Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T13:53:11.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sex and the ballot box: perception of ballot measures regarding same-sex marriage and abortion in California

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 October 2013

Craig M. Burnett  and
Mathew D. McCubbins
Craig M. Burnett
Affiliation:
Department of Public and International Affairs, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Leutze Hall, Wilmington, NC, USA E-mail: [email protected]
Mathew D. McCubbins
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science and School of Law, Duke University, Gross Hall, Durham, NC, USA E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Voters in many American states have considered important social policies that redefine civil liberties within their state through the initiative and referendum. An important question remaining is, are voters knowledgeable enough to make decisions on these social policies that have far-reaching effects? The common wisdom is that voters rely on information shortcuts in lieu of extensive knowledge about the issues. Unlike candidate elections, however, ballot measures lack some prominent and useful information shortcuts (i.e. party identification). We test the hypothesis that voters use shortcuts to inform their decisions on two ballot measures central to today's policy debates: California's Proposition 4 on parental notification for abortion and Proposition 8 on same-sex marriage. We show that voters do not use cues universally, and, furthermore, factual information has a limited effect on voters’ decisions. In particular, we find that the persuasiveness of an endorsement is conditional on whether an individual trusts the source.

Keywords

abortion lawcuesdirect democracyProposition 8same-sex marriage
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , April 2014 , pp. 3 - 33
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bartels, L. M. (1996) Uninformed Votes: Information Effects in Presidential Elections. American Political Science Review 40: 194–230.Google Scholar
Boudreau, C. (2009a) Closing the Gap: When Do Cues Eliminate Differences Between Sophisticated and Unsophisticated Citizens? Journal of Politics 71: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boudreau, C. (2009b) Gresham's Law of Cue-Taking: How Bad Cues Drive Out Good Ones. Davis, CA: University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
Boudreau, C., McCubbins, M. D., Rodriguez, D. B. Weller, N. (2010) Making Talk Cheap (and Problems Easy): How Legal and Political Institutions Can Facilitate Consensus. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 7: 868–885.Google Scholar
Bowler, S. Donovan, T. (1998) Demanding Choices: Opinion, Voting, and Direct Democracy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, H. E. Sniderman, P. M. (1985) Attitude Attribution: A Group Basis for Political Reasoning. American Political Science Review 79: 1061–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnett, C. M., Garrett, E. McCubbins, M. D. (2010) The Dilemma of Direct Democracy. Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy 9: 305–324.Google Scholar
Burnett, C. M., Kogan, V. (2010) The Case of the Stolen Initiative: Were the Voters Framed? Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association (2–5 December), Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Burnett, C. M. McCubbins, M. D. (2013) When Common Wisdom is Neither Common Nor Wisdom: Exploring Voters’ Limited Use of Endorsements on Three Ballot Measures. Minnesota Law Review 97: 1557–1595.Google Scholar
Burnett, C. M., Parry, J. A. (2012) Gubernatorial Endorsements and Ballot Measure Approval, Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, New Orleans, LA, 12–14 January.Google Scholar
Carmines, E. G. Kuklinski, J. H. (1990) Incentives, Opportunities, and the Logic of Public Opinion in American Political Representation. In Ferejohn, J. A. and Kuklinski, J. H. (eds.), Information and Democratic Processes. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 240–268.Google Scholar
Carmines, E. G. Stimson, J. A. (1980) The Two Faces of Issue Voting. American Political Science Review 74: 78–91.Google Scholar
Converse, P. E. (1964) The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics. In David E. Apter (ed.), Ideology and Discontent. New York, NY: The Free Press of Glencoe, 206–261.Google Scholar
Delli Carpini, M. X. Keeter, S. (1996) What Americans Know About Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Diamond, A. Sekhon, J. (2005) Genetic Matching for Estimating Causal Effects: A New Method of Achieving Balance in Observational Studies. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Downs, A. (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York, NY: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Druckman, J. N. (2001a) On the Limits of Framing Effects: Who Can Frame? Journal of Politics 63: 1041–1066.Google Scholar
Druckman, J. N. (2001b) Using Credible Advice to Overcome Framing Effects. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 17: 62–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, M. P. (1981) Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Garrett, E. (1999) Money, Agenda Setting, and Direct Democracy. Texas Law Review 77: 1845–1890.Google Scholar
Garrett, E. McCubbins, M. D. (2008) When Voters Make Laws: How Direct Democracy is Shaping American Cities. Public Works Management & Policy 13: 39–61.Google Scholar
Garrett, E. Smith, D. A. (2005) Veiled Political Actors and Campaign Disclosure Laws in Direct Democracy. Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy 4: 295–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, E. R. Lupia, A. (1999) Voter Competence in Direct Democracy. In Elkin, S. L. and Soltan, K. E. (eds.), Citizen Competence and Democratic Institutions. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 147–160.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. (2000) Adaptive Thinking: Rationality in the Real World. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. (2007) Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious. New York, NY: Viking Press.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. (2008) Rationality for Mortals: How People Cope with Uncertainty. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. Selten, R. (eds.) (2001) Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. Todd, P.M., The ABC Group (1999) Simple Heuristics that Make Us Smart. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Green, D., Palmquist, B. Schickler, E. (2002) Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Ho, D., Imai, K., King, G. Stuart, E. (2007) Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference. Political Analysis 15: 199–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, S. Valentino, N. A. (2000) Who Says What? Source Credibility as a Mediator of Campaign Effects. In Lupia, A., McCubbins, M. D. and Popkin, S. L. (eds.), Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 108–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, G. C. (2008) The Politics of Congressional Elections, 7 ed. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Karp, J. A. (1998) The Influence of Elite Endorsements in Initiative Campaigns. In Bowler, S., Donovan, T. and Tolbert, C. J. (eds.), Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 149–165.Google Scholar
Kousser, T. McCubbins, M. D. (2005) Social Choice, Crypto-Initiatives and Policymaking by Direct Democracy. Southern California Law Review 78: 949–984.Google Scholar
Kousser, T., McCubbins, M. D. Moule, E. (2008a) For Whom the TEL Tolls: Can State Tax and Expenditure Limits Effectively Reduce Spending? State Politics and Policy Quarterly 8: 331–361.Google Scholar
Kousser, T., McCubbins, M. D. Rozga, K. (2008b) When Does the Ballot Box Limit the Budget? Politics and Spending Limits in California, Colorado, Utah and Washington. In Garrett, E., Graddy, E. A. and Jackson, H. E. (eds.), Fiscal Challenges: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Budget Policy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 290–321.Google Scholar
Lau, R. R. Redlawsk, D. P. (1997) Voting Correctly. American Political Science Review 91: 585–598.Google Scholar
Long, J. S. Freese, J. (2005) Regression Models for Categorical Outcomes Using Stata, 2nd ed. College Station, TX: Stata Press.Google Scholar
Lowenstein, D. H. (1982) Campaign Spending and Ballot Propositions: Recent Experience, Public Choice Theory and the First Amendment. UCLA Law Review 29: 505–641.Google Scholar
Lowenstein, D. H. (1983) California Initiatives and the Single-Subject Rule. UCLA Law Review 30: 936–975.Google Scholar
Lowenstein, D. H. Stern, R. M. (1989) The First Amendment and Paid Initiative Petition Circulators: A Dissenting View and a Proposal (From Gold Dust to Silicon Chips: The California Constitution in Transition). Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 17: 175–224.Google Scholar
Lupia, A. (1994) Shortcuts Versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections. American Political Science Review 88: 63–76.Google Scholar
Lupia, A., Krupnikov, Y., Levine, A. S., Piston, S. Hagen-Jamar, A. V. (2010) Why State Constitutions Differ in their Treatment of Same-Sex Marriage. Journal of Politics 72: 1222–1235.Google Scholar
Lupia, A. Matsusaka, J. G. (2004) Direct Democracy: New Approaches to Old Questions. Annual Review of Political Science 7: 463–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, A. McCubbins, M. D. (1998) The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lupia, A., McCubbins, M. D. Popkin, S. L. (2000) Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacKuen, M. B., Erikson, R. S. Stimson, J. A. (1989) Macropartisanship. American Political Science Review 83: 1125–1142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, J. G. (2005) Direct Democracy Works. Journal of Economic Perspectives 19: 185–206.Google Scholar
McDermott, M. L. (1997) Voting Cues in Low-Information Elections: Candidate Gender as a Social Information Variable in Contemporary United States Elections. American Journal of Political Science 41: 270–283.Google Scholar
McDermott, M. L. (1998) Race and Gender Cues in Low-Information Elections. Political Research Quarterly 51: 895–918.Google Scholar
McDermott, M. L. (2006) Not for Members Only: Group Endorsements as Electoral Information Cues. Political Research Quarterly 59: 249–257.Google Scholar
Mondak, J. J. (1993) Source Cues and Policy Approval: The Cognitive Dynamics of Public Support for the Reagan Agenda. American Journal of Political Science 37: 186–212.Google Scholar
Mutz, D. C. (1998) Impersonal Influence: How Perceptions of Mass Collectives Affect Political Attitudes. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nicholson, S. P. (2003) The Political Environment and Ballot Proposition Awareness. American Journal of Political Science 47: 403–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, S. P. (2011) Dominating Cues and the Limits of Elite Influence. Journal of Politics 73: 1165–1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popkin, S. L. (1994) The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns, 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rabinowitz, G. MacDonald, S. E. (1989) A Directional Theory of Issue Voting. American Political Science Review 83: 93–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sniderman, P. M., Brody, R. A. Tetlock, P. E. (1991) Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, J. R. (1992) The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar