When this phenomenon does not appear to be the case, political commentators often are quite critical. Indeed, we frequently hear complaints that the candidates in an presidential election are failing to clearly address the real issues. Equally common are complaints that the mass media fail to adequately treat issues in their coverage of presidential election campaigns.
The term issue sometimes is used more generally to refer to anything that is a source of conflict or contention, but we use the term more narrowly. We are referring to public policy issues, meaning questions of what the government should or should not do.
Policy issues involve conflict over the direction of government policy. Some policy issues in an election may be quite specific, such as the conditions under which abortion should be legal or whether social security should be partially privatized by allowing individuals to have personal investment accounts.
Often the policy issues are more general, dealing with broad approaches to problems, such as whether the federal government should enact stricter environmental regulations or whether the federal government should attempt to ensure that nearly everyone has health care insurance. Based on the left-right position of all citizens of a country as captured by the Eurobarometer data, does it follow that countries with a left-wing population also invest more heavily in social policy?
We do not find any relation at all no matter how we specify the model between the ideological position of citizens in general, and the percentage of the national income that is being spent on social policy. So there may well be some reason for frustration or democratic dissatisfaction there, as citizens, rightly, do not have the feeling that their positions have a direct effect on what kind of policy is actually pursued. This lack of correlation of course could have different causes: politicians might not focus on classic left-right policy dimensions in practice, or they simply might not be able to pursue their own preferences, for example, as a result of international coordination norms.
Regarding the effect of voters in contrast to the effect of all citizens , our findings are more encouraging for those concerned about effective representation in contemporary democracies. Our findings, therefore, confirm previous results on the importance of high turnout levels for the functioning of electoral democracy. On this front, we do not see any effect of the ideological position of the parliament on social policy.
For the governing cabinet, in contrast, we do find that its ideological composition has an effect. To summarise it simply: right-wing governments spend less on redistribution than left-wing cabinets. This difference is significant, even if we take into account the fact that, overall, across OECD countries, there a structural trend to spend more on social policy. This means it does remain important that citizens actually take part in elections, because this is the way they can have an effect on the composition of parliament, and eventually the governing cabinet.
Our conclusions on the vitality and the effectiveness of electoral democracy pose a challenge to citizens and voters who want their governments to represent their views.
Citizens seem to be confronted with a long shot: there has to be a sufficiently high turnout level, and they have to succeed in delivering a parliamentary majority to the party they prefer. Only if all these conditions are met, can they realistically expect to have an effect on government policy. However, further examples show that presidents do not consistently listen to public opinion.
After taking office in , President Obama did not order the closing of Guantanamo Bay prison, even though his proposal to do so had garnered support during the election. President Bush , despite growing public disapproval for the war in Iraq, did not end military support in Iraq after And President Bill Clinton , whose White House pollsters were infamous for polling on everything, sometimes ignored the public if circumstances warranted. In , despite public opposition, Clinton guaranteed loans for the Mexican government to help the country out of financial insolvency.
Individual examples like these make it difficult to persuasively identify the direct effects of public opinion on the presidency. While presidents have at most only two terms to serve and work, members of Congress can serve as long as the public returns them to office. We might think that for this reason public opinion is important to representatives and senators, and that their behavior, such as their votes on domestic programs or funding, will change to match the expectation of the public.
In a more liberal time, the public may expect to see more social programs. In a non-liberal time, the public mood may favor austerity, or decreased government spending on programs. House of Representatives members, with a two-year term, have a more difficult time recovering from decisions that anger local voters.
And because most representatives continually fundraise, unpopular decisions can hurt their campaign donations. For these reasons, it seems representatives should be susceptible to polling pressure. Yet one study, by James Stimson, found that the public mood does not directly affect elections, and shifts in public opinion do not predict whether a House member will win or lose. These elections are affected by the president on the ticket, presidential popularity or lack thereof during a midterm election, and the perks of incumbency, such as name recognition and media coverage.
In fact, a later study confirmed that the incumbency effect is highly predictive of a win, and public opinion is not. In spite of this, we still see policy shifts in Congress, often matching the policy preferences of the public.
When the shifts happen within the House, they are measured by the way members vote. The Senate is quite different from the House. Senators do not enjoy the same benefits of incumbency, and they win reelection at lower rates than House members. Yet, they do have one advantage over their colleagues in the House: Senators hold six-year terms, which gives them time to engage in fence-mending to repair the damage from unpopular decisions.
Specifically, the study shows that when public opinion shifts, fewer senators win reelection. Thus, when the public as a whole becomes more or less liberal, new senators are elected. Rather than the senators shifting their policy preferences and voting differently, it is the new senators who change the policy direction of the Senate. Beyond voter polls, congressional representatives are also very interested in polls that reveal the wishes of interest groups and businesses.
If AARP , one of the largest and most active groups of voters in the United States, is unhappy with a bill, members of the relevant congressional committees will take that response into consideration.
There is some disagreement about whether the Supreme Court follows public opinion or shapes it. The lifetime tenure the justices enjoy was designed to remove everyday politics from their decisions, protect them from swings in political partisanship, and allow them to choose whether and when to listen to public opinion.
When the justices accept controversial cases, the media tune in and ask questions, raising public awareness and affecting opinion. But do the justices pay attention to the polls when they make decisions? Studies that look at the connection between the Supreme Court and public opinion are contradictory. Early on, it was believed that justices were like other citizens: individuals with attitudes and beliefs who would be affected by political shifts.
Later studies argued that Supreme Court justices rule in ways that maintain support for the institution. Instead of looking at the short term and making decisions day to day, justices are strategic in their planning and make decisions for the long term. Other studies have revealed a more complex relationship between public opinion and judicial decisions, largely due to the difficulty of measuring where the effect can be seen.
Some studies look at the number of reversals taken by the Supreme Court, which are decisions with which the Court overturns the decision of a lower court. In one study, the authors found that public opinion slightly affects cases accepted by the justices. In a study looking at how often the justices voted liberally on a decision, a stronger effect of public opinion was revealed.
Whether the case or court is currently in the news may also matter. A second study determined that public opinion is more likely to affect ignored cases than heavily reported ones. In these situations, the court was also more likely to rule with the majority opinion than against it. For example, in Town of Greece v. Galloway , a majority of the justices decided that ceremonial prayer before a town meeting was not a violation of the Establishment Clause.
The fact that 78 percent of U. Overall, however, it is clear that public opinion has a less powerful effect on the courts than on the other branches and on politicians. Public opinion polls have some effect on politics, most strongly during election season. Candidates who do well in polls receive more media coverage and campaign donations than candidates who fare poorly.
The effect of polling on government institutions is less clear. Presidents sometimes consider polls when making decisions, especially if the polls reflect high approval. A president who has an electoral mandate can use that high public approval rating to push policies through Congress.
Congress is likely to be aware of public opinion on issues. Representatives must continually raise campaign donations for bi-yearly elections. For this reason, they must keep their constituents and donors happy. Representatives are also likely to change their voting behavior if public opinion changes. Senators have a longer span between elections, which gives them time to make decisions independent of opinion and then make amends with their constituents.
It is less clear whether Supreme Court justices rule in ways that maintain the integrity of the branch or that keep step with the majority opinion of the public, but public approval of the court can change after high-profile decisions.
Representatives run for election every two years and must constantly raise campaign money. They abide by public opinion because do not have time to explain their actions or mend fences before each election. Alvarez, Michael, and John Brehm. Princeton: Princeton University Press. The American Voter: Unabridged Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Canes-Wrone, Brandice. Who Leads Whom? Presidents, Policy and the Public. Lewis-Beck, Michael S. The American Voter Revisited. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Lupia, Arthur, and Mathew McCubbins. The Democratic Dilemma. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zaller, John. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Privacy Policy. Skip to main content. Module 4: The Politics of Public Opinion. Search for:. The Effects of Public Opinion Learning Objectives By the end of this section, you will be able to: Explain the circumstances that lead to public opinion affecting policy Compare the effects of public opinion on government branches and figures Identify situations that cause conflicts in public opinion.
0コメント