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

Pearson Education, Inc. © 2005

Choosing the CongressChapter 11


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.



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.


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.


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)


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



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


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.


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


Campaign Funds

• Elections for Congress have become increasingly expensive.– Average total spent by winning House candidates was

almost $900K in 2002.– 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.



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



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.


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


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.


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.


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


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-20th century– Presidential coattails: positive electoral effect

of a popular presidential candidate on congressional candidates of the party


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.


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.

• 2004 Congressional races continued to solidify the Republican advantage in the House and Senate.


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.


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?


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


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



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.

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

Documents

party slide

pearson education

congress congress

party party loyalties

retirement slide

opposition party

party decline

party affiliations