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 20 15 10 Number of candidates of Number 5 0 1800 1820 1840 1860 1880 1900 Year Balloting for Clerk 20 15 10 Number of ballots Number 5 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 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) 40th Congress (1867-1869) 70th Congress (1927-1929) 100th Congress (1987-1989) 5 4 4 3 3 2.5 Density Density Density 2 2 2 1.5 1 1 1 .5 0 0 0 -.5 0 .5 1 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 Liberal-Conservative -1 -.5 0 .5 1 Liberal-Conservative Liberal-conservative 50th Congress (1887-1889) 80th Congress (1947-1949) 110th Congress (2007-2009) 4 3 3 Density 2 2.5 Density Density 2 2 1 1.5 1 1 .5 0 0 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 0 Liberal-Conservative -1 -.5 0 .5 1 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 Liberal-Conservative Liberal-conservative 60th Congress (1907-1909) 90th Congress (1967-1969) 4 4 3 3 Density Density 2 2 1 1 0 0 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 Liberal-Conservative Liberal-conservative 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 40 20 Actual 0 -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 40 20 Actual 0 -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 .8 .6 .4 Pct .2 0 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 Year Data Lowess fit Update of Figure 3.5 Rise of careerism .8 .6 .4 Pct .2 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 .6 .4 Pct .2 0 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 Year Data Lowess fit Update of Figure 3.5 Rise of careerism .8 .6 .4 = state HOR Pct .2 0 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 Year Data Lowess fit Update of Figure 3.5 Rise of careerism: The Senate 50 40 Pct 30 20 10 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 Year Data Lowess fit Senate & House Careerism Compared .8 .6 .4 Pct .2 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.