Public Opinion Polling and Social Security Policy Decisions

The Unreliability of Public Opinion Polls

On Election Day in 1948, newly elected President Harry Truman smiled in a now-famous photograph holding a copy of the Chicago Tribune, which read, "Dewey Defeats Truman." Basing its information on public opinion polls as well as other resources, the Chicago Tribune printed the election results before they were actually tabulated in order to meet a print deadline. While the incident is humorous, it offers an excellent case study in the inaccuracy of public opinion polls.

Polls are often meaningless for a variety of reasons, yet they are encountered everywhere during an election year. Televised and radio newscasts present polling numbers repeatedly, while the Internet now gives the public access to a wide range of polls. Even those who rely solely on the daily newspaper will be introduced to them. Yet what the media provides Americans as a snapshot of public opinion is often blurred and out of focus. In fact, one could go as far as to say that public opinion polling is not only inaccurate, but also genuinely harmful to the public it claims to represent.

How many Americans base their voting decisions on public opinion polls? Do lawmakers and other public officials rely heavily on these polls when making decisions? Do these lawmakers put ideas into practice that they believe are wanted by the majority, when the majority may not actually want such things? If the answer to these questions is "yes," then it is easy to see how public opinion polling can lead to a misrepresentation of the people in government, undermining the republican system.

Low Information Rationality and Public Decision-Making

Why are polls so unreliable? After all, they appear to be conducted in good faith. Party members in elected office often sponsor polls in order to learn how the public feels about an issue before a law is enacted. This seems not only acceptable but also admirable — except that it assumes the general public is well informed, which it often is not.

The concept of low information rationality can be used to describe the general public's viewpoint on many social issues. People are often too busy to think carefully through the positions they are supporting. In other words, the general public does not employ the research methods used by Congress to determine whether to believe one thing or another, or to support one side of a debate. Indeed, citizens often do not take any time for independent research at all. Instead, they form opinions based on the slogans used by special interest and lobbying groups or the candidates themselves.

Further, people frequently allow external factors to cloud their judgment — a personal preference for one political party, a dislike of an accent, or skepticism about a candidate's personal life can all influence a decision. Some American citizens simply consider themselves too busy for politics and leave governing to their elected representatives. This view, known as elitism, holds that a select group of people is genuinely more capable of running the government and making decisions than the broader population. For all these reasons, public opinion polls cannot be considered fully accurate. Still, their use in political decision-making may be acceptable if they are paired with other tools, such as the trustee model of representation. This essay takes the issue of public opinion polling further by considering the controversy over the privatization of Social Security, arguing that polls — which show a small minority of the population currently using Social Security opposing privatization — should not be the sole basis for making that decision.

Social Security and the Limits of Majority Opinion

Consider a scenario in which public opinion polls show that a vast majority favors the privatization of Social Security, while the population aged 65 and older overwhelmingly favors keeping the program under government administration. In such a situation, public opinion polling cannot be used as the sole source upon which the decision is made. While democratic government favors majority rule, it is clear that, in this case, the majority is not the best informed about Social Security.

For the majority of the population — those under age 65 — Social Security is simply money deducted from their paycheck. Although most would agree that the Social Security system is beneficial and important, many also grumble about its cost. While these individuals will eventually use the system themselves, one cannot underestimate the tendency of the American public to make decisions based on short-term self-interest. It is therefore possible that the public may be not only uninformed on the subject of Social Security but also unwilling to be educated about it.

Conclusion: Beyond the Poll

It is the trustee's obligation to protect people from the problems associated with a failed Social Security system. Without Social Security, many young people will not be able to afford medication, which may lead to both disability and premature death. These individuals may also recognize that without Social Security, they will not be able to retire at all. Given the vast scope of Social Security's challenges and the extreme hardships the majority would face if the bill were vetoed, it must be upheld.

Public opinion polling is therefore an imprecise measure that produces humorous errors like the one shared between Truman and Dewey in 1948. While polls are broadly inaccurate, they still offer a rough representation of public sentiment. They cannot, however, be used in isolation to make decisions about public policy, since the public is often poorly informed and frequently discounts the opinion of the minority. Responsible governance requires that elected leaders act as trustees — balancing poll data against expert knowledge, long-term national interests, and the rights of all citizens.