PS 103 Final: Paragraph-length reponses

Why would majority party members delegate power to their party's leaders? Under what conditions will party members want their leaders to have greater power? Answer this in relation to the Aldrich/Rohde and the Lee readings

- lees "insecure majorities" : incentive for parties to conduct partisan gamesmanship rather than a collab
- this will empower party leadership
- Aldrich and Rohde intrduce CPG (Conditional Party Government THeory)
- party leadership will be empowered if there is a strong consensus within the party, and stark disagreements with the opposing party.

What is an "ideal point"? What factors influence the ideal points of individual members of Congress?

- Preferred position on a policy or issue
- three factors may determine MCs ideal point by
1. constituents' preference
2. party (homogeneity is create when MCs in the same party agree on ideal points)
3. personal ideology

What are restrictive rules? What is one reason that the use of such rules has increased in recent decades?

- are procedural tools in the US Congress that limit debate, amendments to a bill and consideration to legislations.
- streamline the legislative process and expedite decision-making
- increased in recent decades as party unity has increased (polarization)
- useful for speaker to exert influence over legislative outcome and advance policy priority

What are the main differences in the role of congressional parties during the conservative coalition period as compared to the role of congressional parties in recent decades (e.g. the 1990s-2010s)?

- Conservative coalition period (1937-1970): dem majorities were divide
- southern influence swept through committee systems and they proposed conservative policy and blocked liberal policy
- conservative republicans controlled rules committee
- Since the 70s, the government has operated on a party government system
- committee chairs has less power
- party leaders have authority over committees
- more polarization now

What strategies are available to the majority party in attempting to shape policy outcomes in the House of Representatives?

- two main strategies
- internal party pressure: majority leaders/party will place informal pressure on member to vote for a specific policy
- The majority party can gate keep policy by blocking bills from the floor

In what ways does the experience of House Republican leaders in the current (118th Congress) depart from our expectations based on conditional party government theory? In what ways does it fit the expectations of CPG?

- aligns with CPG partially
- polarized government: GOP and Democrats polarized
- But internal division bc of speaker Mccarthy ousted
- internal disagreement
- Speaker is attempting to unite party on anti-Biden sentiment

How do individual senators' prerogatives differ from their House counterparts? How has the rise of party polarization impacted the Senate, as compared to the House? (expand)

- Senators have more prerogatives
- house operates on majority system --> median voter empowered/majority party has the advantage
- senate faces debate and filibuster threat --> minority
- during polarization: inverse relationship. Majority in house is empowered, and the minority in the senate is

How has the use of the filibuster in the Senate changed in recent decades? Why have these changes taken place?

- meant to facilitate debate but weaponized by minority
- rise accredited to two main reasons
- filibuster has become "costless" for minorities and "expensive" to the majority
- incentive to use has been increase bc of polarization
- difficult to get cloture

What are the three main models that political scientists have used to
understand the purposes served by congressional committees?

-The first model is information: using committees as a source of expertise for certain legislation
- the second model is distribution mode;: MCs use committees to pursue individualist goals to deliver goals for their districts/ help in their re-election
- The former two coincide with each other
- lastly, the partisan model: committees used to empower the majority party

What are two differences between the traditional committee process and the contemporary committee process? What have these changes meant for the power of committees and / or their chairs? Briefly explain.

traditional process:
- "seniority" in committees
- committee chairs yielded the most power

Current/post-1970s system
- committee chairs elected by caucus elections
- subcommittee chairs share power with the chair
- two changes have increased party leadership power and decreased committee power

Why did the budget process in Congress fall apart in the 1960s - early 1970s? What tools does the new budget process created in 1974 offer to Congress in order to gain greater control of spending and revenue decisions? (but why did it fail?)

- Longstanding tension between individual member incentives (dole out benefits; avoid pain) vs. collective interest in “sound” budget

- The Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974: gave Congress more control
-restricted impoundments (used to refuse to spend money congress approved) by the president
- created Congressional Budget committees --> policy info for congress
- added resolution and reconciliation process
- in general, helped tackle fiscal challenges faced by mandatory spending(backdoor spending)

- Budget Act of 1974 intended, in part, to address this tension…but did not transform political incentives 

• Central front in partisan wars over role of government

How does the growth in presidential power in the 20th century relate to Madison's expectations about how the balance of powers in the U.S. would work? What did Madison get wrong?

