Studied by 0 people
Looks like no one added any tags here yet for you.
What is the insecure majorities hypothesis and what historical election is associated with the increased relevance of this claim? What changes in Washington are associated with the era of insecure majorities?
The Insecure Majorities Hypothesis suggests that political parties have slim majorities, a fear of a party losing their majority the following election, and that elections between the parties have become more competitive. The 1994 elections are associated with the increased popularity of this claim as the Republicans held a majority in Congress for the first time in 40 years. Changes associated with the insecure majorities is that it is hard to know who will win each election, there is fear of retaliation if one party does something to another such as kill the filibuster but their is more temptation for the nuclear option, also Congress has a smaller seat gap meaning you can lose the majority on a piece of legislation more easily which can lead to more arm twisting, wave elections are also more common than before, and as a result leaders will distribute money differently.
Why is the selection of party leaders a principal-agent problem? Why have parties traditionally selected leaders from the center of the party and why have parties been more willing to select extremist leaders in recent years?
The principal-agent problem is the dilemma in when one party (the principal) delegates authority or responsibility to another party (the agent) to perform tasks on their behalf. The problem arises when: their is information asymmetry, misaligned incentives, or difficulty in monitoring. The selection of party leaders is a principal-agent problem because its hard to know if the leader is acting on behalf of the parties interests, instead of their own. This is because their interests might not always line up with the parties, and their is an information asymmetry between leaders and MCs (The leaders are the agent and the MCs are the principal). Traditionally leaders were chosen from the center of the party because they could reach more moderate and centrist voters, and they would be able to unify their party. Recently more extreme leaders have been selected. This is because there is a barrier to entry to leadership that did not exist before. It was expected in the past that leaders would give out money to MCs but nowadays, you must do this before you are even a leader. More extreme MCs get more donations and can fundraise more effectively because of their positions, which allows them to redistribute more money amongst the party and get selected for leadership.
What is the median voter theorem and what is its key prediction? What is its key assumption and why has it been violated so frequently in recent sessions of Congress?
The median voter theorem suggests that the preferences of the median voter, the individual whose views are exactly in the middle of the political spectrum, will always win. This happens because the median voter holds the deciding vote. Therefore the median voter theorem predicts that the median voter on legislation will always get their way, and that in elections, candidates will align their policies with the preferences of the median voter to win the election. The key assumption is that legislation will have open rules allowing amendments and changes to the bill. This has been violated frequently in recent sessions of Congress due to the specialization bargain, not wanting the other party to amend the bill, and unorthodox lawmaking by party leaders in which bills are previously negotiated.
What are the three theories of parties in Congress and what do political scientists mean when they ask whether parties “matter”? For each theory, under what circumstances do parties matter and in what ways do parties matter?
The three theories are
Pivotal Party Theory- suggests that parties does not matter as much, and that Congress runs on a foundation of the median voter theorem meaning that their ideology is what really matters. It states that the important actors are the the pivotal actors, aka the median voters. Most political scientists believe this theory comes up short.
Conditional Party Theories suggests that parties matter, but they only matter under certain conditions. It states the majority party does not always wield influence, but is more likely to do so when 1. the majority party is ideologically unified (ideologically homogenous), and 2. there is a wide ideological gulf (high polarization) between the majority party and the minority party. Under these conditions parties matter because members of the majority party will entrust their leadership with greater organizational authority and agenda setting powers to help overcome the coordination problem in such a large Congress. Under CPG the goal is positive agenda control, aka getting a Bill onto the agenda and enacting it into law.
Cartel Theory also suggests parties matter, however on in terms of negative agenda setting. It is more rooted in party brand than Conditional Party Thoery. Party Cartel Theory believes that the majority party can control the agenda, no matter its size or composition (meaning theres are no conditions on the majority party’s power). Its based on the premise that party leaders in the House acts as a team that sets the legislative agenda exclusively for the benefit of their members (ex: Leaders will work with committee chairs to kill bills in committees or leaders will just never bring it for a floor vote). The focus in Cartel Theory is negative agenda setting (leaders block bills from reaching the floor of the chamber that would, if passed, be opposed by a majority of the majority party members). Party cartel theory is about protecting the party brand by weeding out bills that divide the majority and thus keeping existing laws in place. This works in several possible ways: the Speaker may avoid calling on members who she believes would offer motions or amendments that would divide the majority, committees chairs can kill bills in committee, and the rules committee could refuse to provide a rule on a bill that would run counter to the majority’s interest.
When political scientists ask if parties matter, they are really asking if party leaders matter, and if there was a world without party leaders, would Congress still operate the same way.
How do political scientists and party leaders think about the idea of party loyalty? Why do leaders sometimes choose not to enforce party discipline? How have the events of recent years revealed differences in the Republican and Democratic party caucuses?
Party leaders and political scientists think of party loyalty through party loyalty percentage (What percent of times did you vote with your party in legislation). Party leaders use litmus test votes to measure loyalty. These are votes where everyone can choose any candidate. Party leaders may not enforce discipline all the time because it can cause an MC to lose reelection. This is because MCs usually vote against party when their constituency would not agree with a bill. Constant enforcement can also build resentment against the party leadership. Recent events have shown that Republicans caucus leadership has had much more difficult time keeping the party in line, specifically the freedom caucus.
What is the difference between positive and negative agenda setting? What is the Hastert Rule, and how do majority rolls indicate whether this rule is being followed? What is gatekeeping, and what are the similarities and differences between gatekeeping
and negative agenda setting
Positive agenda control is about getting a bill onto the agenda and enacting it into law. The party makes something happen that otherwise wouldn’t have happened. Party leaders not only use their ability to put bills on the floor but also use positive pressure to make this happen (arm twisting). Negative agenda control is stopping bills from getting on the agenda that could fractionalize the party or hurt the brand.
The Hastert Rule is the idea that party leaders should not bring a bill for a vote on the floor unless it has the support of a majority of their majority party. Roll rate is a way we can see if the Hastert rule is being followed (if the majority is rolled far less than the minority, its being followed). In the House the majority is rolled 2.3% of the time, but the minority was rolled 32% of the time. In the Senate, the roll rate for the majority is 3.6% and the minority has a roll rate of 19.5%. This suggests that the Hastert Rule is being followed relatively well.
Gatekeeping is the ability to limit or prevent unwanted legislation from gaining traction. Gatekeeping and Negative Agenda setting are similar because they both prevent unwanted legislation from being passed, and they are both usually controlled by party leaders. They differ in the fact that committees gatekeep legislation by not letting bills out of committees and killing them versus which is part of negative agenda setting in which the speaker stops bills from being voted on, on the floor.
What is the difference between universal and minimum-winning coalitions? What are some of the reasons that majority parties sometimes embrace bipartisanship when such votes are not necessary to pass legislation?
Universal winning coalitions is when you get more votes than you need to pass legislation, whereas minimum winning coalitions just try to get to 218 or 51, the exact amount of votes to pass legislation. Parties may do bipartisan bills because it spreads out the blame if legislation goes wrong, also it is harder for the other party to undo the bill in the future if their is bipartisan support.
You may pursue a minimum winning coalition vs a universal coalition because the more universal, the more concessions you may have to make to get more people. But the more universal, the more stable it is. If its a more universal coalition, it makes it less likely to get undone in the future.
Why are the rules of debate in each chamber crucial in understanding the success and failure of legislation? What are the reasons party leaders have for favoring closed or open rules in the House? How does the filibuster work in the Senate, and how has its usage changed in recent years?
In the House they are more procedural in the rules of debate than the senate. Its a top down process where the rules committee decides what the rules will be. In the Senate individuals have more opportunities to decide closed vs. Open rules. Closed rules means there will be no amendments to bills, and open rules means as many amendments as you want. In practice its usually its in between the two.
The leader might choose to have closed rules as part of the committee specialization bargain and committees expect when their bill gets to the floor it wont be changed. Also, some bills are pre-negotiated between party leaders, and they want these bills to be presented in a take it or leave it format. They might want an open rule because it can influence the outcome of the bill, and sometimes amendments are necessary to build a coalition to support it. Also they do an open rule to , throw a bone to some MCs. Sometimes the amendment fails but the person can credit claim saying they fought for the amendment.
On the Senate side there is almost infinite stalling tactics. Filibuster is any tactic that blocks a measure on the Senate floor from coming to a vote. It often takes the form of a single lawmakers refusal to end debate by making a long uninterrupted speech. The filibuster is possible for two reasons: chamber rules require the presiding officer to recognize all senators wishing to speak and the Senate lacks any formal provision regarding time limits on debate. The filibuster or the threat of it can stop legislation from passing. You can stop a filibuster through a cloture vote, which is passed through 60 votes. This means that the senate operates on supermajoritarian rules. Even if the final vote is majority vote, to cloture the filibuster you need 60 votes. The nuclear option is when you eliminate the filibuster. The threats of the nuclear option began in the 2000s as part of the new insecure majorities era when they realized they would have divided governments. Usually the majority party is in favor of the nuclear option because they want to get things done. This is also appealing to the majority when their is unified government and the president will pass it. Under unified government the filibuster is the only thing stopping the majority and is the only thing the minority can have to stop bills. The nuclear option was not done at first because the majority party is not going to be in the majority party forever, and when they are in the majority, they know they will want it back. The nuclear option was activated for executive branch nominations, judicial, and supreme court nominations (needing just 51 votes). Now there is no filibuster anymore really for executive branch nominations but there is for legislation.
What is unorthodox lawmaking and why has it become important in recent decades? What do advocates of regular order critique this mode of lawmaking? What are legislative hitchhikers and how does this concept help us understand policy outcomes in an era of unorthodox lawmaking?
Unorthodox lawmaking refers to legislative processes that deviate from the traditional, formal procedures such as regular order.
Unorthodox lawmaking has become important because it has been used more frequently due to polarization and grid lock with regular order.
Critics cite various problems with unorthodox lawmaking such as omnibus bills, bypassing conference committees, bills previously negotiated by leaders in both chambers. This violates committees property rights by not letting them do markups, hearings, or amendments), little time to review the bills (this was the freedom caucus complaints about omnibus legislation since it was like 1500 pages and they didn’t give them enough time read it. This means that interest groups can advocate for provisions to get put into legislation that do not have whole supports. They see omnibus bills as a way to get their own legislation in by asking the chief negotiator or omnibus creator to put it in). Specifically with omnibus bills, you are making people choose yes or no on all the bills contained in the bill, when instead they might vote yes on some bills and no on others. Most of the time omnibus bills have closed rules or almost completely closed rules. So you cannot amend them.
This can enable hitchhiking, the term for the legislatures whose bills became part of omnibus bills and aren't getting credit. This concept helps of understand policy outcomes because you can see if lawmakers wrote bills through plagiarism software and you can give them credit by doing that because they wouldn’t otherwise in omnibus bills.
Why do scholars distinguish between landmark legislation, substantive legislation, and symbolic legislation when assessing the productivity of Congress in a given session? To what extent do unified and divided government affect Congressional productivity?
Landmark legislation is legislation that:
Withstands the test of time
Addresses significant issue
Has National importance
Scholars distinguish between landmark legislation, substantive legislation, and symbolic legislation because it provides a more accurate understanding of how effective a session of Congress, or specific lawmakers are. Simply put, substantive or landmark legislation is more impressive and a better description of how productive Congress is since it is more difficult to make and pass.
Unified Government is when one party controls the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. Under divided government both party shares control of the government by one holding only 1 or 2 while the other holds 1.
There is not a strong correlation between how much legislation is passed and whether there is divided or unified government however, however, the bills might look different under unified because they do not need to compromise, however, the amount does not change.
What are some of the challenges in measuring legislative effectiveness at the individual level? Why are LES scores superior to simpler measures of productivity and what are some
critiques of these scores
Legislative effectiveness refers to the ability of a legislator (or a legislative body) to successfully introduce, promote, and pass legislation.
Measuring legislative effectiveness at the individual level can be challenging because there are different reasons someone might have more or less bills in their name. It can be difficult because:
Some people’s bills get attached to omnibus bills so they do not get credit.
Some people might write many bills and none passed because they are fulfilling campaign promises or writing messaging legislation.
They might be in the minority
Not all bills passed are substantive, some are commemorative so we need to know the difference.
There bills might have died at different phases (Did the bill die at the committee level, or presidents desk?)
LES scores are superior measures of productivity than other measures (such as how many bills did a person write, or how many did a person get passed). Some complaints are that the scores give all the credit to the author, and do not recognize the other people who worked on the bill and omnibus bills do not give authors, of the bills contained in it, credit.
Why is collecting a list of cosponsors valuable to the authors of bills, and how do political scientists use cosponsor lists to understand legislative networks?
It is valuable to collect a list of cosponsors beause it can indicate to the leader how the bill will do on a floor vote. If the bill has quantity, quality, and diversity, then it will pass without a problem.
Political scientists use cosponorship as a measure of closeness. Cosponsoring one bill shows a working relationship but if you co-sponsor 10 of each others bills than you are really close. This allows us to draw a network map and see who has the most connections. The people who have the most connections are usually the most socially influential. This is soft power members can build.
What are informal caucuses and in what ways have they become more relevant in recent sessions of Congress? What are some other factors that make certain pairs or groups of
legislators more likely to collaborate with one another?
Informal caucuses are groups of legislators that come together for shared interests or goals (sometimes ideology like freedom caucus). Some are based on constituency interests and some are based on hobbies. All of these however have a benefit because they get Congress to get along and play nicer.
Informal Caucuses have become more relevant in recent years as some of them have grown to the point where they have some power, like trying to primary certain candidates. They also have power in the legislative process. For example, the freedom caucus has enhanced their power through binding rules (like members voting in block).
Factors that make legislators collaborate are: being from the same kind of district (rural or urban), being from the state period (if we are both from Florida), being ideologically similar, personal relationships, etc.
What are the three behavioral norms in Congress and what does each say about how legislators should act?
The three behavioral norms are:
Apprenticeship Norm- The idea that when you arrive in Congress, you are suppose to learn from your elders. You should be learning the ropes and rules and unspoken rules. You should not be in front of the cameras 24/7.
Collegiality Norm- This says to stay cordial and respectful, and that there is a time and place to trash your opponents but its not on the house floor or committee hearings.
Reciprocity Norm- This is about vote trading. Unlike logrolling, which is about one bill, but vote trading is a general idea and attitude. Its the idea that you build a reputation for trading votes and keeping your word.
What is pork barrel politics and how has its prevalence changed over the past 20 years? What are some misconceptions the public has about pork and how does it relate to ideas about reciprocity and credit claiming?
Pork barrel politics refers to the practice of allocating government funds or resources to specific non-ideological projects or initiatives that benefit a particular MCs constituency, often with little regard for the broader national interest. These projects, are used to credit claim, usually to gain support from your constituency and help you in reelection.
Pork has many misconceptions about how much spending is related to pork, and was banned from 2009 and 2021 and the deficit ran up. Both Mccain and Obama ran on getting rid of pork barrel politics. In 2021 it was brought back. It was prevalent before the ban and now after the ban it stays relatively prevalent in Congress.
This is one of the most misunderstood aspects of the budget. People think that pork barrel politics is a huge part of the deficit, which is fundamentally untrue. During the time is was banned, the budget was still run up and the deficit increased.
Pork barrel politics is only possible through log rolling. Log rolling is when you get a whole bunch of people together and you say, I will vote for something for you if you vote for something to me. Ex: Ill build your bridge if you help build mine.
Pork relates to reciprocity because no one or two people can pass legislation for pork for their district because you need 218, or 51 votes. You are required to logroll and make compromise and reciprocate votes. Pork relates to credit claiming because if you are able to bring a special project to your district (ie building a bridge), you can talk about how your brought jobs and good things to your district.
What are key features of the federal budget and how does the process of passing the budget differ from most other legislation? What is the difference between appropriations and authorizations? How has brinksmanship over government shutdowns and
negotiations over the debt ceiling reshaped budget politics in recent decades?
Key features of the budget are that there is a fiscal year and programs must end by the start of the next fiscal year if no legislation passes.
The budget differs from other legislation because for regular legislation, if you do not pass new legislation, everything stays as status quo and you use the previous years legislation. For budget legislation, if you do not pass legislation for the budget then you cannot spend any money and the government shuts down.
Appropriations funds programs. Authorizations creates programs, and telling the executive branch to carry it out.
Brinksmanship has reshaped budget politics because their has been an increasing strategy to use people’s fear of a government shutdown as leverage to gain concessions. The debt ceiling is similar because it acts as another point of leverage to enact concessions. The debt ceiling is an arbitrary number that congress puts to not spend more money than they are spending. However, every year they spend more money than they have so they need to pass legislation raising the debt ceiling. Government shutdowns are bad, but debt ceilings are worse because it hurts our credit as a nation, making it a prime point for brinksmanship.
What is the revolving door phenomenon? What normative concerns are raised by this phenomenon, and why does it matter whether revolvers are primarily sought out because of expertise or connections?
The Revolving Door Phenomenon is where MCs and Staffers often move onto a career in lobbying. If they are sought after for their expertise then it is less concerning, but if they are sought after because of their connections, it is more troubling because it can effect the legislative process. Most evidence suggests that connections are a large part of their value.
Why is the conventional wisdom about the “vote buying” depiction of lobbying disputed by scholars, and what is an alternative depiction of how lobbying works? What types of information do lobbyists provide members of Congress?
The convention “vote buying“ depiction of lobbying is disputed by scholars because there has not been a link between MCs having their vote bought. In reality lobbying is more about buying access and giving information.
An alternative depiction of how lobbying works is lobbying as a legislative subsidy (when they provide MCs with information), and lobbying as a way for certain people to have representation (ex: 2nd amendment advocate in San Fran).
Lobbyists are specialists on certain topics and can provide legislators policy expertise on those subjects
What are some of the goals of congressional oversight, and what is the difference between police patrol and fire alarm styles of oversight? How has grandstanding in Congress undercut the value of oversight?
Oversight he legislatures ability to haul in the bureaucracy and executive branch when things aren’t going to plan.
The police patrol style is when you hold regular hearings where they bring in people from the executive, and try to see whats going right and wrong. The fire alarm style is calling hearings when problems arise, which makes it more conducive to grandstanding.
Grandstanding is refers to the practice of performing political actions or making public statements that are designed primarily to gain attention, media coverage, or political advantage, rather than to contribute meaningfully to the legislative process.
Grandstanding has undercut the value of oversight because it has frequently become used to score political points instead of trying to solve issues.
What is delegation and why does Congress sometimes write laws with more or less specificity? How might the elimination of Chevron deference under the Loper Bright decision influence future congressional behavior?
Delegation is the legislatures action to give the bureaucracy power
Congress rights laws with more specificity to stop drift and failure to implement and to give less power to the bureaucracy. Congress might write laws with less specificity to delegate the bureaucracy more power as they are experts and can coordinate the logistics better than Congress.
The Chevron Deference was a court decision that said when legislation isn’t specific about what actions the bureaucracy should take, the bureaucracy has a lot of wiggle room to interpret what Congress had in mind. The Chevron standard said that we are going to defer to the bureaucrats because they are experts. The bureaucracy has the right to any reasonable interpretation. The Chevron decision was overruled by the Loper Bright decision.
Congress under Loper Bright has to consider whether it wants to micromanage more bc they don’t want the courts to argue with the bureaucrats about whats reasonable as it can hold up legislation for years.
