Popular vote processes – government and/or citizen-induced referendum and initiative processes involving a mass vote on policy issues – have long been part of political practice. Yet key normative and empirical research questions remain to determine why, and when, these processes support or undermine democracy. This Workshop brings together scholars with normative and empirical approaches to popular vote processes in different contexts worldwide to take stock, and systematise what we know from different contexts and research fields. Our Workshop also looks ahead, developing new research needed to inform future uses of referendums and initiatives to ensure they foster democracy.
This Workshop gives theoretical and empirical researchers a unique opportunity to connect and help develop a better understanding of why, when, and how, popular vote processes support or undermine democracy.
The Workshop aims to go beyond acknowledged limitations in existing studies, such as:
- the reference to 'direct democracy' as the relevant regulative ideal to assess popular vote processes. Following, e.g., Bowler and Donovan (2021: 12) and el-Wakil and McKay (2020), we need other normative standards more attuned to the actual practice of referendums and initiatives to inform institutional design and motivate empirical research;
- the scarcity of comparisons of political systems with and without referendums and initiative, which are crucial to determine whether and when popular vote processes should be available and how they should interact with electoral institutions (majoritarian or representative, compulsory voting, etc.) (Matsusaka, 2008; Altman, 2008; Vatter & Bernauer, 2009; Hug 2009; Kübler, 2024);
- the lack of systematic study of best (and worst) practices, whose necessity is emphasised as popular vote processes are increasingly used (Altman, 2011; Qvortrup, 2024), including in non-democratic contexts (Brüggemann et al., 2023; Penadés & Velasco, 2024), but also as repression by institutional tweaks or state-of-emergency regulations in other places expands;
- the need to specify whether and how voters form opinions and should be enabled to participate in mass votes considering the profound changes in the quality of the public space caused by changing media environments, explicit attempts at manipulation, and affective polarisation (Van Aelst et al., 2017).
Altman, D. (2008). Collegiate executives and direct democracy in Switzerland and Uruguay: similar institutions, opposite political goals, distinct results. Swiss Political Science Review, 14(3), 483-520.
Altman, D. (2011). Direct demcoracy worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bowler, S., & Donovan, T. (2021). Enduring Questions and Unsatisfactory Answers About Direct Democracy Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics.
Brüggemann, S., Gut, R., Serdült, U., & Wüthrich, J. (2023). The World of Referendums. 2023 edition (Vol. 24). Aarau: Zentrum für Demokraite Aarau.
el-Wakil, A., & McKay, S. (2020). Disentangling referendums and direct democracy: A defence of the systemic approach to popular vote processes. Representation, 56(4), 449-466.
Elstub, S., & Escobar, O. (2019). Defining and typologising democratic innovations. In S. Elstub & O. Escobar (Eds.), Handbook of democratic innovation and governance (pp. 11-31). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Kübler, D. (2024). Citizen participation through direct legislation: a road to success? A perspective from Switzerland. Global Public Policy and Governance, 4(2), 184-196.
Matsusaka, J. G. (2008). For the many or the few: The initiative, public policy, and American democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Penadés, A., & Velasco, S. (2024). The effect of referendums on autocratic survival: Running alone and not finishing second. Government and Opposition, 59(2), 405-424.
Qvortrup, M. (Ed.) (2024). Referendums across the world (3 ed.). Houndsmills: Palgrave MacMillan.
Van Aelst, P., Strömbäck, J., Aalberg, T., Esser, F., De Vreese, C., Matthes, J., .et al. (2017). Political communication in a high-choice media environment: A challenge for democracy? Annals of the international communication association, 41(1), 3-27.
Vatter, A., & Bernauer, J. (2009). The missing dimension of democracy. European Union Politics, 10(3), 335-359.
1: What are the democratic credentials of (various kinds of) popular vote processes?
2: How do referendums interact with other institutions – e.g., proportional vs. majoritarian electoral systems?
3: What are the most (or least) promising designs of popular vote processes – e.g., for voters’ information provision?
4: When does direct democracy improve social and political cohesion or deepen tension and conflict?
5: To what extent does the practice and ethics of voting differ in elections and in popular votes?
1: new theoretical developments on the value and use of popular vote processes
2: reflections on the ethics of popular voting
3: comparative perspectives on the causes and consequences of referendum and initiative use
4: in-depth case studies of single countries, emblematic popular votes, evolutions of institutional design and use
5: analyses using individual-level data allowing insights into citizens' voting behaviour
6: methodological papers exploring the use of new data sources or innovative research designs
7: emerging interdisciplinary perspectives to understand voter motivation and opinion formation
8: studies of best or worst practice in referendums and initiatives
