Presidents...follow the polls, or go alone??

TheRogue · 01-17-2003, 05:59 AM

This has been brought up several times in various threads. Many of you constantly trash Clinton for being a "poll watcher", and seem to say that public opinion really shouldn't matter in running the government. I have an honest question. Which is more important, representing the will of the people of America, or following your own agenda?? (and careful here, remember, this president was NOT elected by the popular vote!!)

I, personally, have never forgiven Senator Smith for his votes at the federal level against the "right-to-die" laws we have OVERWHEMINGLY passed in this state. He went directly against a huge majority of his constituents on moral grounds. To me, this is inexcusable.

I'm always the first one to say that I vote for people to make the hard choices for me, ESPECIALLY when the public is divided over what should be done. In the state budget crisis, for example, I want someone to come up with the money, or come out and make the cuts, without all the politics and manuevering....regardless if I'm against the cuts. However, because I think I'm an intelligent person, I want to know the reasons why.

So, back to the original question....is it ok to constantly go against public opinion(generic, not just war related), or should an administration watch the polls closely, to determine which direction it would go??

TR

GutshotApe · 01-17-2003, 06:29 AM

IMHO, we elect leaders to lead, not to follow the latest poll results. On controversial issues, that means doing what Smith did even though a lot of Oregonians opposed his move (a lot supported it, too). The remedy is to throw the bum out at the next election and that is what will happen if the issues and disgruntled constituents add up to 50% +1 next time around.

Straydog · 01-17-2003, 06:53 AM

It is my belief that we elect people to represent us and our beliefs.

If they are not going to pay attention to our beliefs, how are they representing us?

While campaigning, our outgoing state Representative was asked if he would listen to the people back home and make his decisions based on how we the people felt. He said he was confident the people at home all thought like he did..... that was but one reason I did not vote for him.

Unfortunately, since most people are not involved in the process of informing their elected officials in terms of their beliefs, polls are the best avenue to judge the people's wishes.

Your example of Smiths vote on the Death with Dignity act is a good example of one that has let his constiuency down in a big way.

[ 01-17-2003, 07:55 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

monoman · 01-17-2003, 07:17 AM

Dog
What Smith did was not cross his moral lines!
I have great respect for people who tell you their going to do something, do it, and than standby it. I know Smith will stand by his vote.
I do not vote for anyone on a single issue. I disagree with him on the right to die. Polls are lchanging winds, I don't want my leaders waking each morning, reading the paper to make up their minds. I want thinkers.

Straydog · 01-17-2003, 07:23 AM

Monoman,

I hear what you are saying.
I would have liked it better if Smith had abstained.

Don't get me wrong, I would not decide to vote or not vote for Smith again due to this one decision. Thus far he continues to have my support.

In fact, given what he has done recently to break up the Atkinson party in Oregon, he is a blooming hero with me!! [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

I don't want someone to lead by what they read in the papers either. (God help us!) I do though, expect our leaders to support what the majority wants in a thoughtful manner.

TheRogue · 01-17-2003, 07:37 AM

And honestly, I voted for Senator Smith this time around, simply because we here in Oregon have really missed having senior representation in Congress since Packwood and Hatfield.

northriver1 · 01-17-2003, 07:38 AM

The question that I have to ask is, when was the last time anyone in a federal election voted for anything other than a individual? We do not vote on tax increases or anything else. We vote for indivduals to do our bidding for us. If you do not like the way they represent you than work harder than the next guy to vote him out. And who said the polls were accurate anyway.

Silver Hilton · 01-17-2003, 07:55 AM

Let me tell you about my own experience as an elected official.

In about 1988, the City of Portland was putting in the traffic diversions on Clinton street. This resulted in traffic rerouting one block south, onto Taggart, in order to get around the diversions. I started a petition process to halt the diversions, on, on hearing that the neighborhood association was behind it, got myself elected to the neighborhood association.

Once on the neighborhood association, I found out a lot of additional data about why the traffic diversion was put in place. Not least among the data was that 68% of the traffic at 39th and clinton during rush hour was from beyond hwy 205, and 24% had washington plates. Clinton street was being used as an arterial.

So, I found that my position, that I had been elected on, was wrong. It was not good for the neighborhood as a whole. I had to choose between voting for the beliefs of those who had helped me get into office, or to vote for the good of the neighborhood as a whole. And, coincidently, against the interest of my own property values.

I changed my position, much to the dismay of some people. Because it was wrong.

That's what I'd like our representatives and president to do. It's their job to represent all the country, not just those that voted vor them. And to continually refresh the data and opinions that they have, on the best available data.

[ 01-17-2003, 08:58 AM: Message edited by: Silver Hilton ]

crabbait · 01-17-2003, 08:22 AM

Can't we leave Clinton out of this?

Dancin' Bear · 01-17-2003, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by monoman:

What Smith did was not cross his moral lines!
I have great respect for people who tell you their going to do something, do it, and than standby it. I know Smith will stand by his vote.
I do not vote for anyone on a single issue. I disagree with him on the right to die. Polls are lchanging winds, I don't want my leaders waking each morning, reading the paper to make up their minds. I want thinkers.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">I agree with you 100% Monoman. I want a LEADER that makes the hard decisions that the general public, quite frankly, obviously does not have the guts to make.

GutshotApe says it well "IMHO, we elect leaders to lead, not to follow the latest poll results."

northriver1 · 01-17-2003, 09:35 AM

Straydog

How do we decide who the majority is. By ever man , women and child in the state or by only those who vote or ?????. Slow minds want to know.

Lured In · 01-17-2003, 10:51 AM

Polls/surveys are meaningless in most cases. Even elections are somewhat meaningless. To use Silver Hilton's personal example. (Not putting you down), He was not fully educated on the subject and that was the basis for his thought. Once he was able to understand the full scope of the problem, he changed his position (GOOD FOR YOU!).

Many who participate in these are minimally educated on the subject. (sometimes myself included). That is why it is so important for us to stay current on what is going on in politics.

Personally, I think no one should be able to participate in a poll or political survey, if they did not participate in the last election and were eligible too. If you don't vote, I don't care what you think because it doesn't matter if you don't vote.

Trophy · 01-17-2003, 01:06 PM

Polls are highly effective tool in a democracy, and are extensively used and manipulated by both parties. To suggest that Bush doesn't follow the polls is disingenius.

Bush doesn't make decisions on his own, like some of you are thinking. His decisions on all complex and controversial issues, such as the Iraq war, stem-cell research, Univ. of Michigan admissions policy, etc., are not based on his personal conviction/leadership, but they're the results of highly debated and researched products of his advisors, including pollsters.

I totally agree with TheRogue's assertion here that the presidents does have the obligation to continue to listen to the people, even after winning the election. There are two reasons for this. First, we live in a democratic republic where the elected should represent the will of the people on major issues. Secondly, no one person, or the small like minded group of people the president usually surrounds himself with, can be expected to have the knowledge and wisdom to make sound decisions all the time, and it's better to know the opinions of the people.

The significance of polls is not whether the sampling is well educated or meaningful. But rather it measures the mood or feeling of the larger population which would otherwise be unavailable. Yes it's true that many people who vote or participate in polls are uneducated or uninformed, but still that's the best method we have in which to decide who should be elected or what should be done in a democracy. So far it seems to be the best idea ever conceived in fairly setting up and running a government.

[ 01-17-2003, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: Trophy ]

Lured In · 01-17-2003, 01:39 PM

Trophy I don't disagree with anything you said. Here is my point regarding polls. Look at the Measure 28 polls. I was listening to Lars Larson yesterday and this subject happened to come up. As you probably know it looks as if more support is coming out for the measure according to the poll. One of Lars' callers said that he was called to participate in the poll and HE LIVES IN WASHINGTON!

I spent a great deal of time manipulating statistics in college and I could design a poll to say anything you want. My point is simply that the best voice we have is during an election. Once in office, we can only hope that the elected would indeed listen to the general public. Truth is though, we have little recourse if they do not listen until the next election.

Trophy · 01-17-2003, 02:06 PM

You bring up valid weaknesses about the polls, but I'm sure as an educated person, who probably took a statistics course in college, you know how to weed out the obvious manipulations and get a pretty good pulse of the matter at hand. You probably also know how independent/credible pollsters such as the Pew Research and the Gallup carefully formulate their questions to achieve fair and intended goals. When done in unbiased and objective manner, polls can be quite credible and accurate. But that's just my opinion.

[ 01-17-2003, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: Trophy ]

Silver Hilton · 01-17-2003, 06:52 PM

As Heinlein once said, "why does the collective opinion of a thousand idiots mean more that that of one wise man?"

Silver Hilton · 01-17-2003, 07:02 PM

Trophy touches on an important point. A poll master can run a poll for either of two missions: to find out what people think, or to show that they agree with you.

Before any of us put too much weight on a poll's results, it's a good idea to ask whether the sponsor of a poll has a stake in the outcome.

Silver Hilton · 01-17-2003, 07:41 PM

And one more thought.

Winston Churchill was once cornered while leaving Parliament by a member, and was taken to task for changing his opinion on a subject.

"Sir," he huffed, "when I am presented with new information that indicates that my position on an issue was wrong, I change my position. What, may I ask, do you do?"