DOCSLIB.ORG

Full Member Parties ALDE Party Member Parties Congress And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

ALDE Party Member Parties Congress and Council delegations, valid for 2021 events The number of delegates that members of the ALDE Party can send to Only delegates from full members of the ALDE Party and LYMEC, the the Congress and Council are outlined in the ALDE Party internal delegates of the ALDE Party's individual members and ALDE Party regulations, an explanation of the delegate allocation system can be Bureau members, are permitted to vote at the Congress and Council. found below the delegates table. Changes induced by elections will be implemented as of year N+1, i.e. in the year after the elections have taken place. Full Member Parties last election Number of Number of last election Country Full Member Parties result in total voting Council voting Congress result in % votes Delegates Delegates 1 Andorra Liberal Party of Andorra (PL) 2219 * 1 2 2 Austria NEOS – The New Austria and Liberal Forum (NEOS) 387124 8.10% 3 11 3 Belgium Reformist Movement (MR) 512825 7.56% 3 12 4 Belgium Open Flemish Liberals and Democrats (Open Vld) 579334 8.54% 3 13 5 Bosnia and Herzegovina Our Party (NS) 48402 2.92% 1 3 6 Bulgaria Movement for Rights and Freedoms (DPS) 315976 8.99% 3 10 7 Croatia Croatian People's Party – Liberal Democrats (HNS) 21727 1.30% 1 3 8 Croatia Istrian Democratic Assembly (IDS) 30340 1.82% 1 3 9 Cyprus Democratic Alignment (DiPa) did not run 1 2 10 Cyprus United Democrats (ED) did not run 1 2 11 Czech Republic ANO 2011 (ANO) 1500113 29.64% 7 33 12 Denmark Danish Social Liberal Party (B) 304714 8.63% 2 9 13 Denmark Venstre (V) 826161 23.39% 5 22 14 Estonia Estonian Centre Party (Kesk) 129618 23.10% 4 14 15 Estonia Estonian Reform Party (Ref) 162363 28.93% 4 16 16 Finland Centre Party of Finland (Kesk) 423920 13.76% 3 13 17 Finland Swedish People's Party of Finland (SFP) 139640 4.53% 2 6 18 France Radical, Social and Liberal Movement (MRSL) 106311 0.47% 1 3 19 France Union of Democrats and Independents (UDI) 687225 3.03% 3 12 20 Germany Free Democratic Party (FDP) 4999449 10.75% 12 55 21 Hungary Momentum Movement (M) 175229 3.06% 2 6 22 Iceland Liberal Reform Party (C) 13122 6.69% 2 5 23 Ireland Fianna Fáil (FF) 484320 22.18% 4 17 24 Italy More Europe (+E) 560979 1.71% 2 9 25 Italy Italian Radicals (RI) 280489 0.85% 2 6 26 Kosovo New Kosovo Alliance (AKR) 14028 1.76% 1 3 27 Latvia Latvian Development (LA) 39110 4.66% 2 5 28 Latvia Movement For (PAR) 62575 7.46% 2 6 29 Lithuania Liberal Movement (LRLS) 79755 7.04% 2 6 30 Luxembourg Democratic Party (DP) 39403 16.91% 3 10 31 Moldova Liberal Party of Moldova (PL) 17741 1.25% 1 3 32 Montenegro Liberal Party of Montenegro (LPCG) 4785 1.17% 1 2 33 Netherlands Democrats 66 (D66) 1285819 12.23% 5 23 34 Netherlands People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) 2238351 21.29% 8 38 35 North Macedonia Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) 14235 1.56% 1 3 36 Norway Liberal Party (V) 127910 4.37% 2 6 37 Romania USR PLUS 906965 15.37% 4 19 38 Russia Russian United Democratic Party "Yabloko" (Y) 1051335 2.04% 3 15 39 Slovakia Progressive Slovakia (PS) ran in coalition without mandates 1 2 40 Slovenia List of Marjan Šarec (LMS) 112250 12.60% 2 8 41 Slovenia Modern Centre Party (SMC) 86868 9.75% 2 7 42 Spain Ciudadanos (Cs) 1650318 6.80% 5 25 43 Sweden Centre Party (C) 557500 8.61% 3 12 44 Sweden Liberals (L) 355546 5.49% 2 8 45 Switzerland FDP.The Liberals (FDP) 366302 15.11% 3 13 46 Switzerland Green Liberal Party of Switzerland (GLP) 189162 7.80% 2 7 47 Ukraine European Party of Ukraine (EP) did not run 1 2 48 Ukraine Voice (GOLOS) 851722 5.83% 3 14 49 United Kingdom Liberal Democrats (LibDems) 3696423 11.61% 10 48 Full Member Parties 142 572 SUBTOTAL The number of Council delegates for full member parties is calculated as follows: - every full member party receives 1 base delegate - parties can gain additional delegates based on their electoral success, which is calculated by dividing the party's vote total in the most recent national election by 500000 and the respective vote share by 10%, if the country has a total population exceeding 250000 inhabitants. The sum of the resu lting numbers is rounded, to give the number of additional delegates. 푉표푡푒 푇표푡푎푙 푉표푡푒 푆ℎ푎푟푒 1 + + = 푁푢푚푏푒푟 표푓 퐶표푢푛푐푙 퐷푒푙푒푔푎푡푒푠 500 000 10% The number of Congress delegates for full member parties is calculated as follows: - every member party receives 1 base delegate - full members receive 1 Congress delegate per Council delegate - parties can gain additional delegates based on their electoral success, which is calculated by dividing the party's vote total in the most recent national election by a value X, which depends on the total number of votes, and the respective vote share by 3%, if the country has a total population exceeding 250 000 inhabitants. The sum of the resulting numbers is rounded, to give the number of additional delegates. 푉표푡푒 푇표푡푎푙 푉표푡푒 푆ℎ푎푟푒 퐶표푢푛푐푙 퐷푒푙푒푔푎푡푒푠 + 1 + + = 푁푢푚푏푒푟 표푓 퐶표푛푔푟푒푠푠 퐷푒푙푒푔푎푡푒푠 푋 3% with X = 100 000 for the first 3 000 000 votes 250 000 between 3 000 000 and 5 000 000 votes 500 000 for votes exceeding a total of 5 000 000 votes Associated Bodies Number of Number of Associated Bodies voting Council voting Council Delegates Delegates ALDE Party Bureau 11 11 LYMEC 1 10 Individual Members 1 4 Associated Bodies 2 14 SUBTOTAL - LYMEC is entitled to 1 voting Council delegate and 10 voting Congress delegates - ALDE Party Bureau members have voting right in Council and Congress - Individual members have 1 Council delegate and 3 Congress delegates Affiliate Member Parties Number of non- Number of non- Country Full Member Parties voting Council voting Congress Delegates Delegates 50 Armenia Armenian National Congress (ANC) 1 2 51 Armenia Bright Armenia (BA) 1 2 52 Azerbaijan Equality Party (M) 1 2 53 Belarus Belarusian Liberal Party of Freedom and Progress (PFP) 1 2 54 Bosnia and Herzegovina Liberal Democratic Party of Bosnia and Herzegovina (LDS) 1 2 55 Croatia GLAS (GLAS) 1 2 56 Croatia Croatian Social Liberal Party (HSLS) 1 2 57 Croatia Pametno (P) 1 2 58 Georgia Free Democrats (FD) 1 2 59 Georgia Republican Party of Georgia (RP) 1 2 60 Hungary Hungarian Liberal Party (MLP) 1 2 61 Italy Team Köllensperger (TK) 1 2 62 Lithuania Freedom Party (LP) 1 2 63 Poland Nowoczesna (N) 1 2 64 Portugal Liberal Initiative (IL) 1 2 65 Russia People's Freedom Party (PARNAS) 1 2 66 Slovenia Party of Alenka Bratušek (SAB) 1 2 67 Ukraine Civic Position (CP) 1 2 68 Ukraine Power of People (SL) 1 2 69 United Kingdom Alliance Party of Northern Ireland (Alliance) 1 2 70 United Kingdom Liberal Party of Gibraltar (Libs) 1 2 Affiliated Member Parties 21 42 SUBTOTAL Associate Members are entitled to 1 non-voting Council delegate and 2 non-voting Congress delegates. Their membership fee is set at 2,000 EUR TOTAL delegates 165 628.
Recommended publications
  • The Croatian Parliament

    The Croatian Parliament

    Directorate-General for the Presidency Directorate for Relations with National Parliaments Factsheet: The Croatian Parliament The Croatian Parliament building on St. Mark’s Square in Zagreb, opposite the seat of the Government. 1. At a glance Croatia is a parliamentary democracy. The Croatian Parliament (Hrvatski sabor) is a unicameral body. According to the 1990 Constitution, the Croatian Parliament may have a minimum of 100 and a maximum of 160 Members (MPs). They are elected directly by secret ballot based on universal suffrage for a four-year term in 12 constituencies: 140 MPs are elected from 10 constituencies in the country, each providing 14 MPs chosen from party lists or independent lists. Seats are distributed according to the d’Hondt method and the electoral threshold is 5%. Three MPs are elected in a special constituency by Croatians residing abroad, and eight are elected by members of the national ethnic minorities in the country, in a special (national) constituency. Currently the Croatian Parliament has 151 members who were elected in the snap elections on 11 September 2016, only 10 months after the previous polls. No party won an outright majority. The Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ/EPP) and its allies, led by Mr. Andrej Plenković, came first, ahead of the People's Coalition, led by the Social Democratic Party (SDP/S&D). The current coalition government, led by Prime Minister Andrej Plenković, is formed by the Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ/EPP) and the Croatian People's Party-Liberal Democrats (HNS/Not affiliated). 2. Composition Results of the elections of 11 September 2016 Party EP affiliation % Seats Hrvatska demokratska zajednica (HDZ) and its allies 36,27 61 Croatian Democratic Union Socijaldemokratska partija Hrvatske (SDP) and its allies (People’s Coalition) 33.82 54 Social Democratic Party Most nezavisnih lista (Most) Not affiliated 9,91 13 Bridge of Independent Lists Turnout: 52,59% The next Parliamentary elections must take place in autumn 2020 at the latest.
  • Download/Print the Study in PDF Format

    Download/Print the Study in PDF Format

    GENERAL ELECTIONS IN ARMENIA 6th May 2012 European Elections monitor Republican Party led by the President of the Republic Serzh Sarkisian is the main favourite in Corinne Deloy the general elections in Armenia. On 23rd February last the Armenian authorities announced that the next general elections would Analysis take place on 6th May. Nine political parties are running: the five parties represented in the Natio- 1 month before nal Assembly, the only chamber in parliament comprising the Republican Party of Armenia (HHK), the poll Prosperous Armenia (BHK), the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (HHD), Rule of Law (Orinats Erkir, OEK) and Heritage (Z), which is standing in a coalition with the Free Democrats of Khachatur Kokobelian, as well as the Armenian National Congress (HAK), the Communist Party (HKK), the Democratic Party and the United Armenians. The Armenian government led by Prime Minister Tigran Sarkisian (HHK) has comprised the Republi- can Party, Prosperous Armenia and Rule of Law since 21st March 2008. The Armenian Revolutionary Federation was a member of the government coalition until 2009 before leaving it because of its opposition to the government’s foreign policy. On 12th February last the Armenians elected their local representatives. The Republican Party led by President of the Republic Serzh Sarkisian won 33 of the 39 country’s towns. The opposition clai- med that there had been electoral fraud. The legislative campaign started on 8th April and will end on 4th May. 238 people working in Arme- nia’s embassies or consulates will be able to vote on 27th April and 1st May. The parties running Prosperous Armenia leader, Gagik Tsarukian will lead his The Republican Party will be led by the President of the party’s list.
  • OSCE .Armenia Parliamentary Elections Preliminary Statement.Pdf

    OSCE .Armenia Parliamentary Elections Preliminary Statement.Pdf

    OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights Election Observation Mission Republic of Armenia Parliamentary Elections, 6 May 2012 INTERIM REPORT No. 2 3 - 24 April 2012 27 April 2012 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • The election campaign, which officially started on 8 April, is vibrant. Contestants are generally able to campaign and have been provided with free venues and poster space. However, there have been instances of obstruction of campaign activities, including two violent scuffles in Yerevan. • The OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission (EOM) has noted cases where campaign provisions of the Electoral Code were violated. These included campaigning in schools, teachers and students being asked to attend campaign events of the Republican Party of Armenia, and campaign material of some parties being placed on municipal buildings and polling stations. A business owned by the leader of Prosperous Armenia is distributing tractors in several provinces, de facto as part of the party’s campaign. As of 17 April, the police has examined or was examining 14 cases of possible electoral offences. • Preparations for the elections are proceeding according to legal deadlines. The Central Election Commission (CEC) and Territorial Election Commissions (TECs) continue to work in an open and transparent manner. Precinct Election Commissions (PECs) have been formed and are being trained. The CEC has adopted and published the main procedural rules and official documents, well in advance of election day. • The media monitored by the OSCE/ODIHR EOM are providing extensive political and election-related coverage. Before the start of the official campaign, the President and government officials received extensive coverage in the monitored media.
  • Macro Report Comparative Study of Electoral Systems Module 4: Macro Report September 10, 2012

    Macro Report Comparative Study of Electoral Systems Module 4: Macro Report September 10, 2012

    Comparative Study of Electoral Systems 1 Module 4: Macro Report Comparative Study of Electoral Systems Module 4: Macro Report September 10, 2012 Country: Czech Republic Date of Election: 25th and 26th October 2013 Prepared by: Lukáš Linek Date of Preparation: 23rd February 2016 NOTES TO COLLABORATORS: . The information provided in this report contributes to an important part of the CSES project. The information may be filled out by yourself, or by an expert or experts of your choice. Your efforts in providing these data are greatly appreciated! Any supplementary documents that you can provide (e.g., electoral legislation, party manifestos, electoral commission reports, media reports) are also appreciated, and may be made available on the CSES website. Answers should be as of the date of the election being studied. Where brackets [ ] appear, collaborators should answer by placing an “X” within the appropriate bracket or brackets. For example: [X] . If more space is needed to answer any question, please lengthen the document as necessary. Data Pertinent to the Election at which the Module was Administered 1a. Type of Election [X] Parliamentary/Legislative [ ] Parliamentary/Legislative and Presidential [ ] Presidential [ ] Other; please specify: __________ 1b. If the type of election in Question 1a included Parliamentary/Legislative, was the election for the Upper House, Lower House, or both? [ ] Upper House [X] Lower House [ ] Both [ ] Other; please specify: __________ Comparative Study of Electoral Systems 2 Module 4: Macro Report 2a. What was the party of the president prior to the most recent election, regardless of whether the election was presidential? Party of Citizens Rights-Zemannites (SPO-Z).
  • Croatia: Three Elections and a Funeral

    Croatia: Three Elections and a Funeral

    Conflict Studies Research Centre G83 REPUBLIC OF CROATIA Three Elections and a Funeral The Dawn of Democracy at the Millennial Turn? Dr Trevor Waters Introduction 2 President Tudjman Laid To Rest 2 Parliamentary Elections 2/3 January 2000 5 • Background & Legislative Framework • Political Parties & the Political Climate • Media, Campaign, Public Opinion Polls and NGOs • Parliamentary Election Results & International Reaction Presidential Elections - 24 January & 7 February 2000 12 Post Tudjman Croatia - A New Course 15 Annex A: House of Representatives Election Results October 1995 Annex B: House of Counties Election Results April 1997 Annex C: Presidential Election Results June 1997 Annex D: House of Representatives Election Results January 2000 Annex E: Presidential Election Results January/February 2000 1 G83 REPUBLIC OF CROATIA Three Elections and a Funeral The Dawn of Democracy at the Millennial Turn? Dr Trevor Waters Introduction Croatia's passage into the new millennium was marked by the death, on 10 December 1999, of the self-proclaimed "Father of the Nation", President Dr Franjo Tudjman; by make or break Parliamentary Elections, held on 3 January 2000, which secured the crushing defeat of the former president's ruling Croatian Democratic Union, yielded victory for an alliance of the six mainstream opposition parties, and ushered in a new coalition government strong enough to implement far-reaching reform; and by two rounds, on 24 January and 7 February, of Presidential Elections which resulted in a surprising and spectacular victory for the charismatic Stipe Mesić, Yugoslavia's last president, nonetheless considered by many Croats at the start of the campaign as an outsider, a man from the past.
  • Green Chances in the New Hungarian Parliament by Róbert László The

    Green Chances in the New Hungarian Parliament by Róbert László The

    Green Chances in the New Hungarian Parliament by Róbert László The next Hungarian parliament could include two green formations, one of which, Dialogue for Hungary (PM), will surely have some members in parliament, although very much open to question is whether it will have its own parliamentary group. At the moment, it is doubtful whether the other formation, Politics Can Be Different (LMP), will surpass the election threshold, but if it does an independent parliamentary group is guaranteed. The Hungarian Socialist Party (MSZP), Together 2014 (Együtt 2014), Dialogue for Hungary, the Democratic Coalition (DK) and the Hungarian Liberal Party (MLP) will contest the forthcoming parliamentary elections – scheduled for 6 April 2014 – with a joint list and common candidates. Apart from the far-right party Jobbik, only the green party Politics Can Be Different will contest the elections independently from the ruling parties and the left-of-centre Alliance. Many smaller formations running for election stand basically no chance of overcoming the 5% parliamentary threshold. The new electoral system benefits the relative winner even more than before, which is one of the key reasons why the divided left was forced to form an alliance. The other one is that support for Together 2014, the formation led by former Prime Minister Gordon Bajnai and reinforced by the representatives of PM who left LMP a year ago, was dangerously nearing the election threshold of 5%, while the formerly mere 1-2% support for DK rose to almost the same heights. This dynamic undermined the previous electoral agreement between the Socialists and Together 2014-PM, which envisaged the parties presenting their own candidate lists.
  • ("DSCC") Files This Complaint Seeking an Immediate Investigation by the 7

    ("DSCC") Files This Complaint Seeking an Immediate Investigation by the 7

    COMPLAINT BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION CBHMISSIOAl INTRODUCTXON - 1 The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee ("DSCC") 7-_. J _j. c files this complaint seeking an immediate investigation by the 7 c; a > Federal Election Commission into the illegal spending A* practices of the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee (WRSCIt). As the public record shows, and an investigation will confirm, the NRSC and a series of ostensibly nonprofit, nonpartisan groups have undertaken a significant and sustained effort to funnel "soft money101 into federal elections in violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended or "the Act"), 2 U.S.C. 5s 431 et seq., and the Federal Election Commission (peFECt)Regulations, 11 C.F.R. 85 100.1 & sea. 'The term "aoft money" as ueed in this Complaint means funds,that would not be lawful for use in connection with any federal election (e.g., corporate or labor organization treasury funds, contributions in excess of the relevant contribution limit for federal elections). THE FACTS IN TBIS CABE On November 24, 1992, the state of Georgia held a unique runoff election for the office of United States Senator. Georgia law provided for a runoff if no candidate in the regularly scheduled November 3 general election received in excess of 50 percent of the vote. The 1992 runoff in Georg a was a hotly contested race between the Democratic incumbent Wyche Fowler, and his Republican opponent, Paul Coverdell. The Republicans presented this election as a %ust-win81 election. Exhibit 1. The Republicans were so intent on victory that Senator Dole announced he was willing to give up his seat on the Senate Agriculture Committee for Coverdell, if necessary.
  • Factsheet: the Czech Senate

