chapter 11 choosing the congress © 2009, pearson education fiorina, peterson, johnson, and mayer...

Chapter 11Choosing the Congress

© 2009, Pearson Education

Fiorina, Peterson, Johnson, and MayerNew American Democracy, Sixth Edition


The Electoral Evolution of the Congress

Congress has changed significantly since the Founder’s conceived of itToday things are different:– Professional legislature– Very electorally aware

•Anticipate threats before their election and act to avoid them


The Electoral Evolution of the Congress


Reapportionment and Redistricting

How are the constituencies that are represented in Congress determined?

Senate: representation simple and never changes

– Constitution gives every state two senators

House: more complex

– census taken every 10 years

– Afterwards, the 435 seats in the House are apportioned among the states according to their populations. This is called reapportionment


Reapportionment and RedistrictingRedistricting

Drawing new boundaries of congressional districts, usually after the decennial censusOnce varied in population, but Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) required they must be of nearly equal population. One person, one vote principleGerrymandering: drawing lines of congressional districts in order to confer an advantage on some partisan or political interest


The Congressional Nomination Process

Congressional nomination process is much simpler than presidential oneMost states choose their candidates in one primary prior to the general election– Filing dates may vary

Hardest fought primaries occur when there is an open seat– Open seat: A House or Senate race with no

incumbent, because of death or retirement


Contemporary House Elections

Different from presidential elections– Members of Congress are only collectively

responsible for the state of the nation– President is considered individually responsible

Safe seat: a congressional district certain to vote for the candidate of one party

Incumbency advantage: the electoral advantage a candidate enjoys by virtue of being an incumbent, over and above his or her personal and political characteristics

Challengers face “challenges”– Low visibility


Contemporary House Elections


Party Decline

Three-fourths of all party identifiers vote for the candidate of their party

Loyalty voting dropped somewhat in the 1960s and 1970s

As it dropped, party affiliations weakened and voters became more “available” and thus susceptible to other sorts of appeals

Incumbents adjusted their behavior

- Often use governmental programs to provide voters with additional, more personal reasons to support them

- Encourages opposition party voting public to support incumbent of other party


Expanding Member Resources

Each member has:A Washington office and one or more district officesTypical House member employs 18 personal staff assistants (more than 40 percent in district) - This has risen significantly over time.Travel subsidiesUse of the frank (free use of the U.S. mail)


Growth in Importance of “Representative” Behavior

Members of Congress do much more than make lawsRepresentatives engage in constituency service: – District service: effort by members of

Congress to secure federal funding for their districts

– Casework: to help constituents when they have difficulties with federal agencies


Campaign Funds

Elections for Congress have become increasingly expensiveThe average total spent by House candidates was almost $680K in 2004The average senator spent almost $5 millionThe gap between incumbent and challenger spending has widenedBut even if spending disparities were wiped out overnight, incumbents would still do very well– Diminishing returns– Incumbency advantage outside of money


Campaign Funds


More Responsive Incumbents

One reason for member’s reelection success is that they are extremely sensitive to the wishes of their constituents

Work hard to help them

Have access to more information about their constituents

– Spend time in home districts

– Have access to survey data

Fewer constraints on acting to serve constituents

– Generally not punished for vote by party, if party and constituency collide


Contemporary Senate Elections

Incumbent Senators win more often than not, but they do lose more frequently

Senate elections differ from House elections in:

– Party competition

– Uncontrolled information

– Better challengers

– The high ambitions of senators


Party Competition

The two parties compete more evenly in Senate races than in House races

– States generally more heterogeneous than the smaller congressional districts

– Making their constituencies more diverse and more difficult to please, generally


Uncontrolled Information

Senators receive far more media coverage than representatives

The media is not under the senators’ control

– This information can be positive or negative

– The media often publicize controversial statements, personal embarrassments, or conflict


Better Challengers

The office of senator enjoys a higher status than the office of representative

Higher-quality challengers are more willing to risk a race for a prestigious office

