The United States of America is not a republic; it is a democracy. Americans do not make the same assumption that Plato made in his famous political text. Americans believe in the ability of common men and women to inform themselves about critical issues and make rational decisions based on their preferences. The founding fathers believed the value of the country was in the people, and that it is the people's right to decide what laws rule a country. But national or even state-wide voting can not be done for every issue facing a country or state. Americans elect public officials who they trust will consider public opinion on the issue and make an informed choice. In the absence of voting, polling is the best option for gathering public opinion. But many questions arise when considering the ability of public opinion polls to effect or influence policy development and approval. Are legislators actually affected by public opinion polls? Should legislators be influenced by polls, when the accuracy is in question and pollster bias is an issue? Polls seem to be the best way to gather public opinion on crucial issues, but are they functioning properly?
Technology has allowed polling greater claims to accuracy, and definite improvements in response time, but it has also allowed polling to be thrust to the center of the voting process through the use of media. This increased presence has influenced the outcome of the voting process. Following the 9/11 attacks on New York City and Washington D.C., favorable public opinion for invasion of Iraq increased from 52% in February of 2001 to 58% in September of 2002, to 64% in March of 2003, just before the U.S. invaded Iraq. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/1633/Iraq.aspx#4) The "bandwagon effect" was experienced not only by the American public, but by the U.S. Congress, as the United States voted to declare war. Some evidence suggests the bandwagon effect was magnified by media-biased polls and coverage of the issues. In this article, I propose that despite the inherent problems of inaccuracy, bias, and voter influence, polling performs a necessary function to support democracy. Polls, when done properly, have the ability to show the media and politicians the "will of the people." It is an additional piece of information legislators muss assess to make an informed decision for their constituents.
Polling is subject to important inaccuracies because it is a social science. Polls attempt to explain public opinion with statistics that represent answers to questions, but much like psychological and sociological studies, researchers must consider their own influence on the subject. Since the time of George Gallup (1930's), the questions pollsters asked and the manner in which the questions are asked has been a source of polling error. "Throughout his career, Gallup paid lip service to the problems of question-wording by occasionally conceding that 'question-wording' posed 'difficult' and 'important' problems for polling." "Not only does the error result from the wording of individual questions, but also from the order in which the questions are asked, and other factors that influence the context within which the respondents interpret particular questions." Even a detail as small as aligning a partucular option with yes or no affects the response; an effect known as "response acquiescence" influences respondents to prefer answering questions positively as opposed to negatively (Hogan 168-9). In The Opinion Makers: An Insider Exposes the Truth behind the Polls, David Moore shares some of his trouble as senior editor at Gallup Organization with the results of the polls. In a February 2003 poll Moore directed pollsters to ask about American support for invasion of Iraq, and then followed it by asking how they would feel if the government did the opposite of the way they felt. The results showed that Americans were less certain of the proper action and more willing to accept the opposite decision from the one they would make. (Moore 8) Americans were more ambivalent to invasion than the numbers that were reported by the media revealed.
In the lead-up to the Iraq invasion, the public opinion polls did not show consistent support for invasion. Polls were taken regularly, and showed great variance. Although the March 2003 Gallup poll showed 64% support for invasion (http://www.gallup.com/poll/1633/Iraq.aspx#4), "three CNN/USA Today/Gallup polls conducted in the months leading up to the war and immediately after the war began showed that a majority of Americans were not calling for war." (Moore 5) The inconsistency of the results requires researchers to question whether pollsters were priming the respondents to answer affirmatively because they wanted the better story for their network. Additionally, many researchers point to the trend as evidence of the bandwagon effect, when undecided or uninformed voters choose the most popular choice to join the winning side. When the bandwagon effect is strong, those with the minority opinion often keep quiet. Finally, Moore asserts because "this divided state of public opinion was not measured by the other media polls and neither CNN, USA Today, nor Gallup emphasized the public's ambivalence about the war," it "reveals much about the way that media polls manufacture public opinion for their own purposes." (Moore 5) To support Moore's claim of bias, The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html), along with other newspapers (Moore 3-4), published an apology for its inconsistent objectivity in covering the lead-up to the war with Iraq. Polling was used to support media coverage that was very profitable and entertaining. But it did not properly reflect public opinion, and may have convinced legislators to make a decision they felt the public supported overwhelmingly.
Although polling may lead to distorted ideas of public opinion and influence policies with grave consequences, it still remains an integral support mechanism for democracy. The decision to invade Iraq supports the importance of polling not because it was successful in helping to make the proper decision in an important international security issue. This example supports polling because even in its supreme failure, it provides a service to American voters, legislators, and academics. Even with major errors in interpretation, polling allows the people's voice to be heard. The public that was polled in early 2003, as those who will be polled in the future, need to make sure they are heard properly. Those respondents and joined the bandwagon need to reflect on herd mentality and its consequences. Communication is the responsibility of both transmitter and receiver. New ways of polling will be developed that incorporate informed, deliberating respondents, and new polling agencies will rise up that recognize more fully the role of these informed respondents in American politics. (Fishkin 2)
The American public is not always as easy to influence as they were leading up to the Iraq War, but war has a special power over public opinion. In "What do the Polls Show" (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1379/polling-history-influence-policymaking-politics), Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, describes multiple instances in which the public views played a central role in the course of significant national events. During Ronald Reagan's presidency, public opinion restrained the President's from invading Nicauragua. With Vietnam still fresh for many Americans, they protested strongly against an invasion of Nicauragua in 1980. They reinforced these protestation with strong poll numbers against invasion, and Reagan deferred. President H.W. Bush had to be very conscious of similar public opinion against war when he campaigned for invading Iraq in 1990. The public supported protecting oil reserves in Saudi Arabia, but was opposed to invading Iraq. The president used this sentiment to shape his policy initiatives. He acquired the sanctions of the U.N. and Congress to invade Iraq only to protect oil reserves in Kuwait. Finally, despite an incredible amount of negative media attention surrounding President Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky, the public opinion of President Clinton actually improved. His approval rating increased from the mid 60's to 71% at the time of his impeachment and through the end of his term. The public is not a slave to the media or political pressure, though it might be affected.
For a properly functioning democracy, for a country of the people, ruled by the people, the public must be heard. Polls make errors in calculating and communicating public opinion, but this is mediated by our legislative system. We vote for representatives who will contemplate the validity of polls and find ways to make assessments of true public opinion. And the public needs to make its voice heard when policy disagrees with them. Additionally, it legislator's responsibility to make the right decision for the country, despite public opinion. The voters opinion must be heard, but everyone is not an expert. Expert, informed opinions are also a part of the decision-making process. It is important to learn from the failures of polling. Just as the industry itself was born by the failure of the Literary Digest to predict Harry Truman in 1936 and the subsequent improvements made in polling "science". Daniel Yankelovich, the founding father of public opinion research, says that "Americans want a voice, that — increasingly, I think one of the great changes of the past 20 years is this insistence, it's not only a desire, it's an insistence that the public has in having a voice in the decisions that affect their lives." (Moyers) Polls can improve, and voters can improve; the voice of the voter can be heard. We just need to convince voters their freedom depends on being informed.
Works Cited
Fishkin, James. "The Nation in a Room: Turning Public opinion into Policy." Boston Review, March/April, 2006. (http://www.bostonreview.net/BR31.2/fishkin.php)
Kohut, Andrew. "What do the Polls Show." Pew Research Center Publications. 14 October, 2009. (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1379/polling-history-influence-policymaking-politics)
Moore, David. The Opinion Makers: An Insider Exposes the Truth behind the Polls. Beacon Press, 2009.
Moyers, Bill. "Margins of Error: Poll Reading Tips." PBS Radio, January 11, 2008. (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/archives/yankelovichnow_ts.html)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
your last statement could not have been better put. often in class i am advocating that being well informed is the best way to influence our society. i feel that most of our class agrees with you on this subject. educating ourselves makes us more responsible citizens. like you i believe that polls can cloud up the issue. polls can never be as accurate as they are portrayed. and often these polls are not available to every American.perhaps what got me the most is when you said that our leaders need to make decisions based on what they think is right and not based off public opinion. on serious matters i would agree with you such as war or abortion or health care. however the polls can come in handy in the more minor issues. they may not be that accurate but they give the representative a good idea on what their communities want them to vote for. it can also serve as a warning system if your approval rating in the polls drops too low you know that you are not doing what the American people want you to do. it does become shaky but in less serious issues the polls can be helpful. i feel that the polls only represent a small community within our cultural and that is those who have the time and the passion to go to the polls or respond to them. many people do not know where to access the polls to place their opinion. when you spoke about the war i agree that the polls there can be of some use. they can reflect the sentiments of the people and give our government a basic idea on what the public thinks about us being either in the Vietnam war or the Iraq war. however the presidents did not listen at those times to the polls. they went on and did what they thought was right. so really on a strong man or woman the polls are a tiny bit of what they pay attention to in order to stay in office. often they really can not know how well or bad they are doing if we as citizens do not call them up ourselves and tell them what we think. trust me it has a much more powerful effect.
ReplyDelete