    Factsheet: the Czech Senate

    Directorate-General for the Presidency Directorate for Relations with National Parliaments Factsheet: The Czech Senate Wallenstein Palace, seat of the Czech Senate 1. At a glance The Czech Republic is a parliamentary democracy. The Czech Parliament (Parlament České republiky) is made up of two Chambers, both directly elected – the Chamber of Deputies (Poslanecká sněmovna) and the Senate (Senát). The 81 senators in the Senate are elected for six years. Every other year one third of them are elected which makes the Senate a permanent institution that cannot be dissolved and continuously performs its work. Elections to the Senate are held by secret ballot based on universal, equal suffrage, pursuant to the principles of the majority system. Unlike the Lower Chamber, a candidate for the Senate does not need to be on a political party's ticket. Senators, like MPs have the right to take part in election of judges of the Constitutional Court, and may propose new laws. However, the Senate does not get to vote on the country budget and does not supervise the executive directly. The Senate can delay a proposed law, which was approved by the Chamber. However this veto can, with some rare exceptions, be overridden by an absolute majority of the Chamber in a repeated vote. 2. Composition Composition of Senate following the elections of 2-3 October & 9-10 October 2020 Party EP affiliation Seats Občanská demokratická strana (ODS) Civic Democratic Party 27 TOP 09 Starostové a nezávislí (STAN) Mayors and Independents 24 (some MEPs) Křesťanská a demokratická unie - Československá strana lidová (KDU-ČSL) 12 Christian-Democratic Union – Czechoslovak People's Party ANO 2011 Česká strana sociálně demokratická (ČSSD) 9 Czech Social Democratic Party Senátor 21 Senator 21 Česká pirátská strana 7 Czech Pirate Party (some MEPs) Strana zelených Green Party Non-attached 2 TOTAL 81 The next elections must take place in autumn 2022 at the latest.
  • Download (515Kb)

    Download (515Kb)

    European Community No. 26/1984 July 10, 1984 Contact: Ella Krucoff (202) 862-9540 THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: 1984 ELECTION RESULTS :The newly elected European Parliament - the second to be chosen directly by European voters -- began its five-year term last month with an inaugural session in Strasbourg~ France. The Parliament elected Pierre Pflimlin, a French Christian Democrat, as its new president. Pflimlin, a parliamentarian since 1979, is a former Prime Minister of France and ex-mayor of Strasbourg. Be succeeds Pieter Dankert, a Dutch Socialist, who came in second in the presidential vote this time around. The new assembly quickly exercised one of its major powers -- final say over the European Community budget -- by blocking payment of a L983 budget rebate to the United Kingdom. The rebate had been approved by Community leaders as part of an overall plan to resolve the E.C.'s financial problems. The Parliament froze the rebate after the U.K. opposed a plan for covering a 1984 budget shortfall during a July Council of Ministers meeting. The issue will be discussed again in September by E.C. institutions. Garret FitzGerald, Prime Minister of Ireland, outlined for the Parliament the goals of Ireland's six-month presidency of the E.C. Council. Be urged the representatives to continue working for a more unified Europe in which "free movement of people and goods" is a reality, and he called for more "intensified common action" to fight unemployment. Be said European politicians must work to bolster the public's faith in the E.C., noting that budget problems and inter-governmental "wrangles" have overshadolted the Community's benefits.
  • Left-Wing Movements' Boom in Hungary

    Left-Wing Movements' Boom in Hungary

    Left-wing movements’ boom in Hungary - Analysis of the situation of the Hungarian opposition - Tamás Boros – Arbeitspapier – Friedrich Ebert Stiftung Budapest Oktober 2012 Left-wing movements’ boom in Hungary - Analysis of the situation of the Hungarian opposition - Tamás Boros The Hungarian left-wing and liberal opposition faces an unprecedented situation: with the weakening of the Hungarian Socialist Party (MSZP) and the disappearance of its traditional coalition partner, the liberal Alliance of Free Democrats (SZDSZ) in 2010, new parties and movements have started to rise in an effort to become inevitable politi- cal actors at the time of the next elections in 2014. The crucial question of the next two years is whether the Hungarian Socialist Party will be able to win the elections by itself, and, if not, whether an alliance of opposition movements can be created which will be able to defeat the current prime minister, Viktor Orbán. Between 1998 and 2010 a quasi two-party system characterised Hungary, where the Hungari- an Socialist Party and its liberal coalition partner faced off with the conservative Fidesz. The decision of the voters was as simple as choosing between the two sides – other parties, wheth- er brand new ones or ones with traditional ties, did not stand a reasonable chance of becoming a major political force in Hungary. By 2010, however, eight years spent in government had eroded the popularity of left-wing parties to such an extent that MSZP lost 60% of its former voters (1.4 million people) and SZDSZ all but disappeared from the political map of Hungary.
  • Codebook Indiveu – Party Preferences

