A public opinion research project exploring attitudes about government.
A public opinion research project exploring attitudes about government.
Wisconsin may perhaps be on the road to passing right-to-work legislation. According to a recent Reason-Rupe poll of 708 Wisconsin residents, 51 percent favor a law in Wisconsin “that would no longer require workers in unionized companies to pay union dues as a condition of employment.” This number is largely unchanged (52 percent) among likely voters.
Governor Scott Walker’s controversial Act 10 made paying public union dues voluntary, effectively making union membership also voluntary and public sector employment right-to-work. Now that Walker has survived the recall election, should we expect Wisconsin's private sector to also move toward the right-to-work column in the near future?
Public sector workers are most likely to oppose a right-to-work law in Wisconsin, with 58 percent in opposition; however, 53 percent among private sector workers approve. Others who strongly oppose are those with a post-graduate degrees (57 percent), Occupy Wall Street supporters (56 percent), Democrats (55 percent), and households with union members (53 percent).
Those who favor right-to-work legislation in Wisconsin include 68 percent of Tea Party supporters, 66 percent of Republicans, 61 percent among those over sixty-five years old and 57 percent among those aged forty-five to fifty-four, and 54 percent among those making more than $75,000 a year and 53 percent among those making less than $30,000 a year.
Right To Work
Some historical perspective is useful here. In the 1930s it was argued that federal intervention in labor markets was necessary to resolve disputes between labor and business. In 1935 Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) or the Wagner Act, setting up the National Labor Relations Board (NRLB) as the official arbiter of labor unions. With sufficient employee support, a company’s employees could petition to receive union authorization. Only one union would be permitted per business. Since businesses were required to only negotiate with the one union, they were required to collectively bargain with union representatives over pay and working conditions. It also required employees of unionized companies to pay union dues as a condition of employment.
Twelve years later, the Taft-Hartley Act amended the NLRA, allowing states to pass right-to-work laws that prevented unions from requiring companies to fire workers who refused to join the union. Essentially, right-to-work laws made union membership voluntary and brought the choice of paying union dues back to the individual.
The following chart shows which states have right-to-work laws and those that do not.
| Right-To-Work | Not Right-To-Work |
| Alabama | Alaska |
| Arizona | California |
| Arkansas | Colorado |
| Florida | Connecticut |
| Georgia | Delaware |
| Idaho | Hawaii |
| Indiana | Illinois |
| Iowa | Kentucky |
| Kansas | Maine |
| Louisiana | Maryland |
| Mississippi | Massachusetts |
| Nebraska | Michigan |
| Nevada | Minnesota |
| North Carolina | Missouri |
| North Dakota | Montana |
| Oklahoma | New Hampshire |
| South Carolina | New Jersey |
| South Dakota | New Mexico |
| Tennessee | New York |
| Texas | Ohio |
| Utah | Oregon |
| Virginia | Pennsylvania |
| Wyoming | Rhode Island |
| Vermont | |
| Washington | |
| West Virginia | |
| Wisconsin |
Source: National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation
If additional states, such as Wisconsin, wish to change the relationship between labor unions and business and allow workers the choice of joining a union, legislation must be passed in that state. Given Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s ability to withstand a recall election after making public-employees effectively right-to-work, an expansion of right-to-work in the private sector may perhaps follow.
Full poll results can be found here and cross tabs here.
ORC International conducted fieldwork for the poll, May 14th-18th 2012 of both mobile and landline phones, 708 Wisconsin adults, margin of error +/- 3.7%. Likely Wisconsin voters (609, MOE +/-4%) include registered respondents who said they are absolutely certain to vote or very likely to vote in the June 5th recall election for governor.
Emily Ekins is the director of polling for Reason Foundation where she leads the Reason-Rupe public opinion research project, launched in 2011. Follow her on Twitter @emilyekins.
As Baylen Linnekin reports, not only are the usuals mocking NYC Mayor Bloomberg’s plan to ban large-size sugary drinks, but also New York City Democratic mayoral candidate Christine Quinn, writer and healthy-food advocate Bettina Siegel, Jon Stewart, Jake Tapper, Matt Lauer, and The New York Times' editorial page.
Like these public intellectuals, the public also opposes such a ban. Rasmussen found 65 of Americans oppose a law that would ban the sale of any cup or bottle of sweetened drink larger than 16 ounces; 24 percent favor such a law. When asked about the constitutional authority to enact such a law, 9 percent think Bloomberg does have the authority to prevent people from buying sugary drinks, while 85 percent disagree.
Virtually all major demographic groups Rasmussen identified oppose the sugary-drinks ban in equal proportion. The only divergence appears for party identification. Forty-one percent of Democrats favor a ban and 45 percent oppose, in contrast 11 percent of Republicans favor and 80 percent oppose.
Click here for Rasmussen's methodology and question wording.
Americans favor or oppose limiting public unions’ collective bargaining power depending on how pollsters ask the question. If polls describe collective bargaining as public unions’ right to bargain, the wording predisposes respondents to oppose policies purported to take away rights.
A Reason-Rupe poll of 700 Wisconsin residents on landlines and cell phones asked half the sample if they “support or oppose reducing collective bargaining rights for public employee unions” and 52 percent opposed. The other half of the sample was asked if they “support or oppose limiting collective bargaining for public employee unions” and 51 percent favored. The primary difference between these two polls is using the word “rights” when describing collective bargaining.
Before a political battle erupted over Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s attempt to curb public unions’ collective bargaining, little national media covered public sector unions and the looming government employee pension crisis facing many state governments. Moreover, few Americans had heard of how public unions negotiate contracts or that public unions are distinct from private sector labor unions. Consequently, when national pollsters surveyed Wisconsinites and Americans nationally in spring 2011, question wording in the polls highly influenced responses.
In early 2011, much of the early polling framed the dispute over public unions’ collective bargaining in terms of “rights.” For instance, numerous pollsters found upwards of 55 percent oppose measures to “take away,” “eliminate,” “weaken,” or “reduce” “collective bargaining rights” as they were so described.
A problem interpreting these poll results is that many Americans do not understand the collective bargaining process. In fact, only about 20 percent of Americans say they are “very familiar” with the process of collective bargaining. Consequently, wording of the question on surveys can highly impact response.
Querying the Roper Center iPoll database for “collective bargaining” or “union” in 2011 finds nine national polls asking about curbing public sector union collective bargaining power. Seven of the nine polls describe collective bargaining as public union’s “right” to bargain; these polls find strong majority opposition to limiting public union contract negotiations. Two polls do not use the word “rights” in their questions about collective bargaining, and these find pluralities support limiting collective bargaining.
Survey Questions Using Word “Rights”
Survey Questions Not Using Word “Rights”
Americans are not clear on the public union collective bargaining process. Consequently, framing questions about public sector reform in terms of taking away rights confounds survey response. America’s rich historical narrative of protecting individuals’ rights predisposes respondents to oppose policies purported to take away rights.
Full poll results can be found here and cross tabs here.
ORC International conducted fieldwork for the poll, May 14th-18th 2012 of both mobile and landline phones, 708 Wisconsin adults, margin of error +/- 3.7%. Likely Wisconsin voters (609, MOE +/-4%) include registered respondents who said they are absolutely certain to vote or very likely to vote in the June 5th recall election for governor.
Emily Ekins is the director of polling for Reason Foundation where she leads the Reason-Rupe public opinion research project, launched in 2011. Follow her on Twitter @emilyekins.
The latest Reason-Rupe poll of 708 Wisconsin adults on landline and cell phones found 65 percent of Wisconsin residents believe government workers receive better retirement benefits that those with similar jobs in the private sector. Twenty-two percent think benefits are the same and 7 percent think public sector retirement benefits are worse than in the private sector.
Wisconsin results are substantially higher than findings from a national Reason-Rupe poll conducted in March 2011, which found that 50 percent of Americans thought “public sector employees” have “better benefits” than “those with similar jobs in the private sector.”
Despite the widespread perception that public employees receive better retirement benefits, this does not necessarily translate into support for cutting these benefits. Instead, a slight plurality (49 percent) opposes doing so, and 46 percent support reducing public employee benefits. At the same time, the public also supports reforms that would reduce costs of public employee retirement benefits: 74 percent favor increased public employee contributions toward benefits, 69 percent favor transitioning pensions to 401(k)-style accounts, and 79 percent favor increasing the retirement benefit eligibility age to at least 60.
Perception of public employee benefits appears to highly correlate with the issues surrounding the June 5th Wisconsin Governor recall election. Eight-eight percent of those who plan to vote for Governor Scott Walker think public employees receive better benefits, compared to 46 percent among Tom Barrett voters. Likewise, 81 percent among those with unfavorable opinions of public unions think public workers receive better benefits compared to 48 percent among those with favorable opinions of public unions.
However, majorities of both public (59 percent) and private (75 percent) sector workers agree public workers receive better retirement benefits. Similarly majorities across partisan groups also agree, including 82 percent of Republicans, 65 percent of Independents, and 51 percent of Democrats.
There is a general consensus in Wisconsin that public sector workers enjoy better retirement benefits that those with similar jobs in the private sector. This does not necessarily mean they favor cutting those benefits (some may think the private sector should improve its retirement benefits). Nevertheless, this perception of compensation inequality between public and private sectors may drive support for reforms that reduce the cost of government workers' retirement benefits.
Full poll results can be found here and cross tabs here.
ORC International conducted fieldwork for the poll, May 14th-18th 2012 of both mobile and landline phones, 708 Wisconsin adults, margin of error +/- 3.7%. Likely Wisconsin voters (609, MOE +/-4%) include registered respondents who said they are absolutely certain to vote or very likely to vote in the June 5th recall election for governor.
Emily Ekins is the director of polling for Reason Foundation where she leads the Reason-Rupe public opinion research project, launched in 2011. Follow her on Twitter @emilyekins.
The latest Reason-Rupe poll of 708 Wisconsin adults on landline and cell phones finds support among Wisconsin voters to reform public employee retirement plans. 69 percent support transitioning new government employees who have not been promised pension benefits from a defined-benefit guaranteed pension plan to a 401(k)-style account based on the amount they’ve saved for retirement and investment returns.
In fact, even a majority (53 percent) of current government workers favor such a transition, as well as 79 percent of private sector workers. Nevertheless, since the proposed change would not affect current public workers it’s difficult to say whether they would favor such a change for their own retirement plans. Moreover, support for transitioning to 401(k)-style accounts extends beyond partisanship, education, income, and vote choice.
Currently in Wisconsin, government employees are promised defined-benefit pension plans that promise a guaranteed amount of income in retirement. Although these plans were once fairly popular, the private sector has largely shifted toward 401(k)-style accounts, which offer lower guaranteed benefits but also have the prospect of earning even higher income when the market does well. These accounts tend to cost the government less but also offer a lower guaranteed return for retirees.
Perhaps Wisconsinites are open to reforming government worker retirement plans because 65 percent believe public workers receive better retirement benefits than workers with similar jobs in the private sector.
Government employees will typically get guaranteed pension payments during retirement, while private sector workers will typically get payments from 401(k) -style accounts based on the amount they saved for retirement and investment returns. For new government employees who have not been promised pension benefits, would you favor or oppose shifting them from guaranteed pensions to 401(k) -style accounts?
Full poll results can be found here and cross tabs here.
