Research: Politicians have little idea what voters are thinking

Politicians aren’t particularly adept at knowing the views of their own constituents – and conservative politicians are the least adept of the bunch. Those are some of the major findings of a recently released research paper co-authored by a graduate student at the University of Michigan.

Chris Skovron, of U-M’s Department of Political Science, along with David Broockman, a graduate student at the University of California-Berkeley, surveyed 1,907 candidates for state legislative office in August 2012 and then again in November 2012 about what they thought their constituents’ opinions were on three issues:

-Same-sex marriage

-Universal health care

-Abolishing federal welfare programs

Bridge recently spoke with Skovron about the research, which showed conservatives and liberals alike overestimating the conservative element of their districts.

Bridge: What is political misperception?

A: Can constituents control what their legislators do? … On the one hand, a legislator can perceive what their constituents think and they can vote according to that. On the other hand, citizens can select legislators whose own views are in line with theirs through elections. So the particular question that David and I are looking at in this study is that perceptions question. Basically, do legislators and candidates for state legislative offices know what their constituents want?

Bridge: If you talk to legislators up here, they’d say ‘Hey, I hold coffee meetings with constituents. I go door to door and talk to them about issues. I go to school board, local government meetings.’ They would probably tell you … ‘Who are you to say I don’t have a good read on my constituents?’

A: The average person in the sample is off by between 15 and 20 percentage points. What it suggests to us is people just aren’t talking to everyone in their district, right? I think if you think about the ways that campaigns are structured, that makes some sense. The parties give them targets of who to talk to and these are often persuadable voters that represent moderates or their own partisans that they’re trying to turn out to vote so that’s sort of a biased subset.

And at the same time, the people who choose to contact legislators clearly are not a representative sample of everyone who lives in their district. It’s people who have strong opinions and feel like expressing them. I think it’s only natural that legislators, even if they are out in the community a lot, might get a skewed view just based on the fact that they’re not talking to a representative sample of everybody -- unless they sort of systematically knock on random doors, which I don’t think any campaigns do anymore.

Bridge: What data point or piece of analysis did you find that best illustrates this gap?

A: What we think is the most important is just the spread of the inaccuracies -- that there are some people who are extremely inaccurate in a conservative direction, some who are extremely inaccurate in a liberal direction. But what matters if you’re a citizen is what your particular representative thinks. Some people have representatives who are congruent with district preferences, others don’t. That’s something voters should think about -- and legislators should also think about whether they have an accurate read on their district or not.

Bridge: What do you think could be done to narrow this perception gap or is this just a fact of modern-day politics?

A: I don’t want to speculate too much in that area because we really don’t have much in the way of data that speaks to that. One of the striking findings though was that candidates didn’t get more accurate after the election. So we went back and we surveyed about a quarter of our respondents again in November after the 2012 election and we didn’t find that they had improved at all. So it doesn’t seem that paying attention to election results is the trick necessarily.

Bridge: How much do you think that the 2010 election, which obviously was a huge election for Republicans, big sweep for them, might have colored perceptions going into 2012 since maybe conservatives coming off of that election we’re thinking, ‘Hey, it’s a conservative country’ and for that matter liberals were probably thinking it’s fairly conservative. Do you think that stretched the data in any way?

A: Yeah, I think that definitely could play a role here. Sort of a broader story that we tell ourselves about American culture, it’s sort of a center-right nation, (Richard Nixon’s) idea of the “silent majority.”

Bridge: Did you check to see what percentage of the candidates that responded to your survey went on to win legislative office because, as you probably know, a lot of people who file to run are either very fringe or aren’t serious?

A: I don’t remember that figure right off the top of my head, but it is slightly less than half. …  We didn’t have a really serious bias against winners. … And so it’s interesting that the patterns of accuracy among those people were very similar to people who lost. The sitting legislators don’t tend to do much better than losing candidates.

Bridge: One of the things I thought was really interesting was how there appeared to be no change in candidates’ perception of the voters in their district after they had done all the things that good candidates do, the door-to-door, the meet-and-greets, those kinds of things. What did you make of that?

A: It was really surprising that knowing the election result, knowing whether they had won or lost, didn’t really make them update on their estimate. Certainly they changed, right. But as a group, the candidates didn’t get a lot better.

I don’t want to make too much of that. It was only one campaign. It was only one type of office. But yeah, it’s a little bit discouraging for those of us who might think that the way to take the temperature of your district is to say go to a lot of Rotary clubs and knock on a lot of doors.

Editor's note: This story was produced in a collaboration between Bridge Magazine and the Gongwer News Service.

Facts matter. Trust matters. Journalism matters.

