My da|ra Login

Detailed view

metadata language: English

Comparative Study of Electoral Systems, 2001-2006

Version
v1
Resource Type
Dataset : administrative records data, aggregate data, and survey data
Creator
  • Sapiro, Virginia (Comparative Study of Electoral Systems)
  • Shively, W. Philips (Comparative Study of Electoral Systems)
Other Title
  • Version 1 (Subtitle)
Collective Title
  • Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES) Series
Publication Date
2004-02-24
Funding Reference
  • National Science Foundation
Language
English
Free Keywords
democracy; demographic characteristics; electoral systems; national elections; nations; political affiliation; political efficacy; political ideologies; political parties; political systems; politicians; parliamentary elections; presidential elections; public opinion; vote count; voting behavior
Description
  • Abstract

    This study is the full release of 2001-2006 data from Module 2 of the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems. The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems is an ongoing collaborative program of crossnational research among national election studies designed to advance the understanding of electoral behavior across polities. The project, which is being 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 in the countries of Albania, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, and the United States. Module 2 focuses on electoral institutions and political behavior, particularly on the fundamental principles of democratic governance: representation and accountability. It aims to examine how well different electoral institutions function as mechanisms by which citizens' views are represented in the policymaking process, and by which citizens hold their elected representatives accountable. This is accomplished by explicitly linking individual attitudes and behaviors to the political context across a variety of settings. The module added a new set of items on citizen engagement and cognition across demographic polities, and expanded the analyses of the first module to examine how voters' choices are affected by the institutional context within which those choices are made. The survey results have been compiled and supplemented with district-level information that provides 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. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, ethnicity, education level, marital status, employment status, occupation, household union membership, language, socioeconomic status, political party affiliation, political orientation, religious preference, frequency of religious attendance, household income, number of children and other members of the household, and type of residential area (e.g., urban or rural).
  • Methods

    The CSES Module 2 Full Release includes original weight data (variables B1010_1, B1010_2, and B1010_3), as provided by the collaborators, where available. The weight variables provided by the collaborators vary greatly because of the variance in the sample designs used in the election studies included in this project. Most election studies provided at least a single weight in one of three categories (sample, demographic, political), although some countries did not provide a weight at all. The remainder of the weight variables are derivatives constructed from the original weights by CSES. Analysts are advised to read the weight documentation carefully to ensure that their analyses are weighted appropriately.
  • Methods

    ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Created online analysis version with question text..
  • Table of Contents

    Datasets:

    • DS1: Comparative Study of Electoral Systems, 2001-2006, Dataset 0001
Temporal Coverage
  • 2001 / 2006
    Time period: 2001--2006
  • 2001 / 2006
    Collection date: 2001--2006
Geographic Coverage
  • Albania
  • Australia
  • Belgium
  • Brazil
  • Bulgaria
  • Canada
  • Chile
  • Czech Republic
  • Denmark
  • Finland
  • France
  • Great Britain
  • Germany
  • Hungary
  • Hong Kong
  • Iceland
  • Ireland
  • Israel
  • Italy
  • Japan
  • Kyrgyzstan
  • Mexico
  • Netherlands
  • New Zealand
  • Norway
  • Peru
  • Philippines
  • Poland
  • Portugal
  • Romania
  • Russia
  • Slovenia
  • South Korea
  • Spain
  • Sweden
  • Switzerland
  • Taiwan
  • United States
  • Global
Sampled Universe
All age-eligible citizens, or citizens of voting age of collaborating countries.
Sampling
The data collection is a pooled crossnational sample of age-eligible citizens in 38 countries, yielding 64,256 cases. Please refer to the codebook documentation for more information on sample design in each country.
Collection Mode
  • face-to-face interview, mail questionnaire, telephone interview

    (1) The data available for download are not weighted. The use of weights is at the discretion of the analyst based upon the considerations of her/his individual research question. It is recommended that users familiarize themselves with the weights, their components, and their methods of creation before applying them. (2) Sample type, weights, and mode of collection vary by country. Please refer to the codebook documentation for additional information on sampling, interviewing, weighting, oversamples, and collection modes for each country. (3) The 1996-2001 data file (ICPSR 2683) 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). (4) This 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. (5) Users should check the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES) Web site for additional information about this survey, errata notes, and other materials. This version corresponds to CSES Module 2 Full Release of June 27, 2007. (6) Several codes in variables B2025, B2026, B5022_1, B5022_2, B5022_3, B5022_4, and B5022_5 contain diacritical marks. (7) The CASEID variable was created for use with online analysis.

