• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Policymakers often assume that public opin-ion is a reliable guide to making public policy,but they should not. Public opinion polling mea-sures the wishes and preferences of respondents,neither of which reflect the costs or risks associ-ated with a policy. Public opinion expressed inpolls cannot inform policy choice, whichrequires attention to tradeoffs among values, tosecond-best possibilities, and to unexpectedrisks.Polls are unlikely to be improved enough tohelp with policy choices. Improvements wouldmake the product (poll results) too expensive ortoo difficult to obtain from weary respondents.We should not expect to see the day when pollingcan replace reasoned policy choices by electedrepresentatives of the people.Despite all the fancy numerology surround-ing modern polling, the extracted advice shouldnot guide public policy. Although public desiresfor “more government intervention to help (fillin worthy cause)” are real in that people sincere-ly crave the promised improvement, those criesfor government action fail to meet even the mostminimal standards of legitimate counsel. Thispaper shows how little polls tell us about publicpolicy and why we should ignore the profferedguidance to policymakers.
Why Policymakers Should Ignore Public Opinion Polls 
by Robert Weissberg
 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Robert Weissberg isa professor of political science at the University of Illinoisat Champaign-Urbana.
Executive Summary
No. 402May 29, 2001
 
Introduction:Why Polls Matter
Polls are a daily part of our political life,yet their power is a mystery. Polls plainly lackany legal authority. A wise officeholder mayprudently consult his or her pollster, but, sofar, surveys cannot defeat incumbents or vetolegislation. Technically, they can be readilyignored. So, why do polls matter so much,especially to public policy?Keep in mind that the United States didnot begin as a direct democracy under majori-ty rule. The Framers of our Constitutionhoped to create a constitutional republic,which required constraints on the power ofthe majority. Such restraints both preventedthe tyranny of the majority and promoted thestability of the new regime. The Framers didnot doubt that the legitimacy of the Americanrepublic lay in the consent of the governed,but they did not ask the people to decide everylast detail. They did not expect that the peoplecould or should govern directly.
1
We have come a long way from theFounders’ balanced, representative democra-cy. Public opinion has achieved a remarkable,though largely unnoticed, ascendancy. Theburden of proof is now on those who opposepublic opinion. Chalk up a mighty victoryfor early 20th-century Progressives (andnumerous contemporary academics), whoargued that the cure for democracy’s ills ismore democracy. Indeed, recent polls suggestthat the public has become enamored of itsown wisdom: in one 1999 survey, some 80percent of respondents believed that thenation would be better off if leaders followedpublic views.
2
If public opinion drives democracy, thenwhat the people think becomes the centralquestion of politics. Polls are powerfulbecause they provide answers to that ques-tion. And their answers are not just opinionbut “science.” Polling methodology hasbecome complex and highly quantitative, animportant mark of expertise in an innumer-ate world. Imagine rejoinders to those whodoubt the wisdom of polls. The new priestlyclass of pollsters, like pedants mouthingLatin to befuddle the ignorant, mightexplain that the data were drawn from a mul-tistage, stratified random sample weightedto capture major SMSA’s with an oversampleof higher SES respondents, or somethingequally technically abstruse. Who has theself-confidence to question such erudition?That aura of science translates directlyinto policymaking. As the old saying goes,“In Washington, good numbers beat badnumbers and bad numbers beat no numbersat all.” As former presidential speechwriterPeggy Noonan artfully explained: “In everypolitical meeting I have ever been to, if therewas a pollster there his work carried the mostweight because he was the only one with harddata, with actual numbers on paper.Everyone else had an opinion, the pollsterhas a fact.”
3
The contest between statisticsand hunch is hardly an even battle: the for-mer almost always win.Polls also set boundaries on legitimatepolicy debates. Each survey result incremen-tally shapes the contemporary Zeitgeist, the“everybody knows” delineation of “normal”versus “extreme.” Recall British social scien-tist Walter Bagehot’s observation from near-ly 150 years ago: “Public opinion is a perme-ating influence, and it exacts obedience toitself, it requires us to think other men’sthoughts, and to speak other men’s words,and to follow other men’s habits.”
4
As histo-ry shows, today’s “obvious” remedies mayhave once been Utopian extremism, and viceversa. Who would have believed a half centu-ry ago that charter schools or privatizedSocial Security might be “reasonable” whilestate-mandated racial segregation would beunthinkable? A steady barrage of polls, allpointing in a new direction, helped facilitatethat shift. Armed with convenient hard data,people who endorse once-lonely causes gainauthority and respectability.Against this background, we should notbe surprised that Americans look to polls tomake tough policy choices, a kind of directdemocracy through scientific technique. If
2
If public opiniondrives democracy,then what thepeople thinkbecomes the cen-tral question ofpolitics. Polls arepowerful becausethey provideanswers to thatquestion.
 
the vox populi is the voice of wisdom, if notof God, those who hear its words most clear-ly should dominate policymaking. Shouldwe take notice of the polls’ reports of publicdemands for more benevolence fromWashington? Or, in line with traditionalskepticism toward heeding popular outcries,might those demands be dismissible foolish-ness? On the whole, judging by the growingnumber of commissioned polls and the ris-ing stature of the pollster, one must concludethat reverence for unrestrained majority ruleis growing. Moreover the high priests of pub-lic opinion insist that their polls convey legit-imate advice about policies and politicalstrategies. They are wrong.
Polls and Public Policy
What exactly is a poll supposed to mea-sure? Surprisingly, that question is seldomaddressed in the many books on the craft ofsurvey research. An inquiry might assesshopes and aspirations, what Americans wantfrom government or the economy. Or a pollmight calibrate political job performance. Asurvey might also predict future behavior—voting intentions or whether parents wouldsend their children to a charter school. Pollsmight also conveniently reveal hidden behav-ior, for example, campaign donations or riot-ing. A survey can also measure even vagueemotions by asking respondents to expresslikes and dislikes for controversial groups orfamous personalities. All of those inquiresare easily (and properly) executed via the poll,and none requires especially demanding civicperformances by respondents.Queries about policies are another matter.Provided certain modest technical details aresatisfied, the door to fantasyland is ajar. Thepublic’s unbounded cravings can safely bebrought to the fore. Provided some client canbe found, researchers can literally ask aboutdesiring eternal life; meanwhile the respon-dent is perfectly free to say, “Yes, put medown as ‘Strongly Agree’ regarding cheatingdeath.” In other words, accurately assessingpopular sentiments down to four decimalplaces proves nothing about the political ger-maneness of those utterances, despite adroitstatistical manipulation.To introduce a modicum of order to“public opinion,” consider the following dis-tinctions. When a poll solicits opinions onthe evidently unobtainable—“free” healthcare, a world without pollution, all studentsexceeding the average—the results may becalled
wishes 
. Nothing commands that thosewishes be legal or financially feasible, letalone fulfillable under existing circum-stances. Nevertheless, expressed urges may beexceptionally important politically, regard-less of their imaginary flavor, and a craftyofficial may use them for political advantage.Unrealistic wants can shape spellbindingrhetoric or lofty programs designed to seducethe unwary. Speechwriters undoubtedly lovepolls eliciting such aspirations. Nothing (atleast technically) forbids asking citizenswhether they favor every American boy andgirl receiving a world-class education as a pre-lude to campaign promises. We should not,however, conflate shameless pandering withan informed public choice of a deliverablepolicy.More commonplace in the poll cosmolo-gy are what may be called preferences, wantsor desires with some reasonable connectionto reality. At a minimum, they are legal, fis-cally doable, and enjoy some leadership sup-port. More mundane prerequisites separat-ing wishes from preferences, for example,would include sufficient technical acumen,properly trained personnel, clear perfor-mance standards, and everything else neces-sary for successful implementation. A pollshowing a widespread desire to link federaleducational assistance to student test scoresreveals a preference. The defining element isthat, unlike a wish for universal superior per-formance, preferences could be achieved. Inprinciple, contemporary polls are fully capa-ble of soliciting precise public preferences.Whether preferences are an adequate guidefor policy is another story.Consider for a moment the distance
3
The high priestsof public opinioninsist that theirpolls convey legit-imate adviceabout policiesand politicalstrategies. Theyare wrong.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...