Origins and Development of Congress

17.251/252 Fall 2004 Congressional Historical Eras and Electoral Discontinuities

Critical periods 1812-20 1860-65 1896-1912 1964-1968

1800 1850 1900 1950 2004

Experimental Democritizing Civil War Textbook Post-Reform Congressional systems 1789-1812 (Experimental system) Electoral dynamics Organizational dynamics

During During Rules Comms. Party leadership critical cong’l period system -Elite -Floor -Ad hoc -Loose formal electorate supreme select organization (Table 3.2) -”previous q” comms. -Feds vs. developed in dominate Reps. the House 1812-20 (Transition from Experimental to Antebellum systems)

• -Electorate expands • -Federalists discredited • -Slavery now an issue • -Napoleanic Wars end 1820-60 (Antebellum system) Organizational dynamics Electoral dynamics Rules Comms. Party leadership

-Mass electorate Committees -Standings -Regional divisions -Whigs vs. Dems. take agenda dominate complicate control selects Speakership -comm selection (next chairs slide) compete w/ -Senate leadership Speaker remains weak Balloting for Speaker

Candidates receiving votes Cadidates receiving 10 or more votes

10 Number of candidates of Number

0 1800 1820 1840 1860 1880 1900 Year Balloting for Clerk

10 Number of ballots Number

0 1780 1800 1820 1840 1860 1880 1900 Year Winning Speaker La rges t party

Year Cong. Ballots Name, State Party Name Pct. 1825 19 2 John W. Taylor, N.Y. Adams Adams 51.2

1827 20 1 Andrew Stevenson, Va. Jackson Jackson 53.1 1829 21 1 Andrew Stevenson, Va. Jackson Jackson 63.8

1831 22 1 Andrew Stevenson, Va. Jackson Jackson 59.2 1833 23 1 Andrew Stevenson, Va. Jackson Jackson 59.6

1834 23 10 John Bell, Tenn. Jackson “ “ 1835 24 1 James K. Polk. Tenn. Jackson Jackson 59.1

1837 25 1 James K. Polk. Tenn. Dem. Democrat 52.9 1839 26 11 Robert M.T. Hunter, Va. Whig Democrat 51.7

1841 27 1 John White, Ky. Whig Whig 58.7 1843 28 1 John W. Jones, Va. Dem. Democrat 65.9

1845 29 1 John W. Davis, Ind. Dem. Democrat 62.3 1847 30 3 Robert C. Winthrop, Mass. Whig. Whig 50.4

1849 31 63 Howell Cobb, Ga. Dem. Democrat 48.5

1851 32 1 Linn Boyd, Ky. Dem. Democrat 54.5 1853 33 1 Linn Boyd, Ky. Dem. Democrat 67.1

1855 34 133 Nathaniel Banks, Mass. Amer. Opposition 42.7 The Effect of the Balance Rule

Stylized House Stylized Senate

W (N) S S S S S W (N) N H N Slavery Slavery

N N N

N N N N

Gov’t Activism Gov’t Activism 1860-1865 (Transition from Antebellum to Civil War System • South excluded from national elections • Party support highly regionalized 1865-1896 (Civil War System) Organizational dynamics

Electoral dynamics Rules Comms. Party leadership

-Dems. v. Reps. -”Reed -Parties -Party polarization -Dem. Strength in Rules” in the take -Party “strong” the South House control of -Rep. strength in the committee North rosters -Knife-edged -Appr. partisan margins devolution Ideological divisions

PP PPPP .986 D RRR D D R S D D R D D R R R D S R D R DS D R S D DD R R D S S DS D SS S S D S D R R R D D S R RR D SSSD D D D D R R S D D D R S R R S S D D RR R R S S DD R S DS R S D S SD D S R R R DS S D R R R SD D D D D R S S SS S D D R R th S SSS D D S D SD DD D D R 80 Cong. S S SDSD S S D R R R S SS D D R R R DD D R RR D D R R R (1943-45) S D D R R S S D D S SD D D D RR R R S SD D D R RR R R S S S DD DD R R RR D R R R D DD D R S D R R S D D D D D 1.34 S S S S D D D RR S DS D DDD DD R R R SS S D S DD D S S S D S S S S S SS 2nd dim. dw-nominate (multiply b 2nd dim. dw-nominate S S S D D DD R DDDSSSSSSSSSSSSDSSSSSS D R R SD SSD D SS SSSS S DD S SSSSSS S D S S SSSS SD S D RR S S SD S D D DD SD DD D SS S D R S D SS R D D S D S D S S D D S D DDDDDDDDDDD D D S S D R DDDDDDDDDD D DDD SD SD R D SD D -1.037 D SD R R RR R R D D R R -.859 .739 D R RRRR D R R R 1st dimen. dw-nominate D R R R D D R R R R RR D D D D RRRRR R D RR RR R R R R R R RR R R D D R RRR RRR nd D DD D D R R RRR R R R D DD R RRRRRRRR 52 Cong. DD D D R RRRRRR RRRRRR D D DD R R RRR RR RR R D DD D D R R RRRRRRR R D D RR R RR R D D D R R RRRRR RR R D D DD D RRRRRRR R (1891-1893) D D D RRR R R DD D R RR R RRRRR R D DD RR RRRRRRR R D D D D R RRRR RRR R D DD R RR RRR R R D RR R RR R D RRR RR RR R DD RRRR R R 2nd dim. dw-nominate (multiply b RRR R RR R R R R R R R RR R RR RRR R R RRRRRR RRRRRRR RR D R R R -1.334 R -1.095 1.197 1st dimen. dw-nominate 1896-1912 (Transition from Civil War to Textbook systems) • Economic dislocations create Progressive/Populist movements A Word about Senate Elections

• State legislative elections often brought about chaotic balloting • Stories of corruption in Senate elections led to Progressive calls for reform • 17th amendment: popular election of senators (1914) • Still parties become more prominent % joint ballot elections for Senate 80 60 40 Pct. 20 0

1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 Year Effective number of Senate candidates in states

AL CA FL IA 20 10 1

KS KY MA ME 20 10 1

1870 1880 1890 1900 1910

MN NC NY 20 10 1

Effective number of Senate candidate/Parties 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 Year of election Candidates Parties

Graphs by State 1912-1968 (Textbook system) Organizational dynamics

Electoral dynamics Rules Comms. Party leadership

-Regional support for Battles over -Comms. -Party cohesion parties filibuster dominate diminishes -Dems pick up prominent in legislating -party leaders progressives and the Senate & careers brokers cities -consol. in 1946 Rise of careerism

Actual replacement 70 Moving average

20 Pct. election of House replaced by 10

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 (1816) (1836) (1856) (1876) (1896) (1916) (1936) (1956) (1976) (1996) Congress 1968-1974 (Transition from Textbook to Post- Reform system • Anti-war sentiment divorces supporters of strong defense from Dems. • Civil Rights movement divorces southern Whites from Dems, but reinforces Black affiliation with Dems. 1974-now (Post-Reform System Organizational dynamics

Electoral dynamics Rules Comms. Party leadership

-Reps conservative, Floor -Comms -Parties resurgent Dems. Liberal proceedings important, -Leaders more -Regionalism per se open up but…. assertive deemphasized (Republicans esp.) Loss of regionalism in parties

th 80 Congress 106th Congress Ideological separation of parties 2

N N N S S 1 S S N R S N S N SN NNNS S R N N NNN S S RR I N SNSN R N NN R N N N N SS R N N SNNNNN RRR R NS NS N R R R N NN S NNSSNSSN R R N SSNNN NN RR RR R SN RRRRR RR S NSNNS R RR R RRRR R N N NS N RRRRRRRRRRRRR N N NNNSNN S RRRRR RRR N S NSN S RRRRRR RRR R 0 N N SNSSNN R RRRRRR RRR R N N NN N RRRRRR R RR S NN N RRRRRRRR RRRRR R R NNNNNSSNNNN R RRRRRRRRRR R RR N NNNN NNNNN RRRRR R RRR R N NNNNN NNNS RRRRRRR R R NSNN N R RRR R NNNNNN R R R Dimension 2 NN N N RR R RR N NN NN R RRR R R N NNN S R R R R R N IN N N R R R R R N N N R RR NNNN N R N N RR R N RR R RR R R R -1 S RRRR R R R

-2 -2 -1 0 1 2 Dimension 1