Implications, benefits, and impacts of direct democracy

Many states in the U.S. have instituted some form or another of direct democracy, as have many other countries, as a way to bring government back to the people by giving them a direct role in policymaking. Yet, the Founding Fathers of the United States specifically built republican mechanisms into the Constitution in order to avoid direct democracy. This presents us with a question: were the Founding Fathers right to fear direct democracy, or is direct democracy beneficial for citizens and their states? Many scholars have attempted to answer this question, using everything from public opinion surveys to studies of policy outputs and institutional design. This research follows in this vein, but with a few methodological advances. First, I study the effects of a single referendum on citizens of the United Kingdom. Next, I study whether initiative campaigns that affect minority groups alter public perception of the affected groups. Last, I build a signaling game in order to determine how an elected judge might act when faced with a popularly passed initiative or referendum. My results suggest direct democracy should be approached with caution, as the Founding Fathers warned.