ORC International conducted fieldwork for the poll, May 14th-18th 2012 of both mobile and landline phones, 708 Wisconsin adults, margin of error +/- 3.7%. Likely Wisconsin voters (609, MOE +/-4%) include registered respondents who said they are absolutely certain to vote or very likely to vote in the June 5th recall election for governor.
Emily Ekins is the director of polling for Reason Foundation where she leads the Reason-Rupe public opinion research project, launched in 2011. Follow her on Twitter @emilyekins.
According to the latest Reason-Rupe poll of 708 Wisconsin adults on landline and cell phones, only 17 percent favor disbursing lifetime retirement benefits to retired government workers before age 60. In fact, 50 percent prefer government workers wait until age 65 before becoming eligible to collect retirement benefits.
In many states, government
workers may retire and begin receiving lifetime retirement benefits
before age 60. However, in the state of Wisconsin, 79 percent of
residents think public employees should wait until at least age 60
before becoming eligible to receive retirement benefits.
Differences across political and demographic subgroups emerge with raising the retirement benefit eligibility age to 65. Whereas 52 percent of private sector workers want to raise the eligibility age to sixty-five, 41 percent of public sector workers agree. Notably, half of retired former public employees think the eligibility age should be raised to at least age 65. Majorities of Republicans and Independents want to increase the eligibility age to 65, compared to 44 percent of Democrats.
These results match up with previous polling done in Wisconsin. For instance, a 2011 Rasmussen poll asked likely Wisconsin voters to consider several hypotheticals. Rasmussen asked:
“Suppose someone becomes a teacher right out of college and stays for 30 years until they retire at age 52. Should that person receive a full pension for life at age 52 or should that person find another job and wait until they retire at around age 65 to receive their full pension?” 60 percent said the teacher should wait until about age 65 to receive their full pension.
“Suppose someone joins the police force at age 20 and stays for 25 years until they retire at age 45. Should that person receive a full pension for life at age 45 or should that person find another job and wait until they retire at around age 65 to receive their full pension?” 65 percent of Wisconsin voters said the police officer should wait until about age 65 to receive retirement benefits.
These Reason-Rupe poll results of Wisconsin residents suggest the public is open to reforming the terms of public sector workers’ contracts and the age at which public employees become eligible to receive lifetime retirement benefits.
Full poll results can be found here and cross tabs here.
ORC International conducted fieldwork for the poll, May 14th-18th 2012 of both mobile and landline phones, 708 Wisconsin adults, margin of error +/- 3.7%. Likely Wisconsin voters (609, MOE +/-4%) include registered respondents who said they are absolutely certain to vote or very likely to vote in the June 5th recall election for governor.
Emily Ekins is the director of polling for Reason Foundation where she leads the Reason-Rupe public opinion research project, launched in 2011. Follow her on Twitter @emilyekins.
CORRECTION: A previous version of this article stated 17 percent of Wisconsin residents favor disbursing retirement benefits to government workers before age 65, the post should say before age 60.
The latest Reason-Rupe poll of 708 Wisconsin adults on landline and cell phones suggests Wisconsin voters favor reforming public employee unions, over raising taxes and cutting education and health care spending, to address the state budget deficit.
When Governor Scott Walker took office in 2011, the state faced a projected $3.2 billion deficit. The approach Walker took to close the budget gap included reducing state spending on public employees. To do so required government workers to contribute more toward their own health care and retirement benefits. However, this also effectively served as a pay cut for many public employees.
The Reason-Rupe poll asked Wisconsinites how the state should raise funds to pay government employee retirement benefits if the state did not have enough money to fund these benefits.
72 percent oppose “increasing sales, income, or property taxes” to help fund government worker retirement benefits, 25 percent favor.
75 percent oppose “cutting spending on government programs, such as education and health care” to help fund public employee retirement benefits, 23 percent favor.
49 percent oppose and 46 percent favor “reducing public employee benefits.”
However, 74 percent favor “requiring public employees to contribute more toward their own pensions and health care,” and 24 percent oppose.
The poll followed by asking “if the state and local government had to reduce spending, which of the following areas would you reduce spending on first?” The plurality of Wisconsinites (38 percent) chose reducing spending on “pensions and benefits for public employees” followed by “prisons and courts” (29 percent).
These results suggest that when tough trade-offs have to be made to fund public employee retirement benefits, the public favors requiring public employees to contribute more over raising taxes, or cutting spending on education and health care.
Full poll results can be found here and cross tabs here.
ORC International conducted fieldwork for the poll, May 14th-18th 2012 of both mobile and landline phones, 708 Wisconsin adults, margin of error +/- 3.7%. Likely Wisconsin voters (609, MOE +/-4%) include registered respondents who said they are absolutely certain to vote or very likely to vote in the June 5th recall election for governor.
Emily Ekins is the director of polling for Reason Foundation where she leads the Reason-Rupe public opinion research project, launched in 2011. Follow her on Twitter @emilyekins.
Despite controversy over Wisconsin Governor Scott Walkers’ efforts to reform public employee unions, the latest Reason-Rupe poll of 708 Wisconsin adults, on both landline and cell phones, finds considerable support for many of the law’s key provisions.
Walkers’ proposal, which was later passed into law last summer, significantly changed the laws regarding public employee unions in Wisconsin. The law altered the way state officials and union leaders negotiate contracts and compensation and also what public employees will contribute toward their retirement benefits and health care.
72 percent of Wisconsinites favor “increasing the amount that government employees contribute to their own pensions from less than 1 percent to 6 percent of their annual salaries," 24 percent oppose.
71 percent favor “increasing the amount that government employees contribute to their own health care from 6 percent to 12 percent of the cost of their health care,” 27 percent oppose.
50 percent favor “ending automatic union dues deductions from government employee paychecks,” 41 percent oppose.
However, other provisions in the law received less support. 47 percent favor and 46 percent oppose “limiting government employee collective bargaining to just negotiating wages, and excluding bargaining on benefits, working conditions, pensions, and rules.” This provision in the law effectively limited collective bargaining of public employee unions, and the public has not yet reached a consensus on this provision in the law.
Wisconsinites oppose a provision in the law that exempted police and firefighters from law changes by a margin of 57 percent to 38 percent.
In sum, these results show that Wisconsin voters favor particular provisions in the law more strongly than they oppose them. This may explain why Governor Scott Walker leads Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett 50-42 among likely voters in the upcoming recall election.
Full poll results can be found here and cross tabs here.
ORC International conducted fieldwork for the poll, May 14th-18th 2012 of both mobile and landline phones, 708 Wisconsin adults, margin of error +/- 3.7%. Likely Wisconsin voters (609, MOE +/-4%) include registered respondents who said they are absolutely certain to vote or very likely to vote in the June 5th recall election for governor.
Emily Ekins is the director of polling for Reason Foundation where she leads the Reason-Rupe public opinion research project, launched in 2011. Follow her on Twitter @emilyekins.
While a majority of Wisconsin voters plan to vote for Republican
Governor Scott Walker in the June 5th recall election,
Wisconsinites plan to vote for President Barack Obama by a margin
of 10 percent over Mitt Romney. (46 percent to 36 percent)
Among likely voters, Obama’s margin over Romney shrinks to 44-41 percent. Consequently, Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson’s 5 percent of the vote could potentially impact the results of this swing-state. Depending on whether Johnson takes more votes from Romney or Obama could swing which presidential candidate receives the state’s electoral votes.
Gary Johnson voters in Wisconsin are difficult to categorize, as they agree with Mitt Romney supporters to end automatic union dues deductions, and think public employee unions have too much power and get better benefits than private sector workers. However, they are more like Obama supporters in that they are less comfortable limiting public unions’ collective bargaining, and are slightly more likely to vote for Tom Barrett (38 to 33 percent). They self-identify as Independent, but tend to lean Republican.
Full poll results can be found here and cross tabs here.
ORC International conducted fieldwork for the poll, May 14th-18th 2012 of both mobile and landline phones, 708 Wisconsin adults, margin of error +/- 3.7%. Likely Wisconsin voters (609, MOE +/-4%) include registered respondents who said they are absolutely certain to vote or very likely to vote in the June 5th recall election for governor.
Emily Ekins is the director of polling for Reason Foundation where she leads the Reason-Rupe public opinion research project, launched in 2011. Follow her on Twitter @emilyekins.
Governor Scott Walker leads Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett 50-42 among those likely to vote in Wisconsin’s June 5 recall election, according to a new Reason-Rupe poll of 708 Wisconsin adults on cell phones and landlines. At the same time, Wisconsin residents favor Obama 46 percent to 36 percent in the potential swing state.
Favorability toward public sector unions plays a critical role in vote choice. Fifty-four percent of Walker voters have an unfavorable opinion of government employee unions. Yet 65 percent of Barrett voters have a favorable opinion of these unions.
Significant differences emerge between the two voter blocs over Governor Walker’s controversial Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill. Walker voters favor the major provisions in the law, but only a narrow margin favor exempting public safety unions from law changes. Barrett voters oppose most major provisions in the law, except increasing pension contributions.
Favor Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill Major Provisions
Nearly three-fourths of Walker voters worry that public sector unions have too much power negotiating their contracts, only 16 percent of Barrett voters agree. Sixty-nine percent of Walker voters also support what essentially is a right to work law in Wisconsin, compared to 34 percent among Barrett voters.
Perceptions of unions also differ greatly between these two voter groups. A majority of Barrett voters believe public sector unions have helped the state and local economy, but 62 percent of Walker voters say these unions have hurt the economy. Over half of Barrett voters think teachers’ unions have helped educational quality in the state, compared to 62 percent of Walker voters who think teachers’ unions have hurt education quality. Walker voters also overwhelmingly (88 percent) believe public sector retirement benefits are better than benefits in the private sector for similar jobs. Instead, only 46 percent of Barrett voters agree.
Nearly half of Walker voters identify with the Tea Party movement, while over half of employed Barrett voters are public sector employees. About a quarter of those who plan to vote for Walker also have a favorable opinion of President Obama’s job performance. This demonstrates Wisconsin’s recall election extends beyond partisan lines.
Emily Ekins is the director of polling for Reason Foundation where she leads the Reason-Rupe public opinion research project, launched in 2011. Follow her on Twitter @emilyekins.
Gov. Scott Walker leads Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett 50-42 among those likely to vote in Wisconsin’s June 5 recall election, according to a new Reason-Rupe poll of 708 Wisconsin adults on cell phones and landlines.
In the presidential race, 49 percent of all adults surveyed approve of the job President Obama is doing and 45 percent disapprove. President Obama leads Mitt Romney 46-36 in Wisconsin, with 6 percent selecting the Libertarian Party’s Gary Johnson. Obama’s margin over Romney shrinks to 45-41 among those likely to vote in June’s recall election, with Johnson taking what would be a crucial 5 percent of the vote.
The Reason-Rupe poll finds voters overwhelmingly support many of the key changes Gov. Walker and the legislature implemented on public sector pensions and health care last year. Reason-Rupe finds 72 percent favor the change requiring public sector workers to increase their pension contributions from less than 1 percent to 6 percent of their salaries. And 71 percent favor making government employees pay 12 percent of their own health care premiums instead of the previous 6 percent.
Taxpayers actually wish state lawmakers had cast an even larger net with their reforms. Police and firefighters were exempted from the pension and health care adjustments but 57 percent of taxpayers say they should not have been.
