Walt Borges University of Texas at Dallas Harold Clarke University of Texas at Dallas, University of Essex

 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.

 National Pre- and Post- Congressional Election Internet Survey 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

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.

 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.

 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]

 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.

 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.

 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.