Direct Democracy, Educative Effects, and the (Mis)Measurement of Ballot Measure Awareness
- PDF / 702,221 Bytes
- 20 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 95 Downloads / 180 Views
Direct Democracy, Educative Effects, and the (Mis) Measurement of Ballot Measure Awareness Jay Barth1 · Craig M. Burnett2 · Janine Parry3
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019
Abstract A century ago, Progressive reformers in the U.S. introduced the institutional innovations of direct democracy, claiming these reforms would cultivate better citizens. Two decades of high-profile research have supported and challenged the relationship between direct democracy, increased attention to politics, and a higher turnout rate. We propose, however, that a necessary condition of the “educative effects” model is voter familiarity with initiatives and referendums. While some research has examined ballot measure awareness, we suspect that that the standard measurements—e.g., “Have you heard of Proposition X?”—overestimate actual knowledge. Specifically, we measure ballot measure knowledge in a manner requiring voters to demonstrate familiarity with specific measures rather than merely asserting broad familiarity. Our approach reveals that the public’s awareness of statewide ballot measures, both in the abstract and with respect to particular measures, is far lower than past research suggests. Importantly, it also reveals that people with high levels of education, political interest, and knowledge of national politics are the most likely to misrepresent their ballot measure awareness. Keywords Direct democracy · Ballot measures · Educative effects · Voter knowledge · Political behavior
* Janine Parry [email protected] Jay Barth [email protected] Craig M. Burnett [email protected] 1
Hendrix College, Conway, AR, USA
2
Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, USA
3
Department of Political Science, University of Arkansas, 428 Old Main, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Political Behavior
During the debate over the introduction of direct democracy in the United States, reformers made a variety of arguments in favor of adoption. The Populists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries saw direct democracy as a way to bypass the legislative process. Not only would this dismantle the monopoly political elites had on public policy, Progressive reformers also contended that direct democracy would promote better policymaking by reducing corruption in politics and lessening the influence of special interests. Smith and Tolbert’s Educated by Initiative (2004; see also Tolbert et al. 2003) supplies convincing evidence that Progressives who promoted the use of direct democracy in American politics had an additional goal: a well-informed, civicallyengaged electorate. Their comprehensive account of activists’ and authors’ writings from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries makes clear the expectation that mechanisms such as the initiative and referendum would spur voter turnout, advance political knowledge, and enhance civic trust. One of these reformers promised the Academy of Political Science in 1915, for example, that such mechanisms were sure to “lead to c
Data Loading...
