Comparative Study of Electoral Systems, 1996-2001

Home , Apparentment, Berlin Reinickendorf, Bochum I, Borken II, Dortmund I, Dortmund II

ICPSR 2683 Comparative Study of Electoral Systems, 1996-2001

Virginia Sapiro W. Philips Shively Comparative Study of Electoral Systems

4th ICPSR Version February 2004

Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research P.O. Box 1248 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 www.icpsr.umich.edu

Bibliographic Citation: Publications based on ICPSR data collections should acknowledge those sources by means of bibliographic citations. To ensure that such source attributions are captured for social science bibliographic utilities, citations must appear in footnotes or in the reference section of publications. The bibliographic citation for this data collection is:

Comparative Study of Electoral Systems Secretariat. COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ELECTORAL SYSTEMS, 1996-2001 [Computer file]. 4th ICPSR version. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies [producer], 2002. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2004.

Request for Information on To provide funding agencies with essential information about use of Use of ICPSR Resources: archival resources and to facilitate the exchange of information about ICPSR participants' research activities, users of ICPSR data are requested to send to ICPSR bibliographic citations for each completed manuscript or thesis abstract. Visit the ICPSR Web site for more information on submitting citations.

Data Disclaimer: The original collector of the data, ICPSR, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for uses of this collection or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses.

Responsible Use In preparing data for public release, ICPSR performs a number of Statement: procedures to ensure that the identity of research subjects cannot be disclosed. Any intentional identification or disclosure of a person or establishment violates the assurances of confidentiality given to the providers of the information. Therefore, users of data obtained from the ICPSR archive and/or any of its special topic archives agree:

• To use these datasets solely for statistical analysis and reporting of aggregated information, and not for investigation of specific individuals or organizations, except when identification is authorized in writing by ICPSR

• To make no use of the identity of any person or establishment discovered inadvertently, and to advise ICPSR of any such discovery

• To produce no links among ICPSR datasets or among ICPSR data and other datasets that could identify individuals or organizations

Redistribution: ICPSR data may not be redistributed or sold to other individuals, institutions, or organizations without the written agreement of ICPSR.

Data Collection Description

Principal Investigator(s): Virginia Sapiro, W. Philips Shively

Title: Comparative Study of Electoral Systems, 1996-2001

ICPSR Study Number: 2683

Funding Agency: National Science Foundation

Grant Number: SBR-9317631

Summary: This study is the first module of an ongoing collaborative program of crossnational research among national election studies designed to advance the understanding of electoral behavior across polities. The data project, carried out in over 50 consolidated and emerging democracies, was coordinated by social scientists from around the world who cooperated to specify the research agenda, the study design, and the micro- and macro-level data that native teams of researchers collected within each polity. This collection currently comprises data from surveys conducted during 1996-2001 in Australia, Belarus, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Great Britain, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Korea, Lithuania, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Ukraine, and the United States. The format includes a common questionnaire module and background (demographic) characteristics of respondents, coded to agreed-upon standards. These data have been merged into a single crossnational dataset with a companion supplementary weighted data file. Measures included in the study focus on three main issues. The first topic explored is the impact of electoral institutions, with questions about parliamentary versus presidential systems of government (levels of accountability, responsiveness), the electoral rules on casting/counting of votes (issues of fairness, impact of voting), and political parties (identification, ideological distinction). The second major issue covered is the nature of political and social cleavages and alignments explored by questions such as left-right issue orientation of respondents vs. political parties. Lastly, the collection covers the evaluation of democratic institutions and processes through measures such as efficacy in political parties, elected officials, and respondents' satisfaction with democracy. Additionally, data were collected on voter turnout, voter choice, and respondents' age, sex, education, employment, and income.

Universe: All age-eligible citizens, or citizens of voting age of collaborating countries.

Sample: The data collection is a pooled crossnational sample of age-eligible citizens, yielding 62,409 cases.

Dates of Collection: 1996-2002 Data Collection Notes: (1) The original study title has been changed from 1996-2000 to 1996-2001 to reflect the inclusion of 2001 data from several countries. (2) The 1996-2001 data file includes 2002 Portugal data. The 2002 Portugal data are different from the 2002 Portugal data in the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems, 2001-2006 (ICPSR 3808). (3) The crossnational dataset integrates data already fully processed by the study staffs of the individual countries, without further processing except for that which was essential for merging the data into the combined file. Where coded data for any deposited variables deviated too much from the coding scheme required by the CSES codebook, data for such variables were excluded. (4) For some countries, a machine-readable file for appendix documentation was not deposited or was incomplete. Wherever possible, Secretariat staff incorporated documentary information from other deposited sources, including printed matter such as tables of frequency distributions with assigned code labels. (5) Although provision was not made for weight variables in the design of the CSES codebook, many countries deposited one or more weights together with CSES variables. Proper integration of weight variables into the combined CSES file is planned for the future. As a temporary measure, this combined CSES dataset is being released with a mergeable "Supplementary Weight File" that contains respondent ID numbers and the individual weight variables received. (6) The codebook for Part 1 of this collection contains characters with diacritical marks used in many European languages, which are unprintable in the original character format being released. (7) The codebooks are provided by ICPSR as Portable Document Format (PDF) files. The PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated and can be accessed using PDF reader software, such as the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the Acrobat Reader is provided on the ICPSR Web site.

Data Source: personal interviews, phone interviews, and mailback questionnaires

Extent of Collection: 2 data files + machine-readable documentation (PDF) + SAS data definition statements + SPSS data definition statements

Extent of Processing: MDATA.PR/ REFORM.DOC

Data Format: Logical Record Length with SAS and SPSS data definition statements, and Stata sysem file

File Specifications

Part Part Name File Structure Case Variable LRECL Records No. Count Count Per Case 1 Micro-Level Data rectangular 62,409 301 1,194 1 2 Supplementary Weight Data rectangular 32,022 21 149 1 ======

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ELECTORAL SYSTEMS - MODULE 1 (1996-2001) MICRO-DISTRICT-MACRO DATA CODEBOOK: INTRODUCTION Full Release - August 4, 2003

CSES Secretariat Center for Political Studies Institute for Social Research The University of Michigan

======

Sapiro, Virginia, W. Philips Shively and the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems. COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ELECTORAL SYSTEMS, 1996-2001: Module 1 Micro-District-Macro Data [dataset]. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies [producer and distributor], 2003.

These materials are based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant number SBR-9317631 and the Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.

Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in these materials are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the funding agencies.

======

======TABLE OF CONTENTS ======

))) HOW TO USE THE CSES MODULE 1 DOCUMENTATION

))) HOW TO USE THE CSES MODULE 1 DATA FILES **************not applicable if data was obtained from ICPSR***************

))) IDENTIFICATION VARIABLES

))) WEIGHTS

))) LIST OF ELECTIONS INCLUDED IN CORE FILE

))) CSES PROJECT PROFILE

>>> CSES MODULE 1 (1996-2001) STUDY DESCRIPTION >>> MICRO LEVEL COMPONENT >>> DISTRICT LEVEL COMPONENT >>> MACRO LEVEL COMPONENT >>> NOTE CONCERNING MISSING DATA

))) ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES

>>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - AUSTRALIA (1996) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - BELARUS (2001) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (1999) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLOON (1999) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - CANADA (1997) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - CHILE (1999) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (1996) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - DENMARK (1998) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - GERMANY (1998) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (1997) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - HONG KONG (1998) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - HONG KONG (2000) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - HUNGARY (1998) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - ICELAND (1999) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - ISRAEL (1996) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - JAPAN (1996) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - KOREA (2000) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - LITHUANIA (1997) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - MEXICO (1997) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - MEXICO (2000) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - NETHERLANDS (1998) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (1996) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - NORWAY (1997) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - PERU (2000) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - PERU (2001) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - POLAND (1997) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - PORTUGAL (2002) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - ROMANIA (1996) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - RUSSIA (1999) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - RUSSIA (2000) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - SLOVENIA (1996) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - SPAIN (1996) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - SPAIN (2000) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - SWEDEN (1998) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - SWITZERLAND (1999) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - TAIWAN (1996) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - THAILAND (2001) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - UKRAINE (1998) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - UNITED STATES (1996)

))) BIBLIOGRAPHY

======))) HOW TO USE THE CSES MODULE 1 DOCUMENTATION ======

TYPES OF DOCUMENTATION AVAILABLE ------

There are many components to the CSES Documentation, and analysts will want to become familiar with all of them.

For some election studies, collaborators have provided multiple documents:

1. A "Macro Report" 2. A "Sample Design and Data Collection Report" 3. An untranslated version of their election study questionnaire 4. Where applicable, a translation of their questionnaire into English

These documents, where available, can be found on the CSES web page, in the Module 1 section under "Download Data".

The CSES Module 1 Micro Questionnaire is also available from the Module 1 download page, or by referencing the corresponding variables in this codebook.

The codebook consists of three components, the Introduction, Variable Descriptions, Appendix I (Parties and Leaders), Appendix II (Primary Electoral Districts), and Appendix III (District-Level Candidates).

The last documentation set you will want to become familiar with is the CSES Module 1 errata page. It is available off of the "Download Data" page for Module 1 on the CSES website. Information, updates, and error notifications and corrections are posted there in real time as they become available, so you will want to check the page often to keep up-to-date.

Please note that your ability to read foreign characters may vary depending on the software you are using. While the collaborator pieces of the documentation are generally presented in Adobe PDF format, the codebook is saved as a standard text file, which is best viewed in a text editor such as Notepad, TextPad, or many other readily-available softwares. If you read the codebook into a word processor, you will want to select a font that lines the columns up appropriately.

CODEBOOK CONVENTIONS ------

In the full release of CSES Module 1, all variables begin with the letter "A". When Module 2 becomes available, its variables will begin with the letter "B", and so on. This convention helps reduce the possibility of overwriting data when merging data sets.

Variables are presented in five groupings:

A1001-A1999 identification, weight, and election study variables A2001-A2999 demographic and vote choice variables A3001-A3999 micro-level data (the CSES Module 1 Questionnaire) A4001-A4999 district-level data A5001-A5999 macro-level data

Variable names are separated off by two lines of dashes. Variable names do not exceed eight characters in length. In the variable descriptions portion of codebook file "cm_cod2.txt", the leftmost eight columns are intended to be for variable names only.

Most sections of the codebook can be navigated in the machine-readable files by searching for the characters ">>>" or ")))" as appropriate.

======))) HOW TO USE THE CSES MODULE 1 DATA FILES ======**************not applicable if data was obtained from ICPSR***************

The CSES Module 1 Data Set is distributed in a single file, called "csesmod1.zip". We recommend that users download this file to their local computer in a directory called "c:/cses/module1/20030804/", where the last subdirectory indicates the version (2003, August 4). This arrangement not only allows the distributed files to run without modification, but sets your files up in a way that is well-organized for future distributions of CSES data files.

Within "csesmod1.zip" are seven (7) files:

"cm1_cod1.txt" is the codebook introduction file "cm1_cod2.txt" is the codebook variable descriptions file "cm1_cod3.txt" is the codebook appendices file "cm1_dat.txt" is the raw data file "sas.zip" contains statements for reading the data into SAS "spss.zip" contains statements for reading the data into SPSS "stata.zip" contains statements for reading the data into STATA

You need only unZIP files for the statistical package you wish to use (SAS, SPSS, or STATA). If you wish to use none of the three, the "cm1_dat.txt" file is stored with a header statement and delimiters (commas) so that you may read it into a software package of your choice.

USING CSES MODULE 1 IN SAS ------**************not applicable if data was obtained from ICPSR***************

In the "sas.zip" file are six (6) files:

"cm1_clab.sas" contains code labels "cm1_col.sas" contains column locations "cm1_fmt.sas" contains format statements "cm1_md.sas" contains missing data statements "cm1_run.sas" is the file you execute to make a SAS system file "cm1_vlab.sas" contains variable labels

You need only read into SAS the syntax file "cm1_run.sas". If you downloaded the files to the recommended subdirectory, you should be able to execute the file as is and a SAS system file will be created in the same subdirectory.

The file "cm1_run.sas" refers to the other files above in the body of the file - if you wish to exclude any of the other files from running on your data set (for instance, perhaps you do not wish to have code labels appear) you may comment out or delete the reference from the "cm1_run.sas" file.

If you are storing any of the files in an alternate location (including the data file "cm1_dat.txt"), or you want to store the resulting SAS system file under a different name or location, you will want to modify the SAS files accordingly. Additional instructions are found in the "cm1_run.sas" file.

USING CSES MODULE 1 IN SPSS ------**************not applicable if data was obtained from ICPSR***************

In the "spss.zip" file are five (5) files:

"cm1_clab.sps" contains code labels "cm1_col.sps" contains column locations and variable labels "cm1_md.sps" contains missing data statements "cm1_run.sps" is the file you execute to make a SPSS system file "cm1_vlab.sps" contains variable labels

You need only read into SPSS the syntax file "cm1_run.sps". If you downloaded the files to the recommended subdirectory, you should be able to execute the file as is and a SPSS system file will be created in the same subdirectory.

The file "cm1_run.sps" refers to the other files above in the body of the file - if you wish to exclude any of the other files from running on your data set (for instance, perhaps you do not wish to have code labels appear) you may comment out or delete the reference from the "cm1_run.sps" file.

If you are storing any of the files in an alternate location (including the data file "cm1_dat.txt"), or you want to store the resulting SPSS system file under a different name or location, you will want to modify the SPSS files accordingly.

Additional instructions are found in the "cm1_run.sps" file.

USING CSES MODULE 1 IN STATA ------**************not applicable if data was obtained from ICPSR***************

In the "stata.zip" file are six (6) files:

"cm1_clab.do" contains code labels "cm1_col.dct" contains column locations "cm1_fmt.do" contains format statements "cm1_md.do" contains missing data statements "cm1_run.do" is the file you execute to make a STATA system file "cm1_vlab.do" contains variable labels

You need only read into STATA the syntax file "cm1_run.do". If you downloaded the files to the recommended subdirectory, you should be able to execute the file as is and a STATA system file will be created in the same subdirectory.

The file "cm1_run.do" refers to the other files above in the body of the file - if you wish to exclude any of the other files from running on your data set (for instance, perhaps you do not wish to have code labels appear) you may comment out or delete the reference from the "cm1_run.do" file. If you are storing any of the files in an alternate location (including the data file "cm1_dat.txt"), or you want to store the resulting STATA system file under a different name or location, you will want to modify the STATA files accordingly.

Additional instructions are found in the "cm1_run.do" file.

======))) IDENTIFICATION VARIABLES ======

Each record in CSES Module 1 contains two key identification variables.

The first is ELECTION STUDY, which uniquely identifies an election study across time. It appears in two variations:

A1003 "ID VARIABLE - ELECTION STUDY (NUMERIC POLITY)" A1004 "ID VARIABLE - ELECTION STUDY (ALPHABETIC POLITY)"

The second is RESPONDENT, which uniquely identifies a respondent across time:

A1005 >>> ID VARIABLE - RESPONDENT

Notes on their creation and use are available in the Variable Descriptions portion of the codebook.

======))) WEIGHTS ======

Because of the variance in the sample designs used in the election studies included in this project, the weights provided by the collaborators also vary greatly. They are described in detail in variables A1010-A1014. Analysts are advised to read this section carefully to ensure that their analyses are weighted appropriately.

======))) LIST OF ELECTIONS INCLUDED IN CORE FILE ======

The CSES data report on the following 39 elections, held between 1996 and 2002:

Australia 1996 1798 Belarus 2001 1000 Belgium-Flanders 1999 2179 Canada 1997 1851 Chile 1999 1173 Czech Republic 1996 1229 Denmark 1998 2001 Germany 1998 2019 Hong Kong 1998 1000 Hong Kong 2000 674 Hungary 1998 1525 Iceland 1999 1631 Israel 1996 1091 Japan 1996 1327 Korea 2000 1100 Lithuania 1997 1009 Mexico 1997 2033 Mexico 2000 1766 Netherlands 1998 2101 New Zealand 1996 4080 Norway 1997 2055 Peru 2000 1102 Peru 2001 1118 Poland 1997 2003 Portugal 2002 1303 Romania 1996 1175 Russia 1999 1842 Russia 2000 1748 Slovenia 1996 2031 Spain 1996 1212 Spain 2000 1208 Sweden 1998 1157 Switzerland 1999 2048 Taiwan 1996 1200 USA 1996 1534 Ukraine 1998 1148 Great Britain 1997 2897 Thailand 2001 1081 Belgium-Walloon 1999 1960

Total 62409

NOTES: (1) Multi-wave panel studies. Only those respondents who participated in the wave of the study that included the CSES Module are included in the CSES core data-files. Analysts should be aware that the subsamples included in the CSES core data-files differ from the original samples drawn in the following countries: Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Japan, the Netherlands, Russia, and the United States. Analysts should refer to the "Sample Design and Data Collection Reports" prepared by the collaborators in these countries for more details.

(2) Booster Samples. In New Zealand and Great Britain, certain segments of the population were over-sampled to allow for cross-group comparisons. As the CSES module was not administered to these segments, these respondents are not included in the CSES data-files. However, as the documentation provided by the collaborators refers to these "booster" samples in some places, analysts should be aware of this feature of these research designs. Finally, where other component studies have over-sampled segments of their populations, but administered the CSES Module to all subsamples, these booster samples are included in the CSES data-file. In most cases where this has occurred, the collaborators have provided weights that correct for this over-sampling in the estimation of national parameters. Analysts should pay particular attention to the documentation provided for the weights in this codebook.

(3) Russia. The post-parliamentary and post-presidential data are drawn from different waves of a multi-wave panel study. As a result, the respondents are the same, as indicated by the common case identification codes, and can be compared across the 1999 and 2000 component studies.

======))) CSES PROJECT PROFILE ======

The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES) is a collaborative program of cross-national public opinion research. A standard survey module, CSES Module 1, was administered as part of nearly 40 national post-election study projects. The CSES Secretariat, with the help of the collaborators in each participant country, has compiled these data and supplemented them with socio-demographic information about each respondent. To facilitate cross-national comparative analyses, these micro-level data have been further supplemented with district level information that provide insight into the respondent's political context, and macro-level data that detail the respondent's political system, as a whole. At each level of data collection, the measurements used have been standardized to promote comparison.

By collaborating in this way, the CSES community hopes to forward scientific inquiry into the relationship between electoral institutions and political behavior. In particular, CSES Module 1 focuses on the structure electoral institutions provide voters in their beliefs and choices. Further, the survey items used in Module 1 emphasize the ways in which citizens assess and evaluate the institutions of their governments. For example, what impact, if any, do institutional differences -- in electoral laws, in the nature of political parties, or in the structure and longevity of the political regime -- have on the way that citizens assess the performance of the electoral process, political parties, and democracy as a whole? Do some kinds of institutional arrangements produce more positive evaluations than others? Does citizen satisfaction with the performance of political parties increase with the number and ideological diversity of the political choices that citizens are offered? Module 1 also considers how well the deeply-rooted divisions in society are managed, moderated or alleviated by political institutions: How do institutional structures affect the nature and intensity of social and political cleavages? Do federal systems suppress social cleavages? How well do different party systems "encapsulate conflict" by constraining social divisions? Do plurality systems produce more broadly based parties that discourage the kind of sectional and ideological parties (and hence intense political cleavages) that can more easily survive under proportional representation? The CSES project, by explicitly linking individual attitudes and behaviors to political context in a variety of settings, provides analysts with the resources to address these and many other types of questions.

======>>> CSES MODULE 1 (1996-2001) STUDY DESCRIPTION ======

The Module 1 materials include public opinion survey data, supplementary demographic data, district level and macro data collected in 39 election studies, usually in the weeks following national elections held between 1996 and 2001.

The Planning Committee oversaw every stage of the project development, include the design of the survey instrument, demographic and macro measures. The various report, documents and pilot studies prepared by members of the Planning Committee in the course of Module 1 development are avaialable on the CSES website.

CSES relies on the collaborators in each country to ensure that the data are collected in the most transparent and reliable way possible. The micro level component of the data collection exercise is documented in the "Sample Design and Data Collection Reports" completed by each collaborator, and available on the CSES website. A complete list of the collaborators and CSES contacts within each country is also available on the CSES website.

------>>> MICRO LEVEL COMPONENT ------

The ten-minute CSES module was usually administered as a single uninterrupted block of questions at the beginning or the end of a national election survey. There are several features of this component of which analysts should be aware:

A. The question text is included in the variable documentation of this codebook. The questions are reported in the order in which they appear in the questionnaire.

B. Where there are differences in the way a particular question was administered in an election study, this is noted in the "Election Study Notes," following the documentation of the corresponding variable.

C. There are several sets of party and leader evaluation items included in the module. These correspond to parties labeled A-F, in descending order, the six most popular parties in the lower house elections (or presidential elections if legislative elections were not held). Where respondents were asked to evaluate other parties, these evaluations have been included and are labeled parties G-I, regardless of their vote shares (for a total of six parties per election study). The parties and leader to which these evaluations apply are identified in Appendix 1.

D. There are several questions (including the vote-choice and party identification items) which ask the respondents to specify a political party. The codes for these items are also reported in Appendix 1.

------>>> DISTRICT LEVEL COMPONENT ------

The district level variables report the official returns of the lower house (first segment) election for each respondent's district, as published by the official election authority in each country (Great Britain is the sole exception: these data are from P. Norris (2001),"The British Parliamentary Constituency Database, 1992-2001"). Although this is the most reliable source, the availability of district-level data is limited by what is actually published by electoral commissions (e.g. some did not publish turnout at the district level), and by the form in which these data are made public (e.g. including what language, but also how the returns are reported: some commissions report only actual votes received by each winning candidate, and not the number of votes cast in favor of each party). The following district level data are included in the CSES datafile (X's indicate availability):

# Seats #Candidates/ Vote Turnout Lists Returns Australia X X X X Belarus Belgium- Flanders X X X X Belgium- Walloon X X X X Canada X X X X Chile [NA- Presidential Election] Czech Republic X X X Denmark X X X Germany X X X X Hong Kong (1998) X X X X Hong Kong (2000) X X X X Hungary X X X X Iceland X X X Israel X X X X Japan X X X X Korea Lithuania [NA- Presidential Election] Mexico (1997) X X X Mexico (2000) X X Netherlands X X X X New Zealand X X X X Norway X X X Peru (2000) X X X X Peru (2001) X X X X Poland X X X Portugal X X X X Romania X X X Russia (1999) Russia (2000) Slovenia X X X Spain (1996) X X X Spain (2000) X X X Sweden X X X X Switzerland X X X

Taiwan X X USA X X X Ukraine X X X Great Britain X X X X Thailand

------>>> MACRO LEVEL COMPONENT ------

To supplement the micro data, the teams of researchers responsible for the collection of the public opinion data also compiled and deposited electoral legislation, political party platforms, and official electoral returns.

To facilitate this process, a detailed questionnaire was construct to serves as a framework for the macro component of the project. The Macro Data Reports completed by the CSES collaborators can be found on the CSES website.

The text of the questions is provided in the variable documentation section of this codebook.

Additional measures, thought pertinent to the micro-district- macro design, are also compiled and available in the CSES datafiles. A bibliography of the sources consulted follows the main body of these introductory materials.

Finally, to facilitate the use of the macro data, the steps taken in the coding of several systems are provided to illustrate the working definitions of some of the terms used in the documentation of these variables:

A. ELECTORAL STRUCTURES:

This section illustrates how characteristics of electoral systems are coded in the macro level study. Consider the case of Hungary: Under Hungarian electoral rules, the (unicameral) legislative house is composed of 328 seats. Of these, 176 are elected in single-member districts and 152 are elected in 20 multimember districts. The Hungarian case is coded in the following way:

A5024 NUMBER OF LEGISLATIVE CHAMBERS - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT: One (there is no 'upper' house, like the American Senate, or the British House of Lords).

A5025_1 NUMBER OF ELECTORAL SEGMENTS - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT: Two (as the members elected in single member districts are elected independently of those elected to seats in the multi-member districts, there are two electoral segments). Usually the number of electoral segments corresponds to the number of independent ballots cast by voters for each legislative body.

A5026_1 NUMBER OF PRIMARY ELECTORAL DISTRICTS - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT: 176 (a primary electoral district is the smallest geographic area in which votes are tallied to allocate seats in a legislature).

A5027_1 NUMBER OF SEATS- LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT: 176 (within this segment there are 176 seats to be allocated).

A5028_1 DISTRICT MAGNITUDE- LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT: 1 ('district magnitude' refers to the average number of seats allocated per primary district; in systems with multi-member districts, this is the total number of seats divided by the number of districts).

A5029_1 NUMBER OF SECONDARY DISTRICTS- LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT: 1 (the votes cast for non-winning members in the single-member districts are cumulated as "remainder votes" at the national level for the allocation of 58 "reserved" seats).

A5030_1 NUMBER OF TERTIARY DISTRICTS- LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT: 0 (if, for example, the single member district "remainder votes" could first be applied to the allocation of regional seats, and then the "remainder votes" from this allocation were cumulated at the national level, then there would be several secondary districts and 1 tertiary district).

B. LEGISLATIVE ELECTIONS: VOTING PROCEDURES:

In systems where there is more than one electoral segment, the voting procedures usually vary across segments, as well as across legislative chambers. For this reason, the macro data file includes data for the voting procedures for each electoral segment in each of the legislative houses. To illustrate, consider how the voting procedures for Japan are reported in the datafile:

A5031 COMPULSORY VOTING: '0. No.' (Some countries do have laws requiring their citizens to vote. However, the sanctions imposed on non-voters in these countries vary widely, and are reported in this variable).

A5032_1 VOTES CAST - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT: One (under some electoral laws, citizens may vote for as many candidates as there are seats to be contested; in Japan, however, the first electoral segment is composed of 300 seats contested in single member districts and citizens cast only one vote in this segment).

A5033_1 VOTING PROCEDURES - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT: '01. Single Candidate'. (In some majoritarian electoral systems, e.g. Australia, in selecting a candidate, voters will also choose 'alternatives' by ranking the political candidates. If no candidate wins a majority in the first round, the candidate with the smallest number of first preferences is eliminated, and her supporters' second preferences are allocated among the remaining candidates. Alternatively, as will be discussed below, in some systems, voters elect party lists rather than candidates. In Japan, as the first segment is elected through single member districts voters select a single candidate).

C. LEGISLATIVE ELECTIONS: HOW VOTES BECOME SEATS:

In systems where there is more than one electoral segment, the electoral formulae used to allocate seats usually vary across segments. For this reason, the macro. data file includes data for the electoral formulae for each electoral segments within each of the legislative chambers. For example, these characteristics of New Zealand's electoral system are reported in the following way:

A5034_1 ELECTORAL FORMULA- LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT: '11. Plurality- Single Member Districts.' (In the first electoral segment, New Zealanders elect 65 representatives in single-member districts).

A5034_2 LOWER HOUSE- SECOND SEGMENT- ELECTORAL FORMULA: '034. PR- Ste-Lague.' (The remaining 55 seats in the legislature are allocated according to the percentage of popular vote each party receives; systems of this sort are broadly referred to as "proportional representation" systems. There are several different forumlae used to translate popular vote into seats; the Ste-Lague Highest Averages method used in New Zealand is among the more commonly used formulae).

A5035_1 THRESHOLD - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT: '0. NA.' (Unlike in some proportional representation systems, candidates in New Zealand do not need to be supported by a specified percentage of the popular vote in order to gain their seats. Rather, candidates who win a simple plurality are elected to the seat representing their district).

A5035_2 LOWER HOUSE- SECOND SEGMENT- THRESHOLD: '5.00 percent'. (In order to to be included in the allocation of seats via the Ste. Lague formula, parties in New Zealand must be supported by at least 5.00 percent of the national popular vote).

D. TYPES OF ELECTORAL ALLIANCES

Some electoral systems allow parties to ally themselves through formal or informal agreements. Where this occurs, there may be restrictions or additional requirements that party alliances are subject to. To clarify some of the terminology used in the codebook, this section provides some definitions of the type of electoral alliances parties may form:

MULTI-PARTY ENDORSEMENTS: Candidates may sometimes be endorsed by more than one party, while maintaining their own party identification and membership.

APPARENTEMENT: In list PR systems, small parties may be unable to gain seats in the legislature because their proportions of the popular vote fall below the threshold needed to be included in the allocation of seats. In some systems however, parties are allowed to form 'cartels,' such that, although participant parties stand for election as individual parties, their vote totals are cumulated and seats are allocated to the 'cartel,' and then distributed among the participant parties.

JOINT LISTS: In contrast to apparentement, where parties maintain their own party lists and votes are pooled between the parties, parties may present joint lists, in which candidates from both parties are included, and elected according to the order prescribed by the list. Joint lists tend to be more formal and complete alliances than apparentement agreements.

It is important to note that, in some systems, there are different thresholds, etc. for joint party lists contesting an election than for individual parties.

------>>> NOTE CONCERNING MISSING DATA ------

In the micro component of the project, there is some ambiguity regarding which response categories have been included in the "missing" category (usually indicated with a last digit of 9) in the component election studies of the CSES project. Researchers should be aware that this category may include those who have refused to answer a particular question, indicated that they "didn't know," were not asked the question, or otherwise did not provide an answer to a particular item.

======))) ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES ======

The following section provides:

(1). General information about the election after which the CSES Module 1 was administered. In several cases, the election followed the establishment of new electoral rules. In several others, the election marks a dramatic change in government. This information is provided with the intention of alerting the analyst to interesting features of the election. For more details, please refer to the Macro Reports prepared by the collaborators, and available on the CSES website.

(2). General information about the research and sample designs of the component election studies. For example, in some cases, the CSES module was adminstered in a later wave of a multi-wave study. Also, in Belgium, the CSES module was administered by different election study teams in different regions of the country. Finally, in several countries, significant proportions of the population were excluded from the sample frame, usually because of geographic isolation.

------>>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - AUSTRALIA (1996) ------

(1) "After five successive Federal election wins and thirteen years in government, the ALP (led by the Prime Minister Paul Keating) lost 31 seats, and the government, in the 2 March 1996 Federal election for the 148 seat House of Representatives. The Liberal and National Parties (led by the Liberal Leader of the Opposition, John Howard) gained 27 and 2 seats, respectively (independents gained 3), giving the new coalition government 94 seats (Liberal 76 and Nationals 18), a majority of 44 seats over the ALP... Although many observers had expected the government to lose the election (from February 1995 the opinion polls had consistently shown the ALP trailing the Liberal- National parties), most were surprised by the magnitude of the swing to the coalition parties." (CSES Macro Report: Australia).

(2) The sample was drawn from the Australian Electoral Rolls. As enrolment is compulsory, nearly 95% of those eligible are included in the sample frame. The sample is stratified by region, and the AEC identified sample points using a systematic random selection m echanism (interval count). The identified respondents were contacted three times before being declared a non-interview. No replacement methods were used.

------>>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - BELARUS (2001) ------

(1) This study was conducted following nearly concurrent legislative (October 15, 2000; repeated March 18, 2001) and presidential (September 9, 2001) elections. The evaluation (Parties and Leaders), candidate recall, and macro data items pertain to the legislative election, although only presidential vote choice is reported.

(2) Households were randomly selected, and then respondents were identified according to the "next birthday" method. Households were contacted 3 times over two days before it was declared a non-interview. No replacement methods were used.

------>>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (1999) ------

(1) Following the 1995 election, public confidence in the governing institutions was seriously shaken by several scandals involving members of the governing coalition. Spontaneous strikes occurred throughout this period, with the largest, the "White March," involving 300 000 protesters. Immigration and asylum remain contentious issues. In Flanders, the disaffection with the governing parties benefitted the VLD, which became the largest party in the Flemish region.

(2) Although the Belgium-Flanders and Belgium-Walloon election studies were very similar, the data were collected and deposited by different teams of researchers. Further, the party systems are exclusive. As a result, in the CSES datafiles the Flanders and Walloon components are treated as distinct elections. However, to facilitate comparisons across these components, wherever possible, similar coding schemes have been used. (3) The Belgium-Flanders (1999) election study includes the Flemish- speaking portion of Brussels.

(4) Some of the respondents were panel respondents (1460) who cooperated in 1991 and (or) 1995 and the other part was a cross-section (718). For the cross section (and for the first use of the panel in 1991) a two stage sampling procedure was used. Primary units were municipalities, selected according to their population size. Secondary units were selected at random within the primary units, from the electoral registers. Replacement of the new sample points from within the same municipality occurred after attempts to contact the respondent were unsuccessful.

------>>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLOON (1999) ------

(1) Following the 1995 election, public confidence in the governing institutions was seriously shaken by several scandals involving members of the governing coalition. Spontaneous strikes occurred throughout this period, with the largest, the "White March," involving 300 000 protesters. Immigration and asylum remain contentious issues. Unlike in Flanders, the challenging parties made only modest gains in Walloon. PS remained large enough to ensure a place in the governing coalition. It should be noted that Ecolo nearly doubled its share of the vote in both Wallonia and Brussels.

(3) The Belgium-Walloon (1999) election study includes the French-speaking portion of Brussels.

------>>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - CANADA (1997) ------

(1) The 1997 Federal Election marks the consolidation of the radical changes in the Canadian party system that occurred in the 1993 election. Following the Progressive Conservative government's failure to ratify the Charlottetown Accord in 1992, and as a result of general dissatisfaction with the Mulroney government, the Progressive Conservatives were reduced from 170 seats to only 2 seats in 1993, losing official party status. Although the Progressive Conservatives did regain official party status in the 1997 election, its presence remains over-shadowed by two new parties, the Bloc Quebecois (which formed her Majesty's Loyal Opposition following the 1993 election) and the Reform Party (first elected in 1993, and the official opposition party following the 1997 election). With the emergence of these new parties, Canadian party politics has become highly regionalized: Bloc Quebecois candidates stand for election exclusively in Quebec. The Reform Party's stronghold is in the Western provinces, particularly Alberta and British Colombia, in spite of efforts to gain standing in central Canada. The Liberal's support is drawn almost exclusively from Ontario where, in 1997, Liberal candidates were elected in 101 out of 103 constituencies.

(2) It is also important to note that this was the first election following the 1995 referendum on secession in Quebec. Following the narrow defeat of the referendum (by a margin of less than 1%), the charismatic leader and founding member of the federal Bloc Quebecois, Lucien Bouchard stepped down to lead the provincial Parti Quebecois and was replaced by Gilles Duceppe.

(3) The CES was conducted in three panels (Refer to The 1997 Canadian Election Survey: Technical Documentation). An origi1al sample (n=3949) was drawn in the pre-election period. These respondents were re-interviewed following the election (n=3170). Finally, a mailback survey that contained the CSES module was sent to the respondents; 1857 returned the study. Note, all 3949 of the original respondents are included in the CSES datafiles.

------>>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - CHILE (1999) ------

(1) Through this presidential election, Ricardo Lagos, became the third consecutive president from the center-left coalition, and the first socialist president, since the reestablishment of democracy.

The elections were held in a critical economic situation; the rates of unemployment and crime were high; and there were a set of demonstrations performed by students and indigenous people. The possibility of Pinochet being judged overseas provoked nationalistic anger among the majority of the population, who demanded a more active intervention of the government to bring him back to the country. The first round showed a tight result between the two main candidates. Lagos got 0.05% of votes over Joaquin Lavin, the candidate for the right-wing alliance. The government candidate was favored by a decline in the unemployment rate and by Pinochet s obvious release a month before the second round. Finally, Lagos got 2.60% more votes than Lavin.

------>>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (1996) ------

(1) "The election... illustrated the remarkable political stability of the Czech Republic and saw some significant concentration of the party spectrum and the emergence of an effective democratic opposition." (Fitzmaurice (1997), "The 1996 Czech Elections," Electoral Studies)

(2) The CSES module was contained in the post-election panel of the study. The original sample included 1589; 1229 participated in the later wave and are included in the CSES datafiles. (3) In the first stage of selection, a sample of 300 localities (stratified by size) was randomly selected. Then, respondents were identified according to quotas based on age, gender and education. 3 contacts were made before a sample point was declared a non-interview.

------>>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - DENMARK (1998) ------

(1) The previous minority coalition government led by the Social Democratic Party, and that also includes the Social Liberal Party, won the general election in March 1998 with a majority of one in the parliament. Voters' deep concern about Denmark's membership in the EU is in part due to a lack of confidence in the long-run stability of European economies.

------>>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - GERMANY (1998) ------

(1) This election marks the end of the Chancellorship of Helmut Kohl, and reflects the general disenchantment with the CDU. The CDU was supported by less than a third of the popular vote. The new government was formed by the SPD in coalition with the Greens, under the charismatic, "post-modern" leadership of Gerhard Schroeder.

(2) This is an RDD sample, with random selection within the household. 12 contacts were made before a sample point was declared a non-interview. No replacement methods were used.

------>>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (1997) ------

(1) Following Black Wednesday, voter confidence in the government declined dramatically, bolstering support for parties previously in opposition.

(2) This study is accurately referred to in this documentation as "Great Britain," rather than the United Kingdom, because the study includes England, Scotland and Wales, but not Northern Ireland. Please refer to the "Sample Design and Data Collection Report" for details of the complicated sample design used. In particular, note that the Scottish "booster" sample is not included in the CSES datafiles.

(3) The sample frame includes eligible voters in Britain. The PSUs are postal sectors, stratified by sub-region and according to population density and socioeconomic profile, selected in probabilities proportionate to size (systematic random selection), treating England/Wales, and Scotland separately. Interviewers determined the household and respondents according to Kish grids. A minimum of four re-contacts occurred. No replacement methods were used. ------>>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - HONG KONG (1998) ------

(1) Turnout for the first elections since Hong Kong was transferred from Great Britain to the People's Republic of China was higher than at any election conducted under British rule. The resulting legislative body is one with a much stronger pro-Beijing presence when compared to previous elections. At the same time, the success of candidates and parties previously ousted by the Beijing-appointed Provisional Legislative Council suggests the emergence of a pro-local autonomy and full democracy vs. pro-Beijing cleavage in electoral politics.

(2) Based on the final registers of electors of 1998, the Registration and Electoral Office helped select randomly 8,000 registered electors in proportion to size by consistency. Potential respondents were contacted 3 times before being declared a non-sample.

------>>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - HONG KONG (2000) ------

(1) The second legislative council election was characterized by concerns about producing a council broadly viewed as legitimate. The number of members from geographical constituencies was increased from 20 to 24, and the number returned by an election committee was reduced from 10 to 6.

------>>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - HUNGARY (1998) ------

(1) In the 1998 Hungarian election, the FIDESZ-MPP, an oppositional party since 1990, challenged the governing Hungarian Socialist Party. Although the FIDESZ-MPP was supported by the majority of the popular vote and won a plurality of the seats in the legislature, it was necessary to form a coalition with the FKGP and the MDF to form a government.

(2) There was some concern, prior to the 1998 Hungarian election, that the notorious complexity of Hungarian electoral rules, combined with a large number of parties and candidates, would bewilder voters. In fact, turnout for the first round was considerably low (roughly 60%). However, turnout did increase during the second round, when the FIDESZ- MPP withdrew many of its non-winning candidates in support of coalition partners, and concluded numerous electoral agreements with other parties. "For the first time in Hungary's post-communist politics, the party which won the largest regional list vote and was ahead in the constituencies after the first round [the FIDESZ-MPP] failed to emerge as the overall winner" (Fowler, B. , "Hungarian Parliamentary Elections, May 1998," Electoral Studies 17:2, 257-262).

(3) In Hungary, the CSES module was administered in the post-election wave of a panel study. Some of the demographic data in the CSES data set (marital status, religion, religiosity, church attendance, size of household, family income) were obtained from the pre-election wave. Note that the "post-election" wave was actually carried out between the two rounds of the election that were separated by two weeks in 1998. The reason for this choice was the worry that after the second round many more respondents would fail to correctly remember which party they supported on the list, which one in their single-member districts in the first round, and which in the runoff in the single-members.

(4) Localities were stratified by county and population size, and selected with probabilities proportionate to size. Households were selected via random walks. Respondents were selected with Kish grids from within the household.

------>>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - ICELAND (1999) ------

(1) An interesting feature of the 1999 parliamentary election was the effort of parties on the left to form a united front, consisting of a union of the People's Alliance, the Social Democratic Party, and the Women's Alliance, to challenge the conservative Independence Party. However, the leaders of the Alliance were unable to accommodate those farthest to the left, and lost supporters to the newly emergent Left-Greens.

------>>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - ISRAEL (1996) ------

(1) Israelis directly elected their Prime Minister for the first time in these elections. Prior the 1996 election, the Prime Minister was selected by the legislature, as is customary in parliamentary systems. With these reforms, the Prime Minister and the legislature are elected concurrently, but by separate ballots for four year terms.

(2) Data pertaining to the 1996 Prime Ministerial elections are reported in variables otherwise assigned to presidential variables.

(3) As new information regarding the handling of the Israeli data was brought forward by the collaborator, there are signficant revisions to several of the variables, resulting in distributions which differ from earlier versions of the CSES datafiles.

(4) 3 samples were drawn from telephone listings. When, after 3 contacts, the entire sample had been used, interviewers proceeded to the second, and then third lists. This procedure was followed in the selection of a general sample (Jewish and Russian sample), and an Arab sample. The response rate among the Arab population was much higher, and as a result, the third list was not used.

------>>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - JAPAN (1996) ------

(1) "The 1996 General Election was conducted under a new mixed system. Each voter casts two separate votes: one for the single member districts and one for the PR districts." (CSES Marco. Level Survey: Japan).

(2) Further, as the previous election (1993) ended the 38-year reign of the Liberal Democratic Party, the 1996 election marked a dramatic change in party system dynamics. During the last government and over the course of the campaign, the traditional opposition party, the JSP, collapsed, several new parties formed, and prominent politicians "crossed the floor." (Reed (1997), "The 1996 Japanese General Election", Electoral Studies 16:1)

(3) The CSES items were contained in the post-election wave of a panel study. The original sample includes 1535 respondents; 1327 completed the post-election survey and are included in the CSES datafiles.

(4) Most of the questions were asked out of sequence in the pre- and the post-election waves. See Table 1 for the order of CSES questions placed in the Japanese survey.

Table 1

CSES JEDS96

Q1 (Satisfied with democracy) A24 Q2 (Election conducted fairly) B26 Q3 (Close to a party?) B18 Q4 (Parties care what people think) B27 Q5 (Parties are necessary) B28 Q6 (Candidate recall) B1c1-B1c3 Q7 (Party evaluations) B34 Q8 (Leader evaluations) B35 Q9 (Current state of the economy) A26 Q10 (Past state of the economy) A27 Q11 (MPs know what people think) B29 Q12 (Contact with MP?) B30 Q13 (Who is in power makes difference) B31 Q14 (Vote make difference) B32 Q15 (Say or hide opinion) B33 Q16 (Left-Right, Self/ party placement) A14, A15

'A' for JEDS96 denotes pre-election wave and 'B' denotes post-election wave. The numbers that follow A or B are question numbers.

(5) Pre-election only cases from the Japanese survey are not included in the CSES Japanese data.

(6) First, the prefectures are divided into 11 districts, which correspond to the 11 PR districts for the General Election for the House of Representatives. In each district, cities and towns/villages were divided into the strata according to their population size. 2,100 census tracts were selected (via systematic sampling) from these 52 strata in proportion to the census population estimates. Finally, the secondary sampling units (individual respondents) were chosen by the systematic sampling from the voter registration list (in come cases from the residential register) in each designated primary sampling unit.

------>>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - KOREA (2000) ------

(1) This election was characterized by high voter cynicism and a marked decline in turnout. The growing salience of issues was a departure from the authoritarian style of politics that has characterized politics. Salient issues included the pace with which the nation should approach the restructuring of the economy, political reform and democratization.

In an effort to cut costs, the number of contested seats was reduced to 273,from 299 in the previous election. As in previous elections, regionalism continued as one of the strongest factors impacting electoral outcomes. However, the election signaled a weakening hold of current political bosses Kim Dae Jung, Kim Young-Sam, and Kim Jong-pil. Independent candidates won seats in President Kim Dae Jung's south-western region; the DPP, as a new party formed by GNP politicians not nominated by their party, emerged in Kim Young-Sam's south-eastern region; and Kim Jong-pil was unsuccessful helping the ULD to retain seats in Chungchong.

(2) Note, there are some regions excluded from the sample frame: Cheju island and other small islands. This is a usual practice for Korean national surveys, since people in these regions are difficult and costly to contact while occupying a very small percentage of the whole population. To devise the sample frame, Electoral districts were randomly selected. Then, for each electoral district, a quota of respondents was determined reflecting the whole population distribution in terms of age and sex.

------>>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - LITHUANIA (1997) ------

(1) Political parties and their presidential candidates were not the central actors in this presidential election. Instead, the two candidates who proceeded to the second round of the run-off elections were not affiliated with any of the major parties, but ran as independents.

(2) The sample was stratified according to the ethnic regions of Lithuanian. Then, 104 clusters were randomly selected in strata, according to the size of the settlement. Finally, Kish tables were used to identify respondents within the household. 3 attempts to contact the respondents were made before a sample point was declared a non-interview.

------>>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - MEXICO (1997) ------

(1) This election marks the demise of what some observers have called "hegemonic" PRI rule. Prior to this election, the Institutional Revolutionary Party ruled longer than any other party in the world, controlling the presidency, and the congress since they was established in 1929.

(2) Electoral reforms implemented with the 1996 election reduced party thresholds for seat eligibility to 2%. Further, no party can be over represented in terms of seats in the Chamber by more than 8%. As a result, a party must receive at least 42% of the popular vote in order to form a majority government. The PRI anticipated (wrongly) that they would be supported by that at least that proportion.

(3) Changes have been made in the handling of the missing data from the past release. Therefore, some variables in this release might have a different distribution from the ones included in the past release.

(4) The primary sampling units were the municipalities. The municipalities were chosen within each electoral stratum, using a systematic method with probabilities proportional to size. The second-stage sampling units were the AGEBS (Basic Geo-statistical units) for urban cases, or the localities for rural cases. They were chosen randomly with probability proportional to their size. The measuring of the unit s size was the population over 18 years old. The respondent selected within the household was the person over 18 years old, whose birthday was the most proximate to the date of the interview. Substitutes were randomly selected after 3 failed attempts to contact the designated respondent.

------>>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - MEXICO (2000) ------

(1) These elections marked the end of 71 years of rule by the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI). The country s economic situation was good, after recovering from the 1994 economic crisis, people were being employed and the economy was starting to grow.

The main opposition candidate, Vicente Fox, started a campaign to be his party s, National Action Party (PAN), candidate three years before the election. Fox was finally the candidate of a coalition between his right-wing party, PAN, and the Green Party (PVEM). The other opposition candidate, Cuauhemoc Cardenas, was supported by a coalition formed by his party, Democratic Revolution Party (PRD), and a group of smaller less important parties. At the beginning of the electoral process the main opposition parties tried to build an electoral alliance, but it was not possible because neither Fox nor Cardenas were willing to step down of the competition. The candidate from the governing party, Francisco Labastida, had served as governor of Sinaloa and as Minister of Energy, Agriculture and Government.

The strategy followed by Fox was to present himself as the symbol of the change. He moved on the political spectrum more to the center, in order to attract center-left voters and young people. This election was the first in which the members of the PRI elected their candidate, because President Zedillo refused to continue the practice of choosing his successor. For the first time, there were televised debates among the candidates. Although the polls showed that the competition among Labastida and Fox was going to be tight, Fox got 6.4% votes over Labastida.

------>>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - NETHERLANDS (1998) ------

(1) In the prior election, the traditional governing party, the Christian Democrats suffered a tremendous loss of 20 seats. With only 34 seats (out of 150), the CDA were excluded from the 1994 Cabinet. In the 1998 election, the CDA lost 5 more seats, bolstering the electoral strength of the so-called 'Purple Coalition' government, formed by the Labor Party (whose color is red), and the Liberals (whose color is blue).

(2) With regards to party dynamics and campaigns, it is worth noting that TV ads made their first appearance in this Dutch election. Only recently, has commercial television been introduced in the Netherlands; in past elections, parties were given equal amounts of time on public networks. The Socialist Party was the first party to announce its intention to 'buy time' on a commercial station. The Democrats 66 attempted to convince the other parties not to purchase time, but when they refused, D66 became the first party to produce an ad. (Irwin (1999), "The Dutch Parliamentary Election of 1998," Electoral Studies 18:1, 271-300).

(3) New electoral reforms allowed candidates to be elected if (s)he received one-quarter of the electoral quotient (prior to this the threshold had been one-half), regardless of their position on party lists. As a result, two members were elected despite lower positions on the party lists than their parties' quotients allowed. Prior to this reform, only three members had been elected in this way. (Irwin (1999), "The Dutch Parliamentary Election of 1998," Electoral Studies 18:1, 271-300).

(4) The Dutch Parliamentary Election Study consisted of both a pre-election wave and a post-election wave, together with supplementary data collections (e.g. for non-response cases). CSES variables are split between pre-election and post-election data. 287 cases from the Dutch pre-election study were not re-interviewed in the post-election study.

(5) A sample frame of municipalities was stratified according to region and population density. Within selected municipalities, respondents were identified by SRS from electoral rolls. Random replacement of municipalities occurred when the municipalities were unwilling to cooperate. There was no maximum number of contact attempts.

------>>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (1996) ------

(1) The 1996 election began a new electoral regime for New Zealanders. Prior to the 1996 election, legislators were elected in single member districts, and the legislature was structured according to the Westminster model. However, following a referendum on electoral reform held in 1992, the legislature was restructured according to a plurality-PR model. In voting for the lower house, New Zealanders now select both a candidate and a party list (similarly to German electoral procedures).

(2) There are several sample components: First, a post-election new sample was drawn from the electoral rolls. Those registered on the Maori rolls were over-sampled. Second, a pre-post election sample includes the VAP, and was drawn via RDD in the pre-election wave. A mail-back survey, containing the CSES module, was sent to members of each of these samples.

------>>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - NORWAY (1997) ------

(1) "The election was characterized by great volatility and unclear alternatives. It resulted in an unexpected change of government. Although Labor remained the largest party, the incumbent Labor government resigned after the election and was replaced by a mini-coalition of three parties at the center, the Christian People's Party, the Center (Agrarian) party and the Liberals." (Valen (1997), "Norway: The Storting Election of September 15, 1997," Electoral Studies 555-60).

(2) Municipalities were stratified into 109 strata, and one was selected from each stratum. Individuals were randomly selected (systematically) from the population registers for each municipality. Four contacts were made before the sample point was declared a non-interview. No replacement methods were used.

------>>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - PERU (2000) ------

(1) The 2000 legislative election is notable for the instability of the party system: With the exception of "Change '90," and "Nueva Mayoria" that were both part of the successful "Peru 2000" alliance, no party that contested the 1995 election received more than 7.5% of the vote.

(2) It is also important to note the highly personalized nature of this election: Fujimori was re-elected for a third term, in violation of the constitution. Peru 2000 rallied in his support, and the campaigns of all parties centered largely on this issue.

(3) Finally, it should be noted that there were "serious limits" imposed on the media throughout the campaign period.

(4) In the first stage of sample selection, PSUs were randomly selected. Respondents were identified according to demographic quotas. 2 attempts were made to contact each respondent. No replacement methods were used.

------>>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - PERU (2001) ------

(1) Following the controversial 2000 election, electoral instituions were re-designed in the hopes of promoting accountability. Please refer to the macro component of the project for more details.

------>>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - POLAND (1997) ------

(1) The 1997 Polish election marks the first alternation in government since the collapse of the Soviet regime. The Solidarity Election Action (AWS) replaced the Democratic Left Alliance (SLD) in both houses, with a slightly larger proportion of the popular vote and a plurality of seats in both legislative chambers. In coalition with the Freedom Union (itself an alliance of the former Democratic Union, and the Liberal Democratic Congress), AWS formed the government.

(2) It seems that the AWS victory comes largely at the defeat of the Polish Peasant Party (PSL), a former coalition partner of the SLD: In the 1997 election, the PSL was reduced to 27 seats (from 132). Some observers credit the PSL's resistance to economic reforms as the source of the electorate's disenchantment with this party (Chan, K. (1997), "The Polish General Election of 1997," Electoral Studies 17:4, 561-567).

(3) Statistical districts (defined by the Main Statistical Office) were selected with probabilities proportionate to size. Households were then randomly selected from within these districts. 3 contact attempts were made.

------>>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - PORTUGAL (2002) ------

(1) Following relatively poor results for the Socialist Party (PS) in the local elections held on December 2001, Prime Minister Guterres tendered his resignation. The legislative elections of 17 March 2002 spelled the end of Socialist Party rule, which lost 19 MPs and the victory, albeit without an absolute majority, of the centre-right party, the PSD, which elected 81 MPs, out of a possible 230. The elections also led to the formation of a coalition government, after 15 years of single-party government, between the PSD and the right-wing CDS/PP. Nevertheless, the alternation in power, as well as the change in government type, did not represent a fundamental shift in voting behaviour, as seen by national and district party results.

(2) This sample was stratified by NUTS II (5 regions in the mainland: North, Centre, Lisbon and Tagus Valley, Alentejo and Algarve) and HABITAT (eleven categories of localities by number of inhabitants: less than 100 ; 101 to 200 ; 201 to 500 ; 501 to 1000 ; 1001 to 2000; 2001 to 5000 ; 5001 to 10.000; 10.001 to 20.000 ; 20.001 to 100.000 ; 100.001 to 500.000; more than 500.001). For each cell within the NUTS II and HABITAT frame, and according to the proportion of residents in each cell, the number of interviews was defined. Then, the number of localities inside each cell of the same frame was randomly selected, trying to ensure that no more than 10 interviews were done in the same locality. So, for example, if according to the number of residents in a cell of the frame, 100 interviews had to be carried out, 10 localities in that cell were selected. In each locality, the method of random route was used, in order to ensure a good distribution of the selected households, for all the extension of the locality. In the household, respondents were selected using the following criteria: next person living in the household to have his/her birthday.

------>>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - ROMANIA (1996) ------

(1) The 1996 Romanian legislative election is notable for the emergence of the Democratic Social Party of Romania (PDSR), and the National Peasant's Christian and Democratic Party (PNTC). Both of these parties made considerable gains in this election; the PDSR formed the government in coalition with other leftist parties, including the former governing Romanian Social Democratic Party.

(2) Localities were randomly selected from strata defined by region and size. Then, electoral lists were randomly selected from within each locality, and respondents were selected from each list. After three unsuccessful attempts to contact a particular respondent, a randomly selected substitute was interviewed instead.

------>>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - RUSSIA (1999) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - RUSSIA (2000) ------

(1) The Russian party system has yet to be institutionalized in the sense that voters, candidates, and parties have learned to behave strategically vis-`-vis the electoral rules. In this election however, the 6 parties that passed the PR threshold had received 81% of the vote between them, and the distribution of seats among the party closely reflects the percentage of the vote each had gained. However, given the sheer number of parties and candidates, especially independent candidates, who competed in the single-member districts, there were many victories with only a low plurality.

The new "Unity" party, an alliance established in September 1999 to represent the Government in the elections, won 72 seats or 23 percent, 67 of which were gained through party-list proportional representation. The Communist Party, however, lost 44 seats while retaining 113.

(2) Very early in the race, Putin, with an agenda that called for a strong state and properly functioning market economy, emerged as the clear frontrunner.

(3) This component of the CSES project is taken from part of a three-wave panel study: The pre-election wave was fielded throughout November and December, 1999 (n=1919). A post-legislative election study was conducted following the parliamentary elections held in December, 1999 (n=1842). Finally, the respondents were interviewed a third time, following the presidential election in March, 2000. The CSES battery was carried (almost in entirety) in both the post-legislative and post-presidential election studies. The post-legislative data are included in the CSES datafiles. Although panel attrition was relatively slight, analysts should refer to the "Sample Design and Data Collection Report," available through the CSES Country Archive for details.

Note, also, that the demographic items are taken from the pre-legislative wave of the study.

------>>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - SLOVENIA (1996) ------

(1) In the 1996 Slovenian election, the governing Slovene Christian Democratic Party (SKD) and United List of Social Democrats (ZLSD) were replaced by the Slovene People's Party (SLS), and the Social Democrats (SDS). In spite of this instability in the party system, there seems to be some consensus among the parties regarding the direction of Slovenia's nation-building efforts. As one observer remarks, "this was a routine election at which no existential issues were at stake" (Fitzmaurice, J. (1997) "The Slovenian Parliamentary Elections of 10 November 1996," Electoral Studies 16:3, 403-407).

(2) The Central Register of Population (a list of names and addresses constantly updated by public administration) is employed as a sampling frame. The sample is a three-stage systematic sample with random start. The target sample size was N=2100 (140 primary and 420 secondary sampling units). Systematic sample with start from primary sampling units of k=1200. Third stage sample is systematic sample of k=10 with start from second stage units. Individual persons with name and address are selected on a final stage.

------>>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - SPAIN (1996) >>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - SPAIN (2000) ------

(1) The 1996 election marks a significant turning point in Spanish electoral history: Since the 1982 election, the Socialist Party (PSOE) had governed with an absolute majority of seats in the legislature. However, in 1996, the People's Party (PP) gained a plurality of seats in the Chamber of Deputies. In coalition with regional parties, the PP maintained parliamentary support, and broadened its electoral support in the subsequent 2000 election.

(2) In the 2000 election, the People's Party (PP) gained an absolute majority in Congress, allowing it to govern without the additional votes of the Catalan or Basque nationalists.

(3) PSUs were randomly selected, and then a random route method was used. If a selected respondent within the household was unavailable, another housing unit along the same route was selected.

------>>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - SWEDEN (1998) ------

(1) The 1998 Swedish election is the first since a shift to a four-year parliamentary term (previously, Swedish parliaments sat for two years). Note that turnout was the lowest in this election of all Swedish elections held since 1958 (Ater, D. (1999), "The Swedish General Election of the 20th September 1998: victory for values over policies," Electoral Studies 18:2, 296-300).

(2) "The sample has been drawn disproportionally. For in depth comparative purposes, 3 cantons (ZH, GE, TI) are over represented. Cantonal proportionality in the national data requires this backlog to be deleted. Thus, the data set includes 2048, instead of 3257 cases."

------>>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - SWITZERLAND (1999) ------

(1) In the 1999 Swiss election, the Swiss People's Party gained 15 seats (largely at the expense of smaller, more radical parties). Observers credit this gain to their concentration on the issue of political asylum in Switzerland, an issue stemming from the recent influx of refugees from Kosovo.

(2) Households were selected from the Swisscom directory (private lines: number and addresses), in two stages, with disproportional random sampling. Then, after screening according to the age of contacted person, the structure of household (number of persons, number of persons with right to vote, name, age, sex and nationality of each person), respondents were randomly selected. Between 30 and 50 contact attempts were made. No replacement methods were used.

------>>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - TAIWAN (1996) ------

(1) In the 1996 election, Taiwanese voters elected, for the first time, their President and Vice-President for a four year term. Prior to this election, the President and Vice-President were elected by members of the legislature. The incumbent, Lee Tung-hui was re-elected with a considerable lead over his opponents.

(2) The sampling frame consists of eligible voters residing on the mainland. Strata were defined by region, with concern for the representation of major municipalities. From these strata, PSUs were sampled with probabilities proportionate to size. Electoral districts were randomly identified, and then respondents were selected from within these districts according to the electoral rolls. 9 such samples were drawn. If the original respondent could not be interviewed, a replacement from an alternative sample, of similar demographic characteristics from within the district was interviewed as a substitute.

------>>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - THAILAND (2001) ------

(1) On 6 January, 2001 Thai voters cast their ballots in the first election for members to the House of Representatives to be held under the 16th Constitution, passed in October 1997. The new constitution increased the number of seats from 392 to 500, with 100 MPs elected from a nation-wide party list and 400 from single member constituencies.

(2) Although the design corresponds to a pre-election/post-election panel study, many of the CSES items are drawn from the pre-election phase. Where there is reason to believe that this may affect analysis of these data, those items that are obtained from the pre-election study are noted in the relevant variables' documentation.

(3) The sample was drawn in the following manner: First, the population was stratified by region. Each region was to produce 250 respondents. Then, a systematic sample of polling units was drawn from within each region. Finally, a systematic sample of eligible voters was drawn from the polling units selected in each region.

------>>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - UKRAINE (1998) ------

(1) The 1994 Ukrainian election demonstrated the inability of the electoral system established following the collapse of the Soviet regime to produce stable, competitive electoral politics. Because of the enormous obstacles facing candidates (to gain a seat, they required an absolute majority of the popular vote cast by an absolute majority of the electorate), nearly half of the seats were left unfilled, and only half of the legislators elected in 1994 were members of political parties. As a result, the government dramatically reformed the electoral system, and new electoral law was adopted in 1997. Under these new regulations, half of the seats were elected by single member districts, and the other half through proportional representation. The 1998 election was the first held under these electoral rules. In spite of these reforms however, half of the members elected in the single-member districts were independent (without party affiliation).

(2) The first stage of sampling design is grouping of the oblasts, which are the main units of territorial and administrative division of Ukraine, into regions. The grouping is made on the basis of more than 150 characteristics and indicators of economic, social and cultural development by methods of factor analysis and cluster analysis applied in sequence. The second stage of the sampling design is a selection of urban and rural settlements. The task of the second stage is to select 32-35 urban settlements to represent on the one hand, the structure of the urban settlements of Ukraine and, on the other hand, to represent each of the 10 regions singled out at the first stage of sampling design. For this, within each region the cities and towns belonging to the same group are put in alphabetical order and selected at random. At the third stage, urban sampling points are divided into so-called "rayons" (territorial divisions). Streets for the interviewers routes are selected at the fourth stage. The number of the streets selected within each district should correspond to the number of routes. If no districts were selected within the urban settlement, the streets selected should be distant from each other. This should also give the possibility to study opinions of people living in multi-storied buildings, detached private houses, etc. Each route should cover not more than 10 interviews. The number of houses should not be less than 10 for each route. Rural settlements are selected randomly from the list of the rural settlements of the same oblasts to which the cities selected to represent the urban population belong. The last (fifth) stage of the sampling procedure is selection of the respondents by quota task. It is not clear whether multiple attempts were made to contact respondents, or what replacement methods were used.

------>>> ELECTION SUMMARIES AND GENERAL NOTES - UNITED STATES (1996) ------

(1) "The American elections of 1996 proved to be a curious anticlimax" (Shafer, B. (1996), "The American Elections of 1996," Electoral Studies 16:3, 394-403). It seems that the 1996 election mirrored the 1992 election in most respects: The Democrat presidential candidate, Bill Clinton, won with a comfortable majority of electoral college votes (though without a majority of the popular vote); the Republican candidate, Bob Dole, failed to close the popularity gap between himself and the presidency (though the Republicans did gain some of Ross Perot's, an independent candidate, support). There is one notable difference from the 1992 election: In 1992, an overwhelming majority of elected congressmen were Democrats, while in the 1996 election the Republicans maintained the majority presence in Congress that they had gained in the 1994 midterm elections.

(2) The 1996 National Election Study entailed both a pre-election interview and a post-election re-interview. About three-fourths of the 1996 cases consist of empaneled respondents who were first interviewed in the 1994 or 1992 National Election Study. A freshly drawn cross-section sample makes up the balance of the 1996 cases. (Details of the sample design are given in "Sample Design of the 1996 Pre/Post Election Studies", in Appendix B.) Altogether, 1714 citizens were interviewed in the 9 weeks prior to the November 5, 1996 election. To permit analysis of the impact of the unfolding election campaign, the pre-election sample was divided into four subsample replicates, which were released approximately two weeks apart. 1316 of the pre-election interviews were conducted with panel respondents; 398 with cross-section respondents. In the weeks following the election, 1534 pre-election respondents were reinterviewed: 1197 panel, 337 cross-section.

(3) The selection of primary stage sampling units (PSUs), which depending on the sample stratum are either MSAs, single counties or groupings of small counties, is based on the county-level 1980 Census Reports of Population and Housing. A three-step process of ordering the SSUs within the primary areas produced an implicit stratification of the area segments in the second-stage sampling frame, stratified at the county level by geographic location and population. For each area segment selected in the second sampling stage, a listing was made of all housing units located within the physical boundaries of the segment. The final equal probability sample of housing units for the 1994 NES was systematically selected from the housing unit listings for the sampled area segments. Note, half of the respondents were randomly assigned to telephone interviews in a mode experiment. Extensive attempts were made to contact respondents before a sample point was declared non-interview.

======))) BIBLIOGRAPHY ======

Citations for Macro Reports

Aardal, B. (1998) One for the Record: the 1997 Storting Election. Scandanavian Political Studies, 21(4).

Act No. 247, On Elections to the Parliament of The Czech Republic, and on Amendments to Certain Other Acts, September 27, 1995.

Arian, Asher. (1996) The Israeli election for Prime Minister and the Knesset, 1996. Electoral Studies, 15 (4), 570-575.

Arter, David. (1999) The Swedish general election of 20th September 1998: a vistory for values over policies? Electoral Studies, 18 (2), 271-300.

Banks, Arthur S., Muller, Thomas C., et al., eds. (1999). Political Handbook of the World: 1999. Binghamton, NY: CSA Publications.

The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. Adopted 4 April 1990 at the Third Session of the Seventh National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China.

The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. Adopted on 4 April 2000 by the Seventh National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China at its Third Session.

Basic Law: The Knesset. Retrieved December 7, 1998, from http://www. israel-mfa-gov.il/gov/

Belin, Laura. (2000, January 7). Early Presidential Campaign Secures Duma Majority for Putin. Russian Election Report, 8. Retrieved from http://www/rferl.org/elections/russia99report/

Belin, Laura. (2000, April 7). News and Analysis of the 2000 Russian Presidential Election. Russian Election Report, 5 (13). Retrieved December 17, 2001 from http://www/rferl.org/elections/russia00report/

Birch, Susan amd Andrew Wilson.(1999) The Ukrainian parliamentary elections of 1998. Electoral Studies 18 (2), 271-300.

Blais, Andre and Louis Massicotte. (1996). Electoral Systems. In Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in Global Perspective. LeDuc, Niemi, and Norris (eds.), 49-81.

Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse. (5/10/2001). Democracy Under Siege in Belarus [Electronic version]. Congressional Record, 64.

Chan, Kenneth Ka-Lok. (1998) The Polish General Election of 1997. Electoral Studies, 17(4),561-564.

Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Czech Republic). Retrieved July 28, 1997, from http://www.ppsp.cz/docs/laws/charter.html/

The Chilean Electoral System Before 1973. Retrieved June 22, 2001, from http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/docs/chile.htm

Codigo federal de instituciones y procedimientos electorales. Retireived from http://www.ife.org.mx/wwwife/incofipe.htm/

Colomer, Josep M. (2001). The 2000 general election in Spain. Electoral Studies, 20 (3), 463-501.

Composition of the New National Assembly (Slovenia). Retrieved June 11, 2002, from http://www.sigov.si/elections/info/eurpa19.htm/

Constitution, Canadian House of Commons.

Constitution: Republic of China. (1997).Taiwan:Government Information Office, Republic of China.

Constitution of the Czech Republic of the 16th of December, 1992 [Electronic Version]. Retrieved July 28, 1997, from http://www.psp.cz/ docs/laws/constitution.html/ Constitution of South Korea.

Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, As approved by the citizens of the Republic of Lithuania in the Referendum on 25 October 1992. Retrieved October 16,1998, from http://rc.lrs.lt/cgi-bin/preps2? Condition1=21892&Condition2=/

The Constitutional Act of 17th October 1992 (1993) (Poland). Warsaw: The Sejm Publishing Office.

Cox, Gary W. (1997). Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Croissant, Aurel and Jorn Dosch. (forthcoming, 2002). Parliamentary elections in Thailand, March 2000 and Januray 2001. Election Studies [Electronic version]. Retrieved July 26, 2002, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/

Czech Republic Assembly Elections of June 19-20 1998. Retrieved June 22, 2002, from http://www.iosphere.net.au/~lance/czechrep

Democracy in Taiwan. Taiwan Communique, 71. June 1996. [Electronic version] Retrieved May 13, 2002 from http://www.taiwandc.org/

Direccion Ejecutiva de Organizacion Electoral. Retrieved May 9, 2002, from http://www.ife.org.mx/

Elections Canada On-Line: Thirty-sixth General Election Voting Results. (2000, November 22) Retrieved July 10, 2001, from http://www. elections.ca

Elections in Israel May 1996. Retrieved July 16, 2002 from http://www. israel.org/mfa/

Elections in the Czech Republic. From Rose, Munro, Mackie (1998). Elections in Central and Eastern Europe Since 1990. Retrieved May 8, 2002 from http://www.cspp.strath.ac.uk//crelec.html.

Elections of the President of the Republic of Lithuania. Retrieved October 22, 1998, from http://www.lrs.rinkimai/

Elections 1996 (Slovenia). Retrieved June 5, 2001, from http://www/sigov. si/elections/uvi-a.html/

Farrell, David M. (2001). Electoral Systems: A Comparative Introduction. New York: Palgrave.

Federal Law On the Election of Deputies of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation. Retrieved December 17, 2001, from http://www.ifes.org/

Federal Law on the Election of the President of the Russian Federation. Retrieved December 17, 2001, from http://www.ifes.org/ Fitzmaurice, John. (1997). The Slovenian Parliamentary Elections of 10 November 1996. Electoral Studies, 16 (3), 403-407.

Fitzmaurice, John. (1996). The 1996 Czech Elections. Electoral Studies, 15 (4), 575-580.

Floating Party Alignments in the Duma. Retrieved January 14, 2002, from http://www.russiavotes.org/Duma_align.htm/

Fourteenth Knesset Election Results. Retrieved July 31, 2001 from http:// www.knesset.gov.il/knesset/

Fowler, B. (1998). Hungarian Parliamentary Elections, May 1998. Electoral Studies, 17 (2), 257-262.

Hardarson, Olafur Th. and Gunnar Helgi Kristinsson. The 1999 Parliamentary Elections in Iceland. Electoral Studies 20(2), 325-331. Hazan, Reuven Y.(1997). The Intra-Party Elections in Israel: Adopting Party Primaries. Electoral Studies, 16 (1), 95-103.

Hazan, Reuven Y. and Abraham Diskin. (2000). The 1999 Knesset and prime ministerial elections in Israel. Electoral Studies, 19 (4), 615-646.

Ho, Karl. (1999). The Hong Kong legislative election of 1998. Electoral Studies, 18 (3), 438-445.

Horn, Robert. Bullets and Ballots. (8 Jan. 2001) Retrieved October 8, 2001 from http://www.time.com/

Horn, Robert. Where's Our Million? (15 Jan. 2001) Retrieved Octbor 8, 2001 from http://www.time.com/

Hsieh, John Fuh-Sheng and Emerson M. S. Niou. (1996) Taiwan's March 1996 Elections. Electoral Studies, 16(4),545-550.

The Hungarian Election Results [Electronic version]. Retrieved July 9,2001,from gopher://olymp.wu-wien.ac.at:7121/00/pub/cerro/ central_europe_data/hungary/Hungarian.election

Irwin, Galen A. (1999) The Dutch parliamentary election of 1998. Electoral Studies, 18(2):271-300.

Jasiewicz, Krzysztof. Poland: Between Fragmentation and Polarization. Retrieved July 23, 1999, from...

Kang, Kyung-Tae and Scott Walker. (2002) The 2000 national assembly elections in South Korea. Electoral Studies, 21, 473-533.

Karp, Jeffry A. and Susan A. Banducci. (1999). The Impact of Proportional Representation on Turnout: Evidence from New Zealand. Australian Journal of Political Science, 34 (3), 363-377.

Karp, Jeffrey A., Jack Vowles, Susan A. Banducci, and Todd Donovan. (2002) Strategic Voting, party activity, and candidate effects: testing explanations for split voting in New Zealand's new mixed system. Electoral Studies, 21 (1), 1-22.

Klesner, Joseph L. (1997) The Mexican Midterm Congressional and Gubernatorial Elections of 1997:End of the Hegemonic Party System. Electoral Studies, 16 (4), 567-575.

Klesner, Joseph L. (2002) Presidential and congressional elections in Mexico, July 2000. Electoral Studies, 21 (1), 101-154.

Law on Presidential Elections, Republic of Lithuania. Retrieved September 28, 1998, from http://rc.lrs.lt/cgi-bin/preps2?Condition1=48324& Condition2=

LeDuc, Lawrence, Richard G. Niemi, and Pippa Norris, eds. (1996). Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in Global Perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Lijphart, Arend. (1994). Electoral Systems and Party systems: A study of Twenty-Seven Democracies, 1945-1990. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lijphart, Arend. (1999). Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

McKean, Margaret and Ethan Scheiner.(2000). Japan's new electoral system: la plus ca change... Electoral Studies, 19, 447-477.

Morriss, Peter. (1996). Electoral Politics in South Korea. Electoral Studies, 15(4), 550-562.

Murray, David. (1998) Thailand's Recent Electoral Reforms. Electoral Studies, 18 (4), 525-536.

The Norwegian Electoral System: Main Features. (1993). The Royal Ministry of Local Government and Labor.

Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. (2001). Republic of Belarus Presidential Election.

Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. (2000) OSCE/ODIHR Assessment of the Electoral Code of the Republic of Belarus and of the Position of the Government of Belarus on the Electoral Code as Stated by the Central Election Commission of Belarus.

Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. (2000). Russian Federation: Elections to the State Duma 19 December 1999.

Parliamentary Elections and Election Administration in Denmark. (n.d.) Retrieved June 22, 2001 from http://www.folketinget.dk/

Polish Electoral Law: A Brief Outline. (1997). Warsaw: Krajowe Biuro Wyborcze.

Public Officials Election and Recall Law, Republic of China, Published by the Central Election Commission 1995

Przystawa, Jerzy. (2001). The Electoral System of Belarus. Retrieved January 14, 2002 from British Helsinki Human Rights Group on the World Wide Web: http://www.bhhrg.org/belarus

Reed, Steven R. (1997) The 1996 Japanese General Election. Electoral Studies,16: 121-125.

Republic of Lithuania, Law on Presidential Elections, As Amended by 25 November 1997, No. VIII-543.

Reynolds, Andrew, Ben Reilly, et al. (1997). The International IDEA Handbook of Electoral System Design. Stockholm: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.

Rose, Munro, Mackie. (1998) "Elections in the Czech Republic" in Elections in Central and Eastern Europe Since 1990 [Electronic version]. Retrieved May 8, 2002, from http://www,cspp.strath.ac. uk//crelec.html

Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly (Slovenia). Retrieved June 5, 2001, from http://www.sigov.si/en

Russian Election Watch 5. (12/3/1999). SDI Project, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, JFK School of Government, Harvard University.

Shafer, Byron E. (1997) The American Elections of 1996. Electoral Studies, 16(3),394-403.

Single Member Districts (Russia). Retrieved December 17, 2001, from http://www.russiavotes.org/Duma_smd.htm/

Smith, Christopher H. (10/26/2000). Statement of Christopher H. Smith [Electronic Version]. Congressional Record, 136.

Statement of the NDI/Carter Center Post-Election Delegation to Peru. Lima, July 14, 2000. [Electronic version] Retrieved February 1, 2002, from http://www.accessdemocracy.org/

Swyngedouw, Marc. (2002). The general election in Belgium, June 1999. Electoral Studies, 21(1), 105-154.

Valen, Henry. (1998) Norway: The Stoting Election of September 15, 1997. Electoral Studies, 17(4),555-560.

Voter Turnout from 1945 to date: a Global Report on Political Participation. Retrieved from http://www.irde.int/voter_turnout/index.html.

White, Stephen. (2001). The Russian presidential election, March 2000. Electoral Studies 20 (3), 463-501.

1998 Ukrainian Parliamentary Election Party Vote. Retrieved July 12, 2001 from http:/www.skrobach.com/ukrel981.htm/

1999 State Duma Elections. Retrieved December 17, 2001, from the NUPI Centre for Russian Studies on the World Wide Web: http://www.nupi.no/ russland/elections/

*The following site on the World Wide Web are a valauable source of electoral information on systems around the world http://www.electionworld.org/ http://www.ipu/org http://www.polisci.com/ http://world.altavista.com http://psephos.adam-carr.net/ http://www2.essex.ac.uk/elect/database/ Czech election returns for the Senate retrieved June 19, 2002 Romanian 1996 Parliamentary election returns retrieved June 7,2002 Russian presidential election returns retrieved July 12, 2002 Russian 1999 parliamentary returns retrieved June 7, 2002 Polish Senatorial Returns, 1997 retrieved June 6,2002 Polish 1991 Parliamentary Elections, retrieved September 6, 2001

Election results by country were retrieved from the following websites:

Australian Electoral Commission: 1996 Election Results. Retrieved July 16, 2001, from http://www.aec.gov.au/results/ 1996/results/

Belgian Electoral Commission: Senaat 13/06/99. Retrieved June 23, 2002, from http://elections.fgov.be/Resultats/electionshtml/

Elections Canada.Retrieved June 22, 2001, from www.elections.ca.

Chilean election returns retrieved August 1, 2001 from the Chilean Ministerio del Interior Website, http://www.elecciones.gov.cl; Retrieved June 22, 2001 from http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/docs/chgen97a.htm

Official Result of the 1998 Bundestag elections. Retrieved October 29, 2001 from http://www.destaus.de/presse/

Hungarian Electoral Commission: Individual Constituencies and Territorial Constituencies. Retrieved October 10, 2001, from http://www.election. hu/

Lithuanian election results retrieved Octber 22, 1998 from http:// www.lrs.lt/rinkimai/pr97

Mexican election returns retrieved December 11,2001 and May 9, 2002, from http://www.ife.org.mx/ Norwegian election returns retrieved June 22, 2001, from http://www. stortinget.no/

Peruvian election returns retrieved June 3, 2002 from http://www.onpe.gob. pe/histo_elect/resant/elecgen/20001_nac.html/

Peruvian election returns retrieved June 3, 2002 from http://www.onpe.gob. pe/cd_onpe/onpe.htm

Republic of Poland Sejm Election of 11 September 1997. Retrieved May 10, 2002, from http://psephos.adam-carr.net/sejm1.txt/

Results of elections in Portugal retrieved July 12, 2002, from http://www.eleicoes.mj.pt/

Romanian election returns retrieved May 10, 2002 from the website of the Romanian Electoral Commission, http://www.kappa.ro

Spanish election information and returns retrieved January 7, 2000 and January 7, 2002 from http://www.elecciones.mir.es/paginas/Congreso/; Retrieved June 12, 2002 from http://www.senado/es/elecciones/actual /index.html; Retrieved July 17, 2002 from http://www.senado.es/ elecciones/actual/

Results of Slovenian elections retrieved July 10, 2001, from http://www. sigov.si/elections/info/eurve26.htm/

Swedish electoral results retrieved June 22, 2001 from http://val.rsv.se/ val/val98/mandf98.htm

Swiss electoral statistics retrieved July 10, 2001, from http://www. statistik.admin/ch/

Thai election returns retrieved October 8, 2001 and June 16, 2002 from website of the Thai Electoral Commission, http://www.ect.go.th/english /national/ and July 11, 2001 from http://scoop.bangkokpost.co.th/ bangkokpostnews/election2001/results.html

Ukrainian election returns retrieved July 12, 2001 from http://www. skrobach.com/

======

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ELECTORAL SYSTEMS - MODULE 1 (1996-2001) MICRO-DISTRICT-MACRO DATA CODEBOOK: VARIABLE DESCRIPTIONS Full Release - August 4, 2003

CSES Secretariat Center for Political Studies Institute for Social Research The University of Michigan

======

These materials are based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant number SBR-9317631 and the Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.

Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in these materials are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the funding agencies.

