Top News

Large Majority of Voters in States Without Medicaid Expansion Favor It

Now that the Republican leadership in the House has failed in its effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA), attention has turned back to the question of whether states that have not acceded to ACA’s Medicaid expansion will do so. Nineteen states have not elected to expand Medicaid and receive the federal support that would be provided. The results were released today by Voice Of the People.

However a large, in-depth survey finds that more than six-in-ten voters living in states that have not opted for Medicaid expansion would like their state to do so, including  those in Virginia, North Carolina, Texas, Florida and Oklahoma. 

The survey of more than 7,000 registered voters, conducted by the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation (PPC), briefed respondents on the ACA plan that gives states the option of expanding Medicaid with Federal help. They evaluated strongly-stated arguments in favor and against the idea of their state accepting this plan. The content of the briefing and the pro and con arguments were reviewed by Congressional staffers from both parties and other experts across the spectrum of opinion on the issue. 

When asked if they want their state to opt for Medicaid expansion, 64 percent nationally are in favor. Among those who live in states that had already opted for Medicaid expansion, 65 percent approve. Sixty-two percent favor expansion, among those who live in states that have not opted for expansion. 

Because the sample is so large, it includes samples of 400 or more in eight states, affording the opportunity to assess views in those specific states. In all cases majorities favor expansion, ranging from 65-69 percent. 

Four of the eight states sampled were ones which have not opted for Medicaid expansion. In all of these four cases large majorities favor expansion including in Virginia (69 percent), Texas (67 percent), North Carolina (66 percent), and Florida (67 percent). In Oklahoma, which had a smaller sample of 307, 63 percent approve. 

“Though a modest majority of Republicans are opposed, a clear majority overall favors Medicaid expanding in the states that have not done so,” said PPC Director Steven Kull.

Support for expansion is not bipartisan. Nationally, 56 percent of Republicans oppose expansion, while 84 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of independents favor it. 

Respondent were presented an argument in favor of Medicaid expansion emphasizing the needs of low income people for medical insurance and the inefficiency of providing services to the poor via emergency rooms was found convincing by three quarters nationally, including 64 percent of Republicans and 87 percent of Democrats. Across the eight states the majorities finding it convincing ranged from 72 percent in North Carolina to 81 percent in Maryland. 

The argument against Medicaid expansion emphasized that the state would be taking on a new responsibility and that the Federal government might not continue to provide support putting onerous demands on the state and possibly crowding out other priorities. This argument was found convincing by 54 percent overall, including 70 percent of Republicans, but just 39 percent of Democrats. Across the eight states, the percentage finding this argument convincing ranged from 47 percent in North Carolina to 56 percent in Ohio and California. 

These questions were part of a larger survey on poverty programs that will be released at a later date. 

The survey was fielded Nov. 11, 2016 – Jan. 18, 2017. The panel of 7,128 respondents was drawn from Nielsen-Scarborough’s probability-based national panel, which was recruited by mail and telephone using a random sample of households. Additional recruiting by telephone and mail was conducted by Communications for Research. The margin of error is +/- 1.2 percent. State samples: Calif. 682 (MoE +/- 3.8 percent); Fla. 423 (+/- 4.8 percent); Md. 486 (+/- 4.4 percent); N.C. 402 (+/- 4.9 percent); N.Y. 401 (+/- 4.9 percent); Ohio 509 (+/- 4.3 percent); Texas 398 (+/- 4.9 percent); and Va. 463 (+/- 4.6 percent). Oklahoma had a smaller sample of 307 (+/-5.6 percent).

A report providing a more thorough description of the survey can be seen here: 

The questionnaire can be seen here: 

Trump’s Tax Reform Agenda Out of Step With Public

As the Trump administration pivots from healthcare to tax reform, a new, innovative survey reveals the Trump administration’s tax reform agenda is at odds with the public’s priorities.

Based on “Tax Reform That Will Make America Great Again,” a document issued by the Trump campaign in September 2016, the administration will seek to reduce income taxes, corporate taxes, taxes on capital gains and dividends, the estate tax, and taxes on pass-through entities. None of these reductions are favored by a majority of the public or even a majority of Republicans. The only Trump proposal to get majority support is for increasing taxes for carried interest.

In the survey, conducted by the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation, a representative sample of voters were given the opportunity to set revenue levels. Majorities increase income taxes for higher earners, corporations, and capital gains and dividends, while opposing reductions in the estate tax, or taxes on owners of pass-through-entities (e.g. partnerships). Overall the majority increase revenues by $112.2 billion per year. While Democrats increase revenues a bit more (118.5 billion), Republicans raise them somewhat less at $36.2 billion.

According to scoring of the Trump proposals by the Tax Policy Center and the Tax Foundation, the net effect of the reductions proposed by the Trump campaign in these six areas is a reduction of at least $441.9 billion in revenue. Thus the gap between the Trump proposals and the public’s positions is at least $555.1 billion.

“The American public appears to be far more concerned about the deficit than the President,” said PPC Director Steven Kull.

The one area where the public was in line with the Trump proposals was for increasing the tax on hedge fund managers, by taxing carried interest like ordinary income.

The survey took a representative sample of 1,800 registered voters through a process in which they were given the opportunity to make changes to existing taxes and to consider new tax proposals. As they went along they received input about the impact of their choices on the deficit, though they were not prompted to reduce the deficit. This is part of a larger study in which they were also given the opportunity to make changes to spending.

Personal Income Taxes
The Trump proposals call for reducing the top tax marginal tax bracket from 39.3 to 33 percent, repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax, and repealing numerous deductions. All income brackets would get some reduction, but just over three quarters of this reduction would go to the top twenty percent of taxpayers who would see their average tax rate reduced by 4.9 percent. The Tax Foundation, using dynamic scoring, projects that the resulting loss of Federal revenue will average at least $105.8 billion per year.  

For the public, the majority do not reduce the taxes of any income group. But they do make tax increases for higher earners income. Starting with a slight majority raising taxes on incomes starting at $100,000 (the top 22 percent of earners) by 5 percent, with larger percentages proposing 5 percent increases at higher income levels. At the million- dollar income level, 52 percent are ready to raise taxes by 10 percent. Majorities raised revenues a total of $63.3 billion.

Republicans start raising rates 5 percent on income starting at $200,000, producing a total of $34.1 billion in revenue. Democrats raise rates 5 percent starting at $100,000, going up to 10 percent starting at $500,000, producing a total of $69.6 billion in revenue.

Capital Gains and Dividends
Trump has proposed taxing capital gains and dividends at a rate that is half the rate of ordinary salary and wages, with a maximum rate of 16.5 percent. For most taxpayers this would constitute a tax cut and result in a reduction of revenues of $51 billion. But only 15 percent of respondents endorse this idea, (Republicans 21 percent, Democrats 10 percent).  On the contrary, 63 percent favor raising the tax rate from 23.8 to 28 percent for high-income earners (individuals with incomes of $430,000, couples at $500,000), increasing revenues by $22 billion (but just 49 percent of Republicans endorsed this position).

Corporate Taxes
Trump has called for a reduction of the top marginal corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent, repeal of the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax, and repeal of certain deductions, resulting in average annual reductions of $195.8 billion in revenue according to the Tax Foundation.  

Respondents were given the opportunity to increase or decrease the effective corporate tax rate (19.2 percent). A majority of 53 percent raise the effective tax rate to 20.2 percent, generating revenue of $17 billion. While 64 percent of Democrats take this step, only 41 percent of Republicans do so. However only 31 percent of Republicans lower the effective corporate tax rate.

Estate Tax
The Trump proposals call for eliminating the estate tax, which would reduce revenues by an average of $20 billion over the next 10 years. Just 22 percent of respondents, including 36 percent of Republicans favor this option. Rather, a slight majority of 51 percent favor raising the estate tax from the current 40 percent at least to 45 percent, increasing revenues by $7.8 billion (Democrats 65 percent, Republicans 37 percent).




Owners of Pass-Through-Entities
The Trump proposals specify making it possible for owners of pass- through-entities like sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S Corporations (which do not pay taxes on income) to not have their profits taxed like ordinary income as it is now, but rather to pay a maximum rate of 15 percent. This would result in a revenue reduction of $74.5 billion for 2018. This idea is rejected by large majorities, overall (66 percent) and among both parties (Republicans 62 percent, Democrats 70 percent).



Carried Interest
The one area where the public and the administration are in line is on requiring that managers of private investment funds, such as hedge fund managers, have their income taxed like ordinary income rather than as capital gains, which would increase revenues by $2.1 billion. This idea produces overwhelming consensus with 78 percent approving of it, including 75 percent of Republicans and 81 percent of Democrats.

The survey was fielded March 8-16 with a national probability-based sample of 1,817 registered voters, provided by Nielsen Scarborough from its sample of respondents, recruited by mail and telephone using a random sample of households. The margin of error was +/-2.3 percent.

The full report, which includes responses to spending items and other revenue options, will be forthcoming in the next weeks.

A full chart of these spending recommendations with party breakdowns can be seen at:

The questionnaire can be seen at:


Trump’s Budget at Odds with Public’s Priorities

New In-depth Survey Finds 10 Major Spending Gaps

An innovative survey from the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation (PPC) reveals significant differences between the budget proposed in the Trump administration’s “Budget Blueprint” for 2018 and what the public recommends. The findings were released today by Voice Of the People.

For the top ten areas, the gaps between the spending proposals of the majority of the public and those of the Trump administration total $139.6 billion. For Republicans these gaps are narrower totaling $86.9 billion, while for Democrats the total is $188.5 billion.

“The gaps between the public’s proposed budget and the Trump administration’s budget are quite substantial,” said PPC Director Steven Kull, who directed the survey, “especially when it comes to military spending.”

Working on-line, a representative sample of more than 1800 registered voters were presented the authorized Federal budget for 2017, broken into 31 line items, and given the opportunity to make changes for 2018 as they saw fit, getting feedback as they went along about the impact of their choices on the budget deficit.

The ten major gaps between the majority position of the public and the Trump Budget Blueprint include:

Military Spending – $94.4 billion: By far the biggest gap is for the three components of military spending. Overall the Trump administration favors a $53.4 billion increase while the public favors a $41 billion cut – a $94.4 billion gap. For the base Pentagon budget, the Trump blueprint proposes a ten percent increase of $52 billion, while the majority of voters propose a five percent cut of $26 billion. For operations in in Afghanistan and against the Islamic State in Iraq, the administration wants to keep the current levels of $65 billion, however the public wants to see this cut back by $15 billion. For nuclear weapons, Trump calls for a seven percent buildup of $1.4 billion, while the public does not support an increase.

The gap between Trump’s military spending levels and those preferred by a majority of Republicans is smaller at $58.4 billion. A majority of Republicans favor no increase in the base budget, no increase in nuclear weapons spending and a $5 billion cut for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Democrats favor a $76 billion cut for the base budget, $15 billion for Afghanistan and Iraq and no increase for nuclear weapons—a $144.4 billion gap with Trump’s budget.

Education – $9 billion: For the Department of Education, overall the Trump administration makes a 13 percent reduction of $9 billion. The public overall does not make any changes to education. Republicans make a $9 billion cut ($5 billion for K-12, $4 billion for higher education), while Democrats make an increase of $3 billion ($2 billion for special education and $1 billion for higher education).

Veterans Affairs – $7.9 billion: For Veterans Affairs, Trump proposes a 4.5 percent increase of $7.9 billion (covering both mandatory and discretionary spending). But the public overall and neither Republicans nor Democrats want to see any increase.

Public Housing – $6.2 billion: For public housing, the Trump administration calls for a 13 percent cut of $6.2 billion. The public overall and the Democrats do not make a change, though a majority of Republicans call for a six percent cut of $3 billion.

State Department and AID – $6.1 billion: For spending on the State Department and the Agency for International Development the administration seeks a 28 percent cut of $10.1 billion from the core spending of $36 billion. The public agrees that there should be a cut, but only an 11 percent cut of $4 billion. A majority of Democrats do not make any cuts, but Republicans do cut $10 billion – in line with the president’s plan.

