states, he really believes that, so eventually he started negotiating with himself to the point where i called in the accommodator in chief, and that's what the book is about, about why he does that, what it's about, and how there's an incredible difference between him as president and him as candidate. >> okay. your first book, "bush on the couch" what's one thing we learned about president george w. bush? >> we learned a couple of things that he really was very much a person who had once been an alcoholic, a dry drunk, people who are impulsive and given to blaming other people and one of the things about him so powerful is that he -- when he made up his mind, he never changed it, and he's an either/or president, with us or against it. he lived in a different world

saying i don't do knew answer or deal with it, and obama only does nuance so there's the opposite presidents back-to-back. . ..

the university of maryland she's a professor of american politics and she's also the author of this book "constituency representation in congress the view from capitol hill." professor miller, you write in the introduction to your book or before the introduction that overall, legislators views of constituents are limited and fault and even well-meaning religious leaders can help represent their constituents if they do not accurately see who is in their district. what does that mean? >> much of our attention focused that they're being corrupt to vote against their constituents but what we have neglected this the whole part of the story kind of what happens before they get to those decisions and what i'm interested in in this book is double that psychology can play in forming our understanding of the elected officials. so we've long had this sense

that, you know, we have limitations of humans. we don't use all the information possible or conduct information searches every time someone asks a question so there is a literature on our cognitive limits in the short cuts we take to make sense of the will to make decisions. that has been applied in some studies of policy but not with an american politics. when interested in is how religious leaders perceive their constituents? when we say what are your constituents, who are they thinking about because they represent 700,000 people and there is no way they are thinking of all of them so what does the district look like in their mind. then once we figure that out we can think about how does that affect how they behave so that's where this takes off. >> so when you ask a legislator, a member of the house of representatives, what do your constituents want? what is his or her thought process? >> i conducted dillinger

interviews come over 80 interviews on the hill with legislators and their staff and asked who in the district is this important to? not to are you going to do something for but who does it matter to. what i was struck by is there are anywhere from the relevant number of constituents and legislators don't see all of them, they don't come to mind. in the business sense where there's meetings and committee hearings and legislative things, okay, when the district cares about this? they are not seeing everybody in the district that cares about the issue so for instance something like the patient still love rights focuses on health care issues. you would think everybody would think patient but they don't. a sizable minority almost 40% of legislators are not thinking about patience when if they are thinking about that type of legislation. a bigger thinking about hospitals or physicians for insurance but they are not always thinking about patience and this is replete on the issue after issue so the view of who is in their district relative is

actually quite limited. >> taking that patient bill of rights, does -- if a legislator gets 100 letters etc. on that issue from people who've been in the hospital, do those matter? >> absolutely. first, there was a question of who do they see? very descriptive but surprisingly neglected questions of life and its limited, then i want to figure out well, why is it that some legislators see some groups and other legislators see other constituents; what explains that? so in the good things like contacts from constituents, financial contributions, party ties. and what i find that matters is contributions and contacts. one of those is a slightly happier story for democracy, right, and that's a story about contact in some sense, which is what we are taught in high school and elementary school was right to your congressman, it actually matters. the way i would argue it matters

is how the shape was in the district, it shapes their perception of who the constituency is, and then they can use that later on as i go into later on in the book to shape their conscious the leveraged decision like how to participate, what boat, but first it has to have this subtle affect i call mental access kind of shading their world view and that is one way of writing to your congressperson seems to matter. >> what is the next step then? >> we should all right to our congressperson is one thing. there are issues you care about and in this day and age it is easy to feel cynical those letters get answered by a staffer that are not important that they are having this effective shaping their district and that makes a big difference. on the other hand in terms of financial contribution, that has a slightly less positive stance so one of the struggles is we long few but money matters and congressional politics there's mixed evidence in the academic scholarship side and what i find

is that the money matters by shaping how they view the district. i think that helps bridge the lack of a smoking gun so to speak as the evidence of money buying and politics. with that feeling money and politics is doing something and what i think it is doing here is shaping the district and so if you are a constituency group getting more money you are likely to be seen and have your voice heard by a member of congress. >> professor miller let's say you are representing detroit, car companies, all the workers, etc. you are doing what you think is right for the auto workers and the car companies and in turn they are giving you donations because they support your work. isn't that how it is supposed to work representing your constituents? >> it is supposed to work that way. i think the concern is one of the bars democratic furious have

talked about setting for representation is a low bar i would argue and it's that an elected representative is aware of the distribution of the different constituents in the district, just aware of them and held a legislator chooses to act from there is a host of other factors, party come audiology, the belief of what is best for their constituents or the country. the lobar just being aware of constituents isn't being met in the modern congress. there's a lot of constituents the door on scene. there will be tough choices and so the book isn't saying that the standard is acting for eight in every interest so that is impossible but at least to be aware. >> professor miller in your research do you find that congressional district is too big? >> that is one of the implications i think can be drawn out of this work so these limited and by u.s. perceptions and at shaping their behavior and by trees this by looking at

participation committees. are they asking questions what comment or the making i look at their voting record and i find that legislators who are sponsoring or see a more complete balanced district tend to vote more moderately. they tend to sponsor more wells so it has an impact. the reason they think they may be too big is your presentation is really a tough job. psychologists have been telling us legislators and their staff are human, too and so they are subject to the same limitations and we are asking them to do you really difficult job to represent three-quarters of a million people or close to an average is tough, and so i think that if the size of the district is made smaller, it wouldn't totally eliminate shortcuts that are necessary and the need to accessible because that i