ANES Study Proposal
Who Represents Me: A Battery of Questions Exploring Race, Gender,
Partisanship, and the Limits of Electoral Representation
Kathryn Pearson, Dara Z. Strolovitch, and Ashley English, University of Minnesota
Five Keywords: Representation, Race, Gender, Partisanship, Congress
Political scientists have long recognized that representation occurs in myriad ways – with
representatives acting as trustees or as delegates, substantively or descriptively, promissorily or
anticipatorily, in Washington or in their districts. Scholars also argue that Americans,
particularly those who are members of marginalized groups, are represented by a range of actors
beyond their own senators and members of Congress (MCs) – by interest groups (Strolovitch
2007); by social movements (Weldon 2006); or by MCs from other districts. In recent years,
scholars have begun to explore how well different kinds of representatives represent different
constituencies, while others have examined the implications of various “kinds” of representation
for political behavior, examining, for example, the effects of descriptive representation on voter
turnout, trust in government, Congressional approval, and the extent to which voters contact the
MCs from their districts. Few scholars, however, have asked Americans what kinds of
representation they expect or prefer (but see Grill 2007), and even fewer have examined who
voters think represents them and their interests, the effects of these beliefs on political behavior,
or the relationship between each of these and partisan, racial, or gender congruence. We propose
to examine the relationships between political representation and political behavior though a
question battery that asks respondents (1) to whom they look for representation; (2) how satisfied
they are with how they are represented; and (3) what kinds of representation they prefer.
Representational Pluralism
There are several reasons to suspect that when it comes to representation, the link
between an individual and his or her member of Congress (MC) is not always the most important
2
one, and that Americans may look elsewhere for representation in national politics. First, the
contemporary House of Representatives is more polarized along partisan lines than it has been in
nearly a century (e.g., Theriault 2008), and partisan voters increasingly disapprove of the rival
party (Abramowitz and Saunders 2008). In this context, strong partisans may so disagree with
the opposing party that they search beyond their own member of Congress for representation if
he or she does not share their party label. Second, even in less polarized political contexts,
Congress is not always an obvious source of representation for many Americans, particularly for
members of marginalized groups such as women and people of color. Geographically based
congressional districts, make difficult the election of representatives of groups whose members
do not live in residentially distinct areas (Canon 1999; Cohen and Rogers 1992; Guinier 1994;
Rehfeld 2005; Warren 2001, 2004). Women, for instance, share many interests but are almost
never concentrated geographically in particular congressional districts (though women often do
compose just over half the residents in a district). Women also have limited opportunities to vote
for women candidates, as women are less likely to run for office than are similarly-situated men
(Lawless and Fox 2010). As a consequence, in spite of the increasing numbers of women and
minorities serving in the House of Representatives (73 and 71 respectively in 2011), most
women and minorities are not represented descriptively by their own member of Congress, and
may therefore look elsewhere for this kind of representation.
Third, important as we have just suggested they can be, salient groupings that help define
political interests and preferences — such as those based on race, ethnicity, class, citizenship,
and gender — are not static, mutually exclusive categories. Instead, these groups are defined by
contingent, dynamic, and intersecting interests. Because individuals belong to many intersecting
and overlapping groups, individuals typically have “interests” along more than one dimension.
3
For example, a predominantly Latino electoral district might elect a Latino MC, but this
representative may not attend to the specific concerns of Latinas, low-income Latinos, or gay and
lesbian Latinos (Fraga et al. 2005). Because geographically-based representatives are illequipped to transmit the multifaceted interests of groups whose identities and interests are
intersectionally constituted (Strolovitch 2007), even people who are “descriptively represented”
by the MC from their district along one line may look to others as well.
Members of underrepresented groups or partisan identifiers whose MCs’ party affiliations are
not congruent with their own might look to other elected officials (e.g., the president or the
senators from their states), party leaders, congressional caucuses, or to advocacy groups rather to
the members from their districts to speak for them in national politics. Although few of the 330
caucuses currently registered with the Committee on House Administration are sufficiently broad
or active to create meaningful representational connections, four identity-based caucuses -- the
Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC), the
Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC), and the Congressional Caucus for
Women’s Issues (CCWI) -- are rooted in ideas about the need for descriptive representation for
underrepresented groups, and have received attention in the media and among scholars and make
claims to such links and actively engage in outreach to members of the populations for whom
they profess to speak in the House (Dodson 2006; Hero 1992; Gertzog 2004; Hammond 1998;
Pinney and Serra 1999; Singh 1996). Similarly, advocacy organizations claim to fill in gaps in
electorally based representation by transcending geographic boundaries and providing
compensatory and surrogate representation for groups of people with shared interests but
inadequate formal territorially based political representation (Ainsworth 2002; Jenkins 1987;
Rehfeld 2006; Strolovitch 2007). Carole Uhlaner (2002) has found that many Latinos, for
4
example, affirm that there are groups that “look out for” their concerns, and that this view can
lead to increased political participation.
The Representation-Behavior Link
Although descriptive representation is no panacea for members of marginalized groups, a
wide range of work shows that it has implications, albeit conflicting ones, for their political
attitudes and behavior. Kira Sanbonmatsu (2003), for example, finds that women support
gender-based descriptive representation more than men, and research suggests that trust in
government improves among members of marginalized groups when they are represented by
members of their own racial or gender groups. Adrian Pantoja and Gary Segura (2003) find that
“descriptively represented Latino citizens are less likely to articulate feelings of political
alienation” (see also Banducci, Donovan, and Karp 2004), and Matt Barreto, Gary Segura, and
Nathan Woods (2004) find that Latinos in majority-minority districts are also more likely to
vote. Other work finds that African Americans in cities with black mayors are more favorably
disposed toward city government (Abney and Hutcheson 1981; Howell and Fagan 1988). Using
ANES data, Claudine Gay (2002) found that descriptive representation increases the probability
that black constituents will contact their MCs, and that whites and blacks are more likely to
contact MCs of the same race. Also using ANES data, Michael Wagner (2007) finds that people
whose MCs are members of the opposing party are less satisfied with casework, less likely to
think their representative would be helpful if contacted, and that these negative attitudes increase
as representatives become more extreme. Our proposed battery of questions will allow scholars
to deepen our understanding of the ways in which descriptive representation and partisan
congruence affects political behavior and attitudes by supplementing the ANES’s extensive
questions about political attitudes and behavior with new measures that explore directly whether
5
and in what ways it influences which political actors people “think of” when they think about
being represented, who people think best represent them, who they look to for representation if
they do not feel represented by the members of Congress from their districts, and whether and
how their political attitudes and behavior vary based on those assessments in ways the ways in
which people use their evaluations of their representatives and the choices they make about
representation to shape their future political behavior and participation.
Our proposed questions would allow us to explore citizens’ views about representation,
specifically regarding how they want to be represented and who they think best represents them,
and the connection between these views and their political behavior. We will test hypotheses
about how individuals value shared partisan, racial, and gender identities with their members of
Congress in both chambers. We expect each of these shared characteristics to shape individuals’
attitudes about who best represents them, their satisfaction with Congress, their vote choice, and
the likelihood that they contact their representative. In the absence of shared identities, we
expect that members of marginalized groups will turn to organizations to give voice to their
interests. In testing this hypothesis, we will assess whether the claims to advocacy made by
congressional caucuses and advocacy groups are reflected in the views of the members of the
groups on whose behalf they claim to speak, and explore people’s perceptions of the tradeoffs
among possible representatives. In an era of partisan polarization, we expect that the absence of
shared partisan identities will heavily condition individuals’ attitudes about how they are
represented and by whom, as well as influencing their political attitudes and behavior.
Previous Implementation, Reliability, and Validity of Proposed Items
We first implemented our proposed questions on the 2006 Cooperative Congressional
Election Study (CCES). Combining those survey data with additional information about the
6
party, seniority, race, gender, and ideologies of respondents’ actual members of Congress
allowed us to analyze the influences of race, gender, and partisanship on three inter-related
aspects of political representation. First, we examined to whom voters look for representation,
asking whether partisan, racial, and gender congruence – for example, a Democrat represented
by a Democratic member of Congress or a woman represented by a woman MC – affect the
likelihood that one will look to his or her own member of Congress for representation in DC.
We found that partisan and racial congruence were particularly important, while gender
congruence was more complicated. We then focused on the influences of partisan identification,
race, and gender in reliance on extra-institutional representation by congressional caucuses and
advocacy organizations. We found that 25 percent of respondents look first to groups -- either
organizations or congressional caucuses -- for representation rather than to their member of
Congress, the president, or congressional leaders. Finally, we analyzed the relationships between
these same variables and attitudes about Congress. These initial results indicate that shared
identities – whether race-based or partisan-based – affect attitudes about representation, and
representational connections shape attitudes about government, but many questions remain.
While leading to theoretically innovative and substantively interesting findings, the results of
our analyses of the CCES data are also plausible and consistent with our expectations in ways
that suggest that our constructs are valid. First, as expected, the results of our study showed that
while a plurality of Americans looks first to the MC from their district for representation. We
also found, however, that a majority of Americans look elsewhere for representation, confirming
our hypothesis that while the congressional connection remains the most important
representational linkage between the citizenry and the federal government, it is far more tenuous
than the Framers might have hoped. Second, partisanship behaved as expected because
7
respondents’ beliefs about their own MCs were heavily conditioned by party identification; that
is, respondents represented by a MC of the same party are significantly more likely to look to
their own MC for representation. As hypothesized, we found that respondents’ representational
linkages to Congress were affected by descriptive representation, which enhanced the bond
between individuals and their MCs. For example, our bivariate results showed that among the
African Americans in the sample with an African American MC, none responded that they
looked “not at all” to their own member for representation, a stark contrast to the 40 percent of
African American respondents who gave this answer overall. Further, while African Americans
represented by an African American MC are not significantly more likely to look to these
legislators for representation once we account for other factors, they are significantly more likely
to approve of Congress. Our analyses of representation by congressional caucuses also
demonstrated that a failure to prioritize racial and gender congruence by their MCs should not be
construed as evidence that women and people of color do not value being descriptively
represented in Congress. Instead, our results suggest they turn to supplementary representatives
such as congressional caucuses for necessary descriptive and compensatory representation.
Lastly, our results confirmed our hypothesis that advocacy groups serve an important
representational function at the federal level, particularly for people who are not represented by a
MC who shares their partisan affiliation, despite the fact that voters do not elect them to office.
For example, Democrats with Republican members of Congress are more likely to turn to
outside groups for representation.
The CCES data allowed us to test our questions and to conduct preliminary analyses of our
hypotheses, but each module consists of only 1,000 respondents in only one election year, and
included too few Latinos and Asian Americans to conduct meaningful analyses of these groups.
8
We therefore hope to replicate and extend our questions on the ANES in order to administer
them to a larger, more representative sample and to more fully explore our findings by
examining the dynamics of representation longitudinally over changing political contexts and
among more racial and ethnic groups, linking them to political attitudes and behavior.
Question Wordings
Question 1: There are many different ways in which people can have their views represented in
national politics. You might be represented by the President, by members of Congress, by the
leaders of your party, or by organizations that speak for different groups. I will read you a list of
different kinds of representatives. Please indicate how much you look to each one to represent
you in Washington:
<1> Do not look to at all
<2> Look to somewhat
<3> Look to a great deal
[RANDOMIZE ORDER]















President Barack Obama
NAME, the House member from your district
NAME [JUNIOR SENATOR], one of two senators from your state
NAME [SENIOR SENATOR], one of two senators from your state
Republican congressional leaders such as John Boehner
Democratic congressional leaders such as Nancy Pelosi
The Congressional Black Caucus, currently chaired by Rep. Emanuel Cleaver
The Congressional Hispanic Caucus, currently chaired by Rep. Charles Gonzalez
The Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, currently chaired by Rep. Judy Chu
The Congressional Caucus for Women’s Issues, currently chaired by Reps. Cynthia
Lummis and Gwen Moore
Organizations or movements that speak for various groups or about various issues
o If yes, please specify which ones
The Republican National Committee
The Democratic National Committee
The Federal Bureaucracy
The Supreme Court
Question 2: Which of the representatives listed above do you look to the MOST to represent you
in Washington: [RANDOMIZE ORDER]



President Barack Obama
NAME, the House member from your district
NAME [JUNIOR SENATOR], one of two senators from your state
9












NAME [SENIOR SENATOR], one of two senators from your state
Republican congressional leaders such as John Boehner
Democratic congressional leaders such as Nancy Pelosi
The Congressional Black Caucus, currently chaired by Rep. Emanuel Cleaver
The Congressional Hispanic Caucus, currently chaired by Rep. Charles Gonzalez
The Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, currently chaired by Rep. Judy Chu
The Congressional Caucus for Women’s Issues, currently chaired by Reps. Cynthia
Lummis and Gwen Moore
Organizations or movements that speak for various groups or about various issues
o If yes, please specify which ones
The Republican National Committee
The Democratic National Committee
The Federal Bureaucracy
The Supreme Court
Question 3: Which of the below representatives do you look to the second most to represent you
in Washington [RANDOMIZE ORDER]















President Barack Obama
NAME, the House member from your district
NAME [JUNIOR SENATOR], one of two senators from your state
NAME [SENIOR SENATOR], one of two senators from your state
Republican congressional leaders such as John Boehner
Democratic congressional leaders such as Nancy Pelosi
The Congressional Black Caucus, currently chaired by Rep. Emanuel Cleaver
The Congressional Hispanic Caucus, currently chaired by Rep. Charles Gonzalez
The Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, currently chaired by Rep. Judy Chu
The Congressional Caucus for Women’s Issues, currently chaired by Reps. Cynthia
Lummis and Gwen Moore
Organizations or movements that speak for various groups or about various issues
o If yes, please specify which ones
The Republican National Committee
The Democratic National Committee
The Federal Bureaucracy
The Supreme Court
Question 4: In general, how satisfied are you with how your views and interests are represented
in national politics and policymaking?
<1> Not at all satisfied
<2> Somewhat satisfied
<3> Very satisfied
Question 5: In general, do you think that you are you better represented by [NAME], your
member of the House of Representatives, by Senator [NAME JUNIOR SENATOR], or by
Senator [NAME SENIOR SENATOR]? [RANDOMIZE ORDER]
10
<1> name of member of the House
<2> name of senior Senator
<3> name of junior Senator
Question 6: Some people think that elected representatives should act as “delegates,” following
the wishes of a majority of their constituents when making decisions, while others believe that
representatives should act as trustees, doing what they think is right, even if this goes against the
wishes of a majority of their constituents. What kind of representative do you prefer – a
delegate, or a trustee? [RANDOMIZE ORDER]
<1> a Delegate
<2> a Trustee
Question 7: There are many different qualities you may ideally want in a Member of Congress.
You may want them to share some characteristics with you or behave in certain ways. I am
going to read you a list of some of these possible characteristics and behaviors. For each one,
please tell me whether it is very important, somewhat important, or not at all important.