Note
2008-07-01 The early release of this data collection has been updated to the full release which occurred June 27, 2007. The SPSS, SAS, and Stata setup files have been updated to reflect the full release of this data collection, and SPSS and Stata system files and a SAS transport file have been added. A PDF codebook with question text, study documentation, and online analysis capabilities will be released as well. Funding insitution(s): National Science Foundation (CES-0112029).
Availability
Delivery
This version of the study is no longer available on the web. If you need to acquire this version of the data, you have to contact ICPSR User Support (help@icpsr.umich.edu).
Alternative Identifiers
  • 3808 (Type: ICPSR Study Number)
Relations
  • Is previous version of
    DOI: 10.3886/ICPSR03808.v2
Publications
  • Beauregard, Katrine. Gender, political participation and electoral systems: A cross-national analysis. European Journal of Political Research.2014.
    • ID: 10.1111/1475-6765.12047 (DOI)
  • Dassonneville, Ruth, Dejaeghere, Yves. Bridging the ideological space: A cross-national analysis of the distance of party switching. European Journal of Political Research.2014.
    • ID: 10.1111/1475-6765.12049 (DOI)
  • Gingrich, Jane. Visibility, values, and voters: The informational role of the welfare state. Journal of Politics.76, (2), 565-580.2014.
    • ID: 10.1017/S0022381613001540 (DOI)
  • Lefkofridi, Zoe, Giger, Nathalie, Gallego, Aina. Electoral participation in pursuit of policy representation: Ideological congruence and voter turnout. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties.2014.
    • ID: 10.1080/17457289.2013.846347 (DOI)
  • Jansen, Giedo, Evans, Geoffrey, Graaf, Nan Dirk de. Class voting and Left–Right party positions: A comparative study of 15 Western democracies, 1960–2005. Social Science Research.42, (2), 376-400.2013.
    • ID: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.09.007 (DOI)
  • Powell, G. Bingham Jr.. Representation in context: Election laws and ideological congruence between citizens and governments. Perspectives on Politics.11, (1), 9-21.2013.
    • ID: 10.1017/S1537592712003635 (DOI)
  • Singh, Shane, Thornton, Judd. Compulsory voting and the dynamics of partisan identification. European Journal of Political Research.52, (2), 188-211.2013.
    • ID: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2012.02071.x (DOI)
  • de Vries, Catherine E., Giger, Nathalie. Holding governments accountable? Individual heterogeneity in performance voting. European Journal of Political Research.2013.
    • ID: 10.1111/1475-6765.12033 (DOI)
  • Anderson, Christopher J., Beramendi, Pablo. Left parties, poor voters, and electoral participation in advanced industrial societies. Comparative Political Studies.45, (6), 714-746.2012.
    • ID: 10.1177/0010414011427880 (DOI)
  • Bernauer, Julian, Vatter, Adrian. Can't get no satisfaction with the Westminster model? Winners, losers and the effects of consensual and direct democratic institutions on satisfaction with democracy. European Journal of Political Research.51, (4), 435-468.2012.
    • ID: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2011.02007.x (DOI)
  • Grofman, Bernard, Kline, Reuben. How many political parties are there, really? A new measure of the ideologically cognizable number of parties/party groupings. Party Politics.18, (4), 523-544.2012.
    • ID: 10.1177/1354068810386838 (DOI)
  • Singh, Shane P.. Where do parties live? Electoral institutions, party incentives, and the dimensionality of politics. Social Science Quarterly.93, (4), 950-967.2012.
    • ID: 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2012.00843.x (DOI)
  • Thananithichot, Stithorn. Political engagement and participation of Thai citizens: the rural–urban disparity. Contemporary Politics.18, (1), 87-108.2012.
    • ID: 10.1080/13569775.2012.651274 (DOI)
  • Drummond, Andrew J.. Assimilation, contrast and voter projections of parties in left-right space: Does the electoral system matter?. Party Politics.17, (6), 711-743.2011.
    • ID: 10.1177/1354068810376781 (DOI)
  • Raymond, Christopher. The continued salience of religious voting in the United States, Germany, and Great Britain. Electoral Studies.30, 125-135.2011.
    • ID: 10.1016/j.electstud.2010.10.001 (DOI)
  • Bernhagen, Patrick, Marsh, Michael. Missing voters, missing data: Using multiple imputation to estimate the effects of low turnout. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties.20, (4), 447-472.2010.
    • ID: 10.1080/17457289.2010.512840 (DOI)
  • Fisher, Stephen D., Hobolt, Sara B.. Coalition government and electoral accountability. Electoral Studies.29, (3), 358-369.2010.
    • ID: 10.1016/j.electstud.2010.03.003 (DOI)
  • Golder, Matt, Stramski, Jacek. Ideological congruence and electoral institutions. American Journal of Political Science.54, (1), 90-106.2010.
    • ID: 10.2307/20647973 (DOI)
  • Vowles, Jack. Making a difference? Public perceptions of coalition, single-party, and minority governments. Electoral Studies.29, (3), 370-380.2010.
    • ID: 10.1016/j.electstud.2010.03.006 (DOI)
  • Warwick, Paul V.. Bilateralism or the median mandate? An examination of rival perspectives on democratic governance. European Journal of Political Research.49, (1), 1-24.2010.
    • ID: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2009.01878.x (DOI)
  • Bingham Powell, G.. The ideological congruence controversy: The impact of alternative measures, data, and time periods on the effects of election rules. Comparative Political Studies.42, (12), 1475-1497.2009.
    • ID: 10.1177/0010414009332147 (DOI)
  • Warwick, Paul V.. Relative extremism and relative moderation: Strategic party positioning in democratic systems. Political Research Quarterly.62, (2), 276-288.2009.
    • ID: 10.2307/27759867 (DOI)
  • Dalton, Russell J.. The quantity and the quality of party systems: Party system polarization, its measurement, and its consequences. Comparative Political Studies.41, (7), 899-920.2008.
  • Fisher, Stephen D., Lessard-Phillips, Laurence, Hobolt, Sara B., Curtice, John. Disengaging voters: Do plurality systems discourage the less knowledgeable from voting?. Electoral Studies.27, (1), 89-104.2008.
    • ID: 10.1016/j.electstud.2007.11.001 (DOI)
  • Karp, Jeffrey A., Banducci, Susan A.. Political efficacy and participation in twenty-seven democracies: How electoral systems shape political behaviour. British Journal of Political Science.38, 311-334.2008.
    • ID: 10.2307/27568347 (DOI)
  • Karp, Jeffrey A., Banducci, Susan A.. When politics is not just a man's game: Women's representation and political engagement. Electoral Studies.27, (1), 105-115.2008.
    • ID: 10.1016/j.electstud.2007.11.009 (DOI)
  • Mahler, Vincent A.. Electoral turnout and income redistribution by the state: A cross-national analysis of the developed democracies. European Journal of Political Research.47, (2), 161-183.2008.
    • ID: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2007.00726.x (DOI)
  • Toka, Gabor. Citizen information, election outcomes and good governance. Electoral Studies.27, (1), 31-44.2008.
    • ID: 10.1016/j.electstud.2007.11.006 (DOI)
  • Vowles, Jack. Does globalization affect public perceptions of ‘Who in power can make a difference’? Evidence from 40 countries, 1996–2006. Electoral Studies.27, (1), 63-76.2008.
    • ID: 10.1016/j.electstud.2007.11.003 (DOI)
  • Wessels, Bernhard, Schmitt, Hermann. Meaningful choices, political supply, and institutional effectiveness. Electoral Studies.27, (1), 19-30.2008.
    • ID: 10.1016/j.electstud.2007.11.010 (DOI)
  • Thames, Frank C.. Discipline and party institutionalization in post-soviet legislatures. Party Politics.13, (4), 456-477.2007.
    • ID: 10.1177/1354068807077956 (DOI)
  • Anderson, Cameron D.. Economic voting and multilevel governance: A comparative individual-level analysis. American Journal of Political Science.50, (2), 449-463.2006.
    • ID: 10.2307/3694283 (DOI)
  • Farrell, David M., Mcallister, Ian. Voter satisfaction and electoral systems: Does preferential voting in candidate-centred systems make a difference?. European Journal of Political Research.45, (5), 723-749.2006.
    • ID: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2006.00633.x (DOI)
  • Jusko, Karen Long, Shively, W. Phillips. Applying a two-step strategy to the analysis of cross-national public opinion data. Political Analysis.13, (4), 327-344.2005.
    • ID: 10.1093/pan/mpi030 (DOI)

Update Metadata: 2015-08-05 | Issue Number: 3 | Registration Date: 2015-06-30

Sapiro, Virginia; Shively, W. Philips (2004): Comparative Study of Electoral Systems, 2001-2006. Version 1. Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES) Series. Version: v1. ICPSR - Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03808.v1