Democratic theory suggests there is arguably a direct link between what constituents policy preference is, and how the elected officials convey those preferences through voting. When making policy decisions, there is a certain level the voter expects a certain outcome in terms of representation. There are two types of models of representation. The trustee model of representation is when constituents pick their delegates as “trustees,” who have autonomy to act as what they see fit for the “greater common good.” The second model is the delegate model of representation in which the delegates speak directly for their constituents and do not have autonomy. Delegates must vote in line with what their constituents believe, even if they do not agree with it. Members of congress should align their views more in order with the delegate model of representation, and less from the trustee model of representation.
In his book, Unequal Democracy, Bartels argues that the link between Congress and their constituents is weak. If this link is essentially visible, it tends to aligns more with the affluent and the middle-class, and is almost nonexistent for the lower class citizens. Bartels explains this by saying, “The Senator’s apparent responsiveness to the views of high-income constituents was even greater, despite their smaller numbers… These results imply that senators’ roll call voters were quite responsive to the ideological responsive of their middle- and high-income constituents.” He argues that Americans opinion on income inequality depends on the ideology and level of awareness that influence the political attitudes of these people. In one of his studies, he finds that the differences in voting, contact, and knowledge between the rich and the poor have no connection with the responsiveness of the Senators.
Berelson believes that voters in America are not well informed. He states that, “…certain requirements commonly assumed for the successful operation of democracy are not met by the behavior of the “average” citizen.” He argues that there are certain ways a democratic citizen is supposed to be involved or informed, and that voter does not live up to these expectations. Berelson says that voters are expected to be interested and participate in voting, have knowledge, principle, and rationality when they vote, but that is not ultimately what happens. In terms of being interested and participating, the voter can do various things such as donate money, argue politics, vote, etc. The voters can not see an immediate outcome so the voters do not see a reason to contribute something that has no “real” effect, as it is not necessarily tangible in the moment.
Furthermore, Berelson argues that a democratic citizen is supposed to be knowledgeable about events happening in the political realm and the history and effects that come along with it. In reality the democratic voter falls short because, “even when he has information, he finds it difficult to make decisions on the basis of full information when the subject is relatively simple and proximate…” In certain cases knowledge does not inherently matter because the voters choice is masked by a certain emotion they have based on the candidate that is running, an issue on a party’s platform, and a social group that they are involved in. In the case of principle, a democratic citizen is expected to vote based on principle, not on impulse. The voter does not meet this standard because most voters will align their choices with those of the people around them whom they trust. This can be seen through certain voting patterns such as, race and ethnicity, gender, religion, income, issues, etc. Another way the democratic voter falls short is through rationality. Voters are expected to be rational in voting, but “…in any rigorous or narrow sense the voters are not highly rational.” Bertelson’s argument is supported by the evidence he gives, and is convincing.
Popkins argues that voters are not informed, but this does not make them incapable of making rational decisions. Citizens are able to become “informed” and participate in a democratic government because the average voter picks up different information, known as by-products, while going through their lives. The voters are constantly seeing or hearing the news cycle whether it be on the internet, through the tv, or through discussion, and they will exercise the opinion they form when it benefits them. In a theory he calls “low voter rationality” Popkins explains how the everyday voter goes through this process. Voters utilize different shortcuts when evaluating, obtaining, and storing information. In order to become further informed, “voters use shortcuts to evaluate information, maintain running tallies about political parties, and asses candidates.”
When evaluating information, voters rely on the opinions of trusted people around them. This is because even if people are informed, they may be uncertain about a certain issue and what the effects of it will be, therefore they need to see how others have interpreted the news. Voters utilize running tallies having to do with political parties as both a shortcut in storing information and as a way to assess candidates and legislation. Voters asses candidates by using demographic cues, which have to do with race age and gender, localism, this is if the certain issue is happening in the voters neighborhood, and demographic cues of the candidate’s supporters, which for example would be the number of minorities in their following.
Popkin’s argues that voters gather information more like a clinician and infer what they can to make their own narrative, rather than as a statisticians who weighs only certain facts to make their decision. Popkin’s explains this relationship through, representativeness heuristic, Gresham’s Law of Information, framing, pseudocertainty, and drunkard’s search. Representativeness heuristic is when people asses past or future political performances on how the candidate lives up to the voters expectation that has already been set. Gresham’s Law of Political Information states that voters will take personal information and then fill in the political facts as opposed to vice versa. This can be a good thing, but can also mean that, “person information can drive more relevant political information out of consideration.” Framing is how voters see a politician based on the coverage of problems that are happening in the world. This forces the voter to put this event into the perspective of the evaluation of the politician overall and not just by one event. Pseudocertainty is when the voter uses a shortcut to become more confident in their evaluation. The drunkard’s search indicates that people are more likely to focus on one single attribute about a candidate instead of being overwhelmed by multiple. Through these different shortcuts the voter can create their own opinions and rationalities in order to vote in the upcoming elections.
Another way voters facilitate choices is through following the campaigns. Popkins argues that the campaign can increase the importance of certain issues, strengthen the connections between issues and the office, and increase certain differences between candidates. In the case of the importance of certain issues, if a candidate is not subject to give attention to a voters important issues, there is a possibility of crossover voting. This would result from the voter not being confident in the party’s ability to deliver on important issues. Campaigns can also help remind the voter that there are particular offices that influence a certain policy area because it is hard for the voter to know exactly which office is responsible for what. Increasing the perceived differences between candidates helps the voter to differentiate in which way the candidates are going to tackle important issues. These ways help the uninformed voter to continuously make rational decisions. Popkin’s uses reliable sources and graphs to showcase his argument and through these sources his argument proves to be convincing.
Bartels level of responsiveness proves to be appropriate in that senators have tended to favor constituents that live a more affluent lifestyle. The majority of the people who have political efficacy are the rich, as they directly influence representatives because they have the money to fund the senators campaigns. Many Americans show support for certain social policies that engage fixing existing inequalities. Bartels research found that if people are more informed, they’ll stand behind their party’s choice. He explains that those that are more informed will be more sensitive to their party choices. Bartels also suggests that there are certain signs from conservative politicians are misinformed and create conflicting opinions at odd with a more consensus attitude towards inequality. Many Americans show support for certain social policies that engage fixing existing inequalities. Bartels also argues that Americans have mixed views when it comes to inequality. Americans tend to show strong support “for equality in the abstract.”
Although Bartels, Berelson, and Popkins say the average voter is not well-informed, they prove ways in which the voter does not lack the knowledge to make a rational decision. Popkins argues that although not informed, the average voter is able to make rational choices. Popkins is showing that just because a voter does not see the benefit of taking time out of their day to study politics, they gather information that fits them, and from that, make a decision that they deem as rational. The voters utilize their outside sources in order to make rational choices when voting, he does this through showing the shortcuts a voter uses to become more informed. Berelson argues that a voter is uniformed, but argues that when a voter analyzes the success of democracy, “he cannot fail to be impressed with the total result.” Bartels does not necessarily argue that the voter is uninformed, he argues that those more informed will be more likely to be in like with their parties ideal. These three different perspectives all support the idea that Congress should be more in line with the delegate model of representation. Popkins gives the reader ways in which the voter becomes informed, and Berelson uses the success of democracy. Bartels argument allows the reader to see that a more informed voter will align more with the party, and from there the link can grow stronger as well as the party’s identity.
While the democratic theory suggests that there is a link between how voters use their vote and what their constituents policy preference is, that link has become increasingly weak over time. Congress has aligned itself more with the trustee model of representation as opposed to the delegate model of representation. Instead of continuing this pattern Congress should begin to align itself more with the delegate model of representation. Not only would the link between congress and their constituents get stronger, but so would the identities of each party involved. In order for democracy to run efficiently, the people’s voice needs to be heard.