Health Care and the Polls

There is a lot of talk about where public sentiment stands, as measured by various polls.

The fact of the matter seems to be that only a sliver of "the public" is paying close attention. Outside that sliver, reactions are to the presence or absence of certain buzzwords. So non-substantive changes in the way questions are worded have a huge impact on poll results.

Here's a detailed analysis of the issue, that concludes that the best thing to do is to ignore the polls and talk about the issue.

Of course, I done just the opposite in this post. Still, call it a brief discussion of a meta-issue, of whether the polls are a non-issue.

After all, why poll at all? Because it gets results more genuine than representatives will get by going to town meetings or listening to those who bother to contact them, results less subject to astro-turfing?

Perhaps. But then again, they could listen chiefly to those who seem to have studied the subject and have something to say ... which will be a smaller number than those who bother to contact them.

And then they could make up their own mind about what is the best for the public, use their own judgment, and act accordingly.

As Edmind Burke told his constituents at Bristol, they should not expect their representative in Parliament to unquestioningly follow their will (however polled, we might add): his "unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."