3. Discovering Higher-Level Patterns - [E1] 1. Grimmer, Justin. 2013.

[JunsolKim]

Post questions here for this week's exemplary readings: 1. Grimmer, Justin. 2013. “Appropriators not Position Takers: The Distorting Effects of Electoral Incentives on Congressional Representation.” American Journal of Political Science 57(3): 624-642.

[Jiayu-Kang]

It's really interesting to read this 2013 article, especially when the US society seems even more polarized today. I'm still a bit confused about the notion of "home style" and how the author measure it: in this study, the authors analyzed the "impersonal style" through press releases, but to what extent does this "public image" represent the true home styles? And should we care more about the personal or the impersonal side (the line between the two may become blurred though)?

[konratp]

I found this a fascinating paper. Especially nowadays, with Representatives such as Marjorie Taylor-Greene or Lauren Boebert whose entire brand revolves around being extremists, this seems like a crucially important phenomenon to study. To me, an interesting extension of this study would be to look at how officials' approval ratings change over time. Assuming that the more ideological candidates will yield less appropriations back to their districts, do voters over time grow unsatisfied with them because of this, resulting in lower approval ratings?

One could even theorize that there could be a natural "cure" to taking extremist positions, as even extreme candidates would have a vested interest in keeping their approval ratings up (and consequently spend more time on appropriations and less time on taking extreme stances). I do admit this theory is a pretty weak one given contemporary events, but an interesting thought experiment nonetheless.

[NaiyuJ]

Some thoughts on the notion of marginal vs aligned district. First of all, lemme give an example!

The conceptual model is this

There are many red and blue beams. If you grab a bunch of them, sometimes, most of them are red — call it a red bunch; sometimes, most of them are blue — call it a blue bunch; sometimes, the game is close — call it a marginal bunch. The red bunch likes a red talker. The blue bunch likes a blue talker. The marginal bunch cannot make up their mind and ends up choosing silence. Consequently, we are always hearing big mouth blue talk and big mouth red talk — the marginal bunches are silent.

This is fine as a model of beams. It does not make sense as a model of citizens. The standard model of citizens places them on a scale. We don’t think of them as taking either one of the two colors. There may be citizens who genuinely prefer moderate politicians who are also loud — loud about how the moderate way is the right way. Right now, so many people are sick of polarisation. Isn’t it easy to conceive of a district wanting to elect a moderate AND loud politician?

[HonorBread]

I have a few fundamental questions about this study. I guess on a conceptual level, is this more useful in proving that there are different home styles, or that the home styles say something about the work candidates do in Washington, or about what kind of relationship is expressed in the election process? I also couldn't help but think about how this looks different in different years. One addition I think would also be really interesting is looking at one state across time as its electoral demographics change - Colorado, for example, which has started electing more left-wing candidates since the time this study was done.

[kelseywu99]

Interesting article articulating the rise of the phenomenon of the increase of debates being an exchange of ideologically-polarized lawmakers and how these lawmakers dominate the policy debates. The author models the home styles of selected senators and examines the relationship between a senators' home style and electoral connection. I was curious about an analysis on the work styles of senators from the swing states, such as Florida, Virginia, and Arizona that is not part of this analysis?

[ZacharyHinds]

This article is a very interesting perspective on the roles of what could be considered the "closeness" of senators' style and connection to their electorate. I am interesting, then, in how this research could be expanded to incorporate more closely the effects and role that the digital context might play in this as our social reality moves online more and more?