Senate seats are scarce

Challengers for senate seats tend to be

– More politically experienced

– Better known and liked

– Have more money


High Ambitions

Many senators have “high” ambitions

Desire to be president

Desire requires that they take positions on larger national and international issues to build their credibility as a presidential contender

– Such issues are controversial

– May offend constituents

– May be accused of neglecting their state


National Forces in Congressional Elections

The ability of members of Congress to distance themselves from party and presidential positions makes them less subject to national forces

Coattails

– Positive electoral effect of a popular presidential candidate on congressional candidates of the party

– Declined


National Forces in the 1990s: A New Era?

1994 elections challenge the insulation theory

Democrats suffered a 52 seat loss in the House– Largest since 1946 – 8-seat loss in the Senate

Election results suggested a national tide swept aside incumbency to some degree– Still, 84 percent of incumbent Democrats were

elected

1998: Democrats gained 5 seats– First time since 1934 that president’s party gained

in the mid-term election.– All-time record incumbent reelection rate of 98.5%


Congressional Elections in the 2000s: Neck and Neck

The Republicans retained their congressional majorities in the 2000 elections, but barely

– Republican House; majority by 5 seats

– Senate an exact tie

– No national theme present

2002 and 2004 midterms

– Voters had national issues in mind

– Republicans gained seats in the House and Senate despite holding the White House

– Potentially positive effect of popular president of their party


2006 midterms– House regained by Democrats; Senate controlled by

Democrats by a slim margin– Lieberman runs as Independent– Impact of the war in Iraq

2008 elections– The 2008 elections saw Republicans lose an additional

20 seats in the House and six seats in the Senate – The economic downturn, and the Democratic

presidential nominee’s popularity, helped Democrats widen their majority in the US Congress.

Overall, national forces seem to have more impact on congressional elections than they did in the 1970s and 1980s

Congressional Elections in the 2000s: Neck and Neck


Why Have National Forces Grown Stronger?

Evidence suggests that congressional elections are more nationalized today

– More unified, and more distinct, political parties

Increase in issue advocacy in national elections

– Independent spending; 527s

Positive effect

– Campaigns in which parties and national interest groups actively participate will be more issue-oriented

– May help balance odds of incumbents and challengers


Do Congressional Elections Produce a Representative Body?Members are highly qualified: hard-working, well educated, bright, and interested in public policy

– Less corrupt than in the past

Our Congress is often thought of as a representative body that does not mirror the diversity found in the country

– Overwhelmingly made up of white, male professionals

– Can these individuals be responsive to the needs and aspirations of women and minorities?


WomenU.S. ranks near the bottom among world democracies in the proportion of women in the lower chamber of the national legislature

Reasons?

– Legacy of gender discrimination not a major reason

• Societal prejudice against women serving in public office is low and has been diminishing, but there is still gender discrimination

– Electoral system contributes to the slow rate of progress

• Women do better in proportional electoral systems


MinoritiesBloc voting– Voting in which nearly all members of an ethnic or

racial group vote for the same candidate or partyHistorical tendency in U.S. toward racially polarized voting– Efforts to increase representation of minorities in

Congress through redistricting– Creation of majority-minority districts and

affirmative action redistricting• districts in which a minority group is the

numerical majority• very controversial• Shaw v. Reno (1993) majority-minority districting

had limits• pushed by Republicans in the 1990s


Women and Minorities


Elections, Parties, and Group Representation

Single-member, simple plurality (SMSP) electoral systems are not designed to produce a descriptively representative legislative body

SMSP puts all minorities, racial or otherwise, at a disadvantage

– Even if you win 49 percent of the vote you get NOTHING

chapter 11 choosing the congress © 2009, pearson education fiorina, peterson, johnson, and mayer...

Documents

pearson educationgrowth

pearson educationfiorina

congressional district

electoral advantage

district service

opposition party

party affiliations

party identifiers