Survey results

Party ID
–
–
–
–

36 Democrats
12 Republicans
6 Independent
Last spring in this class it was 39 D, 20 R, 3 I
2008 vote
–
–
–
41 Obama (78.8%)
11 McCain (21.2%), 1 “Obamican”
1 did not vote
Ideology
25
20
15
Series1
10
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
What’s next?



Electoral context: big gains for Dems in 2008.
First unified control of government for them since
1993.
Overwhelming public support for Obama (over
80% in most polls).
However, comparisons to 1933 aren’t entirely
appropriate: stronger Republican opposition and
smaller Democratic majorities.
2008 electoral college
2008 electoral college, corrected
for relative population
Internal partisan politics
Good news for Obama: largest Democratic majorities
since 1993. Bad news: expanding the number of
Democrats means bringing in more moderates. Role of
the Blue Dogs – already grumbling about the deficits.
 Republican response:
compromise and bipartisanship
or repeat of the late 1980s and
early 1990s? Can Senate
moderates contain the more
partisan House?

Representation in Congress
Descriptive and
Substantive,
Responsiveness and
Responsibility
(normative theory)
Descriptive representation: a Congress
that “looks like us”?

Gender. Year of the woman – 1992. Clarence
Thomas hearings, Anita Hill (1991). Nearly 50%
increase in the number of women: 24 new women
House members, 5 new senators. All-male Judiciary
Committee: “they just don’t get it.”

Race – 1992, racial redistricting. 1982 Voting Rights
Act, Thornburg v. Gingles (1986).

Other characteristics: class, religion, occupation, and
previous political experience.
National leadership that “looks
like us”
Women in the U.S. Congress
1937-2009
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1937
1957
1977
House
1992
2001
2005
Senate
2009
Minorities in the U.S. House
1937-2009
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1937 1947 1957 1967 1977 1987 1992 1999 2003 2005 2007 2009
African Americans
Hispanic Americans
Substantive representation


Representation on policy outputs, serving some
interests, whether local or national. Link between
descriptive and substantive? Why does descriptive
representation matter?
Theories of representation:
–
–
–
delegate – represent the preferences of your constituents,
trustee – represent what is best for the country, what you
think is the right thing to do,
politico – mixture of the two: delegate on issues on which
constituents have intense views; trustee on issues that are
important for national interests.
Representation, cont.

Determining how to serve constituents’ interests.
–
–
–

Objective interests: needs. Differences in types of districts:
income, home-ownership, college education. Poverty, health.
Subjective interests: wants. What do people expect of their
members of Congress? Constituency service, bring home the
benefits. Explosion in earmarks. Link to delegate/trustee?
Mechanisms for monitoring the constituency: town hall meetings,
polling, media, letters. One member said, “I seldom have to
sound out my constituents because I think so much like them that
I know how to react to almost any proposal.” Home style, “one of
us.” Talk about later in the semester.
Geographic vs. national representation. The random
national constituency (Andrew Rehfeld). Pro and cons?
Diversity in Congressional districts
Number of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry Workers
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Diversity in Congressional districts
Average Price of Home
$500,000
$450,000
$400,000
$350,000
$300,000
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
$0
Diversity in Congressional districts
Percent College Graduates
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Racial Composition of the U.S.
Median Family Income, 2001
Percentage of Individuals below 100% of
Poverty Line, 2002
Constituents’ expectations
Figure 4: Job Descriptions for U. S. House and Senate
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Average Rating
0.5
On Scale Of 0 -1
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Making sure district
gets fair share
of government projects
Source: Gronke 2001 and 1998 National Election Study
Helping constituents who
have problems with the
government
Working in Congress
concerning national bills
Representation, cont.

Accountability
–
–
Three faces of democratic accountability (Sean Theriault). First
face – vote with constituents, rewarded with reelection. Second
face – vote against constituent interests, booted out of office.
Third face – Profiles in Courage: vote for national interests,
acting like a trustee. May survive if member is able to convince
constituents. Problem in measuring the second face? How
would you go about this?
Mechanisms for accountability: fire alarm/police patrol.
Potential challenger, activated latent interests.
Representation, accountability, cont.



Competition hypothesis (minority party
provides accountability).
Attention hypothesis (when constituents
attend to the fire alarm, member more
responsive).
Retribution hypothesis: member defeated for
going against constituents (both defeat and
reduced margin of victory).
Representation, accountability, cont.

Issues in measuring representational linkages:
measuring public’s preferences. This issue would not
even be raised with strong programmatic parties. Only
because of individualistic political system that this is even
a concern. How to measure?
–
–
–
–
Direct and indirect.
Alternatives to measuring constituent preferences: potential
challengers, anticipatory representation of latent opinions.
Preempt challengers by taking their issues.
Constituency service/home style.
Party competition/national representation: “restless innovation.”
Minority party always looking for ways to become the majority
party.
Race and Representation: representing
minority interests in a majority-rule institution

Background on my research on this topic.
–
–
–
Explaining vs. understanding.
Role of an outsider. Question during deposition
on race about the race of my research assistants.
Shaw v. Reno (1993) and nature of
representation: assumed that the black-majority
districts were divisive. Not consistent with what I
had observed.
Race and Representation



Normative theory, legal work, and empirical scholars.
Gaps between these subfields: speak different
languages and don’t speak to each other.
Racial gap on measures of objective interests: income,
poverty, health, crime, education. Subjective constituent
interests in black majority districts: racial, part-racial,
and non-racial issues.
Racial gap on subjective interests is only on racial and
part-racial issues, not non-racial.
Race and Representation


Black majority districts as a vehicle for
representing black interests. Alternative views:
multiracial society. Race is a socially
constructed concept: NYTimes Magazine story
about the third-grader having to choose.
Critiques of black majority districts
–
From the left – “triumph of tokenism.” Need more
fundamental changes. Lani Guinier: proportional
interest representation. Similar to John Calhoun’s
theories of concurrent majorities and nullification
before the Civil War.
Critiques of black majority districts, cont.


From the right. BMDs undermine a color
blind society and deracialization. Whites do
an adequate job of representing black
interests.
From the center. BMDs undermine
Democratic majorities by concentrating black
voters. How would this work? Also, BMDs
place a ceiling on the level of black
representation that is possible. Role of
influence districts.
Race and Representation, cont.


Politics of difference and the politics of
commonality. Color blind vs. balancing
commonality. Types of members elected in
1992.
Examples: Bennie Thompson or Cynthia
McKinney compared to Robert Scott or Albert
Wynn.
Responsiveness vs. responsibility


The institutional dilemma: collective action
problems when members acting in their own
self interest undermine the collective good of
“institutional maintenance” and the common
resource of the prestige of the institution.
Tendency for members to “free ride.” Run for
Congress by running against Congress.
The policy dilemma. Public, general interest
versus constituent interests.
Alternatives to legislative representation


Dominant executive. Looming struggle over
Iraq policy. More congressional oversight.
Presidential signing statements.
Direct democracy – initiative and referendum.
24 states have it. Limits of this approach:
extreme measures (“jail for judges” example
from South Dakota) and many issues are too
complex to be summarized on a ballot. Ross
Perot and the 1992 election: electronic town
hall meetings.