(单词翻译:单击)
Hello, I'm Craig, and this is Crash Course Government and Politics,
大家好，我是克雷格，这里是政府与政治速成班。
and today we're going to begin our discussion of politics, rather than government.
今天我们要开始讨论政治，而不是政府。
Aren't they the same thing, Stan?
它们不是一样的吗，斯坦？
Aren't they the...
它们不是……
They're not the same?
它们不是一样的？
Oh...
哦……
I know some of you are saying that we've been talking about politics all along, and in a sense, that's true.
我知道你们有些人说我们一直在谈论政治，从某种意义上说，这是真的。
But for the rest of the series we'll be looking more closely at policies and the factors that influence how they're made, rather than the institutions and structures that make them.
但在本系列的其余部分，我们将更仔细地研究政策和影响政策制定的因素，而不是制定政策的机构和结构。
One way to think about this is that “government” describes the what, the who, and the how of policies.
考虑这个问题的一种方法是，“政府”描述政策的内容、对象和方式。
And “politics” describes the why.
而“政治”则描述了原因。
Don't ask me about the where or the when journalism students.
不要问我新闻系的学生在哪里或什么时候学习。
Actually, just don't ask me anything.
事实上，什么也别问我。
Because I won't hear you.
因为我听不到你说的话。
This is a YouTube video.
这是一个YouTube视频。
Another way that I like to think about politics is that following it is like following sports.
我喜欢思考政治的另一种方式是，追随政治就像追随体育一样。
With any political event, whether an election, or a congressional vote, or a Supreme Court decision,
任何政治事件，无论是选举，国会投票，还是最高法院的决定，
you can spend time analyzing and predicting what might happen and then, after the fact, you can analyze why your prediction was correct, or way off base.
你可以花时间分析和预测可能发生的事情，然后，在事情发生之后，你可以分析为什么你的预测是正确的，或者是完全错误的。
Just like what happens before and after a big game, or race, or whatever you choose to follow.
就像在一场大型比赛、竞赛或任何你选择追随的事情发生前后一样。
This is getting very conceptual, and today we're going to focus on one particular aspect of politics that looms large in America: Godzilla.
这是非常概念化的，今天我们将关注美国政治的一个特殊方面：哥斯拉。
No!
不！
Public opinion.
公众舆论。
Public opinion can refer to a lot of things, but one useful definition is that it refers to “How a nation's population collectively views vital policy issues and evaluates political leaders.”
公众舆论可以指很多事情，但一个有用的定义是，它指的是“一个国家的人口如何集体看待重要的政策问题，如何评价政治领导人。”
Public opinion matters in America, especially because it's a democracy, which classicists out there will know comes from the Greek word “Demokratia”, which means ruled by the people.
在美国，公众舆论很重要，尤其是因为它象征民主，古典主义者知道民主来自希腊单词 Demokratia，意思是由人民统治。
It's not a drug for balding men?
这不是给秃头患者用的药吗？
No, that's something else.
不，那是另外一回事。
And anyone who's been forced to learn the Gettysburg Address knows, like Abraham Lincoln, America's is a government “of the people, by the people, for the people.”
任何被迫学习葛底斯堡演说的人都知道，就像亚伯拉罕·林肯一样，美国是一个“民有、民治、民享”的政府。
So what the people think, especially about how the government should govern, matters.
因此，人们的想法，尤其是政府应该如何治理的想法，很重要。
But it also raises some important questions.
但也会产生一些重要的问题。
Namely: “How do the people express what they want?”
即：“人们如何表达他们想要的？”
“How does or should the government respond to the people?”
“政府应该回应吗？如何回应？”
And, the one we'll start with: “What if the people don't know what they want or are just plain ignorant?”
我们首先要说的是：“如果人们不知道他们想要什么，或者只是无知呢?”
The framers of the Constitution were somewhat skeptical of the ability of the average American to understand and influence public policy,
宪法的制定者们对普通美国人理解和影响公共政策的能力有些怀疑，
so they gave Americans direct influence over only one part of the government: the House of Representatives.
所以他们只让美国人可以直接影响政府的一部分：众议院。
This view that the ignorant masses were not to be fully trusted with the hard work of governing won out over the Anti-Federalist view that more popular participation was better, but is it justified?
这种认为不应该完全信任无知的群众来进行艰苦的执政工作的观点战胜了反联邦主义的观点，即更多的民众参与更好，但这合理吗?
Many people, including a lot of political scientists, say it's justified.
许多人，包括许多政治学家，都认为这是合理的。
Public issues are complicated, and many people, most of the time, are either uninterested or confused by them.
公共问题是复杂的，很多人，大多数时候，要么对此不感兴趣，要么感到困惑。
This isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially for those who see disengagement from politics as an example of “rational ignorance.”
这未必是件坏事，特别是对于那些把脱离政治视为“理性无知”的例子的人来说。
Given the high cost of being informed, it makes good sense to stay less informed.
考虑到获取信息的高成本，保持较少的信息是明智的。
And there have been a number of books that show us just how uniformed Americans can be.
很多书向我们展示了穿制服的美国人可以成为什么样。
The most notable was “The American Voter” in 1960, which showed us how little most Americans knew, or cared, about politics,
最引人注目的是1960年的《美国选民》，它向我们展示了大多数美国人对政治知之甚少，也不关心政治，
and suggested that people's opinions were so changeable and random, that the authors concluded that “most people don't have real opinions at all.”
并指出，人们的观点是如此多变和随机，以至于作者得出结论：“大多数人根本没有真正的观点。”
I have no opinion about that.
我对此没有意见。
Oh, and if you're thinking: “Well that's fine, but in 1960 Americans had so much less information available to them.”
哦，如果你在想；“好吧，这很好，但在1960年，美国人可获得的信息要少得多。”
“They didn't even have color then.
“那时甚至还没有彩色电视。
And everyone wore hats.
每个人都戴着帽子。
Everyone wore hats then!”
那时每个人都戴帽子！”
Today we have the Internet and 24 hour TV news, but here's a statistic: In 1960, 47% of people were unable to name the member of the House who represented them.
今天我们有互联网和24小时电视新闻，但这里有一个统计数字：1960年，47%的人不能说出代表他们的众议院成员的名字。
In 2010, it was 59%.
到2010年，这一比例为59%。
On the other hand, there are political scientists who argue that looking at individual voters and their responses to questionnaires is the wrong way to go.
另一方面，有些政治学家认为，观察选民个人及其对问卷的反应是错误的做法。
For writers like Benjamin Page and Robert Shapiro, authors of “The Rational Public,” the key is to look at collective opinion.
对于《理性的公众》的作者本杰明·佩奇和罗伯特·夏皮罗这样的作家来说，关键在于审视集体意见。
If you take large numbers of Americans and aggregate their opinions you find that they are much more coherent and stable, and reflect reasonable judgements about politics and government.
如果你收集大量的美国人，并将他们的观点进行汇总，你会发现他们的观点更加连贯和稳定，反映出他们对政治和政府的合理判断。
Next time you disagree with me and call me crazy, Stan, just aggregate my opinion.
下次你不同意还认为我太疯狂，斯坦，把我的意见集中起来。
You will find it doesn't vary so much.
你会发现变化不大。
Closely related to this idea of large groups of people basically getting things right about politics is Condorcet's Jury Theorem,
与这一观点紧密相关的是康多塞的陪审团定理，
which demonstrated that while one juror had only a slightly better chance of determining a defendant's guilt or innocence than a coin flip, a larger group of jurrors would produce a majority that would be more likely than not to get the case right.
这表明，虽然一名陪审员判断被告有罪或无罪的机会只比抛硬币的机会稍大一些，但如果陪审员人数较多，多数人很可能会做出正确判断。
James Surowiecki summed it up well in his book “The Wisdom of Crowds”,
詹姆斯·索罗斯基在他的《群众的智慧》一书中很好地总结了这一点，
arguing that “Even if one voter does not have clear political views, a larger group, taken together, adds up to a rational public.”
他认为“即使一个选民没有明确的政治观点，一个更大的群体加在一起，就构成了一个理性的公众。”
So assuming, that like Lincoln, we actually want public opinion to influence government, we need to take into account a few things.
所以假设，像林肯一样，我们想要公众舆论影响政府，需要考虑一些事情。
First, we should have a reasonably good idea that the people know what they want.
第一，我们应该有一个合理的好主意，让人们知道他们想要什么。
Second, the people should be able to communicate what they want to government officials.
第二，人民应该能够向政府官员表达他们的想法。
And third, the government should pay attention to the public's desires and respond accordingly.
第三，政府应该关注公众的愿望，并作出相应的反应。
All three of these conditions can provide interesting problems of their own.
这三个条件都可以提供它们自己有趣的问题。
Even if you agree with the rational public idea, and assume that the population as a whole does have coherent political views,
即使你赞同理性的公众观点，并假设全体人民确实有一致的政治观点，
the chances are good that what the public wants consists mostly of generalities, and are difficult to turn into actual policies.
但很有可能公众想要的大部分是一般性的，而且很难转化为实际的政策。
For example: after the 2008 financial crisis, there was a general anger with Wall Street banks,
例如：2008年金融危机之后，人们普遍对华尔街银行感到愤怒，
but different polls on the issue revealed no consensus about what to do about things like executive compensation, or regulating complex financial transactions.
但不同的民意调查显示，对于如何处理高管薪酬或监管复杂的金融交易等问题，人们没有达成共识。
It's difficult to say that the resulting Dodd-Frank Bill represented an expression of the popular will.
很难说由此产生的多德-弗兰克法案代表了民意。
The public communicates what it wants in a number of ways.
公众通过多种方式表达他们的需求。
Most obviously: voting.
最常见的方式：投票。
But let's just say that people have other ways than election results of letting their voices be heard.
但我们只能说，除了选举结果，人们还有其他方式让自己的声音被听到。
Or their punches.
或用拳猛击。
But don't do that.
但不要这样做。
That was just...
那只是……
that's a fake eagle.
只是一只假鹰。
Don't worry about it.
不要担心。
Even though politicians often claim that winning an election gives them a “mandate to govern,”
尽管政客们经常声称赢得选举给了他们“管理的授权”，
a quick look at the unpopularity of Obamacare suggests that an election win doesn't often translate into solid support for a candidate's policies.
但回顾一下奥巴马医改的不受欢迎之处，就会发现，赢得选举通常不会转化为对候选人政策的坚定支持。
Sometimes its lack of support is due to the fact that politicians don't exactly respond to public opinion.
有时，它缺乏支持是因为政客们并不完全对公众意见做出回应。
National campaigns spend around 1 billion a year on polling, but it doesn't mean that politicians do exactly what the polling suggests, and they often deny that polls influence their decisions.
全国竞选活动每年在民意调查上花费约10亿美元，但这并不意味着政客们完全按照民意调查的结果行事，他们常常否认民意调查会影响他们的决定。
Even as poll conscious a politician as President Clinton didn't always do exactly what the American people said they wanted.
即使像克林顿总统这样具有民意意识的政治家也并不总是完全按照美国人民的意愿行事。
For example: in 1994 the public was solidly against a plan to bail out Mexico with a multi-billion dollar loan.
例如：1994年，公众坚决反对用数十亿美元贷款来拯救墨西哥的计划。
But Clinton pushed through an executive order making the loan anyway, because his advisers said this was good economic policy.
但是克林顿还是通过了一项行政命令来发放贷款，因为他的顾问说，这是一项很好的经济政策。
More often politicians use public opinion polling to shape their responses to issues, rather than defining the issue for the politicians, the polls are used to help them craft a message that will be more acceptable to the public.
更多的时候，政客们利用民意调查来决定他们对问题的反应，而不是为政客们定义问题，民意调查被用来帮助他们设计一个更能被公众接受的信息。
And public opinion polling certainly has a role in setting the policy agenda by informing politicians of the issues that seem to matter to Americans in the first place.
民意调查当然在制定政策议程方面发挥了一定作用，因为它向政客们通报了那些对美国人来说至关重要的问题。
So, in addition to voting and election results, polling is also a way Americans can let politicians know what they want.
