German parliamentary elections 2005 in the mirror of party manifestos
Five leading German political parties and their coalitions are evaluated with regard to party manifestos and results of the 2005 parliamentary elections. For this purpose, the party manifestos are converted into Yes/No answers to 95 topical questions (Relax the protection against dismissals? Close nuclear power plants? etc.). On each question, every party represents its adherents as well as those of the parties with the same position. Therefore, a party usually represents a larger group than its direct adherents. The popularity of a party is understood to be the percentage of the electorate represented, averaged on all the 95 questions. The universality of a party is the frequency of representing a majority of electors. The questions are considered either unweighted, or weighted by an expert, or weighted by the number of GOOGLE-results for given keywords (the more important the question, the more documents in the Internet). The weighting however plays a negligible role because the party answers are backed up by the party "ideology" which determines a high intra-question correlations. The SPD (Social-Democratic Party) did not receive the highest percentage of votes, remains nevertheless the most popular and the most universal German party. A comparison of the election results with the position of German Trade Union Federation (DGB) reveals its high representativeness as well. Finally, all coalitions with two and three parties are also evaluated. The coalition CDU/SPD (which is currently in power) is the most popular, and the coalition SPD/Green/Left-Party (which failed due to personal conflicts) is the most universal.
|Date of creation:||2006|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Bertha-von-Suttner-Platz 1, D-40227 Düsseldorf|
Phone: +49 211 7778 0
Fax: +49 (0)211-7778-3124
Web page: http://www.boeckler.de/wsi_english.htm
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Steven J. Brams & William S. Zwicker & D. Marc Kilgour, 1998.
"The paradox of multiple elections,"
Social Choice and Welfare,
Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 15(2), pages 211-236.
- Brams, Steven J. & Kilgour, D. Marc & Zwicker, William S., 1996. "The Paradox of Multiple Elections," Working Papers 96-09, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
- Berghammer, Rudolf & Rusinowska, Agnieszka & de Swart, Harrie, 2007. "Applying relational algebra and RelView to coalition formation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(2), pages 530-542, April.
- Rudolf Berghammer & Harrie De Swart & Agnieszka Rusinowska, 2007. "Applying relational algebra and RelView to coalition formation," Post-Print halshs-00159845, HAL.
- Agnieszka Rusinowska & Harrie de Swart & Jan-Willem van der Rijt, 2005. "A new model of coalition formation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 24(1), pages 129-154, 09. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:wsidps:139e. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (ZBW - German National Library of Economics)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.