In any process of voting in a legislature or a head of state, there is a debate about whether to use the word "election" in the singular or the plural.

In the United States, it is fair to speak of "elections" when a president is chosen, on the basis of the argument that the procedure involves party primaries, the popular vote and, as by now few can forget, the formal sitting of the electoral college.

It may be argued that when the electorates of the 27 member states of the European Union were invited to the polls from June 4 to 7 to choose a new European Parliament, this was an election, a single-stage process of voting in a legislature with no second rounds and no electoral college or other complications.

And yet, no. First, the very fact that the elections were held over four days, in part because of varying national practices about when elections customarily are held – some countries, for example, traditionally vote on Sundays – made it a process of elections. Even more profoundly, the fact that voting was held on a national basis, even if EU rules allow citizens of one state to register to vote in another, if they meet residence requirements. Add to this the fact that the eligible voting age is not the same across the bloc.

While it is true that in the European Parliament, political birds of a feather flock together in parliamentary groups based on broadly similar places in the spectrum, at national level the branding of candidates tended to be by their membership of domestic political parties, rather than by their affiliations to parliamentary groups.

Perhaps most tellingly, trends were for individual elections in member states to be fought on domestic political issues, or simply as barometers of national sentiment towards individual governments.

Reacting to the results on June 8, European Commission President Jose Barroso made reference to this last point.

National politicians, "whose debates all too often remain largely national in their focus, must acknowledge themselves more consistently as both national and European actors," Barroso said.

The record low turnout across the bloc – an average made up of widely varying turnouts from the highs in places like Malta to the lows in Romania – may be a measure, however, that the European Parliament still does not occupy much of a place in the popular imagination.

In 2008, the latest in a series of conferences was held, in Sofia in this case, involving EU officials and journalists in a debate about how to raise the profile of the European Parliament.

While there has been cheerleading that it has more influence than many may believe – European Parliament President Hans-Gert Poettering referred to this in a pre-election call to people to turn out to vote – it appears doubtful that many see it as anything much more than a talkshop led by the nose by the European Commission and European Council; a club of which the "lavish" salaries, benefits and expenses perks make it well worthwhile to be a member.

The media has a role in this too. Ahead of the election, most coverage of the European Parliament elections by media in individual countries tended to have a domestic, parochial focus. As results came out, unofficially and then officially on the night of June 7, domestic media tended to cover their own countries’ decisions as if it were a national election that had been conducted. Throughout the elections, it was difficult to find a one-stop summary at any given time, giving an overall summary of the EU-wide picture: notable exceptions would be those media whose very mandate it is to give such broader views, with those deserving of honorable mentions including the BBC, euronews, and wire agencies Reuters and the Associated Press. In Bulgaria, broadcast media and news websites tended to focus almost exclusively on national results with notes on what was going on elsewhere in the EU mentioned largely only as an afterthought (allowing for self-interest and indulging in self-promotion, The Sofia Echo’s website was one of very few exceptions).

According to Ivan Krastev, who is in the very top rank of Bulgaria’s political analysts, "Almost everywhere within the European Parliament elections, national themes happened to take the lead. Bulgaria is no exception. These elections marked higher turnout compared to the previous ones, yet still not particularly high. This is the direct result of the fact that people viewed them as the first round of the national general elections due in July".

Interviewed by Bulgarian National Radio, political scientist Antonii Todorov said: "Very few people came to the awareness that the effect of these elections should be not simply to fill in the seats of the European Parliament, but aim at portioning out Europe’s political space.

"In other words we cast our votes either for the European People’s Party (EPP) or the Party of European Socialists or the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats in Europe. This is the factual result of the elections. But the Bulgarian public to a great extent failed to understand what it was all about.

"And yet it is very important what European Parliament elections are all about," Todorov said.

"It will certainly affect us. Considering the results throughout Europe and the fact that many skeptical conservative rightist parties, outside the EPP, are gaining momentum, I am led to think that even the large fractions in the EP would keep that fact in mind and would perhaps try to slow down the rush towards a federalisation of Europe. The enlargement of the EU, we should admit, would be postponed until the moment when the Lisbon Treaty would have come into force, allowing the function of the new institutional mechanisms of the Union," he said.