Medical Research – $5.8 billion: For spending on medical research the Trump administration favors a 17 percent cut of $5.8 billion for the National Institute of Health. The public overall and Democrats do not support any change, while Republicans are largely in line with the Trump administration, favoring a $5 billion cut.

Homeland Security – $4.8 billion: For Homeland Security the Trump administration wants a 7 percent increase of $2.8 billion, in part to make a down payment on the border wall with Mexico. The public overall and Democrats cut $2 billion. Republicans do not favor any change up or down, though “border protection” is mentioned as one of the activities in this category.

Space Program – $3.9 billion: The Trump administration only trims $100 million from the space program. However the public wants a $2 billion cut, though Republicans cut $4 billion and Democrats do not support a change.

Pollution Control – $2.6 billion: For spending on the Environmental Protection Agency, the Trump administration favors a 31 percent cut of $2.6 billion, while the public overall does not favor any change for pollution control. A majority of Republicans favors an 11 percent cut of $1 billion, while Democrats favor an 11 percent increase of $1 billion.

Mass Transit – $2 billion: The Trump administration calls for a $2 billion cut to Amtrak while the public overall does not favor any change in spending on mass transit. Republicans favor a $1 billion cut to mass transit, while Democrats favor a $1 billion increase.

The survey was fielded March 8-16 with a national probability-based sample of 1,817 registered voters, provided by Nielsen Scarborough from its sample of respondents, recruited by mail and telephone using a random sample of households. The margin of error was +/-2.3 percent.

The full report, which includes additional spending items and proposals for revenues, will be forthcoming in the next weeks.

A full chart of these spending recommendations with party breakdowns can be seen at:

House Committee Takes up Postal Reform – Now So Can YOU!

After several false starts, Congress is once again taking up the issue of postal reform this week. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a full committee hearing today on a bipartisan bill, The Postal Service Reform Act of 2017 (HR 756). The bill proposes using cluster boxes, keeping Saturday delivery, addressing retiree benefits and pension liabilities, and cutting costs, saving $2.2 billion a year. But is this the right approach?

What to the American people think? Voice Of the People conducted an in-depth Citizen Cabinet survey to find out how the American people would reform the U.S. Post Office based on previous reform proposals and here is our full report

How would YOU reform the Postal Service? VOP also created an online simulation, designed to put you in Congress’ shoes, so the American people can have a voice on this issue. You can go through a background briefing prepared by a bipartisan group of experts, weigh the options Congress is facing, and share your views directly with your members of Congress. Try it now at:

Should the Post Office scale back pension liabilities and healthcare costs, close some post offices, offer new services to raise revenue? What about Saturday delivery, or rural service? The choices Congress faces are not easy. Here’s your chance to get informed, weigh the options, and make your voice heard.

Iran deal: Keep or Withdraw?

President-elect Donald Trump has proposed that the United States withdraw from the nuclear deal with Iran and seek to negotiate a deal with better terms. This brief simulation provides information on the main terms of the deal that was negotiated between Iran, the U.S. and other world powers over Iran’s nuclear program, as well as arguments for and against withdrawing and arguments for and against continuing with the deal.

Should the U.S. withdraw or continue with the deal? Try the Iran Policymaking Simulation

Most Americans Oppose Withdrawing from Iran Deal

With the Donald J. Trump administration just a couple of weeks away from taking over the nation’s foreign policy, a new survey from the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation (PPC) finds that nearly two thirds of Americans oppose withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal and seeking to negotiate a better deal, as has been proposed by the president-elect.

“Though President-elect Trump campaigned on ripping up the deal and seeking to negotiate a better one, the majority of Americans would rather continue with the deal as long as Iran continues to comply with its terms.” said PPC Director Steven Kull.

Respondents were first presented the main terms of the deal that was negotiated between the UN Security Council (plus Germany) and Iran over its nuclear enrichment program and asked to evaluate arguments for and against withdrawing and seeking to renegotiate. Both arguments were found convincing by majorities. Six in ten expressed optimism that other UN members could be persuaded to join in the effort to renegotiate.

