Cited by 545Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationPolitical Theory and DemocracyGender Politics and Representation

Leapfrog Representation and Extremism: A Study of American Voters and Their Members in Congress

BAFUMI, JOSEPH, HERRON, MICHAEL C.·2010·American Political Science Review

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

Crossref · 10.1017/s0003055410000316

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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).”
  • 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.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
BAFUMI, J., & HERRON, M. C.
Affiliations
Dartmouth College (US)
Corresponding author
  • BAFUMI, JOSEPH
  • HERRON, MICHAEL C.
Venue
American Political Science Review
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