======

======TABLE OF CONTENTS ======

))) CSES MODULE 1 VARIABLE LIST

))) CSES MODULE 1 MICRO-LEVEL DATA: IDENTIFICATION, WEIGHTING, AND STUDY ADMINISTRATION VARIABLES ))) CSES MODULE 1 MICRO-LEVEL DATA: DEMOGRAPHIC, VOTE CHOICE, AND ELECTION VARIABLES ))) CSES MODULE 1 MICRO-LEVEL DATA: SURVEY VARIABLES

))) CSES MODULE 1 DISTRICT-LEVEL VARIABLES

))) CSES MODULE 1 MACRO-LEVEL VARIABLES

======))) CSES MODULE 1 VARIABLE LIST ======

))) CSES MODULE 1 MICRO-LEVEL DATA: IDENTIFICATION, WEIGHTING, AND STUDY ADMINISTRATION VARIABLES

A1001 >>> DATASET A1002 >>> DATASET VERSION A1003 >>> ID VARIABLE - ELECTION STUDY (NUMERIC POLITY) A1004 >>> ID VARIABLE - ELECTION STUDY (ALPHABETIC POLITY) A1005 >>> ID VARIABLE - RESPONDENT A1006 >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY A1007 >>> SAMPLE COMPONENT A1008 >>> ID COMPONENT - ELECTION YEAR A1009 >>> ID COMPONENT - RESPONDENT WITHIN ELECTION STUDY A1010_1 >>> ORIGINAL WEIGHT: SAMPLE A1010_2 >>> ORIGINAL WEIGHT: DEMOGRAPHIC A1010_3 >>> ORIGINAL WEIGHT: POLITICAL A1011_1 >>> FACTOR: MEAN OF SAMPLE WEIGHT A1011_2 >>> FACTOR: MEAN OF DEMOGRAPHIC WEIGHT A1011_3 >>> FACTOR: MEAN OF POLITICAL WEIGHT A1012_1 >>> POLITY WEIGHT: SAMPLE A1012_2 >>> POLITY WEIGHT: DEMOGRAPHIC A1012_3 >>> POLITY WEIGHT: POLITICAL A1013 >>> FACTOR: SAMPLE SIZE ADJUSTMENT A1014_1 >>> DATASET WEIGHT: SAMPLE A1014_2 >>> DATASET WEIGHT: DEMOGRAPHIC A1014_3 >>> DATASET WEIGHT: POLITICAL A1015 >>> ELECTION TYPE A1016 >>> DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - MONTH A1017 >>> DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - DAY A1018 >>> DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YEAR A1019 >>> DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - MONTH A1020 >>> DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - DAY A1021 >>> DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YEAR A1022 >>> STUDY TIMING A1023 >>> MODE OF INTERVIEW A1024 >>> INTERVIEWER WITHIN ELECTION STUDY A1025 >>> INTERVIEWER GENDER A1026 >>> DATE QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTERED - MONTH A1027 >>> DATE QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTERED - DAY A1028 >>> DATE QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTERED - YEAR

))) CSES MODULE 1 MICRO-LEVEL DATA: DEMOGRAPHIC, VOTE CHOICE, AND ELECTION VARIABLES

A2001 >>> AGE A2002 >>> GENDER A2003 >>> EDUCATION A2004 >>> MARITAL STATUS A2005 >>> UNION MEMBERSHIP A2006 >>> UNION MEMBERSHIP OF OTHERS IN HOUSEHOLD A2007 >>> CURRENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS A2008 >>> MAIN OCCUPATION A2009 >>> EMPLOYMENT TYPE - PUBLIC OR PRIVATE A2010 >>> INDUSTRIAL SECTOR A2011 >>> OCCUPATION OF CHIEF WAGE EARNER OR SPOUSE A2012 >>> HOUSEHOLD INCOME A2013 >>> NUMBER IN HOUSEHOLD A2014 >>> NUMBER IN HOUSEHOLD UNDER AGE 18 A2015 >>> RELIGIOUS SERVICES ATTENDANCE A2016 >>> RELIGIOSITY A2017 >>> RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION A2018 >>> LANGUAGE USUALLY SPOKEN AT HOME A2019 >>> REGION OF RESIDENCE A2020 >>> RACE A2021 >>> ETHNICITY A2022 >>> RURAL OR URBAN RESIDENCE A2023 >>> POLITICAL INFORMATION ITEM - 1ST A2024 >>> POLITICAL INFORMATION ITEM - 2ND A2025 >>> POLITICAL INFORMATION ITEM - 3RD A2026 >>> DAYS INTERVIEW CONDUCTED POST ELECTION A2027 >>> PRIMARY ELECTORAL DISTRICT A2028 >>> DID RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT A2029 >>> PARTY VOTED FOR PRESIDENT A2030 >>> PARTY LIST VOTED FOR - DISTRICT A2031 >>> PARTY OF CANDIDATE VOTED FOR - DISTRICT A2032 >>> DID R CAST CANDIDATE PREFERENCE VOTE

))) CSES MODULE 1 MICRO-LEVEL DATA: SURVEY VARIABLES

A3001 >>> SATISFACTION WITH DEMOCRATIC PROCESS A3002 >>> LAST ELECTION WAS CONDUCTED FAIRLY A3003 >>> QUESTIONNAIRE USED - LONG OR SHORT A3004 >>> ARE YOU CLOSE TO ANY POLITICAL PARTY A3005_1 >>> PARTY CLOSEST TO - 1ST MENTION A3005_2 >>> PARTY CLOSEST TO - 2ND MENTION A3005_3 >>> PARTY CLOSEST TO - 3RD MENTION A3006 >>> NUMBER OF PARTIES MENTIONED IN A3005 A3007_1 >>> BLOCK PARTY CLOSEST TO - 1ST MENTION A3007_2 >>> BLOCK PARTY CLOSEST TO - 2ND MENTION A3007_3 >>> BLOCK PARTY CLOSEST TO - 3RD MENTION A3008 >>> NUMBER OF PARTIES MENTIONED IN A3007 A3009 >>> WHICH PARTY DO YOU FEEL CLOSEST TO A3010 >>> DO YOU FEEL CLOSER TO ONE PARTY A3011 >>> WHICH PARTY DO YOU FEEL CLOSER TO A3012 >>> DEGREE OF CLOSENESS TO THIS PARTY A3013 >>> POLITICAL PARTIES CARE WHAT PEOPLE THINK A3014 >>> POLITICAL PARTIES ARE NECESSARY A3015 >>> RECALL CANDIDATES FROM LAST ELECTION A3016_1 >>> CANDIDATE MENTIONED 1ST - NAME A3016_2 >>> CANDIDATE MENTIONED 2ND - NAME A3016_3 >>> CANDIDATE MENTIONED 3RD - NAME A3017_1 >>> CANDIDATE MENTIONED 1ST - GENDER A3017_2 >>> CANDIDATE MENTIONED 2ND - GENDER A3017_3 >>> CANDIDATE MENTIONED 3RD - GENDER A3018_1 >>> CANDIDATE MENTIONED 1ST - PARTY A3018_2 >>> CANDIDATE MENTIONED 2ND - PARTY A3018_3 >>> CANDIDATE MENTIONED 3RD - PARTY A3019 >>> NUMBER OF CANDIDATES CORRECTLY NAMED A3020_A >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY A A3020_B >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY B A3020_C >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY C A3020_D >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY D A3020_E >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY E A3020_F >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY F A3020_G >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - ADDITIONAL - PARTY G A3020_H >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - ADDITIONAL - PARTY H A3020_I >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - ADDITIONAL - PARTY I A3021_A >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER A A3021_B >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER B A3021_C >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER C A3021_D >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER D A3021_E >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER E A3021_F >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER F A3021_G >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - ADDITIONAL - LEADER G A3021_H >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - ADDITIONAL - LEADER H A3021_I >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - ADDITIONAL - LEADER I A3022 >>> ECONOMY IMPROVED LAST 12 MONTHS A3023 >>> ECONOMY CHANGE A3024 >>> ECONOMY HOW MUCH BETTER A3025 >>> ECONOMY HOW MUCH WORSE A3026 >>> POLITICIANS KNOW WHAT PEOPLE THINK A3027 >>> CONTACT WITH POLITICIAN IN PAST YEAR A3028 >>> WHO IS IN POWER CAN MAKE DIFFERENCE A3029 >>> WHO PEOPLE VOTE FOR MAKES A DIFFERENCE A3030 >>> DO PEOPLE EXPRESS POLITICAL OPINION A3031 >>> LEFT-RIGHT - SELF A3032_A >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY A A3032_B >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY B A3032_C >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY C A3032_D >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY D A3032_E >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY E A3032_F >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY F A3032_G >>> LEFT-RIGHT - ADDITIONAL - PARTY G A3032_H >>> LEFT-RIGHT - ADDITIONAL - PARTY H A3032_I >>> LEFT-RIGHT - ADDITIONAL - PARTY I A3033 >>> OPTIONAL SCALE - SELF A3034_A >>> OPTIONAL SCALE - PARTY A A3034_B >>> OPTIONAL SCALE - PARTY B A3034_C >>> OPTIONAL SCALE - PARTY C A3034_D >>> OPTIONAL SCALE - PARTY D A3034_E >>> OPTIONAL SCALE - PARTY E A3034_F >>> OPTIONAL SCALE - PARTY F A3035_A >>> OPTIONAL SCALE - LEADER A A3035_B >>> OPTIONAL SCALE - LEADER B A3035_C >>> OPTIONAL SCALE - LEADER C A3035_D >>> OPTIONAL SCALE - LEADER D A3035_E >>> OPTIONAL SCALE - LEADER E A3035_F >>> OPTIONAL SCALE - LEADER F

))) CSES MODULE 1 DISTRICT-LEVEL VARIABLES

A4001 >>> NUMBER OF SEATS IN DISTRICT A4002 >>> NUMBER OF CANDIDATES IN DISTRICT A4003 >>> NUMBER OF PARTY LISTS IN DISTRICT A4004_A >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY A A4004_B >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY B A4004_C >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY C A4004_D >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY D A4004_E >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY E A4004_F >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY F A4005 >>> TURNOUT IN DISTRICT

))) CSES MODULE 1 MACRO-LEVEL VARIABLES

PART I. DATA ON POLITICAL PARTIES AND PARTY SYSTEMS

A5001_A >>> YEAR FOUNDED - PARTY A A5001_B >>> YEAR FOUNDED - PARTY B A5001_C >>> YEAR FOUNDED - PARTY C A5001_D >>> YEAR FOUNDED - PARTY D A5001_E >>> YEAR FOUNDED - PARTY E A5001_F >>> YEAR FOUNDED - PARTY F A5002_A >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY A A5002_B >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY B A5002_C >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY C A5002_D >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY D A5002_E >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY E A5002_F >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY F A5003_A >>> INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION - PARTY A A5003_B >>> INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION - PARTY B A5003_C >>> INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION - PARTY C A5003_D >>> INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION - PARTY D A5003_E >>> INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION - PARTY E A5003_F >>> INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION - PARTY F A5004_A >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY A A5004_B >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY B A5004_C >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY C A5004_D >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY D A5004_E >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY E A5004_F >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY F A5005_A >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY A A5005_B >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY B A5005_C >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY C A5005_D >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY D A5005_E >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY E A5005_F >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY F A5006_A >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY A A5006_B >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY B A5006_C >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY C A5006_D >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY D A5006_E >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY E A5006_F >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY F A5007_A >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY A A5007_B >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY B A5007_C >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY C A5007_D >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY D A5007_E >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY E A5007_F >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY F A5008_A >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY A A5008_B >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY B A5008_C >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY C A5008_D >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY D A5008_E >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY E A5008_F >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY F A5009_A >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY A A5009_B >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY B

A5009_C >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY C A5009_D >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY D A5009_E >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY E A5009_F >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY F

PART II. DATA PERTINENT TO THE ELECTION AT WHICH THE MODULE WAS ADMINISTERED

A5010 >>> ELECTORAL TURNOUT A5011 >>> ELECTORAL ALLIANCES IN ELECTION A5012 >>> DID ANY ELECTORAL ALLIANCES FORM? A5013_1 >>> MOST SALIENT FACTORS IN ELECTION - 1ST A5013_2 >>> MOST SALIENT FACTORS IN ELECTION - 2ND A5013_3 >>> MOST SALIENT FACTORS IN ELECTION - 3RD A5013_4 >>> MOST SALIENT FACTORS IN ELECTION - 4TH A5013_5 >>> MOST SALIENT FACTORS IN ELECTION - 5TH

PART III. DATA ON ELECTORAL INSTITUTIONS

A. SELECTION/ELECTION OF THE HEAD OF STATE

A5014 >>> HEAD OF STATE A5015 >>> HEAD OF STATE - SELECTION A5016 >>> HEAD OF STATE - PROCESS IF DIRECT ELECTION A5017 >>> HEAD OF STATE - 1ST ROUND VICTORY A5018 >>> HEAD OF STATE - ADVANCE TO 2ND ROUND A5019 >>> HEAD OF STATE - 2ND ROUND VICTORY A5020_1 >>> YEAR OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION - 1ST A5020_2 >>> YEAR OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION - 2ND A5021 >>> PROCESS IF INDIRECT ELECTION

B. SELECTION/ELECTION OF THE HEAD OF GOVERNMENT

A5022 >>> HEAD OF GOVERNMENT A5023 >>> PRIME MINISTER SELECTION

C. ELECTORAL STRUCTURE OF THE LEGISLATURE

A5024 >>> NUMBER OF ELECTED LEGISLATIVE CHAMBERS A5025_1 >>> ELECTORAL SEGMENTS - LOWER HOUSE A5025_2 >>> ELECTORAL SEGMENTS - UPPER HOUSE A5026_1 >>> PRIMARY DISTRICTS - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT A5026_2 >>> PRIMARY DISTRICTS - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT A5026_3 >>> PRIMARY DISTRICTS - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT A5026_4 >>> PRIMARY DISTRICTS - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT A5027_1 >>> NUMBER OF SEATS - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT A5027_2 >>> NUMBER OF SEATS - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT A5027_3 >>> NUMBER OF SEATS - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT A5027_4 >>> NUMBER OF SEATS - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT A5028_1 >>> DISTRICT MAGNITUDE - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT A5028_2 >>> DISTRICT MAGNITUDE - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT A5028_3 >>> DISTRICT MAGNITUDE - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT A5028_4 >>> DISTRICT MAGNITUDE - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT A5029_1 >>> SECONDARY DISTRICTS - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT A5029_2 >>> SECONDARY DISTRICTS - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT A5029_3 >>> SECONDARY DISTRICTS - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT A5029_4 >>> SECONDARY DISTRICTS - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT A5030_1 >>> TERTIARY DISTRICTS - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT A5030_2 >>> TERTIARY DISTRICTS - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT A5030_3 >>> TERTIARY DISTRICTS - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT A5030_4 >>> TERTIARY DISTRICTS - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT

D. LEGISLATIVE ELECTION- VOTING PROCEDURES

A5031 >>> COMPULSORY VOTING A5032_1 >>> VOTES CAST - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT A5032_2 >>> VOTES CAST - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT A5032_3 >>> VOTES CAST - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT A5032_4 >>> VOTES CAST - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT A5033_1 >>> VOTING PROCEDURE - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT A5033_2 >>> VOTING PROCEDURE - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT A5033_3 >>> VOTING PROCEDURE - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT A5033_4 >>> VOTING PROCEDURE - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT A5034_1 >>> ELECTORAL FORMULA - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT A5034_2 >>> ELECTORAL FORMULA - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT A5034_3 >>> ELECTORAL FORMULA - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT A5034_4 >>> ELECTORAL FORMULA - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT A5035_1 >>> PARTY THRESHOLD - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT A5035_2 >>> PARTY THRESHOLD - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT A5035_3 >>> PARTY THRESHOLD - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT A5035_4 >>> PARTY THRESHOLD - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT

E. TYPES OF ELECTORAL ALLIANCES

A5036 >>> CAN PARTIES RUN JOINT LISTS A5037 >>> REQUIREMENTS FOR JOINT PARTY LISTS A5038 >>> THE POSSIBILITY OF APPARENTEMENT A5039 >>> TYPES OF APPARENTEMENT AGREEMENTS A5040 >>> MULTI-PARTY ENDORSEMENTS A5041 >>> MULTI-PARTY ENDORSEMENTS ON BALLOT A5042 >>> ALLY PARTY SUPPORT

PART IV. DATA ON REGIME TYPE

A. POWERS OF THE HEAD OF STATE

A5043 >>> HEAD OF STATE - INTRODUCE LEGISLATION A5044 >>> HEAD OF STATE - EXPEDITED ACTION A5045 >>> HEAD OF STATE - PACKAGE VETO A5046 >>> HEAD OF STATE - PARTIAL VETO A5047 >>> HEAD OF STATE - LEGISLATE BY DECREE A5048 >>> HEAD OF STATE - EMERGENCY POWERS A5049 >>> HEAD OF STATE - POSTPONE ELECTION A5050 >>> HEAD OF STATE - NEGOTIATE AGREEMENTS A5051 >>> HEAD OF STATE - COMMANDER OF FORCES A5052 >>> HEAD OF STATE - PROMOTION OF OFFICERS A5053 >>> HEAD OF STATE - DEMOTION OF OFFICERS A5054 >>> HEAD OF STATE - MOBILIZE TROOPS A5055 >>> HEAD OF STATE - INTRODUCE REFERENDA A5056 >>> HEAD OF STATE - REFER LEGISLATION TO JUDICIARY A5057 >>> HEAD OF STATE - LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS B. POWERS OF THE HEAD OF GOVERNMENT

A5058 >>> PRIME MINISTER - NAME CABINET A5059 >>> PRIME MINISTER - CHAIR CABINET MEETINGS A5060 >>> PRIME MINISTER - LEGISLATURE SCHEDULES A5061 >>> PRIME MINISTER - POLICY ALTERNATIVES A5062 >>> PRIME MINISTER - REFERS POLICY TO COMMITTEE A5063 >>> PRIME MINISTER - VOTES OF CONFIDENCE

C. DISSOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATURE

A5064 >>> METHODS OF CABINET DISMISSAL A5065 >>> DISSOLUTION OF LEGISLATURE A5066 >>> RESTRICTIONS ON DISSOLVING LEGISLATURE

======))) CSES MODULE 1 MICRO-LEVEL DATA: IDENTIFICATION, WEIGHTING, AND STUDY ADMINISTRATION VARIABLES ======

------A1001 >>> DATASET ------

Dataset......

CSES-MODULE-1. CSES Module 1

| NOTES: A1001 | | This variable reports the CSES module used in each election | study. Generally, Module 1 was used for election studies | conducted between the years 1996 and 2001, inclusive.

------A1002 >>> DATASET VERSION ------

Dataset version......

VER2003-AUG-04. Version of dataset released on August 4, 2003.

| NOTES: A1002 | | The version number corresponds to the date of the dataset's | release.

------A1003 >>> ID VARIABLE - ELECTION STUDY (NUMERIC POLITY) ------

Election Study Identifier, with Numeric Polity Component......

03601996. AUSTRALIA (1996) 05611999. BELGIUM-FLANDERS (1999) 05621999. BELGIUM-WALLOON (1999) 11202001. BELARUS (2001) 12401997. CANADA (1997) 15201999. CHILE (1999) 15801996. TAIWAN (1996) 20301996. CZECH REPUBLIC (1996) 20801998. DENMARK (1998) 27601998. GERMANY (1998) 34401998. HONG KONG (1998) 34402000. HONG KONG (2000) 34801998. HUNGARY (1998) 35201999. ICELAND (1999) 37601996. ISRAEL (1996) 39201996. JAPAN (1996) 41002000. REPUBLIC OF KOREA (2000) 44001997. LITHUANIA (1997) 48401997. MEXICO (1997) 48402000. MEXICO (2000) 52801998. NETHERLANDS (1998) 55401996. NEW ZEALAND (1996) 57801997. NORWAY (1997) 60402000. PERU (2000) 60402001. PERU (2001) 61601997. POLAND (1997) 62002002. PORTUGAL (2002) 64201996. ROMANIA (1996) 64301999. RUSSIA (1999) 64302000. RUSSIA (2000) 70501996. SLOVENIA (1996) 72401996. SPAIN (1996) 72402000. SPAIN (2000) 75201998. SWEDEN (1998) 75601999. SWITZERLAND (1999) 76402001. THAILAND (2001) 80401998. UKRAINE (1998) 82601997. UNITED KINGDOM: GREAT BRITAIN (1997) 84001996. UNITED STATES (1996)

| NOTES: A1003 | | This eight-character variable uniquely identifies an election | study within the CSES. | | The variable is constructed from two components, variable A1006 | (polity code) and A1008 (election year). | | The first three characters are the numeric version of the | country codes created by the United Nations Statistics Division | ("Countries or areas, codes and abbreviations", revised | 13 February 2002). | | The fourth character distinguishes between multiple polities | within a single country. The only example of this to be found | in CSES Module 1 is Belgium, which had a Flanders study | (coded 1) and a Walloon study (coded 2). All other election | studies in CSES Module 1 are coded 0 here. | | The fifth through eighth characters correspond to the election | year as specified in variable A1008.

------A1004 >>> ID VARIABLE - ELECTION STUDY (ALPHABETIC POLITY) ------

Election Study Identifier, with Alphabetic Polity Component......

AUS_1996. AUSTRALIA (1996) BELF1999. BELGIUM-FLANDERS (1999) BELW1999. BELGIUM-WALLOON (1999) BLR_2001. BELARUS (2001) CAN_1997. CANADA (1997) CHE_1999. SWITZERLAND (1999) CHL_1999. CHILE (1999) CZE_1996. CZECH REPUBLIC (1996) DEU_1998. GERMANY (1998) DNK_1998. DENMARK (1998) ESP_1996. SPAIN (1996) ESP_2000. SPAIN (2000) GBR_1997. UNITED KINGDOM: GREAT BRITAIN (1997) HKG_1998. HONG KONG (1998) HKG_2000. HONG KONG (2000) HUN_1998. HUNGARY (1998) ISL_1999. ICELAND (1999) ISR_1996. ISRAEL (1996) JPN_1996. JAPAN (1996) KOR_2000. REPUBLIC OF KOREA (2000) LTU_1997. LITHUANIA (1997) MEX_1997. MEXICO (1997) MEX_2000. MEXICO (2000) NLD_1998. NETHERLANDS (1998) NOR_1997. NORWAY (1997) NZL_1996. NEW ZEALAND (1996) PER_2000. PERU (2000) PER_2001. PERU (2001) POL_1997. POLAND (1997) PRT_2002. PORTUGAL (2002) ROU_1996. ROMANIA (1996) RUS_1999. RUSSIA (1999) RUS_2000. RUSSIA (2000) SVN_1996. SLOVENIA (1996) SWE_1998. SWEDEN (1998) THA_2001. THAILAND (2001) TWN_1996. TAIWAN (1996) UKR_1998. UKRAINE (1998) USA_1996. UNITED STATES (1996)

| NOTES: A1004 | | This eight-character variable uniquely identifies an election | study within the CSES. | | The variable is constructed from two components, variable A1006 | (polity code) and A1008 (election year). | | The first three characters are the alphabetic version of the | country codes created by the United Nations Statistics Division | ("Countries or areas, codes and abbreviations", revised | 13 February 2002). | | The fourth character distinguishes between multiple polities | within a single country. The only example of this to be found | in CSES Module 1 is Belgium, which had a Flanders study | (coded "F") and a Walloon study (coded "W"). All other | election studies in CSES Module 1 are coded 0 here. | | The fifth through eighth characters correspond to the election | year as specified in variable A1008. | | This variable may be useful to analysts using documents from | the CSES that are specific to an election study. One example | of this are the completed Macro Reports. Filenames for the | reports for a particular election study are prefaced by the | eight-character code that corresponds to that election study.

------A1005 >>> ID VARIABLE - RESPONDENT ------

Respondent Identifier, unique across dataset......

This variable is eighteen characters in length.

| NOTES: A1004 | | This eighteen-character variable uniquely identifies a | respondent within the CSES. | | The variable is constructed from three components, variable | A1006 (polity), A1008 (election year), and A1009 (respondent | within election study). | | The first three characters are the alphabetic version of the | country codes created by the United Nations Statistics Division | ("Countries or areas, codes and abbreviations", revised | 13 February 2002). | | The fourth character distinguishes between multiple polities | within a single country. The only example of this to be found | in CSES Module 1 is Belgium, which had a Flanders study | (coded 1) and a Walloon study (coded 2). All other election | studies in CSES Module 1 are coded 0 here. | | The fifth through eighth characters correspond to the election | year as specified in variable A1008. | | The last ten characters are the respondent identifier from | A1009, which is unique within each election study.

------A1006 >>> ID COMPONENT - POLITY ------

Polity Identifier......

0360. AUSTRALIA 0561. BELGIUM-FLANDERS 0562. BELGIUM-WALLOON 1120. BELARUS 1240. CANADA 1520. CHILE 1580. TAIWAN 2030. CZECH REPUBLIC 2080. DENMARK 2760. GERMANY 8260. UNITED KINGDOM: GREAT BRITAIN 3440. HONG KONG 3480. HUNGARY 3520. ICELAND 3760. ISRAEL 3920. JAPAN 4100. REPUBLIC OF KOREA 4400. LITHUANIA 4840. MEXICO 5280. NETHERLANDS 5540. NEW ZEALAND 5780. NORWAY 6040. PERU 6160. POLAND 6200. PORTUGAL 6420. ROMANIA 6430. RUSSIA 7050. SLOVENIA 7240. SPAIN 7520. SWEDEN 7560. SWITZERLAND 7640. THAILAND 8040. UKRAINE 8400. UNITED STATES

| NOTES: A1006 | | This four-character variable uniquely identifies a polity | conducting an election study that is present in CSES Module 1. | | The first three characters are the numeric version of the | country codes created by the United Nations Statistics Division | ("Countries or areas, codes and abbreviations", revised | 13 February 2002). | | The fourth character distinguishes between multiple polities | within a single country. The only example of this to be found | in CSES Module 1 is Belgium, which had a Flanders study | (coded 1) and a Walloon study (coded 2). All other election | studies in CSES Module 1 are coded 0 here.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTE - GREAT BRITAIN (1997): A1006 | | Please note that the coverage of the 1997 British General | Election Study is Great Britain (i.e. England, Wales and | Scotland) - not the United Kingdom. (The most important | difference being that the UK also includes Northern Ireland).

------A1007 >>> SAMPLE COMPONENT ------

In some cases, analysts may wish to consider regions of countries or other sample components as units of analysis, rather than the elections themselves. This variable identifies these sample components. Where these sample components do not exist this variable reports 001......

001. [SEE VARIABLE NOTES] . .

| NOTES: Note, this variable replaces A1007 "OLD POLITY CODE" | reported in an earlier version of the datafile. The "OLD | POLITY CODE" variable provided country codes used in versions | of the CSES Module 1 datafile released prior to July 26, 2002.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND: A1007 | | 001. POSTAL NEW SAMPLE (INCLUDING MAORI SAMPLE) | 002. POSTAL PANEL FROM 1993 AND 1990 | 006. POSTAL CAMPAIGN | | Post-Election Study (1=postal new sample): Respondents to | the post election survey were randomly selected from the 1996 | electoral roll and sent a self completion questionnaire. | | Maori Sample (1=postal new sample): As part of the post-election | survey, persons on the Maori roll were oversampled allowing for | an analysis of Maori political attitudes and behaviour. Persons | randomly selected from the Maori electoral rolls were mailed | self-administered questionnaires. | | Panel Study (2 = postal panel from 1993 and 1990): Each elector | survey includes a panel of respondents carried through from the | previous study, making it possible to track patterns of | individual-level change. The 1996 survey includes the final wave | of a panel of respondents who participated in the 1993 and 1990 | NZES. | | The Campaign Wave (6 = postal campaign): A pre-election survey | was conducted over the course of the campaign to track short- | term changes in voting behaviour. The rolling cross section was | conducted 5 September through 11 October, during which time | approximately 120 computer-assisted telephone interviews per | day were conducted with randomly selected New Zealanders of | voting age. Respondents' names and addresses were also requested | and those who supplied them were sent a postal questionnaire | after the election. | | The post-election wave of the campaign sample was added to the | post-election sample from the electoral rolls, the Maori sample | and the panel and these components comprise the complete post- | election data set.

------A1008 >>> ID COMPONENT - ELECTION YEAR ------

Election year......

1996-2002. ELECTION YEAR

------A1009 >>> ID COMPONENT - RESPONDENT WITHIN ELECTION STUDY ------

Respondent identifier, unique for each survey respondent within an election study......

This variable is ten characters in length.

| NOTES: A1009 | | While this variable uniquely identifies a respondent within | an election study, it is not unique across the entire dataset. | | The variable is ten digits in length.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (1999): A1009 | | There were two sets of duplicate case identification codes in | the original deposit. They have been recoded in the following | way: | | IF A1009=683 AND A2001=41 THEN A1009=685 | IF A1009=848 AND A2001=68 THEN A1009=849

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (1998): A1009 | | There was one duplicate case identification code present in the | original deposit. It has been recoded in the following way: | | IF A1009=95 AND A2003=4 THEN A1009=8095

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (1998): A1009 | | There were two sets of duplicate case identification codes in | the original deposit. They have been recoded in the following | way: | | IF A1009=324 AND A2003=5 THEN A1009=1324. | IF A1009=522 AND A2003=8 THEN A1009=1522.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2002): A1009 | | There was one duplicate case identification code in the | original deposit. It has been recoded in the following way: | | IF A1009=2093 AND A2001=34 THEN A1009=2092.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - RUSSIA (1999): A1009 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - RUSSIA (2000): A1009 | | There are three sets of case identification codes used in the | original deposit. The CSES data files incorporate those | assigned in the pre-parliamentary wave of the study, labeled | 'MREDID' in the original deposit.

------A1010_1 >>> ORIGINAL WEIGHT: SAMPLE A1010_2 >>> ORIGINAL WEIGHT: DEMOGRAPHIC A1010_3 >>> ORIGINAL WEIGHT: POLITICAL ------

| NOTES: | | These variables report the original weights provided with the | survey data by the deposit. | | 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 so that it more closely resembles | 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 their individual research question. We | recommend that analysts familiarize themselves with the | weights, their components, and their methods of creation before | applying them. | | Additionally, analysts will want to keep in mind that these | weights are prepared to be election study weights, not country | weights. To convert the weights to country weights requires an | adjustment for those countries for which one or more polities | or election studies appear in the dataset. | | Where a weight of a particular type is not available, these | variables are coded 1. | | TABLE: SUMMARY OF ELECTION STUDY WEIGHTS, BY TYPE OF WEIGHT. | | SAMPLE DEMOGRAPHIC POLITICAL NO WEIGHT | WEIGHT WEIGHT WEIGHT PROVIDED | ------| AUSTRALIA 1996 X | BELARUS 2001 X | BELGIUM-FLANDERS 1999 X X | BELGIUM-WALLOON 1999 X X | CANADA 1997 X | CHILE 1999 X | CZECH REPUBLIC 1996 X | DENMARK 1998 X X | GERMANY 1998 X X X | GREAT BRITAIN 1997 X | HONG KONG 1998 X | HONG KONG 2000 X | HUNGARY 1998 X | ICELAND 1999 X | ISRAEL 1996 X | JAPAN 1996 X | KOREA 2000 X | LITHUANIA 1997 X | MEXICO 1997 X X | MEXICO 2000 X X | NETHERLANDS 1998 X X X | NEW ZEALAND 1996 X X | NORWAY 1997 X | PERU 2000 X | PERU 2001 X | POLAND 1997 X X | PORTUGAL 2002 X | ROMANIA 1996 X | RUSSIA 1999 X | RUSSIA 2000 X | SLOVENIA 1996 X | SPAIN 1996 X | SPAIN 2000 X | SWEDEN 1998 X | SWITZERLAND 1999 X | TAIWAN 1996 X | THAILAND 2001 X | UNITED STATES 1996 X X | UKRAINE 1998 X

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (1999): A1010-A1012 | | The BELGIUM-FLANDERS (1999) election study provides both a | demographic weight and a political weight. Note that the | political weight incorporates demographic corrections, as | discussed below. | | The following advice is provided by the collaborators in | Belgium-Flanders with regards to weighting: | | "In order to compensate for non responses, data can be | post-stratified. Adjustments are used to give different weights | to weighting classes in the sample to compensate for the | different non-response rates. | | This dataset contains two weighting coefficients. The first | weighting coefficient is based on the distribution of | age*gender*education and is displayed by Table [1]. For the | calculation of this weighting coefficient, the variables R2 | (gender, 2 categories), AGE6 (age, 6 categories) and EDUC5 | (education level, 5 categories) were used. The second | coefficient is based on the age*gender*education*voting | behavior 1999 marginal distribution. We used R2 (gender, 2 | categories), AGE6 (age, 6 categories), EDUC4 (education level, | 4 categories) and VOT99 (voting behavior 1999, 6 categories) . | | Different methods can be used to generate weights. The method | used by the ISPO is a population-based method in which | information on population subclasses is used to calculate | weighting coefficients. More specifically, four variables are | used for post-stratification: age, gender, education and voting | behavior in the 1999 General Election. Since the joint | distribution of these four variables in the population is not | known, we use IPF (Iterative Proportional Fitting), a technique | that uses all available information of known population | distributions and known sample information. The idea behind | this method is to make the marginal distributions of the

| stratification variables conform with the population marginal | distributions without distorting the pattern of the joint sample | distribution . | | As is well known, there are various debates on the use of | coefficients. The user him or herself should decide whether or | not to use the weighting coefficients. The use of weights | depends very much on the nature and the purpose of the analysis. | If used, it is strongly recommended to apply the weighting | adjustments with care and to interpret the findings with | caution" (Meersseman, et al. (2001). "1999 General Election | Study of Flanders-Belgium; Codebook: Questions and Frequency | Tables." K.U., Leuven: Interuniversity Centre for Public | Opinion Research). | | Table [1] | Weighing coefficients for the Flemish sample, 1999 | | NE or Higher | PE LSE HSE Educ. Univ. | ------| M 18-24 1.000 0.218 1.959 0.666 0.498 | M 25-34 2.295 1.324 1.023 0.717 0.929 | M 35-44 1.745 0.907 1.039 0.572 0.679 | M 45-54 1.225 0.584 0.960 0.627 0.493 | M 55-64 1.005 0.791 0.954 0.481 0.565 | M 65-79 1.629 0.510 0.890 0.436 0.834 | F 18-24 7.908 2.709 2.424 0.647 0.633 | F 25-34 2.446 1.522 1.173 1.016 0.646 | F 35-44 2.460 0.947 0.946 0.605 1.003 | F 45-54 1.552 0.861 0.847 0.701 0.658 | F 55-64 1.527 0.777 0.771 0.555 0.464 | F 65-79 2.124 0.720 0.758 0.521 0.418 |

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (1997): A1010-A1012 | | The CANADA (1997) election study provides five sample | weights. Election study variable CPSNWGT1 was used in | creation of the CSES Sample Weight. The remaining four | weights are not available in this file, as they are primarily | intended for within-region analysis. Researchers who | are interested in them will want to reference the original | election study. | | The following weight documentation was included in "1997 | Canadian Election Study: Technical Documentation": | | For purposes of sample design the country was divided into six | "regions": | | 1. the East (Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island | and New Brunswick); | 2. Quebec; | 3. Ontario; | 4. the Midwest (Manitoba and Saskatchewan); | 5. the West (Alberta and British Columbia); and | 6. the Territories. | | Smaller provinces and the territories were, relative to their | population, over-represented in the sample. The | overrepresentation of the smaller provinces facilitates | comparison between the six regions. A minimum of 400 interviews | were allocated to each region, with a larger allocation of | sample going to the larger regions/ provinces. The sample was | distributed equally among the provinces when there was more than | one province in the region. For example, the 400 cases in the | Atlantic region were equally distributed among the provinces of | Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island (PEI), Nova Scotia and New | Brunswick. Unlike Ontario, Quebec was not under-represented in | the sample. The larger sample for Quebec (relative to Ontario) | ensures enough observations in Quebec so that attitudes towards | separation can be factored into analysis. Because the sample | distribution is not proportional to the population of the | provinces and territories, the data must be weighted before | national estimates are derived... The weights are calculated by | dividing the province or territories or territories' proportion | of the households in the sample. Ontario has the largest weight | (1.5) as the province has 36 percent of Canada's households, but | only 24 percent of the sample. In preparing national estimates | each Ontario case will count for 1.5 observations in the | weighted data set; that is, Ontario is "weighted up" so that the | impact of the Ontario sample on national estimates is an | accurate reflection of Ontario's proportion of the number of | households in Canada. Conversely, for provinces or territories | where the weights are very small, for example PEI (.1736) and | the Northwest Territories (.0653), the proportion of the sample | allocated to the province or territory was greater than that | province or territories' proportion of the population. As a | result, each case is "weighted down." | | Random Digit Dialing methods were used to identify households | for inclusion in the survey by randomly generating residential | telephone numbers. Within households, respondents were randomly | selected using the "next birthday" method. Note, "the | probability of an adult member of the household being selected | for an interview varies inversely with the number of people | living in that household (in a household with only one adult, | that adult has a 100 percent chance of selection, in a two adult | household each adult has a 50 percent chance of selection, | etc.). As a result, it is possible that analyses based on | unweighted estimates are biased, as one adult households are | over-represented, and larger households are under-represented in | the data set." |

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (1999): A1010-A1012 | | The CHILE (1999) election study provides a political weight. | | The Chilean study was conducted between the first and second | run-off rounds of the presidential election. To compensate for | the differences in the results of these elections, the | collaborator has provided this weight. It is constructed in the | following way: If the respondent indicated that they had voted | in the first round for: | | Lagos, a1010_3= 0.894064 | Lavin, a1010_3= 1.141058 | Another candidates, CHILWT1=1.0000

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (1998): A1010-A1012 | | The DENMARK (1998) election study provides both a demographic | weight and a political weight.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (1998): A1010-A1012 | | The German (1998) election study provides a sample correction, | a demographic, and a political weight. Note that the political | weight incorporates demographic corrections. | | A1010_1 - This weight corrects east-west sample sizes | to allow for representative national estimates. While | the sample sizes are almost equal, the populations are not. | A1010_2 - Weight: Sociodemographic | A1010_3 - Weight: Recall X Sociodemographic

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (1998): A1010-A1012 | | The HUNGARY (1998) election study provides a demographic weight. | | From the Hungarian "Description of Sample and Data Collection": | | a) Are the data weighted? Yes _X_ No ___ If yes: | b) Are the data weighted to compensate for disproportionate | probability of selection at the person or household | level? Yes ___ No _X_ | c) Are the data weighted to match known demographic | characteristics of the population? Yes _X_ No ___ | d) Are the data weighted to correct for non-response? | Yes ___ No _X_

