UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO Getting it Right or Playing it Safe? Confusion, the Status Quo Bias and Correct Voting in Direct Democracy A Dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science by Michael M. Binder Committee in charge: Professor Thaddeus Kousser, Chair Professor Shaun Bowler Professor Amy Bridges Professor Theodore Groves Professor Zoltan Hajnal Professor Gary Jacobson Professor Stephen Nicholson 2010 The Dissertation of Michael M. Binder is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication on microfilm. __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Chair University of California, San Diego 2010 iii DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my mom, Terry Binder. Even though she’s not here to read these pages, not a word could have been written without her in my life. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page………………………………………………………………...………iii Dedication……………………………………………………………………....……..iv Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………v List of Figures………………………………………………………………………....vi List of Tables……………………………………………………..………………….viii Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………ix Vita………………………………………………………………………………..…xiii Abstract…………………………………………………………………………...….xiv Chapter 1: Theories of Voting in Direct Democracy…………………………………..1 Chapter 2: Political Context and Issue Difficulty…………………………………….18 Chapter 3: Confusion in the Electorate……………………………………………….46 Chapter 4: I Don’t “No”? Confusion and the Status Quo Bias in Direct Democracy..77 Chapter 5: Getting it Right? Correct Voting in Direct Democracy…………………105 References…………………………………………………………………………...132 v LIST OF FIGURES Chapter 3 Figure 3.1: Percentage of Confused Voters………………………………………..…56 Figure 3.2: Confusion by Operationalization of the Measure………………………...57 Figure 3.3: Confusion by Issue Difficulty…………………………………………....59 Figure 3.4: Aggregate Confusion Measures by Issue Difficulty……………………..62 Figure 3.5: Confusion by Education……………………………………………….…64 Figure 3.6: Confusion by Political Interest………………………………………...…65 Figure 3.7: Confusion by General Political Knowledge………………….…………..67 Figure 3.8: Confusion by Initiative Specific Information……………………….……69 Figure 3.9: Confusion by Cue Awareness……………………………………………71 Chapter 4 Figure 4.1: Ballot Length and “No” Votes……………………………………...…....85 Figure 4.2: Ballot Summary Length and “No” Votes………………………………...86 Figure 4.3: Title Length and “No” Votes…………………………………………..…87 Figure 4.4: Individual Level Measure of Confusion and “No” Votes…………….….88 Figure 4.5: Individual Differences between Not Confused and Confused Voters and “No” Votes…………………………………………………………….….90 Chapter 5 Figure 5.1: Correct Voting on Initiatives……………………………………………117 vi Figure 5.2: Percentage of Correct Votes by Confusion Levels……………………...120 Figure 5.3: Percentage of Confused by Issue Difficulty…………………………….121 Figure 5.4: Correct Votes by Confusion…………………………………………….122 Figure 5.5: Percentage of Sample Aware of Cue……………………………………124 Figure 5.6: Electorate with and without Confusion…………………………………129 vii LIST OF TABLES Chapter 2 Table 2.1: Issue Difficulty…………………………………………………………... 45 Chapter 3 Table 3.1: Bivariate Correlation Matrix of Confusion Measures………………….…61 Table 3.2: Determinants of Confusion……………………………….……………….73 Chapter 4 Table 4.1: Confusion and “No” Votes in Sample…………….………………………84 Table 4.2: Determinants of Vote Choice…………………………………………..…98 Chapter 5 Table 5.1 Effect of Confusion and Selected Predictors on Voting Correctly……….127 viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The hours that turned into days, months and eventually years over which I worked on this dissertation could not have been sustained without a lot of help along the way. I have been blessed to be surrounded by remarkable scholars, but more importantly, tremendous human beings. The list of acknowledgements is long and varied, but everyone was indispensible to the completion of this dissertation. The Political Science Department at the University of California, San Diego has taught me invaluable lessons and given me a framework from which to view the world of social science, my thanks to go out to the faculty. Additionally, I owe thanks for the financial and professional support from UCSD and the California State University system that allowed me to travel to conferences and summer programs, without which my research could not have been completed. I would also like to thank the attendees and discussants at those conferences that provided me with valuable feedback. I would also like to the Bill Center for the American West at Stanford University for their generous fellowship support. The core data for my analysis comes from a series of exit polls that enlisted the interviewing skills of hundreds of undergraduate volunteers from UCSD and San Diego State University. Though they received extra credit for their efforts, I am indebted to my students for their hard work and hours spent in the sun and (believe it or not) rain in San Diego. They went above and beyond the call—thank you all. Professionally and personally, I owe a debt of gratitude that can never be repaid to the chair of my dissertation, Thad Kousser. Aside from the example he sets ix as a stellar member of the political science community, his tireless devotion to his family and continuous smile are enough to keep even a jaded east coaster like myself motivated. Thad has invested countless hours of his personal time reading my drafts and clarifying my often cloudy ideas. When I was slacking on my research, he brought me to Stanford with him so I could finish my research without the distraction of being a teaching assistant at UCSD or teaching classes at SDSU. My dissertation may never have been written without his guidance. While getting my MA from SDSU, my thesis advisor Richard Hofstetter, introduced me to what social science is, and more importantly, how it ought to be conducted. My time at SDSU, particularly the Sunday afternoons at Richard’s apartment with my colleagues taught me the value of unselfish collaboration in the pursuit of knowledge. I must also thank Julie Sullivan for scooping me up and throwing me into her Freshman Success program. She infected me with the bug for standing in front of a room full of college students. More importantly, she was patient enough to show me what a real teacher is. Those morning coffees at Rich Ledet’s house, kept our brains alive throughout our theses and that year before we started in our Ph. D. programs. Before I was even admitted to UCSD, I took Amy Bridges’ American Political Development course. Admittedly, I generally have pretty decent luck, but the good fortune I had to have this class takes the cake. I was able to sit with her and one other grad student for three hours every Friday at 9:00 AM and talk about some of the most interesting political history books written. Those three hours introduced to me to life x in a Ph. D. program, and Amy has not stopped mentoring since. Amy’s sage advice is always right on the money, whether it was a suggestion of a class to take, a course to avoid or how to look at a situation through the eyes of another. Thank you for all the lunch time chats, if I can become half the scholar and person you are, I will consider my career and life a success. The rest of my committee (Gary Jacobson, Zoli Hajnal, Stephen Nicholson, Shaun Bowler and Teddy Groves) haven given me invaluable feedback and I thank them for reading this dissertation so closely and thoughtfully. The political science department at Stanford (particularly Gary Segura and Simon Jackman) gave me the opportunity to present a practice job talk at their weekly seminar which provided me with a great deal of feedback and ideas, both substantively and in my presentation. I would also like to thank Tammy Frisby and Vlad Kogan (my officemate in Palo Alto) for their thoughtful comments after sitting through a very rough practice job talk. It is often said that the value in grad school is not determined by the quality of the faculty, but by the quality of your peers. I could not agree more. I was lucky enough to have a cohort that was not only smarter than I am, but kind enough to put up with me. Whether it was a late night game theory study session, an evening of poker or a Poli-Sox game, my peers, my colleagues, my friends, were always there helping me along. Sometimes it was a research design discussion with Jen Keister, sometimes it was chatting about citations and the state of the literature with Matt Childers; however, it was the time spent blowing off steam that got me through grad school. I will never forget watching Danielle Jung turnover a royal flush to beat Oldman’s full xi house, standing on second base waiting for Sam Seljan to hit me in or all of us racing to scoop up balls as Ellen Moule dodged for her life. I cannot thank you all enough; you have shaped not only my research but who I am as a person. I have three very special people that make life worth living and research worth doing. First, my new bride Lara, she has been along for what was a very tumultuous academic ride. She was there when “good start” led to an incident with a phonebook and a fence,