Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T05:56:21.577Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are Moderates Better Representatives than Extremists? A Theory of Indirect Representation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2019

JOHN W. PATTY Open the ORCID record for JOHN W. PATTY [Opens in a new window]  and
ELIZABETH MAGGIE PENN Open the ORCID record for ELIZABETH MAGGIE PENN [Opens in a new window]
JOHN W. PATTY*
Affiliation:
Emory University
ELIZABETH MAGGIE PENN*
Affiliation:
Emory University
*
*John W. Patty, Professor of Political Science and Quantitative Theory & Methods, Emory University, [email protected].
†Elizabeth Maggie Penn, Professor of Political Science and Quantitative Theory & Methods, Emory University, [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Few, if any, elected representatives are capable of unilaterally implementing their platforms. Rather, they choose between options generated by other actors and/or external events. We present a theory of voters’ preferences over representatives who will cast votes on their behalf, and show that in this setting voters’ preferences over candidates’ platforms will not look like voters’ preferences over policies. We demonstrate that these induced preferences for representation tend to favor more extreme representatives, and we present two models of electoral competition in which induced preferences over representatives lead to elite polarization.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 113 , Issue 3 , August 2019 , pp. 743 - 761
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We thank Alberto Alesina, Chris Berry, Thomas Bräuninger, John Brehm, Ethan Bueno de Mesquita, Ryan Bubb, Peter Buisseret, Bill Clark, Tom Clark, Torun Dewan, Tiberiu Dragu, Wioletta Dziuda, Scott DeMarchi, John Ferejohn, Mark Fey, Sean Gailmard, Sandy Gordon, Bernard Grofman, Lewis Kornhauser, Dimitri Landa, Gabe Lenz, Thomas Leeper, Tom Mann, Gerard Padró i Miquel, Amy Pond, Jas Sekhon, Gilles Serra, Ken Shepsle, Ahmer Tarar, Stephane Wolton, Dan Wood, and audience members at the University of Chicago, University of California-Berkeley, University of California-Irvine, University of California-Merced, Harvard University, London School of Economics, New York University School of Law, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Stanford University, Texas A&M University, University of Warwick, and the 2016 annual meetings of the Southern and Midwest Political Science Associations for very helpful comments on, and conversations, about this project, which was previously circulated under the titles “Does Representation Induce Polarization? A Theory of Choosing Representatives” and “Preference for Representation versus Preference for Policy.” This article is dedicated to the memory of our friend and most loyal reader, Amanda Marie Patty. All remaining errors are our own.

References

REFERENCES

Adams, James F., Merrill, Samuel III, and Grofman, Bernard. 2005. A Unified Theory of Party Competition: A Cross-National Analysis Integrating Spatial and Behavioral Factors. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashworth, Scott, and Bueno de Mesquita, Ethan. 2009. “Elections with Platform and Valence Competition.” Games and Economic Behavior 67 (1): 191–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austen-Smith, David, and Banks, Jeffrey. 1988. “Elections, Coalitions, and Legislative Outcomes.” American Political Science Review 82 (2): 405–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Michael, and Spitzer, Matthew L.. 2015. “Appointing Extremists.” Northwestern Law & Econ Research Paper No. 15-04; Northwestern Public Law Research Paper No. 15-07. URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2568129 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2568129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bargsted, Matias A., and Kedar, Orit. 2009. “Coalition-Targeted Duvergerian Voting: How Expectations Affect Voter Choice under Proportional Representation.” American Journal of Political Science 53 (2): 307–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, David P., and Diermeier, Daniel. 2001. “Elections, Governments, and Parliaments in Proportional Representation Systems.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 116 (3): 933–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bendor, Jonathan, and Meirowitz, Adam. 2004. “Spatial Models of Delegation.” American Political Science Review 98 (2): 293–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernhardt, Dan, Duggan, John, and Squintani, Francesco. 2007. “Electoral Competition with Privately-Informed Candidates.” Games and Economic Behavior 58 (1): 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernhardt, M. Daniel, and Ingberman, Daniel E.. 1985. “Candidate Reputations and the ‘Incumbency Effect’.” Journal of Public Economics 27 (1): 47–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besley, Timothy, and Coate, Stephen. 1997. “An Economic Model of Representative Democracy.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 112 (1): 85–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besley, Timothy, and Coate, Stephen. 2003. “Centralized versus Decentralized Provision of Local Public Goods: A Political Economy Approach.” Journal of Public Economics 87 (12): 2611–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boehmke, Frederick, Gailmard, Sean, and Patty, John. 2006. “Whose Ear to Bend? Information Sources and Venue Choice in Policy Making.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 1 (2): 139–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, Geoffrey, and Hamlin, Alan. 1998. “Expressive Voting and Electoral Equilibrium.” Public Choice 95 (1–2): 149–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, Geoffrey, and Hamlin, Alan. 2000. Democratic Devices and Desires. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, Geoffrey, and Buchanan, James. 1984. “Voter Choice: Evaluating Political Alternatives.” American Behavioral Scientist 28 (2): 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, H. Geoffrey, and Lomasky, Loren E.. 1993. Democracy and Decision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, James M. 1954. “Individual Choice in Voting and the Market.” Journal of Political Economy 62: 334–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callander, Steven. 2005. “Electoral Competition in Heterogeneous Districts.” Journal of Political Economy 113 (5): 1116–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvert, Randall. 1985. “Robustness of the Multidimensional Voting Model: Candidate Motivations, Uncertainty, and Convergence.” American Journal of Political Science 28 (1): 127–46.Google Scholar
Carter, Jennifer, and Patty, John W.. 2015. “Valence and Campaigns.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (4): 825–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chari, Varadarajan V., Jones, Larry E., and Marimon, Ramon. 1997. “The Economics of Split-Ticket Voting in Representative Democracies.” The American Economic Review 87 (5): 957–76.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Dewan, Torun, and Shepsle, Kenneth A.. 2011. “Political Economy Models of Elections.” Annual Review of Political Science 14: 311–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dhillon, Amrita, and Lockwood, Ben. 2002. “Multiple Equilibria in the Citizen-Candidate Model of Representative Democracy.” Journal of Public Economic Theory 4 (21): 171–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Eguia, Jon X. 2013. Challenges to the Standard Euclidean Spatial Model. In Advances in Political Economy: Institutions, Modelling and Empirical Analysis, eds. Schofield, Norman, Caballero, Gonzalo, and Kselman, Daniel. Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer, 169–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enelow, James M., and Hinich, Melvin J.. 1984. The Spatial Theory of Voting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eyster, Erik, and Kittsteiner, Thomas. 2007. “Party Platforms in Electoral Competition with Heterogeneous Constituencies.” Theoretical Economics 2 (1): 41–70.Google Scholar
Gailmard, Sean, Patty, John W., and Penn, Elizabeth Maggie. 2008. “Arrow’s Theorem on Single-Peaked Domains.” In The Political Economy of Democracy, eds. Aragones, Enriquetta, Llavador, Humberto, and Schofield, Norman. Barcelona: UAB, 335–42.Google Scholar
Gailmard, Sean, and Hammond, Thomas. 2011. “Intercameral Bargaining and Intracameral Organization in Legislatures.” The Journal of Politics 73 (2): 535–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grofman, Bernard. 1985. “The Neglected Role of the Status Quo in Models of Issue Voting.” The Journal of Politics 47 (1): 230–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grofman, Bernard. 2004. “Downs and Two-Party Convergence.” Annual Review of Political Science 7: 25–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groseclose, Tim. 2001. “A Model of Candidate Location When One Candidate Has a Valence Advantage.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (4): 862–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamlin, Alan, and Jennings, Colin. 2011. “Expressive Political Behaviour: Foundations, Scope and Implications.” British Journal of Political Science 41 (3): 645–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harstad, Bård. 2010. “Strategic Delegation and Voting Rules.” Journal of Public Economics 94 (1): 102–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillman, Arye L. 2010. “Expressive Behavior in Economics and Politics.” European Journal of Political Economy 26 (4): 403–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinich, Melvin J., and Munger, Michael C.. 1992. “A Spatial Theory of Ideology.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 4 (1): 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinich, Melvin J., and Munger, Michael C.. 1996. Ideology and the Theory of Political Choice. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Jessee, Stephen, and Malhotra, Neil. 2010. “Are Congressional Leaders Middlepersons or Extremists? Yes.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 35 (3): 361–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kedar, Orit. 2005. “When Moderate Voters Prefer Extreme Parties: Policy Balancing in Parliamentary Elections.” American Political Science Review 99 (2): 185–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kedar, Orit. 2009. Voting for Policy, Not Parties: How Voters Compensate for Power Sharing. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krasa, Stefan, and Polborn, Mattias K.. 2012. “Political Competition between Differentiated Candidates.” Games and Economic Behavior 76 (1): 249–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krasa, Stefan, and Polborn, Mattias K.. 2018. “Political Competition in Legislative Elections.” American Political Science Review 112 (4): 809–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krasa, Stefan, and Polborn, Mattias. 2010. “Competition between Specialized Candidates.” American Political Science Review 104 (4): 745–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, K. 2007. “Supreme Court Appointments as a Move-the-Median Game.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (2): 231–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1998. Pivotal Politics: A Theory of U.S. Lawmaking. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, Jeffrey B., and King, Gary. 1999. “No Evidence on Directional vs. Proximity Voting.” Political Analysis 8 (1): 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moraski, Bryon J., and Shipan, Charles R.. 1999. “The Politics of Supreme Court Nominations: A Theory of Institutional Constraints and Choices.” American Journal of Political Science 43 (4): 1069–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, Martin J., and Slivinsky, Ashur. 1996. “A Model of Political Competition with Citizen-Candidates.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 111 (1): 65–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palfrey, Thomas R. 1984. “Spatial Equilibrium with Entry.” The Review of Economic Studies 51 (1): 139–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patty, John W. 2016. “Signaling through Obstruction.” American Journal of Political Science 60 (1): 175–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penn, Elizabeth Maggie, Patty, John W., and Gailmard, Sean. 2011. “Manipulation and Single-Peakedness: A General Result.” American Journal of Political Science 55 (2): 436–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platt, Glenn, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1992. “Directional and Euclidean Theories of Voting Behavior: A Legislative Comparison.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 17 (4): 561–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinowitz, George, and Macdonald, Stuart Elaine. 1989. “A Directional Theory of Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review 83 (1): 93–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogoff, Kenneth. 1985. “The Optimal Degree of Commitment to an Intermediate Monetary Target.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 100 (4): 1169–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romer, Thomas, and Rosenthal, Howard. 1978. “Political Resource Allocation, Controlled Agendas, and the Status Quo.” Public Choice 33: 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, Paul. 1991. “Representative Voter Theorems.” Public Choice 72: 193–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schelling, Thomas C. 1956. “An Essay on Bargaining.” The American Economic Review 46 (3): 281–306.Google Scholar
Schofield, Norman. 2004. “Equilibrium in the Spatial ‘Valence’ Model of Politics.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 16 (4): 447–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuessler, Alexander A. 2000. A Logic of Expressive Choice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tomz, Michael, and Van Houweling, Robert P.. 2008. “Candidate Positioning and Voter Choice.” American Political Science Review 102 (03): 303–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tullock, Gordon. 1971. “The Charity of the Uncharitable.” Western Economic Journal 9: 379–92.Google Scholar
Van Weelden, Richard. 2013. “Candidates, Credibility, and Re-election Incentives.” The Review of Economic Studies 80 (4): 1622–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittman, Donald A. 1983. “Candidate Motivation: A Synthesis of Alternative Theories.” American Political Science Review 77: 142–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Patty and Penn supplementary material

Patty and Penn supplementary material 1

Download Patty and Penn supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 624.8 KB
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.