1. The Influence of Public Opinion on the Creation of Public Policy
By: Jacqueline Faerman

2. The topic that I will be exploring is the influence of public opinion on the creation of
public policy. Specifically, what effect does party affiliation seem to have on proposed
legislation by congress, and what effect does public opinion have on the eventual creation of
public policy. Extensive studies have been done on these ideas: I will begin by explaining the
different political ideologies to put an idea of what types of legislation the respective party
affiliates would propose, and then share the research relating public opinion to their eventual
creation.
The concept of being "conservative" versus being "liberal" has evolved much since the
beginning of political parties; initially, being conservative purely meant distaste for government
involvement, while being a liberal meant that government involvement was advocated for.
Currently, republican is synonymous with conservative and democrat with liberal. Certain
elements have held through on each side; for example, republicans still favor social order and
certain moral perspectives. (Gerring, Party Ideologies in America).
Liberalism has been around for over two centuries, and still follows the idea that John
Lock proposed before the 18th century- "Men being, as has been said, by Nature, all free..no
one can be...subjected to the Political Power of another, without his own Consent." However,
the people still "willingly" put themselves in the hands of the government, which has the duty
to protect the common good and private rights. Unfortunately, at this point prior to a
revolution in 1789, government was fairly controlling and did not exactly abide by the idea of
freedom to the people. By the 20th century emphasis in liberalism shifted from protecting
individuals from oppressive governments to using government as a device to help individuals

3. succeed. Government turned into a method of controlling a "too large" society. Fast forward to
modern times and the idea is that the people should elect individuals as representatives for
them, and these individuals should act in their best interest. The question still always remains
the same though: what constitutes the proper balance between necessary governmental power
and restraints on the government in order to protect individual rights? (Dr. Jim L. Riley, Modern
Political Ideologies: Liberalism and Conservatism).
Modern liberals are the Democratic Party,currently the Florida minority party, and the
party pushing for things such as gay rights, gender equality, and legal marijuana. Examples of
these are SB 1176 (Relating to Recreational Marijuana), HB 4037 (Relating to Marriage/Issuance
of Marriage Licenses to Persons of the Same Sex), and HB 25 (Relating to Employment
Discrimination)
Conservatism, on the other end, holds government in more distain. Liberalism embraces
societal and governmental change; conservatism holds questions about changing proven
methods. It is thought that the religious foundations of society come to support conservative
politics, and the idea of "separation of church and state" seems to be somewhat less followed
by the largely-Christian conservative party. Conservative followers have come around to the
idea that government is necessary in maintaining some stability, but it should be minimal at
most. The main point is that conservatism is extremely hesitant at the idea of change. (Dr. Jim
L. Riley, Modern Political Ideologies: Liberalism and Conservatism).
Now, republicans are the supermajority in both the house and senate, and our state is
being run by a fairly right-wing conservative governor. The republican party can be seen

4. sponsoring some of the most controversial bills, those looking at abortion (SB 1502/HB 633),
guns on campus (HB 4005/SB 0176), and the death penalty . They tend to be against same- sex
marriages, and have less of a desire to move with the more "modern" things, such as
transgender bathrooms (HB 583 Relating to Single-Sex Public Facilities) and taxes (HB 110
Relating to Taxes, one of the many bills relating to tax cuts).
Scholars have catalogued through history how these parties have shifted and changed
over the years, as well as how the viewpoint of the people has changed. Ultimately, though, we
do have a representative democracy system where we elect the officials to act in our best
interest. So what effect does our voice really have once the official is elected?
For my purposes, I am exploring the interacting of public policy and public opinion
beyond elections; that is, once the official is elected does he or she operate the way that the
public would like them to. Unfortunately, the relationship between public opinion and policy
making is not particularly clearly defined. Often the officials will follow public opinion, but some
research shows evidence to policy makers ignoring public opinion.
A study by Harwood Childs found that "the relationship between public opinion and
public policy varies greatly from issue to issue". Childs also comments that the extent of the
influence could depend on various factors, including but not limited to the degree of agreement
within the public, intensity of opinions, and the extent of organized support for and against the
public position. It is noted that dissatisfaction is more noticed than satisfaction, and this usually
spurs progressive policies. Though public opinion is often a factor of influence on public policy,

5. vice versa can often be seen. Even if people were initially against something, once policy is
created for it people tend to be more accepting of the item.
Norman Luttbeg came up with three theoretical models of the political linkages
between the public and the policy makers. In these models, the public applies pressure (either
real or potential electoral) to try and get lawmakers to enact their desired policies. These
models are:
The Rational-Activist Model: Public will exert electoral pressure, and representatives will enact
policy demands out of fear that the public will elect someone else if they do not.
The Political Parties Model: The political parties act as an intermediary between the public and
the representative. Public holds the party responsible to enact policies, and the party exerts
pressure on the lawmakers to follow the party line or to enact policies for the good of the party.
The Pressure Group Model: The public expresses to the lawmakers what it wants by gathering
in groups (labor unions, interest groups, business groups, ECT. These groups influence
lawmakers through money or through electoral support. Pressure groups do more to influence
than individuals do.
However, the same as there are ways for the public to influence officials, there are also
models that say that public policy can reflect the policy makers preferences without a direct
threat to them, even if they are not going off of the will of the public. These models are called
non-coercive models.

6. Believe-Sharing Model: Policy makers are not acting to heed the desire of the electorate, but
upon their own beliefs. However, because the lawmaker was elected due to having shared
interests as the constituents, this is okay. This model reflects the theory of some scientists that
believe that elections are about the candidate’s values and not about the issues.
Role-Playing Model: representatives are the constituency's delegate. Lawmakers respond to
policy decisions by acting the way they assume their district will. No response to any pressures,
just making a guess as to the best decision.
These are all models as put out by Norman Luttbeg as to linkages between policy and
the public opinion. The book "Public Opinion" by Glynn, Herbst, O'Keefe, and Shapiro echoed
Luttberg's models in their theories of linkages between public opinion and the eventual policy.
Their theories are through political processes, shared opinions, social pressure, and interest
groups. The first three mirror the majority of Luttberg's ideas, though interest groups is
expanded upon to discuss the theory of democratic pluralism, which is that "over time and
across all issues that arise, groups will exist so that public opinion will be fully represented...the
theory is that public opinion will be presented by these groups" (http://www.dc-
aapor.org/documents/spc08wk.pdf, Ward Kay 4-5). One thing that Glynn and his co-authors
pose is the idea that just like public opinion can exert pressure to direct government policy, it
can also be ignored in policy making or possible constrain it.
About 52 years ago a study was done in an attempt to measure the influence of public
opinion on public policy. Miller and Stokes examined Congress member’s votes to see how they

7. related to their constituents opinions. Since then, more studies have been completed to try and
measure the same thing; Benjamin Page and Robert Shapiro examined public opinion and
policy data for the United States, Alan Monroe used surveys to compare public opinion and
policy outcomes, and Stimson, MacKuen, and Erickson examined policy activity for the House,
Senate, Presidency, and Supreme Court separately, then added in election outcomes as an
intermediary effect between public opinion and policy change.
While Miller and Stokes found that representatives voted based on their own
preferences but in belief that they were acting on desires of their constituency, Erikson added
onto this study to try and find reasons beyond just miscommunication between public opinion
and the members voting. His finding was that the political party plays as the intermediating role
between the public preferences and the outputs; the party ideologies may not line up with
what the people exactly want, but will be what is heard. Page and Shapiro looked at opinion
and noticed that there was “substantial congruence between opinion and policy especially
when opinion changes were large and sustained and the issues were salient.” A major event
would cause a short term change in public opinion, but not any sort of change on policy
because it is so short term. The lawmakers will have to react is if there is a large and sustained
change in public opinion, and thus it was seen that there was about a 90% congruence between
opinion changes and policy changes when opinion was large and sustained. Monroe found
about a 55% consistency between policy outcomes being consistent with public opinion, with

8. this being higher with foreign policy decisions. However, this was a decline from about the 63%
consistency that was noticed years before.
The final study being addressed, by Stimson, Mackuen, and Erickson, was a study that
was more interpreted as left vs right- more specifically, it was interpreted as global preferences
for a larger and more active federal government as opposed to a smaller and more passive one.
They measured the seat turnover in each house and policy changes, and used congressional
votes categorized broadly as whether the policy moved in a more liberal or conservative one.
They noticed the House of Representatives being fairly receptive to public opinion, and Senate
even higher than that.
By all these studies, the overwhelming idea would be that public opinion does have a
strong impact on public policy. The majority of studies on public opinion's impact on public
policy are done at the national level, though one (""The Relationship between Public Opinion
and State Policy: A New Look Based on Some Forgotten Data", by Robert S. Erikson), does
reflect the relationship between state opinion and policy. Erikson looked at different
amendments and controversial ideas, such as the Child Labor Amendment and death penalty
views, and it was seen that the state member's opinion was not always consistent with the laws
of the state. Overall, this study lends more to the idea that in federal government concessions
must be made in order to keep up with the general national opinion.
Erikson brings a good question: "If state opinion does influence policy, how is this
accomplished?” He discusses the "sharing model", the "consensus model", and the process of
"involuntary representation". All of these, in summation, say that different states may enact

9. different policies because they are recruited from different publics, all of which have different
policy preferences. State public opinion can "cause" policy in the sense that it restricts the
range of values held by the members of the public that represent it. Erikson thinks that the
plausible idea though with legislators is the idea that legislators weigh the perceived public
opinion strongly when deciding on some certain "volatile" issues. His overall conclusion on the
subject is that the "states most likely to enact a given policy are the states where the public
demand for the policy is the strongest" (Erikson, p.35)
Looking at these studies, the overwhelming idea would be that strong public opinion
would influence the creation of public policy, or the lack there of. Why, then, are there
currently some of the most controversial issues, issues that the public is clearly against, that are
sailing through congress almost seamlessly? The few particular cases I would like to look at are
the bills containing language on gun control (HB 4005/ SB 176), the transgender bathroom bill
(HB 583), and abortion (HB 247/SB 1502). These bills, like others, are based on hot button
topics. Through my work at Lobbytools my day is spent tracking legislation and filing press
releases, meaning that I get the opportunity both to know the up to the minute information on
these bills and also a decent overview of the public's view on these bills (or, at least, the loudest
views).
The hypothesis that I will be analyzing is the question of, in Florida congress, does public
opinion actually have a large influence on these controversial bills, or will the supermajority of
conservative viewpoints overshadow this in the creation of legislation? Prior to my research, I
would have hypothesized that the domination of such conservative viewpoints in Congress

10. would have led to the creation of legislation based around these strong ideas, irregardless of if
that is what the public wants. After doing so much research on the subject I am led to the idea
that the public will have a greater influence on the bills discussed and passed during the
legislative session than I would have previously thought.
My method of testing this hypothesis will be to research the bills, their vote history, as
well as the media coverage (specifically with regards to public opinion), and use that to make a
guess as to where they will end up by the end of session. Unfortunately, due to the length of
the legislative session and the time it takes to actually sign bills into effect, the bills will likely
not become engrossed or signed into effect by the time my research is completed. Due to this I
am not incorporating the governor's viewpoints/my guesses onto what his actions will be on
the legislation, and when I reference "how far" the piece of legislation is likely to go in congress
I am referring to making it across committees and through either the house or the senate floor.
The first set of bills I will be analyzing is the set pertaining to guns being allowed on
college campuses, which are house bill 4005 and the identical senate bill 176. The house bill
"Relating to Licenses to Carry Concealed Weapons or Firearms” is the one that has, so far, gone
the farthest in congress. The language of the bill summary says that the bill "Deletes provision
prohibiting concealed carry licensees from openly carrying handgun or carrying concealed
weapon or firearm into college or university facility", and says that it would go into effect on
July 1, 2015. This piece of legislation was referred to the Criminal Justice Subcommittee, the
Higher Education and Workforce Subcommittee, and the Judiciary Committee. The bill was filed
in December of 2014, and in the past four months has sailed through the three committee and

11. is soon to be put to a vote on the House floor. The matching Senate bill, 176, began just as well
but has since slowed down. It has four committees of reference but only has moved through
two of them; while the votes were all successful, it must be seen by each committee before
being voted on by the floor and being presented to the governor.
This is not the first time that legislation of this sort has been presented in congress. In
the 2011 legislative session similar legislation was presented in the form of Senate bill 234
"Relating to Firearms". The summary of this bill had language saying that the bill:
"Provides that a person who is licensed to carry a concealed firearm is not in violation
of law if the firearm is briefly and openly displayed under certain circumstances. ..Provides that
concealed carry licensees shall not be prohibited from carrying or storing a firearm in a vehicle
for lawful purposes, etc."
The key thing in this was an amendment that provided that guns would be allowed on
campus as well, provided they were held by a permitted person. While three years ago the set-
up of congress was similar to what it was now there was a key difference in John Thrasher, our
current Florida State president. The public opinion on opposing guns on campus was voiced in
his strong personal belief against it, due to his own experiences, and he managed to convince
enough congress members to veto the amendment so the bill was passed but that provision
was taken away.
Now, House Bill 4005 and Senate Bill 176 took that amendment and created a
bill all of its own. The difference now is that there is still a supermajority of strong Republican
opinions, but there is a lack of strong voices opposing the bill.

12. Except when you look at the public opinion. One of my tasks at Lobbytools is to file
press releases, many of which have recently been related to the guns on campus bills. The
Florida State University student government released their vote against allowing guns on
campus, and various organizations, such as the League of Women’s Voters, have been sending
in news releases begging the public to add their names to a number of petitions opposing guns
on campus. While I am sure there are a strong number of supporters, the overwhelming
opinion seems to be coming from those in opposition for the legislation.
The strong opinions being put out by these larger groups reflects Norman Luttbeg's
Pressure Group Model. In this model the public presents their views mainly by coming together
in groups and influencing the legislators by supporting through electoral and monetary means.
The fact that these groups come with many people, some with money but all with votes, could
start to explain why support for the bill pair seems to be decreasing. While 4005 has already
passed through the necessary committees, 176 has one committee left and is not slated to be
heard by it. Judiciary, the one committee left, has one one committee meeting left and is not
going to listen to 176. The committee chair, Senator Miguel Diaz de La Portilla, said “I’ve polled
the members of the Senate, and there doesn’t seem to be too much support for that bill",
though Marion Hammer, who lobbies for the National Rifle Association, thinks that this is
wrong and that "the people have a right to know where senators stand on the bill". However,
the people are not going to see where senator’s stand, but the people also will be likely to get
their desire and not see guns on college campuses.

13. Next, House Bill 583 “Relating to Single-Sex Public Facilities “, whose summary states
that it “Provides purpose & legislative findings; requires that use of single-sex public facilities be
restricted to persons of sex for which facility is designated; prohibits knowingly & willfully
entering single-sex public facility designated for or restricted to persons of other sex; provides
criminal penalties; provides private cause of action against violators; provides exemptions;
provides applicability with respect to other laws; provides for preemption.” This would provide
difficulty for members of the transgender community; though to the passerby they look as
though they should be using one facility, this bill would say that they should be in a different
one. While this bill has not had many actions in the past several weeks, it has had constant
attention from different organizations such as the Florida Democratic Party and the ACLU. Like
the earlier mentioned bill 176, this bill seems to be dying a quiet death,, without being taken to
too many votes. It has three committees of reference and has only been seen and voted on by
two. Being that committee meetings are officially over this bill will die come the end of session,
much to the joy of (most of) the public.
Were it not for how vocal the public is, it is likely that this bill would have passed. The
two votes taken were both positive, and traditional Republican ideas do not have high opinions
of the LGBT community, as can be seen in the frequent opposition of equal marriage rights and
the filed bills about making sexual orientation an appropriate reason to not allow couples to
adopt.
The final set of bills I will be analyzing are the similar bills HB 633 and SB 724. These
bills, respectively, are “Relating to Informed Patient Consent” and “Relating to Termination of

14. Pregnancies”. The most controversial bit of these bills are the provisions saying that a woman
must wait 24 hours after a consultation with a physician to have an abortion. Again back to
ideologies: the Republican standpoint is pro-life, anti-abortion. The public seems to more hold a
strong opinion on a woman's right to choose, or at the very least to not be forced to wait on a
medical procedure she has already decided on. People against the bill voice the opinion that
women already know what they are getting into when they go in and have put the thought into
it- making them wait will do nothing but be more detrimental to everyone involved. The Florida
Democratic Party has voiced strong opinions against this bill (in accordance with traditional
Democratic ideologies), as have Planned Parenthood and the ACLU. Senate Bill 724 has made it
fairly far so far, though it will take until May 1st
to know what will completely happen with it
unless it is shot down on the Senate floor April 23rd
. This bill has survived three close votes in.
House Bill 633 was put on it's third reading, and has also sailed through it's three corresponding
House committees in the past several weeks.
Overall, I find support for my hypothesis that the public opinion holds more importance
than the ideologies of the congressional members. The importance of reelection and monetary
aid does seem to hold too much importance to be looked over; were most congress members
to stick to their party ideals, these bills would have sailed. The majority of these bills have had
at least a couple of votes taken on them. The transgender bathroom bill I have watched die a
somewhat silent death in the hands of congress, which may have been for the best. Press
releases with drastic titles such as “Forced to Show Birth Certificate to Pee” and constant
petitions have stopped coming through since the bill has stopped moving. Likewise, it has been
some time since much has been said about guns on campus and abortion, beyond people

15. voicing thanks for the fact that these bills seem as though they will not be effective during this
session.
One trend that I noticed and found interesting was that it was not so much seen in the
votes the influence of public opinion, but in the choice of whether or not to slate the bills for
discussion by the committee heads. Such as was mentioned with SB 176 about guns on campus
it was the decision of the Republican Judiciary committee head Miguel Diaz De La Portilla to not
have the bill discussed in the final meeting of the judiciary committee, a meeting which would
have made the bill able to move to the Senate floor and possibly to governor Rick Scott's desk.
Similar occurred with the transgender bathroom bills- they did not ever move onto different
committees, and will have “died in messages”. As was mentioned in earlier studies, though, not
passing these controversial bills, or even passing them on to give congress members the option
of voting on them, will likely make them look better in the eyes of the constituency and greaten
their chances of reelection should they decide to run again.
My experience can definitely be generalized. In looking for studies I had no shortage of
public opinion/public policy research dating back for decades. I think that any time someone is
looking for reelection, or looking to please people that they are representing in general, my
research can be applied to. If controversial bills were going to move on, this session would have
been the time to do such being that congress is currently the most conservative it has been in a
while. The fact that the research from decades ago, relating to more moderate groups, still
applies today lays much credibility to the thought that this research will also still be relevant in
decades to come.

16. Bibliography
Childs, H. L. (1965). Public Opinion: Nature, Formation, and Role. Princeton, N.J.,: Van
Nostrand. 21 Apr. 2015
Erikson, Robert S. "The Relation Between Public Opinion and State Policy: A New Look Based on
Some Forgotten Data." JSTOR : Midwest Political Science Organization. American Journal of
Policial Science, 1 Feb. 1976. Web. 5 Mar. 2015.
Gerring, John. "Party Ideologies in America, 1828-1996." Party Ideologies in America, 1828-
1996. Michigan Historical Review, 5 Feb. 2001. Web. 21 Apr. 2015.
Glynn, Carroll J., Susan Herbst, Garrett J. O'Keefe, and Robert Y. Shapiro. "Public Opinion."
Public Opinion Quarterly, 1999. Web. 21 Apr. 2015.
Kay, Ward. "The Role of Salience on the Relationship between Public Policy and Public Opinion."
(n.d.): n. pag. DC- APPOR. George Mason University. Web. 21 Apr. 2015.
LobbyTools. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Apr. 2015.
Luttbeg, N. R. (1981). Public Opinion and Public Policy: Models of Political Linkage
(3rd ed.). Itasca, Ill.: F.E. Peacock Publishers. 21 Apr. 2015
Riley, Jim L. "Moderate Political Ideologies:." Liberalism & Conservatism. Regis University, 1990.
Web. 21 Apr. 2015.