expected to hold true in the European elections ; the nomination of lead candidates was expected to personalise the election campaign and , in turn , boost voter turnout . It had been suggested that open candidacies and rivalry for the position of the Commission President would liven up electoral competition and build a greater connection between voters ’ choices and the make-up of the EU institutions . In short , the aim was to raise the stakes of European elections and personalise European politics , thereby increasing turnout and ultimately strengthening the EU ’ s democratic legitimacy .
While the overall motivation behind the lead candidate process was to bolster the EU ’ s democratic credentials , Parliament ’ s willingness to support the process was also driven by its interest in strengthening its own position within the EU ’ s institutional set-up . The issue of interinstitutional dynamics and the division of labour between EU institutions is beyond the scope of this chapter . Having said that , the lead candidate process cannot be discussed without touching upon this key dimension , which is addressed briefly in the final section of this chapter .
The ( lack of ) impact
In the 2014 elections , turnout remained low , in fact hitting an all-time low at 42.61 % ( compared to 42 . 97 % in 2009 ). EU citizens were largely unaware of the lead candidate system and the indirect influence that their vote would have on the selection of the Commission President . An in-house study by the European Parliament revealed that merely 5 % of voters in 2014 identified ‘ influencing the choice of the President of the European Commission ’ as their primary motivation for casting their votes 1 . Citizens were unawa-
1 . See 2014 post-election survey : European elections 2014 – analytical overview : https :// www . europarl . europa . eu / pdf / eurobarometre / 2014 / post / post _ 2014 _ survey _ analitical _ overview _ en . pdf
136