Advertisement

Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics

, Volume 153, Issue 3, pp 261–291 | Cite as

Partisan Campaigning and Initiative Petition Signing in Direct Democracies

  • Katharina E. HoferEmail author
Open Access
Article
  • 287 Downloads

Summary

This paper investigates whether popular initiatives signed by a larger share of the population have higher acceptance rates at the subsequent vote. The main analysis is based on all Swiss federal initiatives voted between 1978 and 2000 with a panel of aggregate voting data at cantonal level. The results suggest that petition signing is positively and significantly related to acceptance rates at ballot. I address potential omitted variable bias from underlying preferences which might be driving both signatures and acceptance rates in three ways. First, the panel structure of the data allows to control for time-constant preferences via fixed effects. Second, results are robust to various proxies for voter preferences. Third, using the doubling of the signature requirement in 1978 as an instrumental variable confirms the above result. The findings imply that petition signing can serve as an effective partisan campaigning tool.

JEL-Classification

D72 

Keyword

Initiatives signatures direct democracy voting campaigning 

References

  1. Ansolabehere, Stephen, Shanto Iyengar, Adam Simon, and Nicholas Valentino (1994), “Does Attack Advertising Demobilize the Electorate?”, American Political Science Review, 88(04), pp. 829–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barankay, Iwan, Pascal Sciarini, and Alexander H. Trechsel (2003), “Institutional Openness and the Use of Referendums and Popular Initiatives: Evidence from Swiss Cantons”, Swiss Political Science Review, 9(1), pp. 169–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bochsler, Daniel (2010), “The Marquis de Condorcet Goes to Bern”, Public Choice, (144), pp. 119–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boehmke, Frederick J., and R. Michael Alvarez (2014), The Influence of Initiative Signature Gathering Campaigns on Political Participation.Google Scholar
  5. Cameron, A. Colin, Jonah B. Gelbach, and Douglas L. Miller (2008), “Bootstrap-Based Improvements for Inference with Clustered Errors”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 90(3), pp. 414–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Center for Governmental Studies (2008), Democracy by Initiative: Shaping California’s Fourth Branch of Government, 2nd edn., Los Angeles: Center for Governmental Studies.Google Scholar
  7. Dale, Allison, and Aaron Strauss (2009), “Don’t Forget to Vote: Text Message Reminders as a Mobilization Tool”, American Journal of Political Science, 53(4), pp. 787–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Degan, Arianna, and Antonio Merlo (2011), “A Structural Model of Turnout and Voting in Multiple Elections”, Journal of the European Economic Association, 9(2), pp. 209–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Degen, Bernard (2015), “Volksinitiative”, in Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz, Bern: Stiftung Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz.Google Scholar
  10. Downs, Anthony (1957), An Economic Theory of Democracy, New York: Harper and Brothers.Google Scholar
  11. Dyck, Joshua J., and Nicholas R Seabrook (2010), “Mobilized by Direct Democracy: Short-Term Versus Long-Term Effects and the Geography of Turnout in Ballot Measure Elections”, Social Science Quarterly, 91(1), pp. 189–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feld, Lars P., and John Matsusaka (2003), “Budget Referendums and Government Spending: Evidence from Swiss Cantons”, Journal of Public Economics, (87), pp. 2703–2724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Festinger, Leon (1957), A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Funk, Patricia (2010), “Social Incentives and Voter Turnout: Evidence from the Swiss Mail Ballot System”, Journal of the European Economic Association, 8(5), pp. 1077–1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Funk, Patricia, and Christina Gathmann (2011), “Does Direct Democracy Reduce the Size of Government? New Evidence from Historical Data, 1890–2000”, The Economic Journal, pp. 1–29.Google Scholar
  16. Gerber, Alan S., and Donald P. Green (2000a), “The Effects of Canvassing, Telephone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment”, American Political Science Review, 94(3), pp. 653–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gerber, Alan S., and Donald P. Green (2000b), “The Effect of a Nonpartisan Get-Out-The-Vote Drive: An Experimental Study of Leafletting”, Journal of Politics, 62(3), pp. 846–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gerber, Alan S., and Donald P. Green (2001), “Do Phone Calls Increase Voter Turnout? A Field Experiment”, The Public Opinion Quarterly, 65(1), pp. 75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gerber, Alan S., Donald P. Green, and Matthew Green (2003), “Partisan Mail and Voter Turnout: Results from Randomized Field Experiments”, Electoral Studies, 22(4), pp. 563–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Green, Donald P, Alan S. Gerber, and David W. Nickerson (2003), “Getting Out the Vote in Local Elections: Results from Six Door-to-Door Canvassing Experiments”, Political Science, 65(4), pp. 1083–1096.Google Scholar
  21. Hodler, Roland, Simon Lüchinger, and Alois Stutzer (2015), “The Effects of Voting Costs on the Democratic Process and Public Finances”, American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 7(1), pp. 141–171.Google Scholar
  22. Hofer, Katharina E., Christian Marti, and Monika Bütler (forthcoming), “Ready to Reform: How Popular Initiatives Can Be Successful”, European Journal of Political Economy.Google Scholar
