| V1 |
DDA STUDY NUMBER |
| V2 |
YEAR |
| V3 |
Bus number. |
| V4 |
Document number. |
| V5 |
Sequence number. |
| V6 |
101: Month. |
| V7 |
102-106: Respondent identification number. |
| V8 |
Weight variable |
| V9 |
108: Urbanization. |
| V10 |
112: Sex. |
| V11 |
112: Age. |
| V12 |
112: Marital status. |
| V13 |
113: Respondents occupational status. |
| V14 |
114: Education. |
| V15 |
114: Income of respondent. |
| V16 |
115: Total family income. |
| V17 |
116: Supporters occupation. |
| V18 |
117: Total number of persons (in household). |
| V19 |
117: Type of dwelling. |
| V20 |
118: Number of children under 15 years. |
| V21 |
118: Number of adults in household (15 years or more). |
| V22 |
118: Respondents positions in household. |
| V23 |
118: Respondents positions in household. |
| V24 |
118: Respondents positions in household. |
| V25 |
119: Position of housewife. |
| V26 |
119: Social group. |
| V27 |
122-123: For which party would you vote in case of a general election tomorrow? |
| V28 |
167A: Are you for or against that Denmark enters the Common Market? |
| V29 |
167B: If Norway does not become a member of the Common Market, are you then for or against that Denmark enters? |
| V30 |
167C: Have you heard or read that Denmarks position about the Common Market will be decided at a referen dum? |
| V31 |
167D: The Folketing (the Parliament) has adopted to enter the Common Market provided that England be comes a member. Do you then think that it is correct or not to have this question decided by a binding referendum? |
| V32 |
168A: Do you think that the population, in general, has sufficient background and knowledge to judge whether or not Denmark should become a member of the Common Market? |
| V33 |
168B: Have you got a TV in your household? |
| V34 |
168C: There has been talked very much about introducing a new TV-programme II without advertising, so that we get two TV-programmes to choose between. If this means that the price of the TV-licence will be doubled, do you then think that we should introduce a new TV programme II? |
| V35 |
168D: If the price of the TV-licence is only raised by 50 %, do you then think a new TV-programme II should be introduced? duced? |
| V36 |
169A: If the price of the TV-licence is only raised by 10 %, for example, do you then think a new TV-programme II should be introduced? |
| V37 |
169B: Do you think that a new TV-programme II under no circumstances should be introduced? |
| V38 |
169C: If a new TV-programme II could be paid by way of ad vertising exclusively, would you then be for or against an extra TV-programme with advertising? |
| V39 |
169D: It has been decided to abolish the Radio and TV-licence in such a way that the Broadcasting System of Denmark is paid by the State, i.e. financed through the taxes. - Do you think this is reasonable or not that the State through taxes pays the Broadcasting System of Denmark instead of using the present system of payment for Radio and TV-licence? |
| V40 |
170A: In Denmark we have compulsory military service for all men, but for reasons of conscience one can object to do this service. Do you think it is reasonable or not to ob ject to do military service for reasons of conscience? |
| V41 |
170B: Up to now conscientious objectors have had a longer service than the other servicemen in order that they should not be tempted to evade military service. Do you find that it is reasonable to give conscientious objec tors special burdens in order not to tempt them to evade compulsory service? |
| V42 |
170C: The number of conscientous objectors is rising consi derably and is expected to rise continuously. Do you think we should try to prevent this development? |
| V43 |
170D: Should they be given heavier burdens or should conscientious objectors be forbidden completely? |
| V44 |
171A: Do you think that conscientious objectors are moral ly better, inferior or are they just as ordinay service men? |
| V45 |
171B: And now another question. To dodge the taxis is punishable and is punished in various ways, ranging from a fine to prison. Do you think that people consider tax evasion to be more or less immoral than imposture towards a person or a firm? |
| V46 |
171C: A motion will now be moved about an increase of the punishment on tax evasion. The punishment so far has been up to 2 years in prison. It will be moved to increase this to four years in prison. Are you for or against this motion? |
| V47 |
172A: Do you think that the burden of taxation is reasonable divided? |
| V48 |
172B: What, in your opinion, is the main reason for this, the present Income Tax Acts or the tax evasion? |
| V49 |
172C: (IF RIGHT OF VOTING) And finally a question of the so-called barrier rule. In Denmark, as other countries, it is a rule that the parties nominated for a general election must obtain a certain percentage of the votes in order to be re presented by seats in the Parliament. In Denmark the rule is in force that a party must obtain at least 2% of the votes. Did you know this rule? |
| V50 |
172D: Even if a party is notified with the necessary signatures and no matter where the limit should be drawn, do you then think it is reasonable or not that there has been drawn a limit for how small the parties may be to get representation in the Parliament? |
| V51 |
173: (IF REASONABLE) - Why? We get too many parties/small parties/chaos of small parties/too many parties/small parties without im portance/can get no influence/we have a sufficient number of parties. |
| V52 |
173: (IF REASONABLE) - Why? Too many small parties destroy the co-operation/harm the big ones/split the votes/waste of votes/difficult to form an efficient government/many small parties cannot cooperate/too many to decide/the small parties work confusing. |
| V53 |
173: (IF REASONABLE) - Why? They will not be able to get influence/their influence is too small all the same (the small parties). |
| V54 |
173: (IF REASONABLE) - Why? Supporter of two-party-system. |
| V55 |
173: (IF REASONABLE) - Why? Other answers. |
| V56 |
173: (IF REASONABLE) - Why? Dont know. |
| V57 |
174: (IF NOT REASONABLE) - Why not? All parties should be able to get represented/when they have collected a sufficient number of signatures they should be represented/all votes must be heard/ all should have a chance/everybody nust be allowed to decide/it is wrong to exclude the small parties. |
| V58 |
174: (IF NOT REASONABLE) - Why not? Other answers. |
| V59 |
174: (IF NOT REASONABLE) - Why not? Dont know. |
| V60 |
175A: The barrier limit is now of 2%. Do you think this is allright or should it be higher or possibly lower? |
| V61 |
175B: Has the barrier limit rule ever prevented you from voting for a particular party, because you felt it was no use voting? |
| V62 |
176: Which of the following parties would you possibly have voted for? The Communist Party. |
| V63 |
176: Which of the following parties would you possibly have voted for? The Single-Tax Party. |
| V64 |
176: Which of the following parties would you possibly have voted for? The Liberal Centre Party. |
| V65 |
176: Which of the following parties would you possibly have voted for? The Peace-Political Peoples Party. |
| V66 |
176: Which of the following parties would you possibly have voted for? The Left-Wing Socialists. |
| V67 |
176: Which of the following parties would you possibly have voted for? The Christian Peoples Party. |
| V68 |
176: Which of the following parties would you possibly have voted for? The Slesvig Party. |
| V69 |
176: Which of the following parties would you possibly have voted for? The Liberal Independent Party. |
| Løbenummer |
Ikke betydningsbærende unikt løbenummer skabt under aflevering til arkiv |