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

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Notes

  1. 1.

    While we expect to find support for H6 and H7, we realize that there are also theoretical reasons to expect another pattern. In order to use the partisan cue, one needs to be aware of the positions that parties take on the issue. Very inattentive citizens will therefore not use this ‘peripheral’ route, while this route is ‘easy’ for attentive citizens. Moreover, without a certain pre-existing body of knowledge, new information is unlikely to be remembered (Zaller 1992). So, there are reasons to expect the effects predicted by H6 and H7 to be actually reversed.

  2. 2.

    Specifically, the first survey wave commenced on March 7th, 1 month before the referendum on April 6th, and closed on March 13th. 43% of the respondents took part in the first 2 days; another 11% on the third. The second wave commenced on March 21st, more than 2 weeks before the referendum, and closed on March 27th.

  3. 3.

    Analyses in MLWin and via Stata’s gllamm command came to similar conclusions.

  4. 4.

    To assess whether the polarization in Fig. 4 was more pronounced among citizens with different levels of political sophistication, we tested a three-way interaction between the anti-bribery considerations * campaign attentiveness * education (we consider education to be the best proxy for sophistication in this data set). This three-way interaction was not significant, however (p = 0.20).

References

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bartels, L.M. 2002. Beyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions. Political Behavior 24 (2): 117–150.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Converse, P.E. 2000. Assessing the Capacity of Mass Electorates. Annual Review of Political Science 3: 331–353.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. De Vries, C. 2007. Sleeping giant: Fact or Fairytale? How European Integration Affects National Elections. European Union Politics 8 (3): 363–385.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hobolt, S.B. 2009. Europe in Question: Referendums on European Integration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hobolt, S.B. 2016. The Brexit Vote: A Divided Nation, a Divided Continent. Journal of European Public Policy 23 (9): 1259–1277.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Iyengar, S. 1991. Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lupia, A., and J.G. Matsusaka. 2004. Direct Democracy: New Approaches to Old Questions. Annual Review of Political Science 7: 463–482.

    Article  Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Taber, C.S., D. Cann, and S. Kucsova. 2009. The Motivated Processing of Political Arguments. Political Behavior 31 (2): 137–155.

    Article  Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wouter van der Brug.

Appendix: Descriptives main variables

Appendix: Descriptives main variables

See Appendix Tables 3, 4 and Fig. 6.

Table 3 Descriptives of individual-level variables
Table 4 Descriptives of individual-wave variables
Fig. 6
figure6

Flow of voters between waves

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

van der Brug, W., van der Meer, T. & van der Pas, D. Voting in the Dutch ‘Ukraine-referendum’: a panel study on the dynamics of party preference, EU-attitudes, and referendum-specific considerations. Acta Polit 53, 496–516 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-018-0107-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Party Preferences
  • Association Treaty
  • LISS Panel
  • Longitudinal Internet Studies For The Social Sciences (LISS)
  • Unified Patent Court