Out-of-Step but Keeping Your Office: Differences in Legislative Responsiveness Between Voting and Cosponsorship Coalitions.

Many of the comments surrounding partisan polarization in Congress indicate concerns about a government and elected officials that are highly partisan and not responsive to the public. While this may be true of members' voting records, which reflect an increasingly partisan agenda, this paper explores how members have pursued greater bipartisanship in other legislative behaviors. Building on previous work on the divergence of bipartisanship between voting and cosponsorship of House bills, this paper examines member responsiveness to district preferences, again using voting and bill cosponsorship coalitions. I find that although responsiveness to district preferences has declined since the 1970s in vote-based measures of partisan legislative behavior, responsiveness in cosponsorship-based measures has increased. I also explore whether members can benefit electorally from being in-step in cosponsorship patterns even if they are out-of-step in voting patterns. Ultimately, this project helps us better understand the tensions between district and party pressures and speaks to why members support partisan floor agendas despite the risk of being out-of-step with constituents. Moreover, it helps us understand the complex ways in which members can seek to be representative of their constituents. [T]he resulting polarization is worrisome. By reducing the space for bipartisanship, it can condemn Congress to gridlock. By driving elected officials to the fringe while citizens inhabit the center, it can alienate citizens from their government ("A Polarized Nation?" 2004). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]