Geographical Approach to the Analysis of Elections
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
A Case of Youth Activism in Matica Slovenská
65 ETHNOLOGIA ACTUALIS Vol. 15, No. 1/2015 MARTIN PRIE ČKO Between Patriotism and Far-Right Extremism: A Case of Youth Activism in Matica slovenská Between Patriotism and Far-Right Extremism: A Case of Youth Activism in Matica slovenská MARTIN PRIE ČKO Department of Ethnology and World Studies, University of SS. Cyril and Methodius in Trnava [email protected] ABSTRACT This case study discusses a youth branch of Matica slovenská, a pro-Slovak culture organization. It is based on in-depth research of the structure of the organization and it focuses on basic characteristics of functioning of this social movement such as funding, membership base, political orientation, civic engagement, patriotic activities and also the causes of negative media presentation. Presented material pointed to a thin boundary between the perception of positive manifestations of patriotism and at the same time negative (even extremist) connotations of such manifestations in Slovak society. This duplicate perception of patriotic activities is reflected not only in polarization of opinion in society but also on the level of political, media and public communication. Thus, the article is a small probe from the scene of youth activism with an ambition to point out to such a diverse perception of patriotic organizations/activities in present-day Slovak society. KEY WORDS : Matica slovenská, youth, activism, state-supported organisation, patriotism, Far-Right Introduction Young Matica (MM – Mladá Matica) represents a subsidiary branch of Slovak Matica (MS – Matica slovenská), which is a traditional cultural and enlightenment organisation with DOI: 10.1515/eas-2015-0009 © University of SS. Cyril and Methodius in Trnava. -
By Jennifer M. Fogel a Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
A MODERN FAMILY: THE PERFORMANCE OF “FAMILY” AND FAMILIALISM IN CONTEMPORARY TELEVISION SERIES by Jennifer M. Fogel A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Communication) in The University of Michigan 2012 Doctoral Committee: Associate Professor Amanda D. Lotz, Chair Professor Susan J. Douglas Professor Regina Morantz-Sanchez Associate Professor Bambi L. Haggins, Arizona State University © Jennifer M. Fogel 2012 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I owe my deepest gratitude to the members of my dissertation committee – Dr. Susan J. Douglas, Dr. Bambi L. Haggins, and Dr. Regina Morantz-Sanchez, who each contributed their time, expertise, encouragement, and comments throughout this entire process. These women who have mentored and guided me for a number of years have my utmost respect for the work they continue to contribute to our field. I owe my deepest gratitude to my advisor Dr. Amanda D. Lotz, who patiently refused to accept anything but my best work, motivated me to be a better teacher and academic, praised my successes, and will forever remain a friend and mentor. Without her constructive criticism, brainstorming sessions, and matching appreciation for good television, I would have been lost to the wolves of academia. One does not make a journey like this alone, and it would be remiss of me not to express my humble thanks to my parents and sister, without whom seven long and lonely years would not have passed by so quickly. They were both my inspiration and staunchest supporters. Without their tireless encouragement, laughter, and nurturing this dissertation would not have been possible. -
Codebook Indiveu – Party Preferences
Codebook InDivEU – party preferences European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies December 2020 Introduction The “InDivEU – party preferences” dataset provides data on the positions of more than 400 parties from 28 countries1 on questions of (differentiated) European integration. The dataset comprises a selection of party positions taken from two existing datasets: (1) The EU Profiler/euandi Trend File The EU Profiler/euandi Trend File contains party positions for three rounds of European Parliament elections (2009, 2014, and 2019). Party positions were determined in an iterative process of party self-placement and expert judgement. For more information: https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/65944 (2) The Chapel Hill Expert Survey The Chapel Hill Expert Survey contains party positions for the national elections most closely corresponding the European Parliament elections of 2009, 2014, 2019. Party positions were determined by expert judgement. For more information: https://www.chesdata.eu/ Three additional party positions, related to DI-specific questions, are included in the dataset. These positions were determined by experts involved in the 2019 edition of euandi after the elections took place. The inclusion of party positions in the “InDivEU – party preferences” is limited to the following issues: - General questions about the EU - Questions about EU policy - Questions about differentiated integration - Questions about party ideology 1 This includes all 27 member states of the European Union in 2020, plus the United Kingdom. How to Cite When using the ‘InDivEU – Party Preferences’ dataset, please cite all of the following three articles: 1. Reiljan, Andres, Frederico Ferreira da Silva, Lorenzo Cicchi, Diego Garzia, Alexander H. -
ESS9 Appendix A3 Political Parties Ed
APPENDIX A3 POLITICAL PARTIES, ESS9 - 2018 ed. 3.0 Austria 2 Belgium 4 Bulgaria 7 Croatia 8 Cyprus 10 Czechia 12 Denmark 14 Estonia 15 Finland 17 France 19 Germany 20 Hungary 21 Iceland 23 Ireland 25 Italy 26 Latvia 28 Lithuania 31 Montenegro 34 Netherlands 36 Norway 38 Poland 40 Portugal 44 Serbia 47 Slovakia 52 Slovenia 53 Spain 54 Sweden 57 Switzerland 58 United Kingdom 61 Version Notes, ESS9 Appendix A3 POLITICAL PARTIES ESS9 edition 3.0 (published 10.12.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Denmark, Iceland. ESS9 edition 2.0 (published 15.06.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden. Austria 1. Political parties Language used in data file: German Year of last election: 2017 Official party names, English 1. Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs (SPÖ) - Social Democratic Party of Austria - 26.9 % names/translation, and size in last 2. Österreichische Volkspartei (ÖVP) - Austrian People's Party - 31.5 % election: 3. Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) - Freedom Party of Austria - 26.0 % 4. Liste Peter Pilz (PILZ) - PILZ - 4.4 % 5. Die Grünen – Die Grüne Alternative (Grüne) - The Greens – The Green Alternative - 3.8 % 6. Kommunistische Partei Österreichs (KPÖ) - Communist Party of Austria - 0.8 % 7. NEOS – Das Neue Österreich und Liberales Forum (NEOS) - NEOS – The New Austria and Liberal Forum - 5.3 % 8. G!LT - Verein zur Förderung der Offenen Demokratie (GILT) - My Vote Counts! - 1.0 % Description of political parties listed 1. The Social Democratic Party (Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs, or SPÖ) is a social above democratic/center-left political party that was founded in 1888 as the Social Democratic Worker's Party (Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei, or SDAP), when Victor Adler managed to unite the various opposing factions. -
Supplementary File
Online-Appendix for the paper: Electoral behavior in a European Union under stress Table A1: Eurosceptic Parties in the 2014 European Parliament election Country Parties Austria EU Stop, Europe Different, Austrian Freedom Party Belgium Workers Party of Belgium, Flemish Interest Bulgaria Bulgaria Without Censorship, National Front, Attack Croatia Croatian Party of Rights Cyprus Progressive Party of the Working People, National Popular Front Czech Dawn of Direct Democracy, Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia, Party of Republic Free Citizens Denmark Danish People’s Party, People’s Movement against the EU Estonia Conservative People’s Party of Estonia Finland True Finns France Left Front, Arise the Republic, National Front Germany National Democratic Party of Germany, The Left, Alternative for Germany Greece Communist Party of Greece, Coalition of the Radical Left, Independent Greeks, Popular Orthodox Rally, Golden Dawn Hungary FIDESZ-KDNP Alliance, Jobbik Ireland Ourselves Alone Italy Left Ecology Movement, Northern League, Five Star Movement Latvia Green and Farmers’ Union, National Independence Movement of Latvia Lithuania Order and Justice, Election Action of Lithuania’s Poles Luxembourg Alternative Democratic Reform Party Malta none applicable Netherlands Socialist Party, Coalition CU—SGP, Party of Freedom Poland Congress of the New Right, United Poland, Law and Justice Portugal Left Bloc, Unified Democratic Coalition Romania Greater Romania Party, People’s Party—Dan Dianconescu Freedom and Solidarity, Ordinary People and Independent -
Election Observation Table of Contents
Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS 25 AND 26 SEPTEMBER 1998 ODIHR ELECTION OBSERVATION TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION II SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS III THE LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK III.1 General III.2 The Electoral System III.3 Some Legal Issues IV THE ELECTION ADMINISTRATION V VOTER AND CIVIC EDUCATION VI VOTER REGISTRATION VII CANDIDATE REGISTRATION VIII THE PRE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN IX THE MEDIA X OBSERVATION ON POLLING DAY XI OBSERVATION OF COUNTING XII AGGREGATION AND VERIFICATION OF RESULTS XIII RECOMMENDATIONS 2 I. INTRODUCTION Upon invitation from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Slovak Republic of 18 August 1998, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe=s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR) established an Election Observation Mission in Slovakia for the 25 and 26 September Parliamentary elections. Ms. Helle Degn, President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and Chairman of the Foreign Policy Committee of the Danish Parliament, was designated by the OSCE Chairman-in-Office as his Representative for the Election in Slovakia. Mr. Kåre Vollan was appointed by the ODIHR as the OSCE On-site Co-ordinator and Head of the ODIHR Election Observation Mission, and Ms Siri Skåre as Deputy Head upon being seconded by the Government of Norway. The OSCE was involved at an early stage in the pre-election process including a visit by the ODIHR Director, Ambassador Stoudmann, on February 6 and May 5-6, and a visit by the former President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly Mr. Javier Ruperez on May 4-5. -
State of Populism in Europe
2018 State of Populism in Europe The past few years have seen a surge in the public support of populist, Eurosceptical and radical parties throughout almost the entire European Union. In several countries, their popularity matches or even exceeds the level of public support of the centre-left. Even though the centre-left parties, think tanks and researchers are aware of this challenge, there is still more OF POPULISM IN EUROPE – 2018 STATE that could be done in this fi eld. There is occasional research on individual populist parties in some countries, but there is no regular overview – updated every year – how the popularity of populist parties changes in the EU Member States, where new parties appear and old ones disappear. That is the reason why FEPS and Policy Solutions have launched this series of yearbooks, entitled “State of Populism in Europe”. *** FEPS is the fi rst progressive political foundation established at the European level. Created in 2007 and co-fi nanced by the European Parliament, it aims at establishing an intellectual crossroad between social democracy and the European project. Policy Solutions is a progressive political research institute based in Budapest. Among the pre-eminent areas of its research are the investigation of how the quality of democracy evolves, the analysis of factors driving populism, and election research. Contributors : Tamás BOROS, Maria FREITAS, Gergely LAKI, Ernst STETTER STATE OF POPULISM Tamás BOROS IN EUROPE Maria FREITAS • This book is edited by FEPS with the fi nancial support of the European -
New Parties in the Party Systems of Central and Eastern European Countries: the Factors of Electoral Success
vol� 63(3)/2019, pp� 50–65 DOI: 10�15804/athena�2019�63�04 www�athenaeum�umk�pl ISSN 1505-2192 NEW PARTIES IN THE PARTY SYSTEMS OF CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES : THE FACTORS OF ELECTORAL SUCCESS NOWE PARTIE W SYSTEMACH PARTYJNYCH PAŃSTW EUROPY ŚRODKOWEJ I WSCHODNIEJ: CZYNNIKI WYBORCZEGO SUKCESU Maciej Marmola* — ABSTRACT — — ABSTRAKT — The aim of the presented analysis is to identify Prezentowana analiza ma na celu zidentyfikowanie factors correlated with the proportion of seats czynników wykazujących związek z odsetkiem obtained by new political parties in party systems mandatów dla nowych partii politycznych of Central and Eastern European countries� The w warunkach systemów partyjnych państw study provides an original approach to success Europy Środkowej i Wschodniej� W trakcie badań of new parties, offering factors divided into in zaproponowano autorskie zestawienie czynników four groups (political, social, institutional and mogących współwystępować z wyższym wynikiem economic factors)� The study results confirmed mandatowym nowych partii, skategoryzowanych that a higher proportion of seats obtained by w obrębie czterech grup (czynników politycznych, new parties in the investigated area correlated społecznych, instytucjonalnych oraz ekono- with lower trust in the European Union, lower micznych)� Uzyskane rezultaty potwierdziły, że institutional trust (index based on trust in the wyższy odsetek mandatów zdobytych przez nowe parliament, government and political par- ugrupowania na badanym obszarze współwy- ties), poorer evaluations -
Challenging Trends Within Slovak Party System in the Context of 2016 Elections to the National Council of the Slovak Republic 1
Challenging Trends within Slovak Party System in the Context of 2016 Elections to the National Council of the Slovak Republic 1 ONDŘEJ FILIPEC Politics in Central Europe (ISSN: 1801‑3422) Vol. 15, No. 1 DOI: 10.2478/pce‑2019‑0001 Abstract: The 2016 Elections to the National Council in Slovakia are considered a po‑ litical earthquake. Social Democrats lost 34 out of 83 seats, the Euro sceptic party SaS almost doubled its representation, the nationalistic Slovak National Party returned to the Parliament with 15 seats and three „newcomers“ entered the Parliament: the (neo) fascist Kotleba – ĽSNS, conservative We are Family (SME RODINA – Boris Kollár) and centrist #Network (#Sieť). Changes in composition raised questions about party system institutionalization and opened a debate about challenging trends within the Slovak party system including fragmentation, aggregation, high volatility, anti‑systemness or alternation. Moreover, it again opened the issue of party newness and consolidation. This article deals with current trends in the context of the 2016 elections and tries to examine the current state of the Slovak Party system. Keywords: Party system, Slovakia, Institutionalization, Consolidation, 2016 Elec- tions, Fragmentation 1 This article has been created under the scheme of the grant VEGA 1/0339/17: comparing the dynamism of institutional consolidation of far ‑right wing parties and movements in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. The author would like to thank Mgr. Jakub Bardovič, Ph.D., PhDr. Marek Hrušovský and Mgr. Michal Garaj, Ph.D. for various consultations on the topic, which has hopefully contributed to the quality of this text. POLITICS IN CENTRAL EUROPE 15 (2019) 1 7 Introduction Unlike western democracies, political regimes in Central and Eastern Europe experienced a unique transformation of its political institutions after the fall of Communism. -
