POLITICAL CUES? EFFECTS OF ELITE ENDORSEMENTS ON VOTER
AWARENESS OF BALLOT PROPOSITIONS DURING
DIRECT DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS
Chad Scott
B.A., California State University, Stanislaus, 2005
THESIS
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
GOVERNMENT
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
FALL
2010
© 2010
Chad Scott
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
POLITICAL CUES? EFFECTS OF ELITE ENDORSEMENTS ON VOTER
AWARENESS OF BALLOT PROPOSITIONS DURING
DIRECT DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS
A Thesis
by
Chad Scott
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Kimberly Love Nalder, Ph.D.
__________________________________, Second Reader
James Cox, Ph.D.
____________________________
Date
iii
Student: Chad Scott
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format
manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for
the thesis.
__________________________, Department Chair ___________________
Bahman Fozouni, Ph.D.
Date
Department of Government
iv
Abstract
of
POLITICAL CUES? EFFECTS OF ELITE ENDORSEMENTS ON VOTER
AWARENESS OF BALLOT PROPOSITIONS DURING
DIRECT DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS
by
Chad Scott
Direct democracy is a form of political participation that allows individual citizens
to make decisions about policy that will have an impact on the larger population. Direct
democratic elections place a great deal of power and responsibility within the hands of
voters, because the process bypasses the institutional lawmaking arena. Much research
on direct democracy focuses on whether individual citizens have the capacity to yield so
much power and assume such responsibility. The majority of research in this area has
focused on individual level measures, such as: demographic and background data; level
of knowledge about an issue; how voters make policy decisions; and how voters become
informed. However, until recently the external factors that frame a political election
cycle, and levels of voter awareness about ballot propositions have not been accounted
for. This analysis takes the assessment of voter awareness one step further. First, by retesting the importance of the political environment during proposition elections. Second,
by measuring the effect of elite endorsements on voter awareness of specific ballot
propositions. Both of these are important for understanding the context of an election
and how this shapes how voters become informed of ballot propositions.
v
This analysis utilized data collected from a variety of sources. The dependent
variable, ballot proposition awareness, was measured by using survey data from the
California Field Poll, years 1956-2008. Newspaper articles and editorials from the Los
Angeles Times provided an assessment whether a ballot proposition received an elite
endorsement. The Fair Political Practices Commission, the California Historical
Archives and the California Secretary of State provided the reported total campaign
spending for each ballot measure. All other aggregate data were collected from the
California Secretary of State.
The findings of this analysis substantiate the importance of the political
environment during an election. The political environment provides an important context
to an election cycle. The context of an election should be considered along with
individual-level measures when attempting to gauge voter awareness of political issues,
as wells as efforts directed toward predicting voter behavior in elections. While this
analysis confirmed the impact of the political environment, there was insufficient
evidence to support the thesis that endorsements made by political elites increase ballot
proposition awareness during an election cycle.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Kimberly Love Nalder, Ph.D.
_______________________
Date
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
When this project was still in the conception stage, one of my professors asked,
“are you sure you want to do a thesis? Theses can linger, and before you know it years
will pass. You should take the exams and be done with them.” After taking these words
into consideration, I selected the thesis option. But, I must admit those words grew to
haunt me over the course of the project, especially when things didn’t go as planned.
Now that the project has come to a conclusion, and I no longer want to read or hear about
ballot propositions again, at least not for a long time, I can say without a doubt that
making the choice to complete this thesis was the right decision.
The journey of this project was challenging and arduous, while simultaneously
rewarding. Having said that, this thesis would not have been possible in anyway, shape,
or form if it had not been for the love, care, and support of a great number of people.
First, and foremost is my wonderful wife Chyllis. Thank you so much for believing in
me, and having the patience to help me see this through. It will take me a lifetime to
begin to reciprocate the love, encouragement, and support you have given and continue to
give me.
To my mother Kathryn, while you may not know it you are my hero. I think
about all of the sacrifices you’ve made, the challenges you face(d), the dreams you put on
hold to make sure that we were provided for, and it moves my heart. At a young age, like
most kids, I remember thinking that I wanted to be as different from my parents as was
possible. However, these days, I find myself increasingly realizing that so much of who
you are is who I am and I’m grateful. Thank you for being the strongest person I know.
vii
My committee chair Dr. Kimberly Nalder, thank you for your time, guidance, and
patience. I remember taking your course during my second semester of graduate school
and being terrified. Your course was incredibly challenging for me. At some point
during almost every class session I wondered to myself, “why am I here, I should not be
here. The other students in this room are much smarter than I am and there is no way I
can do this.” The worst part was knowing that I would have to lead a three hour
discussion at some point during the semester. As challenging and terrifying as that
experience was, I am better off having lived through it.
Dr. James Cox, while I only had the opportunity to take one course with you,
much of the content you introduced continues to inform my understanding of the political
structure within the U.S. Thank you for your encouragement and willingness to join my
committee at such a late stage in the game.
Dr. Stephen Routh, I’m appreciative for our early discussions about this project.
As an undergraduate, I always knew you to be charismatic and inspirational, and your
courses were fun and engaging. To a large extent, I owe my aspiration to continue into
graduate school to you. You planted the seed, and everyone mentioned above, as well as
countless others helped see it to fruition. Thank you.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgments.................................................................................................................. vii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ x
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION……………....……………………………………………………….. 1
Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................. 3
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................... 4
Significance of the Study ............................................................................................. 4
Hypotheses. .................................................................................................................. 5
Limitations of Study .................................................................................................... 5
Definition of Terms ..................................................................................................... 6
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .................................................................................... 9
Historical Antecedents ................................................................................................. 9
Direct Democracy in the Progressive Era. ................................................................. 11
Direct Democracy in Contemporary Research .......................................................... 14
3. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 23
Independent Variables ............................................................................................... 24
Dependent Variable. .................................................................................................. 30
Data Collection and Coding ....................................................................................... 31
Method of Data Analysis ........................................................................................... 38
Summary……………………………………………………………………………. 38
4. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA ............................................................................................ 39
Results of Data Analysis ............................................................................................ 40
Interpretation.............................................................................................................. 48
Individual Variable Interpretation............................................................................... 50
Hypothesis Tests ........................................................................................................ 53
5. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 56
References ............................................................................................................................... 61
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1.
Table 1 Voter Awareness of Ballot Propositions in California, 1956-2008…..... 41
2.
Table 2 Governor and Los Angeles Times Endorsement of Ballot Propositions
in California, 1956-2008………..……..………………………………….…...... 44
3.
Table 3 OLS and Robust Regression of Voter Awareness of California Ballot
Propositions, 1956-2008……………………………………….……………….. 47
x
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Direct democracy relies on participation from individual citizens to make choices
on proposals that are likely to impact the larger population. The influence of direct
democracy, specifically the initiative process, extends well beyond any individual or
group, which makes this form of law making the subject of a great deal of controversy.
Much criticism of direct democracy present today can be traced back to arguments
originating from the Progressive Era. During the Progressive Era, the process of direct
democracy was formally introduced as a democratic institution within many states with
the United States (Magleby, 1984). Leading up to the progressive era, many individuals
believed their elected representatives were more responsive to special interests than their
own constituents.
To address the limited role of the public in the governing process, advocates of
direct democracy argue for mechanisms to enhance citizen’s political leverage by
institutionalizing a place for their voice within the pluralistic lawmaking arena. Further,
advocates of direct democracy believe that citizens should have a larger role, a more
direct role, in their government, rather then being limited to representational decisionmaking. Opponents of this viewpoint argue that citizen involvement in the policy making
process does more harm than good, because ordinary citizens lack the necessary
knowledge and insight to understand the intricate details involved within the governing
process.
2
There is a growing body of literature that has empirically examined the validity of
these contrasting viewpoints. Research has focused on questions such as whether citizens
feel more connected to their government because of direct democracy and whether the
process itself promotes more responsive representatives; other counterevidence suggests
that citizens may not desire a more active role in their government (Hibbing & TheissMorse, 2002). While Hibbing and Thiess-Morse’s (2002) findings are not specifically
focused on direct democracy, they are helpful for understanding how citizens use the
process democracy and what they want from their government. Hibbing and TheissMorse’s (2002) findings are important to consider because they challenge arguments
made by advocates of direct democracy that citizens want a more active role in the policy
making process. Whether individual citizens are able to navigate the complex political
arena and make informed decisions about public policy has been questioned and
empirically tested (Bowler & Donovan 1998; Cronin 1989; Gerber & Lupia 1995;
Magleby 1984).
Much of the existing literature about direct democracy examines individual
knowledge of ballot propositions. However, surprisingly, little attention has been
directed toward understanding general levels of individual awareness of ballot
propositions during direct democracy elections. Nicholson (2003) argues that before
individuals are able to acquire information about a specific ballot initiative, they at the
very least, must have heard about it. Assessing awareness is an important piece of the
puzzle to understanding how individual’s become informed and ultimately make
decisions about direct democracy proposals. Investigations into the understanding of
3
individual knowledge of ballot propositions focus on endogenous factors such as the
individual’s level of education, personal income, age, and partisanship; whereas
examining the level of individual awareness of these issues is focuses on exogenous
factors—something Nicholson (2003) describes as the political environment. The
distinction between internal and external factors is important because the link between
individuals and their environment may have more of an impact on knowledge of issues
then is typically given credit. To be sure, Delli-Carpini and Keeter (1996) provide
evidence of a link between an individual’s personal environment and the type of
information that is available to them.
Statement of the Problem
Direct democracy relies on participation from individual citizens to make choices
on proposals that will have an impact on a larger population. Because direct democracy
has such an extensive impact that extends beyond any individual or group, it is essential
to understand how voters become informed, their level of knowledge of an issue, and
ultimately how they make their policy decisions. One step toward this goal is to assess
individual awareness of direct democratic proposals. It may be expected that levels of
awareness are lower during direct democratic elections because propositions do not
contain partisan labels that are characteristic of candidate-centered elections. The lack of
partisan labeling in ballot elections raises the question of whether voters are able to
identify policy proposals that may be opposing or inline with their own partisan
preferences. Previous research has shown that elite endorsements may act as a guide for
4
voters when partisan labels are absent. This analysis attempts to evaluate these claims by
measuring the impact of elite endorsements on ballot proposition elections.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to increase understanding of how individuals become
aware of ballot propositions during direct democratic elections. Previous research has
found that environmental factors are important for assessing levels of voter awareness
(Nicholson, 2003). This analysis will test the validity of environmental factors, and
determine whether there is a significant relationship between elite endorsement of ballot
propositions and voter awareness.
