Not only does public opinion data show that trust in government is declining, but rhetoric of stolen elections, the January 6th riot at the U.S. Capitol, and intense political polarization have characterized the contemporary American political scene as one of instability and dissatisfaction. Government trust is important to the functioning of democracy and my research examines if engaging citizens through direct democracy impacts public opinion.
Direct democracy refers to governance that directly involves citizens in legislative processes. This contrasts with traditional representative democracy where people vote for people who represent them and create laws. Citizen-initiated ballot processes are a type of direct democracy mechanism that allow citizens to propose and vote directly on laws and constitutional amendments.
Ballot initiatives have made headlines in the recent 2022 midterm election for their use in changing state laws about abortion access. For example, citizens in Michigan initiated Proposal 3, the Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative, to establish a constitutional right to reproductive freedom in the state. While this was an effective way for the people of Michigan to pass a law that represented majority interest, not all citizens have the opportunity to initiate and vote on laws and referenda. Only 26 out of the 50 U.S. states have citizen-initiated ballot processes.
So, do these processes, which directly involve citizens in the process of lawmaking, impact their attitudes about government and democracy? I used data from the American Institutional Confidence Poll and Ballotpedia to examine if living in a ballot initiative state impacted an individual’s satisfaction in democracy. My analysis used ordinal logistic models and controlled for variables such as political party identification and the number of ballot initiatives on a state’s ballot. The number of ballot initiatives variable was determined by counting how many citizen-initiated ballots were on a state’s ballot in the 2016 election, the most recent election prior to when the survey was conducted in 2018.
Results from my study found that while just the presence of ballot initiatives was not a significant factor in explaining people’s political trust, the number of initiatives on the ballot in a state was associated with people being more likely to be satisfied with democracy. This suggests that exposure to direct democracy matters, but a state simply having the process does not. This makes sense, because if a state has not had many citizen-initiated ballot initiatives on the ballot, or at least not one in the recent election, a person may not know about their opportunity for direct involvement, and therefore it may not impact their attitude about democracy.
The number of ballot initiatives was not only statistically significant, but people in states with more ballot initiatives were more likely to be satisfied in democracy than citizens in states with less ballot initiatives. A similar positive relationship was found between the number of ballot initiatives and the likelihood that someone thought that elections were free and fair.
This same relationship was not found when looking at the relationship between the number of ballot initiatives in an individual’s state of residence and their trust in state government. My analysis showed that the number of ballot initiatives was not statistically significant in an individual’s perception of state government.
These results suggest that ballot initiatives might influence people’s attitudes about government processes more than government outcomes or implementation of policies. The number of ballot initiatives was significant in people’s attitudes about democracy and elections—both aspects of governance that concern government processes—but not in their confidence in state government, something that includes government outcomes and implementation of policies.
Thus, my results suggest that ballot initiative processes may contribute to people’s sense of procedural justice, the idea that the process is fair, but may not actually influence their sense of political efficacy, or the idea that they have power to change political outcomes. In other words, ballot initiatives may make people have more positive attitudes about government processes, but not necessarily change how they feel about government actions and outcomes.
My study provides insights into the importance of how people interact with government and suggests that creating fair government processes that foster public participation might help increase people’s satisfaction in democracy. Where American society is characterized by failing trust in government and increasingly uncivil discourse, understanding these relationships is important for improving citizen engagement and ultimately strengthening democracy.
Jane Wright is a senior studying policy analysis at the O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Passionate about getting fellow students civically engaged, Jane is involved with the organization Women in Government at IU and works as a Peer Educator at the O’Neill Career Hub. Jane plans to continue her education by earning a Master of Public Policy and focusing on issues related to governance and democratic reform.
Leave a Reply