Constituents' Evaluations of U.S. House Members

Abstract

Legislative representation entails a degree of bonding between representatives and represented, demonstrated when constituents evaluate the performance of their representative favorably. Why are some constituents more favorable toward their representative than others? This analysis draws on previous research to construct and test a model of constituent evaluation. The data come from interviews conducted in 1988 with 1,013 Ohioans, who were asked to evaluate their member of the U.S. House of Representatives. The analysis relies on ordinary least squares regression. The results underscore the powerful role of partisanship in the nexus of constituents and their representatives.When constituents' attitudes toward representative institutions are compared to their attitudes toward individual elected representatives it has repeatedly been demonstrated that evaluations of the former are generally much less positive than assessments of the latter. Long ago, Fenno (1975, 278) argued that citizens use &dquo;different standards of judgment&dquo; to evaluate Congress than they invoke to assess their own representative in Congress. Constituents appraise Congress's performance mainly on the basis of their perceptions of its ability to solve national problems, work harmoniously with the president, and maintain a steady pace of legislative productivity.

Determinants of Differences in Feelings Toward Senators Representing the Same State

“…Such filtering mitigates the extent to which affection is reduced by ideological distance. Research has consistently shown at least indirect links between party congruence and candidate evaluation, with party identification serving as a mechanism for filtering perceptions and shaping feelings toward candidates (see, e.g., Campbell et al 1960, Markus andConverse 1979;Page and Jones, 1979;Kenney and Rice 1988;Scheb and Hayes 1989;Ripley et al 1990). Yet, party congruence is rarely listed by respondents as a reason for liking or disliking a representative (Fiorina 1989;Parker 1989).…”

“…While contact of any kind may increase candidate evaluations (see, e.g., Jacobson 1987; Ripley et al 1990), Parker and Parker (1989) document the importance of personal, rather than impersonal, contact in building trust.…”

Politics, parties, and parliaments: political change in Norway

“…The fact that the Norwegian respondents extend general support to the Storting, while rating its members negatively, may appear to be a reversal of the ob servation for the U.S., where the public "love their congressman, but not the Con gress" (Cook, 1979;Fenno, 1975;Parker and Davidson, 1979;Ripley et al, 1992).…”

“…Even though such an activity may be grounded in "representation," education is treated as a categorically different function (Ripley, 1988;Clem, 1989). While legislators or members of parliament in most political systems may, in fact, engage in educating the citizenry, none of the extant literature considers education a principal function of par liaments.…”

“…With respect to intersystem variation, an itemization of the major func tions performed by the American Congress nearly always includes law making, representation, and oversight (Clem, 1989;Ripley, 1988;Vogler, 1988). Lawmaking and representation are crucial to any legislative body, and they usually make it onto the list of major parliamentary functions.…”