IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/woraff/v182y2019i1p61-96.html

A Paradox in Polarization? Cross‐pressured Representatives and the Missing Incentive to Moderate

Author

Listed:
  • Benjamin T. Toll

Abstract

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. Los miembros del público a menudo tienen la elección entre dos candidatos extremos que no representarán al público moderado y agregado de manera efectiva. Los miembros del Congreso sometidos a presión cruzada sirven a un distrito electoral que vota por el partido opuesto a nivel nacional. Si hay algún grupo de representantes que tienen un incentivo para moderar su comportamiento de voto, se trata de miembros con presiones cruzadas. En este documento, muestro que los miembros con presiones cruzadas son más moderados que el miembro promedio de su partido. Esto podría restringir el partidismo desenfrenado en forma de distritos que se sienten cómodos al elegir a un representante de un partido y votar por el presidente del otro. Sin embargo, estos miembros tienen una probabilidad significativamente menor de ser reelegidos. Por lo tanto, existe una paradoja en la que los miembros con presiones cruzadas que moderan su comportamiento de voto no tienen más probabilidades de ser recompensados por comportarse de la manera en que los ciudadanos dicen que quieren representar. 公众经常会在两位极端的候选人中做出选择, 而这两位候选人并不能有效地代表普遍的温和派民众。交叉压力下的国会议员服务于在全国范围内给敌对政党投票的选区民众。存在缓和民众投票行为动机的国会议员都是处于交叉压力之下的。本文笔者表明, 交叉压力下的议员比自身党内的其他普通议员态度更为温和。这可能会限制以乐于选举一个政党的代表却投票给另一个政党领导的地区选民形式存在的党派关系。然而, 这些议员获得连任的可能性要小得多。因此, 悖论便就此产生, 那些交叉压力下想要缓和投票行为的议员不太可能因为按照民众想要代表的方式行事而受到奖励。

