Mismatched Preferences for Responsiveness: Danish Voters and Politicians

Abstract

Responsiveness is key in democratic systems and can be perceived as a continuous interaction between voters and politicians. However, only limited research has studied the alignment or potential mismatch between voter and politician preferences regarding responsiveness. This article examines how voters' and politicians' preferences for responsiveness differ and suggests reasons for the identified differences. It proposes two factors leading to different preferences: recruitment of highly educated politicians and party-organised elite politics. Using survey data collected among Danish voters, candidates and MPs, the article documents a mismatch between politicians' and voters' preferences for responsiveness: politicians prefer party responsiveness, while voters prefer constituency responsiveness. In line with expectations, voters with a shorter education have stronger preferences for constituency responsiveness, while incumbent MPs are even more party-oriented than challenger candidates. These findings highlight potential troublesome consequences of the increasingly educational-elitist recruitment and continued party organisation of legislative politics for the representative relationship between voters and politicians.

Affluence and Preferences for Democratic Representation: The Case of German Citizens and Legislators.

“…The trustee-delegate dichotomy has been criticized for being too simplistic, focusing solely on dyadic representation by individual legislators and, especially in the European context, for ignoring the embeddedness of legislators in parties (Converse and Pierce 1979;Dalton, Farrell, and Mcallister 2012;Thomassen and van Ham 2014). This criticism is reflected in more recent theoretical refinements and empirical studies, which, however, do not fundamentally question the classical dichotomy 2 , which is still widely used in empirical research (André and Depauw 2017;Pedersen 2021;Carman 2006; and remains an important analytical dimension to study preferences of democratic representation.…”