Some aspects of legislative roll call behavior in the House of Representatives of the twenty-third
legislative assembly of the State of Montana (1933-1935)
by Richard L Pastega
A THESIS Submitted to the Graduate Faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of Master of Science in Applied Science
Montana State University
© Copyright by Richard L Pastega (1961)
Abstract:
Legislative research in other states suggested the need for studies of an empirical nature on Montana
legislators. Because tools and materials were available, legislative roll calls were selected for a pioneer
attempt to probe legislative behavior In the state.
Following the collection of a wealth of data, several hypotheses were constructed to provide a
theoretical framework for systematic analysis. Owner occupancy was used throughout as an index to
socio-economic variables that might have been affecting public and legislative behavior. Further,
co-efficient of significance and party competition were used, as means for determining the significance
of roll calls, one goal In the employment of these two variables was to be able to reflect on their
usefulness in the type of research undertaken here.
Following the testing of the hypotheses, the results mere organised and assessed. Some of the more
significant conclusions were: (1) that Democrats in the Montana House of Representatives tend to cross
party lines more freely than Republicans; (2) that a high coefficient of significance on a roll call may
indicate that the decision on an Issue is taking place at the time the roll call is taken; (3) that coefficient
of significance appears to be a useful tool in studies of this type; (4) that some index of socio-economic
variables other than owner occupancy should be sought, despite its apparent usefulness in this study
and; (5) that further studies of this type should be conducted on other legislative groups In Montana. 30G2 AWT.'/a W
K M . CALL
%* TNB HDMSE OF RSP%35aKTAT%VR@ OF TRS
M M O M T O I B ) ia%I2M:TfS
m
m rs
of
(Hf
w m m
tr
BEliflhEWd u RwtOga
R83%S
W m t t t W t@ tjh» # m W W
fwa&tff
4a
>wttal HHitilWW* af W
fw the ###» of
$WW# # f SvbMvm In Applied SflKwee
«4
% a W * a W e Oollag*
WfcettB
%$6l
/V3-7g
ta% e
m -wrars
chapter
Fete
.t»
TI.
XXZt
•* »**»#$#*#'#»*##$
«• » # » * ♦ *
5
R g m B W P S CR CR* &BKBRKL CR*RAC?%R 0* TM* "OS?*** "093%
ar w m w A m o , m 3 » .......................
a
'tHB
» » e » * e e t « 4 » « e e * e t * »
Xvt* R#8T%@SZ3 Ie e t e e e #
?t
ru
iCWOTISSSXS
^spOrT-CivSXS
O-Atet
10
-AttetteteteeeettA
17
TI * * * * * o * * * e t e S * o # # * #. e » » e ■
*2
XXX
otot
«« • • e t t o e e t e t e e e e t
^
VlXt
toPOTi-i.-SSTS T-' e e t . e e e t e o t e e e e t t e e o o i e *
50
/XZTe
SfKJTiISCSl,TV f t e e * O e e e e e e e e e w e t o o o e t t
53
CtB$3ZB3Z0%3 e * e o e » e » » » e * o e » t t 4 o « e n e «
56
BX!S5®
60
«e « * «*♦***«
e e e e A t e A e e
150359
e » *
— 2a —
LIST OF TABLES
Table
I*
2,
Page
Roll calls Involving Party Competition and Having Co­
efficients of ,87 or more for the Montana House of
Representatives, Twenty-Third Assembly, 1933» Regular
and Special Sessicms........... ............. . .
35
Party Division on Significant Roll Calls for Montana
House of Representatives, 1933. . . . . . . . .
36
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1.
2.
3.
4.
Page
Distribution of Party Representative Districts by Per
Cent Owner Occupancy* ............................
18
Distribution of Party Seats 57*5$ of Popular Vote or
More Movmber 8, 1932...........................
19
Per Cent of Deviation From Party Majority Cte Seven
Significant Roll Calls
........... .......... .
42
Distzibution of Deviation From Paziy Majozity (Twenty™
Sight R o U Calls)...............................
47
5# Wide-Close Margin Seat Division..................
55
~ 3-
I.eBislatlTe rysearch la other states suggested the need for studies
of an empirical nature on Montana legislators.
Because tools and materials
were available, legislative roll calls were '!elected for a pioneer attempt
to probe legislative behavior in the state.
Following the collection of a wealth of data, several hypotheses
were constructed to provide a theoretical framework for systematic anal­
ysis.
Owner occupancy was used throughout as an index to socio-economic
variables that might have been affecting public and legislative behavior.
Further, oo-efficient of significance and party competition were used, as
means for determining the significance of roll calls.
Qeee goal in the
employment, of these two variables was to be able to reflect op their use­
fulness in the type of research undertaken here.
Following the testing of the hypotheses, the results mere organised
and assessed.
Some of the more significant conclusions were: (I) that
Democrats in the Montana House of Representatives tend to cross party lines
more freely than Republicans; (2) that a high coefficient of significance
on a roll call may indicate that the decision on an issue is taking place
at the time the roll call is taken; (3) that coefficient of significance
appears to be a useful tool in studies of this type; (b) that some index of
socio-economic variables other than owner occupancy should be sought, despite
its apparent usefulness in this study andj (5) that further studies of this
type should be conducted on other legislative groups in Montana.
to m
aspects, the SttBear
# HAS mri*
with i t s *pW#@**aE"
h#w*#s indebted to a gsssat nuaber of ?®6g>le»
I ydttM Like to m pm * iw AwpMt # # # w W W W Profewor Dome
Wo M U iw Ms wto es #*#eW wd mwvtoor of tM# imx:®et0 wpwWly
to r id s Mrelxsw e ffo rt* and M s W U to # e » s # passdt t h is w s w t A w W
idae Ms tors# fft&K* of oapertomce md iafomat&m ahottt
<art
eemieet*
A W # e f to rth w W m m M I * * to A* the aWhere af the M#Wy*
m & W W # wd Gwemawt aeparto*# tor the mwtwmgwmt they pnwtoed
Amtag the f m r tern s th a t $ attended m t m
3 W e OoU sfs ..
Stoaltoe I WflOd lik e to eapree* w # # e m to tW to %r. Larry ' # # »
end nr» tm r n Ia sw l W* eftoa m # U W to# woh m@#d WAm pat*# e f eyes
sad Wad*. At a later stage af the S tW Ms# ^rgaret Patoer # v # partieatofto vatoWto am&etmwe by tomHar W afftoe md etoctsponie eeeimtor*
AWle than, there to the tgytot, Hr*. mr#to WtiBtoB, ntoee dlliagn##
to labar U m at odd k w e mde poeatoto to# sw?«#»sfsa tonpW&ea of the
«5 «
c iim m i
I question of paramount concern to political a r a l y W hes b o m the
rslation between the legiilatar and M ® eerwiitwioy*
% w does a Mpr**
sentetive, in fact, m p m e m t the district which Aloote M b ?
A elaaeioal
presontation of the question seww to attack the demoastie tradition of
poT>ulariy elected representative gowrment lteelf*3- T M a attack stem
from the arsment that rotor® v A H elect legislators who share similar
soci®M4K3*»i.»3ie interest® and eWra*
P e w m m M y these Meatedl officials
will In tisae besom so m M m m as to W l w t the s»>rlty of voters «he
aleet then.
The counterargument is that voters elect officials reprre-
smting a eoclo-oconmic status the wtere % W i to addsve, and tharefere
popularly elected representative® will m t Isweone nadlocre but will
continue to represent the better element® of the society*
Ah adequate
msms? to the shore question with its m a y facets and nuneroua polities!
implications would oe-tily involve the research of a lifetime and the work
of Ktoiy achoW®.
The purpose of this paper is to deal with only m e
very mall aegsaont of W U s question, the behavior of the l»gi slaters cm
selected roll m i l votes*
Zn & study pabUWsd by i n l i w Turner in 19S* Pertr
Mltitoncrt Presaeres gg| CoMmaa*2
"Tice T S S S T
' on-
i t ma ste m that the sim ila rity or
PbEUios gg -lass Society. The F m o
2Julius TuxtMMtv ’♦Pasrty and Coastitemeyt Pressure® on Coagrae®**
-Mira*, laokin® Stediva in U g to ric s I m d ,P o l i t i c ^
V6l#49v 19S*
d&amlnllarlty boW w o party policy and the nreaimsd latarost oT eoaatlts*
easy ebe^ta am lafltome on the teadeasy of a IegWLator to w e e er not
err''f
ilac-p. Turner eo%i:ad tlth the Chngroof of fh
' M W 3taloo.
Aloo In 1951 Snneatn HaeSae, .-;r« conducted a aiadltr etedbr o b the M a e a W m *
switte Jlwowe of 'v^resOTtailws for the years 1931* 3#1* and 1951*
"BoJiaeetS sttadr «:•■ W e prteasy st$$s$ (I) to test the applicability of
fustier*® proposition to tbs totssaeteoetts S»w » of foawaamtat&vsa, and
(2) to teat aksther the state of political oospstltlaii Ss a dletAot has
any lrtfluonce em a r -•-^roitatiw8S rotlng pattern on legislative roll
oalls*
iHeBae d e w eayweal c o m ItisSonn f W t M s study*
M o m m m qualified as feUeeBi
111 of M s oon<$ls~
He painted out that tindinga* deaerip*
tims* and generalisations applicable to mm type of legislation, for
amnple, legislation idifceh reflected StiMtMeeeowic class dlffsrmees,
should bo applied, to another typo of legislation or to other legislative
bodies only with santl w *
The anther farther oemeladwd*
C D 5sBopaMiQm and dmwaat&e d W M e t # tend to be differentia
atsd %y per cent mmer oocnpancy of dwelling units* T M s perjantage mr-ms m a rough index oorMMng the r a m l w W h m Mnenslon
and soclo^accfpcM.c status***
(2) "Them ro p resen tativ ea id© com fro® M alarletn id&eh aro
Baoast ty p ic a l of their party tro d to $bw Mshest p a rty lo y a lty
on r o l l c a l l votes*** Ttfts point agrees M th the r e s u lts @f
Tttstw8S '-smgroseioral study.
(3) - hope ropzwantatiroo shone previous election marglno %@ro
close tend to rodeot ccwiatituonoy characteristics in their
is m m closely than do those eith % ! # # Bwrgins* T M s <wt»
firms the original hypothecs and this m y reflect a WLghtwad
sensitivity to eonotittomt*s Mshee roaulting fra® anxiety
about reMoctlon*’1
w
(4 ) "Th*
of a
-w
a y a * * to pmdaea (WhmAa
paM&ea* #t W a t ar It a p w m W e lx* ;%*#ohu**tte, 'JQca W
m d M t e o d Am m m detail then
196» # W y W % #
a A a s th a t tb» iWmstAa*.; AmOamom I* «*#& ^w m m w A I*
tlVM* <wam#4Aim($** ISbeemt M L l t A W I c*%*tlaR p*a»al&#»#*,"
(2)
amlBRdk* !**&%&*'' th at the** a*# *e$4*la 1#p*»
FapeaesntaSlvaH »ha * 6 # & b» w m a a & w d m W
i # % W # aniA athdp Ia i W iilwtf
aAfeaMmAy *#
% ##W » to oogr* szsgSysA* # f the peeA m # WtaSLes aM M atW a i
IauaWBat Ho th# Maftwaa IaglaiataBB tm *## t**% ha* BBntanw I a g W a W w
a# W w a oa #>13. o a lls aod* I f powal&i#, within HMlta o f t&w and
affsp t* t# fo m w * IagW m tlaa Wsetvlor in % atma # I s e t s la t l w W*
W l a r In other s ts to s awA as
------- W a i t a #W##m mail W l Vataa m& fo m titn *
mnlna 1« tha MaaaWmaMtta % aw o f %&%BaaW aU w *$» 2%
a g W 5 & SandsK. W *
AKaaWt
pp* i w W o #
a w n s i%
39 TlR 4
CF ?#* .'#%TA%A
m m OF BdSPKfSriswM'jysip/zfS, % # #
Th&3 M pw t and the eWkr %&** W&%& 14 I* Waed baa hecm llo&tQd
to she %etBm =Ww o f
%w@t»w,r&W Z ^ a l a t l v e
Arasedbaar, !LeofsaObr >;#K**aa» MAa body &*a a laager mm&arak^ than the
%aAt* ami Mta W vw r nuaber of OLagaLaljBtBaM* IaaMaeas tho pm hotA llty tb o t
firm # * WMb ##&%*** al@#%e*M# <90** ba ObWnad @w tb# %amae INbe** Ttx**
the \a*B**,
f^mpt hwm w , the *&&#* ?%*#«** wa* aW fted SG th e carwml
a&oat&aa bald November S, 3932* wbrnmae %bo lonoto waa a oaoSlMBlae u%4f
«aS bad only m m M £ a f I t s
P ta a lly .
sstmMm ^ OleeM m !»• 1933.
mod the lo se r boos* l a IaasaobRaeM*.
Tbw, aqy eonpae.
W e W l l le m lv e # W W t#e@ o f tb W m e #
Oo Rbvomhaf 0, 1932. 302 house solas
Gloctad to the Vomty.
'A W LocSa&t&tVB Aeaodhay. Of t&&# aadber ?2 ucm alaRtgd w d w nemo*
esp tic Pgety deeianat&en. and 30 ears s&ectea m dbf the nenohllasR i W y
dea&Bna&lan.
/aba ssd&l&g af BGaaotahdll, a aepebllcaa, warn W a r d&o*
g r a tifie d a& th e GBesoAo o f a a t betas e m gW m t s f tb s d W A a t *A W
dlec&od b&m.
%&?; aet&oa redboed tbe Repdblleon aeobeeahip to 39 aad
t o t a l w A w N n to %#L» D w o A y w e e emeAned eoomtaoA dBx&os the
PGOdlar and npec&al .j a N o w o f the ?waBtyk/t&rd la&lalat&ve Smaeabty.
o f tho 101 noMbsro Se the chamber 36 pMfsaoad alla&laoc* to th e
R a w CyWmlls WLtb,
fW W w tlm .
A l 3&%*#%,dkrt9d (adbria*5«*K%GtW ;w%y
Of th e ? # DiwwBMA Party IeyWWAw** than* SG'tmce
% *w odWLlfo*
o f the %& IeeialatfW? i,w o ^laeelytdkd
to
aod fagm&ne
amd sW M lt**
iWgwi&n* per coot
o f tb : 'A85*a!*l&.i%7;%: v#** as* ewmoW*# wM%e 39^ (Rf th e Omxnmte
VMKW&v*» t e {At** AoW M tB.
cW ; ^ ! an
aW K U m .
A W y ^ & g # .W caot o f (Kb** 3*Gl(Ww@
(&,.%# o r w%*
MKAdmae a t th e t&m iwT
a b # w w ;xar x m t o f Sho IogW otA M AkAwd ft mAL&m* of"
Ioao tb m 2*jOO a t (She: t&me o f d b e t l* ) and wm* thceefoa* <:&2iawdLfl«w& aa
XPLKraA m * W 3 »
At &*wt %
*f % Gf tb* t o W , TB 'TgrK*nmts, (#
w#o
RMBrytrq, tb n tr O r a t (ware I n tb * (dWBdbaar; %M3e %3 (and WbdL* i%jru*e r s #
I* c3lf#A%y
a? the 89 Ropaxatomo# o r
w ee &%?&%% tha&r
first t*r et IAgLAekLae fey nm&amH ?£Mjtm&.
< W 13 of the n
!)MrmmtOe n r 13% w e e o e % w ma*% and me Sxoaw* ISb;** 6 o f IKhei 2%) Mopub*
HaeKi* os* S I.', SKrsst %*9Si& « * f m om # if* »%nWA,
3& th e mNwoge, Id*#
aneeamt.'i I m M te W eMar Wm the
99 Ckf *%* W e l TLOQL WxAwe m o ZBL y m m .
The *»#«80» e # f®#
th e $9 nepWAkmo em m m d
48 jM@rs* w i TB of ILhei ?a Dmeomt# * A o m aLQ*** m m
eemrteimBMm aver*
a#*l !*8 sraars* fin*) TkaenmUa *s&an from the "J-Tamter %f
vaa a
^aea 38 3Wa@# o f age*
Tlbeeo &m*
a w m m W m o a t W a » » m * Anota* W
S W bttr a f W w m t W th a t amAd ho dOwW ed#
th m h em e g m e t dWL o f b w W
am W a o W p .
it m s##p oC
^aom aatSW i s ywdb&ay
t»\#t to inoa&Aor th e m f& etm * d tm o tly a t th e
shore th e stagy
^em oda IWbodLr (LmKdLowdkn** e e t e r th e pmb&m M e hem f t a W #
mme&
i t i s W o r W t So m t s shot a gmaA t o i #
m et eeeW eemM&e data m o m t M S y abte&mAle
tto o m£ HzwtslaB- j m s iM liU s a .
I e t h is
th e h l ^ W eW dA l#
th e S W S e
- 10 *
cp/rrm irr
A PPMNWW o f a n p lrla a l %«eo*$i8*tlam mm&m# p a p w o # ro8t&8*l%y*
a^d d&rr ?tlaG*
la tsmo roqolma tb&t adlact&aa sE dh/octa b*
nadr for &nw@m%&@a&loR, and dholAOP af tWLe *soat i m w A W A y I w a W t tha
gaq&saaoat of
Tbe**9os*# It mbodW be andmr&lnad at the owtemt
that <%y&t&m8L lm#a%l#tlme W m U w nonempirical sm» anotdbeeed ^itb
valnas aod adb.^at to dmacyom* #f the @ * M W IlmtWlaaa RtWhed Se that
TlI1
OSa
^jocte Zar W W W t W
;.Waen that ta bothorlnc W
a*# beat given W w
W W W W .
%y * a W c a m t of
In abort, t:e l m W & .
gatneobeq&d 4 W 0 praw&aa&y wbat b* w W a t@ bow.
Bow* W t MbaA k&nd
o f kamwtedR# la af$W W & # **& AMdwmW #A IdMuo p * W ?
iRLt&mWy# the
W d f d wnato a otr>%Awano of m a w & s and valid dbta
gy e t the b o W W of l a W * % M #
W
W W
Hr M W
W a
m l m o o m p m v W @«*MU.aatWr*
# # # # * Se
Ml # M # W # W
M
persons can
?%&# Sbrns a u i bo waHoMLo f o r aa* In % & ** l^voA ttcAtW i!;, an& tbay
dll W o ?%*?%; g p W g R M W M l W L t M
hare m e t W
% W W
In eoopa to a a M peaeMde M m W l e e t k m ef W W f
M J TadLld data end
here to M
:Wna* tb* protOan lxwWl$n.t#a
)
Tide m e w that the 8*%tr W l a l #
I W t W In the t m m of the arallMla tools m d %b» saepeWoc
of tte W e W ^ t a r .
'M s f ly 8 th e e x p a W ra d e alfe to
m t be .o o W tte d to d estro y v a lid ity
team may be
md
M e le a m e W t i t can*
W i a M l i t y in o rd er to
mUste
U
the appetites of the curlons.
therefore, the problem here Ss approached
with full realiMtiem that there le a dearth of information about the
actual behavior of Amtana legislators.
It is tree that there 1® a large
fund of facts, figure®, joumalistic aesessramts, shrewd gstiesaea, and esc*
tzwely valuable Mstorioal account® and insights*
M t all of these are
scattered, largely unrelated-, m d hare never been analysed, in a systor-atic
■mm&r*
ntngs.
This study then is merely an attest to establish meager begin*
In short, the study is no nor® than a pioneer
attempt to
investi­
gate legislative activity in the Stats of Montana*
It Ir admitted quits A m A d y that the availability of roll calls
Invited the Westigator to uoderteke the present study,
clear.
Tka bias is
However, the selection of roll calls for investigation can be
justified on the basis that roll call studies elsewhere have proved
fruitful as E starting point for further analysis of legislative behavior*
The problem here then is further limited to legislative roll cell behav­
ior.
H S H a further limitation Involves restriction to the Regular and
Special sessions of the Wenty-Third Legislative Assembly, and specific*
ally, to the personnel in the House of Repreemtativea of that body*
"ha reason for this selection ta rather various# The author M d been
asked to do an historical study of the Twenty-TMrdt AseeaMy and the
M m e r in tdsioh it treated Sew Deal measure®.
W M n interest was aroused
in the legislative cohesivenosm, & decision was peached to continue M t h
this aoeeri-ly,
gome of the material gathered m e transferable, of coarse.
- 12
Ptee Important, Itovevsre if Uglolstive behavior is te W
eapl&lmed la
Montana & ttifie anafaer of smiysea Kill have to be conducted on « large
ttueiber of legislative aesesbLlae.
Iharefewe the 1933 Meesliy k m &a
legitiaate an object tor Investigation as any otiter.
Another frank ad«l*aion is In order, namely, that the investigator
believed that legislative beitavior in Montana should
legislative behavior in other states-
cohprtired with
lienee, the objects selected for
InvcatigRticw were closely related to objects selected in other states,
and this meant that limits of the icregoing study sere partially estab­
lished by what was done elsewhere,
iinae one investigation builds on another it m s first Beaesesry
to know the actual roll call patterns of the legislators.
Therefore, a
complete tabulation was made of a majority of roll calls taken during the
regular session and all of the roll calls taken during the
session.
extraordinary
/,Secondly, socio-economic data was gathered on the individual
Bamcers of the body.
This tabulation was mads as complete as possible
within the limits of time available.
deal of work remains to M
be ussd with confidMce.
However, as noted earlier, a great
done in this vital sphere before the data can
Third, a ooeplete tabulation of the 1932
election returns was compiled through an inspection of Montana dailies
and county weeklies.
All .Information of this sort W
potential useful-
ness for the SnbBeqnsnt study to be undertaken.
After an Inspection of tb# data revealed that the socio-economic
data v&a still too Incomplete for use, a decision w s mads to determine
first tdiat legislators were voting together in groups on particular types
# 3«3 ■»
of issflee end
r o ll cmll*. 3&rf#Mmti#Uag XeglfiLBtow S»t®
Group trotlng Mott® mdtikm the
aisles that g@% W
to m m #m a number of wan#
certain blew# to be w bealw .
M liU e s fo r im m stlg& tlw W e*# almsat UmitXess.
In fact* posed*
^Unwlmg tbs
preliM nary in f e c tio n ®f a Ape ro ll c a ll p atterns, the major problem
ms StraQtTWde
briefly stated# the prehlere Involves the fbllmang Memente *
( I ) erAeoendent to a l l steps, to datmm&m hm le g isla to rs tend to pattern
thrm-wlws m mlmtsfi tygm of r o ll oallss CS) to mW mm l t d t l s l in*
owner
reads Into the question of .last bm wsefal/oecoomnoy Is ss an IaA oat of
eaeeetansy fo r ele e te ra l behavior of A m t n m voters % b m they east th e ir
b allo ts fa r msbers of the Aaww of FoptWNmtaWoai O ) to make the f i r s t
owner
Inroads into a a W l a r qnostion about the oaoWaasa # ^ o # o # a m y ao an
In# ^
of is^oetaney for IogWatlvo # 1 1 sail W m d o r in Madanai # )
to aaoerW n the ortent of political party eohoslvmow m soleotod roll
calls la the Soaoo of I N p w a o W I m
of the
Logislatlw
AoooaMy of the State of WenKmai (5) to ccegwe the ftoAngn in Itmtam
with t w o In Mooooahwmtt## W
reoeerehe
CS) to Moele out possibilities for ftetnm
In order to provide a themmtleal onA stm-et'wal fremamili for
SMOtlnw the abow proble#, the WlWLng bgpathooos w o w n tm o tad #
AtmtWola I
a) tbooe bemse mesbors Moeted under OMBaomUo Party saaaploee
to tho 1Wttcf*TMrd AooodMy by a # # # & of
er .wso of
the popular vet* la the election of AormAor 8* 1932 were
a&#@ta& free M oW ata with a low rat* o f owner oeoqpaaay*
b) Thaaa hxwa mabam M aoW mdar R o W lw j'srty «k:plao#
to th# TwataNrhUd A ose^ly W a margin of 5?« S or m m of
the popMar Wtee Sn th e Mootlon of WoreeSbor 3# 1?32 W e
eleetsd f m s
r»ta ®f own*? oocgpmmoy*
Kyp^thffffis II
s) That those legislator* elected mder Dmeomtte Party
suspiees who reparesent ewnetlteencieg with higher w m r
occupancy indices will# me a group, show a greater iendemey
i@ cross party Ilnes or? significant roll calls than those
Sweneoratla rapreeentativee elected free eoastittaeisffies with
lower stmisT oeoupeney Iadicea*
b) That those legislator* elected under Republican Party
SBspiees who represmt const ltutm-::ic s with Iowr earner
occupancy Indices will, a* a group, aba* * greater t*Rda**y
to cross party lines m eigalflcaat roll calls than the#
%#publlwne. elested fraa saustltwaoles with higher owner
mGVtpSMCf indices.
Hypothesis III
a) Cn roll calls involving mem than nominal party com­
petition those persons elected under the banner of the
Demeeratie Party and e*a&ag Zxtm district* with .lower
indlce# of owner eeenpmey will tend te deviate
fra*
their party ne erity on party we^etltW issues than
PdBMHBrets CffMlAg from districts with higher Wlaes #f
awmer ecc*g*WMy*
h) Ca roll call® IwwlviBg wore than n W a e l party wn>»
petition those persons elected onder the Republican Party
haaaer and ecwl»s from dletricta with lower owner eeoupancy
W l a c s will deviate m m firm their party majority m
party competition lasnes then Kepuhlloans coming Tvm
(Astriffta with higher indices of owner ceeffpaBcy*
Ic
a) CB m i l calls Wfflvlnc labor issues thee* ropraccntalive? elected ^nder ,'Wocratis -arty auwploea who caac from
eenatituenffiee vlth higher owner eecupancy indices will, a$
a group, shew a greater tendency to eroae party lines than
Wlil thee* Beneermtl* Tepreecatativos elected Arsu sff&atltu*.
eneioa with lower owner offe^fsancy indices.
b) Cn mil calls IiweifiBg labor Issue* these represent**
tires elected order 'dapuhliem Party amepleea who new Aeai
eqmet&tueoel#* with lower ewner occupanoy Wi s e a will, as
a grasp, shew a greater tendsmoy t* smes party lines theb
will those Peyuhl&dm repmeentatirea elected frm eematitn#
ancles #th Mgher owner eeeupamey indite*.
- 15 Hypothesis 7
a) Those persons elected under the auspices of the Democratic
Party by a wide margin (57*5^ of the popular vote) will tend
to cross party lines less on issues Involving party competition
than those Democrats elected by a close margin (less than 57-5%
of the popular vote).
b) Tiiose persons elected under the auspeies of the Republican
Party by a wide margin (57*5$ or more of the popular vote)
will tend to cross party lines less on issues involving party
competition than those Republicans elected by a close margin
(less than 57*5$ of the popular vote).
Before the hypotheses are considered some definitions must be made
to clarify various terms which will be used throughout the remainder of
this study.
Owner occupancy. A U figures concerning owner occupancy were
derived from those presented in the Fifteenth Census of the United States.
