CONGRESSIONAL 2014 Before and Beyond EXAM NEXT MONDAY (NOV 10TH)

 Reading last week . Lowi Chpt 12, (Interest Groups) . Part of Chpt 9 (274-300) . Ellis & Nelson Chpt 5

 Reading this week . Lowi Chpt 10 (Elections) . Lowi Chpt 5 (Congress) & ELECTIONS

 Voting and Elections

. Q: what affects how people decide? . Q: how do we interpret the meaning of elections results? . Q: What might happen tomorrow . 90%+ of incumbents in US House will win . Dems will lose seats FACTORS AFFECTING THE VOTE DECISION

 Conventional wisdom (overstated)

. voters deliberate . Debates, follow media . vote based on candidate . not party . Commercials, ads... FACTORS AFFECTING THE VOTE DECISION

 Partisanship

. store of political information . long term socialization to politics . what if no party label on ballot? FACTORS AFFECTING THE VOTE DECISION

 Incumbency

. name recognition . incumbents have self-promotion advantage . the devil you know vs. devil you don’t know . incumbents get 90% of PAC $$ . few “credible” challengers FACTORS AFFECTING THE VOTE DECISION

 Economic conditions (the Issue)

. a form of issue voting . reward incumbents when times are good . punish incumbents when times are bad . this assumes folks know economic conditions . this assume folks know who to blame FACTORS AFFECTING THE VOTE DECISION

 Economic conditions (the Issue)

. Prospective voting

. Retrospective voting FACTORS AFFECTING THE VOTE DECISION

 Candidate traits

. Background . Views . Demographics . Personality FACTORS AFFECTING THE VOTE DECISION

 Campaigns

. Compare presidential campaign to congressional . Few people exposed to congressional campaigns . Few competitive races . Little / no spending in most districts

. Limited media attention if not competitive CONGRESSIONAL PUZZLES

 1) Why does president’s party lose seats in midterms?

 2) Why does party with most votes not have most seats

 3) Why is Congress so polarized?

 4) What effects of all that campaign spending?

 5) How can Congress have 10% approval, and 95% re-election rate? WHAT WE’VE KNOWN FOR YEARS

 2/3 of people won’t vote in this election

 Nearly (90%+) all incumbents will get re-elected

 The opposition party (Republicans) will gain seats

. House, 2014 Dem loss will be less than ‘normal’ . Senate -> probably a Rep majority (2014 - 6 = 2008)

 Today, 2014

. 435 seats in US House, all up for reelection

. 234 Republican . 201 Democratic WHY DOES THE PRESIDENT’S PARTY LOSE HOUSE SEATS IN MIDTERMS

 Reagan 1982  How many House . GOP lost 26 seats seats will Democrats . 4.6% swing against lose?

 Clinton 1994 . why was 1994, 2010 . Dems lost 54 seats such a wipeout for . 5.3% swing against Dems? . 1994 GOP trend . 2010 surge & decline  Obama 2010 . Dems lost 63 seats . 8.3% swing against Seat Gain/Loss For President's Party in US House

100 80 60 40 20 0 1930 1932 1934 1936 1938 1940 1942 1944 1946 1948 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 -20 -40 -60 -80

Surge and Decline: President’s party gain ‘on year,’ Lose in midterm. Avg= 24 seat loss in midterm It Takes Seats to Lose Seats: 2010 looks like 1994, 1974, 1946, 1938…. (but worse) 2010 MIDTERM

 2014 -> ??  Why surge and  2012 ->58% 130 million decline?  2010 ->40% 88 million  2008 ->62% 133 million  2006 ->40% 86 million . Presidential  2004 ->60% 124 million  2002 ->40% 80 million elections MUCH  2000 ->54% 107 million higher turnout  1998 ->38% 75 million

. Voters mobilized  Not many voters changing by presidential their votes…it’s who shows up elections stay 50 million who voted in 2012 home 2 years later will stay home tomorrow HOW COME PARTY WITH MOST VOTES DOESN’T HAVE MOST SEATS?

 2012  Single Member . Dems Districts . 48.8% votes . 46.2% seats

. GOP  Not that simple . 47.6% votes . Dems have inefficient . 54.8% seats distribution of seats

. 1.3 million fewer votes . Some candidates run unopposed HOW COME PARTY WITH MOST VOTES DOESN’T HAVE MOST SEATS?

 Single-member winner take all

 Plurality elections do not translate votes into seats well

. Even if just 2 parties SO, TOMORROW US HOUSE

 Swing against the Democrats will be _____ % votes

 Swing against the Democrats will be _____ # seats

 Average loss for president’s party in 2nd term 24 seats . More safe one-party districts mean it takes a larger swing in votes to move seats . 1% swing against party = about 6 seats POLARIZATION IN CONGRESS

 Democrats and Republicans farther apart now than… . ever (since Civil War) . Why?

 Does this reflect polarization of public opinion?

. Do congressional election results represent us?

. Or something else? POLARIZATION, US HOUSE (FLOOR VOTING) MORE POLARIZED THAN EVER (FLOOR VOTING) NO MORE (GOP) MODERATES IN HOUSE SYMPTOMS Rare for a district to split Dem for one office, GOP for another

Greater party line voting (unity) in Congress

President’s party more power if control Congress

Less gets done if divided government

 $4 billion spent . in just a few states/districts

LAST NIGHT  GOP now Senate majority

 GOP gains in House . + 12 (?)

 Pot, minimum wage, gun control POLARIZATION IN CONGRESS: USUAL SUSPECTS

Electoral Institutions Behavioral  Primary elections  Public opinion / partisanship  . We want it, so elect it

 Media  Campaign finance rules

 And….sorting POLARIZATION -> PARTY DISCIPLINE

 Most Democrats vote one way

 Most Republicans vote the other way

 Discipline stronger than ever

. Why? Are elections producing like-minded partisans?

. What effects on public? PARTY UNITY / DISCIPLINE POLARIZATION: PRIMARIES?

logic . Closed = extreme voters . November choices reflect this . Open = moderates . Blanket / top two = ??

This guy would never win a closed GOP primary in California -> POLARIZATION: PRIMARIES?

 Evidence . Hard to tell . Gerber & Morton, Open = representatives more like median voter (cross-sectional) . Others say not much effect

. Changes in rules do not correspond with increased polarization

. But who votes in primaries? POLARIZATION: PRIMARIES?

. . Risky for nominees to move to center . partisan promises in primaries

. Choices for independents in November reflect primary selections of polarized partisans

. Primaries centrifugal force POLARIZATION: GERRYMANDERING

 Logic . Partisan legislators + GIS = safe seats . One party gerrymanders . Bi-partisan gerrymanders

. Safe seat = rewards extremist candidates

. Safe seat = No fear of defeat in election POLARIZATION: GERRYMANDERING

 It isn't easy to gerrymander . Try this at home:

. Dave’s Redistricting app. 2.2 . How many competitive seats can we carve out out Washington State? . Preserving communities of interest . Contiguous . No bizarre shapes . Equal population COMMISSION WA MAP, 2012 (6-4) COMMISSION MAP (2012 #S = % OBAMA)

 1 Lyn/Bel 54% D  6 Oly Pn 56% D  2 Sno/SJ 59% D  7 Sea 79% D  3 SW WA 48% D*  8 E King E, 49.7 D*  4 Ea WA 38% D*  9 King, Prc 68% D  5 Ea WA 44% D*  10 Prc Oly 56% D

 6 Dems, 4 GOP . 3 ‘marginal’ seats . * = GOP seat GERRYMANDERED WA MAP (9-1) MY MAP

 1 Sea 1 70% D  6 Rivers 52% D  2 Oly Pn 53% D  7 Sea 2 60% D  3 Bhm/Evt 56% D  8 Sea/Wen 58% D  4 ‘Yak’ 55% D  9 Sea/Lev 75% D  5 E. Wa 38% D*  10 Oly/Van 53% D

 9 Dem, 1 GOP . 3 marginal districts GERRYMANDERING

 Evidence

 Look at Massachusetts . 9 districts, all Dem . GOP governors, Senator

 Or Texas, Florida, Illinois...

POLARIZATION: GERRYMANDERING

 Evidence . There are fewer competitive House districts . Less than 10% of 435

. States legislatures with non-partisan plans might be slightly less polarized POLARIZATION: GERRYMANDERING

. BUT: . US Senate is polarizing too . Senate not districted . Look at GOP & Dem Senators from same state

. 2 reps from same House seat extremely different . ‘Swing’ district send extreme reps too FLORIDA: NELSON & RUBIO

77th most conservative 17th most conservative IOWA: HARKIN & GRASSLEY/ERNST

74 th most conservative Grassley 11th most conservative MONTANA: WALSH/TESTER & DAINES

53rd most conservative

Baucus was 55th

This guy will be in top 25 NOT GERRYMANDERING

 North Dakota  South Dakota . Heidi Heitkamp D . Tim Johnson D . 50th most conservative . 70th most conservative . John Hoeven R . John Thune R . 30th most conservative . 17th most conservative

. Nevada (21st & 79th), Ohio (85th & 28th ), POLARIZATION: GERRYMANDERING

 Have things changed in districting practices to explain change in polarization?

. If anything, more non-partisan commissions

. Problem of geography . Increasingly hard to gerrymander US House even if you try POLARIZATION: CAMPAIGN FINANCE

 Follow the money

 Massive increases (even before Citizen’s United)

 Donors are polarized POLARIZATION: CAMPAIGN FINANCE

 Fewer places to spend money . See gerrymandering

 More money than ever for negative ads . See WA 42nd State Senate race

. In the few districts left that are competitive . Competitive should = centrists POLARIZATION: CAMPAIGN FINANCE

. Post 1970s, Interest group activity . FEC & PACs  independent expenditures . Candidates, issue groups replacing old parties . TV costs . Nominations, issue ads

. Post 2000s, Billionaires, etc. playing games POLARIZATION: CAMPAIGN FINANCE

 ‘Extreme’ voices given disproportionate influence in candidate selection, recruitment

 Consider Connecticut, 2006 (or any year)

. Nancy Johnson (4th least conservative GOP -> $7.6m) Lost . Rob Simmons, (5th least conservative GOP ->$5.6m) Lost . Chris Shays, (9th least conservative GOP ->$6.8m) 6k votes, lost in ’08

EFFECTS OF THE ADS?

 Awareness of Congress up

 Less approval of Congress

 Candidate’s ideology seen as extreme

 Members of Congress & candidates seen as having no integrity

 Campaign spending -> people see Congress as corrupt

SO, WHY SO MUCH POLARIZATION?

 Part of the problem is us . Voters who show up are partisans

 Primaries, gerrymandering . Also part of problem

 Money, media & partisan sorting . Larger part of the problem ELECTORAL REFORMS

 What goals?

 What is broken that needs fixing? ELECTORAL REFORMS

 Primaries

. Top Two

. Open

. Closed ELECTORAL REFORMS

 Non partisan redistricting

. California model

. Washington model

. Texas model ELECTORAL REFORMS

 Term Limits

 Proportional representation

 Campaign finance CONGRESSIONAL REFORMS

 Discharge petition

 Filibuster