In this issue Daudt and Hoogerwerf end their discussion about Hoogerwerf’s article ’The Dutch Voters and the Party System’ (Acta Politica II [1966/1967]: 4, p. 297—330), which was criticized by... Show moreIn this issue Daudt and Hoogerwerf end their discussion about Hoogerwerf’s article ’The Dutch Voters and the Party System’ (Acta Politica II [1966/1967]: 4, p. 297—330), which was criticized by Daudt (’Election Research in the Netherlands’, Acta Politica III [October 1967]: 1 ,p. 53—74) and defended by Hoogerwerf (’The Point of Research and of some Criticism , Acta Politica III [October 1967]: 1, p. 74-78). Show less
Recently, more serious election research has been done in the Netherlands than ever before. The latest additions to the growing number of election-studies concern the elections of February 15th... Show moreRecently, more serious election research has been done in the Netherlands than ever before. The latest additions to the growing number of election-studies concern the elections of February 15th 1967 for the Second Chamber of the Dutch parliament. So far, reports have been put out by the Institute for Applied Sociology of the University of Nijmegen, by the Utrecht sociologist Van Dam and by the political science division of the Free University in Amsterdam. Daudt discusses various aspects of these studies and mentions the other election studies that have been undertaken previously. Van Dam’s study is commended for his method of questioning and the quick way in which he was able to produce his first results in a television-program on the very evening of the elections. He should be more cautious, however, in drawing general conclusions from his material that was gathered only in Utrecht. He is wrong in thinking that a few social characteristics would wholly ’determine’ voting behavior. Daudt strongly objects to two aspects of Hoogerwerf’s article ’The Dutch Voters and the Party System’ (Acta Politica vol. II - 4, pp. 297—330). Hoogerwerf’s use of the ’index of affinity’ between two political parties and his typology of the political parties in the Netherlands are rejected on methodological grounds. In a rejoinder Hoogerwerf rejects Daudt’s criticism and defends his own method of analysis. Show less
The authors of the proposals for a new constitution have performed their task skilfully, but their task was ill-conceived. Technical reasons are mainly given as arguments for the drafting of the... Show moreThe authors of the proposals for a new constitution have performed their task skilfully, but their task was ill-conceived. Technical reasons are mainly given as arguments for the drafting of the Concept: the present constitution was considered to be too lengthy and inconveniently arranged. With regard to these arguments, the author fails to see why the old text, which has proved its usefulness for the past 150 years, should disappear. The interpretations provided by constitutional lawyers are at present sufficient to understand the constitution. The author objects even more to the proposed substantial innovations, such as the changes in the legislative procedure, because, as far as there has been a real input of the political parties, this input is 8 or 12 years old (Van Schaik Commission 1954, Donner Commission 1958). For the more recent developments the authors of the Concept have been guided by their own ‘civil servants’ attitude, which is a-political or even anti-political. Proposals for political innovations should be initiated by the political parties, and not by a number of anonymous civil servants. Finally, the Concept in no way solves the great political problems of our country, such as the diminishing governability of the country resulting from the insufficient operation of the patty system. Show less
