A Survey Experiment on Citizens’ Preferences for ‘Vote–Centric’ vs. ‘Talk–Centric’ Democratic Innovations with Advisory vs. Binding Outcomes

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Previous research on public support for participatory decision-making fails to distinguish between vote-centric (referendums and initiatives) and talk-centric (deliberative-style meetings) instruments, despite a deliberative turn in democratic theory suggesting that political discussion among ordinary citizens improves decision-making. In an online factorial survey experiment conducted among a sample of 960 Americans recruited on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, we compared support for the use of referendums and public meetings, arguing that attitudes towards these instruments depend on whether they are used to inform legislators or take binding decisions. Public meetings were rated considerably lower than referendums and initiatives, especially when the outcomes were binding. Contrary to expectations, we did not find a preference for binding (over advisory) referendums and individuals from referendum and initiative states, where these instruments are legally binding, expressed less support for binding participatory reforms than individuals from non-direct democratic states. Despite the many critiques of direct democracy, public debate in the US has not considered whether advisory outcomes might appease some of these concerns. The results also demonstrated that individuals expressing concerns about the inability of ordinary citizens to understand politics and about the welfare of minority groups were not as negative about participatory decision-making when legislators had the final say.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)213-226
Number of pages13
JournalPolitics and Governance
Volume7
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 27 Jun 2019

Fingerprint

referendum
citizen
innovation
experiment
decision making
direct democracy
Turk
public support
online survey
voter
welfare
minority
reform
politics
Group

Keywords

  • Direct Democracy
  • Deliberative Democracy
  • Democratic Innovations
  • Factorial Survey Experiment
  • Participatory Decision-Making
  • Public Opinion
  • Referendums
  • Vignette Experiment

Cite this

@article{2523c94694aa4d94a95aa79ec23ce72c,
title = "A Survey Experiment on Citizens’ Preferences for ‘Vote–Centric’ vs. ‘Talk–Centric’ Democratic Innovations with Advisory vs. Binding Outcomes",
abstract = "Previous research on public support for participatory decision-making fails to distinguish between vote-centric (referendums and initiatives) and talk-centric (deliberative-style meetings) instruments, despite a deliberative turn in democratic theory suggesting that political discussion among ordinary citizens improves decision-making. In an online factorial survey experiment conducted among a sample of 960 Americans recruited on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, we compared support for the use of referendums and public meetings, arguing that attitudes towards these instruments depend on whether they are used to inform legislators or take binding decisions. Public meetings were rated considerably lower than referendums and initiatives, especially when the outcomes were binding. Contrary to expectations, we did not find a preference for binding (over advisory) referendums and individuals from referendum and initiative states, where these instruments are legally binding, expressed less support for binding participatory reforms than individuals from non-direct democratic states. Despite the many critiques of direct democracy, public debate in the US has not considered whether advisory outcomes might appease some of these concerns. The results also demonstrated that individuals expressing concerns about the inability of ordinary citizens to understand politics and about the welfare of minority groups were not as negative about participatory decision-making when legislators had the final say.",
keywords = "Direct Democracy, Deliberative Democracy, Democratic Innovations, Factorial Survey Experiment, Participatory Decision-Making, Public Opinion, Referendums, Vignette Experiment",
author = "S.A. Rojon and Rijken, {Arieke J.} and P.G. Klandermans",
year = "2019",
month = "6",
day = "27",
doi = "http://dx.doi.org/10.17645/pag.v7i2.1900",
language = "English",
volume = "7",
pages = "213--226",
journal = "Politics and Governance",
issn = "2183-2463",
publisher = "Cogitatio Press",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Survey Experiment on Citizens’ Preferences for ‘Vote–Centric’ vs. ‘Talk–Centric’ Democratic Innovations with Advisory vs. Binding Outcomes

AU - Rojon, S.A.

AU - Rijken, Arieke J.

AU - Klandermans, P.G.

PY - 2019/6/27

Y1 - 2019/6/27

N2 - Previous research on public support for participatory decision-making fails to distinguish between vote-centric (referendums and initiatives) and talk-centric (deliberative-style meetings) instruments, despite a deliberative turn in democratic theory suggesting that political discussion among ordinary citizens improves decision-making. In an online factorial survey experiment conducted among a sample of 960 Americans recruited on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, we compared support for the use of referendums and public meetings, arguing that attitudes towards these instruments depend on whether they are used to inform legislators or take binding decisions. Public meetings were rated considerably lower than referendums and initiatives, especially when the outcomes were binding. Contrary to expectations, we did not find a preference for binding (over advisory) referendums and individuals from referendum and initiative states, where these instruments are legally binding, expressed less support for binding participatory reforms than individuals from non-direct democratic states. Despite the many critiques of direct democracy, public debate in the US has not considered whether advisory outcomes might appease some of these concerns. The results also demonstrated that individuals expressing concerns about the inability of ordinary citizens to understand politics and about the welfare of minority groups were not as negative about participatory decision-making when legislators had the final say.

AB - Previous research on public support for participatory decision-making fails to distinguish between vote-centric (referendums and initiatives) and talk-centric (deliberative-style meetings) instruments, despite a deliberative turn in democratic theory suggesting that political discussion among ordinary citizens improves decision-making. In an online factorial survey experiment conducted among a sample of 960 Americans recruited on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, we compared support for the use of referendums and public meetings, arguing that attitudes towards these instruments depend on whether they are used to inform legislators or take binding decisions. Public meetings were rated considerably lower than referendums and initiatives, especially when the outcomes were binding. Contrary to expectations, we did not find a preference for binding (over advisory) referendums and individuals from referendum and initiative states, where these instruments are legally binding, expressed less support for binding participatory reforms than individuals from non-direct democratic states. Despite the many critiques of direct democracy, public debate in the US has not considered whether advisory outcomes might appease some of these concerns. The results also demonstrated that individuals expressing concerns about the inability of ordinary citizens to understand politics and about the welfare of minority groups were not as negative about participatory decision-making when legislators had the final say.

KW - Direct Democracy

KW - Deliberative Democracy

KW - Democratic Innovations

KW - Factorial Survey Experiment

KW - Participatory Decision-Making

KW - Public Opinion

KW - Referendums

KW - Vignette Experiment

U2 - http://dx.doi.org/10.17645/pag.v7i2.1900

DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.17645/pag.v7i2.1900

M3 - Article

VL - 7

SP - 213

EP - 226

JO - Politics and Governance

JF - Politics and Governance

SN - 2183-2463

IS - 2

ER -