The call for more direct democracy, and referenda in particular, is often heard and met with support from large numbers of citizens in many countries. This article explores the motives for supporting referenda: Do citizens support them for intrinsic reasons, because referenda allow them to exercise their democratic rights more directly? Or are preferences for referenda predominantly based on the expectation that they will produce desired policy outcomes and thus instrumentally motivated? Our survey experiment explores such instrumental preferences by assessing how substantial policy preferences affect individuals’ choice of referenda over alternative decision-making procedures. We show that congruence between a respondent’s own opinion and the expected majority opinion is associated with support for a referendum on a given matter, and thus arrive at the conclusion that calls for referenda should be reassessed in light of the partly instrumental character of procedural preferences.
AcemogluDRobinsonJA (2000) Why Did the West Extend the Franchise? Democracy, Inequality, and Growth in Historical Perspective. The Quarterly Journal of Economics115 (4): 1167–1199.
2.
BächtigerAGrönlundKSetäläM (2014) Deliberative Mini-publics: Involving Citizens in the Democratic Process. Colchester: ECPR Press.
3.
BengtssonAMattilaM (2009) Direct Democracy and Its Critics: Support for Direct Democracy and “Stealth” Democracy in Finland. West European Politics32 (5): 1031–1048.
4.
BengtssonÅWassH (2010) Styles of Political Representation: What do Voters Expect?Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties20 (1): 55–81.
5.
BosnjakMDannwolfTEnderleT, et al. (2017) Establishing an Open Probability-Based Mixed-Mode Panel of the General Population in Germany: The GESIS Panel. Social Science Computer Review36 (1): 103–115.
6.
BowlerSDonovanTKarpJA (2007) Enraged or Engaged? Preferences for Direct Citizen Participation in Affluent Democracies. Political Research Quarterly60 (3): 351–362.
7.
CarminesEGStimsonJA (1980) The Two Faces of Issue Voting. American Political Science Review74 (1): 78–91.
8.
DaltonRJ (1999) Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9.
DaltonRJBurklinWPDrummondA (2001) Public Opinion and Direct Democracy. Journal of Democracy12 (4): 141–153.
DomkeDShahDVWackmanDB (1998) ‘Moral Referendums’: Values, News Media, and the Process of Candidate Choice. Political Communication15 (3): 301–321.
12.
DryzekJS (2010) Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13.
EsaiassonPPerssonMGilljamM, et al. (2019) Reconsidering the Role of Procedures for Decision Acceptance. British Journal of Political Science49 (1): 291–314.
14.
European Social Survey Round 6 Data (2012) Data file edition 2.4. NSD - Norwegian Centre for Research Data, Norway. DOI: 10.21338/NSD-ESS6-2012.
15.
FishkinJ (1991) The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
16.
FontJMWojcieszakMNavarroCJ (2015) Participation, Representation and Expertise: Citizen Preferences for Political Decision-Making Processes. Political Studies63 (Suppl. 1): 153–172.
17.
GabrielOW (2013) Repräsentationsschwächen und die zweite Transformation der Demokratie: Wer will in Deutschland direkte Demokratie?Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen44 (3): 592–612.
18.
GanglA (2003) Procedural Justice Theory and Evaluations of the Lawmaking Process. Political Behavior25 (2): 119–149.
19.
GESIS (2017) GESIS Panel (ZA5665 Datenfile version 17.0.0), Standard edn. Köln: GESIS Datenarchiv.
20.
GrönlundKBächtigerASetäläM (2014) Deliberative Mini-Publics: Involving Citizens in the Democratic Process. Colchester: ECPR Press.
21.
HibbingJRTheiss-MorseE (2001) Process Preferences and American Politics: What the People Want Government to Be. American Political Science Review95 (1): 145–153.
22.
HibbingJRTheiss-MorseE (2002) Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs about How Government Should Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
HoogheMSMarienSOserJ (2017) Great Expectations: The Effect of Democratic Ideals on Political Trust in European Democracies. Contemporary Politics23 (2): 214–230.
24.
InglehartR (1990) Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
25.
KnightJ (1992) Institutions and Social Conflict. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
26.
LafontC (2019) Democracy without Shortcuts: A Participatory Conception of Deliberative Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27.
LandwehrC (2015) Democratic Meta-Deliberation: Towards Reflective Institutional Design. Political Studies63 (Suppl. 1): 38–54.
28.
LandwehrCSteinerND (2017) Where Democrats Disagree: Citizens’ Normative Conceptions of Democracy. Political Studies65 (4): 786–804.
29.
LindEATylerTR (1988) The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum Press.
30.
LuhmannN (1983) Legitimation Durch Verfahren. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
31.
MoeTM (2005) Power and Political Institutions. Perspectives on Politics3 (2): 215–233.
32.
NewtonKGeisselB (2012) Evaluating Democratic Innovations: Curing the Democratic Malaise?Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge.
33.
NorrisP (1999) Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34.
OserJHoogheM (2018) Democratic Ideals and Levels of Political Participation: The Role of Political and Social Conceptualisations of Democracy. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations20 (3): 711–730.
35.
ParkinsonJMansbridgeJ (2012) Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36.
RobinsonJATorvikR (2016) Endogenous Presidentialism. Journal of the European Economic Association14 (4): 907–942.
37.
SeydB (2013) Analysing Constitutional Reform in Britain: Insights from Economic Approaches. British Politics8 (4): 410–432.
38.
SkitkaLJ (2002) Do the Means Always Justify the Ends, or Do the Ends Sometimes Justify the Means? A Value Protection Model of Justice Reasoning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin28 (5): 588–597.
39.
SkitkaLJMullenE (2008) Moral Convictions Often Override Concerns about Procedural Fairness: A Reply to Napier and Tyler. Social Justice Research21 (4): 529–546.
40.
SmithDATolbertCJKellerAM (2010) Electoral and Structural Losers and Support for a National Referendum in the US. Electoral Studies29 (3): 509–520.
41.
SmithG (2009) Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42.
TicchiDVindigniA (2010) Endogenous Constitutions. The Economic Journal120 (543): 1–39.
43.
TylerTRLindEA (2001) Procedural Justice. In: SandersJHamiltonVL (eds) Handbook of Justice Research in Law. New York: Springer Science + Business Media, pp.65–92.
44.
WenzelJPBowlerSLanoueDJ (2000) Citizen Opinion and Constitutional Choices: The Case of the UK. Political Behavior22 (3): 241–265.
45.
WojcieszakM (2014) Preferences for Political Decision-Making Processes and Issue Publics. Public Opinion Quarterly78 (4): 917–939.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
