AP midterm ii

hare et al (2014) prediction

"hot decline" of polarization catalyzed by break up of party system (is this happening now?) or "cooling off" via gradua moderation over electoral cycles

ideal point

(It is the point in the policy space at which s/he would ideally like policy to be.)

issue ownership stable?

(Pope and Woon): can be affected by shifts in the public's partisanship and ideological mood (Goble, Holm, Sides): parties' relative records on specific issues a finding that the parties' ownership of issues was relatively stable would seem to be rooted in the parties' priorities, which could be expected to change no more quickly than the composition of issue activits who make up the partie's coalitions if issue ownership is in fact volatile, then we might look to the parties' changing policies or fluctuating levels of performance on different issues for an explanation

Party systems in the US

- 5 systems - details are in the text; may check textbook just in case

How realistic do you think the spatial model is?

- how realistic are the assumptions? - how realistic is the prediction? In many ways, neither the assumptions nor the prediction square with our understanding of US politics (people nowadays think that rep and dem are really different) but the model is still valuable. we've been specific about how assumptions lead to predictions, and we have gained some insights By relaxing certain assumptions, we can explore how they affect the prediction. If we relax an assumption and the prediction doesn't change, we know that the assumption isn't leading to the unrealistic prediction.

Equilibrium

- that is, a steady state in which no player wishes to change her action given what all other players intend to do

2016 election 1. _______ voted for party's candidate 2. ______ crossed party lines 3. _________ were independents

1. 83% 2. 8% 3. 9%

Three ways to understand the vote

1. The median voter theorem - candidates have strong incentives offer moderate policy platforms 2. the strength of the economy - voters credit incumbents for strong economies and punish them for weak ones 3. party identification - a vast majority of voters simply vote for the candidate who shares their party ID

Why?

1. political parties establish and maintain links between elected officials and a mass public - they build stable legislative and electoral alliances between unlikely partners (e.g., big business and Christian conservatives) -they boil down complex choices for voters into simple ones (as long as the labels are informative)

as we headed into the 2016 election, the government estimated that the economy grew at a rate of ___________ percent between january and september of 2016

1.9

Fourth System: Republican Ascendancy

1896: Nomination of William Jennings Bryan marks Democratic Party's adoption of an explicitly populist platform based on increasing the money supply - Thus making it easier for farmers and other debtors to repay loans. This appeals to farmers and the urban poor... - ...and nobody else. - With the exception of Wilson's victories in '12 and '16, the G.O.P. wins the presidency in every election until the Great Depression. Look familiar? The regional bases of the G.O.P. and Dems today are mirror images of where they stood 100 years ago. (but flip from 1896 election result)

major formative events (in popular media, at least)

1990's "peace dividend" years, 9-11 attacks, financial crisis

% of vote for incumbent party ( in the provided scatter plot graph between GDP growth rate and incumbent party share)

48.0 + 1.2 x (% change in GDP)

majority

50% of the votes plus 1

Party ID of self and parents among lesbians, gays and bisexuals (LGBs), 2007

7 in 10 LGBs raised by Republicans defect to the Democratic Party

on average, lately, more than _____________ voters have fallen into this category

8 out of 10

Relax Assumption #2: voters don't vote just for the candidate whose platform is closest to his preferred policy One candidate has some advantage over the other (valence advantage)

9 Slide 40 r= distance between median voter's position and R's platform r<v, then voter 3 votes for REP r> v, then voter 3 votes for DEM r=v, then voter 3 votes for REP R's best platform: voter 3 (median voter) ideal point = V D's best response: promise voter 3 preferred policy This is an equilibrium - D locates at the median voter's preferred position - R locates at (MV+V) - R always wins

In recent elections, about ______________ partisans have voted for their party's candidate

9 out of 10

Agenda setter

Agender setter decides whether to hold a vote - if vote is held: policy moves to m - if vote is not held: policy stays at q If you are the agenda setter and you prefer q to m, you are better off if you do not allow a vote to be held between q and m

Consensus goal/ issue

All things being equal (ceteris paribus), Americans agree on these goals. That is, if there were no tradeoffs among them, most Americans would endorse all of these goals. I therefore call these consensus goals and consensus issues.

The First system: Origins of parties

As G. Washington's Treasury Secretary, Hamilton pursued votes in Congress for an increasingly ambitious agenda that became known as "Federalist." - Emphasis on economic development - Strong national government - Mercantile interests favored Jefferson and Madison counter-organized around an agenda that favored - Agrarian interests - Decentralized government - Wariness of alliance with England They built purposeful coalitions with local officials and leaders. This coalition was first called the "Republican Party"... but it eventually became the "Democratic-Republican Party"...and today it is called the "Democratic Party." Election of 1800: the newly-minted Republican Party successfully wrested the presidency from Federalist John Adams. Majority of northeast voted for Federalists (Adams) Only five of the 16 states determined their presidential electors by popular vote. State legislatures made the choice in the others. The Republicans (now known as the Democratic-Republicans) proceeded to dominate American politics for a quarter of a century. The Federalists die out.

The spatial model: defining equilibrium

As in other models discussed in this class, we are interested in identifying an equilibrium - We're interested because this seems like a reasonable prediction of how things might turn out. An equilibrium will be reached in the spatial model if given the platforms of the candidates and the votes of the voters: - no candidate wishes to change her platform, and - no voter wishes to change his vote.

reversion point

Bearing in mind the power that comes with the ability to determine p, reformers often change the rules to specify a reversion point (r) that becomes law should p fail in a referendum. To limit the budget-maximizing power of the school board, reformers typically set r quite low. But does this help the reformers' cause? We'll see. - Note that specifying a reversion point r means that voters are no longer choosing between p and q. Instead, they're choosing between p and r. Our model suggests, counter-intuitively, that a budget-maximizing agenda setter's power can be limited by setting a reversion point that is relatively high, not low.

bivariate regression

Bivariate analysis means the analysis of bivariate data. It is one of the simplest forms of statistical analysis, used to find out if there is a relationship between two sets of values. It usually involves the variables X and Y.

Brady & Han

By counting legislators in liberal/ conservative "overlap" regions (ie liberal republicans, conservative dems), current trends approximate polarization in late 19th and early 20th centuries No legislators in overlap region until after WWII may indicate their polarization is the norm rather than exception in historical politics of USA Suggests that polarization alone can't explain congressional gridlock, given that historical polarization still resulted in passage of legislation and compromise Hare el at (2014) caveat & prediction

The campaign occurs this way:

Candidates announce their platforms: that is, what policy they will enact if elected. Candidates can change their platforms as many times as they want. Once both candidates have settled on a platform, voters cast ballots. The winning candidate must enact the platform she promised in the campaign.

Three simple assumptions guide how we solve the model.

Candidates care only about getting elected; they do not have preferences over policies. Voters vote for the candidate whose platform is closest to their preferred policies. If a voter is indifferent, he flips a coin to determine his vote. Everybody votes.

Divided government

Congress controlled by a different party than the presidency Generally, we've been having more divided government (1928 - 2016)

Analysis of roll call votes (Smith, Fig. 1)

Congress has become more polarized in the past 40 years Fewer moderates left as well

Tullock's puzzle

Considering the value of public policies at stake and the reputed influence of campaign contributors in politics, where is there so little money in politics - weak empirical link between campaign contributions and legislator's voting behavior

1896 D vs R

DEM strongholds: - Rural, agricultural - (More) racial inequality - Cheaper labor REP strongholds: - Industry - Ethnic diversity - Wealth

2016 D vs R

DEM strongholds: - Services/education - Ethnic/racial diversity - Wealth REP strongholds: - Rural, agricultural - Lower taxes/fewer services - Large black minority - Cheaper labor/cost of living

disturbance theory of interest group formation

David Truman: organizations will form when the interests common to unorganized groups of individuals are disturbed by economic, social, political, or technological change

Spatial model in general

Despite its lack of realism, the spatial model helps us pin down exactly what assumptions lead to the results we see in real life Changing assumption 2 and 3 leads to the result that the candidates adopt different platforms in equilibrium

Relax Assumption #1: Assume that candidates care not only one whit about winning the election. They care only about the policy that will be enacted once the election is over.

Does not change the equilibrium prediction of the model - A policy-oriented candidate dislikes the policy that will be enacted by the other candidate should the other candidate win - therefore, she moves to the median voter's position in order to have the best chance at winning while keeping policy as close to her ideal point as possible. - Original assumption 1 is not leading to the unrealistic equilibrium

A powerful agenda setter: the Speaker of the House

Elected to the post by a majority of members (i.e., the Democrats in 2007; the Republicans in 2011) House rules give Speaker immense control over whether votes are held and what is voted upon

Second system: two party competition

Election of 1824: five D-Rs sought the presidency, with the election thrown into the House. - Andrew Jackson had won the popular vote, but machinations made John Quincy Adams the winner. Jackson's allies re-organized under the "Democratic" party label and won a smashing victory in 1828. Jackson's opponents counter-organized under the "Whig" label. Real two-party competition is born. - Whig: named after a faction that fought the British monarchy in the 17th century. (Whigs claimed that Jackson was acting like a monarch.) This era is characterized by many of the electoral practices found in our modern democracy: - National political conventions - Two-party competition at all levels of gov't and in all regions - Mass political mobilization with rallies, slogans, gimmicks -- Turnout in 1840: 78 percent of eligible voters, the highest so far. - The "spoils system," in which gov't jobs are given to political supporters - The presidency eclipses Congress as the chief prize and the focus of the most attention The two-party competition (Democrats vs. the Whigs) found in the Second System was unable to handle the issue that emerged as the primary conflict of the day: slavery. The slavery issue split the coalitions of the two established parties, because each had power bases in the North and South.

why agenda control is so powerful?

Even though the system is "democratic," the person with agenda control has a tremendous amount of influence over the outcome. In the House, the Speaker has virtually unlimited agenda control powers. - Under the Hastert Rule, votes are rarely held in the House on an issue unless the Speaker prefers m to q. - In the Senate, agenda control is more complicated (we'll talk about that later). Agender setter model: All of this means that S can set p to manipulate the outcome to her advantage

Millennials

Generally, someone born between early 1980s-late 1990s/ early 2000s first of the "digital native" generations; saddled by student debt, seem to have different consumer preferences from older generations (ie. experiences vs things). only GOP cohort that view America's openness as essential only generation in which a majority says Islam does not encourage violence more than other religions more positive views of NAFTA pro immigration

Gerring's Party Ideologies in America

Have the Parties Stood for the Same Things Over Time? lays out an argument claiming that since the founding of modern party competition in 1828, the parties have each advocated for an internally consistent set of policies over time Gerring claims that the Republican Party's ideological heritage can be traced back to 1828 (to the Whigs). The enduring themes: social order, economic growth, patriotism. - In earlier eras, this stood for a partnership between the n'tl government and business interests to simultaneously develop industry and improve the conditions of the masses - Today, this ideology is neoliberal: a distrust of the state's ability to do much besides regulate morality, preserve order, and defend the homeland

Are We Now in a "Sixth System"?

Historians and political scientists disagree, but there are important changes that mark our era: - Partisanship is in resurgence in the electorate (as we saw in past few lectures) - Partisan polarization marks all three branches of government - There is unusually strong alignment between ideology and partisanship The party coalitions have changed in important ways, as well: - Just about all groups of non-white voters favor the Democratic Party; - - Republicans increasingly capture a large share of whites' votes. - A large gender gap has emerged. Religiosity has become a key partisan divide. - Professionals have moved dramatically in the Democratic direction. - As discussed in recitation section, young voters strongly favor Democrats. But they are replacing New Deal voters who did, too.

Are We Now in a "Sixth System"?

Historians and political scientists disagree, but there are important changes that mark our era: Partisanship is in resurgence in the electorate (as we saw in past few lectures) Partisan polarization marks all three branches of government There is unusually strong alignment between ideology and partisanship

Race issue

Historically, whites drew districts similarly to minimize representation of blacks and other racial minorities The Voting Rights Act has been interpreted to apply to districting plans in order to ensure minorities have the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice - in practice, this has been meant that where possible, minority voters must be aggregated into districts where they are majority - guess which party this has helped?

Green, Palmquist, and Schickler

How one feels about figures in the political environment changes much more rapidly than how one classifies oneself in terms of broad social categories in 1973, the offspring of republican parents were 4.4 times more likely to call themselves Republicans than the offspring of Democratic parents by 1997, the children of republican parents are just 1.6 times more likey to become Republicans themselves, a pattern that does not change appreciably when we exclude respondents from the South or correct for measurement error although teenagers are strongly influenced by their parents' party affinities, this imprint fades over time as young adults are exposed to other influences and develop their own views Jennings and Niemi (1981): the parent-t-children transmission of party ID is most likely in households that actively discuss politics

Tyranny of majority

If you can't vote, you can't participate in democracy. You know this already, but - women weren't formally granted right to vote until 1920 (19th Amendment) - minority groups, particularly blacks, denied right to vote in many parts of country until mid-1960s What about now? [Switching to normative thinking for a moment...] - Disenfranchisement of felons -Felons? (13% of black men in the U.S. are currently barred from voting) - Immigrants - Voter ID laws

Relax Assumption #3: Voter has civic duty (C) Each voter votes for the closer candidate- but only if the candidate's platform is within C of his ideal point

Imply that candidates care about the policy enacted by the election winner (relax assumption #1) Relaxing assumption #3 often produces equilibria where candidates move toward opposite sides of the policy space Models where we rela this assumption are complicated - just be aware that removing the assumption that everybody votes often produces the more realistic result that candidates adopt distinct platforms. (9 slide 50) (10 slide 14)

The Third System: Slavery Disrupts; Ascendance of Party Machines; the Progressive Backlash

In 1854, the Republican Party (no relation to the Democratic-Republicans) emerges as a coalition of anti-slavery forces. - Notably, it writes off the South in pursuit of national victory. - It's the only third party in American history to successfully wrestle power from the established parties (in Lincoln's election of 1860 Within a decade after the conclusion of the Civil War, the Democrats—with solid support among Southern whites and growing support among immigrant groups—emerge as the national competitor to the Republican Party. This era is characterized by the ascendance of party machines. - Parties not seen so much as ideologically distinct but more as competing teams focused on winning the "spoils" of office The backlash: Progressive Era reforms, which help bring the Third System to an end - Civil service system (Pendleton Act of 1883) - Secret ballot (1890s) - Primary elections - Non-partisan elections - Initiative and referendum One result: turnout starts to decrease, as parties become organizationally weaker.

Rational or social?

In reality, voters are both rational and social in the ways they incorporate party labels into their interpretation of political events and their voting decisions.

Is Gerring correct? Have the parties advocated consistent themes over time?

In some sense, yes: if you look closely enough, you can find themes that are echoed by the same parties from generation to generation But also no: the meanings of these themes—and how they translate into gov't policy—have changed dramatically over time.

outsider tactics

Interest group activities designed to influence elected officials by threatening to impose political costs on them if they do not respond. Tactics include marches, demonstrations, campaign contributions to opponents, and electoral mobilization

The system isn't set up to solve long-term problems

It's unclear to what extent our political system is set up to solve long-term problems—in particular, problems whose costs are increasing in time, and which will be realized in the future. - Social security and other entitlements - Government debt, generally - Global warming - National infrastructure The system tends to punish those who promote costly solutions to long-term problems.

Generational differences in partisanship among whites

Looking only white voters Millennials came of age with popular Democrat (Clinton) and an unpopular Republican (G.W. Bush). They are unusually Democratic. Gen X came of age with an unpopular Democrat (Carter) and a popular Republican (Reagan). They are unusually Republican Millennians - Generation X - baby boomers - silent generation

Pros

Money is needed to inform the electorate freedom of speech: individuals should not be constrained in advocacy even if regulated it is easy to cut corners, transparency is a second best a way to aggregate preferences

Mayhew

Most of the imbalances i have analyzed... have not been major, permanent, systemic problems. More precisely, at least during recent generations, many alleged problems have proven to be nonexistent, short-term, limited, tolerable, or correctable,

Millennials and politics

Most politically aware/ active millennials became so during the latter GWB years or Obama years; juxtaposition of these two admins often frames thinking pew research: attitudes of millennial seem to vary starkly from those of older generations among many issues; more left-leaning on most - this includes, notably, race issues, view on immigration, generic political self- identification (ie liberal vs conservative) the demographics of the millennial generation are also more heterogenous than older ones ; only 56% white less religious, more democratic, prefer "bigger government", believe government should have greater role in correcting problems yet millennials don't differ much from other generations in having low trust for government generally view economic inequality as a problem; tend to favor diplomacy in international relations, multilateralism pro-globalization, pro- immigration more supportive of most left-leaning positions on issues (ie same sex marriage, gun control, climate change) interestingly, gap between millennials and other generations is much smaller on the issue of abortion

the Hastert "Rule"

Named after former (and now disgraced) Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (served 1999-2007). Not an actual "rule," but an informal practice adopted by Speakers from both parties as of late: - Do not hold a floor vote on any bill that does not have majority support in the majority party. A philosophy that requires the "majority of the majority" to bring up a bill for a vote in the House of Representatives. Republicans have used this rule consistently since Speaker Dennis Hastert wielded it in the mid-1990s to effectively limit the power of the minority party. Democrats were prevented from passing bills with the assistance of a small number of members of the majority party.

Majoritarian vs proportional systems

Normatively, the two systems have their drawbacks and advantages. Most important, - Majoritarian systems reinforce stability and coalition-building at the expense of offering true choice - Proportional systems offer voters more customized choices but often lead to instability (see e.g., Italy, Israel) can often give small, niche parties an inordinate amount of power

Some insights from McCarty

Origins of polarization in Congress lie in 1970s; gradual rather than sudden or driven by any one contemporary event Major partisan asymmetry in polarization; most divergence has been GOP to the right (dems less so due possibly to "big tent" party dynamics) Dimensionality of conflict has been reduced; many once distinct issues are now part of partisan narrative voters are better-sorted into two-party dynamic, though not settled whether they are also polarized Because house and Senate are both more polarized, institutional explanations (such as gerrymandering and primaries) may have less explanatory power Both ideology and strategic behavior explain loss of incentives for bipartisan cooperation

Smith

Outlines major trends in congressional politics: - polarization of Congress - the abuse of congressional procedures by the parties - the flow of power from Congress to the president - the low public esteem of Congress

Genforward findings

POCs from 18-30 year old were likely to vote or voted for Hilary (only 46% for whites) During the first two weeks of October: white youth favored Clinton over Trump last survey before the election: much narrower three-percentage point advantage for Clinton over Trump among white youth white vulnerability was an important predictor of young whites' support for Trump - economic vulnerability + racial resentment and sexism if you liked Obama, you were very likely to vote for Hilary perceptions that the country is moving toward greater politica equality increased support for Hilary among both African Americans and whites feeling alienated from politics and government decreased Clinton's support among Latino/as and Asian Americans

Do voters think about parties socially or rationally

Parties are social identities. But... Contrast this with the running tally model of individual partisanship. - In this conceptualization, voters keep a running tally of the parties' good and bad points in their head and adjust the tally to incorporate new information. - They identify with the party that comes out ahead in the tally. - A purely rational model.

Hare et al (2014) caveat

Present polarization is still greater than at any time since Reconstruction; loss of "overlap" legislators and moderation of former liberal GOP/ conservative dreams

Gerring's persisting themes

Since the founding of its modern incarnation by Andrew Jackson in 1828, the Democratic Party has stressed equality: - In earlier eras, this meant standing up for the "little person" (often farmers) against big business - Later, this notion took on an explicitly populist tone, and expanded to include the interests of immigrants - Today, it is universalistic: it includes many other groups, particularly racial and ethnic minorities—and more peacefully coexists with capitalism.

Reining in the agenda setter

So even in situations where a vote must be held, S still has a lot of power. In many scenarios, she's able to manipulate the vote to get exactly what she wants. Fear of this sort of power has led reformers to try to change the rules to reduce it. This is particularly true in budget policy, where agenda setters (S) are typically bureaucrats who want more money for their agencies than the public (M) wants to spend.

Buckley vs valeo in 1976

Supreme Court strikes down FECA (Federal Election Campaign Act) As a by-product, it invalidated campaign expenditure limits on state-wid races in 26 states; A 1976 case in which the Supreme Court struck down the portion of the Federal Election Campaign Act that set limits on the amount of money individuals could contribute to their own campaigns. The opinion of the majority was that setting such limits was a violation of free speech.

The running tally and generational differences in partisanship

The "running tally" is reflected in another source differences in enduring partisan identification: the political landscape in which you grew up. - Political psychologists have noted that when we "come of age"—around ages 16 to 25—is when we adopt political values and loyalties that are unlikely to shift much as we get older. - For this reason, the relative performance of the parties at this time in our lives affects generational differences in party ID.

The Fifth System: New Deal Coalition Emerges

The Great Depression brings an end to the G.O.P.'s reputation as the party of prosperity in the landslide election of 1932. (Majority goes for Democrats) An unlikely coalition of southern whites, northern blacks, and urban immigrants emerges to hand Democrats nearly uninterrupted control of government through 1964. - In doing so, the scope of the federal government in domestic affairs is dramatically increased. The coalition begins to unravel after Northern Democrats successfully lead the charge for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This era is characterized by: - Presidential primaries and caucuses that actually matter (from 1972 onward) - National conventions where very few important decisions are actually made - More periods of divided government:

Why two parties?

The US is characterized to an unusual degree by the fact that most elected officials come from only two parties.

Iyengar and Hahn

The extent to which the American public has become polarized into conservative Republican and liberal Democratic camps is a lively issue among political scientists. public attitude on most policies have not changed much what does appear to have changed is voter's ability identify those politicians who favor policies closer to their own view iyengar and Hahn: this development reflects the availability of diverse news sources offered by cable television networks - the public seeks news from producers who adopt an ideological stance with which they agree

Ownership comes from the simple fact that

The parties spend more government dollars, pass more laws, and care more about the issues they own. The public rewards efforts, not results.

Evidence is overwhelming that children absorb the party ID of their parents

This has long-lasting implications: This pattern has held up pretty remarkably over time Party ID's persistence is strong - it rivals that of ethnic identification in some instances. Children who abandon their parents' party ID tend to become "Independents," not switch to the other party When defections do happen, they tend to occur when children disagree with their parents on highly salient issues

need for information

To provide the chamber with expertise, members must invest a lot of time in mastering an area of specialization. Congress compensates members who master an area of specialization and supply specialized information with enhanced influence in their area of expertise

Example of outlier

Trump low level of approval for Trump is unusual given how low the unemployment rate is right now

A spatial model of an election campaign

Two candidates compete for the votes of an odd-numbered set of voters, who will elect one candidate via majority rule. Voters and candidates care only about one policy. A person's preferences about the policy can be ordered on a line (a.k.a. a left-right single dimension, or policy space). -- We call a voter's position on the line his or her ideal point.

Ansolabehere et al "why is there so little money in US politics

Two extreme views thinking about the amount of money in US political campaigns: - contributors wield considerable influence over legislators. Even modest contributions may be cause for concern and regulation. - contributors gain relatively little political leverage from their donations, since the links from an individual campaign contribution to the election prospects of candidates and to the decisions of an individual legislators are not very firm assumption: - amount of money in campaigns mainly reflects political investment perspective: - campaign contributions should be viewed primarily as a type of consumption good, rather than as a market for buying political benefits (investment) candidates' fundraising changes as their demand for money grows result: - most of the campaign money does not come from interest groups PACS, but from individual donors - doesnt seem accurate to view campaign contributions as a way of investing in political outcomes. Instead, aggregate campaign spending in the US, we conjecture, mainly reflects the consumption value that individuals receive from giving to campaigns - individual contributors provide the average and the marginal dollar to political campaigns - because politicianscan readily raise camaign funds from individuals, rent-seeking donors lack the leverage to extract large private benefits from legislation

Given variation in congressional productivity/ gridlock, what accounts for it?

Unified party control does seem to reduce gridlock, but found by Binder to be insufficient as an explanation Other factors: smaller ideological "center" (ie more polarization) makes it difficult to build coalitions large enough to pass legislation Other factors: Bicameral policy differences interfere with coalition-building (ie House and Senate often fail to agree even when under unified government)

A "pretty good" democracy

We find a strong relationship between how liberal a state is and how liberal its representatives are in Congress. - This suggests that democracy is working "pretty well": if we found no such relationship, we would be quite troubled. 1. Partisan polarization and the vanishing middle 2. Disconnect between party ownership and performance 3. The tyranny of the majority 4. The system isn't set up to solve long-term problems

Partisan

We've discussed the fact that voters are highly loyal to their parties at election time. - So where does party identification come from? Evidence is overwhelming that children absorb the party identification of their parents. We see this from the Political Socialization Study, in which a representative sample of American parents and children have been interviewed multiple times over four decades.

Disconnect between party ownership and performance

We've seen that the public holds incumbent presidents accountable for the economy

Generation X

Weird generation sandwiched between baby boomers and millennials; born 1960s/1970s, were young and cool during the Reagan Era

Valence advantage

When a candidate has advantage over other one/s regardless of policy they are pushing for if a voter is indifferent between two candidate,s he votes for the candidate with the valence advantage (9 Slide 39)

The Spatial model: equilibrium

When both candidates announce platforms that are equal to the preferences of the voter whose preferences are the median of all voters' preferences, we have an equilibrium - no candidate wishes to change her platform (or else the other one would win) - all voters are indifference and flip coins to determine for whom to vote - both candidates have an equal chance of winning

caucus

a closed meeting of a political or legislative group to choose candidates for office or to decide issues of policy nominated presidential candidates during the second party system

superdelegate

a delegate to the Demoncratic National Convention who is eligible to attend because he or she is an elected party official. The Democrats reserve a specific set of delegate slots for party officials

PAC (Political action committee)

a federally registered fund-raising group that pools money from individuals to give to political candidates and parties

Another question: would we expect this relationship to be stronger or weaker if the incumbent party is running for a third term or more?

a good hypothesis is that all things being equal, voters are likely to penalize a party seeking a third consecutive term: Americans tend to like change incumbent party seeking third term or more receives lower vote at any economic growth rate another conclusion to be drawn: - the economy has a stronger effect on election results when the incumbent is seeking a second term

free riding & private goods

a government whose functions are largely limited to providing what are truly public goods is most clearly threatened by free riding and other collective action problems Democratic strengths are found in government provision of rival and exculdable private goods and resources (education, health care, social security) and government intervention to correct for market externalities and failures (environment, jobs, and poverty)

Regression line and describing relationships

a regression line not only provides a picture of the relationship between x and y its slope also tells us how much Y changes with a one-unit change in X

Hall and Anderson

advertising in the media by special interests seeking to influence the public and policymakers has grown describes recent trends and outlines the efforts of special interest groups to frame issues and mobilize public support for their causes looks at health policy less clear is the effect of issue advertising on legislators and policy outcomes prior to the Obama administration - authors demonstrate that the advertising was heavily stacked against health policy reform - that changed to a more equal balance in the early Obama administration, after it made significant concessions to business, when health care reform was adopted groups tend to advertise in areas where the public is likely to be attentive or can be made attentive summary: - issue ads may be strategically clever instruments of political advocacy - they may command media budgets in the millions of dollars - they may reach into the households of millions of Americans - but doesnt mean that ads have a net effect on the behavior of lawmakers, much less the shape of the laws that get made main advantage: group can promote its perspective with the public without its views being screened and interpreted by the regular news media or political elites

purposive benefits

advocacy representation before government participation in public affairs

nuclear option

an attempt by the presiding officer of the United States Senate to end a filibuster by majority vote, as opposed to 60 senators voting to end a filibuster.

new deal coalition

an electoral alliance that was the basis of Democratic dominance from the 1930s to the early 1970s. The alliance consisted of Catholics, Jews, racial minorities, urban residents, organized labor, and white southerners.

Millannials with race

attitudes and political behavior (especially in 2016) seemed to vary by race; minority of white millennials (46%) indicated preference for Clinton vs 70%+ among other categories advantage for Hilary among white millennials narrowed to only 3% vs Trump at close of 2016 elections Support for Bernie Sanders in the democratic primary has some explanatory power over millennial vote choice; many indicated intentions to not vote, or vote for third party candidates "white vulnerability" seems to have some explanatory power for Trump vote; seems to have both economic and racial component This construct of "white vulnerability" seems to also encapsulate elements of racial resentment and modern sexism, and thus provides a reasonable predictor of intention to vote for Trump - low white vulnerability has low chance of voting for Trump; high white vulnerability has about 52% of voting for Trump

Majoritarian system

award a legislative seat to the candidate that receives a plurality of votes in a constituency - maybe should be called "pluritarian"? - also known as "first past the post" plurality vs majority

proportional system

award seats to parties based on the proportion of all the votes they receive

Polarization

bimodal distribution with greater distance between peaks

Goal is to find the line that minimizes the errors

but for several reasons, including mathematical ease, we minimize the sum of all the squared errors that is, we find the line that minimizes the quantity the line that minimizes the errors will have a slope (b) and an intercept (a): y= a+bx

The mortgage interest tax deduction

can deduct interest on mortgages up to $1,000,000 AND interest on home equity loan up to $100,000 who benefits? with a $1,000,000 mortgage, homeowners can save $21,000 a year housing & lending industries love this higher house prices lead to bigger loans

Committee on rules

can report resolutions that, if adopted by a House majority, can bring bills and conference reports to the floor and limit debate and amendments

two main types of campaign organizations

candidate campaign committees party committees

who wins each primary?

candidates with platforms near the median of each the party's voters This leaves two candidates with left and right policy stances facing each other in the general election, their platforms more-or-less stuck in place

Time Pressure

chief source of Congress's authority: its power of the purse over government revenue raising and spending - if it fails to enact a federal budget in some form each year, large portions of the federal government have to shut down because its members substiantially exceeds that of Senate, house experiences organizationla problems more than senate does

informational benefits

conferences and publications professional contacts training programs coordination among organizations research legal help professional codes collective bargaining

Unpopular Congress

congressional approval has almost always been lower than presidential approval; has declined drastically since 2000s nevertheless, usually correlated with presidential approval contributed to partially by polarization, lack of cohesion regarding PR outreach, and factionalism Caveat larger body of individuals also inevitably lead to more scandals, ethical ensures, etc that end up reflecting on the entire institution

transaction costs

costs: price of doing politics- the time, effort, and bargaining resources that go into negotiating agreements the pressing need to reduce transaction costs explains why Congress does its work within an elaborate structure of rules and precedents

social disturbances

create common interests for groups of individuals, who then join forces to pursue those interests