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (1996): A1010-A1012 | | The JAPAN (1996) election study provides a sample weight. | | From the election study documentation: | | The weight to correct for sampling bias is generated by the | following steps: | | 1) For each stratum, an adjusted target sample size is | calculated by multiplying the original sample size by the | overall response rate. Take the Hokkaido/13 Metropolitan Cities | stratum as an example. The adjusted target sample is 21.19762 | (29 x 1,535 / 2,100) (See table below). | | 2) The weight, then, is a factor that adjusts the actual to the | adjusted target sample size. For the same strata, the weight is | 1.009410 (21.19762 / 21). | | 3) In the SPSS weight data set (cese96JPv2 weight.sav), each | respondent receives a weight value that corresponds with the | stratum to which the respondent belongs. | | TABLE: | JAPAN SAMPLING STRATIFICATION AND WEIGHT GENERATION SCHEME | | City Size | ------| | 13 Metro Cities Cities Other Towns& Total | PR block | Cities >= 200th >= 100th Cities Villages | ------| HOKKAIDO | Prime | 2 1 2 1 2 8 | Second | 29 11 17 15 23 95 | Actual | 21 8 14 8 16 67 | Adjusted| 21.19762 8.04048 12.42619 10.96429 16.81190 | Weight | 1.009410 1.005060 0.887585 1.370536 1.050744 | | TOHOKU | Prime | 1 3 1 3 4 12 | Second | 15 39 10 40 62 166 | Actual | 12 26 8 30 46 122 | Adjusted| 10.96429 28.50714 7.30952 29.23810 45.31905 | Weight | 0.913690 1.096429 0.91369 0.974603 0.985197 | | KITA-KANTO | Prime | NA 5 3 4 4 16 | Second | - 68 37 59 61 225 | Actual | - 51 29 49 44 173 | Adjusted| - 49.70476 27.04524 43.12619 44.58810 | Weight | - 0.974603 0.932594 0.880126 1.013366 | | MINAMI-KANTO | Prime | 6 5 3 2 2 18 | Second | 90 71 34 27 27 249 | Actual | 63 50 21 19 20 173 | Adjusted| 65.78571 51.89762 24.85238 19.73571 19.73571 | Weight | 1.044218 1.037952 1.183447 1.038722 0.986786 | | TOKYO | Prime | 9 2 2 1 0 14 | Second | 141 18 31 15 0 205 | Actual | 98 13 22 10 0 67 | Adjusted| 103.06429 13.15714 22.65952 10.96429 0 | Weight | 1.051676 1.012088 1.029978 1.096429 - | | TOKAI | Prime | 3 5 3 3 4 18 | Second | 36 65 37 48 55 241 | Actual | 27 50 30 35 42 184 | Adjusted| 26.31429 47.51190 27.04524 35.08571 40.20238 | Weight | 0.974603 0.950238 0.901508 1.002449 0.957200 | | HOKURIKU/SHINETSU | Prime | NA 2 2 3 3 10 | Second | - 31 17 39 45 132 | Actual | - 21 15 31 34 101 | Adjusted| - 22.65952 12.42619 28.50714 32.89286 | Weight | - 1.079025 0.828413 0.919585 0.967437 | | KINKI | Prime | 6 7 3 4 3 23 | Second | 92 111 38 52 48 341 | Actual | 60 71 25 36 37 229 | Adjusted| 67.24762 81.13571 27.77619 38.00952 35.08571 | Weight | 1.120794 1.142757 1.111048 1.055820 0.948263 | | CHUGOK | Prime | 2 2 2 2 3 11 | Second | 18 31 20 26 36 131 | Actual | 15 24 11 19 35 104 | Adjusted| 13.15714 22.65952 14.61905 19.00476 26.31429 | Weight | 0.877143 0.944147 1.329004 1.000251 0.751837 | | SHIKOKU | Prime | NA 2 0 2 2 6 | Second | - 25 0 19 28 72 | Actual | - 14 0 16 24 54 | Adjusted| - 18.27381 0 13.88810 20.46667 | Weight | - 1.305272 - 0.868006 0.852778 | | KYUSHU | Prime | 3 4 1 4 6 18 | Second | 37 51 15 58 82 243 | Actual | 29 33 10 49 64 185 | Adjusted| 27.04524 37.27857 10.96429 42.39524 59.93810 | Weight | 0.932594 1.129654 1.096429 0.865209 0.936533 | | TOTAL | Prime | 32 38 22 29 33 154 | Second | 458 521 256 398 467 2100 | Actual | 325 361 185 302 362 1535

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (1997): A1010-A1012 | | The MEXICO (1997) election study contained a weight that | corrected for both sample and demographics. | | From "Description of Sample and Data Collection": | | a) Are the data weighted? Yes _X__ No ___ If yes: | b) Are the data weighted to compensate for disproportionate | probability of selection at the person or household | level? Yes ___ No _X__ | c) Are the data weighted to match known demographic | characteristics of the population? Yes _X__ No ___ | d) Are the data weighted to correct for non-response? | Yes _X__ No ___ | | The weight is the inverse of the probability of selection of | the respondent, adjusted by the non-response rate, using | quotas by sex and age.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2000): A1010-A1012 | | The MEXICO (2000) election study contains a weight that | corrects for both sample (non-response) and demographics | (gender and age) according to 1995 sample estimates. |

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (1998): A1010-A1012 | | The NETHERLANDS (1998) election study provides a demographic- | political correction, and a sample weight. A third weight | that corrects for the rolling cross-section design of the | pre-election study is also available, but is not included in | this data file. | | The weighting variable was provided by Statistics Netherlands, | and constructed by means of the Bascula program. This weight is | explored and defended in (Schmeets & Molin 1990) and | (CBS 1992a). The weight ('model 4') is based upon actual voting | behavior (including non-voting) , age group (18-24; 25-34; 35-44; | 45-54; 55-64; 65-74; 75 and older), sex, marital status | (married; divorced; widow(er); not-married), degree of | urbanization (see V0013) and region (see V0010). In the original | weighing factor M4 household size was taken into account | (Schmeets & Molin 1992: 13 and 23), however, because a sample of | persons instead of households was used, this correction was not | performed in the construction of this weight. Since the CBS | weight is partly based on electoral behavior, it can only be | computed for those respondents about whom information on their | electoral behavior is available, i.e. the respondents in the | post-election wave of interviews. The minimum value of weight 1 | is of course 0, the maximum value is 3,75. The variance is | 0.473. The mean is 0.86, due to the fact that first wave | respondents not participating in the second wave are not | included (weight = 0). | | Simple post-stratification weight: | | The simple post-stratification weight only adjusts for flaws in | the net pre-election sample when compared to the desired number | of sample units according to the stratification table, Table 11 | (shown below). Table 11 contains 18 non-empty cells, so that | this variable has only 18 distinct values. For computing these | weights, Statistics Netherlands provided a table with the | population figures of persons aged 18 and over for all | Netherlands municipalities, on January 1, 1998. On the basis | of this table, the number of enfranchised persons in each cell | of the stratification table could be computed*. The realized | number of pre-election interviews (refer to Table 11) should | ideally have an identical distribution over the cells of the | table. However, the actual numbers of successful pre-election | interviews in the cells of the table deviate, and this variable | can be used to correct for this deviation (and this deviation | only). Each respondent was assigned a value this variable | depending on the cell of Table 11 this respondent belongs to, | and according to the formula: | | (population aged 18 and over in cell) (total respondents) | ------X ------| (total population aged 18 and over) (respondents in cell) | | Thus computed, this variable has a minimum value of .47, a | maximum value of 2.12, and its variance is .008. Its mean value, | of course, is 1. | | * Not all persons aged 18 and over in a municipality are | enfranchised: e.g., foreigners and persons in mental | institutions are not. The potential bias that might have | resulted from an non-uniform distribution of adults without the | right to vote over the stratification table, was ignored. | | The cells in the table below report: | | A. # inhabitants (Dec. 1997) | B. # units in gross sample | C. # units to be interviewed | D. # interviews (1st wave) | | "CATEG." (category) implies the degree of urbanization, where 1 | is the highest degree of urbanization. | | DUTCH SAMPLE STRATIFICATION TABLE | | CATEG.| REGION: | ======|======| | NORTH EAST WEST SOUTH TOTAL | | ------| 1 | 168754 0 2572645 0 2741399 | | 51 658 709 | | 22 330 352 | | 28 289 317 | 2 | 88722 710011 1873212 1006817 3678762 | | 55 215 505 266 1041 | | 12 91 241 129 473 | | 26 115 252 152 545 | 3 | 298634 851263 1219189 847918 3217004 | | 87 277 368 276 1008 | | 38 109 157 109 413 | | 45 137 190 132 504 | 4 | 398953 1023902 945011 953255 3321121 | | 94 226 286 123 729 | | 51 132 121 123 427 | | 51 116 144 63 374 | 5 | 678058 638035 653268 632242 2601603 | | 194 141 123 262 720 | | 87 82 84 81 334 | | 87 70 64 140 361 | ======|======| TOTAL | 1633121 3223211 7263325 3440232 15559889 | | 481 859 1940 927 4207 | | 210 414 934 442 2000 | | 237 438 938 487 2101 | |

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (1996): A1010-A1012 | | The NEW ZEALAND (1996) election study provided a weight that | corrects for both sample and politics. | | "The New Zealand sample in the CSES is made up of three | components: first, a 'new sample' coded 1 in A1007. This was | sampled from the electoral rolls but contains an over sample | from the 5 Maori electorates. Second, a panel, containing | persons sampled over one or both of the two previous elections | (2 in A1007). Finally, persons sampled by randomly selected | telephone numbers and random respondent selection within the | household (6 in A1007). | | A1010 first weights correct the effects of the Maori | over-sample, and by household size to prevent a bias | toward persons in smaller households. It then weights by party | vote and non-vote across the three A1007 codes. | | A simpler weight correcting the oversample in A1007=1 and for | household size in A1007=6 can be obtained on request from the | New Zealand Election Study (see www.nzes.org)."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (1997): A1010-A1012 | | The POLAND (1997) election study contains a weight that | corrects for both sample and demographics. | | From "Description of Sample Design and Data Collection": | | "Are the data weight to compensate for disproportionate | probability of selection at the person or household | level?" YES | "Are the data weighted to match known demographic | characteristics of the population?" YES | "Are the data weighted to correct for non-response?" No

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - RUSSIA (1999): A1010-A1012 | | The Russia (1999) election study provided a sample weight. | | From "Description of Sample Design and Data Collection": | | a) Are weights included in the data file? Yes: The Kish | procedure selects one adult from all eligible adults in each | household. This means, for example, that adults in a | three-adult household have only one-third the probability of | selection of eligible adults in one-adult households. One | can adjust for this by using a weight based on the number of | eligible adults in each household. For the pre-parliamentary | election survey, the computed weight in the dataset is named | KISHWEIGH. | | b) Are the weights designed to compensate for disproportionate | probability of selection at the person or household level? Yes | | c) Are the weights designed to match known demographic | characteristics of the population? No | | d) Are the data weighted to correct for non-response? No

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - RUSSIA (2000): A1010-A1012 | | The Russia (2000) election study provided a sample weight. | | From "Description of Sample Design and Data Collection": | | a) Are weights included in the data file? Yes: The Kish | procedure selects one adult from all eligible adults in each | household. This means, for example, that adults in a | three-adult household have only one-third the probability of | selection of eligible adults in one-adult households. One | can adjust for this by using a weight based on the number of | eligible adults in each household. For the pre-parliamentary | election survey, the computed weight in the dataset is named | KISHWEIGH. | | b) Are the weights designed to compensate for disproportionate | probability of selection at the person or household level? Yes | | c) Are the weights designed to match known demographic | characteristics of the population? No | | d) Are the data weighted to correct for non-response? No

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (1996): A1010-A1012 | | The Spain (1996) election study provided a demographic weight. | | The following text was provided by the collaborator: | | "The weight variable is a matrix with eight cells, since we have | the option to weigh the sample according to the Sex-Age (2 x 4) | distribution of the Spanish population 18 years and over. In | fact, the unweighted data are very similar to the real | population distribution, but for those who want exact | proportions we provide the matrix for weighting the sample. | | The weight matrix is as follows: | PonM (0.13243) Man who is 18 - 29 years old | PonM (0.16978) Man who is 30 -49 years old | PonM (0.10424) Man who is 50 - 64 years old | PonM (0.07538) Man who is 65 or more years old | PonM (0.12836) Woman who is 18 - 29 years old | PonM (0.17039) Woman who is 30 - 49 years old | PonM (0.11145) Woman who is 50 - 64 years old | PonM (0.10797) Woman who is 65 or more years old"

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (1999): A1010-A1012 | | The SWITZERLAND (1999) election study provided a sample weight. | | The following note was provided with the deposit: | | "This additional [weight] variable includes the weights | according to respondents' household sizes."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (1996): A1010-A1012 | | The United States (1996) election study provides a sample- | demographic weight. | | This weight was created for the primary purpose of correcting | for under-representation in study data of younger and | less-educated respondents, and is post-stratified to match the | Current Population Study (CPS) estimate of the distribution of | age group by education level. It is the product of a | within-household selection weight, a household-level | non response adjustment factor, and the person-level | post-stratification factor described above. The non response | adjustment factor compensates for differential response rates by | Census Region and metropolitan status.

------A1011_1 >>> FACTOR: MEAN OF SAMPLE WEIGHT A1011_2 >>> FACTOR: MEAN OF DEMOGRAPHIC WEIGHT A1011_3 >>> FACTOR: MEAN OF POLITICAL WEIGHT ------

| NOTES: A1011 | | These variables report the mean weight of each type, within each | polity.

------A1012_1 >>> POLITY WEIGHT: SAMPLE A1012_2 >>> POLITY WEIGHT: DEMOGRAPHIC A1012_3 >>> POLITY WEIGHT: POLITICAL ------

| NOTES: A1012 | | These variables report standardized versions (with | a mean 1 within the polity) of the original weights provided | with the component election studies, described in A1010. | They are the ratio of each weighting factor to the mean | weight (A1011) of each type, calculated within each polity.

------A1013 >>> FACTOR: SAMPLE SIZE ADJUSTMENT ------

| NOTES: This variable reports the ratio of the average sample | size to each election study sample. Note that this factor is | calculated on the basis of the samples appearing in the CSES | data files (i.e. does not incorporate booster samples, | panel respondents who did not participate in the CSES wave of | multi-wave studies, etc.). Further, this factor treats | elections, and not political systems, as the unit of analysis. | Analysts wishing to compare across-countries, instead of | across-election studies, should adjust this weight accordingly.

------A1014_1 >>> DATASET WEIGHT: SAMPLE A1014_2 >>> DATASET WEIGHT: DEMOGRAPHIC A1014_3 >>> DATASET WEIGHT: POLITICAL ------

| NOTES: These variables are intended for micro level analyses | involving the entire CSES sample. Using the sample size | adjustment (A1013), the centered weights (A1012) are corrected | such that each election study component contributes equally to | the analysis, regardless of the original sample size. Users are | advised to read the notes of the preceding variables carefully | so as to ensure that their analyses will be weighted | appropriately.

------A1015 >>> 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

------A1016 >>> DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - MONTH A1017 >>> DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - DAY A1018 >>> DATE 1ST ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YEAR

A1019 >>> DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - MONTH A1020 >>> DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - DAY A1021 >>> DATE 2ND ROUND ELECTION BEGAN - YEAR ------

Date [first round/second round] election began......

MONTH

01. JANUARY 02. FEBRUARY 03. MARCH 04. APRIL 05. MAY 06. JUNE 07. JULY 08. AUGUST 09. SEPTEMBER 10. OCTOBER 11. NOVEMBER 12. DECEMBER

00. NOT APPLICABLE - NO SECOND ROUND ELECTIONS

DAY

01-31. DAY OF MONTH

00. NOT APPLICABLE - NO SECOND ROUND ELECTIONS

YEAR

1996-2002. YEAR

0000. NOT APPLICABLE - NO SECOND ROUND ELECTIONS

| NOTES: A1016-A1021 | | If the election described in variable A1015 was held on a | single date, that date is represented in this variable. If the | election described in variable A1015 was held on more than | one date, this variable describes the earliest date. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (1996): A1016-A1021 | | Parliamentary elections were held May 31, 1996 - June 1, 1996

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (1996): A1016-A1021 | | Only presidential candidates contest in the second round of | elections.

------A1022 >>> STUDY TIMING ------

Timing of study relative to election......

1. POST-ELECTION STUDY 2. PRE-ELECTION AND POST-ELECTION STUDY 3. BETWEEN ROUNDS OF MAJORITARIAN ELECTION

------A1023 >>> MODE OF INTERVIEW ------

Mode of interview......

1. PERSONAL 2. TELEPHONE 3. SELF-ADMINISTERED (MAIL; SELF-COMPLETED SUPPLEMENT) 4. COMBINATION OF TELEPHONE AND MAIL-BACK 5. COMBINATION OF FACE-TO-FACE AND SELF-ADMINISTERED

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (1997): A1023 | | The CSES questions were handed to the respondent at the end of a | face-to-face interview as a self-completion supplement.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (1998): A1023 | | Although supplementary data (see note for variable A1022) | were collected using self-completion questionnaires or telephone | administration, the pre-election and post-election waves were | conducted face to face.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (1996): A1023 | | This variable represents the beginning mode of the post-election | interview. In some cases, interviews were suspended and resumed | later in a different mode.

------A1024 >>> INTERVIEWER WITHIN ELECTION STUDY ------

Interviewer identification variable, within election study......

00001-99995. INTERVIEWER IDENTIFIER

99999. MISSING

| NOTES: A1024 | | This variable uniquely identifies an interviewer within an | election study. It is not unique across the entire dataset.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (1999): A1024 | | On some of the interviewers there is no information available. | For these cases a new missing category 99999 MISSING has been | introduced to variable A1024.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (1996): A1024 | | This is the identifier for the interviewer in the post-election | study.

------A1025 >>> INTERVIEWER GENDER ------

Gender of interviewer......

1. MALE 2. FEMALE

9. MISSING

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (1997): A1025 | | Gender information was not provided for supervisors, who are | coded here as 9. MISSING.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (1998): A1025 | | This is the post-election interviewer gender (see note for | variable DESIGN).

------A1026 >>> DATE QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTERED - MONTH A1027 >>> DATE QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTERED - DAY A1028 >>> DATE QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTERED - YEAR ------

Date that the questionnaire was 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

1996-2002. YEAR

9999. MISSING

| NOTES: A1026-A1028 | | See also notes for variable A2026.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (1999): A1026-A1028 | | This study was conducted between "rounds" of the presidential | election (i.e. in early January, 2000). However, some of the | data report dates outside of this time period. These instances | have been recoded as system missing data.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2002): A1026-1028 | | The Portuguese questionnaire was administered between the 23rd | of March and the 8th of April 2002. For this variable, it was | necessary to choose between one of the two months in which the | questionnaire was administered. It was decided to choose the | month when the questionnaire started to be administered, i.e. | March. | | The day on which each questionnaire was administered is not | available.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (1996): A1026-A1028 | | This is the date of interview from the post-election study.

======))) CSES MODULE 1 MICRO-LEVEL DATA: DEMOGRAPHIC, VOTE CHOICE, AND ELECTION VARIABLES ======

------A2001 >>> AGE ------

Age of respondent (in years)......

001. AGE RANGE 1 - SEE VARIABLE NOTES 002. AGE RANGE 2 - SEE VARIABLE NOTES 003. AGE RANGE 3 - SEE VARIABLE NOTES 004. AGE RANGE 4 - SEE VARIABLE NOTES

010-150. AGE, IN YEARS

998. DON'T KNOW 999. MISSING

------A2002 >>> GENDER ------

Gender of respondent......

1. MALE 2. FEMALE

9. MISSING ------A2003 >>> EDUCATION ------

Highest level of education of the respondent......

1. NONE 2. INCOMPLETE PRIMARY 3. PRIMARY COMPLETED 4. INCOMPLETE SECONDARY 5. SECONDARY COMPLETED 6. POST-SECONDARY TRADE / VOCATIONAL SCHOOL 7. UNIVERSITY UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE INCOMPLETE 8. UNIVERSITY UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE COMPLETED

9. MISSING

| NOTES: A2003 | | The categories listed were constructed to indicate: | | Incomplete primary: R left school before completing the level | of education required (at the time R left school) for entry into | secondary school. | | Primary completed: R completed the level of education required | (at the time respondent left school) for entry into secondary | school, but has never attended secondary school. | | Incomplete secondary: R attended secondary school, but has never | achieved the minimum level of qualifications normally required | (at the time R left school) for entry into university or other | degree level higher education. Respondents currently studying | for such qualifications should also be included in this | category. | | Secondary completed: R has at least the minimum qualifications | normally required (at the time R left school) for entry into | university or other degree level higher education but has never | entered a university or other degree level course of higher | education. | | Post-secondary trade / vocational school: R has attended a | non-degree granting institution teaching a skilled trade, or | providing subdegree professional or technical. | | University incomplete: R has attended university or entered | other degree level of course of higher education but either left | before successful completion of an undergraduate level degree, | or has yet to complete a degree upon which currently embarked. | | University degree completed: R has undergraduate level or higher | degree. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (1996): A2003 | | Four variables have been used to derive A2003: Age left | school (H1); Highest qualification since leaving school (H2); | Number of years of tertiary education (H3); and Occupation | last week (H4). (Australian Election Studies User's Guide, | pp. 88-89 and Questionnaire, p.22) | | CSES Code, Election Study Category/Categories: | | 01. INCOMPLETE PRIMARY: | R completed school at age 10 | 02. PRIMARY COMPLETED: | R completed school between ages of 11-13 | 03. INCOMPLETE SECONDARY: | R completed school between ages of 14-16, or | R completed school between ages of 14-16 and had "Trade" or | "Non-trade" Qualifications | 04. SECONDARY COMPLETED: | R completed school at age 17 or above, or | R completed school at age 17 or above and had "Trade" or | "Non-trade" Qualifications | 05. POST-SECONDARY TRADE/VOCATIONAL SCHOOL: | R completed school at age 17 or above, had "Trade" or | "Non-trade" qualifications, and had completed one or more | years of "tertiary" education, or | R had an "Associate Diploma" qualification, or | R had an "Undergraduate Diploma" qualification | 06. UNIVERSITY INCOMPLETE | R completed school at age 17 or above, was "full-time school | or university student", had not previously completed a | university or higher degree, and HAD completed one or more | years of "tertiary" education, or | R completed school at age 17 or above, had not completed a | qualification, and had completed one or more years of | "tertiary" education | 07. UNIVERSITY DEGREE COMPLETED | R had a "Bachelor Degree" qualification, or | R had a "Postgraduate Degree or Diploma" qualification

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (1998): A2003 | | Completed primary education means that the respondent completed | at least the 8 years of primary school (altalanos iskola) | education. Respondents with some completed primary education | and some post-primary vocational training (but no secondary | education as defined below) were coded as if they only completed | primary education. | | Secondary education was defined as studies leading to a maturity | exam. Completed secondary education means that the respondent | completed his or her studies and passed the maturity | ("erettsegi") exam. Passing this exam is a necessary | precondition for enrollment in college or university (i.e. in | studies leading to BA, MA, BSc, MSc, and equivalent degrees).

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (1998): A2003 | | Netherlands annotation provided to CSES: In the Netherlands | educational system, an early choice is made between university- | track and non-university track secondary education, which | results in the large number of respondents in the CSES category | 'incomplete secondary'. These people did complete secondary | education, but it does not give them access to a university. | Also, there is a strict divide between degree-granting | universities and non-degree-granting forms of higher education, | which results in a large number of persons in the | 'post-secondary trade/vocational school' category. | | CSES Code, Election Study Category/Categories: | | 02. "ELEMENTARY" LEVEL BEGUN BUT NOT COMPLETED. | 03. "ELEMENTARY" LEVEL COMPLETED. | 04. "EXTENDED ELEMENTARY" OR "LOWER VOCATIONAL" | OR | "SECONDARY" LEVEL EITHER COMPLETED OR ELSE | BEGUN BUT NOT COMPLETED; "HIGHER LEVEL | SECONDARY" BEGUN BUT NOT COMPLETED. | 05. "HIGHER LEVEL SECONDARY" COMPLETED. | 06. ALL CASES "MIDDLE LEVEL VOCATIONAL" OR | "HIGHER MIDDLE LEVEL VOCATIONAL" OR "HIGHER | LEVEL VOCATIONAL" OR "UNIVERSITY LEVEL | VOCATIONAL", WHETHER COMPLETED OR NOT | COMPLETED. | 07. "UNIVERSITY" LEVEL COMPLETED. | 08. "UNIVERSITY" LEVEL BEGUN BUT NOT COMPLETED.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2002): A2003 | | Category 6 (post-secondary trade/vocational school) was omitted | from the Portuguese questionnaire because it doesn t exist in | the Portuguese Educational Formal System.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (1996): A2003 | | An equivalent to the response category tied to CSES code 6 | category was not available to American respondents.

------A2004 >>> MARITAL STATUS ------

Marital status of respondent......

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

8. DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING

| NOTES: A2004 | 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 - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (1999): A2004 | | A2004 reports simply whether or not the respondent is "living | with a permanent partner." | | CSES Code, Election Study Category/Categories: | | 01. YES, R IS LIVING WITH A PERMANENT PARTNER

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLOON (1999): A2004 | | A2004 reports simply whether or not the respondent is "living | with a permanent partner." | | CSES Code, Election Study Category/Categories: | | 01. YES, R IS LIVING WITH A PERMANENT PARTNER

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (1998): A2004 | | Undocumented code 9 was recoded to 0 for CSES A2004. | Respondents who initially identified themselves within a | category other than "married" (e.g. single, divorced etc.) were | asked if they were living with a partner; if the response was | yes, then they were coded 1 in A2004.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (1998): A2004 | | The data come from the pre-election wave of the survey.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (1996): A2004 | | R's marital status not asked in the Japanese survey.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2000): A2004 | | CSES response category '02. Widowed' was not included in the | Peru (2000) election study.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2001): A2004 | | Widowers are included with those who are separated or divorced.

------A2005 >>> UNION MEMBERSHIP ------

Union membership of respondent......

1. R IS MEMBER OF A UNION 2. R IS NOT A MEMBER OF A UNION

8. DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (1999): A2005-A2006 | | A2005 reports whether or not the respondent (or anyone in the | respondent's family) is a member of a "trade union or of an | organization or employers or the self-employed."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (1997): A2005-A2006 | | British questions read '...union or staff association'.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (1997): A2005-A2006 | | The corresponding question was only asked of those who were | formally employed.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (1996): A2005-A2006 | | The union membership items in the self-administered mail | questionnaire took the following form: "Do you belong to a | trade union? And what about your spouse or partner, if you have | one, or anyone else in your household?" Responses Yes, No or | Don't Know could be marked for any or all of: self, partner, | 'anyone else'. However, it is clear that in many cases where R | was unpartnered or lived alone that nothing at all was coded.

------A2006 >>> UNION MEMBERSHIP OF OTHERS IN HOUSEHOLD ------

Someone in household other than respondent is a member of a union......

1. SOMEONE ELSE (OTHER THAN R) IS MEMBER OF A UNION 2. NO ONE ELSE (OTHER THAN R) IS A MEMBER OF A UNION

8. DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING

| NOTES: A2006 | | See also notes for variable A2005.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (1997): A2006 | | This variable has been derived from three questions: | | IF NOT MARRIED/LIVING AS MARRIED AND MORE THAN ONE PERSON IN | HOUSEHOLD: Is anyone else in the household (also) a member of a | trade union or staff association? | | IF MARRIED OR LIVING AS MARRIED: Is your (wife/husband/partner) | now a member of a trade union or staff association? | | IF 'no' AT ABOVE QUESTION: Is anyone else in the household, | other than you or your (wife/husband/partner), a member of a | trade union or staff association?

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (1996): A2006 | | Union membership for someone else in R's house not asked in | the Japanese survey.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (1999): A2006 | | This question was only been asked if there was at least one | other member of household over age 17.

------A2007 >>> CURRENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS ------

Current employment status of respondent......

IN LABOR FORCE:

01. EMPLOYED - FULL TIME (32+ HOURS WEEKLY) 02. EMPLOYED - PART TIME (15-32 HOURS WEEKLY) 03. EMPLOYED - LESS THAN 15 HOURS 04. HELPING FAMILY MEMBER 05. UNEMPLOYED

NOT IN LABOR FORCE:

06. STUDENT, IN SCHOOL, IN VOCATIONAL TRAINING 07. RETIRED 08. HOUSEWIFE, HOME DUTIES 09. PERMANENTLY DISABLED 10. OTHERS, NOT IN LABOR FORCE

11. [SEE VARIABLE NOTES] 12. [SEE VARIABLE NOTES]

98. DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING

| NOTES: A2007 | | Respondents who are temporarily unemployed are coded UNEMPLOYED. | Respondents on "workfare" or enrolled in a government job | training program are coded EMPLOYED.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (1996): A2007 | | A2007 was derived from H4. Respondents who were "working | part-time for pay" have been coded as "Employed - Part-time | (15-32 Hours Weekly)" on A2007.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (1996): A2007 | | The following note was provided at the time of the data deposit: | | Some pensioners in the Czech sample are also gainfully employed, | so they have been coded as 1, 2, 3 or 4 on A2007. | | Also there are many women who are on a maternity leave for | one to two years, while they keep receiving a certain percent | of their salary and retain their job. They are included in | category 8.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (1998): A2007 | | Respondents identified as working any number of hours are | classified in CSES A2007 according to the number of working | hours, regardless of other additional status (e.g. working and | retired). Code 10 in A2007 includes cases coded within the | original German data for child care leave, community service in | lieu of military service, and 'other'.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (1997): A2007 | | (Since) codes 1 and 2 have overlapping definitions, code 1 | indicates 32+ hours and code 2 indicates 15-31 hours. | | A response category corresponding to CSES code 4 ('Helping a | family member') was not used in the British study.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (1997): A2007-A2010 | | These variables refer to current or last job. The only people | coded 97 ('No job') are people who have never had a job.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (1996): A2007 | | Response category code 11 indicates "Soldier, not in labor force | (compulsory)".

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (1997): A2007 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2000): A2007 | | Number of hours was not coded so that all employed respondents | are coded as employed full time. Code 4 was not used.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (1998): A2007 | | Cases in the labor force were recoded from Netherlands variables | to fit as closely as possible to CSES coding. Netherlands | category "30 hours or more" was recoded to CSES code 01 (Full | time); "12-20 hours" and "20-30 hours" were recoded to 02 (Part | time); "1-12 hours" was recoded to 03 (Less than 15 hours).

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2000): A2007 | | Response categories 4-10 were not available to Peruvian | respondents.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (1998): A2007 | | Code 2 indicates 15 or more hours; code 3 15 or fewer hours. No | equivalent of code 4 was used. Code 9 also includes 'retired | before year of pension'.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (1996): A2007 | | An equivalent to the response category tied to CSES code 4 | category was not available to American respondents.

------A2008 >>> MAIN OCCUPATION ------

Main occupation of respondent......

ARMED FORCES

01. ARMED FORCES

LEGISLATORS, SENIOR OFFICIALS, AND MANAGERS

11. LEGISLATORS AND SENIOR OFFICIALS 12. CORPORATE MANAGERS 13. GENERAL MANAGERS

PROFESSIONALS

20. [SEE VARIABLE NOTES] 21. PHYSICAL, MATHEMATICAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCE 22. LIFE SCIENCE AND HEALTH PROFESSIONALS 23. TEACHING PROFESSIONALS 24. OTHER PROFESSIONALS 25. [SEE VARIABLE NOTES] 28. [SEE VARIABLE NOTES]

TECHNICIANS AND ASSOCIATED PROFESSIONALS

30. [SEE VARIABLE NOTES] 31. PHYSICAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCE ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 32. LIFE SCIENCE AND HEALTH ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 33. TEACHING ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 34. OTHER ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS

CLERKS

40. [SEE VARIABLE NOTES] 41. OFFICE CLERKS 42. CUSTOMER SERVICES CLERKS 43. ADMINISTRATION OF CHARITABLE OR NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

SERVICES WORKERS AND SHOP AND MARKET SALES WORKERS

51. PERSONAL AND PROTECTIVE SERVICE WORKERS 52. MODELS, SALES PERSONS AND DEMONSTRATORS 53. TRADE, CONSUMER SERVICES

SKILLED AGRICULTURAL AND FISHERY WORKERS

61. MARKET-ORIENTED SKILLED AGRICULTURAL AND FISHERY WORKERS 62. SUBSISTENCE AGRICULTURAL AND FISHERY WORKERS 63. [SEE VARIABLE NOTES] 64. [SEE VARIABLE NOTES] CRAFT AND RELATED TRADE WORKERS

71. EXTRACTION AND BUILDING TRADE WORKERS 72. METAL, MACHINERY AND RELATED TRADE WORKERS 73. PRECISION, HANDICRAFT, PRINTING AND RELATED TRADE WORKERS 74. OTHER CRAFT AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS

PLANT AND MACHINE OPERATORS AND ASSEMBLERS

81. STATIONARY-PLANT AND RELATED OPERATORS 82. MACHINE OPERATORS AND ASSEMBLERS 83. DRIVERS AND MOBILE-PLANT OPERATORS 84. OTHER PLANT AND MACHINE OPERATORS AND ASSEMBLERS

ELEMENTARY OCCUPATIONS

91. SALES AND SERVICES ELEMENTARY OCCUPATIONS 92. AGRICULTURAL, FISHERY AND RELATED LABORERS 93. LABORERS IN MINING, CONSTRUCTION, MANUFACTURING AND TRANSPORT 94. OTHER POSITIONS IN ELEMENTARY OCCUPATIONS

96. OTHER OR NON-CLASSIFIABLE OCCUPATIONS (NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO CLASSIFY)

97. NO OCCUPATION

98. DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING

00. NOT APPLICABLE

| NOTES: A2008 | | See also notes for A2007. | | This variable reports the respondents' Main Occupation,' that | is, the job at which the respondent spends most of the 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, code last occupation. | | Coding conventions shall employ the first two-digits of 1988 | ISCO / ILO International Standard Classification of Occupations | Code from the International Labor Office, CH-1211, Geneva 22, | Switzerland. | | In some cases it has not been possible to strictly adhere to the | ISCO/ILO conventions. Users will find that some categories have | been added to the ISCO/ILO list in order to accommodate the | occupations of respondents who were not easily classified. | Please refer to the Country Notes for clarification of anomalous | codes. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (1996): A2008,A2011 | | A2008 and A2011 were derived from H5OCC (User's Guide, | pp.90-92) and J14 (pp. 102-103), respectively. | | Respondent's occupation (H5OCC) and spouse's occupation (J14) | were coded to the first two digits (i.e. the "major groups") of | the "Australian Standard Classification of Occupations, Second | Edition" (ASCO2) (available at http://www.abs.gov.au/ under "ABS | Classifications"). (See Attachment B) | | For A2008 and A2011, the ASCO2 codes have been converted to | ISCO-88. Because the AES96 did not elicit information on the | "chief wage earner's" occupation, A2011 codes refer only to the | occupational status of the "husband", "wife", or "de facto" of | respondents with codes 0-3 on A2004.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (1996): A2008,A2011 | | The following note was provided at the time of the data deposit: | | Code 84 is for "other plant and machine operators and | assemblers". Czech respondents working for "cooperatives" were | placed into code 3. | | Code 84 corresponds to 'other plant and machine operators and | assemblers'.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (1998): A2008,A2011 | | The German Center for Survey Research, Methods and Analyses | (ZUMA, Mannheim) created extra codes for occupation in addition | to standard 1988 ISCO codes. The first 2 digits of these extra | codes were included in the first 3 CSES Module 1 Micro datasets | as undocumented codes, but now these additional codes have been | recoded to fit into CSES ISCO categories as follows: | | ISCO CSES | 88 Code Election Study Category/Categories | ------| 2000 21 WISSENSCHAFTLICHE MITARBEITER | 2500 23 ERZIEHER OHNE HVHERE ANGABE (MEIST KINDERGDRTNER O. | SOZIALARBEITER) | 3000 13 KAUFLEUTE (HANDEL) | 4000 41 B\ROANGESTELLTE: DIESE ANGABE IST NUR ALS B\ROBERUF | SPEZIFIZIERBAR (HAUPTGRUPPE 3), WEITERE ANGABEN | FEHLEN. EBENSO B\ROFACHKRDFTE, SACHBEARBEITER | O.N.A.) | 4400 41 VERWALTUNGSBEAMTE, GEHOBENER DIENST BAHN (AB | INSPEKTOR KENNZ. 42) | 7000 74 ARBEITER IN EINER SPINNEREI; ABER SPINNEREIARBEITER | IST MIT 75- ZU CODIEREN HANDWERKL./G\TERERZEUGENDE | BERUFE KENNZIFFER 62 BIS 64 (BEI 64 NICHT | AUFSICHTSFDHREND, 61 UNTER VORBEHALT) | 7510 72 SCHLOSSER O.N.A. | 7900 34 MEISTER ALS AUFSICHTSKRAFT (IN AUSNAHMEFDLLEN | VORARBEITER, DIE KOLONNEN BEAUFSICHTIGEN) | 8000 82 MASCHINENBEDIENER O.N.A. (AUCH IN PRODUKTION) | 9000 93 HILFSARBEITER O.N.A.; UN-/ANGELERNTE ARBEITER, | KENNZ. 60; AUCH HILFSARBEITER, DIE NUR IHREN | ARBEITSPLATZ ANGEBEN; Z.B. HILFSARBEITER IN DER | BAUBRANCHE ABER "BAUHILFSARBEITER" = 95-

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (1996): A2008,A2011 | | Respondents who answered the occupation variable with | "Housewife" or "Student" responses (and were so coded in the | deposited data have been moved to missing for CSES A2008. | | CSES Code, Election Study Category/Categories: | | 30. [UNACCOUNTED FOR] | 64. [UNACCOUNTED FOR]

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (1996): A2008-A2011 | | Variables conerning occupation are tentatively treated as | missing in this release of the Japanese data.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (1998): A2008 | | Both current occupation (for respondents currently working) and | past occupation (for respondents not currently working but who | have worked in the past) have been included in A2008. This | variable was recoded from the 3-digit ISCO88 occupation code. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (1997): A2008,A2011 | | CSES Code, Election Study Category/Categories: | | 25. [UNACCOUNTED FOR]

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (1999): A2008 | | Only respondents with actual or former full-time or part-time | employment have been asked this question. | | Also, note that an additional response category was added to the | ISCO classification scheme ('40. Clerks').

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (1996): A2008,A2011 | | This variable was recoded from U.S. Census occupation codes, and | reports only the current occupational status of those who are | currently employed.

------A2009 >>> EMPLOYMENT TYPE - PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ------

Whether respondent's employment is private or public......

1. WORKS FOR GOVERNMENT 2. WORKS FOR GOVERNMENT OWNED FIRM 3. MIXED 4. DOES NOT WORK FOR GOVERNMENT OR GOVERNMENT OWNED FIRM (BUT NOT SELF-EMPLOYED) 5. SELF-EMPLOYED

7. [SEE VARIABLE NOTES]

8. DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING

0. NOT APPLICABLE (NOT IN LABOR FORCE, NEVER HAD A JOB)

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (1997): A2009 | | A. "Mixed" was not included as a response in the CES. | | B. Respondents who indicated that they worked for a "Federal/ | Provincial Ministry" were coded 01. "Works for Government".

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (1998): A2009 | | Identification of the self-employed was not included among the | categories of the German data (no cases coded 5 in CSES | variable A2009).

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN: A2009 | | The response category corresponding to CSES code 1 includes | local authority employment. Also, there was no response category | corresponding to CSES Code 3 used in the British study.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (1998): A2009 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2000): A2009 | | There are several cases codes as "7" that we do not have an | explanation for.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (1997): A2009 | | Self employment cases in Lithuanian study data were combined | with other types of 'private' employment into a single category | and are thus included in CSES code 4.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (1998): A2009 | | CSES Code, Election Study Category/Categories: | | 01. NETHERLANDS CATEGORY "PUBLIC SERVICE". | 03. NETHERLANDS CATEGORY "AMBIGUOUS". | 04. NETHERLANDS CATEGORIES "ON THE PAYROLL" | AND "COOPERATING IN FAMILY BUSINESS". | 05. NETHERLANDS CATEGORY "SELF-EMPLOYED".

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (1998): A2009 | | Response categories corresponding to codes 2,3 were not | available to Swedish respondents. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (1999): A2009 | | Only resondents with full-time or part-time employment have been | asked this question. Information on self-employed respondents | has been added, according to the CSES classification scheme, by | the collaborator.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (1996): A2009 | | An equivalent to the response category associated with CSES code | 4 category was not available to American respondents. | | These variables report the occupational characteristics of only | those respondents who are currently employed.

------A2010 >>> INDUSTRIAL SECTOR ------

Industrial sector of respondent's employment......

1. PRIMARY SECTOR: AGRICULTURAL, FORESTRY, FISHERIES 2. SECONDARY SECTOR: INDUSTRY: MINING, ENERGY, MACHINE, CHEMICAL, METAL EXTRACTION, ENGINEERING, METAL GOODS, MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY, BUILDING, CONSTRUCTION 3. TERTIARY SECTOR: TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION, TRADE, RETAIL BUSINESS, DISTRIBUTION, PERSONAL SERVICES, REPAIR SERVICES, BANKING, INSURANCE, FINANCE, PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, HEALTH, CULTURE, EDUCATION, RECREATION, RESEARCH, SCIENCE, MUSEUM, LIBRARY, SPORT

4. OTHER

7. [SEE VARIABLE NOTES]

8. DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING

0. NOT APPLICABLE (NOT IN LABOR FORCE, NEVER HAD A JOB)

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (1997): A2010 | | This variable was constructed according to the ISCO | classification scheme, as follows: | | CSES Code, Election Study Category/Categories: | | 01. [Primary Sector: ISCO Categories 61-75.] | 02. [Secondary Sector: ISCO Categories 75+.] | 03. [Tertiary Sector: ISCO Categories 11-52.]

------A2011 >>> OCCUPATION OF CHIEF WAGE EARNER OR SPOUSE ------

Occupation of chief wage earner/spouse......

ARMED FORCES

01. ARMED FORCES. 05. [SEE VARIABLE NOTES] 07. [SEE VARIABLE NOTES] 08. [SEE VARIABLE NOTES]

LEGISLATORS, SENIOR OFFICIALS, AND MANAGERS

11. LEGISLATORS AND SENIOR OFFICIALS 12. CORPORATE MANAGERS 13. GENERAL MANAGERS

PROFESSIONALS

21. PHYSICAL, MATHEMATICAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCE 22. LIFE SCIENCE AND HEALTH PROFESSIONALS 23. TEACHING PROFESSIONALS 24. OTHER PROFESSIONALS 25. [SEE VARIABLE NOTES]

TECHNICIANS AND ASSOCIATED PROFESSIONALS

31. PHYSICAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCE ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 32. LIFE SCIENCE AND HEALTH ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 33. TEACHING ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS 34. OTHER ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS

CLERKS

40. [SEE VARIABLE NOTES] 41. OFFICE CLERKS 42. CUSTOMER SERVICES CLERKS 43. ADMINISTRATION OF CHARITABLE OR NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

SERVICES WORKERS AND SHOP AND MARKET SALES WORKERS

51. PERSONAL AND PROTECTIVE SERVICE WORKERS 52. MODELS, SALES PERSONS AND DEMONSTRATORS 53. TRADE, CONSUMER SERVICES

SKILLED AGRICULTURAL AND FISHERY WORKERS

61. MARKET-ORIENTED SKILLED AGRICULTURAL AND FISHERY WORKERS 62. SUBSISTENCE AGRICULTURAL AND FISHERY WORKERS 63. [SEE VARIABLE NOTES] 64. [SEE VARIABLE NOTES]

CRAFT AND RELATED TRADE WORKERS

71. EXTRACTION AND BUILDING TRADE WORKERS 72. METAL, MACHINERY AND RELATED TRADE WORKERS 73. PRECISION, HANDICRAFT, PRINTING AND RELATED TRADE WORKERS 74. OTHER CRAFT AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS

PLANT AND MACHINE OPERATORS AND ASSEMBLERS

81. STATIONARY-PLANT AND RELATED OPERATORS 82. MACHINE OPERATORS AND ASSEMBLERS 83. DRIVERS AND MOBILE-PLANT OPERATORS 84. OTHER PLANT AND MACHINE OPERATORS AND ASSEMBLERS

ELEMENTARY OCCUPATIONS

95. [SEE VARIABLE NOTES]

96. OTHER OR NON-CLASSIFIABLE OCCUPATIONS (NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO CLASSIFY) 97. NO OCCUPATION

98. DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING

00. NOT APPLICABLE

| NOTES: A2011 | | See also notes for variable A2008. | | (1) This variable reports the cwe's Main Occupation,' that is, | the job at which the cwe spends most of the time, or if the cwe | spends an equal amount of time on two jobs, it is the one from | which the cwe earns the most money. For cwe's who are currently | employed, this variable reports their current occupation. For | cwe's who are retired or not currently working, code last | occupation. | | (2) Coding conventions shall employ the first two-digits of 1988 | ISCO / ILO International Standard Classification of Occupations | Code from the International Labor Office, CH-1211, Geneva 22, | Switzerland.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (1999): A2011 | | A2011 refers to the respondent's spouse, and not necessarily the | chief wage earner of the respondent's household.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (1997): A2011 | | This variable gives occupation of spouse/partner. If respondent | is not married/living as married this variable is coded 0. The | codes refer to current or last job - 97 is used when spouse/ | partner has never had a job.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2000): A2011 | | There are several [UNACCOUNTED FOR] response categories (5,7,8, | 95).

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (1999): A2011 | | This refers to the occupation status of the respondent's | spouse, and not necessarily the chief wage earner of the | household. | | Additional occupation codes for Iceland: | | CSES Code, Election Study Category/Categories: | | 20. PROFESSIONALS | 40. CLERKS | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (1998): A2011 | | This is the data for the respondent's spouse/partner and | includes both present occupation for those currently in the work | force and past occupation for those not presently working. This | variable was recoded from the 3-digit ISCO88 occupation code

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2002): A2011 | | This variable reports the occupational activity of the | respondent's partner/spouse, not the chief wage earner.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (1998): A2011 | | This variable reports the occupational activity of R's spouse.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (1999): A2011 | | The occupation of the spouse has been coded here, but only if | the spouse is/was employed at least part-time. A major ISCO | group 40 CLERKS has been added.

------A2012 >>> HOUSEHOLD INCOME ------

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

8. DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2001): A2012 | | CSES Code, Election Study Category/Categories: | | 01. <86 | 02. 87-145 | 03. 146-195 | 04. 196-260 | 05. >260

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (1999): A2012 | | This variable was constructed using several different survey | items. The resulting code set was: | | CSES Code, Election Study Category/Categories: | | 01. < 49,999 | 02. 50,000 - 69,999 | 03. 70,000 - 89,999 | 04. 90,000 - 114,999 | 05. >115,000 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLOON (1999): A2012 | | This variable was constructed using several different survey | items. The resulting code set was: | | CSES Code, Election Study Category/Categories: | | 01. < 40,000 | 02. 40,000 - 65,000 | 03. 65,000 - 90,000 | 04. 90,000 - 115,000 | 05. >115,000

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (1997): A2012 | | This variable was constructed from two separate items: | (1) Respondents were asked what their household income was and | if they gave the raw figure, it was recorded; and (2) if they | were reluctant, respondents were given the option of identifying | the broad categories into which their household income fits | (reported in parentheses below). Roughly, the quintile | thresholds are: | | CSES Code, Response Category/Categories: | | 01. < 23,000 (< 20,000) | 02. 23,000-$38,000 (20,000-29,999) | 03. 39,000-$55,000 (30,000-49,999) | 04. 56,000-$78,000 (50,000-69,999) | 05. >78,000 (>70,000).

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (1999): A2012 | | The income quintiles correspond roughly to the following | categories: | | CSES Code, Election Study Category/Categories: | | 01. <120,000 | 02. 121,000-180,000 | 03. 181,000-290,000 | 04. 291,000-600,000 | 05. >601,000.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (1998): A2012 | | CSES Code, Election Study Category/Categories: | | 01. <75,000 | 75-99,999 | 100-124,999 | 125-149,999 | 02. 150-174,999 | 175-199,999 | 03. 200-249,999 | 250-299,999 | 300-349,999 | 04. 350-399,999 | 450-499,999 | 05. 500-599,999 | 600-699,999 | 700-799,999 | >800,000

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (1998): A2012 | | Note provided with the recoded deposit: Figures are based on a | recode of 20 income classes. Due to missing official figures, | quintiles are based on survey responses.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (1997): A2012 | | One section of the sample (approximately half) was asked: | "Which of the letters on this card represents the total income | of your household from all sources before tax - including | benefits, saving and so on? Please just tell me the letter." | | The other section was asked: "What is the total income of your | household from all sources before tax - including benefits, | savings and so on? Please just tick one of the boxes on this | form. When you have finished, please fold the form and put it | into the envelope. RETRIEVE ENVELOPE" | | This variable is based on the combined data from these two | questions. In both cases, the answer options were: | | ELECTION STUDY RESPONSE CATERGORIES | CSES Code WEEKLY income ANNUAL income | BEFORE tax BEFORE tax | | 01. LESS THAN 77 LESS THAN 3,999 | 78 - 115 4,000 - 5,999 | 116 - 154 6,000 - 7,999 | 02. 155 - 192 8,000 - 9,999 | 193 - 230 10,000 - 11,999 | 231 - 289 12,000 - 14,999 | 03. 290 - 346 15,000 - 17,999 | 347 - 385 18,000 - 19,999 | 386 - 442 20,000 - 22,999 | 04. 443 - 500 23,000 - 25,999 | 501 - 558 26,000 - 28,999 | 559 - 615 29,000 - 31,999 | 05. 616 - 673 32,000 - 34,999 | 674 - 730 35,000 - 37,999 | 731 - 788 38,000 - 40,999 | 789 OR MORE 41,000 OR MORE

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (1998): A2012 | | CSES Code, Election Study Category/Categories: | | 01. NO INCOME | 3999 OR BELOW | 4000-5999 | 6000-7999 | 8000-9999 | 02. 10000-14999 | 03. 15000-19999 | 20000-24999 | 04. 25000-29999 | 30000-39999 | 05. 40000-59999 | 60000 OR ABOVE

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2000): A2012 | | CSES Code, Election Study Category/Categories: | | 01. NO INCOME | 3999 OR BELOW | 4000-5999 | 6000-7999 | 02. 8000-9999 | 10000-14999 | 03. 15000-19999 | 04. 20000-24999 | 25000-29999 | 05. 30000-39999 | . 40000-59999 | 60000 OR ABOVE

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (1998): A2012 | | The data come from the pre-election wave of the survey.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (1996): A2012 | | 239 cases coded 9 in the deposited data represented 'Refused' | and have been moved to 0 missing for this release.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (1997): A2012 | | These categories only roughly correspond to quintiles because | nearly forty per cent of respondents fall into one category, as | constructed and deposited by the collaborator. | | CSES Code, Election Study Category/Categories: | | 01. 0 - 1,000 | 02. 1,001 - 3000 | 03. 3,001 - 5,000 | 04. 5,001 - 7,000 | 05. 7,001 - 10,000 | 10,000 - 30,000 | 30,000 +

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (1998): A2012 | | CSES Code, Election Study Category/Categories: | | 01. 0-28000 | 02. 28000-38000 | 03. 38000-52000 | 04. 52000-73000 | 05. 73000 or more.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (1996): A2012 | | Earlier release of this data file classified respondents | differently. The collaborators have more recently provided an | updated version of this variable, with income quintile | corresponding to the following categories: | | CSES Code, Election Study Category/Categories: | | 01. <18,799 | 02. 18,800-28,799 | 03. 28,800-44,199 | 04. 44,200-67,399 | 05. 67,400

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (1997): A2012 | | The CSES income quintiles correspond to the following income | levels (in thousands): | | CSES Code, Election Study Category/Categories: | | 01. <139 | 02. 140-249 | 03. 250-349 | 04. 350-464 | 05. >465

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2000): A2012 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2001): A2012 | | This classification scheme only roughly corresponds to quintiles | (frequencies are reported in parentheses above). Further, there | is some concern that this classification serves to distinguish | those living in extreme poverty (Codes 1, 2 and 3), from those | living in poverty (Code 4), from everyone else (the income | groups corresponding to Code 5 include the lower middle through | upper classes). | | CSES Code, Election Study Category/Categories: | | 01. <300.00 | 02. 300.00 - 600.00 | 03. 601.00 - 1000.00 | 04. 1001.00 - 1500.00 | 1501.00 - 2000.00 | 05. 2001.00 - 3000.00 | 3001.00 - 5000.00 | 5001.00 - 10000.00 | MORE THAN 10000.00 |

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - RUSSIA (1999): A2012 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - RUSSIA (2000): A2012 | | CSES Code, Election Study Category/Categories: | | (Total Household Income over last 30 days) | 01. <540 | 02. 541-999 | 03. 1000-1500 | 04. 1501-2999 | 05. >3000

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (1998): A2012 | | This variable reports R's income rather than R's household's | income. | | CSES Code, Election Study Category/Categories: | | 01. <74 000 | 02. 75,000 - 138,000 | 03. 139,000 - 181,000 | 04. 182,000 - 232,000 | 05. 233,000+

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (1999): A2012 | | The original categories have been recoded in the following way | in order to roughly fit the quintiles: | | CSES Code, Election Study Category/Categories: | | 01. <2,000 | 2,001 TO 3,000 | 3,001 TO 4,000 | 02. 4,001 TO 5,000 | 03. 5,001 TO 6,000 | 6,001 TO 7,000 | 04. 7,001 TO 8,000 | 8,001 TO 9,000 | 05. 9,001 TO 10,000 | 10,001 TO 12,000 | >12,000

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2001): A2012 | | This item reports quintiles based on R's "income last month". | | CSES Code, Election Study Category/Categories: | | 01. <1,000 | 02. 1,001-3,000 | 03. 3001-6,000 | 04. 6,001-9,000 | 9,001-15,000 | 05. >15,001

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (1996): A2012 | | CSES Code, Election Study Category/Categories: | | 01. NONE OR LESS THAN 2,999 | 3,000-4,999 | 5,000-6,999 | 7,000-8,999 | 9,000-9,999 | 02. 10,000-10,999 | 11,000-11,999 | 12,000-12,999 | 13,000-13,999 | 14,000-14.999 | 03. 15,000-16,999 | 17,000-19,999 | 20,000-21,999 | 22,000-24,999 | 25,000-29,999 | 04. 30,000-34,999 | 35,000-39,999 | 40,000-44,999 | 45,000-49,999 | 50,000-59,999 | 05. 60,000-74,999 | 75,000-89,999 | 90,000-104,999 | 105,000 AND OVER

------A2013 >>> NUMBER IN HOUSEHOLD ------

Exact number of persons in household - that is, the number of persons living together in the housing unit excluding paid employees and persons who pay for rent for a room......

01-90. NUMBER OF PERSONS

98. DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (1997): A2013 | | This variable reports the number of adults living a in R's | dwelling place. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (1998): A2013 | | The data come from the pre-election wave of the survey.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (1996): A2013 | | Number of people in household: The highest code 7 includes | households with more than and equal to 7 people.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (1997): A2013,A2014 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2000): A2013,A2014 | | Some cases are coded with very high numbers in the deposited | data and remain unchanged. Similarly in 13 cases the value of | A2014is greater than the value of A2013 in the deposited data; | these data also remain unchanged.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (1996): A2013 | | The response category corresponding to code 8 indicates '8 or | more' for US respondents.

------A2014 >>> NUMBER IN HOUSEHOLD UNDER AGE 18 ------

Number of people in household under the age of 18......

00-90. NUMBER OF PEOPLE

98. DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING

| NOTES: A2014 | | See also notes for variable A2013

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (1998): A2014 | | The data come from the pre-election wave of the survey.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (1996): A2014 | | Number of people under age 18 in household is not asked in the | Japanese survey.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (1996): A2014 | | Total number of children (persons under 18) has been calculated | by subtracting the number of eligible adults from the total | number of persons in the household; a slight inaccuracy is | possible in cases where noneligible adults (e.g. noncitizens) | resided in the household. [Number of eligible adults was | subtracted from 8 if the total number of persons in the | household was more than 8 (see A2013 note).] ------A2015 >>> RELIGIOUS SERVICES ATTENDANCE ------

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

8. DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (1998): A2015 | | Cases coded "more often" than once a week in the German data | have been recoded to "once a week" in CSES A2015.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (1997): A2015 | | The question was not asked of people who did not give either a | current religion or a religion in which they were brought up. | They are coded 1 ('Never') in this variable. | | Code 2 includes people coded 'Once a year', 'Less often' and | 'Varies too much to say'.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (1996): A2015 | | Cases coded 7 ("a number of times a week") and 8 ("every day") | in the deposited data have been moved to code 6 in CSES variable | A2012; code 6 thus indicates "Once a week or more".

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (1996): A2015 | | Attendance at religious services is not asked in the Japanese | survey.

------A2016 >>> RELIGIOSITY ------

Religiosity......

1. HAVE NO RELIGIOUS BELIEFS 2. NOT VERY RELIGIOUS 3. SOMEWHAT RELIGIOUS 4. VERY RELIGIOUS

8. DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (1998): A2016 | | The data come from the pre-election wave of the survey. The | question wording (listed according to the coding of response | categories in the integrated CSES micro data set) was: | | "Please read the statements on this card and choose the one that | describes you[r attitude] best: [CARD] | | CSES Code, Election Study Category/Categories: | | 04. I AM RELIGIOUS, I FOLLOW THE TEACHINGS OF | THE [I.E. MY] CHURCH | 03. I AM RELIGIOUS IN MY OWN WAY | 08. I CANNOT TELL WHETHER I AM RELIGIOUS OR NOT | 01. I AM NOT RELIGIOUS/I HAVE A DIFFERENT | CONVICTION [I.E. R IS AN ATHEIST] | I AM DEFINITELY NOT RELIGIOUS

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (1996): A2016 | | A response category equivalent to CSES code 3 was not used in | the Taiwan study.

------A2017 >>> RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION ------

Religious denomination......

01. ROMAN CATHOLIC

PROTESTANT

02. PROTESTANT, NO DENOMINATION GIVEN 03. ADVENTIST 04. EPISCOPALIAN, ANGLICAN, CHURCH OF ENGLAND, CHURCH OF IRELAND 05. BAPTIST 06. CONGREGATIONAL 07. EUROPEAN FREE CHURCH (ANABAPTISTS) 08. HOLINESS 09. INDEPENDENT-FUNDAMENTALIST 10. LUTHERAN 11. METHODIST 12. PENTECOSTAL 13. PRESBYTERIAN

NON-TRADITIONAL PROTESTANTS

14. CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS 15. MORMONS; LATTER DAY SAINTS 16. UNITARIAN; UNIVERSALIST 17. EASTERN ORTHODOX (GREEK RITE CATHOLIC) 18. CHRISTIAN (NO DENOMINATION GIVEN)

20. JEWISH ISLAM

30. MUSLIM; MOHAMMEDAN; ISLAM (NO DENOMINATION GIVEN) 31. KHARIJISM 32. MU'TAZILISM 33. SUNNI 34. SHI'ISM 35. ISMA'ILIS 36. BAHA'I 37. DRUSE

BUDDHISM

40. BUDDHIST 41. THERAVADA 42. MAHAYANA 43. TANTRISM 44. TIBETAN BUDDHISM 45. SHINGON

HINDUISM AND OTHER RELIGIONS OF INDIA

50. HINDU 51. JAINISM 52. SIKHIASM 53. PARSIISM 54. VEDISM 55. BRAHMANISM 56. VAISAVISM 57. SAIVISM 58. TANTRISM 59. SHAKTISM 60. FOLK HINDUISM

INDIGENOUS RELIGIONS OF EAST ASIA

71. CONFUCIANISM 72. TAOISM 73. SHINT 74. BAHAI 75. I-KUAN-TAO

OTHERS

80. OTHER RELIGIONS 81. AGNOSTICS 82. ATHEISTS 83. NONE

91. REFORMED CALVINIST (NOT PRESB)

98. DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (1997): A2017 | | Respondents with no religion were coded 81 ('Agnostic') if they | were coded 3 or 4 in variable A2016 and 82 ('Atheist') if | they were coded 0,3,4,8 or 9 in variable A2016.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (1996): A2017 | | Code 37 indicates religious category "Druse."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (1998): A2017 | | Code 91 includes cases within various Reformed Church or | Calvinist denominations (but not Presbyterian).

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (1997): A2017 | | Religious denomination is not relevant in Norway, and as a | result this question was not included in the Norwegian study. | However, in 1993, the Norwegian Election Study found 95.5% of | respondents were Lutheran Protestants (The Church of Norway). | CSES response category, 02., therefore, indicates "Lutheran | Protestant" for Norwegian respondents (all respondents were | classified as Lutheran Protestants by the collaborator).

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2002): A2017 | | Since, in Portugal, most people who consider themselves | religious are Catholic, for this question respondents only had | three possible answers: | | CSES Code, Election Study Category/Categories: | 01. Catholic | 02. Other religion | 03. No religion | | In order to deposit the values in the CSES dataset, the category | "other religion" in the Portuguese questionnaire corresponds to | the CSES category 80, "other religions". However, while in the | Portuguese case "other religion" means all except the Catholic | religion, in the CSES case it means other religions beside all | those listed before.

------A2018 >>> LANGUAGE USUALLY SPOKEN AT HOME ------

This variable reports the language usually spoken in the respondents' 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) 202. BLUCH (PAKISTAN) 018. BOSNIAN 019. BRETON 020. BULGARIAN 021. CATALAN 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 (NEATHERLAND) 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 049. HUNGARIAN 051. HINDI

050. ICELANDIC 210. INDONESIAN 211. IRANIAN 052. ITALIAN 212. IWO (UGANDA)

053. JAKATI (MOLDOVA) 213. JAMAICAN PATOIS 054. JAPANESE

055. KANNADA (INDIA) 056. KAONDE (ZAMBIA) 057. KARAIM (LITHUANIA) 233. KARBADIN 058. KIRMANJKI (TURKEY) 235. KOMI 232. KURDISH 059. KURMANJI (TURKEY)

060. LADINO (ISRAEL) 061. LALA-BISA (ZAMBIA) 062. LAMBA (ZAMBIA) 063. LATVIAN 064. LENJE (ZAMBIA) 065. LESSER ANTILLEAN CREOLE 067. LIGURIAN 068. LITHUANIAN 069. LOMBARD

070. LOZI (ZAMBIA) 071. LUNDA (ZAMBIA) 072. LUVALE (ZAMBIA)

073. MACEDONIAN 074. MAITHILI (INDIA) 229. MALLORQUIN 075. MALAY 076. MALAYALAM (INDIA) 077. MALINKE (SENEGAL) 214. MALTESE 215. MENDE (SIERRA LEONE) 216. MIRPUARY/MIRPUIR (PAKISTAN) 217. MNADINGGO (GAMBIA) 078. MAMBWE-LUNGU (ZAMBIA) 079. MANDINKA (SENEGAL) 080. MAORI 081. MAPUDUNGUN (CHILE) 082. MARATHI (INDIA) 083. MBOWE (ZAMBIA) 084. MINGRELIAN (GEORGIA) 085. MONTENEGRIAN 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) 094. PANJABI, EASTERN (INDIA) 236. PERSIAN 095. PIEMONTESE 096. POLISH 097. PORTUGUESE 098. PROVENCAL 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) 115. SICILIAN 116. SINDHI (SINGAPRE, INDIA) 117. SLOVAK 118. SLOVENIAN 221. SOMALI 119. SOTHO, NORTHERN (SOUTH AFRICA) 120. SOTHO, SOUTHERN (SOUTH AFRICA) 121. SPANISH 222. SWAHILI 122. SWATI (SOUTH AFRICA) 123. SWEDISH

124. TAMIL (INDIA) 125. TATAR (RUSSIA) 126. TELUGU (INDIA) 127. TIBETAN 128. TICANESE (SWITZERLAND) 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

138. XHOSA (SOUTH AFRICA)

139. WELSH 140. WOLOF (SENEGAL) 141. YAHUDIC (ISRAEL) 142. YIDDISH 226. YORUBA (NIGERIA)

143. ZULU

163. [SEE VARIABLE NOTES] 227. [SEE VARIABLE NOTES] 998. [SEE VARIABLE NOTES]

999. MISSING

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (1997): A2018 | | 227. OTHER, NOT SPECIFIED.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (1996): A2018 | | Language usually spoken at home is not asked in the Japanese | survey. Code 54 (Japanese) was assigned to all R by the | collaborator.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KOREA (2000): A2018 | | 227. KOREAN

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2002): A2018 | | As only a few people in Portugal do not speak Portuguese at | home, this question was phrased thus (translating from | Portuguese to English): | | Do you generally speak Portuguese at home? | 1. Yes | 2. No | | As there is no "other languages" CSES category in this variable, | respondents who speak another language than Portuguese have been | coded as "missing". | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (1996): A2018 | | No response category corresponding to code 227 was provided by | the collaborator. However, 9 of the 10 respondents included in | this category identify with the Roma ethnicity (the remaining | individual identifies with the Hungarian ethnicity). Therefore, | it is likely that the response category corresponding to code | 227 indicates a dialect of Romany that does not fit into the | CSES classification scheme. This will be confirmed as more | information becomes available.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (1999): A2018 | | As this question was not asked in the Swiss survey, the | interview language is reported here instead, by the | collaborator.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (1996): A2018 | | This item was not included in the US study. Note, all | interviews were conducted in English.

------A2019 >>> REGION OF RESIDENCE ------

This variable reports the respondents' region of residence using coding categories not more detailed than the autonomous regions in Spain, or the Laender in Germany. 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 VARIABLE NOTES]

99. MISSING

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (1996): A2019 | | This variable was derived from AES variable ELECT (respondent's | Electoral Division) (User's Guide, pp. 105-108). | | State of residence remains the most socially meaningful regional | indicator for the Australian (federal) polity. The | geographically peripheral states of Queensland, Western | Australia, and Tasmania have, for example, demonstrated | distinctive patterns of support for minor parties in recent | years, with the "Greens" gaining the election of four members to | the House of Assembly in Tasmania and three to the Legislative | Council in Western Australia. Moreover, in conjunction with | variable A2022, and/or with variable A2027, A2019 may be | heuristic with regard to sub-regional differences in issue | orientation, as well as in party support (e.g. as between | Northern Queensland and metropolitan Brisbane). | | CSES Code, Election Study Category/Categories: | | 01. NEW SOUTH WALES | 02. VICTORIA | 03. QUEENSLAND | 04. SOUTH AUSTRALIA | 05. WESTERN AUSTRALIA | 06. TASMANIA | 07. AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY | 08. NORTHERN TERRITORY

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (1998): A2019 | | Although Hungarian public discourse occasionally refers to the | "North-West", "Budapest", the "East", or particular counties as | regions that display some cultural, economic, historical and | political differences, the number, identity and boundaries of | the relevant regions is rather obscure, and, at the very least, | have been constantly changing. Therefore, the construction of | this variable is based on the multimember electoral district of | the respondent's residence. These are the 19 counties and the | capital city of Budapest, which also serve as the twenty | administrative units of Hungary that exist between the national | and municipal level. For this variable these twenty multimember | districts or regions are collapsed into six geographic areas. | | The codes are: | | 01. SOUTH_EAST 05. NORTH-WEST | Bacs-Kiskun County Fejer County | Bekes County Gyor-Sopron-Moson County | Csongrad County Komarom-Esztergom County | Vas County | 02. EAST Veszprem County | Hajdu-Bihar County | Jasz-Nagykun-Szolnok County 06. SOUTH-WEST | Szabolcs-Szatmar County Baranya County | Somogy County | 03. NORTH Tolna County | Borsod-Abauj-Zemplen County Zala County | Heves County | Nograd County | | 04. BUDAPEST and Pest County

------A2020 >>> RACE ------

Race of respondent......

01. EUROPEAN (CAUCASOID) 02. ASIAN 03. AFRICAN (NEGROID) 04. INDIAN 05. POLYNEASIAN 06. MICRONEASIAN 07. MELANESIAN 08. AUSTRALOID 09. AMERICAN INDIAN

10. OTHER [SEE VARIABLE NOTES]

98. DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (1998): A2020 | | Anthropologists may question whether the Roma belongs to a | different race than other Hungarian citizens, but in political | terms the "Roma question" of Hungarian domestic politics has | racial, rather than ethnic overtones. Thus, the potentially | relevant distinction between Roma and non-Roma is retained by | the race variable. The interviewers were asked to record, right | after the post-election interview, whether the respondent was or | was not Roma, or that they cannot tell. Based on the presumed | historical origin of the Roma people, respondents believed by | the interviewers to be Roma were coded as members of the Indian | race. Due to the insignificant frequency of exceptions, | respondents believed by the interviewers not to be Roma were | coded Caucasoid. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (1996): A2020 | | Race is not asked in the Japanese survey. Code 02 (Asian) was | assigned to all respondents by the collaborator.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (1996): A2020 | | Response category "10. Other: Country specific" was | incorporated for New Zealand to accommodate respondents in New | Zealand who said that they were "New Zealanders".

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2002): A2020 | | Questions concerning race are deemed inappropriate in Portuguese | society. Instead, the interviewer was asked to guess the | respondent s race. Therefore there are no answers in categories | "don t know" or "refused to answer".

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (1996): A2020,A2021 | | The category "Asian/Pacific Islander" in the U.S. study was | recoded to the CSES "Asian" category. Also, note this US | response category includes all ethnic identities corresponding | to the Polynesian, Micronesian, Melanesian CSES response | category. As a result, American Rs corresponding to these | ethnic identities cannot be identified, and are reported under | the broad CSES response category "Asian." | | Also, the race of respondent (variable A2020) was determined | by the interviewer, while the R's ethnic identity (variable | A2021) was reported by the respondent.

------A2021 >>> ETHNICITY ------

This variable reports the ethnic identity of respondents......

001-997. ETHNICITY CODES [SEE VARIABLE NOTES]

999. MISSING

| NOTES: A2021 | | See also notes for variable A2020.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (1999): A2021 | | The respondent's ethnicity is not reported in this study.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (1996): A2021 | | Ethnicity is not asked in the Japanese survey was assigned to | all R by the collaborator.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - RUSSIA (1999): A2021 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - RUSSIA (2000): A2021 | | CSES Code, Election Study Category/Categories: | | 001. RUSSIAN 025. POLISH 045. KABARDIN | 002. UKRAINIAN 026. AZERBAIJANI 046. BALKAR | 011. JEWISH 027. MOLDOVAN 051. COSSACK | 012. UDMURT 028. KARELIAN 052. KHOKHOL | 013. BELORUSSIAN 030. KUBAN COSSACK 053. CITIZEN OF RUSSIA | 014. TATAR 031. BELORUSSIAN 054. KOMI | 015. GERMAN 032. LATYSH 055. KOMI-PERMYAK | 017. GYPSY 033. MARIIAN 057. MESHKHETIAN TURK | 018. MORDOVIAN 034. UDIN 097. HARD TO SAY | 020. ABKHAZ 039. RUSSIAN 098. REFUSAL | 021. ARMENIAN 042. BESSARABIAN 099. OTHER ANSWER | 022. CHUVASH 043. RUSSIAN,50% POLISH | 023. BASHKIR 044. ABAZIN

------A2022 >>> RURAL OR URBAN RESIDENCE ------

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 9. MISSING | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (1996): A2022 | | This variable was derived from J11 (User's Guide, p.101). | | Respondents who, in response to J11, say they lived in "A rural | area or village" or "A small country town (under 10,000 people)" | have been coded as "Rural Area or Village" on A2022. Those who | say they lived in "A larger country town (over 10,000 people)" | have been coded as "Small or Middle-sized Town". Those who say | they lived in a "Large town (over 25,000 people)" have been | coded as "Suburbs of Large Town or City". Those who say they | lived in "A major city (over 100,000 people)" have been coded as | "Large Town or City".

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (1997): A2022 | | This variable is constructed from postal codes, to indicate | "Rural" and "Urban" (response categories "Mid-Sized Town" and | "Suburban" were not included in this study).

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (1998): A2022 | | Note provided with the recoded deposit: code 3 includes suburbs | of large towns and rural areas close to large towns.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (1998): A2022 | | Localities classified, for administrative purposes, as | "villages" (kozseg), were coded as rural areas. The capital city | of Budapest was coded as a large town. All other localities - | classified, for administrative purposes, as "towns" (varos), and | all having a permanent residential population below 220 | thousand - , were coded as medium sized or small towns.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTE - MEXICO (2000): A2022 | | The unit of selection was electoral precincts as defined by the | Electoral Commission. Respondents will be coded in A2022 | according to the level of urbanization of the precinct where | they live defined by the Electoral Commission (rural) and the | population size of the community where the precinct is defined | by the census of 2000. | | CSES Code, Election Study Category/Categories: | | 01. RURAL. | 02. MEDIUM POPULATION SIZE LESS THAN 100,000. | 04. LARGE POPULATION SIZE. MORE THAN 100,000.

------A2023 >>> POLITICAL INFORMATION ITEM - 1ST A2024 >>> POLITICAL INFORMATION ITEM - 2ND A2025 >>> POLITICAL INFORMATION ITEM - 3RD ------

Political information items......

1. CORRECT 2. INCORRECT

8. DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING

| NOTES: A2023-A2025 | | Some studies include a series of political information | items, designed to test the respondents' general knowledge. | These items are of varying difficulty and responses are simply | reported as correct or incorrect. The questions used, and their | correct answers, are reported below. | | The response category "Don't Know" was not included in all | studies.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (1996): A2023-A2025 | | These variables were derived from G12P3, G12P9, and G12P6, | respectively (User's Guide, pp.86-88). | | Respondents were asked in G.12 (Questionnaire, p.21): "And | finally, a quick quiz on Australian government. For each of the | following statements, please say whether it is true or false. | If you don't know the answer, just circle '3' and try the next | one." | | 1ST ITEM: (G12P3) - "Australia became a federation in 1901". | Correct answer is "True" | 2ND ITEM: (G12P9) - "The Senate election is based on | proportional representation". | Correct answer is "True". | 3RD ITEM: (G12P6) - "No-one may stand for Federal parliament | unless they pay a deposit". | Correct answer is "True". | | Respondents indicating they "Don't know" on G12P3, G12P9, and | G12P6 were coded to "DK/Missing".

| COUNTRY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (1999): A2023-A2025 | | 1ST ITEM: Who was the chairman of the Dutroux Fact-Finding | Committee? | 2ND ITEM: Comparing the SP and the CVP, which party is the | greatest supporter of governmental regulation of the | economy? | 3RD ITEM: Which of the two political parties in the USA is | considered to be the most economically conservative?

| COUNTRY NOTES - CANADA (1997): A2023-A2025 | | 1ST ITEM: Who is the premier of your province? | 2ND ITEM: Who was Canada's first female Prime Minister? | 3RD ITEM: Who is the Federal Minister of Finance?

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (1996): A2023-A2025 | | Political Information Items: | | 1ST ITEM: Electoral threshold - "Can you tell me how many | percent of votes has to gain a political party in our | country in the elections in order to get into the | Parliament?" | 2ND ITEM: Name of minister of transport - "Who was the last | minister of transportation before the elections?" | 3RD ITEM: Number of seats in lower House - "How many members | has our Parliament?"

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (1998): A2023-A2025 | | 1ST ITEM: "Easy": Foreign Minister | 2ND ITEM: "Moderate": Number of Laender | 3RD ITEM: "Difficult": Number of EU members

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (1997): A2023-A2025 | | 1ST ITEM: "MPs from different parties are on parliamentary | committees." (True) | 2ND ITEM: "The longest time allowed between general elections is | four years." (False) | 3RD ITEM: "Britain's electoral system is based on proportional | representation." (False)

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (1998): A2023-A2025 | | 1ST ITEM: Ms Anson Chan is the Chief Secretary of HKSAR | (Correct) | 2ND ITEM: There are five geographical constituencies in the 1998 | Legislative Council Election of HKSAR (Correct) | 3RD ITEM: Members of Executive Council of HKSAR are directly | elected by the public (Incorrect)

| COUNTRY NOTES - HUNGARY (1998): A2023-A2025 | | The political information items used in this study are: | | 1ST ITEM: | Variable A2023: The following question asked the interviewers | to rate the respondents right after the post-election interview: | "Irrespective of how interested the respondent was in politics, | how well-informed, in your opinion, s/he is about political | matters: | 05. Substantially better informed than the average, | 04. Somewhat better informed than the average, | 03. About average, | 02. Somewhat less informed than the average, or | 01. Substantially less informed than the average." | | To create variable A2025, the original codes 1 and 2 (below | average) were recoded as "incorrect" and codes 3, 4 and 5 (at | least average political information level) as "correct" | responses. | | 2ND ITEM: | Variable A2024: "What percentage of the list votes does a | party have to get nationwide in order to see at least some of | its candidates surely elected to the new parliament?" (5%). | | 3RD ITEM: | Variable A2025: The respondents were asked to name the chairman | of the Constitutional Court. The correct response was Laszlo | Solyom.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (1996): A2023-A2025 | | Political information items used in this study are: | | 1ST ITEM: "To the best of your knowledge, according to the new | law, is there a limit on the number of terms the | Prime Minister can serve?" | 2ND ITEM: "To the best of your knowledge, who is the new | chairman of Knesset?" | 3RD ITEM: "To the best of your knowledge, what part of the | government budget does the defense budget take?"

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (1996): A2023-A2025 | | There are only 2 political information variables available in the | Japanese survey. the 1ST ITEM and 2ND ITEM are constructed from | Q17. Rs who could name Okinawa prefecture are given 1 (correct) | for the 2ND ITEM, and Rs who could name Niigata prefecture (or | Maki town) are given 1 (correct) for the 2ND ITEM. At the time | of the election, these were the only two referendums held in | Japan. The Okinawa referendum was known by more people than | the Niigata referendum. | | Question wordings are: | | 1ST ITEM: | Q17 By the way, do you know that a referendum was held in | Japan recently? | 01. I know (If 1, go to SQ) | 02. I do not know (If 2, go to Q18) | | 2ND ITEM: | SQ Do you know what local government it was? What about | others? (O.A.-M.A.) | Q17a Okinawa 1. mentioned 2. not mentioned | Q17b Niigata 1. mentioned 2. not mentioned | Q17c Makimachi 1. mentioned 2. not mentioned | Q17d Others 1. mentioned 2. not mentioned

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (1997): A2023-A2025 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2000): A2023-A2025 | | 1ST ITEM: Duration of the President's term | 2ND ITEM: Duration of the Deputies' terms | 3RD ITEM: Number of chambers in Congress

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (1997): A2023-A2025 | | 1ST ITEM: (=Q15D) - "To which party do the President of the | Storting during the last four years belong?" (Correct | answer - Labour Party) | | 2ND ITEM: (=Q15E) - "How many representatives are selected at | the Storting?" (correct answer - 165) | | 3RD ITEM: (=Q15B) - "Do you remember who's been the Minister of | Local Government and Labour the year before the | election?" (correct answer - Kjell Opseth) | | 'Don't know' responses were reported as missing in all three | questions.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (1997): A2023-A2025 | | 1ST ITEM: "Please name persons occupying the following | positions: Minister of foreign affairs" [Rosati] | | 2ND ITEM: "Please name political parties that formed the | governmental coalition in 1993-97 period" (PSL | mentioned) | | 3RD ITEM: "In July this year Poland was invited to join an | important international organization. What | organization was it?" [NATO]

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2002): A2023-A2025 | | 1ST ITEM: The name of the Portuguese Prime Minister before | Antsnio Guterres | 2ND ITEM: Number of EU member-states | 3RD ITEM: Recollection of any candidate in the last legislative | elections from the respondent s electoral district | (1). | | (1) This data was computed using question A3019. For the | answer to the 3RD ITEM to be considered correct, the respondent | needed to mention only one candidate correctly.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (1996): A2023-A2025 | | The political information items concern a treaty between Romania | and Hungary, and the positions different parties took. The | first question concerned whether or not the treaty was ratified | (exact wording is unavailable). The 1ST ITEM and 2ND ITEM were | constructed from the following items: | | 1ST ITEM: "Referring only to the political party that you | mentioned before that you prefer, do you remember | their position concerning the Romanian-Hungarian | treat? Please tell me their position on a scale of | 1 to 5, where 1 means that they were strongly in favor | of the treaty, and 5 means they were strongly | opposed." | [Note, for this item, there is a considerable amount | of missing data because of the limited distribution of | party identification]. | | 2ND ITEM: "Please tell me the name of a party, different from | the one above, which opposed the signing of such a | treaty."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (1996): A2023-A2025 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2000): A2023-A2025 | | 1ST ITEM: "How many countries does the European Union have?" | (Correct Answer: 15) | 2ND ITEM: "How many regions does our country have?" | (Correct Answer: 17) | | 3RD ITEM: "Can you tell me who was the former President of | Government before Felipe Gonzalez?" (Correct Answer: | Leopoldo Calvo Sotelo)

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (1998): A2023-A2025 | | 1ST ITEM: On this card there are a number of statements. Could | you say whether each of them is true or false. If you | are uncertain of the answer, you can answer that you | do not know whether the statement is true or false. | 'The Swedish Riksdag has 349 members' (correct) | | 2ND ITEM: "Here is a list with names of different persons. Could | you say to which party each of them belongs? Lars | Tobisson? (Moderate Party) | | 3RD ITEM: [See above] Marianne Samuelsson? (Green Party) |

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (1996): A2023-A2025 | | 1ST ITEM: "Who is the Premier?" | 2ND ITEM: "Who is the Chairman of the DPP?" | 3RD ITEM: "Who is the Speaker of the Legislative Yuan?"

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (1996): A2023-A2025 | | In the U.S. study, respondents were asked to identify the office | held by persons whose names were read. These names were: | | 1ST ITEM: "Al Gore" (Vice President). | 2ND ITEM: "Newt Gingrich" (Speaker of the House of | Representatives). | 3RD ITEM: "William Rehnquist" (Chief Justice of the Supreme | Court) | Incorrect or incomplete responses were considered 'incorrect'; | if R made no attempt to guess, 'Don't Know' was coded. These | items are not in order of "difficulty".

------A2026 >>> DAYS INTERVIEW CONDUCTED POST ELECTION ------

Number of days after the election interview conducted......

