In: 1st (First) Albanian-Greek symposium, July 29-30, 2013, Organized by Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Universiteti i Tiranës at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece: Publication of Proceedings, Tiranë : Vllamasi, 2016 (ISBN 978-9928-206-23-71), pp 79-103
Consists of the articles and symposiums pub. in the New time, in 1897 and 1898, with introduction by J.W. Sullivan and an article by Robert Tyson. ; Cover-title. ; Mode of access: Internet.
Do small but wealthy interest groups influence referendums, ballot initiatives, and other forms of direct legislation at the expense of the broader public interest? Many observers argue that they do, often lamenting that direct legislation has, paradoxically, been captured by the very same wealthy interests whose power it was designed to curb. Elisabeth Gerber, however, challenges that argument. In this first systematic study of how money and interest group power actually affect direct legislation, she reveals that big spending does not necessarily mean big influence. Gerber bases her findings
Do small but wealthy interest groups influence referendums, ballot initiatives, and other forms of direct legislation at the expense of the broader public interest? Many observers argue that they do, often lamenting that direct legislation has, paradoxically, been captured by the very same wealthy interests whose power it was designed to curb. Elisabeth Gerber, however, challenges that argument. In this first systematic study of how money and interest group power actually affect direct legislation, she reveals that big spending does not necessarily mean big influence. Gerber bases her findings.
Critics argue that direct legislation (initiatives & referendums) allows an electoral majority to undermine the interests & rights of racial & ethnic minorities. We assess this claim by examining outcomes of direct democracy in California since 1978. Our analysis indicates that critics have overstated the detrimental effects of direct democracy. Confirming earlier critiques, we find that racial & ethnic minorities -- particularly Latinos -- lose regularly on a small number of racially targeted propositions. However, these racially targeted propositions represent less than 5% of all ballot propositions. When we consider outcomes across all propositions, we find that the majority of Latino, Asian American, & African American voters were on the winning side of the vote. This remains true if we confine our analysis to propositions on which racial & ethnic minorities vote cohesively or to propositions on issues that racial & ethnic minorities say they care most about. 6 Tables, 47 References. Adapted from the source document.