Voter Turnout Versus Ballot Initiatives - Research Paper Example

? Voter Turnout versus Ballot Initiatives Task While several s have allowed the system of ballot initiatives, others have strongly opposed the move on grounds that it will deteriorate the system of legislature. This paper will seek to look at ballot initiatives, and whether it has affects voter turnout in either a midterm or a presidential election. Allowing of initiatives on ballot is a question that is highly contested by scholars, politicians and citizens. While several states have allowed this system, others decline on grounds that it will deteriorate the system of legislature. This paper will seek to look at ballot initiatives, and whether it has effects on voter turnout in either midterm or presidential election. Whether or not ballot initiatives have an effect on voter turnout in the United States is a contested question. Voter turnout referrers to the number of people who take part in a voting forum like election, referendum or other gatherings. Voter turnout exhibits some hearty pattern that explains why the number of voters varies from one place to another. According to most researches done on voter turnout, the main factor that affects voter turnouts is institutional variables (Jackman, 1987). Ballot initiative on the other side is referred to a process of whereby the people are authorized to enact or refute legislations at the polls hence superseding the legislative body. An initiative is a type of election facilitated by the people with the aim of resolving issues that elected leaders fail to raise or attend contrary to public desires. In 1962, Powell’s book, ‘Contemporary Democracies’ was the first book to be published on the study of voter turnout. His 1986 article, ‘American Political Science Review Articles’ established that countries with nationally competitive districts whose parties and members usually have enticements to persuade voters to turn up at the polls, or those that had strong party-group association such as churches and unions were likely to have high voter turnout (Powell, 1986, p 21-22). In his conclusion, Powell said that the turnout in America is inhibited by its institutional context, and the main emphasis, which is also the most powerful variable, is on party-group associations. Voter turnout in the past years has been on a declining trend in the united State, with only a few exceptions. Although some sources from defenders of participatory, normative theorists and to some extent journalist have indicated that ballot measures that are initiated by citizens are likely to increase voter turnout, other researches refute the assertions, despite use of direct democracy having been embraced in the United States for the last 25 years. Whereas those who prefer direct democracy dispute that citizen participation, efficacy and confidence in the government can only be increased by permitting citizens to vote directly on policy issues, those who oppose say the process will only have minimal change, and threatens to deteriorate state legislatures and replace representative democracy (Broder, 2000). Most of the conclusions based on the comparative cross-national research are vigorous and as a result, there lacks a compelling foundation over the connection between voter turnout and ballot initiatives. Institutional variables in the end get to be overstated. Use of the initiative process for over 26 years in 50 states has been linked to higher turnout rates. The initiative process is evidently assisting in increasing the number of turnout in electoral participation. For example, in the 1990’s the discrepancy in turnout rates between initiative and non initiative states has been on the rise over time, estimated at 3% to 4.5% higher in presidential elections and between 7% to 9% higher in midterm elections (Tolbert Grummel & Smith, 2001). The rate of ballot initiative measures is increasing in the United States, with an increase on the use of initiatives to decide policy matters. In states such as California, Mississippi, Colorado, Florida, Utah, Oklahoma, Nevada, Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, Michigan, Illinois, Arizona, Alaska, Oregon, Arkansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota, Washington and Wyoming direct democracy is preferred in dealing with most state issues such as health and environmental matters, and they are determined through initiatives (Schrag, 1998). The voter turnout and the citizen initiative process Initiative politics are already taking shape in the 24 states that allow the citizen initiative process. The initiative process authorize that citizens can amend the constitution or even draft new decree for the state provided they gather the required number of signatures from voters (Gerber, 1999). If the numbers are attained, the initiative can proceed to a state primary or general election ballot where, if adopted by majority, it amends the law in question. Indirect initiative requires that a group drafts a proposition and passes it to the legislature who passes it, or otherwise it is placed on the ballot for voters to decide (Tolbert 645). The citizen initiative process has been an efficient tool for reformation of the government. Citizens can amend or initiate state legislation altering environmental or health matters, or even affirmative action among other issues (Gamble, 1999). They can also enact procedural reforms such as restricting control over tax and spending by legislatures. Consequences of direct democracy are important as they bear the effect that ballot initiatives may contain on the turnout of citizens. Theorists argue that direct democracy will encourage voter turnout, as citizens will bear civic duty (Morell, 1999). Direct initiatives are more likely to reflect citizens’ desires than government policy and as a result, voter turnout is likely to increase, as their interest will be inspired. For a government to function properly, citizen participation has to be incorporated. Direct democracy procedures, such as letting the public decide on matters pertaining to the public by direct vote, have to be embraced. Such procedures can improve the way in which the public wants to transmit its desires (Barber, 1984). Empirical data, however, provide that when initiatives are placed on the ballot, voter turnout does not increase substantially (Cronin 1989). Research to compare voter turnout in initiative and non-initiative states carried out between 1969 and 1978 by use of independent sample tests and a comparison of voter turnout in 50 states showed a slightly higher turnout in initiative states. This was however attributed to participation of southern states that have previously had lower voter turnout. Without these states, the turnout would have dropped in initiative states (Everson, 1981). It is however contested that Everson’s research, among others conducted previously, did not use statistical method that are suitable for pooled time series data, and did not put considerations for other issues that could affect the disparity in turnout rates, as some states have many initiatives on the ballot. Usage of ballot initiatives increased drastically in the 1990s, with over three hundred initiatives across all states having qualified for the ballot. Whether the increase has led to an equivalent increase in voter turnout is, however, the question to be discussed. Voter turnout in a direct democracy Using the pooled cross-sectional time series data for 50 states for the period 1970-1996, it has been established that states with the initiative process have a higher voter turnout over time. With only a few exceptions, it was noted that states with the initiative process had at least one initiative on the ballot each election. The rise of voter turnout in initiative states is said to occur mostly during midterm elections and as such, if one initiative qualifies to the ballot, it is considered to increase voter turnout. If run alongside presidential elections, more initiatives may be required to increase turnout rates as they compete for media airtime with presidential hopefuls. It is therefore likely that the initiative process to would have lower voter turnout in midterm elections that in those of the president. Smith (2001) argued that not all initiatives are common. In his findings, states with significant initiatives do not have higher turnouts as compared to non-initiative states in midterm elections. However, the case in presidential elections was different. Ballot initiatives that attract public interest do have a positive outcome on voter turnout. Other causes that influence voter turnout over time According to scholars, factors such as individuals with higher occupational status and income have a high likelihood of voting as compared to those without, or with lower levels of education (Wolfinger & Rosenstone, 1980). States found to have higher income inequalities are also likely to experience a lower voter turnout. Intricacies in data collection for a lengthy period for all states place a limit on the number of voter controllable variables. Race has also been pointed out as playing a vital role in voter turnout. It is associated with varying turnout levels and frail mobilizing associations (Hill & Leighley, 1999). Other dependent variables include number of party-groups, registration requirements and index of minority requirement. Tolerance is however and independent variable. Framing of data As was established above, researches have indicated that presidential elections are likely to have a higher turnout that midterm elections. This is not a good outcome for initiatives that might be introduced during midterm elections despite being of high importance. Since models for midterm elections and presidential elections are different, scholars propose separation on analysis of the two elections (Jackson 1997), as outstanding initiatives on the ballot may be imperative in midterm voting. Midterm elections are usually featured with low information elections, with minimal springs of mobilization. Most ballot initiatives may, however, change low information midterm elections to high information elections, and therefore, result in high voter turnout. Ballot initiatives may assist to increase relevant information to the highly informed presidential elections, which will also boost voter turnout. Direct democracy proponents say that a high number of initiatives on the ballot can result in what Magleby (1984) terms as “ballot fatigue,” which could result in low voter turnout. While too much ballot initiatives lead to higher turnout, a high number of policy questions may have a negative impact that may result in low voter turnout. This has been the argument by opponents of direct democracy that allowing voters to engage in making public policy decisions may have a negative impact. Other factors that opponents of the initiative process have pointed out are that the process may intimidate minority groups, weaken state governments and even replace representative democracy (Broder, 2000). These are considered the downsides of the initiative process. Findings The table below displays the number of voter turnout across states between the periods 1960 to 2010. As indicated earlier, voter turnout in the past years has been on a declining trend in the united State, with only a few exceptions. Voter registration can be seen to be higher during presidential elections that midterm elections. Year Voting-age population Voter registration Voter turnout Turnout of voting-age population (percent) 2010** 235,809,266 NA 90,682,968 37.8% 2008* 231,229,580 NA 132,618,580* 56.8 2006 220,600,000 135,889,600 80,588,000 37.1 2004 221,256,931 174,800,000 122,294,978 55.3 2002 215,473,000 150,990,598 79,830,119 37.0 2000 205,815,000 156,421,311 105,586,274 51.3 1998 200,929,000 141,850,558 73,117,022 36.4 1996 196,511,000 146,211,960 96,456,345 49.1 1994 193,650,000 130,292,822 75,105,860 38.8 1992 189,529,000 133,821,178 104,405,155 55.1 1990 185,812,000 121,105,630 67,859,189 36.5 1988 182,778,000 126,379,628 91,594,693 50.1 1986 178,566,000 118,399,984 64,991,128 36.4 1984 174,466,000 124,150,614 92,652,680 53.1 1982 169,938,000 110,671,225 67,615,576 39.8 1980 164,597,000 113,043,734 86,515,221 52.6 1978 158,373,000 103,291,265 58,917,938 37.2 1976 152,309,190 105,037,986 81,555,789 53.6 1974 146,336,000 96,199,0201 55,943,834 38.2 1972 140,776,000 97,328,541 77,718,554 55.2 1970 124,498,000 82,496,7472 58,014,338 46.6 1968 120,328,186 81,658,180 73,211,875 60.8 1966 116,132,000 76,288,2833 56,188,046 48.4 1964 114,090,000 73,715,818 70,644,592 61.9 1962 112,423,000 65,393,7514 53,141,227 47.3 1960 109,159,000 64,833,0965 68,838,204 63.1 Table showing National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections from the period 1960-2010. Source: National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960–2010. . The numerals in the table clearly indicate that the number of voter turnout since the year 1996 has been on the decline. Comparison between initiative and non-initiative states As provided earlier, previous analysis show that voter turnout in both presidential elections and midterm elections bear a major difference between states that have adopted the initiative process and those that have not. In 1978, the tax limitation proposition 13 of California brought about a heavily contested debate, which contest brought back the need for direct democracy in the state. After the process was accepted, a 5% difference in voter turnout was witnessed between states with and those without the initiative process in both midterm and presidential elections. The following tables issue a comparison analysis between initiative states and non-initiative states. We will look at the outcome of the number of initiatives on voter turnout in states that have adopted the initiative process. This table shows that since 1978, there is a clear difference of 5% between initiative and non-initiative states with regard to voter turnout. ELECTION YEAR 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 Initiative State 48 41 40 43 40 42 60 45 55 Non-initiative State 43 36 35 38 33 20 57 40 50 Table indicating voter turnout in initiative versus non-initiative States. Mean turnout / Election year. Source: (Caroline 2001). This table shows an average of 10% difference between voter turnout in midterm elections in initiative and non-initiative states. ELECTION YEAR 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 Initiative State 48 46 42 45 44 43 44 Non-initiative State 43 36 35 38 34 34 36 Table indicating voter turnout in Midterm Elections. Mean turnout / Election year. Source: (Caroline 2001). This table shows a nearly 5% difference in presidential elections voter turnout. ELECTION YEAR 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 Initiative State 59 58 57 56 55 61 54 Non-initiative State 54 54 53 54 51 56 51 Table indicating voter turnout in Midterm Elections. Mean turnout / Election year. Source: (Caroline 2001). The table below elaborates a forecast based on the probability of voter turnout in 50 state models by altering the number of initiatives on the ballot for the 1996 presidential elections and the 1994 midterm elections. The approximation of the turnout is based on ballot initiatives in the 50 states. A state with two ballot initiatives in an election has a 2.5% increase in midterm election, with nearly the same as non-initiative states in the presidential elections. A state with four ballot initiatives in the election of 1994 and 1996 would have nearly 3.5% higher turnout in presidential elections and a 3% higher turnout in midterm elections. No. of Initiatives on Election Ballot Midterm Election (1994) Presidential Election (1996) Baseline 1:Non-initiative statesa 41.13 52.05 Baseline 1:Non-initiative statesb 35.72 48.25 0 42.75 51.08 1 43.15 51.41 2 43.55 51.74 3 43.95 52.07 4 44.34 52.40 5 44.74 52.72 Table showing predicted probability of voter turnout. Source (Caroline 2001, pp 642). Conclusion The empirical evidence from the data presented that states with ballot initiatives have had a higher voter turnout as compared to states without ballot initiatives in presidential and midterm elections for the past years across the 50 states. It is therefore proper that states that have not adopted the ballot initiative system be advises to do so. In addition, as seen above, if voter turnout has to be increased, it is important that presidential elections be characterized with high threshold of recurrent usage while midterm elections need only few incentives. Ballot initiative may lead to a higher voter turnout if midterm elections are transformed from low information to high information elections, similarly to presidential elections. Upcoming elections should therefore be facilitated with more information. Scholars and researchers should also focus in future on the connection touching on voter turnout, ballot initiatives and information. List of References Barber, B 1984, Strong democracy. New Jersey, Princeton University Press. Pp. 235-236. Bowler, S, Donovan, T. &Tolbert CJ 1998, Citizens as legislators: Direct democracy in the United States. Ohio State University Press, Columbus. Broder, DS 2000, Democracy derailed: Initiative campaigns and the power of money. Harcourt Brace, Orlando, FL. Caroline, JT, Grummel, JA, Smith, DA 2001, American Politics Research, Denver: Sage Publications. Pp.625-648. Cronin, T 1989, Direct democracy: The politics of initiative, referendum, and recall, Harvard University Press, MA: 225-228. Everson, D 1981, ‘The effects of initiatives on voter turnout: A comparative state analysis’, Western Political Quarterly, vol.34, pp. 415-425. Gamble, B 1997, ‘Putting civil rights to a popular vote’, American Journal of Political Science, vol.91, pp. 245-269. Gerber, ER 1999, The populist paradox. Princeton, Princeton University Press, NJ. Jackman, RW 1987, ‘Political institutions and voter turnout in industrial democracies’, Am.Polit. Sci. Rev. Vol.81: pp405–24 Hill, KQ & Leighley, JE 1999, ‘Racial diversity, voter turnout, and mobilizing institutions in the United States’, American Politics Quarterly, vol.27, pp.275-295. Jackson, R 1997, ‘The mobilization of U.S. state electorates in the 1998 and 1990 elections’, Journal of Politics, vol.59, pp.520-537. Magleby, D 1984, Direct legislation: Voting on ballot propositions in the United States. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Morell, M 1999, ‘Citizens’ evaluations of participatory democratic procedures: Normative theory meets empirical science’, Political Research Quarterly. Vol. 52, no.2, pp. 293-322. Powell, GB 1986, ‘American voter turnout in comparative perspective’, Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. Vol 80, no1, pp 17–43. Rosenthal, A 1997, The decline of representative democracy. CQ Press, Washington, DC. Schrag, P 1998, Paradise lost: California’s experience, America’s future. New Press, New York. Tolbert, CJ & Hero, RE 1996, ‘Race/ethnicity and direct democracy: Analysis of California’s illegal immigration initiative’, The Journal of Politics, vol. 58, pp 806-818. Wolfinger, R. & Rosenstone, S 1980, Who votes? Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Read More