  23. Kendall, Chad, Tommaso Nannicini, and Francesco Trebbi (2015), “How Do Voters Respond to Information? Evidence from a Randomized Campaign”, American Economic Review, 105(1), pp. 322–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kriesi, Hanspeter (1995), “The Political Opportunity Structure of New Social Movements: Its Impact on Their Mobilization”, in The Politics of Social Protest, Comparative Perspectives on States and Social Movements, J. Craig Jenkins and Bert Klandermans, eds., pp. 167–198, Minneapolis MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kriesi, Hanspeter (2006), “Role of the Political Elite in Swiss Direct-Democratic Votes”, Party Politics, 12(5), pp. 599–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kriesi, Hanspeter, and Alexander H. Trechsel (2008), The Politics of Switzerland: Continuity and Change in a Consensus Democracy, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lacey, Robert J. (2005), “The Electoral Allure of Direct Democracy: The Effect of Initiative Salience on Voting”, State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 5(2), pp. 168–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Linder, Wolf (2007), “Direct Democracy”, in Handbook of Swiss Politics, Ulrich Kloeti, Peter Knoepfel, Hanspeter Kriesi, Wolf Linder, Yannis Papadopoulos, and Pascal Sciarini, eds., pp. 101–120, Zurich: Neue Zürcher Zeitung.Google Scholar
  29. Lüchinger, Simon, Myra Rosinger, and Alois Stutzer (2007), “The Impact of Postal Voting on Participation: Evidence from Switzerland”, Swiss Political Science Review, 13(2), pp. 167–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Malde, Bansi (2012), “Bootwildct, ado file for Stata”, Economic and Social Research Council.Google Scholar
  31. Matsusaka, John G. (1995), “Explaining Voter Turnout Patterns: An Information Theory”, Public Choice, 84, pp. 91–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McFadden, Daniel (1973), “Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior”, in Frontiers in econometrics, P. Zerembka, ed., pp. 105–142, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  33. McFadden, Daniel (1980), “Econometric models for probabilistic choice among products”, Journal of Business, pp. S13–S29.Google Scholar
  34. Mills, Judson (1958), “Changing in Moral Attitudes Following Temptations”, Journal of Personality, (26), pp. 517–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mullainathan, Sendhil, and Ebonya Washington (2009), “Sticking with Your Vote: Cognitive Dissonance and Political Attitudes”, American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1(1), pp. 86–111.Google Scholar
  36. Neiman, Max, and Mark Gottdiener (1982), “The Relevance of the Qualifying Stage of Initiative Politics: The Case of Petition Signing”, Social Science Quarterly, 63(3), pp. 582–588.Google Scholar
  37. Nickerson, David W (2006), “Volunteer Phone Calls Can Increase Turnout: Evidence from Eight Field Experiments”, American Politics Research, 34(3), pp. 271–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nickerson, David W (2008), “Is voting contagious? Evidence from Two Field Experiments”, American Political Science Review, 102(1), pp. 49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Niven, David (2004), “The Mobilization Solution? Face-to-Face Contact and Voter Turnout in a Municipal Election”, Journal of Politics, 66(3), pp. 868–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Parry, Janine, Daniel Smith, and Shayne Henry (2012), “The Impact of Petition Signing on Voter Turnout”, Political Behavior, 34, pp. 117–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pierce, John C., and Nicholas P Lovrich (1982), “Survey Measurement of Political Participation: Selective Effects of Recall in Petition Signing”, Social Science, 63(1), pp. 164–171.Google Scholar
  42. Rielle, Yvan (2010), “Einschränkung der Volksrechte oder Anpassung ans Frauenstimmrecht?”, in Handbuch der eidgenössischen Volksabstimmungen 1848 bis 2007, Wolf Linder, Christian Bolliger, and Yvan Rielle, eds., pp. 364–365, Bern: Haupt Verlag.Google Scholar
  43. Schlozman, Daniel, and Ian Yohai (2008), “How Initiatives Don’t Always Make Citizens: Ballot Initiatives in the American States, 1978–2004”, Political behavior, 30, pp. 469–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Smith, Daniel A., and Caroline J. Tolbert (2004), Educated by Initiative: The effects of Direct Democracy on Citizens and Political Organizations in the American States, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Smith, Mark A (2001), “The Contingent Effects of Ballot Initiatives and Candidate Races on Turnout”, American Journal of Political Science, 45(3), pp. 700–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tolbert, Caroline J., Daniel C. Bowen, and Todd Donovan (2009), “Initiative Campaigns: Direct Democracy and Voter Mobilization”, American Politics Research, 37(1), pp. 155–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tolbert, Caroline J., John A Grummel, and Daniel A. Smith (2001), “The Effects of Ballot Initiatives on Voter Turnout in the American States”, American Politics Research, 29, pp. 625–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tolbert, Caroline J., and Daniel A. Smith (2005), “The Educative Effects of Ballot Initiatives on Voter Turnout”, American Politics Research, 33(2), pp. 283–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wooldridge, Jeffrey M. (2013), Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach, South-Western / Cengage Learning.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of St. Gallen, Swiss Institute for Empirical Economic ResearchSt. GallenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations