I wrote this column for The Hill on the potential of TrueViews to improve representation by better informing politicians about their constituents’ policy views. I also did this radio interview about TrueViews with Inside Sources.

Politicians’ knowledge of their constituents’ views is worse than you’d expect for professionals whose careers depend on public approval. 

A pioneering 2018 study found that Republican state legislators err by 10 to 40 percentage points in their perceptions of voters’ positions on issues, including abortion, gun control and immigration. Moreover, these politicians almost always err in a conservative direction, mistakenly believing voters are far more right-wing than they actually are. . . .

If politicians’ skewed perceptions of their constituents’ preferences contribute to polarization, could correcting these biases lead to better representation? An innovative 2008 experiment suggests that it could. 

A pair of researchers conducted a large-scale survey of New Mexicans’ views on a pending fiscal proposal. This poll was big enough to generate estimates of public opinion in each State House district. The scholars then circulated the results to some (randomly chosen) State House members but not others. 

Among the legislators who were informed about their voters’ preferences, their votes on the fiscal proposal were highly responsive to public opinion. Conversely, among the legislators who denied this data, there was no correlation between their votes and their constituents’ attitudes toward the bill.

Unfortunately, this experiment is the exception, not the rule. In general, politicians lack policy-specific information about their voters’ preferences. Presidents often have access to this data at the national level. But at every subnational level, this data isn’t widely available. The representational gains that would follow if politicians were more knowledgeable about their constituents’ views therefore don’t materialize because most politicians aren’t well-informed. . . .

[A] new site called TrueViews, which I helped to produce, uses many national surveys to estimate people’s preferences on many issues within many geographic units. In sum, TrueViews covers dozens of policies and geographic units ranging from municipalities to districts to states and periods from 2009 to the present.

For the first time, the data make it possible for politicians of all stripes to learn instantly what their voters want. As these capabilities become better known, they could plausibly dampen polarization and bolster representation.

For politicians who would like to abide by their constituents’ preferences but frequently don’t know what they are, the new public opinion tools supply this exact information. They enable politicians who want to be faithful delegates to be faithful delegates.

What about politicians who would rather advocate other positions, like those of their parties or donors? For them, the new tools raise the cost of defying the will of the people. 

Candidates running against these politicians could highlight their divergence from voters’ preferences. Journalists could run stories about this mismatch. Activists could make it the target of protests. In some cases, these efforts might persuade these politicians to heed public opinion. In others, these politicians might be ousted from office and replaced by rivals more mindful of voters’ views.