19HO. The definition of owner occupancy offered in tbs introduction of
Volume VT of the census will be the one used in this study.
Since a home is defined as the living quarters occupied
by a family, the number of homes is always the same as
the number of families. In the classification by tenure
a home is counted as owned if it Is owned wholly or in
part by any related member of the family. A home owned
by a lodger, however, is classified as rented. A home
is counted as rented if it is not owned by any member
of the family even though no specific cash rental is
paid. living accomodations received as a part of a
man’s salary or wages or occupied rent free under any
other conditions are thus counted as rented.^
Election mapoin. As has been mentioned previously, election
returns were gathered from the Montana dailies and county weeklies.
From
this data percentages of popular vote were computed for all candidates.
% 9e '/oiV v i , p. 5
f
w IS *
sin->s aMfc aomdy to Nmtmw
a <&*%rW no sAw* #*### *a*
W olV^a In d*w m w % : a w w H te ie w Wuo&arWa*
5oy tk * « dlsArlntA
wMeh els-sted at*# tWm o m r^xpaawAatiw, % W Wtal
data# *** *%***«& iB d d lv k h d Sy W aagdbw rof am t*.
for all # # # #
M****aUMae
Asspe * * a**d am lb* baa* fig*** I* detaps&R&ng pafeantaaas far the
####%**#
the # w # % a * W W m m #@ m W «M » m rgin m ala w
s t l y s e t at f?»5' a f the rw n la r sets*
111 Sl®*w*Wa61ws m e s l v l #
aere <*f tb# # # # * * wts m m # e # W #* 'Vkd* m # W * rep***
swafcafctms* Bapmsimtt t l w a r e W tia e lm&
5 2 a S *£ &$s®
w t e w r o a m eW sW *o&om ms^iW* m p m em tatlw e*
M l a ll*
?h* t a llie d and recorded v e to . aWenoe, pas* or pair
m a m # m m i l* the h m m Ie la session*
#*1*E l is t e d the b*peth#@&* and deflaad the varlosa tam e *WLah
*131 he w ed iJmmghmt th e etedy* e*ah
lad&vldbelly I s t&* lig h t o f the data gathered*
* i U no® b*
. 17 .
If
ft) S i W
f t W W msfor tin BmameWlc I W #
# W W # to the T w # & * # W A e a W A y by ft maglA «f 5?»5t':
«r asm# of the p o W W vote Iai tbo vl&stlm &$! Mmmim %
I W W f t ftlftfitod fvm
#ltb W
led&cw of e w w
mm&mw
b) Twee
e W W Wlftfi####*# :%r*y
ftftapKw # tbe TwmiywfMaflI ftawWly by a asyrgte of mm*
than S«5"' of tW pt&&.w Wtft 4ft 44» dbfltlW of WWbap
% W * W ft ftla a W Aftft dl StTtets with high IftdtoftS of
ImQBgr
if liv J M ty f e t tK -
frt
. 'I iir r l I i t M t r t ii ittW n y
Hpift 11 p, 18, adwftft W WflWtftBft of Sftftta ftaah psKrty oftpt****
Se ## w w cf per seat eaewr
W w the HfttHWWLoft of "w&dft
Is ftWWm# and H p w 2# p, 1?9
ftftftt##m#m# by ##
parties ever tb? ssm swgfte Sft ftlftctW yearn, 1932» s*w rwmWIft Im
m a t of the United SteWft# Trftmklla Reaaftfftlt w
taw of ofltm-ft haadWy# SSmers
elsetsd # Ms f l r a t
WdWatm a# a %Wm saw A w
kag a* poorly Sm may paata of the awtay, thoaa
that t w W to giw a pwt adraaitap to W
of @mst#Wfto&ft#
aaishft te W aatcM
ftftthsc olsaftly Sm m aanMMMHNfti*
H p w 1 ftftcaalft that the IWwatSo Party d W W d W y W of
S # i m t s A w OftftfttStftmcSfta 4» wMoh more than W af the hams W ft
aftftftft# m # W # TASlo Ws Beptibllem Party #$#aftd fthott 3%# of its wt®
A w a#a##ftW#a# of tha m m typo* At the cppscSt# md of tha apeetrm*
Wa Damornta abtaiaai 4# af twr msta A m msttHwSa* aam#m
A m ##: to $0 Omar ssmpiWt mS WWSSaam 3# of Shafcr seat® ftlSM#
the m m rmga* Ware am* ef emm* may m m sasta Iftbe
at
-
Por Cent
of PartySeats
40—
18-
Figure I
Distribution of Party Representative
Districts by Per Cent Owner Occupancy*
1 0 __
55-60
60-65
65-70
70-75
75-80
I
Per Cent Owner Occupancy
Democrats
-- Republicans
♦Owner Occupancy statistics taken from
15th Census of the United States Popu­
lation, Volume V T ~ Families, 1930.
Figure 2
Distribution of Party Seats
57*5# of Popular Vote or More
November 8, 1932
Number
of
Seats
10 __
70-75
50-55
Per Cent Owner Occupancy
Democrats
Republicans
— 20
the Immr m d of th# sspectrm —
amsenemt.
« fact that must be weighed into the
Keverthti.es®, nerely a casual glance at the graph indicates
that the Demeratie Party m » w p w W e t m g a good deal m r e difficulty
in the higher tsm&r occupancy constituencies than to the lower.
For
# # # & # # of all seats from districts with more than 6*1.:' owner occupancy,
the Beptitidlcam W H W
victories to exactly o n W m l f of them (50 %
Bence, the greet W g o to the Democratic majority that w s sent to the
House of nmresentatlvos to 1933 m s sent there by the voters from dis»
trlets haring lew owner occupancy.
Figure 2 , which Illustrates the result® of the Investigation
tmdartakm to test the above hypothesis, buttresses sorte of toe tentative
conclusion© Kaich m y be drawn from Figure I . A brief iwle? of the
statistics indicate* that 3 # ef the Democratic nertershto was elected
by * wide margin, 1.#., 57.5
or more of the popular vote, while 21 > of
the rJepublicann reaped a like advantage.
It Is significant to not*, how*
ever, tout not one of to® 26 Dmaocretta who wan by *wldo mrgto" majorl*
ties c a m from a district of m r e them W
mmer occupancy.
Th* 10 Daao-
cratio seats to counties of mom than 6 0 owner occu^mcy were won by
narrow margins and the BepqblicaB* captured the other 13, several of
t h w handily.
onversely, no RopablieseB w»* elected tgr a wide mrgto to
any district below to* 55^-60 range of owner ocaupanny.
%fortoRaW y , the findings must be left to the category of wsane»
tout IncorKilufAve,'* even though they appear quite indicative.
data on no more thorn one election are involved.
First,
If toe hypothesis is
tested 'Ttoscquently for earlier or later elections, and if the findings
Mto m m tMW e and
gwd deni a w *
Wn# WLll maa s
SqremdBy, i t I e aowiNiit mAKPtm&te .C m Mass
@f tl*e W m # # # # th at the m w stC mm%r
W NmWm d w W
Am dmaWm %93&<*0 mm mth®r mamm-* Aetnally» tba. r m # m s Wwmm
*S' W
I#'-,
ilewiWdr* Cor p a r s e s o f iiw w tifatldfi.# t$*e ua@a&&* m%e
to s 4 M 0 m@rn b m m m w Cw
W # W
A w
earn
t w o W - **awr e e e a p w *
o w e lw t e m eare W w S #
w w w Amt
# «w®» e f # p#m #A% e p@Wa»
WSma^s « e w
8b&# range Co? SbaaaohQaette **a aboat *0 papeeataea pa&mt* (apprax&aat*%y X0»S>).
TW I i m w
1» 'W W m Cw Am m m period not m ly
ra&eoB ***&*** dbobta dbest m w A m m bmteem* Boatana *md 'Waaohaamtts*
bet i t a lso W la e t a A rU w f daebt aa ftad&nee baaed m Ownar oeeqpanoy
m iM tt the 3 W # of 'tm tem ,
1S e W o w A a flw W e e an m # o # W .e I
stist b@ oaaaWaaad a s m m m than S sB ea M m 5 fwt» Amy are WlWWkw#
partioBaaAy anas m W W rwsselta o a W A other sta te s aWk as %aaa*
A mmW w
I t «m be m oW m d# IhMi1 that @mod W tc e tlo n s w i s t th at
o m w mooqpawy may b* as '. % W to e n w m W w e m A o
$WW% w
or other variable#
be M feo tln s aW M an W lam m fo r ae*l® in the Tbmtana SbWse
o f Rmpmantatlv#*.
22
crimmi ?
Tpcraas&s %%
a) Hwa Sltem
wAwr . Q s w m t W Pmty
aM#p&aw*b*jMpm***& dLdw&e*a*tthld4&@y<*m@r **%%&*%#
WBLoes w i l l , m a psWp* Aflei a BZWW W d m cy #
am#»
5»a^r Ui w w os ^iitrieawt *»11 sails t h m W l l Asa# Dam-
maW#
Awe
Wt& Immr mmer o m ^ m e r
W&s##
b) ?b*t W a e l@#WLaW# Weeted w k r TWpmaiem Qsarty
t m # w # wbe MGBwmt # * W # » W th Iw e r wnmr wxmqp*Rgr
la d lcm W H , a# a gyom, #bw a g sm ter ter^kmsy Se arw a
party liiw e ea a ^ p l f le m t m il sa&l# Wm W w ics^Mles®
IeglelateMi # m W Sma # # # # » with higher mwer w ewp awy
W#a##*
A SStSa W S * # $ W m
W
remits # a w W A m w W
W g A e r a t i m W W S M s W m t S g e t e r to
aSSy p l a m w ,
$rae, W
reepwte they were m m
rwSte w w
W y
prwtew
t&m& W - ammm wighe.
M g e w S w # W t Sb m m
than m d e m W y eoggeeSm, Se#Ste W
psmbiwte e o mwted with m # w woupmey,
S r w t o m m l w t i m of m m
swore
S^urthesmwe pmoeedftiag to «
of the roll eaUa ofS m W # e wm&dl a A w
< W s y s W i s s W t have a W # d o r piagaed H tm m y ohw sm w s f a r a lm e t
th ir ty yom a.
I f m thW ; S m , one am Setew Sm who v o W # # # # m
I ^ w W t roll nalla, m d m m &m e l m deterAee SSe h party*# # # # #
s w m e t apt to deSmte A m
W S r party lines, m # W
W
amh.
He
m W y a S s of v o W g grwpe that are wheelva ee partlmal&r toll celis or
type# o f r o l l e e il# m y o % # W whet w r t o f verW A ee m y he affwt&isy
roll call WhasSore aad thsis provide fetor® r e m r e h m with erne w g -
geetsem fe e mm re lia b le SedSoee of A ffeem tSatSoe tb m provided W
swear ewepemy,
M s Se, after all, a IegSAetSvo roil m i l etudy» m%
4
e£ Vtsmr vempmoy*
The faet that leglslattw rail calls are the primary target needs
ta he underlined.
I M s is net a study of the content af the issues in*
solved, the opinions about t W Issues, the newspaper ^oaemtaries, »eenenic conditions, or anything of a literary nature,
t M s is a report of
the research conducted on the behavior of legislators on certain types
of roll calls, nothing more,
A deliberate attempt was *#de to keep the
study within these Units so that it weld net be encumbered with a
number of variables wM o h are significant at othmr stages of Westlga-
tlm* bat serve only to confuse at t M s jtmctare.
•
mm& i W m
m
m m a a
W
M W m s W s& M m *
^
**
h e w before m» m » mailt but very lmortant eegmmt ef that behavior.
The second iypotheeie leads directly to the basic qeeetlam
W
was vet*
Sag together m the most simificmt roll sails, and to «6et eaeiaeAt
This, in turn, penes the critical problem that has assailed legislative
roll call analysts for years.
cfpt roll calls?
Just hew does an# select the meat sliffllfl*
The easy m a d is to treat all roll chile as If they
had e#al signifiease®, i.e., assign «$usl wights to all votes east*
Som researchers M w done exactly that, their assumption being that if
the leeie is Important enough for ameaae to demand a m i l -call, that 1»
itself is a sufficient measure of significance.
solves the problem completely.
In brief, the legislator
The crude m e W W of diiTermtlaticm let
Cl) motions deserving roll eaUt (2) motions not deserving m i l
«« U * 5
This mrnm a M t naive, to say the least,
ant the seat
Vesy possibly tt wskis
bat do net motions deaernlng roll call in the
«slBd of the leglaiater vary considerably in MgnlflemweT
Them Is a
Father high probeMHty that they d».
Bespita soro of the heavy erttlelam leveled at tamer for M a **.
tensive employamt and defense of the above method of selection, the
{arooess does have one salient virtue too long Ignored by most scholar#,
the legislator does the selecting,
values or weight* the motion.
3», not the Investigator, asslsns the
For centuries, nchalarm h a w been imputing
their values to the sets of others.
Although it m y 'be time that some
a r M t m y ewleatlen ??« the part of the investigator la iAeat-apeble (after
all, the Sjmsilgatar oboes#* the objeate for eonadderatlOR and every
selection of t M s sort Involve* the assignment of value), each #ncc#*##
W
attempt to avoid Involvement of t M s type lends greater validity to
the results and the investigation as a whole,
Be matter Ims Intelligent
and iafbrned m investigator may be, M s subjective assessment will be
colored deadly by the tine and Mramstanae in which ha is W d n g the
walttatiozu
Be is a different perwnality, living in a different, age,
and vieMng matters in a M f fermt perspective,
Prm the legislators
thmsolve#, as a group and as individualso assign Mdely differing assess*
samite to the slgaLflcaao* of a roll e # l at vasions Instances before and
after the roll call is taken.
If "preaeea analysis in the field of eee*
semiss has proved anything, it has proved dramatically that, changes in;
~
25
-
time produce astounding variations in individual and group valuation#^
Changes are considerable even within short spaces of time—
or after a roll call, for example.
minutes before
Therefore, if the goal is to measure
actual roll call behavior at the moment a roll call occurs and the few
minutes beforehand, even the verbal or written assessments given by the
legislators themselves are suspect, whether it be days or hours ahead of
time or days, even moments, after the roll call is taken.
The search then Is for some measure that will permit the actors
themselves— in this case, the legislators— to select the most significant
roll calls at the times they vote, or moments before.
Each roll call
must be viewed as a reflection of the combined judgment of significance
passed by the legislators themselves. The search for such a measure has
been underway for sometime, and not without some degree of fruition.
Two
factors have been singled out as indicative of combined legislative judg­
ment.
First, the combined Judgment of legislators Is reflected in the
degree to which they participate in a roll call, providing proper allow­
ances are made for those who are unavoidably absent.
Secondly, combined
judgment is reflected in the degree to which the outcome is contested.
These measures partially establish a definition of significance,
namely, significance is the degree of participation coupled in some manner
to the degree of contest. Irrespective of what the content of the issue
may be.
Obviously, the ancient and honored practice of scanning news­
papers and news releases, evaluating outbursts of individual legislators
^William I. BaunoI. Economic Dynamics. Jfew York: Macmillan, 1951
26
or vtmbava of the JmlxLic9 seareMng the content of legislation fo r
Tjos-slhle hi Men SKsaninge IntorTir.dng legislative experts, and other eon.
w n methods are not useless* hat they leave the investigator 1» danger of
making the evaluation rather than allsndng the actor to make it,
AU
such methods are very fruitful in their proper perspective and place, sad
ultimately mart he employed in the anlysis of legislative behavior,
ever, they are apt to do no more than confuse at this juncture.
Kow-
Therefore*
they are probably best loft to became backdrops for comparison and future
analysis to aid in the determination of the discriminating powers of the
measure developed*
The measure of significance developed below is not presented as
the nIrtW1 measure which must be defended before all comers.
reputation are not at stake.
Status and
The developed measure Is presented to mo
if it discriminates and measures in a reliable and valid maimer.
Is it
a measure that leads ultimately to better explanations of what goes on?
If the answe r is negative, then it should be discarded $ and whether die#
carded or net* the search far better methods or improving this one should
continue,
The measure referred to above, the one which combines the degree
of contest with the degree of participation has been elaborated by
yUliam Riker.? Biker's premises are that the moat significant roll call
maaawriat degrees of participation and contest is the one in which all
members vote (allowing for the absolutely necessary absences), and the one
'^***.. Tltlllam ftS-kor, r,A.h o tlv ^ Io r W tom lntng the .'Significance of Roll
ilia in Legiailative Bodies,” In Wahltee, and Sdlau9 Ler±slative bhavior.
ilen
The Bree Press, 1959, pp. 377.387.
en tiHoh M w mmfaom atm w>st eloaely divided,
m U
call % W W W
ona In
vhtaJi tho- m U trm is
' o w w W j * tho
a bsum q w r m voted and In
iwarflr* tho # : # W # # # w t w l l call
in the I m m tmdor w m A d a m t W is o m te W f l h the vote 1» %»$& ( w
h6eAS if ton WaaW f l 'm m ims^oidaW aheortt), W l o the W o t sl-^ficmt
roll :flU vooM bo 5 W ,
A U other poaaihlo votiss w M o f l U c m a m be
OTslered '-Athtn a rotHx of OWtsneeest oolatflti and ew, Srntmm the two
extrenos,
T M m e t W W t f l W vote Is in the upper I e f t M W ermisr of
the xtWfec of outcome.
O t ^ M c a U y , the o U s w « vote is ta tills eeitw
VttMut mwwdwffiina the mphamtt’
m with
toe (p»:4t#r t M slsaifitMie®.
lengthy W W s
of W h e m s t l W
it suffios# to state that
liiesir’ e final f e r m la (o r rsolps) is as M l e w t
V f t f / j ) -7)7 + 2. + i!-1 + I.
//
WiiWflt
» W
possiWLe ofltoms
* m a W r of house ^ m M r s ( W a s W
f.mFfl unavoidably absent)
that
* wwflw voting on ibs paWeeElsr roll W l
w MaEMr on th e lo sin g sWfl @f th s r w i i s u l a r
roU eaU
Xx
<z
xx
t SV
* the W l M M n a # # # W f far Wtflflgr W f l
participate
» a # w , m for the IegWaturo
IT I
28
tfi V
C^?ef )
Thrnt
j
la greater than V
6 9 ij )
is w r e slgiilfieant than
^ef
The above forrtula is applicable only to legislatures of the same
sise,
Dae to unavoidable absences in acme instances the else of "n" or
the potential number of voting legislators shifts.
The Montana legisla­
tive journals, happily, record the excused absences and In many cases the
specific reasons for the absence®.
Ifcmevor, one must be careful about
assessing the excuses since many legislators are as Ingenious as school
c M l d n m at the art of dreaming up good reasons for voting -,ath their
feet.
Nevertheless, certain excused absences can be assessed as legiti­
mate cm the basis of information gleaned free the legislative record,
the newspapers of the time, and else'here.
If the excused absence cannot
be assessed as legitimate. It is probably beat to treat it as a regular
abstention since degree of participation Is one of the two critical ele­
ments in -what has boon defined as significance. Actually, if the roll
call Is one that appears serious enough, oven serious illness will not
keep legislators assay.
In the past, many individuals wbo were sick and
dying have pat In an appearance on critical motions.
Since the assessment of excused absences has caused the size of
the factor "n* in the above formula to vary by two or three points on
stem roll calls, it is necessary to introduce a second formula that will
M> 2 9
»
mks> it possible to treat all roll sails cm a eomparable basis (as if
**nw w r © equal).
The mmwam for adjustment la to let significance
equal one (I) ntms (-) the fraction of the value of the specific roll
call being evaluated minus (-) the value of the meat significant roll
call possible divided by
(t) the
value of the least significant roll
call silmts (-) the value of the most significant roll call, provided that
the value soro (Q) Is less than or equal to significance (S) and signifi­
cance (S)* in turn, is less than or equal to the value one (1.00).
Use
of this ancient and valuable formula results in the desired adjustments.
B r proper mathematical notation* an eaeamlo of the formula would bet
The very suggestion that such a measure be erplayed raises scm
doubts about its validity.
Since doubts are a stimulus to necessary
correctives and new developments they should be aired, provldiAg the air­
ing does not result In futile emotional rivalries.
First, it is obvious
that aomsidereitlon of the underlying motivational factors in absontcoisa
is uppermost In any discussion of the possible limitatians of the formula.
Absenteeism affects the coefficient of significance marlaodly.
Tragtcaliy, the studies of absenteeism (or m
response) have h&m scant
and many are of the sort that wuld not bear on the question at hand*
A
great deal more lnformttan on the subject is needed for 0 great many
purposes, including the one here.
For example, shat typo of persons tend
t®
m the
i» w m u f
ab eW w rs W m cerU ln pemewOtfey tw it#
To # * t w tm t i s aW tm tlon m Amotlm of W m W m #
so rt «1 a W ltlm # prodEns® sto tes sff W W W W
# #
Sow da Madras A »
states* ###WW wmat&h W f * W # a f f m t
Are aW W m m
or a m * gmgwAse# t h m other rotor# m roll mil#?
loss
Are
the W g W W raters » b U to W o r w W m m * tm nAm t M @ the wbatalmrs?
Siypeei that the ohraAs ahsmtoo ommat tolerate Sigh tmsdoKk,
Wbeantwtm w
be # Ametdtiwi ®£ eralmtim W
Thm
w&#ifimn«e =Moh is «3#*
wtly W M i t o of that defined W the famala A m * .
# m
t m w i m 1#
high, A s W W w t a r brnom# iniseisdv®, fo&gms i U n e m * or find# a W
to w t # with M e Aset.
T W # absmoo in M M
esses w m $ M lndimto a m U
call W a i v i n g high tmaion for Mn, wad as each, WLs absence w m M be a
# w # of hm? signlitcant h» felt the roll m i l tots, of coarse, it d**ld
be naeosnimd th a t abmtiee# m many rail calls nm the >liraet A m a t i m of
law m o l m t i m .
After all, m m y lo^slotira body foe## S M #
r a i l m i l s m p e tty Md m m c itin g swU-oam*
m o d w of
A e m to o im t m # t o be Mgh
on m o t <xf th em ,
'fhsrafbra, i t m o t b* mWLtW th a t on a few W w et issam , sb«
gtmt&m by pwrtietilwr individual# m y bo an ind&mtion th a t the log!*.
Motora A wtaW nc MLjht W # # # * a # # M ^slfieaam on the r a il m i l ,
m the bago m o r ity Af inetenra* sscH w ill M t W the eam* hmmm
%t vhat Aowt th is hug# m jw rity of W tom os?
CmM m t m m of them
m c id m te liy aeqMra * Mgh MgMLfiwmm m a re m it <$i timing? That i s ,
-Am a p etty mr Otbwwim $ * # # # # # # # r a i l c a ll raear* shortly befbra
at
a f te r s hotly rantoeted me* * w porrais# whs raeld naraelly absent
tbmealv** participate In the lesser rail call merely because they happen
to be present.
It is possible, although it Ie not very probable, that
the lessor roll call would gain a hizh significance.
Smmmr0 it does
tend to increase significance to some degree in these instances, but not
<tooa£h to give the roll call real high significance,.
This Is true because
the total on the losing side on these Issues is alaost always mall, uhieh,
according to the formula, Im m m the roll call still relatively InsignifV
emlk
In short, such instances do not Irnrolve situations in which the
outcome is seriously contested.
A U questions about the validity of myleying absenteeism as a par­
tial measure for significance must recogniso a very Important fact,
AS
long as one accounts properly for those persons who were unavoidably ab­
sent, it is almost incontrovertible that the abstainer values M s uncom­
mitted position more highly than & positive or negative declaration at
the time the vote is taken,
I M n evaluation is a reflection of the many
pressures, M s m m personality traits, and a host of other variable
they
These factors should to© reflected in the measure since/ are components of
the legislator's evaluation.
gator.
They are not the- evaluation of the Investi-
The legislator mad© the decision.
He voted not to vote on the
roll call.
There are, then, three votes— a vote tifCorw, a vote “against”, and
a vote to “remain uncommitted”. Sach is a choice that affects the pos­
sible outcome.
A vote to remain UBSOWdLtted is just as much a vote, as
a vote "far* or a vote “against ", and it should be studied in eon;;onethe
tion MthAetter two* There are actually two major meano of voting to
*32 *
remit* onsomtttedU
TM s»«t e&mm type is the vet# te remain unca*.
altted through ebeence e b m the roll ca ll is tekm#
The ether is to
wiPees"1. This involves either @f t w possibilities.
EHher the mn
tornd MxamHf trapped in the eheeter e h # the vote m # taken* er he rated
to let evmyon# know that he m s deliberately ahstsiala;’ and wicomltted.
AWtentian is tied to the cmtame.
Ieng W m
ignored #r given as m w
This is iapertant and has too
than token ma&dearetiem.
Xf ahsttm*
tion is cleaely tied te ontcgm, then it IngieaUy fellass that m&mxao
ei ^gmifieaeee ahoald aooeunt fo r it la a proper m y *
W W t are the
possible Otitacmea that eae be affected by deliberate sbstmtlon?
the W m A a aseowit for them adequately?
Does
First# are them abstainers
she would have been an the winning side had they voted.
accounts for these peaweee rather neatly*
The formula
Sn the one side, elgniflesmee
declines by reasons of leasmed attendance and increases by reason of
narrowing the margin between the majority and the Minority.
Sots* sbat
about these vho would have voted with # e minority, or those vM m vote
with, the Minority would have turned It into a m erityl
Piously, the
formula dee# iwt eeagwimte for these people as it does for those she
would have voted with the ma jority.
Xn these instances that the dissi­
dents cannot turn the minority Into a majority* the minority members
tasul to be amre of their strength and their 'xrebaWltias for victory*
Legislators can cowt too* and news travel* k rU
Thtmi'&m* in those
their
Uwtammee eWtwetiDn is a measure of/welus
ing the vote*
T M s does not ma^n that the aWor
Tseling of futility.
Ihat - w he*
••;.? are everaene with a
; M they also may W
silently and*
» 33 *
Ib soa@ cse»s» almost tmeonsclously aetl«g Is accordance with their assessnent of the facts of reversals in everyday life.
Meet important, however,
a choice not to vote must be viewed in light of the fact that whatever
the underlying reasons for the choice at the moment the vote m s taken, an
abstention and uncommitted position m s valued store than action "for" or
action "Sgsbiatw *
Absentees etwee votes could change losers into winners present the
greatest probles,
They are the ones who cause the most serious doubts
about the usefulness of the formula.
given above.
vote.
There is only one answer—
They valued their abstention more than the effect of their
persons do make such choices whan they know the contest is
close ought to be & subject of Intensive investigation.
number
the one
Although the
of these persons happens to be very very small, the fact is that
they do exist.
Actually, their choice Ie m a t significant, and it la al­
most inescapable that they value their uncommitted position more than
their committed vote.
This being so, the measure of significance should
devalue the vote on which they choose to absent themselves.
The above
formula does just that.
To test the hypothesis stated in the initial part of this chapter,
all tabulated and wtabulated roll calls for both the regular and special
sessions were scrutinised carefully.
An important decision followed* I f
possible, no roll call with a coefficient of less than .990000 would be
were
used« There / solid grounds for t M s decision.
Although all roll calls
can be weighted according to their respective coefficient of significance,
roll calls with I w coefficients are highly suspect for reasons cited
SErllar in t&lo t * w > W «
If « m i l
mil
I m ^alfleanee h a # m » t#
fall elem # a ol^Wlaawt tme»» reasons vm#a# oa # * «ew»
om
}Uift bs a m m d to w t a an the loo® ^gnlflaant ana.
The result
nm K W not e&tmt tb# roll oall wtt$t a M g h atx^flelettt, W t it would, distort
the oalue of tb# one i4th the I a w W eoafUelont#
B
m e h a s&se, the use
of t w Ieos algnlflomt m i l m i l w W W distort remits.
m i l wh&sb w # # meHaarily W vary lew nigM end #
cleat than arse that wa a M W
Wmmta ti^&ng.
W*wwwr» a m i l
&4tb a Mgher eeefft*
higher en She scale W t **9 a victim @f taafor-
In W i a f t a m i l m i l Wrinr a owffieimt of .3667# might
Wtate an teorameed value if it f o U m w d a highly algnifteant #m .
ease it #ght obtain a value of .3113% sod t W a W
In this
w i s M e d st grsatw
e w t b than another u b W was legitimately *360611*
Am even me# Wpoetawt decision involved tea IntroSuetlon of an­
other eontrol fa s te r.
3iw # the mm p o m m e l see Iam lved in Sw see*
Stonee i t was WMewd th a t anoaeh #!@atfioaW vet## ow ld be located th a t
also tew lved parly w # # S # # im . "W ar tsmAtetm WmlvteG w more than
om mmSm th is al^M not haw been possible.
AwtWr imapectioR of the
r o ll a ll# pmdaosd twwtgM&#% m tio n s tevolvtec p m e a m d perky am -etiti-an,
of # # i f W * e # w w Setemteed a f te r W tateteg
five sig o iflt^ n t r o l l c a lls m the f i r s t pass* a # W W # march of aU
r o ll c a lls predated two more. W brtw aSaly* on# of them* 8* 9. 177*
involved Be now than moderate party oaapW&t&o*.
above # MBtjnm a w oeeteiw d In tab les I and H*
he w a n lts of Vm
~ 35 ~
TABLE I
ROLL OATZS DBTOLVBD PARTV COMPETITION AM) HAVIHO COEFFICIENTS
OF . OR MORE FOR THE MONTANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Tr
WENTY-TITTRD ASSEMBLY, 1933, REGULAR
AND SPECIAL SESSIONS
Coefficient of
Session Joumal
.972537 (3 .3 . 5*0*
State furnishing textbooks to chil­
dren free for public and private
schools (motion to reconsider and
save the bill).
Reg.
.972206 (S.B. 22)*
Override veto of act regulating
salaries of state liquor officials
Spec.
367
.946835 (H.B. 49)*
ClasstficatlOTi of Land for tax
purposes.
Reg.
489
.944895 (S.B. 54)
(See above) motion to reconsider
and save bill.
Reg.
699
.944336 (S.B. 16)* (See below) vote to reconsider or
in this case to save the bill.
Reg.
595
.932396 (S.B. 91)*
Amendments to laws relating to re­
porting Supreme Court decisions and
fees therefor (motion to segregate
from Committee report and save bill.)
Reg.
582
.932125 (S.B. 16)
Act fixing salaries of Governor and
chief state administrators (Vote was
to segregate from committee report
recommending killing the bill).
Reg.
583
.931535 (H.B. I??)* Ibtion to save by segregating from
committee report of bill for evalu­
ating railroads and public utilities
for taxation purposes.
Reg.
514
.913943 (H.B. 146)* Providing penalties for use of explo­
sives in taking game fish
Reg.
371
.883246
Motion to impeach the Governor
Spec.
486
.377772 (3.3. 16)
(See above) Attempt to segregate M i l
from committee report and save it.
Reg.
717
- 36 TABLS II
PARTY DIVISION ON SIGNIFICANT ROLL CALLS FOR
MONTANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 1933
No. of Bill
Party
(3.3. 54)*
R
D
44-25
(5.3. 22)*
R
D
1-2?
50-19
(H.5. 49)*
R
D
9-18
38-34
(3.3. 54)
R
D
5-24
4?-21
(S.3. 16)*
R
D
6-21
40-28
(5.3. 91)*
R
D
12-1?
43-2?
(S.B. 16)
R
D
8-20
46-24
(H.3. I??)*
R
D
13-15
38-30
(H.D. 146)*
R
D
11-16
36-23
No number
R
D
2-26
43-15
R
D
3-20
48-21
(S.B. 16)
___________vpte
2-27
No doubt for those who are only casually acquainted with legis­
lative research, the most striking aspect in the table of coefficients
is the fact that both impeachment votes failed to make it into the select
group (.9000000 or above).
Impeachment issues are exciting and rare
- 37 affairs.
They stimulate public and journalistic interest and attention.
Motions to impeach and motions to override an executive veto are the two
important American examples of what constitutes votes of confidence in
the British House of Commons.
This is an excellent juncture at which to explain why tho signifi­
cance of the roll call on a particular issue must be discriminated sharply
from the significance of the content of an issue.
It is obvious to the
most uninitiated person that a different set of factors may bo affecting
a vote of confidence than would be affecting another type of issue.
To
get to the most critical point in this study, consider the following:
The significance of the content of an issue may be so great that it affects
the significance of the roll call dramatically.
For example, in those in­
stances where an issue is hot, the decision may be reached in advance of
the roll call and, in many cases, if interest is high the outcome will be
generally known among the actors long before the roll call is taken.
is not necessary that it become generally known publicly.
It
All that is
necessary is for the legislators themselves to have some inkling.
If the
outcome is already known, then the significance of the roll call is apt
to decline, in some instances markedly, in the minds of legislators who
necessary is
know. All that is/for the known winners to make sure that the proper
numbers for the majority decision attend and vote.
This, in fact, is
what has been observed in Britain when a vote of confidence is hanging
in the balance.
As is known in professional circles, many votes of con­
fidence in Commons are proceeded by "test votes" that indicate which way
Commons will go on the confidence measures.
It is not surprising that
nest veter often b&a a Mgber # % # ( % # # # * m t W
confidence itself#
# * n # e vete of
If the emteene is knom* it raises a difference in haw
ths actors assess the roll aeH*
Why discrW sat* W twm the od^Aficam# of the content of the
laeee and the slgnlfloimoe o f the r o ll c a ll m the I m m f
precisely this:
The rm w m Ie
INsUtSeal #####*#» are SaWreeW la locating deelsSm*
mWrs mad deteantnlac hoe decisions are reached. They want to tap* *4iere
ilHmittaill Wihliyi mm# fW t, Wmt aa$ms thee tie * , W how they W N tet
S W r affairs ^hm the deeieiona are ttaittg
Rmwtatata and sxAo*
le g ie ts are interested la th is too. fe loeate the deaWLwwe&kera# m s
m et know whm the W le lm e W # place m d aim # e n they # not# there
teas hem a wealth of alalnfarmatlon an them natters for esstu rlw . There
ha# also been sam eemiagly geod, bat very mreUaMe maelaeieoe Awam
and apeolomn history written ae a rem it .
The coefficient* above m y be IndicatlK^ whether the Wlel a n a were
in d:>«bt or whether they Jmam known at the time the roll call* were taken#
Xf eo* the caeffWant is «Ktrm#ly n@efal*
It stay also imdlcat# «*#
p wtaMwqr of decision cm isms# Wdmh have * high e m t m t aigAlfloanee#
W y W
W m *
their rather aad&oom MgnSficmce on roll call*,
far e % # e #
that **# affected heavily with the public M e m s t m y be of the
ocrt that get poshed to a dmtsfcm Im g before th# rail call Is taken#
It -Ic not surprising, than, that the inpeaohwnt ItaIBsae %&$**& the
“Si rrrs.
IT^:
and Statm W i n *
** 3# *
mtert, gscwe
om# the woma* hw ely
M K o m a W tiiet w W
o f Ms&
tew w w .
of e m A 4 * w # be
%* th# # # # W
mwo # m t W are
Smk w te e isrw lw a m ffo rrn t get cf ve#W&#e
th a t W W W # # m % Maeee. %$ w t#e ef e W # * m m w H aw y m *#W c
W
fees, # # # # to #@ almc
M.a party. tm& this, the W W W
p w * pti! «5lls # # W $ # the tm@ p & f W e «f M g m m s l W m W &
®f
?«r
m e h the gam ******* the W W t m i ef the pwqpwBrlaW e m W A W W
Ia the e W y w
Mae W tw M ie*
fu rth e r a s a a W tW of W
a W e th a t a#w m l m il
•calls m the gs®8 Iseue wsre of W h # % # # # * # % W e e p e c tW of ' W
the lseaea a m * f a r wfc#.
