Legislative Process Exam 1

Main goal of congress:

representing constituents within a complicated web of separated

institutional powers to govern the nation

Representation is the link between citizens (constituents) and their

political agents (lawmakers)

Constitutional responsibilities

taxing and spending, declaring war, impeaching presidents, override

vetos, confirm appointments.

Congress is made up of two chambers with different

constituencies and rules

bicameralism

Two main jobs of congress:

reelection and good policy

Why is there sometimes tension between pursuing reelection on one

hand, and advancing good policies on the other?

single-member, plurality-winner seats

proportional representation

party list systems

How could proportional systems lead legislators to think differently than in the US?

aimed at winning votes at a national level + pleasing national party leaders

Mayhew calls reelection the “proximate” goal of members of Congress. What does he mean by this?

Members must satisfy this goal before they can satisfy

any others and few members “feel” safe

expected incumbent differential

advertising, credit claiming, position taking

Take credit for governmental action

credit claiming

public enunciation of an issue position

Position Taking

the two congresses has members as

representatives and lawmakers

Legislative behavior is driven by reelection

electoral connection

The design of congress was shaped by these forces:

1. experience with colonial governments

2. the example of british govt

3. problems under articles of confederation

4. 
   

Articles of confederation

1. every state represented equally

2. no executive or judicial authority

Constitutional Convention debates/conflicts

1. national power and centralization

2. equal vs. proportional representation

3. organization of congress

Virginia vs. New Jersey plan

strong legislature (proportional) vs. weak legislature (equal)

1) House elected proportionally by public 2 ) Equal representation in the Senate

Connecticut Compromise

postponed the divisive issue of slavery by counting each enslaved person as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of apportioning House seats

The Three-Fifths Compromise

Each of these papers lays out of the basics of the main American

political institutions: mainly an argument for why the American

public should trust them

federalist papers

Which federalist paper? The House is largely considered to be closest to the people and the most majoritarian body in the federal government. Elections cannot be under 1 year or over 2 years.

Fed 52

Which federalist paper? focuses on the size the House should be.

Fed 55

What are the concerns Madison in Fed 55 engages with

1. the number of reps is too small

2. too many constituents to be knowledgable

3. will come from an elite class

Which federalist paper? The Senate is largely considered to be farther from the people and is a slow-moving institution

Fed. 62

Concerns with senate in Fed 62

1. appointment by state legislatures

2. terms too long

3. equal rather than prop representation

1. National election

2. Vote for parties

3. Seats divided proportionally

4. Centralized nominations

Proportional representation

1. Local elections

2. Vote for person

3. Seats provided to winners

4. Decentralized nominations

plurality-winner districts

True or false: single-member district style systems tend to

reinforce a two party system

true

Single member districts make members of responsive to local rather than

national constituencies

Apportionment causes:

1. incoherence in the parties

2. affects representational behavior

3. influences policy outcomes

4. undermines electoral competitiveness

Apportionment affects the the development of coalitions in the senate. ex: transportation funds

Lee

True or false: Splitting seats by geography does not limit competitiveness of individual elections

false

a strategy of drawing legislative districts to favor a political party

gerrymandering

Is gerrymandering the primary cause of uncompetitive districts?

no, we observe similar results in house and senate

three sets of factors make a big difference in who decides to run:

1. legal requirements

2. local, state, and national factors

3. personal ambition and risk-acceptance

phenomenon where voters choose all candidates from the same party (i.e., bubble in all candidates “straight” down the ticket)

straight ticket voting

true or false: Party of the president tends to do worse in midterm elections

true

How well a person “fits” within their party influences decisions to run

Sides

term limits in state legislatures

political opportunity structure

the value of incumbency

mayhew:

1. advertising

2. ability to claim credit

3. have a stage to position take

a legal right that allows to send official mail and correspondence through the postal service without paying for standard postage stamps

franking privilege

they deter high quality professional challengers and typically face weak challengers

scare-off effect

Argue personal interest in running for office is necessary precondition

“In this initial step of the candidate emergence process, we suggest

that interest in seeking elective office will be motivated not only by

individual-level "strategic" considerations, but also by attitudinal

dispositions, personal experiences, and demographic characteristics

that fall outside the realm of the political opportunity structures to

which most existing political ambition theory refers”

Fox and Lawless

possible roots of political ambition?

1. view self as qualified to run for office

2. ideological motivation

3. minority status

4. political upbringing

5. competitive traits

6. stage in life

four key factors that determine who wins and loses.

1. Local factors (the traditional story)

2. National factors (the new story)

3. Money

4. Campaign strategy

single biggest predictor of who wins

partisan lean of a congressional district

an incumbent’s “over-performance” relative to his/her district’s partisanship

incumbency advantage

congressional elections now appear driven by national forces because of

1. presidents popularity

2. the state of the economy

3. split-ticket voting has declined

Article about the cause of nationalization

Fiorina

Indirect benefits of money

dividend effect, signaling effect: bandwagon, horserace advantage

1. limits amount of money a candidate can donate to own campaign

2. disclosure requirements

3. created FEC

4. limited independent expenditures

Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971

money in elections that is not made in coordination with any candidate

Independent expenditures

Did the limits placed on electoral expenditures by FECA violate the First

Amendment’s freedom of speech and association clauses?

Buckley v Valeo

meant to address two problems:

1. prevalence of soft money

2. Prevalence of issue advocacy ads

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act

money for “party building” rather than to a candidate

soft money

Incorporated groups have the ability to spend unlimited funds in politics as long as it is independent of candidate

Citizens United v FEC

Independent expenditure-only pac; may engage in unlimited spending, may raise unlimited funds

Super-PACS

entities that are exempt from reporting their donor list (e.g., 501(c)s or “political” non-profits)

dark money groups

Individuals have limits placed on how much they can give a

candidate directly

dyadic donations (hard money)

Donations to “Party Building” (Soft Money)

addressed by BCRA

No limit if no coordination with a candidate

Independent Expenditures by Groups (e.g., Super PACs)

links voters and their representatives in Congress

electoral connection

a way for voters every two (or six) years to ensure their representatives are behaving as faithful agents

accountability mechanism

traditional theories of representation

trustee/delegate

whether elected representatives should strictly follow the direct wishes of their constituents (a mandate) or use their own independent judgment and conscience to decide what is best (independence)

mandate-independence controversy

In “Rethinking Representation” Jane Mansbridge identifies four forms of

representation

1. promissory

2. anticipatory

3. gyroscopic

4. surrogate

representatives are evaluated based on their ability to keep the promises they made to electorate during the campaign

promissory

legislators are now accountable to voters in time 2

anticipatory

When would anticipatory representation have a big impact on

member behavior?

when constituency preferences change

representatives act in a way that voters

approve of without external incentive

The representative instead draws on their own background and

common sense

gyroscopic

How does gyroscopic representation differ from a trustee style of

representation?

gyroscopic representatives are driven by their own preferences

Representation by representative in another district

• “Non-territorial” representation rather than dyadic representation

• Individuals and groups turn to representatives with whom they have

a non electoral relationships to advance their interests

• Representatives may feel that their constituency extends beyond

their district

surrogate

Who benefits from surrogate representation?

the affluent, those who lose out in their own district

tied by shared identity or lived experienced

descriptive representation

“what is the role of personal characteristics and experiences in

substantive representation? And second, how do the social-class

backgrounds of Republican and Democratic elected officials affect

their behavior? Political scientists have made progress with both

puzzles in recent decades, though largely overlooking social class and

social mobility as potential causes and consequence of political and

economic change. Such an analysis can improve our understanding

of representation, redistributive policy, and the role of class and

mobility in American politics”

Grumbach

Does the representative faithfully reflects the policy position of constituents?

substantive representation