Pathologies of Congressional Elections Large districts –Solution? Increase number of members in...
-
Upload
josephine-rich -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
1
Transcript of Pathologies of Congressional Elections Large districts –Solution? Increase number of members in...
Pathologies of Congressional Elections
• Large districts– Solution? Increase number of members in House
• Benefit: more responsiveness/more contact
• Costs: More collective action problems
• Incumbency advantage– Solution: term limits
• Benefit: more turnover
• Costs: lose experience/expertise; official would have little incentive to be responsive during last term
• Pork Barrel Politics
• Special Interest Influence
Are there better ways to elect Congress?
• Nebraska Model:
• Team Ticket:
• Term Limits:
• Proportional Representation:
• Increasing the size of the U.S. House:
Nebraska Model:
Unicameral Legislature
Why have a bicameral legislature?
County Representation?
Gridlock
Team Ticket:
-Vote for Party, not candidate
-Party/Issue centered campaigns
-Easier to vote, less information required
-Women and Minorities may find it easier to get elected
Term Limits
-Creates more “open” seats, therefore increases electoral competitions
-Women and Minorities have found it easier to get elected (more open seats)
-Legislators more likely to support policies for the good of their state, not just their district
-Only wealthy people can take time off of career and server for 2 terms.
-Do we want to make popular, hard working legislators leave?
-If you know you have to find a job next year, do you support legislation helpful to corporations hoping you will get a job?
-Weakens Parties, who becomes the party leader if you only stay on for 2, 3 terms. No one with institutional history of how things are done. Strengthens bureaucracy
Proportional Representation
What is it?:
What would need to be done?: Multiple members per district (at least 3)
Types of PR:
Mixed Member Proportional (SMPD & PR seats)
Single Transferable Vote (rank order)
Cumulative voting (multiple votes)
More Parties (oh no!!!)
Higher voter turnoutMore perspectives includedMore distinctive partiesParty/Issue centered elections/campaignsMore descriptive representationCitizens more satisfied
More polarizedMORE GRIDLOCK Give smaller parties too much
influenceUnstable Coalitions
Increase # of members in U.S. House
• Germany, Brazil, Russia, Japan, Mexico, Fance, Italy, UK, Poland, all have more members even though they have smaller populations
• Prior to 1915, the House grew in tandem with the population
• Only India (a nation of over 1 billion people) has more constituents per representative than the U.S.
• Has the U.S. become the second most “under-representative” democracy in the world?
Why did the U.S. House stop growing?
• House stopped growing in order to dilute the growing influence of immigrant voters (so new districts wouldn’t be created that might contain a majority of immigrants)
• Members felt they would have less influence if the House kept growing. Better to be one voice in a group of 435 then a voice in a group of 650.
• Must divide the “pie” into more pieces
Types of Reforms
• Transparency: Disclosure of sources of money and information
• Public Subsidies to parties
• Limits on expenditures and contributions
• Force networks to give reduced cost/free TV time
Transparency
• Citizens need to know the source of money and info to judge the legitimacy of information or policies (Quality information)
• Non-profit groups (527 groups) not required to follow disclosure requirements. (this may be changing)
• Issue ads – Republicans for Clean Air, Coalition for Student Loan Reform
Public Subsidies
• Benefit: Reduce dependence on large contributions to individuals
• Costs: Makes parties creatures of the state?
• Example: Minnesota
– 53% of publicly funded candidates win
– Citizen control ($50 rebate)
– Helpful to third parties (Jesse “the body” Ventura)
Limits on Spending and Expenditures
• Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act– No issue ads within 60 days of election
– Disclosure of source of funds for ads
– Limits contributions from certain PACs to candidates and parties
• Enforcement?: 1974 Federal Election Campaign Act
• Benefits:
Free TV ads
• Networks made almost $1 billion in 2000
• Charge candidates more than then the standard rates
• So? supply & demand or Airwaves belong to the people.
• Senator Torecelli (D-NY) proposal approved by Senate
• Broadcasters donated over $1.5 million and the House kills the proposal.
The American Policy Context
A. Separation of Powers
B. Limits to Popular Sovereignty
- Electoral College
- Indirect election of Senators
- Difficult to Amend Constitution
- Supreme Court – appointed/life term
C. Judicial Review
Decentralization vs. Centralization of Power
• Separation of Executive/Legislature
• Federalism
• Independent Courts
Separation of Power
A. Fragmentation of power-Legislature, executive, judicial branches
-Most western democracies have a more centralized form of government
-Presidential vs. Parliamentary system
-Judicial Review
B. Federalism:-Powers are also shared with the state and
local governments
-In contrast – Unitary system (e.g. Germany)
-Fed. Govt. has ”enumerated” or delegated powers
-What does that mean (heart of political debate)
ANALYIZING FEDERALISM
A. Alexis de Tocqueville (1831-2)
- nations need centralized power
- people prefer one central government
- too complicated to understand
- Majority of the Tyranny
- Reduces Military capacity
- Government too weak to intervene in internal conflicts (almost right)
-Incapable of adapting to growing diverse population
B. Ramifications of Federalism
- could increase representation
- reverse could be true (lower govt. captured)
- less quality/visible information on lower govts.
- less accountability
- lack of national standards = inequality
- “Laboratory of Democracy”
- Dispersed Costs/Concentrated Benefits
- Multiple Access Points – enhance democracy?