Information Guide Euroscepticism
Information Guide Euroscepticism A guide to information sources on Euroscepticism, with hyperlinks to further sources of information within European Sources Online and on external websites Contents Introduction .................................................................................................. 2 Brief Historical Overview................................................................................. 2 Euro Crisis 2008 ............................................................................................ 3 European Elections 2014 ................................................................................ 5 Euroscepticism in Europe ................................................................................ 8 Eurosceptic organisations ......................................................................... 10 Eurosceptic thinktanks ............................................................................. 10 Transnational Eurosceptic parties and political groups .................................. 11 Eurocritical media ................................................................................... 12 EU Reaction ................................................................................................. 13 Information sources in the ESO database ........................................................ 14 Further information sources on the internet ..................................................... 14 Copyright © 2016 Cardiff EDC. All rights reserved. 1 Cardiff EDC is part of the University Library -
Challenger Party List
Appendix List of Challenger Parties Operationalization of Challenger Parties A party is considered a challenger party if in any given year it has not been a member of a central government after 1930. A party is considered a dominant party if in any given year it has been part of a central government after 1930. Only parties with ministers in cabinet are considered to be members of a central government. A party ceases to be a challenger party once it enters central government (in the election immediately preceding entry into office, it is classified as a challenger party). Participation in a national war/crisis cabinets and national unity governments (e.g., Communists in France’s provisional government) does not in itself qualify a party as a dominant party. A dominant party will continue to be considered a dominant party after merging with a challenger party, but a party will be considered a challenger party if it splits from a dominant party. Using this definition, the following parties were challenger parties in Western Europe in the period under investigation (1950–2017). The parties that became dominant parties during the period are indicated with an asterisk. Last election in dataset Country Party Party name (as abbreviation challenger party) Austria ALÖ Alternative List Austria 1983 DU The Independents—Lugner’s List 1999 FPÖ Freedom Party of Austria 1983 * Fritz The Citizens’ Forum Austria 2008 Grüne The Greens—The Green Alternative 2017 LiF Liberal Forum 2008 Martin Hans-Peter Martin’s List 2006 Nein No—Citizens’ Initiative against -
Slovak Republic
Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights SLOVAK REPUBLIC PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 16 March 2019 ODIHR NEEDS ASSESSMENT MISSION REPORT 3-5 December 2018 Warsaw 22 January 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1 II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 1 III. FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................................. 3 A. BACKGROUND AND POLITICAL CONTEXT .................................................................................................. 3 B. LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND ELECTORAL SYSTEM ........................................................................................ 4 C. ELECTION ADMINISTRATION ..................................................................................................................... 4 D. VOTER REGISTRATION............................................................................................................................... 5 E. CANDIDATE REGISTRATION ....................................................................................................................... 5 F. ELECTION CAMPAIGN ................................................................................................................................ 6 G. CAMPAIGN FINANCE .................................................................................................................................