Maybe Politicians Don’t Really Represent Anybody

Here’s some political science geekery combined with some chart geekery. Dylan Matthews has a post up today about a recent paper that compares public opinions on key issues with votes cast by members of Congress. How well do members of Congress represent the views of their constituents? Here’s the chart in the paper:

Basically, it looks like everybody at all income levels gets represented about the same until we get to the very tippy top. The views of rich people get represented a lot better by Republicans and a lot worse by Democrats. But there are two things that make these charts a little misleading. The first is our old friend the y-axis: it goes only from 35 percent to 60 percent, which makes the upward and downward spikes look sharper than they are. The second is the error bars: they get pretty big at the high-income end of the charts, which makes the size of the upward and downward spikes ambiguous. Visually, however, they add to the effect that the spikes are big. Here’s a redrawn version of the charts:

It’s a judgment call which one of these best represents the data visually, but I suspect it’s the second one. The views of most constituents don’t matter much at all, while the rich wield a very modest influence. Republicans represent rich people about 7 percent better than everyone else, while Democrats represent them about 8 points worse. That’s not much.

A different paper suggests that members of Congress respond mostly to interest groups, not constituents, but in the end Matthews concludes that we might be making a mistake in thinking that Congress represents constituent views at all:

It’s not actually clear that Republican and Democratic senators are purposefully taking their views from the public, even when politicians’ views match their constituents’. It’s also possible — even likely — that it’s happening the other way: Politicians are shaping the public’s views. That helps explain why Democratic constituents align their views so closely with Democratic senators, and similarly for Republican constituents.

….“Longstanding political science suggests that the path of information from governing elites to the public is stronger than the reverse,” Grossmann and Isaac note. “More troubling, affluent Americans may hear official opinions first, meaning we would observe a greater association between their opinions and policy even if the true channel of influence were from government to the affluent.”

Bottom line: members of Congress form their views, which are then communicated to their constituents. Only then do constituents form their own views: conservatives adopt the Republican view and liberals adopt the Democratic view. This would explain a number of things:

  • Why conservative voters continue to think that Republicans are better on pocketbook issues despite their long history of catering to the rich.
  • Why voters line up so neatly even on obscure issues that don’t have an obvious ideological component (net neutrality, for example).
  • Why views on issues can reverse so quickly when elite views reverse (Trump on Russia, for example).

Naturally this doesn’t apply to me or to any of the fine people who read this blog, all of whom are independent thinkers who don’t just follow the crowd. But all those other guys? What a bunch of sheep.

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE

We’re falling behind our online fundraising goals and we can’t sustain coming up short on donations month after month. Perhaps you’ve heard? It is impossibly hard in the news business right now, with layoffs intensifying and fancy new startups and funding going kaput.

The crisis facing journalism and democracy isn’t going away anytime soon. And neither is Mother Jones, our readers, or our unique way of doing in-depth reporting that exists to bring about change.

Which is exactly why, despite the challenges we face, we just took a big gulp and joined forces with the Center for Investigative Reporting, a team of ace journalists who create the amazing podcast and public radio show Reveal.

If you can part with even just a few bucks, please help us pick up the pace of donations. We simply can’t afford to keep falling behind on our fundraising targets month after month.

Editor-in-Chief Clara Jeffery said it well to our team recently, and that team 100 percent includes readers like you who make it all possible: “This is a year to prove that we can pull off this merger, grow our audiences and impact, attract more funding and keep growing. More broadly, it’s a year when the very future of both journalism and democracy is on the line. We have to go for every important story, every reader/listener/viewer, and leave it all on the field. I’m very proud of all the hard work that’s gotten us to this moment, and confident that we can meet it.”

Let’s do this. If you can right now, please support Mother Jones and investigative journalism with an urgently needed donation today.

payment methods

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE

We’re falling behind our online fundraising goals and we can’t sustain coming up short on donations month after month. Perhaps you’ve heard? It is impossibly hard in the news business right now, with layoffs intensifying and fancy new startups and funding going kaput.

The crisis facing journalism and democracy isn’t going away anytime soon. And neither is Mother Jones, our readers, or our unique way of doing in-depth reporting that exists to bring about change.

Which is exactly why, despite the challenges we face, we just took a big gulp and joined forces with the Center for Investigative Reporting, a team of ace journalists who create the amazing podcast and public radio show Reveal.

If you can part with even just a few bucks, please help us pick up the pace of donations. We simply can’t afford to keep falling behind on our fundraising targets month after month.

Editor-in-Chief Clara Jeffery said it well to our team recently, and that team 100 percent includes readers like you who make it all possible: “This is a year to prove that we can pull off this merger, grow our audiences and impact, attract more funding and keep growing. More broadly, it’s a year when the very future of both journalism and democracy is on the line. We have to go for every important story, every reader/listener/viewer, and leave it all on the field. I’m very proud of all the hard work that’s gotten us to this moment, and confident that we can meet it.”

Let’s do this. If you can right now, please support Mother Jones and investigative journalism with an urgently needed donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate