Expecting More Say
A STUDY OF AMERICAN
PUBLIC ATTITUDES ON THE ROLE OF THE PUBLIC IN
GOVERNMENT DECISIONS
With a Special
Section on the Impeachment
Process
Contents
Overview
Findings
Public Influence and
the Impeachment Process
Acknowledgements
Questionnaire
Overview
How
much influence should the public have on the
decisions government makes? Should elected officials
make decisions according to their own judgment or
according to the views of the majority they
represent? These are age-old questions, but they have
recently gained greater significance.
One
reason is that over the last decades there has been a
dramatic decline in the public's belief that the
government serves the interests of the public as a
whole. Trust in the government is down.
Disenchantment with government has also contributed
to declining voter turnout.
Another
reason the issue of public influence has gained
special prominence is the recent decision of the
House of Representatives to impeach the President
despite strong and consistent public opposition. This
has provoked widespread debate about how much members
of Congress should pay attention to public attitudes
when making decisions.
To
find out how the American public feels about these
broader questions, and also to find out how the
public's views on these issues relate to the
impeachment process, the Center on Policy Attitudes
conducted a study that included:
- a
review of existing polling data going back
several decades;
- focus
groups in Albuquerque, New Mexico; Baltimore,
Maryland; and Roanoke, Virginia;
- a
nationwide poll of a random sample of 1,204
respondents (margin of error 3-4%) conducted
January 26-31, 1999 (results were weighted to
be demographically representative).
Briefly
stated, the key findings were:
- An
overwhelming majority of Americans feels that
the views of the public should have
substantially more influence over government
decisions than they presently do, and a very
strong majority feels that the public's views
should have more influence than those of
elected officials;
- A
strong majority believes that most of the
decisions the government makes are not the
decisions that they would make, and an
overwhelming majority believes that the
government is not being run for the benefit
of the public as a whole;
- The
public's feeling of being marginalized from
government decisionmaking has risen
dramatically over the last few decades;
- A
strong majority feels that policymakers
should pay close attention to polls when
making public policy;
- Majority
support exists for increasing the influence
of the public, even though the public as a
whole underestimates the competence of the
public to make judgments on public policy;
- An
overwhelming majority believes that if the
public gained more influence, this would
counteract a perceived trend toward wealth
concentrating in fewer hands.
On
the issue of the impeachment process:
- A
strong majority believes that investigation
of, and the decision to impeach, President
Clinton were not supported by the majority of
Americans and that members of Congress should
have voted on impeachment consistent with the
views of their constituents;
- According
to trend line measures, the impeachment
process appears to have significantly
worsened the already low perception of
government responsiveness to the public, as
well as confidence that the government does
what is right. Some measures are at an
all-time low.
1. An
overwhelming majority of Americans feels that the
views of the public should have substantially more
influence over government decisions than they
presently do, and that the public's views should have
more influence than those of elected officials. A
strong majority expresses confidence in the public's
judgment and says it would give more credence to the
decisions of a random sample of Americans informed on
all sides of an issue than to the decisions of
Congress.
To
determine how much influence respondents felt the
public should have over government decisions, they
were asked to consider "how much influence the
views of the majority of Americans" have on
"the decisions of elected officials in
Washington," and told to answer on a scale of 0
to 10, with 0 meaning not at all influential and 10
meaning extremely influential. The average answer was
4.6.
Respondents
were then asked "how much influence you think
the views of the majority of Americans should have on
the decisions of elected officials in
Washington." The average response was 8.4. Thus
the average difference between the actual and
preferred level of influence was 3.8.
Most significantly, an
overwhelming majority of 84% indicated they wanted to
see the public have more influence than they perceive
it has now, by giving a higher number for the
preferred level than for the actual level. Just 8%
indicated they favored the existing amount of public
influence and 4% indicated they favored less. Among
those who showed a desire for greater influence, the
amount of increased influence desired was also quite
substantial--4.4 points on the 10-point scale.
To determine the strength of
these attitudes, and to see if they could be changed
through persuasive arguments, respondents were
presented a series of pro and con arguments about
whether the public should have more influence on
government decisions and were asked to rate each
argument as convincing or unconvincing. All of the
pro arguments were convincing to an overwhelming
majority, while none of the con arguments were found
convincing by more than 27%. (See box below.)
Pro
and Con Arguments on Increasing Public Influence
| Pro Arguments |
| The government has
become so bogged down in partisan conflict
and so distorted by the influence of moneyed
interests that it is necessary for the
American public to have a stronger voice in
shaping government decisions |
80% |
| The principles of
democracy are the cornerstone of the United
States' form of government. Therefore, as a
general rule, the government should be guided
by the will of the majority when making
decisions. |
77% |
| Nobody knows what's
best for the people better than the people.
Paying attention to the preferences of the
majority is most likely to produce policies
that reflect what is best for the country as
a whole. |
74% |
| Con Arguments |
| The public is
emotional, volatile and uninformed. Therefore
it is better for policymakers not to be very
influenced by the public's wishes when making
decisions. |
20% |
| Members of the
government are well informed and are able to
think through issues thoughtfully and
objectively. Therefore their judgments should
count for more than the views of the public. |
26% |
| While there are many
problems in the way that the government
works, increasing the influence of the public
is not really going to help. There is really
no reason to believe that the public is any
better than the people in the government. |
27% |
Giving the Public
Precedence Over Elected Officials
A
widely repeated discussion in American society is
whether elected officials should pay more attention
to their own views, or to the views of the majority
of those who have elected them. In fact, there is a
fairly strong consensus among the American public on
this question. If asked to choose between the two, a
very strong majority of respondents said that the
views of the majority should have more influence.
(See box below.)
This view is not simply due to
the effect of the impeachment debate: when Time/CNN
asked this same question in February 1993, 68% said
the voters should take precedence (representatives'
judgment: 24%).
This
does not mean that most Americans want direct
democracy. In the above-mentioned question that asked
how much influence the public should have on a scale
of 0 to 10, only 36% gave the answer of 10. It also
does not mean that most Americans do not want
policymakers to consider what they think is right. In
the focus groups, the most common concern was not
that elected officials would follow their own
judgment, but that they would be overly influenced by
special interests. In a 1992 University of Nebraska
study, 86% agreed that "Congress is too heavily
influenced by special interest groups when making
decisions." There even seems to be sentiment
that elected officials need to pay more attention to
what they think is right. In the current poll, an
overwhelming 79% agreed that "Elected officials
would make better decisions if they thought more
deeply about what they think is right."
However,
as noted, when respondents were asked which should
have more influence on a member's decision, by nearly
a three-to-one margin they say that it should be the
public over the member's judgment. Furthermore, if
there is an added proviso that the member should make
some adjustment for the public not being fully
informed on all sides of the issue, then an
overwhelming seven-to-one majority endorses the idea
that Congress should basically mirror the public.
Presented the statement: "The goal of Congress
should be to make the decisions the majority of
Americans would make if they had the information and
time to think things over that Congress has,"
85% agreed and just 12% disagreed.
When
Americans are presented more nuanced alternatives, it
becomes clear the public's first preference is for
policymakers both to consult what they think is right
and be ready to adapt their position on the
assumption that there is some validity in the
majority's view. Asked what he should do "[i]f a
member of Congress is involved in developing
legislation on an issue and he finds that the
majority of people in his district favor a course of
action that is different from the one that he thinks
is best," only 19% said he should "do what
he thinks is best, on the basis that he should not be
swayed by external pressures," and just 23% said
"he should follow the will of the majority, on
the basis of democratic principles." A much
stronger 55% said he should "re-evaluate his
position and look for a new alternative, on the basis
that there is probably something valid in the
majority's position."
Confidence
in the Public's Judgment
Overall,
Americans show strong confidence in the public's
judgment. In September 1997 Pew Center asked,
"[i]n general, how much trust and confidence do
you have in the wisdom of the American people when it
comes to making political decisions?" Sixty-four
percent said a good deal or a very great deal, while
35% said not very much or none at all.
Interestingly,
the current poll also found that an overwhelming
majority of Americans had more confidence in the
wisdom of the public as a whole than in the views of
the majority of their own party, even though the
views of members of their party would presumably be
closer to their own. (See box below.)
Equally striking, when another
sample was asked which they would "prefer to
have the most influence on the government," 73%
said the views of the public as a whole, while 13%
said the views of the majority of Republicans and 10%
the views of the majority of Democrats.
Comparing
Congress to an Informed Sample of the Public
One of
the more striking findings from the current poll is
that a strong majority of respondents said they would
have more confidence in the decisions of a random
sample of Americans who were given information and a
chance to deliberate on a subject than in the
decisions of Congress. Respondents were given a
description of what is sometimes called a
"deliberative poll": a random sample is
first presented information on an issue, and then
given time to deliberate before answering a policy
question. By a four- to-one margin, respondents
expressed more confidence in the majority decisions
of such a sample than in the decisions of Congress.
2. The
majority of Americans believes that most of the
decisions the government makes are not the decisions
that they would make, and an overwhelming majority
believes that the government is not being run for the
benefit of the public as a whole. If the public had
more influence, the majority believes, government
decisions would more effectively serve the interests
of the public as whole.
Respondents
were asked, "What percentage of the time does
Congress make decisions that are the same as the
decisions that you would make?" Another sample
was asked, "What percentage of the time do you
think Congress makes decisions that are the same as
the decisions that the majority of Americans would
make?" In both cases the median response was
40%. Only 18% of respondents gave a percentage above
50%.
| Does the
Government Do What the Public Wants? Several
academic studies show that, consistent with
public perceptions, the correspondence
between government decisions and public
opinion as expressed in national polls has
diminished over the last decades and now
stands at slightly more than chance. A study
by Benjamin Page and Robert Shapiro for the
years 1935-79 found a correspondence of 66%.
Analyzing just the years 1960-1979, Alan
Monroe found a 63% correspondence. Finally,
for the most recent period--1980-1993--Monroe
found only 55% correspondence. Since these
were binary choices--either for or against a
government decision--55% is only slightly
above chance. Thus public attitudes appear to
have very little influence.
Do
Government Officials Understand and Respect
the Public?
Several recent
studies that included interviews with
policymakers found substantial misperceptions
of the public, and also a low level of
confidence in the public's competence on
public policy issues.
In a new book, Misreading
the Public: The Myth of a New Isolationism (Brookings,
1999) Steven Kull and I.M. Destler report on
an extensive study conducted jointly by COPA
and the Center for International and Security
Studies at the University of Maryland
(CISSM). Interviews with members of Congress,
their staffers, and executive branch
officials revealed a widespread view that the
public was going through a new phase of
isolationism that included disliking the
United Nations and intrinsically opposing
foreign aid. A comprehensive review of
existing polls, as well as new polls,
strongly contradicted this perception.
Government officials who had such beliefs
were also given the opportunity to propose
new poll questions to elicit the assumed
isolationist attitudes: even then the
subsequent poll results were contrary to
their assumptions.
In a study released
in April 1998, Pew Research Center conducted
interviews with members of Congress,
presidential appointees, and senior civil
servants. Using parallel questions in the
elite interviews and in public polls, the
study found that government officials assumed
the majority was opposed to an activist
government, while the poll results were to
the contrary.
A low level of
confidence in the public has also been found
among policymakers. In the above-mentioned
Pew study, when asked "Do you think the
American public knows enough about the issues
you face to form wise opinions about what
should be done about these issues, or
not?", only 31% of the members of
Congress, 13% of the Presidential appointees
and 14% of the senior civil servants endorsed
the public's ability. In a 1996 survey of
2,141 American opinion leaders sponsored by
Duke and George Washington Universities, 71%
agreed that "Public opinion is too
short-sighted and emotional to provide sound
guidance on foreign policy." And in the
above-mentioned study by COPA and CISSM,
numerous interviewees made comments such as
the following by a member of Congress:
Interviewer: Do
you [think]...that the actions that
Congress takes are pretty much in line
with where the public is...?
