Policy Positions and Policy Choice in U.S. Legislatures

评价民主治理质量的一个中心问题是公职人员的政策选择在多大程度上反映了公民的意愿。选举被视为公民影响这些政策选择的最常见机构，如果选举要促进公众对政策制定的影响，必须满足四个条件：反对竞选公职的候选人必须向选民提供不同的议题立场选民必须感知候选人的议题立场选民必须根据这些感知的议题立场投票获胜的候选人必须根据他们选举前的议题立场投票公平总结关于这个话题的研究将得出结论，第一个条件在美国国内得到了极大的支持，第二和第三个条件至少有条件支持。对第四种情况的关注相对较少。我们对当选官员的政策决定在多大程度上与他们作为候选人的选举前政策声明有关或受其支配的程度知之甚少。这项调查回答了三个关于立法候选人选举前政策立场与选举后政策选择之间关系的问题，重点调查了美国国会和12个选定州的立法机构。1.候选人选举前的政策立场与选举后的政策选择有多一致？2.政策立场对预测立委的政策选择有多大用处？3.政策立场与政策选择的关系有多一致，我们能解释这种关系的系统性变化吗？候选人的政策立场来自两个来源：国家政治意识测试(选举前对候选人问题立场的调查)和在候选人竞选网站上发表的政策声明。立法者做出的政策选择来自对法案的唱名投票，这些法案与NPAT或候选人网站上的候选人政策立场直接相关。然后，对于每一项法案的每一次投票，研究人员都可以评估投票是否与立法者选举前的政策立场一致。使用这些措施，第一个问题可以通过计算唱名表决与政策立场一致的时间比例来回答。第二个问题可以通过将政策立场的衡量标准放在备受推崇的多方程、多变量的点名投票行为模型中来回答。如果政策立场的衡量标准在这些模型中很重要，那么政策立场会为选民提供有用的信息。最后，该提案提供了一个理论框架，用于解释立法者在哪些条件下更有可能做出与其政策立场一致的政策选择。这一框架的效用将使用多方程、多变量模型进行评估，这些模型使用该框架来预测一个二元变量，该变量识别与政策立场一致和不一致的唱名投票。更广泛的价值：评估立法者的政策立场和政策选择之间的联系的强度，对美国的民主理论和民主治理的质量具有明显的影响。此外，政策立场和政策选择之间的联系与美国政府信任的一般问题相关。缺乏学术关注并没有阻止公民在这个话题上得出自己的结论：许多公民认为，立法者的政策选择不是以他们作为候选人的声明为指导的。此外，有大量证据表明，公众对候选人政策声明的怀疑会影响公民的总体信任水平和愤世嫉俗。如果要在公民教育方面作出努力，以消除这种玩世不恭的态度，我们就需要更多地了解候选人的政策立场与他们作为立法者所作的政策选择之间的关系。

A central issue for evaluating the quality of democratic governance is the extent to which the policy choices of public officials reflect the wishes of citizens. Elections are viewed as the most common institution through which citizens affect these policy choices, and four conditions must be met if elections are to facilitate public influence over policy making: Opposing candidates for office must offer voters differing issue positionsVoters must perceive the issue positions of candidatesVoters must cast their ballots on the basis of these perceived issue positionsWinning candidates must vote in accordance with their pre-election issue positions A fair summarization of the research on this topic would conclude that there is a great deal of support for the first condition within the United States, and that there is at least qualified support for the second and third conditions. Comparatively little attention has been paid to the fourth condition. We know very little about the extent to which the policy decisions of elected officials are related to or governed by their pre-election policy statements as candidates. This investigation answers three questions about the relationship between the pre-election policy positions of legislative candidates and their post-election policy choices, focusing on the U.S. Congress and legislatures in twelve selected states. 1. How often are the pre-election policy positions of candidates consistent with their post-election policy choices?2. How useful are policy positions for predicting the policy choices of legislators?3. How consistent is the policy position - policy choice connection, and can we explain any systematic variation in this relationship? The policy positions of candidates are taken from two sources: the National Political Awareness Test (a pre-election survey of candidate issue positions) and policy statements made on candidate campaign websites. The policy choices made by legislators are taken from roll call votes on bills that are directly related to candidate policy positions taken on the NPAT or candidate websites. For each vote on each bill, then, the researchers can assess whether the vote was consistent or inconsistent with a legislator's pre-election policy position. Using these measures, the first question can be answered by calculating the proportion of the time roll call votes are consistent with policy positions. The second question can be answered by placing the measures of policy positions within well-respected multi-equation, multivariate models of roll call voting behavior. If the measures of policy positions are significant in these models, policy positions provide useful information to voters. Finally, the proposal offers a theoretical framework for explaining the conditions under which legislators will be more likely to make policy choices consistent with their policy positions. The utility of this framework will be evaluated using multi-equation, multivariate models that employ the framework to predict a binary variable identifying roll call votes that are consistent and inconsistent with policy positions. Broader Value: Evaluating the strength of the connection between the policy positions and policy choices of legislators has obvious implications for democratic theory and the quality of democratic governance in the United States. In addition, the connection between policy positions and policy choice is relevant to general issues of trust in government in the United States. A lack of scholarly attention has not deterred citizens from drawing their own conclusions on this topic: many citizens believe that the policy choices of legislators are not guided by their statements as candidates. Moreover, there is substantial evidence that public skepticism regarding candidates' policy statements affects overall levels of trust and cynicism among citizens. If efforts at civic education are to counteract this cynicism, we need to know more about the relationship between the policy positions of candidates and the policy choices they make as legislators.