Members of Congress (MCs) are concerned about reelection and act in office with this goal in mind. Whether citizens notice this behavior and how they respond remains an open question. We examine the relationships between legislators’ characteristics and activity and their constituents’ evaluations of their performance in office. We argue that MCs’ behavior does filter down to citizens, but that their responses are conditioned by their partisanship and interest in politics. Our analyses combine 2006 and 2008 Cooperative Congressional Election Study survey data on citizens with information on legislators’ activity in office in the 109th and 110th Congresses. The results reveal that there are widespread linkages between MC behavior and constituency approval, but that legislators’ copartisan, outpartisan, and independent constituents respond in different, yet predictable, ways. Moreover, these effects are strongest among the most interested constituents. Our findings have important implications for our assessments of legislators’ strategies and constituency representation.
AnsolabehereStephen D.2006. CCES Common Content: 2006. Version 4.
4.
AnsolabehereStephen D.2008. CCES Common Content: 2008. Version 6.
5.
AnsolabehereStephen D.JonesPhilip Edwards. 2010. “Constituents’ Responses to Congressional Roll-Call Voting.”American Journal of Political Science54 (3): 583–97.
6.
AnsolabehereStephen D.SnyderJamesStewartCharlesIII. 2001. “Candidate Positioning in U.S. House Elections.”American Journal of Political Science45 (1): 136–59.
7.
ArnoldR. Douglas. 2004. Congress, the Press, and Political Accountability. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
8.
BernhardWilliamSulkinTracySewellDaniel. (April, 2014). “Legislative Styles.”Paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Chicago.
9.
BiancoWilliam. 1994. Trust: Representatives and Constituents. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
10.
BovitzGregory L.CarsonJamie L.2006. “Position-Taking and Electoral Accountability in the U.S. House of Representatives.”Political Research Quarterly59 (2): 297–312.
11.
Box-SteffensmeierJanetKimballDavidMeinkeScottTateKatherine. 2003. “The Effects of Political Representation on the Electoral Advantages of House Incumbents.”Political Research Quarterly56 (3): 259–70.
12.
ButlerDaniel M.PowellEleanor N.2014. “Understanding the Party Brand: Experimental Evidence on the Role of Valence.”Journal of Politics76 (2): 492–505.
13.
CainBruce E.FerejohnJohn A.FiorinaMorris P.1987. The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
14.
Canes-WroneBrandiceBradyDavidCoganJohn. 2002. “Out of Step, Out of Office: Electoral Accountability and House Members’ Voting.”American Political Science Review96 (1): 127–40.
15.
CarsonJamieKogerGregoryLeboMatthewYoungEverett. 2010. “The Electoral Costs of Party Loyalty in Congress.”American Journal of Political Science54 (3): 598–616.
16.
Delli CarpiniMichael X.KeeterScott. 1996. What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.
17.
DohertyDavid. 2013. “To Whom Do People Think Representatives Should Respond: Their District or the Country?”Public Opinion Quarterly77 (1): 237–55.
18.
DruckmanJames N.KiferMartin J.ParkinMichael. 2009. “Campaign Communications in U.S. Congressional Elections.”American Political Science Review103 (3): 343–66.
19.
EulauHeinzKarpsPaul D.1977. “The Puzzle of Representation: Specifying Components of Responsiveness.”Legislative Studies Quarterly2 (3): 233–54.
20.
EvansHeather K.CordovaVictoriaSipoleSavannah. 2014. “Twitter Style: An Analysis of How House Candidates Used Twitter in Their 2012 Campaigns.”Political Science & Politics47 (2): 454–62.
21.
FennoRichard F.1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston: Little, Brown.
22.
FiorinaMorris P.1974. Representatives, Roll Calls, and Constituencies. New Haven: Yale University Press.
23.
FiorinaMorris P.1981. “Some Problems in Studying the Effects of Resource Allocation in Congressional Elections.”American Journal of Political Science25 (3): 543–67.
24.
FogartyBrian. 2008. “The Strategy of the Story: Media Monitoring Legislative Activity.”Legislative Studies Quarterly33 (3): 445–69.
25.
FogartyBrian. 2011. “The Nature of Local News Media Issue Coverage of U.S. House Members.”Social Science Journal48 (4): 651–58.
26.
GelmanAndrewHillJennifer. 2006. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. New York: Cambridge University Press.
27.
GrantJ. TobinRudolphThomas. 2004. “The Job of Representation in Congress: Public Expectations and Representative Approval.”Legislative Studies Quarterly29 (3): 431–45.
28.
GriffinJohn D.FlavinPatrick. 2011. “How Citizens and Their Legislators Prioritize Spheres of Representation.”Political Research Quarterly64 (3): 520–33.
29.
GrimmerJustin. 2013. Representational Style: What Legislators Say and Why It Matters. New York: Cambridge University Press.
30.
GrimmerJustinWestwoodSeanMessingSolomon. 2014. The Impression of Influence: Legislator Communication, Representation, and Democratic Accountability. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
31.
HarbridgeLaurel. 2015. Is Bipartisanship Dead? Policy Agreement and Agenda-Setting in the House of Representatives. New York: Cambridge University Press.
32.
HarbridgeLaurelMalhotraNeil. 2011. “Electoral Incentives and Partisan Conflict in Congress: Evidence from Survey Experiments.”American Journal of Political Science55 (3): 494–510.
33.
HardenJeffrey J.2013. “Multidimensional Responsiveness: The Determinants of Legislator’s Representational Priorities.”Legislative Studies Quarterly38 (2): 155–84.
34.
HardenJeffrey J., and Chris Clark. (September, 2013). “A Legislature or a Legislator Like Me? Citizen Demand for Collective and Dyadic Political Representation.”Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.
35.
HayesDannyLawlessJennifer L.2014. “As Local News Goes, So Goes Citizen Engagement: Media, Knowledge, and Participation in U.S. House Elections.”Journal of Politics77 (2): 447–62.
36.
HollibaughGary E.RothenbergLawrence S.RulisonKristin K.2013. “Does It Really Hurt to Be Out of Step?”Political Research Quarterly66 (4): 856–67.
37.
HuckfeldtRobertSpragueJohn. 1995. Citizens, Politics, and Social Communication. New York: Cambridge University Press.
38.
JacobsonGary C.1978. “The Effects of Campaign Spending in Congressional Elections.”American Political Science Review72 (2): 469–91.
39.
JenkinsJeffrey A.NokkenTimothy P.2008. “Partisanship, the Electoral Connection, and Lame-Duck Sessions of Congress, 1877-2006.”Journal of Politics70 (2): 450–65.
40.
JonesDavidMcDermottMonika. 2010. Americans, Congress, and Democratic Responsiveness. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
41.
KingdonJohn. 1967. “Politicians’ Beliefs about Voters.”American Political Science Review61 (1): 137–45.
42.
KingdonJohn1973. Congressmen’s Voting Decisions. 1st ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
43.
KlofstadCasey2007. “Talk Leads to Recruitment: How Discussions about Politics and Current Events Increase Civic Participation.”Political Research Quarterly60 (2): 180–91.
MutzDiana C.MondakJeffrey J.2006. “The Workplace as a Context for Cross-Cutting Political Discourse.”Journal of Politics68 (1): 140–55.
51.
NyhanBrendanMcGheeEricSidesJohnMasketSethGreeneSteven. 2012. “One Vote Out of Step? The Effects of Salient Roll Call Votes in the 2010 Election.”American Politics Research40 (5): 844–79.
52.
ParkerDavid C. W.GoodmanCraig. 2009. “Making a Good Impression: Resource Allocation, Home Styles, and Washington Work.”Legislative Studies Quarterly34 (4): 493–524.
53.
PooleKeithRosenthalHoward. “NOMINATE data, 109th and 110th Congresses.”http://voteview.com/.
54.
RagsdaleLynCookTimothy. 1987. “Representatives’ Actions and Challengers’ Reactions: Limits to Candidate Connections in the House.”American Journal of Political Science31 (1): 45–81.
55.
RiversDouglasFiorinaMorris. 1992. “Constituency Service, Reputation, and the Incumbency Advantage.” In Home Style and Washington Work: Studies of Congressional Politics (pp. 17-46), edited by FiorinaMorrisRohdeDavid. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
56.
RoccaMichael S.2007. “Non-legislative Debate in the U.S. House of Representatives.”American Politics Research35 (4): 489–505.
57.
SidesJohn. 2006. “The Origins of Campaign Agendas.”British Journal of Political Science36 (3): 407–36.
58.
SidesJohn. 2007. “The Consequences of Campaign Agendas.”American Politics Research35 (4): 465–88.
59.
SnijdersTomBoskerRoel J.2012. Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling. 2nd ed.London: SAGE.
60.
SnyderJames M.Jr.StrombergDavid. 2010. “Press Coverage and Political Accountability.”Journal of Political Economy118 (2): 355–408.
61.
SokheyAnandMcClurgScott D.2012. “Social Networks and Correct Voting.”Journal of Politics74 (3): 751–64.
62.
SteenbergenMarcoJonesBradford S.2002. “Modeling Multilevel Data Structures.”American Journal of Political Science46 (1): 218–37.
63.
SulkinTracy. 2005. Issue Politics in Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.
64.
SulkinTracy. 2011. The Legislative Legacy of Congressional Campaigns. New York: Cambridge University Press.
65.
TheriaultSean M.2005. The Power of the People: Congressional Competition, Public Attention, and Voter Retribution. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
66.
VoldenCraigWisemanAlan E.2014. The Lawmakers: Legislative Effectiveness in the United States Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.
67.
WawroGregory. 2001. Legislative Entrepreneurship in the U.S. House of Representatives. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
