Studies of political participation and representation often contend that elected officials respond more to the preferences of voters than those of nonvoters, but seldom test this claim. This is a critical assumption because if true, biases in who participates will lead to biased representation. Office holders might respond disproportionately to voters' preferences because voters tend to select like-minded representatives, voters tend to communicate their preferences more, and only voters can reelect representatives. We find that voter preferences predict the aggregate roll-call behavior of Senators while nonvoter preferences do not. We also present evidence supporting the three explanations advanced to account for the preferential treatment of voters.

We compare the ideological proximity of Latinos and whites to their Members of Congress (MCs), demonstrating the degree to which Latinos are underrepresented compared to whites. We show how this representation gap varies with group differences in electoral turnout and income, district ethnic composition, and MCs' ethnicity and party affiliation. We find that Latinos' unequal representation is not simply a function of the group's numerical minority status. Concentrating Latinos in congressional districts does not necessarily translate into more equal representation. However, several factors can enhance the equality of Latinos' representation-participation in elections and representation by both Latinos and Democrats.

No abstract

Since the 1930s, polling organizations have asked Americans whether they “approve or disapprove of the job [the incumbent] is doing as president.” In the early 1970s, John Mueller started an academic industry by asking what drives these evaluations. American politics and the tools available to examine it have changed dramatically since then, inspiring a burst of research on presidential approval in the 1990s. We review this new body of literature, arguing that it builds on but differs importantly from earlier approval studies. Since Mueller’s writing, scholars have expanded his relatively simple model, taking account of presidents’ goals and personal characteristics, other political actors, the ubiquitous media, and an inattentive public. We describe three waves of research, focusing on the most recent wave. We suggest that history, along with new intellectual currents, data, and methods have enabled each wave to incorporate more of political, social, and psychological reality. Finally, we identify the issues most likely to motivate presidential approval research for the next ten years.

Over the past three decades, political scientists have been developing general models of presidential approval ratings, seeking to determine the structure of aggregate approval. This endeavor has culminated in the broad claim that "peace, prosperity, and probity" drive the public's approval. The unprecedented events of the Clinton Presidency, especially his high approval during and after impeachment, present a strong challenge to this model. However, the existing model explains Clinton's approval remarkably well, suggesting that the public punished and rewarded him for the state of the economy, major political events, and his integrity. Passing this strong test constitutes considerable support for the existing model of approval.Political science aims to develop general models of political phenomena that can make sense of and account for a wide variety of conditions and outcomes. The simple fact that time marches on, presenting new conditions, outcomes, and events, demands that models of politics be general enough to account for these innovations and idiosyncrasies. New and surprising outcomes often provide difficult tests for models and scholars need to determine whether existing models can explain apparent anomalies or if they need to be adjusted or replaced. Over the past three decades, political scientists have been developing general models of presidential approval ratings, seeking to understand and explain their structure and dynamics. This endeavor has culminated in the general claim that "peace, prosperity, and probity" drive the public's approval (Ostrom and Smith 1992: 128). The unprecedented events of the Clinton presidency present a strong challenge to this model and many interpretations of these events suggest that this NOTE: I would like to thank