Working paper points to "systematic bias against liberal policies at a state level".

If this working paper holds up under further research, then the idea that the US is a "center-right" country is false.

Broockman and Skovron find that legislators consistently believe their constituents are more conservative than they actually are. This includes Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives. But conservative legislators generally overestimate the conservatism of their constituents by 20 points. “This difference is so large that nearly half of conservative politicians appear to believe that they represent a district that is more conservative on these issues than is the most conservative district in the entire country,” Broockman and Skovron write. This finding held up across a range of issues.

My bold. This is really worth reading, short and interesting. If you've ever felt that the conservative media has created a fantasy world, this is strong evidence that that's exactly what's happened in the US.

Though it might be true that facts have a decidedly liberal bias, it is almost equally true that likelihood of voting has a decidedly conservative one. In that sense, this miscalculation may, in an odd way, reflect a certain meta-accuracy that would not be reflected in the overall opinions of the population at large.

Paleocon wrote:

Though it might be true that facts have a decidedly liberal bias, it is almost equally true that likelihood of voting has a decidedly conservative one. In that sense, this miscalculation may, in an odd way, reflect a certain meta-accuracy that would not be reflected in the overall opinions of the population at large.

Taking out the argument if either of these suppositions might be false, is what you're saying:

1) Facts align towards liberal thought.
2) The bias from this article aligns towards conservative thought that's not there.
3) Thus, both cancel each other out.

Because that's a little odd, since if one is suppose to cancel the other, but the facts (as facts) skew liberal... then we're still not actually achieving "meta-accuracy".

Bloo Driver wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Though it might be true that facts have a decidedly liberal bias, it is almost equally true that likelihood of voting has a decidedly conservative one. In that sense, this miscalculation may, in an odd way, reflect a certain meta-accuracy that would not be reflected in the overall opinions of the population at large.

Taking out the argument if either of these suppositions might be false, is what you're saying:

1) Facts align towards liberal thought.
2) The bias from this article aligns towards conservative thought that's not there.
3) Thus, both cancel each other out.

Because that's a little odd, since if one is suppose to cancel the other, but the facts (as facts) skew liberal... then we're still not actually achieving "meta-accuracy".

No, I think you're missing one more point. That being that conservative voters tend to be more motivated and thus punch greater than their weight. This is particularly true during non-national elections (non presidential years).

If the aim of the congressman is to get elected, he would be well advised to pander to the most likely voter rather than to represent his entire constituency. In that sense, those who don't vote are not his constituents.

It is a subtle, but crucial difference.

So you're saying that Republicans pander to conservatives who are more likely to come out to vote (and are likely way more conservative than the norm), thus it's kind of accurate of what those folks are feeling?

How does that explain the part of the study that points out liberal/Democratic politicians also skew unrealistically conservative?

It is entirely possible that their perception of the overall opinion of the electorate is wrong, but that it gets to the right place despite it. My point is that what matters at the end of the day is not how dissatisfied the population as a whole is, but rather who shows up to vote. And especially in off-year elections, the electorate is decidedly conservative.

This isn't terribly new information. It was pretty well designed by Ralph Reed (the Addition by Subtraction strategy of the Moral Majority). The plan was to find relatively sparsely populated districts and recruit extremely conservative candidates in off year elections to run for just about every office in contention. He banked on the idea that less than 30% of the electorate would show up to vote and that even a 10% dedicated voter minority that DID show up would have a stranglehold on the process. He turned out to be absolutely correct. That is where the Contract On America came from.

Structurally, this apparatus still exists and there is no liberal analog for it. And it is so pandemic across the US that it consistently manages to punch greater than its weight in elections that are not nationalized (no president running). And until such a liberal apparatus materializes, popular opinion will be a far less accurate indicator of electoral performance than indicated.

Paleocon wrote:

It is entirely possible that their perception of the overall opinion of the electorate is wrong, but that it gets to the right place despite it. My point is that what matters at the end of the day is not how dissatisfied the population as a whole is, but rather who shows up to vote. And especially in off-year elections, the electorate is decidedly conservative.

I realize in text it probably sounds like I'm hounding you now, but I am honestly a little confused here. I am not grasping the bolded part. How is it getting to the right place when it's an inaccurate representation of their constituents? Or are you saying that since only the angry conservatives vote (or rather: the angrier and more conservative you are, the more likely you are to vote), this inaccurate representation is ok since it's an accurate representation of who is actually voting, so the perception of the non-voting majority doesn't matter?

I have to agree with Paleo. In state and local elections especially, you are talking low turnout, older, highly conservative electorates. You have elections typically in the spring or summer. The people who come out to vote in these off time elections are voting in the highly conservative state and local representation. And they are re-electing them.

