Social scientists, particularly those specializing in political science, economics, sociology, social psychology, and other relevant fields, introduce a vast number of plausible theories to outline how in which "public opinion" is structured 'elite opinion' or, on the contrary, using numerous empirical and theoretical research methods. However, most theoretical and empirical investigations conducted in this regard have found it complicated to draw an explicit conclusion whether mass public opinion influences elite opinion or vice versa, since it is "a very complex and controversial issue". We say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayProponents of the "counterfeit consensus" school argue that "mass public opinion" is not autonomous by nature, and in this regard is primarily a “creation” of the ruling “elites”. Consequently, consensus on opinion politics is likely to be “counterfeit” because it does not derive from an original “independent mass opinion”, but is the result of a “manipulative” process. In contrast to this statement, Hobolt investigates that, even if public opinion is “autonomous” and able to influence the “political process”, it is still complicated to establish “empirically” whether the correlation between “public opinion” and “politics” is the result of public opinion. policy of surveying opinions or mutatis mutandis, or a variety of "reciprocal" processes; or, influencing both, some external factor has established a fictitious “relationship”. This question, once again, indicates that to date no “analytic technique” has completely succeeded in addressing these problems of “causal inference.” However, in their empirical studies, some scholars have argued that public opinion influences political behavior in today's democratic politics and that this trend is broadening as a result of the "evolution of polling technology." Similarly, Stimson, MacKuen and Erikson, in their analysis of "dynamic representation", studied the link of "public mood" with a set of synthetic indicators of "political decisions" and consequently argued that "politicians follow persistently "public opinion". However, other scholars argue that the interrelationship process cannot be unidirectional, but is a mutual and interactive connection between "opinion and politics". Scholars and researchers note that, at first glance, “causal relationships” are likely to be “dual process”: from public opinion to public policy and vice versa. However, it is above all public opinion that suggests public "preferences" and possible electoral "behaviors" to managers and decision-making personnel. This impact is amplified within the framework of “democratic institutions” which are more stable. That is, the influence of public opinion should be greatest in the field of social policy since people are strongly encouraged by the "goods and services" they receive from the state. Under other conditions, social policy also influences public opinion. The preferences that the public obtains through social policy create normative presumptions that in turn shape public opinion, but not itself. Cooperatively, these theories argue that “causal effects” are part of the reverse feedback between “opinion and policy” initiated by public opinion. Taking this into account, scholars are using various methods to understand and determine “opinion and policy feedback” and use its findings to define the ways on which institutions are most dependent. Furthermore, public opinion has a.