Parties and Leaders in Congress

GOV E-1351

Congress

• Self-organized

• Collective action problems

• Electoral motivations always present

• Trustee/delegate dilemma

• Uncertainty about match between policy instruments and policy outcomes

• Intercameral, interbranch bargaining

The History of Parties in Congress

• 1789-1823 (Cs. 1-17) – Federalists vs. Republicans

• 1824-1837 (Cs. 18-24) – Multifactionalism (all ``Republican'')

• 1837-1857 (Cs. 25-34) – Whigs vs. Democrats

• 1857-present (Cs. 35-110) – Republicans vs. Democrats

First Period (1789-1823)

• Federalists (Hamiltonians) were pro-development, Republicans (Jeffersonians) pro-states rights

• Republicans end up winning after Election of 1800, leading to the ``Era of Good Feelings''

Second Period: 1824-1837

• Republicans divided into factions– Evident in election of 1824 – (John Quincy Adams, William Crawford &

Andrew Jackson)

Election of 1824Candidate Party Electoral

VotePopular Vote

J.Q. Adams (MA) (Winner)

Democrat-Republican

84 115,696

Henry Clay (KY)

Democrat-Republican

37 47,136

A. Jackson (TN)

Democrat-Republican

99 152,933

William Crawford (GA)

Democrat-Republican

41 46,979

Third Period: 1837-1857

• Whigs and Democrats transcend regional loyalties

• Regional split (i.e., mostly slavery) leads to tensions: evident in 3rd parties

3rd Parties in Congress• Anti-Masonic: 1829-1841 (NY, PA

– Antielitist• Nullifier: 1831-1839 (SC)

– States’ rights• Unionist: 1861-1865 (South)

– Antisecession• American (Know-Nothing): 1845-61 (USA)

– Anti-immigrant• National (Greenback): 1879-89 (South, Midwest)

– Currency Reform (pro-inflation)• People’s (Populist): 1891-1903 (Prairie)

– Agrarian Reform• Progressive: 1913-1919 (Midwest, West)

– Political Reform• Farmer-Labor: 1925-1945 (MN)

– Economic Reform

4th Period: 1857-Present

• Republicans and Democrats have flipped on some issues (e.g., civil rights)

• House and Senate start to be organized in recognizable ways from 1865 on, particularly as the 20th Century begins

• Progressive movement important in jump-starting the 20th Century developments

65th Congress (1917-1919)

• Progressives hold pivotal seats, Dems have 215, Reps have 214

• Democrats garner small parties’ members support for Speaker vote, bargain leads to women’s suffrage, prohibition, direct election of Senate (17th-19th Amendments)

Why Only 2?

• (Mostly) Single-member districts in House, effectively single-member in Senate, clearly single-member in Presidency.

• Duverger’s Law: Single-member districts leads to 2-party competition in each district

• Canada, UK: localized Duverger. US: nationalized (via Presidency)

• Exception: India

Two “Powers of Party”

• Perks: jobs, legislative resources, committee assignments, campaign finance, etc.

• Process: legislative agenda, selection of roll call votes, conference committees

Perks

• Committees: assignments allocated by parties. Majority party overrepresented, and more so in the House.

• Leadership: committee chairs are always from the majority party. Committee (and subcommittee) chairs have special prerogatives

• Access to campaign finance resources

Process

• Rules: Rules committee in House heavily weighted in favor of majority party

• Recognition: majority leader of Senate has right of first recognition, Rules committee is privileged in House– Minority leader also has prerogatives in both

chambers

• Both chambers “police themselves”

Party Leadership: House

• Speaker (1)

• Floor leaders (2)

• Whips (2, w/ Deputies, some secret)

• Caucus (2: each hierarchical)

• Policy Committee (2: “pure committee”)

• Committee on Committees (2)

• Campaign Committees (2)

Party Leadership: Senate

• President (1: Vice-President of USA)• President pro tempore (1: majority party)• Floor leaders (2)• Whips (2, w/ Deputies, some secret)• Caucus (2: each hierarchical)• Policy Committee (2: “pure committee”)• Committee on Committees (2)• Campaign Committees (2)

Party Activity

• Information, attendance: whip system• Bargaining

– Intercameral: Conference committee (Speaker & Majority Leader of Senate)

– Intracameral: Party caucuses (only majority party in House), Whip system

• Agenda setting, legislative process– Rules Committee in House, – Majority Leader in Senate (UCAs)

Leadership, Compromise & Direction

• “Boston-Austin” (Dems: 1940s-1980s)– House Compromise– Starts to break down in early 1970s– Civil rights/realignment

• Main Street-Wall Street partnership– Senate: Midwest and CA/East coast split – Starts to fail because of southern Republicans

Parties in Action

• “Party Unity” on voting– Declines from 1880s through to 1970s– Back on the upswing– Problems with this measure

• Party or Ideology?

• Polarization?

• Party pressure only on close votes?– 1900: 73%, 1970s-1980s: 35%, 1990s: 60%

Agenda Control

• Voting only occurs with majority assent• “Gatekeeping” or Negative Agenda Control• Roll Rates: majority of party votes on

losing side of a roll call vote– Majority rate always low since reconstruction– Minority rates:

• High: Reconstruction->World War I• Medium: World War I->World War II• Low (but varying): World War II->Present

Conclusions

• Hierachical organizations help solve collective action problems

• Electoral incentives

• “Influence of party” a slippery concept

• Perks and process basis of any “power of party” in Congress

• Duverger’s Law – 2 party competition

Benefits of Parties

• Coordination• Incentives for effort (committees,

campaign finance)• Electoral signaling (issue ownership, low-

cost cue for voters)• Conditional Party Government Hypothesis

– Party caucus can attempt to “bind itself” in the face of temptation to vote against long-term interests