Characteristic for the Concept as a whole is its — generally laudable — curtailment and simplification. In the field of ‘public bodies’ details as well as more important principles have become... Show moreCharacteristic for the Concept as a whole is its — generally laudable — curtailment and simplification. In the field of ‘public bodies’ details as well as more important principles have become victims of this modernization. Undoubtedly this opens new and valuable possibilities for the legislator, especially in the field of municipal and provincial administration. An essential lack, however, is the omission of a clear statement of the principle and the main instruments of functional and territorial decentralization, a principle that is called a postulate’ in the explanatory statement of the Concept itself. The author deplores especially the proposed omission of the constitutional guarantee of a certain amount of autonomy of the townships and provinces, as is provided in the present constitution. He rejects the argument that no program issues, however important, should be included in the constitution. A principle such as that of decentralization, essential as it is for our legislation, deserves a place in our constitution. 'The author uses quotations from the constitutions of several European countries to demonstrate that the principle of decentralization is usually embedded in their constitutions. In a detailed, flexible constitution this principle would deserve extensive elaboration; in a constitution such as the authors of the Concept would like to see — i.e. a rigid, concise and formally juridical one —, it should at least be mentioned as a main principle. Show less
(1) The Provinciale Staten (Provincial Estates) elections of March 23, 1966 resulted in the largest shifts in the relative strength of the participating political parties after the second world war... Show more(1) The Provinciale Staten (Provincial Estates) elections of March 23, 1966 resulted in the largest shifts in the relative strength of the participating political parties after the second world war (Table I). The following points are discussed; a. The number of floating voters, the directions of their floating and their motives; b. these changes more specifically as an explanation of the losses and gains in electoral strength of four parties (Labour, Pacifist Socialist, Farmers and Liberals); c. the influence on the floating voters of the newspaper combination De Telegraaf/Het Nieuws van de Dag. (2) Use has been made of relevant questions and answers in interviews from a research project intended to clarify the nature of the floating voter as such. (3) The project being a follow-up study confined to Amsterdam the conclusions are only applicable to Amsterdam and that part of the Amsterdam electorate that already had the right to vote in May 1963. (4) As far as party choice is concerned the sample appears to be reasonably representative of election results in 1966 and 1963 (Table III). Gomplementary data on first time voters (in 1966) were obtained from another research project. Addition of these data made the sample slightly more representative (Table IV). (5) In this sample of 764 voters at least 16,05% of them must have floated to obtain the changes between 1963 and 1966 in relative strength of the parties, as represented in the sample. The actual floaters in the sample add up to 31,7% of the sample. The minimal amount of floaters sufficient to explain the shifts in the Amsterdam electorate being 15,1%, the number of floaters in that electorate must have been somewhere in the neigbourhood of 30%. That is 30% of about 90% of the total electorate, the 10% first time voters nog having been taken into account. Therefore, between 35% and 40% of the total Amsterdam electorate must, for one reason or another, have changed its electoral behaviour in 1966 as compared to its behaviour in 1963 (Table V) (6) _ 7. — 8. — 9. A survey is made of the motives of the main groups of floaters in the sample. (10) About 45% of the sample either subscribes to or regularly reads one of the two newspapers of the Telegraaf combination; 60% of the floaters in the sample are to be found in this group. A relative large number of those who floated away from the Labour Party and of those who floated towards the Farmers Party are also found in this group. The two newspapers continuously attacked the Labour Part;’ over a period of a year and gave ample coverage to the Farmers Party since 1963. Show less
This article is a descriptive analysis of some data from a national survey, consisting of interviews with 4292 Dutch voters in 64 municipalities, held by the Free University (Amsterdam) immediately... Show moreThis article is a descriptive analysis of some data from a national survey, consisting of interviews with 4292 Dutch voters in 64 municipalities, held by the Free University (Amsterdam) immediately after the general elections of February 15, 1967, A distinction is made between primary and secondary party identification. Primary party identification is measured by the questions ’To which political party do you fee closest?’ (the direction dimension) and ’How close do you feel to this party? Very close, close, not close, not close at all?’ (the intensity dimension). Secondary party identification is measured by the question: ’If the party you just mentioned did not exist, to which party would you then feel closest?’ In table 1 the answers on the latter question are combined with party choice in 1967. The abbreviations of the names of the parties and their percentages of the total vote in 1967 are: KVP = Catholic People’s Party (26.5%); PvdA = Labour Party (23,6%); VVD = People’s Party for Liberty and Democracy (10,7%); ARP = Anti-Revolutionary Party (9,9%); CHU = Christian Historical Union (8,1%); BP = Farmers Party (4,8%); PSP = Pacifist Socialist Party (2,9%); CPN = Communist Party (3,6%); SGP = State Reformed Party (2,0%); CPV = Reformed Political League (0,9%); D’66 = Democrats ’66 (4,5%). The sum of the percentage of voters of party A which are secondary identifiers of party B and the percentage of voters of party B which ate secondary identifiers of party A is called the index of the extent of affinity between two parties (at the level of the voters). The remainder after subtraction of the two percentages is called the index of the direction (one-sidedness or two-sidedness) of affinity between two parties. The aversion against other parties is measured by the question: ’Against which two parties in the Netherlands do you have most objections?’ The sum of the relevant percentages of two parties is called the index of the extent of aversion between two parties. The remainder after subtraction of the two percentages is called the index of the direction of aversion between two parties. On the basis of closed questions directed to the voters of a particular party, on their images of that party, their reasons for voting to that party, a typology of Dutch political parties is developed. The types are: principle parties (KVP, ARP, CHU, SGP, GPV), interest parties (PvdA, VVD, BP, CPN) leader parties (KVP, ARP, VVD, GPV), traditional parties (KVP, CHU, SGP), nonpolitical parties (CHU, BP) effective political parties (PvdA) and international political parties (PSP, CPN). Other data on several kinds of perceptions of voters concerning patties are added. Show less
