Finally, information also affects how coherently political belief systems are organized. The same eight policy issues were coded so that low scores indicated liberal stances, and high scores designated conservative points of view. Scholars have long known that low “issue constraint,” as established by average correlations across an array of policy attitudes, is an important feature of the belief systems of mass publics. If we focus on the 2004 sample as a whole, issue constraint across the eight items was almost exactly the same as Philip Converse reported for the American public from the late 1950s.

The more people knew about politics, the more consistent their policy attitudes were. To establish this, respondents were divided into three groups depending on how they did on the PI scale. Those who scored from 0 to 3 were classified as “poorly informed”; persons who got 4-5 points on the scale could be said to be “moderately” informed; and individuals who got 6-8 points on the scale were characterized as “well-informed.” Issue constraint rose as one shifted from the poorly informed to the moderately informed to the well-informed. Among those who were moderately informed, for example, issue constraint was almost double what it was for the poorly informed. And, among the well-informed segment of the populace, issue constraint was more than three times what it was for the poorly informed.

Americans are abysmally uninformed about politics, and it matters. If “knowledge is power,” it behooves friends of democracy to think of ways to increase what the average citizen knows about public affairs.

The surest way to enhance political information levels is to convince people to become more interested in politics. In 2004, the mean score on the PI scale for the least interested segment of the public was 1.7. Among the most interested, the mean score was 6.2.

Increasing political interest won’t be easy, however. One suggestion has been for schools to conduct more classes in civics or American history, but the link between the number of such classes taken K-12 and informed citizenship is extremely weak. Get-out-the-vote campaigns in the mass media have also been popular, but the people who most need such encouragement don’t read newspapers or watch the news on TV. “Kids Voting” programs may benefit some, but they tend to be too few in number around the country, and their effects are generally minor.

One possible solution is deliberative polls, as suggested by University of Texas professor James Fishkin. The 2004 ANES found, for example, that persons who reported discussing politics with family and friends were significantly better informed than those who eschewed political talk. It is likely that political information and political discussions are mutually reinforcing.

Another approach would be to show young people that apathy and ignorance have palpably negative consequences. Public spending on education, for example, is waning while outlays for benefits to the elderly—who are, on average, politically interested, knowledgeable, and engaged—are waxing. As public colleges and universities raise tuition to make up for diminished funding, students—and their parents, who usually pay the bills—ought to be interested.

Teaching young folk—and many of their elders—that they have a duty to be politically alert and informed, and that people benefit when they know what’s happening in the political world, will not be easy. Given information’s importance to a democratic citizenry, though, it might be worth trying. 

Stephen Earl Bennett is an adjunct professor of political science, University of Southern Indiana.

Additional reading