Suchergebnisse

Cover; Half-title page; Title page; Copyright page; Dedication; Contents; Figures; Tables; Acknowledgments; 1Introduction; 2 A theoretical framework ; 3 The case for moral issue propositions ; 4 Enticing peripheral voters ; 5 Statewide ballot measures and turnout ; 6 Local-level ballot measures and turnout ; 7 A partisan advantage? ; 8 Policy outcomes and lessons from morality at the ballot ; Appendices ; References; Index.

Proponents of direct democracy contend that the institution increases political knowledge, but limited evidence supports this assertion over a single election. Previous studies of the relationship, however, do not account for the heterogeneous effects of each proposition and employ political knowledge scales that insufficiently rely on information directly related to political campaigns. I address these limitations by looking at the issue content of each ballot measure and using the 2006 and 2008 Cooperative Congressional Election Studies (CCES), which contain numerous voting-relevant and policy-oriented questions from which to construct an improved measurement of actual campaign learning. Although I find no effect attributable to the total number of measures on the ballot, those addressing social issues, because they are well known, highly salient, and tap into existing social cleavages, do exhibit the hypothesized effect on political knowledge. I discuss the implications of these findings in the conclusion.

Evidence for whether direct democracy positively affects turnout is mixed, which can be attributed to a theoretical ambiguity about the proper way to measure the institution. The most common measure, a count of the number of initiatives on the ballot, is incomplete, because it unrealistically assumes that all propositions have an equal impact on turnout and focuses exclusively on initiatives. These deficiencies are addressed by looking at the issue content of all ballot measures. I find that the number of social issues on the ballot, because they are highly salient, tap into existing social cleavages, help to overcome barriers to voting, and fit within a framework of expressive choice, had a positive impact on turnout for all midterm and some presidential elections since 1992. In contrast to previous findings, however, the total number of propositions on the ballot was rarely associated with an increase in turnout. I discuss the implications of these findings in the conclusion. Adapted from the source document.

Abstract
Prior research suggests that citizen attitudes toward electoral laws and reforms derive from how individuals weigh two competing considerations: the rule's procedural fairness and one's partisan self-interest (or how they perceive the policy affects their party's electoral prospects). Recent experimental work shows that despite a role for fairness concerns, policy support levels shift (at least to a degree) based on its anticipated impact on who votes. We examine how the presentation of the trade-off between fairness and partisan advantage influences election reform opinions. Using two sets of survey experiments, we find that priming fairness reduces, but does not eliminate, the effect of partisan self-interest in shaping policy evaluations. Priming a reform's constitutionality so as to provide cover to infringe upon fairness considerations, however, does not exacerbate the impact of partisan self-interest on support for adoption. These results expand our understanding of how citizens weigh different factors when assessing electoral policies.

AbstractA large literature shows that citizens care about the procedural fairness of rules and institutions. This body of work suggests that citizen evaluations of institutional changes should be constrained by fairness considerations, even if they would personally benefit from the reforms. We test this expectation using two panel studies to examine whether citizens become more accepting of proposals rated as unfair (in wave one) after we experimentally manipulate (in wave two) whether the proposals aid their party's electoral prospects. Using this approach, we are able to establish what citizens see to be fair or unfair separate from their evaluation of a given rule change. We find that supporters of both parties are consistently more favorable toward reforms their fellow partisans and, crucially, they themselves, claim reduce electoral fairness when framed as advancing their partisan interests. The results provide important insights into how citizens evaluate electoral processes, procedural fairness, and, hence, the acceptable limits of institutional change.

AbstractPrior research predicts that election administration changes that increase voting costs should decrease participation, but it fails to consider that some interpret those changes as attacking their franchise. Drawing on psychological reactance theory, this study tests whether such perceived attacks might instead activate those citizens. It leverages the State of Florida's multi-stage effort in 2012 to purge suspected non-citizens from its voter rolls, comparing the voting rates of suspected non-citizens whose registration was and was not formally challenged by the state. Within-registrant difference-in-difference and matching analyses estimate a positive, significant participatory effect of being challenged, particularly for Hispanics (the vast majority of the sample). Placebo tests show that those challenged were no more likely than those not challenged to vote in previous elections.

Recently, many states have reversed the decades-long trend of facilitating ballot access by enacting a wave of laws requesting or requiring identification from registrants before they vote. Identification laws, however, are not an entirely new phenomenon. We offer new theoretical insights regarding how changes in political power influence the adoption of identification laws. In the most extensive analysis to date, we use event history analysis to examine why states adopted a range of identification laws over the past several decades. We consistently find that the propensity to adopt is greatest when control of the governor's office and legislature switches to Republicans (relationships not previously identified), and that this likelihood increases further as the size of Black and Latino populations in the state expands. We also find that federal legislation in the form of the Help America Vote Act seems to enhance the effects of switches in partisan control.

AbstractRecent elections have witnessed substantial debate regarding the degree to which state governments facilitate access to the polls. Despite this newfound interest, however, many of the major reforms aimed at increasing voting convenience (i.e., early voting and no-excuse absentee voting) were implemented over the past four decades. Although numerous studies examine their consequences (on turnout, the composition of the electorate, and/or electoral outcomes), we know significantly less about the factors leading to the initial adoption of these policies. We attempt to provide insights into such motivations using event history analysis to identify the impact of political and demographic considerations, as well as diffusion mechanisms, on which states opted for easier ballot access. We find that adoption responded to some factors signaling the necessity of greater voting convenience in the state, and that partisanship influenced the enactment of early voting but not no-excuse absentee voting procedures.