Second-Order Election

The conceptual framework concerning second-order elections was developed by Karlheinz Reif and Herman Schmitt in the article “Nine Second-Order National Elections” (1980). In one of the first systematic studies of direct elections to the European Parliament, Reif and Schmitt draw an important distinction between two categories of elections: (1) First-order elections offer voters the critical choice of who should govern the country. This includes elections in parliamentary systems such as Great Britain, Sweden, and Germany and presidential elections in countries such as the United States, Venezuela, and the Philippines. (2) Second-order elections, in contrast, are less important since they determine the outcome for lesser offices, such as regional, municipal, and local officials in parliamentary systems and legislative representatives in presidential systems.

Based on this distinction Reif and Schmitt showed that European parliamentary elections clearly fall into the second-order election category. Elections to the European Parliament are seen by both political parties, mass media, and voters as less important compared to the first-ranked national elections. The main explanation for these attitudes can be found in the institutional framework. There is no government chosen based on the results of the voter turnout, and there are few all-European campaigns conducted. The party system on the EU level is rather underdeveloped, and the European Union still has limited authority compared to the national parliaments.

A number of characteristics of second-order elections are pointed out in the literature: (1) lower level of voting turnout; (2) the outcome is strongly related to the popularity of national parties within a particular country, rather than around particular issues, individual candidates, or specific events; (3) in a cyclical pattern, governing parties often experience a fall in support in second-order elections and can therefore be characterized as “barometer-elections,” as a poll on how the national government is doing their job and how the economy develops; (4) minor parties, often with charismatic leaders, are usually the main beneficiaries of any temporary protest vote against the government.