Principles or Pragmatism? Morality Politics in Direct Democracy

Political scientist often distinguish between two types of issues: moral versus non-moral issues or social-cultural versus economic issues, implying that these types of issues trigger different types of reasoning. While economic or non-moral issues rely on pragmatic, consequentialist reasoning, moral or social-cultural issues are often said to rely on principles and deontological reasoning. However, it is not clear to date whether this distinction is so clear-cut from a citizens’ perspective. Scholars agree that understanding the morality of voters’ political attitudes has implications for their political behavior, such as their willingness to compromise and openness to deliberation. Few studies have analyzed however, how citizens themselves reason about different issues in order to understand the morality of their attitudes. This study analyses the determinants of principled versus pragmatic political attitudes in the context of direct democracy, where citizens decide directly over policies at the ballot box. Using a unique dataset based on 34 ballot decisions in Switzerland between 2008 and 2012, I explore the types of justifications voters give for their ballot decisions. Thereby, I distinguish between pragmatic (or consequentialist) arguments and principled arguments, referring to identity, values, and moral principles. I am interested in how the political context, that is the type of issue, and the characteristics of the elite discourse, as well as citizens’ individual traits affect their use of different types of arguments. I find that principled or moral justifications are not tied to particular issues. Pragmatic reasoning prevails in most policy domains. Moral justifications are more likely with issues perceived as personally relevant, as well as when a proposal is accepted, while pragmatic reasoning prevails when a proposition is rejected. Furthermore, in contrast to findings from the US-context, right-wing identifiers argue more often in pragmatic terms. Finally, the framing of the issue during the campaign significantly affects moral versus pragmatic reasoning.