Does direct democracy lead to increased electoral turnout? Research in the United States has demonstrated this effect and proposed two reasons for it: (1) the process of being involved in direct political participation may educate citizens and lead to their increased long-term political engagement (this explanation draws on the theory of participatory democracy) and/or (2) underlying issues and competitive campaigning draw public interest and cause higher turnout, although this effect is election-specific and short term. Recent empirical findings overwhelmingly favor the latter hypothesis although both mechanisms seem to apply. However, research on this topic is made difficult by the fact that direct democracy and elections take place simultaneously in the United States, which makes it hard to disentangle the effects of each. We present a study from the Czech Republic where direct democracy is not tied to elections. We analyze the effects of local/municipality direct democracy and demonstrate that it leads to increased turnout in upcoming local and national elections. We demonstrate a strong effect sparked by competitive direct democracy campaigns as well as a relatively weak long-term institutional effect of direct democracy.
AltmanDavid. 2010. Direct Democracy Worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2.
BachrachPeterBotwinickAryeh. 1992. Power and Empowerment: A Radical Theory of Participatory Democracy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
3.
BarberBenjamin R.1984. Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley: University of California Press.
4.
BaybeckBrady. 2014. “Local Political Participation.” In The Oxford Handbook of State and Local Government, edited by Haider-MarkelDonald P., 95–109. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5.
BiggersDaniel R.2011. “When Ballot Issues Matter: Social Issue Ballot Measures and Their Impact on Turnout.” Political Behavior33 (1): 3–25.
6.
BowlerShaunDonovanTodd. 2002. “Democracy, Institutions and Attitudes about Citizen Influence on Government.” British Journal of Political Science32 (2): 371–90.
7.
BowlerShaunDonovanToddKarpJeffrey A.2007. “Enraged or Engaged? Preferences for Direct Citizen Participation in Affluent Democracies.” Political Research Quarterly60 (3): 351–62.
8.
BradyHenry E.VerbaSidneySchlozmanKay L.1995. “Beyond SES: A Resource Model of Political Participation.” American Political Science Review89 (2): 271–94.
9.
ChamberlainGary. 1982. “Multivariate Regression Models for Panel Data.” Journal of Econometrics18 (1): 5–46.
10.
ChildersMatthewBinderMike. 2012. “Engaged by the Initiative? How the Use of Citizen Initiatives Increases Voter Turnout.” Political Research Quarterly65 (1): 93–103.
11.
Devine-WrightPatrick. 2014. Renewable Energy and the Public: From NIMBY to Participation. New York: Routledge.
12.
DyckJoshua J.2009. “Initiated Distrust: Direct Democracy and Trust in Government.” American Politics Research3 (4): 539–68.
13.
DyckJoshua J.LascherEdward J.Jr.2009. “Direct Democracy and Political Efficacy Reconsidered.” Political Behavior31 (3): 401–27.
14.
DyckJoshua J.SeabrookNicholas R.2010. “Mobilized by Direct Democracy: Short-Term versus Long-Term Effects and the Geography of Turnout in Ballot Measure Elections.” Social Science Quarterly91 (1): 188–208.
15.
EgnerBjornSweetingDavidKlokPieter-Jan. 2013. “Local Councillors in Comparative Perspective.” In Local Councillors in Europe, edited by EgnerBjörnSweetingDavidKlokPieter-Jan, 11–25. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
MüllerKarel B.FleissnerKamilKnýDaniel. 2015. “Lokální politika v Česku a v Evropě aneb vítejte v labyrintu místní samosprávy” [Local Politics in the Czech Republic and Europe: Welcome in the Labyrinth of Local Governance]. Politologická revue1:119–37.
18.
FreitagMarkusStadelmann-SteffenIsabelle. 2010. “Stumbling Block or Stepping Stone? The Influence of Direct Democracy on Individual Participation in Parliamentary Elections.” Electoral Studies29 (3): 472–83.
19.
GrummelJohn A.2008. “Morality Politics, Direct Democracy, and Turnout.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly8 (3): 282–92.
20.
Haider-MarkelDanielQuerzeAlanaLindamanKara. 2007. “Lose, Win, or Draw? A Reexamination of Direct Democracy and Minority Rights.” Political Research Quarterly60 (2): 304–14.
21.
HeroRodney E.TolbertCaroline. 2004. “Minority Voices and Citizen Attitudes about Government Responsiveness in the American States: Do Social and Institutional Context Matter?” British Journal of Political Science34 (1): 109–21.
22.
HibbingJohn R.ElisabethTheiss-Morse. 2002. Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs about How Government Should Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
HillLisa. 2003. “Democratic Deficit in the ACT: Is the Citizen Initiated Referendum a Solution?”Australian Journal of Social Issues38 (4): 496–511.
24.
HoboltSara B.2007. “Taking Cues on Europe? Voter Competence and Party Endorsements in Referendums on European Integration.” European Journal of Political Research46 (2): 151–82.
FeldLars P.KirchgässnerGebhard. 2000. “Direct Democracy, Political Culture, and the Outcome of Economic Policy: A Report on the Swiss Experience.” European Journal of Political Economy16 (2): 287–306.
27.
LaisneyMatis. 2012. “The Initiation of Local Authority Referendums: Participatory Momentum or Political Tactics? The UK Case.” Local Government Studies38 (5): 639–59.
28.
LeDucLawrence. 2003. The Politics of Direct Democracy: Referendums in Global Perspective. Peterborough: Broadview Press.
29.
LupiaArthur. 1992. “Busy Voters, Agenda Control, and the Power of Information.” American Political Science Review86 (2): 390–403.
30.
LupiaArthur. 1994. “Shortcuts versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections.” American Political Science Review88 (1): 63–76.
31.
McClurgScott D.2003. “Social Networks and Political Participation: The Role of Social Interaction in Explaining Political Participation.” Political Research Quarterly56 (4): 449–64.
32.
MansbridgeJane J.1983. Beyond Adversary Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
MundlakYair. 1978. “On the Pooling of Time Series and Cross Section Data.” Econometrica46 (1): 69–85.
35.
PapkeLeslie E.WooldridgeJeffrey M.2008. “Panel Data Methods for Fractional Response Variables with an Application to Test Pass Rates.” Journal of Econometrics145 (1): 121–33.
36.
PatemanCarole. 1970. Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.
ProsserChristopher. 2016. “Calling European Union Treaty referendums: Electoral and Institutional Politics.” Political Studies64 (1): 182–99.
38.
PutnamRobert D.2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
39.
SawardMichael. 1998. The Terms of Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
40.
SetäläMaijaSchillerTeo. 2012. Citizens’ Initiatives in Europe: Procedures and Consequences of Agenda-Setting by Citizens. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
41.
SchlozmanDanielYohaiIan. 2008. “How Initiatives Don’t Always Make Citizens: Ballot Initiatives in the American States, 1978–2004.” Political Behavior30 (4): 469–89.
42.
ShemtovRonit. 2003. “Social Networks and Sustained Activism in Local NIMBY Campaigns.” Sociological Forum18 (2): 215–44.
43.
SmithDaniel A.2013. Tax Crusaders and the Politics of Direct Democracy. New York: Routledge.
44.
SmithMark A.2001. “The Contingent Effects of Ballot Initiatives and Candidate Races on Turnout.” American Journal of Political Science45 (3): 700–706.
45.
SmithDaniel A.TolbertCaroline J.2009. Educated by Initiative: The Effects of Direct Democracy on Citizens and Political Organizations in the American States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
46.
TolbertCaroline J.McNealRamona S.SmithDaniel A.2003. “Enhancing Civic Engagement: The Effect of Direct Democracy on Political Participation and Knowledge.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly3 (1): 23–41.
47.
TolbertCaroline J.SmithDaniel A.2005. “The Educative Effects of Ballot Initiatives on Voter Turnout.” American Politics Research33 (2): 283–309.
48.
TolbertCaroline J.BowenDaniel C.DonovanTodd. 2008. “Initiative Campaigns: Direct Democracy and Voter Mobilization.” American Politics Research37 (1): 155–92.
49.
WarrenMark. 1992. “Democratic Theory and Self-Transformation.” American Political Science Review86 (1): 8–23.
WooldridgeJeffrey M.2010. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge: MIT Press.
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.
