Yes WE Can or Yes HE Can? Citizen Preferences Regarding Styles of Representation and Presidential Voting Behavior
Corresponding Author
DAVID C. BARKER
University of Pittsburgh
David C. Barker is an associate professor of political science at the University of Pittsburgh and the author of Rushed to Judgment: Talk Radio, Persuasion, and American Political Behavior.
Christopher Jan Carman is the John Anderson Senior Research Lecturer in the Government Department at the University of Strathclyde (Glasgow, Scotland) and serves as the deputy director of Strathclyde's Centre for Elections and Representation Studies.
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
CHRISTOPHER JAN CARMAN
University of Strathclyde
David C. Barker is an associate professor of political science at the University of Pittsburgh and the author of Rushed to Judgment: Talk Radio, Persuasion, and American Political Behavior.
Christopher Jan Carman is the John Anderson Senior Research Lecturer in the Government Department at the University of Strathclyde (Glasgow, Scotland) and serves as the deputy director of Strathclyde's Centre for Elections and Representation Studies.
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
DAVID C. BARKER
University of Pittsburgh
David C. Barker is an associate professor of political science at the University of Pittsburgh and the author of Rushed to Judgment: Talk Radio, Persuasion, and American Political Behavior.
Christopher Jan Carman is the John Anderson Senior Research Lecturer in the Government Department at the University of Strathclyde (Glasgow, Scotland) and serves as the deputy director of Strathclyde's Centre for Elections and Representation Studies.
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
CHRISTOPHER JAN CARMAN
University of Strathclyde
David C. Barker is an associate professor of political science at the University of Pittsburgh and the author of Rushed to Judgment: Talk Radio, Persuasion, and American Political Behavior.
Christopher Jan Carman is the John Anderson Senior Research Lecturer in the Government Department at the University of Strathclyde (Glasgow, Scotland) and serves as the deputy director of Strathclyde's Centre for Elections and Representation Studies.
Search for more papers by this authorAUTHORS' NOTE: Both authors contributed equally to this paper. We thank the University of Pittsburgh and the John Anderson Research Lectureship fund at the University of Strathclyde for providing funding for our surveys.
Abstract
This paper considers the manner and extent to which citizens' preferences regarding styles of political representation influence electoral choices, at both the nominating and the general election stages. Using unique survey data gathered for the purpose of examining this question, the authors focus on the 2008 presidential election cycle as an analytical case. They find considerable evidence that Democratic voters are more likely than Republicans to prefer a president who follows the wishes of the American public when it comes to making policy. Republicans, by contrast, are more inclined to expect a president to ignore public opinion, listening instead to his or her internal conscience. The authors speculate that this pattern helped John McCain capture the Republican presidential nomination, but diminished his chances of defeating Barack Obama in the fall.
References
- Abramowitz, Alan I., and Kyle L. Saunders. 1998. “Ideological Realignment in the U.S. Electorate. Journal of Politics 60 (August): 634-52.
- American Humanist Association. 1933. “ The Humanist Manifesto. The New Humanist. http://www.americanhumanist.org/who_we_are/about_humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I (accessed April 30, 2010).
- Ansolabehere, Stephen. 2008. “ Guide to the 2007 Cooperative Congressional Election Survey.” http://web.mit.edu/polisci/portl/cces/material/CCES_2007_GUIDE.pdf (accessed April 30, 2010).
- Ansolabehere, Stephen. 2009. “ Guide to the 2008 Cooperative Congressional Election Survey.” http://web.mit.edu/polisci/portl/cces/material/CCES_Guide_2008_Rough_Draft_v2.pdf (accessed April 30, 2010).
- Barker, David C., and Christopher J. Carman. 2008. “ The Partisan Implications of Representation Preferences.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston.
- Barker, David C., and Christopher J. Carman. 2009a. “ The Partisan Face of Political Representation in the U.S.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Toronto.
- Barker, David C., and Christopher J. Carman. 2009b. “Political Geography, Church Attendance and Mass Preferences Regarding Democratic Representation. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 19 (May): 125-45.
- Barker, David C., and James D. Tinnick. 2005. “Competing Visions of Parental Roles and Ideological Constraint. American Political Science Review 100 (May): 249-63.
- Bowler, Shaun, and Todd Donovan. 2002. “Democracy, Institutions and Attitudes about Citizen Influence on Government. British Journal of Political Science 32 (April): 371-90.
- Brock, David, and Paul Waldman. 2008. Free Ride: John McCain and the Media. New York: Anchor.
- Burke, Edmund. 1774. “ Speech to the Electors at Bristol.” In The Founders' Constitution, eds. Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s7.html (accessed April 30, 2010).
- Carman, Christopher Jan. 2006. “Public Preferences for Parliamentary Representation in the UK: An Overlooked Link? Political Studies 54 (March): 103-22.
-
Carman, Christopher Jan.
2007. “Assessing Preferences for Political Representation in the U.S.
Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties
17 (February): 1-20.
10.1080/13689880601132497 Google Scholar
- Dahl, Robert A. 1989. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
-
Dalton, Russell J., and Hans-Dieter Klingemann. 2007. “ Citizens and Political Behavior.”
In
Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior, eds.
Russell J. Dalton and
Hans-Dieter Klingemann. New York: Oxford University Press, 3-26.
10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199270125.001.0001 Google Scholar
- Davidson, Roger H. 1970. “Public Prescriptions for the Job of Congressman. Midwest Journal of Political Science 14 (November): 648-66.
- Eulau, Heinz, John C. Wahlke, William Buchanan, and Leroy C. Ferguson. 1959. “The Role of the Representative: Some Empirical Observations on the Theory of Edmund Burke. American Political Science Review 53 (September): 742-56.
- Feldman, Stanley. 2003. “ Values, Ideology and the Structure of Political Attitudes.” In Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, 3rd ed., eds. David O. Sears, Leonie Huddy, and Robert Jervis. New York: Oxford University Press, 477-508.
- Fenn, William W. 1969. Theism: The Implication of Experience. Peterborough, NH: Noone House.
-
Hetherington, Marc J., and Jonathan D. Weiler. 2009. Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
10.1017/CBO9780511802331 Google Scholar
-
Hibbing, John R., and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse. 2002. Stealth Democracy: American's Beliefs about How Government Should Work. New York: Cambridge University Press.
10.1017/CBO9780511613722 Google Scholar
- Hill, Kim Quaile, and Tetsuya Matsubayshi. 2008. “Church Engagement, Religious Values and Mass-Elite Policy Agenda Agreement. American Journal of Political Science 52 (July): 570-84.
- Hunter, James Davison. 1991. Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America. New York: Basic Books.
- Jacobs, Lawrence R., and Robert Y. Shapiro. 2000. Politicians Don't Pander: Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Jacoby, William G. 2006. “Value Choices and American Public Opinion. American Journal of Political Science 50 (July): 706-23.
- Jewell, Malcolm E. 1985. “ Legislators and Constituents in the Representative Process.” In The Handbook of Legislative Research, eds. Gerhard Loewenberg, Samuel C. Patterson, and Malcolm E. Jewell. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 97-131.
- King, Anthony. 1997. Running Scared: Why America's Politicians Campaign Too Much and Govern Too Little. New York: Free Press.
- Kuklinski, James H., and Gary M. Segura. 1995. “Engogeneity, Exogeneity, Time and Space in Political Representation: A Review Article. Legislative Studies Quarterly 20 (February): 3-21.
- Layman, Geoffrey. 2001. The Great Divide: Religious and Cultural Conflict in American Party Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.
- Lee, Frances E., and Bruce I. Oppenheimer. 1999. Sizing up the Senate: The Unequal Consequences of Equal Representation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Lehrer, Eli. 1998. “ For GOP Pundit Fitzpatrick, Principles Outweigh Polls. Insight on the News, October 12.
-
Manin, Bernard,
Adam Przeworski, and Susan C. Stokes. 1999. “ Elections and Representation.”
In
Democracy, Accountability, and Representation, eds.
Adam Przeworski,
Susan Carol Stokes, and Bernard Manin. New York: Cambridge University Press, 29-54.
10.1017/CBO9781139175104.002 Google Scholar
- Mansbridge, Jane. 2003. “Rethinking Representation. American Political Science Review 97 (November): 515-28.
- Marietta, Morgan. 2008. “From My Cold, Dead Hands: Democratic Consequences of Sacred Rhetoric. Journal of Politics 70 (July): 767-79.
- McMurray, Carl D., and Malcolm B. Parsons. 1965. “Public Attitudes Toward the Representational Roles of Legislators and Judges. Midwest Journal of Political Science 9 (May): 167-85.
- Mill, John Stuart. 1861. Considerations on Representative Government. Project Gutenberg. http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/5669 (accessed April 30, 2010).
- Miller, Warren E., and Donald E. Stokes. 1963. “Constituency Influence in Congress. American Political Science Review 57 (March): 45-56.
- Patterson, Samuel C., Ronald D. Hedlund, and G. Robert Boynton. 1975. Representatives and the Represented: Bases of Support for the American Legislatures. New York: Wiley.
- Peffley, Mark A., and Jon Hurwitz. 1985. “A Hierarchical Model of Attitude Constraint. American Journal of Political Science 29 (November): 871-90.
- Pew Research Center. 2008. “ Character and the Primaries of 2008.” http://pewresearch.org/pubs/854/candidate-character (accessed April 30, 2010).
-
Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
10.1525/9780520340503 Google Scholar
- Rehfeld, Andrew. 2009. “Representation Rethought: on Trustees, Delegates, and Gyroscopes in the Study of Political Representation in Democracy. American Political Science Review 103 (May): 214-30.
- Rokeach, Milton. 1973. The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press.
-
Rosenthal, Alan.
1998. The Decline of Representative Democracy: Process, Participation, and Power in State Legislatures. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
10.4135/9781483329918 Google Scholar
- Stimson, James A., Michael B. MacKuen, and Robert S. Erikson. 1995. “Dynamic Representation. American Political Science Review 89 (September): 543-65.
- Wlezien, Christopher. 1995. “The Public as Thermostat: Dynamics of Preferences for Spending. American Journal of Political Science 39 (November): 981-1000.
-
Wood, B. Dan.
2009. Myth of Presidential Representation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
10.1017/CBO9780511818660 Google Scholar
