Congressional Elections

POLS 125: Political Parties & Elections

“We would all like to vote for the best man but he is never a candidate.”

— Frank McKinney “Kin” Hubbard

People hate Congress.

Congress’ job approval rating is hovering around 15%.

Only 7% say they have a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in Congress.”

Just 22% of people would describe Congress as at least “somewhat productive.”

About 7 in 10 Americans say they don’t want most members of Congress reelected.

But most incumbents get

re-elected.

What gives?

In 2012, Congressional approval averaged 15 percent, the lowest in nearly four decades of Gallup polling. And yet, 90 percent of House Members and 91 percent of Senators who sought re-election won last November.

The seeming paradox between the low regard with which people hold Congress and the high rate of re-election of incumbents is explained well by new data released by Gallup on Thursday that points to a simple reality: People hate Congress but (generally) like their Member of Congress.

The Electoral Connection

Getting elected Achieving influence in Congress Making good public policy

Members of Congress are faced with three primary goals:

“Specifically, I shall conjure up a vision of United States congressmen as single-minded seekers of reelection, see what kinds of activities and goals that implies, and then speculate about how congressmen so motivated are likely to go about building and sustaining legislative institutions and making policy”

—David Mayhew,Congress: The Electoral Connection (1974)

History of Congressional Elections

Throughout most of U.S. history, congressional elections were “party-centered.”

In the post-World War II era, campaigns have became increasingly “candidate-centered,” centered around images that are largely independent of party labels.

Candidate-Centered Campaigns

The Candidate-Centered Campaign

Separation of powers Bicameralism Federalism Primaries

1. THE INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

What factors have influenced the rise of the candidate-centered campaign?

2. POLITICAL CULTURE

3. CAMPAIGN TECHNOLOGY

4. POLITICAL CLIMATE

President

House

Senate

0 4 8 12 16 20 24

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

4 10 16 22

1/3 of the Senate is

elected every two

years by voters within

each state

The entire House is

elected every two years by voters within

each congressional

district

The president is

elected every four

years by the Electoral

College

Presidential election years draw in higher turnout.

Midterm congressional elections have lower rates of voter turnout.

2 8 14 20

0 6 12 18 24

4 10 16 22

Senate1/3 of the Senate is

elected every two

years by voters within

each state

House0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24The entire

House is elected every two years by voters within

each congressional

district

President0 4 8 12 16 20 24The

president is elected

every four years by the

Electoral College

Holding elections in this way—using different timetables and different constituencies— separates the electoral fortunes of members of Congress from one another, and does little to encourage teamwork in campaigning.

2 8 14 20

0 6 12 18 24

The institution of Congress supports the electoral needs of its members remarkably well…

Incumbency provides visibility Congressional privileges (e.g., franking)

allows members to advertise their issue positions back home

Political power is decentralized The seniority system ensures that the

value of an incumbent appreciates over time

The Candidate-Centered Campaign

Separation of powers Bicameralism Federalism Primaries

1. THE INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

What factors have influenced the rise of the candidate-centered campaign?

2. POLITICAL CULTURE

3. CAMPAIGN TECHNOLOGY

4. POLITICAL CLIMATE

Who are these people?

Peter Moss, Peace & Prosperity candidate for U.S. Senate in 2012

John MacGovern, Republican candidate

for U.S. Senate in

2012

Mark Donka, Republican

candidate for U.S. House in

2012

Jane Newton, Liberty Union

candidate for U.S. House in 2012

SANDERS

WELCH

The Power of Incumbency

PATRICK LEAHY (D) was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1974. He is currently serving his 6th term.

BERNIE SANDERS (I) was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1990. He served in that office continuously until 2006, when he was elected to the U.S. Senate.

PETER WELCH (D) was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2006.

The chance of unseating an incumbent member of Congress is slim. Most incumbents run for reelection and most of them win by substantial margins. Even in 1994, when an anti-incumbent mood hung in the air, 90% of incumbent House members, and 92% of incumbent Senators were returned to office.

In Vermont,

Incumbent House and Senate Members Running for Reelection,

1964-2010

19641966

19681970

19721974

19761978

19801982

19841986

19881990

19921994

19961998

20002002

20042006

20082010

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

Percent reelected

Reelection Rates of House and Senate Incumbents, 1946-2010

194619481950195219541956195819601962196419661968197019721974197619781980198219841986198819901992199419961998200020022004200620082010

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percen t reelected

House Senate

Incumbency Advantage

Redistricting Decline of party

loyalty Familiarity Experience Resources

YearAverage

Challenger

AverageIncumben

t

No. of Winning

Challengers

1974 $100,435 $101,102 40

1976 $144,720 $154,774 12

1978 $217,083 $200,607 19

1980 $343,093 $286,559 31

1982 $296,273 $453,459 23

1984 $518,781 $463,070 17

1986 $523,308 $562,139 6

1988 $703,740 $876,678 7

1990 $462,546 $631,025 16

1992 $433,482 $840,922 19

1994 $644,640 $945,608 34

1996 $1,070,162 $1,040,878 21

1998 $1,123,783 $1,281,633 6

2000 $2,024,725 $2,511,368 6

2002 $1,595,805 $2,141,672 4

2004 $1,616,513 $2,003,504 5

2006 $1,821,756 $2,787,977 22

2008 $1,971,197 $2,354,163 19

2010 $1,651,508 $2,599,695 53

Candidate-centered campaigns

= Incumbent advantage

CONSEQUENCES?

Confidence in American Institutions, 2011

Source: CNN/USA Today/ Gallup poll, June 9-11, 2011.

"I am going to read you a list of institutions in American society. Please tell me how much confidence you, yourself, have in each one--a great deal, quite a lot, some, or very little?"

The militarySmall business

The policeThe church

Medical systemSupreme CourtThe presidencyPublic schools

Criminal justice Newspapers

Television newsBanks

O rganized laborHMO s

Big businessCongress

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Percent responding "great deal" or "quite a lot"

Congressional Approval, 1974-2012

“Do you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job?”

1974

1975

1976

1978

1986

1990

1992

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Pe

rcen

t resp

on

din

g "a

pp

rove

"

Americans are far more

favorable towards their own member

of Congress

Some scholars claim that Congress rewards

individual responsiveness over collective

responsibility.

Are stronger parties the

answer?

Individual Responsiveness vs. Collective Responsibility

Increasingly, we have seen the insulation of members of Congress from national political forces—which makes it harder and harder to unseat incumbents once they are elected into office.

Candidate-centered campaigns allow members to escape responsibility for Congress’ performance as an institution.

As the electoral fates of Congress and the president diverge, so does their incentive to cooperate to get things done.

The fragmentation of the legislative process and the committee system often leads to gridlock.

In short, Congress often provides a kind of hyper-responsiveness to the public’s desires, but without true collective responsibility for their actions.

What kind of political representation is produced by American electoral politics and how does that representation influence the laws Congress enacts?

“That does not mean that you don’t have some real big differences. The House Republican majority is made up mostly of members who are in sharply gerrymandered districts that are very safely Republican and may not feel compelled to pay attention to broad-based public opinion, because what they’re really concerned about is the opinions of their specific constituents.”

—President Barack Obama, talk about the politics of gun control in The New Republic

Who’s to Blame for our Divisive Politics?

Incumbent House and Senate Members Running for Reelection,

1964-2010

19641966

19681970

19721974

19761978

19801982

19841986

19881990

19921994

19961998

20002002

20042006

20082010

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

Percent reelected

Beginning in early 2001, a great tragedy occurred in American politics. It happened quietly, for the most part behind closed doors, and with minimal public input or oversight. The net result of this tragedy is that most voters had their cote rendered nearly meaningless, almost as if it had been stolen from them. Yet the stealing happened without faulty voting equipment, poorly designed ballots, misused voter lists, or campaign finance abuses. It was more like a silent burglar in the middle of the night having his way while American voters slept…

And it was legal.

Not only was it legal, but the two major political parties, their incumbents, and their consultants were participants in the heist.

— Steven Hill, “Behind Closed Doors” (2002)

An Incumbent Protection Plan

Reapportionment, as Defined by the U.S. Constitution

ARTICLE 1, Section 2, Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative;

The Politics of Apportionment

At first there was 1 member of the House of Representatives for every 30,000 American citizens. Today, with a current population of 300 million, that ratio has increased to about 1:690,000.

If we were to restore the original ratio between the House of Representatives and their constituents, it would require increasing the size of the chamber from 435 members (where it has been locked since 1911), to 10,000 members.

But remember, Article I of the U.S. Constitution says that “The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand,” which means there will not be more representatives than that, not that there will not be fewer.

Has political representation been diluted by

population growth?

Allocation of congressional districts in the House of Representatives after the 2010

census.

Electoral Map for 2012

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/0adjfq/american-horrible-story---gerrymandering

The Original Gerrymander

http://www.cagle.com/author/adam-zyglis

Cracking and Packing

Redrawing the balanced electoral districts in this example creates a guaranteed 3-to-1 advantage in representation for the blue voters as 14 red voters are packed into the light green district and the remaining 18 are cracked across the 3 remaining blue districts.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

Maptitude® for Redistricting is a special edition of Caliper Corporation’s Maptitude GIS for Windows that includes everything you need to build and analyze redistricting plans. As you assign area features to a district, the district boundaries are redrawn and selected attributes are automatically summarized to reflect the district’s characteristics

Redistricting Software

Majority-Minority Districts

The unusual “earmuff” shape of the 4th Congressional District of Illinois connects two Hispanic neighborhoods while remaining continuous by narrowly tracing Interstate 294.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

“My co

ntributio

n

to modern art!

”

The Fight Over North Carolina’s 12th Congressional District

District lines have been redrawn several times in response to legal challenges.

Gerrymandering based solely on race has been ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court under the Fourteenth Amendment, first by Shaw v. Reno (1993) and subsequently by Miller v. Johnson (1995). Partisan gerrymandering remains legal.

The Texas Redistricting Case

Some argue that Lay’s plan strengthened the GOP majority in the House by as many as 5 seats.

Does Redistricting Produce Uncompetitive Elections?

Scholars argue that “there is little evidence that redistricting generally makes elections less competitive.”

Why? Because party leaders face a tension between incumbent protection on the one hand and the growth of the party’s majority on the other.

In Texas, the GOP-controlled legislature shifted some Republican precincts out of the Tom DeLay’s district in order to make neighboring districts more Republican. As a result, DeLay’s own district is less assured.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-6-2006/daily-show-rock----mid-term-elections

Voters are apathetic, turnout is low

A rigged and corrupt system ensures the reelection of incumbents

Midterm elections don’t matter

Losses by the President's Party in Midterm Elections, 1862-2010

18621866187018741978188218861890189418981902190619101914191819221926196019341938194219461950195419581962196619701974197819821986199019941998200220062010

-100

-50

0

-100

-50

00

Number of seats

President's party gain/loss of seats in H ouse President's party gain/loss of seats in Senate

Erikson’s Theories on Midterm Loss

Midterm loss as regression to the mean

Midterm loss as surge and decline Midterm loss as a referendum on

presidential performance Midterm loss as a presidential

penalty

Turnout in Presidential and Mid-Term Elections, 1980-2010

1980-1982

1984-1986

1988-1990

1992-1994

1996-1998

2000-2002

2004-2006

2008-2010

0

25

50

75

Percentage of voting eligible population

Presidental elections Midterm elections

41.3%

Erikson’s Theories on Midterm Loss

Midterm loss as regression to the mean

Midterm loss as surge and decline Midterm loss as a referendum on

presidential performance Midterm loss as a presidential

penalty

Tufte Model

Tufte Model

Erikson’s Theories on Midterm Loss

Midterm loss as regression to the mean

Midterm loss as surge and decline Midterm loss as a referendum on

presidential performance Midterm loss as a presidential

penalty

Confidence in American Institutions, 2011

Source: CNN/USA Today/ Gallup poll, June 9-11, 2011.

