No abstract

The Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR) distinguishes itself by linking a small deliberative body to the larger electoral process. Since 2010, CIR citizen panels have been a legislatively authorized part of Oregon general elections to promote a more informed electorate. The CIR gathers a representative cross-section of two dozen voters for 5 days of deliberation on a single ballot measure. The process culminates in the citizen panelists writing a Citizens’ Statement that the secretary of state inserts into the official Voters’ Pamphlet sent to each registered voter. This study analyzes the effect of one such Citizens’ Statement from the 2010 general election. In Study 1, an online survey experiment found that reading this Statement influenced Oregon voters’ values trade-offs, issue knowledge, and vote intentions. In Study 2, regression analysis of a cross-sectional phone survey found a parallel association between the Statement’s use and voting choices but yielded some mixed findings.

To account for voter decision making in initiative elections, we integrate theory and research on public opinion, misinformation, and motivated reasoning. Heuristic and motivated reasoning literatures suggest that voters' preexisting values interact with political sophistication such that politically knowledgeable voters develop systematically distorted empirical beliefs relevant to the initiatives on their ballots. These beliefs, in turn, can predict voting preferences even after controlling for underlying values, regardless of one's political sophistication. These hypotheses were tested using a 2003 voter survey conducted prior to a statewide initiative election that repealed a workplace safety regulation. Results showed that only those voters knowledgeable of key endorsements had initiative-specific beliefs that lined up with their underlying antiregulation values. Also, voters' empirical beliefs had an effect on initiative support even after controlling for prior values, and political sophistication did not moderate this effect.

As genetic testing technology advances, genetic testing will move into standard practice in the primary care setting. Genetic research, testing, and return of results are complex topics that require input from Alaska Native and American Indian (ANAI) communities as policies are developed for implementation. This study employed a day and half long public deliberation with ANAI primary care patients to elicit value-laden views of genetic research, testing, and return of results. Participants emphasized the need for a balance between the potential for genetics research, testing, and return of results to empower individuals and improve health with the potential to expose individuals and communities to privacy breaches, discrimination, and emotional harms. Public deliberation was well received by this group of participants and elicited rich discussion on the complex topic of genetic research, testing, and return of results.

Objectives Voters develop not only different opinions about politics but also different sets of empirical beliefs. It is less clear how falsifiable beliefs take hold. In particular, it remains unclear as to whether news and campaign messages, moderated by political knowledge, drive the process, or whether deep‐seated values principally sway voters' acceptance of factual claims. These contrasting views point to a set of testable hypotheses that we use to refine a model of ideologically‐biased empirical belief generation, which we call “knowledge distortion.” Methods We conduct an analysis of survey data on three ballot measures in Washington State, testing hypothesized relationships between voters' empirical beliefs about political issues, news and campaign messages, political knowledge, political values, and partisanship, as well as vote choices on the ballot measures. Results Our analysis reveals that voters' values and partisanship had the strongest associations with distorted beliefs, which then influenced voting choices. Self‐reported levels of exposure to media and campaign messages played a surprisingly limited role. Conclusion Our findings provide further evidence of politically motivated factual misperceptions on political issues, which have an independent effect on voters' ballot decisions. These misperceptions do not seem to be driven by news media and campaign messages, suggesting that citizens may be generating relevant empirical beliefs based on their underlying political values and ideology.