Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Monumental Decisions: How Direct Democracy Shapes Attitudes in the Conflict over Confederate Memorials

  • Tyler Johnson (a1), Kathleen Tipler (a1) and Tyler Camarillo (a1)

Abstract

Americans are engaged in a heated, sometimes violent, debate over the fate of Confederate monuments. As communities decide whether to remove these monuments, elected and appointed officials typically have had the final say. What if instead of allowing elected officials to make such decisions, voters had the power? Would this affect how the public feels about the outcome, win or lose? We used a survey experiment to examine whether the mode of decision making affects public attitudes, testing the effects of a decision made by public referendum versus by a city council. We found that respondents view decisions made by referendum to be fairer and more legitimate and allow multiple perspectives to be heard. These results hold even for respondents who oppose the referendum’s outcome. Our results speak to the potential of direct democracy to enhance public acceptance of decisions, particularly when the public is divided.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Monumental Decisions: How Direct Democracy Shapes Attitudes in the Conflict over Confederate Memorials
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Monumental Decisions: How Direct Democracy Shapes Attitudes in the Conflict over Confederate Memorials
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Monumental Decisions: How Direct Democracy Shapes Attitudes in the Conflict over Confederate Memorials
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

References

Hide All
Berinsky, Adam J., Huber, Gregory A., and Lenz, Gabriel S.. 2012. “Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk.” Political Analysis 20 (3): 351–68.
Biggers, Daniel R. 2014. Morality at the Ballot: Direct Democracy and Political Engagement in the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bowler, Shaun, and Donovan, Todd. 2002. “Democracy, Institutions and Attitudes about Citizen Influence on Government.” British Journal of Political Science 32 (2): 371–90.
Budge, Ian. 2006. “Direct Democracy.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions, ed. Rhodes, R. A. W., Binder, Sarah A., and Rockman, Bert A., 596610. New York: Oxford University Press.
Buhrmester, Michael, Kwang, Tracy, and Gosling, Samuel D.. 2011. “Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data?Perspectives on Psychological Science 6 (1): 35.
Damore, David F., and Nicholson, Stephen P.. 2014. “Mobilizing Interests: Group Participation and Competition in Direct-Democracy Elections.” Political Behavior 36 (2): 535–52.
Dyck, Joshua, and Seabrook, Nicholas. 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): 188208.
Hibbing, John, and Theiss-Morse, Elizabeth. 2002. Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs about How Government Should Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huff, Connor, and Tingley, Dustin. 2015. “‘Who Are These People?’ Evaluating the Demographic Characteristics and Political Preferences of MTurk Survey Respondents.” Research & Politics July–September: 112.
Hutchings, Vincent L., Walton, Hanes, and Benjamin, Andrea. 2010. “The Impact of Explicit Racial Cues on Gender Differences in Support for Confederate Symbols and Partisanship.” Journal of Politics 72 (4): 1175–88.
Kostelka, Filip, and Blais, Andre. 2018. “The Chicken and Egg Question: Satisfaction with Democracy and Voter Turnout.” PS: Political Science & Politics 51 (2): 370–76.
Levay, Kevin E., Freese, Jeremy, and Druckman, James N.. 2016. “The Demographic and Political Composition of Mechanical Turk Samples.” SAGE Open January–March: 117.
Magleby, David B. 1984. Direct Legislation: Voting on Ballot Propositions in the United States. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Magleby, David B. 1994. “Let the Voters Decide? An Assessment of the Initiative and Referendum Process.” University of Colorado Law Review 66 (1): 1346.
Mullinix, Kevin J., Leeper, Thomas J., Druckman, James N., and Freese, Jeremy. 2015. “The Generalizability of Survey Experiments.” Journal of Experimental Political Science 2 (2): 109–38.
Quinnipiac University. 2017. “Trump Is Dividing the Country, US Voters Say 2-1, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; More Trust Media More Than President.” Available at https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2482.
Schwartzberg, Melissa. 2013. Counting the Many: The Origins and Limits of Supermajority Rule. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, Daniel A., and Tolbert, Caroline J.. 2004. Educated by Initiative: The Effects of Direct Democracy on Citizens and Political Organizations. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Tolbert, Caroline, McNeal, Ramona, and Smith, Daniel. 2003. “Enhancing Civic Engagement: The Effect of Direct Democracy on Political Participation and Knowledge.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 3 (1): 2341.
Tolbert, Caroline, and Smith, Daniel. 2005. “The Educative Effects of Ballot Initiatives on Voter Turnout.” American Politics Research 33 (2): 283309.
Waters, M. Diane. 2002. “Initiative and Referendum for Alabama: Empower the People.” Auburn, AL: Initiative & Referendum Institute.
Type Description Title
PDF
Supplementary materials

Johnson et al. supplementary material
Appendix A, B and C

 PDF (231 KB)
231 KB

Monumental Decisions: How Direct Democracy Shapes Attitudes in the Conflict over Confederate Memorials

  • Tyler Johnson (a1), Kathleen Tipler (a1) and Tyler Camarillo (a1)

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed