Who got the news? A comparison of voter's choices on European integration in mainstream versus polarised message environments

(Annelin Andersen, University of Limerick)

During the campaigns preceding the referendums on European integration in the new member states, most voters were subjected to two messages; one the official recommendation to vote for EU accession, another the conflicting view of the more dispersed advocates of a no. In a few countries, no-campaigns were either almost completely absent or had lesser resources than the yes-campaigners, which resulted in the no-message being kept off the official agenda and a more homogenous message environment. Zaller (1992) hypothesises that in environments where the elite communicates one opinion, the acceptance of this political communication depends on the voter's awareness. The more informed and politically aware the voter is, the more likely the s/he is to embrace the opinion communicated. On the other hand, when the elite is divided and the message environment polarised, the acceptance of the elite's views may fail either because it is not received, due to insufficient political awareness, or since it may be rejected if voters see it as incompatible with their political predispositions. This paper wishes to apply a deduction of Zaller's model to pre-referendum surveys in two case studies; the Czech Republic, where both yes-and no-campaigners actively participated in the debate leading to the referendum, and Slovakia, where the no-message was largely absent from the scene. Using data from the Candidate Countries Eurobarometers, this paper will explore to what extent political predispositions and awareness correlate with voter’s choices on European integration and whether the nature of the message environments will bring about different results.