[RANDOMIZE ORDER]
<1> You and your member of Congress share the same party
<2> You and your member of Congress share the same race or ethnicity
<3> You and your member of Congress share the same gender
<4> Your member of Congress knows his or her district very well
<5> Your member of Congress votes the way you want
<6> Your member of Congress is trustworthy and ethical
<7> Your member of Congress introduces a lot of bills
Question 8: Which of these is most important to you. That [RANDOMIZE ORDER]:
<1> You and your member of Congress share the same party
<2> You and your member of Congress share the same race or ethnicity
<3> You and your member of Congress share the same gender
<4> Your member of Congress knows his or her district very well
<5> Your member of Congress votes the way you want
<6> Your member of Congress is trustworthy and ethical
<7> Your member of Congress introduces a lot of bills
References
Abramowitz, Alan I, and Kyle L. Saunders. 2008. "Is Polarization a Myth?" JOP (70): 542-555.
Abney, Glen, and John Hutcheson. 1981. “Race, Representation and Trust.” POQ 45: 91–101.
Ainsworth, Scott. 2002. Analyzing Interest Groups: Norton.
Banducci, Susan A., Todd Donovan, and Jeffrey A. Karp. 2004. “Minority Representation,
Empowerment, and Participation.” JOP 66: 534-556.
Barreto, Matt A., Segura, Gary M. and Woods, Nathan D. February 2004. “The Mobilizing Effect of
Majority-Minority Districts on Latino Turnout.” APSR 98: 65-75.
11
Canon, David. 1999. Race, Redistricting, and Representation. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Cohen, Joshua, and Joel Rogers. 1992. “Secondary Associations and Democratic Governance.” Politics
and Society 20 (4): 393–472.
Dodson, Debra L. 2006. The Impact of Women in Congress. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fraga, Luis, Valerie Martinez-Ebers, Linda Lopez, and Ricardo Ramirez. 2005. "Strategic
Intersectionality." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the APSA, Washington, DC.
Gay, Claudine. 2002. “Spirals of Trust.” AJPS 46:717–32.
Gertzog, Irwin. 2004. Women and Power on Capitol Hill. Boulder, CO: Rienner Publishers.
Grill, Christopher J. 2007. The Public Side of Representation. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Guinier, Lani. 1994. The Tyranny of the Majority. New York: Free Press.
Hammond, Susan Webb. 1998. Congressional Caucuses in National Policymaking. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Hero, Rodney, E. 1992. Latinos and the U.S. Political System. Philadelphia: Temple.
Howell, Susan, and Deborah Fagan. 1988. “Race and Trust in Government.” POQ 52: 343–50.
Jenkins, J. Craig. 1987. “Nonprofit Organizations and Policy Advocacy.” In The Nonprofit Sector, edited
by W. W. Powell, 296–318. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Lawless, Jennifer L., and Richard Fox. 2010. It Still Takes a Candidate. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Pantoja, Adrian D. and Segura, Gary M. June 2003. “Does Ethnicity Matter?” SSQ 84: 441-459.
Pinney, Neil and George Serra. 1999. “The Congressional Black Caucus and Vote Cohesion.” PRQ 52: 3.
583-608.
Rehfeld, Andrew. 2005. The Concept of Constituency. New York: Cambridge University Press.
------. 2006. “Towards a General Theory of Political Representation.” JOP 68 (1): 1–21.
Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2003. “Gender-related Knowledge and the Descriptive Representation of Women.”
Political Behavior 25(4): 367-387.
Singh, Robert. 1996. “The Rise and Fall of Legislative Service Organisations in the United States
Congress.” The Journal of Legislative Studies 2: 79-102.
Strolovitch, Dara. 2007. Affirmative Advocacy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Theriault, Sean M. 2008. Party Polarization in Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Uhlaner, Carole. 2002. “The Impact of Perceived Representation on Latino Political Participation.”
Irvine, CA: Paper Series for the Center for the Study of Democracy.
Wagner, Michael. 2007. “Beyond Policy Representation in the U.S. House.” APR 35: 771-89.
Warren, Mark E. 2001. Democracy and Association. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
------. 2004. “Informal Representation?” Democracy and Society 1:8–15.
Weldon, Laurel. 2006. “Inclusion, Solidarity, and Social Movements.” Perspectives on Politics 4: 55-74.