Why Congress should Care about Opinion Polls

There were nearly two mass shootings for every day in 2023. Most Americans support gun control, and yet federal legislation remains in nearly the same place it was 30 years ago.

For decades, support for gun control has held a steady and growing majority. Polls consistently place support for gun control at upwards of 70 percent, 80 percent, and even 90 percent. This is not a silent majority. Gun control advocacy groups often outspend gun rights lobbyists and regularly organize major national protests that rise in salience after major instances of gun violence. 

So, in the face of all this pressure, why hasn’t Congress passed gun control legislation? The usual response suggests we shouldn’t take that 90 percent number at face value. Despite polls showing strong support, a handful of states have seen gun control referendums shot down when put to a vote. But even if voters seem to change their minds when faced with specific proposals, the nation is still unquestionably in favor of some action, and so the primary question remains: why hasn’t Congress passed any gun control legislation?

Congress’ unresponsiveness to issues that seemingly have widespread support is not unique to gun control. In fact, Congressional action has failed to track public opinion on a whole host of familiar issues.

Marijuana legalization, for one, receives significant media attention and has held majority support for over a decade—now at 70 percent—without substantial federal action. Likewise, investment in affordable housing and climate reform retain upwards of two-thirds of public support, yet receive delayed or insignificant Congressional action.

Congress is out of touch. Our representatives should be representative. To that end, Congressional representatives should aim to vote with the preeminent polling consensus wherever and whenever possible.

The Moral Case for a Poll-Based Legislature

The United States should be a democracy. I hope and believe we can all agree on that. 

In an idealistically democratic world, Congress would vote and pass policies exactly in line with public opinion almost as if the people had voted on the policies themselves. Of course, in practice, the average American does not directly vote on every policy and, as exhibited above, Congress is far from a perfect substitute. 

Any practice that brings Congressional policy closer to the true interests of the American people should be cultivated for the sake of democracy. The most practical Congressional reform that most upholds these democratic ideals is the shift to a poll-based legislature. Our current representative elections cycle functionally gives the people a voice once every two years. After their representative is elected, they are silent. Representatives' daily votes see little input from their constituents. 

A poll-based legislature is radically different. A polling system operates from the basic assumption that the purpose of a representative is to represent their electorate. In a poll-based legislature, representatives consult the polling data wherever available and vote entirely in line with the polling’s outcome. If their electorate supports a policy, the representative votes for it, and vice-versa. 

The general idea of a polling system is that the representative’s vote is necessarily more likely to be accurate to real public interest if it is based on polls rather than if it is simply an uninformed assumption.

This democratic value of a poll-based legislature alone is more than enough to merit its adoption. If even one Senator would change their vote to align with the people they represent, a polling system should be implemented.

However, a polling system is not only principally valuable but also incredibly practical.

The Practical Case

Let’s consider what a poll-based legislature changes in practice. For one, a true poll-based legislature avoids party-line voting. The current congressional structure rewards adherence to a representative’s party platform. For example, on the Republican side, individual political figures like Trump and institutional bodies like Fox News carry immense sway over legislator’s votes. As congressional representatives currently vote based on individual discretion and not their constituents’ beliefs, a break with the party line spells severe political backlash from powerful party figures.

This political reality incentivizes representatives to uniformly vote for their party’s platform. There is little room to compromise or qualify individual positions, effectively polarizing Congress across party lines.

Conversely, in a poll-based legislature, each congressional representative votes based on the interests of their particular constituents. Party-line homogenization is unlikely, as different representatives advocate for different populations, which produces different policy interests, even if only to a marginal extent.

In practice, the increased political diversity within each party would moderate policy by creating the opportunity for compromise across the aisle.

Of course, opponents of a poll-based legislature disagree with this. The fundamental rebuttal to a citizen-led legislature is that our representatives possess some special knowledge; the concept is that the people simply do not know enough about particular policy issues to effectively make decisions.

This is, in fact, true. For example, Americans know very little about foreign policy. However, what this critique misses is that the polling system filters this ignorance.

Polling does not need to exist in a vacuum. Where the people lack the proper knowledge to pass judgment, polls can incorporate deliberative polling. This method provides poll respondents with arguments from both sides of an issue and allows them to form their own opinions with a group of other respondents.

