Studies comparing the ideological leanings of voters and elected officials are often hampered by the lack of a common measure. The authors use legislative referenda—on which state legislators and voters both vote on the same issue—as bridging observations to develop a common measure for both. They use this measure to help assess two theories of legislative representation, the well-known dyadic model and a partisan model that assumes legislators are also accountable to a collective party agenda. Examining referenda votes during several sessions of the California Assembly, the authors report several findings that are consistent with the partisan model. They find that legislators are significantly more ideologically extreme than the median voter in their districts. They also find that members of the majority party are considerably more extreme relative to their districts than members of the minority party are and that the majority party becomes even more extreme the longer it maintains control of the chamber.
AchenChristopher H.1977. Measuring representation: Perils of the correlation coefficient. American Journal of Political Science21:805–15.
2.
AchenChristopher H.1978. Measuring representation. American Journal of Political Science22:475–510.
3.
AistrupJoseph A.1993. State legislative party competition: A county-level measure. Political Research Quarterly46: 433–46.
4.
AnsolabehereStephenSnyderJames M.Jr.StewartCharlesIII.2001. Candidate positioning in U.S. House elections. American Journal of Political Science45: 136–59.
BafumiJosephHerronMichael C.2010. Leapfrog representation and extremism: A study of American voters and their members in Congress. American Political Science Review104:519–42.
7.
BaileyMichael2005. Bridging institutions and time: Creating comparable preference estimates for presidents, senators, and justices, 1946–2002. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.
8.
BartelsLarry M.1991. Constituency opinion and congressional policy making: The Reagan defense build up. American Political Science Review85:457–74.
9.
BartelsLarry M.2008. Unequal democracy: The political economy of the new gilded age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
10.
BartelsLarry M.2009. Economic inequality and political representation. In The unsustainable American state, ed. JacobsL.KingD., 167–96. New York: Oxford University Press.
11.
BawnKathleenCohenMartyKarolDavidMasketSethNoelHansZallerJohn. 2006. A theory of political parties. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia.
12.
BudgeIanRobertsonDavidHearlD. J.1987. Ideology, strategy, and party change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13.
BullockCharles S.IIIBradyDavid W.1983. Party, constituency, and roll-call voting in the U.S. Senate. Legislative Studies Quarterly8:29–43.
14.
ButlerDavidRanneyAustin. 1994. Referendums around the world: The growing use of direct democracy. Washington, DC: AEI Press.
15.
Canes-WroneBrandiceBradyDavid W.CoganJohn F.2002. Out of step, out of office: Electoral accountability and House members’ voting. American Political Science Review96:127–40.
16.
ClintonJoshua D.2006. Representation in Congress: Constituents and roll calls in the 106th House. Journal of Politics68:397–409.
17.
ClintonJoshuaJackmanSimonRiversDouglas. 2004. The statistical analysis of roll-call data. American Political Science Review98:355–70.
18.
CohenMartyKarolDavidNoelHansZallerJohn. 2008. The party decides: Presidential nominations before and after reform. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
19.
CohenMartyNoelHansZallerJohn R.September 2004. Without a watchdog: The effect of local news on political polarization in Congress. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.
20.
CoxGary W.McCubbinsMathew D.2005. Setting the agenda: Responsible party government in the U.S. House of Representatives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
21.
DexterLewis Anthony. 1957. The representative and his district. Human Organization16:2–13.
22.
EpsteinLeon D.1956. Size of place and the division of the two-party vote in Wisconsin. Western Political Quarterly9:138–50.
23.
EriksonRobert S.1971. The electoral impact of congressional roll call voting. American Political Science Review65:1018–32.
24.
EriksonRobert S.WrightGerald C.1980. Policy representation of constituency interests. Political Behavior2: 91–106.
25.
EriksonRobert S.WrightGerald C.2005. Voters, candidates, and issues in congressional elections. In Congress reconsidered, ed. DoddL. C.OppenheimerB. I., 77-106. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
26.
FennoRichard F.1978. Home style: House members in their districts. Boston: Little, Brown.
27.
FiorinaMorris P.1974. Representatives, roll calls, and constituencies. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
GerberElisabeth R.LewisJeffrey B.2004. Beyond the median: Voter preferences, district homogeneity, and political representation. Journal of Political Economy112: 1364–83.
30.
GimpelJames. 1993. Reform-resistant and reform-adopting machines: The electoral foundations of urban politics, 1910–1930. Political Research Quarterly46:371–82.
31.
HackerJacob S.PiersonPaul. 2005. Off center: The republican revolution and the erosion of American democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
32.
HasenRichard L.2009. Assessing California’s hybrid democracy. California Law Review97 (5):1501–14.
33.
HugSimonSciariniPascal. 2000. Referendums on European integration: Do institutions matter in the voter’s decision?Comparative Political Studies33:3–36.
34.
KernellGeorgia. 2009. Giving order to districts: Estimating voter distributions with national election returns. Political Analysis17:215–35.
35.
LawrenceEric D.MaltzmanForrestSmithSteven S.2006. Who wins? Party effects in legislative voting. Legislative Studies Quarterly31:33–69.
36.
LeeFrances E.OppenheimerBruce Ian. 1999. Sizing up the Senate: The unequal consequences of equal representation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
37.
LevenduskyMattPopeJeremyJackmanSimon. 2005. Measuring district level preferences with implications for the analysis of U.S. elections. Paper presented at the Political Methodology conference, Tallahassee, FL.
38.
MasketSeth. 2007a. It takes an outsider: Extra-legislative organization and partisanship in the California Assembly, 1849–2006. American Journal of Political Science51:482–97.
39.
MasketSeth. 2007b. The needs of the many: An examination of the link between size of place and partisanship. Paper presented at the Politics through the Lens of Parties conference, Madison, WI.
40.
MasketSeth. 2009. No middle ground: How informal party organizations control nominations and polarize legislatures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
41.
McCartyNolanPooleKeith T.RosenthalHoward. 2006. Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
42.
MercurioJohnWallisonEthan. 2001. No gold rush in California: Democrats may look for gains elsewhere. Roll Call, September10.
43.
MillerWarren E.StokesDonald E.1963. Constituency influence in Congress. American Political Science Review57:45–56.
PooleKeith T.RosenthalHoward. 1997. Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. New York: Oxford University Press.
46.
ShorBorisBerryChristopherMcCartyNolan. 2008. Methodological issues in bridging legislative chambers to create common space ideal points. Working paper, University of Chicago and Princeton University.
47.
ShorBorisBerryChristopherMcCartyNolan. 2010. A bridge to somewhere: Mapping state and congressional ideology on a cross-institutional common space. Legislative Studies Quarterly35:417–48.
48.
SkowronekStephen. 1997. The politics presidents make: Leadership from John Adams to Bill Clinton. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
WrightGerald C.1989. Policy voting in the U.S. Senate: Who is represented?Legislative Studies Quarterly14:465–86.
51.
WrightGerald C.BerkmanMichael B.1986. Candidates and policy in United States Senate elections. American Political Science Review80:567–88.
52.
WrightGerald C.OsbornTracyWinburnJonClarkJennifer Hayes. 2009. Patterns of representation in the American states and Congress. Paper presented at the annual conference on State Politics and Policy, Chapel Hill, NC.
53.
ZimmermanJoseph Francis. 2001. The referendum: The people decide public policy. Westport, CT: Praeger.
