Stumbling block or stepping stone? The influence of direct democracy on individual participation in parliamentary elections

Abstract

This paper evaluates whether direct democracy supplements or undermines traditional representative democracy. While a first approach assumes that a culture of active direct democracy stimulates citizens' political interest and ultimately bolsters participation in parliamentary elections, a competing hypothesis proposes a negative relationship between the frequency of ballot measures and electoral participation due to voter fatigue and decreased significance of elections. Our multilevel analysis of the 26 Swiss cantons challenges recent studies conducted for the U.S. states: In the Swiss context, where direct democracy is more important in the political process than the less salient parliamentary elections, greater use of direct democratic procedures is associated with a lower individual probability to participate in elections. Furthermore, by distinguishing between short and long-term effects of direct democracy, we show that the relationship observed is of a long-term nature and can therefore be seen as a result of adaptive learning processes rather than of instantaneous voter fatigue.

Does Satisfaction with Democracy Really Increase Happiness? Direct Democracy and Individual Satisfaction in Switzerland

“…In this line of research we can now add a further aspect, namely that the frequent use of direct democracy tends to be related to higher satisfaction with democracy and in this sense strengthens citizens' confidence in government responsiveness. However, at the same time, our findings are in accordance with recent studies from the U.S. and Swiss context challenging this overly optimistic view of direct democracy and casting some serious (both empirical and theoretical) doubts on this line of reasoning (Dyck 2009;Dyck and Lascher 2009;Dyck and Seabrook 2010;Freitag and Stadelmann-Steffen 2010;Schlozman and Yohai 2008). As the results regarding individual life satisfaction show, direct democratic participation is not a panacea for everything: In this vein, subjective well-being is first and foremost an individual feature, which cannot be explained by politico-institutional factors such as direct democracy.…”

Does an Active Use of Mechanisms of Direct Democracy Impact Electoral Participation? Evidence from the U.S. States and the Swiss Cantons

“…For example, revising how different degrees in the uses of mechanisms of direct democracy at the cantonal level in Switzerland impact on electoral participation, Freitag and Stadelmann-Steffen (2010) show a negative relationship between both. They claim this is due to voters' fatigue -as Hill (2003) has already done for the Australian case -and explain this arguing that intensive use of direct democracy makes regular national elections less significant than they would be without direct democracy.…”

Do direct-democratic procedures lead to higher acceptance than political representation?

“…However, recent cross-country evidence on this issue offers rather sobering insights (Voigt and Blume 2015). Frequent ballots may lead to voter fatigue and thus reduce, rather than increase, electoral participation and decision quality (Bowler et al 1992;Freitag and Stadelmann-Steffen 2010). Biases in the mapping of citizen's preferences into political outcomes may materialize because well-organized interest groups can initiate referendums by buying the initially required number of signatures (for a discussion, see Lupia and Matsusaka 2004;Hasen 2000).…”