Direct democracy and political efficacy reconsidered

Political Behavior

Volumn 31, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 401-427

  Dyck, Joshua J ^a   Lascher Jr , Edward L ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

^b CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Ballot initiatives; Direct legislation; Political efficacy

Indexed keywords

EID: 71449091701     PISSN: 01909320     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11109-008-9081-x     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Balch, G. I. (1974). Multiple indicators in survey research: The concept "sense of political efficacy". Political Methodology, 1, 1-43.
2. Banducci, S. A. (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. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.
3. Boehmke, F. J. (2002). The effect of direct democracy on the size and diversity of state interest group populations. The Journal of Politics, 64, 827-844. doi: 10. 1111/0022-3816. 00148.
4. Bowler, S., & Donovan, T. (1998). Demanding choices: Opinion, voting and direct democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
5. Bowler, S., & Donovan, T. (2002). Democracy, institutions and attitudes about citizen influence on government. British Journal of Political Science, 32(2), 371-390.
6. Bowler, S., Nicholson, S. P., & Segura, G. M. (2006). Earthquakes and aftershocks: Race, direct democracy, and partisan change. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 146-159. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1540-5907. 2006. 00175. x.
7. Brace, P., Sims-Butler, K., Arceneaux, K., & Johnson, M. (2002). Public opinion in the American States: New perspectives using national survey data. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 173-189. doi: 10. 2307/3088421.
8. Campbell, J. E. (1986). Predicting seat gains from presidential coattails. American Journal of Political Science, 30, 165-183. doi: 10. 2307/2111299.
9. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
10. Campbell, A., Gurin, G., & Miller, W. E. (1954). The voter decides. Evanston, IL: Row, Preston.
11. Citrin, J. (1996). Who's the boss? Direct democracy and the popular control of government. In S. C. Craig (Ed.), Broken contract? changing relationships between Americans, their government. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
12. Clarke, H. D., & Acock, A. C. (1989). National elections and political efficacy: The case of political efficacy. British Journal of Political Science, 19, 551-562.
13. Craig, S. C. (1979). Efficacy, trust, and political behavior: An attempt to resolve a lingering conceptual dilemma. American Politics Quarterly, 7, 25-29. doi: 10.1177/1532673X7900700207.
14. Craig, S. C., Kreppel, A., & Kane, J. G. (2001). Public opinion and support for direct democracy: A grassroots perspective. In M. Mendelsohn & A. Parkin (Eds.), Referendum democracy: Citizens, elites, and deliberation in referendum campaigns. New York: Palgrave.
15. Craig, S. C., & Maggiotto, M. A. (1982). Measuring political efficacy. Political Methodology, 9, 341-354.
16. Craig, S. C., Niemi, R. G., & Silver, G. E. (1990). Political efficacy and trust: A report on the NES pilot study items. Political Behavior, 12, 289-314. doi: 10. 1007/BF00992337.
17. Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.
18. Dorn, D., Fischer, J. A. V., Kirchgässner, G., & Sousa-Poza, A. (2007). Direct democracy and life satisfaction revisited: New evidence for Switzerland. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 227-255. doi: 10.1007/s10902-007-9050-9.
19. Dyck, J. J., & Baldassare, M. (n. d.). Process preferences and voting in direct democratic elections. Public Opinion Quarterly (forthcoming).
20. Ellis, R. J. (2002). Democratic delusions: The initiative process in America. Lawrence: The University Press of Kansas.
21. Erikson, R. S., Wright, G. C., & McIver, J. P. (1993). Statehouse democracy: Public opinion and policy in the American states. New York: Cambridge University Press.
22. Finkel, S. E. (1985). Reciprocal effects of participation and political efficacy: A panel analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 29, 891-913. doi: 10. 2307/2111186.
23. Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2000a). Happiness, economy, and institutions. The Economic Journal, 110, 918-938. doi: 10. 1111/1468-0297. 00570.
24. Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2000b). Happiness prospers in democracy. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1, 79-102. doi: 10. 1023/A: 1010028211269.
25. Gamble, B. (1997). Putting civil rights to a popular vote. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 245-269. doi: 10. 2307/2111715.
26. Gamson, W. A. (1968). Power and discontent. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
27. Gerber, E. R. (1999). The populist paradox. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
28. Green, D., Palmquist, B., & Shickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven: Yale University Press.
29. Grummel, J. A. (2008). Morality politics, direct democracy, and turnout. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 8, 282-292.
30. Hagen, M. G., & Lascher, E. L., Jr. (1998). Public opinion about direct democracy. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston.
31. Hagen, M. G., Lascher, E. L., Jr, & Camobreco, J. F. (2001). Response to Matsusaka: Estimating the effect of ballot initiatives on policy responsiveness. The Journal of Politics, 63, 1257-1263. doi: 10. 1111/0022-3816. 00110.
32. Haider-Markel, D. P., Querze, A., & Lindaman, K. (2007). Lose, win, or draw? A reexamination of direct democracy and minority rights. Political Research Quarterly, 60, 304-314. doi: 10. 1177/1065912907301984.
33. Hajnal, Z. L., Gerber, E. R., & Louch, H. (2002). Minorities and direct legislation: Evidence from California. The Journal of Politics, 64(1), 154-177. doi: 10. 1111/1468-2508. 00122.
34. Hero, R. E., & Tolbert, C. J. (2004). Minority voices and citizen attitudes about government responsiveness in the American states: Do social and institutional context matter? British Journal of Political Science, 34, 109-121. doi: 10. 1017/S0007123403000371.
35. Hetherington, M. J. (2005). Why trust matters: Declining political trust and the demise of American liberalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
36. Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (1995). Congress as public enemy: Public attitudes toward American political institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37. Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2002). Stealth democracy: Americans' beliefs about how government should work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38. Hill, K. Q., & Hurley, P. A. (1984). Estimating congressional district political attributes with survey data: A reliability assessment. Political Methodology, 10, 447-464.
39. Krosnick, J. A. (1988). The role of attitude importance in social evaluation: A study of policy preferences, presidential candidate evaluations, and voting behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 196-210. doi: 10. 1037/0022-3514. 55. 2. 196.
40. Lane, R. E. (1959). Political life: Why people get involved in politics. New York: The Free Press.
41. Lascher, E. L., Jr, Hagen, M. G., & Rochlin, S. A. (1996). Gun behind the door? Ballot initiatives, state policies and public opinion. The Journal of Politics, 58, 760-775. doi: 10. 2307/2960443.
42. Leighley, J. (1991). The participation as a stimulus of political conceptualization. The Journal of Politics, 53, 198-211. doi: 10. 2307/2131728.
43. Lupia, A. (1992). Busy voters, agenda control, and the power of information. The American Political Science Review, 86, 390-403. doi: 10. 2307/1964228.
44. Lupia, A. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. The American Political Science Review, 88, 63-76. doi: 10. 2307/2944882.
45. Magleby, D. B. (1984). Direct legislation: Voting on ballot propositions in the United States. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
46. Matsusaka, J. G. (1995). Fiscal effects of the voter initiative: Evidence from the last 30 years. The Journal of Political Economy, 103, 587-623. doi: 10. 1086/261996.
47. Matsusaka, J. G. (2001). Problems with a methodology used to evaluate the voter initiative. The Journal of Politics, 63(4), 1250-1256.
48. Matsusaka, J. G. (2004). For the many or the few: The initiative, public policy, and American democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
49. Matsusaka, J. G. (2005). Direct democracy works. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 185-206. doi: 10.1257/0895330054048713.
50. Mendelsohn, M., & Cutler, F. (2000). The effect of referendums on democratic citizens: Information, politicization, efficacy and tolerance. British Journal of Political Science, 30, 685-701. doi: 10.1017/S0007123400220292.
51. Niemi, R., Craig, S., & Mattei, F. (1991). Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1988 national election study. The American Political Science Review, 85, 1407-1413. doi: 10.2307/1963953.
52. Romer, T., & Rosenthal, H. (1978). Political resource allocation, controlled agendas, and the status quo. Public Choice, 32, 27-44.
53. Rosenstone, S. J., & Hansen, J. M. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New York, NY: Macmillan.
54. Sharkansky, I. (1969). The utility of Elazar's political culture: A research note. Polity, 2, 66-83. doi: 10.2307/3234089.
55. Smith, D. A. (1998). Tax crusaders and the politics of direct democracy. New York: Routledge.
56. Smith, M. A. (2002). Ballot initiatives and the democratic citizen. The Journal of Politics, 64, 892-903. doi: 10.1111/0022-3816.00151.
57. Smith, D. A., & Tolbert, C. J. (2004). Educated by initiative: The effects of direct democracy on citizens and political organizations in the American States. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
58. Songer, D. R. (1984). Government closest to the people: Constituent knowledge in state & national politics. Polity, 17, 387-395. doi: 10.2307/3234515.
59. Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.