Fine-tuning Representation: Voter Perceptions of Legislators’ Caucus Membership

• In Event: Poster Session: Legislative Studies & American Political Economy
  In Poster Session: Poster Session: Legislative Studies

Abstract

Bipartisan efforts to address pressing societal problems are rare in Congress as evidenced by increasingly polarized roll-call voting behavior over time (Poole and Rosenthal 1985). Yet, many Americans are frustrated with gridlock and want to see more congressional cooperation to advance policies they care about (Desjardins 2022). Legislators can use caucuses, or informal groups that meet to discuss and advance policy solutions regardless of party affiliation to fine-tune their representational signals in a highly polarized policymaking landscape. Perhaps the most visible metric used in extant literature to assess whether legislators are responsive to their constituents is roll-call voting behavior on the small subset of issues that make it to a final floor vote (Miller and Stokes 1963). In a political environment characterized by party-line voting, observers may conclude that legislators are not adequately responsive to the large portion of their electorates that hold moderate preferences. However, legislators can send customized signals to their constituents about their policy preferences through caucus memberships when they are unable to show attentiveness to issues through formal committee assignments, party roles, and voting behavior (Miler 2011). If legislators were able to represent their constituents' issue preferences perfectly through these formal activities, there would be no need for informal caucuses to provide additional signals. Yet, the stability of the contemporary caucus system since the early 1960’s, with over 400 caucuses operating in the 118th Congress that are overwhelmingly composed of members from both parties, suggests that legislators are still looking for ways to represent their constituencies outside of their formal representational activities. However, the extent to which voters receive these signals and perceive legislators’ caucus membership behavior as a more accurate representation of their preferences and ideological views is not yet known.

We fielded a national survey experiment to explore how voters respond to hypothetical Republican and Democratic legislators’ caucus membership behavior. First, the participants placed themselves on an ideological spectrum and reported their stances on two policy areas–climate change and border security. We randomized them to see 4 vignettes which described hypothetical Democratic and Republican legislators’ caucus memberships. The first vignette presented a legislator’s voting behavior (i.e. the legislator voted with Democrats on a majority of proposals) absent of additional caucus memberships. The second randomized whether respondents also saw a legislators’ membership in one of the following caucuses: the far-right Freedom Caucus, the Bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, and the far-left Progressive Caucus. The third and fourth randomized whether respondents also saw a legislators’ membership in one of three climate change-focused caucuses and one of three border security-focused caucuses (2 were partisan and 1 was bipartisan). Following each vignette, the participants reported their view of the hypothetical legislator's ideological position and issue-specific concern. Finally, the respondents reported how likely they were to support the legislators with their votes on the next election day. We hypothesize that respondents who indicate extreme ideological preferences and strong concern about the issues tested are the most sensitive to caucus membership. If they perceive that caucus membership moves the legislators’ preferences closer to theirs, they will indicate a supportive vote, and vice versa. On the other hand, moderate respondents may reward legislators whose caucus membership shows an affinity for bipartisan collaboration and be less likely to support legislators whose caucus membership indicates a more extreme ideology.

Public opinion scholars documenting the state of representative democracy can benefit from a broader understanding of legislators’ representational behaviors. The present survey does not reveal voters’ motivations for rating legislator behavior, but will discern their perceptions of voting behavior relative to bipartisan and partisan caucus membership from both a general ideological standpoint, and from an issue-specific lens. This less studied, less visible legislative behavior has important consequences for our understanding of representative democracy and the institutions’ ability to advance policy in a highly polarized environment.

Desjardins, L. (2022, December 15). Poll shows
Americans want Congressional Cooperation,
but expect gridlock. PBS.

Miler, Kristina. (2011). “The Constituency
Motivations of Caucus Membership.” American
Politics Research 39(5): 885–920.

Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1963).
Constituency Influence in Congress. The
American Political Science Review, 57(1), 45–
56.

Poole, Keith T., and Howard Rosenthal. (1985) “A
Spatial Model for Legislative Roll Call
Analysis.” American Journal of Political
Science, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 357–84.

Authors

• Renae Marshall, University of California Santa Barbara

• Sarah Anderson, University of California, Santa Barbara