Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-21T14:53:58.010Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ABCs of Electoral Reform: The Impact of Reading Levels on Knowledge, Interest and Opinion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2020

Holly Ann Garnett Open the ORCID record for Holly Ann Garnett [Opens in a new window]  and
André Blais Open the ORCID record for André Blais [Opens in a new window]
Holly Ann Garnett*
Affiliation:
Royal Military College of Canada, P.O. Box 17000, Station Forces Kingston, ONK7K 7B4
André Blais
Affiliation:
Université de Montréal, Pavillon Lionel-Groulx local C4040, 3150, rue Jean-Brillant, Montréal, QCH3T 1N8
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How should citizens be educated about complicated political issues like electoral reform? Are there basic principles that should be followed? This article tests one potential principle for government bodies, the media and educators to follow when conducting information campaigns: namely, lowering the reading level of information. Educators have long argued that texts can be confusing when written at a literacy level higher than the reader is able to digest. This article tests the impact of reading level on knowledge, interest and opinion on an electoral reform proposal. It employs an experimental design, conducted in person in fall 2018 with college students in Ontario, Canada. The experiment asked the students to read a text on a single transferable vote (STV) electoral system at one of three reading levels (or a control text) and then answer a series of questions gauging their knowledge, interest and opinion on the electoral reform proposal. The results provide an assessment of the impact of different levels of information on these factors and suggest concrete recommendations for election management bodies (EMBs) and other actors seeking to educate the public on complex political issues.

Résumé

Résumé

Comment sensibiliser les citoyens à des questions politiques complexes comme la réforme électoraleY a-t-il des principes de base à suivreCet article teste un principe potentiel que les organismes gouvernementaux, les médias et les pédagogues devraient suivre lorsqu'ils mènent des campagnes d'information : à savoir, abaisser le niveau de lecture des informations. Les pédagogues soutiennent depuis longtemps que les textes peuvent être déroutants lorsqu'ils sont écrits à un niveau d'alphabétisation supérieur à celui que le lecteur est capable d'assimiler. Cet article teste l'impact du niveau de lecture sur les connaissances, l'intérêt et l'opinion autour d'une proposition de réforme électorale. Il utilise un modèle expérimental, mené en personne à l'automne 2018 auprès d'étudiants de l'Ontario, au Canada. L'expérience consistait à demander aux étudiants de lire un texte sur un système électoral à vote unique transférable à l'un des trois niveaux de lecture (ou un texte de contrôle) et de répondre ensuite à une série de questions évaluant leurs connaissances, leur intérêt et leur opinion sur la proposition de réforme électorale. Les résultats fournissent une évaluation de l'impact des différents niveaux d'information sur ces facteurs et suggèrent des recommandations concrètes pour les organes de gestion des élections et les autres acteurs qui cherchent à éduquer le public sur des questions politiques complexes.

