Divided government
Why is it that you get divided government? (Theories)
1. Incumbency advantage (tied up in both redistricting and then professionalization of the house in particular, but also applies to the senate). - insulates the legislature the argument is that the legislature is less responsive to popular will. 2. Balancing theory - voters intentionally want divided government 3. Differential issue criteria (All offered as explanations for why you get divided government)
Why we get divided government? (Incumbency advantage)
1. Insulation of the house prevents realization of popular electoral trends. (Kind of makes members immune to, or at least less susceptible to broad national trends) we draw the districts in a way to protect incumbents. Create a small # of competitive districts but protect all their friends and buddies by putting them in districts where 58%-59% of the district is the same partisan reflection as the member. (Republicans in Republican districts vice versa) isolate the competitor seats to a vary narrow few that way the trend isn't enough to wash away Republican/democrat members from their particular districts. 2. Empirical evidence doesn't support this argument. (Problem) - Democrats tending to win open-seat races in the 1980s and 1990s despite not having incumbency advantages. (Democrats majority party, democrats didn't just win districts that had been hand drawn or incumbents running in the election, but they did really well in open seats). - Republicans tended to win these races in the 2000s. (Massive oscillations in control of the house and senate) democrats wining majority 2000 - 2008. Oscillation: movement back and forth at a regular speed.
What are the turnover rates in the house?
• Turnover rates are much higher in the house than the incumbent reelection rates and that's kind of consequential.
What is divided government?
"When one party controls the executive but NOT both chambers of the legislature." Ex. If you got the presidency and the house but not the senate you still have divided government. *Please go back to the lecture April 27 2021 0:00 - 20:00(not much notes)*
Why does party government presume?
(The notion of party government) • Britain is the classic example. • There is no executive independent of the legislature in Great Britain. • You have the majority in commons you control the apparatus of government in Great Britain. There's party government. • what Political scientist like about this is the obvious accountability the majority party has at the polls. - you control all branches of government and the voters look at the condition of the country in the way things are going and it's almost a referendum on the majority party. - complete control of the legislative & executive apparatus of government is considered party government.
Why do we care about divided government?
1. Divided government thwarts "responsible" party government. 2. Divided government is inefficient.
Why do political scientist like party government?
Because of this notion of: 1. Accountability 2. Responsibility • it is easier for voters to kind of make choices and hold people accountable.
What was the evidence we were looking for in the incumbency advantage theory?
Evidence that democrats should of been washed away in 1984 and 1988 (bc it was kind of big Republican election years) but they hung on bc even though Reagan won by 15 points they were packed into these 16-17-20 point districts and so they were able to hold on. (They did win most of those, but also won a lot of races where they weren't incumbents they were just open seat elections and the democrat candidates did really well) • Mid 90s-2000s republicans tended to do better in this races (when republicans held redistricting power in a lot of states and drew the districts to advantage themselves in 2000s and 2010s also did really well in open seat races). *** SO, you can't offer incumbency advantage as the only explanation for the majority party hanging on when you know majority party also won a bunch of open seats races.
What can incumbency advantage not do?
Explain the outcome and open seat elections.
Comparison of Texas Model v California Model. Which state is in a better position to take advantage of economic, technical, and social changes:
It's suggest that because Texas has limited government Texas has all sorts of problems in terms of healthcare and education. The argument is: where Texas loses in that comparison to addressing problems, they got a blank slate a lot of place to build if they choose too. The political point is Texas is trending in a more of a competitive direction which puts an emphasis on the argument, compromise, reaching some accommodation between left and right whereas, California is becoming less and less competitive. Consider possibility of one party rule and it's implications for public policy for policy innovation. (Remember to go to the beginning of April 27 lecture missed info)
What happens to the presidents party after the election?
They tend to lose seats in the immediate subsequent election.
History of identified periods where you had a particular kind of divided or unified government.
Unified under the democrats/republicans. • We have a unified government right now - Kamala casting tie breaking in the senate. Other examples: 2009-2010, 2021-2022: unified (democrats) 1919-1921: divided: presidency/house: democrats, senate: Republican. 2011-2014: divided: presidency/senate: democrats, house: republicans 2015-2016: divided: presidency: democrat, senate/house: republicans 1911-1913: divided: presidency/house: republicans, senate: democrats. 1938-1988: divided: presidency/senate: republicans, house: democrats 2007-2008: divided: presidency: republicans, house/senate: democrats 2001, 2003-2006, 2017-2018: unified (republicans)
Example of voters intentionally splitting their ballots to achieve divided government: (balancing theory)
When an individual votes for Joe Biden (Democrat) in 2020, but vote John Cornyn (Republican) in the senate because they don't want Biden to have complete control of the senate. Therefore, I'm going to get divided government and it's going to keep any one actor from doing crazy stuff.)
What is the idea behind checks and balances? (According to political scientist)
• Checks and balances the differentiation separation of powers in the U.S makes party government less likely and therefore make selections a little less the mechanism for accountability.
What's an example of the incumbency advantage theory?
• Congressional district 23 in Texas. • It is a nominally Republican district (+1 closest you can get without being a toss up). • Individuals were sure Will Hurd (won 2014) would lose in 2016, and 2018 but he won in both. • You could say isn't that incumbency value or wasn't it drawn in a way to protect a Republican incumbent? - certainly was not drawn to protect a Republican incumbent and the democrats target every single election but they couldn't quite push it over. • Is this an example of incumbency advantage? - maybe, but it's not really a redistricting story it's not like they crafted a Republican district.
