My last post discussed a question about the importance of the abortion issue in voting: "if you would only vote for a candidate who shares your views on abortion, consider a candidate's position on abortion as just one of many important factors, or not see abortion as a major issue." A parallel question has been asked about gun control. There was also one on immigration policy, although it was asked only a couple of times over a short period. The means, with higher numbers meaning more important:
The self-rated importance of both abortion and gun control has increased in the 21st century. I interpret that as one aspect of a general increase in ideological polarization. A more surprising point is that gun control consistently ranks above abortion in importance (and immigration does as well on the two occasions when it was asked)--my impression, which I think is widely shared, was that abortion was the most important "social issue," and gun control was one of a number of issues in the second rank. The difference in means is primarily a result of differences in the number who say it's not a major issue.
Maybe that's because some people didn't think that elected officials had that much influence over abortion--they thought that the courts would decide.
In my last post, I found that people who were opposed to legal abortion rated it as more important than those who were in favor. There was also a tendency for people with middle opinions (e. g., should be allowed only in the first trimester) to rate it as less important. A CNN/ORC poll from January 2013 included the question on the importance and a number of questions about gun control measures. For a basic one, "do you favor or oppose stricter gun control laws" people who were opposed were more likely to say that they would only vote for a candidate who shares their views (19% vs. 15%) but also more likely to say it wasn't a major issue (20% to 14%). The means were almost identical. A majority favored stricter laws, but it wasn't overwhelming (about 55%). There was also a three-way question: "do existing laws make it too easy to buy guns, too difficult, or are they about right?" A majority (52%) of the people who said "too difficult" said that they would only vote for someone who shares there views; however, only a tiny minority, about 3%, thought it was too difficult. There was little or no difference between ratings of importance in the "too easy" or "about right" groups. There was a question about a ban on "semi-automatic assault guns"--people who were opposed were more likely to rate the issue as essential, but also more likely to rate it as not important. There was also a question on whether you had a gun in your household--that also showed little or no difference in ratings of the importance of the issue.
So far, this doesn't give much support to the conventional view that opponents of gun control are more passionate about the issue. But there was also a question, asked of gun owners, about whether you felt that the federal government was taking away your right to own a gun. Among gun owners who said yes, 24% said they would only vote for someone who shared their views and 14% said it wasn't a major issue; among gun owners who said no, the figures were almost exactly reversed, with 12% saying essential and 24% not a major issue. Gun owners who didn't think the federal government was trying to take away their right to own a gun rated the issue as less important than non-owners.
I think this last point says something about party competition today--rather than supporting measures that voters in the middle want, parties try to convince their supporters that they are the think end of the wedge: e. g., an apparently reasonable restriction on gun ownership is just one step in a plan to take away your guns. That might help to explain a paradox discussed in the New York Times today--that gun control measures which seem popular in the polls often get much less support when they are offered to voters in state referendums.
[Data from the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research]
No comments:
Post a Comment