Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5c569c448b-r8t2r Total loading time: 0.352 Render date: 2022-07-05T22:38:25.025Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Leapfrog Representation and Extremism: A Study of American Voters and Their Members in Congress

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 September 2010

JOSEPH BAFUMI*
Affiliation:
Dartmouth College
MICHAEL C. HERRON*
Affiliation:
Dartmouth College
*
Joseph Bafumi is Assistant Professor of Government, Dartmouth College, 6108 Silsby Hall, Hanover, NH 03755 (Joseph.Bafumi@dartmouth.edu).
Michael C. Herron is Professor of Government, Dartmouth College, 6108 Silsby Hall, Hanover, NH 03755 (Michael.Herron@dartmouth.edu).

Abstract

We consider the relationship between the preferences of American voters and the preferences of the U.S. legislators who represent them. Using an Internet-based, national opinion survey in conjunction with legislator voting records from the 109th and 110th Congresses, we show that members of Congress are more extreme than their constituents, i.e., that there is a lack of congruence between American voters and members of Congress. We also show that when a congressional legislator is replaced by a new member of the opposite party, one relative extremist is replaced by an opposing extremist. We call this leapfrog representation, a form of representation that leaves moderates with a dearth of representation in Congress. We see evidence of leapfrog representation in states and House districts and in the aggregate as well: the median member of the 109th House was too conservative compared to the median American voter, yet the median of the 110th House was too liberal. Thus, the median American voter was leapfrogged when the 109th House transitioned to the 110th. Although turnover between the 109th and 110th Senates occurred at approximately the same rate as between the 109th and 110th Houses, the Senate appears to be a more moderate institution whose median member does not move as abruptly as that of the House.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramowitz, Alan. 2010. The Disappearing Center: Engaged Citizens, Polarization and American Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Abramowitz, Alan I., and Saunders, Kyle L.. 2008. “Is Polarization a Myth?Journal of Politics 70 (2): 542–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Achen, Christopher H. 1977. “Measuring Representation: Perils of the Correlation Coefficient.” American Journal of Political Science 21: 805–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Achen, Christopher H. 1978. “Measuring Representation.” American Journal of Political Science 22: 475510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alesina, Alberto, and Rosenthal, Howard. 1996. “A Theory of Divided Government.” Econometrica 64 (6): 1311–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen D., Snyder, James M., and Stewart, Charles. 2001. “Candidate Positioning in U.S. House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 45: 136–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bafumi, Joseph, Erikson, Robert S., and Wlezien, Christopher. 2010. “Balancing, Generic Polls and Midterm Congressional Elections.” Journal of Politics 72 (3): 705–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bafumi, Joseph, Gelman, Andrew, Park, David K., and Kaplan, Noah. 2005. “Practical Issues in Implementing and Understanding Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation.” Political Analysis 13: 171–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Michael A. 2007. “Comparable Preference Estimates across Time and Institutions for the Court, Congress, and Presidency.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (3): 433–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, David P. 1994. “Electoral Competition with Informed and Uniformed Voters.” American Political Science Review 88 (1): 3347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Duncan. 1958. The Theory of Committees and Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Burden, Barry C. 2004. “A Technique for Estimating Candidate and Voter Locations.” Electoral Studies 23: 623–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvert, Randall L. 1985. “Robustness of the Multidimensional Voting Model: Candidates' Motivation, Uncertainty, and Convergence.” American Journal of Political Science 29 (1): 6995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canes-Wrone, Brandice, Herron, Michael C., and Shotts, Kenneth W.. 2001. “Leadership and Pandering: A Theory of Executive Behavior.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (3): 532–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, Jamie L., Crespin, Michael H., Jenkins, Jeffery A., and Wielen, Ryan J. Vander. 2004. “Shirking in the Contemporary Congress: A Reappraisal.” Political Analysis 12 (2): 176–79.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
Clinton, Joshua, Jackman, Simon, and Rivers, Doug. 2004. “The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data.” American Political Science Review 98 (2): 355–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, Philip. 2006. “Democratic Theory and Electoral Reality.” Critical Review 18 (1–3): 297329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Elling, Richard C. 1982. “Ideological Change in the U.S. Senate: Time and Electoral Responsiveness.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 7 (1): 7592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enelow, James M., and Hinich, Melvin. 1984. The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Enelow, James, and Hinich, Melvin, eds. 1990. Advances in the Spatial Theory of Voting. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, David, Herron, Michael C., O'Halloran, Sharyn, and Park, David. 2007. “Estimating the Effect of Redistricting on Minority Substantive Representation.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 23 (2): 499518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S. 1978. “Constituency Opinion and Congressional Behavior: A Reexamination of the Miller-Stokes Data.” American Journal of Political Science 22: 511–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., MacKuen, Michael B., and Stimson, James A.. 2002. The Macro Polity. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., and Tedin, Kent L.. 2001. American Public Opinion. 6th ed. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Fairlie, J. A. 1940a. “The Nature of Political Representation, I.” American Political Science Review 34: 236–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairlie, J. A. 1940b. “The Nature of Political Representation, II.” American Political Science Review 34: 456–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1974. Representatives, Roll Calls, and Constituencies. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.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: 1364–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groseclose, Timothy, Levitt, Steven D., and Snyder, James M.. 1999. “Comparing Interest Group Scores across Time and Chambers: Adjusted ADA Score for the U.S. Congress.” American Political Science Review 93: 3350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckman, James J., and Snyder, James M.. 1997. “Linear Probability Models of the Demand for Attributes with an Empirical Application to Estimating the Preferences of Legislators.” Rand Journal of Economics 28: S142–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herron, Michael C., and Sekhon, Jasjeet S.. 2005. “Black Candidates and Black Voters: Assessing the Impact of Candidate Race on Uncounted Vote Rates.” Journal of Politics 67 (1): 154–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackman, Simon. 2001. “Multidimensional Analysis of Roll Call Data via Bayesian Simulation: Identification, Estimation, Inference and Model Checking.” Political Analysis 9: 227–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Lawrence R., and Shapiro, Robert Y.. 1997. “The Myth of the Pandering Politician.” The Public Perspective 8: 35.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Lawrence R., and Shapiro, Robert Y.. 2000. Politicians Don't Pander: Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 2007a. A Divider, Not a Uniter: George W. Bush and the American People. New York: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 2007b. “The President, the War, and Voting Behavior in the 2006 House Elections: Evidence from Four National Surveys.” Presented at the Illinois Conference on Congressional Elections, University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign.Google Scholar
Jennings, M. Kent. 1992. “Ideological Thinking among Mass Publics and Political Elites.” Public Opinion Quarterly 56 (4): 419–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessee, Stephen A. 2009. “Spatial Voting in the 2004 Presidential Election.” American Political Science Review 103 (1): 5981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keyssar, Alexander. 2000. The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Kimball, David C. 2003. “Voting Methods Two Years after Florida.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Lawrence, Christopher N. 2007. “Of Shirking, Outliers, and Statistical Artifacts.” Political Research Quarterly 60 (1): 159–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levendusky, Matthew S., Pope, Jeremy C., and Jackman, Simon. 2007. “Measuring District Level Partisanship with Implications for the Analysis of U.S. Elections.” Journal of Politics. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Londregan, John. 2000. “Estimating Legislators Preferred Points.” Political Analysis 8 (1): 2556.Google Scholar
Martin, Andrew D., and Quinn, Kevin M.. 2002. “Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999.” Political Analysis 10: 134–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Andrew D., and Quinn, Kevin M.. 2007. “Assessing Preference Change on the US Supreme Court.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 23 (2): 365–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2009. “Does Gerrymandering Cause Polarization?American Journal of Political Science 53 (3): 666–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, James C. III. 1999. Monopoly Politics. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald W.. 1963. “Constituency Influence in Congress.” American Political Science Review 57: 4546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monroe, Alan D. 1998. “Public Opinion and Public Policy 1980–1993.” Public Opinion Quarterly 62: 628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T. 2007. “Changing Minds? Not in Congress!Public Choice 131 (3–4): 435–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Romer, Thomas. 1993. “Ideology, Shirking and Representation.” Public Choice 77 (1): 185–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Congress: A Political-economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2009. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google ScholarPubMed
Saunders, Kyle L., and Abramowitz, Alan I.. 2004. “Ideological Realignment and Active Partisans in the American Electorate.” American Politics Research 32 (3): 285309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shor, Boris, and McCarty, Nolan. 2010. “The Ideological Mapping of American Legislatures.” Working paper http://home.uchicago.edu/~bshor/research/american_legislatures.pdf (August 8, 2010).Google Scholar
Snyder, James M. 1992. “Artificial Extermism in Interest Group Ratings.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 17: 319–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stimson, James A. 1975. “Belief Systems: Constraint, Complexity, and the 1972 Election.” American Journal of Political Science 19 (3): 393417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stimson, James A. 2004. Tides of Consent: How Opinion Movements Shape American Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stimson, James A., MacKuen, Michael B., and Erikson, Robert S.. 1995. “Dynamic Representation.” American Political Science Review 89: 543–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sulkin, Tracy. 2005. Issue Politics in Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomz, Michael, and van Houweling, Robert P.. 2003. “How Does Voting Equipment Affect the Racial Gap in Voided Ballots?American Journal of Political Science 47 (1): 4660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treier, Shawn, and Jackman, Simon. 2008. “Democracy as a Latent Variable.” American Journal of Political Science 52 (1): 201–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wahlke, John C., Eulau, Heinz, Buchanan, William, and Ferguson, Leroy C.. 1962. The Legislative System: Explorations in Legislative Behavior. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Wittman, Donald. 1990. “Spatial Strategies When Candidates Have Policy Preferences.” In Advances in the Spatial Theory of Voting, eds. Enelow, James M. and Hinich, Melvin J.. New York: Cambridge University Press, 6698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher. 1995. “The Public as Thermostat: Dynamics of Preferences for Spending.” American Journal of Political Science 39: 9811000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher. 1996. “Dynamics of Representation: The Case of U.S. Spending on Defense.” British Journal of Political Science 26: 81103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, Joseph F., and Rule, Wilma. 1998. “A More Representative United States of Representatives?PS: Political Science and Politics 31: 510.Google Scholar
272
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@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 saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.

Leapfrog Representation and Extremism: A Study of American Voters and Their Members in Congress
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save 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 used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Leapfrog Representation and Extremism: A Study of American Voters and Their Members in Congress
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save 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 used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Leapfrog Representation and Extremism: A Study of American Voters and Their Members in Congress
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *