Plotting the ideology of voters and each state’s maximum TANF benefit reveals a familiar trend: As a state’s share of liberal voters increases, so does the generosity of the benefits. New York and Massachusetts spend the money differently from Mississippi and Tennessee in a way that parallels the political views of their citizens.

As in cities, this pattern can be seen across other state policies, like the income tax rate.

These patterns are not meant to suggest that politicians are exactly as liberal or conservative as their average constituent, but that the views of constituents play a role in policy outcomes.

Elected officials may not know the polling results of their constituents’ positions on issues, and few politicians may look at new opinion data on their constituents when it becomes available, as new research suggests. This doesn’t mean that politicians never update their beliefs about what people want as information changes. Politicians typically have an image of their constituency rooted in more than just poll numbers, perhaps one that is more related to what needs to be delivered to voters to get re-elected rather than one based on accurately capturing mass opinion.

American democracy has room for improvement, but that doesn’t mean it’s no democracy at all.

Politicians who fail to deliver the level of government support or rate of taxation expected by their constituents — particularly those constituents who are critical to their re-election — may find themselves out of a job. That politicians learn about these levels from a variety of experiences in office should not be surprising. One way or another, most elected officials manage to do things their voters want them to do.