Dyadic Representation Reappraised

Hill, Kim; Hurley, Patricia A.

doi:10.2307/2991787

Cited by 103 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While advances in the estimation of public opinion at the constituency-level in the United States have revitalized a previous literature on dyadic representation (Miller and Stokes 1963;Erikson, Wright and McIver 1993;Hill and Hurley 1999), that literature-with isolated exceptions (Converse and Pierce 1986)-never gained traction in Europe (Powell 2004), due in part to greater party discipline but due also to the lack of measures of opinion. The strategies discussed here can provide researchers outside of the United States with an intuition concerning the relative performance of strategies which will help them to proceed to dealing with substantive questions.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing Strategies for Estimating Constituency Opinion from National Survey Samples

Hanretty¹,

Lauderdale²,

Vivyan³

2016

PSRM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Political scientists interested in estimating how public opinion varies by constituency have developed several strategies for supplementing limited constituency survey data with additional sources of information. We present two evaluation studies in the previously unexamined context of British constituency-level opinion: an external validation study of party vote share in the 2010 general election and a cross-validation of opinion toward the European Union. We find that most of the gains over direct estimation come from the inclusion of constituency-level predictors, which are also the easiest source of additional information to incorporate. Individual-level predictors combined with post-stratification particularly improve estimates from unrepresentative samples, and geographic local smoothing can compensate for weak constituency-level predictors. We argue that these findings are likely to be representative of applications of these methods where the number of constituencies is large.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing Strategies for Estimating Constituency Opinion from National Survey Samples

Hanretty¹,

Lauderdale²,

Vivyan³

2016

PSRM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Eulau and Karps (1977), for example, identified several components of representation: service responsiveness, allocation responsiveness, policy responsiveness, and symbolic responsiveness. Empirically based assessments of "representation" also encompass analyses of electoral systems (Cox, 1997;Powell, 2000), the translation of votes into seats in legislatures (Erikson, 1988;Powell, 2000), the congruence between legislators and constituents (Miller & Stokes, 1963;Achen, 1978;Erikson, 1978;Weissberg, 1978Weissberg, , 1979Kuklinski, 1979;Stone, 1979;Hurley, 1989Hurley, , 1991Hill & Hurley, 1999;Arnold, 2003), minority representation (Canon, 1999;Tate, 2003), districting and redistricting (Canon, 1999;Cox & Katz, 2002), and the roles of representatives (Eulau et al ., 1959;Fenno, 1978;Norton & Wood, 1993;Rosenthal, 1998;Judge, 1999;Lee & Oppenheimer, 1999), just to name a few (see also , Jewell, 1985;Thomassen, 1994;Kuklinski & Segura, 1995, for extensive literature reviews). At a broader level, the representation congruence studies are conceptually related to the studies of aggregated opinion and governmental decisions or policies (see Page & Shapiro, 1992;Erikson et al ., 2002;Wlezien, 2004;Soroka & Wlezien, 2005) which have generally found a close relation between aggregate opinion and governmental policies.…”

Section: Modelling Political Representationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Preferences for Political Representation in the US

Carman

2007

Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A BSTRACT While much of the extant research on political representation focuses on congruence issues and elite perceptions of their representational roles, little has been done to examine how members of the general public think about representational relationship. Often, constituents are assumed to be passive actors in the representational process. This paper advances the argument that individuals have preferences over how tightly bound elected representatives should be to constituent policy preferences and that these preferences are contextual, varying by the degree to which constituents perceive that their representative shares characteristics similar to those of the individual. Two data sources are used to verify this argument: (1) the 1978 ANES and (2) data collected for Congress ' Obey Commission, 1976-1977. These data provide evidence that public representational preferences have a systematic component. Most significantly, the study finds that members of minority groups have contextually derived preferences for political representation.

show abstract

“…For one thing, numerous studies have shown that policy outcomes are more consistent with public preferences in cases of high issue salience than in cases of low issue salience (Page and Shapiro 1983;Monroe 1998;Petry and Mendelsohn 2004). Such consistency, moreover, is more likely to result from a bottom-up rather than a top-down process when the salience of the issue in question is high (Hill and Hurley 1999). For another thing, in a similar vein, a distinguished line of research on the public responsiveness to policy outputs suggests that publics will only take note of policy decisions and adjust preferences in a 'thermostatic' fashion when the respective policy area is sufficiently salient to them (Wlezien 1995(Wlezien , 2004.…”

Section: The Concept Of Public Saliencementioning

confidence: 88%