We examine factors that influence whether or not constituents know and like their representative in Congress, exploring how constituents respond to very different forms of political representation—descriptive, symbolic, and allocational—provided by House members. We compare the relative contribution that non-policy representational factors make to the electoral advantage that incumbents enjoy among their constituents. The statistical analysis demonstrates that several non-policy aspects of the representational relationship, including descriptive correspondence and the member’s legislative activity, benefit the incumbent through increased name recognition and, ultimately, in voters’ choices at the voting booth.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Achen, Christopher. 1977. “Measuring Representation: Perils of the Correlation Coefficient.”American Journal of Political Science21: 805-815.
2.
Achen, Christopher. 1978. “Measuring Representation.”American Journal of Political Science22: 475-510.
3.
Bartels, Larry M.1991. “Constituency Opinion and Congressional Policy Making: The Reagan Defense Buildup.”American Political Science Review85: 457-473.
4.
Bianco, William. 1994. Trust: Representatives & Constituents. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
5.
Bickers, Kenneth N., and Robert M. Stein. 1996. “The Electoral Dynamics of the Federal Pork Barrel.”American Journal of Political Science40: 1300-1326.
6.
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., and Charles H. Franklin. 1995. “The Long Campaign: Senate Elections in 1992.” In Herbert F. Weisberg, ed., Democracy’s Feast: The 1992 Elections. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
7.
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., and Valeria Sinclair. 1996. “Legislative Effectiveness in the US House of Representatives: Struggle, Strategy, and Success.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
8.
Cain, Bruce, John Ferejohn, and Morris P. Fiorina. 1987. The Personal Vote. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9.
Canon, David T.1999. Race, Redistricting, and Representation: The Unintended Consequences of Black Majority Districts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10.
Chaney, Carole. 1996. “The Impact of Candidate Gender and Campaign Effects on US Senate Candidate Evaluations: A Preliminary Analysis.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
11.
Cnudde, Charles, and Donald McCrone. 1966. “The Linkage Between Constituency Attitudes and Congressional Voting Behavior: A Causal Model.”American Political Science Review60: 66-72.
12.
Cobb, Michael, and James Kuklinski. 1997. “Changing Minds: Political Argument and Political Persuasion.”American Journal of Political Science41: 88-121.
13.
Cook, Timothy E.1986. “House Members as Newsmaker: The Effects of Televising Congress.”Legislative Studies Quarterly11: 203-225.
14.
Cover, Albert D., and Bruce S. Brumberg. 1982. “Baby Books and Ballots: The Impact of Congressional Mail on Constituent Opinion.”American Political Science Review76: 347-359.
15.
Cox, Gary W., and Mathew D. McCubbins. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley: University of California Press.
16.
Darcy, Robert, Susan Welch, and Janet Clark. 1994. Women, Elections, and Representation, 2nd ed.Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
17.
Dolan, Kathleen. 1998. “Voting for Women in the ‘Year of the Woman.’”American Journal of Political Science42: 272-293.
18.
Edelman, Murray. 1964. The Symbolic Uses of Politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
19.
Erikson, Robert S.1978. “Constituency Opinion and Congressional Behavior.”American Journal of Political Science22: 511-535.
20.
Eulau, Heinz, and Paul D. Karps. 1977. “The Puzzle of Representation: Specifying Components of Responsiveness.”Legislative Studies Quarterly2: 233-254.
21.
Fenno, Richard F.1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
22.
Fiorina, Morris P.1974. Representatives, Roll Calls, and Constituencies. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
23.
Franklin, Charles H.1991. “Eschewing Obfuscation? Campaigns and the Perception of Senate Incumbents.”American Political Science Review85: 1193-1214.
24.
Gay, Claudine. 1997. Taking Charge: Black Electoral Success and the Redefinition of American Politics. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Harvard University.
25.
Gay, Claudine. 2001. “The Effect of Black Congressional Representation on Political Participation.”American Political Science Review95: 589-602.
26.
Hall, Richard L.1987. “Participation and Purpose in Committee Decision Making.”American Political Science Review81: 105-128.
27.
Hall, Richard L.1996. Participation in Congress. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
28.
Hibbing, John R., and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse. 1995. Congress as Public Enemy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
29.
Huber, Peter J.1967. “The Behavior of Maximum Likelihood Estimates under Non-Standard Conditions.”Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, 1: 1221-1233. Berkeley: University of California Press.
30.
Huckfeldt, Robert, and John Sprague. 1993. “Citizens, Contexts, and Politics.” In Ada W. Finifter, ed., Political Science: The State of the Discipline II. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.
31.
Huddy, Leonie, and Nayda Terkildsen. 1993. “Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of Male and Female Candidates.”American Journal of Political Science37: 119-147.
32.
Jackson, John E., and David C. King. 1989. “Public Goods, Private Interests, and Representation.”American Political Science Review83: 1143-1164.
33.
Johannes, John R., and John C. McAdams. 1981. “The Congressional Incumbency Effect: Is It Casework, Policy Compatibility, or Something Else? An Examination of the 1978 Election.”American Journal of Political Science25: 512-542.
34.
King Gary, Michael Tomz, and Jason Wittenberg. 2000. “Making the Most of Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Presentation.”American Journal of Political Science44: 347-361.
35.
Langbein, Laura I., and Lee Sigelman. 1989. “Show Horses, Work Horses, and Dead Horses.”American Politics Quarterly17: 80-95.
36.
Leeper, Mark Stephen. 1991. “The Impact of Prejudice on Female Candidates: An Experimental Look at Voter Inference.”American Politics Quarterly19: 248-261.
37.
Lublin, David. 1997. The Paradox of Representation: Racial Gerrymandering and Minority Interests in Congress. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
38.
Mansbridge, Jane. 1998. “The Many Faces of Representation.” Typescript. Harvard University.
39.
Mansbridge, Jane. 1999. “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent Yes.”Journal of Politics61: 628-657.
40.
Matthews, Donald R.1960. US Senators and Their World. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
41.
Mayhew, David. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
42.
McCrone, Donald, and James Kuklinski. 1979. “The Delegate Theory of Representation.”American Journal of Political Science23: 278-300.
43.
McCurley, Carl, and Jeffrey J. Mondak. 1995. “Inspected by #1184063113: The Influence of Incumbents’ Competence and Integrity in U.S. House Elections.”American Journal of Political Science39: 864-885.
44.
McDermott, Monika. 1997. “Voting Cues in Low-Information Elections: Candidate Gender as a Social Information Variable in Contemporary United States Elections.”American Journal of Political Science41: 270-283.
45.
Mezey, Michael L.1993. “Legislatures: Individual Purpose and Institutional Performance.” In Ada W. Finifter, ed., Political Science: The State of the Discipline II. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.
46.
Miller, Warren E., and Donald E. Stokes. 1963. “Constituency Influence in Congress.”American Political Science Review57: 45-56.
47.
Mondak, Jeffrey J.1995. “Competence, Integrity, and the Electoral Success of Congressional Incumbents.”Journal of Politics57: 1043-1069.
48.
Page, Benjamin, and Robert Shapiro. 1983. “Effects of Public Opinion on Policy.”American Political Science Review77: 175-190.
49.
Paolino, Phillip. 1995. “Group-Salient Issues and Group Representation: Support for Women Candidates in the 1992 Senate Elections.”American Journal of Political Science39: 294-313.
50.
Parker, Glenn R.1986. Homeward Bound. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
51.
Payne, James. 1980. “Show Horses and Work Horses in the US House of Representatives.”Polity12: 428-456.
52.
Pitkin, Hanna. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
53.
Plutzer, Eric, and John F. Zipp. 1996. “Identity Politics, Partisanship, and Voting for Women Candidates.”Public Opinion Quarterly60: 30-57.
54.
Popkin, Samuel L.1991. The Reasoning Voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
55.
Pressman, Jeffrey L., and Aaron Wildavsky. 1973. Implementation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
56.
Prewett, Kenneth, and Heinz Eulau. 1969. “Political Matrix and Political Representation: Prolegomenon to a New Departure from an Old Problem.”American Political Science Review63: 427-441.
57.
Ragsdale, Lyn, and Timothy E. Cook. 1987. “Representatives’ Actions and Challengers’ Reactions: Limits to Candidate Connections in the House.”American Journal of Political Science31: 45-81.
58.
Rapoport, Ronald B., Kelly L. Metcalf, and Jon A. Hartman. 1989. “Candidate Traits and Voter Inferences: An Experimental Study.”Journal of Politics51: 917-932.
59.
Rivers, Douglas, and Morris P. Fiorina. 1989. “Constituency Service, Reputation, and the Incumbency Advantage.” In Morris P. Fiorina and David W. Rohde, eds., Home Style and Washington Work. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
60.
Sapiro, Virginia. 1981-82. “If US Senator Baker Were a Woman: An Experimental Study of Candidate Images.”Political PsychologySpring/Summer: 61-83.
61.
Schwartz, Nancy L.1988. The Blue Guitar: Political Representation and Community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
62.
Serra, George, and David Moon. 1994. “Casework, Issue Positions, and Voting in Congressional Elections: A District Analysis.”Journal of Politics56: 200-213.
63.
Sinclair, Barbara. 1989. The Transformation of the US Senate. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
64.
Sinclair, Valeria N.1997. “The Symbolic Uses of Legislation in the 103rd Congress of the U.S. House of Representatives.” Type-script. Ohio State University.
65.
Smith, Steven S., and Christopher J. Deering. 1990. Committees in Congress, 2nd ed.Washington, DC: CQ Press.
66.
Tate, Katherine. 2003. Black Faces in the Mirror, African Americans and Their Representatives in the U.S. Congress. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
67.
Tomz, Michael, Jason Wittenberg, and Gary King. 2001. CLARIFY: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results. Version 2.0 Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, June 1. http://gking.harvard.edu
68.
Uslaner, Eric M., and Ronald E. Weber. 1979. “US State Legislators’ Opinions and Perceptions of Constituent Attitudes.”Legislative Studies Quarterly4: 563-585.
69.
Weissberg, Robert. 1978. “Collective v. Dyadic Representation in Congress.”American Political Science Review72: 535-547.
70.
Whitby, Kenny J.1997. The Color of Representation: Congressional Behavior and Black Interests. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
71.
Williams, Linda. 1989. “White/Black Perceptions of the Electability of Black Political Candidates.”National Political Science Review2: 45-64.
72.
Williams, Melissa S.1998. Voice, Trust, and Memory: Marginalized Groups and the Failings of Liberal Representation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
73.
Wilson, Rick K., and Cheryl D. Young. 1997. “Cosponsorship in the U.S. Congress.”Legislative Studies Quarterly22: 25-43.
74.
Yiannakis, Diana E.1981. “The Grateful Electorate: Casework and Congressional Elections.”American Journal of Political Science25: 568-580.
75.
Young, Iris Marion. 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
76.
Zipp, John F., and Eric Plutzer. 1985. “Gender Differences in Voting for Female Candidates: Evidence from the 1982 Election.”Public Opinion Quarterly49: 179-197.
