Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-vmclg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-17T16:27:59.284Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Party or the Purse? Unequal Representation in the US Senate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 July 2019

JEFFREY R. LAX Open the ORCID record for JEFFREY R. LAX [Opens in a new window] ,
JUSTIN H. PHILLIPS Open the ORCID record for JUSTIN H. PHILLIPS [Opens in a new window]  and
ADAM ZELIZER Open the ORCID record for ADAM ZELIZER [Opens in a new window]
JEFFREY R. LAX*
Affiliation:
Columbia University
JUSTIN H. PHILLIPS*
Affiliation:
Columbia University
ADAM ZELIZER*
Affiliation:
The University of Chicago
*
*Jeffrey R. Lax, Professor, Department of Political Science, Columbia University, [email protected].
†Justin H. Phillips, Professor, Department of Political Science, Columbia University, [email protected].
‡Adam Zelizer, Assistant Professor, Harris School of Public Policy, The University of Chicago, [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent work on US policymaking argues that responsiveness to public opinion is distorted by money, in that the preferences of the rich matter much more than those of lower-income Americans. A second distortion—partisan biases in responsiveness—has been less well studied and is often ignored or downplayed in the literature on affluent influence. We are the first to evaluate, in tandem, these two potential distortions in representation. We do so using 49 Senate roll-call votes from 2001 to 2015. We find that affluent influence is overstated and itself contingent on partisanship—party trumps the purse when senators have to take sides. The poor get what they want more often from Democrats. The rich get what they want more often from Republicans, but only if Republican constituents side with the rich. Thus, partisanship induces, shapes, and constrains affluent influence.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 113 , Issue 4 , November 2019 , pp. 917 - 940
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

This project was funded in part by grant from the Russell Sage Foundation (G-6789, “Who Listens to Whom? Assessing Inequalities in Representation”). We thank Andrew Guess and Michael Malecki for previous work with us on uncertainty in opinion estimation. We thank participants at Columbia University, Wake Forest University, and the American and Midwest Political Science Association Conferences for helpful feedback and discussion. We thank the anonymous reviewers for their careful reading, advice, and patience. Replication files are available at the American Political Science Review Dataverse: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/MCWFCS.

References

REFERENCES

Achen, Christopher H. 1978. “Measuring Representation.” American Journal of Political Science 22 (3): 475–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Achen, Christopher, and Bartels, Larry. 2016. Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahler, Douglas J., and Broockman, David E.. 2018. “The Delegate Paradox: Why Polarized Politicians Can Represent Citizens Best.” The Journal of Politics 80(4): 1117–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, David C., and Carman, Christopher Jan. 2012. Representing Red and Blue: How the Culture Wars Change the Way Citizens Speak and Politicians Listen. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2008. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bhatti, Yosef, and Erikson, Robert S.. 2011. “How Poorly Are the Poor Represented in the US Senate?” In Who Gets Represented? eds. Enns, Peter K. and Wlezien, Christopher. New York: Russel Sage Foundation, 285–310.Google Scholar
Branham, J. Alexander, Soroka, Stuart N., and Wlezien, Christopher. 2017. “When Do the Rich Win?” Political Science Quarterly 132 (1): 43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broockman, David E. 2016. “Approaches to Studying Policy Representation.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 41 (1): 181–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broockman, David E., and Skovron, Christopher. 2018. “Bias in Perceptions of Public Opinion Among American Political Elites.” American Political Science Review 112 (3): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunner, Eric, Ross, Stephen L., and Washington, Ebonya. 2013. “Does Less Income Mean Less Representation?” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 5 (2): 53–76.Google Scholar
Buttice, Matthew K., and Highton, Benjamin. 2013. “How Does Multilevel Regression and Poststratification Perform with Conventional National Surveys?” Political Analysis 21 (4): 449–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clausen, Aage R. 1973. How Congressmen Decide: A Policy Focus. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
Clinton, Joshua. 2006. “Representation in Congress: Constituents and Roll Calls in the 106th House.” The Journal of Politics 68 (2): 397–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Christopher. 2012. “Understanding Economic Biases in Representation: Income, Resources, and Policy Representation in the 110th House.” Political Research Quarterly 65 (4): 938–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Christopher. 2013. “Social Context and Economic Biases in Representation.” The Journal of Politics 75 (3): 773–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Christopher. 2017. Putting Inequality in Context: Class, Public Opinion, and Representation in the United States. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enns, Peter K. 2015a. “Relative Policy Support and Coincidental Representation.” Perspectives on Politics 13 (4): 1053–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enns, Peter K. 2015b. “Reconsidering the Middle: A Reply to Martin Gilens.” Perspectives on Politics 13 (4): 1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S. 2015. “Income Inequality and Policy Responsiveness.” Annual Review of Political Science 18: 11–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., Wright, Gerald C., and McIver, John P.. 1993. Statehouse Democracy: Public Opinion and Policy in the American States. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. 1978. Home Style: Representatives in Their Districts. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, Shor, Boris, Bafumi, Joseph, and Park, David. 2007. “Rich State, Poor State, Red State, Blue State: What’s the Matter with Connecticut?” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 2 (4): 345–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and Little, Thomas C.. 1997. “Poststratification into Many Categories Using Hierarchical Logistic Regression.” Survey Methodology 23 (2): 127–35.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and Stern, Hal. 2006. “The Difference Between ‘Significant’ and ‘Not Significant’ Is Not Itself Statistically Significant.” The American Statistician 60 (4): 328–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth R., and Lewis, Jeffrey B.. 2004. “Beyond the Median: Voter Preferences, District Heterogeneity, and Political Representation.” Journal of Political Economy 112 (6): 1364–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth R., and Morton, Rebecca B.. 1998. “Primary Election Systems and Representation.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 14 (2): 304–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giger, Nathalie, and Lefkofridi, Zoe. 2014. “The Role of Persoanl Issue Salience in Citizens’ Representation via Parties.” Swiss Political Science Review 20 (2): 287–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilens, Martin. 2005. “Inequality and Democratic Responsiveness.” Public Opinion Quarterly 69 (5): 778–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilens, Martin. 2012. Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilens, Martin. 2015. “The Insufficiency of ‘Democracy by Coincidence’: A Response to Peter K. Enns.” Perspectives on Politics 13 (4): 1065–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilens, Martin, and Page, Benjamin I.. 2014. “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens.” Perspectives on Politics 12 (3): 564–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Thomas J. 2012. The Representational Sources of Political Inequality. Riverside: University of California.Google Scholar
Hayes, Thomas J. 2013. “Responsiveness in an Era of Inequality: The Case of the US Senate.” Political Research Quarterly 66 (3): 585–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hussey, Wesley, and Zaller, John. 2011. “Who Do Parties Represent?” In Who Gets Represented? eds. Enns, Peter K. and Wlezien, Christopher. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation, 311–44.Google Scholar
Kastellec, Jonathan, Lax, Jeffrey R., Malecki, Michael, and Phillips, Justin H.. 2015. “Polarizing the Electoral Connection: Partisan Representation in Supreme Court Confirmation Politics.” The Journal of Politics 77 (3): 787–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krimmel, Katherine, Lax, Jeffrey, and Phillips, Justin. 2016. “Gay Rights in Congress: Public Opinion and (Mis)Representation.” Public Opinion Quarterly 80 (4): 888–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lax, Jeffrey R., and Phillips, Justin H.. 2009a. “How Should We Estimate Public Opinion in the States.” American Journal of Political Science 53 (1): 107–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lax, Jeffrey R., and Phillips, Justin H.. 2009b. “Gay Rights in the States: Public Opinion and Policy Responsiveness.” American Political Science Review 103 (3): 367–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lax, Jeffrey R., and Phillips, Justin H.. 2012. “The Democratic Deficit in State Policymaking.” American Journal of Political Science 56 (1): 148–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lax, Jeffrey R., and Phillips, Justin H.. 2013. “How Should We Estimate Sub-National Opinion Using MRP? Preliminary Findings and Recommendations.” Conference paper: Midwest Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Lefkofridi, Zoe, and Casado-Asensio, Juan. 2013. “European Vox Radicis: Representation and Policy Congruence on the Extremes.” Comparative European Politics 11 (1): 93–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John G. 2001. “Problems with a Methodology Used to Evaluate the Voter Initiative.” The Journal of Politics 63 (4): 1250–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John G. 2010. “Popular Control of Public Policy: A Quantitative Approach.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 5 (2): 133–67.Google Scholar
Park, David K., Gelman, Andrew, and Bafumi, Joseph. 2006. “State-Level Opinions from National Surveys: Poststratification Using Multilevel Logistic Regression.” In Public Opinion in State Politics, ed. Cohen, J.E.. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 209–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard L.. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rhodes, Jesse H., and Schaffner, Brian F.. 2017. “Testing Models of Unequal Representation: Democratic Populists and Republican Oligarchs?” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 12 (2): 185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rigby, Elizabeth, and Wright, Gerald C.. 2011. “Whose Statehouse Democracy? Policy Responsiveness to Poor versus Rich Constituents in Poor versus Rich States.” In Who Gets Represented? eds. Enns, Peter K. and Wlezien, Christopher. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation, 189–22.Google Scholar
Rigby, Elizabeth, and Maks-Solomon, Cory. 2017. “Are the Rich Always Better Represented Than the Poor? Income- and Party-Stratified Policy Representation in the US Senate.” Working Paper. Paper prepared for George Washington University Political Science Department American Politics Workshop on September 19, 2017. https://corymaks.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/rigby-maks-solomon-workshop_09-09-17.pdf.Google Scholar
Selb, Peter, and Munzert, Simon. 2011. “Estimating Constituency Preferences from Sparse Survey Data Using Auxiliary Geographic Information.” Political Analysis 19 (4): 455–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabl, Andrew. 2015. “The Two Cultures of Democratic Theory: Responsiveness, Democratic Quality, and the Empirical-Normative Divide.” Perspectives on Politics 13 (2): 345–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Catherine R., Brady, David W., Brody, Richard A., and Ferejohn, John A.. 1990. “Linking Constituency Opinion and Senate Voting Scores: A Hybrid Explanation.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 15 (4): 599–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soroka, Stuart N., and Wlezien, Christophers 2008. “On the Limits to Inequality in Representation.” PS: Political Science & Politics 41 (2): 319–27.Google Scholar
Tausanovitch, Chris, 2016. “Income, Ideology, and Representation.” RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2 (7): 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treier, Shawn and Jackman, Simon. 2008. “Democracy as Latent Variable.” American Journal of Political Science 52 (1): 201–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toshkov, Dimiter. 2015. “Exploring the Performance of Multilevel Modeling and Poststratification with Eurobarometer Data.” Political Analysis 23 (3): 455–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ura, Joseph Daniel, and Ellis, Christopher R.. 2008. “Income, Preferences, and the Dynamics of Policy Responsiveness.” PS: Political Science & Politics 41 (4): 785–94.Google Scholar
Warshaw, Christopher. 2012. “Are Legislators More Responsive to Public Opinion on Salient Issues?” Working Paper Prepared for the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. New Orleans, LA. August 30–September 2, 2012. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2107282.Google Scholar
Warshaw, Christopher, and Rodden, Jonathan. 2012. “How Should We Measure District-Level Public Opinion on Individual Issues?” The Journal of Politics 74 (1): 203–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher, and Soroka, Stuart N.. 2011. “Inequality in Policy Responsiveness?” In Who Gets Represented? ed. Enns, Peter K. and Wlezien, Christopher. New York: Russel Sage Foundation, 285–310.Google Scholar
Wright, Gerald C. 1989. “Policy Voting in the US Senate: Who Is Represented?” Legislative Studies Quarterly 14 (4): 465–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Lax et al. Dataset

Dataset https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/MCWFCS
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Lax et al. supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Lax et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 276.4 KB
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.