You propose that women have metal rods shoved inside their vagina before an abortion (or you get that law passed), and you get re-elected. It is not all that unreasonable to think that your voting constituency likes what you are selling so you should keep it up or even go further.

Bloo Driver wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

It is entirely possible that their perception of the overall opinion of the electorate is wrong, but that it gets to the right place despite it. My point is that what matters at the end of the day is not how dissatisfied the population as a whole is, but rather who shows up to vote. And especially in off-year elections, the electorate is decidedly conservative.

I realize in text it probably sounds like I'm hounding you now, but I am honestly a little confused here. I am not grasping the bolded part. How is it getting to the right place when it's an inaccurate representation of their constituents? Or are you saying that since only the angry conservatives vote (or rather: the angrier and more conservative you are, the more likely you are to vote), this inaccurate representation is ok since it's an accurate representation of who is actually voting, so the perception of the non-voting majority doesn't matter?

I think the bolded part is a tiny bit of an overstatement, but it generally gets at what I am saying.

Representatives are not elected by the sentiment of "the people". They are elected by the plurality of those that show up to vote. And it is a truism (that has largely been validated by evidence) that the committed, religious voter is far more likely to do that than the vaguely discontented, socially conscious majority.

Very good point. "The district I represent." isn't the same as "Those who exercise the right to vote in the district I represent." I'm not surprised that the difference lends politics a conservative skew.

The irony is how much this has in common with evolution. It's only the part of the population that breeds that gets represented in the next generation. It's only the part of the population that votes that gets represented in government.

Reminds me of the classic "why is Window Blinds so ugly" discussion.

Paleocon wrote:

I think the bolded part is a tiny bit of an overstatement, but it generally gets at what I am saying.

Representatives are not elected by the sentiment of "the people". They are elected by the plurality of those that show up to vote. And it is a truism (that has largely been validated by evidence) that the committed, religious voter is far more likely to do that than the vaguely discontented, socially conscious majority.

I think you're vastly overestimating the "well, duh" factor, here. Perception becomes reality, which further breeds skewed perceptions. This study is important in a way that helps us actually find and ground ourselves in reality. Saying "well obviously politicians are out of touch and they pander to energize a motivated base of ideological voters, everyone knows that" is factually true. But this work shouldn't be dismissed so off-handedly. It describes where, how, and the size of the disconnect in ways that people can actually look at and comprehend rather than it just being something everyone "knows".

And while it's true that we get the politicians that we ask/vote for, that doesn't mean it's pointless or old news to point out where the problem is or how it's formed. The fact that politicians aren't representative of their constituents is something that needs to be studied and described, not shrugged at and cast off as something that's common knowledge.

There's a feedback cycle here too, because politicians influence the media machine in place on the right (and not nearly so much on the left). They also take this understanding into meetings with citizens, lobbyists and supporters.

Let's say that we're talking about one of those politicians who thinks the average conservative in his district is representative, but in reality the positions he ascribes to that person are in the range of 1% of the population. (That's where you are when you're in the single most conservative district in the country.) We know the guy has won his race, so he's got something around 50% of the vote in his district, maybe a bit more. So this guy thinks that the centerpoint of views in his district is about 20 points right of where it actually is; if the views are graded equally across the population (and they are not), then he's treating that 1% as if they 20% or more of his district, or at least 40% of his voting base. He believes that unless he keeps this big, ultra-conservative bloc in mind, he'll lose his seat. So he panders to the far, far, far right - and that shows in his interviews, his media buys, his policy stances, his proposals to and selections from ALEC legislation, the lobbyists he works with, and the people he takes money from.

It's got far-reaching effects. This swamps any notion that it's just a small "adjustment" that will be balanced out in the election by turnout. It actually explains why the state legislators are so conservative these days; they are imagining that the electorate is far, far more conservative than it actually is, and playing accordingly. And the fringe, the Tea Party and the Birchers and other fellow travellers have found themselves in "the mainstream", held up as examples of good patriots by politicians who think their constituents will react favorably to that.

I guess they just ignore polling on the issues, because that puts the lie to this. It's disturbing. Government by echo chamber. Limbaugh legislators.

LouZiffer wrote:

Very good point. "The district I represent." isn't the same as "Those who exercise the right to vote in the district I represent." I'm not surprised that the difference lends politics a conservative skew.

In my experience, it's worse than that - a lot worse. Politicians in general only interact and hear from the most active of their supporters - who tend to be the most extreme, either in terms of their ideological beliefs or in terms of laser-focused lobbying to benefit their clients. Since these people also tend to be the ones that donate money, it's a self-reinforcing feedback loop.

It's far past time we acknowledge that "the district I represent" is a complete fallacy. First, no politician is ever elected with anything close to a majority of the population's votes. It is always and everywhere the case that the vast majority of people simply don't care, are too ignorant to make an informed choice, or both. This is simply a function of incentives - educated voting is time-consuming and has little payoff, and most people have better things to do, not to mention the even greater pointlessness of opposition voting in a gerrymandered district. It is thus flatly impossible for a politician to represent even the majority view on major issues in their district, let alone the large range of actual constituent views on the wide range of actual issues.

Robear wrote:

There's a feedback cycle here too, because politicians influence the media machine in place on the right (and not nearly so much on the left). They also take this understanding into meetings with citizens, lobbyists and supporters.

Sorry, but anyone who has watched the New York Times fawning over Mayor Bloomberg's soda ban can easily understand that this is not a partisan phenomenon. The media is subservient to power. It doesn't matter whether it's left or right, although I will agree that Fox does a better job of bootlicking.

The whole "wasted vote" issue feeds into this problem. A politician's particular stances on various issues is a lot less relevant than which side of the carefully managed dividing line they fall on. Most conservatives I know, for example, were very unhappy about voting for Romney - but did so anyway, because "at least he's not the Democrat, and voting for anyone else would waste my vote".

Robear wrote:

I guess they just ignore polling on the issues, because that puts the lie to this. It's disturbing. Government by echo chamber. Limbaugh legislators.

There is no lie. They ignore the polling because they know it's irrelevant to their chances of winning, and what they want is to get elected or re-elected - and they are correct to do so. They do what they do because it works. When it stops working, they will do something else. And liberal politicians do the same in their districts, because that's how you get elected. Wishing things to be different doesn't do any good - public choice mechanics are cold and brutal.

Sorry, but anyone who has watched the New York Times fawning over Mayor Bloomberg's soda ban can easily understand that this is not a partisan phenomenon. The media is subservient to power. It doesn't matter whether it's left or right, although I will agree that Fox does a better job of bootlicking.

Aetius, I know part of your stance is "the parties are all the same", but it seems particularly wrong-headed to deny that the Republicans adopted a media strategy that was not mirrored by Democrats in any significant way. That's an aspect of political history that has caused vast changes in the country, and you're just brushing it aside to fit your ideology.

There is no lie. They ignore the polling because they know it's irrelevant to their chances of winning, and what they want is to get elected or re-elected - and they are correct to do so. They do what they do because it works. When it stops working, they will do something else. And liberal politicians do the same in their districts, because that's how you get elected. Wishing things to be different doesn't do any good - public choice mechanics are cold and brutal.

And by discounting the differences in the media strategies, you've removed one of the most useful explanations of the success of conservatives in the last 30-odd years. You can do that, if you don't mind ignoring what actually happened, but it makes your arguments a lot harder to swallow, because they have no real reason behind them, nothing to explain why conservatives turned around so strongly after nearly 50 years in the wilderness at all levels. Especially because "what works for them" was, for the Republicans, media and grass-roots agitation based on the differences between the parties - and those differences were real enough to sway a large part of the electorate from one side to the other. Which, in itself, makes the "politicians are all the same" look like hand-waving.

There's a lot going on that is not accounted for in the explanations you give. You argue that voters are essentially irrelevant to politics, but also that small groups of them are more important than others, and at the same time, that the majority are apathetic or just "ignorant". Well, if the politicians are not paying attention to them, how do the activists matter? If it's all big money donors, how did the Republicans make use of grass-roots activism on social issues to take over thousands of local and state positions between 1982 or so and 1994? If the media is simply biased towards *politicians*, how has it come to play an ever more important role in American politics - for the Right, rather than the Left? And so on.

Arguing that democracy just doesn't work is, yet again, an example of the desire for one answer to be selected over the more common-sense idea that no system is perfect. Libertarianism today hinges on the idea that government *itself* is so broken that it's unfixable, which to me seems to be a very unrealistic idea. And so the recommendation is to pull it out of nearly everything it does. But who benefits? Corporations far more than workers; the rich far more than the poor. And that's where the Rands and Pauls want to take us today, to a world that resembles the 1880's in it's social mores. Heck, you've even argued that the people who documented what came out of that system were liars! That's not exactly a wise use of history. It relies on people not really thinking about how we got here, and what that in turn says about how the system can be abused, and thus how it can be fixed.

I just don't see the optimism in libertarianism. It seems like a recipe tailor-made for abuse, like any other idealistic utopia. We should celebrate freedoms, but remember that God won't be around to protect us when they are abused, even if we believe He gave them to us. I'd rather have the police to depend on, than my own personal firearm, because in my experience, the police are one hell of a lot better at protecting me than I would be. And that gets even more important if everyone were armed without restrictions...