constitutional and Lisbon Treaty / European party federations
pdumont
Posted 14/6/2008 12:05 (#58)
Subject: constitutional and Lisbon Treaty / European party federations


New user

Posts: 2

Sorry to intervene at the very last minute and without abiding by the rules of the forum, mainly because of lack of time (if the coordinators accept to discuss the ideas I will have more time to develop a proper proposal next week).

For the moment I would just like to introduce two themes that may be worth considering and analyzing, given the amount of information we gather to study the legitimacy of the EU; both the voter and candidates survey would be mostly concerned here, but the media study and the manifesto one could clearly be involved as well.

First, how the EU and national leaders "sold" the constitutional Treaty to their constituencies is clearly something worth looking at, not the least because of the lost referenda in France, the Netherlands and now the Irish one on the Lisbon Treaty. The project could in its respective parts analyze the positions of voters, candidates, european parties and coverage in the media through a short list of questions; to me analyzing electoral democracy in the EU without considering the big issues that developed since 2004 between voter-elites relationship over EU would be problematic.

Second, and closely related to the questions at the heart of the Piredeu project, what about the prospects of European party democracy? Could not we raise a couple of questions on European party federations themselves (they will be at the heart of the manifesto survey, so asking questions related to them in the other surveys would be I guess a move into the direction of using the full potentialities of Piredeu)? Questions related to the desirability of having a single constituency with European party lists, knowledge of existence of EU parties, references to them in the media, interest in becoming an individual membership to an EU party, etc. could gather information relevant for one of the potential routes for the future of EU democracy.

Again, sorry for not abiding by the rules and proposing a more complete proposal but the Luxembourg team (Philippe Poirier, Raphaƫl Kies) would be happy to contribute to a full proposal were the coordinators interested in considering these topics.

For the Luxembourg team,

Patrick Dumont

PS: regarding the proposals made by Rachel Gibson, for the voter survey, the use of voting advice application of the kind presented by Alexander Trechsel (EU Profiler project) could be in the list of items that may influence votes (not only political communication by candidates or parties); having received (and for the candidates, having sent) texts on their portable phone could also be included (apparently quite used for the referendum campaign in Ireland...).


Top of the page Bottom of the page
SaraHobolt
Posted 16/7/2008 17:08 (#105 - in reply to #58)
Subject: RE: constitutional and Lisbon Treaty / European party federations




Posts: 26
25
Location: University of Oxford, UK
Dear Patrick Dumont:

Thank you for submitting this proposal to the Open Forum. The PIREDEU Steering Committee met at the end of June to evaluate each of the proposals. We assessed them on the basis of whether they met the following criteria:

* An explicit argument about why the proposed question/coding category merited inclusion in one or more of the PIREDEU data components.

* An explicit argument about the conceptual and theoretical foundations of the question/coding category.

* An explicit case for how the question/coding category facilitates integration and linking of several data components. The PIREDEU Steering Committee preferred proposals that allowed for conceptual integration across the five data components (i.e. voter survey, candidate survey, media study, manifestos and contextual data).

* An explicit consideration of how the proposed question/coding category linked with questions/coding categories in past data collection efforts.

The PIREDEU Steering Committee favoured proposals that ensured over time and across instrument comparability. Moreover, given that the voter and candidate surveys can only contain a limited number of question items, priority was given to proposals with succinct question formats.

On this basis we ranked each question in the proposal as follows:

(1) The proposed item will be included in data collection instrument
(2) High priority proposal that will be included if space and time constraints permit
(3) Proposal can only be included if additional funding is secured
(4) Proposed item is not a priority

The item(s) from your proposal received the following ranking(s):

Instrument: Voter Survey

ECT and European Party Groups
Ranking: 4

Rationale: The proposal did not include example questions for the survey.


Thank you again for your participation in this process. We hope that you will continue to use the Open Forum to comment on the questionnaires/codebook that will be posted online on the Forum in the autumn.

Yours sincerely,



Mark Franklin
Chair of the PIREDEU Steering Committee

Sara Hobolt
Deputy Chair of the PIREDEU Steering Committee
Top of the page Bottom of the page