WhatCitizensKnowaboutReferenda:FactsandImplications
ArthurLupia,UniversityofMichigan
Democraciesaroundtheworldusereferendatoofferlegitimacyandelevatedlegalstatusto
arangeofstatutoryandconstitutionalproposals.
Fromaprofessionalperspective,manyreferendaarecomplex.Thesereferendacancontain
largeamountsoftechnicallanguageandlegalese.Otherreferendaaremuchshorterin
length.Thesereferendaproducespecificinstructionsforspecificcircumstancesoroffera
vagueaspirationalstatementaboutdesiredendstatesleavingthedetailsofhowtoreach
theseendstatestoothergovernmentalactors.
Fromcitizens’perspectives,referendahaveadifferentappearance.Whetherreferendaare
longorshortinlength,whethertheypertaintoaspecificcircumstanceoralargesetof
circumstances,whethertheyofferdetailaboutimplementationorleavethosedetailsto
others,almostallreferendaarepresentedtocitizensasabinarychoice.Abinarychoiceisa
choicewithtwooptions.Inreferenda,citizenstypicallyhavetwooptions“yes”or“no.”
Thesebasicfactsaboutreferendainfluencethekindsofinformationthatvotersseekand
theoutcomesthatoccuronElectionDay.
Arecitizenscompetenttovoteinreferenda?
Thecomplexityofmanyreferendaproducesquestionsaboutwhethercitizensareableto
makecompetentdecisions–thatis,decisionsthatareconsistentwithclustersoffactsand
valuesthatrelatetoqualityoflifeforthemselves,theirfamilies,theircommunitiesandtheir
nation.
Evidenceagainstthepropositionofcitizencompetenceisthefactthatreferendaoften
pertaintocomplexissuesandevidencethatmanycitizenstendtobeignorantifmany
attributesofitemsappearingontheirballot.Numeroussurveysruninthedaysandweeks
leadinguptomanyreferendashowsignificantnumbersofcitizenunabletoanswer
seeminglyrelevantfactualquestionscorrectly.
Evidenceinfavorofthepropositionofcitizencompetenceisthefactthatreferendaoffers
citizensabinarychoiceandevidencethatmanycitizensseekoutandusesimple
environmentalcues(suchasinterestgroupendorsements)thathelpthemrelateaballot
questiontofactsandvaluesthataffecttheirqualityoflife.
Thefactthereferendaofferabinarychoiceimpliesthatifoneofthetwooptionswasinfact
betterforaparticularcitizen,andifthecitizenusedacoinfliptodeterminehowtheywould
vote,theywouldcastthecorrectvote50%ofthetimeonaverage.However,ifinsteadof
usingacoin,citizensseekoutsourcesofinformationthattheybelievetobe(a)relatively
knowledgeableabouttheconsequenceofpassingorrejectingthereferendumand(b)
havingvaluesorpreferencesthataresimilartothatofthecitizen,thencitizenscanusethe
recommendationsofthesesourcesofinformationtoincreasetheiroddsofa“correctvote”
tosignificantlymorethan50%.
Interestgroupendorsements,orsimilarendorsementsfromwell-knownpublicfigures,
newspapers,politicalparties,andthelikeprovideaservicetovotersthatissimilartothe
servicethattrafficlightsservetodrivers.
Trafficlights.Itisrushhourinalargecityorsuburb.Weareatafour-wayintersection.
Eachoftheintersectingroadshasfourlanesforautomobiletraffic,plusdedicatedlanesfor
left-turnsandbicycles.Atrushhourtherecanbe150-200carsatthisintersection.The
engineeringproblemishowtogetallofthesecars,whosedriverswanttoadvanceinfour
differentdirections,throughtherelativelysmallspaceofanintersectionin90seconds.As
anengineeringproblem,thisscenarioishighlycomplex.Wehave150-200independent
units.Eachdrivemustdecidewhentoaccelerate,howquicklytoaccelerate,andwhento
steponthebrake.Theslightesterrorintimingcouldresultinlossoflifeandsubstantial
damagetooneoftheirmostvaluablepiecesofproperty(nottomentiontimeneededtofile
policereportsandwranglewithinsurancecompanies).Hence,eachdrivermustforma
beliefaboutthespeedanaccelerationcapacityofmost,ifnotall,oftheothercarsatthe
intersection.Theymustformbeliefsabouttheintentionsanddecisionsofeachofthe
drivers.Theymustformbeliefsaboutotherdrivers’beliefsaboutthesefactors.Again,to
writeacomputerprogramthatincorporatesallofthesefactorswouldbeverycomplex.
Thereissomuchaboutthissituationthateachdrivedoesnotknow.
Yet,driversmakethesedecisionsbillionsoftimesperdayandwithasuccessrateofnearly
100%.Howdotheyaccomplishthisremarkablefeat?Theyusethetrafficlight.Whenthe
lightisgreen,theylookatthecarinfrontofthem,andthentheygo.Whenthecarisyellow,
theylookatthecarinfrontofthemandbegintoslow.Whenthelightisred,theyslowor
stop(thoughafewwhohavenocarsinfrontofthemdecidetohitthegas,butthebehavior
isquiterarestatistically).
Trafficlightsareadevicethatsimplifiesdecisioncontextsinwhich,fromatechnical
perspective,weareignorantaboutmanyseeminglypertinentfacts.
Inreferendumcampaigns,endorsementscanplaythesameroleastrafficlights.
Inthebest-casescenario,well-informedindividualsandgroupswhosevaluescitizensknow
wellexplainhowtheyarevotingonthereferendumandexplainwhysuchavoteis
consistentwiththeirvalues.
Intheworstcasescenario,individualsorgroupsmisrepresentthemselvesashavinga
certainsetofvaluesorasbeingwell-informed,theymakeaclaimabouthowothersshould
vote,andcitizensbelievetheadvicefalselyinferringthattheadviceisconsistentwith
relevantfactsandvalues.
Havingstatedbestandworsecasescenarios,therearemanycaseswherecitizensuse
endorsementstocastthesamevotesthattheywouldhavecasthadtheyknownmoreabout
factsthatwereavailableatthetimeoftheelection.
Insum,itisincorrecttoinferthatcitizenswholackknowledgeofcertaindetailsofa
referendumwillvoteincompetentlyasaconsequence.Todrawthisconclusionisakinto
concludingthatapersoncannotgetfromtheirhometotheirairportbecausethereisa
particularroutetotheairportofwhichtheyareunaware.Iftherearemultipleroutestothe
airport,apersonneednotknowallofthemtoreachtheirdestination.Findingoneroute
thatleadsthemtotheirdesiredoutcomeinthetimethattheyhaveavailableissufficientto
achievetheirgoal.Similarly,citizenscanreachthe“destination”ofcastingthesamevote
thattheywouldhavecastiftheywerecognizantofmanytechnicaldetailsbyrelyingon
interestgroupendorsements.Thispossibility,andthefactthatreferendaarebinarychoices,
increasestheprobabilityofcitizens“votingcorrectly”towellover50%inmanycases.
Willmostcitizensreadthefineprint?
No.Ifareferendumislongorcomplex,mostcitizenswillnotreadthefineprint.Thisisboth
ahistoricalclaimandaclaimabouthowcitizensprocesspoliticalinformationtoday.
PriortotheInternet,therewassubstantialevidencethatmanycitizensdidnotreadthefine
printofreferenda.Insteadtheylookedforsimplecues,suchastheendorsementsdescribed
above,toformjudgmentsonwhichwaytovote.
WiththeemergenceoftheInternet,thereisnowanunprecedentedcompetitionforeach
person’sattention.Humanattentivecapacity,inturn,isquitelimited.Asaresult,people
seektobasemany,ifnotmost,oftheirdecisions,onsimplecuessuchasbrandnames,
trafficlights,andtheactionsofotherpeopleintheirenvirons.
Ineverypolity,thereisasmallgroupofpeoplewhoobtainasmuchinformationastheycan
aboutreferenda.TheInternetmakesavailabletothesepeoplemoreinformationabout
referendathanhaseverbeenavailablebefore.Atthesametime,theInternetoffers
addictivevideogames,hockeyscoresandhighlightsandcatvideos.Forpeoplewhowantto
avoidconversationsaboutpolitics,theInternetprovidesanunprecedentednumberof
distractions.
Acommonconsequenceofincreasingcompetitivenessinthecompetitionforhuman
attentionistheemergenceofextremebimodaldistributionsinhowmuchinformation
citizensobtainaboutpolitics.Abimodaldistributionisadistributionthathastwomassesof
density(thinkofitlikethebackofacamelwithtwohumps).Foranyissue,thereisnowone
groupofpeople(a.k.a.,“wonks”or“geeks”)whohaveaccessto,andknow,more
informationthatnearlyallmembersofpreviousgenerations.Theothergroupspendsallof
theirtimeonotherthings.
Itshouldbenotedthatthese“otherthings”arenotentirely,orevenprimarily,frivolous.
Manycitizensareinsituationswherealloftheireffortisrequiredtocareforchildren,
elders,communitymembersortomakeendsmeet.Theinformationthatismostvaluableto
themistheinformationthathelpsthengetthroughtheday,putfoodonthetable,secure
housing,andpaythebills.Politicalconversations,particularlyaboutmattersthatseem
abstract,areseenasaluxuryratherthanasanecessity.
Itshouldalsobenotedthatthe“bimodaldistribution”outcomeisunlikethedistributionof
knowledgeinpre-Internet,pre-cablegenerationsincountrieslikeCanadaandtheUnited
States.Inthoseeras,thereweretwoorthreetelevisionstations,twoorthreenewspapers,
andasmallnumberofradiostationsandnationalmagazines.Mostoftheseoutletscarried
somepoliticalcontent.Soifapersonwantedtowatchtelevisionat,say,6:00pm,theyhadto
watchthenews.Thislimitedchoicemeantthatevenpeoplewhowerenotinclinedtobe
interestedinpoliticswereregularlyexposedtopoliticalcontent.Thatisnottruetoday.
Hence,thebimodaldistribution.
Mostpeoplewillnotreadthefineprintandwilllookforendorsementstohelpthemdecide
whichwaytovote.
Fact:Formostcitizens,areferendumisnotanintellectualargument.
Forlegislatorsandassociatedprofessionalpersonswhohelptodevelopreferenda,theend
resultistheproductofasustainedandrigorouspoliticalandintellectualprocess.Many
peoplewhohavethistypeofinvolvementinthedevelopmentofreferendabelievethat
citizenscan,orshould,alsotreatthereferenduminthisway.Theywillnot.
Thereasonisthatforthepeoplewhodevelopedthereferenda,theendresultisoneof
thousandsormillionsofvariationsoftheproposalthatcouldhavebeenchosen.The
negotiationsthatledtoaparticularchoiceoflanguageincludedargumentsfororagainst
successivevariations.Memoryoftheseargumentsinfluencesubsequentnegotiationsand
influencehow“insiders”seetheresultingproduct.
Citizensarenotinvolvedinthisprocess.Theirroleisverydifferent.Theactionitemfor
themistovote“yes”or“no.”Theyarenotpermittedtoofferamendments.
Hence,whatvotersdoisseektodevelopsimpleandemotionallysalientnarrativesabout
what“yes”and“no”meantothemselves,theirfamiliesandtheircommunities.Froma
citizen’sperspective,themainquestionis“Is“yes”or“no”abetterchoice?”
Atypicalprocessforvoterstodrawthisdistinctionistoseekenvironmentalcuesthathelp
themanswerthisquestionwithrespecttotheirvalues.Ifacuemakesthepreferredaction
clear(ifitoperatesastrafficlightsordinarilydo),theytypicallydecidewhichwaytheyare
votingandstoptheirsearch.Onceacitizenhas“pickedateam,”thechoicetendsto
influencetheirsubsequentinformationprocessing.Throughaprocessthatpsychologists
call“motivatedreasoning”,peopleincreasinglyjudgeinformationaboutthetopicnotbyits
inherentaccuracybutbywhetherornotitsupportsorthreatenstheir“team.”So,for
example,apersonwhohaschosen“yes”beginstowelcomeandfeelgoodaboutargument
thatsupportstheircurrentview–atthesametimetheybecomedefensiveaboutorseekto
distancethemselvesfromcontradictoryinformation.Inotherwords,oncecitizenspicka
team,thechoicetendstoinfluencehowtheyperceiveallsubsequentinformation.
So,forcitizens,referendaarenotintellectualarguments.Theyareopportunitiesforvoters
toseekinformationaboutwhichoftwochoicesarebetterforthemandthentodefendtheir
choiceagainstcontradictoryclaims.
Fact:The“No”CampaignWillHaveSignificantAdvantages
Inreferendaacrosstheworld,“No”campaignshaveasignificantadvantage.A“yes”
campaignistypicallyadvocatingforachangetocurrentstatutesorconstitutions.A“No”
campaignisadvocatingforleavingthingsastheyare.Historically,referendumcampaigns
arecharacterizedbysignificantstatusquobiases.
Forthisreason,acommontacticfor“no”campaignsistodevelopnarrativesaboutpossible
consequencesofchangingthelawandthenspinningoutworst-casescenariosofthat
consequence.Sinceitistypicallythecasethattheproposedlawhasneverbeenineffect,
andsincethereferendum(apieceofpaper)cannotspeakforitself,“No”campaignscanstay
withinapplicablecampaignlawsandyetdistributeveryfrighteningtalesaboutthe
consequencesofvoting“Yes.”This,infact,istheM.O.of“No”campaignsaroundtheworld.
Infact,inCalifornia,wherethereisanestablishedgroupofprofessionalcampaign
consultantswhospecializeoninitiativesandreferendaandwhere“win-loss”recordsaffect
reputationandsubsequentcompensationlevels,top-tierprofessionalsarereticenttotouch
a“yes”campaignunlessinitialpollingshowssupportlevelsof70%ormoreincaseswhere
50%ofthevoteisneededforvictory.Thereasonforthisdecisionruleisthatthe
professionalsunderstandthat“No”campaignshavesignificantadvantages.Acommon
expectationisthatsupportfor“Yes”willdecreaseduringthecourseofmostreferendum
campaigns–withthefightbeingwhetheritcanbekeptover50%onElectionDay.
SomereadersmayaskwhethertheBrexitoutcomeisanexceptiontothisrule.Theanswer
isnotasclearasonemaythink.Theoperativequestionhereis“Whatwasthestatusquo?”It
isarguablethatforyoungercitizens“UKinEurope”wasthestatusquo.Afterall,itisthe
situationthattheyhaveknownforalloftheirlives.Butforoldercitizens,mostoftheirlives
wasinaUKthatwasnotpartoftheEU.Hence,itisarguablethatforoldercitizens
participationinthecommonmarketwaspartofthestatusquo,butsubserviencetothe
EuropeanParliamentwasnot.Foroldervoters,EUmembershipwasanhistorical
aberration.Thisconjecturehassupportinthevotingresults.Youngervoterssupported
REMAIN,theirstatusquo,byaverylargemargin.Atthesametimeoldervoterssupported
LEAVE,theirstatusquo,byaverylargemargin.
Asageneralmatter,“yes”campaignsaremoredifficulttowagethan“No”campaigns.“Yes
campaignsseektopersuadecitizensthatinvisibleandunprecedentedchangewillimprove
theirlives.“No”campaignsseektopersuadecitizensthatchangeisscaryanddangerous.
Soifyourmemberswantelectoralreformtopass,the“Yes”campaignwillneedtofocuson
relatingconsequencesofthechangetotheaspirationsanddailystrugglesofCanadian
citizens.Ifthe“yes”campaignoffersintellectualabstractionsandthe“no”campaignsoffers
emotionallysalientreasonstofearchange,“No”willhaveanimportantadvantage.
SELECTEDREFERENCES
1. ArthurLupia.2016.Uninformed:WhyPeopleKnowSoLittleAboutPoliticsandWhatWe
CanDoAboutIt.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
2. ArthurLupiaandRichardJohnston.2001."AreVoterstoBlame?VoterCompetenceand
EliteManeuversinPublicReferendums."InMatthewMendelsohnandAndrewParkin
(eds.)ReferendumDemocracy:Citizens,Elites,andDeliberationinReferendum
Campaigns.Toronto:MacMillan/St.Martin’sPress,191-210.