001-900. NUMBER OF DAYS

999. MISSING

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (1996): A2026,A1026 | | Variables A2026 and A1026 were derived from AES96 variable | Week of Return (RETWK) (AES96 User's Guide, p.105). AES96 | questionnaires were mailed to respondents on 2 March 1996 (the | date of the Federal election), and RETWK indicates the number of | weeks after that date that questionnaires were returned. For | ADMNMNTH, it is assumed that respondents who returned the | questionnaire during weeks 1- 4 after the election, completed it | in "March"; during weeks 5-8, in "April"; during weeks 9-13, in | "May"; and during week 14, in "June". | | A2026 converts the week of return in RETWK into the last day | of the indicated week, so that "days interview conducted post | election" is coded to intervals of 7, 14, 28, 35 ...98 days.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (1998): A2026 | | This was calculated as the difference between the date of | interview and the date of the first round of parliamentary | elections (May 10, 1998).

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (1998): A2026 | | The is the amount of time between the election date and the date | of the Post-election interview. See the annotation for variable | A1022.

------A2027 >>> PRIMARY ELECTORAL DISTRICT ------

Primary electoral district of respondent......

00001-90000. [SEE APPENDIX II FOR CODE VALUE LABELS]

99999. MISSING

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (1996): A2027 | | Israel is not subdivided into electoral districts. The whole | country is the only electoral district from which votes | translate into seats. As a result, no electoral district is | reported in the data file.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (1998): A2027 | | "The Netherlands is divided into electoral districts for purely | administrative reasons. These districts have no consequences | for the translation of votes into seats. Thus, for practical | purposes, the Netherlands counts as one nationwide electoral | district." As a result, no electoral district are reported in | the data file.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2000): A2027 | | Peru is not subdivided into electoral districts. The whole | country is the only electoral district from which votes | translate into seats. As a result, no electoral district is | reported in the data file.

------A2028 >>> DID RESPONDENT CAST A BALLOT ------

Whether or not respondent cast a ballot (regardless of whether the ballot was valid)......

1. R CAST A BALLOT 5. R DID NOT CAST A BALLOT 6. INCONSISTENT RESPONSE: VOTED; NO VOTE CHOICE 7. INCONSISTENT RESPONSE: DID NOT VOTE; VOTE CHOICE INDICATED

8. DON'T KNOW 9. REFUSED TO SAY WHETHER VOTED 0. MISSING

| NOTES: A2028 | | In formulating the question used to ascertain this information, | collaborators were requested to try to ask the question in a way | that minimizes over-reporting of voter turnout where this is | known to be a problem.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (1999): A2028,A2029 | | There are several "unanticipated" response categories in variable | A2029 (3, 4). As a result, variable A2028 cannot be | constructed.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (1997): A2028 | | This variable reports responses to the following question: | "Talking to people about the general election, we have found | that a lot of people didn't manage to vote. How about you - did | you manage to vote in the general election?"

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (1996): A2028 | | [This note was provided with Israeli deposit.] | | Ballot casting: | The data was computed using two questions, dealing with voting | pattern: | 1 Which party voted for - Prime Minister | 2 Which party list voted for - Parliament | If respondent specify an answer on either one - he\she were | coded 01. "R cast a ballot." If, on the other hand, if R | refused to say whether or not they voted, their responses are | reported as 09."Refuse to answer". It is not clear if | respondent's reluctance to answer is due to non-participation or | due to unwillingness to expose his/her political tendencies."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (1996): A2028,A2030 | | These variables were constructed from the following item: | | "It has passed one year after last elections. Did you vote? | (if yes) Still probably you do remember, which party or | candidate of which party did you vote for?" | If the respondent indicated that they had voted, this was | reported in variable A2028, with R's vote choice reported in | variable A2030.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (1999): A2028 | | This item was designed to avoid over-reporting: "On average, | about half of the electorate casts a ballot at federal | elections. How about you: did you cast a ballot at the federal | elections on October 24?" | | Nevertheless, 62% of the sample population indicated | participation in the elections, while the official turnout rate | is only 43%.

------A2029 >>> PARTY VOTED FOR PRESIDENT ------

If applicable and respondent cast a ballot:

Party that respondent voted for: president or party affiliation of candidate voted for......

01-96. [SEE APPENDIX I FOR POLITICAL PARTIES AND PARTY BLOCKS VALUE LABELS]

98. RESPONDENT CAST INVALID BALLOT/ DID NOT VOTE 99. APPLICABLE BUT NOT ASCERTAINED- DON'T KNOW, REFUSED

00. NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS ELECTORAL SYSTEM

| NOTES: A2029 | | See also notes for variable A2028.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2001): A2029 | | This variable reports first-round vote choice.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (1999): A2029 | | This variable reports first-round vote choice.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (1997): A2029,A2031 | | Although in the original deposit and early releases, vote-choice | data were reported in variable A2029 ("Party Voted For: | President"), it was decided that for consistency and reliable | cross-national comparisons, these data are more appropriately | reported in A2031 ("Party of Candidate Vote: District Level).

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (1998): A2029 | | This variable reports first-round vote choice. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (1996): A2029 | | This variable also reports Israeli respondents' choice for Prime | Minister. | | (1) This was the first election in which Israelis elected | their Prime Minister directly. This vote choice is reported in | the variable otherwise reserved for votes cast for presidential | candidates. | | (2) In the last round of processing, it became apparent that the | labels applied to this variable did not accurately reflect the | respondent's vote intention: Simply, the response categories | corresponding to codes 1' and 2' were reversed. After | matching the respondent's vote choice to their leader | evaluations, party identification and vote for the concurrent | legislative election it was decided that the codes were probably | indeed reversed and the necessary adjustments made.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KOREA (2000): A2029-A2032 | | Vote choice data were not deposited.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (1997): A2029 | | This variable reports first-round vote choice.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2001): A2029 | | Code 90 indicates 'Others.'

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2000): A2029 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2001): A2029 | | This variable reports first-round vote choice.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (1996): A2029,A2031 | | The "missing" category includes those Rs who voted but did not | vote for anyone for this particular office (president, | congressman).

------A2030 >>> PARTY LIST VOTED FOR - DISTRICT ------

If applicable and respondent case a ballot:

In systems where respondent had option of voting directly for a party list in district-level elections, party list that respondent voted for......

01-96. [SEE APPENDIX I FOR CODE VALUE LABELS]

98. RESPONDENT CAST INVALID BALLOT/ DID NOT VOTE 99. APPLICABLE BUT NOT ASCERTAINED- DON'T KNOW, REFUSED

00. NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS ELECTORAL SYSTEM

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (1998): A2030 | | This variable reports first-round vote choice.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2001): A2030 | | This variable reports first-round vote choice.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (1999): A2030 | | There are several additional response categories for this item: | 41. Respondent voted for a regional list | 43. Respondent voted for several parties | 44. Respondent voted for persons

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2001): A2030,A2031 | | These variables were included in earlier versions of this | data file. However, as they reported vote intention, rather | than ballots cast, it was decided that these data should not be | included in the study. As the collaborator has confirmed that | post-election vote recalls were not solicited from respondents | in this study, these variables report missing data.

------A2031 >>> PARTY OF CANDIDATE VOTED FOR - DISTRICT ------

If applicable and respondent cast a ballot:

In systems where respondent had option of voting directly for a candidate or candidates in district-level election, party of candidate respondent votes for: ......

01-96. [SEE APPENDIX I FOR CODE VALUE LABELS]

98. RESPONDENT CAST INVALID BALLOT/ DID NOT VOTE 99. NOT APPLICABLE BUT NOT ASCERTAINED- DON'T KNOW, REFUSED

00. NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS ELECTORAL SYSTEM

| NOTES: A2031 | | See also notes for variable A2030. ------A2032 >>> DID R CAST CANDIDATE PREFERENCE VOTE ------

If applicable and respondent cast a ballot:

In systems where respondent's primary vote was for a party list, but respondent had option of voting for individual candidates on the chosen list, in district-level election......

1. R EXERCISED CANDIDATE PREFERENCE 2. R DID NOT EXERCISE CANDIDATE PREF

7. INVALID BALLOT 9. APPLICABLE BUT NOT ASCERTAINED

0. NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS ELECTORAL SYSTEM

| NOTES: A2032 | | See also notes for variable A2030.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (1996): A2032 | | Code 0 indicates that R did not vote.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (1998): A2032 | | "In the Netherlands, votes are cast for a party list, but in the | same act the voter also indicates a preference for one of the | party candidates. The number of party seats is determined on | the basis of the number of votes cast for the party list, but | the order of the candidates (and consequently who is and is not | elected into parliament) may be overturned when a sufficient | number of votes is cast as so-called preferential votes (i.e., | votes for candidates other than the first name on the list)."

======))) CSES MODULE 1 MICRO-LEVEL DATA: SURVEY VARIABLES ======

------A3001 >>> SATISFACTION WITH DEMOCRATIC PROCESS ------

Q1. 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 3. [SEE VARIABLE NOTES] 4. NOT VERY SATISFIED 5. NOT AT ALL SATISFIED

8. DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING

| NOTES: A3001 | | This question was intended to be asked as a four-point scale | (very satisfied, fairly satisfied, not very satisfied, not at | all satisfied) but was asked in at least one country as a | five-point scale, thus the inclusion of code "3".

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2000): A3001 | | There are several cases that report code 3 for this item.

------A3002 >>> LAST ELECTION WAS CONDUCTED FAIRLY ------

Q2. In some countries, people believe their elections are conducted fairly. In other countries, people believe that their elections are conducted unfairly. Thinking of the last election in [country], where would you place it on this scale of one to five where ONE means that the last election was conducted fairly and FIVE means that the last election was conducted unfairly? ......

1. LAST ELECTION WAS CONDUCTED FAIRLY 2. 3. 4. 5. LAST ELECTION WAS CONDUCTED UNFAIRLY

8. DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (1997): A3002 | | This item was not included in the Canadian Election Study. ------A3003 >>> QUESTIONNAIRE USED - LONG OR SHORT ------

Identifies which version, long or short, of Question 3 (Q3) was administered......

1. ADMINISTERED LONG VERSION OF Q3 2. ADMINISTERED SHORT VERSION OF Q3

| NOTES: A3003 | | The LONG version of Q3 is appropriate for use in systems | where AT LEAST ONE party block (or electoral alliance) is | formed. This version of the party identification question | prompts respondents who identify with a party block, to specify | which affiliated party they identify with most. Questions that | comprise the LONG version of Q3 begin with "LQ". | | The SHORT version of Q3 was to be used in polities where NO | party blocks (or election alliances) formed. Questions that | comprise the short version of Q3 begin with "SQ".

------A3004 >>> ARE YOU CLOSE TO ANY POLITICAL PARTY ------

LQ3/SQ3. Do you usually think of yourself as close to any particular political party? ......

1. YES 5. NO

6. INCONSISTENT RESPONSE: YES; NO PARTY IDENTIFIED 7. INCONSISTENT RESPONSE: NO; PARTY IDENTIFIED

8. DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING

0. NOT APPLICABLE

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (1996): A3004-A3005_3,A3012 | | Respondents were asked (AES96 Questionnaire, p.4): "Generally | speaking, do you usually think of yourself as Liberal, Labor, | National or what?" (B.1), and, next: "Would you call yourself a | very strong, fairly strong, or not very strong supporter of that | party?" (B.2). | | Respondents indicating (on B1) that they "identified" with (any | one of) "Liberal", "Labor", "National (Country) Party", | "Australian Democrats", "Greens" or "Other Party" (e.g. any one | of 24 minor parties that the respondent specified) were coded as | "yes" to variable A3004; those indicating "No party" were coded | as "no" on variable A3004. Note that the response category | "Greens" refers to the "Australian Greens", a "confederation | between autonomous Green Parties" in all states and territories, | save that of Western Australia (which has a non-affiliated, but | allied, "Greens-Western Australia" party). The various "Greens" | fielded candidates in most electorates for the 1996 House of | Representatives election, but had none elected (and received | 2.89% of the nationwide first preference vote). | | Variable A3005_1 indicates the (one) party "mentioned" on B1 for | those with "yes" codes on variable A3004; those with "no" codes | on variable A3004 have been coded as "not applicable" on | variable A3005_1. | | Respondents indicating they were "very strong supporters" of the | party "mentioned" on variable A3005_1 were coded as "very close" | in variable A3012; those indicating they were "fairly strong | supporters" were coded as "somewhat close"; and those "not very | strong supporters" as "not very close".

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (1999): A3004-A3006 | | A3004-A3006 are not currently included in the CSES data file, | although comparable items were included in the Flemish study.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (1997): A3004-A3012 | | In preparation for the July 26, 2002 release, items from the | mail-back wave of the study replace those included in earlier | versions of the CSES data files, which were taken from the | post-election (telephone) wave of the study. Analysts should | note that there are significant differences in the distributions | of these items.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (1996): A3004-A3012 | | In preparation for the July 26, 2002 release, this series of | items was reconstructed from the original data, and as a result | differs considerably from those data included in earlier | releases.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (1996): A3004-A3006 | | In the U.S. study, no respondent mentioned being close to more | than 1 party.

------A3005_1 >>> PARTY CLOSEST TO - 1ST MENTION A3005_2 >>> PARTY CLOSEST TO - 2ND MENTION A3005_3 >>> PARTY CLOSEST TO - 3RD MENTION ------

LQ3a/SQ3a. What party is that? ......

01-96. PARTY [SEE APPENDIX I FOR CODE LABELS]

98. DON'T KNOW; NO PARTY MENTIONED 99. NOT AVAILABLE

00. NOT APPLICABLE

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (1997): A3005_2-A3006 | | Only one party was recorded for A3005_1, and as a result, these | do not apply.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (1998): A3005_2-A3006 | | Only 1 party could be reported in this study.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (1997): A3005_2-A3006 | | The implementation of this question in Britain only allowed for | one party to be mentioned.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (1996) A3004-A3006, A3010-A3011 | | A3005_1, A3005_2, and A3005_3 were asked and later coded as | one question, rather than as 3 separate questions. Respondents | were given a list of parties and asked to check off those that | they felt close to. Responses were then coded using indicator | variables distinguishing between those parties that were | mentioned and those not mentioned. Consequently, it is | impossible to distinguish between the first, second, and third | mentioned parties were there are multiple mentions. These | variables have since been recoded in an effort to promote | consistency across studies for analytical purposes. | | If the respondent mentioned only one party, that party was coded | as the first mention. If the respondent mentioned two or more | parties, then A3010 and A3011 were employed in an effort to | uncover which party R was closest to, and that party was coded | as the first mention. Where there were three mentions, the | second and third mentions were assigned on the basis of order in | which they appeared on the list.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (1996): A3004-A3006, | A3010-A3011 | | A3005_1, A3005_2, and A3005_3 were asked and later coded as | one question, rather than as 3 separate questions. Respondents | were given a list of parties and asked to check off those that | they felt close to. Responses were then coded using indicator | variables distinguishing between those parties that were | mentioned and those not mentioned. Consequently, it is | impossible to distinguish between the first, second, and third | mentioned parties were there are multiple mentions. These | variables have since been recoded in an effort to promote | consistency across studies for analytical purposes. | | If R mentioned only one party, that party was coded as the first | mention. If R mentioned two or more parties, then A3010 and | A3011 were employed in an effort to uncover which party R was | closest to, and that party was coded as the first mention. | Where there were three mentions, the second and third mentions | were assigned on the basis of order in which they appeared on | the list.

------A3006 >>> NUMBER OF PARTIES MENTIONED IN A3005 ------

Q3XPT Check Point: Number of parties (or blocks) mentioned in Q3a(1) to Q3a(3) ......

0. NO PARTIES MENTIONED 1. ONLY ONE BLOCK MENTIONED 3. ONLY ONE PARTY MENTIONED 5. MORE THAN ONE PARTY MENTIONED

9. MISSING

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (1999): A3005_2,A3006-A3007_1, | A3009 | | There are two cases in which the respondent identified with an | electoral block, and then identified a party within the block | as the second mention. These responses are reported in variable | A3007_1, and not in variable A3005_2, as they are in the | original deposit. Note, however, that as a result, their | responses to A3009 are inconsistent.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (1996): A3006 | | 8 cases in the deposited were coded unidentified value '2' and | retain this code in this CSES release.

------A3007_1 >>> BLOCK PARTY CLOSEST TO - 1ST MENTION A3007_2 >>> BLOCK PARTY CLOSEST TO - 2ND MENTION A3007_3 >>> BLOCK PARTY CLOSEST TO - 3RD MENTION ------

LQ3a(1). Which party in [NAME OF BLOCK] do you feel closest to? ......

01-96. [SEE APPENDIX I FOR CODE VALUE LABELS]

98. NO PARTY MENTIONED; DON'T KNOW. 99. MISSING

00. NOT APPLICABLE

| NOTES: A3007_1-A3007_3 | | See also notes for variables A3004 and A3006. | | This question was administered only in the LONG version of | Question 3 (Q3). | | Response categories range from 01 to 96. Refer to Appendix I | Political Parties and Party Blocks for party block code value | labels. If no SECOND PARTY BLOCK IS VOLUNTEERED enter 97. | Users of the SHORT VERSION OF Q3 enter 00.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2001): A3007_1-A3007_3,A3010-A3011 | | The questions corresponding to variables A3010 and A3011 | do not follow the usual skip pattern. That is, if the | respondent identified electoral block 3 in this item, they were | asked the follow-up (corresponding to A3007_1-A3007_3) about | which party in the block in the block they identified with.

------A3008 >>> NUMBER OF PARTIES MENTIONED IN A3007 ------

Q3XPT. Check Point: Number of parties mentioned in Q3a ......

1. NO PARTY MENTIONED OR ONLY PARTY BLOCK MENTIONED 3. ONLY ONE PARTY MENTIONED 5. MORE THAN ONE PARTY MENTIONED 9. MISSING

0. NOT APPLICABLE

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (1996): A3008 | | All cases in the deposited data were coded with the unidentified | value '2'.

------A3009 >>> WHICH PARTY DO YOU FEEL CLOSEST TO ------

LQ3b/SQ3b. Which party do you feel closest to? ......

01-96. PARTY [SEE APPENDIX I FOR CODE LABELS]

98. NO PARTY MENTIONED; DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING

00. NOT APPLICABLE

------A3010 >>> DO YOU FEEL CLOSER TO ONE PARTY ------

LQ3c/SQ3c. Do you feel yourself a little closer to one of the political parties than the others? ......

1. YES 5. NO

6. INCONSISTENT RESPONSE: YES; NO PARTY IDENTIFIED 7. INCONSISTENT RESPONSE: NO; PARTY IDENTIFIED

8. DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING

0. NOT APPLICABLE

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (1998): A3010 | | Data are combined into a single question (coded in variable | A3011). Cases coded 1 in Q3 (A3004) are 0 due to skip pattern; | those who were asked this question (5 or 8 in Q3) but who had | no 'closer' party mention are coded 97.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (1996): A3010 | | This question seems to have been applied only to cases where | more than 1 party was mentioned; the exact skip pattern is | unclear: | | "(If more than one party mentioned) Nevertheless, do you feel | yourself a little closer to one of the political parties than | the others?"

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2002): A3004,A3010-A3011 | | There are some cases in which, after answering 'Yes' to the | filter question corresponding to variable A3004, the | respondent did not provide an answer. Where this is the case, | the follow-up question corresponding to variable A3010 was | asked of the respondent. Further, if the respondent identified | an electoral block in the question corresponding to A3005_1, | and did not identify a component party, A3010 was asked.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2001): | | There is no apparent pattern in the responses to these items.

------A3011 >>> WHICH PARTY DO YOU FEEL CLOSER TO ------

LQ3d/SQ3d. Which party is that? ......

01-96. [CODE VALUE LABELS ARE FOUND IN APPENDIX I]

98. NO PARTY MENTIONED; DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (1996): A3011 | | This sub-question was coded in the field as a multiple answer | question. The order of mentions cannot be ascertained.

------A3012 >>> DEGREE OF CLOSENESS TO THIS PARTY ------

LQ3e/SQ3e. Do you feel very close to this [party/party block], somewhat close, or not very close? ......

1. VERY CLOSE 2. SOMEWHAT CLOSE 3. NOT VERY CLOSE

8. DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING

0. NOT APPLICABLE

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (1998): A3012 | | This question was only asked of respondents who identified a | party in Q3a (A3005_1), and was not asked of respondents | identifying a 'closer' party in Q3c (A3011).

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (1998): A3012 | | This question should have been asked of respondents who | indicated that they felt close to a particular party in A3004, | as well as of those respondents who initially indicated that | they did not feel close to a party in A3004, but who later | identified a party that they felt closer to in A3011. However, | this last group of respondents was not asked to respond to | A3012.

------A3013 >>> POLITICAL PARTIES CARE WHAT PEOPLE THINK ------

Q4. Some people say that political parties in [country] care what ordinary people think. Others say that political parties in [country] don't care what ordinary people think. Using the scale on this card, (where ONE means that political parties care about what ordinary people think, and FIVE means that they don't care what ordinary people think), where would you place yourself? ......

1. POLITICAL PARTIES IN [COUNTRY] CARE WHAT ORDINARY PEOPLE THINK 2. 3. 4. 5. POLITICAL PARTIES IN [COUNTRY] DON'T CARE WHAT ORDINARY PEOPLE THINK

8. DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2002): A3013 | | In order to make it easier for respondents to answer these | questions, when translating from English to Portuguese, the | original form of the questions was slightly altered. The | objective was to make the options clearer for the respondents. | Translating from Portuguese to English, here are the questions | as administered in Portugal (the added words are noted with | '*'): | | 1. Political parties in Portugal care *a lot* what ordinary | people think. | 5. Political parties in Portugal don t care *at all* what | ordinary people think

------A3014 >>> POLITICAL PARTIES ARE NECESSARY ------

Q5. Some people say that political parties are necessary to make our political system work in [country]. Others think that political parties are not needed in [country]. Using the scale on this card, (where ONE means that political parties are necessary to make our political system work, and FIVE means that political parties are not needed in [country]), where would you place yourself? ......

1. POLITICAL PARTIES ARE NECESSARY TO MAKE OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM WORK 2. 3. 4. 5. POLITICAL PARTIES ARE NOT NEEDED IN [COUNTRY]

8. DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (1996): A3014 | | As a result of inconsistencies in the translation of response | categories for this variable, and as the distribution is the | reverse of that in the original deposit, it seems that the | responses to this item should be coded in the reverse order of | how they appear in earlier versions of this data file. This has | been corrected in this release.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2002): A3014 | | In order to make it easier for respondents to answer these | questions, when translating from English to Portuguese, the | original form of the questions was slightly altered. The | objective was to make the options clearer for the respondents. | Translating from Portuguese to English, here are the questions | as administered in Portugal: | | 1. Political parties are very necessary to make our political | system work. | 5. Political parties are not at all needed to make our political | system work.

------A3015 >>> RECALL CANDIDATES FROM LAST ELECTION ------

Q6. Do you happen to remember the name of any candidates who [ran/ stood] in your [lower house primary electoral district, e.g., constituency, district, riding] in the last [parliamentary/ congressional] election? ......

1. YES 5. NO 6. INCONSISTENT RESPONSE: YES; NO CANDIDATE IDENTIFIED 7. INCONSISTENT RESPONSE: NO; CANDIDATE IDENTIFIED

8. DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING

0. NOT APPLICABLE | NOTES: A3015 | | Respondents who only identified party of candidate (without | name) have not been coded for recall in either the candidate or | party variables in the CSES data. | | Explanatory analyses of recalled candidates by party and gender | for each country revealed several inconsistencies that | researchers should keep in mind when using these variables. | | Some nations in the sample did not provide specific codes for | "incorrect" responses. Two considerations arise as a | consequence of this. First, in those countries that only | identified the correct responses in the tally (variable A3019), | it is difficult for users to uncover whether this occurred in | the first, second, third, or some combination of three recall | items for individual respondents. Second, it is unclear in which | cases respondents who gave incorrect responses were coded "don't | know" or "missing." | | In some countries, there occurred a relatively small amount of | cases in which candidates' party and gender were coded | inconsistently, and may be due to data entry errors and/or | disagreement over which party a candidate is affiliated with if | s/he were endorsed by multiple parties or is a member of a | party that is a member of a larger bloc. This is evident in | Hungary, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan. | | The general procedure for asking this question was that | respondents were initially asked if they remembered any | candidates (variable A3015). If they replied "yes," | respondents were asked to name up to three candidates that they | remembered. The party and gender of the candidate were assigned | later by the interviewer or during the data entry process. In | some countries, however, respondents were asked to identify the | candidates by party and gender. In this case, if a candidate's | name was recalled correctly, but corresponding party and/or | gender were incorrectly recalled, then variables A3017_1, | A3017_2, and A3017_3 were coded "0" and variables A3018_1, | A3018_2, and A3018_3 were coded "99" OR the incorrect gender | and/or party were coded although correct information is | technically accessible to the researcher. These variables have | been left as they are since they are possibly valuable as a | source of information about candidate recognizability and degree | of political information held by respondents. Countries | involved are Belarus, Czech Republic, Norway, Peru, Poland, | Romania, and Ukraine.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (1996): A3015-A3016_3 | | Respondents were asked (Questionnaire, p.9): "Before the | election, did you know the name of your local Federal MP in the | House of Representatives, and his or her political party? (Write | in name and party if you recall them, otherwise circle 9)" | (C.4). | | Respondents who wrote in the name of the Federal MP, and were | coded as "name given" on C4NAME, were coded as "yes" on A3015; | those who "Didn't know name" of their MP were coded as "no". | | Codes 001 to 146 on A3016_1-A3016_3 refer | to the names of the Federal MP for each of the 146 electoral | divisions that remained intact after the 1996 election (the two | new electoral divisions, of Namadgi and Longman, did not, of | course, have a MP before the election). Respondents coded as | "yes" on A3015 were assigned the code of the MP from the | respondent's electoral division, because the names that they had | written were not recorded. Respondents residing in Namadgi and | Longman were declared "missing" on A3016_1, A3017_1, and A3018_1 | and coded as "0" on A3019. Respondents who were coded as "no" | on A3015 and those who were "missing" on C4NAME were coded as | "not applicable" on A3016_1. | | Federal MPs Phil Cleary and Edward Mack represented their | electorates of North Sydney (Div. Number 134) and Wills (Div. | Number 237), respectively, as "Independent" of any party. | Accordingly, respondents from these divisions (coded "yes" on | A3015) were coded as "Other" on A3018_1.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (1997): A3015-A3018 | | Only a tally, and the names or parties of the candidates listed | were not recorded.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (1997): A3015-A3019 | | The British study did not screen respondents for the candidate | recall items.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (1996): A3015-A3018 | | Variables 18 through 27 are constructed from the following | question. "If you remember the names of the candidates who run | in your single-member district in this Lower House Election, | please specify their names. Are there any others? (O.A.-M.A.)"

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (1997): A3015-A3019 | | Lithuanian recall variables were deposited at the Presidential | rather than the district level and have not been archived.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (1996): A3015-A3019 | | The question of whether R recalled any candidates in their lower | house electoral district was never answered by respondents as | no. Respondents either indicated yes or did not answer. There | were 710 cases of missing data which were recoded as "no" which | may blur the line between no recall and missing data. Yet it | appears, the self-administered mode of the questionnaire and the | question content lend itself to non-response in cases where | respondents do not recall candidates, hence the recode.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - RUSSIA (1999): A3015-A3019 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - RUSSIA (2000): A3015-A3019 | | The candidates' names are recorded. Shortly, the CSES staff | hope to make available the | corresponding gender and party affiliations of these candidates. | In the meantime, for A3016, response category 1' | indicates that the respondent identified a candidate; response | category 0' indicates that while the respondent indicated that | they were able to recall candidates, they did not.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (1996): A3015-A3018 | | Note that the "candidate-recall" question wording differs | slightly: "Do you happen to remember the names of the candidates | for Congress - that is, for the House of Representatives in | Washington - who are running in the November election from this | district?" "Who were they?" "What is [NAME'S] party?" | | Note also that this question was administered in the pre- | election study. | | In many instances, respondents who answered "Yes" were then | unable to provide any name (Don't Know) or only provided names | which were not recognized names of candidates from their | district. In the latter cases, such names were usually | recollected names for candidates/officeholders from other | offices (not the House of Representatives) or other erroneous | recall. In a few instances, an unknown name may actually have | been that of an unknown write-in or other type of minor party/ | independent candidate, however, unless a minor party/independent | candidate had his or her name on the Candidate List for the | respondent's Congressional district, the name was unknown and | coded "97 Name not on Candidate List for this office". (In the | summary variable A3019, cases coded 97 are not counted as | 'correct'). | | Further, usually, the Candidate List (list of candidates at the | House, Senate and Governor level who ran in the respondent's | district, see Appendix III for the list of House candidates from | the Candidate List) includes few minor party/independent | candidates because minor party candidates typically have few | supporters and a very low level of recognizability. In 1996, | no minor party/independent candidate appeared on a Candidate | List for any U.S. Congressional district represented in the | study.

------A3016_1 >>> CANDIDATE MENTIONED 1ST - NAME A3016_2 >>> CANDIDATE MENTIONED 2ND - NAME A3016_3 >>> CANDIDATE MENTIONED 3RD - NAME ------

Q6a. (If name not volunteered) What were their names? ......

000001-999996. [CODE VALUE LABELS ARE FOUND IN APPENDIX III]

999998. INCORRECT RESPONSE

999999. MISSING

000000. NOT APPLICABLE

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (1996): A3016 | | The item included in the Australian study and in previous | versions of the CSES data files reported whether or not the | respondent could identify the MP from the previous term in | office.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (1997): A3016 | | These data are not available. However, variable A3019 reports | a tally of the number of candidates the respondents recalled.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (1996): A3016 | | No "incorrect" response category was used.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (1998): A3016 | | These data are not available. However, variable A3019 reports | a tally of the number of candidates the respondents recalled.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (1998): A3016 | | These data are not available. However, variable A3019 reports | a tally of the number of candidates the respondents recalled. | | Names and parties of recall were not coded in deposited data.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (1997): A3016-A3019 | | Although parties and candidate genders are reported, the | candidates mentioned by the respondents are not identified in | these variables.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (1998): A3016 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2000): A3016 | | No "incorrect" response category was used. | | Response category '991' indicates "Candidate's Party Name Only" | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (1998): A3016 | | No "incorrect" response category was used.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (1996): A3016 | | No "incorrect" response category was used.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KOREA (2000): A3016 | | No "incorrect" response category was used.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (1996): A3016 | | These data are not available. However, variable A3019 | reports a tally of the number of candidates the respondents | recalled.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NORWAY (1997): A3016 | | Code 996 refers to "Other" candidates who are not identifiable, | but are correct. | | (This note was provided with the deposit:) The list contains the | names of the first five candidates from the lists of the seven | biggest parties in Norway. For the smaller parties - only the | first candidate on the list is given a code. | | If the respondent has recalled correct surname for a candidate | on one of the lists, this is coded as correct answer in A3016 | even though the first name may be incorrect. | | If a respondent has recalled only a surname and the name is on | more than one list in the electoral district, the answer is | correct but party and gender is left open. | | Variable A3016 reports response category 996, if the respondent | identified only the surname of a candidate from the list | compiled, as described above, and there was more than one | candidate with this surname (preventing the collaborator from | further identifying the candidate mentioned). Nevertheless, | these responses are counted as "correct" mentions, and tabulated | in A3019.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2000): A3016 | | Code 990 indicates 'Others'.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (1997): A3016-A3018 | | There is an additional response category: 996. "Incorrect | recall".

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2002): A3016 | | No "incorrect" response category was used. | | These variables report any candidate recalled by the respondent. | Whether or not these responses are correct is reflected in the | tally, A3019. | | Actual responses are reported, regardless of whether or not | they are correct. However, the tally takes into account only | those responses which are correct.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (1996): A3016 | | No "incorrect" response category was used.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (1996): A3016 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2000): A3016 | | No "incorrect" response category was used.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2000): A3016 | | The data report whether or not the respondent correctly | identified a candidate (response code 1). As a result, the | gender and party affiliations of these candidates are not | reported.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (1998): A3016-A3018 | | Names mentioned in the recall section were coded even if the | names were incorrect for the respondent's district (i.e., if the | respondent correctly remembered a name but not for his/her | district). Thus the count of 'correct' responses in A3019 may | not, in some case, match the number of recalls coded in the | recall mentions variables (A3016).

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2001): A3016-A3018 | | The names of candidates recalled were not recorded, but were | assessed by interviewers as being either correct or incorrect. | As a result, these data do not report the names, gender, or | party affiliations of candidates recalled. A3019 reports a tally | of the number of correct candidates recalled. Also, note that | this item was included in the pre-election wave of the study.

------A3017_1 >>> CANDIDATE MENTIONED 1ST - GENDER A3017_2 >>> CANDIDATE MENTIONED 2ND - GENDER A3017_3 >>> CANDIDATE MENTIONED 3RD - GENDER ------Gender of [first/second/third] candidate mentioned......

1. MALE 2. FEMALE

9. MISSING

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (1998): A3017 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2000): A3017 | | If the respondent recalled only the party of a candidate who | contested the election in their district, response code 6 is | reported. Alternatively, if the respondent did not correctly | identify a candidate from their district, the response code 7 | is reported.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (1996): A3017 | | For current release of the Japanese data, gender of the | candidate is not recoded.

------A3018_1 >>> CANDIDATE MENTIONED 1ST - PARTY A3018_2 >>> CANDIDATE MENTIONED 2ND - PARTY A3018_3 >>> CANDIDATE MENTIONED 3RD - PARTY ------

Political party of [first/second/third] candidate mentioned......

01-96. [CODE VALUE LABELS ARE FOUND IN APPENDIX I]

97. [SEE VARIABLE NOTES]

99. MISSING

00. NOT APPLICABLE

| NOTES: A3018 | | Party code range from 01 to 96. See Appendix I for party | labels.

------A3019 >>> NUMBER OF CANDIDATES CORRECTLY NAMED ------

This variable tallies the number of district level candidates the respondents correctly identified in A3016-A3018......

0. NO CANDIDATES CORRECTLY IDENTIFIED 1. R CORRECTLY IDENTIFIES ONE CANDIDATE 2. R CORRECTLY IDENTIFIES MORE THAN ONE CANDIDATE 9. DISTRICT-LEVEL CANDIDATE RECALL NOT ASKED

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (1996): A3019 | | There are some inconsistencies in the number of candidates | mentioned by respondents and the number reported correct in | this variable.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (1998): A3019 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2000): A3019 | | There are some inconsistencies in the number of candidates | mentioned by respondents and the number reported correct in | this variable.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (1998): A3019 | | There are some inconsistencies in the number of candidates | mentioned by respondents and the number reported correct in | this variable.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (1996): A3019 | | There are some inconsistencies in the number of candidates | mentioned by respondents and the number reported correct in | this variable.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KOREA (2000): A3019 | | There are some inconsistencies in the number of candidates | mentioned by respondents and the number reported correct in | this variable.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (1996): A3019 | | The data on the total number of correct recalls was constructed | from the number of candidate mentions, regardless of whether | they were correct or incorrect.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2002): A3019 | | There are some inconsistencies in the number of candidates | mentioned by respondents and the number reported correct in | this variable.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (1996): A3019 | | There are some inconsistencies in the number of candidates | mentioned by respondents and the number reported correct in | this variable.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (1996): A3019 | | There are some inconsistencies in the number of candidates | mentioned by respondents and the number reported correct in | this variable. | | There are five cases in which the respondent answered the filter | question 'Yes', no candidates are identified in variables | A3016_1-A3016_3 and the tally variable A3019, indicates | that one candidate was correctly recalled. Similarly, there are | five cases in which the respondent answered the filter question | 'Yes,' no candidates were identified, and the tally variable, | A3019, indicates that more than one candidate was identified.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (1999): A3019 | | Both candidates for the first and the second chamber of | parliament are in the same list. According to the collaborator, | therefore, it is not possible to reliably decide how many | candidates a respondent correctly named. | | There is one case in which the respondent identifies a | candidate and this variable reports that no candidates were | correctly recalled by the respondent. "Incorrect" response | codes were used in variables A3016_1-A3016_3.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (1996): A3019 | | There is one case in which the respondent identifies a candidate | and this variable reports that no candidates were correctly | recalled by the respondent. No "incorrect" response codes were | used in variables A3016_1-A3016_3.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UKRAINE (1998): A3019 | | There are two cases in which a candidate is identified in the | first variable of this set, no candidate is identified in the | second mention, but their gender is reported. The tally for | these respondents reports that "More than one candidate was | correctly identified." Also, there are some inconsistencies in | the number of candidates mentioned by the respondent, and the | number reported correct in this variable.

------A3020_A >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY A A3020_B >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY B A3020_C >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY C A3020_D >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY D A3020_E >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY E A3020_F >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - PARTY F A3020_G >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - ADDITIONAL - PARTY G A3020_H >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - ADDITIONAL - PARTY H A3020_I >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - ADDITIONAL - PARTY I ------

Q7a-f. 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......

00. STRONGLY DISLIKE 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. STRONGLY LIKES

96. HAVEN'T HEARD OF

98. DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (1999): A3020 | | Presidential candidate, Ricardo Lagos, ran with the support of | the Party for Democracy and the Socialist Party.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (1998): A3020 | | The German scale was 1-11 and has been converted to 0-10 | in this variable for the sake of comparison with other | election studies (both scales contain eleven points).

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (1998): A3020-A3032 | | The 0-100 scale used in the Netherlands survey was collapsed for | CSES in the following manner: | | CSES Code, Election Study Category/Categories: | | 00. 0-5 | 01. 6-15 | 02. 16-25 | 03. 26-35 | 04. 36-45 | 05. 46-55 | 06. 56-65 | 07. 66-75 | 08. 76-85 | 09. 86-95 | 10. 96-100. | | The portion of the Netherlands questionnaire which asked | respondents to rate their liking for various parties randomized | the order in which the names of the parties were read. In | addition, the portion of the questionnaire which asked | respondents to rate their liking for individual political | figures randomized the order in which the names of those | political figures were read.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (1996): A3020-A3021,A3032 | | The items included in the Romanian study do not correspond very | well to the most popular parties, at least partly due to the | complex system of electoral alliances that formed during this | election (the items included correspond to parties, and not the | electoral blocks). As a result, there is a considerable amount | of missing data reported in these variables.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2001): A3020-A3021 | | Note that candidate and leader evaluations used a 1 to 10 point | scale (instead of a 0 to 10 point scale).

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UKRAINE (1998): A3020-A3032 | | There are some inconsistencies in the coding of these items | across the various versions of these data provided by the | collaborator, especially with regard to the handling of | respondents in category 0. In some versions of the data, these | responses are reported in as missing and are assigned code '99'. | Because the questionnaire reports that a code 0 was included as | a non-missing response category, and because the original | frequencies deposited by the collaborator report these | respondents in category '0,' they are included in this category | in the CSES data files.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (1996): A3020 | | The CSES response category "Haven't heard of" was not available | to American respondents.

------A3021_A >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER A A3021_B >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER B A3021_C >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER C A3021_D >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER D A3021_E >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER E A3021_F >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - LEADER F A3021_G >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - ADDITIONAL - LEADER G A3021_H >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - ADDITIONAL - LEADER H A3021_I >>> LIKE-DISLIKE - ADDITIONAL - LEADER I ------Q8a-f. And now, using the same scale, I'd like to ask you how much you like or dislike some political leaders. Again, if I come to a leader you haven't heard of or you do not know enough about them, just say so. The first political leader is LEADER A......

00. STRONGLY DISLIKE 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. STRONGLY LIKES

96. HAVEN'T HEARD OF

98. DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING

| NOTES: A3021 | | Refer to Appendix I for the names of political leaders A | through F. Note that wherever possible and appropriate, these | leaders are the leaders or most prominent candidates of parties | A-F. | | Users will also want to refer to variable notes for A3020.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (1996): A3021_E | | A3021_E was coded to "missing", as the "Greens" had no single | party leader of national stature and, thus, no response category | was offered in C.1 (Questionnaire, p.8).

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (1999): A3021,A3035 | | Leader evaluations were not included in this study.

------A3022 >>> ECONOMY IMPROVED LAST 12 MONTHS ------

Q9. What do you think about the state of the economy these days in [country]? Would you say that the state of the economy is very good, good, neither good nor bad, bad, or very bad? ......

