Comparative Study of Electoral Systems

Last updated
Cses globe.png

The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES) [1] is a collaborative research project among national election studies around the world. Participating countries and polities include a common module of survey questions in their national post-election studies. The resulting data are collated together along with voting, demographic, district and macro variables into one dataset allowing comparative analysis of voting behavior from a multilevel perspective.

Contents

The CSES is published as a free, public dataset. [2] The project is administered by the CSES Secretariat, a joint effort between the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan and the GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences in Germany.

Aims and content of the study

The CSES project was founded in 1994 with two major aims. The first was to promote international collaboration between national election studies. The second was to allow researchers to study variations in political institutions, especially electoral systems, and their effects on individual attitudes and behaviors, especially turnout and vote choice.

CSES datasets contain variables at three levels. The first is micro-level variables which are answered by respondents during post-election surveys in each included country. The second is district-level variables that contain election results from the electoral districts that survey respondents are situated in. The third is macro-level variables containing information about the country context and electoral system, as well as aggregate data such as economic indicators and democracy indices. This nested data structure, as depicted in Figure 1, allows for multilevel analysis.

Figure 1: Visualization of CSES multilevel data structure Multi-levelDataStructure.png
Figure 1: Visualization of CSES multilevel data structure

A new thematic module is devised by the CSES Planning Committee [3] every five years. Between the final releases of the complete modules, CSES also disseminates advance releases of datasets periodically, which include partial data for modules that have not been fully released yet.

A complete table of all variables available across modules can be found on the CSES website.

CSES also has an Integrated Module Dataset (IMD) which brings together the existing Standalone CSES Modules (CSES Modules 1–5 inclusive) into one longitudinal and harmonized dataset. Variables that appear in at least three Standalone CSES Modules, up to and including CSES Module 5, are eligible for inclusion in IMD, with all polities participating in CSES included in the dataset.

CSES IMD includes over 395,000 individual-level observations across 230 elections in 59 polities, with voter evaluations of over 800 political parties. Highlights of the IMD file are party and coalition numerical codes synchronized across CSES Modules and the incorporation of data bridging variables allowing CSES data to be easily merged with other common datasets in the social sciences. CSES IMD launched in December 2018 and is being rolled out on a phased basis with the latest release, Phase 4 released in February 2024.

Countries in the study

Module 1Module 2Module 3Module 4Module 5Module 6
Flag of Albania.svg Albania 20052017
Flag of Argentina.svg Argentina 2015
Flag of Australia (converted).svg Australia 199620042007201320192022
Flag of Austria.svg Austria 200820132017
Flag of Belarus.svg Belarus 20012008
Flag of Belgium (civil).svg Belgium 1999, 1999 [a] 20032019, 2019 [a]
Flag of Brazil.svg Brazil 20022006,2010201420182022
Flag of Bulgaria.svg Bulgaria 20012014
Flag of Canada (Pantone).svg Canada 1997200420082011, 20152019
Flag of Chile.svg Chile 1999200520092017
Flag of Costa Rica.svg  Costa Rica 2018
Flag of Croatia.svg Croatia 2007
Flag of the Czech Republic.svg Czech Republic 199620022006,201020132017,2021
Flag of Denmark.svg Denmark 19982001200720192022
Flag of El Salvador.svg El Salvador 2019
Flag of Estonia.svg Estonia 2011
Flag of Finland.svg Finland 20032007,201120152019
Flag of France.svg France 20022007201220172022
Flag of Germany.svg Germany 19982002, 2002 [b] 2005, 200920132017,2021
Flag of the United Kingdom.svg Great Britain 1997200520152017,2019
Flag of Greece.svg Greece 20092012, 20152015,2019
Flag of Hong Kong.svg Hong Kong 1998, 20002004200820122016
Flag of Hungary.svg Hungary 199820022018
Flag of Iceland.svg Iceland 199920032007, 200920132016, 2017
Flag of India.svg India 2019
Flag of Ireland.svg Ireland 2002200720112016
Flag of Israel.svg Israel 19962003200620132020
Flag of Italy.svg Italy 20062018
Flag of Japan.svg Japan 19962004200720132017
Flag of Kenya.svg Kenya 2013
Flag of Kyrgyzstan.svg Kyrgyzstan 2005
Flag of Latvia.svg Latvia 20102011, 20142018
Flag of Lithuania.svg Lithuania 19972016,2020
Flag of Mexico.svg Mexico 1997, 200020032006, 20092012,20152018
Flag of Montenegro.svg Montenegro 201220162023
Flag of the Netherlands.svg Netherlands 199820022006,20102017,2021
Flag of New Zealand.svg New Zealand 1996200220082011,20142017,2020
Flag of Norway.svg Norway 199720012005, 200920132017
Flag of Peru.svg Peru 2000, 20012006201120162021
Flag of the Philippines.svg Philippines 200420102016
Flag of Poland.svg Poland 199720012005, 200720112019
Flag of Portugal.svg Portugal 2002 [c] 2002, [c] 20052009201520192022
Flag of Romania.svg Romania 1996200420092012, 20142016
Flag of Russia.svg Russia 1999, [d] 2000 [d] 2004
Flag of Serbia.svg Serbia 2012
Flag of Slovakia.svg Slovakia 201020162020
Flag of Slovenia.svg Slovenia 1996200420082011
Flag of South Africa.svg South Africa 20092014
Flag of South Korea.svg South Korea 20002004200820122016
Flag of Spain.svg Spain 1996, 200020042008
Flag of Sweden.svg Sweden 19982002200620142018
Flag of Switzerland (Pantone).svg Switzerland 19992003200720112019
Flag of the Republic of China.svg Taiwan 19962001, 2004200820122016, 2020
Flag of Thailand.svg Thailand 2001200720112019
Flag of Tunisia.svg  Tunisia 2019
Flag of Turkey.svg Turkey 2011201520182023
Flag of Ukraine.svg Ukraine 1998
Flag of the United States.svg United States of America 19962004200820122016,2020
Flag of Uruguay.svg Uruguay 20092019

A frequently updated election study table across all modules can be found on the CSES website.

Data access

CSES data [2] are available publicly and are free of charge. Data releases are non-proprietary – in other words the data are made available to the public without preferential or advance access to anyone. Data is available in multiple formats including for common statistical packages like STATA, SPSS, SAS and R. The data can be downloaded from the CSES website as well as via the GESIS data catalogue. The GESIS online analysis tool ZACAT can furthermore be used to browse and explore the dataset.

Organizational structure and funding

The CSES Secretariat

In conjunction with national election study collaborators, the CSES Secretariat [7] administers the CSES project. It consists of staff from the GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences in Germany and the University of Michigan, Ann-Arbor in the United States. The Secretariat is responsible for compiling the final CSES dataset by harmonizing the single country studies into a cross-national dataset. It is also responsible for collecting the district and macro data, for data documentation, and for ensuring data quality. The Secretariat, furthermore, maintains the CSES website, promotes the project, provides support to the user community, and organizes conferences and project meetings.

The Planning Committee, collaborators and the CSES Plenary

The CSES research agenda, study design, and questionnaires are developed by an international committee of leading scholars in political science, sociology, and survey methodology. This committee is known as the CSES Planning Committee. [3] At the beginning of each new module, a new Planning Committee is established. Nominations for the Planning Committee come from the user community, with membership of the Committee then being approved by the CSES Plenary Meeting. The Plenary Meeting is made up of national collaborators from each national election study involved in the CSES. Ideas for new modules can be submitted by anyone. More information on the current planning committee, its members, and subcommittee reports, as well as on past Planning Committees can be found on the CSES website. A list of country collaborators who participate in CSES can also be found on the CSES website.

Funding and support

The work of the CSES Secretariat [7] is funded by the American National Science Foundation, the GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences and the University of Michigan’s Center for Political Studies along with in-kind support from participating election studies, additional organizations that sponsor planning meetings and conferences, and the many organizations that fund election studies by CSES collaborators.

Klingemann Prize

Each year, the CSES awards the GESIS Klingemann Prize [8] for the best CSES scholarship (paper, book, dissertation, or other scholarly work, broadly defined). The award is sponsored by the GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences and is named in honor of Professor Dr. Hans-Dieter Klingemann  [ de ], co-founder of the CSES, an internationally renowned political scientist who made significant contributions to cross-national electoral research. Nominated works must make extensive use of CSES and have a publication date in the calendar year prior to the award, either in print or online.

Winners of the Klingemann Prize

Notes

  1. 1 2 Two election studies were run in Belgium – one in Belgium-Flanders, and one in Belgium-Walloon
  2. Two election studies were run in Germany in 2002 – one was a telephone study, and one was a mail-back study.
  3. 1 2 The Portugal 2002 election study occurred during the transition between module 1 and module 2, and included both modules.
  4. 1 2 Russia 1999 and 2000: These two years were a panel study, with 1999 being for the parliamentary election and 2000 being for the presidential election.

