How Initiatives Don’t Always Make Citizens: Ballot Initiatives in the American States, 1978–2004

Abstract

Advocates claim that when citizens can make law through voter initiatives, they become better citizens. This paper puts that claim into context. Using data from the Current Population Survey November Supplement and American National Election Studies for each election between 1978 and 2004, it demonstrates that voter initiatives in the American states have limited effects on turnout, and on political knowledge and efficacy. Initiatives increase voters' likelihood of turning out to vote in six of seven midterm elections under study, but show no effect on turnout at presidential elections. For knowledge among non-voters and for political efficacy among all respondents, the results show null effects; for knowledge among voters, they indicate modest effects.Keywords Initiatives Á Behavior Á Citizenship Á Direct democracy This paper examines the effect of state ballot initiatives on turnout, political knowledge, and efficacy in the United States from 1978 to 2004. Apart from the content of what they propose, initiatives represent a method by which democracies may adjudicate the issues that they face. The paper considers, in general, how that means of democratic decision-making affects citizenship.Twenty-four states have some form of voter initiative, in which citizens who gather sufficient signatures can place proposed laws on the ballot for voters' Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (

Does Satisfaction with Democracy Really Increase Happiness? Direct Democracy and Individual Satisfaction in Switzerland

“…In this line of research we can now add a further aspect, namely that the frequent use of direct democracy tends to be related to higher satisfaction with democracy and in this sense strengthens citizens' confidence in government responsiveness. However, at the same time, our findings are in accordance with recent studies from the U.S. and Swiss context challenging this overly optimistic view of direct democracy and casting some serious (both empirical and theoretical) doubts on this line of reasoning (Dyck 2009;Dyck and Lascher 2009;Dyck and Seabrook 2010;Freitag and Stadelmann-Steffen 2010;Schlozman and Yohai 2008). As the results regarding individual life satisfaction show, direct democratic participation is not a panacea for everything: In this vein, subjective well-being is first and foremost an individual feature, which cannot be explained by politico-institutional factors such as direct democracy.…”

The Effect of Direct Democratic Participation on Citizens’ Political Attitudes in Switzerland: The Difference between Availability and Use

“…Whereas Gilens, Glaser and Mendelberg (2001) cannot find a direct effect of propositions on political attitudes, they show that it is the salience of the propositions that seems to affect citizens' perception of having a say in political issues. The absence of a direct effect between direct democratic procedures and both internal and external efficacy is also ascertained by Schlozman and Yohai (2008) and by Dyck and Lascher (2009) who show that the effect of direct democracy on internal political efficacy depends on citizens' political knowledge.…”

The Impact of Direct Democracy on Governance: A Replication and Extension

“…Many of these studies are traceable to the pioneering work of Smith and Tolbert (2004), who generally reported positive secondary effects of direct democracy on civic engagement in Educated by Initiative. However, more recent empirical work has generally been less supportive of such conclusions, casting doubt on whether in fact the ballot initiative process has the positive effects earlier claimed for it (Dyck 2009;Dyck and Lascher 2009;Schlozman and Yohai 2008).…”