The formation and change of public opinion > Components of public opinion: attitudes and values Top of Form
How many people actually form opinions on a given issue, as well as what sorts of opinions they form, depends partly on their immediate situations, partly on more-general social-environmental factors, and partly on their preexisting knowledge, attitudes, and values. Because attitudes and values play such a crucial role in the development of public opinion, scholars of the subject are naturally interested in the nature of these phenomena, as well as in ways to assess their variability and intensity.
The concepts of opinion, attitude, and value used in public opinion research were given an influential metaphorical characterization by the American-born political analyst Robert Worcester, who founded the London-based polling firm MORI (Market & Opinion Research International Ltd.). Values, he suggested, are “the deep tides of public mood, slow to change, but powerful.” Opinions, in contrast, are “the ripples on the surface of the public's consciousness—shallow and easily changed.” Finally, attitudes are “the currents below the surface, deeper and stronger,” representing a midrange between values and opinions. According to Worcester, the art of understanding public opinion rests not only on the measurement of people's views but also on understanding the motivations behind those views.
No matter how strongly they are held, attitudes are subject to change if the individual holding them learns of new facts or perspectives that challenge his or her earlier thinking. This is especially likely when people learn of a contrary position held by an individual whose judgment they respect. This course of influence, known as “opinion leadership,” is frequently utilized by publicists as a means of inducing people to reconsider—and quite possibly change—their own views.
Some opinion researchers have contended that the standard technical concept of attitude is not useful for understanding public opinion, because it is insufficiently complex. Crespi, for example, preferred to speak of “attitudinal systems,” which he characterized as the combined development of four sets of phenomena: (1) values and interests, (2) knowledge and beliefs, (3) feelings, and (4) behavioral intentions (i.e., conscious inclinations to act in certain ways).
Perhaps the most important concept in public opinion research is that of values. Values are of considerable importance in determining whether people will form opinions on a particular topic; in general, they are more likely to do so when they perceive that their values require it. Values are adopted early in life, in many cases from parents and schools. They are not likely to change, and they strengthen as people grow older. They encompass beliefs about religion—including belief (or disbelief) in God—political outlook, moral standards, and the like. As Worcester's analogy suggests, values are relatively resistant to ordinary attempts at persuasion and to influence by the media, and they rarely shift as a result of positions or arguments expressed in a single debate. Yet they can be shaped—and in some cases completely changed—by prolonged exposure to conflicting values, by concerted thought and discussion, by the feeling that one is “out of step” with others whom one knows and respects, and by the development of significantly new evidence or circumstances.
public opinion. (2009). In Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved October 7, 2009, from Encyclopedia Britannica Online School Edition: http://www.school.eb.com/eb/article-258756
Summary:
According to the article, public opinion is influenced by three main factors: the immediate situation of people, social-environmental factors, and their preexisting knowledge, attitudes, and values.
Political analyst Robert Worcester suggests that one's values is the most important concept in forming public opinion for they are not easily changed. Opinions on the other hand, can be easily changed or swayed. Attitude lies somewhere between the two. According to Worcester, it is necessary to understand the motivations behind those views. Some opinion researchers believe that using the concept of attitude does not aid in the understanding of public opinion because of its complexity and due to how easily attitudes are subject to change. Values are viewed as the most important concept in determining public opinion. They are not likely to change and even get stronger as people get older.
This article relates directly to chapter 7 due to its content on public opinion and more specifically, political socialization. The article discuses values and how they are adopted early in life, most likely from family and schools, which chapter 7 also states. The textbook covers a study that revealed that the majority of young people (about 91%, according to the study) identified with their parent's political party . Beliefs on religion, political outlook, and moral standards are all included in the definition of values.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
Voting Rights Act
Court Refuses to Expand Minority Voting Rights
By Mark Sherman Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON–The Supreme Court limited the reach of the Voting Rights Act on Monday, a decision that could make it harder for some minority candidates to win election when voting districts are redrawn.
In a 5-4 decision, the justices ruled that a portion of the law aimed at helping minorities elect their preferred candidates only applies in districts where minorities make up more than half the population.
The decision could make it more difficult for Democrats, particularly in the South and Southwest, to draw electoral boundaries friendly to black or Hispanic candidates following the 2010 Census.
The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund said the decision weakens minorities' ability to use the Voting Rights Act to challenge alleged discrimination in electoral districts.
"The Supreme Court decision, if left unchecked, will make redistricting in 2011 and the cause of making districts reflect emerging Latino electoral strength much harder," said Nancy Ramirez, MALDEF's western regional counsel.
With the court's conservatives in the majority, the court ruled that North Carolina erred when trying to preserve the influence of African-American voters even though they made up just 39 percent of the population in a state legislative district.
While not a majority, the black voters were numerous enough to effectively determine the outcome of elections, the state argued in urging the court to extend the civil rights law's provision to the district.
The state said the district should be protected by the section of the law that bars states from reducing the chance for minorities to "elect representatives of their choice."
Justice Anthony Kennedy, announcing the court's judgment, said the court had never extended the law to those so-called crossover districts and would not do so now. The 50 percent rule "draws clear lines for courts and legislatures alike," Kennedy said in ruling against the North Carolina district.
In 2007, the North Carolina Supreme Court had struck down the district, saying the Voting Rights Act applies only to districts with a numerical majority of minority voters. The district also violated a provision of the state constitution keeping district boundaries from crossing county lines, the court said.
Kennedy said that, absent prohibitions like North Carolina's rule against crossing county lines, "states that wish to draw crossover districts are free to do so." But they are not required, he said.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito signed onto Kennedy's opinion. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome of the case.
The four liberal justices dissented. A district like the one in North Carolina should be protected by federal law "so long as a cohesive minority population is large enough to elect its chosen candidate when combined with a reliable number of crossover voters from an otherwise polarized majority," Justice David Souter wrote for himself and Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens.
Ginsburg also suggested that Congress could amend the law to cover districts like the one in North Carolina.
Civil rights groups that urged the court to uphold the North Carolina plan said such districts help to diminish racially polarized voting over time because the candidate who is the choice of black or Hispanic voters must draw some white support to win election.
In April, the court will hear a more significant challenge to another provision of the Voting Rights Act, requiring all or parts of 16 states with a history of racial discrimination to get approval before implementing any changes in how elections are held.
The court's familiar ideological split in this case strongly suggests that Kennedy could hold the key to the outcome in the April case as well, said Nathaniel Persily, an election law expert at Columbia University.
In another election-related case, the court let stand an appeals court decision that invalidated state laws regulating the ways independent presidential candidates can get on state ballots.
Arizona, joined by 13 other states, asked the court to hear its challenge to a ruling throwing out its residency requirement for petition circulators and a June deadline for submitting signatures for independent candidates in the November presidential elections.
Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader sued and won a favorable ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
The cases are Bartlett v. Strickland, 07-689, and Brewer v. Nader, 08-648.
Summary
On March 9, 2009, the Supreme Court limited the reach of the Voting Rights Act. This decision could make it more difficult for minority candidates to win elections. The case ended in a 5-4 decision, with the justices ruling that the law only applied in districts where the minority made up more than a half of the total population. According to The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, this decision weakens minorities' ability to use the Voting Rights Act when challenging discrimination in electoral districts. The states argued that the district should be protected by the section of the law that bans states from reducing the chance for minorities to elect the representatives that they want.
This article applies to chapter, Political Participation, because it directly references the Voting Act of 1965. This Supreme Court case is an excellent example of The Voting Rights Act coming in to play in today's politics and how it still plays an important role. The text book discusses the Voting Rights Act when it was first created and how it suspended the use of literacy tests and provided criminal penalties for interfering with the right to vote.
By Mark Sherman Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON–The Supreme Court limited the reach of the Voting Rights Act on Monday, a decision that could make it harder for some minority candidates to win election when voting districts are redrawn.
In a 5-4 decision, the justices ruled that a portion of the law aimed at helping minorities elect their preferred candidates only applies in districts where minorities make up more than half the population.
The decision could make it more difficult for Democrats, particularly in the South and Southwest, to draw electoral boundaries friendly to black or Hispanic candidates following the 2010 Census.
The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund said the decision weakens minorities' ability to use the Voting Rights Act to challenge alleged discrimination in electoral districts.
"The Supreme Court decision, if left unchecked, will make redistricting in 2011 and the cause of making districts reflect emerging Latino electoral strength much harder," said Nancy Ramirez, MALDEF's western regional counsel.
With the court's conservatives in the majority, the court ruled that North Carolina erred when trying to preserve the influence of African-American voters even though they made up just 39 percent of the population in a state legislative district.
While not a majority, the black voters were numerous enough to effectively determine the outcome of elections, the state argued in urging the court to extend the civil rights law's provision to the district.
The state said the district should be protected by the section of the law that bars states from reducing the chance for minorities to "elect representatives of their choice."
Justice Anthony Kennedy, announcing the court's judgment, said the court had never extended the law to those so-called crossover districts and would not do so now. The 50 percent rule "draws clear lines for courts and legislatures alike," Kennedy said in ruling against the North Carolina district.
In 2007, the North Carolina Supreme Court had struck down the district, saying the Voting Rights Act applies only to districts with a numerical majority of minority voters. The district also violated a provision of the state constitution keeping district boundaries from crossing county lines, the court said.
Kennedy said that, absent prohibitions like North Carolina's rule against crossing county lines, "states that wish to draw crossover districts are free to do so." But they are not required, he said.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito signed onto Kennedy's opinion. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome of the case.
The four liberal justices dissented. A district like the one in North Carolina should be protected by federal law "so long as a cohesive minority population is large enough to elect its chosen candidate when combined with a reliable number of crossover voters from an otherwise polarized majority," Justice David Souter wrote for himself and Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens.
Ginsburg also suggested that Congress could amend the law to cover districts like the one in North Carolina.
Civil rights groups that urged the court to uphold the North Carolina plan said such districts help to diminish racially polarized voting over time because the candidate who is the choice of black or Hispanic voters must draw some white support to win election.
In April, the court will hear a more significant challenge to another provision of the Voting Rights Act, requiring all or parts of 16 states with a history of racial discrimination to get approval before implementing any changes in how elections are held.
The court's familiar ideological split in this case strongly suggests that Kennedy could hold the key to the outcome in the April case as well, said Nathaniel Persily, an election law expert at Columbia University.
In another election-related case, the court let stand an appeals court decision that invalidated state laws regulating the ways independent presidential candidates can get on state ballots.
Arizona, joined by 13 other states, asked the court to hear its challenge to a ruling throwing out its residency requirement for petition circulators and a June deadline for submitting signatures for independent candidates in the November presidential elections.
Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader sued and won a favorable ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
The cases are Bartlett v. Strickland, 07-689, and Brewer v. Nader, 08-648.
Summary
On March 9, 2009, the Supreme Court limited the reach of the Voting Rights Act. This decision could make it more difficult for minority candidates to win elections. The case ended in a 5-4 decision, with the justices ruling that the law only applied in districts where the minority made up more than a half of the total population. According to The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, this decision weakens minorities' ability to use the Voting Rights Act when challenging discrimination in electoral districts. The states argued that the district should be protected by the section of the law that bans states from reducing the chance for minorities to elect the representatives that they want.
This article applies to chapter, Political Participation, because it directly references the Voting Act of 1965. This Supreme Court case is an excellent example of The Voting Rights Act coming in to play in today's politics and how it still plays an important role. The text book discusses the Voting Rights Act when it was first created and how it suspended the use of literacy tests and provided criminal penalties for interfering with the right to vote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)