These questions are difficult to
answer. Prevailing research can only tell us how well legislation
corresponds to public opinion, and whose opinions it matches. In
other words, we can look at the correlations between the attitudes of
the population—or population subgroups—and political decisions.
But if a positive correlation is found, that doesn't necessarily mean
that the people are influencing their legislators' votes. The
politicians could have persuaded the public to accept their policies.
Or both the public and their legislators could be reponding to a
variety of third variables, such as their shared background, real
world events, or media coverage of political issues. Therefore,
instead of talking about the public's “influence” on politicians,
I will refer to the “consistency” between their opinions.
Early studies of consistency used the
box-score method, comparing the majority preference on a particular
issue, as indicated by public opinon polls, to subsequent legislative
decisions. Chance alone would ensure that legislators would agree
with the majority half the time even if they completely disregarded
public opinion. Political scientist Alan Monroe found that in over 500 Congressional decisions between 1980 and 1993, the outcomes
corresponded with public opinion 55% of the time. This was better
than chance agreement (50%), but not much better. If our legislators
follow the wishes of the majority 55% of the time, does this mean
that we have a responsive government? Monroe reports that between
1960 and 1979, agreement was 63%, so whatever it means, it's going
down.
Larry Bartels studied differences in the consistency of U. S. Senators' votes with the attitudes of their
constituents of different social classes. He measured the
relationship between participants' self-ratings on a 7-point
liberalism-conservatism scale and all the decisions made by their
Senators between 1988 and 1992. The respondents were divided into
approximately equal thirds by income. (For convenience, I'll call
them the “rich,” the “middle class” and the “poor.”)
Through a complex (but not controversial) mathematical procedure,
Bartels estimated the “weight” that should be given to upper,
middle and lower class opinion in order to produce the best match
with the Senators' decisions.
The opinions of both the middle class
and the rich corresponded with the choices of their Senators, but the
weight associated with the opinions of the rich was about 50% greater
than the weight of the middle class. The opinions of the poor,
however, were given no weight at all. (Their opinions were actually
slightly negatively related to their Senators' votes.) These class
differences were not as great on social issues, such as abortion, as
on economic issues, but in all categories, rich people's views were
most consistent with the outcome, and the views of the poor were
unrelated to the outcome. Of the specific bills Bartels studied, the
greatest inequality occurred on a proposal to increase the minimum
wage. Here, neither the wishes of the poor nor the middle class had
any weight at all, and the decision corresponded exclusively to the
opinions of the rich. (I don't need to tell you what the Senators
decided.)
Bartels divided the Senators by party
affiliation. He found that the Elephants' votes were about twice as
consistent with the views of the rich as the Jackasses' votes. Both
parties were equally responsive to middle class opinion and equally
unresponsive to the poor.
Martin Gilens compared the results of surveys (conducted between 1981 and 2002) asking people whether they favored
1781 proposed policy changes to subsequent votes on those policies. This
allowed him to locate the best-fitting curve relating public opinion
to Congressional decisions. He found a strong status quo bias. That
is, as the percentage of people favoring a policy change increased, its
probability of being enacted also went up, but even when a policy had
90% support, its probability of passing was only 46%.
He then divided the country into ten
deciles according to income, and compared the opinions of people who
were richer than 90% of Americans to the opinions of eight other
groups, all the way down to the 10th percentile of the
income distribution. He found that the votes were consistent with the
preferences of all ten economic subgroups, but as wealth increased,
the correpondence between their preference and the decision
increased. However, this analysis may have overestimated the consistency
of the attitudes of the poor with politicians' votes, since in most
cases they agreed with the rich. Gilens then did an analysis of the 887
cases in which there was significant diagreement on the policy among
people at different income levels. Here are two charts showing these
results.
The top chart compares the consistency
of legislators' votes with people at the 90th and 10th
percentiles of the income distribution. The positive slope of the
90th percentile line indicates that as more rich people
favor the policy, its probability of passage goes up. On the other
hand, the 10th percentile line is flat, indicating that
the opinions of the poor are unrelated to the outcome. The bottom
chart compares the rich with the middle class (the 50th
percentile). Unlike the poor, the middle class appear to have some
influence, but of course not as much as the rich.
Why do the views of the rich carry more
weight? Maybe they're more likely to vote, more likely to contact
their Senators, or more knowledgable about current events. The
surveys Bartels used asked participants to state whether they had
voted or contacted their Senators. It also included a measure of
political knowledge. Since all three of these measures were
positively related to income, they were all associated with greater
consistency between the respondent's views and those of the Senators.
However, statistically controlling for turnout, contact and
political knowledge reduced the difference between the apparent
influence of the rich and poor by only 24%.
Unfortunately, the survey did not ask
participants whether they had made political contributions. Looking
at other data on campaign contributions by income level collected at
that time, Bartels estimated that if the Senators had based their
decision only on contributions, they would have given six times
(600%) more weight to the views of the rich than the middle class and
almost no weight to the poor. The actual disparity in weight between
the rich and the middle class (50%) was not as great as the
differences in contributions would have predicted.
I'm bothered by the fact that in these
studies the "rich" are defined as either the top third of the income
distribution (Bartels) or the 90th percentile (Gilens). These subgroups include some people who might be considered upper middle class. It would be interesting to know how consistent the opinions of the
top 1% are with those of the politicians. Gilens data seem to imply
that as wealth increases, agreement also increases. Is there any upper limit to this effect?
Of course, these data are mostly from
the 1980s and 1990s. Over time, both the absolute amounts and
percentages of campaign contributions coming from the rich have
increased. This is probably especially true since the 2010 Citizens United decision, which allows
unlimited contributions by corporations and the rich. But since the
decision also allows these contributions to be anonymous, their
impact will be difficult to measure.
Those who believe the U. S. political system is a plutocracy rather than a democracy will find these data
to be at least consistent with their theories, particularly on
economic issues, although the middle class's opinions are given
almost as much weight as those of the rich when the issue is of
little economic importance. The poor, however, have been effectively
disenfranchised when their opinions differ from those of the rich.
Given the secrecy with which political decisions are made, it will be difficult to find conclusive proof of quid pro quo corruption.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are always welcome.