IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_12391.html

Party Pressure and Representation

Author

Listed:
  • Chad Kendall

Abstract

I study how political parties affect representation in the U.S. House. To do so, I account for party pressure on the votes of members in an otherwise standard spatial model that uses roll call voting patterns to identify member ideologies. I simultaneously estimate voter ideologies from survey responses, leveraging their responses on issues before Congress to bridge voters and members into the same ideological space. I find that, relative to a model without party pressure, member ideologies and those of their constituents are much more closely aligned. The results imply that, in terms of actual votes, parties drive a wedge between members and those they represent. I provide evidence that parties do so strategically, balancing the need for legislative wins and the electoral concerns of their members.

Suggested Citation

  • Chad Kendall, 2026. "Party Pressure and Representation," CESifo Working Paper Series 12391, CESifo.
  • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_12391
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/cesifo1_wp12390_0.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Guillermo Rosas & Yael Shomer & Stephen R. Haptonstahl, 2015. "No News Is News: Nonignorable Nonresponse in Roll‐Call Data Analysis," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(2), pages 511-528, February.
    2. Tausanovitch, Chris & Warshaw, Christopher, 2014. "Representation in Municipal Government," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 108(3), pages 605-641, August.
    3. Bafumi, Joseph & Herron, Michael C., 2010. "Leapfrog Representation and Extremism: A Study of American Voters and Their Members in Congress," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 104(3), pages 519-542, August.
    4. Weisberg, Herbert F. & Rusk, Jerrold G., 1970. "Dimensions of Candidate Evaluation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 64(4), pages 1167-1185, December.
    5. SHOR, BORIS & McCARTY, NOLAN, 2011. "The Ideological Mapping of American Legislatures," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 105(3), pages 530-551, August.
    6. McCarty, Nolan & Poole, Keith T. & Rosenthal, Howard, 2001. "The Hunt for Party Discipline in Congress," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(3), pages 673-687, September.
    7. Chad Kendall & Tommaso Nannicini & Francesco Trebbi, 2015. "How Do Voters Respond to Information? Evidence from a Randomized Campaign," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(1), pages 322-353, January.
    8. Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65(2), pages 135-135.
    9. Nathan Canen & Chad Kendall & Francesco Trebbi, 2020. "Unbundling Polarization," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(3), pages 1197-1233, May.
    10. Stephen Jessee, 2016. "(How) Can We Estimate the Ideology of Citizens and Political Elites on the Same Scale?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 60(4), pages 1108-1124, October.
    11. Clinton, Joshua & Jackman, Simon & Rivers, Douglas, 2004. "The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 98(2), pages 355-370, May.
    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. Nathan Canen & Kristopher Ramsay, 2024. "Quantifying theory in politics: Identification, interpretation, and the role of structural methods," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 36(4), pages 301-327, October.
    2. McMurray, Joseph, 2022. "Polarization and pandering in common-interest elections," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 150-161.
    3. Kai Hao Yang & Alexander K. Zentefis, 2023. "Extreme Points of First-Order Stochastic Dominance Intervals: Theory and Applications," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2355, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    4. Nathan J. Canen & Chad Kendall & Francesco Trebbi, 2020. "Political Parties as Drivers of U.S. Polarization: 1927-2018," NBER Working Papers 28296, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Samuel Merrill III & Bernard Grofman & Thomas L Brunell, 2014. "Modeling the electoral dynamics of party polarization in two-party legislatures," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 26(4), pages 548-572, October.
    6. Devin Caughey & James Dunham & Christopher Warshaw, 2018. "The ideological nationalization of partisan subconstituencies in the American States," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 133-151, July.
    7. Nathan Canen & Chad Kendall & Francesco Trebbi, 2020. "Unbundling Polarization," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(3), pages 1197-1233, May.
    8. Juan Pablo Micozzi & Sebastián M Saiegh, 2016. "An empirical stochastic model of Argentina’s Impossible Game (1955–1966)," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 28(2), pages 266-287, April.
    9. Roberto Brunetti & Matthieu Pourieux, 2023. "Representative Policy-Makers? A Behavioral Experiment with French Politicians," Working Papers 2319, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Etienne (GATE Lyon St-Etienne), Université de Lyon.
    10. Kai Hao Yang & Alexander K. Zentefis, 2023. "Monotone Function Intervals: Theory and Applications," Papers 2302.03135, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2024.
    11. Montagnes, B. Pablo & Peskowitz, Zachary & Sridharan, Suhas A., 2025. "How well do voting choice policies represent investor preferences?," Working Papers 371, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business, George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State.
    12. Yasushi Asako, 2015. "Campaign promises as an imperfect signal: How does an extreme candidate win against a moderate candidate?," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 27(4), pages 613-649, October.
    13. Caroline Le Pennec & Vincent Pons, 2023. "How do Campaigns Shape Vote Choice? Multicountry Evidence from 62 Elections and 56 TV Debates," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 138(2), pages 703-767.
    14. Jonathan B Slapin, 2014. "Measurement, model testing, and legislative influence in the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 15(1), pages 24-42, March.
    15. Sanford C. Gordon & Dimitri Landa, 2018. "Polarized preferences versus polarizing policies," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 193-210, July.
    16. Ahlquist, John S. & Ichino, Nahomi & Wittenberg, Jason & Ziblatt, Daniel, 2018. "How do voters perceive changes to the rules of the game? Evidence from the 2014 Hungarian elections," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 906-919.
    17. Ryan J. Vander Wielen & Michael J. Vander Wielen, 2020. "Unpacking the unknown: a method for identifying status quo distributions," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 182(1), pages 49-72, January.
    18. Jörg L. Spenkuch & David Toniatti, 2016. "Political Advertising and Election Outcomes," CESifo Working Paper Series 5780, CESifo.
    19. Kai Hao Yang & Alexander K. Zentefis, 2022. "Gerrymandering and the Limits of Representative Democracy," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2328, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    20. Stadelmann, David & Torrens, Gustavo, 2020. "Who is the ultimate boss of legislators: Voters, special interest groups or parties?," VfS Annual Conference 2020 (Virtual Conference): Gender Economics 224562, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • P0 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - General
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ces:ceswps:_12391. 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: Klaus Wohlrabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.html .

    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.