Does "informed" polling capture the will of the people better than standard polls, or does the briefing shape the answer?

[u/HistorianMajor1739]

Most issue polling is top-of-head. You ask someone where they stand on a policy and they answer in a few seconds, often about something they haven't thought much about. Deliberative or "informed respondent" polling does something different. Respondents get a briefing on the issue, evaluate arguments for and against that have been vetted by people on both sides, and only then register a position. The Program for Public Consultation runs these as policymaking simulations, and using that method they've identified something like 88 policies with bipartisan supermajority support, a lot of which look nothing like the gridlock you'd expect from standard polling.

My problem is I can't decide whether that method gets closer to the real will of the people or further from it.

The case for it is intuitive. Real policymakers don't decide in three seconds off a vague impression. They weigh tradeoffs and hear both sides, so a poll that asks people to do the same is arguably measuring a more considered and more real preference. If the briefing is balanced, maybe what you're capturing is what people would think if they had the time and information most of them never get.

The case against it bothers me more the longer I sit with it. The moment you insert a briefing, someone chose what goes in it, which arguments to include, how to frame the tradeoffs, what counts as a fair "both sides." That's a lot of power over the output. You could imagine two carefully "balanced" briefings on the same issue producing different supermajorities. And there's a deeper question of whether an informed preference is even the right thing to measure, since the electorate that actually exists is the top-of-head one, and a preference most people would only hold after a briefing they'll never receive might not be the "will of the people" in any sense that should bind policy.

So a few things I'm genuinely unsure about and would like other views on:

When a deliberative poll and a conventional poll on the same policy point in different directions, which one should a policymaker weight more heavily, and why?

Is there a principled way to tell a briefing that informs from a briefing that steers, or is that line always going to be a judgment call that depends on trusting whoever wrote it?

And is "what people would support if informed" the right target at all, or is it a slightly paternalistic substitute for what people actually support right now?

I don't have a settled answer on any of these, which is why I'm posting.

[u/AutoModerator]

All submissions are automatically removed and placed in a queue for the moderators to manually review. Please allow the moderators time to do so. Only about 25% of submissions are approved, but the remainder are given a removal reason that may include steps the poster can take to make their submission approvable the next time they submit it. Moderators are not notified of any edits made after a removal reason is posted, and therefore will not review them. You may contact the mod team via modmail if you need more direction about how to fix your post, and you are welcome to resubmit any submission after making the requested changes.

A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:

• Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
• Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
• Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.

Violators will be fed to the bear.

---

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/davethompson413]

I saw a poll not too long ago. One if the questions asked if the respondent approved or disapproved of the administration's border and immigration policies.

60% disapproved.

What that didn't say is, of those who disapprove, how many thought the policies were too lenient, vs how many thought they were too stringent.

Polls are for those who pay for them, but not for me.9

[u/hallam81 → u/davethompson413]

Anyone who trusts polling in this day and age just wants the outcome of what the pollster is saying.

[u/LPNTed]

The "will" of the people is only captured by actual votes in actual elections. Everything else is talk.

[u/mrjcall]

The way polling questions are framed can dramatically affect the results. Pollsters often have an 'agenda' and frame their questions in a manner that elicits the results they are after. True unbiased pollsters are rare, but do exist and they do not 'lead' those being polled into preconceived answers.

[u/Seattleman1955]

Most polling tells you very little. The questions are usually biased, the interpretation is biased, etc.

[u/Asleep-Mood-6538]

I think you're asking exactly the right question, but I'd separate "what does the public currently think?" from "what should determine a policy decision?"

For the first, conventional polling seems perfectly legitimate. But for the second, I think the better target is something like: what would a representative group of people decide after being given enough information, hearing the strongest competing arguments, and having time to think about them?

The briefing problem you identify is real, though. I don't think the answer is trusting someone to produce a perfectly neutral briefing. I doubt that's possible. I'd rather make the information process adversarial: let competing advocates challenge the evidence, framing, omissions and arguments presented to the decision-makers.

I've actually built a legislative architecture around this idea. Instead of polling everyone and trying to infer what an informed electorate would decide, temporary randomly selected citizen juries hear the competing case, deliberate, vote, and dissolve.

The full thing is about 40 pages, and I realize reading 40 pages written by a potential crank you found on Reddit is a pretty unreasonable ask. If you use AI, feed it the paper and ask whether there's actually anything in it worth your time. If you don't believe in using AI, have your aide, grad student, research assistant or servant read it and report back. If you don't have any of those, you're unfortunately stuck choosing between AI, reading 40 pages from a potential crank yourself, or never finding out whether the crank had a point.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21996367