Leapfrog Representation and Extremism: A Study of American Voters and Their Members in Congress
Abstract
We consider the relationship between the preferences of American voters and the preferences of the U.S. legislators who represent them. Using an Internet-based, national opinion survey in conjunction with legislator voting records from the 109th and 110th Congresses, we show that members of Congress are more extreme than their constituents, i.e., that there is a lack of congruence between American voters and members of Congress. We also show that when a congressional legislator is replaced by a new member of the opposite party, one relative extremist is replaced by an opposing extremist. We call this leapfrog representation, a form of representation that leaves moderates with a dearth of representation in Congress. We see evidence of leapfrog representation in states and House districts and in the aggregate as well: the median member of the 109th House was too conservative compared to the median American voter, yet the median of the 110th House was too liberal. Thus, the median American voter was leapfrogged when the 109th House transitioned to the 110th. Although turnover between the 109th and 110th Senates occurred at approximately the same rate as between the 109th and 110th Houses, the Senate appears to be a more moderate institution whose median member does not move as abruptly as that of the House.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
This figure is an almost exact replication of Fig. 5 in Bafumi and Herron (2010).
“In fact, this figure is an almost exact replication of Fig. 5 in Bafumi and Herron (2010).”
From Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together: Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data (2015) · cites this paper as Bafumi and Herron 2010
Bafumi and Herron (2010) estimated ideology for the mass public using the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (N=33,000) with questions asking respondents to take positions on roll call votes as if they were members of Congress.
“Bafumi and Herron (2010) estimate ideology for the mass public using the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (N ¼ 33,000), which included questions asking respondents to take positions on roll call votes as if they were members of Congress.”
From Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together: Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data (2015) · cites this paper as Bafumi and Herron 2010
Cites
Beyond the Median: Voter Preferences, District Heterogeneity, and Political Representation
Gerber, E. R., & Lewis, J. B. (2004) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/424737 · Cited by 324 · see citing works
Estimating Legislators' Preferred Points
Londregan, J. (1999) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.pan.a029804 · Cited by 159 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The rise of negative partisanship and the nationalization of U.S. elections in the 21st century
Abramowitz, A. I., & Webster, S. (2016) · Electoral Studies · doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2015.11.001 · Cited by 978 · see citing works
Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together: Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data
Barberá, P. (2015) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpu011 · Cited by 982 · see citing works
Bias in Cable News: Persuasion and Polarization
Martin, G. J., & Yurukoglu, A. (2017) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.20160812 · Cited by 666 · see citing works
Boutyline, A., & Willer, R. (2017) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12337 · Cited by 491 · see citing works
Are Cultural and Economic Conservatism Positively Correlated? A Large-Scale Cross-National Test
Malka, A., Lelkes, Y., & Soto, C. J. (2019) · British Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1017/s0007123417000072 · Cited by 287 · see citing works
Ansolabehere, S., & Rivers, D. (2013) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-022811-160625 · Cited by 257 · see citing works
How Legislators Respond to Localized Economic Shocks: Evidence from Chinese Import Competition
Feigenbaum, J. J., & Hall, A. B. (2015) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1086/682151 · Cited by 178 · see citing works
How Public Opinion Information Changes Politicians’ Opinions and Behavior
Sevenans, J. (2021) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-021-09715-9 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Lee, N., Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., & Flynn, D. J. (2021) · British Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1017/s000712342000037x · Cited by 39 · see citing works
- Authors
- BAFUMI, J., & HERRON, M. C.
- Affiliations
- Dartmouth College (US)
- Corresponding author
- BAFUMI, JOSEPH
- HERRON, MICHAEL C.
- ORCID
- HERRON, MICHAEL C.
- Venue
- American Political Science Review
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2010-08
- Volume
- 104
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 519-542
- ISSN
- 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5943
- OpenAlex
- W2018678655
- Cited by
- 545
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 47 · 2017: 40 · 2016: 42 · 2015: 53 · 2014: 34 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 14
- FWCI
- 116.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Political Science Review (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Politics and Representation
- Keywords
- political extremism, congressional voting records, median voter, House of Representatives, United States Senate
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review