An abundance of recent research has suggested that direct democracy institutions, such as the initiative and referendum, craft an environment ripe for encouraging better democratic citizenship. High and frequent exposure to ballot measures has been shown to increase the awareness, efficacy, political participation, and even the general level of happiness of citizens. In contrast to these studies, I develop and test a theory that the use of ballot initiatives undermines the ability of government to prove themselves trustworthy. Using data from two surveys, I demonstrate that ballot initiatives in the American states do indeed create an environment that encourages citizens to distrust their government. The findings have implications in assessing the positive externalities to direct legislation as well as in understanding policy choice made in these elections.
Baldassare, M., & Katz, C. (2007). The coming age of direct democracy: California's recall and beyond. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
2.
Barber, B. (1984). Strong democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3.
Besley, T., & Coate, S. (n.d.). Issue unbundling via citizens' initiative. Unpublished manuscript . Retrieved April 6, 2006, from http://econ.lse.ac.uk/staff/tbesley/papers/initiative.pdf
4.
Boehmke, F.J., & Bowen, D. (2008, August). Direct democracy and individual interest group membership. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston.
5.
Boehmke, F.J., & Patty, J.W. (2007). The selection of policies for ballot initiatives: What voters can learn from legislative inaction. Economics and Politics, 19, 97-121.
6.
Bowler, S., & Donovan, T. (1998). Demanding choices: Opinion, voting and direct democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
7.
Bowler, S., & Donovan, T. (2002). Democracy, institutions, and attitudes about citizen influence on government. British Journal of Political Science , 32, 371-390.
8.
Bowler, S., & Donovan, T. (2004). Measuring the effect of direct democracy on state policy: Not all initiatives are created equal. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 2, 345-363.
9.
Branton, R.P. (2003). Examining individual level voting behavior on state ballot propositions. Political Research Quarterly, 56, 367-377.
10.
Campbell, J.C. (1986). Presidential coattails and midterm losses in state legislative elections. American Political Science Review, 80, 45-63.
11.
Citrin, J. (1974). Comment: The political relevance of trust in government . American Political Science Review, 68, 973-988.
12.
Citrin, J. (1996). Who's the boss? Direct democracy and popular control of government. In S. C. Craig (Ed.), Broken contract? Changing relationship between Americans and their government. Boulder, CO: Westview.
13.
Craig, S.C., Kreppel, A., & Kane, J.G. (2001). Public opinion and support for direct democracy: A grassroots perspective. In M. Mendelsohn & A. Parkin (Eds.), Referendum democracy: Citizens, elites, and deliberation in referendum campaigns (pp. 25-46). New York: Palgrave.
14.
Craig, S.C., Niemi, R.G., & Silver, G.E. (1990). Political efficacy and trust: A report on the NES pilot study items. Political Behavior, 12, 289-314.
15.
Cronin, T. (1989). Direct democracy: The politics of initiative, referendum and recall. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16.
Dyck, J.J., & Lascher, E.L., Jr. (in press). Direct democracy and political efficacy reconsidered. Political Behavior.
17.
Ellis, R. (2002). Democratic delusions: The initiative process in America. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
18.
Erikson, R.S., Wright, G.C., & McIver, J.P. (1993). Statehouse democracy: Public opinion and policy in the American states. New York: Cambridge University Press.
19.
Frey, B.S., & Stutzer, A. (2002). Happiness and economics: How the economy and institutions affect well-being. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
20.
Gamson, W.A. (1968). Power and discontent. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
21.
Garrett, E. (2005). Hybrid democracy. George Washington Law Review, 73, 1096-1130.
22.
Gerber, E.R. (1996). Legislative response to the threat of popular initiatives. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 99-128.
23.
Gerber, E.R. (1999). The populist paradox. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
24.
Gerber, E.R., Lupia, A., McCubbins, M.D., & Kiewiet, D.R. (2001). Stealing the initiative: How state government responds to direct democracy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
25.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481-510.
