Political Behavior

, Volume 2, Issue 1, pp 91–106 | Cite as

Policy representation of constituency interests

  • Robert S. Erikson
  • Gerald C. WrightJr.
Article

Abstract

This paper examines two aspects of congressional representation: the responsiveness of House candidates to constituency opinion and the effect of candidate positions on House election outcomes. For both Democratic- and Republican-held seats, constituency liberalism (as measured by the constituency's vote for McGovern in 1972) is strongly related to the liberalism of incumbent candidates but less so to the liberalism of challengers. House election outcomes are visibly influenced by the positions of incumbent candidates but not those of nonincumbent candidates. The paper argues that elections contribute significantly to achieving congressional representation. Candidate positions are measured from a 1974 CBS survey of all major House candidates.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Achen, Christopher (1977). “Measuring Representation: Perils of the Correlation Coefficient.”American Journal of Political Science 21: 805–815.Google Scholar
  2. Burnham, Walter Dean (1975). “Insulation and Responsiveness in Congressional Elections.”Political Science Quarterly 90: 411–436.Google Scholar
  3. Cummings, Milton C. (1966).Congressmen and the Electorate. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  4. Erikson, Robert S. (1971). “The Electoral Impact of Congressional Roll Call Voting.”American Political Science Review 65: 1018–1032.Google Scholar
  5. —— (1978). “Constituency Opinion and Congressional Behavior: A Reexamination of the Miller-Stokes Representation Data.”American Journal of Political Science 22: 511–535.Google Scholar
  6. -- (1980). “Representation and Congressional Elections: Evidence from the 1978 CPS Election Study.” Paper presented at the Western Political Science Association Convention, San Francisco, California.Google Scholar
  7. Fiorina, Morris P. (1974).Representatives, Roll Calls, and Constituencies. Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath and Company.Google Scholar
  8. Kuklinski, James H. (1978). “Representativeness and Elections: A Policy Analysis.”American Political Science Review 165–177.Google Scholar
  9. Miller, Arthur E., Warren E. Miller, Alden S. Raine, and Thad A. Brown (1976). “A Majority Party in Disarray: Party Polarization in the 1972 Election.”American Political Science Review 70:753–778.Google Scholar
  10. Miller, Warren E., and Donald E. Stokes (1966). “Constituency Influence in Congress.” In Angus Campbell et al. (eds.),Elections and the Political Order. New York: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 351–372.Google Scholar
  11. Schwartz, John E., and Barton Fenmore (1977). “Presidential Election Research and Congressional Roll Call Behavior: The Cases of 1964, 1968, and 1972.”Legislative Studies Quarterly 2: 405–422.Google Scholar
  12. Stokes, Donald E., and Warren E. Miller (1966). “Party Government and the Salience of Congress.” In Angus Campbell, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes,Elections and the Political Order. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Sullivan, John L. and Eric Uslaner (1978). “Congressional Behavior and Electoral Marginality.”American Journal of Political Science 22: 536–553.Google Scholar
  14. —— and Robert O'Connor (1972). “Electoral Choice and Popular Control of Public Policy.”American Political Science Review 66: 1265–1267.Google Scholar
  15. Weissberg, Robert (1978). “Collective vs. Dyadic Representation in Congress.”American Political Science Review 72 (June): 533–547.Google Scholar
  16. Wright, Gerald C. Jr. (1978a). “Candidate Policy Positions and Voting in Congressional Elections.”Legislative Studies Quarterly 3: 445–464.Google Scholar
  17. -- (1978b). “Issue Strategy in Congressional Elections: The Impact of the Primary Electorate.” Paper delivered at the 1978 Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Agathon Press, Inc 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert S. Erikson
    • 1
  • Gerald C. WrightJr.
    • 2
  1. 1.University of HoustonUSA
  2. 2.Indiana UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations