The process of establishing a constitution for Europe came to an end when voters in France and the Netherlands rejected the proposal. Analyzing both media coverage and survey data, this article seeks to disentangle the reasons why a majority of voters rejected the European Constitution. The authors’ findings suggest that the campaign played an important role in priming certain attitudes and that vote choices, in turn, were driven by specific issue concerns rather than general dissatisfaction with the European Union or national governments. These findings have implications not only for our understanding of direct democracy in Europe but also for the study of campaign effects.
Aarts, Kees, and Henk van der Kolk .2006. Understanding the Dutch "No": The Euro, the East and the elite. PS: Political Science and Politics39:243-46.
2.
Abramowitz, Alan I.1988. An improved model for predicting presidential election outcomes. PS: Political Science and Politics21:843-47.
3.
Alvarez, Michael R.1997. Information and elections. Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press.
4.
Alvarez, Michael R., and John Brehm.2002. Hard choices, easy answers. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press .
5.
Breeman, Gerard, David Lowery, Caelesta Poppelaars, Sandra Resodihardjo, Arco Timmermans, and Jouke de Vries.2009. Political attention in a coalition system: Analyzing queen’s speeches in the Netherlands 1947-2006. Acta Politica44:1-27.
6.
Brouard, Sylvain, and Vincent Tiberj.2006. The French referendum: The not so simple act of saying nay. PS: Political Science and Politics39:261-68.
7.
Chong, Dennis, and James N. Druckman .2007. Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science10:103-26.
8.
Duhamel, Olivier.2005. Des raisons du non. Paris: Seuil.
9.
Dutch Referendum Study.2005. Pre-and post-referendum panel study. Conducted by GfK Benelux (N = 1,284). Principal investigators: Kees Aarts and Henk van der Kolk, University of Twente.
10.
Farrell, David M., and Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck, eds. 2002. Do political campaigns matter? Campaign effects in elections and referendums. London: Routledge.
11.
Franklin, Mark.2002. Learning from the Danish case: A comment on Palle Svensson’s critique of the Franklin thesis. European Journal of Political Research41:751-57.
12.
Franklin, Mark, Michael Marsh, and Lauren McLaren.1994. Uncorking the bottle: Popular opposition to European unification in the wake of Maastricht. Journal of Common Market Studies32:455-72.
13.
Franklin, Mark, Cees van der Eijk, and Michael Marsh.1995. Referendum outcomes and trust in government: Public support for Europe in the wake of Maastricht. West European Politics18:101-17.
14.
French Referendum Survey.2005. Conducted by TNS-Sofres (N = 1,009). Principal investigator: Sylvain Brouard , CEVIPOF, Sciences PoParis.
15.
Gabel, Matthew J.1998. Public support for European integration: An empirical test of five theories. Journal of Politics60:333-54.
16.
Garry, John, Michael Marsh, and Richard Sinnott .2005. "Secondorder" versus "issue voting" effects in EU referendums: Evidence from the Irish Nice Treaty Referendums . European Union Politics6:201-21.
17.
Gelman, Andrew, and Gary King.1993. Why are American presidential election polls so variable when voters are so predictable?British Journal of Political Science23 (4): 49-51.
18.
Gerstlé, Jacques.2006. The impact of television on French referendum campaign in 2005. Studies and Research no. 53. Paris: Notre Europe.
19.
Harmsen, Robert.2005. The Dutch referendum on the ratification of the European Constitutional Treaty. EPERN Referendum Briefing Paper No 13. Sussex, UK: University of Sussex, Sussex European Institute, European Parties Elections and Referendums Network.
20.
Hillygus, Sunshine D.2005. Campaign effects and the dynamics of turnout intention in election 2000. Journal of Politics67:50-68.
21.
Hix, Simon.1999. Dimension and alignments in European Union politics: Cognitive constrains and partisan responses. European Journal of Political Research35:69-125.
22.
Hobolt, Sara B.2005. When Europe matters: The impact of political information on voting behavior in EU referendums. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties15:85-109.
23.
Hobolt, Sara B.2007. Campaign information and voting behavior. In The dynamics of referendum campaigns: An international perspective , ed. Claes H. de Vreese, chap. 5. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.
24.
Hooghe, Liesbet, and Gary Marks.2004. Does identity or economic rationality drive public opinion on European integration?PSOnline, July.
25.
Hooghe, Liesbet, Gary Marks, and Carole J. Wilson .2002. Does left/right structure party positions on European integration?Comparative Political Studies35:965-89.
26.
Inglehart, Ronald.1977. The silent revolution: Changing values and political styles among Western publics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
27.
