Re: [EL] Only 22% of Americans think most judges should be appointed

Paul,

There are so many problems with Rasmussen's polls and his transparent
agenda that I'm not sure where to start.  The "political class" you
are referring to is a creation of Rasmussen's.  The three questions
that are supposed to separate the "political class" from the
"mainstream" (Rasmussen's tendentious labels) are here:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2010/67_of_political_class_say_u_s_heading_in_right_direction_84_of_mainstream_disagrees
 In the same story linked above, Rasmussen asserts that our "treasured
heritage" of self-governance have been "diminished beyond all
recognition ... as little more than allowing voters to choose which of
two politicians will rule over them."

Well, no.  "Our cherished heritage" originally included just ONE
chamber of ONE branch of government with direct popular election.
Rasmussen has apparently forgotten about the Electoral College,
indirect election of Senators, and the appointment process to the
Supreme Court.

But let's forgive Rasmussen's ignorance of American political thought.
 Let's look at the poll directly.  It asks a series of agree/disagree
statements about judges.  The one you highlighted is about whether
judges should be "elected or appointed."  Judges are not identified
any further than "judges."

Problem 1: What judges?  Federal, district, state, local, traffic court?

Problem 2: Is the opinion target "judges" distinct, meaning, would
respondents give any different answer for any other governmental
office, from president to dog-catcher?  We have no idea therefore we
have no context within which to place the responses.

Problem 3: Do we have any other information about the accuracy of
perceptions of Courts?  37% of the same respondents state that the
"average" judge is "too liberal" and that the Supreme Court is also
"too liberal."  Interesting.  I am not going to comment on what the
makeup of the Court should be, but anyone who thinks the current Court
merits the label "liberal" is reflecting political fiction more than
legal fact.

But even if we accept the poll results, do we find this surprising and
do we find it revealing?   Consider some alternative data points: in a
series of studies, John Hibbing and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse showed
that:

     84% of the public favored more use of initiatives
     68% wanted term limits on Congress
     63% wanted power shifted to state and local governments

Sounds like a populist public, right?  The same study found that 48%
of the public endorsed either "leaving government decisions in the
hands of successful business people" or "leaving government decisions
in the hands of non-elected experts."  65% of the sample agreed that
"people just don't have the time or knowledge to make political
decisions."

We've long known that the public expresses support for more elections
and more control, yet the same public expresses skepticism about
elected officials and longs for non-partisan, expert decision making.
It would take too long to explain this apparent contradiction here--I
refer you to Hibbing and Theiss-Morse's excellent books on the
subject.  This doesn't even address the much more fundamental issues
that I started with: we don't design constitutions by asking questions
on public opinion polls.  Public support is one piece of information,
but it's far from dispositive.

---
Paul Gronke    Ph: 503-771-3142
paul.gronke@gmail.com
Professor of Political Science and
Director, Early Voting Information Center
Reed College

http://earlyvoting.net

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul@gmail.com> wrote: