Representation

The idea of “representation” seems simple enough.  Since you can’t get 330 million Americans in a room to pass laws, the people elect representatives to act for them.  Legislative bodies are of different sizes, but the primary requirement has always been that they form in groups small enough to fit in a room.

It may seem simple, but it shouldn’t surprise you that it’s more complicated than this.

First, political scientists recognize two different concepts of representation – “descriptive” and “substantive.”  The “descriptive representation” theory says that the people who represent you should resemble you in meaningful ways.  This theory says that a group of representatives should “look like America”– male/female, black/brown/white, young/old, rich/poor – you get the idea.  This theory assumes that the only way representatives can know what you want and need from your government is if they have come from the same background as you. 

This theory is at the heart of all gerrymandering efforts and at all efforts to oppose gerrymandering.  It assumes that you can predict how citizens will vote based on concrete indicators like sex, race, education level, and economic status.  The theory says that if you can fine-tune district boundaries, you can predict how the voters in the district will vote.

On the other hand, the “substantive representation” theory assumes that the values a representative stands for are more important than his/her physical appearance or socioeconomic status.  This theory explains why the Kennedy family supported poverty programs and civil rights, why some black or female elected officials are Republicans, and why the poorest regions in the country elect billionaires (or billionaire wannabes) to represent them.

But the issue is more complicated than this.

Another theory has been around for a while – that representatives are either “delegates” or “trustees.”  Under the delegate theory, members are expected to vote the way their constituents would if they could all fit into one giant room to cast their votes.  Under the “trustee” theory, members are expected to use their best judgment to vote in the best interests of their district.  Most members espouse the delegate theory while voting in accordance with the trustee theory.  Undeniably, voters don’t generally know issues well enough to figure out what bills should be passed to protect the environment or keep schools safe.  Members may poll them to ask what positions they support, but they don’t pay much attention to the poll results.

But it is even more complicated.

When we look at the factors that influence the voting behavior of elected officials, we find that the desires of their constituents play a weak role in these decisions.  This graph shows the various factors that impact how a member of Congress votes on any given piece of legislation.  You’ll see that his/her constituents are only one among these pressures.  Here’s how this plays out:

1. Political Party – since the party leadership in Congress controls the career trajectory for a member of Congress, party members try to do what the leadership wants them to do whenever they can.  If their political party has a clear and unwavering commitment to principle, then you can assume that the member of Congress identifies with the party because he/she shares its core values.  If a party’s goals and principles are unclear or wavering, then it’s harder for the member to take guidance from the leadership.  But the party matters.

2. Personal beliefs – politicians actually believe in things – or, at least they should, so that you can predict how they might react to new circumstances.  It is reasonable to believe that members of Congress will occasionally vote according to their core beliefs, even if they go against the other pressures they’re facing.

3. Colleagues and staff – members of Congress rely a great deal on the opinions and views of their colleagues and their staff.  It is impossible for members to know everything about every issue that they have to vote on, so it is important that they identify key members whose judgment and principles they trust to advise them on how to vote on an upcoming piece of legislation.  Remember, a given vote may be on “the motion to table the motion to reconsider the amendment,” and unless you’ve been following the procedures, you don’t know how to vote if your ultimate goal is to support the bill.  You trust your colleagues to tell you.

   Staff are also important.  Members of congress generally hire key staff – legislative assistants and legal advisors – who are experts in both some areas within the member’s field of interest and in the intricacies of policymaking on Capital Hill.  Staffers often attend committee or subcommittee hearings when the member is double-brooked (or triple-booked) with obligations.  They do an enormous amount of reading to be able to provide context for upcoming votes.  Good staff make a member of Congress look and sound both informed and intelligent; bad staff can make him look like a fool.

4. Pressure groups (lobbies) matter – and not only because they sometimes pay bribes or otherwise corruptly influence votes.  They are often the subject area experts that members of Congress rely on to have the information they need to pass the legislation before them.  A newly elected member of Congress from Oshkosh whose experience was in running a successful car-repair business probably doesn’t have the chops to comprehend complicated environmental or energy legislation, but he still is expected to vote on the bills.  Lobbyists provide lovely easy-to-comprehend graphs and charts that make it clear how the members should vote. 

   The 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United strengthened the power of lobbyists even more by permitting corporations to make direct contributions to political campaigns.  Political campaigns in America are awash with money – and with money comes influence and corruption.

5. The administration also matters – particularly if members of Congress identify with the President’s political party.  They are expected (although not required) to support the President’s legislative agenda, which should embody the party’s platform.  That is what they all ran on, what they should be willing to support, and what they will run on in the next election cycle.  Renegade members who vote against a President of their own party often gain concessions to overcome their opposition, but they almost always pay for it down the road when they run for reelection or seek advancement in the Congress.

6. And of course members of Congress say they represent their constituents – but there are problems here as well.  There’s no reliable way to find out why voters chose one candidate over his opponent.  What is his position on abortion or Ukraine? Was it gun control or the environment that motivated his voters? Or was it because his kids go to school with theirs or they like his dog? Members do internal polling all the time to identify the desires of their constituents, but the results are always mixed and murky.  Most members cherry-pick the set of constituent beliefs that supports what they want to do anyway, and then vote that way while claiming they are “representing the Fine People of the First District of Wherever.”

Currently, party membership seems to be the best indicator of how members will vote.  That has not always been the case – what we now call “cross-over voting” was, if not the norm, then at least a regular occurrence until the last couple of decades.  The party positions have solidified into two warring camps since then, and the other factors simply don’t matter very much.  Republicans vote with their party (unless they are the ultra-MAGA wingnuts that don’t seem to want anything except attention), and Democrats maintain their unity to avoid letting the wingnuts take over.  The result is that things don’t work very well.  The true wishes of constituents don’t matter very much to anyone.