    Codebook Indiveu – Party Preferences

    Codebook InDivEU – party preferences European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies December 2020 Introduction The “InDivEU – party preferences” dataset provides data on the positions of more than 400 parties from 28 countries1 on questions of (differentiated) European integration. The dataset comprises a selection of party positions taken from two existing datasets: (1) The EU Profiler/euandi Trend File The EU Profiler/euandi Trend File contains party positions for three rounds of European Parliament elections (2009, 2014, and 2019). Party positions were determined in an iterative process of party self-placement and expert judgement. For more information: https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/65944 (2) The Chapel Hill Expert Survey The Chapel Hill Expert Survey contains party positions for the national elections most closely corresponding the European Parliament elections of 2009, 2014, 2019. Party positions were determined by expert judgement. For more information: https://www.chesdata.eu/ Three additional party positions, related to DI-specific questions, are included in the dataset. These positions were determined by experts involved in the 2019 edition of euandi after the elections took place. The inclusion of party positions in the “InDivEU – party preferences” is limited to the following issues: - General questions about the EU - Questions about EU policy - Questions about differentiated integration - Questions about party ideology 1 This includes all 27 member states of the European Union in 2020, plus the United Kingdom. How to Cite When using the ‘InDivEU – Party Preferences’ dataset, please cite all of the following three articles: 1. Reiljan, Andres, Frederico Ferreira da Silva, Lorenzo Cicchi, Diego Garzia, Alexander H.
  • ESS9 Appendix A3 Political Parties Ed

    ESS9 Appendix A3 Political Parties Ed

    APPENDIX A3 POLITICAL PARTIES, ESS9 - 2018 ed. 3.0 Austria 2 Belgium 4 Bulgaria 7 Croatia 8 Cyprus 10 Czechia 12 Denmark 14 Estonia 15 Finland 17 France 19 Germany 20 Hungary 21 Iceland 23 Ireland 25 Italy 26 Latvia 28 Lithuania 31 Montenegro 34 Netherlands 36 Norway 38 Poland 40 Portugal 44 Serbia 47 Slovakia 52 Slovenia 53 Spain 54 Sweden 57 Switzerland 58 United Kingdom 61 Version Notes, ESS9 Appendix A3 POLITICAL PARTIES ESS9 edition 3.0 (published 10.12.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Denmark, Iceland. ESS9 edition 2.0 (published 15.06.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden. Austria 1. Political parties Language used in data file: German Year of last election: 2017 Official party names, English 1. Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs (SPÖ) - Social Democratic Party of Austria - 26.9 % names/translation, and size in last 2. Österreichische Volkspartei (ÖVP) - Austrian People's Party - 31.5 % election: 3. Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) - Freedom Party of Austria - 26.0 % 4. Liste Peter Pilz (PILZ) - PILZ - 4.4 % 5. Die Grünen – Die Grüne Alternative (Grüne) - The Greens – The Green Alternative - 3.8 % 6. Kommunistische Partei Österreichs (KPÖ) - Communist Party of Austria - 0.8 % 7. NEOS – Das Neue Österreich und Liberales Forum (NEOS) - NEOS – The New Austria and Liberal Forum - 5.3 % 8. G!LT - Verein zur Förderung der Offenen Demokratie (GILT) - My Vote Counts! - 1.0 % Description of political parties listed 1. The Social Democratic Party (Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs, or SPÖ) is a social above democratic/center-left political party that was founded in 1888 as the Social Democratic Worker's Party (Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei, or SDAP), when Victor Adler managed to unite the various opposing factions.