1. VERY GOOD 2. GOOD 3. NEITHER GOOD NOR BAD 4. BAD 5. VERY BAD

8. DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING

------A3023 >>> ECONOMY CHANGE ------

Q10. Would you say that over the past twelve months, the state of the economy in [country] has gotten better, stayed about the same, or gotten worse? ......

1. GOTTEN BETTER 3. STAYED THE SAME 5. GOTTEN WORSE

8. DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2001): A3023-A3025 | | There are several cases in which there is an inconsistent | response pattern. For example, some respondents who indicated | that the economy had gotten better, provided a response as to | whether the economy had gotten somewhat worse, or much worse.

------A3024 >>> ECONOMY HOW MUCH BETTER ------

Q10a. Would you say much better or somewhat better? ......

1. MUCH BETTER 2. SOMEWHAT BETTER

8. DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING

0. NOT APPLICABLE

| NOTES: A3024 | | Users will also want to refer to variable notes for A3023.

------A3025 >>> ECONOMY HOW MUCH WORSE ------

Q10b. Would you say much worse or somewhat worse? ......

4. SOMEWHAT WORSE 5. MUCH WORSE

8. DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING

0. NOT APPLICABLE

| NOTES: A3025 | | Users will also want to refer to variable notes for A3023.

------A3026 >>> POLITICIANS KNOW WHAT PEOPLE THINK ------

Q11. Some people say that members of [Congress/ Parliament] know what ordinary people think. Others say that members of [Congress/Parliament] don't know much about what ordinary people think. Using the scale on this card, (where ONE means that the members of [Congress/Parliament] know what ordinary people think, and FIVE means that the members of [Congress/ Parliament] don't know much about what ordinary people think), where would you place yourself? ...... 1. MEMBERS OF [CONGRESS/PARLIAMENT] KNOW WHAT ORDINARY PEOPLE THINK 2. 3. 4. 5. MEMBERS OF [CONGRESS/PARLIAMENT] DON'T KNOW WHAT ORDINARY PEOPLE THINK

8. DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2002): A3026 | | In order to make it easier for respondents to answer these | questions, when translating from English to Portuguese, the | original form of the questions was slightly altered. The | objective was to make the options clearer for the respondents. | Translating from Portuguese to English, here are the questions | as administered in Portugal: | | CSES Code, Election Study Category/Categories: | | 1. MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT KNOW WELL WHAT ORDINARY PEOPLE THINK | 5. MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT DON T KNOW ANYTHING WHAT ORDINARY | PEOPLE THINK

------A3027 >>> CONTACT WITH POLITICIAN IN PAST YEAR ------

Q12. During the past twelve months, have you had any contact with [a member of Parliament/a member of Congress] in any way? ......

1. YES 5. NO; NO CONTACT AT ALL

8. DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING

------A3028 >>> WHO IS IN POWER CAN MAKE DIFFERENCE ------

Q13. Some people say it makes a difference who is in power. Others say that it doesn't make a difference who is in power. Using the scale on this card, (where ONE means that it makes a difference who is in power and FIVE means that it doesn't make a difference who is in power), where would you place yourself? ......

1. IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE WHO IS IN POWER 2. 3. 4. 5. IT DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE WHO IS IN POWER

8. DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2002): A3028 | | In order to make it easier for respondents to answer these | questions, when translating from English to Portuguese, the | original form of the questions was slightly altered. The | objective was to make the options clearer for the respondents. | Translating from Portuguese to English, here are the questions | as administered in Portugal: | | CSES Code, Election Study Category/Categories: | | 1. IT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE WHO IS IN POWER | 5. IT DOESN T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE WHO IS IN POWER

------A3029 >>> WHO PEOPLE VOTE FOR MAKES A DIFFERENCE ------

Q14. 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 difference to what happens. Using the scale on this card, (where ONE means that voting won't make a difference to what happens and FIVE means that voting can make a difference), where would you place yourself? ......

1. WHO PEOPLE VOTE FOR WON'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE 2. 3. 4. 5. WHO PEOPLE VOTE FOR CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE

8. DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2002): A3029 | | In order to make it easier for respondents to answer these | questions, when translating from English to Portuguese, the | original form of the questions was slightly altered. The | objective was to make the options clearer for the respondents. | Translating from Portuguese to English, here are the questions | as administered in Portugal: | | CSES Code, Election Study Category/Categories: | | 1. WHO PEOPLE VOTE FOR WON T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE | 5. WHO PEOPLE VOTE FOR CAN MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE ------A3030 >>> DO PEOPLE EXPRESS POLITICAL OPINION ------

Q15. When people are asked to express an opinion, do you believe most people in [country] usually say what they think about politics or do you believe most people usually hide what they really think about politics? Using the scale on this card, (where ONE means that most people in [country] usually say what they think about politics, and FIVE means that most people usually hide what they really think), where would you place yourself? ......

1. MOST PEOPLE IN [COUNTRY] USUALLY SAY WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT POLITICS 2. 3. 4. 5. MOST PEOPLE IN [COUNTRY] USUALLY HIDE WHAT THEY REALLY THINK ABOUT POLITICS

8. DON'T KNOW 9. MISSING

------A3031 >>> LEFT-RIGHT - SELF ------

Q16a. In politics people sometimes talk of left and right. Where would you place yourself on a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 means the left and 10 means the right? ......

00. LEFT 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. RIGHT

96. [SEE VARIABLE NOTES]

98. DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (1996): A3031-A3034 | | The Left/Right Placement items were not asked in the Japanese | survey. Instead, the optional Liberal/Conservative Placement is | included in A3033-A3034. Showcard for the Liberal/Conservative | Placement in the Japanese survey has a label for the midpoint | (5) and it reads "neither of them."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (1997): A3031-A3032 | | An even-numbered only scale was used.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2001): A3031-A3032 | | Left-right evaluations are not relevant to Thai politics, and as | a result these items were not included in the study.

------A3032_A >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY A A3032_B >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY B A3032_C >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY C A3032_D >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY D A3032_E >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY E A3032_F >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY F A3032_G >>> LEFT-RIGHT - ADDITIONAL - PARTY G A3032_H >>> LEFT-RIGHT - ADDITIONAL - PARTY H A3032_I >>> LEFT-RIGHT - ADDITIONAL - PARTY I ------

Q16b-g. Now, using the same scale, where would you place [Party A-F]? ......

00. LEFT 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. RIGHT

96. HAVEN'T HEARD OF 97. [SEE VARIABLE NOTES]

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (1998): A3031-A3032 | | The scale used ranges from 1-10, so that no cases in the | Netherlands data are coded 0. Also, CSES category for Don't Know | includes cases from the Netherlands categories "Don't Know" and | "Could not position party".

------A3033 >>> OPTIONAL SCALE - SELF ------

Q17a. Where would you place yourself on this scale? ......

00-10.

11. LEFT OF 0 12. RIGHT OF 0

96. HAVEN'T HEARD OF

98. DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING

| NOTES: A3033-A3035 | | Variables A3033-A3035_F have been included for those countries | in which the left-right dimension is not the most salient | dimension of political competition. The following election | study notes document the scales used. | | Expert ratings of the parties on these dimensions are reported | in A5004. | | Also, note that where left-right evaluations of the leaders are | available. These are reported in A3035.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (1997): A3033-A3035 | | "Government should make much greater efforts to make people's | incomes more equal." (0) - "Government should be much less | concerned about how equal people's incomes are." (10) | | The collaborator has not provided any rankings of parties on | this scale. | | These variables are based on responses to the following | questions: "Some people feel that government should make much | greater efforts to make people's incomes more equal. These | people would put themselves in Box A. [According accompanying | showcard, this is the left-most position]. Other people feel | that government should be much less concerned about how equal | people's incomes are. These people would put themselves in | Box K. [According to accompanying showcard, this is the | right-most position]. And other people have views somewhere | in-between, along here (POINT LEFT A-F) or along here (POINT | RIGHT K-F). [IF ASKED, the interviewers were instructed to | confirm that Box F is the middle position]. In the first row of | boxes, please tick whichever box comes closest to your own views | about redistributing income. Now where do you think that the | political parties stand? First the Conservative Party. In the | next row of boxes, please tick whichever box you think comes | closest to the views of the Conservative Party. | [...] | IN SCOTLAND [Response category 97 indicates R outside of | Scotland]: Now tick whichever box you think comes closest to the | views of the Scottish National Party." | | Note, responses left of A' were reported L' and responses | right of K' are reported M'. These "extreme" responses were | recoded to 0 and 10, respectively. Care was taken to ensure | that the responses reflected the respondent's best assessment | (that is, they were free to change their answer upon further | reflection). | | Code 11 for Great Britain (1997) reads "More Left Than 0" | Code 12 for Great Britain (1997) reads "More Right Than 0"

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (1998): A3033-A3035 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2000): A3033-A3035 | | "After I read the name of a political party, please rate it on a | scale from 0 to 10, where 0 means you think that party is | Pro-Beijing and 10 means that you think that party is Pro-Hong | Kong."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (1998): A3033-A3035 | | Note that a further alternative dimension (Pro-Business, | Pro-Grassroots) is available in the original election study.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (1996): A3033-A3035 | | In Japan, the terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" anchor the | scale.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (1998): A3033-A3035 | | "Doctors should always be allowed to end life at the patient's | request." (0)- "Euthanasia should always be forbidden." (10) | | PARTY A Partij van de Arbeid 3 | PARTY B Christen Democratisch Appel 8 | PARTY C Volkspartij voor Vriheid en Democratie 3 | PARTY D Democraten 66 2 | PARTY E Groen Links 3 | PARTY F Gereformeerd Politiek Verbond 9

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2002): A3033-A3035 | | Left-Right evaluations of party leaders are reported in | A3035_A-A3035_F.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - RUSSIA (1999): A3033-A3035 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - RUSSIA (2000): A3033-A3035 | | Left-Right evaluations of party leaders are reported in A3035.

------A3034_A >>> OPTIONAL SCALE - PARTY A A3034_B >>> OPTIONAL SCALE - PARTY B A3034_C >>> OPTIONAL SCALE - PARTY C A3034_D >>> OPTIONAL SCALE - PARTY D A3034_E >>> OPTIONAL SCALE - PARTY E A3034_F >>> OPTIONAL SCALE - PARTY F ------

Q17b. Where would you place PARTY A on this scale? Q17c. Where would you place PARTY B on this scale? Q17d. Where would you place PARTY C on this scale? Q17e. Where would you place PARTY D on this scale? Q17f. Where would you place PARTY E on this scale? Q17g. Where would you place PARTY F on this scale? ...... 00-10. RATING

11. LEFT OF 0 12. RIGHT OF 0

96. HAVEN'T HEARD OF 97. [SEE VARIABLE NOTES]

98. DON'T KNOW 99. MISSING

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (1996): A3033-A3035 | | In Japan, the terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" anchor the | scale.

------A3035_A >>> OPTIONAL SCALE - LEADER A A3035_B >>> OPTIONAL SCALE - LEADER B A3035_C >>> OPTIONAL SCALE - LEADER C A3035_D >>> OPTIONAL SCALE - LEADER D A3035_E >>> OPTIONAL SCALE - LEADER E A3035_F >>> OPTIONAL SCALE - LEADER F ------

Q17h. Where would you place LEADER A on this scale? Q17i. Where would you place LEADER B on this scale? Q17j. Where would you place LEADER C on this scale? Q17k. Where would you place LEADER D on this scale? Q17l. Where would you place LEADER E on this scale? Q17m. Where would you place LEADER F on this scale? ......

00-10. RATING

96. HAVEN'T HEARD OF

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (1999): A3021,A3035 | | Leader evaluations were not included in this study.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GREAT BRITAIN (1997): A3035 | | Response category 97 indicates that the respondent is 'aged | 97+'.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - RUSSIA (1999): A3035 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - RUSSIA (2000): A3035 | | The Left-Right evaluations of the LEADERS A-F are reported in | these variables according to the format specified in | variables A3031-A3032.

======))) CSES MODULE 1 DISTRICT-LEVEL VARIABLES ======

| NOTES: | | (1) All variables in this section pertain the first segment of | the lower house of the legislative body. Later versions of the | project will include electoral returns for upper house and head | of state elections, wherever possible. In elections in which | the lower house was not elected, no data are reported here. | | (2) The respondents' electoral district is reported in A2027, | with labels listed in Appendix II.

------A4001 >>> NUMBER OF SEATS IN DISTRICT ------

This variable reports the number of seats contested in each district of the first segment of the lower house of the legislature......

001-900. NUMBER OF SEATS CONTESTED IN ELECTORAL DISTRICT

999. MISSING

000. NOT APPLICABLE

------A4002 >>> NUMBER OF CANDIDATES IN DISTRICT ------

This variable reports the number of candidates who contested seats in each district. These data are reported for systems in which electors vote for candidates directly, and for systems in which electors may cast a preference ballot (i.e. indicate a candidate from a party list, in addition to casting a ballot for a party list)......

0001-9000. NUMBER OF CANDIDATES THAT CONTESTED THE ELECTION IN THIS ELECTORAL DISTRICT

9999. MISSING

0000. NOT APPLICABLE

------A4003 >>> NUMBER OF PARTY LISTS IN DISTRICT ------

This variable reports the number of parties that presented lists and thereby contested seats in the district. These data are reported for those systems in which electors cast ballots for party lists......

001-900. NUMBER OF PARTIES THAT PRESENTED A LIST OF CANDIDATES IN THE ELECTION IN THIS ELECTORAL DISTRICT

999. MISSING

000. NOT APPLICABLE

------A4004_A >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY A A4004_B >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY B A4004_C >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY C A4004_D >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY D A4004_E >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY E A4004_F >>> PERCENT VOTE IN DISTRICT - PARTY F ------

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......

001.00-100.00. PERCENT (1.00% TO 100.00%) OF THE VALID BALLOTS CAST IN THIS DISTRICT THAT WERE CAST IN FAVOR OF PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F]. 999.00. MISSING

000.00. NOT APPLICABLE

| NOTES: A4004 | | Parties are identified in Appendix I.

------A4005 >>> TURNOUT IN DISTRICT ------

This variable reports the proportion of valid votes cast relative to the number of voters......

001.00-100.00. PERCENT OF VOTERS IN THIS DISTRICT THAT CAST VALID BALLOTS

999.00. MISSING

000.00. NOT APPLICABLE

======))) CSES MODULE 1 MACRO-LEVEL VARIABLES ======

------A5001_A >>> YEAR FOUNDED - PARTY A A5001_B >>> YEAR FOUNDED - PARTY B A5001_C >>> YEAR FOUNDED - PARTY C A5001_D >>> YEAR FOUNDED - PARTY D A5001_E >>> YEAR FOUNDED - PARTY E A5001_F >>> YEAR FOUNDED - PARTY F ------

QI.3A.a Year party founded: ......

1000-2002. YEAR FOUNDED

9999. MISSING

0000. NOT APPLICABLE

| NOTES: A5001 | | If the party was founded under a different name, and recently | "re-invented" itself, or re-surfaced following the collapse of a | communist regime, the earliest founding date is reported. | | Parties are identified in Appendix I. ------A5002_A >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY A A5002_B >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY B A5002_C >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY C A5002_D >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY D A5002_E >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY E A5002_F >>> IDEOLOGICAL FAMILY - PARTY F ------

QI.3B.a Ideological Family Party is Closest to: ......

01. ECOLOGY PARTIES 02. COMMUNIST PARTIES 03. SOCIALIST PARTIES 04. SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTIES 05. LEFT LIBERAL PARTIES 06. LIBERAL PARTIES 07. RIGHT LIBERAL PARTIES 08. CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC PARTIES 09. CONSERVATIVE PARTIES 10. NATIONAL PARTIES 11. AGRARIAN PARTIES 12. ETHNIC PARTIES 13. REGIONAL PARTIES 14. RELIGIOUS PARTIES 15. INDEPENDENT PARTIES 16. OTHER

99. MISSING

00. NOT APPLICABLE

| NOTES: A5002 | | Parties are identified in Appendix I.

------A5003_A >>> INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION - PARTY A A5003_B >>> INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION - PARTY B A5003_C >>> INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION - PARTY C A5003_D >>> INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION - PARTY D A5003_E >>> INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION - PARTY E A5003_F >>> INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION - PARTY F ------

QI.3C.a International Organization Party Belongs to: ......

10. SOCIALIST INTERNATIONAL 11. CONFEDERATION OF SOCIALIST PARTIES OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY/PARTIES OF EUROPEAN SOCIALISTS 12. ASIA PACIFIC SOCIALIST ORGANIZATION 13. SOCIALIST INTER-AFRICAN 14. NEW LEFT FORUM 15. NORDIC COUNCIL LEFT SOCIALIST PARTY GROUP 20. CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC INTERNATIONAL 21. EUROPEAN CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC UNION 22. EUROPEAN PEOPLE'S PARTY

30. LIBERAL INTERNATIONAL 31. FEDERATION OF EUROPEAN LIBERAL, DEMOCRAT, AND REFORM PARTIES

40. INTERNATIONAL DEMOCRAT UNION 41. CARIBBEAN DEMOCRAT UNION 42. EUROPEAN DEMOCRAT UNION 43. PACIFIC DEMOCRAT UNION

50. THE GREENS 51. AMERICAN GREEN PARTIES FEDERATION

60. INTERNATIONAL NETWORK OF CENTRE PARTIES

70. UNION OF COMMUNIST PARTIES

80. UNION OF EUROPE FOR THE NATIONS

99. MISSING

00. NOT APPLICABLE

| NOTES: A5003 | | Parties are identified in Appendix I.

------A5004_A >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY A A5004_B >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY B A5004_C >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY C A5004_D >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY D A5004_E >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY E A5004_F >>> LEFT-RIGHT - PARTY F ------

QI.4A.c Parties' position in left-right scale (in the expert judgment of the CSES Collaborator): ......

00. LEFT 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. RIGHT 98. NOT APPLICABLE; NO LOWER HOUSE ELECTIONS

99. MISSING

------A5005_A >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY A A5005_B >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY B A5005_C >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY C A5005_D >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY D A5005_E >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY E A5005_F >>> PERCENT VOTE - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY F ------

Percent of popular vote received by PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F] in current (lower house) legislative election: ......

000.00-100.00. PERCENT OF THE POPULAR VOTE THAT PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F] RECEIVED

997.00. ALLIANCE MEMBER (NO INDIVIDUAL TALLY)

998.00. NOT APPLICABLE; NO LOWER HOUSE ELECTIONS

999.00. MISSING

| | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ICELAND (1999): A5005 | | The district data regarding the percentage of votes obtained by | the political parties come from the official data published by | the Statistical Yearbook of Iceland 2001. The total percentages | of these data do not add to the national percentages reported | by the same source. We were not able to figure out the method | used to add up the district percentages to match the national | results.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (1996): A5005 | | The percentage of votes obtained by the political parties at the | district level is calculated based on the total amount of votes | obtained by the six more important parties. Therefore, the sum | of these percentages will not match the official national | results.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (1999): A5005 | | The district data regarding the percentage of votes obtained by | the political parties come from the official data published by | the Swiss Electoral Commission. The total percentages of these | data do not add to the national percentages reported by the same | commission. We were not able to figure out the method used by | the Commission to add up the district percentages to match the | national results.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2001): A5005 | | The data concerning the official electoral results for the Lower | House is the percentage of votes gained by parties in the | national lists.

------A5006_A >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY A A5006_B >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY B A5006_C >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY C A5006_D >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY D A5006_E >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY E A5006_F >>> PERCENT SEATS - LOWER HOUSE - PARTY F ------

Percent of seats in lower house received by PARTY A in current (lower house) election: ......

000.00-100.00. PERCENT OF THE SEATS THAT PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F] RECEIVED

997.00. ALLIANCE MEMBER (NO INDIVIDUAL TALLY)

998.00. NOT APPLICABLE; NO LOWER HOUSE ELECTIONS

999.00. MISSING

| NOTES: A5006 | | Parties are identified in Appendix I.

------A5007_A >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY A A5007_B >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY B A5007_C >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY C A5007_D >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY D A5007_E >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY E A5007_F >>> PERCENT VOTE - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY F ------

Percent of popular vote received by PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F] in current (upper house) legislative election: ......

000.00-100.00. PERCENT OF THE POPULAR VOTE THAT PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F] RECEIVED

997.00. ALLIANCE MEMBER (NO INDIVIDUAL TALLY) 998.00. NOT APPLICABLE; NO UPPER HOUSE ELECTIONS

999.00. MISSING

| NOTES: A5007 | | Parties are identified in Appendix I.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2001): A5007 | | According to the Thai Constitution approved in 1997 the | candidates to the Senate cannot be members or supported by the | political parties. Therefore, the values for the variables | concerning the official electoral results for the Senate by | parties, as well as the percentage of seats shared by parties in | the Upper House is missing. |

------A5008_A >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY A A5008_B >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY B A5008_C >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY C A5008_D >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY D A5008_E >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY E A5008_F >>> PERCENT SEATS - UPPER HOUSE - PARTY F ------

Percent of seats in upper house received by PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F] in current (upper house) election: ......

000.00-100.00. PERCENT OF THE SEATS THAT PARTY [A/B/C/D/E/F] RECEIVED

997.00. ALLIANCE MEMBER (NO INDIVIDUAL TALLY)

998.00. NOT APPLICABLE; NO UPPER HOUSE ELECTIONS

999.00. MISSING

| NOTES: A5008 | | Parties are identified in Appendix I.

------A5009_A >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY A A5009_B >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY B A5009_C >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY C A5009_D >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY D A5009_E >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY E A5009_F >>> PERCENT VOTE - PRESIDENT - PARTY F ------

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] RECEIVED

997.00. ALLIANCE MEMBER (NO INDIVIDUAL TALLY)

998.00. NOT APPLICABLE; NO PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

999.00. MISSING

| NOTES: A5009 | | Parties A-F are identified in Appendix I.

------A5010 >>> ELECTORAL TURNOUT ------

Percentage of Voting Age Population who cast ballots ......

000.00-100.00. PERCENT OF VOTING AGE POPULATION WHO CAST BALLOTS

999. MISSING

------A5011 >>> ELECTORAL ALLIANCES IN ELECTION ------

QI.6A. Were electoral alliances permitted during the election campaign? ......

1. YES 5. NO

9. MISSING

------A5012 >>> DID ANY ELECTORAL ALLIANCES FORM? ------

QI.6B. (If yes) Did any electoral alliances form? ......

1. YES 5. NO

9. MISSING

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (1999): A5012 | | 1 Alianza por Chile UDI (B), RN | 2 Concertacion PPD (A), DC, PS, PRSD

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (1998): A5012 | | 1 Fidesz-MDF Fidesz-MPP (B), MDF

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2000): A5012 | | 1 Peru 2000 (A) Cambio 90 Nueva Mayoria, Vamos | Vecino, Peru al 2000

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PORTUGAL (2002): A5012 | | 1. CDU - Coligagco Democratica Unitaria (D) PCP , PEV | 2. BE - Bloco de Esquerda (E) PSR, UDP, Polmtica XXI | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (1996): A5012 | | 1 Romanian Democratic National Peasant and Christian | Convention (A) Democratic Party (A*), National | Liberal Party (Other 1) and "other | smaller parties and associations" | 2 Social Democratic Democratic Party (C*), Romanian | Union (C) Social Democratic Party | 3 National Liberal Liberal Party, Civic Alliance | Alliance Party

------A5013_1 >>> MOST SALIENT FACTORS IN ELECTION - 1ST A5013_2 >>> MOST SALIENT FACTORS IN ELECTION - 2ND A5013_3 >>> MOST SALIENT FACTORS IN ELECTION - 3RD A5013_4 >>> MOST SALIENT FACTORS IN ELECTION - 4TH A5013_5 >>> MOST SALIENT FACTORS IN ELECTION - 5TH ------

QI.5.1 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)? ......

010. ECONOMIC FACTORS 011. INFLATION 012. UNEMPLOYMENT 013. JOB LOSS/CREATION 014. TAXES 015. ROBUST GROWTH/PROSPEROUS CONDITIONS 016. DECLINE 017. AGRICULTURAL REFORM 018. WORKER'S PROTECTION, RIGHTS 019. DEFICIT MAINTENANCE

020. EDUCATION 021. FUNDING 022. CLASSROOM ISSUES 023. POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

030. HEALTH CARE 031. COSTS, INSURANCE ISSUES 032. PRESCRIPTION 033. QUALITY OF CARE, WAIT TIME

040. SOCIAL ISSUES 041. ABORTION 042. CRIME AND THE JUSTICE SYSTEM 043. HOMOSEXUAL RIGHTS 044. RELIGION AND THE STATE 045. WOMEN'S RIGHTS 046. FIREARM REGULATION 047. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE 048. POVERTY 049. THE AGED AND ELDERLY ISSUES

050. CAMPAIGNING 051. FINANCE 052. CORRUPTION 053. PRESENCE OF 'NEW' PARTY CANDIDATES 054. LEADERSHIP, "PERSONALIZATION" 055. PROMISES/TRUST OF LEADERSHIP 056. MEDIA ISSUES 057. PARTY PERFORMANCE 058. PARTY ALLIANCES, DYNAMICS, RE-ALIGNMENT 059. INTEREST GROUP ACTIVITIES 060. STATE AND REGIONAL DIFFERENCES 061. LOCAL OR REGIONAL ELECTION RESULTS

070. INTER-ETHNIC GROUP RELATIONS 071. SEPARATISM, SECESSIONISM 072. RACIAL TENSIONS 073. LANGUAGE ISSUES 074. IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE ISSUES

080. SCANDALS 081. PARTY SCANDALS 082. CANDIDATE SCANDALS 083. INDEPENDENT ACTOR

090. NATIONALISM AND INTEGRATION 091. SUPPORT/OPPOSITION FOR EUROPEAN UNION 092. RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES

100. NATION-BUILDING 101. CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM 102. VIOLATIONS OF CONSTITUTION (I.E. "THIRD TERM CANDIDATES") 103. BALANCE OF POWER ISSUES 104. ECONOMIC NATION-BUILDING 105. EMERGING PARTY SYSTEM

110. FOREIGN POLICY 111. RELATIONS WITH INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS 112. DEFENSE SPENDING 113. RELATIONS WITH NEIGHBORS 114. FREE TRADE

120. DOMESTIC UNREST 121. ACTS OF TERRORISM 122. DEVELOPING PARTY SYSTEM

130. NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 131. FISHERIES MANAGEMENT, RIGHTS, ETC.

999. MISSING

------A5014 >>> HEAD OF STATE ------

QIII.A1. Who is the head of state? ......

1. PRESIDENT 2. MONARCH SERVES AS CEREMONIAL HEAD OF STATE

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (1996): A5014-A5021 | | "Queen Elizabeth is the 'symbolic' head of state of Australia; | however, the Governor- General, who is appointed by the Queen | (on the recommendation of the Prime Minister) is the | constitutional head of state."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (1996): A5014-A5021 | | The Head of State is elected by members of both legislative | chambers, by secret ballot.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (1998): A5014-A5021 | | An electoral college elects the president. The members of the | lower chamber and an equal number of members of the state | parliaments compose the Electoral College. The president is | elected through a qualified majority. If this majority is not | reached after two rounds, then a simple majority elects the | president.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (1998): A5014-A5021 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2000): A5014-A5021 | | "Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of China, so the | President of China is the Head of State. Because of the "one | country, two systems" principle, Hong Kong has enjoyed high | autonomy in handling domestic affairs and has a local political | system which is different from the mainland China. For details, | please refer to Chapter 2 of the Basic Law."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (1996): A5014-A5021 | | The President is selected by the legislature, requiring a | "majority of the Knesset members (at least 61 members) for the | first two rounds; a simple majority from round three on."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (1996): A5014-A5021 | | There is no official head of state. Emperor Akihito fills the | post unofficially.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - LITHUANIA (1997): A5014-A5021 | | A presidential candidate is elected if, in the first round, | (s)he is supported by at least half of all votes cast. If less | than half of the registered voters vote, a candidate may be | elected with a simple plurality. | | If no candidate receives the required majority vote, then a | run-off round will be held within 2 weeks of the original | election date. Only the two candidates who received the top | proportions of the vote participate in this second round. A | simple majority wins the election.

------A5015 >>> HEAD OF STATE - SELECTION ------

QIIIA2. How is the head of state selected? ......

1. DIRECT ELECTION 2. INDIRECT ELECTION 3. BIRTH RIGHT 4. DIVINE RIGHT 5. OTHER

| NOTES: A5015 | | Also see notes for variable A5014

------A5016 >>> HEAD OF STATE - PROCESS IF DIRECT ELECTION ------

QIII.A2.a If by direct election, by what process? ......

1. PLURALITY ELECTION 2. RUN-OFF OR TWO-BALLOT SYSTEM

0. NOT APPLICABLE; HEAD OF STATE NOT SELECTED BY DIRECT ELECTION

| NOTES: A5016 | | Also see notes for variable A5014

------A5017 >>> HEAD OF STATE - 1ST ROUND VICTORY ------

QIII.A2.a.i. If by run-off system, what is the threshold for first-round victory? ......

1. ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 2. OTHER

0. NOT APPLICABLE; HEAD OF STATE NOT SELECTED BY RUN-OFF ELECTION

| NOTES: A5017 | | Also see notes for variable A5014

------A5018 >>> HEAD OF STATE - ADVANCE TO 2ND ROUND ------

QIII.A2.a.ii. If by run-off system, what is the threshold to advance to second round? ......

1. ALL CANDIDATES PROCEED, IF NONE WITH ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 2. TWO FRONT-RUNNERS ADVANCE, IF NEITHER WITH ABSOLUTE MAJORITY

0. NOT APPLICABLE; HEAD OF STATE NOT SELECTED BY RUN-OFF ELECTION

| NOTES: A5018 | | Also see notes for variable A5014

------A5019 >>> HEAD OF STATE - 2ND ROUND VICTORY ------

QIII.A2.a.iii. If by run-off system, what is the threshold for victory in the second round? ......

1. SIMPLE MAJORITY 2. ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 3. OTHER

0. NOT APPLICABLE; HEAD OF STATE NOT ELECTED BY RUN-OFF ELECTION

| NOTES: A5019 | | Also see notes for variable A5014

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - RUSSIA (1999): A5019 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - RUSSIA (2000): A5019 | | A second round is held only if one candidate does not emerge | with over 50 percent of the vote. When a second round is held, | the victor has to beat not only the other frontrunner, but also | the "against all candidates" vote. In 2000, there was no need | for a second round since Putin received over 50 percent of the | vote.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - THAILAND (2001): A5019 | The King may name his own successor, usually a member of the | Royal family. If not, a successor may be determined by | Parliament.

------A5020_1 >>> YEAR OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION - 1ST A5020_2 >>> YEAR OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION - 2ND ------

If the presidential election was not held concurrently with the legislative election, the year of the presidential election prior to this legislative election is: ......

1900-2006. YEAR

0000. NOT APPLICABLE; HEAD OF STATE ELECTIONS HELD CONCURRENTLY

| NOTES: A5020 | | Also see notes for variable A5014

------A5021 >>> PROCESS IF INDIRECT ELECTION ------

QIII.A2.b. If by indirect election, by what process? ......

1. ELECTORAL COLLEGE 2. SELECTION BY THE LEGISLATURE

0. NOT APPLICABLE; HEAD OF STATE NOT INDIRECTLY ELECTED.

| NOTES: A5021 | | Also see notes for variable A5014

------A5022 >>> HEAD OF GOVERNMENT ------

QIII.B.1. Who is the Head of Government? ......

1. PRESIDENT 2. PRIME MINISTER (OR EQUIVALENT) 3. OTHER

9. MISSING

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (1996): A5022-A5023 | | By convention, the Prime Minister is the leader of the party | with a majority of the seats in the House of Representatives; | that person and other ministers are formally "commissioned" by | the Governor-General under Section 64 of the Constitution. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (1998): A5022-A5023 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2000): A5022-A5023 | | The Chief Executive is the Head of Government.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (1996): A5022-A5023 | | The Japanese Head of Government, the Prime Minister, is | designated by the Diet, and appointed by the Emperor.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - RUSSIA (2000): A5022-A5023 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - RUSSIA (2001): A5022-A5023 | | Under the majoritarian run-off rules, the two most competitive | candidates contest in a second round, provided that the most | popular candidate has received more votes than are cast in the | "against all" category. | | In the second round, the leading candidate must attain more | votes than are cast in the "against all" category in order to | be elected. | | If, as was the case in 2000, a candidate wins more than 50% of | the vote in the first round, a second round is not held.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (1996): A5022-A5023 | | "If [the nomination made by the head of state is] not approved | in the first round, the legislature can nominate and appoint | the candidate."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (1996): A5022-A5023 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2000): A5022-A5023 | | "He is called President, but is elected by the legislature after | proposal by the Head of State." | | "The President is proposed to the legislature by the Head of | State, after consultations with all parties represented in | Parliament, but he is elected by the legislature (Congress)."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (1999): A5022-A5023 | | The 'President of the Confederation' is elected by the Federal | Council, a position which rotates annually. | | The Federal Council is elected by the legislature.

------A5023 >>> PRIME MINISTER SELECTION ------

QIII.B.2. If the Head of Government is a prime minister, how is the prime minister selected? ...... 1. APPOINTED BY THE HEAD OF STATE ALONE 2. APPOINTED BY THE LEGISLATURE ALONE 3. NOMINATED BY THE HEAD OF STATE, AND APPROVED BY THE LEGISLATURE 4. NOMINATED BY THE LEGISLATURE, AND APPROVED BY THE HEAD OF STATE 5. DIRECTLY ELECTED 6. OTHERS

0. NOT APPLICABLE; THE HEAD OF GOVERNMENT IS NOT A PRIME MINISTER

| NOTES: A5023 | | Also see notes for variable A5022

------A5024 >>> NUMBER OF ELECTED LEGISLATIVE CHAMBERS ------

Number of elected legislative chambers: ......

1. ONE ELECTED LEGISLATIVE CHAMBER; UNICAMERAL LEGISLATURE 2. TWO ELECTED LEGISLATIVE CHAMBERS; BICAMERAL LEGISLATURE

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (1997): A5024-A5031 | | Although the Canadian legislature is bicameral, members of the | upper house, the Senate, are appointed by the Prime Minister, | not elected. Because of this, the Canadian legislature is coded | '1' for A5024, and all variables pertaining to the upper house | are coded '0' for NOT APPLICABLE.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (1999): A5024-A5031 | | Voters choose from candidates on binomial party lists, for both | the upper and lower house of the legislature.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (1998): A5024-A5031 | | In Denmark, "Voters cast either one vote for a list, or one vote | for a candidate, but not both." For A5032, this was coded as 4 | "Open or Preferential List".

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (1998): A5024-A5031 | | The 69 seats of the Federal Council are indirectly elected by | state governments in conjunction with state elections.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (1998): A5024-A5031 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2000): A5024-A5031 | | Independent candidates contest on lists of their own, or with | other non-partisan candidates. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (1998): A5024-A5031 | | "Votes that do not earn mandates at the regional level, and | seats that remain unallocated at the regional level are | transferred to a second round of seat allocation that occurs at | the national level. Votes cast for non-winning candidates in | the single-member districts in the first round of voting (or in | the run-off, if the turnout requirement was not met in the first | round, but was satisfied in the second round of voting) are also | added to these remainder votes that are cumulated by party at | the national level. Only those parties can participate in this | second round of seat allocation that (1) have a national party | list - which presumes that they had a list in at least eight | counties or six counties and the capital city -; and | (2) received at least 5 per cent of all votes for regional | party lists nationally. The d'Hondt highest average method is | used to allocate seats between national party lists." | | "The number of seats allocated at the national level is 58 plus | the number of seats that remain unallocated in the regional | multimember districts."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (1996): A5024-A5031 | | "On the ballots, (s)he needs to write the actual name of the | candidate from the candidate list for the SM district and the | party name out of a party list."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (1997): A5024-A5031 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2000): A5024-A5031 | | "Voters are provided with a single ballot in elections for | federal deputies. They vote by marking the box that contains | the logo of the party and the name of its candidate for deputy | of the specific single-member district in which the voter is | registered. The lists of 40 candidates that each party presents | for the multimember district (circunscripcion) is provided in | the voting station." | | "The vote cast for the party's candidate to the single-member | district also counts for the allocation of the 40 seats disputed | in each of the five larger multi-member district | (circunscripcion). Voters are not allowed to split their vote. | In fact, the same vote is subject to double counting that | produces two-seat relevant vote totals. The first vote total | determines who wins the plurality in the single-member district. | The second serves to allocate seats in the circunscripcion."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2000): A5024-A5031 | | Voters vote for a party list, and in addition can identify two | candidates as a preferential vote for members of that list.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2001): A5024-A5031 | | In 2001, members of Congress were elected bu a simple majority | in geographical constituencies. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (1996): A5024-A5031 | | "Because members of Italian and Hungarian indigenous ethnic | communities also live in Slovenia, under the Constitution these | communities are entitled to 2 deputy seats, one seat for each | community.

------A5025_1 >>> ELECTORAL SEGMENTS - LOWER HOUSE A5025_2 >>> ELECTORAL SEGMENTS - UPPER HOUSE ------

In some electoral systems, there are electoral districts that are geographically nested but not otherwise related for purposes of seat allocation. In Lithuania, for example, there are 71 single- member districts that operate under a majority runoff system, and also a single nation-wide district that operates under proportional representation (the largest remainders method with the Hare quota). Neither votes nor seats from the single-member districts transfer to the nationwide district, however. The two processes are entirely independent (with voters having one vote in each district). In this case, the nationwide district, although it contains the 71 single-member districts, is not considered to be secondary. It is primary. One might say that there are two segments to the electoral system in such cases.

QII.A.1.1 How many segments (as just defined) are there in the electoral system? ......

1-6. NUMBER OF SEGMENTS

9. MISSING

0. NOT APPLICABLE (I.E. NO [LOWER/UPPER] HOUSE)

| NOTES: A5025 | | Also see notes for variable A5024. | | In some systems there are some seats reserved to be allocated in | such a way that corrects for discrepancies between the | proportion of votes a party receives and their share of the | seats in the legislature (i.e. a "corrective tier"). Because the | allocation of seats in a corrective tier is not independent of | the distribution of votes in a particular segment- in fact, it | is this distribution that determines the allocation of seats in | the corrective tier- the presence of corrective tiers has no | bearing on the number of electoral segments. Only those | characteristics of directly elected tiers are reported in these | data.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-FLANDERS (1999): A5025-A5030 | | There are 3 segments in Upper House elections. Of the 71 | members of the upper house, 40 are directly elected, 21 are | designated by community senators, and 10 are appointed by the | elected senators. The 40 members are directly elected in 3 | multimember districts and seats are proportionately allocated | using the D'Hondt formula. The number of seats available to | community and co-opted senators are contigent upon the outcome | in this first round. They are then indirectly elected.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELGIUM-WALLOON (1999): A5025-A5030 | | There are 3 segments in Upper House elections. Of the 71 | members of the upper house, 40 are directly elected, 21 are | designated by community senators, and 10 are appointed by the | elected senators. The 40 members are directly elected in 3 | multimember districts and seats are proportionately allocated | using the D'Hondt formula. The number of seats available to | community and co-opted senators are contingent upon the outcome | in this first round. They are then indirectly elected.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (1998): A5025-A5030 | | It may be said that there are three electoral segments. In the | first segment, 20 seats are allocated by PR (largest remainder; | Hare) among 5 districts with an average magnitude of 4. In the | second segment, 30 seats are distributed among 28 professional | groups (Labour receives 3 seats, each remaining group receives | 1), each with their own way of determining who will hold a seat | as their representative (some use majority run-off and others | employ plurality). In the third segment, the remaining 10 seats | are elected by the 800 member Election Committee, consisting of | members of local councils, religious representatives, and | Congress members from mainland China. Each member casts 10 | votes, and the 10 candidates receiving the most votes are | elected.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2000): A5025 | | In the first segment, the number of seats allocated by PR was | increased from 20 in the 1998 election to 24 in the 2000 | election. In the 3rd segment, the number of seats elected by | the Election Committee was decreased from 10 in the 1998 | election to 6 in the 2000 election.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (1996): A5025-A5030 | | There are 225 seats and 2 electoral segments in the Legislative | Yuan: 168 directly elected, 41 distributed according to | proportion of nationwide vote. There are also 8 represent | overseas constituencies, and 8 represent aboriginal | constituencies. | | There are 2 electoral segments with 234 seats elected by SNTV | from 58 multi-member constituencies (with 2 to 10 seats), 80 and | 20 seats allocated by PR with a 5% threshold from a nationwide | and overseas constituencies respectively according to party list | vote. It is important to note that although the National | Assembly has been coded as having two segments, Taiwanese voters | only cast one SNTV vote with the PR seats allocated by the | Niemeyer method based on an aggregation of candidates belonging | to the same party across districts.

------A5026_1 >>> PRIMARY DISTRICTS - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT A5026_2 >>> PRIMARY DISTRICTS - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT A5026_3 >>> PRIMARY DISTRICTS - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT A5026_4 >>> PRIMARY DISTRICTS - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT ------

QII.A.2.1.1. How many primary electoral districts are there? ......

001-900. NUMBER OF PRIMARY ELECTORAL DISTRICTS

000. NOT APPLICABLE (NO [FIRST/SECOND] SEGMENT AND/OR NO [LOWER/UPPER] HOUSE)

| NOTES: A5026 | | Also see notes for variable A5024.

------A5027_1 >>> NUMBER OF SEATS - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT A5027_2 >>> NUMBER OF SEATS - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT A5027_3 >>> NUMBER OF SEATS - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT A5027_4 >>> NUMBER OF SEATS - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT ------

Total number of seats elected in the [first/second] segment of the [lower/upper] house: ......

001-996. NUMBER OF SEATS

999. MISSING

000. NOT APPLICABLE (NO [FIRST/SECOND] SEGMENT AND/OR NO [LOWER/UPPER] HOUSE)

| NOTES: A5027 | | Also see notes for variable A5024.

------A5028_1 >>> DISTRICT MAGNITUDE - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT A5028_2 >>> DISTRICT MAGNITUDE - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT A5028_3 >>> DISTRICT MAGNITUDE - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT A5028_4 >>> DISTRICT MAGNITUDE - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT ------

QII.A.3.1.1. For each primary electoral district, how many members are elected from that district? ...... 001-900. NUMBER OF SEATS ELECTED PER DISTRICT

000. NOT APPLICABLE (NO [FIRST/SECOND] SEGMENT AND/OR NO [LOWER/UPPER] HOUSE)

------A5029_1 >>> SECONDARY DISTRICTS - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT A5029_2 >>> SECONDARY DISTRICTS - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT A5029_3 >>> SECONDARY DISTRICTS - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT A5029_4 >>> SECONDARY DISTRICTS - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT ------

QII.A.4.1.1. How many secondary electoral districts are there? ......

001-900. NUMBER OF SECONDARY ELECTORAL DISTRICTS

000. NOT APPLICABLE; NO [LOWER/UPPER] HOUSE OR NO SECONDARY SEGMENT OR NO SECONDARY ELECTORAL DISTRICTS

| NOTES: A5029 | | Also see notes for variable A5024.

------A5030_1 >>> TERTIARY DISTRICTS - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT A5030_2 >>> TERTIARY DISTRICTS - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT A5030_3 >>> TERTIARY DISTRICTS - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT A5030_4 >>> TERTIARY DISTRICTS - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT ------

QII.A.5.1.1 How many tertiary electoral districts are there? ......

001-900. NUMBER OF TERTIARY ELECTORAL DISTRICTS

000. NOT APPLICABLE; NO [LOWER/UPPER] HOUSE OR NO SECOND TERTIARY OR NO TERTIARY ELECTORAL DISTRICTS

| NOTES: A5030 | | Also see notes for variable A5024.

------A5031 >>> COMPULSORY VOTING ------

Is voting compulsory? ......

1. YES; STRICTLY ENFORCED SANCTIONS 2. YES; WEAKLY ENFORCED SANCTIONS 3. YES; LIMITED ENFORCEMENT 4. YES; WITHOUT SANCTION FOR VIOLATION 5. NO

9. MISSING

| NOTES: A5031 | | Source for idea was "Compulsory Voting" at web page URL | "http://www.idea.int/voter_turnout/compulsory_voting.htm".

------A5032_1 >>> VOTES CAST - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT A5032_2 >>> VOTES CAST - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT A5032_3 >>> VOTES CAST - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT A5032_4 >>> VOTES CAST - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT ------

How many votes do they or can they cast? ......

01-90. NUMBER OF VOTES

00. NOT APPLICABLE

------A5033_1 >>> VOTING PROCEDURE - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT A5033_2 >>> VOTING PROCEDURE - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT A5033_3 >>> VOTING PROCEDURE - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT A5033_4 >>> VOTING PROCEDURE - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT ------

With each vote allocated in this segment, voters select: ......

1. SINGLE CANDIDATE 2. SINGLE CANDIDATE, WITH ALTERNATIVES 3. CLOSED PARTY LIST 4. PREFERENTIAL OR "OPEN" PARTY LIST 5. OTHER [SEE VARIABLE NOTES]

0. NOT APPLICABLE | NOTES: A5033 | | These variables draw on information reported in questionnaire | items QII.B.6B., QII.B7., QII.B8., and QII.C11.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CANADA (1997): A5033 | | Although the Canadian legislature is bicameral, members of the | upper house, the Senate, are appointed by the Prime Minister, | not elected. Because of this, the Canadian legislature is coded | '1' for A5024, and all variables pertaining to the upper | house are coded '0' for NA.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (1999): A5033 | | Voters choose from candidates on binomial party lists (two | candidates in each list), for both the upper and lower house | of the legislature.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (1998): A5033 | | In Denmark, "Voters cast either one vote for a list, or one vote | for a candidate, but not both." For A5032, this was coded as 4 | "Open or Preferential List" (in accordance with Blais and | Masicotte 1996:55).

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - GERMANY (1998): A5033 | | The 69 seats of the Federal Council are indirectly elected by | state governments in conjunction with state elections.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (1997): A5033 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2000): A5033 | | Independent candidates contest on lists of their own, or with | other non-partisan candidates.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (1998): A5033 | | "Votes that do not earn mandates at the regional level, and | seats that remain unallocated at the regional level are | transferred to a second round of seat allocation that occurs at | the national level. Votes cast for non-winning candidates in | the single-member districts in the first round of voting (or in | the run-off, if the turnout requirement was not met in the first | round, but was satisfied in the second round of voting) are also | added to these remainder votes that are cumulated by party at | the national level. Only those parties can participate in this | second round of seat allocation that (1) have a national party | list - which presumes that they had a list in at least eight | counties or six counties and the capital city-; and (2) | received at least 5 per cent of all votes for regional party | lists nationally. The d'Hondt highest average method is used to | allocate seats between national party lists." | | "The number of seats allocated at the national level is 58 plus | the number of seats that remain unallocated in the regional | multimember districts."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (1996): A5033 | | "On the ballots, (s)he needs to write the actual name of the | candidate from the candidate list for the SM district and the | party name out of a party list."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (1997): A5033 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2000): A5033 | | "Voters are provided with a single ballot in elections for | federal deputies. They vote by marking the box that contains | the logo of the party and the name of its candidate for deputy | of the specific single-member district in which the voter is | registered. The lists of 40 candidates that each party presents | for the multimember district (circunscripcion) is provided in | the voting station." | | "The vote cast for the party's candidate to the single-member | district also counts for the allocation of the 40 seats disputed | in each of the five larger multi-member district | (circunscripcion). Voters are not allowed to split their vote. | In fact, the same vote is subject to double counting that | produces two-seat relevant vote totals. The first vote total | determines who wins the plurality in the single-member district. | The second serves to allocate seats in the circunscripcion."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NETHERLANDS (1998): A5033 | | The 75 member Upper House is indirectly elected by the nation's | 12 provincial councils.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2000): A5033 | | Voters vote for a party list, and in addition can identify two | candidates as a preferential vote for members of that list.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2001): A5033 | | In 2001, members of Congress were elected by a simple majority | in geographical constituencies.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (1996): A5033 | | "Because members of Italian and Hungarian indigenous ethnic | communities also live in Slovenia, under the Constitution these | communities are entitled to 2 deputy seats, one seat for each | community. | | The State Council consists of 40 councilors, elected for a five | year term. 22 are elected by local governments; 18 are elected | by economic groups (6 by non-profits; 4 by employers; 4 by | employees; 4 by farmers, small businesses and professionals. ------A5034_1 >>> ELECTORAL FORMULA - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT A5034_2 >>> ELECTORAL FORMULA - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT A5034_3 >>> ELECTORAL FORMULA - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT A5034_4 >>> ELECTORAL FORMULA - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT ------

QII.C.10B.1.1. What electoral formula(e) are used? ......

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 - STE-LAGUE

98. OTHER [SEE VARIABLE NOTES]

00. NOT APPLICABLE

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (1999): A5034 | | Members of both houses are elected through binomial party lists | in two-member districts.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (1998): A5034 | | "In Denmark it does not matter much [that there is a second | segment] as there are supplementary mandates to ensure strict | proportional representation."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (1998): A5034 | | "In the single-member districts, an absolute majority is | required in the first round. If there is no such candidate, but | the 50 per cent turnout requirement was satisfied, then a | run-off is called between the candidates who received at least | 15 per cent of all valid votes, but at least the top three | candidates. If the turnout requirement was not met in the first | round, then all candidates who stood for election in the first | round may run again in the second round. Candidates can | withdraw from the race between the two rounds. In the second | round, the candidate with the greatest number of votes is | elected - provided that the turnout was 25 per cent or more. It | may happen (but never has happened yet) that insufficient | turnout in both rounds of the election leaves a single-member | district without a representative in parliament. In this case, | a by-election is called in the district." | | "In the twenty multimember districts, the Hagenbach-Bischoff | quota is used to allocate seats between those parties that | received at least 5 per cent of all votes cast for regional | party lists nationally. If there are more seats to be allocated | than as many full quotas were obtained by parties in the | multimember district in question, then less than a full quota - | but at least 2/3 of the full quota is enough to earn a seat."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ISRAEL (1996): A5034 | | "Hagenbach-Bishopf version of the d'Hondt system."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KOREA (2000): A5034 | | "For 227 primary districts, one seat is given to the candidate | who has received the simple plurality vote in each district, and | for the secondary district, a total of 46 seats are distributed | to political parties in proportion to each party's share of the | valid nation-wide votes."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (1997): A5034 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2000): A5034 | | "The five multimember districts or circunscripciones elect 40 | members each through proportional representation. | Circunscripciones and single-member districts are geographically | overlapping. Each circunscripcion encompasses a similar number | of districts. To allocate multimember seats the vote cast in | single-member districts is added up to calculate new totals at | the circunscripcion level. Two systems are employed to accord | seats to political parties. Firstly, a quotient is calculated by | dividing the total number of votes in the circunscripcion | between 40. The quotient represent the number of votes a party | must gather in order to gain one multimember seat in the | circunscripcion. Secondly, once parties have been granted seats | according to the quotient system, if there are any seats left | they will be apportioned to the parties that have the largest | remaining vote. The remaining vote is a portion of the quotient | that is left after dividing the party's vote cast by the | quotient." | | "Parties that did not pass the electoral threshold (two percent | of the national vote) are excluded from the calculations at | circunscripcion level. This means that vote totals at the | circunscripcion level are re-calculated without taking these | parties into account. Also, the Constitution provides that the | majority party's percentage of seats in the Chamber of Deputies | cannot exceed by more than eight percentage points its share of | the national vote cast. This works in practice as a limit to the | total number of proportional representation seats that the | majority party can attain."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (1996): A5034 | | "Electorate seats are "topped up" from party lists based on | share of the party list vote." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (1998): A5034 | | Although there is only one elected segment in the Swedish | electoral system, there is a corrective tier whereby 49 seats | are distributed according to national vote returns between | parties to realize proportionality.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (1999): A5034 | | "Hagenbach-Bischoff System: Proportional Representation based on | the Highest Average concept. Involves the combination of a | quota (usually Droop or Hagenbach-Bischoff) and a divisor system. | Two stage process where candidates receiving a quota are elected | first and any remaining seats are determined by a divisor system | (d'Hondt)." | | With the exception of the Canton Jura (which uses a d'Hondt PR | formula), seats are assigned in majority run-off elections. | | For both the National Council and the Council of States | elections, the electoral formula differs according to Canton. | For example, a first-past-the-post system is used in determining | the winner of National Council seats in each of the 5 Cantons | that elect only one seat; PR is used in the remaining Canton. | The Canton of Jura is the only canton that employs PR in | allocating Council of States seats, while the others use some | form of a majority system.

------A5035_1 >>> PARTY THRESHOLD - LOWER - 1ST SEGMENT A5035_2 >>> PARTY THRESHOLD - LOWER - 2ND SEGMENT A5035_3 >>> PARTY THRESHOLD - UPPER - 1ST SEGMENT A5035_4 >>> PARTY THRESHOLD - UPPER - 2ND SEGMENT ------

QII.ClO.A.1.1. Are there legally mandated thresholds that a party must exceed before it is eligible to receive seats? If so, what is the threshold? (percentage of vote) ......

00. THERE IS NO THRESHOLD 01-95. A PARTY MUST RECEIVE THIS PERCENT (1% TO 95%) OF THE POPULAR VOTE IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR SEATS

97. OTHER THRESHOLD [SEE VARIABLE NOTES] 98. NOT APPLICABLE 99. MISSING

| NOTES: A5035 | | In some plurality systems, a threshold is established for a | declaration of "official party status" rather than for the | acquisition of seats in the legislature. Usually, these | thresholds are a certain number of seats, rather than a | percentage of the popular vote. For countries in which this is | the case, this variable was coded 97. 'NA'. | | See also notes for A5033-A5034

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (1999): A5034-A5035 | | "Party must obtain 5% in the last election to participate in the | next election."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - DENMARK (1998): A5034-A5035 | | There is a national threshold of 2%, or at least one candidate | must be elected in a local electoral district, or the number of | votes in two out of three major regions must be equivalent to | the average number of votes needed for an electoral district | mandate in that region.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (1998): A5034-A5035 | | "In the twenty multimember districts, the Hagenbach-Bischoff | quota is used to allocate seats between those parties that | received at least 5 per cent of all votes cast for regional | party lists nationally. If there are more seats to be allocated | than as many full quotas were obtained by parties in the | multimember district in question, then less than a full quota - | but at least 2/3 of the full quota is enough to earn a seat."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - JAPAN (1996): A5034-A5035 | | "For SM districts, one needs to receive more than 1/6 (16.7%) of | the total votes to be elected." | | "For PR districts, first, the total number of valid votes in a | district is divided by the district size. Then one needs to | receive more than 1/6 of that quotient to be elected."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KOREA (2000): A5034-A5035 | | "3%-5%: one seat; 5% and above: proportional."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (1997): A5034-A5035 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2000): A5034-A5035 | | "Parties that did not pass the electoral threshold (two percent | of the national vote) are excluded from the calculations at | circunscripcion level.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWEDEN (1998): A5034-A5035 | | To participate in the allocation of seats at the district level, | parties must receive at least 12% of the vote in that | constituency. To participate in the allocation of the seats at | the national level, parties must be supported by at least 4 per | cent of the national popular vote. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (1999): A5034-A5035 | | Thresholds are established at the district level: Fribourg: | 7.5%; Basel-Stadt: 5%; Aragau: Quorum; Ticino: Quoum; Vaud: 5%; | Valais: 8%; Neuchatel: 10%; Geneve: 7%.

------A5036 >>> CAN PARTIES RUN JOINT LISTS ------

QII.D.12A. Can parties run joint lists? ......

1. YES 5. NO

9. MISSING

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (1998): A5036 | | "For instance, in the 1998 election, the FKGP and the Fidesz-MPP | mutually withdrew their candidates from the second round of | voting in the single member districts if the candidate of the | other party obtained more votes in the first round." | | "Some smaller parties sometimes agree not to run their own | candidates/lists in the election in exchange for having some of | their political candidates nominated by a bigger party. In | 1998, this arrangement was the basis of an agreement between | Fidesz-MPP and MKDSZ (the "Hungarian Democratic Alliance").

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KOREA (2000): A5036 | | "There is no legal stipulation or regulation on electoral | alliance, and political parties may form an alliance as needs | arise."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (1997): A5036 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2000): A5036 | | "Political parties can form alliances in all Federal elections. | The three possibilities are: | | A. Two or more parties can nominate the same presidential | candidate only if they also agree on a single slate of | legislative candidates (in the Chamber of Deputies and in the | Senate, both single-member and multi-member districts | candidates). | | B. Two or more parties can produce a single list of candidates | for the 200 proportional representation seats in the Chamber of | Deputies and the 32 proportional seats in the Senate (5 regional | multi-member districts in the case of the Chamber of Deputies | and one national multi-member district in the case of the | Senate), only if they agree on the same slate of candidates for | the 300 simple majority deputies and the 32 three-member | federal districts for the Senate. | | C. Two or more parties can form a partial alliance to nominate | candidates running for the Chamber of Deputies in single-member | districts if the number of common candidates postulated is | between 33 and 100, otherwise the parties must commit to a total | alliance. In the case of the Senate, two or more parties can | form a partial alliance to nominate candidates of simple | majority if the number of common candidates postulated is | between 6 and 20, otherwise the parties involved must commit to | a total alliance including all the legislative formulas."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - NEW ZEALAND (1996): A5036 | | "Apparentment not possible in the strict legal sense used in | other countries where it is a kind of temporary combination | recognized by law. The only thing that comes close in NZ is the | umbrella party/component party arrangement (e.g. the Alliance, | Christian Coalition) but the umbrella party has to be registered | in its own right in order to nominate a list. Although the | Christian Coalition no longer exists as a political party, from | memory there was a hint of something like apparentement in its | respective component parties in Parliament after the election." | | "... the only kind of joint lists are those of an umbrella | party. Because such a party has to be registered in its own | right, all the rules applicable to any registered party also | apply to it, e.g. candidate selection, financial disclosure. | However an electorate seat won by an electorate candidate | standing under the name of a component party counts for the | umbrella party for the purpose of crossing the threshold." | | "Although [it is uncertain whether] it has been tested, an | electorate's party name on the ballot paper could possibly | reflect multi-party endorsement, e.g. it would be possible for | an electorate candidate for an umbrella party to have a party | name that combined the names of the umbrella party and the | component party (e.g. Alliance/Democrat). Indeed, a component | party could apply for registration in its own right with a party | name or abbreviation in that form (again, however, none has ever | done so which makes this rather speculative). But there is no | requirement that a component party be registered, so an | electorate candidate for an unregistered component party who | wanted a party name in that form could state it on the | nomination paper and it would be up to the Returning Officer and | the Chief Electoral Officer to decide as to whether it would be | accepted." | | "Note too that the law does not allow a person to be a | candidate on more than one party list at a general election, or | to be a candidate for more than one electorate." | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2000): A5036 | | "Alliances must present a single slate both for the executive | and for congress." Joint lists must be recognized as an | alliance by the National Elections Board. | | As a result, only the name of the alliance will appear on the | ballot.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (1997): A5036 | | Though parties need only gain 5% of the popular vote to receive | seats, coalitions require the support of 8% of the popular vote | to receive seats.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (1996): A5036 | | Under certain conditions, parties may ally themselves in | pre-electoral coalitions. However, member parties must | ppresent a common list of candidates, under a single party | name.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (1998): A5036 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SPAIN (2000): A5036 | | There is "not usually" apparentement or linking of lists in | legislative elections "but more frequently in European Elections | when all the country is one district." | | "Alliances may be establish through presentation of joint | (common) list at the district level to the National Election | Board, several weeks before election day. In fact, the new | joint list is like if it were the list of a party, because the | number of candidates must be the same as the number seats to be | elected in the district, and the must also be rank ordered."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UKRAINE (1998): A5036 | | "There are no lists but [there is] coordination of activity in | different electoral districts."

------A5037 >>> REQUIREMENTS FOR JOINT PARTY LISTS ------

QII.D.13. 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 TO RECEIVE SEATS IN THE LEGISLATURE 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

9. MISSING

0. NOT APPLICABLE; NO JOINT PARTY LISTS ARE ALLOWED

| NOTES: A5037 | | Please also refer to notes for variable A5036.

------A5038 >>> THE POSSIBILITY OF APPARENTEMENT ------

QII.D.12A. Is there apparentement or linking of party lists? ......

1. YES 5. NO

9. MISSING

| NOTES: A5038 | | Please also refer to notes for variable A5036.

------A5039 >>> TYPES OF APPARENTEMENT AGREEMENTS ------

QII.D.14. If apparentement is possible, what lists can participate in such agreements? ......

1. LISTS OF THE SAME AND/OR DIFFERENT PARTIES IN THE SAME CONSTITUENCY 2. LISTS OF THE SAME PARTY FROM DIFFERENT CONSTITUENCIES

9. MISSING

0. NOT APPLICABLE; NO APPARENTEMENT

| NOTES: A5039 | | Please also refer to notes for variable A5036.

------A5040 >>> MULTI-PARTY ENDORSEMENTS ------

QII.D.12C. Can candidates run with the endorsement of more than one party? ......

1. YES 5. NO

9. MISSING

| NOTES: A5040 | | Please also refer to notes for variable A5036.

------A5041 >>> MULTI-PARTY ENDORSEMENTS ON BALLOT ------

QII.D.15. If candidates can run with the endorsement of more than one party, is this reflected on the ballot? ......

1. YES, WITH ONE APPEARANCE OF CANDIDATE NAME FOR MULTIPLE PARTIES 2. YES, WITH NAME OF CANDIDATE APPEARING FOR EVERY PARTY ENDORSING 3. YES, OTHER [SEE VARIABLE NOTES] 5. NO PARTY AFFILIATIONS LISTED ON BALLOT

9. MISSING

0. NOT APPLICABLE

| NOTES: A5041 | | Please also refer to notes for variable A5036.

------A5042 >>> ALLY PARTY SUPPORT ------

QII.D.12D. Can parties withdraw their lists or candidates in some constituencies, urging their supporters there to vote for an ally's list or candidate? ......

1. YES 5. NO

9. MISSING | NOTES: A5042 | | Please also refer to notes for variable A5036.

------A5043 >>> HEAD OF STATE - INTRODUCE LEGISLATION ------

QIII.A.3A. Does the head of state have power of introduce legislation? ......

1. YES 5. NO

9. MISSING

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - AUSTRALIA (1996): A5043 | | "Although the Australian constitution gives considerable | legislative and executive power to the Governor-General (e.g. to | dissolve parliament, or refuse its laws, dismiss ministers, and | as commander in chief of the armed forces), by convention he | acts on advice of the Prime Minister."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (1998): A5043 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HONG KONG (2000): A5043 | | It is unclear what limitations there are on the powers of | President of China, with regards to executive authority in Hong | Kong. Therefore, these items are reported as missing data.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (1998): A5043 | | "Parliament is obliged to treat presidential bills like any | others - except that it is obliged to deliberate on it." | | "Repeated deliberation in Parliament with the same majority as | in any other case."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2000): A5043 | | "The president may not be delegated the power to legislate | on the following matters: constitutional reform, ratification of | international treaties, organic laws, approval of the budget | law, and the general account law of the Republic (Art. 104, | Art. 101.4)."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - RUSSIA (1999): A5043 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - RUSSIA (2000): A5043 | | The president may legislate by decree, as described in the | Constitution. However, these decrees may not contravene the | Constitution or existing federal laws. | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (1996): A5043 | | "The head of state can promote legal regulation with the | legislative power."

------A5044 >>> HEAD OF STATE - EXPEDITED ACTION ------

QIII.A.3B. Does the Head of State have power to require expedited action on specific legislation? If yes, what is the default if the legislature takes no action? ......

1. YES [SEE VARIABLE NOTES] 5. NO

9. MISSING

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2000): A5044 | | (1) "In the case of the budget, if the legislature does not act | by 30 November, the President's proposed budget goes into effect | (Art. 80, 1993 Constitution)."

------A5045 >>> HEAD OF STATE - PACKAGE VETO ------

QIII.A.3C. Does the Head of State have package veto powers? If yes, what is the requirement to override the veto? ......

1. YES [SEE NOTES FOR VARIABLE A5043 FOR THE OVERRIDE REQUIREMENTS] 5. NO

9. MISSING

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2001): A5045 | | Regarding package veto powers: "If the President does not agree | with the text of the bill, he shall return it together with his | objections to the House of Representatives, which shall consider | it with the President's objections within thirty days. If the | bill has been adopted by the House of Representatives by no less | than two-thirds of its full composition, it together with the | President's objections and within five days shall be submitted | to the Council of the Republic, which shall consider it for a | second hearing within twenty days. The bill shall be deemed to | have been approved if no less than two-thirds of the full | composition of the Council of the Republic has voted for it. The | bill, after the House of Representatives and the Council of the | Republic have overrun the President's objections, shall be | signed by the President within five days. The bill shall become | a law even if it is not signed by the President within the | assigned time." Article 100 of Constitution of the Republic of | Belarus.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (1996): A5045 | | The President may exercise package veto powers "except | constitutional laws." | | The President's package veto may be overridden by a 3/5 majority | of all legislators.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KOREA (2000): A5045 | | "At least a half of members of the legislature must be present, | and at least 2/3 of them must vote for the [override] | legislation."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (1997): A5045 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2000): A5045 | | A presidential veto can be overridden if a two thirds | majority in both the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate is | obtained.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2000): A5045 | | "Congress can override a presidential veto with the vote | of an absolute majority of its legally constituted members."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (1997): A5045 | | To override a presidential veto, 2/3 of the Sejm (lower house) | must support the override.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - RUSSIA (1999): A5045 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - RUSSIA (2000): A5045 | | The package veto can be overridden by a two-thirds vote in both | houses of parliament.

------A5046 >>> HEAD OF STATE - PARTIAL VETO ------

QIII.A.3D. Does Head of State partial veto powers? If yes, what is the requirement to override the partial veto? ......

1. YES 5. NO

9. MISSING | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2001): A5046 | | Regarding partial veto powers: The President's objections to the | provisions of the bill, which are returned for a second hearing, | shall be considered to the same order. In this instance, prior | to the appropriate decision of the House of Representatives and | the Council of the Republic the bill shall be signed by the | President and become a law without the provisions which have | been rejected by the President.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (1997): A5046 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2000): A5046 | | "The Constitution says that the president can make general | observations on the whole or just part of the legislation | approved by the Congress or on specific parts of it. Some | authors interpret this as granting the president with a | partial veto. However, the Constitution does not explicitly | authorize the president to approve only the part of the | legislation of and return to the Congress the parts he rejects."

------A5047 >>> HEAD OF STATE - LEGISLATE BY DECREE ------

QIII.A.3E. Does the Head of State have power to legislate by decree? If yes, does this require that the legislature must first specifically delegate decree authority to the Head of State by statute? If yes, are there restrictions on the policy areas in which the Head of State can legislate by decree? If yes, are there other restrictions on the Head of State's authority to legislate by decree? ......

1. YES, WITHOUT RESTRICTION 2. YES, WITH THE PERMISSION OF LEGISLATURE 3. YES, WITH RESTRICTION TO POLICY AREA 4. YES, WITH OTHER RESTRICTIONS OR SOME COMBINATION OF THE ABOVE [SEE NOTES FOR VARIABLE A5044] 5. NO

9. MISSING

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KOREA (2000): A5047 | | The legislature must first specifically delegate the authority | to the president to legislate by decree.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2000): A5047 | | "For most matters, the legislature must delegate decree | powers, but for "economic and financial" matters, the president | may issue extraordinary measures whenever "the national interest | requires it." Such decrees may be modified or annulled by | congress (Art. 118.19)."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - RUSSIA (1999): A5047 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - RUSSIA (2000): A5047 | | The president may legislate by decree, as described in the | Constitution. However, these decrees may not contravene the | Constitution or existing federal laws.

------A5048 >>> HEAD OF STATE - EMERGENCY POWERS ------

QIII.A.3F. Does the Head of State emergency powers? If yes, what actions can the head of state take under emergency authority? If yes, under what conditions can the head of state invoke emergency authority? If yes, what restrictions are there on the head of state's authority to invoke and exercise emergency authority? ......

1. RESTRICTED - EMERGENCY POWERS ARE VERY LIMITED AND ANY ACTIONS TAKEN UNDER EMERGENCY AUTHORITY MUST GAIN THE CONSENT OF THE LEGISLATURE 2. SOMEWHAT RESTRICTED - THE HEAD OF STATE HAS SOME DISCRETION IN THE USE OF THE EMERGENCY AUTHORITY UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, AND/OR WITHIN CERTAIN POLICY DOMAINS. THE HEAD OF STATE MUST GAIN LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL WITHIN A SPECIFIED TIME FRAME, OR MUST CONSULT WITH THE CABINET, PARTY LEADERS, ETC. 3. SOMEWHAT ABSOLUTE - USE OF EMERGENCY POWERS ARE LARGELY AT THE DISCRETION OF THE HEAD OF STATE, BUT CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS GUARANTEE LEGISLATIVE CONTINUITY, ETC. 4. ABSOLUTE - USE OF EMERGENCY POWERS ARE VIRTUALLY UNLIMITED, SAVE FOR PERHAPS THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THEY MAY BE INVOKED.

9. MISSING

0. NOT APPLICABLE; HEAD OF STATE DOES NOT HAVE EMERGENCY POWERS

| NOTES: A5048 | | See notes for variable A5044 for details.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2001): A5048 | | Regarding emergency authority: The exercise of the personal | rights and liberties specified in this Constitution may be | suspended only during a state of emergency or martial law under | the procedure and within the limits specified in the | Constitution and the law. | | In the event of a natural disaster, a catastrophe, or unrest | involving violence or the threat of violence on the part of a | group of persons or organizations that endangers peoples' lives | and health or jeopardizes the territorial integrity and | existence of the State, declare a state of emergency in the | territory of the Republic of Belarus or in specific areas | thereof and submit the decision to the Council of the Republic | for approval within three days (Article 84, clause 22, | Constitution of the Republic of Belarus). | | In carrying out special measures during a state of emergency, | the rights specified in Article 24 (right to live), part three | of Article 25 (Nobody can be tortured, treated violently, | inhumanly, humiliate one's dignity, be punished and without | one's permission be exposed to medical or other experiences) | and Articles 26 (presumption of innocence) and 3l (freedom of | conscience) of the Constitution may not be restricted.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CHILE (1999): A5048 | | There are two different states in which the authority of the | President is broadened: assembly state and emergency state. The | first is in case of external war, and the second is in the case | of civil war or internal disturbances. | | In the "assembly state", the president can suspend personal | freedom, the meeting rights, information, opinion and work | freedom. Also, the President can suspend the exercise of | association rights and censure the mail and the communications | and requisite private property. | | In the "state of emergency", the President can move people | within national territory. The President can confine people in | their own houses or in places other than jails. Also, the | President may suspend mobility, information and opinion rights. | | For the "assembly state" the President must be supported by the | National Security council. For the "state of emergency", the | President must seek the approval of Congress (granted 90 days | without approval, but must be granted approval for continuance).

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (1998): A5049 | | "The President of the Republic is the chairman of the National | Defense Council that exercises all the powers of government | and large part of parliament, under emergency rule." | | Emergency powers can be exercised when Hungary is threatened by | "armed attack, internal disorder, or state of necessity when | parliament is unable to exercise its competence due to cause of | the state of emergency."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KOREA (2000): A5048 | | The president may assume emergency powers under extraordinary | circumstances such as war, natural calamity and extreme | financial crisis. Under these circumstances, the president may | make necessary financial disposals, legislate by decree, and | proclaim martial law as long as the legislature is notified and | grants its approval. Martial law must be withdrawn if requested | by a majority of all legislators.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (1997): A5048 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2000): A5048 | | "According to the article 29 of the Mexican Constitution, in | the cases of invasion, grave perturbation of the public order, | or crisis that puts the society in grave danger or conflict, | only the President of the United States of Mexico, in agreement | with Members of the Cabinet and with the approval of the | Congress, or Permanent Commission of the Congress (if the | Congress is in recess), can suspend, for a limited period of | time, either in the entire country, or in an specific zone, the | constitutional rights of citizens hampering the resolution of | the problem."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - PERU (2000): A5048 | | "The President can invoke a State of Emergency, during which | the Constitutional protection of personal freedom and security, | inviolability of the home, and the freedom of movement and | assembly may be suspended. The President can also invoke a | State of Siege during which all Constitutional rights may be | suspended. Congress can always meet during either the State of | Emergency or the State of Siege (Art. 137)." | | A State of Emergency may be declared "in cases of | perturbation of the peace or internal order, of catastrophe, or | of serious circumstances that affect the life of the nation." | A State of Siege may be declared "in case of invasion, external | war, or the imminent danger of these (Art. 137)." | | "The State of Emergency may be invoked at any time. A new | presidential decree is required in order to have it last more | than 60 days. The State of Siege can last 45 days and its | continuance requires the approval of Congress (Art. 137)."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - POLAND (1997): A5048 | | The president may introduce martial law when the state's | security is endangered by external forces. A state of emergency | may be declared in the event of threats to internal security or | natural calamity. | | A state of emergency may last for 3 months, after which, the | Sejm must issue approval for an additional 3 months.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - ROMANIA (1996): A5048 | | Presidential actions under emergency authority: "1. to | declare the general or partial mobilization of the army; 2. to | declare a state of emergency." | | "Restricted to one or more of the following: natural disasters, | economic crises, invasions and/or civil disorders." | | "The president has to ask for the approval of the parliament | within five days."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - RUSSIA (1999): A5048 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - RUSSIA (2000): A5048 | | "The head of state can invoke emergency powers "under | circumstances, which present a real and imminent threat to | citizens' safety or the foundations of the constitutional order, | and these circumstances cannot be eliminated without the | implementation of emergency measures" (Art. 3, Federal Law on | Emergency Situations) Such circumstances include: attempted | coups; changes to the constitutional order or its foundations | though violence; terrorist acts; blockade of particular | localities; massive unrest; inter-nationality, inter- | denominational or regional conflicts accompanied by violence, | threatening the life and safety of citizens, and the normal | functioning of governmental and social institutions; epidemics, | resulting from accidents; dangerous natural disasters, | associated (or potentially associated) with human victims. | (Art. 4, Federal Law on Emergency Situations). The head of | state must inform both houses of the legislature immediately | about the implementation of an emergency situation"

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SLOVENIA (1996): A5048 | | A state of emergency may be declared in conditions of war. | | The head of state must have the support of parliament in | declaring a state of emergency.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - SWITZERLAND (1999): A5048 | | Under emergency authority, the head of state may "a) take | precautionary measures in a case of urgency," and b) "give a | decision in place of the entire Federal Council (Art. 26 Abs. | 2 RVOG)." | | Emergency authority may only be invoked if it is not possible | to convene the entire Federal Council. | | "Later [decisions made under emergency authority] have to be | submitted to the Federal Council for their approval (Art. 26 | Abs. 3 RVOG)."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - TAIWAN (1996): A5048 | | Under emergency authority, the head of state may "issue | emergency orders." | | The head of state may invoke emergency authority "to avert | imminent danger affecting national security or to cope with | serious financial or economic crisis." | | The head of state's emergency powers require a "resolution of | the Cabinet (the president cannot act alone)" and must be | ratified by the Legislative Yuan (upper house) within ten days.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UKRAINE (1998): A5048 | | "The emergency authority should be confirmed in parliament." | | See Art. 106 p.2-3 for further details.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (1996): A5048 | | "The actions that a head of state can take under emergency | powers are not clearly defined. When the head of state may | invoke emergency powers is not clearly defined; usually in time | of war. The restrictions may involve a challenge by the Supreme | Court ruling those actions unconstitutional."

------A5049 >>> HEAD OF STATE - POSTPONE ELECTION ------

Do emergency powers allow head of state to postpone scheduled elections or extend presidential/legislative terms indefinitely? ......

1. YES 5. NO

9. MISSING

| NOTE: A5049 | | This question was not asked of the collaborators in the Macro | Report, but was researched otherwise.

------A5050 >>> HEAD OF STATE - NEGOTIATE AGREEMENTS ------

QIII.A.3G. Does the Head of State have power to negotiate treaties and international agreements? If yes, what other requirements are there for approval of treaties and international agreements negotiated by the head of state? ......

1. YES [SEE NOTES FOR VARIABLE A5044 FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR APPROVAL OF TREATIES NEGOTIATED BY THE HEAD OF STATE] 5. NO

9. MISSING | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - BELARUS (2001): A5050 | | International treaties negotiated by the Head of State must be | ratified by parliament.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (1996): A5050 | | International agreements negotiated by the President must be | approved by parliament.

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - HUNGARY (1998): A5050 | | "Formally, the president has the power to negotiate treaties (or | to conclude them), but the president is bound by the counter- | signature of a minister [comparable to] the Prime Minister. De | facto, the president is expected to follow the government's | advice." | | "Parliament must authorize the conclusion of important treaties | and those within the wide competence of the legislature."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - KOREA (2000): A5050 | | International agreements negotiated by the Head of State "need | consent [of] the legislature."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (1997): A5050 | ELECTION STUDY NOTES - MEXICO (2000): A5050 | | "In the case of international agreements and treaties the | approval of the Senate is required."

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - UNITED STATES (1996): A5050 | | "The requirement for approval of treaties and international | agreements made by the head of state is the approval of 2/3 | majority in the Senate (Upper House of the legislature)."

------A5051 >>> HEAD OF STATE - COMMANDER OF FORCES ------

QIII.A.3H.1. Does the Head of State have power as commander of the armed forces? ......

1. YES 5. NO

9. MISSING

------A5052 >>> HEAD OF STATE - PROMOTION OF OFFICERS ------

QIII.A.3H.2. If yes, does the Head of State control promotions of high ranking officers? ......

1. YES 5. NO

9. MISSING

0. NOT APPLICABLE; HEAD OF STATE IS NOT THE COMMANDER OF THE ARMED FORCES

------A5053 >>> HEAD OF STATE - DEMOTION OF OFFICERS ------

QIII.A.3H.3. If yes, can the Head of State dismiss or demote high- ranking officers? ......

1. YES 5. NO

9. MISSING

0. NOT APPLICABLE; HEAD OF STATE IS NOT THE COMMANDER OF THE ARMED FORCES

------A5054 >>> HEAD OF STATE - MOBILIZE TROOPS ------

QIII.A.3H.4. If yes, can the Head of State mobilize and demobilize troops? ......

1. YES 5. NO

9. MISSING

0. NOT APPLICABLE; HEAD OF STATE IS NOT THE COMMANDER OF THE ARMED FORCES

------A5055 >>> HEAD OF STATE - INTRODUCE REFERENDA ------

QIII.A.3I. Does the head of State have power to introduce referenda? If yes, under what conditions? ......

1. YES [SEE NOTES FOR VARIABLE A5044 FOR CONDITIONS] 5. NO

9. MISSING

| ELECTION STUDY NOTES - CZECH REPUBLIC (1996): A5050 | | Regarding the power of the head of state to introduce referenda, | "no referendum legislation existing (only mentioned in the | constitution)."

------A5056 >>> HEAD OF STATE - REFER LEGISLATION TO JUDICIARY ------

QIII.A.3J. Does the Head of State have the power to refer legislation to the judicial branch for review of constitutionality? ......

1. YES 5. NO

9. MISSING

------A5057 >>> HEAD OF STATE - LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS ------

QIII.A.3K. Does the Head of State have power to convene special legislative sessions? If yes, is this the Head of State's power exclusively, or can any other(s) do this as well? ......

1. YES, SHARED POWER WITH OTHER(S) [SEE NOTES FOR VARIABLES A5043-A5058] 2. YES, EXCLUSIVE POWER 5. NO

9. MISSING

------A5058 >>> PRIME MINISTER - NAME CABINET ------

QIII.B.3. If there is a prime minister, what authorities does the prime minister have over the composition of the cabinet? ......

1. NAMES, ASSIGNS, DISMISSES AND REASSIGNS PORTFOLIOS ALONE 2. NOMINATES MINISTERS FOR APPROVAL BY PRESIDENT 3. REVIEWS AND APPROVES NOMINATIONS MADE BY THE PRESIDENT 4. NOMINATES MINISTERS FOR APPROVAL BY THE LEGISLATURE

9. MISSING