Setting the voting agenda for multi-option referendums: process variations and civic empowerment

Bibliography

• Altman, D. Direct Democracy Worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Attorney General. How We Vote: 2018 Electoral Reform Referendum Report and Recommendations of the Attorney General. British Columbia, 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Baker, M. Falling Into the Canadian Lap: The Confederation of Newfoundland and Canada, 1945-1949. Royal Commission on Renewing and Strengthening Our Place in Canada, 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Baumgartner, C., and C. Bundi. Eventualantrag und Volksvorschlag im Kanton Bern. Leges 2017/1, 83–96.
   Google Scholar
• Bjørklund, T. “The Demand for Referendum: When Does it Arise and When Does it Succeed?” Scandinavian Political Studies 5 (1982): 237–259.
   Google Scholar
• Boogers, M. J. G. J. A., and L. de Graaf. Een ongewenst preferendum [Referendum evaluation report]. Tilburg: Tilburgse School voor Politiek en Bestuur, 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Bua, A. “Agenda Setting and Democratic Innovation: The Case of the Sustainable Communities Act (2007).” Politics 32, no. 1 (2012): 10–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bulmer, W. E. “Minority-Veto Referendums: An Alternative to Bicameralism?” Politics 31, no. 3 (2011): 107–120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christiano, T. “Rational Deliberation among Experts and Citizens.” In Deliberative Systems, edited by J. Parkinson, and J. Mansbridge, 27–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Cobb, R. W., and C. D. Elder. “The Politics of Agenda-Building: An Alternative Perspective for Modern Democratic Theory.” The Journal of Politics 33, no. 4 (1971): 892–915.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collin, K. “Peacemaking Referendums: The Use of Direct Democracy in Peace Processes.” Democratization 27, no. 5 (2020): 717–736.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Emerson, P. Defining Democracy. Heidelberg: Springer, 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Farrell, D. M., J. Suiter, and C. Harris. “‘Systematizing’ Constitutional Deliberation: the 2016-2018 Citizens’ Assembly in Ireland.” Irish Political Studies 34, no. 1 (2019): 113–123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gherghina, S. “Direct Democracy and Subjective Regime Legitimacy in Europe.” Democratization 24, no. 4 (2017): 613–631.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glaser, A., U. Serdült, and E. Somer. “Das konstruktive Referendum–ein Volksrecht vor dem Aus?” Aktuelle Juristische Praxis (AJP) 10 (2016): 1343–1355.
   Google Scholar
• Goodin, R. E., and K. Spiekermann. An Epistemic Theory of Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Hendriks, F. “Democratic Innovation Beyond Deliberative Reflection: The Plebiscitary Rebound and the Advent of Action-Oriented Democracy.” Democratization 26, no. 3 (2019): 444–464.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hug, S., and G. Tsebelis. “Veto Players and Referendums Around the World.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 14, no. 4 (2002): 465–515.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Independent Commission on Referendums. Report of the Independent Commission on Referendums. London: The Constitution Unit, UCL, 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Kaufmann, B., R. Büchi, and N. Braun. Guidebook to Direct Democracy: In Switzerland and Beyond. Marburg: Initiative & Referendum Institute Europe, 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Lagerspetz, E. Social Choice and Democratic Values. Heidelberg: Springer, 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Levine, S., and N. S. Roberts. “The New Zealand Electoral Referendum of 1992.” Electoral Studies 12, no. 2 (1993): 158–167.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lissidini, A. “Una mirada crítica a la democracia directa: el origen y las prácticas de los plebiscitos en Uruguay.” Perfiles Latinoamericanos 12 (1998): 169–200.
   Google Scholar
• Magleby, D. B. “Let the Voters Decide?” An Assessment of the Initiative and Referendum Process.” University of Colorado Law Review 66, no. 1 (1995): 13–46.
   Google Scholar
• McKay, S. “Designing Popular Vote Processes for Democratic Systems: Counter-Proposals, Recurring Referendums, and Iterated Popular Votes.” Swiss Political Science Review 24, no. 3 (2018): 328–334.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menzi, B. “Umverteilung zugunsten von nachhaltigen Energiequellen ist nicht mehrheitsfähig.” In Handbuch der eidgenössischen Volksabstimmungen 1848–2007, edited by W. Linder, C. Bolliger, and Y. Rielle, 591–592. Bern: Haupt Verlag, 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, A. Critical Elitism: Deliberation, Democracy, and the Problem of Expertise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Müller, W. C. “Plebiscitary Agenda-Setting and Party Strategies: Theoretical Considerations and Evidence from Austria.” Party Politics 5, no. 3 (1999): 303–315.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nagel, J. H. “What Political Scientists Can Learn from the 1993 Electoral Reform in New Zealand.” PS: Political Science and Politics 27, no. 3 (1994): 525–529.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nikolenyi, C. “When Electoral Reform Fails: The Stability of Proportional Representation in Post-Communist Democracies.” West European Politics 34, no. 3 (2011): 607–625.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papadopoulos, Y. “Analysis of Functions and Dysfunctions of Direct Democracy: Top-Down and Bottom-Up Perspectives.” Politics & Society 23, no. 4 (1995): 421–448.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renwick, A. “Do ‘Wrong Winner’ Elections Trigger Electoral Reform? Lessons from New Zealand.” Representation 45, no. 4 (2009): 357–367.
   Google Scholar
• Ruin, O. “Sweden in the 1970s.” In Policy Styles in Western Europe, edited by J Richardson, 141–168. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1982.
   Google Scholar
• Sargeant, J., A. Renwick, and M. Russell. The Mechanics of a Further Referendum on Brexit. London: The Constitution Unit, 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Setälä, M. “The Role of Deliberative Mini-Publics in Representative Democracy: Lessons from the Experience of Referendums.” Representation 47, no. 2 (2011): 201–213.
   Google Scholar
• Setälä, M. “Theories of Referendum and the Analysis of Agenda-Setting.” PhD Thesis. LSE, 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Suksi, M. Bringing in the People: A Comparison of Constitutional Forms and Practices of the Referendum. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993.
   Google Scholar
• Taillon, P. “The Democratic Potential of Referendums. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Limitations.” In The Routledge Handbook to Referendums and Direct Democracy, edited by L. Morel, and M. Qvortrup, 169–191. London: Routledge, 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Tierney, S. Constitutional Referendums. The Theory and Practice of Republican Deliberation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Tierney, S. The Multi-Option Referendum: International Guidelines, International Practice and Practical Issues. School of Law, Working Papers, 2013. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
   Google Scholar
• Uleri, P. V. “Introduction.” In The Referendum Experience in Europe, edited by M. Gallagher, and P.V. Uleri, 1–19. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press, 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Vatter, A. “Lijphart Expanded: Three Dimensions of Democracy in Advanced OECD Countries?” European Political Science Review 1, no. 1 (2009): 125–154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagenaar, C. C. L. “Beyond for or Against? Multi-Option Alternatives to a Corrective Referendum.” Electoral Studies 62 (2019): 102091.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagenaar, C. C. L. “Lessons from International Multi-Option Referendum Experiences.” The Political Quarterly 91, no. 1 (2020): 192–202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar