research has not systematically explored whether voters can accurately predict the changing nature of their own opinions. The question of whether people recognize the instability of their political preferences was explored in a random sample of Pennsylvania registered voters who were surveyed in August and October 1996, during the presidential election campaign. The first survey elicited respondents' positions on two political issues (welfare reform and the environment) and on the two major candidates, and also asked them to estimate the likelihood that each of these positions would change during the next 2 months. The second survey elicited positions at that time and also asked voters to recall their prior positions. Measured both by expectations and recall, respondents tended to underestimate the degree to which their own positions would change or had changed over time. This research has implications for the use of public opinion polling and more broadly for the practice of democratic politics. KEY WORDS: attitude change (prediction and recall), public opinion.

In this paper, I identify a relationship between the paradox of multiple elections (PME) (Brams, Kilgour, and Zwicker 1997, 1998) and divided government. PME occurs when voters who face several elections may not know the results of one election before they vote in another. Often the winning combination (the set of winners of each individual election) is not a combination that most voters prefer. ANES data shows that when elections result in divided government PME emerges; when elections result in one party rule, PME is not present. While the 2000 elections break a pattern found in the 12 previous presidential elections, a new definition explains the anomaly. This study concludes that elections reflect majority preferences when they exist, but otherwise tend to be some-hat arbitrary.