Congress Elections Paul Johnson Outline Table of Contents Section 1 Re-Read Constitution Terms of office * Senate: - 2 per state - "staggered" 6 year terms * House: - 2 year terms - apportioned by population - no more than 1 per 30,000 people Selection * House: “chosen by the People” means elections - Surprise: Art I does not require use of districts - State Legislatures choose time, place, & manner of elections * Senate: - Originally: state legislatures decide - Constitution later amended: popular elections Upper and Lower * Senate is the "upper" house, supposedly because it reflects "patient" "mature" judgment * House is "lower" house, closer to the people Section 2 Redistricting Apportionment * The House “reapportions” seats among states every 10 years * Current formula has been in use for 100 years * State governments do “re-districting” Redistricting * State legislatures: site of battles over gerrymandering - Texas legislators flee to Oklahoma! * Courts have become involved more often since 1964 ("one man, one vote") - Districts must be of roughly equal size - Everything else seems to be open for argument Gerrymandering * Gerrymandering: "playing politics" with re-districting Gerrymandering: HOWTO * Squeeze the opponents! Either - Spread opponents “thinly” across many districts, or - Concentrate them into a few districts * Assure friends have majority in many districts * Adjust boundaries to suit your “gambling instinct.” State of Kansas Apportionment 2002 Nicer Drawing 2012 Kansas State Legislature Stalemate * Republicans control state legis of KS, BUT division between moderate and conservative Repubs -> stalemate in legislature. * Federal district court rejected all proposals and announced new districts for state legislature and House districts New Districts Not So Obviously Gerrymandered Racial Representation and Redistricting * Should white faces dominate the legislature simply because whites make up 70% of the population? * If re-districting is racially motivated, a white majority can exclude other races. * This DID happen in some places, especially in the South. * Should districts be drawn to create “majority-minority” districts so that non-white candidates are more likely to win? * See http://www.adversity.net/special/gerrymander.htm Consider 12th District in NC * A “majority-minority” district * Has re-drawn and appealed “to the Supreme Court” 3 times * Great webpage about it: http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/ departments/scr/redist/redsum/NCSUM.HTM 1992 The I-85 district 1992 another picture 1997 court ordered revision 1998 court ordered revision Is this Beneficial for Blacks? I don't know! * YES: a black representative has been elected from this district * NO: it creates a “political ghetto”. It takes blacks out of other districts, thus freeing white politicians in those areas to become even more unsympathetic to the interests of blacks. * YES: blacks are predominantly Democratic in party affiliation, so electing a Democrat who is black does more meaningfully represent blacks * NO: whites who live in those districts may feel that their interests have been excluded on purpose Other Interesting Districts Other Interesting Districts Descriptive Representation vs Substantive Representation * Representation - Substantive: The topical interests (lib/cons, policy, etc) of people in an area should be representated - Descriptive: The races of representatives should “match” the racial composition of a state. (30% black should -> 30% black legislators) * Supreme Court supervises district lines, generally no longer allows states to use race-conscious gerrymanders (either to hurt or help racial minorities). * Court allows partisan redistricting, however, and so that creates some room to maneuver. Section 3 Incumbency Advantage & Campaigns Campaign Financing Recall: Federal Limits on donations to candidates by individuals * Corporations MAY NOT donate from corporate treasuries (can advertise separately) * Summary: for Congressional campaigns: - no spending limits - no federal funding * Incumbents have more money than challengers Things We Used To Know Campaign science 2 powerful findings Coattails effect: President's party gains seats in a presidential election year Referendum effect: President's party loses seats in a mid-term election Did I say "Used to?" Things we "know now" * The most important thing about House elections is the * Incumbency Advantage What is the Incumbency Advantage? * Incumbency worth 8-12% of vote today * Few "close" elections * House Re-election rate > 90% * Less turnover in House: "permanent majorities" (Democrats held majority 1956-1994) Big Puzzle You Hate Congress, but... love your Representative Another big puzzle Rising distrust in government & Washington goes along with... Rising safety of Congressional Incumbents! Why? Here's a big theme: * Congress has evolved into an institution which enhances the re-election chances of its members. But that does not mean you get “good public policy” What do MC's want? * 1. Re-election 2. Policy impact 3. Personal Prestige Changes in Congress * MC resources have grown (staff, mail, travel) * Rise of "constituent service" or "ombudsman role" of representatives * Rise in number of leadership positions * Distributive politics (pork barrel) Changes in Electorate * Weakening of voter party ID -> opportunity for other influences * Name recognition is much higher for incumbents than challengers St. legislature contributes * Gerrymandering can protect incumbents * Small homogeneous districts And Expectations Matter! * Fund-raising advantage of incumbents * Weak (poorly qualified) challengers (cause and effect?) Senators: not quite so safe * State = bigger, less predictable electorate * More attractive seat = better challengers * Challengers raise more money The Policy Problem Parochialism: "All politics is local" * Campaigns often focus on local, not national issues * Wasteful programs may be adopted in order to help re-election * Many MCs avoid “tough problems” for fear of losing re-election bid * Good policy is a “collective good” (remember the free-rider problem?)