Does democracy "suffer" from diversity? Issue representation and diversity in senate elections

Public Choice

Volumn 129, Issue 1-2, 2006, Pages 201-215

  Bishin, Benjamin G ^a   Dow, Jay K ^b   Adams, James ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33749345238     PISSN: 00485829     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11127-006-9024-1     Document Type: Review

References (54)

1. Achen, C.H. (1978). Measuring representation. American Journal of Political Science, 22, 475-510.
2. Adams, J., & Merrill, S., III. (2003). Voter turnout and candidate strategies in American elections. Journal of Politics, 65, 161-89.
3. Adams, J., Dow J., & Merrill, S., III. (2001). The political consequences of abstention due to alienation and indifference: applications to presidential elections, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American political science association, San Francisco, August 30-September 2.
4. Aistrup, J.A. (2004). Constituency diversity and party competition: a county and state level analysis. Political Research Quarterly, 57, 257-281.
5. Arnold, R.D. (1990). The logic of congressional action. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
6. Bailey, M., & Brady, D. (1998). Heterogeneity and representation: the senate and free trade. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 524-544.
7. Barone, M., & Ujifusa, G. (1993). The. Almanac of American politics (1994). Washington DC: National Journal.
8. Bartels, L.M. (1996). Uninformed votes: information effects in presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 194-230.
9. Berry, W.D., & Feldman, S. (1985). Multiple regression in practice. London: Sage Publications.
10. Bishin, B.G. (2000). Representation in congress: do subconstituencies matter? Legislative Studies Quarterly, 25, 389-416.
11. Bishin, B.G. (2003). Democracy, heterogeneity and representation: explaining representational differences across states. Legislative Studies Section Newsletter, 26(January), 1.
12. Bond, J.R. (1983). The influence of constituency diversity on electoral competition in voting for congress, 1974-1978. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 8, 201-217.
13. Bond, J.R., Campbell, K., & Cottrill, J.B. (2001). The puzzle of constituency diversity revisited: conditional effects of district diversity in congressional elections. Manuscript. Texas A&M University.
14. Bovitz, G.L., & Carson, J.L. (2003). Position taking and accountability in the U.S. house of representatives. Typescript. University of Georgia.
15. Bullock, C.S. III., & Brady, D.W. (1983). Party, constituency, and roll call voting in the U.S. senate. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 8, 29-43.
16. Burden, B., Caldeira G., & Groseclose, T. (2000). Measuring the ideologies of U.S. senators: the song remains the same. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 25, 237-258.
17. Burden, B. (2001). Choices and Echoes in U.S. house elections, presented at the annual meeting of the public choice society, San Antonio, TX, 9-11.
18. Carson, J.L. (2005). Strategy, selection and candidate competition in house and senate elections. Journal of Politics, 67(February).
19. Dougan, W.R., & Munger, M.C. (1989). The rationality of ideology. Journal of Law and Economics, 32, 119-142.
20. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
21. Epstein, D., & O'Halloran, S. (1999). A social science approach to race, redistricting, and representation. American Journal of Political Science, 93, 187-192.
22. Erikson, R.S., Wright, G.C., & McIver, J.P. (1993). Statehouse democracy: Public opinion in the American States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. Fenno, R.F. (1978). Home style: House members in their districts. Boston: Little, Brown.
24. Fiorina, M.P. (1974). Representatives, roll calls and constituencies. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
25. Gershtenson, J. (2000). Measuring the ideological locations of candidates and constituents, presented at the annual meeting of the American political science association. San Francisco, CA.
26. Gershtenson, J., & Plane, D. (1999). The effects of candidate ideological location on individual propensity to vote and aggregate-level voter turnout in U.S. senate elections, presented at the annual meeting of the American political science association, Atlanta, GA, September 1-4.
27. Goff, B.L., & Grier, K.B. (1989). On the (mis)measurement of legislator ideology and shirking. Public Choice, 76, 5-20.
28. Grofman, B., Merrill S., Brunell, T.L., & Koetzle, W. (1999). The potential electoral disadvantages of a catch-all party: ideological variance among republicans and democrats in the 50 U.S. states. Party Politics, 5, 199-210.
29. Gronke, P. (2001). The electorate, the campaign and the office: a unified approach to senate and house elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
30. Groseclose, T. (2001). A model of candidate location when one candidate has a valence advantage. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 862-886.
31. Hall, R. (1996). Participation in congress. New Haven: Yale University Press.
32. Hinich, M., & Ordeshook, P. (1970). Plurality maximization versus vote maximization: a spatial analysis with variable participation. American political Science Review, 64, 772-791.
33. Hutchings, V.L. (1998). Issue salience and support for civil rights legislation among southern democrats. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 23(4), 521-544.
34. Jones, D.R. (2003). Position-taking and position avoidance in the US senate. Journal of Politics, 65(3), 851-863.
35. Kahn, K.F., & Kenney, P.J. (1999). The spectacle of U.S. senate campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
36. Kahn, K.F., & Kenney, P.J. (2001). United states senate campaign strategies and media analysis, 1988-1992 [Computer File]. ICPSR version. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University [producer], 1995. Ann Arbor, MI: inter university consortium for political and social research [distributor].
37. Kingdon, J. (1973). Congressmen's voting decisions. University of Michigan: Ann Arbor.
38. Koetzle, W. (1998). The impact of constituency diversity on the competitiveness of U.S. house elections, 1962-96. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 23, 561-573.
39. Lewis, B., & Michael, S. (1990). Applied regression: An introduction. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
40. Lublin, D. (1997). The Paradox of representation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
41. Londregan, J., & Romer, T. (1993). Polarization, incumbency, and the personal vote. In William A. Barnett, Melvin Hinich, and Norman Schofield (eds.), Political Economy: Institutions, Elections, and Representation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
42. Moon, W. (2002). Determinants of candidates policy positions in U.S. senate elections, 1988-1992: a test of the resource-constrained electoral competition model. Typescript.
43. Miller, W., & Stokes D.E. (1963). Constituency influence in congress. American Political Science Review, 57, 45-56.
44. Nagler, J. (1991). The effect of registration laws and education on U.S. voter turnout (in Research Notes). The American Political Science Review, 85, 1393-1405.
45. Ordeshook, P. (1969). Theory of the electoral process. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of political science, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.
46. Pitkin, H.F. (1967). The Concept of representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
47. Roemer, J. (1993). Political equilibrium with private and(or Public campaign finance: a Comparison of Institutions. Typescript.
48. Schiller, W.J. (2000). Partners and rivals: Representation in U.S. senate delegations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
49. Sellers, P.J. (1998). Strategy and background in congressional campaigns. American Political Science Review, 92, 159-171.
50. Shotts, K.W. (2001). The effect of majority-minority mandates on partisan gerrymandering. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 120-135.
51. Swain, C.M. (1995). Black faces, black interests, enlarged edition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
52. Uslaner, E.M. (1999). The movers and the shirkers. University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor.
53. Wittman, D. (1983). Candidate motivation: a synthesis of alternatives. American Political Science Review, 77, 142-57.
54. Wright, G.C. Jr., & Berkman, M.B. (1986). Candidates and policy in united states senate elections. American Political science Review, 80, 567-588.