In this article we look at the pattern of interest group engagement in direct democracy elections. Using a social network analysis of campaign contributions we examine whether or not patterns of group conflict conform to a stable split along a single (left/right) dimension. While we find that it is the case that there are stable components to group participation in direct democracy elections and that group alliances do lie along a left/right dimension we also find this characterization to be a simplification of actual patterns of engagement. Not only is there evidence of single-issue engagement, there is also evidence of a second—insider/outsider—dimension to direct democracy politics.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ainsworth, Scott. 2002. Analyzing Interest Groups: Group Influence on People and Politics. London: Norton.
2.
Boehmke, Frederick. 2005. The Indirect Effect of Direct Democracy: How Institutions Shape Interest Group Systems. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
3.
Bowler, S., and T. Donovan. 1998. Demanding Choices: Opinion, Voting, and Direct Democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
4.
Broder, David. 2000. Democracy Derailed: Ballot Proposition Campaigns and the Power of Money. Harvest books.
5.
De Figueiredo, John. 2005. “How much Does Money Matter in a Direct Democracy?”Southern California Law Review78: 1065-1073.
6.
Donovan, T., Shaun Bowler, David McCuan, and Kenneth Fernandez. 1998. “Contending Players and Strategies: Opposition Advantages in Ballot Proposition Elections.” In T. Donovan and C. Tolbert, eds., Citizens as Legislators. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
7.
Gerber, E.1999. The Populist Paradox. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
8.
Gerber, E.The Populist Paradox. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
9.
Gerber, E., Zoltan L. Hajnal, and Hugh Louch. 2002. “Minorities and Direct Legislation: Evidence from California Ballot Proposition Elections”Journal of Politics64 (1): 154-177.
10.
Hasen, R.2005. “Rethinking the Unconstitutionality of Contribution and Expenditure Limits in Ballot Measure Campaigns.”Southern California Law Review78: 885-926.
11.
Laumann, E., and Knoke, D.1980. The Organizational State. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
12.
Logan, J. R., and H. L. Molotch. 1987. Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place. Berkeley: University of California Press.
13.
Lowrie, S. Gale. 1911. “New Forms of the Initiative and Referendum.”American Political Science Review5 (4): 566-573.
14.
Lupia, Arthur. 1994. “Shortcuts versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections.”American Political Science Review88: 63-76.
15.
Magleby, David B.1984. Direct legislation: Voting on Ballot Propositions in the United States. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
16.
Malchow, Hal. 2001. TV vs. Direct mail: Campaign Cost Comparison—Statistical Data Included, pp. 1-7. Washington, DC: Campaigns & Elections Magazine Press
17.
Manweller, M.2005. “Coalition Building in Direct Democracy Campaigns.”American Politics Research33 (2): 246-282.
Milyo, Jeffrey, D. Primo, and T. Groseclose. 2000. “Corporate PAC Campaign Contributions in Perspective.”Business and Politics2 (1): 75-88.
20.
Press, W. H., B. P. Flannery, S. A. Teukolsky, and W. T. Vetterling. 1989. Numerical Recipes in Pascal. New York: Cambridge University Press.
21.
Schrag, P.2004. Paradise Lost: California's Experience, America's Future. Berkeley: University of California Press
22.
Smith, Daniel A.1998. Tax Crusaders and the Politics of Direct Democracy. NY: Routledge.
23.
Smith, Daniel A.2001. “Campaign Financing of Ballot Propositions in the American States.” In L. H. Ernst Sabato and B. Larson, eds., Dangerous Democracy? The Battle over Ballot Ballot Propositions in America. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
24.
Smith, D., and Tolbert, C.2004. Educated by Ballot Proposition. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
25.
Smith, D., and Tolbert, C.2001. “The Ballot Proposition to Party: Partisanship and Ballot Initiatives in California.”Party Politics7: 739-757.
26.
Smith, D., and Tolbert, C.2005. Educated by Ballot Proposition. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
27.
Stratmann, Thomas. 2005. “The Effectiveness of Money in Ballot Measure Campaigns.”Southern California Law Review78 (4): 1041-1064
28.
Weisstein., E. W.1999. “Singular Value Decomposition.” In Math-World—A Wolfram Web Resource. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SingularValueDecomposition.html.
29.
Wright J.1996. Interest groups and Congress: Lobbying, Contributions and Influence. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
