Which public support? Comparing voting instruments in the context of transformative urban mobility policy proposals

Abstract

In many cities, policymakers struggle with public support for transformative changes in public spaces, moving away from private cars to other functionalities such as safe bike paths, greenery, housing and leisure. Binary referenda often suggest there is no support for transformative changes. Other voting instruments are sparsely used but might produce different results. This paper compares the (dis)advantages of binary, multi-option and portfolio voting schemes and provides arguments for selecting the appropriate instrument. Next, we compare a binary referendum and a portfolio voting scheme (based on the Participatory Value Evaluation method), organized between March-June 2024, about a transformative mobility policy package in Haarlem, the Netherlands. We investigate to what extent these instruments allowed voters to express their preferences, produced different measures of public support and equipped policymakers with actionable insights. We find that 82% voted against this proposal in the referendum, whereas the PVE indicates there are several groups of opinions regarding the policy proposal, correlating with socio-demographic variables (e.g. primary commuting modality and financial situation). Based on a discussion of the limitations of both instruments, we conclude binary referenda can be a useful if policymakers want to know if there is (no) majority support for a proposal. But if a majority votes against a complex proposal, binary referenda provide no insights about how to proceed, and its simplicity becomes an obstacle. PVE provides more insights on how to adapt a proposal to citizens preferences, values and concerns although ensuring its design is perceived as legitimacy remains challenging.