Using six years of data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study and input from 1,240 survey respondents, the authors developed new methods to assess how citizens evaluate potential representatives and, ultimately, polarization's consequences for representation. The authors identify "the Delegate Paradox," whereby constituencies comprised of citizens with idiosyncratic policy preferences are often best represented by politicians who appear ideologically polarized.

这有悖于极化升ature that often argues that citizens would be more satisfied with representatives with mixed positions. "However, when we presented citizens with politicians who met this criterion," the authors write, "they did not appear to gravitate to them; they tend to prefer politicians who match their issue views, regardless of the ideology those positions imply."

The authors point to the candidate Donald Trump, politically extreme on some measures but overall ideologically moderate. However, they write, "Trump's issue stances and not his ostensibly moderate unidimensional ideology won him support during the primaries." Trump voters were not drawn to his generally moderate views but rather his conservatism on immigration or liberalism on taxes.

The authors caution that scholars may be led astray if they focus on maximizing the measured ideological moderation of elected officials. "It would be facetious to anoint Trump as representing the vast majority of Americans very closely because his ideologically mixed pattern of views leads him to be measured as ideologically moderate."