Member:... No,
they probably are not, I'm not sure they
should be in line. I mean, I think,
hopefully we have more information, and
we move with a little less emotion.
|
Consistent with their feeling
that policymakers do not make the decisions they
would make, a strong majority feels that policymakers
do not understand or pay attention to the public. In
the current poll, 63% said they felt that
"people in government understand what most
Americans think" either "not that
well" or "not well at all," while just
35% said "somewhat well" or "very
well." In another sample, 67% answered that
people in government understand "what people
like you think" either "not that well"
or "not well at all." Similarly, the Pew
Research Center found in November 1997 that 76%
agreed with the statement, "Generally speaking,
elected officials in Washington lose touch with the
people pretty quickly." An October 1994 Gallup
poll found 75% saying Congress is "generally out
of touch with average Americans.
Serving
the Public As a Whole
Perhaps
most important, most Americans do not seem to feel
that the decisions made in Washington serve the
interests of the public as a whole.
Similarly, Americans show
little trust that Washington will do what is
"right"--presumably a measure of how well
it is fulfilling its mandate in a democratic system.
Asked "How much do you think you can trust the
government in Washington to do what is right?",
only 19% answered "just about always"(2%)
or "most of the time"(17%), while an
overwhelming 80% said "only some of the
time"(73%) or volunteered "none of the
time" (7%).
In a
1992 University of Nebraska study, 86% agreed that
"Congress is too heavily influenced by special
interest groups when making decisions." Only 30%
agreed that "Congress does a good job
representing the diverse interests of Americans,
whether black or white, rich or poor," while 57%
disagreed.
Finally,
an overwhelming majority said that if the public had
more influence, the policy outcomes would better
serve the interests of the public as a whole. (See
box below.)
Here again, this view is not
simply due to public disgruntlement about the
impeachment process. When Gallup asked the question
in April 1996, 80% said that following the public
would be better.
3. The public's feeling
of being marginalized from government decisionmaking
has risen dramatically over the last few decades, and
on several measures is now at an all-time high.
Conversely, confidence that the government serves the
interests of the public has eroded dramatically.
The
public's dissatisfaction with its level of influence
over government decisionmaking is not a chronic
condition rooted in human nature. On virtually all
measures, the public felt far less marginalized in
the early to mid-1960s. In the late 1960s
dissatisfaction began a sharp upward movement until
the mid- to late 1970s. Thereafter its movement
upward was more erratic but reached new heights in
the 1990s. The current poll, taken in the midst of
the impeachment trial, shows that on some measures
the sense of marginalization has reached an all-time
high (see also the section Public Influence and the
Impeachment Process below).
In
1964 only 29% said that "the government is
pretty much run by a few big interests looking out
for themselves," while a strong 64% majority
said that the government "is run for the benefit
of all the people." In 1972 a majority (53%)
said for the first time that "the government is
pretty much run by a few big interests." From
October 1990 through 1997, those saying "the
government is pretty much run by a few big
interests" were always 70% or more.
In
response to the statement "Public officials
don't care much what people like me think," in
1960 only 25% agreed. Agreement then started an
upward movement, reaching a majority for the first
time in 1976 and 60% in 1990 (58% in the current
poll).
In
response to the highly unequivocal question,
"People like me don't have any say
about what the government does"(emphasis added),
only 27% agreed in 1960. The numbers rose thereafter
but it was not until 1990 that the number agreeing
surpassed the number disagreeing. The number agreeing
in the current poll (56%) matches the previous high
of 1994.
4. Though most
Americans are quite uncertain about the effectiveness
of sampling, a strong majority feels that
policymakers should pay close attention to polls when
making public policy.
Most
Americans have a low level of confidence that the
samples used in polls are effectively representative.
Asked to estimate how often a poll of 1,000
scientifically selected Americans correctly reflects
the attitudes of the general population, the median
estimate was just 50% of the time. Other polls have
also found majorities saying that such a sample is
simply not representative.
Despite
these low estimates of the validity of polling
methodology, a strong majority feels policymakers
should nonetheless pay attention to polls when making
policy decisions. When given arguments for and
against the idea that policymakers should pay
attention to polls on policy issues, a strong
majority preferred the argument saying that
policymakers should pay attention to them (see box
below).
Even when presented two
competing arguments about whether policymakers should
pay attention to their approval ratings, 61%
preferred the argument that they should.
Other
organizations have also found a positive attitude
toward polls. An April 1996 Gallup poll asked whether
"polls of the opinion of the public are a good
thing or a bad thing in our country"; 87% said
they were 'good.' In a March 1998 CBS News poll, 68%
said they thought that "polls of public opinion
on issues of the day have value to the people."
ABC News also found that 87% thought polls are a good
(65%) or very good (22%) way "of finding out
what the average American is thinking." A
September 1994 Time/CNN poll even found that 58%
thought pollsters have too little influence in
government, while 30% said they have too much.
Most
significantly, it appears that a strong majority
believes that polls ultimately serve the interests of
the public as a whole. A June 1997 Pew Center poll
found that 68% believe that "most opinion polls
work for... the best interests of the general
public," while 19% said they worked against it.
When Gallup asked in April 1996, "If the leaders
of our nation followed the views of public opinion
polls more closely, do you think the nation would be
better off, or worse off than it is today?" 74%
said "better off," while 14% said
"worse off."
5. Majority support for
increasing the influence of the public exists even
though the public as a whole underestimates the
competence of the public to make judgments on public
policy.
Majority
support for increasing the influence of the public is
not derived from idealized estimations of its
competence to make judgments. In fact, the public as
a whole underestimates the competence of the public.
To
explore the public's appraisal of the public, poll
questions were designed that used the respondents'
assessment of their own competence as a reference
point. Respondents were asked, "Compared to the
average American, would you say you are more or less
able to make reasonable judgments about national
issues?" Given that this was a representative
sample, if the public was perceiving itself
correctly, the percentage of respondents saying that
they were more competent and the number saying they
were less competent than average would be equal. In
fact, by a nearly three-to-one ratio, more
respondents said they were more competent than
average. This suggests that the public as a whole
underestimates its competence. (See box below.)
The same dynamic occurs on the
related question of how closely Americans follow
current national affairs. Asked, "Would you say
you follow what's going on in government and public
affairs more closely or less closely than the average
American?" 57% said more and 25% said less.
This
dynamic has been explored in various studies which
have found, for example, that the public tends to
underestimate how free the public is from racism and
sexism. Earlier COPA studies have revealed that the
public tends to underestimate how willing the average
American is to contribute to UN peacekeeping and to
take steps to ameliorate global warming.
6. An overwhelming
majority believes that if the public gained more
influence, this would counteract a perceived trend
toward wealth concentrating in fewer hands,
concurrent with the perceived increase in the
influence of the wealthy.
In the
focus groups, the dominant explanation for why the
public is being marginalized from government
decisionmaking was that "money" is gaining
an increasingly disproportionate influence.
In the
poll, a very strong majority expressed the view that
the wealthy and corporations are gaining increasing
influence. Asked "Over the last ten years, would
you say that, overall, the wealthy have gained
influence or lost influence on the US
government?", 69% said that the wealthy have
gained influence. Similarly, in a different
half-sample, 67% felt that that corporations had
gained influence.
An
even stronger majority perceived that wealth is
concentrating in fewer hands-- presumably due at
least in part to the wealthy's increasing influence.
(See box below.)