As Republicans have come to dominate state legislators what have they created?
• Deeper set of candidates that they can plug into house races when opportunities become available, and they do well running even though they're not incumbents.
What does Jacobson say about divided government during the Reagan years? (Differential issues theory)
• Doesn't it make sense that voters would simply have different issue criteria that they bring to the table when they're voting for governor or president than when they vote for house and senate.
Where does the third explanation come from? (Differentia issues)
• Gary Jacobson • Late 1980s/early 1990s Jacobson was looking for an explanation for a specific form of divided government. • That is, republicans success in executive elections and democrats success in legislative elections **** (written during Reagan years where republicans win the presidential elections, but tend to lose the house and senate). • Prof Shaw really likes this theory.
Why have republicans done well in these house races (2000s- incumbency advantage lack of evidence) is it because they redistricted in a way to insulate themselves from this democratic majority?
• If republicans had done a really good job of redistricting it did not appear this way after the 2006 and 2008 elections where they got wiped out. • They lost 64 seats in the 2006 election. • Whatever insulation they had created was completely overwhelmed by the partisan complexion of that particular election. • Rep win them back in 2010 and 2014 but then lose them back in 2016 and 2018.
What was the point of the (incumbency advantage) example of the congressional district 23 in Texas?
• Incumbency value exist. (It's a little bit of the story to why you don't get unified government more often, it does seem to protect the incumbent party, BUT the effect is not huge). • Shaw doesn't think any other Republican would of won that district. • Will Hurd won, but Shaw does NOT think it was a reflection of gerrymandered district that created value for republicans.
What is Jacobson saying in a generic form? (Differential issues)
• Is it possible that voters have slightly different sets of criteria that they bring for judicial v. executive v. legislative offices? • Is it possible that those criteria could have partisan consequences?
The notion of party government v divided government: and why should we care?
• Is one reason why we care about divided government as a topic Reasons: 1. Is it the case that divided government somehow makes elections less a mechanism for controlling officials for exercising accountability. 2. Is the notion that divided government is inefficient is sort of synonymous with gridlock can't get anything done. (Gotta give you control of the house and the senate otherwise I can't get anything done).
How common is unified v divided government?
• Party government is much more common than divided government (1800-1955): 110 years. • Party government it ebbs and flows (1955-1980) divided government is slightly more common than unified government. • Divided government is the norm (1981-2000) very little party government over this period of time. • the last 20 years it's been a little bit of party government and a little bit of divided government. (president comes in wins a majority and then does something and then immediately loses the majority). (Some info missed refer back to lecture April 27)
What's the evidence in favor of balancing theory?
• People actually say they do this, but there's not a lot of evidence that people think strategically like this (vote to ensure a divided government). • Also this requires a level of sophistication we just don't think people typically bring to the table. • Great theory but destroyed by the absence of data.
What does professor say about incumbency advantage?
• Shaw is NOT saying incumbency advantage doesn't matter. • BUT there's some suggestive evidence that there is something else going on it's not just incumbents winning elections. • However, incumbents win at overwhelming rates. • If incumbents win the primary and they advance to the general election they almost always win.*** (a lot of them retire or are beaten before the general election) • Shaw does NOT think this is a comprehensive successful explanation for divided government - yes the incumbency advantage prevents them (candidates) from being susceptible to these national tides. It's a factor it's just not a dominant factor.
Why did democrats in the 80s and 90s win even in the face of national tides in favor of the republicans?
• They ran better candidates • They had better issue positions (during the Reagan years) - House members (democratic) were taking positions for empathy for social welfare positions to knock the edges off the meanness/excess policies towards the poor. (Reagan's policies) • The rise of professional state legislatures creates pool of potential candidates. - Democrats dominated the state legislatures and had this great pool because of their staffers as well as the state legislatures, and a great pool of candidates to plug into races when incumbents retired. (Farm system)
What is the differential issues theory?
• Voters gave different issue criteria for executive elections compared to legislative elections. • Voters prefer republicans in executive races. • Voters prefer democrats in legislative races.
What is the balancing theory?
• Voters intentionally split their ballots to achieve divided government. (Voters want divided government) • Rational choice perspective. • Seems unlikely, although the number of voters necessary to make this work is relatively small.
What is Jacobsons argument? (Differential issues)
• What we want executives to do is to balance budgets, enforce the law, be tough against foreign adversaries etc. • Argues that republicans tend to have more credibility and appeal when we're talking about executive offices. Whereas in legislative offices (healing the planet, protecting the poor, caring for the elderly, educating children, we prefer democrats). • Argues that legislative v. consecutive races brought a different balance of considerations into play. (Such that republicans are somewhat favored in executive, democrats somewhat favored in the legislative).
What is unified government?
• You've got to go three for three to have unified government. Executive, senate, house. Anything short is divided government.
2024 electoral college census data
• census data ate critical for purposes of reaportioning (updating representation in the U.S congress (the house of representatives) based on poplution shifts that occurred over the last 10 years. • states losing representation, losing single congressperson, a single district, and consequently one electoral vote. (When you lose population) Ex. California, illionois, michigan, ohio, west virgina, pennsylvania, new york all going to lose a single seat and single vote in the electoral college. • States going to gain seats (increased population) are oregan, montana, colorado, north carolina, florida all gain a single representatives but IN texas it gaines 2 representatives.
