The effectiveness of elite cues as heuristics in proposition elections

American Politics Research

Volumn 34, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 51-68

  Lewkowicz, Michael A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

Ballot initiatives; California politics; Direct democracy; Elite cues; Heuristics; Political participation; Propositions; Turnout

Indexed keywords

EID: 29344436020     PISSN: 1532673X     EISSN: 15523373     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1532673X05276510     Document Type: Review

References (21)

1. Banducci, S. (1998). Direct legislation: When is it used and when does it pass? In S. Bowler, T. Donovan, & C. J. Tolbert (Eds.), Citizens as legislators: Direct democracy in the United States (pp. 109-131). Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
2. Bartels, L. (1996). Uninformed votes: Information effects in presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 194-230.
3. Bowler, S., & Donovan, T. (1998). Demanding choices: Opinion, voting and direct democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
4. Bowler, S., Donovan, T., & Happ, T. (1992). Ballot propositions and information costs: Direct democracy and the fatigued voter. Western Political Quarterly, 45, 559-568.
5. Converse, P. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206-261). New York: Free Press.
6. Cronin, T. E. (1989). Direct democracy: The politics of initiative, referendum and recall. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: HarperCollins.
8. Gerber, E. (1999). The populist paradox: Interest group influence and the promise of direct legislation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
9. Hamilton, L. (1992). Regression with graphics. Belmont, CA: Duxbury.
10. Karp, J. A. (1998). The influence of elite endorsements in initiative campaigns. In S. Bowler, T. Donovan, & C. J. Tolbert (Eds.), Citizens as legislators: Direct democracy in the United States (pp. 149-165). Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
11. Kuklinski, J. H., Metlay, D., & Kay, W. D. (1982). Citizen knowledge and choice on the complex issue of nuclear energy. American Journal of Political Science, 26, 615-642.
12. 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 University Press.
13. Lau, R., & Redlawsk, D. (2001). Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 951-971.
14. Lodge, M., McGraw, K. M., & Stroh, P. (1989). An impression-driven model of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review, 83, 399-419.
15. Lupia, A. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review, 88, 63-76.
16. Magleby, D. B. (1984). Direct legislation: Voting on ballot propositions in the United States. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
17. Mondak, J. (1993). Public opinion and heuristic processing of source cues. Political Behavior, 15, 167-192.
18. Page, B., & Shapiro, R. (1992). The rational public. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
19. Sniderman, P. M., Brody, R., & Tetlock, P. (1991). Reasoning and choice: Explorations in political psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
20. Wattenberg, M. (2002). Where have all the voters gone? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21. Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origin of mass opinion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.