Past Paper Questions

Despite being the ‘most diverse’ Congress ever, the current US Congress fails to represent the US electorate descriptively

28% female compared to 50.4% of the national population

75% white whilst only 59% national population are white

also, poor representation of minority groups whose rights are regularly being voted on e.g. only 2% of Congresspeople are LGBT

lack of descriptive representation means Congress is less likely to accurately represent the views of the population/understand their experiences AND might contribute to the low voting turnout amongst groups who are underrepresneted

BUT

descriptive representation not necessarily the most important factor

e.g. abortion issues: 8 Republican women voted against Roe v Wade, led by Cindy Hyde Smith, who also reported that 16 new pro-life republican women had been elected to Congress in 2020

More important to be politically/ideologically represented

However, ideological representation of Congress is also weak due to serious issue of gerrymandering

method of reshaping congressional districts to amplify or dilute a certain demographic votes (pack or crack)

examples of REDMAP initiative after Obama’s election, Frank Mascara in Pennsylvania in 2002

problem because redrawing district lines is done by state legislators, party political

Also, trump adminsitration adding questions about US citizenship to 2020 census, would enable them to more effectively distribute Republican votes in districts according to studies

BUT

can benefit minoroty groups e.g. majority-minority districts recommended by the NAACP

but majority of cases tend to dilute voices, hinders political representation hugely

Huge reelection rates for incumbents; all 28 reelected in senate, 94% rate in House

Enabled by methods such as pork-barelling

Could be weakly argued that there are positives: allows for representatives with political expertise and familiarity, who know their area

Pork-barelling can incentivise spending in their area and motivate Congresspeople to represent their state as well as nation

BUT

More overwhelming negatives

Huge financial disadvantage for non-incumbents (senators spending $29.7 million each, compared to $2 million for their challengers)

pork-barelling can also detract spending from national interests

e.g. John Murtha, King of pork, spent $2 billion in his area

also, high incumbency rate has led to an ageing congress e.g. Nancy Pelosi at age 84, late Dianne Fenstein who reached her 90s

primary function of Congress

recently been struggling to do

3% bills passed in 110th, 2% in 115th congress

can be blocked by filibuster e.g. 2010 DREAM act

result of polarisation, increasing divides, especially difficult under divided government

BUT

could be argued that the lengthy process is a sign of effective scrutiny

e.g. bills go through committees, votes in both houses, suggests they are being examined and amended

BUT

this is a weak argument

only 7% or less of bills have gotten a vote on either floor

in the most recent congress, bills have been closed (no amendments) 49 times

actually no scrutiny and just failing to pass legislation

most diverse ever, one quarter ethnic minority, 28% female, platform to a wider range of voices

also descriptive representation isn’t necessarily the most important factor e.g. 8 female republicans voting against Roe v Wade codification

BUT

congress also fails at ideological representation as a result of issues like gerrymandering

REDMAP initiative, Frank Mascara in Pennsylvania in 2002, crack or pack districts

hinders democratic representation, undermines one person one vote

used to political advnatages, 2020 trump administration changing questions on census to include citizenship states - would give more info on how to adapt to a republican advantage

through their powers, especially established checks and balances, congress should be able to practice effective oversight over the executive

significant influence over domestic policy e.g. Obama, stromg foreign but struggled on immigration and gun control, power challenged by Congress

scrutinise appointments processes e.g. judges (merrick garland scandal, judge thomas porteus)

also decide funding for executive projects via appropriation bills, should mean that they are an effective oversight body

BUT

in reality, especially due to divided government, this is limited

to overturn a veto a supermajority is needed, harder when divided

since 1789, only 7.1% of vetoes have ever been overriden

government is increasingly divided (72% of the time since 1969)

allows for increased presidential power e.g. trump signing 220 executive orders

Congress fails to successfully fulfil its role of oversight, is a broken branch

process of bills going through both houses and in several committees allows for an extensive process of scrutiny

around 200 committees and sub-committees in the house, bills theoretically should be well examined

BUT

actualy limited scrutiny

only 7% or less heard on floor of either house

house rules committee has made bills closed debate 40 times by mid 2017, hugely limited scrutiny

prevent the passage of a bill via the filibuster, has become far more regular

1969-1970 used 6 times

2019-2020 was used 298 times

also means a minority can stop a bill supported by the majority from passing e.g. Republican minority in the senate filibustered ‘for the people’ act which would have passed

BUT

can be stopped by a cloture (process introduced in 1917 and reduced to 60 person in 1975)

but still requires bipartisan support, making it difficult and thus making filbusters a fundamental problem for legislation in the US

legislation that is passed by a democratically elected congress can be stopped by the single President, particularly via the veto

Obama veto keystone pipeline

Obama - 12 vetoes, Clinton - 37 vetoes, George H. W, Bush - 44 vetoes

BUT

can be overriden by a supermajority in congress

but this requires a 2/3, particularly hard in divided government, 72% gov now divided, only 7.1% vetoes have ever been overriden

Congress can limit the President’s power effectively in a range of ways

for example, congress decides appropriation bills (funds) for executive projects

furthermore, congress can override presidential vetoes, limiting the imperial way a president might be able to act

BUT

in practice their ability to actually check the president’s power is hugely limited

only 7.1% of vetoes have ever been override, requires a supermajority when congress is divided 72% of the time, lots of vetoes e.g. obama and bush both used veto 12 times

can scrutinise the president and check their power via investigative committees

e.g. january 6th inquiry for Trump, investigating his action, committee investigating Russian involvement in the 2016 election, spent 3 years on it

BUT

investigative committees are becoming increasingly politicised and therefore not actually limiting a president’s power

Clinton and behghazi committee - was weaponized by Repulicans during the 2016 election, similarly Joe Biden’s impeachment hearings when he became president

politicused, not effective checks and very partisan — only 17 Republicans voted against Trump regarding january 6th inquiry

Senate can check the president’s supreme court appointment, make sure not just anyone is appointed

e.g. Bush trying to appoint harriet miers was prevented (no judicial expertise), robert bork blocked for being too right wing

prevent the executive having huge control over the supreme court

BUT

recently become ineffective

since 2006, all votes for justices have been party-line votes e.g. Republicans voting for Gorsuch 51-0

also checks applied inconcistently e.g. Obaam stoppe from appointing Merrick Garland while Trump appointed 3 justices

no longer a check

much more real oversight work happens in the chambers

House Committee on Oversight and Accountability

3 year inquiry into Russia

BUT

more visible/public oversight measures in the chambers

impeachment — 3 presidents have been impeached, including Donald Trump twice

but none have been charged suggesting that house oversight is limited, and it actually happens in chambers

much more important in chambers

committee stage is the first stage

7% or less make it to the floor

House rules committee, closed debate

BUT

chamber is fundamentally deciding whether the legislation passes

importance of debate

but udnermined by how little legislation they actually see

can offer expertise

head of the agricultural committee, glen thompson, comes from a predominantly agricultural district

can consult experts e.g. american cancer association

BUT

just a subsect of the chamber

there are more chairmen named Mike than female committee leaders in congress

greater descriptive diversity, state representation in the chamber