“Congruence” and “Responsiveness” in the study of representation
比较了衡量代表制的两种常用方法：一致性（投票与选民意见是否一致）和回应性（投票与选民意见的相关性），发现回应性不能可靠预测一致性，因此不能作为一致性的替代指标。
Abstract This paper compares two common methods used to measure representation in empirical research: “congruence,” whether a roll-call vote is aligned with constituent opinion; and “responsiveness,” the correlation between roll-call votes and constituent opinion. While sometimes viewed as different ways of capturing the same underlying concept of “representation,” theoretically the measures are not connected. This paper assesses to what extent responsiveness and congruence capture the same thing empirically. Using 4,192 roll-call votes on 33 state laws that were subsequently challenged in referendums, I calculate both congruence and responsiveness for the same set of votes. The main finding is that responsiveness is an unreliable predictor of congruence, and therefore cannot be taken as a proxy for congruence.