Voters often have difficulty making choices on the myriad state constitutional amendments they vote on each year. Without partisan cues, they turn to other sources for these low-salience, high complexity measures. One such source is newspaper endorsements. In this article, we look at newspaper endorsements of ballot measures in Florida over 20 years both on “no” votes and roll-off. We argue that endorsements’ effect on “no” votes and roll-off differs in ways not previously appreciated. Newspaper endorsements have a positive impact on no votes, as expected from the information theory of voter participation. Endorsements have little impact on roll-off, which we posit is because roll-off voters are not likely to seek information from newspapers. Thus, newspaper endorsements serve to persuade, but not entice, voters to vote for ballot measures.
AnsolabehereStephenBehrRoyIyengarShanto. 1993. Media Game: American Politics in the Television Age. New York: MacMillan.
2.
BarabasJasonJeritJennifer. 2009. “Estimating the Causal Effects of Media Coverage on Policy-Specific Knowledge.” American Journal of Political Science53:73–89.
3.
BarthelMichael. 2016. State of the News Media 2016. Newspapers: Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
4.
BerelsonBernardLazarfeldPaulMcPheeWilliam. 1954. Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
5.
BiggersDaniel R.2011. “When Ballot Issues Matter: Social Issues Ballot Measures and Their Impact on Turnout.” Political Behavior33 (1): 3–25.
6.
BowlerShaunDonovanTodd. 1994. “Information and Opinion Change on Ballot Propositions.” Political Behavior16 (4): 411–35.
7.
BowlerShaunDonovanTodd. 1998. Demanding Choices: Opinion, Voting and Direct Democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
8.
BowmanAnn O’M.KearneyRichard C.2017. State and Local Government (10th ed). Boston: Cengage.
9.
BurnettCraig M.ParryJanine A.2014. “Gubernatorial Endorsements and Ballot Measure Approval.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly14:178–95.
CroninThomas E.1989. Direct Democracy: The Politics of Initiative, Referendum and Recall. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12.
DaltonRussell J.BeckPaul A.HuckfeldtRobert. 1998. “Partisan Cues and the Media: Information Flows in the 1992 Presidential Election.” American Political Science Review92:111–26.
13.
DamoreDavid F.NicholsonStephen P.2014. “Mobilizing Interests: Group Participation and Competition in Direct Democracy Elections.” Political Behavior36:535–52.
14.
DownsAnthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.
15.
DruckmanJames N.KamCindy D.2011. “Students as Experimental Participants: A Defense of the ‘Narrow Data Base’”. In Handbook of Experimental Political Science, eds. DruckmanJames N.GreenDonald P.KuklinskiJames H.LupiaArthur. New York: Cambridge University Press, 41–57.
16.
EriksonRobert S.1976. “The Influence of Newspaper Endorsements in Presidential Elections: The Case of 1964.” American Journal of Political Science20:207–33.
17.
GerberElisabeth. 1999. The Populist Paradox: Interest Group Influence and the Promise of Direct Legislation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
GreggJames E.1965. “Newspaper Editorial Endorsements and California Elections, 1948–1962.” Journalism Quarterly42:532–39.
20.
HajnalZoltan L.GerberElisabeth R.LouchHugh. 2002. “Minorities and Direct Legislation: Evidence from California Ballot Proposition Elections.” The Journal of Politics64 (1): 154–77.
21.
HillKevin A.MacManusSusanMarencoD.2004. Florida’s Politics: Ten Media Markets, One Powerful State. Tallahassee: Florida Institute of Government at Florida State University.
22.
HuberJohn D.ShipanCharles R.2002. Deliberate Discretion? The Institutional Foundations of Bureaucratic Autonomy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23.
IyengarShantoKinderDonald R.1987. News That Matters: Agenda Setting and Priming in a Television Age. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
24.
JeritJenniferBarabasJasonBolsenToby. 2006. “Citizens, Knowledge, and the Information Environment.” American Journal of Political Science50:266–82.
25.
KarpJeffrey. 1998. “The Influence of Elite Endorsements in Initiative Campaigns.” In Citizens as Legislators: Direct Democracy in the United States, eds. BowlerShaunDonovanToddTolbertCaroline. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 149–65.
26.
KriesiHanspeter. 2005. Direct Democratic Choice: The Swiss Experience. Lanham: Lexington Books.
27.
LarcineseaValentinoPuglisiRiccardoSnyderJames M.2011. “Partisan Bias in Economic News: Evidence on the Agenda-Setting Behavior of U.S. Newspapers.” Journal of Public Economics95 (9–10): 1178–89.
28.
LodgeMiltonSteenbergenMarcoBrauShawn. 1995. “The Responsive Voter: Campaign Information and the Dynamics of Candidate Evaluation.” American Political Science Review89:309–26.
29.
LupiaArthur. 1994. “Shortcuts versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections.” American Political Science Review88:63–76.
30.
LupiaArthurMatsusakaJohn G.2004. “Direct Democracy: New Approaches to Old Questions.” Annual Review of Political Science7:463–82.
31.
LupiaArthurMcCubbinsMathew. 1998. The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know?New York: Cambridge University Press.
32.
MacManusSusan A.2004. “Florida Overview: Ten Media Markets—One Powerful State.” In Florida’s Politics: Ten Media Markets, One Powerful State, eds. HillKevin A.MacManusSusanMarenoDrio. Tallahassee: Florida Institute of Government at Florida State University, 1–64.
33.
MaglebyDavid B.1984. “The Initiative and Referendum.” Legislative PolicyJanuary–February, 33–36.
34.
McCombsMaxwell. 1967. “Editorial Endorsements: A Study of Influence.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly44:545–48.
35.
McCombsMaxwellShawDonald. 1972. “The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media.” Public Opinion Quarterly36:176–87.
36.
MatsusakaJohn G.1995. “Explaining Voter Turnout Patterns: An Information Theory.” Public Choice84:91–117.
37.
MitchellAmyGottfiredJeffreyBarthelMichaelShearerElisa. 2016. The Modern News Consumer: News Attitudes and Practices in the Digital Era. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
38.
NicholsonStephen P.2003. “The Political Environment and Ballot Proposition Awareness.” American Journal of Political Science47:403–10.
39.
PorterTim. 2004. “What’s the Point? Few Voters Are Swayed by Newspaper Endorsements of Presidential Candidates. So Why Do Editorial Pages Keep Publishing Them?”American Journalism Review26:58–63.
40.
ReillyShaunaRicheySean. 2011. “Ballot Readability and Roll-off: The Impact of Language Complexity.” Political Research Quarterly64 (1): 59–67.
SchlozmanDanielYohaiIan. 2008. “How Initiatives Don’t Always Make Citizens: Ballot Initiatives in the American States, 1978–2004.” Political Behavior30:469–89.
43.
SeibPeter. 2008. “Supersized Votes: Ballot Length, Uncertainty, and Choice in Direct Legislation Elections.” Public Choice135:319–36.
44.
SmithDanielTolbertCaroline. 2001. “The Initiative to Party: Partisanship and Ballot Initiatives in California.” Party Politics7 (6): 739–57.
45.
SmithMark A.2001. “The Contingent Effects of Ballot Initiative and Candidate Races on Turnout.” American Journal of Political Science45:700–706.
46.
SnidermanPaulBrodyRichardTetlockPhillip. 1991. Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47.
StratmannThomas. 2006. “Is Spending More Potent for or against a Proposition? Evidence from Ballot Measures.” American Journal of Political Science50:788–801.
48.
WattenbergMartin P.McAllisterIanSalvantoAnthony. 2000. “How Voting Is like Taking an SAT Test: An Analysis of American Voter Rolloff.” American Politic Research28:234–50.
49.
ZallerJohn. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Public Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
50.
ZallerJohn. 1996. “The Myth of Massive Media Impact Revived: New Support for a Discredited Idea.” In Political Persuasion and Attitude Change, eds. MutzDianeSnidermanPaulBrodyRichard. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 17–79.
51.
ZellnerArnold. 1962. “An Efficient Method of Estimating Seemingly Unrelated Regressions and Tests for Aggregation Bias.” Journal of the American Statistical Association57 (298): 348–68.
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.