26.
Hetherington, M.J. (2005). Why trust matters: Declining political trust and the demise of American liberalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
27.
Hibbing, J.R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (1996). Congress as public enemy . Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
28.
Hibbing, J.R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2002). Stealth democracy: Americans' beliefs about how government should work. Cambridge, MA : Cambridge University Press.
29.
Kaufmann, K.M., & Petrocik, J.R. (1999). The changing politics of American men: Understanding the sources of the gender gap. American Journal of Political Science, 43, 864-887.
30.
Klarner, C. (2004). State partisan balance dataset. Retrieved January 5, 2008, from http://www.ipsr.ku.edu/SPPQ/journal_datasets/klarner.shtml
31.
Lascher, E.L., Jr., Hagen, M.G., & Rochlin, A. (1996). Gun behind the door? Ballot initiatives, state policies and public opinion. Journal of Politics, 58, 760-775.
32.
Lupia, A. (1992). Busy voters, agenda control, and the power of information. American Political Science Review, 86, 390-403.
33.
Lupia, A. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review, 88, 63-76.
34.
Magleby, D.B. (1984). Direct legislation: Voting on ballot propositions in the United States. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
35.
Malhotra, D., & Murninghan, J.K. (2002). The effects of contracts on interpersonal trust. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 534-559.
36.
Matsusaka, J.G. (1995). Fiscal effects of the voter initiative: Evidence from the last 30 years. Journal of Political Economy, 103, 587-623.
37.
Matsusaka, J.G. (2001). Problems with a methodology used to evaluate the voter initiative. Journal of Politics, 63, 1250-1256.
38.
Matsusaka, J.G. (2004). For the many or the few: How the initiative process changes American democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., & Schoorman, F.D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734.
40.
McEvily, B., Perrone, V., & Zaheer, A. (2003). Trust as an organizing principle. Organization Science, 14, 91-103.
41.
Mendelsohn, M., & Cutler, F. (2000). The effect of referendums on democratic citizens: Information, politicization, efficacy and tolerance. British Journal of Political Science, 30, 685-701.
42.
Nardulli, P.F. (1990). Political subcultures in the American states: An empirical examination of Elazar's formulation. American Politics Quarterly, 18, 287-315.
43.
Rosenstone, S.J., & Hansen, J.M. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New York: Macmillan.
44.
Schlozman, D., & Yohai, I. (2008). How initiatives don't always make citizens: Ballot initiatives in the American states, 1978-2004. Political Behavior , 30, 469-489.
45.
Sharkansky, I. (1969). The utility of Elazar's political culture: A research note. Polity, 2, 66-83.
46.
Sitkin, S.B., & Roth, N.L. (1993). Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic "remedies" for trust/distrust. Organization Science, 4, 367-392.
47.
Smith, D.A. (1998). Tax crusaders and the politics of direct democracy . New York: Routledge.
48.
Smith, D.A., & Fridkin, D. (2008). Delegating direct democracy: Interparty legislative competition and the adoption of the initiative in theAmerican states. American Political Science Review, 102, 333-350.
49.
Smith, D.A., & Tolbert, C.J. (2001). The initiative to party: Partisanship and ballot initiatives in California. Party Politics, 7, 739-757.
50.
Smith, D.A., & Tolbert, C.J. (2004). Educated by initiative: The effects of direct democracy on citizens and political organizations in the American states. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
51.
Smith, M. (2001). The contingent effects of ballot initiatives and candidate races on turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 700-706.
52.
Smith, M. (2002). Ballot initiatives and the democratic citizen . Journal of Politics, 64, 892-903.
53.
Squire, P. (2007). Measuring state legislative professionalism: The squire index revisited. State Politics and Policy Quarterly , 7, 211-227.
54.
Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 35-67.
55.
Waters, M. D. (Ed.). (2003). Initiative and referendum almanac. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
56.
Zaller, J., & Feldman, S. (1992). A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 579-616.
