Pivotal Politics and Initiative Use in the American States
The direct initiative process, often referred to as a gun behind the door, provides an incentive for legislators to pass legislation more in line with voters' wishes. Concomitantly, legislative procedures such as the filibuster and executive veto often impede the ability of the legislature to p...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Political research quarterly 2015-12, Vol.68 (4), p.665-677 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 677 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 665 |
container_title | Political research quarterly |
container_volume | 68 |
creator | Boehmke, Frederick J. Osborn, Tracy L. Schilling, Emily U. |
description | The direct initiative process, often referred to as a gun behind the door, provides an incentive for legislators to pass legislation more in line with voters' wishes. Concomitantly, legislative procedures such as the filibuster and executive veto often impede the ability of the legislature to pass policies. We explore the tension between these two forces by incorporating legislative procedures and initiative proposal into a spatial model of the policymaking process. We find that the ability to propose initiatives sometimes breaks legislative gridlock, but that other times pivotal players may prefer the initiative outcome and therefore prevent the legislature from preempting a ballot measure. In particular, we show that initiative use increases with the distance between pivotal actors and the median voter. An empirical analysis of initiative use in the American states provides support for this prediction. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1177/1065912915606234 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1835022834</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>24637807</jstor_id><sage_id>10.1177_1065912915606234</sage_id><sourcerecordid>24637807</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c364t-9abc87c6533908a49c3299f574bbacf3325e6966cc6db0735081b81021a0d4c53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kEtLAzEUhYMoWB97N0LAjZvR3LzjrhQfhYIFLbgbMmmqU6YzNUkL_ntTRkQKru6B853DvRehCyA3AErdApHCADUgJJGU8QM0AMN0QRV_O8w628XOP0YnMS4JAQpcDNDdtN52yTZ42jV1ql3Etp3jcZu1TfXW41n0uG5x-vB4uPKhdrbFL8kmH8_Q0cI20Z__zFM0e7h_HT0Vk-fH8Wg4KRyTPBXGVk4rJwVjhmjLjWPUmIVQvKqsWzBGhZdGSufkvCKKCaKh0kAoWDLnTrBTdN33rkP3ufExlas6Ot80tvXdJpagc4ZSzXhGr_bQZbcJbd6uBMUYCKPNrpD0lAtdjMEvynWoVzZ8lUDK3TPL_WfmSNFHon33f0r_5y97fhlTF377KZdM6XzkNzFpeng</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1733159895</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Pivotal Politics and Initiative Use in the American States</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Political Science Complete</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>SAGE Complete</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Boehmke, Frederick J. ; Osborn, Tracy L. ; Schilling, Emily U.</creator><creatorcontrib>Boehmke, Frederick J. ; Osborn, Tracy L. ; Schilling, Emily U.</creatorcontrib><description>The direct initiative process, often referred to as a gun behind the door, provides an incentive for legislators to pass legislation more in line with voters' wishes. Concomitantly, legislative procedures such as the filibuster and executive veto often impede the ability of the legislature to pass policies. We explore the tension between these two forces by incorporating legislative procedures and initiative proposal into a spatial model of the policymaking process. We find that the ability to propose initiatives sometimes breaks legislative gridlock, but that other times pivotal players may prefer the initiative outcome and therefore prevent the legislature from preempting a ballot measure. In particular, we show that initiative use increases with the distance between pivotal actors and the median voter. An empirical analysis of initiative use in the American states provides support for this prediction.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1065-9129</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1938-274X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/1065912915606234</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Authorship ; Ballots ; Filibuster ; Government initiatives ; Governors ; Gridlock (Politics) ; Initiatives ; Legislation ; Legislators ; Legislatures ; Median voter model ; Musical intervals ; Policy making ; Prediction ; Public policy ; Referendum ; Referendums ; Statistical median ; Theory ; United States ; Veto ; Voters ; Voting</subject><ispartof>Political research quarterly, 2015-12, Vol.68 (4), p.665-677</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2015 The University of Utah</rights><rights>2015 University of Utah</rights><rights>Copyright SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC. Dec 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c364t-9abc87c6533908a49c3299f574bbacf3325e6966cc6db0735081b81021a0d4c53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c364t-9abc87c6533908a49c3299f574bbacf3325e6966cc6db0735081b81021a0d4c53</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/24637807$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/24637807$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,12824,21798,27843,27901,27902,43597,43598,57992,58225</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Boehmke, Frederick J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Osborn, Tracy L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schilling, Emily U.</creatorcontrib><title>Pivotal Politics and Initiative Use in the American States</title><title>Political research quarterly</title><description>The direct initiative process, often referred to as a gun behind the door, provides an incentive for legislators to pass legislation more in line with voters' wishes. Concomitantly, legislative procedures such as the filibuster and executive veto often impede the ability of the legislature to pass policies. We explore the tension between these two forces by incorporating legislative procedures and initiative proposal into a spatial model of the policymaking process. We find that the ability to propose initiatives sometimes breaks legislative gridlock, but that other times pivotal players may prefer the initiative outcome and therefore prevent the legislature from preempting a ballot measure. In particular, we show that initiative use increases with the distance between pivotal actors and the median voter. An empirical analysis of initiative use in the American states provides support for this prediction.