New Approach

  • Christopher Kirkland


This chapter highlights some of the weaknesses of shoehorning “new” elections into a model designed to demonstrate differences between national and European elections. It argues that using the terminology of first- and second-order elections is problematic given the new elections introduced to Britain over the last two decades. Rather than relying upon such terminology, it outlines how a more holistic classification of elections may be achieved and argues that in order to achieve this we should broaden our analysis of groups involved from simply voters to include political parties and the media. As well as offering a new method for understanding British elections, it argues that rather than distinguishing between first- and second-order a more accurate classification would differentiate elections based on geography—between national and subnational elections.


Political parties Subnational elections The media Turnout Voters 


  1. Arnett, G. (2016, February 1). MPs Ignorant of Key EU Institutions—Poll. The Guardian. Accessed 6 Sept 2019.
  2. Asquith, A. (2008). A Bullock, a Monkey and Robocop: An Assessment of the Directly Elected Mayor in English Local Government. Policy and Politics, 36(1), 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Audickas, L., Dempsey, N., & Keen, R. (2018, September 3). House of Commons Library Briefing Paper Number SN05125 Membership of UK Political Parties. Retrieved from House of Commons Library:
  4. Berkowitz, D. A. (1997). Social Meanings of News. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Blais, A., & Carty, R. K. (1990). Does Proportional Representation Foster Voter Turnout? European Journal of Political Research, 18, 167–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bogdanor, V. (2004). The Constitution and the Party System in the Twentieth Century. Parliamentary Affairs, 57(4), 717–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark, A. (2018). Political Parties in the UK. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen, S., & Young, J. (1973). The Manufacture of News: Social Problems, Deviance and the Mass Media. London: Constable.Google Scholar
  9. Cook, F. L., Tyler, T. R., Goetz, E. G., Gordon, M. T., Protess, D., Leff, D. R., & Molotoch, H. L. (1983). Media and Agenda Setting: Effects on the Public, Interest Groups Leaders, Policy Makers and Policy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47(1), 16–35.Google Scholar
  10. Dalton, R. J., Farrell, D. M., & McAllister, I. (2011). Political Parties and Democratic Linkage: How Parties Organize Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dearing, J. W., & Rodger, E. M. (1996). Agenda Setting. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Dery, D. (2000). Agenda Setting and Problem Definition. Policy Studies, 21(1), 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. English, P., Grasso, M. T., Buraczynska, B., Karampampas, S., & Temple, L. (2016). Convergence on Crisis? Comparing Labour and Conservative Framing of the Economic Crisis in Britain, 2008–14. Politics & Policy, 44(3), 577–603.Google Scholar
  14. Fenwick, J., & Elcock, H. (2014). Elected Mayors: Leading Locally? Local Government Studies, 40(4), 581–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ford, R., & Goodwin, M. (2014). Revolt on the Right: Explaining the Support for the Radical Right in Britain. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harrop, M., & Miller, W. (1987). Elections and Voters: A Comparative Introduction. Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heath, A., McLean, I., Taylor, B., & Curtice, J. (1999). Between First and Second Order: A Comparison of Voting Behaviour in European and Local Elections in Britain. European Journal of Political Research, 35(3), 389–414.Google Scholar
  18. Hix, S. (2002). Constitutional Agenda-Setting Through Discretion in Rule Interpretation: Why the European Parliament Won at Amsterdam. British Journal of Political Science, 32(2), 259–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ipsos MORI. (2016, January). Economist/Ipsos MORI January 2016 Issues Index. Ipsos MORI. Accessed 9 Dec 2018.
  20. Karp, J. A., & Danducci, S. (2010). The Impact of Proportional Representation on Turnout: Evidence from New Zealand. Australian Journal of Political Science, 34(3), 363–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lucas, C. (2017, November 1). Caroline Lucas: A Fairer Electoral System Would Tackle Why People Don’t Vote. Electoral Reform Society. Accessed 9 Dec 2018.
  22. Mawby, R. I., & Smith, K. (2016). Civilian Oversight of the Police in England and Wales: The Election of Police and Crime Commissioners in 2012 and 2016. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 19(1), 23–30.Google Scholar
  23. McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The Agenda Setting Function of Mass Media. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Musson, S., John, P., & Tickell, A. (2009). Campaigning and the Media: The North-East Referendum of November 2004. In M. Sandford (Ed.), The Northern Veto (pp. 72–87). Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Norris, P. (2003, August). Will New Technology Boost Turnout? Evaluating Experiments in E-Voting V: All-Postal Voting Facilities in UK Local Elections (KSG Working Papers Series No. RWP03-034) [online].
  26. Pratchett, L., & Wingfield, M. (2004). Electronic Voting in the United Kingdom: Lessons and Limitations from the UK Experience. In N. Kersting & H. Baldershiem (Eds.), Electronic Voting and Democracy (pp. 172–189). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  27. Rose, R. (1984). Do Parties Make a Difference? London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  28. Schakel, A. H., & Jeffrey, C. (2013). Are Regional Elections Really ‘Second-Order’ Elections? Regional Studies, 47(3), 323–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schattschneider, E. E. (1942). Party Government. New York: Rinehart.Google Scholar
  30. Schmitt, H. (2005). The European Parliament Elections of June 2004: Still Second-Order? West European Politics, 28(3), 650–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Selb, P. (2009). A Deeper Look at the Proportionality—Turnout Nexus. Comparative Political Studies, 42(4), 527–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shoemaker, P. J. (1997). A New Gatekeeping Model. In D. Berkowirz (Ed.), Social Meaning of News (pp. 57–62). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Van Gorp, B. (2006). The Constructionist Approach to Framing: Bringing Culture Back In. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 60–78.Google Scholar
  34. Weaver, David H. (2007). Thoughts on Agenda Setting, Framing and Priming. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 142–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. White, D. M. (1997). The ‘Gatekeeper’: A Case Study in the Selection of News. In D. Berkowitz (Ed.), Social Meanings of News (pp. 63–71). London: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher Kirkland
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Humanities, Religion and PhilosophyYork St John UniversityYorkUK

Personalised recommendations