Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-78dcdb465f-2ktwh Total loading time: 3.417 Render date: 2021-04-15T04:27:28.832Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Incongruent Voting or Symbolic Representation? Asymmetrical Representation in Congress, 2008–2014

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 December 2020

Abstract

The electoral connection incentivizes representatives to take positions that please most of their constituents. However, on votes for which we have data, lawmakers vote against majority opinion in their district on one out of every three high-profile roll calls in the U.S. House. This rate of “incongruent voting” is much higher for Republican lawmakers, but they do not appear to be punished for it at higher rates than Democrats on Election Day. Why? Research in political psychology shows that citizens hold both policy-specific and identity-based symbolic preferences, that these preferences are weakly correlated, and that incongruous symbolic identity and policy preferences are more common among Republican voters than Democrats. While previous work on representation has treated this fact as a nuisance, we argue that it reflects two real dimensions of political ideology that voters use to evaluate lawmakers. Using four years of CCES data, district-level measures of opinion, and the roll-call record, we find that both dimensions of ideology matter for how lawmakers cast roll calls, and that the operational-symbolic disconnect in public opinion leads to different kinds of representation for each party.

Type
Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

Footnotes

A list of permanent links to Supplemental Materials provided by the authors precedes the References section.

*Data replication sets are available in Harvard Dataverse at: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/2IYSI8

They would like to think Adam Zelizer and Jeff Harden for their thoughtful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. They also thank the anonymous reviewers who offered challenging and insightful suggestions. Their insights greatly improved the paper.

References

Achen, Christopher H. 1977. “Measuring Representation: Perils of the Correlation Coefficient.” American Journal of Political Science 21(4): 805–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Achen, Christopher H. 1978. “Measuring Representation.” American Journal of Political Science 22(3): 475510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Achen, Christopher H., and Bartels, Larry M.. 2017. Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ahler, Douglas J., and Broockman, David E.. 2018. “The Delegate Paradox: Why Polarized Politicians Can Represent Citizens Best.” Journal of Politics 80(4): 1117–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arceneaux, Kevin. 2008. “Can Partisan Cues Diminish Democratic Accountability?Political Behavior 30(2): 139–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bafumi, Joseph, and Herron, Michael C.. 2010. “Leapfrog Representation and Extremism: A Study of American Voters and Their Members in Congress.” American Political Science Review 104(3): 519–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bafumi, Joseph, and Shapiro, Robert Y.. 2009. “A New Partisan Voter.” Journal of Politics 71(1): 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Michael, and Brady, David W.. 1998. “Heterogeneity and Representation: The Senate and Free Trade.” American Journal of Political Science 42(2): 524–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, Michael J., and Pope, Jeremy C.. 2019. “Does Party Trump Ideology? Disentangling Party and Ideology in America.” American Political Science Review 113(1): 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, David C., and Carman, Christopher Jan. 2012. Representing Red and Blue: How the Culture Wars Change the Way Citizens Speak and Politicians Listen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2002. “Beyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions.” Political Behavior 24(2): 117–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2008. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Guilded Age. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2018. “Partisanship in the Trump Era.” The Journal of Politics 80(4): 1483–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bawn, Kathleen, Cohen, Martin, Karol, David, Masket, Seth, Noel, Hans, and Zaller, John. 2012. "A Theory of Political Parties: Groups Policy Demands and Nominations in American Politics." Perspectives on Politics 10(3) 571597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, Marilynn B., and Pierce, Kathleen B.. 2005. "Social Identity Complexity and Outgroup Tolerance." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31(3): 428–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bullock, John G. 2011. “Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate.” American Political Science Review 105(3): 496515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Daniel M., and Nickerson, David W.. 2011. “Can Learning Constituency Opinion Affect How Legislators Vote? Results from a Field Experiment.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 6(1): 5583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Canes-Wrone, Brandice, Brady, David W., and Cogan, John F.. 2002. “Out of Step, Out of Office: Electoral Accountability and House Members’ Voting.” American Political Science Review 96(1): 127–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmines, Edward G., and D’Amico, Nicholas J.. 2015. “The New Look in Political Ideology Research.” Annual Review of Political Science 18(1): 205–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claassen, Christopher, Tucker, Patrick, and Smith, Steven S.. 2015. “Ideological Labels in America.” Political Behavior 37(2): 253–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clinton, Joshua D. 2006. “Representation in Congress: Constituents and Roll Calls in the 106th House.” Journal of Politics 68(2): 397409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conover, Pamela Johnston, and Feldman, Stanley. 1981. “The Origins and Meaning of Liberal/Conservative Self-Identifications.” American Journal of Political Science 25(4): 617–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Ideology and Discontent, New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devine, Christopher J. 2015. “Ideological Social Identity: Psychological Attachment to Ideological In-Groups as a Political Phenomenon and a Behavioral Influence.” Political Behavior 37(3): 509–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Christopher, and Stimson, James A.. 2012. Ideology in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S. 1978. "Constituency Opinion and Congressional Behavior: A Reexamination of the Miller-Stokes Representation Data." American Journal of Political Science 22(3): 511–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Free, L.A., and Cantril, H.. 1967. The Political Beliefs of Americans. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth R., and Lewis, Jeffrey B.. 2004. “Beyond the Median: Voter Preferences, District Heterogeneity, and Political Representation.” Journal of Political Economy 112(6): 1364–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, Jesse, Haidt, Jonathan, and Nosek, Brian A.. 2009. “Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different Sets of Moral Foundations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96(5): 1029–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffin, John D. 2006. “Electoral Competition and Democratic Responsiveness: A Defense of the Marginality Hypothesis.” Journal of Politics 68(4): 911–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossmann, Matthew, and Hopkins, David A.. 2016. Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haidt, Jonathan. 2012. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Harden, Jeffrey J. 2015. Multidimensional Democracy: A Supply and Demand Theory of Representation in American Legislatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hill, Kim Quaile, Jordan, Soren, and Hurley, Patricia A.. 2015. Representation in Congress: A Identity Theory.” Political Psychology 22(1): 127–56.Google Scholar
Hurley, Patricia A., and Hill, Kim Quaile. 2003. “Beyond the Demand-Input Model: A Theory of Representational Linkages.” Journal of Politics 65(2): 304–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, John E., and King, David C.. 1989. “Public Goods, Private Interests, and Representation.” American Political Science Review 83(4): 1143–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Lawrence R., and Shapiro, Robert Y.. 2000. Politicians Don’t Pander: Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Johnston, Richard. 2006. “Party Identification: Unmoved Mover or Sum of Preferences?Annual Review of Political Science 9(1): 329–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jost, John T., Federico, Christopher M., and Napier, Jaime L.. 2009. “Political Ideology: Its Structure, Functions, and Elective Affinities.” Annual Review of Psychology 60(1): 307–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kinder, Donald R., and Kalmoe, Nathan P.. 2017. Neither Liberal nor Conservative: Ideological Innocence in the American Public. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Frances E. 2016. Insecure Majorities: Congress and the Perpetual Campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenz, Gabriel S. 2013. Follow the Leader? How Voters Respond to Politicians’ Policies and Performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levendusky, Matthew. 2009. The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, J. Scott. 2011. Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Malka, Ariel, and Lelkes, Yphtach. 2010. “More than Ideology: Conservative–Liberal Identity and Receptivity to Political Cues.” Social Justice Research 23(2): 156–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, Lilliana. 2018a. “Ideologues without Issues: The Polarizing Consequences of Ideological Identities.” Public Opinion Quarterly 82(S1): 866–87.Google Scholar
Mason, Lilliana 2018b. Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John G. 2001. “Problems with a Methodology Used to Evaluate the Voter Initiative.” Journal of Politics 63(4): 1250–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Miler, Kristina. 2010. Constituency Representation in Congress: The View from Capitol Hill. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Wakken E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1963. “Constituency Influence in Congress.” American Political Science Review 57(1): 4556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondak, Jeffery J. 1993. “Source Cues and Policy Approval: The Cognitive Dynamics of Public Support for the Reagan Agenda.” American Journal of Political Science 37(1): 186212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noel, Hans. 2012. "The Coalition Merchants: The Ideological Roots of the Civil Rights Realignment." Journal of Politics 74(1): 156–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popp, Elizabeth, and Rudolph, Thomas J.. 2011. “A Tale of Two Ideologies: Explaining Public Support for Economic Interventions.” Journal of Politics 73(3): 808–20.Google Scholar
Smith, Kevin B., Alford, John R., Hbbing, John R., Martin, Nicholas G., and Hatemi, Peter K.. 2017. “Intuitive Ethics and Political Orientations: Testing Moral Foundations as a Theory of Political Ideology.American Journal of Political Science, 61(2): 424–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stimson, James A., Erikson, Robert S., and MacKuen, McKuen B.. 1995. “Dynamic Representation. ” American Political Science Review 89(3): 543–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tajfel, Henri. 1978. Differentiation between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Oxford: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tausanovitch, Chris, and Warshaw, Christopher. 2013. “Measuring Constituent Policy Preferences in Congress, State Legislatures, and Cities.” Journal of Politics 75(2): 330–42.Google Scholar
Vavreck, Lynn. 2001. “The Reasoning Voter Meets the Strategic Candidate: Signals and Specificity in Campaign Advertising, 1998.” American Politics Research 29(5): 507–29.Google Scholar
Zschirnt, Simon. 2011. “The Origins & Meaning of Liberal/Conservative Self-Identifications Revisited.” Political Behavior 33(4): 685701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cayton and Dawkins Dataset

Link

Cayton and Dawkins supplementary material

Cayton and Dawkins supplementary material

PDF 292 KB

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 590
Total number of PDF views: 163 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 21st December 2020 - 15th April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Incongruent Voting or Symbolic Representation? Asymmetrical Representation in Congress, 2008–2014
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Incongruent Voting or Symbolic Representation? Asymmetrical Representation in Congress, 2008–2014
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Incongruent Voting or Symbolic Representation? Asymmetrical Representation in Congress, 2008–2014
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *