Post on 11-Jul-2020
Origins and Development of Congress17.251/252Fall 2004
Congressional Historical Eras and Electoral Discontinuities
Critical periods
1800 1850 1900 1950 2004
1812-20 1860-65 1896-1912 1964-1968
Congressional systemsExperimental Democritizing Civil War Textbook Post-Reform
1789-1812(Experimental system)
-Loose formal organization
-Ad hocselect comms. dominate
-Floor supreme-”previous q” developed in the House
-Elite electorate (Table 3.2)-Feds vs. Reps.
Party leadershipComms.RulesDuring cong’lsystem
During critical period
Organizational dynamicsElectoral dynamics
1812-20(Transition from Experimental to
Antebellum systems)
• -Electorate expands• -Federalists discredited• -Slavery now an issue• -Napoleanic Wars end
1820-60(Antebellum system)
-Regional divisions complicate Speakershipselection (next slide)-Senate leadership remains weak
-Standings dominate selects-commchairs compete w/ Speaker
Committees take agenda control
-Mass electorate-Whigs vs. Dems.
Party leadershipComms.RulesElectoral dynamicsOrganizational dynamics
Balloting for Speaker
1800 1820 1840 1860 1880 1900Year
0
5
10
15
20
Num
ber o
f can
dida
tes
Candidates receiving votesCadidates receiving 10 or more votes
Balloting for Clerk
Year
1780 1800 1820 1840 1860 1880 1900
Num
ber o
f bal
lots
0
5
10
15
20
42.7OppositionAmer.Nathaniel Banks, Mass.133341855
67.1DemocratDem.Linn Boyd, Ky.1331853
54.5DemocratDem.Linn Boyd, Ky.1321851
48.5DemocratDem.Howell Cobb, Ga.63311849
50.4WhigWhig.Robert C. Winthrop, Mass.3301847
62.3DemocratDem.John W. Davis, Ind.1291845
65.9DemocratDem.John W. Jones, Va.1281843
58.7WhigWhigJohn White, Ky.1271841
51.7DemocratWhigRobert M.T. Hunter, Va.11261839
52.9DemocratDem.James K. Polk. Tenn.1251837
59.1JacksonJacksonJames K. Polk. Tenn.1241835
““JacksonJohn Bell, Tenn.10231834
59.6JacksonJacksonAndrew Stevenson, Va.1231833
59.2JacksonJacksonAndrew Stevenson, Va.1221831
63.8JacksonJacksonAndrew Stevenson, Va.1211829
53.1JacksonJacksonAndrew Stevenson, Va.1201827
51.2AdamsAdamsJohn W. Taylor, N.Y.2191825
Pct.NamePartyName, StateBallotsCong.Year
Largest partyWinning Speaker
42.7OppositionAmer.Nathaniel Banks, Mass.133341855
67.1DemocratDem.Linn Boyd, Ky.1331853
54.5DemocratDem.Linn Boyd, Ky.1321851
48.5DemocratDem.Howell Cobb, Ga.63311849
50.4WhigWhig.Robert C. Winthrop, Mass.3301847
62.3DemocratDem.John W. Davis, Ind.1291845
65.9DemocratDem.John W. Jones, Va.1281843
58.7WhigWhigJohn White, Ky.1271841
51.7DemocratWhigRobert M.T. Hunter, Va.11261839
52.9DemocratDem.James K. Polk. Tenn.1251837
59.1JacksonJacksonJames K. Polk. Tenn.1241835
““JacksonJohn Bell, Tenn.10231834
59.6JacksonJacksonAndrew Stevenson, Va.1231833
59.2JacksonJacksonAndrew Stevenson, Va.1221831
63.8JacksonJacksonAndrew Stevenson, Va.1211829
53.1JacksonJacksonAndrew Stevenson, Va.1201827
51.2AdamsAdamsJohn W. Taylor, N.Y.2191825
Pct.NamePartyName, StateBallotsCong.Year
Largest partyWinning Speaker
The Effect of the Balance RuleS
lave
ry
Gov’t Activism
Stylized House
SS
NN
NN
N
N WH(N)
Sla
very
Gov’t Activism
Stylized Senate
SS
NN
N
WS(N)
1860-1865(Transition from Antebellum to Civil
War System• South excluded from national elections• Party support highly regionalized
1865-1896(Civil War System)
-Party polarization-Party “strong”
-Parties take control of committee rosters-Appr. devolution
-”Reed Rules” in the House
-Dems. v. Reps.-Dem. Strength in the South-Rep. strength in the North-Knife-edged partisan margins
Party leadershipComms.RulesElectoral dynamics
Organizational dynamics
Ideological divisions2n
d di
m. d
w-n
omin
ate
(mul
tiply
b
1st dimen. dw-nominate-.859 .739
-1.037
.986
SS
S
S
S SS S
S
S
S
S
S
D
D
R
R
R
R
R
R
D
D
R
DD
S
SSS
S
SS
S
S
S
S
R
R
D
D
D
R
RR
D
D
R
D
D
D
D
D
DD
D
D
R
DD
D
D
DR
D
D
R
D
DD
D
D
D
R
D
D
D
R
R
D
R
R
R
RPP PPP
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
R
SS
S
S
S
S
R
R
R
R
DD D
DD
D
D
R
R
DD D
R
R
DD
R
D
D
D
D
R
R
RD
D
D
D
D
RD
R
D
D
P
SS
S
S
S
S
S
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
PP
R
D
D
R
R
D
D
DDD
DD
DD
D
DDDD DDD D
D
D
R
D
R
D
R
R
D
D
R
R
RD
R
D
R
D
D
R
S
R
S
S
S
SS
S
S
R
R
RD
D
D
D
D
D
D
RD R
D
D
D
D
D
D
R
R
R
D
R
R
R
D
R
R
R
D
D
D
R
D
R
D
R
R
R
D
R
D
RRR
R
D
DD
R
R
D
D DS
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
RR
R
R
D
DD
D
D DD
D
S
SS
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
R
R
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
R
D
D
D
D
D
D
DD
D
DD
R
D
R
2nd
dim
. dw
-nom
inat
e (m
ultip
ly b
1st dimen. dw-nominate-1.095 1.197
-1.334
1.34
SS S
S
S
S SS S
D
D
SS
S
S
S
SS
D
D
RD
R
D
R
RR
D
R
RR
D
R
R
D
R
D
R
D
R
R
DR
R
R
R
RRR R
R
R
SS
SS S
SS
S
SS S
SS
SS
S
RRD
RR
DD
D
RD
R
RR
R
R
R
RR
RR
R
R
R
D
RR
RR
D
R
R
R R
R
R
R
RR
R
D
R
R
R
RR
R
R
R
R
RR
RR
R
D
D
D
R
D
D
D
R
D
R
R
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
R
R
R
R
DD
D D
D
R
R
R
DD
RR
D
R
R
R
R
D
D
R
D
R
R
R
RR
R
R
R
R R
R
R
R
R
DD
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
RD
R
SS
S
SSSS
R
R
R
D
R
RR
R
D
D
R
RD
DR
R
RR
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
RR
R
R
DD
D
D
R
R
R R
R R
D
D
D
DD
D
DD
D
DR
R
DD
R
D
DD
D
R
R
R
R
R
R
D
R
RR
RR
R
R
R
R
R
RR
R
SS
SS
S
S
S
S
SSSS
R
R
RRR
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
RR
R
R
D
RR
R
R
DD
D
R
R
R
D
D
D
DD
D
R
R
R
R
R
RRR
RR
RRR
R
RR
RR
R
R
RR
R
R
D
R
R
R
D
R
RDR
RR
R
DD
D
D
SS
S
SSS
RR
R
R
D
D
D
D
D
DD
D
S
S S
S
SS S
S
SS S
SSS
S
S
S
S
SSS
S
D
R
R
S S
S
S SS
S
S
S
S
R
D
RR
R
R
RR
R RD
DR
RR
RR
R RRR
R R52nd Cong.(1891-1893)
80th Cong.(1943-45)
1896-1912(Transition from Civil War to
Textbook systems)• Economic dislocations create
Progressive/Populist movements
A Word about Senate Elections
• State legislative elections often brought about chaotic balloting
• Stories of corruption in Senate elections led to Progressive calls for reform
• 17th amendment: popular election of senators (1914)
• Still parties become more prominent
% joint ballot elections for Senate
020
4060
80P
ct.
