the electoral threshold is 5% of the total vote for individual | parties, and 7% for electoral coalitions. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2017): E5048_1 | | The threshold is 0.67 percent of the electoral quota - or | one seat. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017): E5048_2 | | New Zealand has a double threshold: Parties with more than 5% of | the valid votes nationally on the basis of the party list votes | ("second vote", tier 2) or those who have won one of the 70 | constituency seats (tier 1) are entitled to sit in parliament and | may be eligible to receive a proportional share of the 50 list | seats on the basis of their national vote share. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2020): E5048_2 | | New Zealand has a double threshold: Parties with more than 5% of | the valid votes nationally on the basis of the party list votes | ("second vote", tier 2) or those who have won one of the 70 | constituency seats (tier 1) are entitled to sit in parliament and | may be eligible to receive a proportional share of the 50 list | seats on the basis of their national vote share. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2017): E5048_2 | | See variable note for E5047_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2020): E5048_1 | | The threshold for political parties to obtain seats is 5% of the | valid votes. However, it is higher for electoral alliances | comprising of more parties: | - A threshold of 7% of valid votes for coalitions | of 2 or 3 parties. | - A threshold of 10% of valid votes for coalitions | of 4 parties or more. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2016): E5048_1 | | Constituency candidates with a relative majority in one of the | 253 constituencies win a seat. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2016): E5048_2 | | South Korea has a double threshold in the second (proportional) | segment: Parties with more than 3% of the valid votes nationally | on the basis of the party list votes ("party votes") or those | who have won at least 5 of the 253 constituency seats receive a | proportional share of the 47 list seats on the basis of their | national vote share. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E5048_1 & E5048_2 | | For more details, see Election Study Note for E5040. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2018): E5048_1 | | The threshold is 10% of the valid votes cast nationwide. In | addition, a political party can only be elected if the party | (a) is officially organized in at least half of the provinces | and one-third of the districts within these provinces; | (b) has nominated two candidates for each parliamentary seat | in at least half of the provinces. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5049_1 >>> UNIT FOR THE THRESHOLD - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) E5049_2 >>> UNIT FOR THE THRESHOLD - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) E5049_3 >>> UNIT FOR THE THRESHOLD - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT (TIER) E5049_4 >>> UNIT FOR THE THRESHOLD - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT (TIER) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- M20c. If YES in M21a, what is the unit for the threshold mentioned in M21b? .................................................................. 1. PERCENT OF TOTAL VOTES 2. PERCENT OF VALID VOTES 3. PERCENT OF THE TOTAL ELECTORATE 4. OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5049_ | | Source: CSES Macro Report M20c. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - COSTA RICA (2018): E5048_1 | | There is no formal threshold. For the allocation of the seats | in the National Assembly the Electoral Court uses a modified | version of the Hare quota (half quota). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E5049_2 | | Germany has a double threshold in the second (proportional) | segment: Parties with more than 5% of the valid votes nationally | on the basis of the party list votes ("second vote") or those | who have won three of the 299 constituency seats receive a | proportional share of the 299 list seats on the basis of their | national vote share. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017): E5049_2 | | New Zealand has an alternative threshold: Parties with more than | 5% of the total votes nationally on the basis of the party list | votes ('party vote', tier 2) or those who have won one of the 70 | constituency seats (tier 1) are entitled to sit in parliament | and may be eligible to receive a proportional share of the 50 | list seats on the basis of their national vote share. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2020): E5049_2 | | New Zealand has an alternative threshold: Parties with more than | 5% of the total votes nationally on the basis of the party list | votes ('party vote', tier 2) or those who have won one of the 70 | constituency seats (tier 1) are entitled to sit in parliament | and may be eligible to receive a proportional share of the 50 | list seats on the basis of their national vote share. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2017): E5049_2 | | See variable note for E5047_2. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E5049_1 & E5049_2 | | For more details, see Election Study Note for E5040. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5050 >>> 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 | VARIABLE NOTES: E5050 | | Source: POLITY IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics | and Transitions, 1800-2017, Monty G. Marshall and Keith Jaggers, | George Mason University and Colorado State University | (http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm) | (Date accessed: July 14, 2021). | | The Polity IV Dataset Users' Manual (downloaded on April 5, | 2019 | (http://www.systemicpeace.org/inscr/p4manualv2017.pdf). | | The Polity IV annual time-series dataset | (www.systemicpeace.org/inscr/p4v2017.xls) | (Date accessed: July 14, 2021). | | Data are unavailable for HONG KONG (2016) and ICELAND (2016 & | 2017). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E5050 | | This refers to the 2014 coup d'eat as the starting date. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5051 >>> REGIME: TYPE OF EXECUTIVE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Classification of political regimes in which democracies are distinguished by the type of executive. .................................................................. 1. PARLIAMENTARY REGIME 2. MIXED REGIME 3. PRESIDENTIAL REGIME 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5051 | | Source: Publicly Available Sources and Cheibub, Jose Antonio. | 2007. "Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, and Democracy". | New York. Cambridge University Press. | | In CSES Module 5, classifications of political regimes mainly | rely on the following decision rule as presented by 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 the 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). | | However, researchers are advised that in a small number of | cases, coding employed in CSES Module 5 may diverge from regime | classifications as suggested by Cheibub. | Further, all polities included in CSES Module 5 are classified | according to the above coding scheme, irrespective of their | democratic status. Researchers interested in democracy ratings | may refer to E5090_ (Freedom House) or E5091_ (Polity IV). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): E5051 | | Austrian executive power is coded as a mixed or semi- | presidential given that the president can dissolve the | National Council. Article 29 of the Constitution states: | "(1) The Federal President can dissolve the National Council, | but he may avail himself of this prerogative only once for the | same reason." However, in practice the system works mostly | like a parliamentary system. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E5051 | | 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 the force of law. | More details can be found in Fish & Kroenig, 2009. Nonetheless, | it has been argued that Finland, after constitutional reforms in | the 1990s, works in practice as a parliamentary system. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): E5051 | | 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 (2016): E5051 | | 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 comparable to a 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 - PORTUGAL (2019): E5051 | | Following Cheibub (2007), Portugal is regarded as 2. MIXED | REGIME in CSES Module 5, as Portugal's President is directly | elected and the government is accountable to both to parliament | and to the President (Article 190 of the constitution). | Users are advised that classifying the Portuguese regime type is | subject to some controversy, as the country is sometimes also | regarded as a parliamentary regime. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016 & 2020): E5051 | | Since 1992, the constitution provides for the direct election | of a president. Yet, the Executive Yuan (cabinet) is responsible | to the Legislative Yuan (parliament) provided that the | Legislative Yuan is in session, its members have the right to | interpolate 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 - TURKEY (2018): E5051 | | The constitutional amendments approved in the 2017 Turkish | constitutional referendum turned the presidency into executive | post, effective with the 2018 general election. Hence, the | Republic of Turkey is a presidential republic. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5052 >>> NUMBER OF MONTHS SINCE LAST LOWER HOUSE ELECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Indicates the number of months between the current election and the previous national lower chamber election (if current election renews the national lower chamber), or the most recent national lower chamber election (if current election does not renew the national lower chamber). .................................................................. 1-200. NUMBER OF MONTHS SINCE LAST LOWER HOUSE ELECTION 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5052 | | If previous national lower chamber election was held in more | than one round (i.e. run-off election), the data refers to | the number of months since the first round. | | Source: Publicly Available Sources. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2016): E5052 | | Parliamentary elections were held in Iceland on October 29, | 2016. They were due to be held on or before 27 April 2017, but | following the 2016 Icelandic anti-government protests, the | ruling coalition announced that early elections would be | held "in autumn". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2017): E5052 | | The elections were due to be held on or before October 2020, | because the previous elections were held on October 29, 2016. | The 2017 snap elections were triggered by the collapse of the | coalition government, when Bright Future left the coalition | citing a breach of confidence, following a scandal involving the | Prime Minister's father. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E5052 | | The term of office of the Chamber of Deputies (as well as | the Senate) is five years. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2017): E5052 | | Previous Lower House elections were held on December 14, 2014. | The current parliamentary elections were supposed to be held in | December 2018. However, due to the then-ongoing North Korea | missile crisis, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe called for the early | general election. The snap election was held on October 22, | 2017. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E5052 | | This refers to the election of February 2, 2014. | On May 22, 2014, the Royal Thai Armed Forces, led by General | Prayut Chan-o-cha, Commander of the Royal Thai Army (RTA), | launched a coup d'etat. The current 2019 elections were the | first since the coup. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2018): E5052 | | Previous parliamentary elections were held on November 1, 2015. | The current parliamentary elections were originally scheduled | for November 3, 2019. However, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan | called a snap election, because of the passage of a series of | constitutional amendments in the 2017 referendum. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5053 >>> NUMBER OF MONTHS SINCE LAST PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Indicates the number of months between the current and previous presidential election. This variable does not signify that the election chose either the nominal or effective head of government. .................................................................. 1-200. NUMBER OF MONTHS SINCE LAST PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 997. NOT APPLICABLE 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5053 | | If previous presidential election was held in more than one | round (i.e. run-off election), the data refers to the number | of months since the first round. | | Source: Publicly Available Sources. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E5053 | | Current election concerns the 2019 Finnish parliamentary | election. The data refers to the presidential elections of | January 18, 2018. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E5053 | | The Federal President is indirectly elected by a specially | convened Federal Convention which mirrors the aggregated | majority position in the Bundestag (the federal parliament) | and in the parliaments of the 16 German states. Frank-Walter | Steinmeier was elected to serve as President of Germany | on February 12, 2017. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E5053 | | The Chief Executive (CE) is the President of the Executive | Council of Hong Kong and head of the Government of the Hong | Kong Special Administrative Region. As such, the CE can be | seen as an equivalent of the president elsewhere. It is the | highest government official of the HKSAR Government. | The Chief Executive is not elected by a popular vote. Instead, | CE is elected by an 800-member Election Committee. The elected | CE must then be appointed by the Central People's Government. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E5053 | | The President is indirectly elected by the Parliament | for a term of five years. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2016 & 2017): E5053 | | Presidential elections took place in Iceland on June 25, 2016. | President Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, elected in 1996, stepped down | after serving five consecutive terms. The New Icelandic president | became Guoni Th. Johannesson. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E5053 | | The President of the Italian Republic is indirectly elected | by an electoral college comprising the two chambers of the | Parliament. | On January 31, 2015, Sergio Mattarella was elected after | Giorgio Napolitano, who was re-elected for the second 7-years | presidential term in 2013, resigned. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E5053 | | The current election concerns the Lower House election. The data | refers to the presidential elections of May 11, 2014 | (first round). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2019): E5053 | | The current election concerns the Parliamentary election. | The data refers to the presidential elections of | January 4, 2016. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2018): E5053 | | Previous presidential elections were held on August 10, 2014. | The current presidential election was originally scheduled for | November 2019. However, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan | called a snap election, because of the passage of a series of | constitutional amendments in the 2017 referendum. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5054 >>> PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS ELECTORAL FORMULA --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable indicates what electoral formula was used to elect the president. .................................................................. 1. PLURALITY 2. ABSOLUTE MAJORITY RULE 3. QUALIFIED MAJORITY RULE 4. ELECTORAL COLLEGE 5. SINGLE TRANSFERABLE VOTE 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5054 | | The definition of this variable is taken from Matt Golder's | database about Democratic Electoral Systems Around the World, | 1946-2011 (http://mattgolder.com/elections; Date accessed: | November 21, 2016). | | PLURALITY - the candidate that obtains the most votes wins. | | ABSOLUTE MAJORITY RULE - A candidate must win over 50% of the | vote to win. If no candidate wins this many votes, then there is | a runoff between the top two candidates. | | QUALIFIED MAJORITY RULE - Each qualified majority system | specifies a particular percentage of the vote that a candidate | must win in order to be elected in the first round. If two or | more candidates overcome these thresholds, then the one with the | highest number of votes wins. The qualified majority systems vary | in terms of the electoral procedure that applies when these | thresholds are not met. | | ELECTORAL COLLEGE - The candidate that wins a plurality of the | electoral college votes wins. | | SINGLE TRANSFERABLE VOTE - Requires voters to rank single | candidates in order of the most to least preferred. Votes are | transferred until candidates obtain the Droop quota. The | candidate that obtains this quota first is elected. | | Source: Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): E5054 | | The President of Austria is directly elected, for a term of six | years, under the two-round system. The last presidential | election was on December 4, 2016 (after the re-run of the second | round of presidential election, the first round being held on | April 24, 2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E5054 | | The President of Brazil is directly elected, for a term of four | years, under the two-round system. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - COSTA RICA (2018): E5054 | | The President of Costa Rica is directly elected, for a term of | four years, under the qualified majority rule. A candidate must | receive at least 40% of the vote to win in the first round; if | no candidate wins in the first round, a runoff is held between | the two candidates with the largest number of votes. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E5054 | | The Federal President is indirectly elected by a specially | convened Federal Convention which mirrors the aggregated | majority position in the Bundestag (the federal parliament) | and in the parliaments of the 16 German states. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): E5054 | | The President is indirectly elected by the Parliament for a term | of five years. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E5054 | | See ES note for E5053 and E5051. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E5054 | | The President is indirectly elected by the Parliament for a | term of five years. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E5054 | | The President of the Italian Republic is indirectly elected | by an electoral college comprising the two chambers of the | Parliament, meeting in joint session, combined with 58 special | electors appointed from the 20 regions of Italy. | The Presidential term is seven years. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2018): E5054 | | The President of Turkey is directly elected, for a term of five | years, under the two-round system. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016 & 2020): E5054 | | The President and Vice President are not directly elected by | the voters. Voters cast their vote for President and Vice- | President by selecting a pair of candidates listed on a single | Presidential/Vice Presidential ticket. This vote selects slates | of electors to serve in the Electoral College. In forty-eight | of the fifty states and the District of Columbia, the list of | electors that obtains a majority of votes wins the state and | with it the electoral college votes for that state. Maine and | Nebraska allow the possibility for state electoral votes to be | split on the basis of which slate of electors obtains the most | votes in electoral districts. If no candidate obtains a | majority in the electoral college, the election is decided by | the incoming House of Representative. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5055 >>> 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. .................................................................. 1. MAJORITARIAN 2. PROPORTIONAL 3. MIXED 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5055 | | The definition of this variable is taken from Matt Golder's | database about Democratic Electoral Systems Around the World, | 1946-2011 (http://mattgolder.com/elections, Date accessed: | November 21, 2016). | | 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. | | Source: CSES Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E5055 | | This concerns the Lower House (Federal deputies) electoral | system. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - COSTA RICA (2018): E5055 | | For parliamentary elections, Costa Rica uses proportional, | closed party list system. The 57 members of the Legislative | Assembly are elected through the largest remainder method from | seven multi-member constituencies with between four and 19 | seats, which are based on the seven provinces. For the | allocation of the seats in the National Assembly the Electoral | Court uses a modified version of the Hare quota (half quota). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E5055 | | Mixed: 299 members are elected at the district level under the | majority (first-past-the post) system. The remaining seats | are allocated through a party list using proportional | representation and the Sainte-Lague Formula. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): E5055 | | Greece uses the Hagenbach-Bischoff system of "reinforced" | proportional representation, with voting for party lists and, | within each list, preferential voting. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E5055 | | E5055 concerns the election of 35 representative in | geographical constituencies, and 5 representatives in the | District Council (Second) Functional Constituency. For more | details, see ES note for E5040. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E5055 | | Hungary uses a mixed system. Out of 199 Members of Parliament, | 106 Members are elected in individual constituencies under a | majority (first-past-the-post) system. The remaining 93 Members | are elected using proportional representation and a single | national constituency. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2016): E5055 | | The Icelandic Althingi (Parliament) has 63 members, where 54 | members are elected from 6 multi-member (9 seats apiece) | constituencies (first tier). In addition, there is a second | tier, comprising of 9 "supplementary" seats that are | allocated to parties (using the D'Hondt method) to ensure the | number of seats they receive is in proportion to its national | vote. However, only party lists that obtain at least 5% of | the national vote are entitled to receive these seats. | | Source: | Landskjorstjorn Elections to the Althingi: | http://www.landskjor.is/media/frettir/AnalysisIceland | Election2013.pdf | (Date accessed: February 12, 2020). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2011): E5055 | | 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. | | 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. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E5055 | | Currently, Italy has a mixed-member majoritarian system | consisting of three components. In the majoritarian component, | accounting for about 1/3 of the seats, candidates supported by | electoral coalitions (or single parties) compete in single | member districts under plurality rule. Approximately 2/3 of | the seats are distributed proportionally among parties according | to the results at the national level. | Finally, 12 members elected from multi-member constituencies | abroad, using the proportional representation system. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E5055 | | Lithuania uses a mixed system. Out of the 141 Members of | Parliament, 71 Members are elected in individual constituencies | under the majority (first-past-the-post) system. The remaining | 70 Members are elected using proportional representation and a | single nationwide constituency. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017 & 2020): E5055 | | Mixed: 70 members are elected at the district level (tier 1) | under the majority (first-past-the post) system. The remaining | 50 seats (tier 2) are allocated through a national party list | using proportional representation based on the | Sainte-Lague Formula. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2016): E5055 | | Korea employs a mixed-member majoritarian system that combines | 253 single-member districts (SMD) with 47 proportional | representation (PR) seats, elected from a single nationwide | 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 - THAILAND (2019): E5055 | | For more details, see Election Study Note for E5040. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2018): E5055 | | The 600 members of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey | are elected by party-list proportional representation in | 87 electoral districts, using the D'Hondt method. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E5055 | | The Lower Chamber (Camara 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). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5056 >>> NUMBER OF ELECTORAL SEGMENTS (TIERS) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable indicates the number of electoral segments (tiers) in each country. .................................................................. 0-5. NUMBER OF ELECTORAL SEGMENTS (TIERS) 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5056 | | This variable primarily concerns the Lower House election. | However, if a particular study is focused on the Upper House, or | presidential election, it may report results for these | elections, respectively. | | Source: CSES Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): E5056 | | The Austrian electoral system is a proportional representation | system with three segments or tiers. These correspond to the | regional districts tier, the Land level tier (or state level) | and the federal (or national) level tier. Counting and | allocation of seats passes through each of these levels. | However, voters cast a single vote. In this vote, they can | express preferences for specific candidates, particularly, a | Laender level candidate and/or for a regional level candidate. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2019): E5056 | | The Danish Folketing has 179 members, 175 of which are elected | in mainland Denmark and the remaining four from the territories | of Greenland and the Faroe Islands (2 seats in each territory). | In mainland Denmark, 135 members are elected from 10 multi-member | constituencies across three geographical regions, namely: | Copenhagen, Northern Jutland, and Seeland-Southern Denmark (Tier | 1). Additionally, 40 supplementary seats are distributed across | these the three geographical regions in order to achieve | full proportionality (Tier 2). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E5056 | | The first tier is represented by the district level under the | majority (first-past-the post) system. The second tier is based | on the party list system using proportional representation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): E5056 | | Of the 300 members of parliament, 250 are elected proportionally | in 56 constituencies comprised of 48 multi- and 8 single-seat | constituencies. | According to Greek Constitution (Article 54.3), part of the | Parliament (no more than 1/20), may be elected not in a | specified constituency but rather throughout the country at | large. These are the State Deputies, whose exact number depends | on the total electoral strength of each party. | The remaining 50 seats are awarded to the party receiving the | largest share of the vote, as a 'premium'. | However, since voters cast a single vote only, this system is | different from systems with multiple tiers where voters vote | separately in different tiers. Hence, the system is coded as | consisting of three tiers in variable E5056, and of a single | tier in variables E5040-E5049. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E5056 | | Hong Kong has a unicameral legislature. The Legislative Council | of the HKSAR has 70 members. Half of the legislative council is | returned by geographic constituency (popular) elections; the | other half is returned by functional constituency elections. | Geographical Constituency is treated here as the first segment | of the LegCo. | There are two parts of the Functional Constituencies (FCs): the | traditional FCs and the District Council (Second) FC. | Only the District Council (Second) FC is based on direct | popular elections. Therefore, it is treated here as the | second segment of the LegCo. This segment returns 5 LegCo | members. This segment was introduced by an electoral reform | in 2010. | For more details, see Election Study Note for E5040. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E5056 | | Italy uses a mixed-member majoritarian system consisting of | three components. In the majoritarian component which accounts | for about 1/3 of the seats, candidates supported by electoral | coalitions (or single parties) compete in single member | districts under plurality rule. Approximately 2/3 of the seats | are distributed proportionally among parties according to the | results at the national level. | Finally, 12 members elected from multi-member constituencies | abroad, using the proportional representation system. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2017): E5056 | | The Norwegian Parliament comprises 169 seats in two tiers: | 150 members are elected in 19 multi-member districts using | proportional representation. The remaining 19 seats are | compensatory and are allocated to parties that receive 4%+ of | the national vote. These seats are known as "members at large" | and are seen as a means of evening out discrepancies between | the number of votes received and the number of seats in the | Storting. The distribution is based on a comparison of the | actual distribution of seats with what would have been occurred | had the country been treated as on big constituency, thus | allowing a determination to be made as to which parties are | under-represented. While voters do not cast a ballot directly | for this second tier and the seats are awarded at the national | level (albeit dispersed at the constituency level), the tiers | are considered linked because a voter casts only one ballot for | both tiers and the fact that allocation of the 19 additional | seats in part depends on how many seats are won by a party list | in the first tier. | For more see: | https://www.stortinget.no/en/In-English/About-the-Storting/ | Elections/ | (Date accessed: March 23, 2020). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2016): E5056 | | Korea employs a mixed-member majoritarian system that combines | 253 single-member districts (first tier) with 47 proportional | representation (second tier) seats, elected from a single | nationwide district. Each voter casts two votes, one for | an individual candidate in the SMD segment, and one for a | closed party list in the PR segment. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016): E5056 | | Taiwan uses a mixed-member majoritarian (MMM) system. The total | number of seats is 113. The seats are distributed via two | segments (tiers). The first segment is represented by 73 seats, | elected in single-member districts (SMD). The second segment | uses a nationwide district and a proportional representation | system. In addition, six seats are reserved for aboriginal | groups. These seats are elected using the same system as the | first segment (SMD). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2020): E5056 | | Taiwan uses a mixed-member majoritarian (MMM) system, and | the total number of seats is 113. The seats are distributed | via two segments (tiers). The first segment is represented | by 73 seats, elected in single-member districts | (SMD). The second segment is a nationwide district | employing a proportional representation system. In addition, | six seats reserved for aboriginal groups. These seats are | elected using the same system as the first segment (SMD). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E5056 | | See note for E5055. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5057 >>> 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). .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 6. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5057 | | The definition of this variable is taken from Matt Golder's | database about Democratic Electoral Systems Around the World, | 1946-2011 (http://mattgolder.com/elections; Date accessed: | April 5, 2019). | | This variable primarily concerns the Lower House election. | However, if a particular study is focused on the Upper House, or | presidential election, it may report results for these elections, | respectively. | | Source: CSES Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): E5057 | | The Austrian electoral system is a (non-mixed) proportional | representation system with three segments or tiers. These | correspond to the federal level tier, the Land level tier (or | state level) and the regional districts tier. Counting and | allocation of seats passes through each of these levels, and | as a consequence is a three step process. In first place in each | Laender a Hare quota is calculated and used to distribute seats | across the regional districts. That is, parties are allocated | seats from each regional district depending on how often they | exceeded the Land level specified quota. Followed by these seats | are allocated at the Land level tier also following the Land | level quota. Finally, at the national level seats are | distributed following the D'Hondt system. Seats that have been | already allocated in the first and second tier are deducted from | from the number of seats each parties obtains at the national | level. Only those parties that obtain more than 4% of the | national valid votes or one seat from the regional | constituencies qualify to receive seats from the Laender and | National seat distribution. Given this last element the | electoral system is coded as linked. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2019): E5057 | | SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTE FOR E5040 and E5056 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E5057 | | Voters could make a sign (1) on the district candidate's name | (1st segment), (2) on a party list supporting a district | candidate (2nd segment), (3) on both the candidate's name and | the party list supporting the candidate. However, it is | important to note that split-ballots are not allowed, which | makes the voting system nearly identical as if votes had a | single vote. So it can be said that the segments are linked, | although the seat distribution in different segments is not | strictly conditional on the seats received in another segment | (tier). | See also ES note for E5055. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017 & 2020): E5057 | | The two tiers are linked with the "second vote" for the national | party list (tier 2) acting as a compensatory mechanism to tier 1 | ("constituency vote"), ensuring that the total number of seats | each party wins is near proportional to its total vote. Tier 2 | seats are allocated through a national party list using | proportional representation based on the Sainte-Lague Formula. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2016): E5057 | | In Korea's mixed electoral system seats of both tiers are | allocated separately; each party is allocated its proportionate | share of the PR seats plus the SMD seats won by its candidates. | Thus, its segments are classified as not being linked. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2018): E5057 | | There are 39 supplementary seats which are distributed to ensure | proportionality. Having aggregated the seats for each party in | each constituency (310 seats in total), a new distribution of | seats is conducted, based on the total votes for each party at | the national level. As such, the 39 supplementary seats are | allocated to ensure the result is as close as possible to | the proportional result nationally. | | Source: Valmyndigheten, | https://www.val.se/servicelankar/other-languages/ | english-engelska/electoral-system/distribution-of-seats.html | (Date accessed: June 05, 2021). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E5057 | | For more details, see Election Study Note for E5040. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5058 >>> 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. .................................................................. 1. INDEPENDENT 2. INDEPENDENT/DEPENDENT 3. DEPENDENT 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5058 | | The definition of this variable is taken from Matt Golder's | database about Democratic Electoral Systems Around the World, | 1946-2011 (http://mattgolder.com/elections; Date accessed: | April 05, 2019). | | This variable primarily concerns the Lower House election. | However, if a particular study is focused on the Upper House, or | presidential election, it may report results for these elections, | respectively. | | Source: CSES Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2017): E5058 | | French 2017 study is focused on presidential elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E5058 | | The application of the formulae in the two electoral tiers is | mutually independent. However, the voting system does not | allow split-ticket voting, so the election outcome in the two | segments are closely connected. | See also ES note for E5055 and E5057. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E5058 | | For more details, see Election Study Note for E5040. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5059 >>> SUBTYPES OF MIXED ELECTORAL SYSTEMS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sub-types of mixed electoral systems. .................................................................. 1. COEXISTENCE 2. SUPERPOSITION 3. FUSION 4. CORRECTION 5. CONDITIONAL 6. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5059 | | The definition of this variable is taken from Matt Golder's | database about Democratic Electoral Systems Around the World, | 1946-2011 (http://mattgolder.com/elections; Date accessed: | April 05, 2019). | | 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. | | 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 - FRANCE (2017): E5059 | | French 2017 study is focused on presidential elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E5059 | | For more details, see Election Study Note for E5040. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5060 >>> 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. [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 002-900. NUMBER OF ELECTORAL DISTRICTS 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5060 | | Source: CSES Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): E5060 | | The number of seats in the lower house increased by 1 | from the 2013 and 2016 elections where 150 seats were | contested due to redistribution of federal divisions in | Victoria, South Australia and the ACT due to updated | population data with increases in Victoria and ACT | necessitating a seat gain for each and a seat reduction in SA. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): E5060 | | The Austrian electoral system consists of three overlapping | tiers. The first tier is made of 39 regional electoral | districts, the second tier of 9 Land or state level electoral | districts and the third tier of one nationwide electoral | district. | See also ES note for E5057. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019): E5060 | | These data represent the number of electoral districts in | Flanders only. In Belgium, there are 11 electoral districts: 5 | in Flanders, 5 in Wallonia, and the Brussels Capital Region. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019): E5060 | | These data represent the number of electoral districts in | Wallonia only. In Belgium, there are 11 electoral districts: 5 | in Flanders, 5 in Wallonia, and the Brussels Capital Region. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E5060 | | All 513 members of the Chamber of Deputies (federal deputies) | are elected from 27 multi-member constituencies corresponding | to the states and Federal District, varying in size from eight | to 70 seats. The Chamber elections are held using open list | proportional representation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2017): E5060 | | The 2017 elections were the first ones to be held after the | implementation of a new electoral law in 2015. | The Lower House elections in 2017 were conducted in 28 multi- | member electoral districts (between 3 and 8 seats per district), | following the open-list proportional system. The size of the | House of Deputies increased from 120 to 155 representatives. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2019): E5060 | | Mainland Denmark is divided into three electoral provinces: | Copenhagen, Sealand-Southern Denmark, and Northern Jutland. The | three provinces are subdivided into a nationwide total of ten | multi-member constituencies for mainland Denmark. There is an | additional layer below these ten multi-member constituencies - | classified as nomination districts which number 92, but which | have no importance regarding seat allocation. Rather they | influence candidate nomination and electoral administration. | | Source: The Parliamentary Electoral System in Denmark, p. 4-5, | available at: https://www.thedanishparliament.dk/ | -/media/pdf/publikationer/english/the-parliamentary-system-of | -denmark_2011.ashx (Date accessed: October 14, 2021). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E5060 | | The number of constituencies in the Parliamentary election of | 2019 was 13. There are 200 MPs in total. 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 2019, the number of MPs on the mainland | constituencies varied between 7 (in the constituency of Lapland) | and 36 (Uusimaa). Of the 200 MPs, 199 are elected in mainland | Finland. Moreover, the constituency of the autonomous Aland | Islands elects 1 MP according to the Election Act. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2017): E5060 | | These data represent the number of electoral districts in the | United Kingdom - England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. | However, the British Election Study does not include | respondents from Northern Ireland. Excluding Northern Ireland's | 17 parliamentary seats means the number of electoral districts | in Great Britain is 633. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): E5060 | | Of the 300 members of parliament, 250 are elected proportionally | in 56 constituencies comprised of 48 multi- and 8 single-seat | constituencies. | According to Greek Constitution (Article 54.3), part of the | Parliament (no more than 1/20), may be elected not in a | specified constituency but rather throughout the country at | large. These are the State Deputies, whose exact number depends | on the total electoral strength of each party. | The remaining 50 seats are awarded to the party receiving the | largest share of the vote, as a 'premium'. | However, since voters cast a single vote only, this system is | different from systems with multiple tiers where voters vote | separately in different tiers. Hence, the system is coded as | consisting of a single tier in variables E5060-E5068. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E5060 | | Thirty-five members of the Legislative Council of the HKSAR are | elected directly, on the basis of five geographic electoral | constituencies. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (2020): E5060 | | Israel has a single electoral constituency with the country | operating as a nationwide district. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2017): E5060 | | The Lower house (465 directly elected members) consists of two | segments - majoritarian and proportional. The first or lowest | segment consists of 289 single-member constituencies, elected | via simple majority voting system. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E5060 | | Montenegro has a single electoral constituency with the country | operating as a nationwide district. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2017): E5060 | | The Netherlands has a single electoral constituency with | the country operating as a nationwide district. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017): E5060 | | Officially there are 71 electoral constituencies at tier 1 | (although this can alter if there are overhang seats - see | variable note E5072 for more), made up of 64 constituencies | representing the general population and 7 Maori | constituencies. The latter provides special representation to | New Zealand's Maori community. Maori electorates were | introduced in 1867 and operate in the same way as general | constituencies but include Maori electors who have decided to | to place their name on the Maori electoral roll | rather than the general electoral roll. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2020): E5060 | | Officially there are 72 electoral constituencies at tier 1 | (although this can alter if there are overhang seats - see | variable note E5072 for more), made up of 65 constituencies | representing the general population and 7 Maori | constituencies. The latter provides special representation to | New Zealand's Maori community. Maori electorates were | introduced in 1867 and operate in the same way as general | constituencies but include Maori electors who have decided to | to place their name on the Maori electoral roll | rather than the general electoral roll. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2017): E5060 | | In the first tier, there are 19 multi-member districts, | electing 150 representatives in total. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2019): E5060 | | Portugal has 22 electoral districts in total: 18 in mainland | Portugal plus four other constituencies covering the overseas | (split into two, depending on whether they reside in Europe or | outside Europe) and two remaining districts for the overseas | territories of Madeira and the Azores. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2020): E5060 | | Slovakia has a single electoral constituency with the country | operating as a nationwide district. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2018): E5060 | | In the first tier, there are 29 multi-member districts, | electing 310 representatives in total. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TUNISIA (2019): E5060 | | The 217 members of the Assembly of the Representatives of the | People are elected by closed list proportional representation in | 33 multi-member constituencies (27 in Tunisia and 6 representing | Tunisians residing abroad). The 27 multi-member constituencies | in Tunisia provide 199 seats, between four and 10 seats each). | The remaining 18 seats are allocated to expatriate | constituencies in France (two constituencies, five seats each), | one in Italy (three seats) and one in Germany (one seat), one | for the rest of Europe and the Americas (two seats), and one for | the Arab States and the rest of the world (two seats). Seats | were allocated using the largest remainder method. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2018): E5060 | | The 600 members of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey | are elected by party-list proportional representation in | 87 multi-member electoral districts. | The electoral districts correspond to 77 of Turkey's 81 | provinces. Due to their large populations, the provinces of | Bursa and Izmir are divided into two districts, while the | provinces of Ankara and Istanbul are each divided into three. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E5060 | | In Parliamentary elections (Upper and Lower House), the | Uruguayan electoral system is called Multiple Simultaneous Vote. | Each voter votes simultaneously for a party and a closed and | blocked list of candidates. In a single sheet of paper, the | voter votes for the same party for the President of the | Republic, Upper House, and Lower House. Each party must have | only one presidential candidate and may have multiple lists | for each chamber. | For the distribution of seats between the parties, for both | chambers, the relevant constituency is the national one. For | the distribution of seats for the Lower House within each | party, the constituency is by the department. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5061 >>> 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 | VARIABLE NOTES: E5061 | | Source: CSES Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): E5061 | | The data represents the empirical average district magnitude | calculated from the total number of seats allocated in the 39 | first tier districts in the 2017 election. Average district | magnitude varies over time based on electoral result. | For more details see Election Study Note for E5057. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019): E5061 | | These data represents the average district magnitude of districts | in Flanders only (87 seats across 5 electoral districts). | In Belgium, 150 seats are contested across 11 electoral districts | yielding an average district magnitude of 13.64. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019): E5061 | | These data represents the average district magnitude of districts | in Wallonia only (48 seats across 5 electoral districts). Data | from the Brussels Capital Region is not included in the . | calculation: In Belgium, 150 seats are contested across 11 | electoral districts yielding an average district magnitude of | 13.64. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (2017): E5061 | | The 2017 elections were the first ones to be held after the | implementation of a new electoral law in 2015. | The Lower House elections in 2017 were conducted in 28 multi- | member electoral districts (between 3 and 8 seats per district), | following the open-list proportional system. The size of the | House of Deputies increased from 120 to 155 representatives. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES -DENMARK (2019): E5061 | | These data represents the average district magnitude of districts | in mainland Denmark only (175 seats in total; of which 135 | are contested at the lowest tier) across 10 multi-member | constituencies. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FINLAND (2019): E5061 | | This figure is based on the mainland multi-member | constituencies which give 199 out of 200 MPs. The | constituency of the autonomous Aland Islands always elects 1 MP. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): E5061 | | The average district magnitude refers to the 250 seats | elected proportionally in 56 constituencies comprised of 48 | multi- and 8 single-seat constituencies. | For more details see Election Study Note for E5061. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E5061 | | Thirty-five members of the Legislative Council of the HKSAR are | directly elected on the basis of five geographic electoral | constituencies. The exact number of LegCo seats in each | constituency is decided according to the constituency | population. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5062 >>> ELECTORAL FORMULA - LOWEST SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The precise electoral formula used in the first or lowest electoral segment (tier) of the lower house. .................................................................. 10. PLURALITY 11. PLURALITY - SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS 12. PLURALITY - MULTI MEMBER DISTRICTS 20. MAJORITY 21. MAJORITY - RUN-OFF 22. MAJORITY - ALTERNATIVE 30. PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION 31. PR - D'HONDT 32. PR - LARGEST REMAINDER - DROOP 33. PR - LARGEST REMAINDER - HARE 34. PR - MODIFIED STE-LAGUE 98. OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5062 | | Source: CSES Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): E5062 | | According to Parline: "Voters are required to express a | preference among all the candidates contesting the same seat. | A candidate is elected if he/she gains an absolute majority or | 50% + 1 vote. If none of the candidates in a division obtains | an absolute majority of the first preference votes, a second | round of counting is held. At this point, the candidate with the | least number of votes is eliminated and the votes which he/she | obtained in the first round are redistributed among the | remaining candidates on the basis of the electors' second | choices. This procedure is repeated until such time as one of | the candidates obtains an absolute majority." | For details: http://www.ipu.org/parline-e/reports/2015_B.htm | (Date accessed: April 30, 2020). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - COSTA RICA (2018): E5062 | | For parliamentary elections, Costa Rica uses proportional, | closed party list system. The 57 members of the Legislative | Assembly are elected through the largest remainder method from | seven multi-member constituencies with between four and 19 | seats, which are based on the seven provinces. For the | allocation of the seats in the National Assembly the Electoral | Court uses a modified version of the Hare quota (half quota). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): E5062 | | The 250 seats are allocated proportionally using the | Hagenbach-Bischoff method. However, E5062 was coded here as | "31 PR - D'Hondt" because the Hagenbach-Bischoff method is | considered a variant of the D'Hondt method. Further, both | methods return identical results. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVAKIA (2020): E5062 | | Slovakia uses the Hagenbach-Bischoff method to distribute seats, | a variant of the D'Hondt system. An electoral quota is | calculated by dividing the total number of valid votes won | by lists eligible for seats by the number of seats on offer plus | one (i.e., 150+1=151). The number of votes polled by each party | that surpasses the threshold is divided by the quota | (with any fractional remainder is disregarded) and this gives | the number of seats each party is entitled to. Any seats that | remain unallocated after the application of this procedure | are distributed according to the largest remainder method. | | Source of data: http://www.electionresources.org/sk/ | (Date accessed: February 09, 2017) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2018): E5062 | | Modified St-Lague method. "The permanent constituency seats | are distributed on the basis of the total number of votes gained | by the political parties in each constituency. Comparative | numbers are calculated for the parties that will take part in | the distribution of seats. The first comparative number is | obtained by dividing the parties' respective total number of | votes by 1.4. The party which receives the highest comparative | number is awarded the first seat in the constituency. That party | is then allocated a new comparative number, obtained by dividing | the party's votes by 3. The other parties keep their comparative | numbers until they are awarded a seat. When a party obtains its | second seat, its votes are divided by 5 to calculate the next | comparative number. For the third seat by 7 etc. This method of | calculation is referred to as the 'adjusted odd-number method'." | | Source: Valmyndigheten, | https://www.val.se/val-och-folkomrostningar/det-svenska- | valsystemet/rostrakning-och-valresultat/mandatfordelning.html | (Date accessed: June 05, 2021). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016 & 2020): E5062 | | While a plurality of votes is sufficient in 48 states and the | District of Columbia, in the states of Georgia and Louisiana, | candidates need a majority of the vote to win. | In special elections in Georgia and all elections in Louisiana | a "jungle primary" operates (it operated in Louisiana since 1977) | The system employed is akin to the first round of a majority | run-off election system, whereby all candidates for an office | regardless of party affiliation, run against one another in one | election. If one candidate obtains a majority of the vote, they | win the office they are seeking outright, the only "primary" | where a candidate can actually achieve this without a run off. | When a candidate does not win a majority of the vote, the top | two candidates, irrespective of party, go forward to a run off | election, usually held one month later. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E5062 | | The Lower Chamber (Camara 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 E5001 and E5003. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5063 >>> NUMBER OF ELECTORAL DISTRICTS - SECOND SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of electoral districts or constituencies in the second electoral segment (tier) for the lower house of the legislature. .................................................................. 001-900. NUMBER OF ELECTORAL DISTRICTS 997. NOT APPLICABLE 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5063 | | Source: CSES Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): E5063 | | The Austrian electoral system has three segments or tiers. These | correspond to the federal level tier, the Land or state level | tier (9 districts) and the regional districts tier | (39 districts). | For more details see Election Study Note for E5057. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2019): E5063 | | There are 40 supplementary seats. Seats are allocated to | qualifying parties in strict proportionality to the number of | votes obtained by these parties. The basis of the calculation | is the pure Hare quota. Seats that remain unallocated by the | full quota are allocated based on the largest remainders. The | aggregate number of seats obtained by the party in all ten | multi-member constituencies is deducted from the number of | compensatory seats to which the party is entitled to - i.e., the | difference represents the party's share of the 40 compensatory | seats. | | Source: The Parliamentary Electoral System in Denmark, p. 7-8, | available at: https://www.thedanishparliament.dk/ | -/media/pdf/publikationer/english/the-parliamentary-system-of | -denmark_2011.ashx (Date accessed: October 14, 2021). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E5063 | | The District Council (Second) FC is treated here as the second | segment of the LegCo. This segment returns 5 LegCo members. In | this part of the election, the whole of Hong Kong functions as a | single constituency. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E5063 | | The national territory is divided into 27 regional or sub- | regional electoral districts. However, these units are | considered to be "pseudo-multi-member districts", because | districts do not actually account for the seat distribution, | which is based on national-level results. Hence, this variable | is coded "1". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2017): E5063 | | The second segment of the Lower House (proportional) is based | on 11 multi-member (6 to 28 seats) constituencies, in total | giving 176 seats (party list system, using the d'Hondt method | for the allocation of the seats. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (2017): E5063 | | In addition to the 150 seats in 19 electoral districts, the | second tier comprises 19 "members at large" seats (for more | see variable note E5040_2). These seats are allotted by | the modified Saint-Lague method. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (2018): E5063 | | There are 39 supplementary seats which are distributed to ensure | proportionality. These seats are allocated by a system of | proportional representation based on the votes obtained | nationwide following the "adjusted odd-number method" see note | for variable E5062. | | Source: Valmyndigheten, | https://www.val.se/servicelankar/other-languages/ | english-engelska/electoral-system/distribution-of-seats.html | (Date accessed: June 05, 2021). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016 & 2020): E5063 | | Taiwan's Parliament (The Legislative Yuan) has 113 members. The | seats are distributed via two segments (tiers). The first | segment is represented by 73 seats, elected in single-member | districts (SMD). The second segment is a nationwide district | employing a proportional representation system. In addition, six | seats reserved for aboriginal groups. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5064 >>> 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 | VARIABLE NOTES: E5064 | | Source: CSES Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): E5064 | | The number is the average district magnitude calculated on the | basis of the of seats allocated in the 9 second tier districts | in the 2017 election. The average district magnitude varies over | time, depending on the electoral results. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E5064 | | The average district magnitude in Germany is liable to change | depending on whether overhang and leveling seats are | allotted or not. Without overhang seats, the value is 18.69 | which is the value the CSES data reflects (299 seats and 16 | electoral districts). | In the 2017 election, there were 111 overhang and leveling | seats. The nominal size of the Bundestag is 598, but after the | 2017 elections, there were 709 MPs. Including these overhang | mandates in the district magnitude calculation means that the | value would rise to 26.63. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017): E5064 | | The average district magnitude in New Zealand is liable to | change depending on whether compensatory seats are allotted or | not. Without compensatory seats the value is 49, which is | the value the CSES data reflects. | In the 2017 election, there were zero compensatory seats (the | total membership of the 2017 House of Representatives was 120). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2020): E5064 | | The average district magnitude in New Zealand is liable to | change depending on whether compensatory seats are allotted or | not. Without compensatory seats the value is 48, which is | the value the CSES data reflects. | In the 2020 election, there were zero compensatory seats (the | total membership of the 2020 House of Representatives was 120). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5065 >>> ELECTORAL FORMULA - SECOND SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The precise electoral formula used in the second electoral segment (tier) of the lower house. .................................................................. 10. PLURALITY 11. PLURALITY - SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS 12. PLURALITY - MULTI MEMBER DISTRICTS 20. MAJORITY 21. MAJORITY - RUN-OFF 22. MAJORITY - ALTERNATIVE 30. PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION 31. PR - D'HONDT 32. PR - LARGEST REMAINDER - DROOP 33. PR - LARGEST REMAINDER - HARE 34. PR - MODIFIED STE-LAGUE 97. NOT APPLICABLE 98. OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5065 | | Source: CSES Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5066 >>> 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. .................................................................. 001-900. NUMBER OF ELECTORAL DISTRICTS 997. NOT APPLICABLE 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5066 | | This variable is taken from Matt Golder's database about | Democratic Electoral Systems Around the World, 1946-2011 | (http://mattgolder.com/elections; Date accessed: November 21, | 2016). Original variable name: DISTRICTS3. | | Source: CSES Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): E5066 | | The Austrian electoral system has three segments or tiers. The | single federal electoral district represents the third tier, | while the remaining two are the Land or state level and the | regional tier. | For more details see Election Study Note for E5057. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E5066 | | Twelve seats in the Chamber of Deputies (and 6 in Senate) are | reserved for Italians residing abroad. The election is based on | purely proportional system. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5067 >>> 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). .................................................................. 001.00-900.00 NUMBER OF SEATS ELECTED PER DISTRICT 997. NOT APPLICABLE 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5067 | | This variable is taken from Matt Golder's database about | Democratic Electoral Systems Around the World, 1946-2011 | (http://mattgolder.com/elections; Date accessed: November 21, | 2016). Original variable name: AVEMAG3. | | Source: CSES Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): E5067 | | The data refers to the district magnitude calculated based on | the number of seats allocated in the single third tier district | in the 2017 election. | District magnitude varies over time based on electoral result. | For more details see Election Study Note for E5057. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E5067 | | See Election Study Note for E5066. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5068 >>> ELECTORAL FORMULA - THIRD SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The precise electoral formula used in the third electoral segment (tier) of the lower house. .................................................................. 10. PLURALITY 11. PLURALITY - SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS 12. PLURALITY - MULTI MEMBER DISTRICTS 20. MAJORITY 21. MAJORITY - RUN-OFF 22. MAJORITY - ALTERNATIVE 30. PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION 31. PR - D'HONDT 32. PR - LARGEST REMAINDER - DROOP 33. PR - LARGEST REMAINDER - HARE 34. PR - MODIFIED STE-LAGUE 97. NOT APPLICABLE 98. OTHER [SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES] 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5068 | | Source: CSES Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5069 >>> NUMBER OF SEATS ABOVE THE FIRST SEGMENT (TIER) - LOWER HOUSE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The number of seats allocated in electoral districts or constituencies above the first or lowest segment (tier). This variable may include seats allocated in several different upper segments (tiers). .................................................................. 000-900. NUMBER OF SEATS 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5069 | | Source: CSES Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): E5069 | | The number is based on the seat allocation after the | 2017 election. | The number of distributed seats within each tier varies from | election to election, depending on the electoral result. | For more details see Election Study Note for E5057. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E5069 | | This number of seats allocated in the second (list) tier can | change depending on whether overhang and leveling seats are | allotted or not. Without overhang seats, the value is always | 299 which is the value the CSES data reflects. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): E5069 | | The data refers to the 50 seats awarded to the party | receiving the largest share of the vote, as a 'premium'. | For more details see Election Study Note for E5060. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E5069 | | The District Council (Second) FC is treated here as the second | segment of the LegCo. This segment returns 5 LegCo members. In | this part of the election, the whole of Hong Kong functions as a | single constituency. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016 & 2020): E5069 | | Taiwan's Parliament (The Legislative Yuan) has 113 members. The | seats are distributed via two segments (tiers). The first | segment is represented by 73 seats, elected in single-member | districts (SMD). The second segment is a nationwide district | employing a proportional representation system. In addition, six | seats are reserved for aboriginal groups. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5070 >>> 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 | VARIABLE NOTES: E5070 | | Source: CSES Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): E5070 | | The number (91/183=49.73) is based on the seat allocation after | the 2017 election. | The number of seats distributed within each tier varies from | election to election, depending on electoral result. | For more details see Election Study Note for E5057. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E5070 | | This percentage of seats changes depending on whether overhang | and leveling seats are allotted or not. Without the overhang | seats, the value is always 50% which is the value the CSES | data reflects. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREECE (2015): E5070 | | The data refers to the 50 seats awarded to the party | receiving the largest share of the vote, as a 'premium'. | For more details see Election Study Note for E5060. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E5070 | | The District Council (Second) FC is treated here as the second | segment of the LegCo. This segment returns 5 LegCo members. | This figure is calculated taking into account only directly | elected seats (Geographic constituency of 35 seats, and the | Second FC with five seats (40 seats in total). | For more details about Hong Kong electoral system, see ES note | for E5038. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017): E5070 | | The number of seats allocated in the second tier can change | depending on whether compensatory seats are allotted or | not. Without compensatory seats, the value is always 40.8% which | is the value the CSES data reflects. No compensatory seats were | allocated in tier 2 in the 2017 elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2020): E5070 | | The number of seats allocated in the second tier can change | depending on whether compensatory seats are allotted or | not. Without compensatory seats, the value is always 40.0% which | is the value the CSES data reflects. No compensatory seats were | allocated in tier 2 in the 2020 elections. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5071 >>> FUSED VOTE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This indicates whether a fused vote was used for presidential and legislative elections. A fused vote is when a citizen casts a single ballot for the elections of more than one political office. This particular variable captures when the single ballot is for the presidency and the legislature. Citizens are unable to divide their votes among the candidates or lists of different parties. Split-ticket voting is expressly prohibited. .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5071 | | Source: CSES Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E5071 | | In Italy, votes for presidential and legislative elections | cannot be fused. However, the votes for the two Houses of the | Parliament are fused. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E5071 | | 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). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5072 >>> SIZE OF THE LOWER HOUSE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total number of seats in the lower house of the legislature during the election year. .................................................................. 001-900. SEATS IN THE LOWER HOUSE 999. MISSING. | VARIABLE NOTES: E5072 | | Source: CSES Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019): E5072 | | The Belgian Parliament has 150 members in total. Eighty-seven | are elected in Belgium-Flanders, 48 in Belgium-Wallonia, and | the remaining 15 are elected from the Brussels Capital Region. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019): E5072 | | The Belgian Parliament has 150 members in total. Eighty-seven | are elected in Belgium-Flanders, 48 in Belgium-Wallonia, and | the remaining 15 are elected from the Brussels Capital Region. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2019): E5072 | | The Danish Folketing has 179 members, 175 of which are elected | in mainland Denmark and the remaining four from the territories | of Greenland and the Faroe Islands (two seats each). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E5072 | | The Bundestag nominally has 598 members: 299 members elected at | the lower tier and 299 members elected in the upper tier. The | German system, however, allows for overhang and levelling | seats. In the 2017 elections, there were 111 of these which | resulted in a total number of 709 members of the Bundestag. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2017): E5072 | | These data represent the number of electoral districts in the | United Kingdom - England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. | However, the British Election Study does not include | respondents from Northern Ireland. Excluding Northern Ireland's | 17 parliamentary seats means the number of electoral districts | in Great Britain is 633. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E5072 | | The Legislative Council (LegCo) in Hong Kong is composed of 70 | members, 35 of which are returned by Geographical Constituency | elections and another 35 by Functional Constituency elections. | For more details about the electoral system, see ES note | for E5040. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017): E5072 | | Conventionally, The New Zealand Parliament has 120 members. | However this can sometimes increase due to 'overhang' seats, | which arise when a party gains more constituency seats (tier 1) | than its party list vote (tier 2) would entitle it to on a | proportional basis. In 2017, there were 0 compensatory seats, | so the size of parliament was 120. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2020): E5072 | | Conventionally, The New Zealand Parliament has 120 members. | However this can sometimes increase due to 'overhang' seats, | which arise when a party gains more constituency seats (tier 1) | than its party list vote (tier 2) would entitle it to on a | proportional basis. In 2020, there were 0 compensatory seats, | so the size of parliament was 120. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2018): E5072 | | The Grand National Assembly of Turkey is the unicameral | Turkish legislature. After the 2017 constitutional referendums, | the Assembly increased the number of MPs from 550 to 600. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - URUGUAY (2019): E5072 | | The Lower Chamber (Camara 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5073 >>> CONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL STRUCTURE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is the country federal? .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5073 | | 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). | | Source: Ronald L. Watts, (2008). "Comparing Federal Systems". | Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, Queen's University, | Kingston, Ontario, Canada. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019): E5073 | | Article 1 of the Belgian constitution states that: "Belgium is a | federal state, composed of communities and regions". Belgium | comprises three language/cultural based communities, namely: the | Flemish (Dutch-speaking) Community based in Flanders, the French- | speaking Community in Wallonia and the German-speaking Community. | The Federation has been formalized since 1993 with the Federation | exercising competencies concerning foreign affairs, defense, and | social security. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019): E5073 | | Article 1 of the Belgian constitution states that: "Belgium is a | federal state, composed of communities and regions". Belgium | comprises three language/cultural based communities, namely: the | Flemish (Dutch-speaking) Community based in Flanders, the French- | speaking Community in Wallonia and the German-speaking Community. | The Federation has been formalized since 1993 with the Federation | exercising competencies concerning foreign affairs, defense, and | social security. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E5073 | | Brazil is a federation consisting of 26 federal states and the | federal capital district making 27 in total. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E5073 | | Germany is a federal republic consisting of 16 states (Laender, | Bundeslander). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5074 >>> NUMBER OF LEGISLATIVE CHAMBERS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of legislative chambers: .................................................................. 1. ONE LEGISLATIVE CHAMBER; UNICAMERAL LEGISLATURE 2. TWO LEGISLATIVE CHAMBERS; BICAMERAL LEGISLATURE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5074 | | Some of the countries have indirectly elected Upper | Chambers. | | Source: CSES Macro Report and Publicly Available Sources | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRIA (2017): E5074 | | Austria has a bicameral system with two chambers: the | Nationalrat (National Council) and the Bundesrat (Federal | Council). However, only the Nationalrat is elected popularly and | has 183 members elected for five-year terms in multi-member | 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 - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019): E5074 | | Belgium is a bicameral parliamentary system with a Chamber of | Representatives comprising 150 members elected across 11 regions. | The Senate (the Assembly of Regions) was previously directly | elected, but in May 2014 underwent substantial reform becoming a | non-permanent assembly with indirect election. The Senate has 60 | members, 50 of whom are appointed by regional parliaments. The 10 | remaining Senators are co-opted based on electoral results. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019): E5074 | | Belgium is a bicameral parliamentary system with a Chamber of | Representatives comprising 150 members elected across 11 regions. | The Senate (the Assembly of Regions) was previously directly | elected, but in May 2014 underwent substantial reform becoming a | non-permanent assembly with indirect election. The Senate has 60 | members, 50 of whom are appointed by regional parliaments. The 10 | remaining Senators are co-opted based on electoral results. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E5074 | | Members of the Brazilian Upper House (Senate, or Senado | Federal) are elected for an 8-years term and the chamber is | composed of 81 members, with each state in Brazil having | three Senators each. | Members are elected in alternative electoral cycles: two thirds | of the Senate seats (n=54) are contested in one election cycle | while the remaining one third are contested in the other. The | 2018 elections saw a two-third of the Senate seats contested | (n=54). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - FRANCE (2017): E5074 | | The French Parliament (Parlement Francais) is bicameral, | consisting of the Senate (Senat; the Upper House) and the | National Assembly (Assemble nationale; the Lower House). | Senat is indirectly elected by elected officials, it represents | territorial collectivities of the Republic and French citizens | living abroad. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2017): E5074 | | Formally, the Bundesrat is not a second chamber since it is | indirectly elected. It acts as a de-facto second chamber, | however, because of its policy implications. Hence, Germany is | treated as a two-chamber system. | Individual elections in the 16 Laender (States) determine the | composition of each Land assembly (Landtag). Each Landtag elects | a Land government which then sends its members as delegates to | the Bundesrat. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2011): E5074 | | Irish parliament (the Oireachtas) has two chambers. The upper | house, Seanad Eireann, is an indirectly elected legislative | chamber. It has 60 members, 11 members nominated, 6 members | selected by the universities and 43 members elected from five | vocational panels, usually held within two months of the lower | house (Dail) election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (2017): E5074 | | The Dutch Parliament (Staten-Generaal/States General) consists | of the Upper House (Eerste Kamer der Staten-Generaal or | Senate), and the Lower House (Tweede Kamer der Staten- | Generaal/House of Representatives). | The House of Representatives has 150 seats, which are filled | through direct elections using a party-list proportional | representation in a single constituency. | The 75 members of the Senate (Eerste Kamer) of the Dutch | Parliament (the States General) are elected indirectly, by | the members of the twelve Provincial Councils, for a | 4-years term. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E5074 | | Thailand has a bicameral National Assembly (Rathasapha) | consisting of the Senate (Wuthisapha) with 250 seats and the | House of Representatives (Sapha Phuthael Ratsadon) with 500 | seats. In the House of Representatives (Sapha Phuthaen | Ratsadon), 350 members are elected by plurality vote in single- | member constituencies (1st segment) and 150 members are elected | through a closed-list proportional representation system | (2nd segment). | In 2019, Thailand had a Senate (Upper House) not elected | directly by the people. According to the 2017 post-coup d'etat | law, for its first five years, the Senate is composed of 250 | appointees, instead of 200 appointees for the period beyond. | While six seats are reserved for commanders of the armed forces, | the police, and the Defense secretary, the remaining 244 are | selected by the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) | through two different processes. Fifty Senators represent 10 | economic and social groups, and are selected by the NCPO after | an initial screening by the Election Commission of Thailand | (ECT), while the remaining 194 are nominated by the NCPO itself, | through an ad hoc screening committee. Senate nominees are | ultimately endorsed by the King. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016 & 2020): E5074 | | The United States Senate is the upper house of the bicameral | legislature of the United States. Together with the United | States House of Representatives, they make up the United | States Congress. Approximately one-third of the Senate is | renewed every two years. Senators serve terms of six years each; | the terms are staggered so that approximately one-third of the | seats are up for election every two years. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5075 >>> PERCENTAGE OF WOMEN IN PARLIAMENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Percentage of women in parliament. .................................................................. 00.00-100.00 PERCENTAGE OF WOMEN IN PARLIAMENT 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5075 | | | Source: | - CSES Macro Report | - World Bank (n.d.). Proportion of seats held by women in | national parliaments (%). Available at: https://data. | worldbank.org/indicator/SG.GEN.PARL.ZS | (Date accessed: October 18, 2018) | | Users are advised that there is normally a two or three year time | lag between these estimates becoming available. Consequently, for | Advance Releases of the CSES (and possibly Full Releases), data | may not be available at the time of coding. In circumstances | where this occurs, the polity will be listed as DATA UNAVAILABLE | in the VARIABLE NOTES below. Should data become available | between an Advance Release of CSES and a Full Release of CSES, | data for these polities will be included in a subsequent release | of the CSES. | | Data are unavailable for AUSTRALIA (2019) and HUNGARY (2018). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E5075 | | Data was taken from the Election Guide, International | Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES), | http://www.electionguide.org/elections/id/2597/. | (Date accessed: April 30, 2020) | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (2017): E5075 | | The entry reports the percentage of women in the new parliament, | constituted after the 2017 elections (38.10%). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016): E5075 | | Data was taken from the Election Guide, International | Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES), | http://www.electionguide.org/ elections/id/2736/. | (Date accessed: May 08, 2019). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2020): E5075 | | This information comes from the Central Electoral Commission | of Taiwan (https://web.cec.gov.tw/english/cms/le/32472) | (Date accessed: July 14, 2021). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5076_1 >>> PARTY FUNDING: DIRECT PUBLIC FUNDING --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do parties receive direct public funding? .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5076_1 | | Source: ACE Electoral Knowledge Network (n.d). Party Funding. | Available at: http://aceproject.org/epicen/CDTable?view=country& | question=PC012 (Date accessed: October 30, 2018) | | Data are unavailable for HONG KONG (2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): E5076_1 | | The Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act permits all | eligible national committees of major and minor parties to | receive public funds to pay the official costs of their | Presidential nominating conventions should they get 5 per cent | of the vote in the previous election. Each major party | convention committee is entitled to receive $4 million, plus an | adjustment for inflation (since 1974). The U.S. Treasury makes | initial payments on or after July 1 of the year preceding the | Presidential election. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5076_2 >>> PARTY FUNDING: INDIRECT PUBLIC FUNDING --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do parties receive indirect public funding? .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5076_2 | | Source: ACE Electoral Knowledge Network (n.d). Party Funding. | Available at: http://aceproject.org/epicen/CDTable?view=country& | question=PC012 (Date accessed: October 30, 2018) | | Data are unavailable for HONG KONG (2016). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5077 >>> NUMBER OF PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN ELECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- How many political parties received votes in the election? .................................................................. 001-900. NUMBER OF PARTIES 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5077 | | Source: Publicly available sources. | | This variable reports the number of participating political | parties, not merely alliances or coalitions of political parties | about which official information was available. | Independent candidates are not counted. Where coalitions are | present member parties are counted separately. | This variable primarily concerns the Lower House election. | However, if a particular study is focused on the Upper House, or | presidential election, it may report results for these | elections. | | Data are unavailable for UNITED STATES (2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): E5077 | | 38 parties received votes in the Australian House of | Representatives election of 2019. This calculation counts | the Liberal and Liberal National Party as separate parties. | Additionally, the National Party and the Country Liberals that | run in the Northern Territory are also considered separate | parties. Furthermore, only seven parties received votes in excess | of 1% nationally. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019): E5077 | | These data represent the number of parties who received votes | in Flanders only. 31 parties received votes in Belgium in total. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019): E5077 | | These data represent the number of parties who received votes | in Wallonia only. Data from the Brussels Capital Region is not | included in the calculation. 31 parties received votes in | Belgium in total. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BRAZIL (2018): E5077 | | Data refers to the number of parties receiving votes in the | Chamber of Deputies election (lower house). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2019): E5077 | | These data represent the number of parties who received votes | in mainland Denmark only. Including parties contesting in | Greenland (7) and the Faroe Islands (6), 26 parties received | votes in total. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (2013): E5077 | | The data contains the number of parties who received list votes. | The total number of parties participating in the election was 52 | (Source: https://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/en/dam/jcr/3f3d42ab- | faef-4553-bdf8-ac089b7de86a/btw17_heft3.pdf; Date accessed: | May 08, 2019). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E5077 | | The data reflects the number of parties participating in the | geographical constituency elections. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E5077 | | The data reports the number of political parties participating | on both electoral segments. Taken separately, 36 parties | competed in the proportional segment (national party lists; this | includes 13 lists that represent National Self-Governments of | national minorities), while 66 parties competed in the | individual constituencies under the majority rule | (first-past-the-post). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2016): E5077 | | 17 parties received votes in the Irish Dail election of 2016. | The Socialist Party and the People Before Profit Alliance, both | of which make up the Anti-Austerity Alliance, are treated as | separate entities in this count. Furthermore, only nine parties | received votes in excess of 1% nationally. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ITALY (2018): E5077 | | There were 21 electoral entities that participated in the | election. Two electoral alliances (described in ES note for | E5034) included a total of 9 political parties. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2017): E5077 | | There were 20 parties participating in total. Of the 20, | 11 parties participated in the PR segment (tier 2), while 17 | contested the SMD tier (tier 1). Only eight parties contested | both tiers. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E5077 | | The data reports the number of political parties | participating in the party list (proportional) segment. | There were 14 electoral lists, two of which were two-party | coalitions. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MONTENEGRO (2016): E5077 | | There were 17 electoral lists that competed in the election. | The data shown here (33) refers to the number of individual | parties taking part in the 2016 Montenegrin parliamentary | elections, whether competing individually, or within various | electoral coalitions. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2017): E5077 | | These data represent the number of parties who received list | votes (tier 2). 26 parties received votes at the constituency | level (tier 1). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (2020): E5077 | | These data represent the number of parties who received list | votes (tier 2). 32 parties received votes at the constituency | level (tier 1). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2019): E5077 | | There were 21 electoral entities that participated in the | election. One electoral alliance consisted of two parties - the | Unitary Democratic Coalition (CDU) is an electoral alliance of | the Portuguese Communist Party (PCP) and the Ecologist Party - | The Greens (PEV). Hence the entry in this variable is 22. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2016): E5077 | | The data reflects the number of parties participating in the | proportional (party list) segment. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016 & 2020): E5077 | | The entry refers to the legislative election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TUNISIA (2019): E5077 | | Seats were obtained by 20 political parties. However, it | remained unclear what is the exact number of political parties | that took part in the election. There is more than 200 | officially registered political parties in Tunisia. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TURKEY (2018): E5077 | | Eight political parties, plus a number of independent | candidates took part in the 2018 Turkish parliamentary | elections. | Six candidates competed in the presidential election. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): E5077 | | Data will be available in a subsequent release of CSES. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E5077 | | The data refers to parties that fielded candidates in the | Presidential election. Candidates may not have competed in every | state. | Thirty-five parties contested the House of Representative | elections while 16 different parties contested the 35 Senate | races. However, estimating precisely the number of parties | contesting the election is difficult as parties do not always use | the same names in different states and sometimes vote records do | not acknowledge smaller parties, but instead collate the | results under an umbrella "other" category. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5078 >>> EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF ELECTORAL PARTIES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Effective number of electoral parties (ENEP). .................................................................. 00.00-150.00 EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF ELECTORAL PARTIES 997. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION ONLY - NOT CALCULATED 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5078 | | Formula: ENPP = 1/(SUM[V_i^2]) | where V_i represents the vote share of party i, and all | parties (i=1,2...n) receiving votes are included in the | calculation. | | Definition based on Laakso, M. and R. Taagepera (1979). | '"Effective" Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to | West Europe', Comparative Political Studies 12: 3-27. | | The electoral data employed to calculate this index comes | from lower house elections, unless the study is focused on | upper house election exclusively. | For countries with mixed electoral systems (see E5055) the | electoral returns come from the segment containing the most | seats. If there are an equal amount of seats in each segment | the results come from the proportional representation segment. | | The CSES Secretariat calculates these data for each polity's | election and cross-checks it against the standard source, | namely: | Gallagher, Michael, 2017. "Election indices dataset" - see: | http://www.tcd.ie/Political_Science/staff/michael_gallagher | /ElSystems/index.php, | (Date accessed: April 09, 2019). | | Data are unavailable for UNITED STATES (2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): E5078 | | This data is calculated by treating the Liberals | (Liberal party and Liberal National Party) and the | Nationals (the National Party and the Country Liberals) | as single entities. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019): E5078 | | This data is calculated by taking only parties that competed | in Flanders. The effective number of electoral parties (ENEP) | for Belgium is 10.94. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019): E5078 | | This data is calculated by taking only parties that competed | in Wallonia. The effective number of electoral parties (ENEP) | for Belgium is 10.94. Data from the Brussels Capital Region is | not included in the calculation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2019): E5078 | | This data is calculated by taking parties that competed in | mainland Denmark only. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2017): E5078 | | These data are calculated on the national share of the vote | and share of seats attained by parties who fielded candidates | in England, Scotland, and Wales. Northern Ireland data is not | included in the calculation of Effective Number of Electoral | or Parliamentary Parties as the 2017 British Election Study | did not include respondents from Northern Ireland. Including | parties contesting in Northern Ireland, the ENEP is 2.89. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E5078 | | The data refers to the first segment of the Legislative | Council (LegCo), i.e. the election of 35 representatives | in Geographical Constituencies. | For more details about the Hong Kong electoral system, see ES | Note for E5040. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E5078 | | These calculations are based on the election results in the | proportional (party list) segment. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2016): E5078 | | Data is calculated by treating the Anti Austerity Alliance | (AAA, Party E) made up of the Socialist Party and the United Left | Alliance as a single entity. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2017): E5078 | | The data refers to the first segment of the Lower house - the | majoritarian segment which gives the larger share of the seats. | The ENPP figures are based on the proportion of seats in the | entire House. | For more information about the Japanese electoral system, see | election study notes for E5040. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E5078 | | These calculations are based on the election results in the | proportional (party list) segment. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2016): E5078 | | This entry is based on the results in the majoritarian electoral | tier. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2020): E5078 | | This entry is based on the votes that each party received | in the first tier, which provides the majority (73) seats in the | Legislative Yuan (from geographical constituencies, which employ | first-past-the-post system). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E5078 | | This entry is based on the fused votes that count for | both tiers of the Lower House. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E5078 | | This data is calculated based on elections to the US House of | Representatives. As US states are responsible for election | counts, results for different blocs are often reported | differently by each state. Consequently, the ENEP estimates | include results data for Independent candidates, blank votes, | undervotes, and overvotes. Excluding these categories, the ENEP | estimate is 2.063. The 2020 election ENEP estimate for the | Electoral College, which determines the US Presidency, is 2.09. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5079 >>> CORRECTED EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF ELECTORAL PARTIES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Corrected effective number of electoral parties (CENEP). .................................................................. 00.00-150.00 CORRECTED EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF ELECTORAL PARTIES 997. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION ONLY - NOT CALCULATED 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5079 | | Corrected Effective Number of Electoral Parties corrects for the | "other" category using the least component method of bounds | suggested by Taagepera. The method requires calculating the | ENEP (E5078) two times. One is treating the "other" category as | a single party and the second is calculating the ENEP as if every | vote in the "other" category belonged to a different party. | The CENEP is the mean of both measures. | | Definition based on: Taagepera, R. (1997). 'Effective Number of | Parties for incomplete Data', Electoral Studies 16: 145-151. | | The electoral data employed to calculate this index comes | from lower house elections, unless the study is focused on | upper house election exclusively. | For countries with mixed electoral systems (see E5055) the | electoral returns come from the segment containing the most | seats. If there are an equal amount of seats in each segment | the results come from the proportional representation segment. | | The CSES Secretariat calculates these data for each polity's | election and cross-checks it against the standard source, | namely: | Gallagher, Michael, 2017. "Election indices dataset" - see: | http://www.tcd.ie/Political_Science/staff/michael_gallagher | /ElSystems/index.php, | (Date accessed: April 09, 2019). | | Data are unavailable for UNITED STATES (2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): E5079 | | This data is calculated by treating the Liberals | (Liberal party and Liberal National Party) and the | Nationals (the National Party and the Country Liberals) | as single entities. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019): E5079 | | This data is calculated by taking only parties that competed | in Flanders. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019): E5079 | | This data is calculated by taking only parties that competed | in Wallonia. Data from the Brussels Capital Region is not | included in the calculation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2019): E5079 | | This data is calculated by taking parties that competed in | mainland Denmark only. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2017): E5079 | | These data are calculated on the national share of the vote | and share of seats attained by parties who fielded candidates | in England, Scotland, and Wales. Northern Ireland data is not | included in the calculation as the 2017 British Election Study | did not include respondents from Northern Ireland. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E5079 | | The data refers to the first segment of the Legislative | Council (LegCo), i.e. the election of 35 representatives | in Geographical Constituencies. | For more details about Hong Kong electoral system, see ES note | for E5040. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E5079 | | These calculations are based on the election results in the | proportional (party list) segment. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - IRELAND (2016): E5079 | | Data is calculated by treating the Anti Austerity Alliance | (AAA, Party E) made up of the Socialist Party and the United | Left Alliance as a single entity. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2017): E5079 | | The data refers to the first segment of the Lower house - the | majoritarian segment which gives the larger share of the seats. | The ENPP figures are based on the proportion of seats in the | entire House. | For more information about the Japanese electoral system, see | election study notes for E5040. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E5079 | | These calculations are based on the election results in the | proportional (party list) segment. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2016): E5079 | | Data is calculated based on the results in the majoritarian | electoral tier. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2020): E5079 | | This entry is based on the votes that each party received | in the first tier, which provides the majority (73) seats in the | Legislative Yuan (from geographical constituencies, which employ | first-past-the-post system). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E5079 | | This entry is based on the fused votes that count for | both tiers of the Lower House. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): E5079 | | Data will be available in a subsequent release of CSES. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E5079 | | This data is calculated based on elections to the US House of | Representatives. As US states are responsible for election | counts, results for different blocs are often reported | differently by each state. Consequently, the CENEP estimates | include results data for Independent candidates, blank votes, | undervotes, and overvotes. Excluding these categories, the CENEP | estimate is 2.064. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5080 >>> EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF PARLIAMENTARY PARTIES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Effective number of parliamentary parties (ENPP). .................................................................. 00.00-150.00 EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF PARLIAMENTARY PARTIES 997. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION ONLY - NOT CALCULATED 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5080 | | Formula: ENPP = 1/(SUM[S_i^2]) | where S_i represents the seat share of party i, and all | parties (i=1,2...n) receiving votes are included in the | calculation. | | Definition based on Laakso, M. and R. Taagepera (1979). | '"Effective" Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to | West Europe', Comparative Political Studies 12: 3-27. | | The electoral data employed to calculate this index comes | from lower house elections, unless the study is focused on | upper house election exclusively. | | The CSES Secretariat calculates these data for each polity's | election and cross-checks it against the standard source, | namely: | Gallagher, Michael, 2017. "Election indices dataset" - see: | http://www.tcd.ie/Political_Science/staff/michael_gallagher | /ElSystems/index.php, | (Date accessed: April 09, 2019). | | Data are unavailable for UNITED STATES (2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): E5080 | | This data is calculated by treating the Liberals | (Liberal party and Liberal National Party) and the | Nationals (the National Party and the Country Liberals) | as single entities. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019): E5080 | | This data is calculated by taking only parties that competed | in Flanders. The effective number of parliamentary parties (ENPP) | for Belgium is 9.70. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019): E5080 | | This data is calculated by taking only parties that competed | in Wallonia. The effective number of parliamentary parties (ENPP) | for Belgium is 9.70. Data from the Brussels Capital Region is not | included in the calculation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2019): E5080 | | This data is calculated by taking parties that competed in | mainland Denmark only. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2017): E5080 | | These data are calculated on the national share of the vote | and share of seats attained by parties who fielded candidates | in England, Scotland, and Wales. Northern Ireland data is not | included in the calculation of Effective Number of Electoral | or Parliamentary Parties as the 2017 British Election Study | did not include respondents from Northern Ireland. Including | parties contesting in Northern Ireland, the ENPP is 2.48. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E5080 | | The data refers to the first segment of the Legislative | Council (LegCo), i.e. the election of 35 representatives | in Geographical Constituencies. | For more details about the Hong Kong electoral system, see ES | note for E5040. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E5080 | | The data is based on the total number of representatives | elected into the parliament. The data includes both the | 93 representatives on the basis of a proportional tier, and | the 106 representatives from the single member constituencies. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2017): E5080 | | The data is based on the total number of representatives | elected into the parliament. The data includes both the | 176 representatives on the basis of a proportional tier, and | the 281 representatives from the single member constituencies. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E5080 | | The data is based on the total number of representatives | elected into the parliament. The data includes both the | 70 representatives on the basis of a proportional tier, and | the 71 representatives from the single member constituencies. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2016): E5080 | | The data is based on the total number of representatives | elected into the parliament. The figure includes both the | 47 representatives on the basis of a proportional tier, and | the 253 representatives from the single member constituencies. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2020): E5080 | | This entry is based on the share of seats that each party | received resulting from all tiers: the geographical | constituencies (General; 73 seats), a national-wide closed-list | proportional tier (34 seats), and two special segments for | aboriginal populations (six seats). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E5080 | | This entry is based on the total number of seats obtained in | both tiers of the Lower House. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): E5080 | | Data will be available in a subsequent release of CSES. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E5080 | | This data is calculated based on elections to the US House of | Representatives. As US states are responsible for election | counts, results for different blocs are often reported | differently by each state. Consequently, the ENPP estimates | include results data for Independent candidates, blank votes, | undervotes, and overvotes. Excluding these categories, the ENEP | estimate is 1.999. The 2020 election ENEP estimate for the | Electoral College, which determines the US Presidency, is 1.96. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5081 >>> CORRECTED EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF PARLIAMENTARY PARTIES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Corrected Effective number of parliamentary parties (CENPP). .................................................................. 00.00-150.00 CORRECTED EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF PARLIAMENTARY PARTIES 997. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION ONLY - NOT CALCULATED 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5081 | | Corrected Effective Number of Parliamentary Parties corrects for | the "other" category using the least component method of bounds | suggested by Taagepera (1997). The method requires calculating | the ENPP two times. One is treating the "other" category as a | single party and the second is calculating the ENPP as if every | seat in the "other" category belonged to a different party. | The CENPP is the mean of both measures. | | Definition based on: Taagepera, R. (1997). 'Effective Number of | Parties for incomplete Data', Electoral Studies 16: 145-151. | | The electoral data employed to calculate this index comes | from lower house elections, unless the study is focused on | upper house election exclusively. | | The CSES Secretariat calculates these data for each polity's | election and cross-checks it against the standard source, | namely: | Gallagher, Michael, 2017. "Election indices dataset" - see: | http://www.tcd.ie/Political_Science/staff/michael_gallagher | /ElSystems/index.php, | (Date accessed: April 09, 2017). | | Data are unavailable for UNITED STATES (2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (2019): E5081 | | This data is calculated by treating the Liberals | (Liberal party and Liberal National Party) and the | Nationals (the National Party and the Country Liberals) | as single entities. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019): E5081 | | This data is calculated by taking only parties that competed | in Flanders. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019): E5081 | | This data is calculated by taking only parties that competed | in Wallonia. Data from the Brussels Capital Region is not | included in the calculation. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2019): E5081 | | This data is calculated by taking parties that competed in | mainland Denmark only. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (2017): E5081 | | These data are calculated on the national share of the vote | and share of seats attained by parties who fielded candidates | in England, Scotland, and Wales. Northern Ireland data is not | included in the calculation as the 2017 British Election Study | did not include respondents from Northern Ireland. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2016): E5081 | | The data refers to the first segment of the Legislative | Council (LegCo), i.e. the election of 35 representatives | in Geographical Constituencies. | For more details about the Hong Kong electoral system, see ES | note for E5040. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (2018): E5081 | | The data is based on the total number of representatives | elected into the parliament. The data includes both the | 93 representatives on the basis of a proportional tier, and | the 106 representatives from the single member constituencies. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (2017): E5081 | | The data is based on the total number of representatives | elected into the parliament. The data includes both the | 176 representatives on the basis of a proportional tier, and | the 281 representatives from the single member constituencies. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (2016): E5081 | | The data is based on the total number of representatives | elected into the parliament. The data includes both the | 70 representatives on the basis of a proportional tier, and | the 71 representatives from the single member constituencies. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SOUTH KOREA (2016): E5081 | | The data is based on the total number of representatives | elected into the parliament. The figure includes both the | 47 representatives on the basis of a proportional tier, and | the 253 representatives from the single member constituencies. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2020): E5081 | | This entry is based on the share of seats that each party | received resulting from all tiers: the geographical | constituencies (General; 73 seats), a national-wide closed-list | proportional tier (34 seats), and two special segments for | aboriginal populations (six seats). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2019): E5081 | | This entry is based on the total number of seats obtained in | both tiers of the Lower House. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016): E5081 | | Data will be available in a subsequent release of CSES. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2020): E5081 | | This data is calculated based on elections to the US House of | Representatives. As US states are responsible for election | counts, results for different blocs are often reported | differently by each state. Consequently, the CENPP estimates | include results data for Independent candidates, blank votes, | undervotes, and overvotes. Excluding these categories, the ENEP | estimate is 1.999. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5082_1 >>> DIRECT DEMOCRACY: REFERENDUM MANDATORY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Direct democracy: Are there any Legal Provisions for Mandatory Referendums at the national level? .................................................................. 1. YES 2. NO 5. NO INFORMATION AVAILABLE 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5082_1 | | Source: ACE Electoral Knowledge Network | http://aceproject.org/epic-en/CDTable?view=country&question=DD003 | (Date accessed: October 29, 2018). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016 & 2020): E5082_1 | | Provision for mandatory referendums, known in the USA | colloquially as initiatives or ballot propositions do exist at | the state level but not the national level. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5082_2 >>> DIRECT DEMOCRACY: REFERENDUM OPTIONAL --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Direct democracy: Are there any Legal Provisions for Option Referendums at the National Level? .................................................................. 1. YES 2. NO 5. NO INFORMATION AVAILABLE 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5082_2 | | Source: ACE Electoral Knowledge Network | http://aceproject.org/epic-en/CDTable?view=country&question=DD004 | (Date accessed: October 29, 2018). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5082_3 >>> DIRECT DEMOCRACY: REFERENDUMS BY CITIZEN INITIATIVE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Direct democracy: Are there any Legal Provisions for Citizen's Initiatives at the National Level? .................................................................. 1. YES 2. NO 5. NO INFORMATION AVAILABLE 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5082_3 | | Source: ACE Electoral Knowledge Network | http://aceproject.org/epic-en/CDTable?view=country&question=DD005 | (Date accessed: October 29, 2018). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (2016 & 2020): E5082_3 | | Provision for referendums by citizen initiative do exist | at the state level but not the national level. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5082_4 >>> DIRECT DEMOCRACY: REFERENDUM RESULT BINDING OR CONSULTATIVE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Direct democracy: Are the results of referenda always binding, never binding or sometimes binding? .................................................................. 1. ALWAYS BINDING 2. SOMETIMES BINDING 3. NEVER BINDING 5. NO INFORMATION AVAILABLE 7. NOT APPLICABLE 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5082_4 | | Source: ACE Electoral Knowledge Network | http://aceproject.org/epic-en/CDTable?view=country&question=DD129 | (Date accessed: October 29, 2018). III. OTHER MACRO-LEVEL DATA --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5090_1 >>> FREEDOM HOUSE RATING - TIME T E5090_2 >>> FREEDOM HOUSE RATING - TIME T-1 E5090_3 >>> FREEDOM HOUSE RATING - TIME T-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- These variables report Freedom House's rating of freedom in a country at three time periods: the election year (time T), one year before election (T-1), and two years before election (T-2). Each country and territory is assigned a numerical rating, on a scale of 1 to 7. A rating of 1 indicates the highest degree of freedom and 7 the least amount of freedom. CSES reports average of the "Political Rights" and "Civil Liberties" scores. .................................................................. 1.00-7.00 FREEDOM SCORE 9.00 MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5090_ | | Source: Freedom House's annual publications "Freedom in the | World" (https://freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-world; | Date accessed: October 29, 2018). | | 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 is available | at: http://freedomhouse.org/ (Date accessed: April 30, 2020). | | Users are advised that there is normally a two or three year | time lag between these estimates becoming available. | Consequently, for Advance Releases of the CSES (and possibly | Full Releases), data may not be available at the time of coding. | In circumstances where this occurs, the polity will be listed | as DATA UNAVAILABLE in the VARIABLE NOTES below. Should data | become available between an Advance Release of CSES and a Full | Release of CSES, data for these polities may be included in a | subsequent release of the CSES. | | Data for E5090_1 are unavailable for HUNGARY (2018) and | SWITZERLAND (2019). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5091_1 >>> DEMOCRACY-AUTOCRACY - POLITY IV RATING - TIME T E5091_2 >>> DEMOCRACY-AUTOCRACY - POLITY IV RATING - TIME T-1 E5091_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). .................................................................. 10. DEMOCRATIC 09. 08. 07. 06. 05. 04. 03. 02. 01. 00. -01. -02. -03. -04. -05. -06. -07. -08. -09. -10. AUTOCRATIC -66. INTERRUPTION PERIODS -77. INTERREGUM PERIODS -88. TRANSITION PERIODS 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5091_ | | 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). | | Source: POLITY IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics | and Transitions, 1800-2017, Monty G. Marshall and Keith Jaggers, | George Mason University and Colorado State University | (http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm; Date accessed: | April 30, 2020). | | The Polity IV Dataset Users' Manual (downloaded on April 5, | 2019 | (http://www.systemicpeace.org/inscr/p4manualv2017.pdf). | | The Polity IV annual time-series dataset | (www.systemicpeace.org/inscr/p4v2017.xls; Date accessed: April | 30, 2020). | | Users are advised that there is normally a two or three year | time lag between these estimates becoming available. | Consequently, for Advance Releases of the CSES (and possibly | Full Releases), data may not be available at the time of coding. | In circumstances where this occurs, the polity will be listed | as DATA UNAVAILABLE in the VARIABLE NOTES below. Should data | become available between an Advance Release of CSES and a Full | Release of CSES, data for these polities may be included in a | subsequent release of the CSES. | | Data for E5091_ are unavailable for HONG KONG (2016), ICELAND | (2016 & 2017) and TUNISIA (2019). | | Data for E5091_1 are unavailable for BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019), | BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019), HUNGARY (2018), ISRAEL (2020), SLOVAKIA | (2020), THAILAND (2020) and UNITED STATES (2020). | Data for E5091_2 are unavailable for UNITED STATES (2020). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5092 >>> GINI COEFFICIENT OF EQUALIZED DISPOSABLE INCOME - (YEAR CLOSEST TO ELECTION YEAR AVAILABLE) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports the Gini coefficient of equalized disposable income in the year of election or the year closest to election at time of processing (see Variable Notes for more). .................................................................. 0.00-100.00 GINI COEFFICIENT 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5092 | | Definition: This variable reports the World Bank estimate of the | distribution of income among individuals or households within an | economy and the extent to which it deviates from a perfectly | equal distribution. A Lorenz curve plots the cumulative | percentages of total income received against the cumulative | number of recipients, starting with the poorest individual or | household. The Gini index measures the area between the Lorenz | curve and a hypothetical line of absolute equality. Thus a Gini | index of 0 represents perfect equality, while an index of 100 | implies perfect inequality. | | These data come from the World Bank World Development Indicators | Open Database - see: | https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI/ | (Date accessed: October 29, 2018). | | Users are advised that there is normally a two or three year | time lag between these estimates becoming available. | Consequently, for Advance Releases of the CSES (and possibly | Full Releases), data may not be available at the time of coding. | In circumstances where this occurs, the polity will be listed | as DATA UNAVAILABLE in the VARIABLE NOTES below. Should data | become available between an Advance Release of CSES and a Full | Release of CSES, data for these polities may be included in a | subsequent release of the CSES. | | CSES collects the most up to data for each polity available | at the time the data is being processed by the CSES Secretariat. | However, aggregate level macro data from the World Bank is often | updated retroactively as revised estimates become available. | These revised estimates are usually because of improved data | collection, or more evidence becoming available to allow for a | more robust estimates to be made, or changes in methodology. | For more see the advice of the World Bank at: | https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/114939 | -how-are-revisions-managed | (Date accessed: April 09, 2019). | | The time lag for this variable becoming available is often | many years. CSES where possible has a policy of providing users | with the data in the year of election. However, at the time of | processing, GINI coefficient data is often unavailable and this | can remain the case for several years. To avoid excessive | missing values for multiple studies, CSES provides the GINI | coefficient estimate for the year closest to the election | available at the time of data processing. The specific years | the GINI data refers to are listed in the below table. | | The CSES policy is to provide users with estimates of data | at the time the data is processed. CSES does not retroactively | update these estimates as to do so might impede replication. | | Data are unavailable for IRELAND (2016), JAPAN (2017), NEW | ZEALAND (2017 & 2020), TUNISIA (2019) and UNITED STATES (2016 & | 2020). | | The following table gives an overview of the year in which | GINI coefficient was calculated. | | +++ TABLE: GINI COEFFICIENT YEAR OF CALCULATION | BY ELECTION STUDY | | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) Year of GINI coefficient calculation | ------------------------------------------------------------- | AUSTRALIA (2019) 2014 | AUSTRIA (2017) 2015 | BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019) 2018 | BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019) 2018 | BRAZIL (2018) 2017 | CANADA (2019) 2017 | CHILE (2017) 2015 | COSTA RICA (2018) 2017 | DENMARK (2019) 2018 | FINLAND (2019) 2018 | FRANCE (2017) 2015 | GERMANY (2017) 2015 | GREAT BRITAIN (2017) 2017 | GREECE (2015) 2015 | HONG KONG (2016) 2016 | HUNGARY (2018) 2015 | ICELAND (2016) 2014 | ICELAND (2017) 2014 | IRELAND (2016) UNAVAILABLE - SEE VARIABLE NOTES | ISRAEL (2020) 2018 | ITALY (2018) 2015 | JAPAN (2017) UNAVAILABLE - SEE VARIABLE NOTES | LITHUANIA (2016) 2015 | MONTENEGRO (2016) 2014 | NETHERLANDS (2017) YEAR UNAVAILABLE AT THIS TIME | NEW ZEALAND (2017) UNAVAILABLE - SEE VARIABLE NOTES | NEW ZEALAND (2020) UNAVAILABLE - SEE VARIABLE NOTES | NORWAY (2017) 2015 | PORTUGAL (2019) 2018 | SLOVAKIA (2020) 2018 | SOUTH KOREA (2016) 2012 | SWEDEN (2018) 2018 | SWITZERLAND (2019) 2015 | TAIWAN (2016) 2014 - SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES | TAIWAN (2020) 2019 - SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES | THAILAND (2019) YEAR UNAVAILABLE AT THIS TIME | TUNISIA (2019) UNAVAILABLE - SEE VARIABLE NOTES | TURKEY (2018) 2016 | UNITED STATES (2016) UNAVAILABLE - SEE VARIABLE NOTES | UNITED STATES (2020) UNAVAILABLE - SEE VARIABLE NOTES | URUGUAY (2019) YEAR UNAVAILABLE AT THIS TIME | ------------------------------------------------------------- | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016): E5092 | | The source of these data is the CIA World Fact Book. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2020): E5092 | | The source of these data is the Statista data platform | (https://www.statista.com/statistics/922574/taiwan-gini-index/) | (Date accessed: July 14, 2021). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5093_1 >>> GDP GROWTH - ANNUAL % (WORLD BANK) - TIME T E5093_2 >>> GDP GROWTH - ANNUAL % (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-1 E5093_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). .................................................................. -20.00 to +20.00. PERCENT ANNUAL GROWTH 99. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5093_ | | 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. | | These data come from the World Bank World Development Indicators | Open Database - see: | https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG | (Date accessed: October 29, 2018). | | Users are advised that there is normally a two or three year | time lag between these estimates becoming available. | Consequently, for Advance Releases of the CSES (and possibly | Full Releases), data may not be available at the time of coding. | In circumstances where this occurs, the polity will be listed | as DATA UNAVAILABLE in the VARIABLE NOTES below. Should data | become available between an Advance Release of CSES and a Full | Release of CSES, data for these polities may be included in a | subsequent release of the CSES. | | CSES collects the most up to data for each polity available | at the time the data is being processed by the CSES Secretariat. | However, aggregate level macro data from the World Bank is often | updated retroactively as revised estimates become available. | These revised estimates are usually because of improved data | collection, or more evidence becoming available to allow for a | more robust estimates to be made, or changes in methodology. | For more see the advice of the World Bank at: | https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/114939 | -how-are-revisions-managed | (Date accessed: April 09, 2019). | | The CSES policy is to provide users with estimates of data | at the time the data is processed. CSES does not retroactively | update these estimates as to do so might impede replication. | | Data for E5093_1 are unavailable for AUSTRALIA (2019), HUNGARY | (2018), ISRAEL (2020), ITALY (2018), NEW ZEALAND (2020), | SWITZERLAND (2019), SLOVAKIA (2020), TAIWAN (2020) and UNITED | STATES (2020). | Data for E5093_2 are unavailable for IRELAND (2016). | Data for E5093_3 are unavailable for TAIWAN (2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016 & 2020): E5093 | | The source of these data is the CIA World Fact Book. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5094_1 >>> GDP PER CAPITA, PPP (WORLD BANK) - TIME T E5094_2 >>> GDP PER CAPITA, PPP (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-1 E5094_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). .................................................................. 00000.00-899999.00 GDP PER CAPITA 999999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5094_ | | 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. | | These data come from the World Bank World Development Indicators | Open Database - see: | https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD | (Date accessed: October 29, 2018). | | Users are advised that there is normally a two or three year | time lag between these estimates becoming available. | Consequently, for Advance Releases of the CSES (and possibly | Full Releases), data may not be available at the time of coding. | In circumstances where this occurs, the polity will be listed | as DATA UNAVAILABLE in the VARIABLE NOTES below. Should data | become available between an Advance Release of CSES and a Full | Release of CSES, data for these polities may be included in a | subsequent release of the CSES. | | CSES collects the most up to data for each polity available | at the time the data is being processed by the CSES Secretariat. | However, aggregate level macro data from the World Bank is often | updated retroactively as revised estimates become available. | These revised estimates are usually because of improved data | collection, or more evidence becoming available to allow for a | more robust estimates to be made, or changes in methodology. | For more see the advice of the World Bank at: | https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/114939 | -how-are-revisions-managed | (Date accessed: April 09, 2019). | | The CSES policy is to provide users with estimates of data | at the time the data is processed. CSES does not retroactively | update these estimates as to do so might impede replication. | | Data for E5094_1 are unavailable for AUSTRALIA (2019), HUNGARY | (2018), ITALY (2018), ISRAEL (2020), NEW ZEALAND (2020), | SLOVKAIA (2020), SWITZERLAND (2019), TAIWAN (2020) and UNITED | STATES (2020). | Data for E5094_2 are unavailable for IRELAND (2016). | Data for E5094_3 are unavailable for TAIWAN (2016 & 2020). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016): E5094_1 | | The source of these data is the CIA World Fact Book. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2020): E5094_2 | | The source of these data is the Statista data platform | (https://www.statista.com/statistics/725742/countries-with-the- | largest-gross-domestic-product-gdp-at-purchasing-power-parity- | per-capita/) | (Date accessed: July 14, 2021). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5095_1 >>> INFLATION, GDP DEFLATOR (ANNUAL %) (WORLD BANK) - TIME T E5095_2 >>> INFLATION, GDP DEFLATOR (ANNUAL %) (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-1 E5095_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). .................................................................. -100.00-10000.00 INFLATION (ANNUAL %) 99999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5095_ | | 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. | | These data come from the World Bank World Development Indicators | Open Database - see: | https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.DEFL.KD.ZG | (Date accessed: October 29, 2018). | | Users are advised that there is normally a two or three year | time lag between these estimates becoming available. | Consequently, for Advance Releases of the CSES (and possibly | Full Releases), data may not be available at the time of coding. | In circumstances where this occurs, the polity will be listed | as DATA UNAVAILABLE in the VARIABLE NOTES below. Should data | become available between an Advance Release of CSES and a Full | Release of CSES, data for these polities may be included in a | subsequent release of the CSES. | | CSES collects the most up to data for each polity available | at the time the data is being processed by the CSES Secretariat. | However, aggregate level macro data from the World Bank is often | updated retroactively as revised estimates become available. | These revised estimates are usually because of improved data | collection, or more evidence becoming available to allow for a | more robust estimates to be made, or changes in methodology. | For more see the advice of the World Bank at: | https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/114939 | -how-are-revisions-managed | (Date accessed: April 09, 2019). | | The CSES policy is to provide users with estimates of data | at the time the data is processed. CSES does not retroactively | update these estimates as to do so might impede replication. | | Data for E5095_1 are unavailable for AUSTRALIA (2019), HUNGARY | (2018), ITALY (2018), SLOVAKIA (2020), SWITZERLAND (2019), | ISRAEL (2020), JAPAN (2017), NEW ZEALAND (2020) & UNITED STATES | (2020). | Data for E5095_2 are unavailable for IRELAND (2016) and | TAIWAN (2016). | Data for E5095_3 are unavailable for TAIWAN (2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016): E5095_1 | | The source of these data is the CIA World Fact Book. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2020): E5095 | | The source of these data is the Statista data platform | (https://www.statista.com/statistics/727598/inflation- | rate-in-taiwan/) | (Date accessed: July 14, 2021). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5096_1 >>> CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DEBT, TOTAL (% GDP) TIME T E5096_2 >>> CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DEBT, TOTAL (% GDP) TIME T-1 E5096_3 >>> CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DEBT, TOTAL (% GDP) TIME T-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- These variables report World Bank estimates of the Central government debt, total (% of GDP), at three time periods: the election year (time T), one year before election (T-1), and two years before election (T-2). .................................................................. 00.00-200.00 CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DEBT, TOTAL (% GDP) 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5096_ | | Definition: Debt is the entire stock of direct government | fixed-term contractual obligations to others outstanding on a | particular date. It includes domestic and foreign liabilities | such as currency and money deposits, securities other than | shares, and loans. It is the gross amount of government | liabilities reduced by the amount of equity and financial | derivatives held by the government. Because debt is a stock | rather than a flow, it is measured as of a given date, usually | the last day of the fiscal year. | | These data come from the World Bank World Development Indicators | Open Database - see: | https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GC.DOD.TOTL.GD.ZS | (Date accessed: October 29, 2018). | | Users are advised that there is normally a two or three year | time lag between these estimates becoming available. | Consequently, for Advance Releases of the CSES (and possibly | Full Releases), data may not be available at the time of coding. | In circumstances where this occurs, the polity will be listed | as DATA UNAVAILABLE in the VARIABLE NOTES below. Should data | become available between an Advance Release of CSES and a Full | Release of CSES, data for these polities may be included in a | subsequent release of the CSES. | | CSES collects the most up to data for each polity available | at the time the data is being processed by the CSES Secretariat. | However, aggregate level macro data from the World Bank is often | updated retroactively as revised estimates become available. | These revised estimates are usually because of improved data | collection, or more evidence becoming available to allow for a | more robust estimates to be made, or changes in methodology. | For more see the advice of the World Bank at: | https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/114939 | -how-are-revisions-managed | (Date accessed: April 09, 2019). | | The CSES policy is to provide users with estimates of data | at the time the data is processed. CSES does not retroactively | update these estimates as to do so might impede replication. | | Data for E5096_ are unavailable for AUSTRALIA (2019), AUSTRIA | (2017), BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019), BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019), | CANADA (2019), CHILE (2017), COSTA RICA (2018), DENMARK (2019), | FINLAND (2019), FRANCE (2017), GERMANY (2017), GREECE (2015), | HONG KONG (2016), ISRAEL (2020), ITALY (2018), LITHUANIA (2016), | MONTENEGRO (2016), NETHERLANDS (2017), NEW ZEALAND (2020), NORWAY | (2017), PORTUGAL (2019), SLOVAKIA (2020), SWEDEN (2018), | SWITZERLAND (2019), TAIWAN (2016), TAIWAN (2020), THAILAND | (2019), TUNISIA (2019), URUGUAY (2019) and UNITED STATES (2020). | | Data for E5096_1 are unavailable for BRAZIL (2018), GREAT | BRITAIN (2017), HUNGARY (2018), ICELAND (2017), JAPAN (2017), | NEW ZEALAND (2017) and TURKEY (2018). | | Data for E5096_2 are unavailable for BRAZIL (2018), HUNGARY | (2018), ICELAND (2016) and TURKEY (2018). | | Data for E5096_3 are unavailable for ICELAND (2016) and ICELAND | (2017). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5097_1 >>> HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX (UNPD) - TIME T E5097_2 >>> HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX (UNPD) - TIME T-1 E5097_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). .................................................................. 00.00-1.00 HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5097_ | | 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. | | These data come from the United Nations Human Development | Database see: http://hdr.undp.org/en/data | (Date accessed: October 29, 2018). | | Users are advised that there is normally a two or three year | time lag between these estimates becoming available. | Consequently, for Advance Releases of the CSES (and possibly | Full Releases), data may not be available at the time of coding. | In circumstances where this occurs, the polity will be listed | as DATA UNAVAILABLE in the VARIABLE NOTES below. Should data | become available between an Advance Release of CSES and a Full | Release of CSES, data for these polities may be included in a | subsequent release of the CSES. | | Data for E5097_ are unavailable for TAIWAN (2016). | | Data for E5097_1 are unavailable for AUSTRALIA (2019), HUNGARY | (2018), ISRAEL (2020), ITALY (2018), NEW ZEALAND (2020), | SLOVAKIA (2020), SWITZERLAND (2019), TAIWAN (2016 & 2020) and | UNITED STATES (2020). | | Data for E5097_2 are unavailable for TAIWAN (2016) and GREAT | BRITAIN (2017). | | Data for E5097_3 are unavailable for ICELAND (2016), SWEDEN | (2018) and TAIWAN (2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2020): E5097 | | The UN does not recognize the Republic of China (Taiwan) | as a sovereign state - hence no data for Taiwan. We include here | data reported by Taiwan's government (Directorate General of | Budget, Accounting and Statistics, Executive Yuan, Taiwan (ROC); | https://www.dgbas.gov.tw/public/Data/112116036FDX2D8F3.pdf; | retrieved on April 29, 2020) | (Date accessed: July 14, 2021). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5098_1 >>> POPULATION, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T E5098_2 >>> POPULATION, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-1 E5098_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). .................................................................. 1,000-4,000,000. POPULATION SIZE 999,999,999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5098_ | | 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. | | These data come from the World Bank World Development Indicators | Open Database - see: | http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL | (Date accessed: October 29, 2018). | | Users are advised that there is normally a two or three year | time lag between these estimates becoming available. | Consequently, for Advance Releases of the CSES (and possibly | Full Releases), data may not be available at the time of coding. | In circumstances where this occurs, the polity will be listed | as DATA UNAVAILABLE in the VARIABLE NOTES below. Should data | become available between an Advance Release of CSES and a Full | Release of CSES, data for these polities may be included in a | subsequent release of the CSES. | | CSES collects the most up to data for each polity available | at the time the data is being processed by the CSES Secretariat. | However, aggregate level macro data from the World Bank is often | updated retroactively as revised estimates become available. | These revised estimates are usually because of improved data | collection, or more evidence becoming available to allow for a | more robust estimates to be made, or changes in methodology. | For more see the advice of the World Bank at: | https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/114939 | -how-are-revisions-managed | (Date accessed: April 09, 2019). | | The CSES policy is to provide users with estimates of data | at the time the data is processed. CSES does not retroactively | update these estimates as to do so might impede replication. | | Data for E5098_1 are unavailable for AUSTRALIA (2019), HUNGARY | (2018), ISRAEL (2020), ITALY (2018), NEW ZEALAND (2020), SLOVAKIA | (2020), SWITZERLAND (2019) and UNITED STATES (2020). | | Data for E5098_3 are unavailable for TAIWAN (2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016): E5098_1 & E5098_2 | | The population estimates come from Worldometers.info. Author: | Worldometers.info, Publishing Date: 24 March, 2019. Place of | publication: Dover, Delaware, U.S.A. (http://www.worldometers. | info/world-population/taiwan-population/; Date accessed: May | 08, 2019). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2020): E5098_1 & E5098_2 | | The population estimates come from Worldometers.info. Author: | Worldometers.info, Place of publication: Dover, Delaware, U.S.A. | (http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/taiwan-population | retrieved on April 29, 2020) | (Date accessed: July 14, 2021). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5099_1 >>> UNEMPLOYMENT, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T E5099_2 >>> UNEMPLOYMENT, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-1 E5099_3 >>> UNEMPLOYMENT, TOTAL (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- These variables report World Bank estimates of the unemployment rate (% of total labor force), at three time periods: the election year (time T), one year before election (T-1), and two years before election (T-2). ................................................................. 00.00-100.00 UNEMPLOYMENT RATE (% OF TOTAL LABOR FORCE) 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5099_ | | Definition: Unemployment is the share of the labor force without | work but available for and seeking employment. Definitions of | labor force and unemployment may differ by country. | | These data come from the World Bank World Development Indicators | Open Database - see: | http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.UEM.TOTL.ZS | (Date accessed: April 09, 2017). | | Users are advised that there is normally a two or three year | time lag between these estimates becoming available. | Consequently, for Advance Releases of the CSES (and possibly | Full Releases), data may not be available at the time of coding. | In circumstances where this occurs, the polity will be listed | as DATA UNAVAILABLE in the VARIABLE NOTES below. Should data | become available between an Advance Release of CSES and a Full | Release of CSES, data for these polities may be included in a | subsequent release of the CSES. | | CSES collects the most up to data for each polity available | at the time the data is being processed by the CSES Secretariat. | However, aggregate level macro data from the World Bank is often | updated retroactively as revised estimates become available. | These revised estimates are usually because of improved data | collection, or more evidence becoming available to allow for a | more robust estimates to be made, or changes in methodology. | For more see the advice of the World Bank at: | https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/114939 | -how-are-revisions-managed | (Date accessed: April 09, 2019). | | The CSES policy is to provide users with estimates of data | at the time the data is processed. CSES does not retroactively | update these estimates as to do so might impede replication. | | Data for E5099_1 are unavailable for HUNGARY (2018), ITALY | (2018) and TAIWAN (2020). | Data for E5099_2 and E5099_3 are unavailable for TAIWAN (2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2020): E5099_ | | The source of these data is the CIA World Factbook. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5100_1 >>> UNEMPLOYMENT, TOTAL FOR PEOPLE AGED 15-24 YEARS (WORLD BANK) - TIME T E5100_2 >>> UNEMPLOYMENT, TOTAL FOR PEOPLE AGED 15-24 YEARS (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-1 E5100_3 >>> UNEMPLOYMENT, TOTAL FOR PEOPLE AGED 15-24 YEARS (WORLD BANK) - TIME T-2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- These variables report World Bank estimates of the unemployment rate (% of total labor force), at three time periods: the election year (time T), one year before election (T-1), and two years before election (T-2). .................................................................. 00.00-100.00 UNEMPLOYMENT RATE OF PEOPLE AGED 15-24 YEARS (% OF TOTAL LABOR FORCE) 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5100_ | | Definition: Unemployment is the share of the labor force without | work but available for and seeking employment. Definitions of | labor force and unemployment may differ by country. | | These data come from the World Bank World Development Indicators | Open Database - see: | https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.UEM.1524.ZS | (Date accessed: October 30, 2018). | | Users are advised that there is normally a two or three year | time lag between these estimates becoming available. | Consequently, for Advance Releases of the CSES (and possibly | Full Releases), data may not be available at the time of coding. | In circumstances where this occurs, the polity will be listed | as DATA UNAVAILABLE in the VARIABLE NOTES below. Should data | become available between an Advance Release of CSES and a Full | Release of CSES, data for these polities may be included in a | subsequent release of the CSES. | | CSES collects the most up to data for each polity available | at the time the data is being processed by the CSES Secretariat. | However, aggregate level macro data from the World Bank is often | updated retroactively as revised estimates become available. | These revised estimates are usually because of improved data | collection, or more evidence becoming available to allow for a | more robust estimates to be made, or changes in methodology. | For more see the advice of the World Bank at: | https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/114939 | -how-are-revisions-managed | (Date accessed: April 09, 2019). | | The CSES policy is to provide users with estimates of data | at the time the data is processed. CSES does not retroactively | update these estimates as to do so might impede replication. | | Data for E5100_1 are unavailable for HUNGARY (2018), ISRAEL | (2020), ITALY (2018), NEW ZEALAND (2020) SLOVAKIA (2020) and | UNITED STATES (2020). | Data for E5100_2 are unavailable for TAIWAN (2016). | Data for E5100_3 are unavailable for TAIWAN (2016) and TAIWAN | (2020). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (2016): E5100_1 | | The source of these data is the CIA World Fact Book. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5101. >>> COUNTRY SUBJECT TO IMF CONDITIONALITY AT ELECTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is the Polity subject to IMF conditionality at election? .................................................................. 1. YES 5. NO 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5101 | | These data come from the International Monetary Fund - see: | https://www.imf.org/external/np/pdr/mona/index.aspx | (Date accessed: October 30, 2018) | | Data are unavailable for HONG KONG (2016). | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TUNISIA (2019): E5101 | | Tunisia was subject to IMF conditionality between 2016 and 2020. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5102. >>> TI CORRUPTION PERCEPTION INDEX --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI). The Index measures the perceived levels of public sector corruption in countries worldwide, scoring them from 0 (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean). .................................................................. 00.-100. TI CORRUPTION PERCEPTION INDEX 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5102 | | Definition: The Corruption Perceptions Index aggregates data from | several sources that provide perceptions of business people and | country experts of the level of corruption in the public sector. | | These data come from Transparency International | see: http://www.transparency.org/research/cpi/overview | (Date accessed: April 09, 2019). | | The Corruption Perceptions Index aggregates data from a number | of different sources that provide perceptions of business people | and country experts of the level of corruption in the public | sector. | | Users are advised that there is normally a two or three year | time lag between these estimates becoming available. | Consequently, for Advance Releases of the CSES (and possibly | Full Releases), data may not be available at the time of coding. | In circumstances where this occurs, the polity will be listed | as DATA UNAVAILABLE in the VARIABLE NOTES below. Should data | become available between an Advance Release of CSES and a Full | Release of CSES, data for these polities may be included in a | subsequent release of the CSES. | | Data are unavailable for SWITZERLAND (2019). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5103_1. >>> CONTROL OF CORRUPTION INDEX ESTIMATE - TIME T E5103_1se. >>> CONTROL OF CORRUPTION INDEX ESTIMATE - TIME T ST. ERROR E5103_2. >>> CONTROL OF CORRUPTION INDEX ESTIMATE - TIME T-1 E5103_2se. >>> CONTROL OF CORRUPTION INDEX ESTIMATE - TIME T-1 ST. ERROR E5103_3. >>> CONTROL OF CORRUPTION INDEX ESTIMATE - TIME T-2 E5103_3se. >>> CONTROL OF CORRUPTION INDEX ESTIMATE - TIME T-2 ST. ERROR --------------------------------------------------------------------------- These variables report the World Bank Control of Corruption Index at three time periods: the election year (time T), one year before election (T-1), and two years before election (T-2). These data are available in two forms. The first is the estimate in the given year (E5103_1, E5103_2, and E5103_3) and the standard errors (E5103_1se, E5103_2se, and E5103_3se) associated with these estimates .................................................................. -001.-100. CONTROL OF CORRUPTION INDEX 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5103_ | | Definition: Control of Corruption captures perceptions of the | extent to which public power is exercised for private gain, | including both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as | "capture" of the state by elites and private interests. | | Standard error indicates the precision of the estimate of | governance. Larger values of the standard error indicate less | precise estimates. A 90 percent confidence interval for the | governance estimate is given by the estimate +/- 1.64 times the | standard error. | | These data and definitions come from the World Bank World | Development Indicators Open Database - see: | http://databank.worldbank.org/data/source/worldwide-governance- | indicators# | (Date accessed: October 30, 2018). | | Data for E5103_ are unavailable for AUSTRALIA (2019). | Data for E5103_1 are unavailable for HUNGARY (2018), ISRAEL | (2020), ITALY (2018), NEW ZEALAND (2020), SLOVAKIA (2020), | SWITZERLAND (2019), TAIWAN (2020) and UNITED STATES (2020). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5104_1. >>> QOG EXPERT JUDGEMENT OF PUBLIC SECTOR: FIRMS PROVIDE KICKBACKS TO PUBLIC SERVANTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- QOG expert judgment of public sector: Firms that provide the most favorable kickbacks to senior officials are awarded public procurement contracts in favor of forms making the lowest bid. .................................................................. 01. HARDLY EVER 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. ALMOST ALWAYS 09. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5104_1. | | Source: Dahlstrom, C., J. Teorell, S. Dahlberg, F. Hartmann, | A. Lindberg, & M. Nistotskaya (2015). The QoG Expert Survey | Dataset II. University of Gothenburg: The Quality of Government | Institute. | | Data are unavailable for MONTENEGRO (2016) and TUNISIA (2019). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5104_2. >>> QOG EXPERT JUDGEMENT OF PUBLIC SECTOR: PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES AND HOW THEY TREAT SOCIETY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- QOG expert judgment of public sector: When deciding to implement policies in individual cases, public sector employees treat some groups in society unfairly. .................................................................. 01. HARDLY EVER 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. ALMOST ALWAYS 09. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5104_2. | | Source: Dahlstrom, C., J. Teorell, S. Dahlberg, F. Hartmann, | A. Lindberg, & M. Nistotskaya (2015). The QoG Expert Survey | Dataset II. University of Gothenburg: The Quality of Government | Institute. | | Data are unavailable for SLOVAKIA (2020) and TUNISIA (2019). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5104_3. >>> QOG EXPERT JUDGEMENT OF PUBLIC SECTOR: TREAT CASES IMPARTIALLY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- QOG expert judgment of public sector: Generally speaking, how often would you say that public sector employees today, in our chose country, act impartially when deciding how to implement a policy in an individual case? .................................................................. 01. HARDLY EVER 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. ALMOST ALWAYS 09. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5104_3. | | Source: Dahlstrom, C., J. Teorell, S. Dahlberg, F. Hartmann, | A. Lindberg, & M. Nistotskaya (2015). The QoG Expert Survey | Dataset II. University of Gothenburg: The Quality of Government | Institute. | | Data are unavailable for TUNISIA (2019). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5104_4. >>> QOG EXPERT JUDGEMENT OF PUBLIC SECTOR: STRIVE TO FOLLOW RULES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- QOG expert judgment of public sector: Public sector employees strive to follow rules. .................................................................. 01. HARDLY EVER 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. ALMOST ALWAYS 09. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5104_7. | | Source: Dahlstrom, C., J. Teorell, S. Dahlberg, F. Hartmann, | A. Lindberg, & M. Nistotskaya (2015). The QoG Expert Survey | Dataset II. University of Gothenburg: The Quality of Government | Institute. | | Data are unavailable for TUNISIA (2019). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5105_1. >>> NET MIGRATION RATE 2000-2005 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports the net difference in the number of migrants as an average estimate of the net number of migrants per 1,000 of the population during the period 2000-2005. .................................................................. -100.00 to +100.00. NET MIGRATION RATE 2000-2005 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5105_1 | | The variable is calculated by taking the number of immigrants | minus the number of emigrants and dividing by the person/years | lived by the population of the receiving country over that | period. A positive value represents more people entering the | country than leaving it. A negative value represents more people | leaving than entering the country. | | These data come from the United Nations World Population | Prospects 2015 revisions. | see: https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Download/Standard/Migration/ | (Date accessed: October 30, 2018). | | Users are advised that there is normally a two or three year | time lag between these estimates becoming available. | Consequently, for Advance Releases of the CSES (and possibly | Full Releases), data may not be available at the time of coding. | In circumstances where this occurs, the polity will be listed | as DATA UNAVAILABLE in the VARIABLE NOTES below. Should data | become available between an Advance Release of CSES and a Full | Release of CSES, data for these polities may be included in a | subsequent release of the CSES. | | CSES collects the most up to data for each polity available | at the time the data is being processed by the CSES Secretariat. | However, aggregate level macro data from the United Nations is | often updated retroactively as revised estimates become | available. These revised estimates are usually because of | improved data collection, or more evidence becoming available to | allow for a more robust estimates to be made, or changes in | methodology. | | The CSES policy is to provide users with estimates of data | at the time the data is processed. CSES does not retroactively | update these estimates as to do so might impede replication. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5105_2. >>> NET MIGRATION RATE 2005-2010 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports the net difference in the number of migrants as an average estimate of the net number of migrants per 1,000 of the population during the period 2005-2010. .................................................................. -100.00 to +100.00. NET MIGRATION RATE 2005-2010 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5105_2 | | The variable is calculated by taking the number of immigrants | minus the number of emigrants and dividing by the person/years | lived by the population of the receiving country over that | period. A positive value represents more people entering the | country than leaving it. A negative value represents more people | leaving than entering the country. | | Source: UN World Population Prospects, the 2015 Revision | Net Migration Rate by Major Area, Region, and Country - | Available from: | http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Excel-Data/migration.htm | (Date accessed: May 08, 2019). | | Users are advised that there is normally a two or three year | time lag between these estimates becoming available. | Consequently, for Advance Releases of the CSES (and possibly | Full Releases), data may not be available at the time of coding. | In circumstances where this occurs, the polity will be listed | as DATA UNAVAILABLE in the VARIABLE NOTES below. Should data | become available between an Advance Release of CSES and a Full | Release of CSES, data for these polities may be included in a | subsequent release of the CSES. | | CSES collects the most up to data for each polity available | at the time the data is being processed by the CSES Secretariat. | However, aggregate level macro data from the United Nations is | often updated retroactively as revised estimates become | available. These revised estimates are usually because of | improved data collection, or more evidence becoming available to | allow for a more robust estimates to be made, or changes in | methodology. | | The CSES policy is to provide users with estimates of data | at the time the data is processed. CSES does not retroactively | update these estimates as to do so might impede replication. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5105_3. >>> NET MIGRATION RATE 2010-2015 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports the net difference in the number of migrants as an average estimate of the net number of migrants per 1,000 of the population during the period 2010-2015. .................................................................. -100.00 to +100.00. NET MIGRATION RATE 2010-2015 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5105_3 | | The variable is calculated by taking the number of immigrants | minus the number of emigrants and dividing by the person/years | lived by the population of the receiving country over that | period. A positive value represents more people entering the | country than leaving it. A negative value represents more people | leaving than entering the country. | | Source: UN World Population Prospects, the 2015 Revision | Net Migration Rate by Major Area, Region, and Country - | Available from: | http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Excel-Data/migration.htm | (Date accessed: May 08, 2019). | | Users are advised that there is normally a two or three year | time lag between these estimates becoming available. | Consequently, for Advance Releases of the CSES (and possibly | Full Releases), data may not be available at the time of coding. | In circumstances where this occurs, the polity will be listed | as DATA UNAVAILABLE in the VARIABLE NOTES below. Should data | become available between an Advance Release of CSES and a Full | Release of CSES, data for these polities may be included in a | subsequent release of the CSES. | | CSES collects the most up to data for each polity available | at the time the data is being processed by the CSES Secretariat. | However, aggregate level macro data from the United Nations is | often updated retroactively as revised estimates become | available. These revised estimates are usually because of | improved data collection, or more evidence becoming available to | allow for a more robust estimates to be made, or changes in | methodology. | | The CSES policy is to provide users with estimates of data | at the time the data is processed. CSES does not retroactively | update these estimates as to do so might impede replication. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5105_4. >>> NET MIGRATION RATE 2015-2020 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports the net difference in the number of migrants as an average estimate of the net number of migrants per 1,000 of the population during the period 2015-2020. .................................................................. -100.00 to +100.00. NET MIGRATION RATE 2015-2020 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5105_4 | | The variable is calculated by taking the number of immigrants | minus the number of emigrants and dividing by the person/years | lived by the population of the receiving country over that | period. A positive value represents more people entering the | country than leaving it. A negative value represents more people | leaving than entering the country. | | Source: UN World Population Prospects, the 2015 Revision | Net Migration Rate by Major Area, Region, and Country - | Available from: | http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Excel-Data/migration.htm | (Date accessed: May 08, 2019). | | Users are advised that there is normally a two or three year | time lag between these estimates becoming available. | Consequently, for Advance Releases of the CSES (and possibly | Full Releases), data may not be available at the time of coding. | In circumstances where this occurs, the polity will be listed | as DATA UNAVAILABLE in the VARIABLE NOTES below. Should data | become available between an Advance Release of CSES and a Full | Release of CSES, data for these polities may be included in a | subsequent release of the CSES. | | CSES collects the most up to data for each polity available | at the time the data is being processed by the CSES Secretariat. | However, aggregate level macro data from the United Nations is | often updated retroactively as revised estimates become | available. These revised estimates are usually because of | improved data collection, or more evidence becoming available to | allow for a more robust estimates to be made, or changes in | methodology. | | The CSES policy is to provide users with estimates of data | at the time the data is processed. CSES does not retroactively | update these estimates as to do so might impede replication. | | Data unavailable for IRELAND (2016). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5106_1. >>> POPULATION BY CITIZENSHIP: PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION WHO ARE CITIZENS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Population by citizenship (citizens). .................................................................. 000.00-100.00 PERCENT OF POPULATION (CITIZENS) 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5106_1 | | Source: United Nations Demographic Statistics Database - | Available from: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic-social/ | (Date accessed: October 29, 2018) | | The time lag for this variable becoming available is often | many years. CSES where possible has a policy of providing users | with the data in the year of election. However, at the time of | processing, population data by citizenship status is often | unavailable and this can remain the case for several years. | To avoid excessive missing values for multiple studies, | CSES provides population by citizenship data for the year | closest to the election available at the time of data processing. | The specific years for which the population by citizenship data | refers to are listed in the below table. | | The CSES policy is to provide users with estimates of data | at the time the data is processed. CSES does not retroactively | update these estimates as to do so might impede replication. | | Data are unavailable for CHILE (2017), ICELAND (2016 & 2017), | ISRAEL (2020), NETHERLANDS (2017), NEW ZEALAND (2017 & 2020), | TAIWAN (2016 & 2020), TUNISIA (2019) and URUGUAY (2019). | | +++ TABLE: POPULATION CLASSIFICATIONS SOURCE DATA YEAR BY | ELECTION STUDY | | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) Year of Population Classification | ------------------------------------------------------------- | AUSTRALIA (2019) 2017 | AUSTRIA (2017) 2012 | BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019) 2011 | BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019) 2011 | BRAZIL (2018) 2010 | CANADA (2019) 2016 | COSTA RICA (2018) 2007 | DENMARK (2019) 2019 - SEE ELECTION STUDY NOTES | FINLAND (2019) 2011 | FRANCE (2017) 2015 | GERMANY (2017) 2014 | GREAT BRITAIN (2017) 2014 | GREECE (2015) YEAR UNAVAILABLE AT THIS TIME | HONG KONG (2016) YEAR UNAVAILABLE AT THIS TIME | HUNGARY (2018) 2011 | IRELAND (2016) YEAR UNAVAILABLE AT THIS TIME | ITALY (2018) 2012 | JAPAN (2017) YEAR UNAVAILABLE AT THIS TIME | LITHUANIA (2016) 2014 | MONTENEGRO (2016) 2013 | NORWAY (2017) 2011 | PORTUGAL (2019) 2013 | SLOVAKIA (2020) 2013 | SOUTH KOREA (2016) YEAR UNAVAILABLE AT THIS TIME | SWEDEN (2018) 2014 | SWITZERLAND (2019) 2012 | THAILAND (2019) 2010 | TURKEY (2018) 2009 | UNITED STATES (2016) 2000 | UNITED STATES (2020) 2000 | ------------------------------------------------------------- | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2016): E5106_1 | | Data Source: Statistics Denmark | https://www.statistikbanken.dk/statbank5a/default.asp?w=1280 | Source Year: 2019 | (Date accessed: December 07, 2021). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5106_2. >>> POPULATION BY CITIZENSHIP: PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION FOREIGN BORN/NOT CITIZEN --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Population by citizenship (foreigners). .................................................................. 000.00-100.00 PERCENT OF POPULATION (FOREIGNERS) 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5106_2 | | Source: United Nations Demographic Statistics Database - | Available from: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic-social/ | (Date accessed: October 29, 2018) | | The time lag for this variable becoming available is often | many years. CSES where possible has a policy of providing users | with the data in the year of election. However, at the time of | processing, population data by citizenship status is often | unavailable and this can remain the case for several years. | To avoid excessive missing values for multiple studies, | CSES provides population by citizenship data for the year | closest to the election available at the time of data processing. | The specific years for which the population by citizenship data | refers to are listed in the below table. | | The CSES policy is to provide users with estimates of data | at the time the data is processed. CSES does not retroactively | update these estimates as to do so might impede replication. | | Data are unavailable for CHILE (2017), ICELAND (2016), ICELAND | (2017), ISRAEL (2020), NETHERLANDS (2017), NEW ZEALAND (2017 & | 2020), TAIWAN (2016 & 2020), TUNISIA (2019) and URUGUAY (2019). | | The years for which source data are available by election study | are listed in the variable notes for variable E5106_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2016): E5106_2 | | Data Source: Statistics Denmark | https://www.statistikbanken.dk/statbank5a/default.asp?w=1280 | Source Year: 2019 | (Date accessed: December 07, 2021). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5106_3. >>> POPULATION BY CITIZENSHIP: PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION UNKNOWN CITIZENSHIP STATUS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Population by citizenship (unknown). .................................................................. 000.00-100.00 PERCENT OF POPULATION (UNKNOWN) 999.00. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5106_3 | | Source: United Nations Demographic Statistics Database - | Available from: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic-social/ | (Date accessed: October 29, 2018). | | The time lag for this variable becoming available is often | many years. CSES where possible has a policy of providing users | with the data in the year of election. However, at the time of | processing, population data by citizenship status is often | unavailable and this can remain the case for several years. | To avoid excessive missing values for multiple studies, | CSES provides population by citizenship data for the year | closest to the election available at the time of data processing. | The specific years for which the population by citizenship data | refers to are listed in the below table. | | The CSES policy is to provide users with estimates of data | at the time the data is processed. CSES does not retroactively | update these estimates as to do so might impede replication. | | Data are unavailable for CHILE (2017), ICELAND (2016), ICELAND | (2017), ISRAEL (2020), NETHERLANDS (2017), NEW ZEALAND (2017 & | 2020), TAIWAN (2016 & 2020), TUNISIA (2019), UNITED STATES (2016) | and URUGUAY (2019). | | The years for which source data are available by election study | are listed in the variable notes for variable E5106_1. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (2016): E5106_3 | | Data Source: Statistics Denmark | https://www.statistikbanken.dk/statbank5a/default.asp?w=1280 | Source Year: 2019 | (Date accessed: December 07, 2021). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5107. >>> LINGUISTIC FRACTIONALIZATION INDEX: ALESINA ET AL. 2003 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Linguistic Fractionalization Index (Alesina et al., 2003). .................................................................. 0.00-1.00 LINGUISTIC FRACTIONALIZATION INDEX 9.00 MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5107 | | Source: Alesina, A., Devleeschauwer, A., Easterly, W., Kurlat, | S., Wacziarg, R. (2003). Fractionalization. Journal of Economic | Growth. Vol.8, 155-194. Data available from: | http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/faculty_pages/romain.wacziarg/ | papersum.html | (Date accessed: October 29, 2018) | | Data are unavailable for MONTENEGRO (2016). | | The following table gives an overview of the Alesina et al. 2003 | data and the year for which the linguistic fractionalization | data was calculated for. | | +++ TABLE: LINGUISTIC FRACTIONALIZATION SOURCE DATA YEAR | BY ELECTION STUDY | | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) Year of Fractionalization Estimate | ------------------------------------------------------------- | AUSTRALIA (2019) 2001 | AUSTRIA (2017) 2001 | BRAZIL (2018) 2001 | BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019) 2001 | BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019) 2001 | CANADA (2019) 2001 | CHILE (2017) 2001 | COSTA RICA (2018) 2001 | DENMARK (2019) 2001 | FINLAND (2019) 2001 | FRANCE (2017) 2001 | GERMANY (2017) 2001 | GREAT BRITAIN (2017) 2001 | GREECE (2015) 2001 | HONG KONG (2016) 2001 | HUNGARY (2018) 2001 | ICELAND (2016) 2001 | ICELAND (2017) 2001 | IRELAND (2016) 2001 | ISRAEL (2020) 2001 | ITALY (2018) 2001 | JAPAN (2017) 2001 | LITHUANIA (2016) 2001 | MONTENEGRO (2016) NOT AVAILABLE | NETHERLANDS (2017) 2001 | NEW ZEALAND (2017) 2001 | NEW ZEALAND (2020) 2001 | NORWAY (2017) 2001 | PORTUGAL (2019) 2001 | SLOVAKIA (2020) 2001 | SOUTH KOREA (2016) 2001 | SWEDEN (2018) 2001 | SWITZERLAND (2019) 2001 | TAIWAN (2016) 2001 | TAIWAN (2020) 2001 | THAILAND (2019) 2001 | TUNISIA (2019) 2001 | TURKEY (2018) 2001 | UNITED STATES (2016) 2001 | UNITED STATES (2020) 2001 | URUGUAY (2019) 2001 | ------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5108. >>> RELIGIOUS FRACTIONALIZATION INDEX: ALESINA ET AL. 2003 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Religious Fractionalization Index (Alesina et al., 2003). .................................................................. 0.00-1.00 RELIGIOUS FRACTIONALIZATION INDEX 9.00 MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5108 | | Source: Alesina, A., Devleeschauwer, A., Easterly, W., Kurlat, | S., Wacziarg, R. (2003). Fractionalization. Journal of Economic | Growth. Vol.8, 155-194. Data available from: | http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/faculty_pages/romain.wacziarg/ | papersum.html | (Date accessed: October 29, 2018) | | Data are unavailable for MONTENEGRO (2016). | | The following table gives an overview of the Alesina et al. 2003 | data and the year for which the religious fractionalization data | was calculated for. | | +++ TABLE: RELIGIOUS FRACTIONALIZATION SOURCE DATA YEAR | BY ELECTION STUDY | | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) Year of Fractionalization Estimate | ------------------------------------------------------------- | AUSTRALIA (2019) 2001 | AUSTRIA (2017) 2001 | BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019) 2001 | BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019) 2001 | BRAZIL (2018) 2001 | CANADA (2019) 2001 | CHILE (2017) 2001 | COSTA RICA (2018) 2001 | DENMARK (2019) 2001 | FINLAND (2019) 2001 | FRANCE (2017) 2001 | GERMANY (2017) 2001 | GREAT BRITAIN (2017) 2001 | GREECE (2015) 2001 | HONG KONG (2016) 2001 | HUNGARY (2018) 2001 | ICELAND (2016) 2001 | ICELAND (2017) 2001 | IRELAND (2016) 2001 | ISRAEL (2020) 2001 | ITALY (2018) 2001 | JAPAN (2017) 2001 | LITHUANIA (2016) 2001 | MONTENEGRO (2016) NOT AVAILABLE | NETHERLANDS (2017) 2001 | NEW ZEALAND (2017) 2001 | NEW ZEALAND (2020) 2001 | NORWAY (2017) 2001 | PORTUGAL (2019) 2001 | SLOVAKIA (2020) 2001 | SOUTH KOREA (2016) 2001 | SWEDEN (2018) 2001 | SWITZERLAND (2019) 2011 | TAIWAN (2016) 2001 | TAIWAN (2020) 2001 | THAILAND (2019) 2001 | TUNISIA (2019) 2001 | TURKEY (2018) 2001 | UNITED STATES (2016) 2001 | UNITED STATES (2020) 2001 | URUGUAY (2019) 2001 | ------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5109. >>> ETHNIC FRACTIONALIZATION INDEX: ALESINA ET AL. 2003 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ethnic Fractionalization Index (Alesina et al., 2003). .................................................................. 0.00-1.00 ETHNIC FRACTIONALIZATION INDEX 9.00 MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5109 | | Source: Alesina, A., Devleeschauwer, A., Easterly, W., Kurlat, | S., Wacziarg, R. (2003). Fractionalization. Journal of Economic | Growth. Vol.8, 155-194. Data available from: | http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/faculty_pages/romain.wacziarg/ | papersum.html | (Date accessed: October 29, 2018) | | Data are unavailable for MONTENEGRO (2016). | | The following table gives an overview of the Alesina et al. 2003 | data and the year for which the ethnic fractionalization data | was calculated for. | | +++ TABLE: ETHNIC FRACTIONALIZATION SOURCE DATA YEAR | BY ELECTION STUDY | | POLITY (ELEC YEAR) Year of Fractionalization Estimate | ------------------------------------------------------------- | AUSTRALIA (2019) 1986 | AUSTRIA (2017) 1998 | BELGIUM-FLANDERS (2019) 2001 | BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019) 2001 | BRAZIL (2018) 1995 | CANADA (2019) 1991 | CHILE (2017) 1992 | COSTA RICA (2018) 1993 | DENMARK (2019) 1996 | FINLAND (2019) 2001 | FRANCE (2017) 1999 | GERMANY (2017) 1997 | GREAT BRITAIN (2017) 1994 | GREECE (2015) 1998 | HONG KONG (2016) 1994 | HUNGARY (2018) 1993 | ICELAND (2016) 1995 | ICELAND (2017) 1995 | IRELAND (2016) 1997 | ISRAEL (2020) 1995 | ITALY (2018) 1983 | JAPAN (2017) 1999 | LITHUANIA (2016) 1996 | MONTENEGRO (2016) NOT AVAILABLE | NETHERLANDS (2017) 1995 | NEW ZEALAND (2017) 1996 | NEW ZEALAND (2020) 1996 | NORWAY (2017) 1998 | PORTUGAL (2019) 1998 | SLOVAKIA (2020) 2001 | SOUTH KOREA (2016) 1990 | SWEDEN (2018) 1998 | SWITZERLAND (2019) 2001 | TAIWAN (2016) 2001 | TAIWAN (2020) 2001 | THAILAND (2019) 1983 | TUNISIA (2019) 2001 | TURKEY (2018) 2001 | UNITED STATES (2016) 2000 | UNITED STATES (2020) 2000 | URUGUAY (2019) 1990 | ------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5110. >>> POLITY FRAGMENTATION INDEX --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable is contains information about "the operational existence of a separate polity, or polities, comprising substantially territory and population within the recognized borders of the state and over which the coded polity exercises no effective authority (effective authority may be participatory or coercive)." (POLITY IV Project). .................................................................. 0. NO OVERT FRAGMENTATION 1. SLIGHT FRAGMENTATION 2. MODERATE FRAGMENTATION 3. SERIOUS FRAGMENTATION 9. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5110 | | Source: POLITY IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics | and Transitions, 1800-2017, Monty G. Marshall and Keith Jaggers, | George Mason University and Colorado State University | (http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm). | (Date accessed: May 08, 2019). | | The Polity IV Dataset Users' Manual: | http://www.systemicpeace.org/inscr/p4manualv2017.pdf | (Date accessed: April 05, 2019). | | The Polity IV annual time-series dataset | (www.systemicpeace.org/inscr/p4v2017.xls; Date accessed: April | 30, 2020). | | Users are advised that there is normally a two or three year | time lag between these estimates becoming available. | Consequently, for Advance Releases of the CSES (and possibly | Full Releases), data may not be available at the time of coding. | In circumstances where this occurs, the polity will be listed | as DATA UNAVAILABLE in the VARIABLE NOTES below. Should data | become available between an Advance Release of CSES and a Full | Release of CSES, data for these polities may be included in a | subsequent release of the CSES. | | CSES collects the most up to data for each polity available | at the time the data is being processed by the CSES Secretariat. | However, aggregate level macro data from the United Nations is | often updated retroactively as revised estimates become | available. These revised estimates are usually because of | improved data collection, or more evidence becoming available to | allow for a more robust estimates to be made, or changes in | methodology. | | The CSES policy is to provide users with estimates of data | at the time the data is processed. CSES does not retroactively | update these estimates as to do so might impede replication. | | Data are unavailable for AUSTRALIA (2019), BELGIUM-FLANDERS | (2019), BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019), HONG KONG (2016), ICELAND | (2016, 2017), ISRAEL (2020), ITALY (2018) and SLOVAKIA (2020). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5111. >>> PERCENTAGE OF INDIVIDUALS USING THE INTERNET --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports the Percentage of individuals using the Internet. .................................................................. 00.00-100.00 PERCENTAGE OF INDIVIDUALS USING THE INTERNET 999.00 MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5111 | | Source: The International Telecommunication Union ICT eye | statistics. (http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/icteye/Indicators/ | Indicators.aspx) | (Date accessed: October 29, 2018) | | Users are advised that there is normally a two or three year | time lag between these estimates becoming available. | Consequently, for Advance Releases of the CSES (and possibly | Full Releases), data may not be available at the time of coding. | In circumstances where this occurs, the polity will be listed | as DATA UNAVAILABLE in the VARIABLE NOTES below. Should data | become available between an Advance Release of CSES and a Full | Release of CSES, data for these polities may be included in a | subsequent release of the CSES. | | CSES collects the most up to data for each polity available | at the time the data is being processed by the CSES Secretariat. | However, aggregate level macro data from the United Nations is | often updated retroactively as revised estimates become | available. These revised estimates are usually because of | improved data collection, or more evidence becoming available to | allow for a more robust estimates to be made, or changes in | methodology. | | The CSES policy is to provide users with estimates of data | at the time the data is processed. CSES does not retroactively | update these estimates as to do so might impede replication. | | Data are unavailable for AUSTRALIA (2019), CANADA (2019), | ISRAEL (2020), NEW ZEALAND (2020), SWITZERLAND (2019), TAIWAN | (2020) and UNITED STATES (2020). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5112. >>> MOBILE PHONE SUBSCRIPTIONS PER 100 INHABITANTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports the number of mobile-cellular subscriptions per 100 inhabitants. .................................................................. 00.00-800.00 MOBILE PHONE SUBSCRIPTIONS PER 100 INHABITANTS 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5112 | | Source: The International Telecommunication Union ICT eye | statistics (http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/icteye/Indicators/ | Indicators.aspx) | (Date accessed: October 29, 2018). | | Users are advised that there is normally a two or three year | time lag between these estimates becoming available. | Consequently, for Advance Releases of the CSES (and possibly | Full Releases), data may not be available at the time of coding. | In circumstances where this occurs, the polity will be listed | as DATA UNAVAILABLE in the VARIABLE NOTES below. Should data | become available between an Advance Release of CSES and a Full | Release of CSES, data for these polities may be included in a | subsequent release of the CSES. | | CSES collects the most up to data for each polity available | at the time the data is being processed by the CSES Secretariat. | However, aggregate level macro data from the United Nations is | often updated retroactively as revised estimates become | available. | These revised estimates are usually because of improved data | collection, or more evidence becoming available to allow for a | more robust estimates to be made, or changes in methodology. | | The CSES policy is to provide users with estimates of data | at the time the data is processed. CSES does not retroactively | update these estimates as to do so might impede replication. | | Data are unavailable for AUSTRALIA (2019), ISRAEL (2020), | NEW ZEALAND (2020), SLOVAKIA (2020), SWITZERLAND (2019), TAIWAN | (2020) and UNITED STATES (2020). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5113. >>> FIXED TELEPHONE LINES PER 100 INHABITANTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This variable reports the number of Fixed-telephone subscriptions per 100 inhabitants. .................................................................. 00.00-100.00 FIXED TELEPHONE LINES PER 100 INHABITANTS 999. MISSING | VARIABLE NOTES: E5113 | | Source: The International Telecommunication Union ICT eye | statistics (http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/icteye/Indicators/ | Indicators.aspx) | (Date accessed: October 29, 2018). | | Users are advised that there is normally a two or three year | time lag between these estimates becoming available. | Consequently, for Advance Releases of the CSES (and possibly | Full Releases), data may not be available at the time of coding. | In circumstances where this occurs, the polity will be listed | as DATA UNAVAILABLE in the VARIABLE NOTES below. Should data | become available between an Advance Release of CSES and a Full | Release of CSES, data for these polities may be included in a | subsequent release of the CSES. | | CSES collects the most up to data for each polity available | at the time the data is being processed by the CSES Secretariat. | However, aggregate level macro data from the United Nations is | often updated retroactively as revised estimates become | available. | These revised estimates are usually because of improved data | collection, or more evidence becoming available to allow for a | more robust estimates to be made, or changes in methodology. | | The CSES policy is to provide users with estimates of data | at the time the data is processed. CSES does not retroactively | update these estimates as to do so might impede replication. | | Data are unavailable for AUSTRALIA (2019), ISRAEL (2020), | NEW ZEALAND (2020), SLOVAKIA (2020), SWITZERLAND (2019), | TAIWAN (2020) and UNITED STATES (2020). IV. MACRO DATA: ADDITIONAL DATA BRIDGING VARIABLES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5200_A >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY A E5200_B >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY B E5200_C >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY C E5200_D >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY D E5200_E >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY E E5200_F >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY F E5200_G >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY G E5200_H >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY H E5200_I >>> MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) IDENTIFIER - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- These variables contain the party identification codes from the Manifesto Research on Political Representation (MARPOR/CMP) project. Codes are provided for parties that are assigned an alphabetical code (A-I) by the CSES and for polities, for which MARPOR/CMP identifiers are available. .................................................................. 11110-162610. MARPOR/CMP PARTY IDENTIFIER 999999. NOT AVAILABLE IN MANIFESTO RESEARCH ON POLITICAL REPRESENTATION (MARPOR/CMP) DATASET | VARIABLE NOTES: E5200_ | | POTENTIAL PARTY/COALITION LEVEL BRIDGING IDENTIFIER | | The complete list of parties (A-I) and their MARPOR/CMP codes are | detailed in Part 3 of the Codebook. | | The MARPOR/CMP party codes were retrieved from the Manifesto | Project Dataset (version 2017b): | Volkens, A., Lehmann, P., Matthiess, T., Merz, N., Regel, S., | and Wessels, B. (2017): The Manifesto Data Collection. Manifesto | Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Version 2017b. Berlin: | Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin fuer Sozialforschung (WZB). | doi: 10.25522/manifesto.mpds.2017b | | Available at: https://manifestoproject.wzb.eu/datasets | (Date accessed: May 22, 2018). | | Users are advised that CSES only provides data in E5200_ for the | main MARPOR/CMP product listed above. Other supplementary | datasets, such as the Manifesto Project Dataset: South America, | have not been considered. | | Data are unavailable for BRAZIL (2018), CHILE (2017), COSTA | RICA (2018), HONG KONG (2016), TAIWAN (2016), TAIWAN (2020), | THAILAND (2019) and TUNISIA (2019). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5201_A >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (PARLGOV) IDENTIFIER - PARTY A E5201_B >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (PARLGOV) IDENTIFIER - PARTY B E5201_C >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (PARLGOV) IDENTIFIER - PARTY C E5201_D >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (PARLGOV) IDENTIFIER - PARTY D E5201_E >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (PARLGOV) IDENTIFIER - PARTY E E5201_F >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (PARLGOV) IDENTIFIER - PARTY F E5201_G >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (PARLGOV) IDENTIFIER - PARTY G E5201_H >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (PARLGOV) IDENTIFIER - PARTY H E5201_I >>> PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (PARLGOV) IDENTIFIER - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- These variables contain the party identification codes from the Parliaments and Government Database (ParlGov) project. Codes are provided for parties that are assigned an alphabetical code (A-I) by the CSES and for polities, for which ParlGov identifiers are available. .................................................................. 0026-2796. PARLGOV PARTY IDENTIFIER 9999. NOT AVAILABLE IN PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENT DATABASE (PARLGOV) | VARIABLE NOTES: E5201_ | | POTENTIAL PARTY/COALITION LEVEL BRIDGING IDENTIFIER | | The complete list of parties (A-I) and their ParlGov codes are | detailed in Part 3 of the Codebook. | | The ParlGov party codes were retrieved from the projects' | website, available at: http://www.parlgov.org/#data | (Date accessed: April 04, 2018). | | Data are unavailable for BRAZIL (2018), CHILE (2017), COSTA | RICA (2018), HONG KONG (2016), MONTENEGRO (2016), SOUTH KOREA | (2016), TAIWAN (2016), TAIWAN (2020), THAILAND (2019), TUNISIA | (2019), UNITED STATES (2016), UNITED STATES (2020) and URUGUAY | (2019). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5202_A >>> CHAPEL HILL EXPERT SURVEY (CHES) IDENTIFIER - PARTY A E5202_B >>> CHAPEL HILL EXPERT SURVEY (CHES) IDENTIFIER - PARTY B E5202_C >>> CHAPEL HILL EXPERT SURVEY (CHES) IDENTIFIER - PARTY C E5202_D >>> CHAPEL HILL EXPERT SURVEY (CHES) IDENTIFIER - PARTY D E5202_E >>> CHAPEL HILL EXPERT SURVEY (CHES) IDENTIFIER - PARTY E E5202_F >>> CHAPEL HILL EXPERT SURVEY (CHES) IDENTIFIER - PARTY F E5202_G >>> CHAPEL HILL EXPERT SURVEY (CHES) IDENTIFIER - PARTY G E5202_H >>> CHAPEL HILL EXPERT SURVEY (CHES) IDENTIFIER - PARTY H E5202_I >>> CHAPEL HILL EXPERT SURVEY (CHES) IDENTIFIER - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- These variables contain the party identification codes from the Chapel Hill Expert Survey Database (CHES) project. Codes are provided for parties that are assigned an alphabetical code (A-I) by the CSES and for polities, for which CHES identifiers are available. .................................................................. 102-4508. CHES PARTY/COALITION IDENTIFIER [SEE CSES IMD CODEBOOK PART 5 FOR PARTY/COALITION BRIDGING IDENTIFIERS] 9999. NOT AVAILABLE IN CHAPEL HILL EXPERT SURVEY (CHES) DATABASE | VARIABLE NOTES: E5202_A-I | | POTENTIAL PARTY/COALITION LEVEL BRIDGING IDENTIFIER | | The complete list of parties (A-I) and their CHES codes are | detailed in Part 3 of the CSES Module 5 Codebook. | | The Chapel Hill expert surveys estimate party positioning on | European integration, ideology and policy issues for national | parties in a variety of European countries. The first survey was | conducted in 1999, with subsequent waves in 2002, 2006, 2010, | 2014, and 2019. Questions on parties' general position on | European integration, several EU policies, general left/right, | economic left/right, and social left/right are common to all | surveys. | | The CHES party codes were retrieved from the project website, | available at: | https://www.chesdata.eu/our-surveys | (Date accessed: February 05, 2020). | | Data are unavailable for ISRAEL (2020), TUNISIA (2019) and | URUGUAY (2019). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E5203_A >>> PARTY FACTS IDENTIFIER - PARTY A E5203_B >>> PARTY FACTS IDENTIFIER - PARTY B E5203_C >>> PARTY FACTS IDENTIFIER - PARTY C E5203_D >>> PARTY FACTS IDENTIFIER - PARTY D E5203_E >>> PARTY FACTS IDENTIFIER - PARTY E E5203_F >>> PARTY FACTS IDENTIFIER - PARTY F E5203_G >>> PARTY FACTS IDENTIFIER - PARTY G E5203_H >>> PARTY FACTS IDENTIFIER - PARTY H E5203_I >>> PARTY FACTS IDENTIFIER - PARTY I --------------------------------------------------------------------------- These variables contain the party identification codes from the Party Facts project. Codes are provided for parties that are assigned an alphabetical code (A-I) by the CSES and for polities, for which Party Facts identifiers are available. .................................................................. 003-8745. PARTY FACTS PARTY/COALITION IDENTIFIER [SEE CSES IMD CODEBOOK PART 5 FOR PARTY/COALITION NUMERICAL BRIDGING IDENTIFIERS] 9999. NOT AVAILABLE IN PARTY FACTS PROJECT | VARIABLE NOTES: E5203_A-I | | POTENTIAL PARTY/COALITION LEVEL BRIDGING IDENTIFIER | | The complete list of parties (A-I) and their Party Facts codes | are detailed in Part 3 of the CSES Module 5 Codebook. | | Party Facts links datasets on political parties and provides an | online platform about parties and their history as recorded in | social science datasets. | Political scientists have accumulated a large amount of data on | political parties. With this information, we can trace the | dynamics of party competition across countries and time. However, | the many existing datasets with crucial information about | political parties are difficult to link. Party Facts establishes | an infrastructure that supports political scientists in linking | parties across datasets. | | The Party Facts codes were retrieved from the project website, | available at: | https://partyfacts.herokuapp.com/download/ | (Date accessed: July 15, 2020). | | Data are unavailable for TUNISIA (2019). =========================================================================== ))) CSES MODULE 5 VARIABLES: DATA BRIDGING WITH CSES PRODUCTS =========================================================================== --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E6000_PR_1 >>> IMD BRIDGING VARIABLE: CURRENT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - 1ST ROUND E6000_PR_2 >>> IMD BRIDGING VARIABLE: CURRENT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE - 2ND ROUND --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If applicable and respondent cast a ballot in the presidential election: This variable reports the respondent's vote choice for President in the first/ second round of election, based on numeric party codes from the CSES Integrated Module Dataset (CSES IMD). .................................................................. 0000001-9000000. [SEE CSES IMD CODEBOOK PART 3 FOR HARMONIZED PARTY /COALITION NUMERICAL CODES] 9999980. CSES IMD NUMERIC PARTY CODE NOT ASSIGNED YET 9999988. NONE OF THE CANDIDATES 9999989. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 9999990. OTHER LEFT WING CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999991. OTHER RIGHT WING CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999992. OTHER CANDIDATE (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999993. INVALID/ BLANK BALLOT 9999995. NOT APPLICABLE: NO ROLE OF PRESIDENT 9999996. NOT APPLICABLE: NO PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION/ NO SECOND ROUND 9999997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 9999998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9999999. MISSING/ABSTAINED (DID NOT VOTE) | VARIABLE NOTES: E6000_PR_ | | POTENTIAL CSES PRODUCT BRIDGING IDENTIFIER | | The E6000_ variables code respondents' vote choice in the current | election based on harmonized numeric identification codes applied | in the CSES Integrated Module Dataset (IMD), a CSES data product | including data from all four completed CSES Modules. | | By coding vote choice according to IMD standards, E6000_ | variables thus ease appending the current version of CSES | Module 5 to the CSES IMD and thereby facilitate longitudinal | comparative research. | | In CSES IMD, each party/coalition receives a unique numerical | identifier that is consistent across modules. This seven-digit | numerical identifier, on which coding for E6000_ is based, | contains information on the polity and a unique numerical value | to distinguish the party/coalition. Hence, numerical party/ | coalition codes are harmonized across Modules within CSES IMD. | For more detailed information on how CSES codes | parties/coalitions, please see Part 3 of the CSES IMD Codebook. | | The harmonized and consistent codes for parties/coalitions are | detailed in Part 3 of the CSES IMD Codebook. Users can search for | the following term: "CSES IMD HARMONIZED PARTY/COALITION | NUMERICAL CODES". | | The corresponding variables to E6000_ in the CSES IMD are: | E6000_PR_1: IMD3002_PR_1 | E6000_PR_2: IMD3002_PR_2 | E6000_LH_PL: IMD3002_LH_PL | E6000_LH_DC: IMD3002_LH_DC | | Codes are provided in E6000_PR_ for parties that are assigned a | harmonized IMD numeric party code by the CSES and for polities | which are at least represented once in the CSES IMD. | Parties that are not represented in the IMD and have thus not | been assigned an IMD numeric party code yet are coded "999980. | IMD NUMERIC PARTY CODE NOT ASSIGNED YET" in E6000_PR_ and are | listed in the table below. | | +++ TABLE: PARTIES INCLUDED IN E3013_PR_ FOR WHICH IMD NUMERIC | PARTY CODES HAVE NOT BEEN ASSIGNED YET | | CSES MODULE 5 NUMERICAL CODE CSES MODULE 5 ALPHABETICAL | AND PARTY/COALITION NAME PARTY CODE (IF APPLICABLE) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | BRAZIL (2018): | 076013. New Party (NOVO) | 076026. Sustainability Network (REDE) | | CHILE (2017): | 152006. Democratic Revolution (RD) PARTY F | 152011. Progressive Party (PRO) | 152017. Patriotic Union (UPA) | 152020. Pais | 152089. Jose Antonio Kast (Independent) | | FRANCE (2017): | 250001. The Republic Onwards! (LaREM) PARTY A | 250004. Indomitable France (FI) PARTY D | 250007. Resist! | 250009. Popular Republican Union (UPR) | | TURKEY (2018): | 792005. Good Party (IYI) PARTY E | | URUGUAY (2019): | 858004. Open Cabildo PARTY D | 858005. Intransigent Radical Ecology Party (PERI) PARTY E | 858006. People's Party PARTY F | 858009. Green Animalist Party (PVA) PARTY I | 858010. Digital Party |----------------------------------------------------------------- | | Users are advised that appending the CSES Module 5 dataset to | CSES IMD requires renaming E6000_ variables in accordance with | IMD naming conventions first. | In what follows, we provide example syntax on how appending | can be achieved in STATA: | | ** // RENAMING E1005 ID VARIABLE AND E6000_ VARIABLES ACCORDING | ** TO IMD STANDARDS | | rename E1005 IMD1005 | rename E6000_PR_1 IMD3002_PR_1 | rename E6000_PR_2 IMD3002_PR_2 | rename E6000_LH_PL IMD3002_LH_PL | rename E6000_LH_DC IMD3002_LH_DC | | ** // SAVING MODULE 5 DATASET | save "cses5.dta", replace | | ** // APPENDING CSES MODULE 5 DATASET TO CSES IMD | use "cses_imd.dta", clear | append using "cses5.dta" | | ** // END OF EXAMPLE CODE | | Further, users should note that upon appending the CSES Module 5 | dataset to IMD, code "9999980. CSES IMD NUMERIC PARTY CODE NOT | ASSIGNED YET" will not be labeled yet, as this code was newly | introduced in E6000_ and has hence not been envisaged for IMD. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E6000_LH_PL >>> IMD BRIDGING VARIABLE: CURRENT LOWER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE: PARTY LIST --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If applicable and respondent cast a ballot in the Lower House legislative election: This variable reports the respondent's vote choice for party list in the current Lower House elections, based on numeric party codes from the CSES Integrated Module Dataset (CSES IMD). .................................................................. 0000001-9000000. [SEE CSES IMD CODEBOOK PART 3 FOR HARMONIZED PARTY /COALITION NUMERICAL CODES] 9999980. CSES IMD NUMERIC PARTY CODE NOT ASSIGNED YET 9999988. NONE OF THE CANDIDATES/PARTIES 9999989. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 9999990. OTHER LEFT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999991. OTHER RIGHT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999992. OTHER CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999993. INVALID/ BLANK BALLOT 9999995. NOT APPLICABLE: NOT A LIST SYSTEM 9999996. NOT APPLICABLE: NO LOWER HOUSE ELECTION 9999997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 9999998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9999999. MISSING/ABSTAINED (DID NOT VOTE) | VARIABLE NOTES: E6000_LH_PL | | POTENTIAL CSES PRODUCT BRIDGING IDENTIFIER | | The E6000_ variables code respondents' vote choice in the current | election based on harmonized numeric identification codes applied | in the CSES Integrated Module Dataset (IMD), a CSES data product | including data from all four completed CSES Modules. | | By coding vote choice according to IMD standards, E6000_ | variables thus ease appending the current version of CSES | Module 5 to the CSES IMD and thereby facilitate longitudinal | comparative research. | | In CSES IMD, each party/coalition receives a unique numerical | identifier that is consistent across modules. This seven-digit | numerical identifier, on which coding for E6000_ is based, | contains information on the polity and a unique numerical value | to distinguish the party/coalition. Hence, numerical party/ | coalition codes are harmonized across Modules within CSES IMD. | For more detailed information on how CSES codes | parties/coalitions, please see Part 3 of the CSES IMD Codebook. | | The harmonized and consistent codes for parties/coalitions are | detailed in Part 3 of the CSES IMD Codebook. Users can search for | the following term: "CSES IMD HARMONIZED PARTY/COALITION | NUMERICAL CODES". | | The corresponding variables to E6000_ in the CSES IMD are: | E6000_PR_1: IMD3002_PR_1 | E6000_PR_2: IMD3002_PR_2 | E6000_LH_PL: IMD3002_LH_PL | E6000_LH_DC: IMD3002_LH_DC | | Codes are provided in E6000_LH_PL for parties that are assigned | a harmonized IMD numeric party code by the CSES and for polities | which are at least represented once in the CSES IMD. | Parties that are not represented in the IMD and have thus not | been assigned an IMD numeric party code yet are coded "999980. | IMD NUMERIC PARTY CODE NOT ASSIGNED YET" in E6000_LH_PL and are | listed in the table below. | | +++ TABLE: PARTIES INCLUDED IN E3013_LH_PL FOR WHICH IMD NUMERIC | PARTY CODES HAVE NOT BEEN ASSIGNED YET | | CSES MODULE 5 NUMERICAL CODE CSES MODULE 5 ALPHABETICAL | AND PARTY/COALITION NAME PARTY CODE (IF APPLICABLE) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | AUSTRIA (2017): | 040005. Peter Pilz List PARTY E | 040007. Roland Dueringer List - My Vote Counts (GILT) | 040008. Communist Party of Austria and | Platform PLUS - Open List (KPOE+) | 040009. Free Austria List and FPS | Dr. Karl Schnell List (FLOE) | | BELGIUM-WALLONIA (2019): | 056907. People's Party (PP) | | BRAZIL (2018): | 076013. New Party (NOVO) | 076026. Sustainability Network (REDE) | 076032. Party of Brazilian Women (PMB) | | CHILE (2017): | 152006. Democratic Revolution (RD) PARTY F | 152008. Political Evolution (Evopoli) PARTY H | 152011. Progressive Party (PRO) | 152014. Social Green Regionalist Federation (FREVS) | 152015. Citizen Power | 152016. Amplitude | 152017. Patriotic Union (UPA) | 152018. Liberal Party of Chile (PL) | 152024. MAS Region (MAS) | 152027. Otro | 152030. Let's Go Chile | 152031. The Force of the Majority / New Majority | 152032. Broad Front | 152033. Democratic Convergence | 152034. All Over Chile | 152035. Green Regionalist Coalition | 152036. Let's Add | | DENMARK (2019): | 208008. The Alternative PARTY H | 208009. The New Right PARTY I | 208011. Hard Line | 208013. Klaus Riskaer Pedersen List | | FINLAND (2019): | 246009. Blue Reform PARTY I | | GERMANY (2017): | 276015. Basic Income Alliance (BGE) | 276016. V-Party 3 - Party for Change, Vegetarians | and Vegans (V-Partei3) | 276017. Democracy in Motion (DiB) | 276019. Alliance of German Democrats (AD-Demokraten) | | GREECE (2015): | 300004. Democratic Coalition - PASOK-DIMAR PARTY D | 300009. Popular Unity (LAE) | 300010. Front of the Greek Anticapitalist Left | (ANTARSYA) - Workers Revolutionary Party (EEK) | 300011. United Popular Front (EPAM) | 300012. Society | 300014. Democrats-Society of Values - | Pirate Party of Greece (D-KA-KPE) | | HONG KONG (2016): | 344006. People Power - League of Social Democrats PARTY F | (PP - LSD) | 344010. Civic Passion - Hong Kong Resurgence Order | 344011. Civic Passion (CP) | 344012. Proletariat Political Institute (PPI) | 344016. Youngspiration | 344017. Kowloon East Community | 344018. Demosisto | 344019. Business and Professionals Alliance | for Hong Kong | 344020. Democracy Groundwork | 344025. Path of Democracy | 344026. Third Side | 344027. Justice Alliance | 344029. Voice of Loving Hong Kong | 344031. Pioneer of Victoria Park | | HUNGARY (2018): | 348001. Fidesz-KDNP PARTY A | 348003. Hungarian Socialist Party - PARTY C | Dialogue for Hungary (MSZP) | 348004. Politics Can Be Different (LMP) PARTY D | 348005. Democratic Coalition (DK) PARTY E | 348006. Momentum Movement PARTY F | 348007. Hungarian Two-tailed Dog Party PARTY G | 348008. Together PARTY H | | ICELAND (2016): | 352005. Reform Party PARTY E | 352008. People's Party (FIF) PARTY H | 352010. People's Front of Iceland (PFI) | | ICELAND (2017): | 352104. Centre Party (M) PARTY D | 352107. People's Party (FIF) PARTY G | 352108. Reform Party PARTY H | | ISRAEL (2020): | 376002. Blue and White (KL) PARTY B | 376003. Joint List PARTY C | 376006. Labor-Gesher-Meretz (Emet) PARTY F | 376008. Yamina PARTY H | | ITALY (2018): | 380008. Us with Italy - Christian Democratic Union | (NcI-UdC) | 380009. Power to the People (PaP) | 380011. Together List | 380012. Communist Party (PC) | 380013. For a Revolutionary Left (PuSR) | 380014. CasaPound Italy (CPI) | 380015. The People of Family (PdF) | | LITHUANIA (2016): | 440001. Homeland Union - Lithuanian Christian PARTY A | Democrats (TS-LKD) | 440002. Lithuania Union of Farmers and Greens (LVZS) PARTY B | 440003. Lithuanian Social Democratic Party (LSDP) PARTY C | 440004. Liberal Movement of the Republic of Lithuania PARTY D | (LRLS) | 440005. Anti-Corruption Coalition (LCP-LPP) PARTY E | 440007. Party 'Order and Justice' (PTT) PARTY G | 440008. Labour Party (DP) PARTY H | 440009. Lithuanian Freedom Union (Liberals) (LLS) | 440010. Lithuanian Green Party (LZP) | 440011. Political Pary 'List of Lithuania' | 440012. Lithuanian People's Party (LLP) | 440013. Coalition of Anti-Corruption and Poverty | (JL-LTS) | | MONTENEGRO (2016): | 499003. Key Coalition (DEMOS, SNP, URA) PARTY C | 499006. Social Democrats of Montenegro (SD) PARTY F | 499008. Albanians Decisively (FORCA-DUA-AA) PARTY H | 499011. Albanian Coalition "With one Goal" | 499012. Democratic Alliance of Albanians | 499013. Serb Party (SS) | 499014. Bosniak Democratic Union in Montenegro (BDZ) | | NETHERLANDS (2017): | 528010. 50Plus | 528012. Political Movement Think | 528013. Forum for Democracy | 528014. For Netherlands | 528015. Pirate Party | 528016. Article 1 | 528017. New Ways | 528018. Entrepreneurs Party | | NEW ZEALAND (2017): | 554005. The Opportunities Party (TOP) PARTY E | | PORTUGAL (2019): | 620007. Enough (CH) PARTY G | 620008. Liberal Initiative (IL) PARTY H | 620009. Free (L) PARTY I | 620010. Alliance (A) | | SLOVAKIA (2020): | 703005. Progressive Slovakia - TOGETHER-Civic Democracy PARTY E | 703007. For the People PARTY G | 703011. Good Choice | 703012. Homeland | 703014. Socialist.sk | 703015. Hlinka's Slovak People's Party | 703017. Mayors and Independents | 703018. Labour of the Slovak Nation | 703026. Hungarian Community Togetherness | | SOUTH KOREA (2016): | 410002. Democratic Party of Korea (DP) PARTY B | 410003. The People's Party (PP) PARTY C | 410004. Justice Party (JP) PARTY D | | TURKEY (2018): | 792005. Good Party (IYI) PARTY E | | TAIWAN (2016): | 158003. New Power Party (NPP) PARTY C | 158004. Green-Social Democratic Coalition (GP - SDP) PARTY D | 158005. Minkuotang (MKT) PARTY E | 158009. Faith and Hope League | 158010. Trees Party (TP) | 158012. Chinese Unionist Party (CUP) | 158013. Free Taiwan Party (FTP) | 158014. MCFAP | 158017. Peace Dove Alliance Party | | TAIWAN (2020): | 158103. Taiwan People's Party (TPP) PARTY C | 158104. New Power Party (NPP) PARTY D | 158106. Taiwan Statebuilding Party (TSP) PARTY F | 158107. Congress Party Alliance | 158110. Stabilizing Force Party | 158111. Taiwan Action Party Alliance | 158114. Formosa Alliance | 158116. Interfaith Union | | THAILAND (2019): | 764001. State Power Party PARTY A | 764003. Future Forward Party PARTY C | 764006. New Economics Party PARTY F | 764008. Thai Liberal Party PARTY H | 764009. People's Nation Party PARTY I | 764010. Puea Chat Party | 764011. Action Coalition for Thailand | 764013. Thai Local Power Party | 764014. Thai Forest Conversation Party | | URUGUAY (2019): | 858004. Open Cabildo PARTY D | 858005. Intransigent Radical Ecology Party (PERI) PARTY E | 858006. People's Party PARTY F | 858009. Green Animalist Party (PVA) PARTY I | 858010. Digital Party |----------------------------------------------------------------- | | Users are advised that appending the CSES Module 5 dataset to | CSES IMD requires renaming E6000_ variables in accordance with | IMD naming conventions first. | In what follows, we provide example syntax on how appending | can be achieved in STATA: | | ** // RENAMING E1005 ID VARIABLE AND E6000_ VARIABLES ACCORDING | ** TO IMD STANDARDS | | rename E1005 IMD1005 | rename E6000_PR_1 IMD3002_PR_1 | rename E6000_PR_2 IMD3002_PR_2 | rename E6000_LH_PL IMD3002_LH_PL | rename E6000_LH_DC IMD3002_LH_DC | | ** // SAVING MODULE 5 DATASET | save "cses5.dta", replace | | ** // APPENDING CSES MODULE 5 DATASET TO CSES IMD | use "cses_imd.dta", clear | append using "cses5.dta" | | ** // END OF EXAMPLE CODE | | Further, users should note that upon appending the CSES Module 5 | dataset to IMD, code "9999980. CSES IMD NUMERIC PARTY CODE NOT | ASSIGNED YET" will not be labeled yet, as this code was newly | introduced in E6000_ and has hence not been envisaged for IMD. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- E6000_LH_DC >>> IMD BRIDGING VARIABLE: CURRENT LOWER HOUSE ELECTION: VOTE CHOICE: DISTRICT CANDIDATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If applicable and respondent cast a ballot in the Lower House legislative election: This variable reports the respondent's vote choice for district candidate in the current Lower House elections, based on numeric party codes from the CSES Integrated Module Dataset (CSES IMD). .................................................................. 0000001-9000000. [SEE CSES IMD CODEBOOK PART 3 FOR HARMONIZED PARTY /COALITION NUMERICAL CODES] 9999980. CSES IMD NUMERIC PARTY CODE NOT ASSIGNED YET 9999988. NONE OF THE CANDIDATES/PARTIES 9999989. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE 9999990. OTHER LEFT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999991. OTHER RIGHT WING CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999992. OTHER CANDIDATE/PARTY (NOT FURTHER SPECIFIED) 9999993. INVALID/ BLANK BALLOT 9999995. NOT APPLICABLE: NO DISTRICT CANDIDATE VOTE 9999996. NOT APPLICABLE: NO LOWER HOUSE ELECTION 9999997. VOLUNTEERED: REFUSED 9999998. VOLUNTEERED: DON'T KNOW 9999999. MISSING/ABSTAINED (DID NOT VOTE) | VARIABLE NOTES: E6000_LH_DC | | POTENTIAL CSES PRODUCT BRIDGING IDENTIFIER | | The E6000_ variables code respondents' vote choice in the current | election based on harmonized numeric identification codes applied | in the CSES Integrated Module Dataset (IMD), a CSES data product | including data from all four completed CSES Modules. | | By coding vote choice according to IMD standards, E6000_ | variables thus ease appending the current version of CSES | Module 5 to the CSES IMD and thereby facilitate longitudinal | comparative research. | | In CSES IMD, each party/coalition receives a unique numerical | identifier that is consistent across modules. This seven-digit | numerical identifier, on which coding for E6000_ is based, | contains information on the polity and a unique numerical value | to distinguish the party/coalition. Hence, numerical party/ | coalition codes are harmonized across Modules within CSES IMD. | For more detailed information on how CSES codes | parties/coalitions, please see Part 3 of the CSES IMD Codebook. | | The harmonized and consistent codes for parties/coalitions are | detailed in Part 3 of the CSES IMD Codebook. Users can search for | the following term: "CSES IMD HARMONIZED PARTY/COALITION | NUMERICAL CODES". | | The corresponding variables to E6000_ in the CSES IMD are: | E6000_PR_1: IMD3002_PR_1 | E6000_PR_2: IMD3002_PR_2 | E6000_LH_PL: IMD3002_LH_PL | E6000_LH_DC: IMD3002_LH_DC | | Codes are provided in E6000_LH_DC for parties that are assigned | a harmonized IMD numeric party code by the CSES and for polities | which are at least represented once in the CSES IMD. | Parties that are not represented in the IMD and have thus not | been assigned an IMD numeric party code yet are coded "999980. | IMD NUMERIC PARTY CODE NOT ASSIGNED YET" in E6000_LH_DC and are | listed in the table below. | | +++ TABLE: PARTIES INCLUDED IN E3013_LH_DC FOR WHICH IMD NUMERIC | PARTY CODES HAVE NOT BEEN ASSIGNED YET | | CSES MODULE 5 NUMERICAL CODE CSES MODULE 5 ALPHABETICAL | AND PARTY/COALITION NAME PARTY CODE (IF APPLICABLE) |----------------------------------------------------------------- | AUSTRALIA (2019): | 036007. Animal Justice Party | 036009. Fraser Anning's Conservative National Party | 036011. Centre Alliance | 036013. Sustainable Australia | 036015. Derryn Hinch's Justice Party | 036016. Western Australia Party | 036019. Rise Up Australia Party | 036021. Victorian Socialists | 036022. Reason Australia | 036023. Australia First Party (NSW) Incorporated | 036024. The Great Australian Party | 036029. Non-Custodial Parents Party | 036030. Involuntary Medication Objectors | (Vaccination/Fluoride) Party | 036031. VOTEFLUX.ORG | Upgrade Democracy! | 036032. Yellow Vest Australia | (Australian Liberty Alliance) | 036035. Australian Conservatives | 036036. Help End Marijuana Prohibition (HEMP) Party | 036037. Jacqui Lambie Network | | CANADA (2019): | 124006. People's Party (PP) PARTY F | | GERMANY (2017): | 276016. V-Party 3 - Party for Change, Vegetarians | and Vegans (V-Partei3) | 276028. Democratic Citizens Germany (DBD) | | HUNGARY (2018): | 348001. Fidesz-KDNP PARTY A | 348003. Hungarian Socialist Party - PARTY C | Dialogue for Hungary (MSZP) | 348004. Politics Can Be Different (LMP) PARTY D | 348005. Democratic Coalition (DK) PARTY E | 348006. Momentum Movement PARTY F | 348007. Hungarian Two-tailed Dog Party PARTY G | 348008. Together PARTY H | | IRELAND (2016): | 372005. Anti-Austerity Alliance - PARTY E | People Before Profit (AAA-PBP) | 372006. Social Democrats (SD) PARTY F | 372008. Renua Ireland (RI) PARTY H | 372010. Direct Democracy Ireland (DDI) | | ITALY (2018): | 380008. Us with Italy - Christian Democratic Union | (NcI-UdC) | 380009. Power to the People (PaP) | 380012. Communist Party (PC) | 380014. CasaPound Italy (CPI) | 380015. The People of Family (PdF) | 380016. Great North (GN) | | LITHUANIA (2016): | 440001. Homeland Union - Lithuanian Christian PARTY A | Democrats (TS-LKD) | 440002. Lithuania Union of Farmers and Greens (LVZS) PARTY B | 440003. Lithuanian Social Democratic Party (LSDP) PARTY C | 440004. Liberal Movement of the Republic of Lithuania PARTY D | (LRLS) | 440005. Anti-Corruption Coalition (LCP-LPP) PARTY E | 440007. Party 'Order and Justice' (PTT) PARTY G | 440008. Labour Party (DP) PARTY H | 440009. Lithuanian Freedom Union (Liberals) (LLS) | 440010. Lithuanian Green Party (LZP) | 440011. Political Pary 'List of Lithuania' | 440014. Political Party 'Road of Courage' (DK) | | NEW ZEALAND (2017): | 554005. The Opportunities Party (TOP) PARTY E | 554012. Ban 1080 Party | 554014. Climate First Party | 554015. Forest and Bird Party | | SOUTH KOREA (2016): | 410002. Democratic Party of Korea (DP) PARTY B | 410003. The People's Party (PP) PARTY C | 410004. Justice Party (JP) PARTY D | | TAIWAN (2016): | 158003. New Power Party (NPP) PARTY C | 158004. Green-Social Democratic Coalition (GP - SDP) PARTY D | 158005. Minkuotang (MKT) PARTY E | 158009. Faith and Hope League | 158010. Trees Party (TP) | 158012. Chinese Unionist Party (CUP) | 158013. Free Taiwan Party (FTP) | 158014. MCFAP | 158022. The Motorist Party of the ROC | | TAIWAN (2020): | 158103. Taiwan People's Party (TPP) PARTY C | 158104. New Power Party (NPP) PARTY D | 158106. Taiwan Statebuilding Party (TSP) PARTY F | 158107. Congress Party Alliance | 158109. Taiwan Renewal Party | 158110. Stabilizing Force Party | 158111. Taiwan Action Party Alliance | 158113. United Action Alliance | 158114. Formosa Alliance | 158116. Interfaith Union | 158117. Taiwan Animal Protection Party | 158131. Judicial Justice Party | | THAILAND (2019): | 764001. State Power Party PARTY A | 764003. Future Forward Party PARTY C | 764006. New Economics Party PARTY F | 764008. Thai Liberal Party PARTY H | 764009. People's Nation Party PARTY I | 764010. Puea Chat Party | 764011. Action Coalition for Thailand | 764013. Thai Local Power Party | 764014. Thai Forest Conversation Party | | URUGUAY (2019): | 858004. Open Cabildo PARTY D | 858005. Intransigent Radical Ecology Party (PERI) PARTY E | 858006. People's Party PARTY F | 858009. Green Animalist Party (PVA) PARTY I | 858010. Digital Party |----------------------------------------------------------------- | | Users are advised that appending the CSES Module 5 dataset to | CSES IMD requires renaming E6000_ variables in accordance with | IMD naming conventions first. | In what follows, we provide example syntax on how appending | can be achieved in STATA: | | ** // RENAMING E1005 ID VARIABLE AND E6000_ VARIABLES ACCORDING | ** TO IMD STANDARDS | | rename E1005 IMD1005 | rename E6000_PR_1 IMD3002_PR_1 | rename E6000_PR_2 IMD3002_PR_2 | rename E6000_LH_PL IMD3002_LH_PL | rename E6000_LH_DC IMD3002_LH_DC | | ** // SAVING MODULE 5 DATASET | save "cses5.dta", replace | | ** // APPENDING CSES MODULE 5 DATASET TO CSES IMD | use "cses_imd.dta", clear | append using "cses5.dta" | | ** // END OF EXAMPLE CODE | | Further, users should note that upon appending the CSES Module 5 | dataset to IMD, code "9999980. CSES IMD NUMERIC PARTY CODE NOT | ASSIGNED YET" will not be labeled yet, as this code was newly | introduced in E6000_ and has hence not been envisaged for IMD. //END OF FILE