Most voters lack meaningful beliefs even on issues elites heatedly contest

Evidence

The substantive conclusion imposed by these technical maneuvers is simply that large portions of an electorate do not have meaningful beliefs, even on issues that have formed the basis for intense political controversy among elites for substantial periods of time. If this conclusion seems self-evident, it is worth reflecting on the constancy with which it is ignored and on the fact that virtually none of the common modes of dealing empirically with public beliefs attempts to take it into account. Instead, it is assumed that a location must be found for all members of a population on all dimensions of controversy that are measured. Our data argue that, where any single dimension is concerned, very substantial portions of the public simply do not belong on the dimension at all. They should be set aside as not forming any part of that particular issue public. And since it is only among “members” of any given issue public that the political effects of a controversy are felt (where such “effects” include activated public opinion expressed in the writing of letters to the editor, the changing of votes, and the like), we come a step closer to reality when we recognize the fragmentation of the mass public into a plethora of narrower issue publics. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 1952

Categorization

• SEED: An essay angle: the polling industry’s false premise that every voter must be located on every issue dimension, and what the fixation with the median voter misses.
• XREF: Echoes the ‘spiral of silence’ and Philip Converse’s original finding on belief constraint in mass publics; connects to the reader’s interest in how institutions manufacture opinion. — connects to: Elite ideological battles can pass almost unwitnessed by mass publics — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology: Key Readings, 1970