Legislators often claim that how they explain their votes is just as important as the vote itself, but few studies have systematically examined these explanations and citizen reactions.
Our Theory: Legislators strategically tailor their explanations to constituents—compensating for unpopular policy choices while reinforcing popular ones—to manage public perception effectively. We designed this study based on insights from political communication theory and representation research.
Data & Methods
We conducted a within-subjects field experiment involving U.S. senators as subjects, coupled with a between-subjects survey experiment to test how citizens respond to these tailored explanations across different contexts.
Key Findings
- Most senators do strategically tailor their explanations to constituents;
- These tailored explanations are highly effective at currying support from voters—even those who disagree with the roll-call vote outcomes;
- The effectiveness varies slightly depending on contextual factors, such as whether the policy position is controversial or not.
Why It Matters
This research reveals a gap between voter expectations of straightforward legislative communication and reality. Legislators invest considerable effort in strategic explanation, which significantly impacts public opinion even among those who disagree with their positions.
