Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Poll: Americans’ legislative wish list for new congress shows frustration with political systems

Poll: Americans’ legislative wish list for new congress shows frustration with political systems
Trevor Carpenter/Getty Images

Benjamin Clary is a Senior Research Analyst at APM Research Lab.

The McCourtney Institute for Democracy’s most recent Mood of the Nation Poll asked Americans what law they would choose, in their own words, if they could enact any law at the start of the new Congress. The results show that Americans are eager for political and electoral reform, especially instituting term limits.


Poll director Eric Plutzer, Ph.D., noted, “I think it says a lot that term limits and similar reforms are the first things that come to mind for so many people. Many Americans are prioritizing fixing the system over any particular policy that might contribute to security, freedom, equality or prosperity. That’s a symptom of deep frustration with government and how it has been functioning—or not—lately.”

Over one-quarter of Americans are eager for political or electoral reform

As part of the latest Mood of the Nation Poll, fielded in mid-November, respondents were asked what law they would enact if they had a magic wand that would make it the law of the United States automatically at the start of the new, 118th Congress. Responses were recorded verbatim and the APM Research Lab coded those responses into broader categories.

More than one-quarter of respondents (28%) gave an answer related to political or electoral reform. We combined political- and election-reform answers since both seek to change the mechanisms by which our government functions. Even when split into two separate categories, political reform remains the frontrunner with nearly one in five Americans (18.5%) wishing for some sort of political reform.

In addition to political or electoral reform, Americans also desired to enact laws pertaining to justice (9.5%), equal rights (8.5%), abortion (7.9%) and income or taxation (7.7%), among others.

Overhauling the political system and instituting term limits are most common suggestions for political or electoral reform

What exactly do Americans mean by political or electoral reform?

Among those who gave an answer that fell under political or electoral reform, 21% felt that some sort of change to our political system was needed to overcome dissatisfaction with America’s two-party system.

Some respondents expressed a desire to eliminate political parties or currently in use political labels, such as one 55-year-old white woman from Indiana, a Republican, who wished for “the abolishment of the party system.” While a handful of others, like this 35-year-old Black man from Pennsylvania, a Democrat, suggested that “making political representation proportional” would bring about necessary political reform.

Nineteen percent of those who gave an answer that fell under political or electoral reform wished to enact a law instituting term limits for those holding political office. Some respondents just said “term limits” without specifying a particular office, while others specified term limits for members of Congress. A few wished for legislation instituting term limits for Supreme Court justices, and a subset of respondents, like this 43-year-old white man from Florida, an independent, sought “Term limits for every political office.”

Those who wished to enact legislation instituting term limits came from across the political spectrum and a range of other demographic categories.

Finally, changing the laws around election finance was the third most popular type of suggestions related to political and election reform. Respondents frequently named the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC as a target of their proposed legislation. Other respondents, while not citing Citizens United, said that there should be a law that elections be only publicly financed.

Americans who would enact a law regarding political and election reform are by and large significantly more likely to identify as male, white and Republican, to have higher levels of educational attainment and higher family income. The largest of these differences are seen across gender, race and family income, as shown in the graph.

Abortion, equal rights and healthcare legislation favored by larger proportions of women, Black Americans and poorer Americans, respectively

Although smaller proportions of Americans overall said they would enact legislation related to abortion, equal rights or healthcare as compared to political reform, certain patterns emerge that reveal these issues are particularly salient among certain demographics, perhaps due to addressing more immediate needs than political system change.

Eight percent of Americans cited abortion as the focus of their legislative wishes. The vast majority of Americans who would enact an abortion law, four in five, said they would legalize abortion access on a national level, while one in five said they would outlaw abortion in any circumstance.

Women, in particular, were significantly more likely than men to say they would enact a law related to abortion (14% compared to 2%). Interestingly, all the men who gave an abortion answer were in favor of legalizing abortion.

The specific form the abortion answers took varied. At least seven respondents mentioned their desire to “codify Roe v. Wade.” Some respondents emphasized bodily autonomy at the root of their legal safeguarding of abortion access. Several people thought abortion should be legally accessible in all cases. Still, other respondents linked abortion to broader concerns around healthcare.

Those who wanted to institute a nationwide ban on abortions mostly kept it focused on that. But a 42-year-old woman from Texas, a Democrat, said she “would overturn Roe v. Wade and outlaw certain guns.” And another respondent emphasized “no abortions of any kind, ever, that we value ALL forms of life. That we never start to devalue life in infants, elderly, different people.”

There were also significant differences in frequency of response based on household income. As the level of family income increases, a somewhat higher proportion of Americans point to abortion policy as their law of choice. This is especially true for those with a family income of $100,000 or more.

Nearly 9% of Americans prioritized enacting legislation that would secure equal rights for marginalized groups. But there are significant differences among frequency of response when it comes to race and ethnicity, and political leaning.

One in five Black Americans said they would enact a law regarding equal rights, and just over one in 10 Latino Americans would do the same. Only 7% of white Americans, however, prioritized legislation pertaining to equal rights.

There is also a significant political difference when it comes to those suggesting a law regarding equal rights. Democrats (15%) were far more likely than either political independents (5%) or Republicans (2%) to say they would enact equal rights legislation. This difference between political leanings may also be influenced by race, since a higher proportion Republicans identify as white.

Many respondents said they would enact a law securing “equal rights for all.” Others sought to advance equal rights specifically as it came to racism, or gender equity, or marriage equality and other LGBTQ rights. One respondent specifically cited enacting the Equal Rights Amendment.

Comparatively speaking, healthcare legislation was among the less frequently cited categories, only 6% of Americans gave an answer related to healthcare. But there is a significant difference in frequency of response when analyzed by household income: those with a lower household income were more likely to say they would enact a law regarding healthcare access than those with a higher household income.

Twelve percent of Americans with an annual family income less than $30,000, double the overall rate, prioritized healthcare access. That proportion drops to 7% for those with a family income between $30,000 and $59,999, 4% for those with a family income between $60,000 and $99,999, and 2% for those with a family income over $100,000.

Among those with a household income less than $30,000 who would enact healthcare-related legislation, one said they would make it so “that we will never be forced to pay a mandate for health insurance again.” But all others advocated for some form of universal healthcare, such as: “Medicare for all!!”, “that all citizens have health insurance regardless of income”, and “comprehensive, single payer healthcare for everyone.”

PARTNER FOR THIS SURVEY

The McCourtney Institute for Democracy at Penn State promotes scholarship and practical innovations that defend and advance democracy in the United States and abroad. Through teaching, research and public outreach, the Institute leverages the resources of Penn State and partners around the world to foster a model of deliberation, policymaking and responsiveness that is passionate, informed and civil.

This article originally appeared on APM Research Lab.


Read More

“We Can’t Afford It” Is Never an Acceptable Excuse To Deny Independents a Vote

DC voting rights advocate Lisa D.T. Rice criticized the DC City Council for failing to fund Initiative 83’s semi-open primary system, leaving 85,000 independent voters unable to participate in taxpayer-funded primaries despite overwhelming voter approval in 2024.

Photo by Getty Images on Unsplash.

“We Can’t Afford It” Is Never an Acceptable Excuse To Deny Independents a Vote

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Lisa D.T. Rice spoke before the DC City Council during a Budget Oversight Hearing on May 1 to talk about Initiative 83, the semi-open primary and ranked choice voting measure she proposed that was approved by 73% of voters in 2024.

- YouTube youtu.be

Keep ReadingShow less
Pregnant woman holding her belly during a prenatal exam.

Americans are questioning whether they have enough resources and support to raise a family in the nation's current political landscape. Julie Roland examines the contradictions of "pro-family" politics in America today and the kind of care mothers are owed to safely and successfully raise children.

Getty Images, Drs Producoes

The Trump Administration Has a Mommy Problem

My mother, who died of breast cancer when I was 18, had me when she was 32. This past Sunday, I turned 33, childless. As I officially fall behind her timeline, with no plans to have kids anytime soon, I look at the landscape of 2026 America and have to ask: Who can blame me?

The decision to start a family is a difficult one. J.D. Vance said on his first day as Vice President that he wants “more babies in America,” but many Americans simply can’t afford to have kids anymore. Perhaps that’s one reason why this administration is offering $5,000 “baby bonuses” just to incentivize birth, while also banning abortion in every way they can. But becoming a mother should be a choice. I was the result of an unplanned pregnancy–and I’m lucky my mom decided to have me and that she turned out to be the best mom ever–but as Miriam Rabkin, MD, MPH, put it: “if you want mom to be happy and healthy, she needs access to contraception so she can choose if and when to get pregnant!” Instead, this administration seems to think that if women won’t elect to have children, they should try paying them, and if that doesn’t work, then they should just force them.

Keep ReadingShow less
Religious leaders hold a press conference at the Episcopal Church Center.

Religious leaders hold a press conference at the Episcopal Church Center to outline plans for implementing the recommendations of President Johnson's riot commission. From the left are Rabbi Marc Tanenbaum, president of Inter-Religious Foundation for Community Organizations; Rev. Albert Cleage Jr., pastor of Detroit's Central Congregational Church; Rev., John Hines, co-chairman of Operation connection, and Rabbi Abraham Heschel, of New York's Jewish Theological Seminary.

Photo by Bettmann Archive/Getty Images

Not Forgotten: The Need To Continue The Work of Black-Jewish Legacy

An aggressor shouting “Free Palestine” choked a 32-year-old Jewish man near Adas Torah synagogue recently in the Pico-Robertson neighborhood in LA.

This episode, following on the heels of thousands more, is a stark reminder that the surge of antisemitism in the U.S. continues unabated.

Keep ReadingShow less
America's Political War Is Costing Trillions: An American Union Could Fix It

The skyline of Austin, Texas.

(adamkaz / Getty Images)

America's Political War Is Costing Trillions: An American Union Could Fix It

America’s long-standing political conflicts increasingly carry an economic cost that is rarely discussed. Research on economic policy uncertainty suggests that sustained political instability can readily reduce national economic output by 1–2 percent or more of GDP through reduced investment, hiring delays, and lower productivity.

In an economy the size of the United States, that represents hundreds of billions of dollars every year — roughly the economic output of an entire mid-size U.S. state.

Keep ReadingShow less