“It’s like voting a bed quilt!”
A Portland police officer, after leaving the voting booth at the 1910 Oregon state ballot which listed 32 referendums and initiatives, quoted in Bowler and Donovan ( 1998, 13).
Abstract
Voters in polities that make heavy use of direct democracy are frequently confronted with ballots that contain a multitude of propositions. Claims that direct legislation elections overwhelm voters with choices they are not competent to make should particularly apply to such demanding settings. Yet, evidence on the effects of lengthy ballots on voting behavior is scant. This study reviews theories of decision-making under uncertainty, and tests their predictions in a mixed heteroscedastic model of vote choice that is fitted to a unique collection of survey and contextual data on Swiss referendums. Increasing ballot length is demonstrated to interfere with the voters’ ability to translate their political preferences into consistent policy choices.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Alvarez, R. M. (1999). Information and elections. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.
Alvarez, R. M., & Brehm, J. (1995). American ambivalence towards abortion policy: development of a heteroskedastic probit model of competing values. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 1055–1082.
Alvarez, R. M., & Brehm, J. (1997). Are Americans ambivalent towards racial policies? American Journal of Political Science, 41, 345–374.
Alvarez, R. M., & Brehm, J. (2002). Hard choices, easy answers. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Alvarez, R. M., & Franklin, C. H. (1994). Uncertainty and political perceptions. Journal of Politics, 56, 671–688.
Banducci, S. A. (1998). Searching for ideological consistency in direct legislation voting. In S. Bowler, T. Donovan & C. J. Tolbert (Eds.), Citizens as legislators. Direct democracy in the United States. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
Bartels, L. M. (1986). Issue voting under uncertainty: an empirical test. American Journal of Political Science, 30, 709–728.
Benz, M., & Stutzer, A. (2004). Are voters better informed when they have a larger say in politics? Evidence for the European Union and Switzerland. Public Choice, 119, 31–59.
Bowler, S., & Donovan, T. (1994). Information and opinion change on ballot propositions. Political Behavior, 16, 411–435.
Bowler, S., & Donovan, T. (1998). Demanding choices: opinion, voting, and direct democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Bowler, S., Donovan, T., & Happ, T. (1992). Ballot propositions and information costs: direct democracy and the fatigued voter. Western Political Quarterly, 45, 559–568.
Branton, R. P. (2003). Examining individual-level voting behavior on state ballot propositions. Political Research Quarterly, 56, 367–377.
Braumoeller, B. F. (2006). Explaining variance; or, stuck in a moment we can’t get out of. Political Analysis, 14, 268–290.
Brockington, D. (2003). A low information theory of ballot position effect. Political Behavior, 25, 1–27.
Christin, T., Hug, S., & Sciarini, P. (2002). Interest and information in referendum voting: an analysis of swiss voters. European Journal of Political Research, 41, 759–776.
Cronin, T. E. (1989). Direct democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Darcy, R., & McAllister, I. (1990). Ballot position effects. Electoral Studies, 9, 5–17.
Downs, G. W., & Rocke, D. M. (1979). Interpreting heteroscedasticity. American Journal of Political Science, 23, 816–828.
Dubois, P. L., & Feeney, F. (1998). Lawmaking by initiative: issues, opinions, and comparisons. New York: Agathon Press.
Enelow, J. M., & Hinich, M. J. (1984). The spatial theory of voting. An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. J. M. Enelow, M. J. Hinich, Includes index. Bibliography: pp. 224–228.
Frey, B. S. (1994). Direct democracy: politico-economic lessons from swiss experience. The American Economic Review, 84, 338–342.
Gerber, E. R. (1999). The populist paradox: interest group influence and the promise of direct legislation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Gerber, E. R., & Lupia, A. (1993). When do campaigns matter? Informed votes, the heteroscedastic logit and the responsiveness of electoral outcomes. Social science working paper 814. Pasadena: California Institute of Technology.
Gerber, E. R., & Lupia, A. (1995). Campaign competition and policy responsiveness in direct legislation elections. Political Behavior, 17, 287–306.
Harvey, A. C. (1976). Estimating regression models with multiplicative heteroscedasticity. Econometrica, 44, 461–465.
Hug, S., & Schulz, T. (2007). Left-right positions of political parties in Switzerland. Party Politics, 13, 305–330.
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: the endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 193–206.
Kriesi, H. (2005). Direct democratic choice. The swiss experience. Oxford: Lexington.
Krosnick, J. A., & Miller, J. A. (1998). The impact of candidate name order on election outcomes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 291–330.
Lapalombara, J. G., & Hagan, C. B. (1951). Direct legislation: an appraisal and a suggestion. American Political Science Review, 45, 400–421.
LeDuc, L. (2002). Referendums and initiatives: the politics of direct democracy. In L. LeDuc, R. G. Niemi & P. Norris (Eds.), Comparing democracies 2. New challenges in the study of elections and voting. London: Sage.
Lijphart, A. (1997). Unequal participation: democracy’s unresolved dilemma. American Political Science Review, 91, 1–14.
Lupia, A. (1992). Busy voters, agenda control, and the power of information. American Political Science Review, 86, 390–403.
Lupia, A. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review, 88, 63–76.
Lupia, A., & Matsusaka, J. G. (2004). Direct democracy: new approaches to old questions. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 463–482.
Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (1998). The democratic dilemma. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Magleby, D. (1984). Direct legislation: voting on ballot propositions in the United States. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Matsusaka, J. G. (1995). Explaining voter turnout patterns: an information theory. Public Choice, 84, 91–117.
Matsusaka, J. G. (2005). Direct democracy works. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 185–206.
Mueller, J. E. (1969). Voting on the propositions: ballot patterns and historical trends in California. American Political Science Review, 63, 1197–1212.
Nicholson, S. P. (2003). The political environment and ballot proposal awareness. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 403–410.
Quattrone, G. A., & Tversky, A. (1988). Contrasting rational and psychological analyses of political choice. American Political Science Review, 82, 719–736.
Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Skrondal, A. (2005). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using stata. College Station: Stata Press.
Rasbash, J., & Goldstein, H. (1994). Efficient analysis of mixed hierarchical and cross-classified random structures using a multilevel model. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 19, 337–350.
Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 7–59.
Shepsle, K. A. (1972). The strategy of ambiguity. American Political Science Review, 66, 555–568.
Skrondal, A., & Rabe-Hesketh, S. (2004). Generalized latent variable modeling: multilevel, longitudinal and structural equation models. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall.
Sniderman, P. M., Brody, R. A., & Tetlock, P. E. (1993). Reasoning and choice. Explorations in political psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tolbert, C. J., McNeal, R., & Smith, D. A. (2003). Enhancing civic engagement: the effect of direct democracy on political participation and knowledge. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 3, 23–41.
Yatchew, A., & Griliches, Z. (1985). Specification error in probit models. Review of Economics and Statistics, 18, 134–139.
Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Selb, P. Supersized votes: ballot length, uncertainty, and choice in direct legislation elections. Public Choice 135, 319–336 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-007-9265-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-007-9265-7
Keywords
- Direct legislation elections
- Heteroscedastic probit
- Multiple propositions
- Status quo bias
- Uncertainty
- Voting behavior