Political Behavior

, Volume 37, Issue 2, pp 279–307 | Cite as

Do Ballot Initiatives Increase General Political Knowledge?

  • Nicholas R. Seabrook
  • Joshua J. Dyck
  • Edward L. LascherJr.
Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

Current literature often suggests that more information and choices will enhance citizens’ general political knowledge. Notably, some studies indicate that a greater number of state ballot initiatives raise Americans’ knowledge through increases in motivation and supply of political information. By contrast, we contend that political psychology theory and findings indicate that, at best, more ballot measures will have no effect on knowledge. At worst greater use of direct democracy should make it more costly to learn about institutions of representative government and lessen motivation by overwhelming voters with choices. To test this proposition, we develop a new research design and draw upon data more appropriate to assessing the question at hand. We also make use of a propensity score matching algorithm to assess the balance in the data between initiative state and non-initiative state voters. Controlling for a wide variety of variables, we find that there is no empirical relationship between ballot initiatives and political knowledge. These results add to a growing list of findings which cast serious doubt on the educative potential of direct democracy.

Keywords

Ballot initiatives Political awareness Secondary effects of direct democracy 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the editors and anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and suggestions and pushing us to make this paper better. Additionally, we would like to thank Paul Quirk and Kimberly Nalder for helpful comments and suggestions on an earlier draft. The authors alone are responsible for any errors.

References

  1. Beattie, J., Baron, J., Hershey, J. C., Spranca, M. D., & Mark, D. (1994). Psychological determinants of decision attitude. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7, 129–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biggers, L. (2011). When ballot issues matter: social issue ballot measures and their impact on turnout. Political Behavior, 33, 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biggers, D. L. (2012). Can a social issue proposition increase political knowledge? Campaign learning and the educative effects of direct democracy. American Politics Research, 40, 998–1025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blume, L., Müller, J., & Voigt, S. (2009). The economic effects of direct democracy: A first global assessment. Public Choice, 140, 431–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boehmke, F. J., & Bowen, D. (2010). Direct democracy and individual interest group membership. Journal of Politics, 72, 659–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Botti, S., & Iyengar, S. S. (2006). The dark side of choice: When choice impairs social welfare. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 25(Spring), 24–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowler, S., & Donovan, T. (1998). Demanding choices: Opinion, voting and direct democracy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bowler, S., & Donovan, T. (2002). Democracy, institutions and attitudes about citizen influence on government. British Journal of Political Science, 32(2), 371–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bowler, S., & Donovan, T. (2004). Measuring the effect of direct democracy on state policy: Not all initiatives are created equal. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 4, 345–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brace, P., Sims-Butler, K., Arceneaux, K., & Johnson, M. (2002). Public opinion in the American states: New perspectives using national survey data. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 173–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Branton, R. P. (2003). Examining individual-level voting behavior on state ballot propositions. Political Research Quarterly, 56, 367–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Campbell, J. E. (1986). Presidential coattails and midterm losses in state legislative elections. The American Political Science Review, 80, 45–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Campbell, D. E., & Monson, J. Q. (2008). The religion card. Gay marriage and the 2004 Presidential Election. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66, 910–922.Google Scholar
  14. Carpini, M. X. D., & Keeter, S. (1993). Measuring political knowledge: Putting first things first. American Journal of Political Science, 37(November), 1179–1206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carpini, M. X. D., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Carsey, T. M., & Wright, G. C. (1998). State and national factors in gubernatorial and senatorial elections. American Journal of Political Science, 42(July), 994–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chaffee, S. H., & Kanihan, S. F. (1997). Learning about politics from the mass media. Political Communication, 14, 421–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent. NewYork: The Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar
  20. Dalton, R. J. (2008). Direct democracy and good governance: Does it matter? In S. Bowler & A. Glazer (Eds.), Direct democracy’s impact on American political institutions. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  21. Donovan, T., Tolbert, C. J., & Smith, D. A. (2008). Priming presidential votes by direct democracy. Journal of Politics, 70, 1217–1231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dorn, D., Fischer, J. A. V., Kirchgässner, G., & Sousa-Poza, A. (2007). Direct democracy and life satisfaction revisited: New evidence for Switzerland. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dyck, Joshua. J. (2009). Initiated distrust: Direct democracy and trust in government. American Politics Research, 37, 539–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dyck, J. J., & Lascher, E. L., Jr. (2009). Direct democracy and political efficacy reconsidered. Political Behavior, 31(September), 401–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dyck, J. J., & Seabrook, N. R. (2010). Mobilized by direct democracy: Short-term versus long-term effects and the geography of turnout in ballot measure elections. Social Science Quarterly, 91, 188–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Erikson, R. S., Wright, G. C., & McIver, J. P. (1993). Statehouse democracy: Public opinion and policy in the American states. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Freitag, M., & Stadelmann-Stefan, I. (2010). Stumbling block or stepping stone? The influence of direct democracy on individual participation in parliamentary elections. Electoral Studies, 29, 472–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Frey, W. H., & Myers, D. (2005). Racial Segregation in US Metropolitan Areas and Cities, 1990–2000: Patterns, trends, and explanations. Population Studies Center Research Report 05-573.Google Scholar
  29. Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2000a). Happiness, economy, and institutions. Economic Journal, 110, 918–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2000b). Happiness prospers in democracy. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1, 79–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hero, R. E., & Tolbert, C. J. (1996). A racial/ethnic diversity interpretation of politics and policy in the states of the US. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 851–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2002). Stealth democracy: Americans’ beliefs about how government should work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hill, K. Q., & Hurley, P. A. (1984). Estimating congressional district political attributes with survey data: A reliability assessment. Political Methodology, 10, 447–464.Google Scholar
  35. Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 995–1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jerit, J., Barabas, J., & Bolsen, T. (2006). Citizens, knowledge, and the information environment. American Journal of Political Science, 50(April), 266–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Keith, B. E., Magleby, D. B., Nelson, C. J., Orr, E., Westlye, M. C., & Wolfinger, R. E. (1992). The myth of the independent voter. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  38. Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Jerit, J., & Rich, R. F. (2001). The political environment and citizen competence. American Journal of Political Science, 45(April), 410–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lac, L. T., & Lascher, E. L, Jr. (2012). The impact of direct democracy on governance: A replication and extension. California Journal of Politics and Policy, 5, 30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lax, J. R., & Phillips, J. (2009). How should we estimate public opinion in the states? American Journal of Political Science, 53, 107–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lupia, A. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review, 88, 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lupia, A., & Matsusaka, J. G. (2004). Direct democracy: new approaches to old questions. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 463–482.Google Scholar
  43. Luskin, R. C. (1987). Measuring political sophistication. American Journal of Political Science, 31(November), 856–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Luskin, R. C. (1990). Explaining political sophistication. Political Behavior, 12, 331–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Matsusaka, J. G. (2005). Direct democracy works. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 185–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mick, D. G., Broniarczyk, S. M., & Haidt, J. (2004). Choose, choose, choose, choose, choose, choose, choose: Emerging and prospective research on the deleterious effects of living in consumer hyperchoice. Journal of Business Ethics, 52, 207–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nardulli, P. F. (1990). Political subcultures in the American states: An empirical examination of Elazar’s formulation. American Politics Research, 18, 287–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nicholson, S. P. (2003). The political environment and ballot proposition awareness. American Journal of Political Science, 47(July), 403–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Prior, M. (2005). News vs. entertainment: How increasing media choice widens gaps in political knowledge and turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 49(July), 577–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Prior, M., & Lupia, A. (2008). Money, time, and political knowledge: Distinguishing quick recall and political learning skills. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 169–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rainey, C. n.d. Arguing for a Negligible Effect. American Journal of Political Science (forthcoming). Retrieved January 23, 2014 from http://www.carlislerainey.com/files/nme.pdf.
  52. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  53. Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The semisovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  54. Scheibehenne, B., Greifeneder, R., & Todd, P. M. (2010). Can there ever be too many options? A meta-analytic review of choice overload. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 409–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schlozman, Daniel., & Yohai, Ian. (2008). How initiatives don’t always make citizens: Ballot initiatives in the American states, 1978–2004. Political Behavior, 30(December), 469–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schwartz, B. (2004). The paradox of choice: Why more is less. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  57. Selb, P. (2008). Supersized votes: Ballot length, uncertainty, and choice in direct legislation elections. Public Choice, 135, 319–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sharkansky, I. (1969). The utility of Elazar’s political culture: A research note. Polity, 2, 66–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Smith, M. A. (2002). Ballot initiatives and the democratic citizen. Journal of Politics, 64, 892–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  61. 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
  62. Weaver, D. H. (1996). What voters learn from media. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 546(July), 34–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicholas R. Seabrook
    • 1
  • Joshua J. Dyck
    • 2
  • Edward L. LascherJr.
    • 3
  1. 1.University of North FloridaJacksonvilleUSA
  2. 2.University of Massachusetts LowellLowellUSA
  3. 3.California State UniversitySacramentoUSA

Personalised recommendations