Expecting More Say
A Study of American Public Attitudes
on the Role of the Public In Government Decisions

Overview

An abundance of polling data shows the majority of Americans is quite dissatisfied with the American government. While this dissatisfaction has moderated a bit of late, it is still historically very high. Given that the US economy is sustaining an unprecedented boom, that the US prevailed in the Cold War and that there are no longer any serious threats to American security, one might expect Americans to show higher levels of satisfaction. Nonetheless, as has been widely noted, less than one-third of Americans say they "trust the government in Washington to do what is right" most of the time -- as compared to the 1960s, when three-quarters felt this way. This disenchantment with government has contributed to declining voter turnout.

This dynamic raises fundamental questions. Why are Americans so dissatisfied with the government? Do they perceive the government as not doing what is best for the interests of the public? Do they think the government is not doing what the public wants? If so, what do they perceive as driving government decisions? What do they see as the antidote to the present situation? 

Another recent issue that highlighted public dissatisfaction with the government was the impeachment of the President. With the exception of the final Senate vote against impeachment, virtually every step taken by Congress was opposed by a strong majority of Americans, and this provoked widespread annoyance. 

This disconnect brought to the surface fundamental questions about how the government should make decisions. Throughout the impeachment process, numerous members of Congress asserted that their constituents wanted their representative to vote according to his or her sense of what is right, not to follow the polls. But is this true? How much attention do Americans think elected officials should pay to majority opinion? What do they think about polls? Do Americans believe there is some wisdom in public opinion, or do they perceive it as being too emotional, volatile and uninformed to offer a basis for decisionmaking? 

Americans complain about how politicians are partisan and parochial. But do Americans really want elected officials to set aside their party agenda in favor of majority opinion? Do they really want elected officials to set aside the interests of their district in favor of the national interest? 

To find out how Americans feel about all of these issues, the Center on Policy Attitudes conducted an in-depth study including: 

• a review of existing polling data going back several decades;
• focus groups in Nashville, Tennessee; 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).

The study also included an analysis of public attitudes on the specific case of the impeachment process, which is presented in Appendix A. A demographic analysis can be found in Appendix B, and the complete questionnaire and results of the COPA poll are in Appendix C. Appendix D provides an explanation of how the poll was conducted. 
 

Findings

1 The public’s dissatisfaction with the US government is largely due to the perception that elected officials, acting in their self-interest, give priority to special interests and partisan agendas over the interests of the public as a whole. Most Americans feel that they are marginalized from the decisionmaking process, that elected officials neither pay attention to nor understand the public, and that most of the decisions the government makes are not the decisions the majority of Americans would make.

Asked, "Would you say the government is pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves, or that it is run for the benefit of all the people?" only 19% of respondents said it is run for the benefit of all the people, while 75% said it is run for the benefit of a few big interests.  

In the focus groups, the dominant complaint was that the government did not serve the interests of the public as a whole, but of specific parts of society that were well-organized and well-financed. For example, a man said policymakers should be "more impartial to the money ... and not necessarily let[ting] big business ... govern how you make the law, but actually look to what’s going to be best for the people." A woman joined in, saying, "And it’s for all the people." In another group, a woman asked incredulously, "What are they going to do for the country? What are they going to do for the people? They’re not talking [about] that no more." A man emphasized that policymakers should do what is best for "America as a whole." 

Americans assume this failure to serve the interests of all the people is driven by policymakers pursuing their own interests over the interests of the whole public. This has been demonstrated in numerous polls.  In a June 1999 Hart/Teeter poll, when asked to choose between two statements, just 25% chose, "Government generally pursues the people's agenda." Two-thirds instead chose, "Government generally pursues its own interests." 1 In January 1999, 67% agreed with the rather extreme statement, "The federal government has become a special interest group that looks out primarily for its own interests”; only 18% disagreed (Rasmussen Research).2 Eighty-six percent said, "elected officials pursuing their own agenda, instead of the voters’ agenda" was a very major (63%) or fairly major (23%) cause of reduced public confidence in government, according to a February 1997 Hart and Teeter poll.3 A January-April 1996 University of Virginia poll asked how well certain phrases described "America’s governing elite." The most widely accepted description -- endorsed by 69% -- was that it was "only concerned about their own agenda." A 54% majority rejected the description of the elite as "concerned about the common good." Likewise, 64% rejected the phrase "sensitive to the concerns of most Americans."4 A woman in one of the focus groups said, "The things that I really want to see happen normally don’t, because the individuals running the government are too self-serving." A man said, "Politicians want to stay in office longer, so they vote on what they think will keep them in office." A woman nodded and said, "Very self-serving." 

