What Does Shared Identity Signal? Descriptive Representation vs Policy Positions

• In Event: Descriptive Representation, Substantive Representation, or NO Representation?

Abstract

Does shared racial identity matter when voters share policy positions with candidates? Extant theories of descriptive representation suggest that voters prefer candidates with whom they share a racial background. There are three main mechanisms likely underlying this preference: 1) positive affect from presumed shared non-ideological interests, 2) presumed policy congruence based on shared identity, or 3) positive affect towards the candidate in general. This paper attempts to differentiate between these mechanisms using a survey experimental design. If an individual prefers a co-racial candidate in spite of having incongruent policy preferences, this has implications for the type of campaigning a candidate can to do to appeal to different voters. If an individual’s preference for a co-racial candidate attenuates when the non-co-racial candidate is more policy congruent, then we can infer that policy is the more relevant factor in candidate choice. Results from preliminary analysis focused on Asian survey respondents suggest that policy congruence seems to be the primary driver for candidate choice, more so than shared identity. However, this does not run counter to prior studies highlighting the effect of co-racial candidates on voter preference. Among policy-incongruent candidates, respondents are more likely to choose a co-racial candidate over a non-coracial one. This preference is likely driven by perceptions around representation, specifically how hard the candidate would work to represent group interests.

Author

• Jennifer Wu, Binghamton University