Worth a try? The electoral consequences of symbolic legislation

Abstract

With the US Congress increasingly gridlocked, fewer bills are becoming law. Nevertheless, members continue to engage in what we call “symbolic legislating”—that is, introducing legislation that has effectively no chance of securing enough votes to become law. Despite its prevalence, little is known about the electoral implications of sponsoring symbolic legislation. It is possible that voters reward their legislator’s efforts to move the status quo closer to their position even if it has no chance of becoming law. On the other hand, because symbolic legislation is doomed to fail, it may decrease a legislator’s perceived effectiveness and, thus, their political support. Alternatively, it is possible that sponsoring symbolic legislation has no impact beyond a cue of the politician’s position. In this Research Article, we test these competing hypotheses using a survey experiment. Our experimental results clearly demonstrate that, assuming shared party and issue position, sponsoring symbolic legislation is strongly rewarded. Moreover, the effect is even stronger among voters who are most likely to attend to this information in the real world and operates similarly across parties.