Lewitus is a research analyst at the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation.
The reputation of election polls has taken a hard hit in the last several years due to some major mis-calls of close races. Some people have questioned polls on public policy as well. But the results of ballot initiatives over the last decade, including those just passed in Ohio and Maine, have been consistently in line with the polls.
This confirms that policy polls can and should be an important tool for policymakers to use in a well-functioning democracy. That is, of course, only if legislators pay attention to them and value the will of the majority over their own wishes, which some lawmakers have been reluctant to do.
The Ohio ballot measure to enshrine into the state Constitution the legality of abortions, up until fetal viability, passed with 57 percent of voters’ support. A poll of Ohio voters conducted one month before the vote found 58 percent support for the ballot measure. A national survey conducted in 2022 by the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation found that 57 percent opposed criminalizing abortion, including 52 percent in very red congressional districts. Other surveys in 2022 found that 61 percent believed abortion should be legal in all or most cases and 64 percent opposed the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
The level of support for abortion rights found in polls matches up to outcomes in five other ballot measures last year, when adjusted to match each state’s partisan and demographic makeup.
Even for an issue that has not been nearly as salient or polled-on as abortion, such as the campaign finance reform initiative in Maine, polling has proved accurate. Eighty-six percent of voters in Maine supported prohibiting foreign spending to influence ballot measures and candidate elections. A 2022 survey by PPC found roughly the same level of support nationwide (79 percent), with little variation between very red and very blue districts.
On numerous other issues, polling has been congruent with ballot results. Polls have shown consistent majority support for term limits, decriminalizing marijuana and increasing the minimum wage. All ballot measures on those policy proposals over the last decade have passed.
Policy polls are not only just as accurate as ballot initiatives in revealing public opinion, but they are far more cost-efficient. The average cost of getting a measure on the ballot is $4 million, and then there are the administrative costs for the government, as well as the millions of dollars spent by groups trying to influence the outcome.
Legislators may believe that national polling is not indicative of public opinion in their area because their constituents are particularly unique. However, public opinion research has shown that this is very unlikely. PPC analyzed dozens of large-sample surveys and found the differences between very red and very blue congressional districts is much less than policymakers imagine. When support for a position was 60 percent or more nationally, there was always majority support in both very red and very blue districts.
For many issues, however, standard polling may be inadequate. Citizens often do not have enough information to make an informed decision, or the proposed policy may be too detailed or nuanced to accurately describe in a standard poll. Fortunately, there are forms of “public consultation” that give representative samples of citizens the information and range of arguments necessary to understand the issue. Public consultation surveys do this in an online format, which is inexpensive and fully transparent. Events like citizen assemblies are also a well-tested option, as are deliberative polls and myriad other methods used in democracies across the world.
What is striking is that on many issues these public consultation methods reveal a striking amount of bipartisan common ground, far more than legislatures tend to find. Voice of the People has identified more than 200 bipartisan common ground positions on a wide range of policy positions that divide Congress on partisan lines. When the parties are polarized, the people may offer a path forward.
Ballot initiatives have proven to be a good way to give the people a voice. But if legislatures were really doing their job, they may not be as necessary. When an abundance of polling exists, legislators should be listening. Where sufficient polling does not exist, the government could commission nonpartisan policy polls, especially public-consultation-style surveys that ensure citizens have correct information.
In numerous polls, the American public has complained that government does not listen to and is not responsive to the people, undermining confidence in the democratic process. This lack of responsiveness by elected officials has been on full display across the country, with state policymakers attempting to block and prevent ballot initiatives. Most recently in Ohio, several legislators are attempting to over-rule the results of the ballot measure on abortion.
The public is not asking that elected officials simply follow the polls in a robotic fashion, but they do insist that elected officials listen to the people and value their opinion. And if they do not, the public will continue to rise up and use direct democratic approaches, such as ballot initiatives, to be heard.




















U.S. President Donald Trump boards Air Force One on August 14, 2026 at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. Trump is traveling to Long Island to tour law enforcement facilities in Nassau County and rally support for local Republican candidates ahead of the upcoming midterm elections
Travel Far Enough, You Meet Yourself
Is it possible that our President has simply not traveled enough?
Born and raised in Queens and attending Fordham University in the Bronx, Donald Trump has no record of traveling outside New York until he was over 20, when he transferred to a college in the neighboring state of Pennsylvania. Were his formative years amiss, then, in his learning about other places and other people?
Is his view akin to the famous New Yorker cover by Saul Steinberg, an illustration of the United States with New York City as the epicenter of the country and the Hudson River the border of the known world? We can now at least add Washington, D.C., and Mar-a-Lago to the map of “the realm.”
Our President has now traveled some, but what we recommend is another kind of travel. Not a state-sponsored trip or a venture to scout locations for future Trump Towers. This would be a genuine travel experience, enriching and eye-opening, showcasing other cultures and ways of living.
It will extend far beyond viewing military parades, hobnobbing with such “understanding” world leaders as Kim Jong Un, or taking tea with the King.
WHERE, then, should the President go? As Elon Musk’s Starship spacecraft is not yet ready to take passengers to Mars, perhaps he could explore our own vast country?
Maybe he could travel to “flyover country,” the farming states, where his ying-yanging tariffs and trade restrictions have played havoc with rural economies. Or possibly to California, number one in homeless U. S. citizens, and while there, regale homeless veterans (approximately 32,500 nationwide) with tales of his brave exploits invading and bombing foreign countries.
Or he might tour the Great Lakes, and rename the other four?
WHEN should he go? This will be tough, as he is very busy building his ballroom and renaming bodies of water.
How about a trip in early November, around the midterm elections? Despite the long-discredited accusation of widespread voter fraud, it would be reassuring to know he might be so caught up divvying out ladles of soup in a soup kitchen somewhere that he wouldn’t remember to deploy the military for “election security.”
HOW will he travel? He should definitely not take his Qatari-donated, newly renovated 747, especially after last time, when he had to be smuggled off clandestinely in a catering truck. It’s unlikely any traveling companions, like the Secretary of State or of the Treasury, are going to fall for the ruse a second time. Besides, we may need those people. No more decoys!
Perhaps the President could fly commercially, although this likely would expose him to undue suffering. Without gold bathroom fixtures and maple wood floors, the trip will be no “Luxury Experience.” If only he still had his “Trump Shuttle,” bought with a massive loan he later defaulted on, saying then, “I’m smart. I got out at a good time.”
Considering the potential pitfalls, maybe it’s best the President travel incognito, disguised perhaps as an elderly woman wearing a lot of bronzer.
Wherever, whenever, however: our President needs a vacation.
Moreover, we need a vacation from him.
If the President refuses our travel suggestions, here’s another idea:
Let’s get him a pet! He has never owned a pet. As we know with our children, pets teach essential life lessons: compassion and empathy; they instill a sense of responsibility. There is a well-established connection between those who can care for a pet and those who can care for people.
So, which pet should we choose? A puppy? A kitten? A boa constrictor?
Imagine, the President may even decide he likes having a pet. After all, what is more obedient than a well-trained dog, besides possibly the Cabinet? And what is more docile than a sweet kitten, other than plausibly the Supreme Court?
The President may even become more mellow with a pet afoot and less likely to slap tariffs on our allies, or attempt to annex our neighbors, or bully our Congress. (Realizing, of course, a bully requires active participation from the bullied to maintain his status.)
Maybe we should do both: get the President a pet and devise a travel plan for him. (Do you think we could possibly convince him to leave his phone at home?)
Let’s go for it! After all:
Travel far enough, you meet yourself. (David Mitchell)
And for our President, that would likely be the most profound discovery of all.
Amy Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."