Is there an opposition bias in ballot initiative campaigns? While some early research suggested that the “no” side was advantaged in ballot initiative campaigns, recent work has demonstrated that both opposition and support spending in ballot measure campaigns are effective. We offer a new way to conceptualize status quo orientation in ballot measure elections. Specifically, we argue that opposition arguments are more effective than support arguments because of the well-known framing negativity bias and not because the starting position for uninformed voters is to default to no. We present the results of two survey experiments to test the impact of support and opposition arguments in ballot initiative campaigns. We find consistent evidence that opposition arguments are effective in generating more “no” votes and that support arguments are ineffective in generating more “yes” votes.
AdamsGreg D.1997. “Abortion: Evidence of an Issue Evolution.” American Journal of Political Science41:718–37.
2.
AnsolabehereStephenRiversDoug. 2013. “Cooperative Survey Research.” Annual Review of Political Science16:307–29.
3.
AnsolabehereStephenSchaffnerBrian F.2014. “Does Survey Mode Still Matter? Findings from a 2010 Multi-Mode Comparison.” Political Analysis22 (3): 285–303.
4.
ArceneauxKevin. 2012. “Cognitive Biases and the Strength of Political Arguments.” American Journal of Political Science56 (2): 271–85.
5.
BaumeisterRoy F.BratslavskyEllenFinkenauerCatrinVohsKathleen D.2001. “Bad Is Stronger than Good.” Review of General Psychology5 (4): 323–70.
6.
BiggersDaniel R.2014. Morality at the Ballot: Direct Democracy and Political Engagement in the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press.
7.
BinderMike. 2009. “Getting It Right or Playing It Safe? Correct Voting, Confusion and the Status Quo Bias in Direct Democracy.” https://ssrn.com/abstract=1465780 (accessed November 13, 2018).
8.
BolsenTobyDruckmanJames N.CookFay Lomax. 2014. “How Frames Can Undermine Support for Scientific Adaptations: Politicization and the Status-Quo Bias.” Public Opinion Quarterly78 (1): 1–26.
9.
BowlerShaunDonovanTodd. 1998. Demanding Choices: Opinion, Voting and Direct Democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
10.
BurnettCraig M.KoganVladimir. 2015. “When Does Ballot Language Influence Voter Choices? Evidence from a Survey Experiment.” Political Communication32 (1): 109–26.
11.
CarminesEdward G.StimsonJames A.1980. “The Two Faces of Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review74 (1): 78–91.
12.
ChildersM.BinderM.2012. “Engaged by the initiative? How the use of citizen initiatives increases voter turnout.” Political Research Quarterly65(1): 93-103.
13.
De FigueiredoJohn M.JiChang HoKousserThad. 2011. “Financing Direct Democracy: Revisiting the Research on Campaign Spending and Citizen Initiatives.” The Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization27 (3): 485–514.
14.
DutwinDavidBuskirkTrent D.2017. “Apples to Oranges or Gala versus Golden Delicious? Comparing Data Quality of Nonprobability Internet Samples to Low Response Rate Probability Samples.” Public Opinion Quarterly81 (S1): 213–39.
15.
DyckJoshua J.HagleyAnnika. 2012. “Political Geography, Direct Democracy, and the Reasoning Voter: Spatial Proximity, Symbolic Politics, and Voting on California’s Proposition 83.” Politics & Policy40 (2): 195–220.
16.
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.
17.
EvansMichaelPearson-MerkowitzShanna. 2012. “Perpetuating the Myth of the Culture War Court? Issue Attention in Newspaper Coverage of US Supreme Court Nominations.” American Politics Research40 (6): 1026–66.
18.
GerberElisabeth R.1999. The Populist Paradox: Interest Group Influence and the Promise of Direct Legislation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
HansenChristine H.HansenRanald D.1988. “Finding the Face in the Crowd: An Anger Superiority Test.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology54:917–24.
21.
HibbingJohn R.SmithKevin B.AlfordJohn R.2014. “Differences in Negativity Bias Underlie Variations in Political Ideology.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences37 (3): 297–307.
22.
KahnKim FridkinKenneyPatrick J.1999. The Spectacle of US Senate Campaigns. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
23.
KahnemanDanielKnetschJack L.ThalerRichard H.1991. “Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives5 (1): 193–206.
24.
KahnemanDanielTverskyAmos. 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.” Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society47 (2): 263–92.
25.
KahnemanDanielTverskyAmos. 1984. “Choices, Values, and Frames.” American Psychologist39 (4): 341–50.
26.
LowensteinDaniel H.1982. “Campaign Spending and Ballot Propositions: Recent Experience, Public Choice Theory and the First Amendment.” UCLA Law Review29 (3): 505–641.
27.
LupiaArthur. 1994. “Shortcuts versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections.” American Political Science Review 88 (March): 63–76.
28.
LupiaArthur. 2015. Uninformed: Why People Know So Little About Politics and What We Can Do About It. New York: Oxford University Press.
29.
LupiaArthurMatsusakaJohn G.2004. “Direct Democracy: New Approaches to Old Questions.” Annual Review of Political Science7:463–82.
30.
LupiaArthurMcCubbinsMathew D.1998. The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know?New York: Cambridge University Press.
31.
MaglebyDavid B.1984. Direct Legislation: Voting on Ballot Propositions in the United States. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
32.
MatsusakaJohn G.2004. For the Many or the Few: The Initiative, Public Policy, and American Democracy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
33.
McTagueJohnPearson-MerkowitzShanna. 2013. “Voting from the Pew: The Effect of Senators’ Religious Identities on Partisan Polarization in the US Senate.” Legislative Studies Quarterly38 (3): 405–30.
34.
NossiffRosemary. 2000. Before Roe. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
35.
ReillyShaunaRicheySean. 2011. “Ballot Question Readability and Roll-off: The Impact of Language Complexity.” Political Research Quarterly64 (1): 59–67.
36.
ReillyShaunaYonkRyan M., eds. 2012. Direct Democracy in the United States: Petitioners as a Reflection of Society. New York: Routledge.
37.
RodgersToddMiddletonJoel. 2015. “Are Ballot Initiative Outcomes Influenced by the Campaigns of Independent Groups? A Precinct-Randomized Field Experiment Showing That They Are.” Political Behavior37 (3): 567–93.
38.
RozinRaulRoyzmanEdward B.2001. “Negativity Bias, Negativity Dominance, and Contagion.” Personality and Social Psychology Review4:296–320.
39.
SamuelsonWilliamZeckhauserRichard. 1988. “Status Quo Bias in Decision Making.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty1 (1): 7–59.
40.
StratmannThomas. 2006. “Is Spending More Potent For or against a Proposition? Evidence from Ballot Measures.” American Journal of Political Science50 (3): 788–801.
41.
StokesDonald E.1963. “Spatial Models of Party Competition.” The American Political Science Review57 (2): 368–77.
42.
StokesDonald E.1992. “Valence Politics.” In Electoral Politics, ed. Dennis Kavanagh. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 141–64.
43.
ZallerJohn. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University 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.
