Origins and Development of Congress

17.251 Spring 2016 Congressional Historical Eras and Electoral Discontinuities

A dawning new era?

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

1800 1850 1900 1950 2016

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 1860-65 1896-1912 1964-1968

1800 1850 1900 1950 2016

Experimental Democritizing Civil War Textbook Post-Reform 1812‐20 (Transition from Experimental to Antebellum systems)

• ‐Electorate expands • ‐Federalists discredited • ‐Slavery now an issue • ‐Napoleanic Wars end

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

1800 1850 1900 1950 2016

Experimental Democritizing Civil War Textbook Post-Reform 1820‐60 (Antebellum system) Organizational dynamics Electoral dynamics Rules Comms. Party leadership -Mass electorate Committees -Standings -Van Buren tries to -Whigs vs. Dems. take agenda dominate make Congress a control selects partisan organ, but… -comm -Regional divisions chairs complicate compete w/ Speakership Speaker selection (next slide) -Senate leadership remains weak

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

1800 1850 1900 1950 2016

Experimental Democritizing Civil War Textbook Post-Reform 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 Largest 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 The Effect of the Balance Rule

WS(N)

N N WH( ) Slavery

Gov’t Activism 1860‐1865 (Transition from Antebellum to Civil War System • South excluded from national elections • Party support highly regionalized

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

1800 1850 1900 1950 2016

Experimental Democritizing Civil War Textbook Post-Reform 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 -Caucus -Rep. strength in the committee organization in North rosters House -Knife-edged -Appr. -Steering partisan margins devolution committee in the Senate

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

1800 1850 1900 1950 2016

Experimental Democritizing Civil War Textbook Post-Reform 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 S D S R R R DD D R R R S S S D R S S SD S S DDD DD R R 1.34 S th SSS D D S S S S D SD D D D SS S 80 Cong. D R S S S S S SDSD S S SS S D S S R R R DDSSSSSSS SSSSSSSDSSSSSSSS S D R R SD SSDDD SS S SSS S S S D R R S SSSSS S D D R RR R R S S SSSS SD D D S S SSD (1947-48) S D R SD DD D SS S S S D R S D R D D R S S SS S SD SD D D D R R R R S D D S S D D R R R R D S S D R S S S DD DD R R RR S D SD R D R R R SD D D DD D R D S D S D R R D D D R R RR R R D D D D R R D R RRRR S D D D RR D R R R S S DD D R R R D R R R D D D SD D D D D R R R R RR S D D D D D D RRR RR R S D DD RR RR R R R S R R R RR R R 2nd dim. dw-nominate (multiply b 2nd dim. dw-nominate D DD R D D R RRR RRR D D D D D D R R R RR R R R D R D DD R RR RRRRR R D R D D D D R RR RRRR RRRRRR D D D DD R R RRRR RR RR R D D DD D D R R RRRRRRR R S D R D D RR R RR R S D D D R D D D R R RRR RR RR R D D R D D DD D RRRRRRR R D D D D RRR R R D D S DDD D R R R R RRRRR R D D DD RR RRRRRRRRR R S D D D D D D R RR RR R R R R DDD D DD D D DD R RR R RR R R DDDDDDDDD D D RR R RR R DDDDDD D DD D RR R RR RR R D DD RRRR R R 2nd dim. dw-nominate (multiply b (multiply dw-nominate 2nd dim. RR R R -1.037 RR R R R R RR R R RR R RR R RR R R RRRR RR RRRRRRR RR -.859 .739 D R R 1st dimen. dw-nominate R -1.334 R nd -1.095 1.197 52 Cong. 1st dimen. dw-nominate (1891-1893) Density Density Density 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 -1 -1 -.5 -.5 -.5 60th Congress(1907-1909) 50th Congress(1887-1889) 40th Congress(1867-1869) Liberal-Conservative Liberal-Conservative Liberal-Conservative 0 0 0 .5 .5 .5 1 1 1

Density Density Density 0 1 2 3 4 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 1 2 3 4 -1 -1 -1 -.5 -.5 -.5 90th Congress(1967-1969) 70th Congress(1927-1929) 80th Congress(1947-1949) Liberal-Conservative Liberal-Conservative Liberal-conservative 0 0 0 .5 .5 .5 1 1 1

Density Density 0 1 2 3 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 -1 -1 -.5 100th Congress(1987-1989) -.5 110th Congress(2007-2009) Liberal-conservative Liberal-conservative 0 0 .5 .5 1 1 1896‐1912 (Transition from Civil War to Textbook systems) • Economic dislocations create Progressive/Populist movements

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

1800 1850 1900 1950 2016

Experimental Democritizing Civil War Textbook Post-Reform 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 • Rise of third parties gave major parties an incentive to create a duopoly of power • 17th amendment: popular election of senators (1914) • Still parties become more prominent The Process

State election (~ Nov.)

Nomination? (~mid-Jan.) No

Bicameral balloting nd (2 Tuesday of session) Joint ballot

Canvass No Yes

Bicameral majority? Winner

Yes % joint ballot elections for Senate

Joint ballots --- all 60 1890s

1875 1883 50 1877

1899

1891 1910s 1873 40 1897 1887 1880s

1870s 1893 1895 1900s 30 1911 Pct.

1879 1881 1905 1885 1913 1871 20 1889 1909 1901 1903

1907 10 0

1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 Year term begins

General elections Special elections Counterfactual: What If No Popular Elections?

17th Amendment

20 Actual

-20 Counterfactual Democratic senators- Republican senators

-40

1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Election year Counterfactual: What If Popular Election before 1917?

17th Amendment

20 Actual

-20

Counterfactual Democratic senators- Republican senators

-40

1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Election year 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

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

1800 1850 1900 1950 2016

Experimental Democritizing Civil War Textbook Post-Reform Regional parties

Source: Kenneth Martis, Historical Atlas of Congressional Parties in the United States Congress Regional parties Rise of careerism: The House

.4 Pct

0 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 Year

Data Lowess fit

Update of Figure 3.5 Rise of careerism

.4 Pct

0 1926 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 Year

Data Lowess fit

Update of Figure 3.5 Rise of careerism

.8 1958 1964 1974 1994 2010

.4 Pct

0 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 Year

Data Lowess fit

Update of Figure 3.5 Rise of careerism

.4 = state HOR Pct

0 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 Year

Data Lowess fit

Update of Figure 3.5 Rise of careerism: The Senate

40 Pct 30

1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 Year

Data Lowess fit Senate & House Careerism Compared

.4 Pct

0 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 Year

Senate House 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.

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

1800 1850 1900 1950 2016

Experimental Democritizing Civil War Textbook Post-Reform 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.)

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

1800 1850 1900 1950 2016

Experimental Democritizing Civil War Textbook Post-Reform Loss of regionalism in parties

th 80 Congress 114th Congress (1947-1948) (2015-2016) (Note the color reverse)

Source: Martis atlas Composition of the House by district (2014 election results). Light red are pick‐ups by Republicans, Light blue are pick‐ups by Democrats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/114th_United_States_Congress#/media/File:US_Hou se_2014.svg Density Density Density 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 -1 -1 -.5 -.5 -.5 60th Congress(1907-1909) 50th Congress(1887-1889) 40th Congress(1867-1869) Liberal-Conservative Liberal-Conservative Liberal-Conservative 0 0 0 .5 .5 .5 1 1 1

Density Density 0 1 2 3 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5 -1 -1 -.5 100th Congress(1987-1989) -.5 110th Congress(2007-2009) Liberal-conservative Liberal-conservative 0 0 .5 .5 1 1 Rise of Party Unity Voting (Update of Figure 3.4)

100

60 Pct.

20 1850 1900 1950 2000 Year

Data Lowess smoothing Decline of Conservative Coalition (Update of Figure 3.7)

30 House 20

Senate 10 0

1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Year New Electoral Environment? New Organizational Environment? • Election • Organization – Voters more partisan – Party leaders more – Districts more partisan prominent & partisan – Party committees play – Committee membership greater role more partisan • Chairs • Seats • Link to finance Congressional Historical Eras and Electoral Discontinuities

A dawning new era?

Critical periods 1812-20 1860-65 1896-1912 1964-1994

1800 1850 1900 1950 2016

Experimental Democritizing Civil War Textbook New Partisan Congressional systems