Significance of the Study
Much of the literature about direct democracy examines individual knowledge of
ballot propositions. Minimal attention has been directed toward understanding general
levels of individual voter awareness of ballot propositions during direct democratic
elections. Previous research has found that the political environment, along with
individual-level factors, is important in assessing voter awareness of ballot propositions.
This analysis takes the assessment of voter awareness one step further. First, by
re-testing the importance of the political environment during proposition elections.
Second, by measuring the effect of elite endorsements on voter awareness of specific
ballot propositions. Both of these are important for the advancement of understanding
how voters become informed of ballot propositions.
5
Research Question
Do endorsements from political elites increase voter awareness of ballot propositions?
Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1: The political environment can increase or decrease voter
awareness of ballot propositions.
Hypothesis 2: An endorsement from a major newspaper within California will
increase voter awareness of a ballot proposition.
Hypothesis 3: An endorsement from the Governor of California will increase
voter awareness of a ballot proposition.
Limitations of the Study
There are several limitations to this study: first, the use of aggregate public
opinion data; second, the ballot propositions that are considered for this analysis; and
finally, the political elites considered are limited to governor and newspaper
endorsements.
The usefulness of public opinion data can be questioned on the grounds that
opinion polling is only a snapshot at a particular time. In addition, differences in
question wording across opinion polls may lead to different results. Some individuals
may answer questions that they have no knowledge about, and they may misrepresent
their actual opinions. All of these criticisms impact the validity of public opinion polling.
This study will attempt to over come such potential problems; first, by expanding the
6
scope from a single election cycle to include all ballot elections from 1956-2008. Next,
to account for the differences in question wording, the polling data used for this analysis
will be examined for the specific content of the questions asked. Finally, because this
analysis only attempts to understand voter awareness, voter responses are less likely to be
subject to social desirability bias by misrepresenting their opinion of the ballot
proposition in question.
Another limitation of this analysis is the scope of the ballot initiatives considered.
The Field Poll does not ask awareness questions about all propositions placed on the
ballot for voters to make decisions on. This introduces the question of whether the Field
Poll only inquires about higher salient initiatives (Bowler and Donovan, 1998). While
this potential objection may limit the extent to which inferences can be made about all
ballot propositions, the purpose of this study is to focus on more salient propositions, and
to assess the effects of elite endorsement on voter awareness of an initiative.
Lastly, the narrow focus of elite endorsement cannot represent the potential
influence that other political elites may have on voter awareness. This analysis focuses
on proposition endorsements made by the Governor of California and by the Los Angeles
Times during the election cycle the initiative is placed on the ballot.
Definitions of Terms
Campaign spending. The amount of money spent for or against a proposition
during a ballot election cycle.
7
Cues. Cues are messages, from a variety of sources, which may help individuals
toward making decisions without having complete information.
Direct Democracy. Direct democracy is the process whereby individual citizens
make choices on policy proposals that are likely to impact the larger population. This
stands in contrast to representative democracy where elected officials make policy
decisions. The most common forms of direct democracy the initiative process, recall
elections, and referendums.
Election Cycle. The time between the ending of one election and the next election
actually taking place.
Heuristics. Heuristics are simplification devises used by individuals to make
decisions in situations, such as voting for candidates or propositions, where they are not
fully informed.
Initiative. Initiatives are proposals submitted to citizens for a vote. When
initiatives receive a majority vote they are enacted as law. When initiatives are enacted,
they carry the same weight as law created through the legislative process.
Political Elite. A political elite is typically defined as any individual or group that
is devoted fulltime to some aspect of political activity (Zaller, 1992). Since Zaller's
(1992) definition is overly broad, this analysis focuses on two highly visible political
elites within California: the governor, and a major news source for politics, The Los
Angeles Times.
8
Referendum. The Referendum is a direct democratic procedure, which allows
voters to make decisions on whether to keep or overturn laws that have been enacted by
the legislature.
Recall. Recall elections allow voters to decide whether or not to remove an
elected office from office before the end of their term.
Likelihood of Voting. Likelihood of voting, or voter fatigue as other have defined
it, maybe defined in terms of voting behavior such as an individual’s propensity to
complete their ballots when at the polls when there are many propositions, or vote at all
when there are too many elections in a year (Walker 1966).
Summary
This Study focuses understanding how individuals become aware of ballot
propositions during direct democratic elections. Previous research has found that
environmental factors are important for assessing levels of voter awareness (Nicholson,
2003). The validity of the importance of environmental factors for assessing voter
awareness is tested. In addition to environmental factors, this study focuses on the effects
of elite endorsement on voter awareness of ballot propositions. Chapter II provides a
review of literature. This chapter includes literature regarding voting behavior and direct
democracy. Chapter III is a description of the methodology, ballot proposition selection,
and survey instruments used for this study. Chapter IV is a discussion of the results of
the analysis of data. Chapter V provides the conclusion of the study based on the
analysis of data, and recommendations for future research.
9
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter provides a review of literature in the area of direct democracy in the
United States, as well as how voters become informed and receive political information.
Beginning with a historical overview of direct democracy in the U.S., and moving into
contemporary discourse, this analysis questions whether there is a relationship between
an elite endorsement of a ballot initiative and voter awareness of that issue.
Historical Antecedents
During the founding years of the United States, architects of the constitution
disagreed about the most equitable forms of democracy. An ardent supporter of a
republican form of government, Federalist James Madison argued that a pure form of
democracy was dangerous because individuals could become susceptible to a particular
mood at any given time. If the public mood became strong enough, Madison warned, the
consequence could be disastrous for democracy, as the rights of minority groups might be
overlooked or ignored all together.
…A pure democracy… can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A
common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the
whole; …and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker
party. Hence it is, that such democracies… have ever been found incompatible
with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short
10
in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. (Madison, Jay, & Hamilton,
1788, p. 53)
Believing that self-governance would be the ideal form of rule if individuals were
capable, Alexander Hamilton ultimately viewed direct democracy as a “disease and a
poison” (Stourzh, 1970, p. 40). Consider Hamilton’s speech during the Federal
Ratification Convention in New York:
It has been observed, by an honorable gentleman, that a pure democracy, if it
were practicable, would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved
that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the
people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government.
Their very character was tyranny their figure deformity. When they assembled,
the field presented an ungovernable mob, not only incapable of deliberation, but
prepared for every enormity. (Moore, 1857, p. 192)
Arguing the merits of a republican, representative form of government in a letter
to Edmund Pendleton, George Washington wrote, “Republicanism is not the phantom of
a deluded imagination. On the contrary, under no form of government will laws be better
supported, liberty and property better secured, or happiness more effectually dispensed to
mankind” (Morrison, 2009, p. 104).
In a letter to John Taylor speaking about direct democracy, John Adams argues
…that democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.
There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to
11
say that democracy is less vain, less selfish, less ambitious or less avaricious
than aristocracy or monarchy. (Adams, 1851, p. 484)
Thomas Jefferson took a more idealistic position toward the capacity of individual
self-government. Coupling this position with a suspicion attitude toward representative
democracy, Jefferson believed that direct democracy was more equitable because it
offered a powerful check on the government. Jefferson’s view is represented well in a
correspondence with a friend, "We both consider the people as our children, and love
them with parental affection. But you love them as infants whom you are afraid to trust
without nurses; and I as adults whom I freely leave to self-government" (Yarbrough,
2006, p. 230).
Thomas Jefferson was not the only political elite that favored a larger role for
citizens within the legislative process, but his position was in the minority. In the final
compromise, the arguments for a representative democracy prevailed as the institutional
framework for the federal government. Although individual states were free to adopt
direct forms of democracy for interstate governance, this style of legislation did not enter
the political landscape until early in the 20th century.
Direct Democracy in the Progressive Era
During the time that direct democracy became realized as a political institution
within the United States, opponents and supporters shared many of the same sentiments
that were expressed over a century earlier. Advocates of direct democracy were
generally critical of representative forms of legislative action. Many supporters shared a
12
sanguine and hopeful attitude toward greater citizen involvement in the legislative
process. Critics were apprehensive of lawmaking by citizen rule.
Haynes (1907) presents an optimistic view in favor of direct democracy on the
basis that it would stimulate interest and understanding of the political process within the
voter. However, Haynes recognizes that a direct democratic system would not be
possible if states do not do provide the public with the necessarily tools to navigate the
political landscape:
In time it will be recognized that faith in direct legislation rests on a very shaky
foundation unless the state places before each voter, as its always has placed
before each member of a legislature, the means of informing himself upon every
question which he is to take part in deciding. (Haynes, 1907, p. 495)
Haynes aspiration was as courageous as it was genuinely lofty; he himself
recognized the great weight that would be placed upon the state to realize such an
ambitious objective. Despite the burden his proposal would place upon the state, he
thought that the productive benefits outweighed the initial costs.
Cautioning against being overly elated for any institutional change, Lowrie (1911)
indicates, “The advocates of the new system overflow with enthusiasm and optimistic
convention” (p. 122). Lowrie (1911) acknowledged that “The initiative is intended to
give free expression to the interests and ideas of small popular groups, which in the past
have not been able to obtain a fair hearing” (p. 129). However, these groups “are not
maintaining a responsible relation to the state administration or the whole body of state
public opinion. They merely want to push their own ideas or advance their own interests”
13
(p. 129-130). According to Lowrie (1911), advocates of direct democracy may be doing
more harm than good, while pursuing goals that are merely in their own self-interest.
Recognizing the virtue as well as the weakness of direct democracy, Lowrie
(1911) indicated that, “Direct legislation in any form is but a tool of government and will
produce desirable laws only in case it is properly used” (p. 572). While a definition of
the proper use of direct democracy would at the very least be problematic, Lowrie (1911)
urged a calculated and measured approach where, “…lawmaking by the people must
remain as an extraordinary channel”; otherwise it can quickly spiral into a populist web,
where “faddists” are able to secure the “political nostrums” (p. 572).
Eaton (1912) argued that direct democracy would allow well-organized groups
with access to resources to circumvent the legislative process and appeal to voters
directly. Bypassing the legislature would decrease the opportunity for a collective
approach to solving issues. Thereby powerful groups would increase their power, while
political parties would become weakened. The implications of this have the potential to
reach disastrous outcomes. While political parties are not without their flaws, they are
bound to a set of institutionalized rules that govern ethical and legal behavior. Groups
that operate outside the political arena are under no such obligation, and therefore, have
much more autonomy and less accountability. After all, interest groups are not elected by
to serve by the public, so unethical behavior could not be checked unless it was clear that
they broke a law.
14
Direct Democracy in Contemporary Research
Magleby (1984) identified the major controversies over direct legislation within
modern discourse. Magleby found seven arguments in favor of direct democracy: (1)
Direct legislation will reduce the power of political parties and party bosses; (2) The
process will reduce the power of special interests; (3) Direct democracy acts as a political
safety valve; (4) Direct legislation will help educate voters and will allow them to
develop civic virtue; (5) Citizens are better suited to decide public policy questions than
are elected representatives; (6) Citizens want to decide issues directly, and permitting
them to have full participation will decrease public apathy and popular dissatisfaction
with government (political efficacy argument); (7) Direct legislation will strengthen
democratic government.
On the other side of the debate, Magleby (1984) found six arguments against
direct democracy: (1) The true beneficiaries of direct democracy will not be the people
but the special interests; (2) Direct Legislation will result in an unreasonably complex
ballot and frivolous legislation; (3) Voters are ill equipped to understand complicated and
unprepared to grapple with the confusing campaigns and appeals that are a part of the
initiative process; (4) The legislative process is a much better way to make public policy;
(5) Direct democracy will not educate the voters, and it will not increase interest in
government; and (6) Direct legislation will endanger democracy and undermine
representative government .
Narrowing Magleby’s focus, Lupia and Matsusaka (2004) identified four key
questions in the direct democracy debate: How does direct democracy affect policy? Who
15
does democracy benefit: the many or the few? What is the role of money? And are voters
competent to make policy decisions that will affect the wider population? The following
section examines recent scholarship within Lupia and Matsusaka’s (2004) issue areas.
How Does Direct Democracy Affect Policy?
Addressing the question of whether direct democracy leads to a more responsive
government, Lascher Jr., Hagen, and Rochlin (1996) argued that the current practice of
the initiative process does not “enhance the extent to which policies accord with public
opinion” (p. 774). While Lacher Jr., Hagen, and Rochlin’s (1996) findings may not
support a direct influence between direct democracy and responsive policy, with respect
to public opinion, there may be evidence elsewhere to support the notion that special
interest use the initiative process to influence policy makers in other ways. Indeed,
Gerber (1998) did not find a direct relationship between the placement of an initiative on
the ballot and the passage of favorable policy. Rather, Gerber (1998) found that special
interest groups were able to indirectly influence policy by placing initiatives on the ballot
that they never intended to pass. The purpose of placing the initiative on the ballot was
not so much to win an election as it was to get the attention of policy makers. However,
Gerber (1998) indicated that there are limitations to indirect influence; some groups
would be more successful than others. Interest groups that tend to be more successful are
those who have had prior access to the political arena, or those with greater access to
resource mobilization, but even then this is often limited to certain issue areas.
Gerber’s (1998) findings suggest that interest groups may have a powerful
political tool at their disposal. Interest group influence should not be viewed as affecting
16
policy issues alone, rather organized interests may be able to place legislation that could
help or harm a legislator’s electoral success during an election cycle. Nicholson (2005)
demonstrated that salient political issues have the potential to frame an election cycle.
These issues create a particular public mood, one in which legislators can increase or
decease their electoral success depending upon how they address the issues that are
present during an election cycle. Thus, if an interest group wanted to gain the attention of
a candidate, increase or decrease the chances of electoral success, they can do so by
strategically placing legislation on the ballot.
Bali and Davis (2007) had different conclusions regarding the effectiveness of
indirect influence. While they agree the threat of an initiative does have some influence,
this may be decreasing over time as legislators and political parties “adapt” to the
initiative process (Bali & Davis, 2007, p. 226).
Tolbert (1998) finds that states that utilize the ballot initiative regularly are more
likely to adopt governance policies that can have long-term consequences for state and
local governments. Specifically, Tolbert (1998) finds a relationship between the
frequency of the initiative process and the enactment of term limits for elected officials,
supermajority tax rules, and state tax and expenditure limitations. In California’s
political climate, all three have occurred. In 1978 voters enacted proposition 13, which
limited the amount that the state could tax home and business owners. In 1993 voters
adopted term limits as a response to limit the amount of time a legislature can remain in
office. And in 1979 voters passed a two-thirds supermajority for budget and tax related
issues.
17
Who does direct legislation benefit?
Gamble (1997) addresses the question: “when citizens have the power to legislate
civil rights issues directly, will the majority tyrannize the minority?” (p. 261). Using data
from that spans three decades, Gamble concludes that the majority “repeatedly used
direct democracy to put the rights of the political minority to a popular vote” (p. 261).
Further, Gamble (1997) finds policies that undermine the civil rights of minority groups
have a high rate of success when placed on the ballot for a decision. Disagreeing with
Gamble’s (1997) position, Bowler and Donovan, and Tolbert (1998) argue that evidence
supporting the claim that direct legislation results in policy that encroaches upon minority
rights is weak. They indicate that the size of the jurisdiction where the policies are
proposed must be taken into account when making this assessment—smaller jurisdictions
may enact policies that are more repressive to minorities but his relationship weakens
with larger populations. Bowler, Donovan, and Tolbert (1998) suggest that larger
populations are more likely to support pro-gay legislation though direct democracy than
through representative channels. Elsewhere, Bowler and Donovan (1998) support this
assessment, arguing that much of the criticism waged against direct democracy, is
unfounded. However, recent events in California, suggest these positions may need to reexamined.
What roles does money play in ballot proposition elections?
Campaign spending is a modest indicator of the success or failure of an initiative
during ballot proposition elections. There is sufficient evidence, which suggests ballot
campaigns which spend the most money are generally more successful, though the
18
opposition may have more of an advantage (Cronin, 1989, Magleby 1984; Shockly, 1980;
Zisk 1987).
Other research has examines the relationship between campaign spending voter
and voter understanding of the issues. Bowler and Donovan (1998) and Lupia (1994)
suggest that voters are primarily informed about ballot propositions through campaign
advertising: and negative campaign spending seems to have the greatest impact in this
regard. Contrarily, Stratmann (2006) finds evidence that suggests the claims that
negative campaigning may be overstated. Further, Stratmann (2006) indicates that while
both sides of the campaign influence the outcome of a policy issue, the positive campaign
has a greater chance of making an impact on the voters.
Supporting Bowler and Donovan (1998), Nicholson (2003) finds evidence from
eighteen elections in California that indicate negative campaign spending has a much
greater impact on voter awareness. These findings are important because, as Nicholson
(2003) suggests, before voters can make a decision about an issue, they, at the very least,
had to have heard about them.
Voter Competency
Smith (2002) suggested that political attitudes are influenced by the institutional
structure of the political arena. Further, Smith (2002) argued that citizens who regularly
utilize the institution of direct democracy will “gain in civil abilities” and over time
“make for better citizens” (p. 892). Similarly, Bowler and Donovan (2002) maintained
that participation in direct democracy “may encourage a greater sense of efficacy, and
possibly, civic engagement” (p. 398). However, Bowler and Donovan (2002) do not
19
attribute augmented feelings of political efficacy to be a product of direct participation
alone, other individual variables such as education seem to play a significant role.
A similarly related question of whether voters are competent to voter in direct
democratic elections is do they want to? There is mixed evidence from the based upon
the turnout number from the ballot elections in California, there is mixed evidence to
support this claim, because approximately half of the registered voters failed to cast a
vote for or against a ballot proposition. Using data gathered from focus groups, Hibbing
and Theiss-Morse (2003) found that many individuals do not want to participate more in
the political arena. Although, their research did not specifically address direct
democracy, the results are applicable because their respondents consistently indicated
that they would rather have public officials they trust than to make policy decisions
themselves. It is only when individuals do not have trust in their elected officials that
they then want to become involved.
Another strand of literature in the area of voter competency focuses on individual
knowledge of ballot propositions. Two interesting questions within this area focuses on
how much people know about issues, and how individual become informed on ballot
proposition elections? How individuals become informed about particular propositions is
interesting, because ballot elections do not have the partisan labels that are present in
candidate-centered elections. While propositions lack partisan labeling there is evidence
that partisanship is an indicator of individual-level voting behavior in ballot contests
(Branton, 2003; Conover & Feldman, 2004).
20
Elite Endorsement of Ballot Propositions
Individuals may utilize information disseminated from political elites to help
organize their own preferences for political information (Converse, 1964). Key (1966)
found that mass public opinion is influenced by elite discourse. This suggests that
attitudes are not formulated in a vacuum, rather they are given contextualization from a
variety of sources including: the mass media, political elites, organized interest groups,
and political activists. Broadly, these sources will be referred to as political elites, which
fits Zaller’s (1992) definition because these individuals or groups are devoted fulltime to
some aspect of political activity.
Since partisan labels are absent from direct democracy elections, voters may
employ other means to assist them in making decisions about ballot initiatives. One way
incomplete information maybe over come by voters is by using elite endorsements as a
content cue (Karp, 1998). Political elites are able to influence voters in a variety of ways.
One way that political elites attempt to influence voters is by breaking issues down into
smaller, more easily digestible, symbolic representations. These representations act as a
cue, signaling to voters what the nature of the subject matter of the issue is (Lupia, 1994).
The effectiveness of cues as information shortcuts, or heuristics, has been explored
(Sniderman, Brody, & Tetlock, 1991; Lupia, 1994; and Mondak, 1993) and challenged
(Bartels, 1996; Kuklisniski, & Quirk, 2000; Lau, & Redlawski, 2000). The effectiveness
of cues as participation facilitators has also been addressed (Lewkowicz, 2006). One area
that has received little attention is how cues from political elites influence public
awareness of an issue.
21
When elites openly support or oppose propositions, the public may interpret this
act in accordance with a party position. Upon receiving these cues from elites, voters
may choose to accept or reject without further information. There is evidence that voter
behavior is consistent with partisan or ideological preferences across several ballot issue
domains (Branton, 2003).
Though mass media outlets may not be considered political elites in the same way
as a political figure or group normally would, they do fit within Zaller’s (1992)
definition. Media outlets engage in political discourse by transmitting messages from
other political elites to the public. In this sense, the media is a vehicle for announcing
elite cues to the public. It may be argued that transmitting these messages does not
justify defining the media as a political elite, however, it should be recognized that some
media outlets do operate in an agenda setting fashion in which they can influence the
public (Behr & Iyengar, 1985; Mutz & Soss, 1997). There is evidence that decision
makers pay close attention to media coverage, this places media outlets in a position to
influence policy makers (Cook et al., 1983). In some instances the media pursue their
own policy goals (Page and Shapiro, 1992). One such way this can be seen is when
newspaper editorials endorse or oppose a specific ballot proposition. Another powerful
function that media outlets have at their discretion is they decide what stories to report
on, how often they report them, and how much individual attention each story receives.
Perhaps one the most powerful ways that media outlets operate as political elites via their
ability to frame issues and agendas (Hall-Jamison & Waldman, 2003).
22
There is a significant amount of opinion and commentary present in both the print
and broadcast media. During an election cycle, the editorial staff at the Los Angeles
Times (L. A. Times) routinely takes positions on ballot propositions. Editorial positions
might be interpreted as an attempt to persuade readers to vote one way or another on a
particular issue. Editors may be attempting to motivate voters, but their
recommendations could also function as a mechanism for increasing awareness about an
issue at hand. This is because the L. A. Times is an agenda setting news outlet. When
the L. A. Times devotes attention to a particular issue, other media outlets may follow
suit.
Summary
The findings of this chapter provide a representation of research in the area of
direct democracy and political behavior within the United States. Beginning with the
historical antecedents of direct democracy and moving into contemporary discourse, the
majority of attention was directed toward the question of how voters receive information
during direct democratic elections. While it is important to understand how individuals
become informed during direct democratic elections in general, the step taken here is to
determine whether political elites are able to influence voter awareness of ballot
propositions. Chapter III is a description of the methodology used for this study.
Chapter IV provides a discussion of the data collection and coding of all variables, the
method of analysis, and the results of the hypothesis tests. Chapter V provides the
conclusion of the study.
23
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
This purpose of this analysis is two-fold: first, to determine whether the political
environment surrounding an election affects voter awareness of ballot propositions; and
second, whether endorsements made by political elites influences voter awareness of a
ballot proposition. The Dependent variable is voter awareness of ballot propositions.
Many of the independent variables (campaign spending, type of election, presidential
election, special election, number of issues on a ballot, days to election, media coverage,
and proposition passage) are established measures adapted from the political environment
framework modeled by Nicholson (2003).
To establish content validity and research reliability I will be utilizing several
previously established measures; mainly from Nicholson (2003), who has adapted them
from Magleby (1984), Bowler and Donovan (1992, 1998). The independent variables
are: Elite Endorsement, Media Attention, Media Endorsement, Campaign Spending,
Number of Propositions on the Ballot, Type of Election, Days to the Election, and the
Content of the Ballot Proposition. Other aggregate voter information such as the number
of registered voters, number of registered Republicans and Democrats, the total voter
turnout for a given election are used as control measures.
24
Independent Variables
Elite Endorsement
Studies have shown that elite endorsement can have an impact on political
behavior (Karp, 1998; Smith, 2002). Using Elite endorsement as an explanatory variable
I test to see if they also raise general awareness about a proposition. To increase content
validity, Zaller's (1992) broad definition of a political elite is narrowed to focuses
specifically on media and gubernatorial elites. The governor’s office was selected to be a
proxy for elite endorsement because it is the most visible statewide political position.
When the governor takes a position on a particular issue, it is likely to be covered by the
press statewide; where as an individual state senator, or state assembly member may only
garner coverage within their district. The amount of press attention an elite draws, or
lack thereof, introduces a problem of data availability. For less visible state senators, or
assembly members, there may be no record of any endorsements made for or against a
ballot proposition. While a record of gubernatorial endorsements was found for all years
under the consideration of this study 1956-2008.
Media Attention and Endorsement
Media attention is perhaps one of the most important explanatory variables to
consider—almost all information citizens have about politics is transmitted through the
media. The L. A. Times has been noted as being one of the most important news sources
within California. As an agenda setting newspaper, the L.A. Times may be a good
barometer for the broad measurement of the political climate in California as Nicholson
(2003) suggests. However, it might be difficult to capture the nuance of different
25
political environments that exist within California with a single source. Even when other
news sources are running stories that have been put on the agenda by the L.A. Times, the
amount of coverage or attention, type of attention, and location of the story can vary
widely. Some differences can be based upon other stories of interest within the specific
location of the media source. For example, a newspaper could choose to run an article
about a proposition on page two when the L.A. Times gave it front page attention
because there are other stories of higher interest to the specific location the same day, the
opposite could also be true. The L.A. Times could run an article about a ballot
proposition on a different page of the paper, while other papers might print it as frontpage news. All of these factors could lead to differing levels of awareness by location.
It should also be recognized that newspapers are not the only source that
individual’s utilize to become informed on political issues. Ideally, use of the media as
an independent variable should not be confined to print sources alone, rather it would be
helpful to account for broadcast sources as well.
Despite the abovementioned limitations, the political climate will be measured
using the same method Nicholson (2003) uses, by front-page coverage in the L. A.
Times. There are two reasons for the decision to focus solely on the L. A. Times. First,
California has over 3,700 newspapers, it would be an arduous task to examine each for
paper for its individual coverage and compare it with L. A. Times coverage. Second,
though it would be ideal to account for broadcast media coverage, analysis in this area is
particularly problematic, because unlike print media, content from television and radio
are not straightforwardly open to data analysis, and often data is unavailable.
26
Campaign spending
Campaign spending has been shown to be a modest indicator of the success or
failure of initiatives during a ballot proposition election (Bowler and Donovan, 1998;
Hadwiger, 1992). There is sufficient evidence, which suggests campaigns that spend the
most money are generally more successful, though this has been shown to have more
truth on the opposition side of the campaign (Cronin, 1989, Magleby 1984; Shockly,
1980; Zisk 1987). Bowler & Donovan (1992) indicate that campaign spending for both
sides of the proposition increases the chances that lower rates of voter drop-off will occur
in ballot proposition elections—though they also found that more money spent on the
negative campaign yielded an increase of more no votes. Based upon these findings it
seems reasonable to infer that negative campaign spending is also likely to increase
individual awareness of ballot propositions, even though it has a negative behavioral
effect. This inference seems reasonable; if voters are marking no instead choosing to
abstain from voting on certain issues at all, then it may give some indication that
individuals recognize the initiative enough to know that they did not agree with what it
proposed, or that they did not understand the issue: either case there seems to be a slight
level of awareness.
When an organized effort launches an attack against a ballot proposition, it forces
the opposite campaign to assume a defensive posture. To overcome a negative
perception from a public attack, the ballot proposition campaign must defend their
agenda, which means they must reorder their spending preferences, i.e. spend money in a
direction that perhaps they would have rather spent elsewhere.
27
Nonetheless, regardless of the direction of the money that is spent during a ballot
contest, campaign spending in general has significant potential to raise public awareness
of that issue. This can be observed on several different levels. First, spending more
money typically translates to more commercials, which enables the campaign to
disseminate messages to a widespread audience, and more frequently. Second, often
media coverage of elections tends to focus on horse race coverage (Brady & Johnson,
1987; Broh 1977; Patterson, 1980) which the latest update on who is ahead in the polls is
reported. Also, much media attention is focused on political ads; negative advertisements
specifically (Ansolobehere & Iyengar, 1995; Freedman & Goldstein 1999).
Voter fatigue and the Number of Issues on the Ballot
Voter fatigue is traditionally defined in terms of voting behavior such as an
individual’s propensity to complete their ballots when at the polls (Walker 1966).
Bowler and Donovan (1992) define voter fatigue in a similar fashion by applying a
conventional voter cost analysis originally developed by Downs (1957) to measure the
amount of drop-off in ballot proposition elections. The voter cost analysis theory is
generally used for explaining voter turnout in candidate-centered elections, however, the
same individual costs exist in ballot proposition elections if not more so, as initiatives are
not easily identified by a partisan label. Greatly simplified, the cost analysis theory
asserts that when the costs to the individual voter, exceed benefits for participation, then
the individual will abstain from participating in an election.
Nicholson (2003) suggests the same logic applies equally to ballot proposition
awareness. By doing so, Nicholson (2003) assumes that levels of awareness can be
28
measured the same way as drop-off, which implicitly suggests that lengthy ballots
increase the potential for citizens to disengage from paying attention to new political
information. This assumption seems reasonable as an increase in ballot propositions is
likely to cause more confusion and will also increase the costs in terms of time to become
more informed on all the ballot issues. In this sense, voter fatigue can be defined as a
point at which an individual becomes apathetic to new political information.
Bowler and Donovan (1992) list ten variables that contribute to an individual
becoming fatigued during the ballot election: Total campaign spending; citizen initiated
propositions; propositions that alter the state constitution; presidential election; long
ballot; prolixity of proposition; large number of propositions on the ballot; length of the
ballot; type of issue; and locations on the ballot. Of these variables, several were found
to be statistically significant at the 0.05 level using a one-tailed test: length of the ballot,
or number of questions on the ballot, amount of time to the election, and campaign
spending. These variables were utilized in Nicholson’s (2003) political environment
framework and are utilized in this analysis.
Type of Election
There are differences between different types of elections which might have an
affect on voter awareness of ballot propositions. Differences have been measured in
terms of turnout, media coverage, and levels of information present. During presidential
and gubernatorial elections much attention from the media is devoted to the horserace
competition between the candidates running for office (Broh, 1977). When this highlevel of competition between candidates occurs, other issues and contests receive less
29
attention then they normally might garner. Special elections and primary elections are
important to consider, as these contests are generally less salient and have a lower rate of
turnout; however, the 2005 California Special Election is an exception, as turnout and
awareness were almost as high as general elections from previous years.
Days to the Election
As Election Day becomes closer, voter awareness of ballot initiatives is likely to
increase. The foundation for this assumption is threefold. First, as campaigns continue,
they spend more money. Typically, the majority of campaign expenditures are spent on
advertising, whether it occurs in the form of print media, commercials through broadcast
media sources, or any combination of the above. Campaign mailers are also methods
election campaigns may utilize.
Second, news sources in the print or broadcast media, may give attention to
particular issues. An example of this takes place when news sources make comments on
political advertising; this is especially true, when campaigns utilize negative advertising
strategies. Third, individuals become more aware simply through repetition, as voters are
more likely to report familiarity of an issue if they have encountered it on more then one
occasion. As campaigns continue, and news sources report on ballot initiatives, voters
have more opportunities to encounter information about a proposal, and in many cases
they may have come across information on more then one occasion. Therefore, it seems
worthy to conclude that the use of number of days to the election is important when
evaluating levels individual awareness of ballot propositions.
30
Dependent Variable
Voter Awareness of Ballot Propositions
The dependent variable for this analysis is voter awareness of ballot propositions
during ballot proposition elections from 1956-2008. Ballot proposition awareness is
measured using data collected from the California Field Poll. The starting point of 1956
was selected for this analysis because it is the first year the Field Poll began asking and
recording data about individual awareness of ballot propositions. The California Field
Poll is a good resource assessing awareness, because they ask questions that specifically
measure individual awareness of specific ballot propositions (Nicholson, 2003). While
the Field Poll does measure awareness, there are limitations to the extent that one can
make inferences for the use of such data. First, the Field Poll does not utilize the same
wording when asking individuals about whether they are aware of a ballot proposition.
The question the Field poll typically asks is, “have you seen, read, or heard anything
about (Proposition #) a statewide ballot proposition having to do with (content varies
according to the proposition being asked about) that will appear on the next election
ballot?” To account for this potential threat to reliability, each ballot proposition question
is evaluated for differences in wording. Of the 24-ballot elections considered in this
analysis, only two cycles were found to contain differences in the way questions were
asked by the Field Poll. In all, nine proposition questions did not contain the same
wording as the other 103. For ballot propositions 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 from
1972; 13 and 14 from 1976, respondents were asked whether they thought they knew
31
enough about a proposition to vote on it. Though the questions were worded differently,
they are essentially asking the same question.
Second, the Field Poll does not inquire about all propositions that are on a ballot
during an election. Rather, the Field Poll typically asks awareness questions about more
salient propositions. This poses a problem for assessing ballot proposition awareness
because higher levels of awareness might by expected when respondents are asked about
propositions that receive more attention. Despite this problem, even with the Field Poll
inquiring about more salient ballot initiatives, the differences in levels of awareness of all
ballot propositions considered in this analysis are quite large.
Third, as it may be true with all polling data that is obtained via random calling
methods, the California Field Poll is no exception to questions of reliability and validity.
The first, objection would be telephone sampling contains an inherent bias, because
individuals who do not own phones, either by chance or by choice are not represented in
the sample. Conversely, however, it may be argued that these underrepresented
individuals typically do not vote, therefore, they may not be as in-tune with political
information as the average voter. There are strengths of using this method, such as
sampling is completely randomized.
Data Collection and Coding
Days to the Election
This variable for days to the election is the total number of days from the last day
of the time period respondents were asked by the Field Poll about a particular ballot issue
32
during the election cycle. For example, when the Field Poll asked respondents about
Proposition 140 during the 1990 general election, the poll took place between October
27th-30th and the election took place on November 6th, so the total number of days to the
election is coded as (7).
Type of Election
The type of election indicates whether an election was a primary or a general
election. The type of ballot proposition will be determined using data gathered from the
voter handbook distributed by the California Secretary of State during each election
cycle. Coding for this variable is (0) for a primary election and (1) for a general election.
Campaign Spending
Total campaign spending for ballot propositions from 2000-2008 was collected
from the California Secretary of State (CSoS). Prior to 2000 the Fair Political Practices
Commission collected campaign finance data. Depending upon the year of the ballot
election, records were obtained from the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) and
the California Historical Archives (CHA). Prior to 1990 campaign expenditures for a
ballot proposition were not calculated to provide a total expenditure amount. For these
propositions, individual committees expenditures were added together for both the
support and against campaigns. The support and against campaigns were then added
together to obtain the total expenditure for a ballot proposition. The coding for campaign
expenditures is straightforward with the number being reported are the actual
expenditures made in U.S Dollars. Since this analysis examines ballot propositions from
33
1956-2008, all campaign expenditures were adjusted for inflation using the Implicit
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to U.S. Dollars in 2008.
The variable for campaign expenditure was collected from the CSoS, the
California FPPC, and the CHA.
Coding for ballot campaign expenditures uses the total United States Dollar
amount as reported by each ballot committee to the agency responsible for recording such
data at the time. The reported amount includes individual totals for supporting and
opposing committees for a ballot proposition from January 1 to the day of an election
during an election cycle. In addition, total campaign expenditures are reported which
includes supporting and opposing committees. The total amount was obtained simply by
adding the amount of expenditures for the supporting committees and the final amount
spent by opposing committees.
For many ballot measures several committees are listed as supporting or opposing
the proposed legislation. When a ballot measure has more then one committee, either
supporting or opposing, the total campaign expenditure for each group is reported as a
total sum for the position taken on the proposition.
Several propositions did not have a committee: a) that supported the measure; b)
that opposed the measure; or c) both. If a measure did not have a, b, or c then zero is
reported as the total campaign expenditure.
Many propositions had committees that supported or opposed a measure, but did
not file a campaign report with the Secretary of State. When this occurred the campaign
expenditures are assumed to be minimal and are reported as zero. With no data available,
34
it is not possible to make a determination of how much, if any, a group spent supporting
or opposing a ballot measure. Since California law requires campaign committees to
report all donations, and expenditures, it is unlikely that a group would violate election
law by failing to report the mandated information to the Secretary of State because of the
penalties for such action. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that if a committee
that did not file a report with the Secretary of State, then the group either spent very little
on the campaign, or did not spend anything at all: in either case it would not be likely that
the committee monetary contributions to the ballot campaign yield much of an impact in
either direction.
However, there were instances in which committees supported or opposed more
then one ballot measure. In these cases, if it was clear that a committee spent money on
more than one measure, such as mailers, advertising, calling potential voters, etc., then
the total campaign expenditures for that committee were used for each ballot measure
they supported or opposed. This decision was made because the total campaign
expenditures reported by each group are reported as one sum regardless of the number of
ballot measures they support of oppose. Therefore, the data does not permit
disaggregation of campaign expenditures for each ballot measure a committee supports or
opposes when there is more then one.
Newspaper Endorsement
Newspaper endorsement was recorded using data from Los Angeles Times (L.A.
Times) publications 1956-2008. The primary reason for using the Los Angeles Times, as
a foundation for assessing newspaper endorsements, is the L.A. Times is a trendsetting
35
regional daily news source, and has the second largest circulation in California. In
addition, the Times is the only regional newspaper that contains a searchable database
that extends far enough to include all election years used for analysis. This is especially
important, because of the limited resources for this analysis. The only other option would
be to search the daily newspapers on microfiche. The data for this analysis was obtained
using ProQuest Historical Database (PQHD)for the Los Angeles Times, licensed through
California State University, Sacramento during the period of February 28th-March 1st.
For publications prior to 1985, data was collected using the PQHD for the Los Angeles
Times, licensed through the University of California, Davis, during the period of March
4th-6th.
During an election cycle the editorial staff at the L. A. Times routinely takes a
position on a ballot propositions. Editorial positions are often aimed to persuade readers
to vote one way or another on a particular issue. Though their aim of printing their
opinion about an issue is primarily to motivate voters, their recommendation can also
serve as a mechanism for increasing awareness about an issue at hand. It may also be
likely that other papers will follow suit and issue similar recommendations. This is
important because when a newspaper takes a position on an issue is also likely that the
paper will print more articles on the matter then it would if no recommendation was
given. Quite simply, this can serve as a mechanism for increasing awareness, through
repetition.
The coding for newspaper endorsement is (0) if a newspaper takes a position
against a ballot proposition, and (1) if the editors choose to support the issue. The
36
Endorsement encompasses whether a newspaper endorsed or opposes a ballot proposition
during an election cycle. All ballot propositions used for this analysis were found to have
a position reposted with the L. A. Times, so there were no issues of missing or
incomplete data.
Gubernatorial Endorsement
The data for whether a Governor endorsed or opposed a ballot proposition was
gathered from the L. A. Times. For reasons already stated the L. A. Times serves as an
excellent record of California Politics, therefore if a governor has taken a position it will
likely be reported in the Times. For propositions the governor opposed the coding is (1).
For propositions the governor either supported or created, the coding is (2). In some
instances it was reported that the governor did not take a position on a certain ballot
issue, for these propositions the coding is (0).
Voter Fatigue
Using Bowler and Donovan’s (1992) framework to explain voter fatigue on
proposition awareness, it is not necessary to utilize all of the indicators they used in
explaining drop-off. The total length of the ballot, which includes many candidates
running for office, and location of the issue on the ballot are not useful indicators as this
analysis is aimed toward explaining individual awareness, not actual voting behavior. In
addition, total campaign spending, type of election, and type of issue the proposition
addresses will be used as individual variables to be isolated in the final analysis, and will
not be used in the calculus of voter fatigue. Therefore, the indicators that are used to
37
calculate voter fatigue are the total number of propositions on the ballot, propositions that
alter the state constitution, and prolixity of proposition.
Media Coverage
Data collection for media coverage was obtained from the media center at
California State University, Sacramento (CSUS). Front-page newspapers articles printed
in the L. A. Times for the years of 1956-2008 were viewed from the CSUS microfilm
collection. If the L. A. Times featured a front-page article about a ballot proposition then
it is coded (1); if there was no coverage that day then it is coded (0).
Aggregate Voter Data
All aggregate level data, such as voter turnout for an election, registered
Democratic and Republican party was obtained from the California Secretary of State.
Coding for these variables are the actual numbers reported by the California Secretary of
State's office.
Voter Awareness of Ballot Propositions
The data for this analysis is collected from a variety of sources. For the dependent
variable, ballot proposition awareness, is measured by using survey data from the
California Field Poll, years 1956-2008. Reasoning for the use of the Field Poll and the
years selected is addressed in greater length above. Coding for ballot proposition
awareness is the actual percentage of awareness reported by the Field Poll.
38
Method of Data Analysis
The analysis of data will be performed using Ordinary Least Squares
(OLS) regression and robust regression techniques. This method of data analysis will be
utilized in this because it has been found to be a successful tool by researchers
conducting similar investigations. Using robust regression acts as a check on the
reliability of the OLS regression analysis. In addition, robust regression can be used as
an alternative technique to OLS regression, when the assumptions the method are unable
to be fulfilled. Robust regression is an option when the distribution of the residuals is not
evenly distributed, or there are influential cases, which skew the data. Hamilton (1998)
notes, “a robust estimator performs well even when there are small violations of
assumptions about the underlying population” (p. 189).
Summary
This chapter provided a description of the method of analysis, the independent
variables, the dependent variable, and the survey instruments used for this study. In
addition, this chapter reviewed the relevant indicators for measuring voting behavior and
knowledge of political issues while justifying their use for assessing voter awareness of
ballot propositions. The explanation for the use of each indicator as an independent
variable to measure the effect on ballot proposition awareness is provided. Chapter IV
provides a discussion of the data collection and coding of all variables, the method of
analysis, and the results of the hypothesis tests. Chapter V provides the conclusion of the
study based on the analysis of data, and recommendations for future research.
39
Chapter 4
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
The primary question of this analysis is to determine whether endorsements from
political elites increase voter awareness of ballot propositions. To determine whether
elite endorsement increase voter awareness three hypotheses will be tested:
Hypothesis 1: The political environment can increase or decrease voter
awareness of ballot propositions.
Hypothesis 2: An endorsement from a major newspaper within California will
increase voter awareness of a ballot proposition.
Hypothesis 3: An endorsement from the Governor of California will increase
voter awareness of a ballot proposition.
All three hypothesis are tested using two separate models: one model utilizes total
campaign spending as an independent variable, while the other analyzes positive and
negative campaign spending separately. Both models are tested using Ordinary Least
Squares (OLS) regression and robust regression statistical analysis. Hypothesis 1: tests
the effects of the political environment on ballot proposition awareness by utilizing
established measures from previous research. Hypothesis 2 tests whether an endorsement
from the Los Angeles Times increases ballot proposition awareness by isolating the
effects from other variables with the political environment model. Hypothesis 3 tests
whether an endorsement from the governor of California increases ballot proposition
awareness by holding the effects of other variables with the political environment model
constant.
40
Results of Data Analysis
The analysis of data is performed using two regression techniques: Ordinary Least
Squares (OLS), and robust regression. OLS regression is primary statistical analysis used
because OLS tests the effects of the political environment and political elite independent
variables on the voter awareness of ballot propositions. Robust regression is uses to
verify the reliability of the OLS analysis. Two separate models are included in this
analysis to compare the effect of the political environment on voter awareness of ballot
propositions. The two models are set up to detect differences between positive and
negative campaign spending in Model 1, and total campaign spending in Model 2.
41
Table 1 Voter Awareness of Ballot Propositions in California, 1956-2008
Year Prop. Ballot Title
Awareness
2008
93
Legislative Term Limits
80%
94
Referendum on Indian gaming Compact
84%
95
Referendum on Indian gaming Compact
84%
96
Referendum on Indian gaming Compact
84%
97
Referendum on Indian gaming Compact
84%
2006
83
Sex Offenders Punishment
78%
85
Parental Notification of Teenage Abortion
49%
86
Tax on Cigarettes
56%
87
Alternative Energy Tax on California Oil
53%
90
Regulation of Private Property
53%
82
Tax increase for Public Preschool Education
49%
2005
74
Tenure for Public School Teachers
45%
75
Consent of Union Due for Political Contributions
55%
76
School Funding State Spending
22%
77
Reapportionment.
42%
78
Prescription Drug Discounts
34%
79
Prescription Drug Discounts
36%
80
Electric Service Regulation
44%
2004
60
Election Rights of Political Parties
46%
61
Children’s Hospital Grant Projects
57%
62
Primary Elections
40%
63
Tax for Mental Health Services
58%
64
Limitations on Unfair Business Competition Laws
49%
66
Three Strikes
75%
67
Surcharge for Emergency and Medical Services
38%
68
Tribal Gaming Compact Renegotiation
94%
70
Exclusive Rights for Tribal Gaming Compact
94%
71
Stem Cell Research Funding
58%
72
Health Care Coverage Requirements.
42%
2003
54
Racial and Ethnic Classification
81%
University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of
2002
47
2002
63%
49
Before and After School Programs
66%
50
Water Quality, Supply and Safe Drinking Water
46%
52
Election Day Voter Registration
53%
34
Campaign Contributions and Spending Limits
58%
36
Drug Probation and Treatment
57%
38
School Vouchers for Private and Religious Education
88%
39
School Facilities
64%
1998
3
Partisan Presidential Primary Elections
34%
5
Tribal-State Gaming Compacts
94%
8
Public Schools
49%
42
1996
1994
1992
1990
1988
1986
1984
9
10
207
209
211
215
218
184
186
187
188
161
163
164
165
166
167
126
128
129
130
131
133
134
135
136
138
139
140
100
101
103
104
106
61
62
63
64
64
36
37
38
39
40
Electric Utility Bonds
Tax on Tobacco for Childhood Development Programs
Attorneys Fees Regulation
Prohibition against Discrimination
Attorney-Client Fee Arrangements
Medical Use of Marijuana
Voter Approval for Local Government Taxes
Increased Sentences. Repeat Offenders (3 Strikes)
Health Services Taxes
Illegal Aliens Ineligibility for Public Services
Smoking and Tobacco Products
Physician Assisted Death
Ends Taxation of Certain Food Products
Congressional Term Limits
Budget Process for Welfare
Basic Health Coverage
State Taxes
Taxes for Alcoholic Beverages
Environment
Drug Enforcement, Prevention and Treatment
Timber Harvesting Practices
Limits Elected Offices Campaign Financing and Ethics
Drug Enforcement and Prevention
Alcohol Surtax
Pesticide Regulation
State, Local, Taxation
Timber Harvesting Practices
Tax credit for Prison Inmate Labor
Limits on Terms of Office Legislators Retirement
Insurance Rates and Regulation
Automobile Accident Claims and Insurance Rates
Insurance Rates and Regulation
Automobile and Other Insurance
Attorney Fees Limit for Tort Claims
Compensation of Public Officials
Taxation of Local Government and Districts
Official State Language
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (quarantine)
Restrictions on Toxic Discharges into Drinking Water
Taxation
State Lottery
Voting Materials in English Only
Reapportionment
Campaign Contributions
71%
72%
56%
86%
82%
84%
26%
92%
86%
91%
73%
66%
54%
68%
56%
58%
39%
73%
78%
39%
56%
65%
28%
79%
62%
35%
66%
39%
67%
54%
38%
57%
48%
17%
77%
47%
85%
76%
78%
83%
93%
72%
65%
48%
43
41
9
11
12
13
14
14
8
10
5
6
7
13
14
14
17
18
19
20
21
22
18
1A
3
9
14
4
Public Aid Medical Assistance Programs
1982
School Textbooks for Nonpublic Schools
Beverage Containers
Nuclear Weapons
Water Resources
Reapportionment
Handgun Registration
1980
Water Resources
Smoking and Non-Smoking Sections
1978
Regulation of Smoking
School Employees Homosexuality
Murder Penalty
1976
Grey Hound Dog Racing Initiative Statute
Agricultural Labor Relations
1972
Property Tax Limitations
Death Penalty
Obscenity Legislation
Marijuana Removal of penalty for Personal Use
Coastal Zone Conservation Act
Assignment of Students to Schools
Agriculture Labor Relations
1970
Motor Vehicle Taxation and Revenues
1968
Homeowners Property Tax Exemption
Education Bonds
Limitation on Property Tax Rate
1964
Regulation of Residential Real Property
1956
Aid to Need Aged
Mean Average
Standard Deviation
Sources: California Field Polls 1956-2008
61%
63%
95%
91%
76%
58%
97%
69%
93%
95%
84%
55%
66%
59%
37%
84%
60%
79%
53%
59%
48%
55%
45%
38%
46%
66%
39%
62%
19%
44
Table 2 Governor and Los Angeles Times Endorsement of Ballot Propositions in
California, 1956-2008
Election Prop.
N.P.
Gov.
Year
#
Passed
End
End Governor in Office
Political Party
2008
93
No
Yes
Yes A. Schwarzenegger Republican
94
Yes
No
Yes
95
Yes
No
Yes
96
Yes
No
Yes
97
Yes
No
Yes
2006
83
Yes
No
Yes
85
No
No
Yes
86
No
Yes
Yes
87
No
No
Yes
90
No
No
Yes
82
No
No
Yes
2005
74
No
No
Yes
75
No
Yes
Yes
76
No
No
Yes
77
No
Yes
Yes
78
No
No
Yes
79
No
No
No
80
No
No
No
2004
60
Yes
No
No
61
Yes
No
62
No
Yes
No
63
Yes
No
No
64
Yes
Yes
Yes
66
No
Yes
No
67
No
No
No
68
No
No
No
70
No
No
No
71
Yes
Yes
Yes
72
No
No
No
2003
54
No
No
No
2002
47
Yes
No
Yes J. G. Davis
Democratic
49
Yes
No
50
Yes
Yes
52
No
No
34
Yes
No
Yes
36
Yes
No
No
38
No
No
No
39
Yes
Yes
Yes
1998
3
No
Yes
No
P. Wilson
Republican
45
1996
1994
1992
1990
1988
1986
1984
5
8
9
10
207
209
211
215
218
184
186
187
188
161
163
164
165
166
167
126
128
129
130
131
133
134
135
136
138
139
140
100
101
103
104
106
61
62
63
64
64
36
37
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
P. Wilson
Republican
P. Wilson
Republican
P. Wilson
Republican
G. Deukmejian
Republican
G. Deukmejian
Republican
G. Deukmejian
Republican
G. Deukmejian
Republican
46
38
Yes
No
39
No
No
Yes
40
No
No
No
41
No
No
No
1982
9
No
No
No
11
No
Yes
12
Yes
Yes
13
No
Yes
14
No
No
14
No
Yes
1980
8
Yes
Yes
Yes
10
No
No
1978
5
No
Yes
6
No
No
No
7
Yes
No
No
1976
13
No
No
No
14
No
No
Yes
1972
14
No
No
No
17
Yes
No
18
No
No
No
19
No
No
20
Yes
Yes
Yes
21
Yes
No
22
Yes
No
1970
18
No
Yes
Yes
1968
1A
Yes
Yes
Yes
3
No
Yes
9
No
No
No
1964
14
Yes
Yes
No
1956
4
No
Yes
No
Total
112
41
29
34
Sources: Los Angeles Times, 1956-2008
E. G. Brown, Jr.
Democratic
E. G. Brown, Jr.
Democratic
E. G. Brown, Jr.
Democratic
J. Brown
Democratic
R. Reagan
Republican
R. Reagan
R. Reagan
Republican
Republican
E. G. Brown, Sr.
G. J. Knight
Democratic
Republican
47
Table 3 OLS and Robust Regression of Voter Awareness of California Ballot
Propositions, 1956-2008
Model
Model
1
2
OLS
Robust
**
*
0.129
Robust
General Election
0.135
Pres. Election
-0.046
-0.052
-0.054
-0.055
Number of Ballot
Measures
-0.005
-0.006
-0.005
-0.005
Days to the
Election
- 0.048 **
-0.050
**
-0.050
**
-0.052
0.123
***
0.118
***
0.117
***
0.134
OLS
*
0.123
Media Coverage
0.115
N.P Endorsement
-0.029
-0.023
-0.033
-0.030
Gov. Endorsement
-0.002
-0.010
0.002
-0.002
Budget and Tax
- 0.046
-0.053
-0.046
-0.047
Civil Rights
0.171
0.168
0.173
0.174
Education
0.003
0.005
-0.003
-0.002
Gov. Structure
-0.006
-0.013
-0.001
-0.005
Indian Gaming
0.224
Law, Bus., & Ins.
Reg.
0.066
0.074
0.074
0.076
Law Enforcement
0.056
0.004
0.070
0.055
***
0.238
**
0.211
**
0.213
48
Water &
Environment
0.019
0.018
___
___
Total Spending
Pro Spending
-0.066
0.021
0.020
0.121
0.139
___
___
___
___
-0.087
Negative Spending
0.226
**
0.248
**
Constant
0.625
***
0.637
***
N
107
R2
0.482
0.459
Adjusted R2
0.384
0.363
F-Test
4.88
107
***
4.59
0.630
***
107
***
4.78
0.640
107
***
4.14
*Significant at the .05 level;**significant at the .01 level;***significant at the .001 level
Number of Measures, Days to an Election, and Campaign Spending coefficients are
standardized. Presidential Election, General Election, Newspaper Endorsement, and
Governor Endorsement are coded as dummy variables (1 = yes, 0 = no).
Interpretation
Table 1 indicates that the average aggregate voter awareness of ballot
propositions in California from 1956 to 2008 is 62 percent with a standard deviation of
19 percent. Table 2 illustrates whether a ballot proposition was endorsed by the L. A.
Times, and, or the acting governor. Of the 112 ballot propositions considered for this
analysis, 29 were endorsed by the L. A. Times, 34 received a gubernatorial endorsement,
and 41 were enacted by voters.
49
Table 3 reports the results from the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) and robust
regression results for both models. The total of cases utilized in this analysis is (N= 107);
five cases were dropped for missing or incomplete data. According to the OLS results
from Model 1, the political environment explains 48 percent of the variation in ballot
awareness using a one-tailed test (p < .05). This verifies the importance of the political
environment reported by Nicholson’s (2003) analysis. However, contrary to Nicholson
(2003), one of the independent variables used in the model original model was not found
to be statistically significant predictors of voter awareness of a ballot proposition—this
was the number of ballot measures.
On average, voter awareness of ballot propositions is 14 percent higher in general
elections than primary elections. The OLS results do not provide evidence that there is a
difference in voter awareness between presidential and mid-term elections. Similarly, the
results do not verify that the number of ballot measures during an election cycle have an
effect, positively or negatively, on aggregate levels of voter awareness. The days to the
election have an effect on voter awareness of ballot propositions; on average each day
closer to an election, voter awareness increases by half of one percent. The amount of
media coverage a ballot proposition receives is a strong indicator of how well a
proposition will be known to voters. Propositions that receive front-page coverage in the
L. A. Times, on average, have a 12 percent higher rate of voter awareness.
Contrary to expectation, an endorsement from the L. A. Times, or the governor in
office at the time of an election was not found to have any influence on voter awareness.
The content of a ballot proposition does have an effect on voter awareness. Model 2
50
indicates that ballot propositions that address civil rights issues have a 17 percent higher
level of voter awareness on average. Both models indicate that Indian gaming
propositions have a 22 percent higher level of voter awareness. The results from model 2
indicate that a higher level of total campaign spending increases voter awareness by 12
percent. Model 2, verifies that campaign spending increases voter awareness; however,
positive spending does not have much effect. Negative campaign spending is the
strongest predictor of voter awareness of a ballot proposition.
Individual Variable Interpretation
During a general election there is an average 0.14 increase in voter awareness of a
ballot proposition when compared to a regularly scheduled election cycle, holding
constant the effects on awareness of the other variables; this is statistically significant t =
2.58, p = 0.01.
During a presidential election there is an average 0.05 decrease in voter awareness
of a ballot proposition when compared to a regularly scheduled election cycle, holding
constant the effects on awareness of the other variables; this is not statistically significant
t = -1.48, p = 0.14.
For every one standard deviation decrease in the number of ballot measures
during an election cycle, there is an average 0.05 reduction in voter awareness of a ballot
proposition, holding constant the effects on y of the other variables; this is not
statistically significant t = -1.84, p = 0.07.
51
For every one standard deviation decrease in the number of days away from an
election, there is an average 0.05 reduction in voter awareness of a ballot proposition,
holding constant the effects on awareness of the other variables; this is statistically
significant t = -2.70, p = 0.01.
Ballot propositions that receive front page news coverage from the L. A. Times
the day after an election have an average 0.12 higher rate of voter awareness than
propositions that do not receive front page attention, holding constant the effects on
awareness of the other variables; this is statistically significant t = 3.64, p < 0.01.
Ballot propositions that receive an endorsement from the L. A. Times have an
average -0.03 reduction in voter awareness when compared to a ballot proposition that
does not receive an endorsement, holding constant the effects on awareness of the other
variables; this is not statistically significant t = -0.82, p = 0.41.
Ballot propositions that receive a gubernatorial endorsement have an average
-0.002 reduction in voter awareness when compared to a ballot proposition that does not
receive an endorsement, holding constant the effects on awareness of the other variables;
this is not statistically significant t = -0.07, p = 0.99.
Ballot propositions that address civil rights issues have an average 0.17 higher
rate of voter awareness than propositions that address other issues, holding constant the
effects on awareness of the other variables; this is not statistically significant t = 1.85, p =
0.07.
52
Ballot propositions that address education have an average 0.002 higher rate of
voter awareness than propositions that address other issues, holding constant the effects
on awareness of the other variables; this is not statistically significant t = 0.05, p = 0.96.
Ballot propositions that address budget and taxes have an average 0.05 lower rate
of voter awareness than propositions that address other issues, holding constant the
effects on awareness of the other variables; this is not statistically significant t = -1.02, p
= 0.31.
Ballot propositions that address law enforcement have an average 0.05 higher rate
of voter awareness than propositions that address other issues, holding constant the
effects on awareness of the other variables; this is not statistically significant t = 0.94, p =
0.35.
Ballot propositions that address Law, Business, and Insurance Regulation have an
average 0.06 higher rate of voter awareness than propositions that address other issues,
holding constant the effects on awareness of the other variables; this is not statistically
significant t = 1.00, p = 0.32.
Ballot propositions that address Government Structure have an average 0.01
lower rate of voter awareness than propositions that address other issues, holding
constant the effects on awareness of the other variables; this is statistically significant t =
-0.12, p = 0.91.
Ballot propositions that address Water and Environmental issues have an average
0.01 higher rate of voter awareness than propositions that address other issues, holding
53
constant the effects on awareness of the other variables; this is statistically significant t =
0.29, p = 0.77.
Ballot propositions that address Indian gaming have an average 0.22 higher rate
of voter awareness than propositions that address other issues, holding constant the
effects on awareness of the other variables; this is statistically significant t = 3.36, p <
0.01.
For every one standard deviation change in the amount of positive campaign
spending for a ballot initiative, there is an average 0.07 decrease of voter awareness of a
ballot proposition, holding constant the effects on awareness of the other variables; this is
statistically significant t = -0.07, p = 0.44.
For every one standard deviation change in the amount of negative campaign
spending against a ballot initiative, there is an average 0.22 increase in voter awareness of
a ballot proposition, holding constant the effects on awareness of the other variables; this
is statistically significant t = 3.08, p < 0.01.
Hypothesis Tests
Hypothesis 1
An OLS regression analysis predicting ballot proposition awareness scores from
the political environment model produced a coefficient of 0.63 with an R2 = 0.48, using a
one-tailed test (p < 0.05). This means that the hypothesis test fails to reject that the
political environment in which an election takes place has an effect on ballot proposition
awareness.
54
Hypothesis 2
An OLS regression analysis, predicting ballot proposition awareness scores from
a gubernatorial endorsement was not statistically significant; coefficient = -0.002, t = 0.07, using a one-tailed test (p = 0.94). The variable for Governor Endorsement has a p
value larger than 0.05; therefore the null hypothesis cannot be rejected and the alternative
hypothesis must be accepted. This means that voter awareness of a ballot proposition
does not increase when acting governor of the State of California endorses the direct
policy proposal.
Hypothesis 3
An OLS regression analysis, predicting ballot proposition awareness scores from
an endorsement made by the L. A. Times was not statistically significant; coefficient = 0.03, t = - 0.82, using a one-tailed test (p = 0.41). The variable for L.A. Times
endorsement has a p-value larger than 0.05, therefore the hypothesis cannot be accepted
and the alternative hypothesis that an endorsement by the L.A. Times does not increase
voter awareness of a ballot proposition.
This analysis finds evidence to support Nicholson’s (2003) original results, which
show that the political environment during an election cycle does have an influence on
individual awareness of ballot proposition awareness. However, the analysis yields
insufficient evidence to suggest that an endorsement from the governor, or the L. A.
Times increases voter awareness of ballot propositions.
55
Summary
This chapter discussed the data collection, coding of the dependent and
independent variables, and the results of the OLS and robust regression analysis. The
most significant finding of this chapter is that there is strong evidence for the importance
of the political environment originally proposed by Nicholson (2003) for ballot
proposition elections. Endorsements made by the L. A. Times and the Governor of
California were not found to have significant influence on voter awareness of ballot
propositions. The final chapter provides the conclusion of the study based on the
aforementioned analysis of data, and recommendations for future research.
56
Chapter 5
CONCLUSION
Direct democracy is a form of political participation in which individual citizens
are able to make decisions about policy that will have an impact on the larger population.
Direct democratic elections place a great deal of power and responsibility within the
hands of voters, because the process bypasses the institutional lawmaking arena.
Research on direct democracy has focused on whether individual citizens have the
capacity assume such power and responsibility. The majority of research in this area
typically focuses on individual level measures, such as: demographic and background
data; level of knowledge about an issue; how voters make policy decisions; and how
voters become informed. Until recently, external factors which frame a political election
cycle and levels of voter awareness about ballot propositions have not been taken into
account. Addressing this gap in the literature, Nicholson (2003) examined whether the
political environment affects voter awareness of ballot propositions. Nicholson found the
political environment plays a significant role in voter awareness of ballot propositions.
This analysis extends the assessment of voter awareness. First, by re-testing the
importance of the political environment during proposition elections. Second, by
measuring the effect of elite endorsements on voter awareness of specific ballot
propositions. Assessing the influence of elite endorsements is an important move,
because ballot proposition elections do not have the partisan labeling that are
characteristic of candidate-centered elections. The lack of partisan labeling in ballot
elections raises the question of whether voters are able to identify policy proposals and
57
compare them with their own partisan preferences. Previous research has shown that
elite endorsements may act as a guide for voters when partisan labels are not present.
This analysis assessed these claims by measuring the impact elite endorsements have on
voter awareness of ballot proposition elections.
The findings of this analysis substantiate the importance of the political
environment during an election, confirming the results initially reported by Nicholson
(2003). The political environment provides an important context to an election cycle;
therefore, it should be considered along with individual-level measures when assessing
voter awareness of political issues, as well as attempts to predict voter behavior during an
election.
Alongside confirming the importance of the political environment during ballot
elections, this analysis had several other significant findings. First, voter awareness was
found to be higher during midterm elections. This finding complements Donovan,
Tolbert, and Smith’s (2009) results which predict that states with a direct democratic
process will generally have higher rates of voter turnout during a midterm election.
Second, negative spending had a significant impact on ballot proposition
awareness. This supports similar research findings on campaign spending during ballot
initiative elections (Bowler & Donovan, 2003; Cronin, 1989; Magleby 1984; Nicholon,
2003; Shockly, 1980; Zisk 1987). While total campaign spending was found to have a
significant effect on ballot proposition awareness, positive spending did not. This
contradicts what one would expect to find according to Stratman (2006) who argues,
58
“The campaigning of supporting interest groups is at least as productive as that of
opposing interest groups” (p. 788).
