‘This time I’m (not) voting’: A comprehensive overview of campaign factors influencing turnout at European Parliament elections
| Author | Franziska Marquart,Andreas C Goldberg,Claes H de Vreese |
| Published date | 01 December 2020 |
| Date | 01 December 2020 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1465116520943670 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
European Union Politics
‘This time I’m (not)
2020, Vol. 21(4) 680–705
! The Author(s) 2020
voting’: A comprehensive
Article reuse guidelines:
overview of campaign
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1465116520943670
factors influencing
journals.sagepub.com/home/eup
turnout at European
Parliament elections
Franziska Marquart
Amsterdam School of Communication Research,
Department of Communication Science, University of
Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Andreas C Goldberg
Amsterdam School of Communication Research,
Department of Communication Science, University of
Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Claes H de Vreese
Amsterdam School of Communication Research,
Department of Communication Science, University of
Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Abstract
Research has investigated numerous factors influencing turnout for European
Parliament elections but paid insufficient attention to the role of campaign influences.
Using survey data collected in the context of the 2019 European Parliament elections,
we assess citizens’ passive exposure to media coverage and political advertisements,
active forms of engagement such as visiting a party’s website and interpersonal com-
munication on- and offline. We test to which extent these activities contribute to the
Corresponding author:
Franziska Marquart, Amsterdam School of Communication Research, Department of Communication
Science, University of Amsterdam, PO Box 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Email: f.marquart@uva.nl
Marquart et al.
681
likelihood that citizens vote. Our study highlights the importance of information factors
beyond well-established turnout determinants. The results confirm the mobilizing influ-
ence of a number of variables, but we also find consistent negative effects of online
forms of communication and engagement. We discuss these findings with regard to a
potentially ‘toxic’ online information environment.
Keywords
Campaign, European Parliament elections, political communication, survey research,
turnout
Turnout in elections for the European Parliament (EP) has been steadily declining
since 1979 and only increased again in the recent 2019 elections. In the literature
investigating the factors affecting turnout on the European Union (EU) level, the
rationale of ‘second-order elections’ still prevails (Reif and Schmitt, 1980), assum-
ing that national politics influence voting decisions on the EU level and that the
electorate believes that less is at stake (Lefevere and van Aelst, 2014; but see, for
opposing arguments, e.g. Hobolt and Spoon, 2012; van Elsas et al., 2019). As a
result, fewer citizens cast their vote when deciding on the composition of the EP
compared to national parliaments (Clark, 2014), and the amount of citizens who
do go to the ballot differs greatly between member states: In 2019, turnout ranged
between a low 22.7% in Slovakia and 88.5% in Belgium.
It has been argued that these stark differences can partly be attributed to struc-
tural factors, such as compulsory voting rules, whether the elections are held on a
Sunday, and a country’s contribution to the Union’s budget and/or benefit from
subsidies (Flickinger and Studlar, 2007; Franklin, 2001; Mattila, 2003; Stockemer,
2012). Individual factors include voters’ sociodemographic characteristics and
their trust in the EU (Flickinger and Studlar, 2007). Studies have further demon-
strated that attitudes towards the Union and subsequent support levels are affected
by media information (e.g. Marquart et al., 2019; Schuck et al., 2016).
Yet the majority of studies addressing EP turnout disregard the specific role of
citizens’ passive exposure to and active engagement with an election campaign.
Only little information exists on whether or not, for example, exposure to political
parties’ advertisements or informational material, interpersonal communication
and active searches for information about the elections can contribute to mobiliz-
ing the European electorate. Furthermore, we lack insights into the importance of
online forms of communication and engagement. Echoing the observation by
Str€
omb€ack et al. (2011: 6), we concede that ‘research on EP election campaigns
fell off the agenda of most political communication scholars’. Previous findings
suggest that campaigns may have a stronger influence on turnout in second- as
compared to first-order elections (Lefevere and van Aelst, 2014; see also Arceneaux
and Nickerson, 2009). Hence campaign efforts such as the EP’s 2019 ‘This time I’m
682
European Union Politics 21(4)
voting!’ initiative may be an important part of the information environment in the
run-up to an election and may have contributed to the increased turnout in the
2019 elections.
