Do Spitzenkandidaten really make a difference? An experiment on the effectiveness of personalized European Parliament election campaigns

Abstract

<jats:p> This article investigates the impact of pan-European candidates in European Parliament election campaigns. It focusses on the two 2019 nominees for the European Greens, who were Dutch and German, respectively. We conducted a pre-registered experiment in the Netherlands and Germany in early April 2019 to test the effects of (non-)personalized campaign posters on (a) turnout intention and (b) vote intention for the Greens alongside possible mediating effects of campaign and candidate evaluations. Our results suggest that while personalized campaigns as opposed to non-personalized campaigns may not matter per se for turnout and vote intention, individual candidates can make a difference in European elections, particularly with respect to vote intention. As such, the results have important implications for our understanding of European Parliament election campaigns. </jats:p>

Media Personalization during European Elections: the 2019 Election Campaigns in Context*

“…The aim of the Spitzenkandidaten procedure was to raise voter awareness and participation. However, evidence suggests that their impact on electoral behaviour has been rather mixed (Gattermann and Marquart, 2020; Schmitt et al, 2015). The purpose of this contribution was to study this phenomenon against the backdrop of mediated personalization processes during EP elections.…”

“…This may be a favourable condition for personalized voting behaviour, although a preliminary empirical assessment showed that it mainly occurs among sophisticated voters and that party preferences still play a more decisive role compared to candidate evaluations (Gattermann and de Vreese, 2017). Likewise, few voters actually recognize Spitzenkandidaten (Hobolt, 2014) and thus their impact on voter turnout and vote intention is somewhat limited (Schmitt et al, 2015; Gattermann and Marquart, 2020). This may also indicate that media coverage of EP election campaigns as main source of information for voters is not very personalized (see Belluati, 2016: Schulze, 2016).…”

“…Proponents of the personalization of politics thesis have argued that mediated personalization is linked to three main factors (see also Gattermann, 2018; Gattermann and Marquart, 2020). First, scholars have observed a trend towards partisan dealignment as citizens have become more detached from political parties (Dalton and Wattenberg, 2000).…”

“…However, the election of Ursula von der Leyen as Commission president in 2019 led to the provisional abandonment of the procedure and casted doubt on the impact of the procedure on European Union (EU) politics in the long run. Although many of these concerns address inter‐institutional relations (see Hobolt, 2014), low levels of recognising lead candidates (Gattermann and de Vreese, 2020; Hobolt, 2014) as well as their limited potential for mobilization (Schmitt et al, 2015; Gattermann and Marquart, 2020) indicate that the Spitzenkandidaten have not yet fully resonated with European citizens. Why is this the case?…”

Introduction to the special issue: No longer second-order? Explaining the European Parliament elections of 2019

“…According to the authors, voters also felt more informed about the issues discussed during the debate; there are also weak indications that some changed their positions towards certain issues after having followed the debate. This suggests that the Spitzenkandidaten can add a distinct European perspective to the campaigns in combination with policy issues, although there is mixed evidence for the extent to which they indeed mobilise voters across Europe (Gattermann and Marquart, 2020; Schmitt et al, 2015).…”