Two-Thirds Favor President to Be Chosen Based on National Popular Vote

Two-thirds of American voters prefer for the US president to be chosen based on the national popular vote, according to a new survey consultation by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland and released today by the nonpartisan Voice of the People. However, two-thirds of Republicans (65%) would like to keep the current system for electing the president. This Compact has already been adopted in 15 states plus the District of Columbia, which brings the total of electoral votes currently to 196. It has also passed in one legislative chamber in eight states with a total of 75 electoral votes. If all of these eight states were to adopt the Compact, it would go into effect

Americans on Police Reform

A policymaking simulation is an online process that puts citizens in the shoes of elected officials by simulating the process they go through in making policy decisions. Each simulation introduces a broader policy topic and then presents a series of modules that address a specific policy option that is currently under consideration in the current discourse. For each module, respondents: 1) receive a short briefing on a policy issue and the option or options for addressing it; 2) evaluate arguments for and against the policy options; and 3) finally, make their recommendation for what their elected officials should do.For decades now, there have been periodic efforts to reform police practices and laws regarding the use of force, especially deadly force, by law enforcement officers. The recent deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor and other incidents of law enforcement officers using deadly force have stimulated protest and demands for policing reforms. The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act (H.R. 7120), sponsored by Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA), The JUSTICE Act (S. 3985), sponsored by Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), failed to get cloture in the U.S. Senate, meaning the measure could not proceed for debate or a vote. . The provisions in these two bills continue to the basis for ongoing debates over police reform, including: ● when police officers should use deadly force; ● what types of force police officers should be able to use, such as chokeholds; ● the use of no-knock warrants; ● the standards by which officers are held accountable for their use of excessive force; ● whether racial bias among police is a problem to be addressed; and ● how much regulation there should be of military equipment transferred to the police. Both bills address these issues, to different extents. The most significant difference between the House bill and the Senate bill is how mandatory the proposed reforms are. The House bill would require that police departments and local governments implement new policies or be denied access to federal funding for police departments. The Senate bill would offer police departments new funding for training and data collection, and only in a few cases requires that police departments adopt new policies. The House bill also includes provisions to change the standards by which officers are criminally convicted and held civilly liable, which the Senate bill does not. To bring the American people a voice at the table of the current debate on this legislation, the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) has conducted an in-depth on-line survey of over 3,000 registered voters with a probability-based sample provided by Nielsen Scarborough. Unlike standard polls that rely on respondents’ existing impressions and information, PPC took respondents through a process called a ‘policymaking simulation’ that seeks to put respondents in the shoes of a policymaker. Respondents: ● are given a briefing on policy options under consideration ● evaluate strongly stated arguments both for and against each option ● make their final recommendation. The content of the process is thoroughly reviewed by experts across the spectrum of opinion on the policy options to ensure that the briefing is accurate and balanced and that the arguments are the strongest ones being made by proponents and opponents

Large Majorities Favor Congressional Proposals Limiting Negative Consequences of Criminal Records

In the innovative survey by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) at the University of Maryland, respondents were given relevant background information for each proposal. They then evaluated a series of strongly stated arguments for and against each proposal before making their final recommendation. The briefing material and arguments were reviewed by experts representing the range of opinions on the issue to assure that the briefings were accurate and balanced and that the arguments were the strongest ones being made.Large majorities of American voters support reforms that would limit or remove barriers to economic opportunities, housing, and voting for people with criminal records. A representative sample of 2,487 American voters were given a detailed presentation of numerous proposed Congressional reforms that would restrict employers, licensing boards and public housing authorities from disqualifying people based on their criminal records. All of the proposed reforms received support from large bipartisan majorities. A proposal for automatically restoring the right to vote for people who have served a felony sentence also received majority support, though Republicans were divided. Additionally, bipartisan majorities favored both making it easier for those who were arrested but never convicted to have their record sealed, as well as automatically sealing records for people with non-violent drug offenses after a short period of time

Americans on Solving the Medicare Shortfall

A policymaking simulation is an online process that puts citizens in the shoes of elected officials by simulating the process they go through in making policy decisions. Each simulation introduces a broader policy topic and then presents a series of modules that address a specific policy option that is currently under consideration in the current discourse. For each module, respondents: 1) receive a short briefing on a policy issue and the option or options for addressing it; 2) evaluate arguments for and against the policy options; and 3) finally, make their recommendation for what their elected officials should do.Given current policy crosscurrents, it is little wonder that even raising the subject of Medicare policy seems to open the door to anxiety among the public and among Medicare recipients. This consultation seeks to provide a framework that lets the public consider multiple possible changes that experts have evaluated and scored, without being locked into an “either/or” choice of keeping everything the same versus changing the nature of Medicare. DEVELOPMENT OF THE POLICYMAKING SIMULATION The present policymaking simulation includes eleven different options estimated to aid Medicare’s fiscal condition over the next 25 years, as the babyboomer generation passes through the program. These options selected were previously scored by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), except for one scored by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission or MEDPAC, another independent agency that advises Congress. They considered sixteen reform options which fell under four categories: Reducing Medicare’s Net Payments for Benefits Reducing Payments to Providers Increasing Revenues Controlling Costs in Other Way

Large and Growing Majority Favors Permanent Paid Medical and Family Leave

A policymaking simulation is an online process that puts citizens in the shoes of elected officials by simulating the process they go through in making policy decisions. Each simulation introduces a broader policy topic and then presents a series of modules that address a specific policy option that is currently under consideration in the current discourse. For each module, respondents: 1) receive a short briefing on a policy issue and the option or options for addressing it; 2) evaluate arguments for and against the policy options; and 3) finally, make their recommendation for what their elected officials should do.While Congress passed legislation requiring temporary paid family and medical leave for those affected by the coronavirus, a new in-depth survey by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland (PPC) finds that two-thirds of Americans believe such paid leave should be permanent—fueled by a marked shift among Republican voters. In March, Congress passed a law providing two weeks of paid leave for people dealing with COVID or caring for someone who does, and 12 weeks at 2/3 pay for parents caring for children home from closed schools and childcare facilities. The new benefits are set to expire at the end of 2020

Americans on Nato

A policymaking simulation is an online process that puts citizens in the shoes of elected officials by simulating the process they go through in making policy decisions. Each simulation introduces a broader policy topic and then presents a series of modules that address a specific policy option that is currently under consideration in the current discourse. For each module, respondents: 1) receive a short briefing on a policy issue and the option or options for addressing it; 2) evaluate arguments for and against the policy options; and 3) finally, make their recommendation for what their elected officials should do.Celebrations of the 70th anniversary of NATO on April 4 may be clouded by concerns about statements by Donald Trump questioning the US commitment to NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. However, a new survey finds that 83% of American voters favor the US continuing to be part of NATO, including 90% of Democrats, but also 77% of Republicans and 76% of those who voted for Trump. Concerns about the US commitment to NATO have been sparked by Donald Trump’s characterization of NATO as “obsolete,” and his statements that he might consider withdrawing the US from NATO if other NATO members do not increase their military spending. Respondents were informed about the controversy stemming from US pressure to get European NATO allies to spend more on their militaries. While the European allies have agreed to raise their spending to two percent of GDP, many have failed to do so. Presented three options, only 12% endorsed pressing European allies “to spend more on their military and say that if they do not the US will disengage from Europe militarily and possibly withdraw from NATO”—21% of Republicans, 4% of Democrats. Thirty-five percent favored pressing the Europeans but not making threats

Americans Evaluate Campaign Finance Reform

A policymaking simulation is an online process that puts citizens in the shoes of elected officials by simulating the process they go through in making policy decisions. Each simulation introduces a broader policy topic and then presents a series of modules that address a specific policy option that is currently under consideration in the current discourse. For each module, respondents: 1) receive a short briefing on a policy issue and the option or options for addressing it; 2) evaluate arguments for and against the policy options; and 3) finally, make their recommendation for what their elected officials should do.A major study of voters’ views of campaign finance finds that large majorities support numerous bills in Congress that seek to reduce or offset the influence of big campaign donors. These include bills that call for a Constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision, increasing disclosure requirements for campaign donations, and promoting more small campaign donations. The questionnaire includes findings on a Constitutional Amendment to limit the terms of Congressional Representatives though they were not referenced explicitly in the report

Americans on International Trade Policy

A policymaking simulation is an online process that puts citizens in the shoes of elected officials by simulating the process they go through in making policy decisions. Each simulation introduces a broader policy topic and then presents a series of modules that address a specific policy option that is currently under consideration in the current discourse. For each module, respondents: 1) receive a short briefing on a policy issue and the option or options for addressing it; 2) evaluate arguments for and against the policy options; and 3) finally, make their recommendation for what their elected officials should do.Promoting the Growth of Trade Through an International Rules-Based System: Respondents were introduced to the international system for promoting international trade—two-thirds said they were familiar with it. Evaluating arguments for and against continuing to seek to further the growth of international trade through international agreements, in most cases large majorities from both parties found both pro and con arguments convincing, with Democrats responding more to the pro arguments and Republicans responding more to the con arguments. Nonetheless, in the end an overwhelming bipartisan majority approved of United States, together with other countries, promoting international trade through a set of agreed-on rules that seek to lower barriers to trade and to ensure trade is done fairly. The World Trade Organization: A very large majority approved of the US continuing to be part of the World Trade Organization, though for Republicans this was only a modest majority, while Democrats approved overwhelmingly. MITIGATING THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF TRADE: Increasing Unemployment Benefits: As a means of addressing some of the negative effects of trade, a bipartisan majority favored increasing unemployment benefits, with a majority favoring increasing the amount from 39% to 50% of previous earnings. However, a bipartisan majority did not support increasing the maximum period of unemployment benefits beyond the current average of 26 weeks. Worker Retraining and Education: Presented several proposals for job training and education under consideration in Congress, very large bipartisan majorities favored proposals to increase spending on training for jobs in cybersecurity and the energy industry, and a proposal to provide employers a tax credit for apprenticeship programs. Trade Adjustment Assistance: A majority of six in ten favored expanding the Trade Adjustment Assistance program to more people who get laid off from their job directly because of an increase in trade, however six in ten Republicans were opposed. Just four in ten, but a modest majority of Democrats, favored extending such assistance to all people who get laid off from their job. Labor and Environment Standards in Trade Agreements: Overwhelming bipartisan majorities favored including in new international trade agreements the requirement that countries abide by both the labor and environmental standards they have committed to, that they do not lower their standards to attract business or to get a competitive edge, and that there is an effective system for enforcing these requirements. Impact of Mitigating Negative Effects on Attitudes About Trade: Respondents who disapproved of promoting greater trade through international agreements, while also favoring steps to mitigate the negative effects, were asked how they would feel about the promoting trade if the mitigating steps they favored were adopted. About half said that they would then favor promoting greater trade through international agreements. THE USE OF TARIFFS: Steel Tariffs: Voters divided sharply along party lines on the US administration invoking the national security exemption and imposing tariffs of 25% on steel imports and 10% on aluminum imports, with a large majority of Republicans approving and a large majority of Democrats disapproving. Overall, a very slight majority approved. Tariffs on China: Voters divided along party lines on whether the US should have imposed tariffs on China without first getting a WTO ruling. Going forward, a modest majority opposed imposing additional tariffs on China to get them to change their trade practices, but instead favored working through the WTO to get a ruling against China. Views on both issues are highly polarized along partisan lines with large majorities of Democrats favoring working through the WTO and large majorities of Republicans favoring imposing tariffs. North American Trade: NAFTA and the USMCA: Asked about the original North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) agreement, a very large majority, including a majority of Republicans, expressed approval. Told about the proposed U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) agreement, a slight majority favored it, with large majority of Republicans in support and a modest majority of Democrats opposed. If Congress does not approve the USMCA deal, a large majority favors staying in NAFTA. Those who favored the new USMCA agreement and approved the steel and aluminum tariffs were asked whether they would be willing to lift the new steel and aluminum tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico if it appears necessary to get an agreement on USMCA; most said they would

AMERICANS ON THE FY 2020 FEDERAL BUDGET

A policymaking simulation is an online process that puts citizens in the shoes of elected officials by simulating the process they go through in making policy decisions. Each simulation introduces a broader policy topic and then presents a series of modules that address a specific policy option that is currently under consideration in the current discourse. For each module, respondents: 1) receive a short briefing on a policy issue and the option or options for addressing it; 2) evaluate arguments for and against the policy options; and 3) finally, make their recommendation for what their elected officials should do. Unlike most PPC consultations, the budget exercise was also interactive allowing respondents to indicate their preferences while a floating box indicated how their preferences affected the deficit, as presented to the respondents in the briefing and when it differed from the Administration's recommendations. At the end of the survey, respondents were permitted to make any changes to those preferences, if they chose to do so. The dataset reflects the final preferences of the respondent. Less than 5% of respondents made a change to their answers.As Congress lifts the national debt ceiling, increasing the budget deficit, a unique survey has found that bipartisan majorities are ready to cut the deficit by $376 billion, primarily by raising taxes on high incomes. The survey participants—who were shown the current deficit, and given the opportunity to propose changes in spending and taxes—proposed reversing the 2017 tax cuts for incomes over$200,000, treating capital gains and dividends as ordinary income for those with incomes over $200,000, and applying an extra tax of 4$5 million. In the interactive online survey, conducted by the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation (PPC), a sample of 2,403 registered voters were presented the discretionary budget (broken into 34 line items) and the budget deficit for 2019. They were given the opportunity to modify spending levels up or down, getting immediate feedback on the impact of their changes on the deficit. While Congress is headed for increasing the defense budget, in the survey a majority cut it $51 billion (Republicans$14 billion, Democrats $101 billion). Majorities of both Republicans and Democrats cut subsidies to agricultural corporations by$7 billion and spending on federal enforcement of federal laws by $2 billion. While majorities of Republicans and Democrats made small increases to some programs, this did not extend to the majority of the whole sample. Overall, the majority made net reductions in spending of$70 billion. Republicans cut $52 billion, Democrats$111 billion, and converged on cuts of $27 billion

Americans on Nuclear Weapons

A policymaking simulation is an online process that puts citizens in the shoes of elected officials by simulating the process they go through in making policy decisions. Each simulation introduces a broader policy topic and then presents a series of modules that address a specific policy option that is currently under consideration in the current discourse. For each module, respondents: 1) receive a short briefing on a policy issue and the option or options for addressing it; 2) evaluate arguments for and against the policy options; and 3) finally, make their recommendation for what their elected officials should do.US-Russian Arms Control Treaties: More than eight in ten favor the US continuing to have arms control treaties with Russia, with support among Republicans comparable to that of Democrats. Extending New START: Eight in ten favor the United States agreeing to extend the New START Treaty. Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty: Two thirds, including a majority of Republicans, oppose withdrawing from the INF Treaty and favor instead staying within the Treaty and redoubling efforts to work with the Russians to address concerns of both sides. Nuclear Weapons Testing: Overwhelming majorities from both parties approve of the US continuing its moratorium on nuclear testing, effectively abiding by the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. In the event the US develops a technological innovation that might make it possible to build a new type of nuclear weapon that could destroy more of an adversary’s nuclear weapons, a majority still said they would oppose breaking the moratorium, though a bare majority of Republicans favored it. US NUCLEAR WEAPONS CAPABILITIES: Minimum Retaliatory Capability: Eight in ten or more from both parties support the US having a retaliatory nuclear capability destructive enough that no country could think that there would be any advantage in attacking the United States with nuclear weapons. Low Yield Warheads and the Need for Matching Nuclear Options Respondents were presented a rationale for developing nuclear capabilities over and above the minimum retaliatory capability based on the need to threaten to match any type of nuclear capability an adversary might use. When presented a specific example of the current debate over whether the US should put low-yield nuclear warheads on missiles on submarines to match corresponding Russian capabilities, a bipartisan majority of two-thirds supported adding a low-yield option to nuclear missiles on submarines. Yet, when asked about the general principle, a plurality endorsed the view that a minimum retaliatory capability is adequate, over the view that the US must have the capability to retaliate against a major attack using only a type of weapon similar to the type the adversary used. Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs): Knowing that the United States currently has strategic weapons on submarines, bombers, and land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, six in ten, including a majority of Republicans, favor phasing out the ICBM force. However, only one-third favor unilaterally reducing the net number of strategic warheads in the U.S. arsenal instead of putting more warheads on submarines and bombers to keep the same total as the Russians. FIRST USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS: US Declaratory Policy on First Use: Only one in five endorsed the United States explicitly declaring that it would consider using nuclear weapons first and stating what kinds of non-nuclear attacks would prompt the United States to consider doing so. Just slightly more than one in five favored explicitly declaring that the United States will never use nuclear weapons first. A majority favored continuing the current policy of being ambiguous about whether and under what conditions the United States would consider using nuclear weapons first. Presented a list of possible types of attack, less than one in six favored declaring that the United States would consider using nuclear weapons in response to any of them. Limiting Presidential First Use: Two thirds, including six in ten Republicans, support Congressional legislation requiring that to use nuclear weapons first, the President would first have to consult Congress and it would have to issue a declaration of war on the country to be attacked with nuclear weapons.CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL & SECURITY STUDIE