1870 1880 1890 1900 1910Year
Effective number of Senate candidates in states
110
201
1020
110
20
1870 1880 1890 1900 1910
1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910
AL CA FL IA
KS KY MA ME
MN NC NY
Candidates Parties
Effe
ctiv
e nu
mbe
r of S
enat
e ca
ndid
ate/
Par
ties
Year of election
Graphs by State
1912-1968(Textbook system)
-Party cohesion diminishes-party leaders brokers
-Comms. dominate legislating & careers-consol. in 1946
Battles over filibuster prominent in the Senate
-Regional support for parties-Dems pick up progressives and cities
Party leadershipComms.RulesElectoral dynamics
Organizational dynamics
Rise of careerism
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100(1816) (1836) (1856) (1876) (1896) (1916) (1936) (1956) (1976) (1996)
Congress
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Pct.
of H
ouse
repl
aced
by
elec
tion
Actual replacementMoving average
1968-1974(Transition from Textbook to Post-
Reform system• Anti-war sentiment divorces supporters of
strong defense from Dems.• Civil Rights movement divorces southern
Whites from Dems, but reinforces Black affiliation with Dems.
1974-now(Post-Reform System
-Parties resurgent-Leaders more assertive(Republicans esp.)
-Commsimportant, but….
Floor proceedings open up
-Reps conservative, Dems. Liberal-Regionalism per sedeemphasized
Party leadershipComms.RulesElectoral dynamics
Organizational dynamics
Loss of regionalism in parties80th Congress 106th Congress
Ideological separation of parties
Dimension 1
-2 -1 0 1 2
Dim
ensi
on 2
-2
-1
0
1
2
R
R
RR
R
S
R
S
R RNR
R
R
R
S
SRR
SN
R
R
R
N
N
N
N
N
N
R
N
N
NN
N
N
N
RN
RN RN
R
NN
R
NN
NNN
N
N
NN
R
R
R R
N
R
R
R
N
R
R
N
N
RR
N
N
R
RR
RN
R
N
R
N
RR
R
R
S
S
R
S
RRRRR
SR
R
R
R
R
S
RSS R
R
S
R
S
R
S
SR
R
R
R
R
RNN
R
R
N
N
N
N
NR
N
RN
R
R
N
R
R
R RN R
N
R
N
R
N
R
R RR
R
N
N
R
R
N
R
R
R
R
N
RR
R
R
N
RR
R
SRR
R
R
S
NN
R
R
N
NN
R
N
R
NN
N
N NN
N
N
NN
N
N
R
R
R
N
R
R
R
NN
R
N
NN
N
N
R
R
R
N
N
N
N
NR
S
R
S
S
N
R
N
N
N
RR
R
RR
RR
RN R
R
R
N
RR
R
R
N
R
N
N
NR
N
N
R
R
N
RN
RNN
N
N
N
N
N
N
N RNNN
NN
R
R
N
R
R
RR
NR
N
N
RR
S
SR
S R
R
S
R
RR
R
S
N
R
R
N
RR
N
R
R
N
N
N
RNN
R
R
N
R
RR
R
NRR
R
RN
R
N
N
N
N
N
N
RR
N
R
R
RR
N
N
NN
R
RR
N
R
N
RN
N
R
R R
R
R
SS
R
R
RR
R
NN
R
N
N
SS
R
S
RR
R
R
S
S
S
R
R
R
S
S
S
S
R
S R RR
S
S
R
S
S
SS
RN
R
I
R
R
SR
I
R
R
RS
S
R
RN
N
N
R
RN
N
RN
N
R
N
R
N
N
N
N
R
N
R
R
R