Members of the public are often left choosing between two extreme candidates who will not represent the moderate, aggregate, public effectively. Cross-pressured members of the U.S. Congress serve a constituency that votes for the opposite party at the national level. If there is any group of representatives that have an incentive to moderate their voting behavior, it is cross-pressured members. In this article, I show that cross-pressured members are more moderate than the average member of their party. This could provide constraints on rampant partisanship in the form of districts that are comfortable electing a representative of one party and voting for the president of the other. However, I show that these members are significantly less likely to be reelected. Thus a paradox exists in which cross-pressured members who moderate their voting behavior are no more likely to be rewarded for behaving the way citizens claim they want to represent.
AbramowitzAlan I.2010. The Disappearing Center: Engaged Citizens, Polarization and American Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
2.
AdamsGreg D.1997. “Abortion: Evidence of an Issue Evolution.” American Journal of Political Science41 (3): 718–37.
3.
AnsolabehereStephenJonesPhilip Edward. 2010. “Constituents’ Response to Congressional Roll-call Voting.” American Journal of Political Science54 (3): 583–97.
AnsolabehereStephenSnyderJames M.Jr.StewartCharlesIII. 2001. “Candidate Positioning in U.S. House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science45 (1): 136–59.
6.
AshworthScottde MesquitaEthan Bueno. 2006. “Delivering the Goods: Legislative Particularism in Different Electoral and Institutional Settings.” Journal of Politics68 (1): 168–79.
7.
BafumiJosephHerronMichael C.2010. “Leapfrog Representation and Extremism.” American Political Science Review104 (3): 519–42.
8.
BartelsLarry M.1991. “Constituency Opinion and Congressional Policy Making: The Reagan Defense Buildup.” American Political Science Review85 (2): 457–74.
9.
BartelsLarry M.2008. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
10.
BauerNicole M.YongLaurel HarbridgeKrupnikovYanna. 2017. “Who Is Punished? Conditions Affecting Voter Evaluations of Legislators Who Do Not Compromise.” Political Behavior39 (2): 279–300.
11.
BradyDavid W.HanHahriePopeJeremy C.2007. “Primary Elections and Candidate Ideology: Out of Step with the Primary Electorate?”Legislative Studies Quarterly32 (1): 79–105.
12.
BradyDavid W.SchwartzEdward P.1995. “Ideology and Interests in Congressional Voting: The Politics of Abortion in the U.S. Senate.” Public Choice84 (1/2): 25–48.
13.
BullockJohn G.2011. “Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate.” American Political Science Review105 (3): 496–515.
14.
CarsonJamie L.EngstromErik J.RobertsJason M.2007. “Candidate Quality, the Personal Vote, and the Incumbency Advantage in Congress.” American Political Science Review101 (2): 289–301.
15.
CarsonJamie L.KogerGregoryLeboMatthew J.YoungEverett. 2010. “The Electoral Costs of Party Loyalty in Congress.” American Journal of Political Science54 (3): 598–616.
16.
ConversePhilip E.1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Ideology and Discontent, edited by ApterDavid E., 206–61. New York: The Free Press.
17.
ConversePhilip E.1990. “Popular Representation and the Distribution of Information.” In Information and Democratic Processes, edited by FerejohnJohn A.KuklinskiJames H., 369–90. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
18.
DaltonRussell. 2013. The Apartisan American: Dealignment and Changing Electoral Politics. Thousand Oaks: CQ Press.
19.
DruckmanJames N.KiferMartin J.ParkinMichael. 2009. “Campaign Communication in U.S. Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review103 (3): 343–66.
20.
EriksonRobert S.WrightGerald C.2005. “Voters, Candidates, and Issues in Congressional Elections.” In Congress Reconsidered, edited by DoddLawrence C.OppenheimerBruce I., 132–61. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
21.
FennoRichard. 1978. Homestyle: U.S. House Members in Their Districts. New York: Little Brown.
22.
GelmanAndrewParkDavidShorBorisCortinaJeronimo. 2010. Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State: Why Americans Vote the Way They Do. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
23.
GerberAlan S.HuberGregory A.DohertyDavidDowlingConor M.2011. “Citizens’ Policy Confidence and Electoral Punishment: A Neglected Dimension of Electoral Accountability.” Journal of Politics73 (4): 1206–24.
24.
GilensMartin. 2001. “Political Ignorance and Collective Policy Preferences.” American Political Science Review95 (2): 379–96.
GilensMartin. 2012. Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
27.
GohmannStephan F.OhsfeldtRobert L.1994. “Voting in the U.S. House on Abortion Funding Issues: The Role of Constituents’ and Legislators’ Ideology, before and after the Webster Decision.” American Journal of Economic and Sociology53 (4): 455–74.
28.
GrofmanBernardKoetzleWilliamMcDonaldMichael P.BrunellThomas L.2000. “A New Look at Split-ticket Outcomes for House and President: The Comparative Midpoints Model.” Journal of Politics62 (1): 34–50.
29.
HarbridgeLaurelMalhotraNeil. 2011. “Electoral Incentives and Partisan Conflict in Congress: Evidence from Survey Experiments.” American Journal of Political Science55 (3): 494–510.
30.
HarbridgeLaurelMalhotraNeilHarrisonBrian F.2014. “Public Preferences for Bipartisanship in the Policymaking Process.” Legislative Studies Quarterly39 (3): 327–55.
HibbingJohn R.Theiss-MorseElizabeth. 1995. Congress as Public Enemy: Public Attitudes toward American Political Institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33.
HillKim QuayleHurleyPatricia. 1999. “Dyadic Representation Reappraised.” American Journal of Political Science43 (1): 109–37.
34.
HusseyWesleyZallerJohn. 2011. “Who Do Parties Represent?” In Who Get’s Represented, edited by EnnsPeter K.WlezienChristopher, 311–44. New York: Sage.
35.
JacobsonGary C.2008. The Politics of Congressional Elections. 7th ed.New York: Longman Classics in Political Science.
36.
KarolDavid. 2009. Party Position Change in American Politics: Coalition Management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.
KinderDonald R.KalmoeNathan P.2017. Neither Liberal nor Conservative: Ideological Innocence in the American Public. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
38.
KingAnthony. 1997. “The Vulnerable American Politician.” British Journal of Political Science27 (1): 1–22.
39.
KlarSamaraKrupnikovYanna. 2016. Independent Politics: How American Disdain for Parties Leads to Political Inaction. New York: Cambridge University Press.
40.
LaymanGeoffrey C.CarseyThomas M.GreenJohn C.HerreraRichardCoopermanRosalyn. 2010. “Activists and Conflict Extension in American Party Politics.” American Political Science Review104 (2): 324–46.
41.
LevenduskyMatthew C.2009. The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrat and Conservatives Became Republicans. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
42.
LevenduskyMatthew C.2013. How Partisan Media Polarize America. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
43.
MayhewDavid. 1974. “Congressional Elections: The Case of the Vanishing Marginals.” Polity6 (3): 295–317.
44.
MayhewDavid. 2004. Congress: The Electoral Connection. 2nd ed.New Haven: Yale University Press.
45.
McCartyNolanPooleKeith T.RosenthalHoward. 2008. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Boston: MIT Press.
46.
MillerGarySchofieldNorman. 2003. “Activists and Partisan Realignment in the United States.” American Political Science Review97 (2): 245–60.
47.
MillerGarySchofieldNorman. 2008. “The Transformation of the Republican and Democratic Party Coalitions in the U.S.” Perspectives on Politics6 (3): 433–50.
48.
MillerWarren E.StokesDonald E.1963. “Constituency Influence in Congress.” American Political Science Review57 (1): 45–56.
49.
MonroeAlan D.1998. “Public Opinion and Public Policy, 1980-1993.” Public Opinion Quarterly62 (1): 6–28.
50.
NicholsJohn. 2013. “America Gets Primaried: The Government Shutdown Is All about Electoral Politics—Particularly the Gerrymandering of Republican Districts and Primaries that Make Compromise Impossible.” The Nation, October1. https://www.thenation.com/article/america-gets-primaried/.
51.
PageBenjamin I.ShapiroRobert Y.1983. “Effects of Public Opinion on Policy.” American Political Science Review77 (1): 175–90.
52.
PetersonDavid A. M.GrossbackLawrence J.StimsonJames A.GanglAmy. 2003. “Congressional Response to Mandate Elections.” American Journal of Political Science47 (2): 411–26.
