The Representation Gap and Political Sophistication: A Contrarian Perspective

• DOI: 10.1177/0010414020957673
• Published date: 01 April 2021
• Author: Russell Dalton
• Date: 01 April 2021
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414020957673

Comparative Political Studies

2021, Vol. 54(5) 889 –917

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0010414020957673

journals.sagepub.com/home/cps

Article

The Representation

Gap and Political

Sophistication: A

Contrarian Perspective

Russell Dalton1

Abstract

Political behavior research persistently questions the ability of the average

citizen to make voting choices that accurately represent their political

views. We argue that voters’ choices should be judged by the outcome of

the choices, and not the decision-making process. The representation gap

measures the policy agreement between voters and their chosen party using

data from the 2014 European Election Study and the Chapel Hill Experts

Survey. We consider whether the political sophistication of individual voters

affects agreement levels. Negative results are rarely reported widely—but

they can be important. This study finds little evidence that political interest,

education, information level or even party identification substantially affect

the size of the representation gap. Less and more sophisticated citizens both

find ways to make voting decisions that broadly match their opinions. The

results yield a more positive view of the mass public, the electoral process,

and democratic representation.

Keywords

voting, political representation, Political Parties, European elections, issue

cleavages

1University of California, Irvine, CA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Russell Dalton, University of California, Irvine, 3151 Social Science Plaza, Irvine,

CA 92697-5100, USA.

Email: rdalton@uci.edu

957673CPSXXX10.1177/0010414020957673Comparative Political StudiesDalton

research-article2020

890 Comparative Political Studies 54(5)

Introduction

A long tradition in political behavior research questions the ability of the

average citizen to make voting choices that accurately reflect their prefer-

ences. If most or even many voters cannot make choices consistent with their

policy views, this erodes the logic of democratic political representation.

Moreover, some experts argue that such inaccurate choices undermine the

democratic process itself.

From its founding studies, modern electoral research has questioned the

abilities of the voters to make informed choices on which party best repre-

sents their views. For example, The American Voter declared that the elector-

ate “is almost completely unable to judge the rationality of government

actions; knowing little of the particular policies and what has led to them, the

mass electorate isn’t able either to appraise its goals or the appropriateness

of the means chosen to secure these goals” (Campbell et al., 1960, p. 543).

Surveys routinely show that many people have limited political knowledge

(Caplan, 2011; Delli Carpini & Keeter, 1996). This is not just a feature of the

American public, the same negative characterization emerges from public

opinion research in other democracies.

Probably the most influential skeptic of the mass public was Philip

Converse. In a series of seminal writings, he argued that most people lacked

a sophisticated, ideological understanding of politics (1964, 1970, 1972,

1990). Only the most politically involved and the most educated matched his

high standards for being knowledgable voters—and this was a small share of

the public. He also demonstrated that issue opinions were only weakly inter-

related and were very unstable over time. This research led Converse (1970)

to conclude that public opinion researchers often study “nonattitudes”—that

is, many people apparently do not have informed opinions even on long-

standing policy concerns. This has been a common presumption of electoral

behavior research.

Moreover, an update of The American Voter claimed that little had changed

among contemporary electorates (Kinder, 2006; also see Lewis-Beck et al.,

2008). Another study asked the question:

Voters don’t know very much, aren’t aware of how little they know; aren’t

particularly proficient at getting the information they need, and can’t remember

the information once they’ve learned it. The problem is made worse by

politicians and interest groups that actively hide information, by issues that are

often complex enough to stymie the experts, and by the vast number of

important issues. . . How can democracy possibly be successful when it relies

on the choices of voters who know so little? (Oppenheimer & Edwards, 2012,

pp. 32–33)