Pearson Education, Inc. © 2005 Choosing the Congress Chapter 11

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2005 The Electoral Evolution of the Congress Congress has changed significantly since the Founder’s conception of it. –House has changed from political amateurs serving for short periods to an institution full of professional politicians. –Senate has also changed. Many served for one term or less in Senate in early days. –Today, members serve in House and Senate for much longer periods. –It has become a professional legislature. One whose members serve full-time and for long periods.

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2005

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.

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2005 Reapportionment and Redistricting Redistricting –Drawing new boundaries of congressional districts, usually after the decennial census. –Once varied in population, but Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) required they must be of nearly equal population. One person, one vote principle. –Gerrymandering: drawing lines of congressional districts in order to confer an advantage on some partisan or political interest.

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2005 The Congressional Nomination Process Congressional nomination process is much simpler than presidential one. Most states choose their candidates in one primary prior to the general election. 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)

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2005 Contemporary House Elections Safe seat: a congressional district certain to vote for the candidate of one party Party loyalties and organizations still important –Voters generally know little about the candidates. –Only a third can recall the name of their representative. –Only 10 percent know how their representative voted on a bill. Incumbency also important: the electoral advantage a candidate enjoys by virtue of being an incumbent, over and above his or her personal and political characteristics

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2005

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

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2005 Growth in Importance of “Representative” Behavior Members of Congress do much more than make laws. –Constituency service: the effort by members of Congress to secure federal funding for their districts (district service) and to help constituents when they have difficulties with federal agencies (casework) –These activities enable members to reinforce their own base and make inroads into that of the opposition.

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2005 Expanding Member Resources Typical House member employs 18 personal staff assistants –More than 40% of these are assigned to the district office. Senators have bigger staffs, although this varies by state population. 1950: average representative had 3 staff members 1960: A third of representatives lacked permanent district offices. The could only be reimbursed for three trips home a year. 1960s and 1970s saw growth in congressional staff resources. Many perks today: including the frank—free use of the U.S. mail for official business

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2005 Campaign Funds Elections for Congress have become increasingly expensive. –Average total spent by winning House candidates was almost $900K in –Average winning Senator spent almost $5 million. –Gap between incumbent and challenger spending has widened. –But even if spending disparities were wiped out overnight, incumbents would still do very well.

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2005

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

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2005

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, –the information that voters receive, –the quality of challengers, and –the ultimate ambitions of Senators.

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2005 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

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2005 Uncontrolled Information Senators receive far more media coverage than representatives. The media is not under the Senators’ control. –Information through this venue can be positive and/or negative. –Often media will publicize controversial statements, personal embarrassments or conflict.

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2005 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, and –have more money.

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2005 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

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2005 National Forces in Congressional Elections Tendency of members of Congress to distance themselves from party and presidential positions makes them less subject to national forces. Such forces common until the mid-20 th century –Presidential coattails: positive electoral effect of a popular presidential candidate on congressional candidates of the party

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2005 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. But it may have been exception rather than a new norm. 1998: Democrats gained 5 seats. –First time since 1934 that president’s party gained in the mid-term election.

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2005 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 then present 2002 midterms again went against historical norms –Republicans gained seats in the House and Senate despite holding the White House. Potentially positive effect of popular president of their party Congressional races continued to solidify the Republican advantage in the House and Senate.

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2005 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 Positive effect –Campaigns in which parties and national interest groups actively participate will be more issue-oriented.

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2005 Do Congressional Elections Produce a Representative Body? 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?

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2005 Women U.S. ranks low among world democracies in the proportion of women in the lower chamber of the national legislature. Reasons? –legacy of gender discrimination –electoral system contributes to the slow rate of progress

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2005 Minorities Bloc voting –Voting in which nearly all members of an ethnic or racial group vote for the same candidate or party Historical tendency in U.S. toward racially polarized voting –Efforts to increase representation of minorities in Congress made though redistricting –Creation of majority-minority districts districts in which a minority group is the numerical majority very controversial Shaw v. Reno (1993) majority-minority districting had limits

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2005

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.