CongressionalCongressional ElectionsElections

POLS 125: Political Parties & ElectionsPOLS 125: Political Parties & Elections

““We would all like to vote for the We would all like to vote for the best man but he is never a best man but he is never a candidate.” candidate.”

— — Frank McKinney “Kin” Hubbard Frank McKinney “Kin” Hubbard

The Electoral The Electoral ConnectionConnection

Getting electedGetting elected Achieving influence in CongressAchieving influence in Congress Making good public policyMaking good public policy

Members of Congress are faced with three primary goals:

“Specifically, I shall conjure up a vision of United States congressmen as single-minded seekers of reelection, see what kinds of activities and goals that implies, and then speculate about how congressmen so motivated are likely to go about building and sustaining legislative institutions and making policy”

—David Mayhew,Congress: The Electoral Connection (1974)

Who are these people?Who are these people?

Peter Moss, Peace & Prosperity candidate for U.S. Senate in 2012

John MacGovern, Republican candidate

for U.S. Senate in

2012

Mark Donka, Republican

candidate for U.S. House in

2012

Jane Newton, Liberty Union

candidate for U.S. House in 2012

SANDERS

WELCH

The Power of The Power of IncumbencyIncumbency

PATRICK LEAHYPATRICK LEAHY (D) was first (D) was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1974. elected to the U.S. Senate in 1974. He is currently serving his 6th term.He is currently serving his 6th term.

BERNIE SANDERSBERNIE SANDERS (I) was elected (I) was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1990. He served in that office in 1990. He served in that office continuously until 2006, when he continuously until 2006, when he was elected to the U.S. Senate.was elected to the U.S. Senate.

PETER WELCH (D)PETER WELCH (D) was elected to was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2006.2006.

The chance of unseating an incumbent member of Congress is slim. The chance of unseating an incumbent member of Congress is slim. Most incumbents run for reelection and most of them win by Most incumbents run for reelection and most of them win by substantial margins. Even in 1994, when an anti-incumbent mood substantial margins. Even in 1994, when an anti-incumbent mood hung in the air, 90% of incumbent House members, and 92% of hung in the air, 90% of incumbent House members, and 92% of incumbent Senators were returned to office.incumbent Senators were returned to office.

In Vermont,In Vermont,

Incumbent House and Senate Incumbent House and Senate Members Running for Reelection, Members Running for Reelection,

1964-20101964-2010

19641966

19681970

19721974

19761978

19801982

19841986

19881990

19921994

19961998

20002002

20042006

20082010

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

Percent reelected

Incumbency AdvantageIncumbency Advantage

RedistrictingRedistricting Decline of party Decline of party

loyaltyloyalty FamiliarityFamiliarity ExperienceExperience ResourcesResources

YearAverage

Challenger

AverageIncumben

t

No. of Winning

Challengers

1974 $100,435 $101,102 40

1976 $144,720 $154,774 12

1978 $217,083 $200,607 19

1980 $343,093 $286,559 31

1982 $296,273 $453,459 23

1984 $518,781 $463,070 17

1986 $523,308 $562,139 6

1988 $703,740 $876,678 7

1990 $462,546 $631,025 16

1992 $433,482 $840,922 19

1994 $644,640 $945,608 34

1996 $1,070,162 $1,040,878 21

1998 $1,123,783 $1,281,633 6

2000 $2,024,725 $2,511,368 6

2002 $1,595,805 $2,141,672 4

2004 $1,616,513 $2,003,504 5

2006 $1,821,756 $2,787,977 22

2008 $1,971,197 $2,354,163 19

2010 $1,651,508 $2,599,695 53

Dubious Democracy?Dubious Democracy? Sky-high incumbency rates.Sky-high incumbency rates. Only five incumbents lost to challengers Only five incumbents lost to challengers

in 2004—the second lowest in our nation’s history. Nearly nine in ten in 2004—the second lowest in our nation’s history. Nearly nine in ten incumbents were re-elected by “landslide” margins of at least 20 incumbents were re-elected by “landslide” margins of at least 20 percent.percent.

Landslides.Landslides. In 14 states, every race was won by a landslide margin of In 14 states, every race was won by a landslide margin of at least 20 percent in 2004. Only four states (all with less than three at least 20 percent in 2004. Only four states (all with less than three seats) recorded no landslide wins.seats) recorded no landslide wins.

High victory margins.High victory margins. The average victory margin was a whopping The average victory margin was a whopping 40 percent. Seven of every eight (83%) U.S. House races were won by 40 percent. Seven of every eight (83%) U.S. House races were won by landslide margins of at least 20 percent in 2004. Only 23 races (5%) landslide margins of at least 20 percent in 2004. Only 23 races (5%) were won by competitive margins of less than 10 percent.were won by competitive margins of less than 10 percent.

Apathy.Apathy. Nearly one out of every 11 voters skipped over their House Nearly one out of every 11 voters skipped over their House race on the ballot. Despite a surge in turnout due to the presidential race on the ballot. Despite a surge in turnout due to the presidential race, more than 62 percent of eligible voters – nearly two in three – did race, more than 62 percent of eligible voters – nearly two in three – did not vote for a winning House representative.not vote for a winning House representative.

Source: http://www.fairvote.org/?page=543

Confidence in American Institutions, 2011

Source: CNN/USA Today/ Gallup poll, June 9-11, 2011.

"I am going to read you a list of institutions in American society. Please tell me how much confidence you, yourself, have in each one--a great deal, quite a lot, some, or very little?"

The militarySmall business

The policeThe church

Medical systemSupreme CourtThe presidencyPublic schools

Criminal justice Newspapers

Television newsBanks

Organized laborHMOs

Big businessCongress

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Percent responding "great deal" or "quite a lot"

Reelection Rates of House and Reelection Rates of House and Senate Incumbents, 1946-2010Senate Incumbents, 1946-2010

194619481950195219541956195819601962196419661968197019721974197619781980198219841986198819901992199419961998200020022004200620082010

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent reelected

House Senate

History of Congressional History of Congressional ElectionsElections

Throughout most of Throughout most of U.S. history, U.S. history, congressional elections congressional elections were were “party-centered.”“party-centered.”

In the post-World War In the post-World War II era, campaigns have II era, campaigns have became increasingly became increasingly “candidate-centered,” “candidate-centered,” centered aroundcentered around images that are images that are largely independent of largely independent of party labels.party labels.

Creating an Appealing Creating an Appealing ImageImage

The Candidate-Centered The Candidate-Centered CampaignCampaign

Separation of powersSeparation of powers BicameralismBicameralism FederalismFederalism PrimariesPrimaries

1. THE INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK1. THE INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

What factors have influenced the rise of the What factors have influenced the rise of the candidate-centered campaign?candidate-centered campaign?

2. POLITICAL CULTURE2. POLITICAL CULTURE

3. CAMPAIGN TECHNOLOGY3. CAMPAIGN TECHNOLOGY

4. POLITICAL CLIMATE4. POLITICAL CLIMATE

PresidentPresident

HouseHouse

SenateSenate

0 4 8 12 16 20 240 4 8 12 16 20 24

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 240 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

4 10 16 224 10 16 22

1/3 of the 1/3 of the Senate is Senate is

elected elected every two every two

years by years by voters within voters within

each stateeach state

The entire The entire House is House is

elected every elected every two years by two years by voters within voters within

each each congressional congressional

districtdistrict

The The president is president is

elected elected every four every four

years by the years by the Electoral Electoral

CollegeCollege

Presidential election Presidential election years draw in higher years draw in higher turnout.turnout.

Midterm congressional Midterm congressional elections have lower elections have lower rates of voter turnout.rates of voter turnout.

2 8 14 202 8 14 20

0 6 12 18 240 6 12 18 24

4 10 16 224 10 16 22

SenateSenate1/3 of the 1/3 of the Senate is Senate is

elected elected every two every two

years by years by voters within voters within

each stateeach state

HouseHouse0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 240 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24The entire The entire

House is House is elected every elected every two years by two years by voters within voters within

each each congressional congressional

districtdistrict

PresidentPresident0 4 8 12 16 20 240 4 8 12 16 20 24The The

president is president is elected elected

every four every four years by the years by the

Electoral Electoral CollegeCollege

Holding elections in this way—using different timetables and different constituencies— separates the electoral fortunes of members of Congress from one another, and does little to encourage teamwork in campaigning.

2 8 14 202 8 14 20

0 6 12 18 240 6 12 18 24

The institution of Congress supports The institution of Congress supports the electoral needs of its members the electoral needs of its members remarkably well…remarkably well…

Incumbency provides visibilityIncumbency provides visibility Congressional privileges (e.g., franking) Congressional privileges (e.g., franking)

allows members to advertise their issue allows members to advertise their issue positions back homepositions back home

Political power is decentralizedPolitical power is decentralized The seniority system ensures that the The seniority system ensures that the

value of an incumbent appreciates over value of an incumbent appreciates over timetime

The Candidate-Centered The Candidate-Centered CampaignCampaign

Separation of powersSeparation of powers BicameralismBicameralism FederalismFederalism PrimariesPrimaries

1. THE INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK1. THE INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

What factors have influenced the rise of the What factors have influenced the rise of the candidate-centered campaign?candidate-centered campaign?

2. POLITICAL CULTURE2. POLITICAL CULTURE

3. CAMPAIGN TECHNOLOGY3. CAMPAIGN TECHNOLOGY

4. POLITICAL CLIMATE4. POLITICAL CLIMATE

Incumbent House Members Running Incumbent House Members Running for Reelection, 1964-2006for Reelection, 1964-2006

19641966

19681970

19721974

19761978

19801982

19841986

19881990

19921994

19961998

20002002

20042006

0

100

200

300

400

0

Number defeated Number reelected

Candidate-centered campaigns

= Incumbent advantage

CONSEQUENCES?

The Responsible Party Model RevisitedThe Responsible Party Model Revisited

“A strong political party can generate collective responsibility by creating incentives for leaders, followers, and popular supporters to think and act in collective terms. First, by providing party leaders with the capability (e.g., control of institutional patronage, nominations, etc) to discipline party members, genuine leadership becomes possible. Legislative output is less likely to be a least common denominator—a residue of myriad conflicting proposals—and more likely to consist of a program actually intended to solve a problem or move the nation in a particular direction. Second, the subordination of individual office holders to the party lessens their ability to separate themselves from party actions. Like it or not their performance becomes indentified with the performance of the collectivity to which they belong. Third, with individual candidate variation greatly reduced, voters have less incentive to support individuals and more to support or oppose the party as a whole. And fourth, the circle closes are party-line voting in the electorate provides party leaders with the incentive to propose policies which will earn the support of a national majority, and party backbenchers with the personal incentive to cooperate with leaders in the attempt to compile a good record for the party as a whole”

—Morris Fiorina

Some scholars Some scholars claim that claim that Congress Congress rewards rewards

individual individual responsivenessresponsiveness over over collective collective

responsibilityresponsibility. .

Are stronger Are stronger parties the parties the

answer?answer?

Individual Responsiveness vs. Individual Responsiveness vs. Collective ResponsibilityCollective Responsibility

Increasingly, we have seen the Increasingly, we have seen the insulationinsulation of members of Congress of members of Congress from national political forces—which makes it harder and harder to from national political forces—which makes it harder and harder to unseat incumbents once they are elected into office.unseat incumbents once they are elected into office.

Candidate-centered campaigns allow members to Candidate-centered campaigns allow members to escape escape responsibilityresponsibility for Congress’ performance as an institution. for Congress’ performance as an institution.

As the electoral fates of Congress and the president diverge, so As the electoral fates of Congress and the president diverge, so does their does their incentive to cooperateincentive to cooperate to get things done. to get things done.

The fragmentation of the legislative process and the committee The fragmentation of the legislative process and the committee system often leads to system often leads to gridlockgridlock..

In short, Congress often provides a kind of hyper-responsiveness to the In short, Congress often provides a kind of hyper-responsiveness to the public’s desires, but without true collective responsibility for their public’s desires, but without true collective responsibility for their actions. actions.

What kind of political representation is produced by American What kind of political representation is produced by American electoral politics and how does that representation influence the laws electoral politics and how does that representation influence the laws Congress enacts?Congress enacts?

Incumbent House and Senate Incumbent House and Senate Members Running for Reelection, Members Running for Reelection,

1964-20101964-2010

19641966

19681970

19721974

19761978

19801982

19841986

19881990

19921994

19961998

20002002

20042006

20082010

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

Percent reelected

Beginning in early 2001, a great tragedy occurred in American politics. It happened quietly, for the most part behind closed doors, and with minimal public input or oversight. The net result of this tragedy is that most voters had their cote rendered nearly meaningless, almost as if it had been stolen from them. Yet the stealing happened without faulty voting equipment, poorly designed ballots, misused voter lists, or campaign finance abuses. It was more like a silent burglar in the middle of the night having his way while American voters slept…

And it was legal.

Not only was it legal, but the two major political parties, their incumbents, and their consultants were participants in the heist.

— Steven Hill, “Behind Closed Doors” (2002)

An Incumbent Protection An Incumbent Protection PlanPlan

Reapportionment, as Defined Reapportionment, as Defined by the U.S. Constitutionby the U.S. Constitution

ARTICLE 1, Section 2, Clause 3:ARTICLE 1, Section 2, Clause 3: Representatives and Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actualThe actual Enumeration shall be madeEnumeration shall be made within three Years after the first within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States,Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law directthey shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives . The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; State shall have at Least one Representative;

The Politics of ApportionmentThe Politics of Apportionment

At first there was 1 member of the House of At first there was 1 member of the House of Representatives for every 30,000 American citizens. Today, Representatives for every 30,000 American citizens. Today, with a current population of 300 million, that ratio has with a current population of 300 million, that ratio has increased to about increased to about 1:690,0001:690,000..

If we were to restore the original ratio between the House of If we were to restore the original ratio between the House of Representatives and their constituents, it would require Representatives and their constituents, it would require increasing the size of the chamber from 435 members increasing the size of the chamber from 435 members (where it has been locked since 1911), to (where it has been locked since 1911), to 10,000 members10,000 members..

But remember, Article I of the U.S. Constitution says that But remember, Article I of the U.S. Constitution says that “The Number of Representatives “The Number of Representatives shall not exceedshall not exceed one for one for every thirty Thousand,” which means there will not be more every thirty Thousand,” which means there will not be more representatives than that, not that there will not be fewer. representatives than that, not that there will not be fewer.

Has political representation been diluted by

population growth?

States that voted for...States that voted for... Electoral Electoral VotesVotes   

Bush in 2000Bush in 2000 20002000 20042004 Gain / Gain / LossLoss

INDIANAINDIANA 1212 1111 -1-1

MISSISSIPPIMISSISSIPPI 77 66 -1-1

OHIOOHIO 2121 2020 -1-1

COLORADOCOLORADO 88 99 +1+1

NEVADANEVADA 44 55 +1+1

NORTH CAROLINANORTH CAROLINA 1414 1515 +1+1

ARIZONAARIZONA 88 1010 +2+2

FLORIDAFLORIDA 2525 2727 +2+2

GEORGIAGEORGIA 1313 1515 +2+2

TEXASTEXAS 3232 3434 +2+2

Net Gain / LossNet Gain / Loss       +8+8

States that voted for...States that voted for... Electoral Electoral VotesVotes   

Gore in 2000Gore in 2000 20002000 20042004 Gain / Gain / LossLoss

NEW YORKNEW YORK 3333 3131 -2-2

PENNSYLVANIAPENNSYLVANIA 2323 2121 -2-2

CONNECTICUTCONNECTICUT 88 77 -1-1

ILLINOISILLINOIS 2222 2121 -1-1

MICHIGANMICHIGAN 1818 1717 -1-1

WISCONSINWISCONSIN 1111 1010 -1-1

CALIFORNIACALIFORNIA 5454 5555 +1+1

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIADISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 22 33 +1+1

Net Gain / LossNet Gain / Loss       -6-6

Electoral Map for 2012Electoral Map for 2012

The Original GerrymanderThe Original Gerrymander

Cracking and PackingCracking and Packing

Redrawing the balanced electoral districts in this Redrawing the balanced electoral districts in this example creates a guaranteed 3-to-1 advantage example creates a guaranteed 3-to-1 advantage in representation for the blue voters as 14 red in representation for the blue voters as 14 red voters are voters are packedpacked into the light green district into the light green district and the remaining 18 are and the remaining 18 are crackedcracked across the 3 across the 3 remaining blue districts.remaining blue districts.

SourceSource: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

Maptitude® for Maptitude® for RedistrictingRedistricting is is a special edition a special edition of Caliper of Caliper Corporation’s Corporation’s Maptitude GIS for Maptitude GIS for Windows that Windows that includes includes everything you everything you need to build and need to build and analyze analyze redistricting redistricting plans. As you plans. As you assign area assign area features to a features to a district, the district, the district district boundaries are boundaries are redrawn and redrawn and selected selected attributes are attributes are automatically automatically summarized to summarized to reflect the reflect the district’s district’s characteristics characteristics

Redistricting SoftwareRedistricting Software

Majority-Minority DistrictsMajority-Minority Districts

The unusual “earmuff” shape of the 4th Congressional District of Illinois connects two Hispanic neighborhoods while remaining continuous by narrowly tracing Interstate 294.

SourceSource: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

“My co

ntributio

n

to modern art!

”

The Fight Over North Carolina’s The Fight Over North Carolina’s 1212thth Congressional District Congressional District

District lines District lines have been have been redrawn several redrawn several times in times in response to legal response to legal challenges.challenges.

Gerrymandering based Gerrymandering based solely on race has been solely on race has been ruled unconstitutional by ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court the US Supreme Court under the Fourteenth under the Fourteenth Amendment, first by Amendment, first by Shaw Shaw v. Renov. Reno (1993) and (1993) and subsequently by subsequently by Miller v. Miller v. JohnsonJohnson (1995). Partisan (1995). Partisan gerrymandering remains gerrymandering remains legal.legal.

The Texas Redistricting CaseThe Texas Redistricting Case

Some argue that Lay’s Some argue that Lay’s plan strengthened the plan strengthened the GOP majority in the House GOP majority in the House by as many as 5 seats.by as many as 5 seats.

Reform in RedistrictingReform in Redistricting

Do these commissions Do these commissions reallyreally create create more competitive elections? No, says more competitive elections? No, says Alan Abramowitz: Alan Abramowitz:

““During the 2002-2002 round of During the 2002-2002 round of redistricting, eight states with a total of redistricting, eight states with a total of 75 House districts used nonpartisan 75 House districts used nonpartisan commissions to redraw their district commissions to redraw their district lines or had their lines drawn by the lines or had their lines drawn by the courts. In the 2002 elections, 9 percent courts. In the 2002 elections, 9 percent of House contests in those states were of House contests in those states were decided by a margin of less than 10 decided by a margin of less than 10 percentage points compared with 8 percentage points compared with 8 percent in all other states. Of the 65 percent in all other states. Of the 65 incumbents who ran for reelection in incumbents who ran for reelection in states who districts were redrawn by the states who districts were redrawn by the courts or nonpartisan commissions, not courts or nonpartisan commissions, not one was defeated.”one was defeated.”

Does Redistricting Produce Does Redistricting Produce Uncompetitive Elections?Uncompetitive Elections?

Scholars argue that “there is little evidence that Scholars argue that “there is little evidence that redistricting generally makes elections less redistricting generally makes elections less competitive.”competitive.”

Why? Because party leaders face a tension Why? Because party leaders face a tension between incumbent protection on the one hand between incumbent protection on the one hand and the growth of the party’s majority on the and the growth of the party’s majority on the other.other.

In Texas, the GOP-controlled legislature shifted In Texas, the GOP-controlled legislature shifted some Republican precincts out of the Tom some Republican precincts out of the Tom DeLay’s district in order to make neighboring DeLay’s district in order to make neighboring districts more Republican. As a result, DeLay’s districts more Republican. As a result, DeLay’s own district is less assured.own district is less assured.

Voters are apathetic, Voters are apathetic, turnout is lowturnout is low

A rigged and corrupt A rigged and corrupt system ensures the system ensures the reelection of reelection of incumbentsincumbents

Midterm elections Midterm elections don’t matterdon’t matter

Losses by the President's Party in Losses by the President's Party in Midterm Elections, 1862-2010Midterm Elections, 1862-2010

18621866187018741978188218861890189418981902190619101914191819221926196019341938194219461950195419581962196619701974197819821986199019941998200220062010

-100

-50

0

-100

-50

00

Number of seats

President's party gain/loss of seats in House President's party gain/loss of seats in Senate

Erikson’s Theories on Erikson’s Theories on Midterm LossMidterm Loss

Midterm loss as regression to the mean

Midterm loss as surge and decline Midterm loss as a referendum on

presidential performance Midterm loss as a presidential

penalty

Turnout in Presidential and Turnout in Presidential and Mid-Term Elections, 1980-2010Mid-Term Elections, 1980-2010

1980-1982

1984-1986

1988-1990

1992-1994

1996-1998

2000-2002

2004-2006

2008-2010

0

25

50

75

Percentage of voting eligible population

Presidental elections Midterm elections

41.3%

Erikson’s Theories on Erikson’s Theories on Midterm LossMidterm Loss

Midterm loss as regression to the mean

Midterm loss as surge and decline Midterm loss as a referendum on

presidential performance Midterm loss as a presidential

penalty

Tufte ModelTufte Model

Tufte ModelTufte Model

Erikson’s Theories on Erikson’s Theories on Midterm LossMidterm Loss

Midterm loss as regression to the mean

Midterm loss as surge and decline Midterm loss as a referendum on

presidential performance Midterm loss as a presidential

penalty

Confidence in American Institutions, 2011

Source: CNN/USA Today/ Gallup poll, June 9-11, 2011.

"I am going to read you a list of institutions in American society. Please tell me how much confidence you, yourself, have in each one--a great deal, quite a lot, some, or very little?"

The militarySmall business

The policeThe church

Medical systemSupreme CourtThe presidencyPublic schools

Criminal justice Newspapers

Television newsBanks

Organized laborHMOs

Big businessCongress

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Percent responding "great deal" or "quite a lot"

Congressional Approval, 1974-Congressional Approval, 1974-20062006

“Do you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job?”

1974

1975

1976

1978

1986

1990

1992

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Percent responding "approve"

Americans are far more

favorable towards their own member

of Congress

Campaigning

Governing

The Impact of Campaigning on The Impact of Campaigning on GoverningGoverning

““Contemporary campaigning has made contemporary Contemporary campaigning has made contemporary government more difficult. Campaigns raise public government more difficult. Campaigns raise public expectations about government at the same time that they expectations about government at the same time that they lower trust and confidence in government. They emphasize lower trust and confidence in government. They emphasize personal accomplishments in a system designed to curb the personal accomplishments in a system designed to curb the exercise of institutional and political power. They harden policy exercise of institutional and political power. They harden policy positions in a government system that depends on positions in a government system that depends on compromise. They have increasingly brought partisan and compromise. They have increasingly brought partisan and ideological rhetoric into the policy-making arena where a ideological rhetoric into the policy-making arena where a pragmatic approach and quiet diplomacy used to get things pragmatic approach and quiet diplomacy used to get things done. And the candidates have developed a public persona done. And the candidates have developed a public persona that they continue to pursue once in office, a persona that can that they continue to pursue once in office, a persona that can get in the way of behind-the-scenes compromises on major get in the way of behind-the-scenes compromises on major issues with which they have been associated.”issues with which they have been associated.”

——Stephen J. Wayne,Stephen J. Wayne,Is This Any Way to Run a Democratic Election?Is This Any Way to Run a Democratic Election? (2001) (2001)

Identifying ProblemsIdentifying Problems Low public esteem for the institution of CongressLow public esteem for the institution of Congress Uncompetitive elections that favor incumbentsUncompetitive elections that favor incumbents Highly parochial, individualized, and fragmented politicsHighly parochial, individualized, and fragmented politics Pressure exerted through campaign contributionsPressure exerted through campaign contributions Frequent elections lead to permanent campaignsFrequent elections lead to permanent campaigns Campaigns focus on style over substanceCampaigns focus on style over substance Prioritize elections over public policyPrioritize elections over public policy Poor representation (e.g., lack minority candidates, etc.)Poor representation (e.g., lack minority candidates, etc.) Incumbency advantage leads to long congressional Incumbency advantage leads to long congressional

careerscareers Partisan wars over redistrictingPartisan wars over redistricting Policy gridlockPolicy gridlock Limited ability to punish/reward the institution as a wholeLimited ability to punish/reward the institution as a whole

Finding SolutionsFinding Solutions Replace partisan redistricting with non-partisan Replace partisan redistricting with non-partisan

commissionscommissions Enact term limitsEnact term limits Adopt longer terms in sync with presidential Adopt longer terms in sync with presidential

electionselections Increase the size of the U.S. House of Increase the size of the U.S. House of

RepresentativesRepresentatives Use proportional representationUse proportional representation Provide public financing of congressional campaignsProvide public financing of congressional campaigns Encourage stronger parties that impose discipline Encourage stronger parties that impose discipline

and unityand unity

Questions…Questions… Are these solutions likely to address the root Are these solutions likely to address the root

cause(s) of the problem?cause(s) of the problem? What are the obstacles to effective reform?What are the obstacles to effective reform?

Rotation in OfficeRotation in Office

Washington, D.C. in the 19th century was described as a “swampy, mosquito-infested, rural

outpost.”

The Term Limits The Term Limits AmendmentAmendment

Section A.Section A. No person shall serve in the office of No person shall serve in the office of U.S. Representative for more than three terms, but U.S. Representative for more than three terms, but upon ratification of the Term Limits Amendment upon ratification of the Term Limits Amendment no person who has held the office of U.S. no person who has held the office of U.S. Representative or who then holds the office shall Representative or who then holds the office shall serve for more than two additional terms.serve for more than two additional terms.

Section B.Section B. No person shall serve in the office of No person shall serve in the office of U.S. Senator for more than two terms, but upon U.S. Senator for more than two terms, but upon ratification of the Term Limits Amendment no ratification of the Term Limits Amendment no person who has held the office of U.S. Senator or person who has held the office of U.S. Senator or who then holds the office shall serve more than who then holds the office shall serve more than one additional term.one additional term.

Section C.Section C. This article shall have no time limit This article shall have no time limit within which it must be ratified by the legislatures within which it must be ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States.of three-fourths of the several States.

“Thereafter, within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress, we shall bring to the House Floor the following bills, each to be given full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote and each to be immediately available this day for public inspection and scrutiny:

…10. THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE ACT: A first-ever vote on term limits to replace career politicians with citizen legislators.”

RespondentsRespondents YesYes NoNo

Total sampleTotal sample 61%61% 21%21%

By partyBy party RepublicanRepublican 6464 2828 DemocratDemocrat 6060 3030 IndependentIndependent 5858 3333

By ideologyBy ideology Liberal Liberal 5858 3434 ModerateModerate 6464 3030 Conservative Conservative 6363 2929

By raceBy race White White 6161 3131 BlackBlack 6161 2727

By genderBy gender MenMen 5757 3535 WomenWomen 6363 2727

““Do you think there should Do you think there should be a limit to the numberbe a limit to the numberof times a member ofof times a member of

the House of Representatives the House of Representatives can be elected to a two-can be elected to a two-

year term?”year term?”

Public Opinion Public Opinion on Term Limitson Term Limits

The Citizen-LegislatorThe Citizen-Legislator

Joe the Plumber

More Representative is Not More Representative is Not Necessarily BetterNecessarily Better

“If these reforms were put into place, would the public suddenly love Congress? We do not think so. Certain reforms, such as campaign finance reform, may help, since they would diminish the perception that money rules politics in Washington. But the main reason the public is disgruntled with Congress and with politics in Washington is because they are dissatisfied with the processes intrinsic to the operation of a democratic political system - debates, compromises, conflicting information, inefficiency, and slowness. This argument may seem odd on its face, so in the next few paragraphs we provide our interpretation of why the public questions the need for democratic processes.”