Herramienta

Voting in direct democracy elections is a vast area for further research. The growth in available data and the increased use of ballot measures provides an excellent background for this study, and future research. This study addresses several important issues related to how citizens participate when choosing policy, as opposed to selecting candidates. In this chapter, I establish the theoretical framework for explaining the relationship between political knowledge and direct democracy. This chapter proceeds as follows: first, I present a comprehensive model of the influence of political knowledge on different stages of the direct democracy process. The second section explains the motivation and activities of petitioners by examining what happens prior to the ballot box in the direct democracy process. The third section explains citizen participation in direct democracy measures and its connection to political knowledge and ballot language. Finally, the fourth section explains the importance of how political knowledge for voters to ensure that they are voting consistently with their policy preferences. Following the overall depiction of the process, hypotheses are derived by analyzing the process and the research in the previous chapter, while demonstrating the importance of these hypotheses to expand our

understanding of direct democracy and citizen cognition.

Overarching Model

The direct democracy process is a complex process and has multiple steps. Political knowledge is required to know how to petition for direct democracy, and if it is even possible to change policy through placing a measure on the ballot. Unless an individual or a group is

knowledgeable and aware of the procedures available to them, and the associated rules and regulations, they will not be able to place measures on the ballot. This pre-existing knowledge is required to implement direct democracy ballot initiatives. However, petitioners also have

expectations about citizen knowledge that influence their activities. Petitioners have

responsibility when it comes to direct democracy – not only through petitioning, but also as part of the campaign process. Petitioners both propose and campaign for propositions. This process requires them to access and acknowledge citizen knowledge levels, and either work to increase them or capitalize on their ignorance. How petitioners acknowledge citizen sophistication affects their activities. Petitioners, who believe citizens are sophisticated enough to make policy, will make the effort to inform voters about their issues on election day. However, if petitioners were trying to take advantage of voters’ ignorance, or were trying to send signals to the legislature rather than win a majority of citizen’s votes, they would not make an effort to educate voters. These activities of petitioners guide voters when they get to the ballot box.

Once at the ballot box, voters face two choices: first, whether to vote in ballot races; and second, how to vote in each race. In the first step, voters have to decide whether they vote on each ballot race – this includes candidate races and ballot propositions. Voters with high levels of political knowledge are more aware of electoral races, and vote further down the ballot (and on more races) because of their awareness of the consequences that elections entail. Those with higher levels of political knowledge are also able to struggle through more complex worded ballot propositions because of their familiarity with the issues in the community. This knowledge and familiarity cause them to vote on more ballot propositions.

When voting, citizens are confronted with different situations. In candidate elections of higher salience, there are more cues. Those voters with higher political knowledge are more

familiar with the vote choices, and are more susceptible to voting cues. As voters move down the ballot to the ballot propositions, there are few cues and thus, voters are required to rely on previous knowledge and/or the information on the ballot. When the ballot language is complex, there is going to be a stronger reliance on political knowledge and previous campaign

information. Those with higher levels of political knowledge are able to struggle through the question, and rely on previous knowledge in conjunction with reading the ballot language. Further, voters experience a higher congruence between their vote choices and policy preferences. This means that those with more political knowledge exhibit votes that are “correct” or consistent with their policy choices than those with lower levels of political

knowledge. This relationship between political knowledge and direct democracy is graphically depicted in Figures 3.1 and 3.2.

Petitioners and the Direct Democracy Process

The role of the petitioner is important in the direct democracy process, as they are the driving force and the foundation of the process. While there is little research directly involving petitioners, there remains much discussion in the literature about the motivations of petitioners in this process – be it as self-interested parties, pawns of interest groups or legislators themselves (Matsusaka 2004; Gerber 1999; Schmidt 1989; Schattsneider 1960). This research stimulates this discussion by delving into the motives of petitioners, proposing reasons for their actions, and developing a causal linkage between ballot petitioning, campaigns, and participation.

Petitioners for direct democracy spend the time and effort to propose different measures for the public to vote on. They have to place a high importance on this process and citizen participation. In order to expend the time and effort that this process requires, petitioners must

value the input of the citizen in policymaking processes. Petitioners who endeavor to create these propositions spend the time to petition for initiatives and want to continue to open the process up to make sure that there is continued citizen involvement in government. Moreover, they must believe that these propositions are effective in changing policy in order to pursue this line of action. This leads to the first hypothesis about citizen participation in government. Hypothesis 1: If petitioners believe direct democracy is effective in changing

policy, they will want more opportunities to vote in elections.

Those petitioners who strive to change policy through direct democracy believe that there should be more citizen involvement in government. This activity contributes to the desire for more elections as direct democracy provides more opportunities for the citizen to participate. Frequently, these petitioners are also those who participate in every election. It would seem that these petitioners are the most active members of the community, since not only do they vote but also they are willing to work on measures outside of the government to change policy.

Petitioners, regardless of their motives work to change policy – this is not a simple process. As outlined in the introduction, it is a process that requires several steps, it is also a time consuming and lengthy process. Therefore, the dedication to the process indicates petitioners’ belief that their propositions must be effective in changing policy – otherwise, why would they be as active in the process? The more petitioners strive to increase the role of the citizen to participate in policymaking – through direct democracy – the more elections they want. This is mainly due to their desire to have more opportunities to influence government through direct democracy or candidate races. Where these petitioners diverge is in their opinions over citizen knowledge and the role of campaigns. This is addressed in the next two hypotheses.

There is an expectation that petitioners have different motives when they petition for measures, be they self interested in their propositions or if they are trying to make a more

altruistic policy change. One can assume that most petitioners have a stake in their petition; otherwise, they would be unmotivated to change policy. However, the difference in motives can also affect strategies, and activities of petitioners during the campaign. This is explored in the second hypothesis.

Hypothesis 2: If petitioners think citizens are unqualified to make policy, they are