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.
Highlights
Several studies in established democracies document broad popular support for allowing citizens a greater role in political decisions (Bengtsson & Mattila, 2009; Bowler, Donovan, & Karp, 2007; Craig, Kreppel, & Kane, 2001; Dalton, Burklin, & Drummond, 2001; Donovan & Karp, 2006)
By means of a factorial survey experiment where respondents are randomly assigned vignettes about referendums and initiatives or about ‘public meetings where citizens collectively discuss political issues’, we investigate whether people are more favorable towards votecentric or talk-centric decision-making processes
We argue that ordinary citizens do not follow the normative debate about deliberative democracy and are not familiar with the reasons why this approach to political decision-making might produce better solutions
Summary
Several studies in established democracies document broad popular support for allowing citizens a greater role in political decisions (Bengtsson & Mattila, 2009; Bowler, Donovan, & Karp, 2007; Craig, Kreppel, & Kane, 2001; Dalton, Burklin, & Drummond, 2001; Donovan & Karp, 2006). Previous research on public support for participatory decision-making fails to distinguish between ‘votecentric’ and ‘talk-centric’ instruments—despite a ‘deliberative turn’ in democratic theory—and between consultative and legally binding outcomes. By means of a factorial survey experiment where respondents are randomly assigned vignettes about referendums and initiatives or about ‘public meetings where citizens collectively discuss political issues’, we investigate whether people are more favorable towards votecentric or talk-centric decision-making processes. Public support for these instruments may depend on how much control citizens have over policy outcomes. Some institutions such as the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL, 2002) recommend switching to advisory procedures and several states have flirted with the idea of advisory referendums in the past (Schaffner, 1907)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call