However, 69 percent said it was unlikely that Iran would agree to renegotiate the deal and make more concessions. This was a bipartisan perspective that included 64 percent of Republicans as well as 75 percent of Democrats.

When asked for their final recommendation, 64 percent recommended continuing with the deal as long as Iran continues to comply with the terms, while 34 percent opted for withdrawing and seeking to negotiate a better deal.

While an overwhelming 86 percent of Democrats and 58 percent of independents favored continuing with the deal, only 40 percent of Republicans concurred. Fifty eight percent of Republicans favored withdrawing and seeking to renegotiate.

Interestingly, support for renegotiating was high among Republicans, though even among those who favored renegotiation, 57 percent said it was unlikely that the negotiations would succeed.

The survey was fielded December 22-28, 2016 with a sample of 2,980 adult respondents drawn from Nielsen-Scarborough’s probability-based national panel (which was recruited by mail and telephone using a random sample of households). The margin of error is +/- 1.8 percent.

The questionnaire can be found at:

The Peoples’ voice got louder in 2016

With the year coming to a close we pause to take a breath, thank our followers and reflect for a few moments on our efforts in 2016.

The Citizen Cabinet was greatly expanded this year to include a larger national panel, with several thousand participants now taking part in each study. Along with our work in Maryland, Oklahoma and Virginia, we also began operating in the three most populous states, California, New York and Texas as well as Florida and Ohio.

Registered voters from across the country considered policymaking simulations on several topics, including the federal budget, defense spending, U.S. energy policy, and Social Security reform. During the heat of the presidential campaign, we also looked into voter attitudes about American politics and government, using more standard survey techniques. This interesting study revealed an unprecedented level of dissatisfaction with government based on the broadly-held perception that it fails to listen to the people. The next Citizen Cabinet surveys will be on Medicare and U.S. programs to fight poverty.

In May, we released an abridged report on American attitudes toward the Clean Power Plan, as part of “Climate Action 2016,” a large, 3-day conference in College Park and Washington, DC. The event, hosted by the University of Maryland, included climate experts from around the globe. That study was highlighted at a Q&A session with EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, moderated by science educator and TV personality Bill Nye.

With more states now part of the Citizen Cabinet program, our outreach on Capitol Hill became even more extensive. We’ve had more than five dozen individual meetings with congressional offices and members of Congress this year, including briefings with key staffers from Speaker Paul Ryan and House Leader Nancy Pelosi’s offices.

We also conducted several major group staff briefings: In February we presented our findings on the federal budget, in March on defense spending and in August on energy policy. In September and October we briefed staffers from the House Ways and Means committee. On September 12, we presented findings on energy policy at a very-well attended event at the Brookings Institution that included William Reilly, former EPA administrator for George HW Bush. On October 18, we partnered with the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget for a special event in the Capitol to present our findings on Social Security reform in front of a standing-room-only audience of more than 100 staffers, policy experts and reporters.

On the media front we were just as active, holding editorial meetings with The New York Times, National Public Radio, The Los Angeles Times, The Dallas Morning News, The Tampa Bay Times, The Cleveland Plain Dealer, San Francisco Chronicle, The Miami Herald and several others.

Reporting of our work appeared in Time Magazine, The Washington Post, Newsweek magazine, The Chicago Tribune, Bloomberg News, Politico, The Hill, Defense News, Fox Business, The Fiscal Times, The Huffington Post and regional papers across the country. For the first time, we also received coverage in Spanish-language outlets including Univision and Agencia EFE. VOP President Steven Kull did two-dozen radio interviews on stations all across the country, including a post-election hour with former GOP Chairman Michael Steele on SiriusXM Radio’s “P.O.T.U.S. Show.”

At press time, our Facebook followers number at 2,085, an increase of 74 percent over the year. On Twitter, we went from 331 followers to 1,036 – a robust 213 percent rate of growth. And speaking of social media, we also created our first findings-based short video this year, “How ‘We the People’ Can Help Save Social Security” which has been shared on various platforms.

As we wave goodbye to 2016, we are very grateful for the encouragement and support of our friends in the public at large. We appreciate hearing from you about concerns you have on how our government serves the people. Your generous financial donations and your continued interest in our work is gratifying and appreciated.

Our sincere thanks for your help in a successful year of giving Americans a more effective voice in government. We look forward to ever greater successes in the year to come!

Thomas Schelling (1921-2016)

Our statement on the passing of advisory board member Thomas Schelling:

“The news of the passing of Thomas Schelling greatly saddens us,” said Voice Of the People President Steven Kull. “It is difficult to overstate his stature as a scholar or his significance in international affairs. Our nation was fortunate to have his guidance as we were to having him as an advisor and a friend.”

Johnson’s Social Security Reform Act Out of Touch with Voters

Representative Sam Johnson (R-Texas), chair of the House Ways and Means Social Security subcommittee, has put forward a bill with a set of reforms to Social Security that the Social Security actuaries say will cover the program’s long term shortfall. However, while there is some overlap, the mix of reforms it proposes is at odds with the mix proposed by a representative sample of voters in a recent in-depth survey conducted by the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation (PPC).

In Johnson’s proposed Social Security Reform Act of 2016 (H.R. 6489), nearly all reforms involved substantial benefit cuts, with no increases in revenue. However, large majorities of voters, Republicans as well as Democrats, favored more modest benefit cuts and a greater emphasis on revenue increases.

Retirement Age: Johnson’s bill would raise the full retirement age to 69. In the survey, 79 percent of survey respondents (81 percent of Republicans, 78 percent of Democrats) approve of raising the full retirement age gradually to 68, but majorities reject raising it beyond 68.

Reducing Benefit Payments: The bill would reduce benefit payments for the upper 50 percent of earners. Seventy-six percent of voters approve of reducing benefits for the top 25 percent of lifetime earners (favored by 72 percent of Republicans, 81 percent of Democrats). However, a majority reject going any further by reducing benefits for the top 40 percent; only 13 percent want to reduce them for the top 50 percent.

COLA: The proposal would use “chained CPI,” a method of recalculating the cost-of-living (COLA) adjustment, which tends to reduce benefits over time. Only a third of the public approve of using chained CPI.

Raising Cap on Taxable Income: Johnson’s plan does not include this, or any step that would raise revenue. However, the voters’ most popular option in addressing the projected shortfall is to raise the cap on income subject to the payroll tax, taking it up to $215K. It has 88 percent support nationally, including 84 percent of Republicans and 92 percent of Democrats. A majority (59 percent) wants to eliminate the cap altogether, including 54 percent of Republicans.

Payroll Tax: The proposal makes no changes to the payroll tax. However, 76 percent of respondents would raise the payroll tax from 6.2 to 6.6 percent (72 percent of Republicans, 80 percent of Democrats). Majorities did not favor larger increases.

Minimum benefit: The bill also proposes an increase to the minimum benefit. Nearly six-in-ten support increasing the minimum Social Security benefit (nationally 58 percent, including 49 percent of Republicans, 67 percent of Democrats).

“While Americans agree with Congressman Johnson’s effort to address the Social Security shortfall, his mix of reforms is at odds with the solution they favor,” said PPC Director Steven Kull.

Unlike a standard poll, Citizen Cabinet surveys take respondents through an online process called a ‘policymaking simulation’ that seeks to put them in the shoes of a policymaker, giving them essential information and presenting key arguments on both sides of each issue. The content of the simulation was vetted for accuracy and balance by Republican and Democratic congressional staffers, as well as experts from the National Academy of Social Insurance and the American Enterprise Institute.

Once the survey results are released, a public version of the policymaking simulation is posted at for anyone to try. Citizens are encouraged to go through the simulation and then share their recommendations with their congressional representatives at:

The Citizen Cabinet panel of 8,697 respondents was primarily drawn from Nielsen-Scarborough’s probability-based national panel (which was recruited by mail and telephone using a random sample of households). Additional recruiting by telephone and mail was conducted by Communication for Research, the University of Virginia Survey Research Center and the University of Oklahoma’s Public Opinion Learning Laboratory. The margin of error is +/- 1.4 percent. State samples: Calif. 566 (MoE +/- 4.1 percent); Fla. 657 (+/- 3.8 percent); Md. 535 (+/- 4.2 percent); N.Y. 594 (+/- 4 percent); Ohio 434 (+/- 4.7 percent); Okla. 506 (+/- 4.4 percent); Texas 519 (+/- 4.3 percent); and Va. 525 (+/- 4.2 percent).

