Advertisement

Political Behavior

, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp 469–489 | Cite as

How Initiatives Don’t Always Make Citizens: Ballot Initiatives in the American States, 1978–2004

  • Daniel Schlozman
  • Ian Yohai
Original Paper

Abstract

Advocates claim that when citizens can make law through voter initiatives, they become better citizens. This paper puts that claim into context. Using data from the Current Population Survey November Supplement and American National Election Studies for each election between 1978 and 2004, it demonstrates that voter initiatives in the American states have limited effects on turnout, and on political knowledge and efficacy. Initiatives increase voters’ likelihood of turning out to vote in six of seven midterm elections under study, but show no effect on turnout at presidential elections. For knowledge among non-voters and for political efficacy among all respondents, the results show null effects; for knowledge among voters, they indicate modest effects.

Keywords

Initiatives Behavior Citizenship Direct democracy 

Notes

Acknowledgement

We thank Mark Smith for providing data, and Zoltan Hajnal, Gary King, Kay Schlozman, Caroline Tolbert, anonymous referees, and participants in the Harvard American Politics Research Workshop and the 2006 Midwest Political Science Meetings for helpful comments. Authors’ names listed alphabetically.

Supplementary material

11109_2008_9062_MOESM1_ESM.doc (2.2 mb)
(DOC 2230 kb)

References

  1. Aldrich, J. (1993). Rational choice and turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 246–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berelson, B. R., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & McPhee, W. N. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Book of the States (1978–2004). Lexington, Ky.: Council of State Governments.Google Scholar
  5. Bowler, S., & Donovan, T. (2002). Democracy, institutions and attitudes about citizen influence on government. British Journal of Political Science, 32, 371–390.Google Scholar
  6. Budge, I. (2001). Political parties in direct democracy. In M. Mendelsohn & A. Parkin (Eds.), Referendum democracy: citizens, elites and deliberation in referendum campaigns (pp. 67–87). Houndsmill, Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  7. Cain, B. E., & Miller, K. P. (2001). The populist legacy: Initiatives and the undermining of representative government. In L. J. Sabato, H. R. Ernst, & B. A. Larson (Eds.), Dangerous democracy?: The battle over ballot initiatives in America (pp. 33–61). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  8. Campbell, D. E., & Monson, J. Q. (forthcoming). The religion card: Gay marriage and the 2004 presidential election. Public Opinion Quarterly.Google Scholar
  9. Ceasar, J., & Busch, A. (1993). Upside down and inside out: The 1992 elections and American politics. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  10. Donovan, T., & Smith, D. A. (2004). Turning on and turning out: Assessing the individual-level effects of ballot measures. Paper presented at the Fourth Annual Conference on State Politics and Policy, Kent State University.Google Scholar
  11. Everson, D. H. (1981). The effects of initiatives on voter turnout: A comparative state analysis. Western Political Quarterly, 34, 415–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fishkin, J. S. (1995). The voice of the people: Public opinion and democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gerber, E. R. (1999). The populist paradox: Interest group influence and the promise of direct legislation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gilens, M., Glaser, J., & Mendelberg, T. (2001). Having a say: Political efficacy in the context of direct democracy. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  15. Greene, W. H. (2000). Econometric analysis (4th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  16. Hamilton, A., Jay, J., & Madison, J. (2000 [1788]). In R. Scigliano (Ed.), The federalist. New York: Modern Library.Google Scholar
  17. Hero, R. E., & Tolbert, C. J. (2004). Minority voices and citizen attitudes about government responsiveness in the American states: Do social and institutional context matter? British Journal of Political Science, 34, 109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hero, R. E., & Tolbert, C. J. (2005). Exploring minority political efficacy: Considering the impact of social and institutional context. In G. M. Segura & S. Bowler (Eds.), Diversity in democracy: Minority representation in the United States (pp. 170–189). Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
  19. Huber, P. J. (1967). The behavior of maximum likelihood estimates under nonstandard conditions. In Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, vol. 1 (pp. 221–223). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  20. Initiative & Referendum Institute. (n.d.). Statewide voter initiatives since 1904. Accessed 20 March 2006 at http://www.iandrinstitute.org.
  21. Initiative & Referendum Institute. (2002). Initiative & referendum institute’s November 5, 2002, general election post election report. Accessed 20 March 2006 at http://www.iandrinstitute.org.
  22. Initiative & Referendum Institute. (2003). November 4, 2003, statewide ballot questions. Accessed 20 March 2006 at http://www.iandrinstitute.org.
  23. Initiative & Referendum Institute. (2004). 2004 Election summary. Accessed 20 March 2006 at http://www.iandrinstitute.org.
  24. Kesler, C. R. (2002). The founders’ views of direct democracy and representation. In E. Abrams (Ed.), Democracy: How direct? Views from the founding era and the polling era (pp. 1–18). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  25. King, G., Tomz, M., & Wittenberg, J. (2000). Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 347–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lacey, R. J. (2005). The electoral allure of direct democracy: The effect of initiative salience on voting, 1990–1996. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 5, 168–181.Google Scholar
  27. Lupia, A. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections. American Political Science Review, 88, 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. (1998). The democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Magleby, D. B. (1984). Direct legislation: Voting on ballot propositions in the United States. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Mansbridge, J. J. (1983). Beyond adversary democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Mansbridge, J. J. (1999). On the idea that participation makes better citizens. In S. L. Elkin, & K. E. Soltan (Eds.), Citizen competence and democratic institutions (pp. 291–326). University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Matsusaka, J. G. (2004). For the many and not the few: The initiative, public policy, and American democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. Mendelsohn, M., & Cutler, F. (2000). The effect of referendums on democratic citizens: Information, polarization, efficacy and tolerance. British Journal of Political Science, 30, 685–698.Google Scholar
  34. Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Nicholson, S. P. (2005). Voting the Agenda: Candidates, elections, and ballot propositions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Niemi, R. G., Craig, S. C., & Mattei, F. (1991). Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1988 national election study. American Political Science Review, 85, 1407–1413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Rogers, W. H. (1993). sg17: Regression standard errors in clustered samples. Stata Technical Bulletin, 13, 19–23.Google Scholar
  39. Schumpeter, J. (1942). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  40. Sharkansky, Ira (1969). The utility of Elazar’s political culture: A research note. Polity, 2, 66–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Silver, B. D., Anderson, B. A., & Abramson, P. R. (1986). Who overreports voting? American Political Science Review, 86, 613–624.Google Scholar
  42. Smith, M. A. (2001). The contingent effects of ballot initiatives and Candidate races on turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 700–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Smith, M. A. (2002). Ballot initiatives and the democratic citizen. Journal of Politics, 64, 892–903.Google Scholar
  44. Smith, D. A., DeSantis, M., & Kassel, J. (2006). Same-sex marriage ballot measures and the 2004 presidential election. State and Local Government Review, 38, 78–91.Google Scholar
  45. Smith, D. A., & Tolbert, C. J. (2004). Educated by initiative: The effects of direct democracy on citizens and political organizations in the American States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  46. Tolbert, C. J., Grummel, J. A., & Smith, D. A. (2001). The effects of ballot initiatives on voter turnout in the American states. American Politics Research, 29, 625–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tolbert, C. J., McNeal, R. S., & 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
  48. Tolbert, C. J., Smith, D. A. (2005). The educative effects of ballot initiatives on voter turnout. American Politics Research, 33, 283–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1982). Statistical abstract of the United States (103rd ed.). Washington: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  50. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2006a). American FactFinder Accessed 9 May 2006 at http://factfinder.census.gov.
  51. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2006b). Annual Population Estimates by State. Accessed 9 May 2006 at http://www.census.gov/popest/archives.
  52. Waters M. D. (Ed.) (2003). Initiative and referendum almanac. Durham: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
  53. White, H. (1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica, 48, 817–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wolfinger, R. E., & Rosenstone, S. J. (1980). Who votes? New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GovernmentHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations