Advertisement

Political Behavior

, Volume 37, Issue 3, pp 567–593 | Cite as

Are Ballot Initiative Outcomes Influenced by the Campaigns of Independent Groups? A Precinct-Randomized Field Experiment Showing That They Are

  • Todd RogersEmail author
  • Joel Middleton
Original Paper

Abstract

Ballot initiatives are consequential and common, with total spending on initiative campaigns in the US rivaling that of Presidential campaigns. Past work using observational data has alternately found that initiative campaign spending cannot affect initiative outcomes, can increase the number of votes rejecting (but not approving) initiatives, or can affect outcomes in either direction. We report the first field experiment to evaluate an initiative advocacy campaign with precision. We find that campaigns can influence both rejection and approval of initiatives by changing how citizens vote, as opposed to by influencing turnout or ballot completion. Our experiment (involving around 18 % of Oregon households in 2008) studied a statewide mail program conducted by a Political Action Committee. Results further suggest that two initiatives would have passed if not for the advocacy campaign to reject them. We discuss implications for theories about direct democracy, campaign finance, and campaign effects.

Keywords

Direct democracy Campaign effects Ballot measures Field experiments 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Our Oregon for collaborating with us. We thank Josh Berezin and Kevin Looper for cooperation and assistance. We thank Analyst Institute and Catalist LLC for providing data. We thank Don Green, Max Bazerman, David Nickerson, Kevin Collins, Jennifer Green, and the Analyst Group for providing feedback. We thank Julia Kamin, Carly Robinson, and John Ternovski for help with analyses and editing.

Supplementary material

11109_2014_9282_MOESM1_ESM.docx (6.8 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 6978 kb)

References

  1. Ansolabehere, S., & Hersh, E. (2010). The quality of voter registration records: A state-by-state analysis. Cambridge, MA: Department of Government, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  2. Arceneaux, K. (2005). Using cluster randomized field experiments to study voting behavior. In D. Green and A. Gerber (Eds.), The science of voter mobilization: The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (vol 601, pp. 169–179).Google Scholar
  3. Arceneaux, K. (2007). I’m asking for your support: The effects of personally delivered campaign messages on voting decisions and opinion formation. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 2(1), 43–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowler, S., & Donovan, T. (1998). Demanding choices: Opinion and voting in direct democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  5. Broder, D. S. (2000). Democracy derailed: Initiative campaigns and the power of money. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
  6. Childers, M., & Binder, M. (2012). Engaged by the initiative? How the use of citizen initiatives increases voter turnout. Political Research Quarterly, 65(1), 93–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Converse, P. E. (2000). Assessing the capacity of mass electorates. Annual Review of Political Science, 3(1), 331–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Figueiredo, J. M., Ji, C. H., & Kousser, T. (2011). Financing direct democracy: Revisiting the research on campaign spending and citizen initiatives. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization,. doi: 10.1093/jleo/ewr007.Google Scholar
  9. Ellis, R. (2002). Democratic delusions: The initiative process in America. Lawrence: University of Kansas.Google Scholar
  10. Freedman, D. A. (2006). On the so-called ‘Huber sandwich estimator’ and ‘robust standard errors’. The American Statistician, 60(4), 229–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gabaix, X., Laibson, D., Moloche, G., & Weinberg, S. (2006). Costly information acquisition: Experimental analysis of a boundedly rational model. American Economic Review, 96(4), 1043–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Garrett, E., & Gerber, E. R. (2001). Money in the initiative and referendum process: Evidence of its effects and prospects for reform. In D. Waters (Ed.), The battle over citizen lawmaking (pp. 73–95). Durham, N.C: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gelman, A., & King, G. (1993). Why are American presidential election campaign polls so variable when votes are so predictable? British Journal of Political Science, 23(4), 409–451.Google Scholar
  14. Gerber, E. (1999). The populist paradox: Interest group influence and the promise of direct legislation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gerber, A. (2004). Does campaign spending work? Field experiments provide evidence and suggest new theory. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(5), 541–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gerber, A., & Green, D. (2000). The effects of canvassing, telephone calls, and direct mail on voter turnout: A field experiment. American Political Science Review, 94(3), 653–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gerber, A. S., Kessler, D. P., & Meredith, M. (2011). The persuasive effects of direct mail: A regression discontinuity based approach. The Journal of Politics, 73(1), 140–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Green, D. P., & Gerber, A. S. (2008). Get out the vote: How to increase voter turnout. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  19. Holbrook, T. M. (1996). Do campaigns matter?. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Initiative and Referendum Institute. (2000). http://www.iandrinstitute.org.
  21. Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  22. Keane, L., Nickerson, D. (2013). A field experiment on nonpartisan mobilization and persuasion down-ballot. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  23. Krosnick, J. A., & Kinder, D. R. (1990). Altering the foundations of support for the president through priming. The American Political Science Review, 497–512.Google Scholar
  24. Lowenstein, D. H. (1982). Campaign spending and ballot propositions: Recent experience, public choice theory and the first amendment. UCLA Law Review, 29(3), 505–641.Google Scholar
  25. Magleby, D. (1984). Direct legislation: Voting on ballot propositions in the United States. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Meredith, M., Malhotra, N. (2008). Can October surprise: A natural experiment assessing late campaign effects.” Stanford Graduate School of Business Research Paper Number 2002.Google Scholar
  27. Nicholson, S. P. (2003). The political environment and ballot proposition awareness. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 403–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Owens, J. R., & Wade, L. L. (1986). Campaign spending on California ballot propositions, trends and effects, 1924–1984. Western Political Quarterly, 39(4), 675–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rogers, T., Gerber, A. S., & Fox, C. R. (2012). Rethinking why people vote: Voting as dynamic social expression. In E. Shafir (Ed.), Behavioral foundations of policy. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Rogers, T., & Nickerson, T. W. (2013). Can inaccurate beliefs about incumbents be changed? And can reframing change votes?Google Scholar
  31. Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), 7–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schrag, P. (1998). Paradise lost: California’s experience, America’s future. New York: New Press.Google Scholar
  33. Smith, D. A. (1998). Tax crusaders and the politics of direct democracy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Smith, D. A. (2001a). Homeward bound?: Micro-level legislative responsiveness to ballot initiatives. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 1(Spring), 50–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Smith, M. (2001b). The contingent effects of ballot initiatives and candidate races on turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 45(3), 700–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smith, D. A., & Tolbert, C. J. (2004). Educated by initiative: The effects of direct democracy on citizens and political organizations in the American states. University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  37. Smith, D. A., & Tolbert, C. J. (2010). Direct democracy, public opinion, and candidate choice. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74(1), 85–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stratmann, T. (2005). Some talk: Money in politics. A (partial) review of the literature. Public Choice, 124(1–2), 135–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stratmann, T. (2006). Is spending more potent for or against a proposition? Evidence from ballot measures. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 788–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tolbert, C. J., & Smith, D. A. (2005). The educative effects of ballot initiatives on voter turnout. American Politics Research, 33(2), 283–309.Google Scholar
  41. Tolbert, C. J., Grummel, J. A., & Smith, D. A. (2001). The effect of ballot initiatives on voter turnout in the American states. American Politics Research, 29, 625–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Weber, C., Dunaway, J., & Johnson, T. (2011). It’s all in the name: Source cue ambiguity and the persuasive appeal of campaign ads. Political Behavior. doi: 10.1007/s11109-011-9172-y.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Harvard Kennedy SchoolCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.University of California, BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations