The analysis compares voters' preferences in economic policy to political parties' economic written parliamentary questions during the 2009–2014 term of the European Parliament. The corpus of over 55,000 written questions was ideologically scaled via crowdsourcing. The analysis shows that parties are unresponsive to second-order and to disengaged voters. The results also suggest that there is no upper class bias in European Parliament political representation. The data highlight a strong tendency of EP7 political parties to cluster around the position of the average European voter, at the expense of their average supporter. The democratic deficit is therefore at most a pluralism deficit in the European Parliament, since substantive representation in the European Parliament is successful as far as the majoritarian norm is concerned.
AalderingL (2016) Political representation and educational attainment: Evidence from the Netherlands (1994–2010). Political Studies65(1): 4–23.
2.
AchenC (1978) Measuring representation. American Journal of Political Science22(3): 475–510.
3.
Arnold C, Franklin M and Wlezien C (2013) Deaf Leading the Blind: The Paradoxical Mismatch between Dynamic Representation and Thermostatic Responsiveness in the EU. In: 71st Midwest Political Science Association Annual Conference, Chicago: MPSA, 11-14 April 2013.
4.
BartelsL (2008) Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, .
5.
BelchiorAM (2013) Explaining left-right party congruence across European party systems: A test of micro- meso- and macro- level models. Comparative Political Studies46(3): 352–386.
6.
BellamyR (2010) Democracy without democracy? Can the EU democratic ‘outputs’ be separated from the democratic ‘inputs’ provided by competitive parties and majority rule?. Journal of European Public Policy17(1): 2–19.
7.
BenoitKConwayDLauderdaleBEet al.(2016) Crowd-sourced text analysis: Reproducible and agile production of political data. American Political Science Review110(2): 278–295.
8.
BenoitKLaverM (2006) Party Policy in Modern Democracies, London: Taylor & Francis.
9.
BerinskyAJHuberGALenzGS (2012) Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com's mechanical Turk. Political Analysis20: 351–368.
10.
BesleyT (2006) Principled Agents? The Political Economy of Good Government, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11.
Blumenau J and Lauderdale BE (in press) Never let a good crisis go to waste: Agenda setting and legislative voting in response to the EU crisis. Journal of Politics.
12.
BobbioN (1996) Left and Right. The Significance of a Political Distinction, Cambridge: Polity Press.
13.
CarnesNLupuN (2016) Do voters dislike working-class candidates? Voter biases and the descriptive underrepresentation of the working class. American Political Science Review110(4): 832–844.
14.
CorbettRJacobsFShackletonM (2011) The European Parliament, London: John Harper Publishing.
15.
CostelloRThomassenJRosemaM (2012) European parliament elections and political representation: Policy congruence between voters and parties. West European Politics35(6): 1226–1248.
16.
DahlRA (1989) Democracy and its Critics, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
17.
DaltonRJ (2015) Party representation across multiple issue dimensions. Party Politics23(6): 1–14.
18.
Davidson-SchmichLKVladescuE (2012) Political parties and 2009 European parliament election campaign content. In: BanducciSFranklinMNGieblerHet al.(eds) An audit of democracy in the European Union, Florence: PIREDEU: European University Institute, pp. 77–102. .
19.
DownsA (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy, New York: Addison Wesley.
20.
EulauHKarpsPD (1977) The puzzle of representation: Specifying components of responsiveness. Legislative Studies Quarterly2(3): 233–254.
FerejohnJA (1986) Incumbent performance and electoral control. Public Choice50(1/3): 5–25.
23.
FollesdalAHixS (2006) Why there is a democratic deficit in the EU: A response to Majone and Moravcsik. Journal of Common Market Studies44(3): 533–562. .
24.
GilensM (2005) Inequality and democratic responsiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly69(5): 788–796.
25.
GilensMPageBI (2014) Testing theories of American politics: Elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspectives on Politics12(3): 564–581.
26.
GolderMStramskyJ (2010) Ideological congruence and electoral institutions. American Journal of Political Science54(1): 90–106.
27.
GoodinRE (2003) Reflective Democracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
28.
HagemannSHoboltSWratilC (2016) Government responsiveness in the European Union: Evidence from council voting. Comparative Political Studies50(6): 850–876.
29.
HeldD (2006) Models of Democracy, Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.
30.
HixS (2008) What's Wrong with the EU and How to Fix It, Cambridge: Polity Press.
31.
HixSMarshM (2011) Second-order effects plus Pan-European political swings: An analysis of European parliament elections across time. Electoral Studies30(1): 4–15.
32.
HoboltS (2012) Citizen satisfaction with democracy in the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies50(1): 88–105.
33.
HugS (2009) Selection effects in roll call votes. British Journal of Political Science40(1): 225–235.
34.
KreppelA (2002) The European Parliament and Supranational Party System. A study in Institutional Development, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
LewisJBTausanovitchC (2015) When does joint scaling allow for direct comparisons of preferences?. In: Conference on ideal point models. 1–2 May 2015, Cambridge: MIT, pp. 1–53.
37.
LupiaA (2015) Uninformed: Why People Know So Little About Politics and What We Can Do About It, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
38.
McElroyGKritzingerS (2012) Meaningful choices? Voter perceptions of party positions in European elections. In: BanducciSFranklinMNGieblerHet al.(eds) An Audit of Democracy in the European Union, Florence: PIREDEU, European University Institute, pp. 169–192.
39.
MarienSHoogheM (2011) Does political trust matter? An empirical investigation into the relation between political trust and support for law compliance. European Journal of Political Research50(2): 267–291.
40.
MatsusakaJG (2001) Problems with a methodology used to evaluate the voter initiative. The Journal of Politics63(4): 1250–1256.
41.
MayJD (1978) Defining democracy: A bid for coherence and consensus. Political Studies26(1): 1–14.
42.
MoravcsikA (2008) The myth of Europe's “democratic deficit”. Intereconomics43(1): 331–340.
43.
MorelL (2012) Referendum. In: RosenfeldMSajoA (eds) Comparative Constitutional Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 501–528.
44.
MorrowJD (1994) Game Theory for Political Scientists, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
45.
MullerENJukamTOSeligsonMA (1982) Diffuse political support and antisystem political behaviour: A comparative analysis. American Journal of Political Science26(2): 240–264.
46.
NewtonK (2006) Political support: Social capital, civil society and political and economic performance. Political Studies54(4): 846–864.
47.
NorrisP (1997) Representation and the democratic deficit. European Journal of Political Research32(2): 273–282.
48.
OtjesSvan der VeerH (2016) The Eurozone crisis and the European Parliament's changing lines of conflict. European Union Politics17(2): 242–261.
49.
PerrsonTRolandGTabelliniG (1997) Separation of powers and political accountability. The Quarterly Journal of Economics112(4): 1163–1202.
50.
PitkinHF (1967) The Concept of Representation, Berkeley: University of California Press.
51.
RohrschneiderR (2002) The democratic deficit and mass support for an EU-wide government. American Journal of Political Science46(2): 463–475.
VasilopoulouSGattermannK (2013) Matching policy preferences: The linkage between voters and MEPs. Journal of European Public Policy20(4): 606–625.
58.
WalczakAVan der BrugW (2013) Representation in the European Parliament: Factors affecting the attitude congruence of voters and candidates in the EP elections. European Union Politics14(1): 3–22.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
