Professor Cees Van der Eijk of the University of Nottingham is an expert on European electoral research.
To read a shortened version of this interview, please click here.
The main points of reform in MEP Andrew Duff's proposal concern the creation of a "semi-open, candidate-based" transnational list system in Europe, where you would be able to choose between candidates from different countries on party lists. Do you view this as a positive development?
Elections can be oriented towards candidates or parties, and this can make a difference in how voters behave and what kind of process we get. If people are forced to look at candidates rather than parties, they tend to learn less. If people's focus is on candidates, they have to "re-learn the world" at each election. Party-oriented systems allow voters to gain political knowledge that is still relevant next time around.
There is also a negative connotation between candidate-centred elections and policy orientation. These elections tend to become "beauty contests": heavy on personality, light on detail.
In Europe, we mainly have systems which are oriented towards parties and therefore much more towards policy too, and I think it would be a shame if we turned our backs to that in European elections.
Is it not true, on the other hand, that when elections are more personalised and more of a "beauty contest", there is more media interest and more voter interest: the lack of which is a recurring problem at European elections?
Not really. That only applies if there is a personalised election for a single position. If you compare, for example, the current US presidential election with the elections to the House of Representatives, the latter really doesn't create that much buzz.
We're not talking here about electing the president of the Commission! We're talking about electing MEPs, where there are so many candidates that there won't be any orchestrated buzz.
The Duff reform suggests that the minimum voting age be fixed at 16 and the candidate age at 18. Why is this? Does established research support such a move?
A lowered voting age of 16 has been demonstrated to be more effective than 18 in giving young people the opportunity to learn the habit of voting. At 16 they are usually still in networks which are more open to learning to vote and becoming politicised, whereas at 18 they are generally in a more turbulent period of life. Most have just left the parental home, have just finished school and are about to enter the labour market or third-level education.
Voting is an acquired habit: the more often you do it, the more you learn to do it, and the more likely you are to keep doing it. Research has shown that young people and the networks and contacts they have at age 16 are more effective in helping to acquire this habit.
This proposal therefore seems like a very sensible idea that evidently picks up on research from the past decade.
Under the terms of this proposal, a voter in, say, the west of Ireland, could vote for a candidate in Cyprus. Do you think this would energise European voters to increase their political knowledge base?
If we were to have transnational lists with parties, you would vote for parties such as (taking a random example) the European Federalists, which would represent a concrete political programme with a clear manifesto. You are therefore supporting a set of policy ideas with your vote, which in turn means it doesn't really matter if your candidate comes from Ireland or Cyprus.
There could also be a number of very beneficial side-effects, namely the liberation of European Parliament elections from the straitjacket of domestic politics. This would be very interesting and could bring a new and fresh dynamic to the elections.
It would also provide a stronger mandate for the Parliament in its relationship with the European Commission, and it would provide more of a learning process with direct media attention towards the policy proposals of the competing lists.
In the long term, I think this would improve knowledge of the importance and role of the European Parliament, and the differences between the parties there.
Another aspect of the proposal would give the Parliament increased power to control eligibility, that is, who should be allowed to run for European elections.
I don't think this will lead to any real objections from member states, and it would fit with the notion of the European Union as a political system in its own right, that sets its own terms of electoral competition, both on the supply side and the demand side. In that respect I think it makes perfect sense.
Finally, this proposal would not come into force until the 2014 elections. Let's look at 2009 for a moment: how do you think the 'Irish situation' will affect the elections, given that they may now be fought on the basis of Nice instead of Lisbon?
There has been a lot of speculation in the media that because of the uncertainty over Ireland, the 2009 elections will see further successes for populist right-wing anti-EU groups. I think this is unlikely for two reasons:
First of all, these voter groups aren't known to turn out in large numbers. To some extent, that 'angry reservoir' is there, but disproportionately large numbers of these voters are inclined to stay at home on election day.
The other thing is, quite often you see a surge in support for populist or extreme-right parties, which deflates again once it becomes apparent that they are not able to address even the concerns that they raise themselves.
If a second Irish referendum is held after the European elections, that will not boost the referendum turnout. It would make more sense, if possible, to combine the two.
Of course, it's up to the Irish government to see whether they find it propitious to first of all hold a second referendum, and then to decide the timing of it.
