Economic Conditions and Voting On Ballot Propositions

Abstract

In this study the authors assess the relationship between economic conditions and results from state ballot proposition elections in California. They propose that voters are less likely to adopt policies in the context of poor economic conditions. Aggregate results demonstrate that adverse economic conditions are associated with greater negative voting on propositions. Models estimated with state and national economic indicators illustrate that voting is conditioned by the state economy more than the national economy.Substantial scholarly attention has been directed at the relationship between economic conditions and voting in national elections (Kramer 1971;Lewis-Beck 1990). Until recently, however, economic voting in state elections has received less emphasis. Although economic voting in state elections has become the subject of several studies (Peltzman 1987;Chubb 1988; Howell and Vanderleeuw 1990), virtu-ally no attention has been given to the question of how economic conditions might affect support for state ballot propositions. This is unfortunate, given the prominence of ballot propositions in many American states (Magleby 1984).Although a general consensus exists that &dquo;economics matters&dquo; in candidate elections, less is known about the linkage between economic conditions and direct democracy voting. Economic models of voting are based upon assumptions about individuals forming evaluations of economic conditions, then using those evaluations when deciding between candidates and/or parties. In their simplest form, these studies

Inequality, Self-Interest, and Public Support for “Robin Hood” Tax Policies

“…The results in Table 2 show that more attention is associated with greater opposition to 1098. This is consistent with findings that voters tend to be risk-averse when voting on economic initiatives (Bowler and Donovan 1994), and that opposition arguments and spending may be more effective than those in support of the initiative (Gerber 1999). However, high attention, low-income voters were not significantly more or less likely to favor 1098 compared with their less informed lower income counterparts.…”

Voter decisions on eminent domain and police power reforms

“…Several of these studies indicate that voter dissatisfaction with bad economic conditions erodes support for ballot proposals because of low support for government (Clarke and Kornberg, 1994;Bowler and Donovan, 1994). On the other hand, given that police power does not involve any subsequent use of the property to provide jobs or any collective good, unemployment rate may not have a significant effect on how voters react to police power compensation ballots.…”

“…Next, counties with high unemployment rates are expected to be more supportive of eminent domain since use of eminent domain power for economic development purposes can be valuable for economically depressed areas that are looking forward to economic expansion and job creation (Clarke and Kornberg, 1994;Bowler and Donovan, 1994;Sandefur, 2006). Several of these studies indicate that voter dissatisfaction with bad economic conditions erodes support for ballot proposals because of low support for government (Clarke and Kornberg, 1994;Bowler and Donovan, 1994).…”

Who Votes for Natural Resources in California?

“…While the average state approval among all 71 environmental measures was 55%, support for the proenvironment position ranged from 36% in Modoc (a far northern county) to 69% in San Francisco City and County. Environmental measures vary in their clarity and appeal, and support for any measure involving taxes or public debt waxes and wanes with the voters' perceptions of the state's economic health (Bowler and Donovan 1994); however, each particular county tends to vote consistently for or against environmental propositions (Press et al 1998). I matched city-level returns and census data for 10 propositions (ranging from schools to prisons to environmental to antitax initiatives) occurring close to the 1980 and 1990 censuses.…”