Parties, Leaders and Referendum Voting: An Internet Survey Experiment

1. Parties, Leaders andReferendum Voting:An Internet Survey Experiment Walt Borges University of Texas at Dallas wborges@utdallas.edu Harold Clarke University of Texas at Dallas, University of Essex hclarke@utdallas.edu

2. Research question • Do party and leader cues influence voters’ choices in national “polity-shaping” referenda? • National polity-shaping referenda – high stakes and abundant uncertainty – e.g., Canada’s 1992 referendum on the Charlottetown Constitutional Accord, recent referendums on EU Constitution • National referenda often infused with party and leader politics. • Respondents often have some residual knowledge of the referendum issues through discussion of the issue in a partisan context. • In other cases, divisions within parties and among leaders forced the issue to be thrown to the people. • Parties, leaders and elites use cues to prompt electorate on preferred outcomes. • Electorate has some knowledge of the proposition issue, but individuals are: • uncertain of promised outcomes • overwhelmed by complexity of some proposals • have limited interest and resources to determine choice. • Voters rely on cues to help them make their decisions.

3. Survey: The 2006 Political support in america survey • National Pre- and Post- Congressional Election InternetSurvey of the American Electorate Conducted in October and November 2006 • Survey House – YouGov – Survey Director, Joe Twyman • Survey Experiment in Post-Election Wave, N = 2778

4. Survey question Suppose there was a national referendum on a proposition that would deny public services to illegal immigrants. Would you vote: In favor of the proposition to deny public services to illegal immigrants? Against the proposition to deny public services to illegal immigrants? I would not vote in the referendum. Don’t know.

5. Treatment groups • Control group and seven treatment groups. • No cue • Republicans for • Democrats against • Republicans for / Democrats against • Bush for • Clinton against • Bush for / Clinton against • Bush, Republicans for / Clinton, Democrats against • Interactions with party identification and leader affect.

6. Treatment group questions • Treatment group 2 • Suppose there was a national referendum on a proposition that would deny public services to illegal immigrants. The Democratic Party opposes the proposition. Would you vote: [for, against, wouldn’t vote, DK] • Treatment group 4 • Suppose there was a national referendum on a proposition that would deny public services to illegal immigrants. President Bush supports the proposition. Would you vote: [for, against, wouldn’t vote, DK] • Treatment group 7 • Suppose there was a national referendum on a proposition that would deny public services to illegal immigrants. Republican President Bush supports the proposition and Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton opposes it. Would you vote: [for, against, wouldn’t vote, DK]

7. Basic Cue Effects

8. Interaction effects

9. Results • By themselves, the cues have no significant effects. • When the cues are interacted with party identification, leader affect or both, they produce significant effects in the predicted directions. • Thus, impact of party and leader cues depends on partisanship and leader images. • Interaction effects of party and leader cues are significant net of larger composite model of forces affecting referendum voting.

10. Composite model of referendum voting

11. implications • Multiple forces affect voting in national “polity shaping” referendums. • Leader and partisan cues typically available in referendum campaigns. • Voters’ use of leader and partisan cues may help explain public opinion dynamics in referendum campaigns. • Unpopular leaders of governing parties cannot use referendums to bolster support. (e.g., Mulroney in Canada’s 1992 constitutional referendum) • Continuing puzzle: Why do national referendum propositions often fail? • Possible Answer (for at least some referendums): The Irony of Governing Leader and Party Cues – popular leaders and governing parties supply positive cues BUT are popular because of their performance – performance that enhances the attractiveness of the status quo.

12. Advantages of Internet survey experiments • Cost effective – Very large N’s feasible. Several treatments possible. • Cost effective – obtain extra respondents with particular demographic characteristics if needed. • Sophisticated treatments – Audio, video, feedback to respondents. Mostly impossible with conventional RDD. Possible with CAPI, but can be difficult and obtrusive. • Seamless incorporation of experiment in survey instrument, even with sophisticated treatments. Unobtrusive. • Minimize social desirability biases. Respondents may be more honest answering internet surveys than face-to-face or telephone interviews.