Third, of all ballot propositions topics, Indian gaming initiatives were found to be
the most salient. On average, voter awareness of an Indian gaming initiative ballot was
23 percent higher than other initiatives. This is an interesting finding and more research
should be directed toward understanding how and why the content of a ballot proposition
affects voter awareness.
While this analysis confirms the impact of the political environment, there is
insufficient evidence to support the argument that political elites increase ballot
proposition awareness during an election cycle. This finding seems counterintuitive to
what might be expected, given the findings of previous research on elite influence (Karp
1998, Smith, 2002), and the fact that the California Governor, and the L. A. Times have a
considerable platform to reach a mass audience. It is curious why endorsements made by
highly visible political elites did not increase the salience of ballot propositions. If
gubernatorial and newspaper endorsements were found to increase ballot proposition
awareness, this would have strengthened the argument that voting cues take the place of
partisan labels during direct democratic elections. Given the confirmation that media
coverage and negative campaign spending have a strong influence on voter awareness,
one would have to question whether voting cues from political elites are enough to
compete with the news and campaign advertising in terms of gaining voter attention—the
results of this analysis indicate that they are not. However, further research, which takes
59
a more expansive view of the elite influence of voter awareness of ballot propositions, is
needed.
Although voter behavior was not the focus of this analysis, an attempt was made
to determine whether an endorsement from a political elite has an effect on the success or
failure of a ballot proposition. While there is insufficient evidence to support the
argument that an elite endorsement increases voter awareness of a ballot proposition,
there is evidence that a gubernatorial endorsement strengthens the chances of ballot
proposition success. This finding indicates that political elites do influence voters, and is
consistent with Karp (1998) and Smith (2002). However, further research is needed
which focuses specifically on how elite endorsements may increase ballot proposition
success while failing to increasing voter awareness.
This analysis does not suggest that endorsements from other political elites, such
as other statewide office holders, will not increase awareness of ballot propositions.
Further analysis, which expands upon this analysis of political elite endorsements, both in
terms of voter awareness and voter behavior in ballot proposition elections is necessary.
Finally, the results of this research contribute to the larger debates over direct
democracy. Many observers of the direct democratic process question the competence
and ability of voters to make decisions in direct democratic elections; however, the
majority of this criticism only accounts for individual-level variables. The political
environment extends well beyond individual-level variables by creating the context in
which political information is transmitted and received. The political environment plays
a significant role in the: if, when, where, why, and how voters receive political
60
information. The assessment of the environmental variables that contribute to higher
levels of voter awareness does not mean that these voters will be better informed about an
issue, but they are a good place to start, as voters can only gain higher levels of
information about political issues to the extent that they are aware of them.
61
REFERENCES
Adams, C. F. (1851). The works of John Adams, second President of the United States:
With a life story of the author, notes and illustrations (Vol. 5). Boston:
Little and Brown.
Ansolobehere, S., & Iyengar, S. (1995). Going negative: How political advertisements
shrink and polarize the electorate. New York: Free Press.
Bali, V. A., & Davis, B. C. (2007). One more piece to make us puzzle: The
initiative process and legislators’ reelection chances. Political Research
Quarterly, 60(2), 215-229.
Bartels, L. (1996). Uniformed votes: Information effects in Presidential Elections.
American Journal of Political Science, 40, 194-230.
Behr, R. L., & Iyengar, S. (1985). Television news, real-world cues, and
changes in the public agenda. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 49, 38-57.
Bowler, S. T., & Donovan, T. (2002). Democracy, institutions and attitudes about citizen
government. British Journal of Political Science, 32(2).
Bowler, S. T., & Donovan, T. (1998). Demanding choices: opinion, voting, and direct
democracy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Bowler, S, T., Donovan, T., & Happ, T. (1992). Ballot propositions and information
costs: Direct democracy and the fatigued voter. Western Political Quarterly
45, 559-568.
Bowler, S. T., Donovan, T., & Tolbert, C. J. (1998). Citizens as legislators: Direct
democracy in the United States. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
62
Brady, H. E., & Johnson, R. (1987). What’s the primary message: Horse race or
issue journalism? In G.R. Orren, & N.W. Polsby (Eds.), Media and momentum
(pp. 127-186). Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
Branton, R. (2003). Examining individual-level voting behavior on state ballot
propositions. Political Research Quarterly, 56(3), 367-377.
Broh, A. C. (1977). Horse race journalism: Reporting the polls in the 1976 presidential
election. Public Opinion Quarterly, 41, 514-529.
Converse, P. (1964). The nature and belief systems in mass publics. In D. E. Apter
(Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206-261). New York: Free Press.
Conover, P. J.; Feldman, S. (1981). The origins and meaning of Liberal/Conservative
self-identification. American Journal of Political Science, 25, 617-645.
Cook, F. L., Tyler, T. R., Goetz, E. G., Gordon, M. T., Protess, D., Leff, D. R., &
Molotch, H. L. (1983). Media and agenda setting: Effects on the public, interest
group leaders, policy makers, and policy. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 1635.
Cronin, T. (1989). Direct democracy: The politics of initiative, referendum, and recall.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Delli-Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why
it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
Donovan, T.; Tolbert, C. J.; Smith, . (2009). Political engagement, mobilization, and
direct democracy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(1), 98–118.
63
Eaton, A. H. (1912). Oregon system: The story of direct legislation in Oregon. Chicago:
A.C. McClurg & Co.
Freedman, P.; & Goldstien, K. (1999). Campaign advertising and voter turnout: new
evidence for a stimulation effect. The Journal of Politics, 64, 721-740.
Gafke, R., & Leuthold, D. (1979). The effect on voters of misleading, confusing and
difficult ballot titles. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 43, 394-401.
Gamble, B. S. (1997). Putting civil rights to a popular vote. American Journal of
Political Science, 41(1), 245-269.
Gerber, E. R. (1998). Pressuring legislatures through the use of initiatives: Two forms
of indirect influence. In S. Bowler, T. Donovan, & C. Tolbert (Eds.), Citizens as
legislators: Direct democracy in the United States (pp. 191-208). Columbus, OH:
Ohio State University Press.
Gerber, E. R.; & Lupia, A. (1995). Campaign competition and policy responsiveness in
direct legislation elections. Political Behavior, 17(3), 287-306.
Goldstein, K., & Freedman, P. (1999). Measuring media exposure and the effects of
negative campaign ads. American Journal of Political Science, 43, 1189-1208.
Hadwiger, D. (1992). Money, turnout and ballot measure success in California cities.
Western Political Quarterly 45, 539-547.
Hamilton, A.; Jay, J.; & Madison, J. (1788). Federalist on the new constitution writing in
1788. Philadelphia, PA: Philip Warner.
64
Hall-Jamison, K., & Waldman, P. (2003). The Press Effect: Politicians, Journalists, and
the Stories That Shape the Political World. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Haynes, G. H. (1907). The education of voters. Political Science Quarterly, 22(3), 484497.
Hibbing, J.; Theiss-Morse, E. (2002). Stealth democracy: American’s beliefs about how
democracy should work. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Karp, J. (1998). Influence of elite endorsements in ballot initiative campaigns. In
S. Bowler, T. Donovan, & C. J. Tolbert (Eds.), Citizens as legislators: Direct
democracy in the United States (pp. 149-165). Columbus, OH: Ohio State
University Press.
Key, V. O. (1966). The responsible electorate: Rationality in presidential voting 19361960. New York. Vintage.
Kuklinski, J. H., & Quirk, P. (2000). Reconsidering the rational public: Heuristics,
cognition, and mass opinion. In A. Lupia, M. McCubbins & S. Popkin (Eds.),
Elements of reason: Understanding and expanding the limits of political
rationality (pp.153-182). New York: Cambridge Press University.
Lascher, Jr. E. L., Hagen, M. G., & Rochlin, S. A. (1996). The gun behind the door?
Ballot initiatives state policies and public opinion. The Journal of Politics 58(3),
760-775.
Lau, R., & Redlawski, D. (2000). Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics
in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 951-971.
65
Lewkowicz, M. A. (2006). The effectiveness of elite cues as heuristics in proposition
elections. American Politics Research, 34, 51-68.
Lowrie, S. G. (1911). New forms of the initiative and referendum. The American
Political Science Review, 5(4), 566-572.
Lupia, A. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior
in California insurance reform elections. The 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.
Magleby, D. (1984). Direct legislation: Voting on ballot propositions in the United
States. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Mauser, G. A.; Margolis, M. (1990). Manipulating Public Opinion: essays on public
opinion as a dependent variable (pp.95-115). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/ Cole
Mondak, J. (1993). Public opinion and heuristic processing of source cues. Political
Behavior, 15, 167-192.
Moore, F. (1857). American eloquence: a collection of speeches and addresses by the
most eminent orators of America. New York, NY: Appleton and Company.
Morrison, J. H. (2009). The political philosophy of George Washington. Maryland: John
Hopkins Press.
Mutz, D. C., & Soss J. (1997). Reading public opinion: The influence of news coverage
on perceptions of public Sentiment. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 431-451.
66
Nicholson, S. P. (2003). The political environment and ballot proposition awareness.
American Journal of Political Science, 47, 403-410.
Nicholson, S. P. (2005). Voting the agenda: candidates, elections, and ballot
propositions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Padover, S. K. (Ed.). (1939). Democracy. New York: Greenwood Press.
Page, S., & Shapiro, R. (1992). The rational public. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Patterson, T. E. (1980). The mass media election. New York: Praeger.
Sniderman, P. M., Brody, R., & Tetlock, P. (1991). Reasoning and choice: Explorations
in political psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Shockley, J. S. (1980). The initiative process in Colorado politics: An assessment.
Boulder, CO: University of Colorado, Boulder Bureau of Governmental Research
and Service.
Smith, M. (2002). Ballot initiatives and the democratic citizen. The Journal of
Politics, 64, 892-903.
Stourzh, G. (1970). Alexander Hamilton and the idea of Republican Government.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Stratmann, T. (2006). Is spending more potent for or against a proposition? Evidence
from ballot measures. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 788–801.
67
Tolbert, C. (1998). Changing Rules for State Legislators: Direct Democracy and
governance Policies. In S. Bowler, T. Donovan and C. Tolbert (Eds.), Citizens as
legislators: direct democracy in the United States. Columbus, OH: Ohio State
University.
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.
Yarbrough, J. M. (2006). The essential Jefferson. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett
Zaller, J. R. (1992). The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Zisk, B. H. (1987). Money, media, and the grass roots: State ballot issues and the
electoral process. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.