Political Behavior

, Volume 40, Issue 1, pp 223–245 | Cite as

Does the Ideological Proximity Between Candidates and Voters Affect Voting in U.S. House Elections?

  • Chris Tausanovitch
  • Christopher Warshaw
Original Paper


Do citizens hold congressional candidates accountable for their policy positions? Recent studies reach different conclusions on this important question. In line with the predictions of spatial voting theory, a number of recent survey-based studies have found reassuring evidence that voters choose the candidate with the most spatially proximate policy positions. In contrast, most electoral studies find that candidates’ ideological moderation has only a small association with vote margins, especially in the modern, polarized Congress. We bring clarity to these discordant findings using the largest dataset to date of voting behavior in congressional elections. We find that the ideological positions of congressional candidates have only a small association with citizens’ voting behavior. Instead, citizens cast their votes “as if” based on proximity to parties rather than individual candidates. The modest degree of candidate-centered spatial voting in recent Congressional elections may help explain the polarization and lack of responsiveness in the contemporary Congress.


Spatial voting Electoral accountability Congress Representation 



We are grateful to Devin Caughey, Robert Erikson, Anthony Fowler, Justin Grimmer, Seth Hill, Stephen Jessee, Jeffrey B. Lewis, Howard Rosenthal, and seminar participants at MIT’s American Politics Conference, Princeton University, the University of California-Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSD for feedback on previous versions of this manuscript.

Supplementary material

11109_2017_9437_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (168 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 168 KB)


  1. Adams, J., Engstrom, E., Joesten, D. A., Stone, W. J., Rogowski, J., & Shor, B. (2016). Do moderate voters weigh candidates’ ideologies? Voters’ decision rules in the 2010 congressional elections. Political Behavior, 39(1), 205–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ansolabehere, S., Snyder, J. M., Jr., & Stewart III. C. (2001). Candidate positioning in US house elections. American Journal of Political Science, 45(1), 136–159.Google Scholar
  3. Ansolabehere, S., & Jones, P. E. (2010). Constituents’ responses to congressional roll-call voting. American Journal of Political Science, 54(3), 583–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashworth, S., & Mesquita, E. B. D. (2009). Elections with platform and valence competition. Games and Economic Behavior, 67(1), 191–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Black, D. (1948). On the rationale of group decision-making. The Journal of Political Economy, 56(1), 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonica, A. (2013). Ideology and interests in the political marketplace. American Journal of Political Science, 57(2), 294–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonica, A. (forthcoming). Inferring roll call scores from campaign contributions using supervised machine learning. American Journal of Political Science.Google Scholar
  8. Bonica, A., & Cox, G. W. (2017). Ideological extremists in the US congress: Out of Step but still in office. Available at:
  9. Brady, D. W., Fiorina, M. P., & Wilkins, A. S. (2011). The 2010 elections: Why did political science forecasts go awry? PS: Political Science & Politics, 44(02), 247–250.Google Scholar
  10. Canes-Wrone, B., Brady, D. W., & Cogan, J. F. (2002). Out of step, out of office: Electoral accountability and house members’ voting. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 127–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clinton, J. D. (2006). Representation in congress: Constituents and roll calls in the 106th house. Journal of Politics, 68(2), 397–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clinton, J., Jackman, S., & Rivers, D. (2004). The statistical analysis of roll call data. American Political Science Review, 98(2), 355–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dancey, L., & Sheagley, G. (2013). Heuristics behaving badly: Party cues and voter knowledge. American Journal of Political Science, 57(2), 312–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  15. Enelow, J. M., & Hinich, M. J. (1984). The spatial theory of voting: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Fiorina, M. P., & Abrams, S. J. (2008). Political polarization in the American public. Annual Review of Political Science, 11(1), 563–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fowler, A., & Hall, A. B. (2016). The elusive quest for convergence. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 11(1), 131–149. URL
  18. Green, D., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Groseclose, T. (2001). A model of candidate location when one candidate has a valence advantage. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 862–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hall, A. B. (2015). What happens when extremists win primaries? American Political Science Review, 109(01), 18–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hall, A. B., & Snyder, J. M., Jr. (2013). Candidate ideology and electoral success. Available at:
  22. Hill, S. J., & Huber, G. A. (2015). Representativeness and motivations of the contemporary donorate: Results from merged survey and administrative records. Political Behavior, 1–27.Google Scholar
  23. Hirano, S., Lenz, G. S., Pinkovskiy, M., & Snyder, J. M. (2015). Voter learning in state primary elections. American Journal of Political Science, 59(1), 91–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hopkins, D. J. (2018). The increasingly United States: Why American political behavior nationalized. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Jessee, S. (2016). (How) can we estimate the ideology of citizens and political elites on the same scale? American Journal of Political Science, 60(4), 1108–1124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jessee, S. A. (2009). Spatial voting in the 2004 presidential election. American Political Science Review, 103(1), 59–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jessee, S. A. (2012). Ideology and spatial voting in American elections. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Joesten, D. A., & Stone, W. J. (2014). Reassessing proximity voting: Expertise, party, and choice in congressional elections. The Journal of Politics, 76(3), 740–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jones, P. E. (2011). Which buck stops here? Accountability for policy positions and policy outcomes in congress. Journal of Politics, 73(3), 764–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lee, D. S., Moretti, E., & Butler, M. J. (2004). Do voters affect or elect policies? Evidence from the US house. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(3), 807–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lenz, G. S. (2013). Follow the leader? How voters respond to politicians’ policies and performance. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. Levitt, S. D. (1996). How do senators vote? Disentangling the role of voter preferences, party affiliation, and senator ideology. The American Economic Review, 86(3), 425–441.Google Scholar
  33. Lewis, J., & Tausanovitch, C. (2013). Has joint scaling solved the achen objection to miller and stokes? Presented at the Vanderbilt Miller-Stokes Conference on Representation. Available at:
  34. Montagnes, B. P., & Rogowski, J. C. (2015). Testing core predictions of spatial models: Platform moderation and challenger success. Political Science Research and Methods, 3(03), 619–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nyhan, B., McGhee, E., Sides, J., Masket, S., & Greene, S. (2012). One vote out of step? The effects of salient roll call votes in the 2010 election. American Politics Research, 40(5), 844–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2000). Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Rabinowitz, G., & Macdonald, S. E. (1989). A directional theory of issue voting. The American Political Science Review, 83(1), 93–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shor, B., & Rogowski, J. C. (2016). Ideology and the congressional vote. Political Science Research and Methods .Google Scholar
  39. Shor, B., & McCarty, N. (2011). The ideological mapping of American legislatures. American Political Science Review, 105(03), 530–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Simas, E. N. (2013). Proximity voting in the 2010 US House elections. Electoral Studies, 32(4), 708–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sniderman, P. M. & Stiglitz, E. H. (2012). The reputational premium: A theory of party identification and policy reasoning. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Stone, W. J., & Simas, E. N. (2010). Candidate valence and ideological positions in US House elections. American Journal of Political Science, 54(2), 371–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tausanovitch, C., & Warshaw, C. (2013). Measuring constituent policy preferences in congress, state legislatures and cities. Journal of Politics, 75(2), 330–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tausanovitch, C., & Warshaw, C. (2017). Estimating candidates’ political orientation in a polarized congress. Political Analysis, 25(2), 167–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tomz, M., & Van Houweling, R. P. (2008). Candidate positioning and voter choice. American Political Science Review, 102(3), 303–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wilkins, A. S. (2012). The effect of extreme incumbent roll-call voting records on U.S. House elections, 1900–2010. Prepared for presentation at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, New Orleans.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUCLALos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceGeorge Washington UniversityWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations