Going Local. Voting for independent local Parties in the Netherlands 1986-2010

Figures & data

Figure 1. Share of votes for independent local parties.

Thick black line: the Netherlands.Thick long black stripes: Sweden.Thick short black stripes: Norway.Thick long and short black stripes: Rhineland-Palatinate.Thick grey line: North Rhine Westphalia.Thick long grey stripes: Bavaria.Thick short grey stripes: Lower Saxony.Thick long and short grey stripes: Baden-Württemberg.Thin black line: Hessen.Thin long black stripes: Schleswig-Holstein.Thin short black stripes: Saarland.Sources: (Voerman and Otjes 2018; SCB 2007; Valmyndigheten 2018; SSB 2018; LRP 2015; ITNW 2018; BLS 2018; LSN 2018; Hin and Eisenreich 2010; SLBW 2018; CDU 2006; HSL 2018; SAHSH 2013; FNS 2012; LZD 2009, 2014).

Table 1. Electoral results of independent local parties and descriptives 1986–2018.

Year	Election Result	Percentage DPES	Political Trust	Party Participation
1986	12%	14%	0.51	0.77
1990	13%	-	-	-
1994	16%	18%	0.51	0.61
1998	18%	16%	0.53	0.67
2002	26%	19%	0.49	0.60
2006	22%	-	0.51	0.52
2010	24%	22%	0.52	0.49
2014	28%	-	-	-
2018	29%	-	-	-

Source: Voerman and Otjes (2018)

Table 2. Binomial regression results.

Model	1	2	3	4	5
Period	1986–2010	1986–2010	1986–2010	1986–2010	1986–2010
Political Trust	-	-	−0.74***	-	−0.66***
			(0.18)		(0.18)
Party Participation	-	-	-	−0.72***	−0.70***
				(0.10)	(0.10)
Party Identification	-	−1.43***	−1.36***	−1.12***	−1.07***
		(0.12)	(0.12)	(0.13)	(0.13)
Economic Dimension	-	0.14	0.14	0.05	0.05
		(0.15)	(0.15)	(0.14)	(0.15)
Moral Dimension	-	0.41**	0.41**	0.48***	0.48***
		(0.15)	(0.14)	(0.14)	(0.14)
Religion = Catholic	-	0.69***	0.68***	0.73***	0.72***
		(0.09)	(0.09)	(0.09)	(0.09)
Gender = Female	-	−0.20**	−0.20**	−0.21***	−0.21**
		(0.08)	(0.08)	(0.08)	(0.08)
Class = Working Class	-	0.14	0.08	0.12	0.06
		(0.09)	(0.09)	(0.09)	(0.09)
Year of Birth	-	0.75***	1.04***	0.62***	0.89***
		(0.26)	(0.27)	(0.26)	(0.27)
Urbanisation	-	−0.86***	−0.86***	−0.87***	−0.87***
		(0.14)	(0.14)	(0.14)	(0.14)
Intercept	−1.57***	−1.78***	−1.59***	−1.40***	−1.24***
	(0.08)	(0.23)	(0.24)	(0.23)	(0.24)
AIC	4573	4269	4254	4216	4205
N Years	5	5	5	5	5
N	4910	4910	4910	4910	4910
Variance of the Random Intercept	0.03	0.01	0.01	0.00	0.00
	(0.17)	(0.12)	(0.10)	(0.05)	(0.03)

0.1 < * < 0.05 < ** < 0.01 *** < 0.00

Figure 2. Random intercepts per year.

Table A1. Descriptives.

Variable	Mean	Median	Min	Max	SD	N	High
Vote Choice = Independent Local Party	0.18	-	0	1	-	7345	Independent local party
Political Trust^a	0.50	0.53	0	1	0.24	7371	High trust
Party Participation	0.62	0.91	0	1	0.43	8549	High participation
Party Identification	0.44	0.33	0	1	0.36	9936	Higher identification
Gender = Female	0.51	-	0	1	-	10,071	Female
Class = Working Class	0.27	-	0	1	-	9819	Working Class
Year of Birth	0.61	0.60	0	1	0.18	10070	1993
Level of Urbanisation	0.16	-	0	1	-	10071	Big four municipalities
Economic Dimension	0.63	0.67	0	1	0.28	9699	Egalitarian
Moral Dimension	0.83	0.71	0	1	0.31	9641	Progressive
Religion = Protestant	0.19	-	0	1	-	10045	Protestant
Religion = Catholic	0.26	-	0	1	-	10045	Catholic

^aH = 0.46; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.74

Table A2. Alternative binomial regression results.

Model	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
Period	1986–2010	1986–2010	1994–2010	1994–2010	1994–2010	1994–2010	1994–2010	1994–2010
Political Trust	-	−0.82***	-	−0.81***	-	−0.73***	−0.64***	−0.70***
		(0.22)		(0.19)		(0.19)	(0.20)	(0.19)
Party ParticipationDK=NA	−0.61***	−0.53***	-	-	-	-	-	-
	(0.17)	(0.17)
Party Participation	-	-	-	-	−0.70***	−0.67***	−0.67**	−0.69***
					(0.10)	(0.10)	(0.10)	(0.10)
Party Identification	−0.99***	−0.92***	−1.48***	−1.36***	−1.16***	−1.10***	−1.10***	−1.14***
	(0.14)	(0.14)	(0.13)	(0.13)	(0.13)	(0.13)	(0.13)	(0.14)
Economic Dimension	0.04	0.06	−0.04	−0.00	−0.14	−0.11	−0.09	−0.10
	(0.18)	(0.18)	(0.17)	(0.17)	(0.17)	(0.17)	(0.17)	(0.17)
Moral Dimension	0.50***	0.50***	0.39**	0.39**	0.46***	0.46***	0.47**	0.58***
	(0.16)	(0.16)	(0.15)	(0.15)	(0.15)	(0.15)	(0.15)	(0.15)
Migration Dimension	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.32*	-
							(0.17)
Religion = Catholic	0.68***	0.67***	0.71***	0.70***	0.74***	0.74***	0.72***	0.70***
	(0.10)	(0.11)	(0.09)	(0.09)	(0.09)	(0.10)	(0.09)	(0.09)
Gender = Female	−0.28***	−0.28**	−0.16*	−0.15**	−0.17**	−0.16*	−0.15*	−0.17*
	(0.10)	(0.10)	(0.08)	(0.08)	(0.08)	(0.08)	(0.09)	(0.09)
Class = Working Class	−0.06	−0.12	0.23**	0.17*	0.21**	0.15	0.14	0.09
	(0.12)	(0.12)	(0.10)	(0.10)	(0.10)	(0.10)	(0.09)	(0.10)
Year of Birth	0.73**	1.04***	0.47*	0.79**	0.35	0.66**	0.69**	0.60**
	(0.31)	(0.32)	(0.28)	(0.29)	(0.28)	(0.29)	(0.29)	(0.29)
Urbanisation	−0.90***	−0.90***	−0.97***	−0.96***	−0.98***	−0.97***	−0.96***	-
	(0.18)	(0.18)	(0.15)	(0.15)	(0.15)	(0.15)	(0.15)
Urbanisation5-point scale	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	−1.47***
								(0.14)
Intercept	−1.55***	−1.40***	−1.48***	−1.30***	−1.12**	−0.98***	−1.28***	−0.46*
	(0.30)	(0.30)	(0.26)	(0.26)	(0.26)	(0.26)	(0.31)	(0.27)
AIC	2964	2951	3743	3727	3699	3686	3673	3612
N Years	5	5	4	4	4	4	4	4
N	3830	3830	4242	4242	4242	4242	4230	4242
Variance of the Random	0.00	0.00	0.02	0.01	0.01	0.00	0.00	0.00
Intercept	(0.01)	(0.00)	(0.13)	(0.12)	(0.08)	(0.06)	(0.04)	(0.09)
Model	9	10	11	12	13	14
Period	1986	1986	1986; 1998–2010	1986; 1998–2010	1986; 1998–2010	1986; 1998–2010
Political Trust	0.19	0.02	-	−0.78***	-	−0.75***
	(0.55)	(0.56)		(0.20)		(0.20)
Party Participation	−0.70**	−0.80***	-	-	−0.74***	−0.73***
	(0.30)	(0.31)			(0.11)	(0.11)
Party Identification	−0.77**	−0.89**	−1.39***	−1.32***	−1.08***	−1.02***
	(0.37)	(0.38)	(0.13)	(0.13)	(0.14)	(0.14)
Economic Dimension	0.78**	0.82**	0.16	0.15	0.07	0.07
	(0.36)	(0.36)	(0.17)	(0.17)	(0.17)	(0.17)
Moral Dimension	0.36	0.57*	0.35*	0.37**	0.43***	0.45***
	(0.39)	(0.39)	(0.16)	(0.16)	(0.16)	(0.15)
Religion = Catholic	0.54**	0.46*	0.37***	0.36***	0.42***	0.41***
	(0.25)	(0.25)	(0.10)	(0.10)	(0.10)	(0.10)
Region = South	-	-	0.75***	0.76***	0.76***	0.77***
			(0.10)	(0.10)	(0.10)	(0.10)
Gender = Female	−0.54**	−0.52**	−0.18**	−0.17**	−0.20**	−0.20
	(0.24)	(0.24)	(0.09)	(0.09)	(0.09)	(0.09)
Class = Working Class	−0.45	−0.50*	0.15	0.08	0.13	0.07
	(0.27)	(0.28)	(0.10)	(0.10)	(0.10)	(0.10)
Year of Birth	2.59***	2.58***	0.72**	1.02***	0.55*	0.85***
	(0.90)	(0.90)	(0.29)	(0.30)	(0.28)	(0.29)
Urbanisation	0.14	-	−0.60***	−0.60***	−0.62***	−0.61
	(0.39)		(0.15)	(0.15)	(0.16)	(0.16)
Urbanisation13-point scale	-	−1.65***	-	-	-	-
		(0.47)
Intercept	−2.83***	−1.81***	−1.90***	−1.71***	−1.49***	−1.31***
	(0.68)	(0.70)	(0.26)	(0.26)	(0.26)	(0.26)
AIC	512	499	3489	3476	3446	3433
N Years	-	-	4	4	4	4
N	763	763	4023	4023	4023	4023
Variance of the Random	-	-	0.02	0.01	0.00	0.00
Intercept			(0.14)	(0.11)	(0.06)	(0.00)

Voerman, G., and S. Otjes. 2018. “De Terugkeer Van De Lokale Partij.” In Een Goede Raad. Stand Van De Lokale Democratie Na De Gemeenteraadsverkiezingen Van 2018, edited by A. W. Heringa, 16–26. The Hague: Montesquieu Institute.

 Google Scholar

SCB. 2007. Almänna Valen 2006. Del 3 Kommunfullmäktige Den 17 September 2006. Stockholm: Statistika Centralbyrån.

 Google Scholar

Valmyndigheten. 2018. “Val till Kommunfullmäktige.” Stockholm: Valmyndigheten. Accessed 11 July 2018. data.val.se

 Google Scholar

SSB. 2018. Kommunestyrevalget. Oslo: Statistisk Sentralbyrå.

 Google Scholar

LRP. 2015. Die Kommunalwahlen in Rheinland-Pfalz Am 25. Mai 2014. Bad Ems: LRP.

 Google Scholar

ITNW. 2018. “Landesdatenbank NRW Düsseldorf: Information Und Technik Nordrhein-Westfalen.” Accessed 11 July 2018. www.landesdatenbank.nrw.de

 Google Scholar

BLS. 2018. “Kommunalwahlen in Bayern” München: Bayerische Landesamt für Statistik Accessed 11 July 2018. wahlen.bayern.de

 Google Scholar

LSN. 2018. “Datenbank Hannover: Landesamt Für Statistik Niedersachsen.” Accessed 11 July 2018. statistik.niedersachsen.de

 Google Scholar

Hin, M., and D. Eisenreich. 2010. “Endgültige Ergebnisse Der Gemeinderats- Und Kreistagswahlen 2009 in Baden-Württemberg.” Statistische Monatsheften Baden-Württemberg 15 (1): 46–50.

 Google Scholar

SLBW. 2018. “Gemeinderatswahlen.” Accessed 11 July 2018. www.statistik-bw.de

 Google Scholar

CDU. 2006. “Ergebnisse Der Kommunalwahlen in Hessen Seit 1946.” Accessed 11 July 2018. http://www.mpifg.de/projects/demokratie/Daten/Wahlen/Wahldokumentation_kommunalwahl_hessen.pdf

 Google Scholar

HSL. 2018. “Endgültiges Ergebnis Der Kommunalwahl Am 6. März 2016 Land Hessen.” Wiesbaden: Hessisches Statistisches Landesamt. Accessed 11 July 2018. statistik-hessen.de

 Google Scholar

SAHSH. 2013. “Landesergebnis.” Accessed 11 July 2018. http://www.mpifg.de/projects/demokratie/Daten/Grossstaedte/Kommunalwahlen%20Schleswig-Holstein%202013.pdf

 Google Scholar

FNS. 2012. “Informationen Zur Landtagswahl in Schleswig-Holstein. Ergebnisse Und Analyse.” Accessed 11 July 2018. http://www.mpifg.de/projects/demokratie/Daten/Wahlen/Kommunalwahlen%20Schleswig-Holstein.pdf

 Google Scholar

LZD. 2009. “Gemeinderatswahlen 1946 Bis 2009 Im Saarland.” Accessed 11 July 2018. https://www.saarland.de/dokumente/thema_wahlen/GW4609_Land.pdf

 Google Scholar

LZD. 2014. “Landesergebnis Saarland.” Accessed 11 July 2018. http://www.statistikextern.saarland.de/wahl/internet_saar/KT_SL/landesergebnisse

 Google Scholar