Survey: Just A Quarter Of Americans Can Name All 3 Branches Of Government

[mjr]

https://www.studyfinds.org/governmen...istory-survey/

Snipped from the article:

Researchers at the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) surveyed over 1,000 American adults, finding a shocking lack of knowledge as it pertains to U.S. politics among the general populace.
....
Meanwhile, only 26 percent of Americans could name all three branches of the federal government — that would be the executive, legislative, and judicial, for those playing at home.

While conservatives were more likely to be able to name all three branches than liberals or moderates, the overall proportion of the public that can name all three has fallen by 12 percent since 2011.

Perhaps most embarrassing: a full third of respondents couldn’t name a single federal branch of government, a figure that hasn’t shifted over the past half-decade.

I wonder how many of them vote...

[s_stabeler]

to be fair, the article doesn't say if the study made a difference between those who don't know the exact name of the branch, and those who don't think it's a branch.

[mjr]

to be fair, the article doesn't say if the study made a difference between those who don't know the exact name of the branch, and those who don't think it's a branch.

There's more to it than that though, like this...

37 percent couldn’t even name a single right endowed by the First Amendment.

Thankfully, 48 percent of those surveyed were able to identify freedom of speech as being a right enshrined by the First Amendment, although far fewer could identify other rights accorded.

These include freedom of religion (15 percent), freedom of the press (14 percent), right of peaceful assembly (10 percent), and right to petition the government (three percent).

That's bothersome, is it not?

[jackfaire]

That's bothersome, is it not?

Not really no. Personally I don't take a constitution refresher course once a month and the last time I read it in full was High School History so like 20 years ago.

I know the constitution exists. I have a working knowledge of some of the amendments and I know I can research it if I want to see if my rights are being violated. The thing I learned growing up was that the people who have a bunch of memorized facts in their heads aren't impressive. It's the people who can do research that are impressive.

Also I am betting most people could name courts, congress, president. That doesn't count on most of those surveys as naming the three branches of government. Most of those kinds of surveys will only accept Legislative, Executive and Judicial.

Understanding who those branches are is a hell of a lot more important than being able to name them.

[mjr]

Not really no. Personally I don't take a constitution refresher course once a month and the last time I read it in full was High School History so like 20 years ago.

I know the constitution exists. I have a working knowledge of some of the amendments and I know I can research it if I want to see if my rights are being violated. The thing I learned growing up was that the people who have a bunch of memorized facts in their heads aren't impressive. It's the people who can do research that are impressive.

Also I am betting most people could name courts, congress, president. That doesn't count on most of those surveys as naming the three branches of government. Most of those kinds of surveys will only accept Legislative, Executive and Judicial.

Understanding who those branches are is a hell of a lot more important than being able to name them.

At the same time, I would guess if you ask the people surveyed who their Congressman is, they couldn't tell you.

It's like the anecdote I read a few months back. The story goes that a woman moves from one city to another because "taxes were too high". Yet, in the new city, she voted for everything that would raise taxes in that city, and couldn't understand why her taxes were going up, again. She didn't seem to understand WHERE the money for the projects came from.

[jackfaire]

At the same time, I would guess if you ask the people surveyed who their Congressman is, they couldn't tell you.

Probably not but I can tell you what kind of peanut butter my roommate prefers.

The reason again is research I don't usually know who my congress people are but I know I can look it up. It's a matter of public record. And the problem is assuming those people never know. I knew when I voted. I knew when I looked it up later to call my congress people. Right now off the top of my head no I couldn't tell you.

That anecdote I wouldn't blame on her. Most of what I know about the day to day running of government wasn't taught at my school. Taxes were the thing the British tried to do to the Americas and that people have to file once a year.

Things like what taxes are used for wasn't taught. Most of how our government works isn't actually taught in schools. I learned what lobbyists are from a Michael Douglas movie.

Instead of "worrying" that people don't know the correct terms and that they don't understand how government works I would just teach them.

For example the other day I heard a conversation where people got Social Security wrong. I not only educated them on how it actually works but pointed them to the Library of Congress as a resource for how it's always worked that way.

Pointing and laughing or worrying is like when we gave a new generation of kids crap for thinking Titanic was just a movie and not something that really happened.

I saw an entire news report mocking them for it. Yet that's what we taught them. We teach our kids the movies and shows they watch are just fiction. So when they apply that to a historical event that often isn't taught in schools we what mock them for using logic that we taught them?

You know why I knew about the Titanic because my grandmother was born 2 years earlier and I had to do a report on historical moments she lived through. Otherwise going into that movie I would have thought it was just fiction too because my history class didn't feel it was important.

So yeah we can write up "oh my god I worry for the world" because people don't know things that we take for granted knowing or we can share our knowledge with them and point out where to find more.

[Greenday]

Also I am betting most people could name courts, congress, president.

I'd honestly be surprised if most could. I'd bet more people would give answers like "Congress, Senate, President".

Most people seem to be pretty ignorant as to how our government works and they don't seem to care.

[mjr]

Most people seem to be pretty ignorant as to how our government works and they don't seem to care.

You're right, here, I think. But also consider: Of those people, how many vote?

I am actually surprised that we haven't had some in the younger generation (because of certain "television competitions") start in on the "What do you mean I can only vote once!?!?" thing. Or "Why can't I just text my vote?!"

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Here's the thing Jack - fluency in the Constituion isn't actually THAT necessary. Really, it's probably just sufficient to have a general understanding of the branches, and which issues are voted on at which levels and that the bureaucracy exists and what its function is. Strangely enough, no bureaucracy isn't a bad thing ... it's a necessary function of Federal/State operations.

Ultimately, it's all just law making and implementation. Being stupidly into the Constitution (which I define as dogmatically attached) often is present more in heavy users of political media and lawyers that need it for framing arguments. It's just a part of the legal framework. You know it in order to out-argue someone else. Ultimately the Constitution represents what we thought was a good idea at the time to the point we wanted to make it harder to change. But every bit of that is capable of being rewritten. And its good for knowing your rights, but again, how often do your rights come into conflict day to day? For most people, not often enough that they can't just google it when needed.

Interestingly, what I find more disturbing is people lacking basic governmental and complete lack of understanding on policy. Case and point Kansas, where they got so into Grover Norquist land, they cut taxes until vital services were shutting down at which point people flipped.

Here's the thing, you can vote yourself a 0% tax rate and a full retirement package. Nothing stops the public from doing it. And that very thing is one of the more interesting things I've found about modern politics.

It used to be Republicans were big on starve the beast but fiscal responsibility. Cut taxses/cut service. But they seemed to have morphed into "cut at all costs" which is basically tantamount isn't voting the public the treasury directly, but is basically saying "here's free money - the check comes due next generation."

Then you have the Dems who used to build up serves services and create funding for them. But then usually can't get full funding so just plow ahead and make the same gamble on the other end and build the service, get stopped from adequately funding the service, and basically say "here's free services - the check comes due next generation."

When both parties met in the middle is when you'd actually get solid policy at the time (although the policy may age itself out of usefulness as time goes on.)

So oddly, I don't think there's any such thing as a party that is fiscally responsible anymore because the population is too policy illeterate to realize they're impoverishing their grandkids. The only thing that stops that is if we have another 90's of innovation in the US that generates a whole lot of revenue quickly.

[jackfaire]

Given that many people aren't able to leave work to vote and they're making voting machines a thing the question about not being able to text their vote is actually a reasonable one. And yes there are ways to tie it to the person's account so burn phones couldn't be used for things like voting.

I don't see what not knowing the three branches of the government has to do with voting. Most things that land on the ballot have nothing to do with that.

From how many people complain about the President when Congress doesn't do their job I am pretty sure even people who can name the three branches don't know the three branches beyond their names.

I don't care if someone can quote to me every part and parcel of the government. I don't care if they don't understand how congress works. All I care is that when someone says "should we have a tax on X to pay for Y" that they have an opinion. It doesn't matter if they understand anything so long as they understand what's being asked and how they feel about it. That's all that matters.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

It matters because if a candidate for President runs on a platform of "I will build a wall and make Mexico pay for it" or a candidate for Senate says, I will oppose the President, those are objectively false statements to run on.

A president doesn't fund things. The Senate can't stop the President from executing his constitutional function. People who do not understand the separation of powers are the ones perpetually angry at the Government for doing things it was never designed to do.

"Why isn't my cheese baking bread? This sucks! I need different cheese!"

[jackfaire]

It matters because if a candidate for President runs on a platform of "I will build a wall and make Mexico pay for it" or a candidate for Senate says, I will oppose the President, those are objectively false statements to run on.

I can't remember all knowledge all of the time if someone randomly asked me tomorrow about how various taxes work I would sound like a moron. However if a change to the tax code is proposed I can and will research that. When candidates make promises a lot of people research to find out just how feasible those are myself included because I don't remember everything the President can or can't do.

It doesn't matter what someone says on Tuesday so long as they research on Wednsday.Thursday they vote. Tuesday is just a man on the street poll,ambush designed to go, "See your side is full of dummies"

[Tanasi]

Even if it can all be looked up civics still needs to be taught. It's a constant drone of such-and such said she/he was going to do this and then there's huge stink raised when in reality ol'such-and-such can't do a blamed thing because it takes a whole bunch of folks agreeing.
Anyone who thinks/thought that Trump could get a wall built without Chuck and Nancy agreeing to it is foolish at best.
If you know how government works you would see how 99% of what the politicians is BS and they know it but are relying on the public's ignorance and won't call them on it.

[jackfaire]

Even if it can all be looked up civics still needs to be taught.

Oh. I agree with this point 100%. Civics absolutely should be taught. My contention with surveys like this is that they are used primarily to be all "Ha ha the other side's dumb"

If survey's like this were being used to push for adding Civics curriculum back into schools I would be all for it. Instead most history classes have become about "Aren't we the greatest country in the world folks you better agree here's all of the awesome shit we did"

My history teacher routinely had to supplement our history book because it was all geared towards American Exceptionalism and continually glossed over not only our atrocities but others as well. The section on World War 2 didn't even mention Concentration camps at all. So he had us read Anne Frank and watch Schindler's List and made a point of telling us about internment camps.

I love this country not in spite of our past or through ignorance of it but because I have seen how shitty our ancestors were and I love that we're better. Not perfect but better.