Making Informed Citizens in Local Direct Democracy. What Part Does Their Government Perform?

Chapter

Abstract

This chapter has two main parts. First, it starts with a short presentation of the well-established theorem of the uninformed voter, and argues that local direct democracy inhibits systemic incentives for a voter to become more open for information, and for a local government to inform the voter. Due to the information asymmetry, local government is required to actively make the local voter better informed to decide competently on a ballot measure. Local government further has to adopt practical standards to fulfill the task, such as appropriate length, comprehensiveness, objectivity, and political neutrality of voter information. Second, this chapter describes three cases of official local voter information, how they are regulated by law and work in practice. The poor regulation and practice of voter information of the City of Vienna gives the party politics and public officials a very free hand to manipulate the task of informing the voter in their own interests. The Austrian City of Bregenz represents a moderate example, whereas the City of Los Angeles has the merit of a high developed approach of voter information. In all cases, the politicization of voter information is ever present. The gap between practical standards and the real information environment can preclude voters making informed decisions at the polls and indirectly through that also on urban governance.

Keywords

Local government Local direct democracy Voter information Urban governance Austria USA 

References

  1. Baldassare M, Katz C (2008) The coming of age of direct democracy: California’s recall and beyond. Public Opin Q 72:394–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker LA (1991) Direct democracy and discrimination. A public choice perspective. Chic Kent Law Rev 67:707–776Google Scholar
  3. Baxter P, Jack S (2008) Qualitative case study methodology: study design and implementation for novice researchers. Qual Rep 13:544–559Google Scholar
  4. Bendor J, Bullock JG (2008) Lethal incompetence: voters, officials and systems. Crit Rev 20:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 119:31–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berelson PR, Lazarsfeld PF, McPhee WN (1954) Voting. A study of opinion formation in a presidential Campaign. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  7. Brien P (2002) Voter pamphlets: the next best step in election reform. J Legis 28:87–112Google Scholar
  8. Buchanan JM (1954) Individual choice in voting and the market. J Polit Econ 62:334–343Google Scholar
  9. Bullock JG (2011) Elite influence on public opinion in an informed electorate. Am Polit Sci Rev 105:496–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burnett C, Garrett E, McCubbins MD (2010) The dilemma of direct democracy. Elect Law J 9:305–324Google Scholar
  11. Burnett CM, McCubbins MD (2013) When common wisdom is neither common nor wisdom: exploring voters’ limited use of endorsements on three ballot measures. Minn Law Rev 57:1557–1595Google Scholar
  12. Burnett CM, Kogan V (2015) When does ballot language influence voter choices? Evidence from a survey experiment. Polit Commun 32:109–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. California Commission on Campaign Financing (1992) To govern ourselves. Ballot initiatives in the Los Angeles area. Center for Governmental Studies, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  14. Carter ME (2011) Regulating abortion through direct democracy: the liberty of all versus the moral code of a majority. Boston Univ Law Rev 91:305–346Google Scholar
  15. Center for Governmental Studies (2008) Democracy by initiative: shaping California’s Fourth Branch of Government. Center for Governmental Studies, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  16. City of Los Angeles (2013) Initiative, referendum & recall petition handbook. Los Angeles. http://clerk.lacity.org. Accessed 25 Dec 2015
  17. City of Los Angeles (2015) Election code of the city of Los Angeles. Los Angeles http://cityclerk.lacity.org. Accessed 25 Dec 2015
  18. Clark JR, Lee DR (2003) Regulating government. In: Rowley CK, Schneider F (eds) The encylopedia of public choice. Kluwer, Norwell, pp 482–484Google Scholar
  19. Cronin T (1989) Direct democracy: the politics of initiative, referendum, and recall. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Delli Carpini MX, Keeter S (1996) What Americans know about politics and why it matters. Yale University Press, New Haven, CTGoogle Scholar
  21. Downs A (1957) An economic theory of democracy. Harper & Brothers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Dubois PL, Feeney F (1998) Lawmaking by initiative: issues, options, and comparisons. Agathon Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Eberhard H (2013) Austria—municipalities as the “third tier” of Austrian Federalism. In: Panara C, Varney M (eds) Local Government in Europe. The ‘fourth level’ in the EU multilayered system of governance. Routledge, New York, pp 1–25Google Scholar
  24. Elcock H (2008) Elected mayors: lesson drawing from four countries. Public Adm 86:795–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Elmendorf CS, Spencer DM (2013) Are ballot titles biased? Partisanship and ideology in California’s supervision of direct democracy. U.C. Irvine Law Rev 3:511–549Google Scholar
  26. Elmendorf CS, Schleicher D (2013) Informing consent: voter ignorance, political parties, and election law. Univ Ill Law Rev 2013:363–432Google Scholar
  27. Eule J (1990) Judicial review of direct democracy. Yale Law J 99:1503–1590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Eule J (1991) Representative government: the people’s choice. Chic Kent Law Rev 67:777–790Google Scholar
  29. Fiorina MP (1990) Information and rationality in elections. In: Ferejohn J, Kuklinski J (eds) Information and democratic processes. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, pp 329–342Google Scholar
  30. Ford P, Kemokai T (2014) Direct democracy: a global comparative study on electoral initiative and referendum mechanisms. http://www.mcgeorge.edu/Documents/Publications/directDemocracyNov2014.pdf. Accessed 24 Dec 2015
  31. Funk P, Gathmann C (2014) Direct democracy as a disciplinary device on excessive public spending. CESifo DICE Rep 12:18–23Google Scholar
  32. Gafke R, Leuthold D (1979) The effect on voters of misleading, confusing, and difficult ballot titles. Public Opin Q 43:394–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Garrett E (2001) Issues in implementing referendums in Israel: a comparative study in direct democracy. Chic J Int Law 2:159–182Google Scholar
  34. Garrett E (2005) Hybrid democracy. George Wash Law Rev 73:1096–1274Google Scholar
  35. Garrett E, McCubbins MD (2008) When voters make laws—how direct democracy is shaping American cities. Public Works Manag Policy 13:39–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gordon TM (2011). Initiatives aren’t as bad as you think. Brookings Opinion October 4. http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2011/10/04-ballot-initiatives-gordon. Accessed 24 Dec 2015
  37. Gordon TM (2004) The local initiative in California. Public Policy Institute of California, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  38. Graves L (2012) Local ballot initiatives. The Lucy Burns Institute, Middleton. http://www.lucyburns.org. Accessed 24 Nov 2015
  39. Hastings J, Cann D (2014) Ballot titles and voter decision making on ballot questions. State Local Gov Rev 13:1–10Google Scholar
  40. Jakubowski P, Tegner H, Kotte S (1997) Strategien umweltpolitischer Zielfindung: eine ökonomische Perspektive. Lit Verlag, MünsterGoogle Scholar
  41. Kesselman D (2011) Direct democracy on election day: ballot measures as measures of American democracy. Transatlantica 2011:1–13Google Scholar
  42. Kim D (2010) Don’t judge an initiative by its title: a report on the titles of California ballot measures. www.mcgeorge.edu/documents/…/report3.pdf. Accessed 24 Nov 2015
  43. Kirchgässner G, Feld LP, Savioz MR (1999) Die direkte Demokratie. Modern, erfolgreich, entwicklungs- und exportfähig. Verlag Franz Vahlen, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  44. Kruse B (2001) The truth in masquerade: regulating false ballot proposition ads through state anti-false speech statutes. Calif Law Rev 89:129–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. League of California Cities (2015) Initiatives/Referendums. https://www.cacities.org. Accessed 24 Nov 2015
  46. Leib EJ, Elmendorf CS (2012) Why party democrats need popular democracy. Calif Law Rev 100:69–114Google Scholar
  47. Levinson JA, Stern RM (2010) Ballot box budgeting in California: the bane of the golden state or an overstated problem? Hastings Const Law Q 101:689–744Google Scholar
  48. Lupia A (1994) Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. Am Polit Sci Rev 88:63–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lupia A, Matsusaka JG (2004) Direct democracy: new approaches to old questions. Annu Rev Polit Sci 7:463–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Magleby DB (1984) Direct legislation: voting on ballot propositions in the United States. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  51. March JG, Olsen JP (2008) Elaborating the “new institutionalism”. In: Rhodes RAW, Binder SA, Rockman BA (eds) The Oxford handbook of political institutions. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 3–20Google Scholar
  52. Miller, Kenneth P (2001) Constraining populism: the real agenda of initiative reform. Santa Clara L Rev 41:1037–1084Google Scholar
  53. National Conference of State Legislatures (2002) Initiative and referendum in the 21st century final report and recommendations of the NCSL I&R Task Force. http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/task-force-report.aspx. Accessed 24 Nov 2015
  54. Peters BG (1998) Comparative politics: theory and methods. NYU Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pleschberger W (2003) Cities and municipalities in the Austrian political system since the 1990s. New developments between “efficiency” and “democracy”. In: Kersting N, Vetter A (eds) Reforming local government in Europe. Closing the gap between democracy and efficiency. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen, pp 113–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pleschberger W (2015) Kommunale und direkte Demokratie in Österreich—Strukturelle und prozedurale Probleme und Reformvorschläge. In: Öhlinger T, Poier K (eds) Direkte Demokratie und Parlamentarismus. Böhlau Verlag, Wien-Köln-Mainz, pp 359–395Google Scholar
  57. Pleschberger W, Mertens Ch (2012) Zur Parteipolitisierung der direkten kommunalen Demokratie. Am Beispiel der Großstadt Wien. PRuF Mitteilungen 18:24–35Google Scholar
  58. Pommerehne WW (1978) Institutional approaches to public expenditure: empirical evidence from Swiss municipalities. J Public Econ 9:255–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pommerehne WW, Schneider F (1978) Fiscal illusion, political institutions, and local public spending. Kyklos 31:381–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Popkin S (1994) The reasoning voter: communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns, 2nd edn. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  61. Primo D (2013) Information at the margin: campaign finance disclosure laws, ballot issues, and voter knowledge. Elect Law J 12:114–129Google Scholar
  62. Public Policy Institute of California (2004) How do Californians use local ballot initiatives? Research Brief 93. http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/rb/RB_904TGRB.pdf. Accessed 24 Nov 2015
  63. Public Policy Institute of California (2013) The California initiative process— How democratic is it? Occasional papers. http://www.iandrinstitute.org/docs/CA-Commission-How-Democratic-Is-It-IRI.pdf. Accessed 24 Nov 2015
  64. Rapeli L (2014) The conception of citizen knowledge in democratic theory. Palgrave Macmillan, BasingstokeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Reilly S (2013) Design, meaning and choice in direct democracy. The influences of petitioners and voters. Ashgate, AldershotGoogle Scholar
  66. Reilly S, Richey S (2011) Ballot question readability and roll-off: the impact of language complexity. Polit Res Q 64:59–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Reilly S, Walker C (2010) Judicial elections’ impact on participation in direct democracy. Justice Syst J 31:225–241Google Scholar
  68. Sartori G (1992) Demokratietheorie. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, DarmstadtGoogle Scholar
  69. Schacter JS (1995) The pursuit of “popular intent”: interpretive dilemmas in direct democracy. Yale Law J 105:107–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Schrag P (2001) Symposium, The fourth branch of government? You bet. Santa Clara L Rev 41:937–949Google Scholar
  71. Silva JF (2000) The California initiative process: background and perspective. Public Policy Institute of California. http://www.dcfn.ppic.org/content/pubs/op/OP_1100FSOP.pdf. Accessed 24 Nov 2015
  72. Smit G (2007) Solving the ‘initiatory construction’ puzzle (and improving direct democracy) by appropriate refocusing on sponsor intent. Univ Colo Law Rev 78:257–305Google Scholar
  73. Somin I (2013) Democracy and political ignorance. Why smaller government is smarter. Stanford University Press, Redwood CityGoogle Scholar
  74. Sonenshein RJ (2006) Los Angeles. Structure of a city government. League of Women Voters of Los Angeles, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  75. Specht A (2006) The government we deserve? Direct democracy, outraged majorities, and the decline of judicial independence. Univ St. Thomas Law J 4:132–156Google Scholar
  76. Sutro SH (1994) Interpretation of initiatives by reference to similar statutes: canons of construction do not adequately measure voter intent. Santa Clara Law Rev 34:945–976Google Scholar
  77. Tausanovitch Ch, Warshaw Ch (2014) Representation in municipal government. Am Polit Sci Rev 108:605–641Google Scholar
  78. Theodore NR (2013) We the people: a needed reform of state initiative and referendum procedures. Mont Law Rev 78:1401–1449Google Scholar
  79. Tolbert CJ, McNeal RS, Smith DA (2003) Enhancing civic engagement: the effect of direct democracy on political participation and knowledge. State Polit Policy Q 3:23–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Tolbert CJ, Smith DA (2006) Representation and direct democracy in the United States. Representation and Journal of Representative Democracy 42:25–44Google Scholar
  81. Warner DM (1995) Direct democracy: the right of the people to make fools of themselves. The use and abuse of initiative and referendum, a local government perspective. Seattle Univ Law Rev 19:47–100Google Scholar
  82. Yin RK (2003) Case study research: design and methods, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Natural Resources and Applied Life SciencesViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations