The causes and consequences of opinion formation in direct democracy elections

选举为选民提供了多种选择。虽然候选人选举中的选民选择受到了大量的学术关注，但其他选择，如直接民主选举中的选择，却没有。该项目通过开展调查，探索选票提案的投票选择，帮助解决这一不平衡问题。在这样做的过程中，该项目推进了社会对选民决策的性质的理解，为更好地理解直接民主的优势和局限性做出了宝贵的贡献，该项目的智力价值在于它检查了两组有关投票提案意见形成的原因和后果的相关难题。在第一组谜题中，该项目考察了选民如何形成对选票提案的意见。现有的文献强调政治行为者，如利益集团或政党的认可。但以前的研究提出的问题比它回答的问题多，因为支持意味着选民不了解如何投票的问题，但足够了解某些类型的线索。同样，赞同驱动的方法可以解释为什么意见形成，但不能解释意见-一旦形成-保持稳定或变化。特别是最后一点，迄今尚未探讨。在第二组谜题中，该提案考察了直接民主是否以及如何设定选举议程，并影响候选人的投票选择和联邦和州选举的投票率。虽然这些问题已被认为是在文献中的日期，这些影响的条件下看到的，谁变成了投票命题的结果，没有既定的答案。这两组谜题的答案是，影响不仅因个人而异，而且因问题本身的种类而异，更重要的是，因国家政治背景的差异而异。为了理解这两组谜题，有必要了解这些现象的条件性。该项目计划在2012年总统选举前后与ANES一起进行网络调查。这项研究增加了仪器，解决问题，更适当的数据，并进一步，将允许更好地检查国家政治环境的影响。在与ANES的协调下，该项目可以将选举行为领先调查的知识丰富性应用于对直接民主问题投票的理解。作为回报，直接民主内容可能会为候选人投票选择和投票率模型提供信息，这是ANES的中心目标。首先，它将确定选民能够并且确实通过线索获得意见的程度，以及这些意见保持稳定的程度。第二，它将确定国家一级候选人的选择在多大程度上受到当地政治环境的影响。第三，该项目提供了一些经验性的贡献。ANES的一个假设是，与投票选择相关的问题是国家范围内的，但往往有重要的国家问题，塑造这些决定，特别是投票措施。如果这是真的，那么ANES对国家层面政治的关注只是故事的一部分。如果这是这样的情况下，倡议可以告知投票选择，即使在联邦选举-无论是通过塑造选民用来评估候选人的标准或影响投票率-那么这可能有助于塑造未来的ANES仪器。最后，拟议的研究将大大提高研究直接民主选举问题的数据质量。

Elections offer voters many choices. While voter choice in candidate elections has received a great deal of scholarly attention other choices, such as those found in direct democracy elections, have not. This project helps address this imbalance by conducting surveys exploring vote choice on ballot propositions. In so doing, this project advances societal understanding of the nature of voter decision-making, a valuable contribution to better understanding the strengths and limitations of direct democracy.The intellectual merit of the project lies in its examination of two connected sets of puzzles concerning the causes and consequences of opinion formation on ballot propositions. In the first set of puzzles the project examines how voters form opinions on ballot propositions. Existing literature emphasizes endorsements made by political actors such as interest groups or political parties. But previous research raises more questions than it answers since endorsements imply that voters are uninformed enough not to know how to vote on a problem, yet informed enough to understand certain kinds of cues. Similarly, an endorsement-driven approach may explain why opinions form but cannot explain whether opinions - once formed - remain stable or change. This last point in particular has not been explored to date. It also connects the second set of puzzles relating to the consequences of direct democracy.In the second set of puzzles, the proposal examines whether, and how, direct democracy sets the agenda in elections and affects candidate vote choice and turnout in federal and state elections. Although these issues have been considered in the literature to date, the conditions under which these effects are seen, and who turns out as a consequence of ballot propositions, do not have established answers. The answer to both sets of puzzles is that effects vary not just over individuals but also over the kinds of issues themselves and, importantly, over differences in state political context. In order to understand both sets of puzzles, it is necessary to understand the conditional nature of these phenomena.The project plans to conduct web surveys before and after the 2012 presidential election in conjunction with the ANES. The study is augmented with instrumentation that addresses questions with more appropriate data and, further, will allow a better examination of the effects of state political environments. In coordinating with ANES, the project can apply the intellectual richness of the leading survey of electoral behavior to an understanding of voting on direct democracy issues. In return, direct democracy content may inform models of candidate vote choice and turnout, the central aims of the ANES.The broader impact of this project lies in three areas. First, it will establish the degree to which voters can and do have opinions informed by cues and, further, the extent to which those opinions remain stable. Second, it will establish the degree to which choices on national level candidates are shaped by local political context. Third, the project offers several empirical contributions. One assumption of the ANES is that issues relevant to vote choice are national in scope but there are often important state issues that shape these decisions, especially ballot measures. If that is true, then ANES' focus on national level politics is only part of the story. If it is the case that initiatives can inform vote choice even in federal elections - either by shaping the criteria voters use to evaluate candidates or affecting turnout - then this may help shape future ANES instrumentation. Lastly, the proposed study will markedly improve the quality of data available to study questions about direct democracy elections.