Public Choice

, Volume 135, Issue 3–4, pp 319–336 | Cite as

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

Article

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.

Keywords

Direct legislation elections Heteroscedastic probit Multiple propositions Status quo bias Uncertainty Voting behavior 

JEL

D72 D81 C25 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alvarez, R. M. (1999). Information and elections. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press. Google Scholar
  2. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alvarez, R. M., & Brehm, J. (1997). Are Americans ambivalent towards racial policies? American Journal of Political Science, 41, 345–374. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alvarez, R. M., & Brehm, J. (2002). Hard choices, easy answers. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
  5. Alvarez, R. M., & Franklin, C. H. (1994). Uncertainty and political perceptions. Journal of Politics, 56, 671–688. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Bartels, L. M. (1986). Issue voting under uncertainty: an empirical test. American Journal of Political Science, 30, 709–728. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Bowler, S., & Donovan, T. (1994). Information and opinion change on ballot propositions. Political Behavior, 16, 411–435. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bowler, S., & Donovan, T. (1998). Demanding choices: opinion, voting, and direct democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Google Scholar
  11. Bowler, S., Donovan, T., & Happ, T. (1992). Ballot propositions and information costs: direct democracy and the fatigued voter. Western Political Quarterly, 45, 559–568. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Branton, R. P. (2003). Examining individual-level voting behavior on state ballot propositions. Political Research Quarterly, 56, 367–377. Google Scholar
  13. Braumoeller, B. F. (2006). Explaining variance; or, stuck in a moment we can’t get out of. Political Analysis, 14, 268–290. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brockington, D. (2003). A low information theory of ballot position effect. Political Behavior, 25, 1–27. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cronin, T. E. (1989). Direct democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
  17. Darcy, R., & McAllister, I. (1990). Ballot position effects. Electoral Studies, 9, 5–17. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Downs, G. W., & Rocke, D. M. (1979). Interpreting heteroscedasticity. American Journal of Political Science, 23, 816–828. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dubois, P. L., & Feeney, F. (1998). Lawmaking by initiative: issues, opinions, and comparisons. New York: Agathon Press. Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Frey, B. S. (1994). Direct democracy: politico-economic lessons from swiss experience. The American Economic Review, 84, 338–342. Google Scholar
  22. Gerber, E. R. (1999). The populist paradox: interest group influence and the promise of direct legislation. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
  23. 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. Google Scholar
  24. Gerber, E. R., & Lupia, A. (1995). Campaign competition and policy responsiveness in direct legislation elections. Political Behavior, 17, 287–306. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harvey, A. C. (1976). Estimating regression models with multiplicative heteroscedasticity. Econometrica, 44, 461–465. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hug, S., & Schulz, T. (2007). Left-right positions of political parties in Switzerland. Party Politics, 13, 305–330. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Kriesi, H. (2005). Direct democratic choice. The swiss experience. Oxford: Lexington. Google Scholar
  29. Krosnick, J. A., & Miller, J. A. (1998). The impact of candidate name order on election outcomes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 291–330. Google Scholar
  30. Lapalombara, J. G., & Hagan, C. B. (1951). Direct legislation: an appraisal and a suggestion. American Political Science Review, 45, 400–421. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Lijphart, A. (1997). Unequal participation: democracy’s unresolved dilemma. American Political Science Review, 91, 1–14. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lupia, A. (1992). Busy voters, agenda control, and the power of information. American Political Science Review, 86, 390–403. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lupia, A. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review, 88, 63–76. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lupia, A., & Matsusaka, J. G. (2004). Direct democracy: new approaches to old questions. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 463–482. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (1998). The democratic dilemma. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  37. Magleby, D. (1984). Direct legislation: voting on ballot propositions in the United States. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Google Scholar
  38. Matsusaka, J. G. (1995). Explaining voter turnout patterns: an information theory. Public Choice, 84, 91–117. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Matsusaka, J. G. (2005). Direct democracy works. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 185–206. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mueller, J. E. (1969). Voting on the propositions: ballot patterns and historical trends in California. American Political Science Review, 63, 1197–1212. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nicholson, S. P. (2003). The political environment and ballot proposal awareness. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 403–410. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Quattrone, G. A., & Tversky, A. (1988). Contrasting rational and psychological analyses of political choice. American Political Science Review, 82, 719–736. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Skrondal, A. (2005). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using stata. College Station: Stata Press. Google Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 7–59. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shepsle, K. A. (1972). The strategy of ambiguity. American Political Science Review, 66, 555–568. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Skrondal, A., & Rabe-Hesketh, S. (2004). Generalized latent variable modeling: multilevel, longitudinal and structural equation models. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall. Google Scholar
  48. Sniderman, P. M., Brody, R. A., & Tetlock, P. E. (1993). Reasoning and choice. Explorations in political psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  49. 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
  50. Yatchew, A., & Griliches, Z. (1985). Specification error in probit models. Review of Economics and Statistics, 18, 134–139. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Politics and AdministrationUniversity of KonstanzKonstanzGermany

Personalised recommendations