Keywords

electoral reformcivic literacypolitical informationreferendumRéforme électoralecompétence civiqueinformation politiqueréférendum
Type
Research Article/Étude originale
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 53 , Issue 4 , December 2020 , pp. 872 - 886
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barabas, Jason, Jerit, Jennifer, Pollock, William and Rainey, Carlisle. 2014. “The Question(s) of Political Knowledge.” American Political Science Review 108 (4): 840–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1996. “Uninformed Votes: Information Effects in Presidential Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (1): 194–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bittner, Amanda. 2007. “The Effects of Information and Social Cleavages: Explaining Issue Attitudes and Vote Choice in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 40 (4): 935–68.Google Scholar
Burden, Barry. 2009. “The Dynamic Effects of Education on Voter Turnout.” Electoral Studies 28 (4): 540–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E. and Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Canada, Samara, and Prest, Stewart. 2016. What We Talk about When We Talk about Electoral Reform. August 25. http://www.samaracanada.com/docs/default-source/Reports/electoral-reform-report.pdf?sfvrsn=4.Google Scholar
Canadian Press. 2018. “Yes and No Groups Selected before Referendum on Electoral Reform in B.C.” National Post, July 12. https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/yes-and-no-groups-selected-before-referendum-on-electoral-reform-in-b-c.Google Scholar
Chief Electoral Officer of British Columbia. 2005. Statement of Votes: Referendum on Electoral Reform, May 17, 2005. Elections BC. http://www.elections.bc.ca/docs/rpt/SOV-2005-ReferendumOnElectoralReform.pdf.Google Scholar
Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario. 2008. Provincial Referendum on Electoral System Reform: Report of the Chief Electoral Officer, October 10, 2007. Toronto: Elections Ontario.Google Scholar
Christin, Thomas, Hug, Simon and Sciarini, Pascal. 2002. “Interests and Information in Referendum Voting: An Analysis of Swiss Voters.” European Journal of Political Research 41 (6): 759–76.Google Scholar
Clarke, Harold D., Goodwin, Matthew and Whiteley, Paul. 2017. “Why Britain Voted for Brexit: An Individual-Level Analysis of the 2016 Referendum Vote.” Parliamentary Affairs 70 (3): 439–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, Fred and Fournier, Patrick. 2007. “Why Ontarians Said No to MMP.” Globe and Mail, October 25.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Dunning, David, Heath, Chip and Suls, Jerry M.. 2004. “Flawed Self-Assessment: Implications for Health, Education, and the Workplace.” Psychological Science in the Public Interest 5 (3): 69–106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elkink, Johan A. and Sinnott, Richard. 2015. “Political Knowledge and Campaign Effects in the 2008 Irish Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.” Electoral Studies 38 (5): 217–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garnett, Holly A. 2014. “Lessons Learned: Referendum Resource Officers and the 2007 Ontario Referendum on Electoral Reform.” Canadian Political Science Review 8 (1): 63–84.Google Scholar
Hessami, Zohal and Resnjanskij, Sven. 2019. “Complex Ballot Propositions, Individual Voting Behavior, and Status Quo Bias.” European Journal of Political Economy 58: 82–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobolt, Sara B. 2007. “Taking Cues on Europe? Voter Competence and Party Endorsements in Referendums on European Integration.” European Journal of Political Research 46 (2): 151–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jamieson, Donald G. 2006. “Literacy in Canada.” Paediatrics & Child Health 11 (9): 573–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jenssen, Anders T. and Listhaug, Ola. 2001. “Voters’ Decisions in the Nordic EU Referendums of 1994: The Importance of Party Cues.” In Referendum Democracy: Citizens, Elites and Deliberation in Referendum Campaigns, ed. Mendelsohn, Matthew and Parkin, Andrew. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.Google Scholar
Katz, Richard S. 2004. “Problems in Electoral Reform: Why the Decision to Change Electoral Systems Is Not Simple.” In Steps Towards Making Every Vote Count: Electoral System Reform in Canada and its Provinces, ed. Milner, Henry. Peterborough: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
Kincaid, J. Peter, Robert P. Fishbourne, Richard L. Jr. Rogers, Brad S. Chissom, . 1975. “Derivation of New Readability Formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy Enlisted Personnel.” Research Branch Report 8-75. Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central Florida. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/istlibrary/56/.Google Scholar
Lassen, David D. 2005. “The Effect of Information on Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Natural Experiment.” American Journal of Political Science 49 (1): 103–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, Richard R. and Redlawsk, David P.. 2006. How Voters Decide: Information Processing during Election Campaigns. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lea, Jeannie. 2006. “The Prince Edward Island Plebiscite on Electoral Reform.” Canadian Parliamentary Review 29 (1): 4–8.Google Scholar
LeDuc, Lawrence. 2011. “Electoral Reform and Direct Democracy in Canada: When Citizens Become Involved.” West European Politics 24 (3): 551–67.Google Scholar
Lupia, Arthur and McCubbins, Matthew D.. 1998. The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Matsusaka, John G. 1995. “Explaining Voter Turnout Patterns: An Information Theory.” Public Choice 84 (1): 91–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAllister, Ian. 2001. “Elections without Cues: The 1999 Australian Republic Referendum.” Australian Journal of Political Science 36 (2): 247–69.Google Scholar
Nadeau, Richard, Martin, Pierre and Blais, André. 1999. “Attitude toward Risk-Taking and Individual Choice in the Quebec Referendum on Sovereignty.” British Journal of Political Science 29 (3): 523–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, Jack H. 1994. “What Political Scientists Can Learn from the 1993 Electoral Reform in New Zealand.” Political Science & Politics 27 (3): 525–29.Google Scholar
Popkin, Samuel L. 1991. The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC). n.d. “Frequently Asked Questions.” http://piaac.ca/590/FAQ.html.Google Scholar
Robertson, A. B. a. J. R. 2009. Electoral Reform Initiatives in Canadian Provinces. http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0417-e.htm#British2.Google Scholar
Roy, Jason. 2009. “Voter Heterogeneity: Informational Differences and Voting.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 42 (1): 117–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, Jesara. 2016. “Premier Calls Plebiscite Results ‘Debatable,’ Cites Low Turnout.” https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-premier-plebiscite-results-1.3842107.Google Scholar
Smets, Kaat and van Ham, Carolien. 2013. “The Embarrassment of Riches? A Meta-analysis of Individual-Level Research on Voter Turnout.” Electoral Studies 32 (2): 344–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistics Canada. 2013. “Skills in Canada: First Results from the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC).” http://www.deslibris.ca/ID/240077.Google Scholar
Stephenson, Laura and Tanguay, Brian. 2009. “Ontario's Referendum on Proportional Representation: Why Citizens Said No.” IRPP Choices 15 (10). https://irpp.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/research/strengthening-canadian-democracy/why-do-canadians-say-no-to-electoral-reform/vol15no10.pdf.Google Scholar
Verba, Sidney, Schlozman, Kay Lehman, and Brady, Henry E.. 1995. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Vowles, Jack. 2013. “Campaign Claims, Partisan Cues, and Media Effects in the 2011 British Electoral System Referendum.” Electoral Studies 32 (2): 253–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, James M. L. and Martin, Alexandra G. 2010. “Analysis of patient information leaflets provided by a district general hospital by the Flesch and Flesch–Kincaid method.” International Journal of Clinical Practice 64: 1824–1831. doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2010.02408.x.Google ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Garnett and Blais Supplementary Materials

Garnett and Blais Supplementary Materials

Download Garnett and Blais Supplementary Materials(File)
File 91 KB