The public supports asking government workers to pick up more of the tab for their own retirement benefits, as 65 percent say public sector workers receive better pension and health care benefits than private sector workers. 22 percent say benefit levels are about the same, and just 7 percent believe private sector retirement benefits are better than those in the public sector.
When asked what state and local officials should do if pensions and health benefits are underfunded, 74 percent favor requiring government employees to pay more for their own health care and retirement benefits. In sharp contrast, 75 percent oppose cutting funding for programs like education and 74 percent oppose raising taxes to help fund government worker benefits.
To deal with rising retirement costs, 69 percent favor shifting future state employees, those who haven’t been hired or promised pensions yet, to 401(k)-style retirement plans instead of the current defined-benefit plans.
If state and local governments have to reduce spending, voters were asked what should be cut first: 38 percent say public employee pension benefits, 29 percent believe prison and court cuts should be made first, 17 percent would reduce funding for roads and infrastructure, 5 percent chose education, and 4 percent would target health care spending.
Government employee unions are viewed favorably by 35 percent of those surveyed and unfavorably by 31 percent. Voters remain split on limiting the collective bargaining power of public sector unions, with 47 percent in favor of, and 46 percent opposed to, restricting unions’ ability to negotiate things like health care and pension benefits.
The Reason-Rupe poll finds significant differences in attitudes between public and private sector employees. For example, 65 percent of government employees have a favorable view of public employee unions and just 11 percent view unions unfavorably. In contrast, only 27 percent of private sector employees have favorable opinions of public employee unions, while 37 percent view them unfavorably.
And while 72 percent of all respondents favor the law requiring public sector workers to increase their pension contributions, only 48 percent of government employees favor the change, while 80 percent of private sector employees favor it.
The complete Reason-Rupe survey is online here.
This Reason-Rupe poll, conducted May 14-18, 2012 by ORC International, surveyed a random sample of 708 Wisconsin adults on cell phones and landlines. The results have a margin of error of plus or minus 3.7 percentage points. The poll includes 609 likely voters who are registered and said they are certain or likely to vote in the June 5 recall election. The margin of error for likely voters is plus or minus 4 percentage points.
This is the latest in a series of Reason-Rupe public opinion surveys dedicated to exploring what Americans really think about government and major issues. This Reason Foundation project is made possible thanks to the generous support of the Arthur N. Rupe Foundation.
Emily Ekins is the director of polling for Reason Foundation where she leads the Reason-Rupe public opinion research project, launched in 2011. Follow her on Twitter @emilyekins.
A new Brookings Institute study finds voters may be less disinclined toward Romney’s Mormonism than previously thought. Results find priming respondents about Romney’s religion has little statistical impact on vote choice. These findings should be welcomed as we strive toward a society comprised of individuals not groups.
The claim typically levied against Romney’s electability is often based on a Gallup poll finding 22 percent of the electorate would not vote for a Mormon presidential candidate.
Researchers employed a “treatment and control” type method in which different information about Romney was given to different respondents, and then all respondents were asked if they planned to vote for Romney or Obama in November. This allowed the researchers to measure the impact different information has on vote choice.
Researchers recruited 2,084 survey participants through Amazon.com to fill out a computer survey. Respondents were then randomly assigned to one of four different groups. Respondents were statistically similar across all groups. Researchers then randomly assigned one of the following information pieces to each of the four groups:
A: Mitt Romney is seeking the Republican nomination to run for president against Democrat Barack Obama this fall.
B: Mitt Romney, a Mormon, is seeking the Republican nomination to run for president against Democrat Barack Obama this fall.
C: Mitt Romney, a Mormon, is seeking the Republican nomination to run for president against Democrat Barack Obama this fall. The Mormon Church believes that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the Bible is the word of God.
D: Mitt Romney, a Mormon, is seeking the Republican nomination to run for president against Democrat Barack Obama this fall. In addition to accepting the Bible as the word of God, the Mormon Church also believes that the Book of Mormon is the word of God. The Mormon Church believes the Book of Mormon was written on golden plates by ancient inhabitants of America whom Jesus Christ visited shortly after his resurrection. The Church also believes that the book was later discovered in 1823 when Joseph Smith found it buried in upstate New York.
After reading one of these four information pieces, all respondents were asked if they planned to vote for Obama or Romney in November.
Group A was not “primed” about Romney’s Mormonism. Group B was primed to consider Romney’s religion. Group C primed respondents about Romney’s religion but emphasized the similarities between mainstream Christianity and the LDS faith. Group D was primed with information highlighting differences between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity.
If Mormonism has a significant dampening effect on Romney’s electability, we would expect Group A to be significantly more likely to vote for Romney than Groups B, C, or D. Moreover, we’d expect Group D to be least likely to vote for him. However, the results tell a different story. In fact Romney’s support did not vary significantly across the four groups.
This study is not definitive. The sample was not nationally representative, and one could argue that most of the respondents were aware of Romney’s religion before being primed with different information pieces. Nevertheless, we’d expect some sort of difference given the different kinds of information provided.
These findings should be welcomed news as we strive for a society comprised of individuals not groups. Seeing people in terms of groups is indeed a collectivist concept. Judging Romney on his own merits and policy positions rather than as a member of some monolithic group is a step toward societal progress.
Yesterday’s post discussed Gallup data demonstrating increased acceptance of gay and lesbian relationships and homosexuality in general. Gallup data also suggest that perhaps a majority of Americans are comfortable with legalizing same-sex marriage. However a new CBS News/New York Times poll, asking a different way, finds only 38 percent support gay marriage. As the Washington Post’s Aaron Blake explains here, the main difference between the Gallup Poll and the CBS/New York Times poll is the number of answer choices.
The Gallup poll asked if Americans approve or disapprove of President Obama’s position that “same-sex couples should be able to legally marry,” 51 percent approve and 45 percent disapprove.
