Reforms of intra-party decision-making processes often rest on the idea that citizens want more direct say in these processes, but empirical data to support this claim are scarce. Using original data from the 2014 PartiRep voter survey in Belgium, this article explores the extent to which citizens support alternative intra-party processes. It shows that voters have heterogeneous preferences in terms of candidate selection procedures and that these are not random. ‘Disaffected’ citizens tend to support open procedures, whereas critical citizens tend to prefer closed selectorates, that is, intra-party actors. It also finds that voters’ preferences for intra-party models of democracy match their preferences for models of democracy at the system level. Our findings confirm that citizens do have clear preferences for how parties should organise and that these match their general views on how democracy should work.

Many of the criticisms commonly made of modern political parties concern their alleged lack of transparency and use of informality in their inner organization. Yet, little is known about the extent to which parties really bend their rules. This article investigates whether and how political parties use informality in one central aspect of intra-party life: candidate selection. More specifically, selection procedures for European elections are examined since party actions at the European level are still under little scrutiny from the media and the voters, hence granting them much leeway. To compare rules with practices, actors and levels cited in 51 party statutes are matched with their uses in 2014, gathered through a survey and interviews of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs). Even though informal processes are found to be generally less inclusive than the rules prescribed, divergences are often modest, suggesting that parties do not necessarily rely on informality in their day-to-day functioning.

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers. L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

Openingup processes of candidate selection is often viewed as a means for political parties to regain legitimacy, and perhaps more crucially, members and voters. Despite a widespread belief that citizens want more democracy, including within parties, little research has questioned what sort of openingup is desired-e.g., open or closed primaries-if at all, and by what type of citizens. Using data of the 2014 PartiRep voter survey in Belgium, we examine the diversity of preferences regarding candidate selection, and the extent to which preferences for open or closed primaries relate to voters' participation in party organisations. Given the diversification of party affiliation types, we operationalise participation through two distinct variables: the formal party membership status of the respondents, and their party activism. We show that both membership and activism influence individual preferences, and that their effects are in fact conditional upon each other. Findings also raise crucial issues regarding the consequences of the multiplication of affiliation modes, the motivations and direction of intraparty reforms, as well as feed the debate on their expected versus genuine consequences.

While European elections are often seen as remote from EU issues, considerations specifically linked to the EU came to the forefront in the wake of the 2014 European elections: the economic and financial crisis, the new process of designation of the European Commission President, and the alleged increase of Eurosceptic votes. This increased salience of political debates about the EU asks for a reconsideration of the 'second-order nature' of European elections. In this context, as in 2009, the Belgian electorate voted for the regional and European levels on the very same day. Belgian voters were thus offered the opportunity to split their ticket between both levels. This allows comparing the occurrence and determinants of these 'immediate switching' behaviours in 2014 with those of the presumably less politicized EP elections in 2009. We do that by employing the 2009 and 2014 PartiRep Election Study data. On the one hand, the article shows that split-ticket voting cannot be explained by economic voting, European identity, and attitudes towards integration in 2014. On the other hand, the unique configuration of the Belgian elections enables us to observe that the introduction of Spitzenkandidaten did enhance split-ticket voting for voters who could directly vote for this candidate (in Flanders), while this did not increase split-ticket voting among voters who could only indirectly support the candidate (in Wallonia).