Ivaldi, Gilles.2006. Beyond France’s 2005 referendum on the European Constitutional Treaty: Second-order model, antiestablishment attitudes and the end of the alternativeEuropean utopia. West European Politics29:47-69.
28.
Iyengar, Shanto, and Donald R. Kinder .1987. News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29.
Iyengar, Shanto, and Adam F. Simon .2000. New perspectives and evidence on political communication and campaign effects. Annual Review of Political Psychology51:149-69.
30.
Jérôme, Bruno, and Nicolas G. Vaillant .2005. The French rejection of the European constitution: An empirical analysis. European Journal of Political Economy21:1085-92.
31.
Kahn, Kim Fridkin, and Patrick J. Kenney .1997. A model of candidate evaluations in Senate elections: The impact of campaign intensity. Journal of Politics59:1173-205.
32.
Kleinnijenhuis, Jan, Janet Takens, and Wouter van Atteveldt .2005. Toen Europa de dagbladen ging vullen. In Nederlanders en Europa: Het referendum over de Europese Grondwet, ed. K. Aarts and H. van der Kolk, chap. 6. Amsterdam: Bert Bakker.
33.
Lavine, Howard, Eugene Borgida, John L. Sullivan, and Cynthia J. Thomsen .1996. The relationship of national and personal issue salience to attitude accessibility on foreign and domestic policy issues. Political Psychology17:293-316.
34.
LeDuc, Lawrence.2002. Referendums and elections: How do campaigns differ? In Do political campaigns matter? Campaign effects in elections and referendums , ed. David M. Farrell and Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck, 145-62. London: Routledge.
35.
Lupia, Arthur.1994. Shortcuts versus encyclopaedias: Information and voting behaviour in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review88:63-76.
36.
Marthaler, Sally.2005. The French referendum on ratification of the EU Constitutional Treaty, 29 May 2005. Representation41:228-36.
37.
McLaren, Lauren.2002. Public support for the European Union: Cost/benefit analysis or perceived cultural threat? Journal of Politics64:551-66.
38.
Miller, Joanne M., and Jon A. Krosnick .2000. News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: Politically knowledgeable citizens are guided by a trusted source. American Journal of Political Science44:295-309.
39.
Nijeboer, Arjen.2005. The first Dutch referendum: A pre-ballot assessment . Policy Paper no. 14. Paris: Notre Europe.
40.
Piar, Christophe, and Jacques Gerstlé .2005. Le cadrage du référendum sur la Constitution européenne: la dynamique d’une campagne à rebondissements. In Le référendum de ratification du Traité constitutionnel européen: comprendre le non français, ed. Annie Laurent and Nicolas Sauger, 42-73. Cahier du CEVIPOF No. 42. Paris: CEVIPOF.
41.
Reif, Karlheinz, and Hermann Schmitt .1980. Nine second-order national elections: A conceptual framework for the analysis of European election results . European Journal for Political Research8:3-44.
42.
Sauger, Nicolas, Sylvain Brouard, and Emiliano Grossman .2007. Les Français contre l’Europe? Les sens du référendum du 29 mai 2005. Paris: Presses de Sciences-Po.
43.
Schuck, Andreas R. T., and Claes H. de Vreese .2008. The Dutch no to the EU Constitution: Assessing the role of EU skepticism and the campaign. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties18:101-28.
44.
Schuck, Andreas, and Claes H. de Vreese .2009. Reversed mobilization in referendum campaigns: How positive news framing can mobilize the skeptics . International Journal of Press/Politics14 (1): 40-66.
45.
Shaw, Daron R.1999. The effect of TV ads and candidate appearances on statewide presidential votes, 1988-96. American Political Science Review93:345-61.
46.
Siune, Karen, Svensson, Palle, and Tonsgaard, Ole.1994. The EU: the Danes said "no" in 1992, but "yes" in 1993: How and why?Electoral Studies13:107-16.
47.
Svensson, Palle.2002. Five Danish referendums on the European Community and European Union: A critical assessment of the Franklin thesis. European Journal of Political Research41:733-50.
48.
de Vreese, Claes H., ed. 2007. The dynamics of referendums campaigns: An international perspective. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.
49.
de Vreese, Claes H., and Hajo Boomgaarden. 2005. Projecting EU referendums: Fear of immigration and support for European integration. European Union Politics6:59-82
50.
de Vreese, Claes H., and Holli Semetko.2004. Political campaigning in referendums: Framing the referendum issue. London: Routledge.
51.
Westlye, Mark C.1991. Senate elections and campaign intensity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press .
52.
Zaller, J.1992. The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press .