Pew defines this cutoff as 1997 (millennials)

debatable

what if vote has to be held?

e.g.: budgets, popular outcry recall that agenda setters can typically decide what a vote will be about thus even in these circumstances, an agenda setter can have tremendous power by determining the proposal to be voted on p vs q in pair-wise vote - does M prefer p to q? Overall: So even in situations where a vote must be held, S still has a lot of power. In many scenarios, she's able to manipulate the vote to get exactly what she wants

Formulas for a and b that minimize the errors

equations are on 10 slide 42

Israeli Election Returns, 2015

example of proportional system 120 seats in Knesset: - 61 needed for majority - Every minor party can make demands and threaten to end the government

interest groups

expanding the expanding interest group universe also reflects the fragmentation of old interests and the growing division of labor among groups sharing the same broad goal.

Madion

factions could be destroyed only by - destroying the liberty - giving every citizen the same opinions - the same passions same interests

What else explains vote for Trump in 2016

feeling towards Obama (high values correlated with Clinton vote) feelings of political alienation (high values correlate with Trump vote) from other research: opioid deaths per capita, and 2 response to right wing authoritarianism (RWA scale)

Harvey (2016)

finds that the increased spending in these states.. - helped GOP candidates in state-legislatures and gubernatorial elections - led to a scare-off of Democratic candidates - Pushed GOP legislators towards the right

Mayhew (1991)

found instead that shifting public opinion, presidential cycles and issue coalitions (across left/ right divide) better-explained legislative productivity our political system is self-correction

solidary benefits

friendship networking opportunities

Source of money: who and how

grassroots, big donors, interest groups party committees + PACS (Political Action Committee) can coordinate spending super PACS cannot coordinate but can spend unlimited

Feedback effect

greater within-party discipline in one party encourages cohesion in the other party

Issue ownership

handling different subsets of consensus issues. Year in and year out, Americans consistently say they trust the parties to "handle" different subsets of consensus issues. Republicans: taxes, crime, deficit Democrats: education, environment, health care But do the parties' performances correspond to their ownership of issues? - Performance is completely unrelated to issue ownership. - It is very difficult to properly credit and blame the parties for their performance on an entire range of important consensus issues.

different effects in each house of Congress

house of reps: speeds up legislation via majority party discipline; minority party left with virtually no power - hastert rule senate: supermajority requirement creates incentives for minority party to stall legislation along partisan lines even if majority of Senate supports senate: rule changes once required even greater hurdle of 67 votes (2/3; "nuclear option" changes this) temporal increase in use of filibuster against nominations and legislative measures (Smith fig. 2)

Binder

how do we judge legislative performance? - argues that we need to know demand for legislation (via presidential proposals) in addition to supply - prior findings: divided government doesn't imply gridlock (and unified government doesn't imply productivity measure of gridlock: (number of failed measures) / number of salient issues on the agenda, based on NY Times editorials); Binder finds a longer-term trend of increased gridlock, though with much vacillation divided party control of Congress and presidency has significant consequences for our politics and policy outcomes

Margaret Susan Thomson

in addition to the unprecedented economic and social upheaval at the end of the Civil War, political conditions in the 1870s were also favorable to the formation of groups and, in particular, the lobbying of congress two factors were instrumental in the growth of congressional lobbying and interest group activity: - ascendancy of congressional power associated with impeachment against Johnson - growing heterogeneity of congressional costituencies

Party ID has a long lasting effect

in reality, very few votes are truly "up for grabs" in any presidential election. Most voters are partisan, and they dutifully vote for their party's candidate - (also true in congressional elections)

Bartels

in the late 1960s and 1970s the number of Americans willing to call themselves Democrats or Republicans declined, leading political scientists to speak of a dealignment and worry about the declining importance of parties - but picked up in 1990s explains the trend and describes importance of partisanship for the voting behavior party ID increased in the 80s and 90s and the correlation between party ID and presidential voting increased even more concludes that changes in the behavior of elected partisans - greater partisanship among presidents and members of Congress- may have contributed to resurgent partisanship in voting in the electorate but when the voting turnout for president improved, itt declined for Congress?

aggressive presidents and a weakened Congress

increased presidential powers in recent years due to crises/ delegation and assertion of executive authority "Theory of unitary executive," claimed by President GWB, asserts that the president can control all executive branch agencies even if law gives authority directly to department/ agency officials Incentives to delegate more power to president are greatest during emergencies and war little congressional re-assertion of power after Dems took Congress in 2006 due to gridlock, subsequent emergencies (ie financial crisis) blocking of presidential appointments continued under Obama administration

caveat

individual members of Congress/ senate are generally popular with constituents; everybody likes their own representatives, but hates the others

Selective benefits of interest group membership

informational benefits material benefits solidary benefits purposive benefits

insider tactics

interest group activity that includes normal lobbying on Capitol Hill, working closely with members of Congress, and contributing money to incumbents' campaigns. Contrasts with outsider tactics

collective action problem

interest groups must find a way to encourage people join and contribute in order to achieve their political goals.

Mancur Olson Jr.

introduced the fundamental dilemma of collective action when members of a group agree to work together to achieve a collective goal, each member as an individual faces powerful disincentives that can frustrate the efforts of the group as a whole for example, when each can foresee that his or her relatively small contribution to a collective enterprise will not affect its overall success, many will fail to contribute (free riding) and leave the burden of supplying the collective good. collective enterprises based on cooperation, and supported by the entire collectivity, nevertheless often fail

David Hume

it is natural for people to differ, and in differing, to form into factions

Sumptuary law

laws regulating personal behavior on moral or religious ground

resolving conflicts

legislation is not passed until the majorities in both houses agree to its passage

Three reservations temper such a conclusion

levels of legislative deadlock has steadily risen over the past half-century Even when Congress and the president muster agreement on a policy solution, such agreements sometimes manage to create new problems it is not clear whether current levels of polarization are going to subside anytime soon changes in the structure of electoral competition in recent decades likely alter lawmakers' calculations about coming to the bargaining table.

minimizing errors

like any other line, the line that minimizes the errors will have a slope (b) and an intercept (a) as in: y= a +bx using the formulas shown before, it can be calculated in our presidential election returns

Grassroot lobbying

lobbying conducted by rank-and-file members of an interest group

electoral systems

majoritarian proportional

Gerrymandering

manipulate the boundaries of (an electoral constituency) so as to favor one party or class. between the desire to maximize representation and to comply with voting rights law, strange maps have resulted.

The electoral connection

mayhew makes the basic, but critical point that the primary goal of most members of the Congress (MCs) is simply to get reelected if this goal isn't accomplished, then any other goals become difficult to achieve in theory, this goal should encourage Congress to aggregate preferences and (potentially) solve problems. But there are several institutional features that reduce this effect.

How Congressional elections work

members of the house (435) are elected by geographic district - each state has house members in proportion to its population, except -- small states are guaranteed at least one House members -- 4 states (AK, ND, VT, and WY) benefit under this rule; they each have less than 1/435th of the US population) - the system inevitably produces some distortion between votes and seats - Each state decides how districts are drawn -- most are drawn by the state legislature and governor -- about a dozen states delegate the drawing of districts to independent commissions

another assumption that is problematic: voters are at least somewhat myopic; not all of them think ahead to the general election

modelers tend to be uncomfortable with this assumption; it implies that voters are not strategic. This is why we tend to observe more centrist primary candidates reminding voters about the upcoming general election

plurality

more votes than cast for any other candidate

collective action group in interest groups

most political interest groups pursue collective goods that, by definition, all group members will enjoy whether or not they help provide them

basic problems of legislative organization

need for information coordination problems resolving conflicts collective action transaction costs time pressures

Baby boomers

nemeses of the millennials; Kids of returning wwii vets. Born 1945- early 1960s

Joseph Schlesinger

no more irresponsible government is imaginable than one of high-minded men unconcerned for their political futures

Individual-level vote choice

not everyone votes solely on the basis of the incumbent party's managing of the economy at the individual level, the most important factor determining someone's vote is his or her party ID

Erikson and Tedin

officeholders are driven by two often conflicting motivations: - winning elections - make good policy citizen attention is highly variable - responsese of politicians (with their mixed goals of election and policy) are also in between for the delegate model to work, the representative must have an incentive to choose the public's preference over his or her own having strong policy goals does not free representatives from electoral concerns citizens and politicians alike claim to reject the notion that elected officials should follow the wishes of their constituents even if those wishes are contrary to their own politicians who can influence voters toward their point of view enjoy a win-win situation; they win on policy and electorally

since politicians know that lobbists are advocates, when can they trust a lobbyist's information?

only when both sides expect to have a continuing relationship.

2016

over $6 billion was spent - roughly equally split between presidential and house+ senate This is about $200 per capita But many democracies can do it cheaper spent most on 1. lobbying 2. congress 3. house 4. senate

Partisan polarization and the vanishing middle

party polarization has a huge impact on how legislators represent their states: - In many ways, legislators are paying more attention to their parties than their constituents. Many states are in the middle of the political spectrum... ...but very few senators are in the middle.

parties

political parties are formed when people recognize it is in their best interests to cooperate despite their disagreements assembled and maintained by party leaders -but leaders cannot lead without effective means to resolve conflicts, coordinate actions, and induce members to cooperate when they are tempted to do otherwise

successful lobbying

political persuasion in its purest form: a lobbyist must get people to do what he or she wnats them to do by convincing them that the action serves their goal.

theory of the unitary executive

posits that the president can control the actions of all executive branch agencies, even when the law gives authority directly to department and agency officials

Why do corporations, uniona and other interest groups give at all? why do the form PACs? Why do they behave so stratically?

possible answers: interest groups give a little and get little money buys access, rather than policy directly interest groups seek to affect elections PACs coordinate individual donations and help overcome collective action problems even interest groups give for consumption

1950s partys

praised capitalism without qualification Arguments for progressive social policies relied on empathy, social responsibility, and impassioned appeals for aid, rather than attacks on privilege and power

Bush Theory of a unitary executive

president has direct authority over all parts of the executive branch - commander in chief: gives strong authority over the use of the armed forces - president is obligated to observe Congress's activity

selective incentives

private goods or benefits that induce rational actors to participate in a collective effort to provide a collective good.

possible reform?

problems likely have their roots in institutional design and broader social/political shifts rather than behavior of individual members; Congress won't be saved by Congressmen Smith argues that legislators can nevertheless take steps to improve the institution by more 5 day work weeks (rather than allowing members to adjourn for fundraising reelection incentives make this reform unlikely in short term Smith: filibuster reform would be helpful in senate; no constitutional basis for its use

Wright

provides an overview of the development of interest groups in America interest group form as a net result of two factors: - societal disturbances - collective action problems interest groups of regional or national scope as we know them today did not develop significantly until after the Civil War; even then, pronounced growth did not really begin to take place until the late 1800s.

Silent generation

really old people; born mid-1920s-early 1940s

What if we wanted to be able to say something about the amount of change in Y associated with a one percent increase in X?

regression lines a statistical software program draws a regression line by finding the line that minimizes the "mistakes" the line makes in predicting where the points lie on the plot

Outliers and the regression line

regression lines usually fail to predict Y perfectly with X In fact, Y's that are quite poorly predicted by the line (called outliers) are often of particular interest - natural interpretation would be that outliers are elections in which one candidate far outperformed economic expectations relative to the other. -- but, favorability/ valence advantage affects it as well

types of regulations

regulating spending vs contributions (e.g. Australia: none ; Canada: both) regulating the length of campaign / provision & banning of TV ads regulations on coordinating expenditures disclosure

1986 Thornburg decisipm

requires that legislative district lines not discriminate, even unintentionally

Institutions

rules or organizations that... - manage conflicts between political rivals - help them find solutions - make and enforce society's collective agreements Organizations: Congress, Presidency, courts Rules: the filibuster, the presidential veto, the Electoral College

Duverger's Law

single member district (SMD) plurality electoral system favors and leads to a two party system because voters are likely to behave strategically when they select candidates because they want their votes to count and because voters are less likely to vote for candidates or parties perceived as a waste of time

