Suchergebnisse

The 2004 election of the European Parliament marks something of a defining point in the history of European integration. The 2004 elections seemed simultaneously mundane and an accepted feature of a sui generis system, now accepted as a polity in its own right, that a quarter of a century ago had seen politicians fiercely disputing the wisdom and desirability of the people directly electing a European Parliament at all

Elections to the European Parliament (EP) will take place in May 2019. Politicians and experts fear that the election process might be disrupted by disinformation cam­paigns and cyber attacks. In December 2018, the European Commission presented an action plan against disinformation. It provided 5 million euros for raising awareness amongst voters and policymakers about manipulation, and for increasing the cyber security of electoral systems and processes. The strategy relies on voluntary and non­binding approaches by Internet companies to fight disinformation. To protect the integrity of elections in the medium term, independent research into technical, legal and market-regulating reforms must be boosted. The objective should be to preserve the functionality of democracies and elections in the age of digitalisation. (author's abstract)

Parliaments often elect holders of important extra-parliamentary offices such as heads of state, constitutional judges, heads of audit institutions and ombudsmen. What drives the behaviour of parliamentary actors and the outcome of such elections? This article explains actor behaviour theoretically, drawing on spatial factors, principal-agent arguments about the importance of nonspatial candidate characteristics and signaling arguments about competitive considerations beyond the specific election. Empirically, it provides the first comparative analysis of such elections outside the United States Senate using original data on 100 elections for four external offices in 14 Western European parliaments. The findings show that spatial variables, nonspatial candidate characteristics and features of the competitive context systematically affect the election outcome. The article contributes to comparative parliamentary research in general by demonstrating how parliamentary activities, other than lawmaking, can be analysed using established theories and by showing that consensual aggregate outcomes can be explained within a competition-based rational choice model. Adapted from the source document.

ON 17 JUNE 1984, THE GREEK VOTERS WENT TO THE POLLS TO ELECT THEIR 24 REPRESENTATIVES TO THE STRASBOURG ASSEMBLY. IT WAS THE SECOND ELECTION OF THAT KIND IN A 32-MONTH PERIOD, AS THE FIRST DELEGATION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT WAS CHOSEN AFTER GREECE'S ENTRY TO THE EEC (ON 1 JANUARY 1981), ON 18 OCTOBER 1981, IN AN ELECTION HELD SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE NATIONAL ELECTION. BECAUSE OF THAT TIMING, THE FIRST EUROELECTIONS WENT ALMOST UNNOTICED: THE INTEREST OF THE PARTIES, THE MEDIA, THE POLLSTERS, THE VOTERS, AND THE INTERNATIONAL OBSERVERS WAS CONCENTRATED IN THE NATIONAL CONTEST THAT WAS EXPECTED TO BE AND, INDEED, WAS VERY CRUCIAL.1

What are the issues?  Between June 6 and June 9, citizens of the 27 Member States of the European Union (EU) will vote to elect the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) who will represent them in the EU's 720-member legislature. With 400 million eligible voters, these are the second-largest democratic elections in the world […]
The post Election Watch: European Parliament appeared first on International Republican Institute.

THE AUTHOR DESRICES WAS THE SETTING FOR THE JUNE 1984 EUROPEAN ELECTIONS. POLITICAL LEADERS OF ALL PARTIES VIEWED THE ELECTION AS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE VOTERS TO RESPOND TO THE DOMESTIC ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL SITUATION. CRAXI HIMSELF INTENDED TO USE THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT VOTE AS A TEST OF SOCIALIST STRATEGY AND HIS OWN PERSONAL POPULARITY.

THE EUROPEAN ELECTIONS OF JUNE 1984 WERE ONLY THE SECOND ELECTIONS EVER TO BE HELD SIMULTANEOUSLY IN INDEPENDENT NATION STATES. THEIR POTENTIAL IMPORTANCE AS A HISTORICAL EVENT AND AS A PSEPHOLOGICAL LABORATORY WAS ENORMOUS. CERTAINLY THEY PROVIDE A JUSTIFICATION FOR ELECTORAL STUDIES, FOR THE FIRST TIME, TO DEVOTE A SPECIAL ISSUE TO ONE SUBJECT. BUT THE EUROPEAN ELECTIONS WERE ALMOST EVERYWHERE A DISAPPOINTMENT. TURNOUT WAS LOW -AND, IN MOST INSTANCES BELOW THE 1979 LEVEL. IN COUNTRY AFTER COUNTRY, POLITICIANS COMMENTED ON THE DIFFICULTY OF MAKING THE ELECTIONS SEEM RELEVANT. EXCEPT IN DENMARK, THEY WERE SCARCELY FOUGHT ON EUROPEAN ISSUES. THEY TENDED TO BE DOMESTIC POPULARITY TESTS, NATIONWIDE POLLS ON THE CURRENT STANDING OF GOVERNMENTS AND PARTIES. EVEN EURO-ENTHUSIASTS HAD TO ADMIT THAT THE INSTITUTION OF DIRECT ELECTIONS HAD NOT NECESSARILY ADDED TO THE STATUS OR THE EFFICIENCY OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY.