Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-10T23:54:45.838Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Electoral Allure of Direct Democracy: The Effect of Initiative Salience on Voting, 1990-96

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

Robert J. Lacey
Robert J. Lacey*
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts at Amherst
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Do salient ballot initiatives stimulate voting? Recent studies have shown that initiatives increase voter turnout, but some methodological concerns still linger. These studies have either relied solely on aggregate data to make inferences about individual-level behavior or used a flawed measure of initiative salience. Using individual-level data from the National Election Studies, I find that ballot question salience indeed stimulated voting in the midterm elections of 1990 and 1994. In an election with moderately salient ballot questions, a person's likelihood of voting can increase by as much as 30 percent in a midterm election. On the other hand, consistent with most prior research, I find no statistically significant relationship between ballot question salience and voting in presidential elections.

Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , Summer 2005 , pp. 168 - 181
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barber, Benjamin. 1984. Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Jones, Bryan D.. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Broder, David S. 2000. Democracy Derailed: Initiative Campaigns and the Power of Money. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
Budge, Ian. 1996. The New Challenge of Direct Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cronin, Thomas E. 1989. Direct Democracy: The Politics of Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Edwards, George III, Mitchell, William, and Welch, Reed. 1995. “Explaining Presidential Approval: The Significance of Issue Salience.” American Journal of Political Science 39:108–34.Google Scholar
Elshtain, Jean Bethke. 1995. Democracy on Trial. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Everson, David H. 1981. “The Effects of Initiatives on Voter Turnout: A Comparative State Analysis.” Western Political Quarterly 34:415–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilliam, Franklin D. 1985. “Influences on Voter Turnout for U.S. House Elections in Non-Presidential Years.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 10:339–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Robert A. 1997. “The Mobilization of U.S. State Electorates in the 1988 and 1990 Elections.” Journal of Politics 59:520–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kehler, Dave, Yonowitz, Amy L., and Almanzor, Christy. 1992. “Initiatives and Voter Turnout.” Initiative and Referendum Analysis, 4th ed. Princeton, NJ: Public Affairs Research Institute of New Jersey.Google Scholar
King, Gary. 1997. A Solution to the Ecological Inference Problem: Reconstructing Individual Behavior from Aggregate Data. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Knack, Stephen. 1995. “Does ‘Motor Voter’ Work? Evidence from State-Level Data.” Journal of Politics 57:796–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, G. H. 1983. “The Ecological Fallacy Revisited: Aggregate- versus Individual-Level Findings on Economics, Elections, and Sociotropic Voting.” American Political Science Review 77:92–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leighley, Jan E., and Nagler, Jonathan. 1992. “Individual and Systemic Influences on Turnout: Who Votes? 1984.” Journal of Politics 54:718–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overholser, Geneva. 1998. “Editor, Inc.” American Journalism Review 20 (December) :48-65.Google Scholar
Purdy, Jedediah. 1999. For Common Things: Irony, Trust, and Commitment in America Today. New York: A.A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Riker, William H., and Ordeshook, Peter C.. 1968. “A Theory of the Calculus of Voting.” American Political Science Review 62:25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, W. S. 1950. “Ecological Correlation and the Behavior of Individuals.” American Sociological Review 15:351–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenstone, Steven J., and Hansen, John Mark. 1993. Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Rusk, Jerrold G. 2001. A Statistical History of the American Electorate. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Mark A. 2001. “The Contingent Effects of Ballot Initiatives and Candidate Races on Turnout.” American Journal of Political Science 45:700–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timpone, Richard J. 1998. “Structure, Behavior, and Voter Turnout in the United States.” American Political Science Review 92:145–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolbert, Caroline J., Grummel, John A., and Smith, Daniel A.. 2001. “The Effects of Ballot Initiatives on Voter Turnout in the American States.” American Politics Research 29:625–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolbert, Caroline J., McNeal, Ramona S., and Smith, Daniel A.. 2003. “Enhancing Civic Engagement: The Effect of Direct Democracy on Political Participation and Knowledge.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 3:23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfinger, Raymond E., and Rosenstone, Steven J.. 1980. Who Votes? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar