Electoral Vulnerability, Party Affiliation, and Dyadic Constituency Responsiveness in U.S. Legislatures

• DOI: 10.1177/1532673X19891990
• Date: 01 July 2020
• Published date: 01 July 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X19891990

American Politics Research

2020, Vol. 48(4) 484 –491

© The Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1532673X19891990

journals.sagepub.com/home/apr

Article

Introduction

In modern democracies, there is a normative expectation that

legislators pursue the preferences of their constituents

(Rehfeld, 2009), but a number of studies question whether

this usually takes place (Bartels, 2008; Gerber, 1996; Gilens,

2011; Lax & Phillips, 2012; Masket & Noel, 2012; Rhodes &

Schaffner, 2017; Snyder, 1996). Scholars have examined how

electoral pressures may shape responsiveness (Gay, 2007;

Griffin, 2006; Kuklinski, 1977), but we know less than we

might because relatively few studies examine dyadic congru-

ence because many studies rely on broad indicators of opin-

ion or ideology (Wlezien, 2017) rather than the detailed

policy proposals on which legislators actually vote.

Furthermore, in modern democracies political parties are

important to representation, and left and right parties have

different representational orientations (Korpi, 1978), espe-

cially in the United States, where recent research suggests

that Democrats and Republicans view their representational

roles very differently (Grossmann & Hopkins, 2016) and

interact with different types of constituents (Broockman &

Skovron, 2018). This suggests that Democrats and

Republicans may respond to constituency opinion and elec-

toral pressures in different ways, which we examine in this

article.

Whether policymakers generally act in line with the peo-

ple that they represent is a critical question for students of

democracy (Beyer & Hänni, 2018). There are many factors

that might shape this process, but electoral considerations

are thought to be critical in ensuring responsiveness to dis-

trict opinion (Gay, 2007; Griffin, 2006; Kuklinski, 1977;

Mansbridge, 2003). Scholars have noted that in winner-

take-all systems like the United States, electoral pressures

should cause responsiveness to the district median (Downs,

1957). However, it may be that primary elections mean that

the median voter is not so important to U.S. legislators. In

addition, there is emerging evidence that responsiveness

varies considerably across parties. Conservative parties

may generally have less of an ability to anticipate or

respond to the preferences of the district median because

they interact more with upper class individuals and groups

(Broockman & Skovron, 2018; Korpi, 1978). In the United

States specifically, it seems that Democrats view represent-

ing external groups as a key feature of the party’s mission,

whereas Republicans tend to view themselves as fulfilling

an ideological project (Grossmann & Hopkins, 2016), lead-

ing Democrats to be more responsive to public opinion in

891990APRXXX10.1177/1532673X19891990American Politics ResearchGiger et al.

research-article2019

1University of Geneva, Switzerland

2Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany

3The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, USA

Corresponding Author:

Christopher Witko, The Pennsylvania State University, 325 Pond Lab,

Penn State, University Park, PA 16802, USA.

Email: cxw877@psu.edu

Electoral Vulnerability, Party Affiliation,

and Dyadic Constituency Responsiveness

in U.S. Legislatures

Nathalie Giger1, Heike Klüver2, and Christopher Witko3

Abstract

It is often argued that electoral vulnerability is critical to constituency responsiveness. We investigate this possibility

using different measures of vulnerability, but argue that in the United States the Republican Party may be less responsive

than the Democratic Party due to its core constituency and view of representation. We test our hypotheses relying

on an innovative research design that exploits referenda in U.S. states to compare legislator voting behavior with voter

preferences on exactly the same policy proposal, allowing us to overcome the measurement problems of much previous

research. Based on a newly compiled data set of more than 3,000 voting decisions for 818 legislators on 27 referenda, we

find high levels of congruence, but that congruence with the median voter is higher for legislators who are running for

reelection. We also find that Democrats are more responsive after a close election but that Republicans are not sensitive

to electoral margins.

Keywords

responsiveness, representation, parties, referenda, marginality