GOVT 3112 Final Review

1. What does Richard Fenno define as being a member’s “homestyle”? What are the different ways he suggests members might understand their constituency? (define, give examples)

A representative’s home-style is his presentation of self. Represenatives seek to garner support for their election through trust—calculated by what is “given” in words and “given-off” in actions.

Issue-oriented style and person-to-person style

1. What does David Mayhew say motivates members? What are the three types of activities they engage in to that end? (define, give examples)

Members of Congress are single-minded seekers of re-election

Three types of activities they engage in?

1. advertising: any effort to disseminate one’s name among constituents to create a favorable image but those messages have little or no issue content

2. Credit Claiming: A relevant political actor (or actors) claiming that one is personally responsible for causing the government, or some unit thereof, to do something that the actor (or actors) considers desirable.

3. Position taking: the public announcement of a judgemental statement on anything likely to be of interest to political actors.

1. What is the difference between descriptive and substantive representation?  To what extent do descriptive and substantive forms of representation adequately reflect the representation of specific groups of constituents? Think about the Kolbert and Edwards et al reading from the representation discussion section week.

Descriptive representation: representing some facet of constituent identities

Substantive representation: someone who is representing your political interests

Descriptive can lead to more substantive (members more active advocates for groups that they share a background with), but not necessarily. Though, despite sharing an identity, there is variation within identity groups (Herdon reading). Its absence is a problem, but descriptive does not automatically lead to substantive representation.

Edwards et al reading

Geographical constituencies depend on how districts are drawn.

Independent redistricting commissions lead to more compact districts, with fewer political subdivisions, and perhaps do a better job of preserving the population cores of prior districts.

Kolbert reading

How redistricting led to the switch from a majority blue to red districts

Packing

the party in charge of redistricting tries to pack voters from the rival party into as few districts as possible to minimize the number of seats the opposition is likely to win

Cracking

opposition voters are parcelled out among several districts to minimize opposition seats

Delegate model

Represents constituents’ preferences, the goal of Congress should be to make the decisions that a majority of America would make

Trustee model

Elected representatives act as trustees for their constituents by using their own judgement, expertise, and conscience to make decisions in the public interest—-even if those decisions diverge from immediate preferences of their constituents

Assumes that representatives are chosen for their ability to deliberate and make informed decisions rather than imply mirroring the opinions of their voters

Dynamic representation/responsiveness

representing means acting in the interest of the represented, in a matter of responsiveness. Responding to conflict timely.

Interests

Relatively stable, underlying, often long-term needs, goals, or benefits that individuals, groups, or constituencies seek, such as economic well-being or social equity

Preferences

expressed desires, opinions, or choices, often shaped by immediate concerns (changing with events or information)

What have been some major trends in campaign finance?

• Money is positively correlated with challengers’ success

• Money is negatively correlated with incumbents’ success because donors are strategic givers, they provide funds when they expect the candidate to do well.

• Most challengers lose, a challenger rarely win without a great deal of money

Difference between contributions and expenditures?

1. contributions are things given to a candidate to spend on campaigns. Independent expenditures are done for the candidate without direct involvement with the candidate.

1. What are different potential reasons a donor/group might contribute to a campaign? Generally, why do donations matter to members? What about interest groups?

Donors are strategic givers. They provide funds when they expect the candidate to do well and to candidates that they think allign with their interests.

Independent expenditures

• Political campaign communication that expressly advocates for the election or defeat of a clearly identified political candidate that is not made in cooperation with the candidate. If an agent becomes materialy involved, the expenditure is not independent. 

Buckley v. Valeo (1976)

Upholds limits on contributions to candidates but strikes down limits on individual expenditures

Hard money v. Soft money

Hard money: money collected and spent according to the FECA requirements as described above

Soft money: spending not subject to the disclosure or limitations of FECA

Political Action Committees, 3 types

• Connected PACs: raise money from a defined class, such as health organizations, steel companies, labor unions 

• Unconnected PACs: ideological, single-issue, leadership PACs, able to raise money from all sources

• Super PACs: independent expenditure only committees, not covered by FECA limits on donations 

Difference between redistricting and gerrymandering?

Gerrymandering: happens during redistricting, strategic manipulation of the boundaries of an electoral constituency in order to favor a party or other interest.

Redistricting: the general process of redrawing electoral district boundaries

What are the two major strategies of gerrymandering?

Packing: concentrate same-party group/group voters in a district, empowering them in one district, but reducing their numbers elsewhere

Cracking: divide the same party group/group voters across districts, so that they are nowhere in a majority

What are two primary ways of doing the math around redistricting?

StandardDivisor: total pop#/# of seats

StandardQuota: statepop/standarddivisor???

(tbh idk!)

How often does redistricting happen?

Every 10 years

What is the “paradox of representation”?

Affirmative districting has been necessary to achieve representation (for African Americans and hispanics), but it can reduce the aggregate representation of their preferences in legislature

A real concern, but not an inevitable one

• if you draw majority-minority districts in a way to put minorities in majority areas, you are increasing minority people elected, but decreasing the number of reps elected on average who are more liberal.

What are some different ways states go about deciding on districts? What are some of the criteria they might take into consideration?

Follow process laid out in state constitution

Comply with federal rules, Voting Rights Act

What is the difference between gerrymandering and affirmative redistricting

Intent, purpose, and impact on representation

• Purpose: Gerrymandering (advantages political party, incumbent, or group at the expense of others, often for partisan or electoral gain). Affirmative Redistrcting (enhance representation for underrepresented groups, particularly minorities, to ensure fair electoral opportunities). 

• Motivation: Gerrymandering (partisan, political elites) Affirmative Redistricting (citizen-focused, to enhance representation to ensure fair electoral opportunities)

• Legality: legal unless violates constitutional or statutory protectioins (ex. Racial gerrymandering is illegal); Legally mandated or encouraged, but must avoid unconstitutional racial gerrymandering). 

What are two major motivations for redistricting? How might they come in conflict with one another?

Incumbent protection: districts drawn to re-elect incumbent

Partisan advantage: districts drawn to give one party a collective advantage

States have major authority over the redistricting process. How has the federal government intervened?

Federal government sets rules for congressional elections (ex. the state can choose which, but  has to be either single-member majority district or single-member plurality district)

Wasted Votes

Both packing and cracking tries to maximize the wasted votes, ie any vote that does not contribute to a victory.

Majority-Minority districts

districts one form of affirmative districting: the deliberate drawing of electoral boundaries in order to increase democratic representation

Malapportionment

Stark inequality in the number of persons per district. The Senate is the most malapportioned legislature in the world. To fix this, redistricting emerges to end it.

Consequences of the end of malapportionment

1. garuntees redistricting every 10 years

2. enables challengers and incumbents to “coordinate”

self-packing

Humans naturally come together (ie. democrats self-pack). People want to live in places where others that are like them want to live

incumbency advantage, direct and indirect advantage

the seemingly greater likelihood that incumbents running for re-election will win than had they not been incumbents

Direct: advantages that accrue directly to the incumbent

Indirect: the changing quality of challengers

• incumbents better able to “scare off” challengers?

• Greater ability of challengers/incumbents to coordinate post “one-person-one-vote.”

Why do people vote the way they do?

Mainly partisanship, but also:

• ideology

• Incumbency and name recognition

• Approval of the president [economic conditions and war]

• Perception of candidate integrity and competence

• Perception of candidate integrity and competence

Where does partisanship come from? What are the two main ways of thinking about it?

Psychological attachment to a sociological identity

• social identity: comparing a judgment about oneself with one’s perception of a social group. compares one self to one’s mental image of what a democrat or republican looks like

  • explains stability

  • explains inter-generational transfer

  • harder time explaining change

Rational evaluation of parties’ positions

• Explains change but over-predicts its occurrence: you might change parties when the parties’ positions change, but more often you change positions

• Predicts parties will converge on the middle in order to appeal to median voter’s prospective evaluation of benefits

• Can be modified by treating voters as retrospectively updating their beliefs about parties—short term promises are credible only in light of historical performance

Do economic evaluations tend to be sociotropic or based on voters’ pocketbooks? Do economic evaluations tend to be retrospective or prospective?

Retrospective > Prospective

• were you better off than you were four years ago? retrospective language.

Sociotropic > pocketbook

• pocketbook: are you better off today than you were four years ago?

• sociotropic: is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago

  • about rate of change

causes of polarization

• the rise of a polarized America is about elite-level change and changes in alternative America

• Change in what is being voted on: does the issue agenda focus more on questions that divide the parties? This is endogenous: agenda is selected by the parties themselves

• Changes in party influence: have party leaders gotten more effective at persuasion, pressure, appeals to loyalty. This is also endogenous (parties get more influence when polarized)

• Change in electoral incentives: federal elections today are more competitive

  • makes party brands more salient

  • Encourages drawing contrasts with other party

    • heightened competition led the parties to try and draw distinctions between themselves and to paint the other party in a negative light.

Is polarization symmetric or asymmetric? How do we know?

Asymmetric polarization: polarization driven mostly by republicans. Radicalized conservative movement that emerged in the 1960s drove Republicans much further right than Democrats have moved left.

What are two major ways in which the US have become nationalized? What does Hopkins argue causes each of these?

1. Voters use the same criteria to judge local, state, congressional, and presidential candidates. 

   • Why? Voters now take cues from national parties and their associated interest groups. 

   • Voters are more concerned with national politics to the exclusion of state and local politics. 

     • Why? Nationally integrated media and greater sense of being “American”

2. Consequences: 

   1. Less ticket-splitting 

   2. Less ability to hold individual representatives accountable 

   3. Similar people now react in similar ways to information and mobilization

   4. Contributes to voters being better “sorted.”

How does the nationalization of politics contribute to polarization?

• For most of history the parties were not well-sorted, especially nationally 

  1. Local parties were homogenous and national parties heterogenous. 

• New Deal and 1960s-70s democratize

  1. African Americans “sort” into Democrats and Southern Whites “sort” into Republican Party

  2. Strengthens conservative wing of national Republicans and strengthens national wing of Democrats

• This all leads to even clearer party positions. Democrats realize that should be liberal and Republicans that they should be conservative.

  1. Increasingly national focus of politics lead to voters to use these “national” rather than “local” cues to align partisanship and policy.

Party-driven sorting versus ideology driven sorting

party-driven sorting: an ideolgoy remains consistent but person changes to a more appropriate party

ideology-driven sorting: an ideology remains consistent but person changes to a more appropriate party

How do we acquire policy preferences?

Similar to partisan identity:

• parties provide shortcuts for knowing what position to take

• we align with parties because they reflect these interests/values

• Sorting has driven most but not all polarization

Political Hobbyism

Hobby versus duty (how can you tell the difference between the two?)

Presidential coattails

The positive effect of a presidential candidate on the performance of same-party candidates for other offices up for election

• strong economy/incumbent in pres. party = hard time getting quality challenges and embrace presidential record and connects to local achievements

midterm slump

the president’s party usually loses seats in a midterm election (especially their first)

What explains coattails and midterm slumps

Popularity of winning presidential candidate leads to defections from other party lower on the ticket

Presidential race helps mobilize higher turnout among a party’s core constituencies…lower turnout overall in midterms…but midterms more likely to see opponents of president mobilize

What actors make up the gridlock interval?

4 pivotal actors: median members of the house and senate, the filibuster senator, and the president or override members

Gridlock interval

Space within which policy cannot move. Change can only happen when existing policy is outside this interval. For legislation to pass, it needs the support of at least 4 of the pivotal actors.

What are earmarks? Have they significantly contributed to the budget deficit? What are the consequences of fewer earmarks today?

Earmarks are provisions or report language included at the request of a member or senator providing a specific amount of spending authority. After spending levels were set, the amount allocated for earmarks were divided: 60-40. to the majority party.

They have not contributed to the budget deficit.

After being banned the process became harder, more centralized, and a lot less transparent.. After the ban, appropriations committee lost currency to build up a base of power outside the formal party leadership apparatus. However, if appropriators take the lead in directing the allocation rather than formal party leaders, this might draw some power back from what has become an extremely centralized leadership and lawmaking structure.

Why does gridlock happen?

the rules and constitution diffuse veto authority: a lot of different actors are able to block action unless it advances their preferred goals. Gridlock is the status quo bias resulting from seperated-institutions sharing power.

Omnibus Bills

Puts all or several appropriation bills into one, either threatening a total shutdown or providing members with a giant logroll.

Mandatory vs discretionary spending: which is more contentious?

Mandatory spending: commitment of the government authorized by Congress, entitles someone to a government payment (ex. government bonds, treasury bills, social security, etc.)

Discretionary spending: defense and non-defense spending

• more spent on mandatory than discretionary spending

Article II of the constitution for executive

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States, He shall take care the laws be faithfully executed

List and briefly define ways that the President acts as a legislator

Presidential veto (veto-bargaining, opportunity not just to defeat legislation but to change it through veto bargaining)

Independent authority over foreign policy and commander-in-chief

Statutory and judicial grants of discretion (control over executive agencies)

Why would congress regularly delegate so much authority to the President and Executive officials?

• Want to position take while avoiding responsibility for regulations

• Policymakers convinced themselves that President has national perspective while Congress a parochial one

How can Congress minimize risks of agencies having separate agenda or responding more to the president’s agenda?

Congress is poorly equipped to take action against the President, they have no legislative veto and see collective action problems in overriding a President’s decision. Any legislative response will be rooted in constituency rather than Congress’ concerns about its institutional power relativ to the President.

What tools does Congress have to check the executive?

• confirmation process

• design structure of agencies and rulemaking require congressional support (administrative procedures act)

• power of the purse

• judicial and prosecutorial power (subpoena power, impeachment)

What does it mean to say that the court is a strategic political actor? What is the difference between a strategic and a sincere actor?

a sincere court would move policy to its own preference and a strategic court would try to avoid reversal

court more likely to act sincerely when it believes its institutional standing is high or their preferences don’t diverge much from those of Congress (their preferences are inside the gridlock interval) and strategically when preferences diverge (outside interval) or when they believe their institutional standing is weaker.

What is a non-majoritarian difficulty

Court intervenes in federal legislation at the behest of dominant political elites who want a resolution on issues that divide the parties internally

counter-majoritarian difficulty

an undemocratic and barely accountable body is able to overrule democratically elected majorities, in a republic where only recognized source of authority is popular sovereignty. The court sustains the dominant political regime and its priorities. Conflict between branches occur when the court is out-of-alignment with other branches.

What power do federal courts have to enforce their opinions?

Majority of judicial enforcement mechanisms rest on orders to some other official or branch

• refusal to comply with judicial order leads to another judicial order to another official

• coordinated refusal to comply can leave the courts unnable to enforce their oder

Their power rests on public legitmacy which in turn rests on its perception as a neutral and rule-bound institution

What can congress do if the court does strike down legislation? What authority does Congress have over the court?

Congress can make small changes to the existing legislation or propose a new, similar, piece of legislation

Using the Clark reading: does court-curbing influence judicial decision-making? Why or why not?

Yes, because it reduces the court’s power and ability to work

Oversight (police patrols v fire alarm)

1. Police patrols: regular, intensive scrutiny of agency activities. Good way to harras an agency into compliance. BUT costly. 

2. Fire alarms: reliance on reports of problems by stakeholder, whistleblowers, public, etc.  

   1. Congress’s role as administrator goes well beyond exercising control over executive agencies, it checks the executive branch, relying on quasi-judicial and executive powers. 

Veto pivot. veto bargaining

Veto pivot: the specific legislator or group of legislators whose vote is necessary to override a presidential veto. It represents the ideological threshold where a bill can be successfully enacted after facing a presidential veto

Veto bargaining: threatening a veto in order to get the policy to move towards the desired location

filibuster

an action such as a prolonged speech that obstructs progress in a legislative assembly while not technically contravening the required procedures.

separate institutions sharing power

independent institutions that have their own discretion, but do not act independently, they share power/influence each other

Legislative Veto

1. A provision that allows a Congress to approve or disapprove fo executive decisions through legislative actions short of public law. Includes two-chamber vetoes, one-chamber vetoes, and committee vetoes. 

2. INS v. Chadha: legislative vetoes violate constitutional requirement for bicameralism and presentment. Congress modified various statutes to remove the legislative veto, usually replacing it with a joint resolution of disapproval.  BUT they lack the force of law..they are instead invitations to negotiate between Congress and executive officials. 

3. How do legislative vetoes function after having been struck down by the court?

   1. Although Presidents have treated committee vetoes after Chadha as having no legally binding value, agencies adopt a different attitude. 

4. Loss of legislative veto has led to greater use of joint resolutions of disapproval, which requires presidents signature or override of presidential veto?

Sunset provision

• statutory authorizations that can be set to expire?

Legitimacy

Politics-legitimacy paradox

1. Being perceived as neutral requires Court to issue judments that on average do not provoke broad-based opposition among political elite or constituencies. That is, to act politically! 

court-curbing and court-packing

2. Court-curbing: limit the sessions of the Supreme Court to block it from striking things down. 

3. Court-packing: create new courts that are staffed by president’s judges

Rise of a Polarized America

Two different stories, but both are about elite-level change and changes in the electorate (voters sorting?)

Lifelong conservative changing parties

Lifelong Democrat changing ideologies

Causes:

Change in what is being voted on: does the issue agenda focus more on questions that divide the parties? This is endogenous though: agenda is selected by the parties themselves

Changes in party influence: have party leaders gotten more effective at persuasion, pressure, appeals to loyalty. This is also endogenous (parties get more influence when polarized)

Change in electoral incentives: federal elections today are more competitive.

Makes party brands more salient

Encourages drawing contrasts with other party

Heightened competition led the parties to try and draw distinctions between themselves and to paint the other party in a more negative light.

Is polarization symmetric or asymmetric? How do we know?

Asymmetric polarization: polarization driven mostly by republicans. Radicalized conservative movement that emerged in the 1960s drove Republicans much further right than Democrats have moved left.

What are the two major ways in which US politics have become nationalized? What does Hopkins argue causes each of these?

Voters use the same criteria to judge local, state, congressional, and presidential candidates.

Why? Voters now take cues from national parties and their associated interest groups.

3. Voters are more concerned with national politics to the exclusion of

state and local politics.

Why? Nationally integrated media and greater sense of being “American”

Consequences:

Less ticket-splitting

Less ability to hold individual representatives accountable

Similar people now react in similar ways to information and mobilization

Contributes to voters being better “sorited.”

How does this connect to Polarization?