Asked one year earlier, with slightly different wording, but also with two answer choices, Gallup found that 53 percent said “marriages between same-sex couples” “should be valid” and 45 percent said they “should not be valid.”
However, the CBS/New York Times poll provides three answer choices and finds less support for gay marriage. Thirty-eight percent thought “same-sex couples should be” “allowed to marry” 24 percent thought they should be allowed to “form civil unions” and 33 percent thought same-sex couples should have “no legal recognition.”
The differential response resulting from different question wording indicate the tenuous state of public opinion regarding same-sex marriage. Americans are not quite fully comfortable with gay marriage, but when asked to make the trade-off between no legal recognition and marriage, Americans opt for allowing gays and lesbians to get married. Nevertheless, this issue’s “swing voters” tend to prefer civil unions. This explains why intensity is not on the side of liberalization. Moreover, a cursory overview of state same-sex marriage laws shows that those opposed to gay marriage have better mobilized to get their preferred policies enacted.
National Gay Marriage Laws
Source: CBSNews.com
A recent poll out from Gallup shows 54 percent of Americans consider “gay or lesbians relations" "morally acceptable,” while 42 percent say gay or lesbian relations are “morally wrong.” Gallup has been asking this question since 2001. At the time, results were clearly flipped with 53 percent saying homosexual relations are morally wrong, and 40 percent saying morally acceptable. Acceptance eclipsed in 2008 and has continued to increase since this time.
Support for same-sex marriage has closely mirrored acceptance of gay and lesbian relations. For the first time, in 2011 Gallup found majority support for same-sex marriage and has since maintained marginal majority support.
Gallup also demonstrates the increasingly polarized nature-versus-nurture debate over homosexuality. When Gallup first asked the question in 1977, thirteen percent believed “being gay or lesbian [was] something a person [was] born with.” In contrast 56 percent said, “being gay or lesbian [was] due to factors such as upbringing and environment.” These numbers steadily coalesced until 2001 so that the electorate was evenly divided and has since stayed polarized.
Source: Gallup Organization.
A recent Public Notice survey asked respondents what they thought the government should do with revenue raised from President Obama’s proposed tax increase on households making at least $1 million per year. 71 percent said the government should pay down the debt and deficit and 16 percent wanted to increase spending on government programs.
Instead, Congress will likely enact “spending cuts” that are merely decreases in the growth of actual spending, if a cut is made at all. Americans are not ignorant of this government tendency. As such, a majority (54 percent) expects the president will use increased revenue to increase spending on government programs, and only 27 percent believe he will pay down the debt and deficit.
Source: Public Notice Survey, conducted by the Tarrance Group, 800 registered likely voters, April 9-12, 2012. Margin of error +/- 3.5%.
Alan Greenspan recounts in Age of Turbulence that after the Berlin Wall fell, former Soviet leaders and economists queried Western leaders and economists about the drivers of prosperity. Greenspan admits there was little consensus from which to derive advice.
Nevertheless, American political leaders have a myriad of varied historical narratives explaining what led the United States to prosperity.
Mitt Romney argues the “nation was founded on the principle of being a merit society, where education, hard work, risk taking, have lifted the individual, and they have helped lift …the entire nation.”
Ron Paul contends individual liberty is what made the country prosperous: I believe our country has been the greatest and most prosperous because we had a better understanding about liberty than any other country.”
Rick Santorum agrees that liberty is necessary but believes that it “is only possible if we have strong families and strong marriage.” He argues, “what transformed the world in this United States of America was a belief in the family.”
President Obama asserts “government investments …have made this country great.” Similarly Vice President Joe Biden suggests that “every single great idea that has marked the 21st century, the 20th century, and the 19th century has required government vision and government incentive.”
Obama suggests that economic equality is also a necessary precondition, “What drags down our entire economy is the growing gap between the ultra-rich and everyone else”.
Professor Elizabeth Warren vociferates the social contract drives prosperity, “there is nobody in this country who got rich on his own…you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of use paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate…part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that [profit] and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”
Several of these narratives place government at the helm of American success, others place what remains outside of the government domain as the main driver of prosperity. Despite extensive public opinion polling, it remains unclear what the public thinks is responsible for American affluence.
A recent national Rasmussen poll finds that only 27 percent of likely voters think government investments made America great, and 42 percent disagree, yet 32 percent are unsure. Instead 69 percent agree the free enterprise system made America great. Moreover, 50 percent say the society would become less fair if the government got more involved in regulating the economy. Perhaps this is a result of the perception that government contracts tend to be granted based on political connections (66 percent) but private sector negotiations favor those who provide the best service for the best price (51 percent).
Another Rasmussen poll finds that only 18 percent of Americans agree “every great idea in American history required government vision and government incentive.” Instead 64 percent disagree government was essential. Moreover, 60 percent agree with the statement “government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.”
Emily Ekins is the director of polling for Reason Foundation where she leads the Reason-Rupe public opinion research project, launched in 2011. Follow her on Twitter @emilyekins.
Findings from the latest Reason-Rupe poll show that on average Americans estimate the federal government wastes 56 cents out of every tax dollar. This suggests Americans believe government wastes over half of what taxpayers pay to the federal government in taxes each year.
Note: Data combines Gallup and Reason-Rupe survey data: 1979-2011 Gallup survey data, 2012 Reason-Rupe survey data. Gallup's Wording: Of every tax dollar that goes to the federal government in Washington DC, how many cents of each dollar would you say are wasted? Reason-Rupe: For every dollar you pay in federal taxes, about how much of it do you think the government wastes?
This finding continues a long, increasing trend since 1979 when Gallup began asking the question. In the early 1980s Gallup found that Americans, on average, thought that government wasted 38 percent of their taxes. By the early 2000s, this number had jumped to 46 percent. In 2011 Gallup discovered that Americans believed that over half of tax dollars were wasted. Now in 2012, the Reason-Rupe poll finds this number maintains a steady increase, at 56 percent, or 56 cents out of every dollar.
Like Gallup, the only major political and demographic groups to believe on average that less than half of all tax dollars are wasted include Democrats ($.49), liberals ($.47) and those with post-graduate degrees ($.46).
Groups who on average thought the government wasted 60 percent or more of tax dollars include Republicans, libertarians, conservatives, Tea Party supporters, high school graduates, and evangelicals.
Note: This chart shows the interquartile
range (IQR), or the middle 50 percent of responses, for
the cents-per-dollar-wasted estimates. The IQR is a measure of
spread and is less affected by extreme values or outliers. For
instance, imagine all survey respondents were lined up according to
their estimated cents per tax dollar wasted. The person standing in
the middle of the line would represent the median response, similar
to the average. If the line were then divided into four sections,
the bottom section would contain twenty-five percent of survey
respondents and the top section another twenty-five percent of
survey respondents. The survey respondents in between the bottom
and top groups would be the interquartile
range. These include respondents who gave the middle
fifty percent of estimates, and reveal the most typical range of
responses.
Full poll results found here, and cross tabs found here.
Nationwide telephone poll conducted March 10th-20th of both mobile and landline phones, 1200 adults, margin of error +/- 3 percent. Columns may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Full methodology can be found here.
Emily Ekins is the director of polling for Reason Foundation where she leads the Reason-Rupe public opinion research project, launched in 2011. Follow her on Twitter @emilyekins.
The March Reason-Rupe poll asked respondents to describe in a few words how they felt about filing their taxes. Not surprisingly a majority of responses were negative and the most common response (30 percent) mentioned feeling anxiety regarding tax filing. Another 12 percent described the process as “complicated” or “confusing.” Combined, this may help explain majority support for a flat tax that eliminates all federal tax deductions and charges everyone the same rate.
Thirteen percent recalled facts relating to tax filing, for instance hiring a CPA, being prepared, and tax deductions. About 12 percent had positive emotions associated with doing taxes, largely due to getting a tax refund (9 percent). Eight percent associated taxes with their duty and responsibility as a citizen.
General economic malaise continues to permeate the general electorate despite some positive economic indicators. As political science research would suggest, the incumbent president bares a lot of the blame or praise for the economy. The latest Reason-Rupe poll reaffirms this with 53 percent disapproving of President Obama’s handling of the economy.
In terms of general job performance, nearly half approve of President Obama but nearly as many also disapprove.
Congress maintains is steady low level of approval at 15 percent with 78 percent disapproving of Congress.
A majority of women approve of Obama, whereas a majority of men do not. However, when it comes to handling the economy, a majority of both disapprove of President Obama policies.
Americans from the Northeast are the only regional group to have a majority approving of Obama’s general job performance and handling of the economy.
A majority of Latinos (55 percent) approves of Obama’s job performance; however, a majority (53 percent) disapproves of Obama’s handling of the economy.
Similarly a majority of self-identified Independents approves of Obama’s job performance, but a majority (54 percent) disapproves of his handling of the economy.
A majority of public sector workers approve of both Obama’s job performance (59 percent) and handling of the economy (53 percent). In contrast, private sector workers do not reach the majority threshold of support for Obama in general or on the economy.
Frequent churchgoers disapprove of both Obama’s general job performance (53 percent) and handling of the economy (60 percent). In contrast, 58 percent among those who do not attend religious services approve of Obama’s job performance, and 54 percent approve of Obama’s economic policies.
Full poll results found here, and cross tabs found here.
Nationwide telephone poll conducted March 10th-20th of both mobile and landline phones, 1200 adults, margin of error +/- 3 percent. Columns may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Full methodology can be found here.
Emily Ekins is the director of polling for Reason Foundation where she leads the Reason-Rupe public opinion research project, launched in 2011. Follow her on Twitter @emilyekins.
The latest Reason-Rupe poll finds that nearly half of Americans favor the United States attacking Iran to destroy or delay its nuclear program, if Iran were close to being able to produce a nuclear weapon. Under these conditions, 45 percent oppose military intervention, and intensity is split with 30 percent strongly supporting intervention and 30 percent strongly opposing it.
However, this support quickly recedes when potential military intervention is compared to the war in Iraq. Instead, 56 percent of respondents oppose attacking Iraq if it “would start a war that is similar in length and costs to the war in Iraq.” Intensity is on the side of those who oppose intervention with 42 percent who strongly oppose compared to 20 percent who strongly favor.
These data demonstrate that although Americans are concerned about Iran having nuclear capabilities, there are limits to what Americans are willing to pay to stop Iran, especially when Iran’s nuclear capabilities are not fully known.
Full poll results found here.
Nationwide telephone poll conducted March 10th-20th of both mobile and landline phones, 1200 adults, margin of error +/- 3 percent. Columns may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Full methodology can be found here.
Emily Ekins is the director of polling for Reason Foundation where she leads the Reason-Rupe public opinion research project, launched in 2011. Follow her on Twitter @emilyekins.
Five years after Mexico embarked on an aggressive “war on drugs,” a recent Gallup poll finds Mexicans are less likely to report gangs and drugs in their neighborhood, but are also less likely to feel safe and trust the police.
Whereas 57 percent of Mexicans reported feeling safe walking alone at night in 2007, by 2011 only 42 percent agreed. In 2007, 50 percent had confidence in their local police; confidence dropped 15 points to 35 percent by 2011.
This shift coincides with a 5 percent decline between 2007 and 2011 among Mexicans reporting illegal drug trafficking (33 percent) and gangs (46 percent) in their neighborhoods.
These Gallup poll results suggest there is likely a cost to reducing drug trafficking. Although correlation is not causation, theories of black-market behavior suggest that crackdowns drive more activity to the black market and outside the rule of law. Without rule of law protections, it is less surprising that disputes may resort to violence and other activities that may cause people to feel less safe and have lowered confidence in police.
Results are based face-to-face interviews with approximately 1,000 adults in each survey, aged 15 and older, and conducted from July 2007-December 2011 in Mexico. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
For more complete methodology and specific survey dates, please review Gallup's Country Data Set details.
Follow Emily Ekins on Twitter @emilyekins.
The recent Reason-Rupe poll finds that when considering the quality and cost of health care for government workers compared to private sector workers, 67 percent of Americans think government workers receive better health care benefits.
Even among public sector workers, a majority (55 percent) believes they receive better health care benefits than private sector workers.
The belief that public sector workers receive better health care benefits that private sector workers is virtually unchallenged among demographics and political groups. In fact, upwards of 60 percent of each group believe government workers receive better benefits, except for: public sector workers (55 percent agree), communitarians (58 percent agree), and Latinos (59 percent agree).
Interestingly, neither group is statistically more likely to be satisfied with their health care. 59 percent among government workers and 57 percent of private sector workers are satisfied with their healthcare. This suggests that despite both public and private sector workers believing public sector workers receive better health care benefits, both are equally satisfied with their own health care. This raises the question: how is the perceived additional health care benefit among government workers translating into satisfaction, if satisfaction levels are statistically the same across both public and private workers. To answer this, further research will need to be conducted.
Full poll results found here.
Nationwide telephone poll conducted March 10th-20th of both mobile and landline phones, 1200 adults, margin of error +/- 3 percent. Columns may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Full methodology can be found here.
Emily Ekins is the director of polling for Reason Foundation where she leads the Reason-Rupe public opinion research project, launched in 2011. Follow her on Twitter @emilyekins.
A recent Reason-Rupe poll finds that half of Americans think it is proper for the federal government to require employers to provide health insurance and 56 percent favor such a regulation, yet 51 percent oppose mandating individuals to obtain health insurance, and 62 percent believe the individual mandate is unconstitutional. It remains unclear how Americans reconcile support for the employer mandate but opposition to the individual mandate.
The following chart demonstrates that 33 percent of Americans favor both an individual and employer health insurance mandate and 28 percent oppose both mandates. However, 20 percent oppose the individual mandate but favor the employer mandate. A small percentage (9 percent) said they favor the individual mandate and also oppose the employer mandate.
Full poll results found here.
Nationwide telephone poll conducted March 10th-20th of both mobile and landline phones, 1200 adults, margin of error +/- 3 percent. Columns may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Full methodology can be found here.
Emily Ekins is the director of polling for Reason Foundation where she leads the Reason-Rupe public opinion research project, launched in 2011. Follow her on Twitter @emilyekins.
A new Reason-Rupe poll finds a majority of Americans (56 percent) favor a provision in the new health care law that requires employers with more than 50 employees to provide health insurance or else pay a fine.
At the same time, 58 percent of Americans expect the employer mandate to drive employers to pay their workers less, 29 percent expect no significant impact on pay. Even among those who support the provision, 50 percent expect employers to reduce pay.
Moreover, nearly half of Americans (47 percent) expect the employer mandate will lead employers to lay off workers. 39 percent think it will not significantly impact employers’ hiring decisions.
In the midst of a weak economic recovery, it could be problematic that the public expects this provision to potentially lead to lower incomes and layoffs.
Among those who favor the employer mandate provision, over half (53 percent) do not believe it will lead to layoffs. This suggests more people would oppose the provision if more thought it would result in layoffs.
However, among those who favor the employer mandate, half expect lower worker pay. One might infer that because of the difficulty and disincentives for accessing portable health insurance, independent of employers, individuals are willing to take a pay cut in order to gain access to the health care market. However, if this regulation were to cause people to lose their jobs they could also lose their access to the health care market.
Full poll results found here.
Nationwide telephone poll conducted March 10th-20th of both mobile and landline phones, 1200 adults, margin of error +/- 3 percent. Columns may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Full methodology can be found here.
Emily Ekins is the director of polling for Reason Foundation where she leads the Reason-Rupe public opinion research project, launched in 2011. Follow her on Twitter @emilyekins.
Harvard Law professor Elizabeth Warren may find her voice in the Senate should she beat Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown this November. A new poll from the New Hampshire Survey Center says she might.
The poll contacted 544 likely voters in Massachusetts and found that the special advisor to the Dodd-Frank-created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), is in a statistical tie with the first-term incumbent senator. Brown leads with 37 percent of voters to Warren’s 35 percent, with 26 percent undecided. This is well within the +/- 4.2 percent margin of error for the poll.
Interestingly, Brown leads among independents with 42 percent to Warren’s 14 percent. A plurality, 44 percent said Warren would do more to help “working people”; however, more voters see Brown as a strong leader (43 percent to 31 percent), and nearly half say Brown has the most bipartisan appeal, while 27 percent said the same about Warren. This may be reflected by the Obama administration’s inability to appoint Warren to the CFPB amid strong criticism from financial institutions and Republicans in Congress. 57 percent of likely voters think Brown is most likable, compared to 23 percent who say so of Warren.
In terms of demographics, young people ages 18-34 are more likely to support Warren with 39 percent to Brown’s 26 percent. However, the age cohort right above from 35 to 49 supports Brown 37 percent to Warren’s 25 percent. Warren leads among those making less than $60,000 a year, 40 percent to 29 percent, and those with post-graduate degrees 50 percent to 28 percent. Brown leads among those making more than 60,000 a year. Men are about 10 percentage points more likely to vote for Brown, as are women for Warren.
Full poll results can be found here.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245