Do Voters Influence Politicians, Or Is It the Other Way Around?

Vox posted a story about a fascinating "chicken or egg" study on whether voters' opinions are influenced by the positions taken by their elected representatives. The study utilized a VERY small sample size (8 state legislators), but suggests that the views of voters can indeed be shifted after learning that their elected representatives hold a contrary view. From the article:

For the first study, with one legislator, Broockman and Butler find that the letters "significantly moved his constituents' opinions to be more in line with his policy positions." Voters who disagreed with the legislator but got a letter were 6.5 percent more likely to agree with him in the follow-up survey. For the second, bigger study, voters getting a letter laying out their legislator's disagreements were about 5 percent more likely to agree in the follow-up than people who got a letter without issue positions stated. 

There's reason to believe that most respondents read the letters they got. In the first study, over 50 percent of respondents getting a letter remembered getting it in a survey performed after the follow-up, compared to just 20 percent of those not getting the letter who erroneously reported receiving one. in the second study, over 60 percent of respondents said they remembered receiving a letter, and voters who got policy letters were likelier to correctly identify their legislators' positions. 

They further found that opinion change was no more likely when an extensive argument was included in the letter; the legislators aren't persuading people with reason and evidence, but with the bare fact that they're the ones holding the positions in question. And legislators didn't suffer a loss in support from constituents they didn't convince: "citizens who received letters from their legislators taking positions they had disagreed with previously evaluated their legislators no less favorably." And while responses to the letters varied for different issue areas, they didn't differ so much that the results were "driven by a small set of atypical issues."

It's surprising that the study conferred no benefit on a legislator that offered a detailed explanation as to why they hold a different view from the targeted constituents. Apparently just an indication of the contrary view was enough to either change the opinion of the voter, or at least not alienate the constituent. 

I have to wonder if the bigger dynamics at play involve (1) whether a legislator is already well-liked by the constituents for which a policy disagreement exists; and (2) whether the constituent is influenced because of their perception that the legislator is paying attention to them by sending a letter. 

As an example, the conventional wisdom is that former House Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor lost his reelection bid because he lost touch with his constituents. I have to think that Cantor's policy views were probably shared by a majority of participating voters in his district. Even so, he lost his race in stunning fashion because of his perceived aloofness. If voters believe that an elected leader is earnest and accessible, they'll probably cut them a break even if they disagree with them on an issue or two.

I had the privilege while in grad school to attend a guest lecture by a former aid to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. He offered what I thought to be sage advice when he urged my classmates and I to "win the people, not the argument." There's a lot to be said for that. 

To substantially amend Machiavelli, is it better to be liked or agreed with?