Acta Politica

, Volume 53, Issue 4, pp 496–516 | Cite as

Voting in the Dutch ‘Ukraine-referendum’: a panel study on the dynamics of party preference, EU-attitudes, and referendum-specific considerations

  • Wouter van der BrugEmail author
  • Tom van der Meer
  • Daphne van der Pas
Original Article

On April 6, 2016, the Netherlands organized a citizen-initiated, non-binding referendum on the association treaty between the European Union and Ukraine. The turnout of this referendum was 32%, of whom 61% voted ‘no’ and 38 ‘yes.’ In this study, we seek to explain this outcome. We focus particularly on the extent to which referendum-specific considerations became more important for vote intentions during the campaign.

Existing research on voting behavior in EU-referendums has basically produced three rivaling explanations for the referendum outcomes, which are not mutually exclusive. The first explanation is that voters do not know much about the issues at stake, because of the highly complex and technical nature of such issues. Therefore, voters will take cues from domestic politics, particularly the recommendations of parties they trust (Schuck and De Vreese 2008). In addition, voters often use these referendums to express content or discontent with the policies of the incumbent...


  1. Aarts, K., and H. Van der Kolk. 2006. Understanding the Dutch ‘‘No’’: The Euro, the East and the Elite’. PS. Political Science and Politics 39 (2): 243–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvarez, R.M., and J. Brehm. 2002. Hard Choices. Easy Answers, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Arceneaux, Kevin. 2008. Can Partisan Cues Diminish Democratic Accountability? Political Behavior 30: 139–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartels, L.M. 2002. Beyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions. Political Behavior 24 (2): 117–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boudreau, C., and S.A. MacKenzie. 2014. Informing the Electorate? How Party Cues and Policy Information Affect Public Opinion About Initiatives. American Journal of Political Science 58 (1): 48–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowler, S., and T. Donovan. 1998. Demanding Choices: Opinion, Voting, and Direct Democracy. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  7. Colombo, C., and H.P. Kriesi. 2016. Party, Policy—or Both? Partisan-Biased Processing of Policy Arguments in Direct Democracy. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 27 (3): 235–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Converse, P.E. 2000. Assessing the Capacity of Mass Electorates. Annual Review of Political Science 3: 331–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Vreese, C.H., and H.G. Boomgaarden. 2005. Projecting EU Referendums: Fear of Immigration and Support for European Integration. European Union Politics 6 (1): 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Vreese, C.H., and H.A. Semetko. 2004. News Matters: Influences on the vote in the Danish 2000 euro referendum. European Journal of Political Research 43: 699–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Vries, C. 2007. Sleeping giant: Fact or Fairytale? How European Integration Affects National Elections. European Union Politics 8 (3): 363–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elkink, J.A., and R. Sinnott. 2015. Political Knowledge and Campaign Effects in the 2008 Irish Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Electoral Studies 38: 217–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fiske, S.T., and S.E. Taylor. 1991. Social Cognition. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  14. Franklin, M. 2002. Learning from the Danish Case: A Comment on Palle Svensson’s Critique of the ‘Franklin Thesis’. European Journal of Political Research 41 (6): 751–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Franklin, M., C. Van der Eijk, and M. Marsh. 1995. Referendum Outcomes and Trust in Government: Public Support for Europe in the Wake of Maastricht. West European Politics 18 (3): 101–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Glencross, A., and A. Trechsel. 2011. First and Second Order Referendums? Understanding the Votes on the EU Constitutional Treaty in Four Member States. West European Politics 34 (4): 755–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harteveld, E., T.W.G. Van der Meer, and C.E. De Vries. 2013. ‘In Europe we trust? Exploring three logics of trust in the European Union. European Union Politics 14 (4): 542–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hobolt, S.B. 2005. When Europe Matters: The Impact of Political Information on Voting Behaviour in EU Referendums. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 15 (1): 85–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hobolt, S.B. 2009. Europe in Question: Referendums on European Integration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hobolt, S.B. 2016. The Brexit Vote: A Divided Nation, a Divided Continent. Journal of European Public Policy 23 (9): 1259–1277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hobolt, S.B., and S. Brouard. 2011. Contesting the European Union? Why the Dutch and the French rejected the European constitution. Political Research Quarterly 64 (2): 309–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Iyengar, S. 1991. Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Iyengar, S., and D.R. Kinder. 1987. News that Matters. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kam, Cindy D. 2005. Who Toes the Party Line? Cues, Values, and Individual Differences. Political Behavior 27 (2): 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lubbers, M. 2008. Regarding the Dutch ‘Nee’ to the European Constitution: A Test of the Identity, Utilitarian and Political Approaches to Voting ‘No’. European Union Politics 9 (1): 59–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lupia, A., and J.G. Matsusaka. 2004. Direct Democracy: New Approaches to Old Questions. Annual Review of Political Science 7: 463–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lupia, A., and M.D. McCubbins. 1998. The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know?. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Muñoz, J. 2017. Political trust and Multilevel Government. In Handbook on Political Trust, ed. S. Zmerli and T.W.G. Van der Meer, 69–88. London: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nelsen, B.F., and J.L. Guth. 2000. Exploring the Gender Gap: Women, Men and Public Attitudes toward European Integration. European Union Politics 1 (3): 267–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reif, K., and H. Schmitt. 1980. Nine Second-Order National Elections—A Conceptual Framework for the Analysis of European Election Results. European Journal of Political Research 8 (1): 3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schmitt, H., and I. Toygür. 2016. European Parliament Elections of May 2014: Driven by national Politics or EU Policy Making? Politics & Governance 4 (1): 167–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schuck, A.R.T., and C.H. De Vreese. 2008. The Dutch no to the EU Constitution: Assessing the Role of EU Skepticism and the Campaign. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 18 (1): 101–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Siune, K., and P. Svensson. 1993. The Danes and the Maastricht Treaty: The Danish EC referendum of June 1992. Electoral Studies 12 (2): 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Siune, K., P. Svensson, and O. Tonsgaard. 1994. The EU: The Danes said “No” in 1992, but “yes” in 1993: How and Why? Electoral Studies 13 (2): 251–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Slothuus, R., and C.H. De Vreese. 2010. Political Parties, Motivated Reasoning, and Issue Framing Effects. The Journal of Politics 72 (3): 630–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smith, E.R., and J. DeCoster. 2000. Dual-Process Models in Social and Cognitive Psychology: Conceptual Integration and Links to Underlying Memory Systems. Personality and Social Psychology Review 4 (2): 108–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Svensson, P. 2002. Five Danish Referendums on the European Community and European Union: A Critical Assessment of the Franklin Thesis. European Journal of Political Research 41 (6): 733–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Taber, C.S., D. Cann, and S. Kucsova. 2009. The Motivated Processing of Political Arguments. Political Behavior 31 (2): 137–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Van Praag, P. 2005. De veranderende Nederlandse campagnecultuur. In Politiek en Media in verwarring: De verkiezingscampagnes in het lange jaar 2002, ed. K. Brants and P. van Praag, 21–43. Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis.Google Scholar
  40. Zaller, J. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wouter van der Brug
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tom van der Meer
    • 1
  • Daphne van der Pas
    • 1
  1. 1.University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations