Is Consensus a Cue for Quality or Compromise?
This paper argues that bipartisan support generally signals high policy quality rather than undesirable compromise to most citizens, a finding supported by a social learning model and a nationally representative survey experiment showing that cross-party backing improves perceived policy quality by 4.2 percentiles, with negative backlash limited to a small minority who strongly oppose compromise.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
When people form opinions about laws and government policies, they often lack the time or expertise to read every detail of a proposal. Instead, they look for shortcuts, or clues, provided by political leaders. One of the most common clues is whether leaders from opposing political parties agree on a bill. If a proposal has support from both sides of the aisle, does that tell us the idea is high-quality and effective? Or does it suggest that the leaders had to water down the plan, making concessions that weaken the original goal? This question sits at the heart of how citizens understand the work of their government. For decades, scholars have debated whether cross-party agreement acts as a stamp of approval, signaling that a policy is so good it overcomes political divides, or as a sign of compromise, implying that the policy has been diluted to please everyone and please no one.
A team of researchers from Florida State University and Pittsburg State University set out to solve this puzzle. They wanted to know what average citizens actually infer when they see a bill supported by both Democrats and Republicans. Do people assume the policy is better because it has broad support, or do they assume it is worse because it represents a middle-ground surrender? To find the answer, the researchers conducted a large-scale experiment with a nationally representative group of 1,000 Americans just before the 2022 election. They presented participants with a real legislative proposal regarding mental health interventions in schools, a topic where both parties had introduced similar but distinct bills. The researchers then told the participants that the bill had passed, but they varied the story about the other party's reaction. In one version, the opposing party supported the bill; in the other, they strongly opposed it.
The results offered a clear and somewhat surprising picture of how people think. The study found that when citizens learned the opposing party supported a proposal, they rated the policy as significantly more effective than when they learned the opposing party opposed it. Specifically, the perception of the policy's effectiveness jumped by 4.2 percentiles on a scale where 100 represents a policy more effective than almost any other. This suggests that for most people, bipartisan support acts as a signal of quality. It tells them that the idea must be genuinely good to win over a rival group that usually disagrees. This effect was strongest among people who initially believed that the opposing party would never support such a bill. For these citizens, the fact that the other side agreed was a powerful piece of evidence that the policy was of high caliber.
However, the researchers also looked for the "backlash" that some theories predicted. They wondered if strong partisans, who are deeply loyal to their own party, would feel betrayed if their party made a deal with the opposition. The data showed that this negative reaction does exist, but it is much smaller and more limited than previously thought. Only about 12.3 percent of the people surveyed reacted negatively to the cross-party support. This small group consisted of citizens who not only strongly opposed the idea of compromise in principle but also specifically interpreted the bipartisan agreement as proof that the policy had been compromised. For the vast majority of people, including many who say they dislike compromise in the abstract, seeing the other party agree did not make them think the policy was worse. Instead, they simply saw it as a sign that the solution was robust.
Interestingly, while people thought the policy itself was better, their opinion of the political party that proposed it did not change much. Even when citizens decided a bipartisan bill was highly effective, they did not necessarily give more credit to the party that introduced it for being more competent. This suggests that people can separate the quality of an idea from the reputation of the politician who brought it forward. The study concludes that in the context of modern legislation, citizens tend to focus on whether a policy works well rather than whether it represents a political concession. When they see rivals agree, they generally assume the idea is strong enough to bridge the divide, rather than assuming the idea has been weakened to make the agreement possible. This finding implies that the fear of electoral punishment for seeking bipartisan cooperation may be overstated, as most voters do not view cross-party support as a sign of weakness.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.