- Same sex couples should be allowed to marry.
- Implement a universal healthcare program to guarantee coverage to all Americans, regardless of income.
- Abolish all federal welfare programs.
They were also
asked their own opinions on the first two issues. A new technique
called multilevel regression and poststratification (MRP) was
used to estimate the attitudes of the citizens in each legislative
district. It would obviously be very costly to survey the entire
voting population each of the country's 6500 state legislative
districts. MRP uses national survey data to determine level of
agreement with the three statements based on education, race, gender,
social class, religiosity and having voted for Obama. The percentage
of people in each of these demographic subgroups in each legislative
district is determined from the 2010 census. This generates an
accurate estimate of the opinions of the people in each district.
Although indirect, this method has been validated against real survey
data.
There were positive correlations (rs
= .43 to .51) across districts between the candidates' estimates and
actual opinions, but they are not very impressive, accounting for
only about 20% of the variance. The interesting thing about the data
is that the candidates' perceived their constituents to be about 10%
more conservative on these issues than they actually were, a
difference roughly equal to the average difference between voters in
California and Alabama. Stated differently, 60% of citizens would
have to favor a liberal policy in order for their legislators to
perceive them as a majority.
The responses were
analyzed separately for liberal and conservative candidates based on
their own answers to political questions. These data are shown in the table above. The horizontal axis represents the actual opinions
in each district, and the vertical axis is the politicians'
estimates. The black line is perfect accuracy. Anthing below it
means the politicians are overestimating their constituents'
conservatism. The blue line is the estimates of the liberal
politicians, and the red line, the estimates of the conservatives.
Although both groups believed their constituents were more
conservative than they actually were, the conservatives seemed to be
living in another world. They were off by over 20%. Nearly half the
conservative candidates believed their district was more conservative
than the actual opinions of the most conservative district in the
entire country.
These findings may
help us understand differences in the personal style of politicians.
The well-known tendency of liberal politicians not to stand up for their
beliefs contrasts sharply with the overconfidence of conservatives. Both may be explained by their fundamental
misperceptions of public opinion.
Candidates were surveyed again after the election, but there was no evidence that
they had learned anything. They were no more accurate than before,
and their accuracy was unrelated to any of the activities they
reported during the campaign, i.e., time spent talking with
voters.
The first question
about these data is their generalizability. The study should be
replicated using federal and local as well as state candidates, and
with a wider variety of issues. However, the differences are quite large, so I assume these findings
are robust. How can they be explained? Broockman and Skovron do not
speculate other than to suggest that political elites are not
motivated to learn the attitudes of the people they represent.
Before giving them
a political spin, we must be sure these errors are unique to
politicians. It's possible that a random sample of the population might make
errors of a similar magnitude and direction. If so, the data
represent cultural influences to which we are all exposed. For
example, the corporate media present an almost unrelentingly
conservative view of the American public opinion, insisting that this
is a “center-right” nation and referring to right-wing
politicians as “moderates.” These data may reflect back what the
media inaccurately tell us. The liberal-conservative difference may
mean that the media outlets preferred by conservatives are even less
accurate than those preferred by liberals.
Suppose the general
public does not make errors that are comparable to these
candidates—that is, these biases are unique to politicians. If
these politicians are themselves more conservative than the general
public, there might be a false consensus effect. False
consensus refers to the tendency to assume that other people's
opinions are more similar to our own than they actually are, to
project our own beliefs onto others. There is reason to believe that
political candidates are more conservative than the people they seek
to represent, since so much money is required to run for
office—either their own money or funds obtained from wealthy
donors.
This shades into a
second possibility, which we might call the “loudest voices”
hypothesis. When considering this hypothesis, remember that money
talks too. In fact, the Supremes have ruled that money is
speech.
Suppose there are
two types of political issues, economic and social. Economic
issues are those issues that have major economic consequences,
even they are sometimes debated using non-economic arguments.
Therefore, they include not just taxation and public spending, but
issues like climate change, health care, and foreign policy,
including debates over war and peace. In the present study,
health care and welfare are economic issues.
When the issue is
economic, the loudest voices politicians are exposed to are those of
campaign donors, whose views are well to the right of the general
public. In fact, politicians may spend much of their time inside a
bubble filled with rich contributors and corporate lobbyists. If you
spend most of your time talking to these people, you are not likely
to arrive at an accurate perception of what the general public thinks.
Social issues
are those that have only minor economic consequences, such as
abortion, gay rights and gun control. Although they are sometimes called “sideshow issues,” they are as important to some
people as economic issues. For example, if you are pregnant, whether
you have access to a safe, legal abortion is a matter of life and
death. Social issues are represented in this study by gay marriage.
When the issue is
social, political pressure comes primarily from grassroots
organizations. Sadly, the loudest voices the politicians hear almost
invariably come from the right. Conservatives are better organized,
perhaps because they hold their attitudes with greater strength. Of
course, what we call “grassroots” is sometimes actually
astroturf. These groups receive financial and logistical help from
the wealthy, since rich people know that they benefit when
conservative candidates are elected.
Therefore, the
loudest voices hypothesis suggests that, regardless of whether the
issue is economic or social, the candidates hear mainly conservative voices. This is especially true of candidates who are themselves to the right of center. You can get a pretty distorted
view of public opinion that way. Ask Mitt Romney.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are always welcome.