Essay: Why has there been a steady decline in election participation?

The steady decline in election participation has arguably been for a number of reasons. This article blames the Governments’ system, accusing the European Parliament elections as being a ‘second-order national contest.’ This term first appeared in Karlheinz Reif and Hermann Schmitt’s “Nine second-order national elections – A conceptual framework for the analysis of European election results.”  This was an article for the European Journal of Political Research, in 1980, which was used to examine the first European Parliament elections held in 1979. According to the “second-order elections” approach, European Parliament elections were “second-order” because they were viewed as less important by voters, parties and the media compared to the first-order elections.
First-order elections are those that determine the government in a political system, such as national elections. They are first-order because they are seen as more important by parties and voters. Local and regional elections are also considered second-order elections, and tend to have lower turnouts than in the national elections. Voters are more prone to vote for protesting or minority parties on the outside of the political system. This substitutes useful votes for more mainstream parties that would normally be voted for within national elections, and as a result, second-order elections are often used by voters to punish or reward the current governing parties.
The Treaty of Lisbon, initially known as the Reform Treaty, is an international agreement which amends the two treaties forming the constitutional basis of the European Union (EU). Some of the more prominent changes included the move from unanimity to qualified majority voting in at least 45 policy areas in the Council of Ministers, and a change in calculating such a majority to a new double majority, giving the European Parliament a higher degree of power and forming a bicameral legislature alongside the Council of Ministers under the ordinary legislative procedure. This “completes the process started by the Treaty of Amsterdam [1997] and by the Treaty of Nice [2001] with a view to enhancing the efficiency and democratic legitimacy of the Union and to improving the coherence of its action” – Quoted from the Treaty Preamble.
Opponents of the Treaty of Lisbon, such as former Danish Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Jens-Peter Bonde, argued that it would centralise the EU, and weaken democracy by “moving power away” from national electorates. Whereas supporters of the Treaty argue that it will bring in more checks and balances into the EU system, with stronger powers for the European Parliament and a new role for national parliaments. The European Parliament voted in favour of a non-binding resolution endorsing the Lisbon Treaty by 525 votes in favour and 115 against on 20 February 2008. The majority vote here is in favour of the Treaty of Lisbon’s reforms, therefore it must have a beneficial influence upon European Parliament. Something this effective could also help to improve the current voting system and ultimately participation throughout elections.
The first months under Lisbon have arguably seen a shift in power and leadership from the Commission to the European Council, with its new full-time and longer-term President. The split between the Commission and European Council presidents involved overlap, alongside potential rivalry and compromise, such as both presidents attending international summits. In theory, each have their own separate responsibilities, but inevitably there is an overlap; this indicated some expectation that the posts may be merged, as allowed under new treaty, in 2014 when their two mandates expired.
The Treaty of Lisbon stated that the size of the Commission will reduce from one per member state to one for two thirds of member states from 2014, with an equal rotation over time. This would end the arrangement which has existed since 1957 of always having at least one Commissioner for each Member State. However, the Treaty also provided that the European Council could unanimously decide to alter this number. So in December 2008, they reverted back to one Commissioner per member state with effect from the date of entry into force of the Treaty. This is beneficial as it allows a better representation for the voters, and could encourage increased participation.
The President of the European Commission is the the most powerful officeholder in the EU, and has a vaguely similar role to that of a country’s Prime-Minister. Although, unlike a national head of government, the President of the Commission does not have a duty to fulfil obligations such as to determine foreign policy, command troops or raise taxes, he is responsible for allocating portfolios to members of the Commission and can reshuffle or dismiss them if needed. They determine the Commission’s policy agenda and all the legislative proposals it produces, the Commission is the only body that can propose EU laws.
The post was established in 1958 and is elected by the European Parliament, on a proposal of the European Council for five-year terms. Once appointed, he or she, along with the Commission, is responsible to Parliament which can censure the President. The current President is Jean-Claude Juncker, who took office on 1 November 2014. He is a member of the European People’s Party (EPP) and is the former Prime Minister of Luxembourg. Juncker is the twelfth President and his First Vice-President is Frans Timmermans.
Article 17 of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon, lays out the procedure for appointing the President and his team. The European Council votes by qualified majority for a nominee for the post of President, taking account of the latest European elections. This proposal is then put before Parliament which must approve or veto the appointment. If an absolute majority of MEPs support the nominee, he/she is elected. The President then, together with the Council, puts forward his team to the Parliament to be scrutinised. The Parliament normally insists that each one of them appear before the parliamentary committee that corresponds to their prospective portfolio for a public hearing. The Parliament then votes on the Commission as a whole and, if approved, the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, appoints the President and his team to office.
The Socialists, disappointed at the 2009 election, agreed to put forward a candidate for Commission President at all subsequent elections. After a campaign within that party to have open primaries for said candidate, the PES Congress gathering in Brussels during November 2011 decided that PES would designate its candidate for Commission president through primaries took place in January 2014 in each of its member parties and organisations, before a ratification of the results by an Extraordinary PES Congress in February 2014.
From 22 to 25 May 2014, elections to the European Parliament were held in the European Union. It was the 8th parliamentary election since the first direct elections in 1979, and the first in which the pan-European political parties fielded candidates for president of the Commission. While the European People’s Party lost ground to the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, it remained the largest faction in the new parliament, implying that Juncker may assume the presidency provided that he is elected by a qualified majority of the European Council as well as a simple majority in the new parliament.
Turnout across the whole of the EU was broadly the same in 2014 as it was in 2009, at 43%. This was relatively low for some of the new Member States, and the last two elections had the lowest EU-wide turnout of any European Parliament elections. To coincide with this, UK turnout has typically been low, and especially in comparison with other European countries. There was a 35% turnout in 2014, which was among the lowest of the older EU member states. Although turnout in the UK was higher than nine of the Eastern European accession states that have joined the EU since 2004. More recent joiners to the EU should be taking an especially keen interest in voting and trying to help influence changes necessary within the EU. This is proof of the statement made here that despite the growth of both power Members within the European Parliament, there has been steadily declining participation in its elections.
An increase of women voters represents a change in society’s norms, and proves that more modern approaches are being used, but this shouldn’t allow for lower voting participation. It is true that if a better system was induced with a more genuine electoral contest, then the direct influence on EU leaders would be much more effective, and participation should grow rapidly, because voters would feel like their opinions are more genuinely and better represented. It could determine whether leaders can continue to as they are, or are forced to change the direction of policy.
here…