Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Monday, October 02, 2006
Friday, September 29, 2006
Congress Quiz
Congress Quiz: Answer Key
In recent years, the rate of re-election for representatives seeking to return to service in the U.S. House of Representatives is about
a. 35 percent.
b. 55 percent.
c. 75 percent.
d. 95 percent.
ANS: D; REF: Page 177
This is a key feature of Congress and a major difference between the House and the Senate. House members can in effect “choose” their voters, rather than the other way around. More importantly, House elections are about local issues and what the member has done for the district. Because turnout is so low in House elections and voters chose on the basis of purely local issues, a member can usually put together a stable, winning coalition just on the basis of a district specific spending projects and helping people solve minor problems with the Federal Bureaucracy, like your Grandmother’s social security check. That is why House members devote 2/3 of their staff to constituency service.
A bill's opponents generally prefer that the Rules Committee decide to use
a. an open rule.
b. a closed rule.
c. a termination rule.
d. a commencement rule.
ANS: A; REF: Page 197
This follows from the discussion of the Arrow Impossibility Theorem we worked through in class Friday. An “open rule” would mean that someone could always propose a new alternative, a new bill to vote on (by introducing a new bill or, more commonly, amending the current one) and create a new winning coalition. Almost all the important, i.e., money bills in the House are introduced under a closed rule.
A rule allowing a three-fifths majority of U.S. Senators to set a time limit on debate over a given bill is called
a. Cloture
b. preemption.
c. a closed rule.
d. legislative veto.
ANS: A; REF: Page 198
i.e., providing “closure” to the debate. The word cloture is just the fancier sounding Latin version of the word.
A congressional representative’s statement to his or her legislative colleague that “I’ll support your bill if you’ll support mine” is an example of
a. whipping.
b. logrolling.
c. distributive tendency.
d. interest group bargaining.
ANS: B; REF: Page 210
Note how this often grows out of members having radically different concerns, the member from one district cares about farm products, the member from another wants a parking garage downtown. A coalition is a group of people that want to do the same thing for different reasons.
Reforms that may make Congress better able to act, such as strong central leadership, reduction of the number of committees and subcommittees, and retention of members with seniority and experience, should also make Congress much more representative.
ANS: F; REF: Page 168
Again, follows from the logic of the impossibility theorem and Principle 4. The group that can make a decision ends up having a dictator.
Among the most fervent supporters of creating districts in which members of racial minorities have decisive majorities were white Republicans.
ANS: T; REF: Page 182
Almost no one got this. The court decided that having more minority representatives was the goal of policy. This is best accomplished by having “majority-minority” districts, i.e., districts where a majority of the voters are minority members. Drawing districts this way insures that there are a good number of African American House members (around 10%, as opposed to only one African American in the Senate), most of whom win their districts by huge margins, but it also insures that there are more Republicans overall in the House than there would otherwise be.
36. Under Senate rules, members have a virtually unlimited ability to propose amendments to a pending bill.
ANS: T; REF: Page 198
This is why running the Senate is like “Herding Cats,” in Senator Lott’s memorable phrase.
In recent years, the rate of re-election for representatives seeking to return to service in the U.S. House of Representatives is about
a. 35 percent.
b. 55 percent.
c. 75 percent.
d. 95 percent.
ANS: D; REF: Page 177
This is a key feature of Congress and a major difference between the House and the Senate. House members can in effect “choose” their voters, rather than the other way around. More importantly, House elections are about local issues and what the member has done for the district. Because turnout is so low in House elections and voters chose on the basis of purely local issues, a member can usually put together a stable, winning coalition just on the basis of a district specific spending projects and helping people solve minor problems with the Federal Bureaucracy, like your Grandmother’s social security check. That is why House members devote 2/3 of their staff to constituency service.
A bill's opponents generally prefer that the Rules Committee decide to use
a. an open rule.
b. a closed rule.
c. a termination rule.
d. a commencement rule.
ANS: A; REF: Page 197
This follows from the discussion of the Arrow Impossibility Theorem we worked through in class Friday. An “open rule” would mean that someone could always propose a new alternative, a new bill to vote on (by introducing a new bill or, more commonly, amending the current one) and create a new winning coalition. Almost all the important, i.e., money bills in the House are introduced under a closed rule.
A rule allowing a three-fifths majority of U.S. Senators to set a time limit on debate over a given bill is called
a. Cloture
b. preemption.
c. a closed rule.
d. legislative veto.
ANS: A; REF: Page 198
i.e., providing “closure” to the debate. The word cloture is just the fancier sounding Latin version of the word.
A congressional representative’s statement to his or her legislative colleague that “I’ll support your bill if you’ll support mine” is an example of
a. whipping.
b. logrolling.
c. distributive tendency.
d. interest group bargaining.
ANS: B; REF: Page 210
Note how this often grows out of members having radically different concerns, the member from one district cares about farm products, the member from another wants a parking garage downtown. A coalition is a group of people that want to do the same thing for different reasons.
Reforms that may make Congress better able to act, such as strong central leadership, reduction of the number of committees and subcommittees, and retention of members with seniority and experience, should also make Congress much more representative.
ANS: F; REF: Page 168
Again, follows from the logic of the impossibility theorem and Principle 4. The group that can make a decision ends up having a dictator.
Among the most fervent supporters of creating districts in which members of racial minorities have decisive majorities were white Republicans.
ANS: T; REF: Page 182
Almost no one got this. The court decided that having more minority representatives was the goal of policy. This is best accomplished by having “majority-minority” districts, i.e., districts where a majority of the voters are minority members. Drawing districts this way insures that there are a good number of African American House members (around 10%, as opposed to only one African American in the Senate), most of whom win their districts by huge margins, but it also insures that there are more Republicans overall in the House than there would otherwise be.
36. Under Senate rules, members have a virtually unlimited ability to propose amendments to a pending bill.
ANS: T; REF: Page 198
This is why running the Senate is like “Herding Cats,” in Senator Lott’s memorable phrase.
Monday, September 25, 2006
Lecture Notes
Since I did not get through everything I wanted to talk about I am posting my lecture notes. If they don't make sense in this form feel free to ask me about them in class or in an email.
Congress:
What we want you to do is learn to ask questions like a political scientist. To do that you have to first decide that something is worth explaining.
In the case of the revolution and constitution chapter we had the fact that the richest and lowest taxed people in the world revolted over taxes so they could increase taxes on themselves. Notice that the RA model that the authors push does not do that great a job explaining it. Maybe we need another model.
We looked at the courts. The thing that needed to be explained there was the power of the courts. Why? Because the courts seem to defy the logic of a majoritarian system that would vest power in the median voter and instead gives power to a particular institution. Because it had no precedent in the British system or the world. Because it wasn’t written in the text of the constitution or envisioned by its authors. Because it seems to defy our normal understanding of R/D power in that the courts don’t have an army or anything they can take away from the political branches unless the political branches agree to it. The RA explanation model offered a good story of the short-sightedness of Madison in taking Marshall’s offer of letting him make appointments in exchange for letting Marshall interpret the constitution. But Tocqueville offers a different explanation.
Now we are at the Center of American government, the Congress. What needs to be explained here? What is different or odd about it? Well, the question can be posed as a number of comparisons, a number of things that one might reasonably expect the Congress to be similar to but in fact is not similar to.
Britain. Our Congress was designed by Englishmen who were almost all members of congresses that were patterned on the British Parliament. They have the same culture, language and legal tradition.
Other former colonies (Australia, Canada, New Zeland) are basically like the Mother country instead of us.
Other Congress/President (as opposed to Parliamentary systems) such as in most of Latin America and, well, not that many other places. The Countries of South America have Congresses but they are much weaker than ours; most of the power lies with the President. Other places that have Presidents are really parliamentary systems with a ceremonial head of state, just as the Queen of England is now mainly ceremonial (though she in fact has a lot of powers if she ever feels like using them).
The ideals of Classical Republicanism. The debate, deliberation and group decision making that one might have expected from people that patterned themselves after the ancients. Moreover, the equality that one would have expected has been replaced by hierarchical bureaucracy, that has no place in the Greek ideal or the text of the Constitution. There is little of the open debate that actually determined events in Greece (Themestocles and the Spartan Admiral).
The formal document: the powers given the Congress in the Constitution seem to be much more formidable than the body we see today. Externally it seems to have less power. At the same time, the formal document gives no hint of the internal hierarchy that determines most decision making in Congress.
The founders’ (Federalists) scheme: they thought that the house would be the most vulnerable to popular pressure and therefore closest to the median voter and the quickest to respond to changes in popular opinion. Accordingly they expected it to be the Congress to have the highest turnover and the most popularity. In fact, it has the lowest turnover and is profoundly unpopular.
History: at one time the Congress was what the Founders expected. It ran the country, it declared war and actually conducted them (though not very well—ask Jimmy Madison). It governed, making appointments. Lincoln’s speeches.
The expectations of resource dependency power theory (or, ‘the golden rule’): you would expect the institution that has discretion over almost all key resources would be the most powerful (which it may be) and seen as such (which it almost never is). This is the key question in American Government. Congress is filled with people that point the finger and run the investigations, but is it the real power? Does it just pretend to be powerless so it can do a Claude Raines? (I’m shocked! Shocked to find construction money not being spent on levees, torture, NSA spying). Is it just maintaining plausible deniability?
What causes all this? Demands of information? Demands of decision theory? Collective action’s effects on interest group politics? Human psychology? Institutional Competition in the face of historical contingency? (growth, war).
Do interest groups buy votes?
Why do House members have higher re-election rates than Senators? Why is Barak Obama different from Cynthia McKinney?
Why do Americans love to hate Congress? Tocqueville’s answer (Hibbing and These-Morris)?
Why is the Congress more afraid of used car sales men and funeral directors than millionaires?
Congress:
What we want you to do is learn to ask questions like a political scientist. To do that you have to first decide that something is worth explaining.
In the case of the revolution and constitution chapter we had the fact that the richest and lowest taxed people in the world revolted over taxes so they could increase taxes on themselves. Notice that the RA model that the authors push does not do that great a job explaining it. Maybe we need another model.
We looked at the courts. The thing that needed to be explained there was the power of the courts. Why? Because the courts seem to defy the logic of a majoritarian system that would vest power in the median voter and instead gives power to a particular institution. Because it had no precedent in the British system or the world. Because it wasn’t written in the text of the constitution or envisioned by its authors. Because it seems to defy our normal understanding of R/D power in that the courts don’t have an army or anything they can take away from the political branches unless the political branches agree to it. The RA explanation model offered a good story of the short-sightedness of Madison in taking Marshall’s offer of letting him make appointments in exchange for letting Marshall interpret the constitution. But Tocqueville offers a different explanation.
Now we are at the Center of American government, the Congress. What needs to be explained here? What is different or odd about it? Well, the question can be posed as a number of comparisons, a number of things that one might reasonably expect the Congress to be similar to but in fact is not similar to.
Britain. Our Congress was designed by Englishmen who were almost all members of congresses that were patterned on the British Parliament. They have the same culture, language and legal tradition.
Other former colonies (Australia, Canada, New Zeland) are basically like the Mother country instead of us.
Other Congress/President (as opposed to Parliamentary systems) such as in most of Latin America and, well, not that many other places. The Countries of South America have Congresses but they are much weaker than ours; most of the power lies with the President. Other places that have Presidents are really parliamentary systems with a ceremonial head of state, just as the Queen of England is now mainly ceremonial (though she in fact has a lot of powers if she ever feels like using them).
The ideals of Classical Republicanism. The debate, deliberation and group decision making that one might have expected from people that patterned themselves after the ancients. Moreover, the equality that one would have expected has been replaced by hierarchical bureaucracy, that has no place in the Greek ideal or the text of the Constitution. There is little of the open debate that actually determined events in Greece (Themestocles and the Spartan Admiral).
The formal document: the powers given the Congress in the Constitution seem to be much more formidable than the body we see today. Externally it seems to have less power. At the same time, the formal document gives no hint of the internal hierarchy that determines most decision making in Congress.
The founders’ (Federalists) scheme: they thought that the house would be the most vulnerable to popular pressure and therefore closest to the median voter and the quickest to respond to changes in popular opinion. Accordingly they expected it to be the Congress to have the highest turnover and the most popularity. In fact, it has the lowest turnover and is profoundly unpopular.
History: at one time the Congress was what the Founders expected. It ran the country, it declared war and actually conducted them (though not very well—ask Jimmy Madison). It governed, making appointments. Lincoln’s speeches.
The expectations of resource dependency power theory (or, ‘the golden rule’): you would expect the institution that has discretion over almost all key resources would be the most powerful (which it may be) and seen as such (which it almost never is). This is the key question in American Government. Congress is filled with people that point the finger and run the investigations, but is it the real power? Does it just pretend to be powerless so it can do a Claude Raines? (I’m shocked! Shocked to find construction money not being spent on levees, torture, NSA spying). Is it just maintaining plausible deniability?
What causes all this? Demands of information? Demands of decision theory? Collective action’s effects on interest group politics? Human psychology? Institutional Competition in the face of historical contingency? (growth, war).
Do interest groups buy votes?
Why do House members have higher re-election rates than Senators? Why is Barak Obama different from Cynthia McKinney?
Why do Americans love to hate Congress? Tocqueville’s answer (Hibbing and These-Morris)?
Why is the Congress more afraid of used car sales men and funeral directors than millionaires?
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
For your information
The question of who bought Alaska came up in class a few days ago for some reason and an enterprising student went to the trouble to look it up:
For your enjoyment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska#History
U.S. Secretary of State William Seward thus urged, and the United States Senate thus approved, the treaty authorizing the purchase of Alaska from Imperial Russia for US$7,200,000 on April 9, 1867. The United States took possession and the American flag was raised over Alaska on October 18, which is commemorated as Alaska Day.
Russia still used the Julian Calendar in 1867, and the world had not yet been divided into standard time zones; thus, there was no international date line, and the day began in the morning instead of starting at midnight. So, while the American day now ends with sunset in western Alaska, the Russian day then started with sunrise in "eastern" Alaska. Thus, Friday, October 6, 1867, the day before the physical transfer of ownership, was followed by Friday, October 18, 1867 - which was Saturday, October 7, 1867 in Russia. The change in date was due to America bringing the Gregorian Calendar to Alaska, while the lack of change in day resulted from Alaska's shift from being the starting point of the Russian day to being the ending point of the American day.
The purchase was unpopular in the United States, where it became known as "Seward's Folly" or "Seward's Icebox." Alaska celebrates the purchase each year on the last Monday of March, calling it Seward's Day.
For your enjoyment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska#History
U.S. Secretary of State William Seward thus urged, and the United States Senate thus approved, the treaty authorizing the purchase of Alaska from Imperial Russia for US$7,200,000 on April 9, 1867. The United States took possession and the American flag was raised over Alaska on October 18, which is commemorated as Alaska Day.
Russia still used the Julian Calendar in 1867, and the world had not yet been divided into standard time zones; thus, there was no international date line, and the day began in the morning instead of starting at midnight. So, while the American day now ends with sunset in western Alaska, the Russian day then started with sunrise in "eastern" Alaska. Thus, Friday, October 6, 1867, the day before the physical transfer of ownership, was followed by Friday, October 18, 1867 - which was Saturday, October 7, 1867 in Russia. The change in date was due to America bringing the Gregorian Calendar to Alaska, while the lack of change in day resulted from Alaska's shift from being the starting point of the Russian day to being the ending point of the American day.
The purchase was unpopular in the United States, where it became known as "Seward's Folly" or "Seward's Icebox." Alaska celebrates the purchase each year on the last Monday of March, calling it Seward's Day.
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Congressional Races
Here is an interesting post on Congressional Races from Larry Sabato, the best predictor of election outcomes in the business.
Larry Sabato on Congressional Races
Larry Sabato on Congressional Races
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)