California, where very few regulations exist about the actual conduct of campaigns.
Thus, in Quebec, groups on each side of the debate must register the nature of
their interest with an umbrella ‘‘No’’ or ‘‘Yes’’ committee, spending is minutely
regulated for each group, and broadcasting is allocated proportionately. Advertis-
ing is also regulated. Contrast this with California where groups can campaign as
Democrats for Life even though the party itself supports abortion.
Extensive regulation of referendums and initiatives is likely to favor established
parties, at least insofar as it imposes barriers to the uninhibited tactics of new
parties. But even the latter are favored by some regulation: spending limits
for example mean that opponents cannot simply drown out competition with
their spending and advertising. Lack of regulation leaves theWeld open for all sorts
of organizations to campaign, oftenWnanced covertly by those who beneWt directly
(going back to earlier points made about unmediated direct democracy).
5 Policy Areas Covered by Popular
Voting
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
Popular policy votes tend to be held disproportionately inWve areas of policy:
changes in the constitution; territorial questions covering secessions or extensions
of the national territory, devolution, and autonomy; foreign policy; moral matters
such as divorce, abortion, and homosexuality; and ecology and environment
(including local campaigns for protection of particular features, or in opposition
to the siting of a power plant). In Swiss cantons and American states,Wscal matters
are increasingly voted on, usually involving tax limitation and restrictions on the
size of government. (For up to date surveys of content-matter see Le Duc 2003 .)
It can be seen from this that policy voting tends to take place either on issues of
a certain level of generality—constitutions or foreign policy measures like trade
liberalization that will have a long-term eVect—or in areas whichWt uneasily into
the left–right division of party politics and which might indeed provoke internal
splits, like moral and ecological matters. The closest policy votes come to inXuen-
cing the current political agenda is onWscal matters. Even tax limitation has a long-
term rather than an immediate eVect however. Almost never is a vote held to
‘‘prioritize unemployment now,’’ ‘‘stop inXation,’’ ‘‘end the war,’’ ‘‘reduce prison
population,’’ and so on.
Several factors contribute to this pattern of policy consultation. First, and
perhaps most importantly, governments do not want to put their central policies
direct democracy 605