David Barker and Christopher Carman have written a careful, timely, and thought-provoking book about representation in America. The authors show that differences in fundamental values, such as one’s take on human nature and the objectivity of right and wrong, can predict whether one prefers elected leaders to act as instructed delegates or trustees, wherein delegates would represent voters while trustees would consider their own principles when enacting policy. These differences in values correlate with differences in religious traditionalism, which in recent decades have correlated increasingly with ideology and partisanship. Thus, the argument goes, values, traditionalism and partisanship can all predict whether one prefers elected leaders to act as delegates or trustees. Barker and Carman find evidence that this is true.

The differences that emerge help us understand the divide between blue and red America. Progressive blue America wants politicians who represent voters’ interests. Conservative red America wants politicians who stay principled to their beliefs. The authors point out that both are engaging in representation in a sense. The politicians in blue America do so simply by representing the median voter in their constituencies. The politicians in red America are different. They are engaging in what the authors call “Pandering 2.0.” While they do not represent the median voter, they abide by the demands of their constituents to stick to their principles. These politicians would, in fact, suffer electoral damage if they followed the polls too closely.

These very sturdy and divergent notions of representation among the electorate make it easier to understand the politics of our time. Compromise is much more difficult if one party pays an electoral price for wavering while the other is much more likely to adhere to public sentiment for electoral survival. The book helps explain the lack of a grand budget bargain, stalled immigration reform, and little consensus in foreign policy endeavors, among other things in our time.

In their first chapter, the authors define key terms, summarize their key argument and lay out a road map for the book. The next three chapters focus on the demand side of representation. The authors ask what we, the voters, want from our representatives. The second chapter offers literature and background material on representation; it also reveals American preferences for delegate versus trustee styles of representation, both in general and then as applied to specific issues and offices (Congress versus the president). While a preference for delegate-style representation exists, there is plenty of variability in the data demanding explanation. Unfortunately, a very interesting set of results (Table 2.3) seems to be omitted from the book. The text offers good coverage of this material but future editions will have to correct for this omission.

Chapter 3 explains why differences in representation preferences occur. It begins with a discussion of different forms of democracy, including the republic, direct democracy, and liberal popular democracy. The authors match liberal popular democracy to those who prefer instructed delegate-style representation and republicanism to those who prefer trustees. This is an area of the book that I might have slimmed down. It is interesting but ultimately does not contribute much to the major findings. The authors then spend some time explaining the values that promote preferences for instructed delegate or trustee-style governance. They clearly define these values and employ interesting measures for egalitarianism, humanism, authoritarianism, and dogmatism. Chapter 4 shows the data. These values as well as religious traditionalism and partisanship predict representation preferences. They do so better than I would have expected. Here, I would have liked more empirics showing how the aforementioned values predict religious traditionalism and how both predict partisanship. Regardless, all predict representation preferences in the direction the authors theorize.

The second section of the book investigates the link among representation preferences of the electorate, vote choice, and representation practices of elected officials. In Chapter 5, we are introduced to Pandering 2.0, as well as convincing evidence that those who prefer delegate-style representation are more likely to vote for Democrats and those who prefer trustee-style representation are more likely to vote for Republicans, with both observational and experimental data used. The experimental data reveal an interesting wrinkle. The authors describe it well when they write: “Republicans seem to evaluate instructed delegate-style legislators the same way secular progressives and other liberal Democrats do. However, for trustee-style politicians, it would seem that their prospects for electoral success tend to be quite a bit more promising when their electoral constituencies are loaded with conservative Republicans—Christian traditionalists, in particular” (pp. 110–11). The observational results, however, are more symmetric.

Chapter 6 looks at representation style and congressional approval to see if those who prefer trustees, for example, punish delegates. The results in this chapter tend to be weaker than others in the book but all comport with the theories being tested. Chapter 7 shows that red congressional districts, those defined as traditionalistic, have less responsive representatives. They do not pander although they might Pander 2.0. When representation is weak, it is because members of Congress vote in a more ideologically extreme direction than their constituencies would prefer. The final chapter summarizes and discusses limitations with the research as well as remaining questions. It does so honestly and impressively. Barker and Carman have a very fair and reasonable take on their overall contribution.

The arguments in Representing Red and Blue are backed with rigorous empirical analysis, full of robustness checks and consideration of alternate specifications. The authors are up-front about shortcomings in their data and analysis, shortcomings that are by no means easily dealt with, and for this they should be especially commended. They are also careful about defining terms and concepts. This innovative book helps us understand contemporary politics and should be grappled with by students, scholars, and practitioners alike.