Deliberative polling is quite effective at moderating preconceptions and combatting a lack of knowledge. For instance, a 2003 deliberative poll about the invasion of Iraq saw moderated opinions after hearing both sides. Citizen knowledge is certainly a challenge for a poll-based legislature, but it is by no means insurmountable. Practically, deliberative polling might never become universal, but in every case where quality data is available, representatives should act on it.

A second benefit of a poll-based legislature is that it enables effective policy accountability. The current electoral system has a temporal problem. Electoral cycles are long. Often, voters have lost interest in most individual policies from the previous cycle.

Policies passed near the end of the term have outsized political importance, while day-one legislation is forgotten. Recent policies are the only ones that face close examination, and, thus, early-term legislation is hardly ever repealed or adjusted—unless it becomes heavily politicized.

In contrast, a poll-based legislature faces immediate and impactful public feedback. If a policy is harmful or unpopular, representatives who are currently largely unresponsive would be obligated to vote whichever way the polls lean. In a polling system, the people have dynamic representation, a legislature that functionally responds to changes in public opinion.

Of course, all the benefits of a poll-based legislature have an obvious Achilles’ heel: they assume that polling is accurate.

The Verdict on Polling Accuracy

And it is. 

Polling accuracy is underestimated in most media. Yes, polling is imperfect. There are serious practical issues around methods of polling. Polls tend to over-represent the voices of politically active Americans simply because they are the ones most likely to respond to a political call. Likewise, polls often skew towards agreement because it's simply easier to say yes.

But pollsters are not unaware, nor do they choose to simply ignore these realities. Collecting information about poll respondents’ identities and statistical methods can check back against inherent polling biases. Also, other pollsters are always on the lookout for a poorly interpreted or designed poll. Peer review checks biased polling.

Critics of polling cite inaccurately predicted election results as evidence of the failure of polls. But if polls bias politically active Americans, then elections where only 30 percent, 40 percent, or 50 percent of the people vote are certainly even less representative of true public sentiment.

The most important thing to understand about polls is that they are better than the alternative. Whatever you believe about polling accuracy, a legislator's guess will never beat out the data. In the context of a poll-based legislature, we are interested in the accuracy of issue polling. In a 2022 Pew Research Center analysis, their issue polls differ from the real data by an average of four percent. 

For most policy issues, there is no referendum. People rarely have an opportunity to voice their opinions through a vote. I argue that legislators should use whichever approach has the least risk of deviating from actual public opinion. 

A four percent range is certainly more accurate than your average representative’s assumption of their constituents’ beliefs. So, if a poll-based legislature is accurate and incredibly beneficial, why don’t our Congressional representatives look to the polls for guidance, at least when public consensus is undeniable?

The Political Reality in Congress

One potential reason is that our representatives are selfish. The preeminent motivation for many legislators is winning reelection, and money helps them do that.

Lobbying and large-sum donations give wealthy Americans and companies incredible influence over legislators’ actions. The top 10 percent of earners are consistently the Americans most frequently represented in policy. 

Citizen mobilization might be able to counteract the influence of lobbyists, but grassroots organizers once again are faced with the issue of time. Organization takes time, and donations do not. Lobbyists can affect policy in real time whereas the average citizen is powerless to act until the next election cycle.

The issue of reelection also paradoxically reduces the power of the majority through politics. The issue of institutional and individual power introduced above applies here as well. Most politicians cannot risk going against their party to satisfy the real interests of their constituents.

Moreover, the primary system rewards extremists. Moderate party members are often split relatively evenly in primary contests while single-issue voters choose a side based on, as the name suggests, a single issue.

For example, while the majority of Republican voters support some form of gun control, an active minority of the party decides primary elections. A representative must affirm their support for gun rights if they want a chance at election. 

In practice, the majority of Americans hardly have a voice in Congressional politics.

So, a complete shift to any form of a poll-based legislature is likely impossible. Nonetheless, some positive, democratic change is possible. At least where the polls are inclusive, unbiased, and definitive, legislatures should vote with their constituents. Our current representative democracy is representative only once every two years. If Congress can return any political power to the people, to do so is imperative.

The image in this article is licensed for noncommercial use under CC0 1.0. It was created by Mohamed Hassan and has not been modified from its original form found here.