- Madison expected Congress to be the most powerful
- executive has become surprisingly strong this past century
1.power over foreign policy
2. chief legislator: agenda setter
3. politicization of bureaucracies
- founders failed to assume that partisan would prioritize their party above the branch's power
- This shift in priorities for Congress led MCs to tolerate the president's expansion of power

Why did the president gain a greater legislative role? How does divided government impact the president's influence over domestic policy-making?

- president have gained a greater legislative role as agenda setters /chief legislators
- divided government makes it hard to influence policy/lower the legislative success rate
- less opposition from congress
- the president can do the following three to exert power
1. persuasion (of MCs)
2. going public. (public support)
3. executive orders

Why did Congress become less influential with regard to war powers in the middle decades of the 20th century? How has the War Power Act changed this dynamic, if at all?

- Pre 1950 congress reserved the power to pursue offensive war
- The Korean War as turning point: Trueman did not ask for war declaration (did not ask Congress) and he claimed authority through “police action” authorized by UN Security Council resolution but Congress did not fight back.

- Led to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which states that Congress approves and supports the determination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression (delegating power to the president).

- The president also began to dominate decisions because he was able to build up staff, develop of standing army (leaving vast military power that is at president’s fingertips), and is in control of nuclear weapons.
- 1973 war power resolution: the rise of presidential power during war
1. does not deter president from pursuing short-term war
2. requires congressional approval for long-term war ,but authorization is easily given
- Congress is willing to side with the president because there's no incentive to go against them/they don't wanna be responsible for war policy

What incentives do members of Congress have to delegate discretion to the bureaucracy? What are some of the potential costs / risks of delegating discretion?

- imperfect infromation: MCs need expertise on specific legislation
- rapid responses: makes policy more responsive to real-world changes
- blame avoidance: congressional MCs cannot get blames for unpopular policy with it was enacted by the bureaucracy.
- passing of legislation: easier to get MCs to agree to legislation that is somewhat vague so that they’re able to make their constituents happy/convinced

-issue: president's authority over bureaucracy can be used to pursue a an agenda contrary to what congress wants

What tools does Congress have to respond when agencies act in ways that Congress disapproves? What are some obstacles that Congress faces in making effective use of each of these tools? (note the relevant obstacle(s) may differ across tools). (may need help)

-tools:
- oversight hearing (bureaucracies) to investigate / scrutinize agencies
Obstacle: agencies can refuse to cooperate/ withhold info
-legislative restriction: congress can overturn presidential orders
Obstacle: president can veto the overturn
-Confirmation process: Senate has to approve presidential nominations to bureaucracies
obstacle: President can rely on acting appointees to avoid conflict
-

What expectations does Mancur Olson's approach to the study of collective action lead us to have about the types of groups that will lobby Congress? How well do those expectations hold up when one considers the groups active in Washington today?

- collective actions problems can be alleviated by two groups
- Small groups: police themselves and some collective action problems internally
- groups that provide material/social incentives: professional associations who force members to pay --> have to contribute to overcome collective problems
- thus why they are effective lobby groups

Why is "access" useful for organized interest groups? What is the difference between inside and outside lobbying strategies? What kind of groups are more likely to use an "outside" strategy?

- access allows interest groups to directly communicate and influence policy makers
- inside lobbying: uses access, involves less persuasion (more money tho), and targets powerful figures.
-Outside lobbying: no access needed. mobilizing individuals, uses pressure against MCs with the threat of losing voters.
- used by high salience issues and broad-cased interest groups

According to David Mayhew ("Actions in the Public Sphere," 2002, 2005), what do members of Congress do that is "significant," beyond their roll call votes? Why are these activities important?

- Taking stances: take public positions against other party or president

• Can help shape preferences of constituents and other political actors: provide cues, signals to public

• Politics take place in a public sphere of stand-taking

- investigating: create transparecy for president

• Increase in investigations

• 5% of action but pretty consequential

- The former two can accommodate for ideological impulse/lead to oppositions

• Mayhew finds that about 22% of actions that MCs take is oppose the president

  • About ⅕ of what they do

• Happened less often in the past

- they shape American politics beyond legislating

What forces are undermining the realm of "significant member actions" (as identified by Mayhew) in the early 21st Century? Why should we care?

(from reading but feel free to disregard: Media connections, academic culture, membership diversity and second-order institutions [parties +filibuster])
- most important:
1. decline of attention/regard for congress
2. changing of institutions where committees have less power --> less suitable for public stances
3. Polarization shapes MC behavior
- significance: undermines public deliberation and congressional autonomy