1. American Politics: Representation
American Politics: Representation
November 13, 2006

2. Midterm Elections
Democrats win control of both the House and the Senate for the first time since 1994
Democrats picked up 28 Seats in House (229 D/196 R)
Democrats picked up 6 Seats in the Senate (51 D including 2 Independents/49 R)

3. 2006 Senate Races

4. Democratic Seats

5. Republican Seats

6. Midterm Losses
President’s party has lost House seats in every postwar midterm election until 1998 and 2002.
Since the end of WW II, the average midterm seat loss for the president’s party is 24 seats.
When the president’s approval rating is below 50% the average midterm seat loss is 38 seats.

7. Presidential Popularity and Congressional Outcomes in the Midterm Elections in a President’s Second Term
Year
President
Approval
House
Senate
1950
Truman 41
-29 -6
1958
Eisenhower 57
-48
-13
1966
Johnson 44
-47 -4
1974
Nixon/Ford 53 -5
1986
Reagan 64 -8
1998
Clinton 65 5

8. Incumbency Advantage
Typically about 90 percent of House incumbents are reelected
In the Senate, 78.6 percent have won reelection in the postwar period
Even in years very unfavourable to one of the parties, a large majority win. In 1994, the Democrats worst year since 1946, 84 percent won. In 1974, 77 percent of the Republican incumbents who ran were returned to office.

9. Incumbent Victory Margins

10. Decline in Competition

11. Reelection rates

12. Explanations for Incumbency Advantage
Name Recognition
Greater resources for staff, travel, local offices, and communication
In 2001, these allowances ranged from $980,699 to $1,469,930 per legislator in the House; $1,926,296 to $3,301,071 in the Senate
Hard work
Redistricting (in the House)
Campaign contributions

13. Elbridge Gerry’s Salamander

14. Gerrymandering
Equal populations
Partisan
Incumbency
Racial

15. Supreme Court Decisions
Baker vs. Carr (1962) launched the “reapportionment revolution”. The suit was brought by urban plaintiffs in Tennessee who challenged their state legislature’s failure to reapportion despite widespread population shifts
Malapportionment refers to inequalities in district populations. Court ruled that it violates the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws. “One person one vote”.
Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) Decision was extended to U.S. House of Representatives

16. Racial Gerrymandering
Voting Rights Act of 1965 restrained states from diluting (cracking) minority votes.
Prior to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Mississippi had a majority district (66%) continued to elect white congressman because blacks were denied the right to vote.
1982 Amendment to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 fostered the creation of majority-minority districts.

17. Majority Minority Districts
Thornburg v Gingles (1986) The decision by the Supreme Court enunciated tests to determine whether a minority’s representation had been compromised
Is the group large enough and located in a compact enough area to elect a representative if grouped into a single district?
Is the group politically cohesive?
Is there evidence of racially polarized voting by the majority against candidates of that group?

18. Majority Minority Districts
In creation of 15 new African American districts (total of 32)
Creation of 9 new Latino districts (total of 20).
All but one of these districts elected a minority
North Carolina’s 12th linked black neighborhoods along 160 miles of I85 from Durham to Charlotte.

19. Racial Gerrmandering

20. Supreme Court Intervenes
Shaw v. Reno (1993)
Under a 5-4 ruling, two North Carolina districts were declared--the 1st and the 12th in violation of the equal protection under the law by diluting white votes the districts were criticized for being too irregular--looked like segregation by race.

21. How the Electoral System Can Reduce Competition
Redistricting creates “safe” districts
Senate races are more competitive in part because states are more diverse, more balanced party competition

22. Donovan/Bowler – Reforming the Republic Table 3
Donovan/Bowler – Reforming the Republic Table 3.1 p49 Congressional Elections
Texas
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
Democrats - %Votes/%Seats
50/70
42/63
44/57
47/57
Republicans - %Votes/%Seats
48/30
56/37
54/43
53/43
49/43
Other - %Votes/%Seats
2/0
4/0
Example of votes to seats bias from First past the post elections

23. Campaign Spending

24. Campaign Money
A good candidate and a good message are not enough. Without money, the voters do not see the candidate or hear the message.
In contemporary candidate-centered campaigns, candidates (as opposed to the party organizations) must assemble their own campaign teams, raise their own money, hire consultants and technical specialists, and design and execute their own individual campaign strategies.
Recent elections reflect the rise in cost.

25. Money Raised in 2006
Source: www opensecrets.org

26. Attitudes about Campaign Finance

27. Regulating Campaign Money
Taxpayers partially finance presidential campaigns, but most of the money spent on congressional elections comes from private sources.
But money is distributed very unequally, thus its role in electoral politics threatens democratic equality and raises the suspicion that elected officials will serve as the agents of their contributors rather than their constituents.
The dilemma then is that meaningful elections require money, but the pursuit of money can subvert the very purpose of elections.

28. Efforts to Regulate Campaign Money
Prior to the 1970s campaign money was effectively unregulated.
Congress had passed some limits on contributions and spending.
The Corrupt Practices Act of 1925, which placed unrealistically low limits on spending in congressional elections, was in force for more than four decades, but no one was prosecuted under the act.

29. Efforts to Regulate Campaign Money
As campaigns became more candidate-centered and broadcast campaigning became the standard, costs increased the demand for money, but many began to fear that winners would favor contributors over constituents.
The legal response to this situation was the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.

30. Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA)
Required candidates running for political office disclose an itemized accounting of all expenditures and donations of more than $100.

31. FECA 1974
Instituted a system for public financing of presidential elections.
Limited individuals to $1,000 and $5,000 for groups. Created political action committees (PACs)
Spending limits were also set for congressional races

32. Legal Challenges
In Buckley v. Valeo (1976) the Supreme Court upheld the reporting requirements and contribution limits, but rejected spending limits on the grounds that they interfered with political speech.
Also rules that individuals could spend unlimited amounts of money on the election or defeat a candidate as long as those expenditures were not coordinated with the candidate or party campaigns.
Candidate self-financing-the “millionaire’s exception”.

33. The Campaign Finance Regulation System
Campaign finance operates through two parallel systems:
Money going directly to candidates is subject to limits on the size of contributions and full disclosure of sources. See Federal Election Commission.
Presidential candidates who accept public funds also must observe spending limits. But money raised and spent outside of the candidates’ campaigns (soft money, issue advocacy) is lightly regulated and not subject to limits.

34. The Flow of Campaign Money
Critical to the recent reform was the fact that the unregulated campaign finance system (soft money) outpaced the regulated system.
Spending in House and Senate campaigns also has continued to grow since FECA took effect, rising by an average of about 7 percent from one election year to the next.
A great deal of variation, however, exists among congressional candidates. Some raise and spend a great deal, others do not.

35. Ethics and Honesty

36. How Money is Spent

37. Soft Money
Concerned that spending limits were choking off traditional local party activity in federal elections, Congress liberalized FECA in 1979, amending the act to allow unrestricted contributions and spending for state and local party-building and get-out-the-vote activities. These monies are commonly called soft money.
In March of 2002, Congress passed a law prohibiting national parties from raising and spending soft party money for federal candidates.

38. Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002
Also know as McCain-Feingold (who sponsored the legislation).
First, the law prohibits raising and spending of “soft money” for federal candidates.
Second, the law redefines what constitutes a campaign advertisement, subject to the disclosure requirements and contribution limits and contribution source restrictions of federal law.
Third, it raised the limits on "hard money." The limits on how much an individual can give to a federal candidate rose to $2,000 an election, from $1,000, with subsequent increases allowed for inflation.
Upheld by the Supreme Court in 2003.

39. Changes in Contribution Limits (Hard Money)

40. Issue Advocacy
527 groups (Named after Section 527 of the IRS code) are tax-exempt organizations that engage in political activities, often through unlimited soft money contributions.
Most are advocacy groups trying to influence federal elections through voter mobilization efforts and so-called issue ads that tout or criticize a candidate's record. 527s must report their contributors and expenditures to the IRS, unless they already file identical information at the state or local level. See opensecrets.org for a list of these groups and their disclosures
The problem is that the tax code is sufficiently complex to allow these groups to remain obscure and avoid most forms of disclosure.

41. Regulation on Political Ads
Advocacy vs. issue ads
Does it include magic words such as “vote for” “elect” or “vote against”?
Most “issue ads” avoid the words but are still advocacy ads
"Last year, John McCain voted against solar and renewable energy. That means more use of coal-burning plants that pollute our air. Ohio Republicans care about clean air. So does Governor Bush. He led one of the first states in America to clamp down on old coal-burning electric power plants. Bush’s clean air laws will reduce air pollution more than a quarter million tons a year. That’s like taking 5 million cars off the road. Governor Bush, leading, for each day dawns brighter."
The BCRA provides a better definition: Any broadcast advertisement that depicts a candidate within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election, and is targeted to the voting constituency of that candidate, constitutes an electioneering communication, subject to federal campaign laws.

42. Independent Ads
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
Moveon.org

43. Comparisons with Other Countries

44. Summarizing Explanations for Incumbency Advantage
Redistricting
Campaign contributions
Name Recognition
Greater resources for staff, travel, local offices, and communication
In 2001, these allowances ranged from $980,699 to $1,469,930 per legislator in the House; $1,926,296 to $3,301,071 in the Senate
Casework
Hard work

45. Representation
Descriptive vs. Policy (or Political)

46. African American and Hispanics in Congress

47. Women in Congress

48. Policy Representation

49. The Role of the Representative
Trustees—legislators who use their own judgment to decide what is right
Delegates-legislators who carry out the precise wishes of their constituents back home regardless of what they personally believe is best