1. Chapter 11 Choosing the Congress © 2009, Pearson Education Fiorina, Peterson, Johnson, and Mayer New American Democracy, Sixth Edition

2. © 2009, Pearson Education The Electoral Evolution of the Congress Congress has changed significantly since the Founder’s conceived of it Today things are different: –Professional legislature –Very electorally aware Anticipate threats before their election and act to avoid them

3. © 2009, Pearson Education The Electoral Evolution of the Congress

4. © 2009, Pearson Education 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

5. © 2009, Pearson Education 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

6. © 2009, Pearson Education 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 –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

7. © 2009, Pearson Education 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

8. © 2009, Pearson Education Contemporary House Elections

9. © 2009, Pearson Education 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

10. © 2009, Pearson Education Expanding Member Resources Each member has: A Washington office and one or more district offices Typical House member employs 18 personal staff assistants (more than 40 percent in district) - This has risen significantly over time. Travel subsidies Use of the frank (free use of the U.S. mail)

11. © 2009, Pearson Education Growth in Importance of “Representative” Behavior Members of Congress do much more than make laws Representatives 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

12. © 2009, Pearson Education Campaign Funds Elections for Congress have become increasingly expensive The average total spent by House candidates was almost $680K in 2004 The average senator spent almost $5 million The gap between incumbent and challenger spending has widened But even if spending disparities were wiped out overnight, incumbents would still do very well –Diminishing returns –Incumbency advantage outside of money

13. © 2009, Pearson Education Campaign Funds

14. © 2009, Pearson Education 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

15. © 2009, Pearson Education

16. 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

17. © 2009, Pearson Education 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

18. © 2009, Pearson Education 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

19. © 2009, Pearson Education 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

20. © 2009, Pearson Education 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

21. © 2009, Pearson Education 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

22. © 2009, Pearson Education 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%

23. © 2009, Pearson Education 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

24. © 2009, Pearson Education 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

25. © 2009, Pearson Education 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

26. © 2009, Pearson Education 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?

27. © 2009, Pearson Education Women U.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

28. © 2009, Pearson Education 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 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

29. © 2009, Pearson Education Women and Minorities

30. © 2009, Pearson Education 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