The most interesting question, for me, in the latest Essential Research poll is this one: Thinking about the Federal Budget – how much attention did you pay to this week’s Federal Budget?
<img src="http://larvatusprodeo.net/files/2010/05/budgetattention1.png"
This is for one of the great, if not the greatest, political setpieces of the year.
The table is courtesy of Possum, who also cites this:
Those most interested were men (60% a lot/some) and people aged 55+ (65%). Only 44% of respondents aged 18?34 paid a lot or some attention to the budget.
I’ve always thought that almost all polling should ask questions about the degree to which respondents are interested in particular issues, and how strongly their stated preferences are held. We’d get a much more realistic picture of public opinion, that way. Of course, we’d also get one which would reduce a lot of the noise and fury of the media narrative to total irrelevance.
Update: Don Arthur at Troppo.
That is indeed interesting, Mark. I’d also love to know how well informed voters are on issues, where they get their information, and how well they understand it.
That is indeed interesting, Mark. I’d also love to know how well informed voters are on issues, where they get their information, and how well they understand it.
Percentages … hmm … How many people were asked the questions? What questions were they asked? How were the questions phrased? Where are the respondents located? What time of day were they questioned? What else was happening in the news on the day of the poll? … These things all affect the answers, and therefore the result. Such polls are meaningless.
Kevin is right – the only poll that counts is the one held on election day. Sadly, however, most of the electorate would likely make a snap decision on the day based on the inducements being offered by the crowd handing out the propaganda at the gate … We tend to see voting now as a chore and no longer as a privilege. Sad.
Percentages … hmm … How many people were asked the questions? What questions were they asked? How were the questions phrased? Where are the respondents located? What time of day were they questioned? What else was happening in the news on the day of the poll? … These things all affect the answers, and therefore the result. Such polls are meaningless.
Kevin is right – the only poll that counts is the one held on election day. Sadly, however, most of the electorate would likely make a snap decision on the day based on the inducements being offered by the crowd handing out the propaganda at the gate … We tend to see voting now as a chore and no longer as a privilege. Sad.
Good point. It reminds me of John Zaller theory of public opinion.
.
Zaller argues that it’s wrong to think that “surveys are passive measures of ‘what the public really believes’.”
.
His argument is that people are exposed to a stream of news and opinion. Unless people are particularly interested in an issue, these ideas are internalised uncritically.
.
When a pollster asks a respondent to pick an option from a list, the respondent calls to mind whatever ideas are immediately accessible and makes their choice based on that. The ideas they rely on are typically whatever happens to be at the top of mind at the time.
.
This helps explain why people can respond inconsistently to questions in the same survey and why surveys at different times can produce strikingly different results.
.
As Bourdieu wrote: “public opinion does not exist” — at least not in the form pollsters encourage us to assume. Often the attitudes that are ‘measured’ are created in the act of measurement.
Good point. It reminds me of John Zaller theory of public opinion.
.
Zaller argues that it’s wrong to think that “surveys are passive measures of ‘what the public really believes’.”
.
His argument is that people are exposed to a stream of news and opinion. Unless people are particularly interested in an issue, these ideas are internalised uncritically.
.
When a pollster asks a respondent to pick an option from a list, the respondent calls to mind whatever ideas are immediately accessible and makes their choice based on that. The ideas they rely on are typically whatever happens to be at the top of mind at the time.
.
This helps explain why people can respond inconsistently to questions in the same survey and why surveys at different times can produce strikingly different results.
.
As Bourdieu wrote: “public opinion does not exist” — at least not in the form pollsters encourage us to assume. Often the attitudes that are ‘measured’ are created in the act of measurement.
Don – on that basis democracy is a waste of time.
Don – on that basis democracy is a waste of time.
Not necessarily Terje. Democracy ought to be more than anything deliverable by resort to an opinion poll. Democracy ought to be about direct public engagement in policy development and review. It ought to be possible to describe governance as participant-based development without the Abbott defence.
Your conception of the problem reveals the purely passive character of your conception of governance, a feature springing no doubt from your focus on the rights of private property in the means of production as the central defining feature of governance.
Not necessarily Terje. Democracy ought to be more than anything deliverable by resort to an opinion poll. Democracy ought to be about direct public engagement in policy development and review. It ought to be possible to describe governance as participant-based development without the Abbott defence.
Your conception of the problem reveals the purely passive character of your conception of governance, a feature springing no doubt from your focus on the rights of private property in the means of production as the central defining feature of governance.
So in theory democracy ought to be a good idea but currently it’s a waste of time?
So in theory democracy ought to be a good idea but currently it’s a waste of time?
Currently terje, what passes for democracy is still less culturally pernicious than even the least oppressive autocracy. At worst, it leaves open the possibility of a way forward without a high cost in human violence.
So not “a waste of time” — Just well short of what inclusive governance would look like.
Currently terje, what passes for democracy is still less culturally pernicious than even the least oppressive autocracy. At worst, it leaves open the possibility of a way forward without a high cost in human violence.
So not “a waste of time” — Just well short of what inclusive governance would look like.
“On that basis democracy is a waste of time”.
Terje – That’s not Zaller’s position.
He argues that the public ought to be involved in public debate because “government, in the absence of checks, invariably goes astray and becomes overbearing or worse.”
A key part of his theory is the idea of ‘predispositions’. People acquire these independently of elites — from their own upbringing, life experience etc.
According to Zaller, the system can work when certain conditions are met:
“On that basis democracy is a waste of time”.
Terje – That’s not Zaller’s position.
He argues that the public ought to be involved in public debate because “government, in the absence of checks, invariably goes astray and becomes overbearing or worse.”
A key part of his theory is the idea of ‘predispositions’. People acquire these independently of elites — from their own upbringing, life experience etc.
According to Zaller, the system can work when certain conditions are met: