Has Polling Enhanced Representation? Unearthing Evidence from the Literary Digest Issue Polls

How has representation changed over time in the United States? Has responsiveness to public opinion waxed or waned among elected officials? What are the causes of such trends as we observe? Scholars have pursued these crucial questions in different ways. Some explore earlier eras in search of the “electoral connection”, i.e. the extent to which voters held office-holders accountable for their actions and the degree to which electoral concerns motivated politicians’ behavior. Others explore the effects of institutional changes such as the move to direct election of senators or the “reapportionment revolution.” Institutional reforms are not, however, the only factors that can affect representation; technological change can also play a significant role. In fact, some scholars contend that the rise of scientific surveys since the 1930s has yielded more responsive government. According to this school of thought, polls provide recent cohorts of elected officials more accurate assessments of public opinion than their predecessors enjoyed, which allows them to reflect their constituents’ views to a greater extent than the politicians of yesteryear. Yet others doubt whether politicians were truly ignorant of public sentiment before the rise of the poll; nor is there much certainty regarding the level of current politicians’ understanding of constituent opinion. Some also question whether ignorance is at the root of elected officials’ frequent divergence from their constituents’ wishes. In order to advance this debate, we need to learn more about public opinion and representation in the era before scientific surveys. Many scholars have offered empirical explorations of representation, typically focusing on members of Congress. While Warren Miller and Donald Stokes’ classic 1963 I thank Larry Bartels, Terri Bimes, Ben Bishin, Ben Fordham, John Geer, Brian Glenn, Susan Herbst, Mark Kayser, Brian Lawson, Taeku Lee, Eileen McDonagh and Eric Plutzer for comments along with the editors and anonymous reviewers of this journal. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at Binghamton University, the 2004 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association and the 2006 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. 1. David Mayhew, Congress: The Electoral Connection (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974); William T. Bianco, David B. Spence, and John D. Wilkerson, “The Electoral Connection in the Early Congress: The Case of the Compensation Act of 1816,” American Journal of Political Science 40 (1996): 145–71; Jamie L. Carson and Erik J. Engstrom, “Assessing the Electoral Connection: Evidence from the Early United States.” American Journal of Political Science. 49 (2005): 746–57; Jeffery A. Jenkins and Brian R. Sala, “The Spatial Theory of Voting and the Presidential Election of 1824,” American Journal of Political Science 42 (1998): 1157–79; Elaine K. Swift, “The Electoral Connection Meets the PastLessons from Congressional History, 1789–1899,” Political Science Quarterly 102 (1987): 625–45; Sean M. Theriault, The Power of the People: Congressional Competition, Public Attention and Voter Retribution, (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 2005). 2. William Bernhard and Brian R. Sala, “The Remaking of an American Senate: The 17th Amendment and Ideological Responsiveness,” Journal of Politics 68 (2006): 345–57; Sarah Brandes Crook and John R. Hibbing, “A Not-So Distant Mirror: the 17th Amendment and Congressional Change,” American Political Science Review 91 (1997): 845–53; Ronald F. King and Susan Ellis, “Partisan Advantage and Constitutional Change: The Case of the Seventeeth Amendment.” Studies in American Political Development 10 (1996): 69–102; Wendy J. Schiller, “Building Careers and Courting Constituents: U.S. Senate Representation 1889–1924,” Studies in American Political Development 20 (2006): 185–97; Daniel Wirls, “Regionalism, Rotten Boroughs, Race, and Realignment: The Seventeenth Amendment and the Politics of Representation,” Studies in American Political Development 13 (1999): 1–30; Gary W. Cox and Jonathan N. Katz, Elbridge Gerry’s Salamander, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002); Stephen Ansolabehere, Alan Gerber, and James M. Snyder, “Equal Votes, Equal Money: Court-Ordered Redistricting and Public Expenditures in the American States,” American Political Science Review 96 (2002): 767–77. Studies in American Political Development, 21 (Spring 2007), 16–29.