In this study, we address citizens’ exposure to and engagement with a large
number of different election campaign activities before the 2019 EP elections,
using original panel data from 10 EU countries. We test the effect of these vari-
ables in addition to established mobilizing factors and investigate the supplemental
impact of information, advertising campaigns, interpersonal political discussion
and campaign engagement for turnout. Elections for the EP are a particularly
relevant case in which to study these campaign factors, as research demonstrates
that citizens’ personal motivation plays a larger role for turnout on the suprana-
tional level because the initial level of participation is lower (S€
oderlund et al., 2011)
– hence, provided that this motivation can be increased, there is room for mobi-
lization (see also Lefevere and van Aelst, 2014). Our comparative approach allows
us to study different nations that share the same supranational political system,
whereas single-case studies of national elections are oftentimes limited in painting a
one-sided picture of mobilization factors that cannot necessarily be generalized to
other countries. As such, we contribute to the literature on campaign influences
that mobilize participation in EP elections, an electoral context that has suffered
from low public interest and continuously falling turnout numbers. Our results
highlight the importance of additional factors beyond renowned influences that
determine under which circumstances EU citizens go to the polls.
Turnout determinants for EP elections
Across time and EU member states, a number of factors have been shown to affect
turnout for EP elections. Aggregate level data show that a country’s compulsory
voting regulations positively affect turnout (Flickinger and Studlar, 2007;
Franklin, 2001; Mattila, 2003; Studlar et al., 2003), and that citizens living in a
member state hosting an EU institution are more likely to go to the polls (Studlar
et al., 2003). EP elections that are held on the same day as national elections or
close to the latter also tend to have larger turnout numbers, as do those that ask
citizens to cast their vote on the weekend (Mattila, 2003). On the individual level,
the extent to which citizens trust their national government and/or judge its eco-
nomic performance matters, as do levels of trust in the EU (Flickinger and Studlar,
2007). Feelings of European identity (Studlar et al., 2003), political interest
(Stockemer, 2012) and attitudes towards the effectiveness or relevance of EP elec-
tions positively affect voting as well (Wessels and Franklin, 2009). Finally, socio-
demographic variables play a role, as older and higher educated citizens are more
likely to participate in EP elections (e.g. Stockemer, 2012; Wessels and Franklin,
2009).
Research further indicates that the influence of the news media can be crucial
for EP election turnout, since most of what people know about the EU stems from
the media (Vliegenthart et al., 2008). Citizens’ trust in the Union is affected by the
Marquart et al.
683
general amount of EU coverage they are exposed to, the tonality of the coverage
and the specific topics addressed in conjunction with the EU. Similarly, mediated
information about the Union’s workings can affect citizens’ knowledge about and
subsequent evaluations of the EU (e.g. Marquart et al., 2019), and heightened EU
knowledge is positively related to voting intention for and participation in EP
elections (Maier, 2016). Yet the extant literature scarcely pays attention to the
role of the multi-faceted campaign environment of EP elections, and there is
little knowledge about the extent to which citizens’ exposure to and engagement
with different forms of campaign modes affect their electoral participation.
The relevance of different campaign activities for EP turnout
Election campaigns generally aim at increasing turnout through information and
mobilization efforts (e.g. Green and Gerber, 2015; Smets and van Ham, 2013) and
are part of the larger information environment (Schmitt-Beck, 2016). Numerous
studies in different electoral contexts have investigated the extent to which cam-
paign contacts (e.g. with parties, candidates or campaigners) mobilize the elector-
ate, but these rarely take a comparative perspective. In the EU context, Wessels
and Franklin (2009) argue that campaign efforts provide citizens with crucial
information, motivate them to seek out additional information about the elections
and mobilize them to go to the polls. Citizens can be exposed to information about
an election by different actors and through various (media) outlets, and they can
decide to engage with the campaign themselves, for example by discussing politics
within their personal network. The literature has mostly documented positive
effects of campaign...
To continue reading
Request your trial