If you learned something from the story you're reading please consider supporting our work. Your donation allows us to keep our Michigan-focused reporting and analysis free and accessible to all. All donations are voluntary, but for as little as $1 you can become a member of Bridge Club and support freedom of the press in Michigan during a crucial election year.

Pay with VISA Pay with MasterCard Pay with American Express Donate now

Comment Form

Add new comment

Dear Reader: We value your thoughts and criticism on the articles, but insist on civility. Criticizing comments or ideas is welcome, but Bridge won’t tolerate comments that are false or defamatory or that demean, personally attack, spread hate or harmful stereotypes. Violating these standards could result in a ban.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.


J Schneider
Thu, 05/02/2013 - 9:39am
What I notice in our State and Federal politicians is that they appear attuned to where they think the money is coming from not what regular individuals believe or want. If you attend Republican events, the "tea party" supports are aggressive to the point I can feel intimidated. I'm a moderate, I think - I believe in the wise use of funds and looking at long term goals and stability, think infrastructure, environment, education, and at the same time we must be compassionate to those in true need. This can all be accomplished, not easily but it's possible, IF we work together instead of standing on soapboxes. Okay, I'm off my soapbox.
Thu, 05/02/2013 - 9:48am
Wow! 2 liberal graduate students think conservative legislators are out of touch with their constituents! What an amazing story. I hate to clue this brilliant duo but, most voters in the last election can't even name their US rep and their two US senators. And to think, some people would say that the Center for Michigan is nothing but a left-wing echo chamber.
Mark R
Fri, 05/03/2013 - 2:55pm
And to think some people think Center for Michigan is an echo chamber of the right, too! It's hilarious. This piece is a piece of work that is nothing be part of the left's agenda to blur the lines. Some will fall for it. Sheep.
Charles Richards
Thu, 05/02/2013 - 12:00pm
These two individuals have completely wasted a considerable amount of time and energy. Mr. Skovron says, "What it suggests to us is people just aren’t talking to everyone in their district, right?" Well, no, how could they? Surely, he doesn't think that's possible. He points out that the people a candidate talks to are a skewed, biased sample. How could it be otherwise? And he apparently has forgotten the existence of polls, which make every effort to gauge the opinions of a population by obtaining a random, unbiased sample. Believe me, candidates have a very good read on what their voters believe. Now, whether the voters' beliefs are rational and well thought out is another question. After all, the American people don't want to cut any spending, don't want to raise taxes, and can't tolerate deficits. I suspect that Mr. Skovron believes that the "people" are a fount of native wisdom, and that politicians are just failing to access it.
Thu, 05/02/2013 - 1:13pm
Perception is the stock and trade of reporting. Perception and sustaining provides a shorthand for reporting. A reporter/editor can condense a long story into one of just a few paragraphs by simply calling the differing officials as 'liberal' or 'conservative', Democrat or Republican. It doesn't matter to the reporter/editor why the officials have taken differing positions on an issue it is simpler to use past preceptions. A good example of how reporters create the preception they want is the use of such terms as 'same sex marriage', it forces a perception that an interviewee has to be on one side or the other and cannot have a view in between. Similarly, 'universal health care' implies that health is the responsiblity of others and not the individual or that better health can be something the individual can have a significant influence on. Even 'Abolishing Federal welfare programs' contrbutes to a historic perception and forces people to choose when it is quite possible it is about abuses and lack of focus or results that are really what is of importance to the interviewees. Preception and managing it is something that Mr.s Gorchow, Scorkrum, and Brookman are practicing for ease of creating their data and for brevity of reporting the story. To see if preception is an issue it would seem the researchers would have asked the interviewess what are their criteria for selecting a candidate or for taking action on an issue, then they would have asked how do you determine it an offical or constituent views that issue. If the interviewees said what on comments that were made, surveys taken, past actions taken, then it would suggest that perception was based on events. However, if it was from what I hear or read provided by others then it would seem that it were not fact based. Then they coould have been asked why they used that means to chose for their own actions. It is hard not to get the answers you are looking for it you frame the question so they can only give what you expect.
Mark R
Fri, 05/03/2013 - 2:51pm
Well, what the heck would anyone expect from these two left-winger progressives? Of COURSE, they want to try to convince politicians that we conservatives are liberals so that their votes would go that way and that we would elect Republican progressives. Nice job, THE BRIDGE.
Nancy Nyman
Tue, 05/07/2013 - 12:10am
Still wearing that tinfoil hat, huh???
Nancy Nyman
Tue, 05/07/2013 - 12:09am
The true question is, "Do they CARE about what their constituents think?" From what I can see, the answer is no. They care about their sponsors and handlers.