Why?

social upheaval of 1960s and early 1970s; conservative revival of 1980s might provide important contextual account corresponding regionalization of liberal/ conservative bases (ie GOP turn on the South) provided geographic context Changing composition of party elites (fwer moderates; more liberal/conservative) led to sorting from top-down; more within-party discipline and cohesion (Gingrich) - feedback effect Redistricting followed these changes and reinforced them by creating "safe red" and "Safe blue" districts where competition occurred among base voters at primary level - however, the Senate has also grown more polarized

Generation z

starts around late 90s/ early 00s

Senate

state each elect two senators at large over the years, the extent to which the state's representation in the Senate is disproportionate to their population has grown - but if senate seats were to he apportioned by population, most states would lose seats. (while a few would gain them)

Petrocik

suggest that issue ownership therefore lies in the parties' performance on issues candidates and their surrogates labor to generate media coverage of their party's owned issues during campaigns and that the party that succeeds more in these efforts wins a significant advantage in aggregate vote share

panel surveys

surveys that interview the same people over time

"handling" - Petrocik

the ability to resolve a problem of concern to voters. It is a reputation for policy and program interests, produced by history of attention, initiative and innovation toward these problems, which leads voters to believe that one of the parties (and its candidates) is more sincere and committed to doing something about them

economic growth and presidential election outcomes

the economic health of the nation is the most important predictor of which party's candidate wins US presidential elections Use scatter plot and regression line result: - increase in x is associated with an increase in Y

institutional features of Congress

the electoral connection the need for efficiency (solution: delegation of powers to leadership) the need for information (solution: specialization) agenda control all over the place how a bill becomes law

Agenda control

the extent to which an institutional actor (the agenda setter) is able to determine whether a vote will be held on a particular issue; what the vote will be about.

The modern mischievous factions

the framers envisioned a political system free from parties - they are, in fact, the "factions" Madison asserted caused nothing but "mischief" (Federalist #10) But by presidential election #3- as soon as George Washington departed from the scene- the nation's politicians and the public were aligning themselves into two camps. - madison was a chief instigator it's quite difficult for unaffiliated politicians to win elections against a coalition running on a party label. once one team mobilizes, the hter one must do so as well.

Abramowitz

the partisan polarization among american policymakers and the electorate reflects a policy that is deeply divided along racial, ideological, and cultural lines. argues that polarization is real and affects the competitiveness of elections. The forces that produced this polarization remain strong and, if anything, appear to be growing in strength - increase in polarization over issues and ideology

patronage

the practice of awarding jobs, grants, licenses, or other special favors in exchange for political support ended around twentieth century

Median Voter Theorem

the prediction of this model is that candidates should adopt relatively similar, centrist platforms when voters engage in issue voting, competition between two candidates has the effect of pushing the candidates' issue positions toward the middle of the distribution of voters' preferences

collective action

the problem is that what members do to pursue individual goals may undermine the reputation of their party or of Congress as a whole tension between individual and collective political welfare

Wright Summary

the proficiency that contemporary interest groups have achieved in attracting and maintaining members has evolved from a combination of factors most fundamental to their evolution has been a constitutional arrangement that has not only encouraged their participation but also created unanticipated opportunities for them to exert influence changing economic, social, and political circumstances have also played critical roles at various times throughout American history formation and maintenance of interest groups requires leadership and creative approaches for dealing with the natural inertia that individuals exhibit toward collective activities the # of groups continues to grow each year as does the diversity of the issues at viewpoints they represent

The main institutional rule that governs the number of parties found in a system is..

the type of electoral system

Binder: discussion and conclusion

there is a good deal of truth both to Mayhew's sanguine view and to Mann and Orstein's more dire analysis of the state of Congress and its legislative capacity Congress's recent legislative performance fits the well-established pattern from stalemale: when elections yield more polarized parties and chambers, bargaining is more diffcult and compromise is more often out of reach to the extent that recent Congresses fit the borader pattern established in the postwar period, we might be on safe groupd concurring with Mayhew that the recent imbalances during the Obama administration are not likey to be permanent, systemic problems

Fear of agenda setter's power

this is particularly true in budget policy, where agenda setter (s) are typically bureaucrats who want more money for their agencies than the public (m) wants to spend - e.g.: school referenda. School board (controlled by parents with kids in schools and teachers union) typically set p in an annual referendum bearing in mind that the power that comes with the ability to determine p, reformers often change the rules to specify a reversion point (r) that becomes law should p fail in a referendum - to limit the budget-maximizing power of the school board, reformers typically set r quite low. - r vs p

Overcoming filibuster

three fifths majority of all elected senators is required to invoke cloture (close debate) and get a vote to pass the bill two-thirds majority of senator voting is required to invoke cloture on legislation that changes the rules

coordination problems

traffic management: dividing up the work, directing the flow of bills through the legislatieve process, scheduling debates and votes on the floor members thus sacrifice a measure of their autonomy in return for the gains in efficiency accured by delegating agenda control to party leaders

material benefits

travel packages insurance discounts on consumer goods

strategic voting

voting for a second-choice candidate because your first-choice candidate is unlikely to win - is more likely in majoritarian than proportional system - leads majoritarian systems to tend toward two-party competition. --- a phenomenon known as Duverger's Law

Mann and Ornstein

we hope that Mayhew is right and that this difficult patch will prove to be routine, short term, and self-correcting... but we doubt it. These are perilous times and the political responses to them are quallitavely different from what we have seen before Republican party has forced our legislative machinery off the rails

positive agenda control

what the vote will be about you like this issue, you think you can put this on the congressional vote (I will bring up to the floor) (want to bring other idea to be voted) get things that your party agrees on the floor

conditions under which s prefers q to m

when the setter's ideal point s is closer to q than it is to m if you are the agenda setter and you prefer q to m, you are better off if you do not allow a vote to be held between q and m

Political parties

wherever there are democratic elections, there are political parties - This tends to be true even in non-partisan elections but note that parties usually don't appear in other electoral contexts, why?

negative agenda control

whether a vote will be held on a particular issue (don't put that on the floor) (not allowing the vote) keep things your party doesn't agree on or have support for off the floor