The advent of scientific public opinion polling gave democratic governance a new dimension. For the first time representatives could discern people's opinions on virtually any public issue. Despite this ability, three important questions remain. Are people adequately informed to consider the complex problems of modern government? Will they give their true opinions to a pollster? And even if these two conditions are satisfied, do representatives have to be bound by popular opinion? This article argues that modern public opinion analysts who use polling data tend to ignore these questions and instead focus on patterns of attitudes among various groups in the population. Before scientific polling became common, those who studied public opinion directed their efforts to the connection between behavioral manifestations of public opinion and the development of public policy. They worried more about the role of public opinion in the formulation of public policy. It turns out that much of the public opinion literature preceding scientific polling remains relevant, and we ignore it at our peril.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. Encyclopedia Americana, international ed., s.v. “Aesop”; Encyclopedia Britannica—Micropedia, 15th ed., s.v. “Aesop.” Aesop's actual connection to Croesus is in fact doubtful, but its assertion by Plutarch and its persistence over time illustrates our point.
2.
2. Pericles, “Funeral Oration,” in Communism, Fascism, and Democracy, 2nd ed., ed. Carl Cohen (New York: Random House, 1972), p. 540.
3.
3. Charles W. Smith, Public Opinion in a Democracy (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1939), pp. 2-4.
4.
4. David Hume, David Hume's Political Essays (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1953), p. 24.
5.
5. Compare Walter Lippmann, The Phantom Public (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1925), pp. 20-21.
6.
For a discussion of polling in the United States prior to 1900, see Richard Jensen, “Democracy by the Numbers,”Public Opinion3:53-59 (Feb./Mar. 1980).
7.
7. George Gallup, Public Opinion in a Democracy, Stafford Little Lectures (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1939), pp. 14-15.
8.
8. Bryce, American Commonwealth, 2:239-246; Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion (New York: Free Press, 1972, first published in 1922), p. 36; see also Kenneth P. Adler, “Polling the Elite: The Attentive Public” in this volume of The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.
9.
Lippmann continues: “In his heart of hearts the social scientist shares this estimate of himself.” Alas!
10.
10. Compare Pericles, “Funeral Oration,” p. 540.
11.
and Burns W. Roper, “Are Polls Accurate?” in this issue of The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.
12.
12. Lowell, Public Opinion and Popular Government, pp. 12-14.
13.
13. Smith, Public Opinion in a Democracy, p. 17.
14.
14. The Gallup Report, no. 204 (Princeton, NJ: The Gallup Poll, Sept. 1982), or no. 200 (May 1982), for instance.
15.
or Sidney Verba, Norman H. Nie, and Jae-on Kim, Participation and Political Equality (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1978), chap. 3.
16.
16. See Herbert Asher, Presidential Elections and American Politics, rev. ed. (Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press, 1980), chap. 4; Norman H. Nie, Sidney Verba, and John Petrocik, The Changing American Voter, enlarged ed. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979), pp. 291-306.
17.
Richard E. Vatz and Lee S. Weinberg, “The Imperial Pollsters,”USA Today, 107: 6-9 (Sept. 1978).
18.
18. Edmund Burke, “Speech to the Electors of Bristol,” 4 Nov. 1774, in Cohen, Communism, Fascism, and Democracy, pp. 436-437; Bryce, American Commonwealth, 2:259; Rogers, Pollsters, chap. 7.
19.
19. See Robert Weissberg, Public Opinion and Popular Government (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1976), chap. 1.
20.
20. See, for example, Robert S. Erikson, Norman R. Lutbeg, and Kent L. Tedin, American Public Opinion, 2nd ed. (New York: John Wiley, 1980); Harry Holloway and John George, Public Opinion (New York: St. Martins, 1979); Dennis Ippolito, Thomas G. Walker, and Kenneth L. Kolson, Public Opinion and Responsible Democracy (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1976); Robert G. Lehnen, American Institutions, Political Opinion and Public Policy (Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press, 1976); Alan D. Monroe, Public Opinion in America (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1975). Monroe does contain one reference to Bryce regarding political parties.
21.
David J. Hanson , “Relationship Between Methods and Findings in Attitude-Behavior Research,”Psychology17:11-13 (1980).
22.
22. The use of survey research by Sidney Verba and his colleagues to examine other forms of political participation has been an important exception. See fn. 15. See also Lester W. Milbrath and M. L. Goel, Political Participation, 2nd ed. (Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1977), especially chap. 1.
23.
23. Lowell, Public Opinion and Popular Government, p. 25.
24.
24. Phantom Public, p. 56.
25.
25. For a discussion of various views on behavioral political science, see Heinz Eulau, ed., Behavioralism in Political Science (New York: Atherton, 1969).
26.
26. Michael Margolis, Viable Democracy (New York: Penguin, 1979), pp. 96-112.
27.
27. See Michael Margolis, “Democracy: American Style,” in Democratic Theory and Practice, ed. Graeme Duncan (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983), pp. 125-129.
28.
28. Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (New York: Bantam Books, 1968), chaps. 1, 4; James McEvoy and Abraham Miller, eds., Black Power and Student Rebellion (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1969), passim.
29.
29. Compare Rights in Conflict: The Violent Confrontation of Demonstrators and Police in the Parks and Streets of Chicago during the Week of the Democratic National Convention of 1968 (New York: Bantam Books, 1968), pp. 13-58; Aaron Wildavsky, The Revolt Against the Masses and Other Essays (New York: Basic Books, 1971), pp. 52-65.
30.
30. Jack Walker, “A Critique of the Elitist Theory of Democracy,”American Political Science Review, 60:285-295 (June 1966); William Gamson, “Stable Unrepresentation in American Society,”American Behavioral Scientist, 12:15-21 (1968).
31.
31. Andrew M. Greeley and Paul B. Sheatsley, “Attitudes toward Racial Integration,” in Public Opinion: Its Formation, Measurement, and Impact, ed. Susan Welch and John Comer (Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield, 1975), p. 51.
32.
32. My tabulations from “American National Election Study, 1964,” ICPSR no. 7235 and “American National Election Series: 1972, 1974, and 1976,” ICPSR no. 7607. (Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor).
33.
33. The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion 1972-77 (Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, 1978); also annual volumes from 1978 to 1981.
34.
34. Abramson, Political Attitudes in America (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1983).
35.
35. John H. Aldrichet al., “The Measurement of Public Opinion About Public Policy: A Report on Some New Question Formats,”American Journal of Political Science, 26: 403-405 (Mar. 1982).
36.
36. John L. Sullivan, James Piereson, and George E. Marcus, Political Tolerance and American Democracy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), chap. 9.
37.
37. “Review of Political Tolerance and American Democracy,”American Political Science Review, 77: 278 (Mar. 1983).
38.
38. The widespread introduction of interactive cable television and computer networks linked to private homes may eventually lead to replacing current methods of sampling and interviewing with more sophisticated interactive methods that can measure the information, initiative, and intensity of concern of citizens regarding any public issue. See Margolis, Viable Democracy, chap. 7; James C. Strouse, The Mass Media, Public Opinion, and Public Policy Analysis (Columbus, OH: Charles Merrill, 1975), chap. 9.
39.
39. The Process of Government (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1908), p. 172.
