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

Redistricting

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)

Who do you trust?

• National

• State

• Local

• Elected/Unelected

• Reform/Changes?

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?

C. Federalism and Modern Politics

- Eisenhower and the dictatorial centralization

- Johnson’s Great Society

- Nixon’s New Federalism

- Carter – new agencies (Energy & Education)

- Reagan and General Revenue Sharing

- Clinton – National Health Care

- Centralized solutions to problems v. Devolution