The report can be found at:

The full questionnaire can be found at:

Support for Trump Fed by Near-Universal Frustration that Government Ignores the People

While there is much post-election interest in a small demographic of voters who shifted from voting for Barack Obama to Donald Trump, an in-depth study conducted in the midst of the election finds that Trump’s victory was buoyed by a broad-based, nearly universal crisis of confidence in how the federal government makes decisions.  

The central critique voters express is not about policy or ideology: it is that government ignores the people – both their interests and their views – in favor of special interests, campaign donors, and their parties. Among Trump supporters, these views are especially intense.

The study of 2,411 registered voters was conducted by University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation (PPC), fielded by Nielsen Scarborough and released today by Voice Of the People.

A remarkable nine-in-ten voters agreed that ‘Elected officials think more about the interests of their campaign donors than the common good of the people.’ There were, however, differences in intensity. Among all voters 63 percent agreed strongly, while among Trump supporters, 72 percent agreed strongly, and among the half of Trump supporters who said they were not only dissatisfied with government but angry, 85 percent agreed strongly. Similar numbers agreed that ‘Members of Congress think mostly about their party, not what is good for the country.’

This profound dissatisfaction with government has reached new heights in response to longstanding trend line questions. Asked whether government ‘is run for the benefit of all the people’ or is ‘pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves’ in the 1960s only a minority said that it was run by big interests. In recent years this number has risen to eight-in-ten. In the current study this leapt to an unprecedented 92 percent. Among angry Trump supporters, 99 percent said the government is run for big interests, rather than the people.

“Trump effectively mirrored back to voters what they have been saying for years, that they feel like they are being ignored in a system dominated by special interests,” said PPC Director Steven Kull, who directed the survey. “That he said he was self-financing and was denounced by leaders in his own party, strengthened his claim that he was independent and capable of shaking up the system.”

Trump has stated, “We are fighting for every citizen that believes that government should serve the people, not the donors and not special interests.” And, “I am working for you.”

As a value in itself, and as an antidote to the influence of special interests, 85 percent of voters said that the people should have more influence. Asked how much influence the people do have, the mean response was 3.5—2.4 among angry Trump supporters. Asked how much influence the people should have on a scale of 0 to 10 the mean response was 8.0.

More than eight-in-ten said that there is not an adequate system in place for the voice of the people to be heard in Congress. Equally large numbers say that elections are not an adequate system and that the ‘government should make an active effort in between elections to find out how the people view the issues the government is dealing with.’

To that end, nearly eight-in-ten, including both Clinton and Trump supporters, favored establishing large representative, scientifically-selected citizen advisory panels to get briefed on the issues government is facing and provide their recommendations directly to Congress.

This public demand for a greater voice, which PPC has been studying for more than 15 years, led to the establishment of Voice Of the People, and its campaign effort to create a citizen advisory panel, called a Citizen Cabinet, in every congressional district and state.

Other ideas for reforming government also received robust support. More than eight-in-ten favored reducing the amount of money flowing into politics. Three quarters favored having citizens or judges do congressional redistricting to counter political gerrymandering. Large majorities agree that members of Congress stay in office too long because there are no term limits.

Asked to, ‘Imagine the Founders of the American republic were somehow able to observe how the U.S. government is operating today’ and to say how well they would think ‘the U.S. government is fulfilling the vision they had’ more than eight-in-ten said not very well (35 percent) or not well at all (49 percent). Among Trump supporters the numbers saying not well at all was even higher at 69 percent.

“At present the American people are questioning the legitimacy of the U.S. system of government,” Kull added. “Unless elected officials find a way to restore voter confidence that their views count more than special interests, their frustration is likely to boil over in a variety of ways.”

The report can be found at:

The questionnaire can be found at:

Follow Us