References

  1. "Home - CSES". cses.org. January 30, 2019.
  2. 1 2 "Download Data - CSES". cses.org. March 12, 2019.
  3. 1 2 "Planning Committee - CSES". cses.org. March 29, 2019.
  4. "Partial source of text segments about module 1 to module 4". Archived from the original on 2017-08-15. Retrieved June 12, 2017.
  5. "Partial source of text segment about module 5". Archived from the original on 2017-08-08. Retrieved June 12, 2017.
  6. "Module 6 Draft Proposal "Representative Democracy under Pressure"" (PDF). cses.org. December 2021. Retrieved February 29, 2024.
  7. 1 2 "CSES Secretariat - CSES". cses.org. January 31, 2019.
  8. "Klingemann Prize - CSES". cses.org. July 7, 2020.
  9. Reiljan, Andres; Garzia, Diego; Ferreira da Silva, Frederico; Trechsel, Alexander H. (2024). "Patterns of Affective Polarization toward Parties and Leaders across the Democratic World". American Political Science Review . 118 (2): 654–670. doi:10.1017/S0003055423000485. hdl: 1814/76472 .
  10. Adams, James; Bracken, David; Gidron, Noam; Horne, Will; O’brien, Diana Z.; Senk, Kaitlin (February 2023). "Can't We All Just Get Along? How Women MPs Can Ameliorate Affective Polarization in Western Publics". American Political Science Review. 117 (1): 318–324. doi: 10.1017/S0003055422000491 . ISSN   0003-0554.
  11. Valentim, Vicente (December 2021). "Parliamentary Representation and the Normalization of Radical Right Support". Comparative Political Studies. 54 (14): 2475–2511. doi:10.1177/0010414021997159. hdl: 1814/70696 . ISSN   0010-4140.
  12. Hernández, Enrique; Anduiza, Eva; Rico, Guillem (February 2021). "Affective polarization and the salience of elections". Electoral Studies. 69: 102203. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2020.102203. S2CID   225243281.
  13. Harteveld, Eelco; Dahlberg, Stefan; Kokkonen, Andrej; Van Der Brug, Wouter (July 2019). "Gender Differences in Vote Choice: Social Cues and Social Harmony as Heuristics". British Journal of Political Science. 49 (3): 1141–1161. doi:10.1017/S0007123417000138. ISSN   0007-1234. S2CID   149204307.
  14. Dassonneville, Ruth; McAllister, Ian (April 2018). "Gender, Political Knowledge, and Descriptive Representation: The Impact of Long-Term Socialization" . American Journal of Political Science. 62 (2): 249–265. doi:10.1111/ajps.12353. ISSN   0092-5853.
  15. Blais, André; Guntermann, Eric; Bodet, Marc A. (April 2017). "Linking Party Preferences and the Composition of Government: A New Standard for Evaluating the Performance of Electoral Democracy" . Political Science Research and Methods. 5 (2): 315–331. doi:10.1017/psrm.2015.78. ISSN   2049-8470. S2CID   157367600.
  16. Kasara, Kimuli; Suryanarayan, Pavithra (July 2015). "When Do the Rich Vote Less Than the Poor and Why? Explaining Turnout Inequality across the World" . American Journal of Political Science. 59 (3): 613–627. doi:10.1111/ajps.12134. ISSN   0092-5853.
  17. Lupu, Noam (June 2015). "Party Polarization and Mass Partisanship: A Comparative Perspective" . Political Behavior. 37 (2): 331–356. doi:10.1007/s11109-014-9279-z. ISSN   0190-9320. S2CID   254936945.
  18. Lau, Richard R.; Patel, Parina; Fahmy, Dalia F.; Kaufman, Robert R. (April 2014). "Correct Voting Across Thirty-Three Democracies: A Preliminary Analysis" . British Journal of Political Science. 44 (2): 239–259. doi:10.1017/S0007123412000610. ISSN   0007-1234. S2CID   153653179.
  19. Kayser, Mark Andreas; Peress, Michael (August 2012). "Benchmarking across Borders: Electoral Accountability and the Necessity of Comparison" . American Political Science Review. 106 (3): 661–684. doi:10.1017/S0003055412000275. ISSN   0003-0554. S2CID   34325984.
  20. Golder, Matt; Stramski, Jacek (January 2010). "Ideological Congruence and Electoral Institutions". American Journal of Political Science. 54 (1): 90–106. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00420.x.