Direct Democracy• Pure Democracy vs. Representative• Progressive Movement: Advocated measures to

destroy political machines and instead have direct participation by voters in the nomination of candidates and the establishment of public policy.

• Initiative: A process in which a proposal for legislation is placed on the ballot and voters can either enact or reject the proposal without further action by the governor or legislature.

• Recall: A process in which voters can petition for a vote to remove officials between elections.

Direct Democracy• Direct initiative: A process in which voters can

place a proposal on a ballot and enact it into law without involving the legislature or governor.

• Indirect initiative: A process in which the legislature places a proposal on a ballot and allows voters to enact it into law, without involving the governor or further action by the legislature.

• Popular referendum: A process by which voters can veto a bill recently passed in the legislature by placing the issue on a ballot and expressing disapproval. Also called direct referendum.

Direct Democracy

• Bond referendum: A process of seeking voter approval before a government borrows money by issuing bonds to investors.

• Advisory referendum: A process in which voters cast nonbinding ballots on an issue or proposal.

Benefits of Direct Democracy

• Benefits?• Gives citizens veto power (referendum)• Gives citizens ability to circumvent legislature• Bypass gridlock, special interests• Citizen satisfaction• Increased Voter turnout

Costs Direct Democracy• Costs?• Laws poorly written• No deliberation during the writing of

proposition– Only on whether to accept proposition

• Expensive– Qualification, signature gathering have high costs – Special interest tend to dominate process

• Complexity: – counter-initiatives, long ballots

Voters are not well informedCan they make good decisions?Need cues: Political Parties, endorcements

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)

“The general will is always right, but the judgment that guides it is not always

enlightened.”

TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY: RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES IN DIRECT DEMOCRACY by Hajnal,

Gerber, and Louch

Ballot initiative/referendum: most democratic means of enacting legislation or is direct democracy being used by white groups to dominate nonwhite minorities?

The referendum has been a most effective facilitator of voter racial bias, fear and

prejudice and has marred American democracy form its earliest days (Bell 1978).

Research Question and Methods• Research question: are minorities more likely to

be on the losing side (as a voter) on propositions?

• Data: LA Times exit polls from 1978 to 2000.– Primary and general elections– Why California?– N = 195,019

• Dependent variable– Whether respondent voted on winning side

• Logistic regression

Findings• Findings for all proposition during that time:

blacks, Latinos and Asians are less likely to vote on the winning side of a ballot initiative.

• Authors' note: although statistically significant, they are substantively weak. less than 3 percent difference in probability.

• Statistical artifact: – Statistical significance is a function of the

standard error (t-score)– Size of standard error is a function of sample size

FindingsFinding for propositions that are important or draw cohesive voting blocs: Latinos are less likely to vote for the winning side. still substantively weak. still have over a 50% chance of voting for the winning side (except for minority targeted propositions - 39.5%).

Note: Several of the high profile anti-minority initiatives in California have been overturned by the courts

LATINO VOTING BEHAVIOR IN AN ANTI-LATINO POLITICAL CONTEXT by Matt Barreto and Nathan

Woods•Even though the Latino community has been growing fast during the twentieth century it has been difficult for Latinos to win state wide office.•First Latinos elected to CA assembly in 1962•This seems to be changing: •1996 Cruz Bustamante, speaker of the assembly, lieutenant governor, 1998.•The term Latino and California will soon become redundant.

Political Context• Proposition 187, 209, 227• Proposition 187 (1994)– Prohibit undocumented immigrants from using

public services (e.g., health care, education)

• Proposition 209 (1996)– Prohibit public institutions from considering race,

gender, ethnicity

• Proposition 227 (1998)– Requires all public school instruction to be

conducted in English

Research Question and Methods• Research Question: • Has Latino registration and voting increased in

response to the negative, minority targeted propositions? Awaking the "sleeping giant“

• Data 1994 & 1998 LA County elections data– Uses surnames and probabilities

• Dependent variables– Change in Latino turnout– GOP & Democratic detachment

Findings• In LA County Latino Democrats are the most

likely group to turn out.

• Latinos are registering with GOP in lower rates than before. Democrats are also losing Latinos to Independent and third party groups.

EXPLORING MINORITY POLITICAL EFFICACY: CONSIDERING THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL

INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT. By Rodney Hero and Caroline Tolbert

•There has been much political science literature supporting the negative effects of ballot initiatives.

•Do minority targeted initiatives stigmatize minority groups, alienate them and shut them out of the political process by decreasing the trust and political efficacy?

Research Question, Methodology• Research questions: do frequent use of the

ballot initiative increase or decrease political efficacy?

• Data: Pooled NES 1988 to 1998 – N = 8783

• Dependent variable– Political efficacy (two survey items combined)

• Ordered Logit

Findings

• ballot use increases political efficacy; blacks have lower levels of efficacy than other groups

• Counters some prior studies that initiatives are bad for minorities

• Minorities may support direct democracy even if they are frequent targets of ballot initiatives

Redistricting

EFFECTS OF MINORITY REPRESENATION ON POLITICAL ATTITUDES AND PARTICIPATION by Banducci, Donovan

and Karp

• Descriptive representation empowers minority groups, increases likelihood to vote. Why?

• Changes how people perceive the costs and BENEFITS of voting. Feel that responsiveness is more likely to occur.

Politics of Redistricting• Thornburg v. Gingles (1986): challenge by black

voters to five multi-member legislative districts in the redistricting plan of the North Carolina General Assembly. Gingles confirmed that under amended section 2 vote dilution could be proven by an “effects” test without regard to intent.

• Shaw v. Reno (1993): Race should not be the major determinant in redrawing district lines

• Many scholars have warned about the trade offs between Descriptive v. Substantive representation. In addition, safe majority-minority districts might suppress minority turnout. why?

• Less competitive.

• Research question: does descriptive representation increase efficacy

• Data ANES 1990-1998

Findings

• Results: African American representation in congress does not seem to lower cynicism, but it does seem to increase feelings of empowerment and likelihood of voting.

A Portrait of the People: "Descriptive Representation and its impact on U.S. House Members Ratings by

Katherine Tate and Sarah Harsh

• John Adams, conceived of the U.S. Congress as a "portrait of the people at large in miniature"

• 3 types of representation: Descriptive, symbolic, substantive

• Research question: Does a match in race between legislator and constituent increase a constituents rating of the legislator? also look at gender, chairmanship, seniority, party.

• Data: 130 legislators/ANES data

• Findings: race and party match matters

• Gender, committee chair, and seniority don't matter

Asian Pacific Americans and the New Minority Politics

•Why the limited political participation?

•60% of Asian Americans are foreign born, compared to 38% Latino (1998 data)

•Fragmented by ethnicity and language: Hawaiian Americans wanted separate category or categorized in Native American group

•But increasing turnout and representation: 2200 elected or appointed officials in 33 states and federal level