This article examines the extent to which individual-, party- and system-level characteristics affect the attitude congruence of voters and candidates for elections to the European Parliament. It examines attitudes towards basic policy packages in the socioeconomic and libertarian/authoritarian issue domains and on immigration and European Union integration. The analysis is based on the 2009 European Election Study and European Election Candidate Survey, which covered 27 countries of the European Union (EU), 162 parties and over 11,500 respondents. It shows that the European Parliament suffers from inequalities in representation for different groups of citizens, representing much better the attitudes of educated, middle-class and politically knowledgeable voters. Furthermore, the analysis uncovers significant differences across political parties in how well they match up to voters. We provide tentative evidence suggesting that voters are better represented in open and ordered ballot systems.
BasingerSJLavineH (2005) Ambivalence, information and electoral choice. American Political Science Review99(2): 169–184.
2.
BurchellJ(2002) The Evolution of Green Politics: Development and Change within European Green Parties, London: Earthscan Publications.
3.
CareyJShugartM (1995) Incentives to cultivate a personal vote: A rank ordering of electoral formulas. Electoral Studies14(4): 417–439.
4.
ChildsS(2008) Women and British Party Politics. Descriptive, Substantive and Symbolic Representation, Routledge: Taylor & Francis.
5.
DaltonRJ (1985) Political parties and political representation. Party supporters and party elites in nine nations. Comparative Political Studies18(3): 267–299.
6.
DaltonRJ(2002) Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies, New York: Chatham House Publishers.
7.
De VriesC (2007) Sleeping giant: Fact or fairytale? How European integration affects national elections. European Union Politics8(3): 363–385.
8.
Delli CarpiniMXKeeterS(1996) What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
9.
EES (2009a) European Parliament Election Study 2009 Voter Study, Advance Release 07.04.2010. Available at: http://www.piredeu.eu (accessed 20 July 2012).
10.
EES (2009b) European Parliament Election Study 2009. Candidate Study. Advance Release July 2010. Available at: http://www.piredeu.eu (accessed 20 July 2012).
11.
EvansGDe GraafND(2012) Political Choice Matters: Explaining the Strength of Class and Religious Cleavages in Cross-National Perspective, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12.
FarrellDMScullyR(2007) Representing Europe’s Citizens? Electoral Institutions and the Failure of Parliamentary Representation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13.
FranklinM(2007) Turning out or turning off? How the EP elections of 2004 shed light on turnout dynamics. In: MarshMMikhaylovSSchmittH (eds) European Elections after Eastern Enlargement. Preliminary Results of the European Elections Study 2004, Mannheim: MZES, pp. 141–179.
14.
Franklin M and Wessels B (2010) Stimulus, response and turnout variations at a European Parliament election. Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, 22–25 April.
15.
Giebler H, Haus E and Wessels B (2010) 2009 European Election Candidate Study – Codebook. Advance Release V2. Berlin: WZB . Available at: http://www.piredeu.eu.
16.
HoboltSBHøylandB (2011) Selection and sanctioning in European Parliament elections. British Journal of Political Science41: 477–498.
17.
HolmbergS(1999) Collective policy congruence compared. In: MillerWEPierceRThomassenJ (eds) Policy Representation in Western Democracies, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 87–109.
18.
HoogheLMarksG (2008) A post-functionalist theory of European integration: From permissive consensus to constraining dissensus. British Journal of Political Science39: 1–23.
19.
HoxJH(2010) Multilevel Analysis. Techniques and Applications, New York: Routledge.
20.
HuberJPowellGB (1994) Congruence between citizens and policymakers in two visions of liberal democracy. World Politics46(3): 291–326.
21.
KitscheltHMcGannAJ(1997) The Radical Right in Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
22.
KriesiHGrandeELachatR(2008) West European Politics in the Age of Globalisation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
LipsetSM(1960) Political Man: The Social Basis of Politics, New York: Doubleday.
24.
LuskinRC (1987) Measuring political sophistication. American Journal of Political Science31(4): 856–899.
25.
MeguidBM(2008) Party Competition between Unequals: Strategies and Electoral Fortunes in Western Europe, New York: Cambridge University Press.
26.
MillerWStokesD (1963) Constituency influence in Congress. American Political Science Review57(1): 45–56.
27.
MokkenRJ(1971) A Theory and Procedure of Scale Analysis with Applications in Political Research, The Hague: Mouton.
28.
PitkinH(1967) The Concept of Representation, Berkeley: University of California Press.
29.
PowellGB(2000) Elections as Instruments of Democracy, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
30.
ReifKSchmittH (1980) Nine second-order national elections – a conceptual framework for the analysis of European election results. European Journal of Political Research8(1): 3–44.
31.
RosenstoneSJHansenJM(1993) Mobilization, Participation and Democracy in America, New York: Macmillan.
32.
SartoriG (1968) Representational systems. International Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences13: 470–475.
33.
ScarrowSE (1997) Political career paths and the European Parliament. Legislative Studies Quarterly22(2): 253–263.
34.
SchapiroIStokesSWoodE(2010) Political Representation, New York: Cambridge University Press.
35.
SchattschneiderEE(1975) The Semisovereign People. A Realist’s View of Democracy in America, Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press.
36.
SchmittHThomassenJ(1999) Distinctiveness and cohesion of parties. In: SchmittHThomassenJ (eds) Political Representation and Legitimacy in the European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 111–128.
37.
SchmittHThomassenJ (2000) Dynamic representation: The case of European integration. European Union Politics1(3): 318–339.
38.
SchneiderS (2010) Nominal comparability is not enough: (In-)equivalence of construct validity of cross-national measures of educational attainment in the European Social Survey. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility28(3): 343–357.
39.
ShugartM (2001) Electoral efficiency and the move to mixed member systems. Electoral Studies20(2): 173–193.
40.
ThomassenJ(1994) Empirical research into political representation: Failing democracy or failing models? In: JenningsMKMannTE (eds) Elections at Home and Abroad: Essays in Honor of Warren E. Miller, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 237–265.
41.
ThomassenJSchmittH (1997) Policy representation. European Journal of Political Research32(2): 165–184.
42.
ThomassenJSchmittH(1999) Issue congruence. In: SchmittHThomassenJ (eds) Political Representation and Legitimacy in the European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 186–209.
43.
Van der BrugWVan der EijkC(1999) The cognitive basis of voting. In: SchmittHThomassenJ (eds) Political Representation and Legitimacy in the European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 161–185.
44.
Van der BrugWVan SpanjeJ (2009) Immigration, Europe and the ‘new’ cultural cleavage. European Journal of Political Research48: 308–334.
45.
Van der BrugWFranklinMTókáG (2008) One electorate or many? Differences in party preference formation between new and established European democracies. Electoral Studies27(4): 589–600.
46.
Van der EijkC (2001) Measuring agreement in ordered rating scales. Quality and Quantity35: 325–341.
47.
Van der EijkCFranklinM(1996) Choosing Europe? The European Electorate and National Politics in the Face of Union, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
48.
Van EgmondMHSapirEVVan der BrugW(2010) EES 2009 Voter Study Advance Release Notes, Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
49.
Van SchuurW (2003) Mokken scale analysis: Between the Guttman scale and parametric item response theory. Political Analysis11(2): 139–163.
50.
Volkens A, Lacewell O, Regel S, Schultze H and Werner A (2010) The Manifesto Data Collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB). Available at: http://manifesto-project.wzb.eu/ (accessed 20 July 2012).
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
