Week 6: Direct Democracy

Papadopoulos: Political actors do modify their behaviour in response to the threat of direct democracy

3 responses

  1. Grand coalition: co-opt parties that are likely to make use of DD, so that they do not

2 types of direct democracy that is initiated from below

Petition Referendum

Initiative

  1. Negotiate ex ante: At the crafting stage, before a bill is up for discussion in parliament, the government consults all groups which may have an interest in the issue. Inputs are taken into consideration, but if there is too much resistance, the bill may be dropped.
  1. Negotiate ex post: after a R/I is initiated, negotiate with the initiators to persuade them to drop the R/I by offering concessions (e.g legislative amendments)

Possible limits to these responses

Negotiation may take very long --> slows down the policy debate and implementation process

Parties and interest groups may be forced to moderate their position before the government is willing to accommodate --> waters down initial preference

Not all groups can be co-opted into the coalition: their ideologies may be too different to allow for coalition

Bowler et al: Is support for DD because voters are disaffected, or because they prefer a more active role in politics?

Support for having more general opportunities to participate in democracy is motivated by a distrust of government --> citizens have to keep watch over the government

Support for having more referendums (specifically) is due to citizens being more interested in politics and wanting more opportunities to participate

Disaffected citizen model: distrust of officials --> so citizens have to play the role of govt watchdog

Populist model: US citizens supported DD in an era where politicians were corrupt and unresponsive --> DD as a way to force legislatures to be more responsive

Masullo and Morisi: The importance of framing in shaping voters decisions in referendums

Information has different effects on voters' decisions, depending on whether it is framed as a risk or an opportunity

"Yes" for a change is risker than "No" for keeping status quo

Framing

"Yes" as an Opportunity for change --> significantly increased the chance of voting "yes"

Voting "No" as taking a risk --> did not have a significant impact

When voters are not properly informed, they tend to vote "No"

Lupia and Matsusaka: Voters are more competent than critics think, and the effect of money on DD is not that bad

Types of DD

Referendum: approve, reject laws and constitutional amendments

Initiative: Propose new laws/constitutional amendments

Petition referendum: citizens collect signatures, challenge laws already approved

Legislative referendum: draft by govt

Advisory referendum: drafted by govt to gauge public opinion, no policy implication

Implementation of DD: may not be implemented smoothly or have intended effect: those that drafted the R/I did not provide clear instructions, neither are they involved in the implementation process, and they may not have included sufficiently harsh sanctions on those who do not follow directions

Voter competency

Role of money: Different spending by different types of interest groups have different effects --> doesn't mean that money can push through all measures

Voters can use information shortcuts (by looking at the policy positions of parties and interest groups) to make decisions similar to what they would have if they were more informed --> voters are more knowledgeable and trustworthy than critics think

If there are reliable experts giving reliable information. voters can vote more competently as well

Business associations have more access to cash --> research shows that increased spending by these groups are more effective in leading to the measure's defeat, but ineffective in gaining success

Citizen groups have more access to volunteer labour --> research shows that spending by citizen groups are more effective in passing measures