The elections in Extremadura, Aragon, and Castile and León, along with the anticipated Andalusian polls in June 2026, set us in an intense electoral cycle that will not conclude until general elections are once again held. In each election, a new share of parliamentarians (roughly about half the chamber) enters the assemblies for the first time to represent… whom? Indeed, as odd as it may seem, there is a wide diversity of perceptions about whom a deputy represents. Perhaps it is worth knowing these views a little better, especially in the midst of a long electoral cycle that aims at renewal. In modern political representation, several factors intervene, generating a latent tension within our representatives.
The eternal dilemma between obeying the voter or one’s own conscience
The classic debate about representation (think Burke) posed two basic stances: the “delegate representative” who emphasizes that the legislator, in political action, defends the stance and preferences of their electorate in a kind of (now obsolete) imperative mandate; and the “trustee representative” who argues that the parliamentarian has their own criteria that guide their political work, resting on the voters’ trust that they will act for the common good or general interest. Pitkin reminded us that, in addition to whom is represented, it is important to consider the who and the how of representation, which are the descriptive and substantive dimensions of representation (complementing the formal and the symbolic).
“In addition to whom is represented, it is important to consider the who and the how of representation, which are the descriptive and substantive dimensions of representation”
The scenario becomes more complex if we include in the equation the interaction of elements such as closed party lists—whose criteria remain generally opaque—and party discipline in legislatures within the context of a growing professionalization of politics. This interaction often generates loyalties or fidelities to the leadership or the ruling oligarchy, on whom the continuity of a political career typically depends.
Thus, there are several possible answers to the initial question. In their political work, a political representative may want to embody the voters of a constituency, the voters of their party (in that constituency or in general), the whole citizenry (the common good), the party (electoral program), or the party leadership (usually aligned with the direction of the parliamentary group they serve). It does not seem unusual that political representation is subjected to tensions among at least three main referents: the supposed position or opinion of the electorate, the party’s position, and the representative’s own autonomy of judgment. It is not unusual for the response to these tensions to crystallize in a certain theatricality in political action in the chambers: the representative may have to defend positions fixed by their group in which they do not fully believe, as explained in The theatricalization of politics in Spain (page 86 and following).
We understand that the position of the electorate is a factor that further complicates the situation: the electorates of each party, as well as each party—and especially the big ones—are not homogeneous; they are crossed by different interests, beliefs, and aspirations that can come together, compete, or contradict. For practical purposes, let us settle for the idea that the politician is an exegete of the heterogeneous popular will and that, therefore, in the absence of solid surveys on every issue, when we speak of the “opinion” or “position” of the electorate, we are really referring to the perception the politician has about what their majority electorate or the citizenry believes or thinks.
The surprise finding: 60% obey the party, but PP deputies prefer the electorate
Within the framework of the international Comparative Candidates Survey, a group of scholars questioned a sample of 515 Spanish parliamentarians from the 19 representation chambers (28% of the total) about who a parliamentarian should represent and what they should vote when voters, the party, and the parliamentarian’s own criterion conflict.
The principal finding is the apparent consensus among deputies and senators in Spain about representation, bearing in mind that a parliamentarian should prioritize representing the whole over the part. Chart 1 shows that the most popular options tend to encompass the largest number of people, with the Spanish citizenry as a whole taking precedence over the constituency’s citizens, and, at the constituency level, that citizenry should be represented primarily by the voters of the constituency. Behind these groups lie the party’s voters and the citizens of the autonomous community, in a technical tie, with those two groups far ahead of specific groups such as youth, the elderly, and women, among others.
“Deputies and senators in Spain hold inclusive views on representation, bearing in mind that a parliamentarian should prioritize representing the whole over the part”
Three scenarios were posed to the representative to indicate how they should vote. These scenarios juxtaposed the “opinion of the electorate” with the “opinion of the party,” the representative’s opinion with the electorate’s, and the representative’s with the party’s. Data grouped by party point to a varied panorama. In those scenarios where the “opinion of the party” is involved, the majority of representatives (60% compared to the electorate and 77% compared to the parliamentarian’s criterion) assume that the party dictates, though always with less intensity in the PP and with an exception in this party: the majority of its parliamentarians (52.5%) believes that in a case of conflict between what the party thinks and what they believe their electorate thinks, the representative should vote with what the electorate signals.
This situation aligns with the majority view held by PP representatives: 77% (the highest among the four major parties) think that “the elected politician must try to discover what voters think and translate that into policy”. This stance is typically linked to populist politics and is present in the four major parties with varying intensity (69% in PSOE, 65% in the Sumar/Podemos space, and 47% in Vox).
“More than half of the parliamentarians (57%) prefer to follow the preferences or perceived opinions of their voters, though a sizable share (43%) indicate a preference for their own criterion”
When the party is removed from the equation and the options are voting in line with the parliamentarian’s view or the electorate’s view in their constituency, the choices become more balanced. More than half of the parliamentarians (57%) prefer to align with the preferences or perceived opinions of their voters, though a substantial share (43%) indicate a preference for their own criterion. Yet there is a non-ideological difference. The majority of parliamentarians from the two major parties (PP and PSOE) more often prefer to follow the electorate than their own political criterion, while a narrow majority of representatives from the Sumar/Podemos space and Vox lean toward following their own criterion.
The paradox of the “new politics”: why do Vox and Sumar listen less to the voter than the bipartisanship?
The data sketch a complex scenario that does not necessarily fit what many might assume about our politicians. First, and in light of the results, the so-called “new” politics already has fewer truly new aspects. In fact, these findings lead us to think that it is precisely the traditional parties that are thinking less about representing their voters, despite being the most institutionalized. Is this a move by traditional parties to again champion voter representation? Has the populist dimension in these parties been amplified? On the other hand, if parliamentarians in parties with more populist tendencies step back toward a representation with less focus on the voter, should we expect a reduction of populist attitude in that representation?
All things considered, the results invite us to reflect on to what extent this apparently contradictory situation reflects patterns of contagion and retreat. It seems that traditional parties foster populist features while newer parties become more institutionalized and focus more on their own parties than on the citizenry and the voters who entrusted them. We certainly still have a lot to learn about how we vote, but we also have much to learn about who our politicians are thinking about when they vote in the chambers.
