Jim (and others),

I agree, I have no doubt that the public will express support for the
concept "electing judges" (and yes, the ABA poll is better, not just
because it's the ABA, but all the follow ups you cite provide us much
better context for the responses to the first question).

I was only pointing out that any poll question has to be judged on the
internal logic of the question and what information, if any, we think
the respondent brought to the stimulus situation.  I use that awkward
wording purposefully, because this is an important development in
survey research over the past two decades.  Questions are not
generally "right" or "wrong" (unless they are obviously biased); they
are what they are: a set of responses to the particular query placed
in front of the respondent.  We vary wordings experimentally, provide
more or less information, and the like to try to zero in on precisely
what the respondent pool is conveying.

Putting on my survey hat, my issues with the survey (and others) are
that "judges" are described generically, and this is a gross
simplification of the judicial branch.  The same does not apply to
questions asked about term limits for members of the legislature, for
instance.  My related concern is what the factual basis is for these
responses--do respondents even know that elected officials appoint
judges?  That judges can be removed by an act of the elected
legislature?

Rob Richie, as always, gets to the real point, I think.  I'm much more
interested in the larger philosophical question of what we do with
this result.  I like Paul's follow up example: the public is also dead
set against foreign aid.  What do we do about this?  Stop all foreign
aid?  Or educate the public about the benefits of foreign aid?   Why
not follow the same practice for judges--for those who oppose elective
judges, try to educate the public about the problems in such a system?

As to whether there a "political class" that has more influence over
political outcomes than the mass public, that takes me back to
political philosophy 101.  Yes, there is, always and everywhere.  Some
suggest that it is in the nature of large organizations and complex
societies.  It's not Rasmussen's politics that causes me concern, it's
his distortion of America's founding principles.  I teach politics,
and it pains me to see this kind of misinformation in a published
volume.

---
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

_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law