The DOI matches its Crossref record; 314 of the 314 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Collective preferences in democratic politics: opinion surveys and the will of the people
Abstract
Since so few people appear knowledgeable about public affairs, one might question whether collective policy preferences revealed in opinion surveys accurately convey the distribution of voices and interests in a society. This study, the first comprehensive treatment of the relationship between knowledge, representation, and political equality in opinion surveys, suggests some surprising answers. Knowledge does matter, and the way it is distributed in society can cause collective preferences to reflect disproportionately the opinions of some groups more than others. Sometimes collective preferences seem to represent something like the will of the people, but frequently they do not. Sometimes they rigidly enforce political equality in the expression of political viewpoints, but often they do not. The primary culprit is not any inherent shortcoming in the methods of survey research. Rather, it is the limited degree of knowledge held by ordinary citizens about public affairs. Accounting for these factors can help better appreciate thepossibilities for using opinion polls to represent the people's voice.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods
Granger, C. W. J. (1969) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912791 · Cited by 22,989
An Economic Theory of Democracy.
Banfield, E. C., & Downs, A. (1958) · Midwest Journal of Political Science · doi:10.2307/2109186 · Cited by 18,594
Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy
Fukuyama, F., & Schumpeter, J. A. (1997) · Foreign Affairs · doi:10.2307/20048211 · Cited by 15,264
The structural transformation of the public sphere: an inquiry into a category of bourgeois society
(1990) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-4175 · Cited by 12,693
The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups.
Sufrin, S. C., & Olson, M. (1966) · Industrial and Labor Relations Review · doi:10.2307/2521228 · Cited by 11,518
Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.3.231 · Cited by 11,317
(1973) · DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) · Cited by 10,144
The Human Condition: Second Edition
Arendt, H., Canovan, M., & Allen, D. (2018) · University of Chicago Press eBooks · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226586748.001.0001 · Cited by 10,123
Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy
Habermas, J. (1996) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1564.001.0001 · Cited by 9,998
Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores
Rozeboom, W. W., Lord, F. M., Novick, M. R., & Birnbaum, A. (1969) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.2307/1162101 · Cited by 8,022
Cited by
DO THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES? PARTISAN DISAGREEMENT AS A CHALLENGE TO DEMOCRATIC COMPETENCE
Shapiro, R. Y., & Bloch‐Elkon, Y. (2008) · Critical Review · doi:10.1080/08913810802316373 · Cited by 178
Aerni, P. (2009) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.12.016 · Cited by 82
Ideologia e comportamento político no eleitorado brasileiro
Oliveira, C., & Turgeon, M. (2015) · Opinião Pública · doi:10.1590/1807-01912015213574 · Cited by 34
Metadata
- Venue
- Choice Reviews Online
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 2004-10-01
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 02
- Pages
- 42-1221-42-1221
- ISSN
- 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-8253
- OpenAlex
- W1523850678
- Cited by
- 274
- References
- 314
- Type
- book review
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Collective preferences in democratic politics: opinion surveys and the will of the people. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.42-1221
- The paper
- Collective preferences in democratic politics: opinion surveys and the will of the people. (2004). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.42-1221
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
