Evaluating Policy Representation with Dynamic MRP Estimates: Direct Democracy and Same-Sex Relationship Policies in the United States

Abstract

Does direct democracy strengthen popular control of public policy in the United States? A major challenge in evaluating policy representation is the measurement of state-level public opinion and public policy. Although recent studies of policy responsiveness and congruence have provided improved measures of public opinion using multilevel regression and poststratification (MRP) techniques, these analyses are limited by their static nature and cross-sectional design. Issue attitudes, unlike more general political orientations, often vary considerably over time. Unless the dynamics of issue-specific public opinion are appropriately incorporated into the analyses, tests of policy responsiveness and congruence may be misleading. Thus, we assess the degree of policy representation in direct democracy states regarding same-sex relationship recognition policies using dynamic models of policy adoption and congruence that employ dynamic MRP estimates of attitudes toward same-sex marriage. We find that direct democracy institutions increase both policy responsiveness and congruence with issue-specific public opinion.

Public Opinion and Death Penalty Policy Under Direct Democracy Institutions: A Longitudinal Analysis of the American States

“…Longitudinal analyses allow for more complete examinations of policy representation in the states (Lewis & Jacobsmeier, 2017). However, only recent breakthroughs in measuring state opinion have made it possible for scholars to conduct such analyses.…”

“…During the final decades of the 20th century, direct democracy states were predisposed to enact tax limitation measures and to take steps to reduce the size of government (Matsusaka, 1995). Conservatives also experienced considerable success in using direct democracy to influence policy on wedge issues, as evidenced by direct democracy states' greater tendency to have in place restrictive abortion laws (Arceneaux, 2002;Gerber, 1996); anti-minority policies, including same-sex marriage bans, English-only laws, and affirmative action bans (Lewis, 2013;Lewis & Jacobsmeier, 2017); and, most notably for my study, the death penalty (Gerber, 1999). Direct democracy's ability to promote both liberal and conservative policy change demonstrates that these institutions, despite recently becoming associated with conservative cultural politics, do not inherently move policy in any one ideological direction.…”

“…I retain the controls for the other institutions believed to modify the impact of opinion on policy-legislative term limits and judicial elections-and interact them with opinion majority size as well. 17 I also create a lagged variable measuring the change in public opinion from one year to the next, because states experiencing constant shifts in public opinion should have more difficulty attaining policy congruence than states where public opinion is relatively stable (Lewis & Jacobsmeier, 2017).…”

Public Attitudes on Transgender Military Service: The Role of Gender

“…As attitudes toward LGBTQ rights shifted in recent decades, policies that provide protections and enhance inclusiveness have followed. Indeed, public opinion has been a major factor shaping the legalization of same-sex marriage and the passage of nondiscrimination laws (Lewis & Jacobsmeier, 2017;Taylor et al, 2012;Taylor, Lewis, & Haider-Markel, 2018). In addition, the repeal of DADT was certainly affected by an ever more tolerant public, driven in part by increasing amounts of, "mass information about homosexuality and awareness of gays and lesbians" (Brewer, 2003(Brewer, , p. 1217.…”

Why Do Lobbying, Protest, and Other Forms of Advocacy Often Fail to Affect Policy? Some Possible Explanations

“…Levels of specificity matter because they may affect findings--opinion has the strongest impact when very broad measures are used (Erikson, MacKuen and Stimson 2002;Erikson, Wright, and McIver 1993), a fairly substantial impact within policy domains (Soroka and Wlezien 2010), and, arguably, the weakest impact with regard to specific policies (Gilens and Page 2014), though some would disagree (e.g., Lax and Phillips 2009;. It is taken for granted that when the impact of opinion on policy is estimated, they should be at the same level of specificity (Lewis and Jacobsmeier 2017;Nicholson-Crotty, Peterson, and Ramirez 2009).…”