Advertisement

Quality of Life and Direct Democracy

  • Ryan M. Yonk
  • Josh T. Smith
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Political Science book series (BRIEFSPOLITICAL)

Abstract

The essential logic of direct democracy measures is to offer another avenue for those who want to make their voices heard if they believe their concerns are not being attended to in the normal legislative process. For example, initiatives and referendums that circumvent the legislature constitute a means for individuals to place questions openly to their fellow constituents. Those working to place such measures on ballots are obviously doing so to promote their quality of life.

References

  1. Bowler, S., Donovan, T., & Happ, T. (1992). Ballot propositions and information costs: Direct democracy and the fatigued voter. The Western Political Quarterly, 45(2), 559–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Branton, R. P. (2003). Examining individual-level voting behavior on state ballot propositions. Political Research Quarterly, 56(3), 367–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brockington, D. (2003). A low information theory of ballot position effect. Political Behavior, 25(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass politics. In D. E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206–261). New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar
  5. Darcy, R., & Schnider, A. L. (1989). Confusing ballots, roll-off, and the black vote. Western Political Quarterly, 42(3), 347–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gerber, E. (1999). The populist paradox: Interest group influence and the promise of direct legislation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hawley, W. D. (1973). Nonpartisan elections and the case for party politics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  10. Kimball, D. C., & Kropf, M. (2006). Ballot initiatives and residual ballots in the 2004 presidential election. Presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  11. Lee, E. C. (1960). The politics of nonpartisanship: A study of California city elections. Berkley, CA: California University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Lipow, A. (1973). Plebiscitarian politics and progressivism: The direct democracy movement. Paper prepared for the annual meeting of the American Historical Association.Google Scholar
  13. Lodge, M., Steenbergen, M. R., & Brau, S. (1995). The responsive voter: Campaign information and the dynamics of candidate evaluation. The American Political Science Review, 89(2), 309–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Magleby, D. B. (1984). Direct legislation: Voting on ballot propositions in the United States. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Matsusaka, J. G. (2004). For the many or the few. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nichols, S. M. (1998). State referendum voting, ballot roll-off, and the effect of new electoral technology. State and Local Government Review, 30(2), 106–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nichols, S. M., & Strizek, G. A. (1995). Electronic voting machines and ballot roll-off. American Politics Quarterly, 23(3), 300–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nicholson, S. P. (2003). The political environment and ballot proposition awareness. American Journal of Political Science, 47(3), 403–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nicholson, S. P. (2005). Voting the agenda: Candidates, elections and ballot measures. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Nie, N. H., Verba, S., & Petrocik, J. R. (1979). The changing American voter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Pillsbury, A. J. (1931). The initiative, its achievements and abuses. Commonwealth Part, II(25), 426–433.Google Scholar
  23. Popkin, S. L. (1991). The reasoning voter. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Putnam, R. D. (1995). Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America. American Political Science Association, 28(4), 664–683.Google Scholar
  25. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rauch, J. (2015, May). Political realism: How hacks, machines, big money, and back-room deals can strengthen American democracy. Center for Effective Public Management at Brookings. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/political-realism-rauch2.pdf
  27. Reilly, S. (2010). Design, meaning and choice in direct democracy: Petitioners and voter’s influences. New York: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  28. Reilly, S., & Richey, S. (2011). Language complexity and voters: Does ballot question wording impact participation? Political Research Quarterly, 64(1), 59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schaffner, B., Streb, M., & Wright, G. (2001). Teams without uniforms: The nonpartisan ballot in state and local elections. Political Research Quarterly, 54(1), 7–30.Google Scholar
  30. Schmidt, D. (1989). Citizen lawmakers: The ballot initiative revolution. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Smith, D. A., & Tolbert, C. J. (2004). Educated by initiative: The effects of direct democracy on citizens and political organizations in the States. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Smith, M. (2002). Ballot initiatives and the democratic citizen. Journal of Politics, 64(3), 892–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Taebel, D. A. (1975). The effect of ballot position on electoral success. American Journal of Political Science, 19(3), 519–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tolbert, C. J., McNeal, R. S., & Smith, D. A. (2003). Enhancing civic engagement: The effects of direct democracy on political participation and knowledge. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 3(1), 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vanderleeuw, J. M., & Engstrom, R. L. (1987). Race, referenda and roll-off. The Journal of Politics, 49(4), 1081–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Walker, J. L. (1966). Ballot forms and voter fatigue: An analysis of the office block and party column ballots. Midwest Journal of Political Science, 10(4), 448–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wolfinger, R. E., & Rosenstone, S. J. (1980). Who votes? New Haven, CT: Yale University.Google Scholar
  38. Yonk, R. M., & Reilly, S. (2011). Citizen involvement & quality of life: Exit, voice and loyalty in a time of direct democracy. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 7(1), 1–16.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-011-9142-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ryan M. Yonk
    • 1
  • Josh T. Smith
    • 1
  1. 1.Utah State UniversityLoganUSA

Personalised recommendations