</description><subject>Authorship</subject><subject>Ballots</subject><subject>Filibuster</subject><subject>Government initiatives</subject><subject>Governors</subject><subject>Gridlock (Politics)</subject><subject>Initiatives</subject><subject>Legislation</subject><subject>Legislators</subject><subject>Legislatures</subject><subject>Median voter model</subject><subject>Musical intervals</subject><subject>Policy making</subject><subject>Prediction</subject><subject>Public policy</subject><subject>Referendum</subject><subject>Referendums</subject><subject>Statistical median</subject><subject>Theory</subject><subject>United States</subject><subject>Veto</subject><subject>Voters</subject><subject>Voting</subject><issn>1065-9129</issn><issn>1938-274X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kEtLAzEUhYMoWB97N0LAjZvR3LzjrhQfhYIFLbgbMmmqU6YzNUkL_ntTRkQKru6B853DvRehCyA3AErdApHCADUgJJGU8QM0AMN0QRV_O8w628XOP0YnMS4JAQpcDNDdtN52yTZ42jV1ql3Etp3jcZu1TfXW41n0uG5x-vB4uPKhdrbFL8kmH8_Q0cI20Z__zFM0e7h_HT0Vk-fH8Wg4KRyTPBXGVk4rJwVjhmjLjWPUmIVQvKqsWzBGhZdGSufkvCKKCaKh0kAoWDLnTrBTdN33rkP3ufExlas6Ot80tvXdJpagc4ZSzXhGr_bQZbcJbd6uBMUYCKPNrpD0lAtdjMEvynWoVzZ8lUDK3TPL_WfmSNFHon33f0r_5y97fhlTF377KZdM6XzkNzFpeng</recordid><startdate>20151201</startdate><enddate>20151201</enddate><creator>Boehmke, Frederick J.</creator><creator>Osborn, Tracy L.</creator><creator>Schilling, Emily U.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88F</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>M1Q</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20151201</creationdate><title>Pivotal Politics and Initiative Use in the American States</title><author>Boehmke, Frederick J. ; Osborn, Tracy L. ; Schilling, Emily U.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c364t-9abc87c6533908a49c3299f574bbacf3325e6966cc6db0735081b81021a0d4c53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Authorship</topic><topic>Ballots</topic><topic>Filibuster</topic><topic>Government initiatives</topic><topic>Governors</topic><topic>Gridlock (Politics)</topic><topic>Initiatives</topic><topic>Legislation</topic><topic>Legislators</topic><topic>Legislatures</topic><topic>Median voter model</topic><topic>Musical intervals</topic><topic>Policy making</topic><topic>Prediction</topic><topic>Public policy</topic><topic>Referendum</topic><topic>Referendums</topic><topic>Statistical median</topic><topic>Theory</topic><topic>United States</topic><topic>Veto</topic><topic>Voters</topic><topic>Voting</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Boehmke, Frederick J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Osborn, Tracy L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schilling, Emily U.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Military Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>Military Database</collection><collection>Political Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Political research quarterly</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Boehmke, Frederick J.</au><au>Osborn, Tracy L.</au><au>Schilling, Emily U.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Pivotal Politics and Initiative Use in the American States</atitle><jtitle>Political research quarterly</jtitle><date>2015-12-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>68</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>665</spage><epage>677</epage><pages>665-677</pages><issn>1065-9129</issn><eissn>1938-274X</eissn><abstract>The direct initiative process, often referred to as a gun behind the door, provides an incentive for legislators to pass legislation more in line with voters' wishes. Concomitantly, legislative procedures such as the filibuster and executive veto often impede the ability of the legislature to pass policies. We explore the tension between these two forces by incorporating legislative procedures and initiative proposal into a spatial model of the policymaking process. We find that the ability to propose initiatives sometimes breaks legislative gridlock, but that other times pivotal players may prefer the initiative outcome and therefore prevent the legislature from preempting a ballot measure. In particular, we show that initiative use increases with the distance between pivotal actors and the median voter. An empirical analysis of initiative use in the American states provides support for this prediction.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/1065912915606234</doi><tpages>13</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1065-9129 |
ispartof | Political research quarterly, 2015-12, Vol.68 (4), p.665-677 |
issn | 1065-9129 1938-274X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1835022834 |
source | Jstor Complete Legacy; Political Science Complete; PAIS Index; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; SAGE Complete; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Authorship Ballots Filibuster Government initiatives Governors Gridlock (Politics) Initiatives Legislation Legislators Legislatures Median voter model Musical intervals Policy making Prediction Public policy Referendum Referendums Statistical median Theory United States Veto Voters Voting |
title | Pivotal Politics and Initiative Use in the American States |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-06T23%3A13%3A05IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Pivotal%20Politics%20and%20Initiative%20Use%20in%20the%20American%20States&rft.jtitle=Political%20research%20quarterly&rft.au=Boehmke,%20Frederick%20J.&rft.date=2015-12-01&rft.volume=68&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=665&rft.epage=677&rft.pages=665-677&rft.issn=1065-9129&rft.eissn=1938-274X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/1065912915606234&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E24637807%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1733159895&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=24637807&rft_sage_id=10.1177_1065912915606234&rfr_iscdi=true |