Suchergebnisse

Direct democracy typically is lauded for putting power in the hands of the people. But is it really as democratic as it seems? To what extent, and in what circumstances, is it less about citizen power and more about external influences seeking to manipulate outcomes? Addressing these issues, Shauna Reilly draws on and compares case studies of referendums, recall elections, and initiatives around the world to investigate the complex realities of direct democracy in action

1. Introduction to direct democracy and political comprehension -- 2. Critical evaluation of citizen comprehension and direct democracy -- 3. Theoretical foundations -- 4. Petitioners and the Oregon process -- 5. Petitioner attitudes and activities -- 6. The impact of language on participation -- 7. Topic selection and language barriers -- 8. Individual votes : a preference voting experiment -- 9. The future and consequences of comprehension on ballot propositions.

This book examines the translation of minority language ballots and voter accommodation in state and local elections. It includes a focus on the translation of direct democracy measures as well as the cause and effect differences in the translated ballots, and offers insight into how jurisdictions interact with federally mandated language assistance.

A rigorous and highly original analysis of direct democracy in the United States, which calls into question the future of governance through ballot measures. Shauna Reilly uses quantitative, qualitative and experimental methodological approaches to present insights on the different behaviours of the petitioner, the ballot, and the voter.

Ballot questions often feature obscure and legalistic language that is difficult to comprehend. Because the language of ballot questions is often unclear, the authors hypothesize that questions with lower readability will have higher roll-off because voters will not answer questions they do not understand. The authors use an objective measure of readability to code readability scores for 1,211 state-level ballot questions from 1997 to 2007. Using hierarchical linear regression models of state-level data, the authors find that increased complexity leads to more roll-off. The authors further analyze some possible influences on readability by examining whether it is affected by the question topic. Adapted from the source document.

Prior studies search for evidence that distributive spending influences Congress members' vote shares but find limited evidence. The authors argue that Democratic and Republican members each benefit from different types of distributive projects. Democrats benefit from delivering spending projects (what most people think of as "pork") to their constituents, while many Republican members benefit from delivering contingent liabilities (in which the federal treasury underwrites a private entity's financial risk). Empirical tests using data from U.S. House elections between 1984 and 2002 generally confirm these hypotheses, with one exception: only Republicans in relatively conservative districts gain from contingent liabilities. This result is further explored in the text. Adapted from the source document.

Ballot questions often feature obscure and legalistic language that is difficult to comprehend. Because the language of ballot questions is often unclear, the authors hypothesize that questions with lower readability will have higher roll-off because voters will not answer questions they do not understand. The authors use an objective measure of readability to code readability scores for 1,211 state-level ballot questions from 1997 to 2007. Using hierarchical linear regression models of state-level data, the authors find that increased complexity leads to more roll-off. The authors further analyze some possible influences on readability by examining whether it is affected by the question topic.

Prior studies search for evidence that distributive spending influences Congress members' vote shares but find limited evidence. The authors argue that Democratic and Republican members each benefit from different types of distributive projects. Democrats benefit from delivering spending projects (what most people think of as "pork") to their constituents, while many Republican members benefit from delivering contingent liabilities (in which the federal treasury underwrites a private entity's financial risk). Empirical tests using data from U.S. House elections between 1984 and 2002 generally confirm these hypotheses, with one exception: only Republicans in relatively conservative districts gain from contingent liabilities. This result is further explored in the text.

Contents -- List of figures -- List of tables -- Acknowledgments -- Voting barriers: the obstacle course of electoral participation -- Sweating the vote: polling place stress as a voting barrier -- Studying polling place stress: an experimental approach -- Can you read me? ballot access complexity and voter behavior -- Does a placebo ballot lead to a voting headache? provisional ballots and voter behavior -- The waiting is the hardest part? polling place wait times and voter behavior -- Are the barriers higher for some voters? the conditional effects of polling place stressors -- Dealing with polling place stressors: conclusions and implications -- Appendix a: subject recruitment -- Appendix b: pre-test survey -- Appendix c: post-test, mock election ballot -- Appendix d: measures, coding, and distribution of responses -- Bibliography -- About the authors

The increased use of direct democracy measures across the United States has brought attention to the individual petitioner however their motivations and goals continue to be an enigma. Drawing on behavioral, historical and legal analysis to provide a more concrete depiction of these individuals, expert contributors examine the true personalities, motivations and expectations, successes and failures of petitioners in the direct democracy process and how they culminate in policy formation across the United States. Six typologies; the zealot, the victim, the amateur, the lawyer, t.

Voters with limited English language proficiency are protected by the Voting Rights Act, but some argue that existing provisions may not be enough in the face of complex ballot language. We test the possibility that complex ballot language may serve to hinder less English proficient voters' ability to participate meaningfully in elections. Using data collected through a two-stage panel study, we evaluate the relationship between student participants' English language ability and their voting behavior in a mock election. We find that those who scored lower on English-language ability tests were less able to vote in a manner consistent with their previously stated issue positions when faced with even simple ballot wording in English, and that they were more willing to cast potentially erroneous ballots when confronted with complex ballot language than those with high English proficiency. Our findings can help inform debates about ballot language, voting rights, and representative democracy more generally.