Arguments about the American ballot initiative process date back to the Progressive Era, when processes allowing citizens to decide policy questions directly were established in about half of the states. When political scientists began to examine whether the state ballot initiative process had spillover consequences, they found the initiative process had a positive impact on civic engagement. Recent scholarship casts doubt on these conclusions, determining the ballot initiative process in fact did not make people believe they could influence the political process, trust the government, or be more knowledgeable about politics. However, in some circumstances, it got them to show up at the polls, and increased interest groups' participation in the political arena. In this book, Dyck and Lascher develop and test a theory that can explain evidence that the ballot initiative process fails to provide the civic benefits commonly claimed for it, and evidence that it increases political participation. This theory argues that the basic function of direct democracy is to create more conflict in society.

American state and Canadian provincial governments have dealt with rapidly rising auto insurance rates in different ways over the last two decades, a difference many attribute to variances in political pressure exerted by interest groups such as trial attorneys and insurance companies. Edward L. Lascher, Jr., argues that we must consider two additional factors: the importance of politicians' beliefs about the potential success of various solutions and the role of governmental institutions.

Using case studies from both sides of the border, Lascher shows how different explanations of the problem and different political structures affect insurance reform. In his conclusion, Lascher moves beyond auto insurance to draw implications for regulation and policymaking in other areas.