"I am going to read you a list of institutions in American society. Please tell me how much confidence you, yourself, have in each one--a great deal, quite a lot, some, or very little?"

The militarySmall business

The policeThe church

Medical systemSupreme CourtThe presidencyPublic schools

Criminal justice Newspapers

Television newsBanks

O rganized laborHMO s

Big businessCongress

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Percent responding "great deal" or "quite a lot"

Congressional Approval, 1974-2006

“Do you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job?”

1974

1975

1976

1978

1986

1990

1992

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Percent responding "approve"

Americans are far more

favorable towards their own member

of Congress

Campaigning

Governing

The Impact of Campaigning on Governing

“Contemporary campaigning has made contemporary government more difficult. Campaigns raise public expectations about government at the same time that they lower trust and confidence in government. They emphasize personal accomplishments in a system designed to curb the exercise of institutional and political power. They harden policy positions in a government system that depends on compromise. They have increasingly brought partisan and ideological rhetoric into the policy-making arena where a pragmatic approach and quiet diplomacy used to get things done. And the candidates have developed a public persona that they continue to pursue once in office, a persona that can get in the way of behind-the-scenes compromises on major issues with which they have been associated.”

—Stephen J. Wayne,Is This Any Way to Run a Democratic Election? (2001)

Identifying Problems Low public esteem for the institution of Congress Uncompetitive elections that favor incumbents Highly parochial, individualized, and fragmented

politics Pressure exerted through campaign contributions Frequent elections lead to permanent campaigns Campaigns focus on style over substance Prioritize elections over public policy Poor representation (e.g., lack minority candidates,

etc.) Incumbency advantage leads to long congressional

careers Partisan wars over redistricting Policy gridlock Limited ability to punish/reward the institution as a

whole

Finding Solutions Replace partisan redistricting with non-partisan

commissions Enact term limits Adopt longer terms in sync with presidential

elections Increase the size of the U.S. House of

Representatives Use proportional representation Provide public financing of congressional

campaigns Encourage stronger parties that impose discipline

and unity

Questions… Are these solutions likely to address the root

cause(s) of the problem? What are the obstacles to effective reform?

Rotation in Office

Washington, D.C. in the 19th century was described as a “swampy, mosquito-infested, rural

outpost.”

The Term Limits Amendment

Section A. No person shall serve in the office of U.S. Representative for more than three terms, but upon ratification of the Term Limits Amendment no person who has held the office of U.S. Representative or who then holds the office shall serve for more than two additional terms.

Section B. No person shall serve in the office of U.S. Senator for more than two terms, but upon ratification of the Term Limits Amendment no person who has held the office of U.S. Senator or who then holds the office shall serve more than one additional term.

Section C. This article shall have no time limit within which it must be ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States.

“Thereafter, within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress, we shall bring to the House Floor the following bills, each to be given full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote and each to be immediately available this day for public inspection and scrutiny:

…10. THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE ACT: A first-ever vote on term limits to replace career politicians with citizen legislators.”

Respondents Yes No

Total sample 61% 21%

By party Republican 64 28 Democrat 60 30 Independent 58 33

By ideology Liberal 58 34 Moderate 64 30 Conservative 63 29

By race White 61 31 Black 61 27

By gender Men 57 35 Women 63 27

“Do you think there should be a limit to the numberof times a member of

the House of Representatives can be elected to a two-

year term?”

Public Opinion on Term Limits

The Citizen-Legislator

Joe the Plumber

More Representative is Not Necessarily Better

“If these reforms were put into place, would the public suddenly love Congress? We do not think so. Certain reforms, such as campaign finance reform, may help, since they would diminish the perception that money rules politics in Washington. But the main reason the public is disgruntled with Congress and with politics in Washington is because they are dissatisfied with the processes intrinsic to the operation of a democratic political system - debates, compromises, conflicting information, inefficiency, and slowness. This argument may seem odd on its face, so in the next few paragraphs we provide our interpretation of why the public questions the need for democratic processes.”