1932

Abstract

This article reviews recent research on how mass opinion affects policy making in the context of US national institutions. Three themes materialize. First, research provides compelling evidence for “responsiveness,” in which change in mass opinion is associated with subsequent policy changes, but not for a high level of “congruence” between the policies that are favored by a majority of the public and those that are enacted. Second, although scholarship suggests that both congruence and responsiveness have declined since the 1970s, they are not low by historic standards; rather, mass opinion was particularly influential in that decade. Third, the literature rebuts conventional explanations for the post-1970s decline and suggests that standard proposals for how to reverse it would not significantly alter the impact of mass preferences on policy. The article concludes by considering the possibility that fundraising developments over the past three decades have changed politicians' electoral incentives.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050311-165552
2015-05-11
2024-04-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/polisci/18/1/annurev-polisci-050311-165552.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050311-165552&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abramowitz AI, Alexander B, Gunning M. 2006. Incumbency, redistricting, and the decline of competition in U.S. House elections. J. Polit. 68:175–88 [Google Scholar]
  2. Abramowitz AI, Saunders KL. 2008. Is polarization a myth?. J. Polit. 70:2542–55 [Google Scholar]
  3. Achen CH. 1978. Measuring representation. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 22:3475–510 [Google Scholar]
  4. Aldrich JH. 1995. Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. Chicago: Univ: Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  5. Aldrich JH, Rohde DW. 2000. The consequences of party organization in the House: the role of majority and minority parties in conditional party government. Polarized Politics: Congress and the President in a Partisan Era J Bond, R Fleisher 31–72 Washington, DC: CQ Press [Google Scholar]
  6. Ansolabehere S, Snyder JM Jr, Stewart C III. 2001. Candidate positioning in U.S. House elections. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 45:1136–59 [Google Scholar]
  7. Aranson PH, Ordeshook PC. 1972. Spatial strategies for sequential elections. Probability Models of Collective Decision Making R Niemi, H Weisberg 298–331 Columbus, OH: Merrill [Google Scholar]
  8. Arnold RD. 1990. The Logic of Congressional Action New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  9. Bafumi J, Herron MC. 2010. Leapfrog representation and extremism: a study of American voters and their members in Congress. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 104:3519–42 [Google Scholar]
  10. Barber MJ. 2013. Ideological strings attached: campaign contributions and polarization of state legislatures. Presented at Annu. Meet. Am. Polit. Sci. Assoc., Chicago, IL
  11. Barber MJ, McCarty N. 2013. Causes and consequences of polarization. Negotiating Agreement in Politics J Mansbridge, CJ Martin. Am. Polit. Sci. Assoc. Task Force on Negotiating Agreement in Politics. http://www.apsanet.org/files/Task%20Force%20Reports/MansbridgeTF_FinalDraft.pdf
  12. Bartels LM. 1991. Constituency opinion and congressional policy making: the Reagan defense buildup. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 85:429–56 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bartels LM. 2008. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  14. Bhatti Y, Erikson RS. 2011. How poorly are the poor represented in the U.S. Senate?. See Enns & Wlezien 2011 223–46
  15. Black D. 1948. On the rationale of group decision-making. J. Polit. Econ. 56:123–34 [Google Scholar]
  16. Bonica A. 2013. Ideology and interests in the political marketplace. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 57:2294–311 [Google Scholar]
  17. Bovitz GL, Carson JL. 2006. Position-taking and electoral accountability in the U.S. House of Representatives. Polit. Res. Q. 59:2297–312 [Google Scholar]
  18. Brady DW, Cooper J, Hurley PA. 1979. The decline of party in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1887–1968. Legis. Stud. Q. 4:3381–407 [Google Scholar]
  19. Brady DW, Han H, Pope JC. 2007. Primary elections and candidate ideology: out of step with the primary electorate?. Legis. Stud. Q. 32:179–105 [Google Scholar]
  20. Brooks JE. 1985. Democratic frustration in the Anglo-American polities. Western Polit. Q. 38:250–61 [Google Scholar]
  21. Bullock W, Clinton JD. 2011. More a molehill than a mountain: the effects of the blanket primary on elected officials' behavior from California. J. Polit. 73:31–16 [Google Scholar]
  22. Burstein P. 2003. The impact of public opinion on public policy: a review and an agenda. Polit. Res. Q. 56:129–40 [Google Scholar]
  23. Canes-Wrone B. 2006. Who Leads Whom? Presidents, Policy, and the Public Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  24. Canes-Wrone B, Brady DW, Cogan JF. 2002. Out of step, out of office?. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 96:1127–40 [Google Scholar]
  25. Canes-Wrone B, Herron MC, Shotts KW. 2001. Leadership and pandering: a theory of executive policy making. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 45:532–50 [Google Scholar]
  26. Canes-Wrone B, Howell WG, Lewis DE. 2008. Toward a broader understanding of presidential power: a reevaluation of the two presidencies thesis. J. Polit. 7011–16 [Google Scholar]
  27. Canes-Wrone B, Shotts KW. 2004. The conditional nature of presidential responsiveness to public opinion. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 48:690–706 [Google Scholar]
  28. Canes-Wrone B, Shotts KW. 2011. Corrected comparative statics for presidential responsiveness to public opinion. http://faculty-gsb.stanford.edu/shotts/supporting_files/CorrectedStatics.pdf
  29. Carnes N. 2013. White-Collar Government: The Hidden Role of Class in Economic Policy Making Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  30. Carson JL, Crespin MH, Jenkins JA, Vander Wielen RJ. 2004. Shirking in the contemporary Congress: a reappraisal. Polit. Anal. 12:2176–79 [Google Scholar]
  31. Chong D, Druckman JN. 2010. Dynamic public opinion: communication effects over time. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 104:4663–80 [Google Scholar]
  32. Clifford S. 2012. Reassessing the unequal representation of Latinos and African Americans. J. Polit. 74:3903–16 [Google Scholar]
  33. Clinton JD. 2006. Representation in Congress: constituents and roll calls in the 106th House. J. Polit. 68:2397–409 [Google Scholar]
  34. Cohen JE. 1997. Presidential Responsiveness and Public Policy-Making: The Public and the Policies that Presidents Choose Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
  35. Converse PE. 1964. The nature of belief systems in mass publics. Ideology and Discontent DE Apter New York: Free Press [Google Scholar]
  36. Cook FL, Page BI, Moskowitz R. 2014. Political participation by wealthy Americans. Polit. Res. Q. 1293381–98 [Google Scholar]
  37. Cox GW, McCubbins MD. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
  38. Cox GW, McCubbins MD. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  39. Davis S. 2012. Taking “swing” out of House fights; redistricting may cut places that races matter and make incumbents harder to beat. USA Today Apr. 24, 4A
  40. Delli Carpini MX, Keeter S. 1996. What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  41. DiMaggio P, Evans J, Bryson B. 1996. Have Americans' social attitudes become more polarized?. Am. J. Sociol. 102:3690–755 [Google Scholar]
  42. Downs A. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy NewYork: HarperCollins
  43. Druckman JN, Jacobs LR. 2006. Lumpers and splitters: the public opinion information that politicians collect and use. Public Opin. Q. 70:4453–76 [Google Scholar]
  44. Druckman JN, Jacobs LR. 2011. Segmented representation: the Reagan White House and disproportionate responsiveness. See Enns & Wlezien 2011 166–88
  45. Edwards GC III. 2006. On Deaf Ears: The Limits of the Bully Pulpit New Haven, CT: Yale University Press
  46. Enns PK, Wlezien C. 2011. Who Gets Represented? New York: Russell Sage Found.
  47. Erikson RS. 1990. Roll calls, reputations, and representation in the U.S. Senate. Legis. Stud. Q. 15:623–42 [Google Scholar]
  48. Erikson RS, MacKuen MB, Stimson JA. 2002. The Macro Polity Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  49. Erikson RS, Wright GC. 2013. Voters, candidates, and issues in congressional elections. Congress Reconsidered LC Dodd, BI Oppenheimer 91–116 Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press, 10th ed.. [Google Scholar]
  50. Eshbaugh-Soha M, Rottinghaus B. 2013. Presidential position taking and the puzzle of representation. Pres. Stud. Q. 43:11–15 [Google Scholar]
  51. Fenno RF. 1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts Boston: Little, Brown
  52. Fiorina MP. 1974. Representatives, Roll Calls and Constituencies Lexington, MA: Lexington Books
  53. Fiorina MP. 1999. Whatever happened to the median voter? Presented at MIT Conf. Parties and Congress, Cambridge, MA
  54. Fiorina MP, Abrams SJ, Pope JC. 2011. Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America New York: Pearson Longman, 3rd ed..
  55. Fiorina MP, Levendusky MS. 2006. Disconnected: the political class versus the people. Red and Blue Nation? Characteristics and Causes of America's Polarized Politics PS Nivola, DW Brady 49–71 Washington, DC: Brookings Inst. Press [Google Scholar]
  56. Francia PL, Green JC, Herrnson PS, Powell LW, Wilcox C. 2003. The Financiers of Congressional Elections: Investors, Ideologues, and Intimates New York: Columbia Univ. Press
  57. Geer JG. 1996. From Tea Leaves to Opinion Polls New York: Columbia Univ. Press
  58. Gerber ER, Lewis JB. 2004. Beyond the median: voter preferences, district heterogeneity, and political representation. J. Polit. Econ. 112:61364–83 [Google Scholar]
  59. Gerber ER, Morton RB. 1998. Primary election systems and representation. J. Law Econ. Organ. 14:2304–24 [Google Scholar]
  60. Gilens M. 2012. Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  61. Gilens M, Vavreck L, Cohen M. 2007. The mass media and the public's assessments of presidential candidates, 1952–2000. J. Polit. 69:41160–75 [Google Scholar]
  62. Griffin JD, Newman B. 2008. Minority Report: Evaluating Political Equality in America Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  63. Groseclose T, Levitt SD, Snyder JM. 1999. Comparing interest group scores across time and chambers: adjusted ADA scores for the U.S. Congress. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 93:133–50 [Google Scholar]
  64. Hacker JS, Pierson P. 2006. Off Center: The Republican Revolution and the Erosion of American Democracy New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  65. Hartley T, Russett B. 1992. Public opinion and the common defense: who governs military spending in the United States?. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 86:4905–91 [Google Scholar]
  66. Hibbs DA. 1987. The American Political Economy: Macroeconomics and Electoral Politics Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  67. Hicks A. 1984. Elections, Keynes, bureaucracy, and class: explaining united states budget deficits, 1961–1978. Am. Sociol. Rev. 49:165–82 [Google Scholar]
  68. Hirano S, Snyder JM, Ansolabehere SD, Hansen JM. 2010. Primary elections and partisan polarization in the U.S. Congress. Q. J. Polit. Sci. 5:2169–91 [Google Scholar]
  69. Hollibaugh GE, Rothenberg LS, Rulison KK. 2013. Does it really hurt to be out of step?. Polit. Res. Q. 20:101–23 [Google Scholar]
  70. Hussey W, Zaller J. 2011. Who do parties represent?. See Enns & Wlezien 2011 311–44
  71. Hutchings VL. 1998. Issue salience and support for civil rights legislation among southern Democrats. Legis. Stud. Q. 23:4521–44 [Google Scholar]
  72. Jacobs LR, Page BI. 2005. Who influences U.S. foreign policy?. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 99:1107–23 [Google Scholar]
  73. Jacobs LR, Shapiro RY. 1994. Issues, candidate image, and priming: the use of private polls in Kennedy's 1960 presidential campaign. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 88:3527–40 [Google Scholar]
  74. Jacobs LR, Shapiro RY. 1997. The myth of the pandering politician. Public Perspect. 8:3–5 [Google Scholar]
  75. Jacobs LR, Shapiro RY. 2000. Politicians Don't Pander: Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  76. Jacobs LR, Shapiro RY. 2002. Politics and policy making in the real world: crafted talk and the loss of democratic responsiveness. Navigating Public Opinion: Polls, Policy, and the Future of American Democracy J Manza, FL Cook, BI Page 54–75 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  77. Jessee SA. 2009. Spatial voting in the 2004 presidential election. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 103:159–81 [Google Scholar]
  78. Jessee SA. 2010. Partisan bias, political information and spatial voting in the 2008 presidential election. J. Polit. 72:2327–40 [Google Scholar]
  79. Kernell S. 2006. Going Public: New Strategies of Presidential Leadership Washington, DC: CQ Press, 4th ed..
  80. Key VO Jr. 1961. Public Opinion and American Democracy New York: Knopf
  81. Krehbiel K. 1993. Constituency characteristics and legislative preferences. Public Choice 76:1–221–37 [Google Scholar]
  82. Krehbiel K. 1998. Pivotal Politics Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  83. Krosnick JA. 1990. Government policy and citizen passion: a study of issue publics in contemporary America. Polit. Behav. 12:159–92 [Google Scholar]
  84. Lee DS, Moretti E, Butler MJ. 2004. Do voters affect or elect policies? Evidence from the US House. Q. J. Econ. 119:3807–59 [Google Scholar]
  85. Lewis JB, Tausanovitch C. 2013. Has joint scaling solved the Achen objection to Miller and Stokes? Unpublished manuscript, Dep. Polit. Sci., Univ. Calif. Los Angeles
  86. Lupia A. 1994. Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 88:163–76 [Google Scholar]
  87. Mann TE, Ornstein NJ. 2012a. Admit it: the Republicans are worse. Washington Post Apr. 29, B1
  88. Mann TE, Ornstein NJ. 2012b. It's Even Worse than It Looks New York: Basic Books
  89. Mayhew DR. 2011. Partisan Balance: Why Political Parties Don't Kill the U.S. Constitutional System. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  90. McCarty N, Poole KT, Rosenthal H. 2006. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  91. McCarty N, Poole KT, Rosenthal H. 2009. Does gerrymandering cause polarization?. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 53:3666–80 [Google Scholar]
  92. McGhee E, Masket S, Shor B, Rogers S, McCarty N. 2014. A primary cause of partisanship nomination systems and legislator ideology. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 58:2337–51 [Google Scholar]
  93. Miller WE, Stokes DE. 1963. Constituency influence in Congress. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 57:145–56 [Google Scholar]
  94. Monroe AD. 1998. Public opinion and public policy, 1980–1993. Public Opin. Q. 62:16–28 [Google Scholar]
  95. Page BI, Shapiro RY. 1983. Effects of public opinion on policy. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 77:175–90 [Google Scholar]
  96. Page BI, Shapiro RY. 1992. The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans' Policy Preferences Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  97. Park DK, Gelman A, Bafumi J. 2004. Bayesian multilevel estimation with poststratification: state-level estimates from national polls. Polit. Anal. 12:4375–85 [Google Scholar]
  98. Pew Research Center 2013. Public trust in government: 1958–2013 http://www.people-press.org/2013/01/31/trust-in-government-interactive
  99. Poole KT, Romer T. 1993. Ideology, “shirking,” and representation. Public Choice 77:1185–96 [Google Scholar]
  100. Poole KT, Rosenthal H. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  101. Prior M. 2013. Media and political polarization. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 16:101–27 [Google Scholar]
  102. Quirk PJ. 2011. Polarized populism: masses, elites, and partisan conflict. Forum 9:1Article 5 [Google Scholar]
  103. Rothenberg LS, Sanders MS. 2000. Severing the electoral connection: shirking in the contemporary Congress. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 44:316–25 [Google Scholar]
  104. Rothenberg LS, Sanders MS. 2004. Reply to “Shirking in the contemporary Congress: a reappraisal.”. Polit. Anal. 12:2180–81 [Google Scholar]
  105. Schario T, Konisky D. 2008. Public confidence in government: trust and responsiveness. Univ. Missouri Inst. Public Policy Rep. https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/2545/PublicConfidenceGovernment.pdf?sequence=1
  106. Schickler E. 2000. Institutional change in the House of Representatives, 1867–1998: a test of partisan and ideological power balance models. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 94:2269–88 [Google Scholar]
  107. Schlozman KL, Verba S, Brady HE. 2012. The Unheavenly Chorus: Unequal Political Voice and the Broken Promise of American Democracy Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  108. Shepsle KA, Van Houweling RP, Abrams SJ, Hanson PC. 2009. The Senate electoral cycle and bicameral appropriations politics. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 53:2343–59 [Google Scholar]
  109. Smith MA. 1999. Public opinion, elections, and representation within a market economy: Does the structural power of business undermine popular sovereignty?. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 43:3842–63 [Google Scholar]
  110. Sniderman PM, Theriault SM. 2004. The structure of political argument and the logic of issue framing. Studies in Public Opinion WE Saris, PM Sniderman 133–65 Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  111. Snyder JM Jr, Ting MM. 2002. An informational rationale for political parties. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 46:190–110 [Google Scholar]
  112. Snyder JM Jr, Ting MM. 2003. Roll calls, party labels, and elections. Polit. Anal. 11:4419–44 [Google Scholar]
  113. Stimson JA. 1999. Public Opinion in America: Moods, Cycles, and Swings Boulder, CO: Westview, 2nd ed..
  114. Stimson JA, MacKuen MB, Erikson RS. 1995. Dynamic representation. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 89:543–65 [Google Scholar]
  115. Stratmann T. 2000. Congressional voting over legislative careers: shifting positions and changing constraints. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 94:665–76 [Google Scholar]
  116. Tausanovitch C. 2013. Income and representation in the United States Congress Unpublished manuscript, Dep. Polit. Sci., Univ. Calif, Los Angeles
  117. Ura JD, Ellis CR. 2008. Income, preferences, and the dynamics of policy responsiveness. PS: Polit. Sci. Polit. 41:4785–94 [Google Scholar]
  118. Warshaw CS. 2013. Are senators more responsive to public opinion later in the electoral cycle? Unpublished manuscript, Dep. Polit. Sci., Mass. Inst. Technol.
  119. Washington Post 2008. Gridlock in the forecast; redistricting reform could help, with a push from Congress and the presidential candidates. Washington Post Aug. 18, A10
  120. Wildavsky A. 1966. The two presidencies. Trans-Action 4:7–14 [Google Scholar]
  121. Wlezien C. 1996. Dynamics of representation: the case of US spending on defence. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 26:181–103 [Google Scholar]
  122. Wlezien C. 2004. Patterns of representation: dynamics of public preferences and policy. J. Polit. 66:11–24 [Google Scholar]
  123. Wlezien C, Soroka SN. 2011. Inequality in policy responsiveness?. See Enns & Wlezien 2011 285–310
  124. Wood BD. 2009. The Myth of Presidential Representation New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  125. Wood BD, Lee HS. 2009. Explaining the president's issue based liberalism: pandering, partisanship, or pragmatism. J. Polit. 71:41577–92 [Google Scholar]
  126. Wright GC Jr, Berkman MB. 1986. Candidates and policy in United States elections. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 80:567–90 [Google Scholar]
  127. Zaller JR. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  128. Zaller JR. 2003. Coming to grips with V.O. Key's concept of latent opinion. Electoral Democracy M MacKuen, G Rabinowitz 311–36 Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050311-165552
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050311-165552
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error