Americans believe elected officials, prompted by their self-interest, are distracted by special interests (i.e., specific, organized parts of the public) from thinking about the interests of the whole public, especially by those who help the official get elected. In March 2000, Harris Interactive asked Americans to say whether they thought certain groups have too much or too little "power and influence in Washington." Overwhelming majorities said "big companies" (84%), "political action committees" (83%) and "political lobbyists" (74%) have too much power. By contrast, just 15% thought "public opinion" has too much power, while 74% said it has too little power.5 In a June 1999 poll by the Hart and Teeter research firms, nearly two-thirds of Americans (63%) chose the statement, "government serves the special interests," over the statement, "government serves the public interest" (25%).6

Still more evidence of the perception that the government is captive to special interests exists in polls from earlier years. In a September 1997 study by the Woodrow Wilson International Center, nearly two-thirds (63%) of respondents polled had "no" or "not very much confidence ... that members of the United States Congress serve the interests of all the people, not just the interests of those with special influence." Only 35% had a great deal or fair amount of confidence that congressional members serve the interests of all the people.7 In February 1997, an overwhelming 83% agreed, "Special interest groups have more influence than voters" (see box), while 76% agreed, "Congress is largely owned by special interest groups" (Louis Harris).8 Seventy-four percent said they think that "campaign contributions from corporations, special interests, and individuals directly influence the decisions most elected officials make," according to a January 1997 CBS News poll.9 In an October 1996 Newsweek poll of likely voters, 77% said, "Campaign contributions buy too much influence for big corporations, labor unions, and other domestic special interests."10 Asked whether "you think most elected officials represent the interests of average citizens, or do you think they represent special interests?" 84% said they represent special interests, and only 9% said they represent average citizens (Newsweek, August 1994).11 In June 1995, 70% agreed, "The government is run for the benefit of special interests, not to benefit most Americans" (neutral, 10%; disagree, 19%, Americans Talk Issues Foundation [ATIF]).12 

In the focus groups, respondents expressed a high level of confidence that if special interests had less influence, the interests of the public as a whole would be better addressed. As a woman said:

The government needs to be responsible to all the people, and in that sense fairer. And the way I see that happening is to get rid of political action committees ... and that way money won’t be at the focus of elections, and people like us would have a better chance of getting our say and getting some of our way.

The most common way that participants expressed their frustration with the special interests was to complain, often quite bitterly, about the influence of money. As one man said, "Money rules." Commenting on how this affects politicians, a woman said, "Would you vote for a stack of letters or for a stack of money? You have to be a really strong person to vote with the letters that you know is representative of the little people out there than to vote for this company that is giving you this money." Indeed, in an April 1997 poll by Princeton Survey Research Associates, 77% believed a member of Congress would take a phone call from a big donor who lives outside his district rather than a simultaneous call from a constituent who had not contributed to his or her campaign.13

A strong majority of Americans believes campaign finance reform is an important element of breaking the lock of special interests on government decisionmaking. In a June 1999 Hart and Teeter poll, 69% said, "reform[ing] the campaign finance laws to reduce the influence of special interests" would be an effective way to "make government work better" (very effective, 55%).14 But elected officials, as well as the special interests, are perceived as resisting changing the situation through campaign finance reform. When an April 1997 NBC/Wall Street Journal poll asked respondents to choose among three reasons why campaign finance reform had not been passed by Congress, 69% chose the reason, "The special interests and the politicians will oppose any changes in a system that works to their advantage."15

Americans say policymakers’ attention to special interests is a key reason for their low confidence in the government. In the "Attitudes Toward Government Survey" conducted for the Council for Excellence in Government by Hart and Teeter in February 1997, an overwhelming 78% said, "the influence of special interests" was a "very major" (50%) or "fairly major" (28%) cause of reduced confidence in government.16

The charge of being excessively attentive to special interests rather than to the interests of the whole public is especially directed toward Congress. In October 1998, CBS/New York Times asked, "Do you think most members of Congress are more interested in helping the people they represent, or more interested in helping special interest groups?" Sixty-two percent replied "special interest groups," and only 25% replied "the people they represent."17 In a 1992 University of Nebraska study, 86% agreed, "Congress is too heavily influenced by special interest groups when making decisions." Only 30% agreed, "Congress does a good job representing the diverse interests of Americans, whether black or white, rich or poor," while 57% disagreed.18

Americans perceive the problem of disproportionate influence for the wealthy and for corporations is getting worse. Asked in the COPA poll, "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 corporations had gained influence. In January 1997, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found 68% thought, "compared to twenty years ago ... the American political system today is more influenced by special interest money"; only 24% thought this was "about the same" (less, 4%).19

The capacity to "stand up to special interest groups" is a primary quality that voters seek in candidates. In March 1999, ABC/Washington Post found an overwhelming 84% said this quality was very important (52%) or somewhat important (32%) in deciding how to vote in the 2000 presidential election. 

This susceptibility to special interests has generally been seen as existing equally in the two political parties. Between January 1993 and June 1998, NBC/Wall Street Journal eight times asked, "Which party do you think is more influenced by special interests and lobbyists -- the Democratic Party or the Republican Party?” Never did these questions register a difference of more than three points between the parties. In June 1998, 28% said the Democratic Party, 30% said the Republican Party and 28% volunteered "both equally."20 A poll sponsored by the Democratic Leadership Council (July 1997) found the same thing. When asked whether "tied to special interests ... [applies] more to the Democrats in Congress or the Republicans in Congress," 37% picked the Democrats, 36% said the Republicans and 27% didn’t know.21

Several polls have explored which party Americans think does the best job of standing up to special interests, and in every case the evaluation is roughly equal. In January 2000, a Tarrance Group/Lake, Snell, Perry & Associates poll found that 34% associated the Democrats more with "standing up to special interests," 29% associated the Republicans with that value and 17% chose "neither" (“both,” 8%).22 A March 1999 poll -- shortly after the impeachment process -- found the Democrats doing somewhat better. When ABC/Washington Post asked, "Which political party do you trust to do a better job standing up to lobbying groups and special interests?" 37% said the Democrats, 28% the Republicans and 21% said "neither" (“both,” 4%).23 In September 1997, an NBC/Wall Street Journal question asked, "Which party do you think is more influenced by special interests and lobbyists?" At that time, a 30% majority said the Democrats, 29% said the Republicans and 30% chose "both equally."24

Partisanship

Americans also tend to view elected officials, especially in Congress, as unable to come to agreement on solutions for national problems because policymakers are too preoccupied with serving the interests of their political party. In the November 1998 survey by National Election Studies (NES), 73% said that the phrase "too involved in partisan politics" described Congress well.25 A September 1994 ABC poll asked, "When members of Congress cannot agree on legislation, do you think that’s mainly because of honest disagreement about policy, or because each side is trying to score political points?" A near-unanimous 89% said it was because of political point-scoring, while a mere 9% ascribed inaction to honest disagreement over policy.26 

The same poll asked specifically about why Congress was making little progress in dealing with the issue of health care at the time -- 77% said a major reason was "because Congress[ional] members are more interested in playing politics than getting things done."27

Again, it seems that both parties are being held responsible. In an October 1999 poll by Greenberg Quinlan Research, 29% associated the phrase "too partisan" more with the Democrats, 25% associated it with the Republicans and 17% said "both" or "neither."28 A February 1999 Tarrance Group/Lake, Snell, Perry poll for US News & World Report found similar results: 29% thought "partisan" better described the Democrats, 26% said the Republicans and 28% said "both" or "neither."29

Concerns about partisanship came up vividly in the focus groups. A common complaint was that partisan battles drown out the voice of the public. As one man said:

It’s not what the people want or think or care about. It’s a political struggle for power up there. Who’s going to be in control, the Republicans, the Democrats? They’re stepping on everybody along the way. They don’t care.

Polls show an overwhelming majority of Americans believes reducing partisanship is critical to making government more effective. In a June 1999 Hart/Teeter poll, 81% said having "leaders who put politics aside and do what's right for the country" would be an effective way to "make government work better" (very effective, 71%).30

Moreover, the public's dislike of debilitating partisanship may influence how it votes in future elections. A March 1999 ABC News/Washington Post poll found 76% said, "reducing the partisanship in Washington" would be very important (39%) or somewhat important (37%) in "deciding how to vote in the next presidential election in the year 2000."31
   

Most Americans Feel Marginalized 

Most Americans see themselves as being part of the public to which elected officials pay little attention -- as being marginalized from the decisionmaking process. In the COPA poll, 67% answered that people in government understand "what people like you think" either "not that well" (33%) or "not well at all (35%)." Perhaps more to the point, 58% agreed, "Public officials don’t care much what people like me think." A Pew poll from October 1999 found that 59% disagreed with the statement, "Most elected officials care what people like me think."32

In the COPA poll, 56% even agreed with the unequivocal statement, "People like me don’t have any say about what the government does" (emphasis added). This particularly pessimistic response may reflect the fact that the poll was taken during the very unpopular impeachment proceedings (see Appendix A). An October 1999 Pew poll used the same question but found the public more evenly split -- 48% agreed with it while 52% disagreed.33

In September 1999, Pew asked a similar question that offered respondents two statements, "Most elected officials care what people like me think," or "Most elected officials don’t care what people like me think." Fifty-eight percent chose the latter statement that officials do not care (strongly, 49%). This represents a slight improvement from June 1997, when 67% (strongly, 55%) thought public officials did not care.34 In a September 1994 ABC poll, 83% agreed, "Most members of Congress care more about special interests than they care about people like you."35  

Consistent with the view that the government does not understand the public, an overwhelming majority of Americans feels that the decisions Congress makes are not the decisions the respondents would make half the time or more often. The COPA poll asked, "What percentage of the time does Congress make decisions that are the same as the decisions that you would make?" Among those who gave a percentage, the median response was 40%. Overall, of those who gave an answer, 85% gave a response of less than half the time (55%) or half the time (30%). Only 15% of respondents said more than half the time.

Other polls have also found that respondents feel people like themselves have very limited influence on government decisions. In February 2000, a CBS News/New York Times poll asked, "How much say do you think people like yourself have about what the government does?" A strong plurality (48%) said "not much", 37% said "some" and just 14% said "a good deal."36 A November 1999 Harvard University poll offered five response options and obtained a similarly negative result. Just 21% thought "people like you" have a "great deal" (7%) or "quite a bit" (14%) of influence on what the government does; 29% said "some"; and 50% said "only a little" (32%) or "none" (18%).37 In the Hart and Teeter poll, asked to choose between two statements, just 35% chose the statement, "Government policies generally reflect my values," while 53% chose, "Government policies generally do not reflect my values." 38

Given that so few Americans feel their values are reflected in government policies, it is not surprising that so many feel disconnected from the government. The June 1999 Hart/Teeter poll found that 73% of Americans felt very (29%) or fairly (34%) "disconnected" from the federal government; just 33% felt connected to it.39

Washington Seen as Out of Step With Public

Consistent with the feeling that policymakers do not make decisions the public would make, a strong majority feels policymakers do not understand or pay attention to the majority public. In the COPA poll, 63% said, "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."

Other polls have found even stronger results. A September 1999 Pew Research Center poll asked respondents to choose between two statements: "Elected officials in Washington lose touch with the people pretty quickly” or "Elected officials in Washington try hard to stay in touch with the voters back home." Sixty-eight percent (strongly, 55%) chose the first statement, that officials lose touch pretty quickly. Just 26% thought they tried hard to keep in touch.40 An October 1999 Pew poll did not use a contrasting statement and found that an overwhelming 77% agreed with the assertion, "Generally speaking, elected officials in Washington lose touch with the people pretty quickly."41 Likewise, in a December 1999 Harris Interactive poll, 72% said they "tend to feel the people in Washington are out of touch with the rest of the country."42

This view has not changed much over the last several years. An October 1994 Gallup poll found 75% saying Congress is "generally out of touch with average Americans."43 When a January 1994 ATIF study asked, "How much of the time do you think the government considers the preferences of the majority of voters in passing legislation?" only 1% said "just about always," and 18% said "most of the time." An overwhelming majority of 80% said "only some of the time" (64%) or "almost never" (16%).44

Such feelings were also widely expressed in the focus groups. A man explained:

I don’t believe [government officials] serve the citizens, but they should. And they don’t listen to the citizens. I think it’s more the appearance of fairness and equality, the appearance that they want the American public to think that they really value what they say in their views.

Even more importantly, Americans feel the decisions Congress makes are inconsistent with the views of the majority. In the COPA poll, respondents were 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?" Here again, among those who gave a percentage, the median response was 40%. Eighty-six percent of those who answered gave a response of half the time (26%) or less than half the time (64%). Only 18% of respondents said more than half the time. Given that Congress would presumably be consistent with the majority’s attitudes a substantial portion of the time just by chance, it appears that most Americans think the majority has only a very marginal influence.  

Perceptions that the government was out of step with the majority were widely expressed in the focus groups -- as in the following conversation excerpt:

Female: We vote and vote and have polls and opinions and it seems to go the other way. 
Moderator: What’s the other way? 
Female: Not our way. 

Other polls also have found a widespread perception that the government is out of step with the public. In March 2000, Rasmussen Research asked, "Does the federal government reflect the will of the American people?" Just 21% said yes, while 53% said no and 25% were not sure.45 Employing Lincoln's famous words at Gettysburg, the June 1999 Hart and Teeter poll asked if respondents thought "government today ... is of, by, and for the people”; just 39% said it is, while 54% said it is not.46 A modest majority of respondents also thinks about the US government as "THE government" (55%) rather than "OUR government" (42%).47

Feelings of Marginalization Historically High 

The majority’s dissatisfaction with its level of influence over government decisionmaking is not a chronic condition rooted in human nature. The National Election Studies (funded by the National Science Foundation) has monitored the public on this issue for four decades. On virtually all its 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 was more erratic, but it reached new heights in the 1990s. 

In response to the statement, "Public officials don’t care much what people like me think," in 1960 only 25% agreed. Agreement started an upward movement, reaching a majority for the first time in 1976 and 63% in 1990 (58% in the COPA poll).48

In response to the unequivocal statement, "People like me don’t have any say about what the government does," only 27% agreed in 1960. The numbers rose thereafter, but not until 1990 did the number of those in agreement surpass the number of those disagreeing. The number agreeing in the COPA poll (56%) matches the previous high of 1994. 49

Confidence that the government serves the nation as a whole has plummeted over this same time period. In 1964, a strong 64% majority said the government "is run for the benefit of all the people," while only 29% said, "The government is pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves."50

In 1972, a majority (53%) said for the first time, "The government is pretty much run by a few big interests." From 1990 through 1996, the number of respondents agreeing, "The government is pretty much run by a few big interests," always was 69% or more, while the percentage saying the government is run for the benefit of all never went above 27%. National Election Studies (NES) found 31% in November 1998; COPA’s 19% result in January 1999 was back in line with most results through the 1990s.51 

2 To better serve the interests of the whole public, an overwhelming majority feels the majority public should have much more influence over government decisions. 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.

Apparently, Americans feel the government’s failure to serve the interests of the whole public, by giving disproportionate priority to special interests and partisan goals, could be remedied by the general public having much greater influence over government decisionmaking. Asked, "If the leaders of the nation followed the views of the public more closely, do you think the nation would be better off or worse off than today?" an overwhelming 80% said it would be better off, while only 9% said it would be worse off. This high number is not simply due to public disgruntlement about the impeachment process at the time the poll was taken; when Gallup asked the question in April 1996, the exact same percentage said the nation would be better off by following the public.52 

Recent surveys also suggest that Americans think greater public involvement is key to a more-effective government. The 1999 Hart/Teeter poll for the Council on Excellence in Government found 71% thought having "people take the time to express their views to elected officials" would be very effective (52%) or fairly effective (19%) in "making the government work better."53 In the same poll, 51% said "the public" has "the greatest potential to improve government in the next century." The public was cited nearly twice as often as the next group ("elected officials," 26%).54

Overall, Americans feel the public should have far more influence than it presently does. In the COPA poll, respondents 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 they thought 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 it wanted to see the public have more influence than they perceive it to have 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 then asked to rate each argument as convincing or unconvincing. All the pro arguments were convincing to an overwhelming majority, while none of the con arguments was found convincing by more than 27%. (See chart below.) 

Pro and Con Arguments on Increasing Public Influence 

In the focus groups, participants almost-unanimously expressed support for the public having much more influence than it presently does. Many felt the failure to do so was a violation of a social contract embedded in the Constitution. 

Moderator: Apparently, many of you feel [elected officials] make decisions according to who’s going to give them money, and who’s going to contribute to their campaign. But what should they be doing?... 

Man 1: Give more respect to focus groups, like this one.
Man 2: Be a government for the people by the people. I mean, you want to know what’s going on, you want to know how to make this country a better place in which to live, let those who live here do it. You know, stick with the Constitution and what it means, what it stands for.

Responses were similar in another focus group: 

Moderator: What do you mean better? Less responsive to lobbyists and special interests, but more responsive to what? 
Woman: To the needs of the people. Then it becomes a real republic. 
Man: To the facts, and what’s in the best interest of all, instead of what’s in the best interest of the few. 

Several respondents asserted that the decisions made by members of the public, like themselves, are better guides to policy because they are not driven by self-interest. A man said, "The only reason [greater public influence] would be better is that nobody’s paying me for my decision. I would base it on what I truly feel ... we would base it on what we think would be better for all the people as a whole." 

Confidence in the Public’s Judgment 

Overall, Americans show strong confidence in the public’s judgment. In September 1997, the Pew Center asked, "In 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.55 In September 1964, the number expressing such confidence was even higher at 77%, with only 20% expressing not very much or no confidence (Gallup).56

Interestingly, the COPA poll also found 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 each respondent’s own party, even though the views of members of the party presumably would be closer to his or her own. Even more significant, when another sample was asked which they would "prefer to have the most influence on the government," an overwhelming majority said the views of the public as a whole rather than the views of the majority of Republicans or the majority of Democrats.  

Informed Sample of the Public Given More Credence than Congress

One of the more striking findings from the COPA poll is that a strong majority of respondents said it 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."57 By a four-to-one margin, respondents expressed more confidence in the majority decisions of such a sample than the decisions of Congress. Also, 68% said the decisions of such a sample "would be more like the wishes of the majority of the public … than the decisions that Congress makes" (less, 25%). Fifty-seven percent said this sample "would be more ... likely to come to consensus than Congress" (less, 31%). As discussed below, the ability to come to consensus is seen as something positive by very strong majorities.  

The view that such a sample would produce better decisions than Congress was also expressed in the focus groups. The reason given was that such a group would be less influenced by the corrupting influence of special interests. As one man said:

They’re not influenced by someone else giving them the money. I think it would be better for these few hundred people than for Congress. It’s going to be your own personal opinion coming from you as a person of the public -- not from a decision from someone who’s paid you a bribe. 

3 When an elected official makes decisions, a strong majority feels the views of the majority of the public should have more influence than the views of the official. At the same time, most Americans do feel that elected officials have an important role to play: that elected officials should not simply follow ill-informed majority opinion, but try to determine what the majority would favor if it had more complete information; and that elected officials should consult their own sense of what is right and, ideally, find policies that integrate their values as well as those of the majority. 

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 the electorate. In fact, there is a fairly strong consensus among the American public on this question. Asked to choose between the two, a very strong majority of respondents said the views of the majority should have more influence.  

This view is not due simply to the effect of the impeachment debate that was occurring at the time of the poll. When Time/CNN asked this same question in February 1993, 68% said the voters should take precedence (representatives’ judgment, 24%).58

Americans show little concern that elected officials could be too responsive to public opinion.  A June 1999 Hart/Teeter poll asked:

Which do you think is the bigger problem today: elected officials who worry too much about doing what is popular instead of providing leadership, or elected officials who pursue their own personal agendas rather than the public's priorities?

A 55% majority thought that leaders placing priority on their own views was a greater problem, while just 28% thought leaders worrying about popular opinion was a greater problem. Fourteen percent thought both tendencies were a problem.59 Similarly, the same poll found a majority (52%) believed having citizens "get more informed and involved" to be more important for improving government than to have "elected officials who inspire people" (28%).60

This support for giving the public precedence over elected officials leads to support for new means that allow voters to have a direct say on some questions. In a conducted by ATIF in November 1993 and January 1994, respondents were asked to evaluate some proposals on a 0-to-10 scale, with 0 meaning "the proposal would make our democracy work much worse," and 10 meaning the proposal would make it work "much better." The proposal to "include a voluntary questionnaire with IRS tax forms so that we can tell the government our priorities on the principal items of the federal budget" got an average response of 7.3, with 74% giving it a rating of 6 or higher. "Hav[ing] any tax increase passed by Congress submitted to a vote of the people in the next national election" got a mean of 7.0, with 66% giving it 6 or higher. "Conduct[ing] national referendums or votes on major issues" got a mean of 6.7, with 63% giving it 6 or higher. 61

In one of the focus groups, participants brought up and approvingly discussed a number of ideas for public participation in policy decisions. One idea was to have a "clicker box" on televisions so the public could express views on public policy issues. Another was to have a slip that asked people a number of policy questions that they would submit together with their federal tax forms. It seemed in most cases, though, that participants were expressing more of a desire to use such forms to express their views, rather than expecting that those decisions would actually become law. In another focus group, some expressed opposition to direct democracy. For example, one man expressed concerns that it would give the media too much power:

I don’t think we’re ready for that. If we went to electronic democracy as outlined by Perot, then the media is even more powerful than it is today -- ’cause you and I only know what we’re spoon-fed by those people.

What Role Representatives Should Play

Most Americans do feel that elected officials have an important role to play in the decisionmaking process. They do not want to eliminate the representative function of government. In the COPA question that asked how much influence the public should have, on a scale of 0 to 10, only 36% gave the answer of 10.

The public does not want elected officials to simply follow superficial or ill-informed public opinion. In the focus groups, participants recognized that policymakers must make decisions on numerous issues about which the public does not have information to come to a meaningful opinion, and that on some issues the public may be misinformed. As one man said, "That’s why we have a representative who hopefully has more information on the inside of things." 

At the same time, this does not mean Americans feel officials should ignore public opinion on issues requiring specialized knowledge. Rather, the public seems to want elected officials to internalize the majority’s values and then try to assess how those values come to bear on an issue, given the greater information and time to deliberate that the elected official has. An overwhelming 85% agreed, "The goal of Congress should be to make the decisions that the majority of Americans would make if they had the information and time to think things over that Congress has." When asked, "What do you think is the more important question members of Congress should ask themselves when making decisions?" only 29% thought members should simply act as relays of public opinion, by asking themselves "What does the majority of the public think is best?" Rather, 65% thought the member should ask, "What would the majority of the public probably think was best if it was well informed about all sides of the issue?"  

Americans also do want elected officials to consult their own judgment. 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 and perhaps would rationalize their special-interest-driven decisions as being prompted by their judgment. 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, "elected officials would make better decisions if they thought more deeply about what they think is right." Apparently, it is assumed that if elected officials were more in touch with what they think is right, they would be less apt to come under the influence of special interests.

Ideally, most Americans would prefer, representatives would evaluate their own views and the views of the majority together and  then develop a position that accommodates both. COPA posed three different approaches to a situation where a representative disagreed with public opinion. Only about one in four thought a representative should simply follow the majority’s will. Only one in five thought he should simply follow his own judgment. The majority preferred an option where the member would reevaluate his or her position and seek some integration based on the assumption that there is something valid in the majority’s viewpoint.  

This latter view was echoed in comments from focus group participants. One said:

I think that politicians should use polls as a gauge on how to approach issues ... they should use the polls as a basis for digging deeper and then making another decision. Once the people [policymakers] have that information, they can make a better decision. 

Another said public opinion is "... something else to consider. And they would look at these views and opinions and say, maybe the American public does know more." Another said, "If we try to compare what the government’s doing to what the people are wanting, it’s a better checks and balances system."

4 A strong majority feels policymakers should pay close attention to polls when making public policy, even though many are uncertain about polling’s accuracy. Consistent with this position, a majority thinks policymakers should be more influenced by the views of the general majority than by members of the vocal public who actively call or write to representatives. 

Contrary to the widespread view that Americans do not respect political leaders who pay attention to polls, a strong majority feels policymakers should pay close attention to polls when making decisions. Asked to choose between two statements, 67% chose, "When members of Congress are thinking about how to vote on an issue, they should read up on polls on the issue, because this can help them get a sense of the public’s views." While only 26% thought that "When members of Congress are thinking about how to vote on an issue, they should not read up on polls, because this will distract them from thinking about what they think is right."  

Presented two arguments, a majority (61%) even preferred members of Congress to pay attention to approval ratings, "because this gives them a general measure of whether or not they are heading in the right direction with the public." A minority (34%) thought representatives "should not pay attention ... because this will just make them react to every little shift in their popularity."

Other organizations also have 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”; 89% said polls were “good.”62 In a March 1998 CBS News poll, 68% said they thought "polls of public opinion on issues of the day have value to the people."63 An October 1998 Harris poll found 55% said they would trust pollsters, while 38% said they would not.64 And in the April 1996 Gallup poll, 48% said the number of polls conducted was about right, with the remainder evenly divided between those who thought there were too many and those who said there were not enough.65 In a September 1996 ABC News poll, 66% said they approved of news media using polls as part of their political coverage. 66 When Gallup asked in January 1997 about respondents interested in reading about the polls on a number of topics, in every case a very strong majority said it would be somewhat or very interested, and on a number of issues (such as the future of Social Security) an overwhelming majority said it would be very interested.67

A majority or plurality shares the view that polls and pollsters should have more influence. In March 2000, Harris found 35% thought that "opinion polls have too much power and influence on Washington," while 44% thought polls had too little influence.68 A September 1996 ABC poll found 62% thought "candidates for public office should use public opinion surveys as part of their campaigns," while 34% thought the candidates should not.69 In a September 1994 Time/CNN poll, 58% thought pollsters have too little influence in government, while 30% said they have too much.70

Most significantly, it appears that a strong majority believes polls ultimately serve the interests of the public as a whole. A June 1997 Pew Center poll found 68% agreed,  "Most opinion polls work for ... the best interests of the general public," while 19% said they worked against it.71 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."72 

In some ways, it is surprising that Americans express such strong support for paying attention to polls, because they also show uncertainty about their accuracy. Americans seem to be highly doubtful about the reliability of sampling. Most 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. In June 1997, Pew asked, "Do you think a sample of 1,500 or 2,000 people can accurately reflect the views of the nation’s population, or that it is not possible with so few people?" Only 30% said a sample could reflect the nation’s views, while 65% said it could not.73

Other polls have found differing results on the question of whether polls are reliable. An ABC News poll found an overwhelming 87% thought polls are a good (65%) or very good (22%) way "of finding out what the average American is thinking."74 When asked about "poll returns on matters not dealing with elections, but with public opinion toward such things as labor problems and international affairs," 64% said such polls are "pretty nearly right most of the time," while 66% said polls are "pretty nearly right" in predicting election results (Gallup, April 1996).75 In March 1998, CBS asked, "When you see polls saying which candidate is ahead, do you generally believe what the polls say or do you generally believe they are wrong?" a plurality of 48% said it did believe the polls, while 35% said they did not ("it depends," 11%).76

The public is largely unsure how much to trust polls it learns about through the media. A September 1996 ABC poll found 50% said they "tend to believe public opinion surveys which are done by the news media," while 49% said they do not.77 But when a Fox poll asked whether respondents "trust the information you get from television and newspaper polls," only 38% said they did, while 62% said they did not (October 1996).78 When Rasmussen Research in March 1999 asked whether respondents believed "polling results reported on television or in the newspaper ... are accurate," only 33% said yes, 44% said no and 23% said they were not sure.79

In the focus groups, there was also a substantial amount of confusion about the nature of sampling, and a fairly prevalent view that polling samples are drawn from limited populations. A fair number in the group in Albuquerque felt confident that poll samples did not include areas like theirs, but only people on the east and west coasts. Nonetheless, there was a feeling that if the polls were accurate, policymakers should pay attention to them. Asked why, one woman said, "Well, it’s supposed to reflect the will of the people, give an idea of what the people want -- if they are accurate." 

The Vocal Public Versus the Majority Public 

Consistent with support for paying attention to the majority sentiment expressed in polls, a majority -- though more modest than the one supporting strong public representation -- said members of Congress should pay more attention to the majority of the whole public than to members of the vocal public who call and write their representatives. Respondents were asked to choose between two arguments. One made a strong case for giving the vocal public precedence, on the basis that "Those who care more about the issue are better informed, and are often the people most affected by the outcome." Nonetheless, a modest majority opted for the argument in favor of the majority public on the basis that "it is a principle of democracy that the views of the majority should carry more weight."  

In the focus groups, people often expressed respect for the civic act of contacting Congress and deplored that they and others did not do this more frequently. But there was also a feeling that those who made such efforts might be less-disinterested parties. As one man said, "You always hear from the whiners before you hear from people who are trying to do good. Most people, when they write a letter, represent their own special interest and not what they think is better for the world as a whole." Others invoked the principle that all individuals should have an equal right to representation whether or not they had the time to write or call. Addressing a hypothetical letter-writer, one man said, "You’ve got time to read the newspaper, write the letters. I’ve got two jobs. They’re going to listen to you more than they listen to me!" 

(You can Download the complete End Note (Word Document) File)