Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Supersized votes: ballot length, uncertainty, and choice in direct legislation elections

  • Published:
Public Choice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

“It’s like voting a bed quilt!”

A Portland police officer, after leaving the voting booth at the 1910 Oregon state ballot which listed 32 referendums and initiatives, quoted in Bowler and Donovan ( 1998, 13).

Abstract

Voters in polities that make heavy use of direct democracy are frequently confronted with ballots that contain a multitude of propositions. Claims that direct legislation elections overwhelm voters with choices they are not competent to make should particularly apply to such demanding settings. Yet, evidence on the effects of lengthy ballots on voting behavior is scant. This study reviews theories of decision-making under uncertainty, and tests their predictions in a mixed heteroscedastic model of vote choice that is fitted to a unique collection of survey and contextual data on Swiss referendums. Increasing ballot length is demonstrated to interfere with the voters’ ability to translate their political preferences into consistent policy choices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alvarez, R. M. (1999). Information and elections. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez, R. M., & Brehm, J. (1995). American ambivalence towards abortion policy: development of a heteroskedastic probit model of competing values. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 1055–1082.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez, R. M., & Brehm, J. (1997). Are Americans ambivalent towards racial policies? American Journal of Political Science, 41, 345–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez, R. M., & Brehm, J. (2002). Hard choices, easy answers. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez, R. M., & Franklin, C. H. (1994). Uncertainty and political perceptions. Journal of Politics, 56, 671–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banducci, S. A. (1998). Searching for ideological consistency in direct legislation voting. In S. Bowler, T. Donovan & C. J. Tolbert (Eds.), Citizens as legislators. Direct democracy in the United States. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, L. M. (1986). Issue voting under uncertainty: an empirical test. American Journal of Political Science, 30, 709–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benz, M., & Stutzer, A. (2004). Are voters better informed when they have a larger say in politics? Evidence for the European Union and Switzerland. Public Choice, 119, 31–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowler, S., & Donovan, T. (1994). Information and opinion change on ballot propositions. Political Behavior, 16, 411–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowler, S., & Donovan, T. (1998). Demanding choices: opinion, voting, and direct democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowler, S., Donovan, T., & Happ, T. (1992). Ballot propositions and information costs: direct democracy and the fatigued voter. Western Political Quarterly, 45, 559–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branton, R. P. (2003). Examining individual-level voting behavior on state ballot propositions. Political Research Quarterly, 56, 367–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braumoeller, B. F. (2006). Explaining variance; or, stuck in a moment we can’t get out of. Political Analysis, 14, 268–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brockington, D. (2003). A low information theory of ballot position effect. Political Behavior, 25, 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christin, T., Hug, S., & Sciarini, P. (2002). Interest and information in referendum voting: an analysis of swiss voters. European Journal of Political Research, 41, 759–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, T. E. (1989). Direct democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darcy, R., & McAllister, I. (1990). Ballot position effects. Electoral Studies, 9, 5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downs, G. W., & Rocke, D. M. (1979). Interpreting heteroscedasticity. American Journal of Political Science, 23, 816–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, P. L., & Feeney, F. (1998). Lawmaking by initiative: issues, opinions, and comparisons. New York: Agathon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enelow, J. M., & Hinich, M. J. (1984). The spatial theory of voting. An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. J. M. Enelow, M. J. Hinich, Includes index. Bibliography: pp. 224–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. S. (1994). Direct democracy: politico-economic lessons from swiss experience. The American Economic Review, 84, 338–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, E. R. (1999). The populist paradox: interest group influence and the promise of direct legislation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, E. R., & Lupia, A. (1993). When do campaigns matter? Informed votes, the heteroscedastic logit and the responsiveness of electoral outcomes. Social science working paper 814. Pasadena: California Institute of Technology.

  • Gerber, E. R., & Lupia, A. (1995). Campaign competition and policy responsiveness in direct legislation elections. Political Behavior, 17, 287–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, A. C. (1976). Estimating regression models with multiplicative heteroscedasticity. Econometrica, 44, 461–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hug, S., & Schulz, T. (2007). Left-right positions of political parties in Switzerland. Party Politics, 13, 305–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: the endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 193–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kriesi, H. (2005). Direct democratic choice. The swiss experience. Oxford: Lexington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krosnick, J. A., & Miller, J. A. (1998). The impact of candidate name order on election outcomes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 291–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lapalombara, J. G., & Hagan, C. B. (1951). Direct legislation: an appraisal and a suggestion. American Political Science Review, 45, 400–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeDuc, L. (2002). Referendums and initiatives: the politics of direct democracy. In L. LeDuc, R. G. Niemi & P. Norris (Eds.), Comparing democracies 2. New challenges in the study of elections and voting. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, A. (1997). Unequal participation: democracy’s unresolved dilemma. American Political Science Review, 91, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupia, A. (1992). Busy voters, agenda control, and the power of information. American Political Science Review, 86, 390–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupia, A. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review, 88, 63–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupia, A., & Matsusaka, J. G. (2004). Direct democracy: new approaches to old questions. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 463–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (1998). The democratic dilemma. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magleby, D. (1984). Direct legislation: voting on ballot propositions in the United States. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsusaka, J. G. (1995). Explaining voter turnout patterns: an information theory. Public Choice, 84, 91–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsusaka, J. G. (2005). Direct democracy works. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 185–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, J. E. (1969). Voting on the propositions: ballot patterns and historical trends in California. American Political Science Review, 63, 1197–1212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson, S. P. (2003). The political environment and ballot proposal awareness. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 403–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quattrone, G. A., & Tversky, A. (1988). Contrasting rational and psychological analyses of political choice. American Political Science Review, 82, 719–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Skrondal, A. (2005). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using stata. College Station: Stata Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasbash, J., & Goldstein, H. (1994). Efficient analysis of mixed hierarchical and cross-classified random structures using a multilevel model. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 19, 337–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 7–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepsle, K. A. (1972). The strategy of ambiguity. American Political Science Review, 66, 555–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skrondal, A., & Rabe-Hesketh, S. (2004). Generalized latent variable modeling: multilevel, longitudinal and structural equation models. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sniderman, P. M., Brody, R. A., & Tetlock, P. E. (1993). Reasoning and choice. Explorations in political psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolbert, C. J., McNeal, R., & Smith, D. A. (2003). Enhancing civic engagement: the effect of direct democracy on political participation and knowledge. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 3, 23–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yatchew, A., & Griliches, Z. (1985). Specification error in probit models. Review of Economics and Statistics, 18, 134–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Politics and Administration, University of Konstanz, Universitaetsstrasse 10, 78457, Konstanz, Germany

    Peter Selb

Authors
  1. Peter Selb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Selb.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Selb, P. Supersized votes: ballot length, uncertainty, and choice in direct legislation elections. Public Choice 135, 319–336 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-007-9265-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-007-9265-7

Keywords

JEL

Search

Navigation