opinion | Should we follow science instead of votes?

There is an objection to this question at once. Polls often go wrong, failing to accurately predict the outcome of the next election. Looks like we need polls to check surveys. But no—the objection is accepted that an election is better than a survey to calculate the will of the people. This should be taken as a question, not a guess. We should not underestimate the power of science. We must consider the possibility that the survey is correct and the choice – because it fails to follow the method of science – is wrong.

This was done in 1995 by one of the founders of Survey Science, the late Sidney Verba, a friend and colleague of mine at Harvard. In a speech on “the respondent as a citizen”, he claimed that voter surveys are more democratic and more accurate than polls because they reach people who do not vote. Non-voters differ from voters; They are less knowledgeable and less active on their account, therefore more vulnerable. Political scientists can reach out to them to capture their unvoiced views or even generously express their feelings for them.

On their own, non-voters may be content to let their fellow citizens vote for them, because voters find voting so useful and important. But science, especially political science, can make them active. Activating someone who is passive in itself is what we call a “activist”. It is the service done by political science and the same intellectuals to democracy – more popular than people, more democratic than uneducated, free democracy.

There is another objection. How can anyone else, even if supplied with the tools and method of a scientist, know my will better than me? As expressed in elections, the sovereignty of the people rests on the sovereignty of the electorate. This is what Verba believed. Despite science’s superior claim that he has the insight to glimpse, he defies our constitutional system of election, however flawed and incomplete it may be. But let us look at the abyss where he stayed.

Polls are a form of survey that scientists call “self-reporting”. The voter votes what he considers to be his will, gives his report of his wish by his vote. He knows better than any outside source what his own will is. This is their human self-confidence; He knows himself. But this kind of self-reporting is the exact opposite of science. Galileo did not survey whether the Earth moves, as apparently common opinion would say it does not. Science says otherwise.

This is true not only for the laws of physics but also for the laws of medicine and psychology. A doctor wants to know your symptoms, not your diagnosis – you’re too unaware of it. He will listen to a patient for clues rather than his thoughts. Same with a survey scientist; He knows better than you what your desire is, at least in the form of votes. Knowing the determinants of your will, he or she can tell you how to vote better than yourself. Science challenges the popular belief that people know what they are doing.

Furthermore, if one were to object that science cannot predict individual outcomes, so that we still need to count votes, science would answer that the laws of statistical probability, being universal, The counting results are more robust than the actual results, which are variable and fickle. Note that the US Census uses the model to obtain a more accurate count of the population than can be obtained from propaganda knocking on the door. The vote could be affected by bad weather and disturbing events. One of those incidents may have been a partisan political campaign before the election, something not done before the poll. This may seem to be an advantage in that survey respondents are generally in a calmer mood, not buoyed by controversial accusations and threatening warnings. He may sometimes be mildly interested in hearing the type of ad that argues for the merits of Campbell’s soup, but nothing frantic in the way of partisan exaggeration.

Here we’ve got a point that gives us pause. Surveys consider voters to be consumers; They don’t see anything special in voting that requires polls rather than surveys. They look for voters’ “preferences”, a usage survey science borrowed from economics. But voters don’t seem to have a preference in the way they prefer vanilla instead of chocolate. Vanilla lovers don’t care whether chocolate is sold or not, but voters want their opinion to be dominated by rivals and contrarians. With regard to abortion, for example, a voter may want a society that thinks like him, hates or promotes it, or is somewhere in between. Voters want to rule.

To govern is to join together to take the responsibility of governing the society. Rulers stand up for what they believe; In a democracy, the people rule by participating in elections. They do not merely record their personal likes and dislikes; They say what they think is the common good for the community. Is this the liberal approach of the Democrats, focusing on getting everyone equally, especially the most vulnerable? Or do the conservative view Republicans believe, that some members of the community are more deserving than others if their achievement and contribution is greater?

These differences of principle, although often not clear or detailed, elevate polls to a level above surveys. Elections, but not surveys, are about self-government; Those are actions, not reactions. They decide who rules our country. They have a greater dignity that a well-run independent country, not to mention a well-informed political science, should recognize. To express that dignity, the election must be treated as a ceremony. This, as it used to be, should be an occasion when the community votes together on the same day, rather than registering a preference, when convenient, which is similar to online shopping.

Election day should be the day we all vote, not the deadline for voting as it has become. Unless you’re incapacitated or away from home, it’s a good idea to leave your duff and make your way to the polls. Those who do not vote can be urged but should not be prompted to vote. His non-vote should be respected as if it were his vote. Calmly contented or humble citizens should also have their say, because they make a point that the rest of us should consider. Are we really smart enough to be able to rule ourselves? And yet what better assumption can we make than this, even if it is dangerous?

Surveys tend to assume that we know or omit what we “don’t know.” The elections tested our intelligence; They tie our claims and our doubts together. It is not surprising that our parties seek an advantage in how they are managed. But there is one big truth about elections: We should be proud that we hold them. When you think about it, allegations of voter suppression and fraud show that the integrity of elections reflects our dignity as citizens. So let’s separate polls from polls. Vo Kee, a well-known political scientist of the mid-twentieth century, said, “Voters are not fools.” That’s how they know what they’re doing. Let them rule our country not in the scientific way of constitutional elections but in the normal way.

No party wants to end elections, but there is a tendency, especially among Democrats, to think of them as polls and citizens as respondents. We need to remind ourselves that the central function of our common liberty is not to “follow the science”, but to run the country.

Mr. Mansfield is Professor of Government at Harvard.