An even stronger majority
expressed the belief that if the American public had
more influence, this would have a positive effect on
their economic position--presumably countering the
influence of the wealthy.
7. To
serve the interests of the public as a whole, the
majority believes that members of Congress need to
make a conscious effort to do so, rather than simply
focusing on the interests of their district. Most
Americans reject the idea that a competitive
political process, in which each member of Congress
simply represents the interests of its district, will
be self-correcting and ultimately serve the best
interest of all.
When
presented two arguments, a strong majority rejects
the "invisible hand" idea that if each
member of Congress seeks to serve the interests of
its district this will produce an optimal outcome,
and favors the idea that members need to make a
conscious effort to serve the interests of the whole
country and to build consensus. (See box below.)
When asked directly, a majority
also endorses the principle that members of Congress
should think in terms of the country as a whole. In
the current poll, COPA repeated a question from a
September 1994 ABC News poll: "Do you think your
own representative in Congress should be more
interested in doing what's best for the country, or
what's best for your own congressional district where
you live?" Just 38% said that representatives
should do what's best for the district (33% in 1994),
while 52% said what's best for the country (63% in
1994).
Similarly,
in a 1992 University of Nebraska study 85% agreed
that "Members of Congress should do what is best
for the entire country, not just their
district." To make the question a bit more
challenging, the study also asked: "To help
balance the budget, would you encourage your
representative to quit trying to bring federal
projects back to your district even if other
representatives around the country did not
quit?" Fifty-five percent said yes. Asked to
rank functions of members of Congress by their
importance, bringing money or projects back to the
district was ranked lowest.
Most
respondents in the current poll also claimed that
they think more in terms of the country as a whole in
making their own electoral decisions. Repeating a
question from an October 1994 CBS News poll, COPA
asked, "What is more important when you vote for
Congress--how things are going in the country
overall, or how things are going in your own
district?" Just 37% said the district (26% in
1994), while 59% said the country as a whole (66% in
1994).
Public Influence and
the Impeachment Process
1.
A strong majority believes that the investigation of,
and the decision to impeach, President Clinton were
not supported by the majority of Americans and were
not motivated by concerns for what is best for the
country. The majority felt that members of Congress
should have voted on impeachment consistent with the
views of their constituents.
It
appears that many Americans are aware of polls
showing majority opposition to the conduct of the
investigation of President Clinton and the decision
to impeach. Asked about their perception of the
public's attitudes, a strong majority expressed the
view that the investigation and impeachment were
carried out in opposition to the wishes of the
majority (See box below.)
Public's View
of Majority on Impeachment
| Throughout the
Starr investigation and the process
leading up to impeachment, do you
feel that the government has behaved
in a way that is consistent or not
consistent with the wishes of the
majority of the American public? |
Not Consistent 69%
|
| Do you think
that the majority of Americans
approved or disapproved of the House
of Representatives impeaching
President Clinton? |
Disapproved 67%
|
| Do you think
the majority of Americans favors or
opposes removing President Clinton
from office? |
Think it
opposes 68%
|
|
Also, when respondents in the
current poll were asked how a sample of 500 Americans
who were informed about all sides of the issue would
respond, 60% said they thought the majority of this
group would oppose "impeaching the President and
removing him from office."
A
strong majority also believes that those who voted in
favor of impeachment were not motivated by what is
best for the country. (See box below.)
Numerous other polls also
found that the majority believes the investigation of
and the decision to impeach the President were
primarily motivated by partisan political interests.
In an August 1998 Los Angeles Times poll, 59% said
"the investigation against Bill Clinton has more
to do with partisan politics," while just 30%
said it has more to do "with getting to the
truth." In a September 1998 CBS News poll, just
26% said "Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr is
mostly conducting an impartial investigation to find
out if anything illegal occurred," while 63%
said he "is mostly conducting a partisan
investigation to damage Bill Clinton." In
October 1998 Washington Post polls, 71% of
respondents said that they thought that "the
Republicans in Congress... are mainly interested in
hurting Clinton politically," while just 23%
thought they were mainly interested in "in
finding out the truth." Similarly, 63% said they
thought the Democrats are "mainly interested in
protecting Clinton politically," while 26%
thought they were most interested in finding out the
truth.
Following
the Public
During
the run-up to the impeachment decision, a fairly
strong majority of Americans felt members of Congress
should act on impeachment according to the public's
views, rather than their own judgment. (See box
below.)
Significantly, this attitude is
not simply a function of how people feel about
impeachment. Majorities favored sticking closely to
public opinion both among those who favored
impeachment and among those who opposed it.
2. The impeachment
process appears to have sharply worsened the already
low perception of government responsiveness to the
public and confidence that the government does what
is right -which on some measures have reached an
all-time low.
According
to poll questions that have been asked regularly over
the last few decades by the National Election
Studies, the impeachment process has been accompanied
by a sharp increase in the public's feeling of being
marginalized from government decisions. In response
to COPA asking the NES question, "How much
attention do you feel the government pays to what the
people think when it decides what to do?", the
percentage answering "not much" has risen
to an all-time high of 54%. This is 32% higher than
the last time the question was asked in 1996, and 13%
higher than its previous all time high in 1982. (NES
data for 1998 was not yet released at the time of
writing.)
In
response to the question, "How much do you feel
that having elections makes the government pay
attention to what the people think?", the
percentage saying "a good deal" is at an
all-time low of 30%. This is 12% lower than in 1996,
and 7% lower than its previous all-time low in 1988.
Presumably the public took note of the fact that the
House Republicans did not change their strategy on
impeachment in the wake of Democratic gains in the
1998 elections.
In
response to the question, "How much do you trust
the government in Washington to do what is
right?", the percentage saying "just about
always" or "most of the time" is down
to 19%. This is lower than the NES has ever recorded,
though other polling organizations have reported
numbers in this range or lower--most recently around
the time of the 1994 elections.
In
response to COPA asking the NES question, "How
much attention do you feel the government pays to
what the people think when it decides what to
do?", the percentage answering "not
much" has risen to an all-time high of 54%. This
is 32% higher than the last time the question was
asked in 1996, and 13% higher than its previous all
time high in 1982. (NES data for 1998 was not yet
released at the time of writing.)
In
response to the question, "How much do you feel
that having elections makes the government pay
attention to what the people think?" the
percentage saying "a good deal" is at an
all-time low of 30%. This is 12% lower than in 1996,
and 7% lower than its previous all-time low in 1988.
Presumably the public took note of the fact that the
House Republicans did not change their strategy on
impeachment in the wake of Democratic gains in the
1998 elections.
In
response to the question, "How much do you trust
the government in Washington to do what is
right?" the percentage saying "just about
always" or "most of the time" is down
to 19%. This is lower than the NES has ever recorded,
though other polling organizations have reported
numbers in this range or lower--most recently around
the time of the 1994 elections.
Other
poll questions that have been demonstrated to
correlate with voting behavior, while they have been
historically low do not, however, show a significant
change. Thus it appears that this dissatisfaction
with government responsiveness and diminished
confidence in government is not likely to be
expressed as a greater reluctance to vote.
Acknowledgements
Steven
Kull, Clay Ramsay and Monica Wolford designed the
questionnaire, analyzed the data, and wrote the
report with the research assistance of Elizabeth
Detter and Timothy McDonald.
I.M.
Destler, Frederick Steeper, Richard Sobel, Eric
Shiraev, Ashley Grosse and Fran Burwell contributed
to the questionnaire.
Karin
Johnston managed the production of the report with
the assitance of Elizabeth Detter, Timothy McDonald,
Laura Cochrane and Adam Gagne.
CCI
Communication Inc. carried out the telephone
interviewing. Scientific Samples supplied the
random-digit sample.
The
search of existing poll data was done with the aid of
the Roper POLL database.
The
study itself was made possible by a generous grant
from the Circle Foundation.
Back