Suggested Citation

  • Benjamin T. Toll, 2019. "A Paradox in Polarization? Cross‐pressured Representatives and the Missing Incentive to Moderate," World Affairs, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 182(1), pages 61-96, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:woraff:v:182:y:2019:i:1:p:61-96
    DOI: 10.1177/0043820019825934
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/0043820019825934
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0043820019825934?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brady, David & Schwartz, Edward P, 1995. "Ideology and Interests in Congressional Voting: The Politics of Abortion in the U.S. Senate," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 84(1-2), pages 25-48, July.
    2. Bullock, John G., 2011. "Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 105(3), pages 496-515, August.
    3. Gilens, Martin, 2001. "Political Ignorance and Collective Policy Preferences," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(2), pages 379-396, June.
    4. Wright, Gerald C. & Berkman, Michael B., 1986. "Candidates and Policy in United States Senate Elections," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 80(2), pages 567-588, June.
    5. Miller, Gary & Schofield, Norman, 2003. "Activists and Partisan Realignment in the United States," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 97(2), pages 245-260, May.
    6. Bartels, Larry M., 1991. "Constituency Opinion and Congressional Policy Making: The Reagan Defense Buildup," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 85(2), pages 457-474, June.
    7. Stephen Ansolabehere & Philip Edward Jones, 2010. "Constituents’ Responses to Congressional Roll‐Call Voting," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(3), pages 583-597, July.
    8. Laurel Harbridge & Neil Malhotra, 2011. "Electoral Incentives and Partisan Conflict in Congress: Evidence from Survey Experiments," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 494-510, July.
    9. Nolan McCarty & Keith T. Poole & Howard Rosenthal, 2008. "Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262633612, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nikoleta Yordanova & Mariyana Angelova & Roni Lehrer & Moritz Osnabrügge & Sander Renes, 2020. "Swaying citizen support for EU membership: Evidence from a survey experiment of German voters," European Union Politics, , vol. 21(3), pages 429-450, September.
    2. Jeffrey Harden & Thomas Carsey, 2012. "Balancing constituency representation and party responsiveness in the US Senate: the conditioning effect of state ideological heterogeneity," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 150(1), pages 137-154, January.
    3. Thompson, Paul N., 2019. "Are school officials held accountable for fiscal stress? Evidence from school district financial intervention systems," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 44-54.
    4. Hans Gersbach & Philippe Muller & Oriol Tejada, 2017. "A Dynamic Model of Electoral Competition with Costly Policy Changes," CER-ETH Economics working paper series 17/270, CER-ETH - Center of Economic Research (CER-ETH) at ETH Zurich.
    5. Laurent Bouton & Paola Conconi & Francisco Pino & Maurizio Zanardi, 2018. "Guns, Environment, and Abortion: How Single-Minded Voters Shape Politicians' Decisions," Working Papers gueconwpa~18-18-15, Georgetown University, Department of Economics.
    6. Gersbach, Hans & Jackson, Matthew O. & Muller, Philippe & Tejada, Oriol, 2023. "Electoral competition with costly policy changes: A dynamic perspective," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    7. Stefano Carattini & Andrea Baranzini & Philippe Thalmann & Frédéric Varone & Frank Vöhringer, 2017. "Green Taxes in a Post-Paris World: Are Millions of Nays Inevitable?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(1), pages 97-128, September.
    8. Henrik Serup Christensen & Lauri Rapeli, 2021. "Immediate rewards or delayed gratification? A conjoint survey experiment of the public’s policy preferences," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 63-94, March.
    9. John Jackson, 2014. "Location, location, location: the Davis-Hinich model of electoral competition," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 197-218, April.
    10. James Tilley & Christopher Wlezien, 2008. "Does Political Information Matter? An Experimental Test Relating to Party Positions on Europe," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 56(1), pages 192-214, March.
    11. McNamara, Trent & Mosquera, Roberto, 2024. "The political divide: The case of expectations and preferences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    12. Noble, Benjamin S. & Turner, Ian R, 2024. "Presidential Leadership and Legislative Polarization," SocArXiv sa9ke, Center for Open Science.
    13. Jo Thori Lind & Dominic Rohner, 2017. "Knowledge is Power: A Theory of Information, Income and Welfare Spending," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 84(336), pages 611-646, October.
    14. Chen, Daniel L. & Levonyan, Vardges & Yeh, Susan, 2016. "Policies Affect Preferences: Evidence from Random Variation in Abortion Jurisprudence," IAST Working Papers 16-58, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    15. Florian Stoeckel & Jack Thompson & Paula Szewach & Sabrina Stöckli & Matthew Barnfield & Joseph B Phillips & Benjamin Lyons & Vittorio Mérola & Jason Reifler, 2023. "Correlates of support for international vaccine solidarity during the COVID-19 pandemic: Cross-sectional survey evidence from Germany," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(6), pages 1-12, June.
    16. Scott Crichlow, 2002. "Legislators' Personality Traits and Congressional Support for Free Trade," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 46(5), pages 693-711, October.
    17. Chun-Fang Chiang & Jason M. Kuo & Megumi Naoi & Jin-Tan Liu, 2020. "What Do Voters Learn from Foreign News? Emulation, Backlash, and Public Support for Trade Agreements," NBER Working Papers 27497, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Alex Street & Chris Zepeda-Millán & Michael Jones-Correa, 2015. "Mass Deportations and the Future of Latino Partisanship," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 96(2), pages 540-552, June.
    19. Sebastian Blesse & Philipp Lergetporer & Justus Nover & Katharina Werner, 2023. "Transparency and Policy Competition: Experimental Evidence from German Citizens and Politicians," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 387, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    20. John G Powell & Meifen Qian & Jing Shi & Qiaoqiao Zhu, 2015. "Should stock market return forecasts be conditioned on politics?," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 40(4), pages 672-700, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:woraff:v:182:y:2019:i:1:p:61-96. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.