Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Politicians Believe About Their Constituents: Asymmetric Misperceptions [pdf]

stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 47 posts

Re: What Politicians Believe About Their Constituents: Asymmetric Misperceptions [pdf]

#11

Post by HLRoku »

gizmo686 wrote: post #9
Afforess wrote: post #7

The best quote of the paper (pg 23): > Interestingly, the reason we uncover such striking misperceptions does not appear to be that politicians are reluctant to admit a belief that public opinion is not on their side – many do. Rather, it seems that the reality of where the public stands on these issues has such a weak influence on politicians’ perceptions of public opinion that two candidates coming to judgments abo…

>I've long maintained congress would be much more representative if eligible citizens were randomly selected for 1 term. This is the way government worked in ancient Greece (or rather, Athens, but other Greece city-states copied the model).

I'm not too well educated on their gov'ts, but how effective was it? Any signs or indicators that it worked out for the better?

Call me intolerant or ignorant, but I personally fear seeing what the general populus would try to get passed in America if such a system were established. Perhaps a naive` worry, but a worry nonetheless.

Re: What Politicians Believe About Their Constituents: Asymmetric Misperceptions [pdf]

#13

Post by akouts »

"both liberals and conservatives tend to overestimate how conservative their constituents are, conservatives’ perceptions in this regard are exceptionally strong – conservative politicians typically overestimate the conservatism of their constituencies by more than 20 percentage points on these issues. This difference is so large that ​nearly half of conservative politicians appear to believe that they represent a district that is as or more conservative on these issues than are the most conservative districts in the entire country​."

I heard a quote years ago that "reality has a liberal bias." Based on the data...that appears true.

Re: What Politicians Believe About Their Constituents: Asymmetric Misperceptions [pdf]

#14

Post by jgroszko »

Afforess wrote: post #7

The best quote of the paper (pg 23): > Interestingly, the reason we uncover such striking misperceptions does not appear to be that politicians are reluctant to admit a belief that public opinion is not on their side – many do. Rather, it seems that the reality of where the public stands on these issues has such a weak influence on politicians’ perceptions of public opinion that two candidates coming to judgments abo…

> I've long maintained congress would be much more representative if eligible citizens were randomly selected for 1 congressional term, like jurors are in juries.

And like jurors in juries, wouldn't we then be governed by people not smart enough to get out of their congressional term?

Re: What Politicians Believe About Their Constituents: Asymmetric Misperceptions [pdf]

#15

Post by ypeterholmes »

Afforess wrote: post #7

The best quote of the paper (pg 23): > Interestingly, the reason we uncover such striking misperceptions does not appear to be that politicians are reluctant to admit a belief that public opinion is not on their side – many do. Rather, it seems that the reality of where the public stands on these issues has such a weak influence on politicians’ perceptions of public opinion that two candidates coming to judgments abo…

Interestingly? Seems this undermines the entire paper, because it's not that they don't know, but rather that they don't care.

Most don't serve us anymore- they serve the people that put them there.

Re: What Politicians Believe About Their Constituents: Asymmetric Misperceptions [pdf]

#16

Post by WillyF »

jgroszko wrote: post #14
Afforess wrote: post #7

The best quote of the paper (pg 23): > Interestingly, the reason we uncover such striking misperceptions does not appear to be that politicians are reluctant to admit a belief that public opinion is not on their side – many do. Rather, it seems that the reality of where the public stands on these issues has such a weak influence on politicians’ perceptions of public opinion that two candidates coming to judgments abo…

> I've long maintained congress would be much more representative if eligible citizens were randomly selected for 1 congressional term, like jurors are in juries. And like jurors in juries, wouldn't we then be governed by people not smart enough to get out of their congressional term?

Make it pay really well and people won't try to get out of it.

Re: What Politicians Believe About Their Constituents: Asymmetric Misperceptions [pdf]

#17

Post by dragonwriter »

jgroszko wrote: post #14
Afforess wrote: post #7

The best quote of the paper (pg 23): > Interestingly, the reason we uncover such striking misperceptions does not appear to be that politicians are reluctant to admit a belief that public opinion is not on their side – many do. Rather, it seems that the reality of where the public stands on these issues has such a weak influence on politicians’ perceptions of public opinion that two candidates coming to judgments abo…

> I've long maintained congress would be much more representative if eligible citizens were randomly selected for 1 congressional term, like jurors are in juries. And like jurors in juries, wouldn't we then be governed by people not smart enough to get out of their congressional term?

> > I've long maintained congress would be much more representative if eligible citizens were randomly selected for 1 congressional term, like jurors are in juries.

> And like jurors in juries, wouldn't we then be governed by people not smart enough to get out of their congressional term?

Now, I think that a by-lot Congress is a really bad idea for a variety of reasons, but that's a moderately stupid argument when it comes to juries (given that it assumes that everyone is actively seeking to avoid jury service, so the only people who actual serve are those who fail), and its even stupider applied to Congress -- its relatively common for people to want to have a say in the government of their country (to the point where already wealthy people will sometimes spend many times the salary a member of Congress earns per term on a campaign out of their own money), and shifting from an elected to a by-lot Congress would reduce the political power of voters as voters, increasing the delta represented by serving in Congress.

And that's even before considering that members of Congress are paid substantially more than most workers; changing nothing besides the selection method would make being selected for Congress not much different than winning the lottery for most citizens -- only those who are both already wealthy and politically disinterested would have rational, self-interested reason to avoid service.

Re: What Politicians Believe About Their Constituents: Asymmetric Misperceptions [pdf]

#18

Post by dbroockman »

ypeterholmes wrote: post #15
Afforess wrote: post #7

The best quote of the paper (pg 23): > Interestingly, the reason we uncover such striking misperceptions does not appear to be that politicians are reluctant to admit a belief that public opinion is not on their side – many do. Rather, it seems that the reality of where the public stands on these issues has such a weak influence on politicians’ perceptions of public opinion that two candidates coming to judgments abo…

Interestingly? Seems this undermines the entire paper, because it's not that they don't know, but rather that they don't care. Most don't serve us anymore- they serve the people that put them there.

This is my personal favorite interpretation of our results -- they could know if they cared to know, and so the fact that they don't know suggests that they don't care. With that said, this paper is at odds with that: https://www3.nd.edu/~dnickers/files/papers/Butler_Nickerson....

Re: What Politicians Believe About Their Constituents: Asymmetric Misperceptions [pdf]

#19

Post by dsfyu404ed »

chongli wrote: post #8
PaulHoule wrote: post #4

It's always struck me that conservatives expect to be listened to in the US while liberals expect to be ignored.

Conservativism is born of ambiguity intolerance. One of the defining characteristics of ambiguity intolerance is a need for certainty. As for why liberals expect to be ignored? I'd reckon that has more to do with history and a general sense of malaise and pessimism toward our intractable situation.

Tell that to conservatives in 1917 Russia.

I'd say social conservatism is more rooted in apprehension of rushing headlong into things than ambiguity intolerance.

Re: What Politicians Believe About Their Constituents: Asymmetric Misperceptions [pdf]

#20

Post by dbroockman »

NotAPerson wrote: post #6

This might be an off topic question, but how do the results change (if at all) when accounting for the age of the people involved? That is, how do politicians do at predicting the opinions of people +/- 5 years of their own age (which may be different than the total for the district)? I've always been curious if politicians are just "behind the times" (due to an average age higher than the average age of constituents…

Their age doesn't predict their accuracy. With that said, I like the idea of asking how they think various age groups think. Maybe they think their district is not as young as it is, maybe they think younger voters are more similar to older voters than they are, or maybe both.
Post reply on HN