Pathologies of Congressional Elections Large districts –Solution? Increase number of members in House Benefit: more responsiveness/more contact Costs: More collective action problems Incumbency advantage –Solution: term limits Benefit: more turnover Costs: lose experience/expertise; official would have little incentive to be responsive during last term Pork Barrel Politics Special Interest Influence

Redistricting

Are there better ways to elect Congress? Nebraska Model: Team Ticket: Term Limits: Proportional Representation: Increasing the size of the U.S. House:

Nebraska Model: Unicameral Legislature Why have a bicameral legislature? County Representation? Gridlock

Team Ticket: -Vote for Party, not candidate -Party/Issue centered campaigns -Easier to vote, less information required -Women and Minorities may find it easier to get elected

Term Limits -Creates more “open” seats, therefore increases electoral competitions -Women and Minorities have found it easier to get elected (more open seats) -Legislators more likely to support policies for the good of their state, not just their district -Only wealthy people can take time off of career and server for 2 terms. -Do we want to make popular, hard working legislators leave? -If you know you have to find a job next year, do you support legislation helpful to corporations hoping you will get a job? -Weakens Parties, who becomes the party leader if you only stay on for 2, 3 terms. No one with institutional history of how things are done. Strengthens bureaucracy

Proportional Representation What is it?: What would need to be done?: Multiple members per district (at least 3) Types of PR: Mixed Member Proportional (SMPD & PR seats) Single Transferable Vote (rank order) Cumulative voting (multiple votes)

More Parties (oh no!!!) Higher voter turnout More perspectives included More distinctive parties Party/Issue centered elections/campaigns More descriptive representation Citizens more satisfied More polarized MORE GRIDLOCK Give smaller parties too much influence Unstable Coalitions

Increase # of members in U.S. House Germany, Brazil, Russia, Japan, Mexico, Fance, Italy, UK, Poland, all have more members even though they have smaller populations Prior to 1915, the House grew in tandem with the population Only India (a nation of over 1 billion people) has more constituents per representative than the U.S. Has the U.S. become the second most “under- representative” democracy in the world?

Why did the U.S. House stop growing? House stopped growing in order to dilute the growing influence of immigrant voters (so new districts wouldn’t be created that might contain a majority of immigrants) Members felt they would have less influence if the House kept growing. Better to be one voice in a group of 435 then a voice in a group of 650. Must divide the “pie” into more pieces

Types of Reforms Transparency: Disclosure of sources of money and information Public Subsidies to parties Limits on expenditures and contributions Force networks to give reduced cost/free TV time

Transparency Citizens need to know the source of money and info to judge the legitimacy of information or policies (Quality information) Non-profit groups (527 groups) not required to follow disclosure requirements. (this may be changing) Issue ads – Republicans for Clean Air, Coalition for Student Loan Reform

Public Subsidies Benefit: Reduce dependence on large contributions to individuals Costs: Makes parties creatures of the state? Example: Minnesota –53% of publicly funded candidates win –Citizen control ($50 rebate) –Helpful to third parties (Jesse “the body” Ventura)

Limits on Spending and Expenditures Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act –No issue ads within 60 days of election –Disclosure of source of funds for ads –Limits contributions from certain PACs to candidates and parties Enforcement?: 1974 Federal Election Campaign Act Benefits:

Free TV ads Networks made almost $1 billion in 2000 Charge candidates more than then the standard rates So? supply & demand or Airwaves belong to the people. Senator Torecelli (D-NY) proposal approved by Senate Broadcasters donated over $1.5 million and the House kills the proposal.

The American Policy Context A. Separation of Powers B. Limits to Popular Sovereignty - Electoral College - Indirect election of Senators - Difficult to Amend Constitution - Supreme Court – appointed/life term C. Judicial Review

Decentralization vs. Centralization of Power Separation of Executive/Legislature Federalism Independent Courts

Separation of Power A. Fragmentation of power -Legislature, executive, judicial branches -Most western democracies have a more centralized form of government -Presidential vs. Parliamentary system -Judicial Review B. Federalism: -Powers are also shared with the state and local governments -In contrast – Unitary system (e.g. Germany) -Fed. Govt. has ”enumerated” or delegated powers -What does that mean (heart of political debate)

Who do you trust? National State Local Elected/Unelected Reform/Changes?

ANALYIZING FEDERALISM A. Alexis de Tocqueville (1831-2) - nations need centralized power - people prefer one central government - too complicated to understand - Majority of the Tyranny - Reduces Military capacity - Government too weak to intervene in internal conflicts (almost right) -Incapable of adapting to growing diverse population

B. Ramifications of Federalism - could increase representation - reverse could be true (lower govt. captured) - less quality/visible information on lower govts. - less accountability - lack of national standards = inequality - “Laboratory of Democracy” - Dispersed Costs/Concentrated Benefits - Multiple Access Points – enhance democracy?

C. Federalism and Modern Politics - Eisenhower and the dictatorial centralization - Johnson’s Great Society - Nixon’s New Federalism - Carter – new agencies (Energy & Education) - Reagan and General Revenue Sharing - Clinton – National Health Care - Centralized solutions to problems v. Devolution