所以，除了选举和选举结果，民意调查也是美国人让政客们知道他们想要什么的一种方式。
For instance: whether or not they approve of the President's performance, or of specific policies, like whether the government should allow an oil pipeline to be built.
例如：他们是否批准总统的表现，或者是否批准特定的政策，比如政府是否应该允许建造一条石油管道。
Politicians, and especially journalists, rely on these polls, but before you go jumping on that bandwagon there are a few things you should know about public opinion polling.
政治家，尤其是记者，依赖于这些民意调查，但在追随民意之前，应该了解一些关于民意调查的事情。
And don't just go jumping on strange bandwagons.
不要跳上奇怪的马车。
Let's go to the Thought Bubble.
让我们进入“思想泡泡”
The first thing you remember when you hear or read some polling data is that there are lots of ways that polls can be wrong.
当你听到或读到一些民意调查数据时，你记得的第一件事是，民意调查有很多可能出错的地方。
So there are some questions you should ask before you accept the data.
所以在接受数据之前，你应该问一些问题。
There are a lot of things that can skew the results of polls, some of which are obvious, and others which are more obscure.
有很多事情会扭曲民意调查的结果，其中一些是显而易见的，而另一些则更加模糊。
The biggest questions to ask about a poll is “How many respondents were there and how were they chosen?”
关于民意调查，最大的问题是“有多少受访者，他们是如何被选中的?”
It's impossible to get responses to any questions from all 320 million Americans, so pollsters rely on statistical sampling.
要从3.2亿美国人那里得到任何问题的答案都是不可能的，所以民意测验依靠的是统计抽样。
In order to get a reliable sample, the magic number for pollsters is somewhere between 1,000 and 1,500.
为了得到一个可靠的样本，民意测验专家的神奇数字在1000到1500之间。
The smaller the number, the less reliable the results are likely to be.
范围越小，结果就越不可靠。
A poll that's based on a sample that's too small may suffer from a “sampling error”.
样本太小的民意测验可能会出现“抽样误差”。
You can sometimes deduce the size of a poll sample from its margin of error.
有时可以从民意测验样本的误差范围推断出其范围大小。
A poll with a small sample will have a large margin of error.
一个小样本的民意测验将有很大的误差幅度。
In general, for national public opinion polls the margin of error will be plus or minus three points.
一般来说，全国民意调查的误差幅度为正负3个百分点。
This means that if the poll says that 53% of people support “Policy X,”
这意味着如果民调显示53%的人支持“X政策”，
it's better to say that between 50 and 56% of respondents supported it.
更确切地说，有50%到56%的受访者支持这一观点。
But that's just a little math.
但这只是一些数学问题。
For fun!
开玩笑！
Polling organizations like Harris, Pew, and Gallup also strive to make sure that the respondents are a representative sample, free from “selection bias.”
像哈里斯、皮尤和盖洛普这样的民意调查机构也在努力确保受访者是一个有代表性的样本，没有“选择偏见”。
Selection bias occurs when the people polled are not a representative sample of the population.
当被调查的人不是具有代表性的人群样本时，就会产生选择偏差。
Say if they're disproportionately white, or rich, or Bronies.
如果他们是不成比例的白人、富人或棕色人种。
The classic example of a selection bias error was the 1936 Literary Digest poll that predicted Alf Landon would defeat F.D.R.
1936年的《文学文摘》民调就是一个典型的选择偏差例子。
It turns out that Literary Digest's readership were disproportionately wealthy and Republican.
事实证明，《文学文摘》的读者大多是富有的共和党人。
Another more recent source of selection bias is that polls which rely on random digit dialing of land line phones tend to under count younger people, many of whom have only cell phones.
另一个最近产生选择偏见的原因是，依赖于固定电话随机数字拨号的民意调查往往低估了年轻人的数量，其中许多人只有手机。
Selection bias is a particular problem with online polls.
选择偏差是在线调查的一个特殊问题。
Anyone who takes an online poll has by definition logged into a website and is therefore not randomly selected.
根据定义，任何参加在线投票的人都登录了一个网站，因此不是随机选择的。
Although news organizations like to report their own polling, CNN, I'm looking at you...
虽然新闻机构喜欢报道他们自己的投票，CNN，我在看你……
you should take these poll numbers with a boulder of salt.
你应该对这些民调数字持怀疑态度。
Thanks, Thought Bubble.
谢谢，思想泡泡。
In addition to demographic factors like age, ethnicity, race, and income level, all of which can influence polls, when the questions are asked matters a lot.
当问到的问题很重要时，除了年龄、种族、种族和收入水平等人口统计因素，所有这些因素都能影响民意调查。
Sometimes these two factors interact.
有时两个因素相互作用。
A poll taken on a Friday evening is likely to include a lot fewer young people responding to it.
周五晚上进行的一项民意调查很可能会有更少的年轻人参与其中。
Especially me, because every Friday night I like to go out and get my swerve on.
尤其是我，因为每个星期五晚上我都喜欢出去体验不同的生活。
Which implies that I don't go out, and I haven't gone out since 2003.
这意味着我不出去，我从2003年就没出去过。
More significant in terms of election polling is how close the poll was to the actual election.
就选举民调而言，更重要的是民调结果与实际选举结果的接近程度。
The closer the poll, the more accurate.
民意调查越接近，就越准确。
Polls taken immediately after the election, called “exit polls,” can be very unreliable.
选举后立即进行的民意调查称为“出口民调”，可能非常不可靠。
And polls taken a few days after the election have limited predictive value.
而大选后几天进行的民调预测价值有限。
In fact, just get over it.
事实上得经历它。
The elections over.
选举结束。
Just stop polling.
停止民意调查。
One of the most important ways that polls can skewed is through the questions themselves.
民意调查可能产生偏差的最重要原因之一就是问题本身。
Ambiguous or poorly worded questions can result in a failure to identify the true distribution of opinion in a target population.
模棱两可或措辞不当的问题可能导致无法确定意见在目标人群中的真实分布。
Quick poll: do you not, not, not, not unlike Crash Course?
快速投票：你是否不喜欢《速成班》？
Or me as a host?
还是不喜欢我当主持人？
Let me know in the comments.
请在评论中告诉我。
The way questions are framed can change the results of polls.
提问的方式可以改变民意调查的结果。
For instance, respondents are much more favorable to policies that “promote free trade” than those which “destroy American jobs”.
例如，受访者更喜欢“促进自由贸易”的政策，而不是“破坏美国就业”的政策。
So I want to leave you with the question we started with:
所以，我想留给你们一个我们开始时的问题：
In an American democracy, how much should public opinion matter in terms of the way the country is actually governed?
在美国的民主制度中，公众舆论对国家的实际治理方式应该起多大的作用？
Has your answer changed now that you have more of a sense of how informed, or uninformed, Americans are about politics?
现在你对美国人如何看待政治有了更多的了解，你的答案改变了吗？
Did you even have an answer before?
你之前有答案吗？
Are you even listening?
你还在集中精力听吗？
And if you think that politicians are right to respond to the public's desires, are you convinced that our public leaders have a good sense of what Americans really want?
如果你认为政客们对公众愿望的回应是正确的，你是否相信我们的公众领袖对美国人真正想要的东西有很好的理解?
I'd be interested to know if your own opinions on these questions change over time.
我很想知道你对这些问题的看法是否会随着时间而改变。
But polling's expensive, so just let us know in the comments.
但是民意调查很昂贵，所以请在评论中告诉我们。
Thanks for watching.
感谢收看。
See you next time.
下次见。
Crash Course Government and Politics is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios.
《政府与政治速成班》是与PBS数字工作室联合制作的。
Support for Crash Course US Government comes from Voqal.
对美国政府速成班的支持来自Voqal。
Voqal supports nonprofits that use technology and media to advance social equity.
Voqal支持使用技术和媒体促进社会公平的非营利组织。
Learn more about their mission and initiatives at voqal.org.
更多关于他们的使命和倡议，请访问voqal.org。
Crash Course was made with the help of all these pollsters.
《速成班》是在所有这些民意测验专家的帮助下完成的。
Thanks for watching.
谢谢收看。