W
the W i e W wee In W tA . the w W a
w ® there* mm n$m W the ehratiU* WflHiMW TMg p aW e W eW W
W t W t W
^ e f A e W t W W W t W # W # # % r a t W W w rtW *
AnMher # # # m % W th a t mmtm i s th a t Senate M ils have the
IW U g M aver Sen* M ils Wee I t ames to W M Aemee*
W W mte mm
W M ly populated M th WWsHoaa** and as M il he seen l a w . there were
a
W atsM tW w # # # # & * nW e e m tle mmher# In the S m e
th at lacteal eeW iem ees*
Hoeemmes a f te r a b i l l has pissed -:%# Wee#
Webers of th e seccnd bmm W w W t W r e 1# m cm to stop I t awe the
gew m ar s W ld they # # **# the mam##* $6mt
pm# of W a a
faster# have m eW e#m *aa* a t W daase9 W the Ilk# remains to be
Meesvered, Meet «f W InfermMon a w extant i s the product of W a r
sues® aasd Iapraaalaa.
V W rnm lm ^ .
«
40
-
One further observation is in order.
The regular session produced
legislative roll calls that were of higher significance than was produced
by the special session.
researcher.
The reasons should be investigated by some later
Of course, the bulk of roll calls during the regular session
W S overwhelmingly larger.
In selecting roll calls for weighting the following criteria was
employed.
If two roll calls on the same measure had high significance
(above .90000000), then only the roll call with the highest significance
was selected.
Secondly, it should be noted again that votes of confi­
dence tend to bias results.
In the present instance, both motions for
Impeachment were ruled out by virtue of their lower significance.
Bow-
ever, one vote to override a gubernatorial veto came out second high in
significance (S. B. 22).
This was included despite the hope that some
other issue could be found which would have sufficiently high signifi­
cance and sufficient degree of party competition to warrant a substitution.
The possible M a e should be noted.
The seven roll calls selected are
starred in Table I, p. 35.
Following the selection of the seven (?) significant roll calls,
the data was organised and processed.
The few absences on the selected
roll calls distributed themselves somewhat randomly through the entire
group of legislators.
Therefore, a decision was made to employ the short­
hand operational method of weighting each absence in accordance with the
legislator’s voting pattern on the remainder of roll calls.
After deter­
mining the proper weight for each absence, it was assigned and added into
the weighted score of the legislator on other roll calls.
To the extent
* 41 *
that this wthod of ied^tlag absences ftascoies that oash legislator will
cootlmeto v*9pmd In a pattern that he M a m l f has established ,
introduced a
assail amount
of Mas*
there is
Bat in a total pattern including: more
than 100 persons and TOO Individual responses# less than % abstention
raadatiy distributed through all individuals and responses
the results profoundly, especially
if one considers
Kill not
Mss
the prabaMUty that
factors trill tend to balance one another as total numbers increase.
A survey of the statistics leads to a rather firm conclusion that
Democratic Party legislator® in Mbntene cross party lines rather freely—
much more freely then do Bepubliems. This cdneltiolan is in M l award
with widely ourreot popular beliefs and should o m e as m surprise.
Bi
terse of total weighted vote, the 72 Demeemtle members of the 1933 House
of Bepreemtatives voted Kith their own party only 61' of the time, while
Republicans voted sdth their party TZ l of the time.
fibres a m Io e for both parties.
party cohosicn) often readies 80
Per cent party line vote (or indm of
is m m areas*
rjm gfoap of legislators acting in two sessions.
sions
Bi actuality, the
nay show higher indices of cohesion,
OS Ctrersee this is just
Andynes of later ses­
I M * it is significant that
the popular assessment is borne out in the 1933 assmbly.
The above contention taken on greater luster when the reported find#
IflB-S on %9@tb*sns H
and T H are analysed.
A M l
thesis X H Is uontaiwd in the following chapter,
««lysie of figure 3>
ccnsictoratisft of %pa#
fur the wmwmt, am
p. *2. trill m f & l m to clarify the point*
A m ob­
server will note that the Demeratic Party curve alape® shatply tgwnrd,
t'Mle the Republican Party curve elope in exactly the opposite dfcmtitofl,
- 42 Figure 3
Per Cent
of
Deviation
Per Cent of Deviation
Fron Party Majority on
Seven Significant Roll
Calls
i
55-60
Democrats
Republicans
60-65
65-70
although the slope is much more gentle.
Whatever can or cannot be said
of owner occupancy and the effect of the variables that Index may be re­
presenting, It Is rather certain that Democratic deviation from the
typical Democratic Party voting pattern Is pronounced.
Furthermore, the
results Indicated that every Democratic legislator coming from districts
Ddth 45 to 55 per cent owner occupancy cast at least one vote with his
party majority.
Th brief, one does not find a Democrat, who voted 100;
of the time Ddth the Republican Party until the 55 per cent owner occu­
pancy mark has been passed.
It has long been a popular pastime among Hontanazis to speculate
about the reasons for the pronounced Democratic deviation from party
lines.
One explanation that seems to have won favor among those who
feign to Imow on the basis of shallow examination Is the simple phrase,
"company Influence".
As everyone knows, the copper and utility Interests
In the state make a convenient "whipping hoy" whether they deserve it or
not.
At the very least, such assertions may be specious, especially when
the public Is searching for ready answers and are more than willing to
accept "reasonable" or "common sense" explanations.
Unfortunately, the
analysis of content of the issues Is beyond the scope of this Investiga­
tion.
It is stretching the limits of the undertaking to do more than
validate empirically in one legislative assembly that Democratic deviation
is very pronounced and far greater than Republican deviation.
However, certain data emerged frcen the investigation that
be of
value to those who desire to carry out an investigation on the underlying
reasons for Democratic deviation.
As incomplete as the socio-economic
W
«k
c^sta 0« the indi-ridual w t i w m happen to W
at this junctura. it has becm
ffikWe&sr ^atabliahod that 43 members had close oomectlons tilth agriculture.
Qt these, SB wre. D s m c m t e and 20 a # # Bapshlleaas* The lmdea of cohe­
sion Cu the two groups Is revealing, to may the least.
Ssgmbllcaa farmors
voted with their party (seconding to the weighted vote) y # of the tiae,
while ".Jsmcratia farmers voted with their party only SOI of the time—
actually
of tl>s tine.
Qoe c m only conclude that faaswra tended
strongly to be Jtepibll&aa, even when they were elected xmder the Bestow*
(actually seats)
'■ratio bemner, It is also netewrthy that the 45 districts/from the 4 >
55 per cent « S W P oocupaney range sent but three (3) persona with agricul­
tural ties to the lower chamber.
from .Silver
Of course, sewral of the seats w r e
Jascads, and Yellowatono cowties.
front almost completely rural counties.
M t several were also
Widently, Democratic voters in
I w range owner occupancy districts tended
not to
nomineto farmers for
seats in the house In 1933«
Mothgsr interesting
figure involves the Jathelies.' Of the 26 mat.
here who were identified as Catholics, not one m e a ^ p # l l c m ,
seven (?) were famere or had dean agrlcultuml ties.
a
gmsp
Mt
The catholic# as
voted with their party— the Qimoeamtfcs Mrty-TZ, - of the time.
But Gatbelie farmers voted with their party ss a group only $ 0 of the
time, and Catholic noart-farsmrs voted with their p&iiy— again, the Demo­
cratic Party— ?9f of the time*
Taking ssvmythSjig into aonsdderatim , it
appears that Catholic iwibera— eapee^lly, catholic noti«fa$mrs-~wre
lending aeheeSen to the DeaoemtiQ party, while the agricultural nedbers
were taking it amy.
— 45 —
Heturtdng once again to the hypothesis under consideration. It
appears that the findings substantiate the initial "hunch". It should be
rmenbereti, hownrer, that the ovner occupancy range is too short to make
the findings very conclusive.
house in one Montana assembly.
And again, this study involves but one
Finally, the curves do move in opposite
directions, a rather significant fact, and they stove at a rather sharp
rate.
Thegr also resemble the curves in the Massachusetts surveys. How­
ever, this too may not be very conclusive, because the ranges of owner
occupancy in Massachusetts and Montana,differ markedly.
mmm n
in
a) (# » 1 1 call* tm oW Lm m r # item m W m l gmigr **#&
p e titio n , Ie^ijgle W s else ted wider the Dmmsmtia Party
MfiBier and eWl% f rm
with Iw o r WMLcw of
mo#r eeoqgxwKy w ill tood %» d w ia te Ieme as a grcep from
thtir party m jwttr on par"W
roll. M B s the#
sdil IWBKttmtie mWbore farm distf&ete with M ^ e r indlsss
e f e w e r aoeapaaoy,
b) Oa yell call#
em»
petition, p&rwms elected mde r the Repa&ieem Party
homer and ocmAmg from districts tdtfe t&cWr i m * W # ef
owner ee # # # ey will tend t» deflate Ioas m a # m % A m m
their party mjetlty than aapdblWne Pram district# with
layer W W # of ew e r eecoernwy*
The t v a n t y w W A C2S) party line » 1 1 eaULa ealmetmd initially
dariae th» pmee#ai*@ of data for Hypothesis n warn employed as a ha##
far testing the ahmre hypothe#®.
Thto W e W d m r e than 2,300 IndiviAml
tallies and ahetanttws aellectlvely,
W h
roll e t U dhwii peaty iflwpdtt*
%%m9 1*«,# a sm,wity mf BepoMlesai legislatorw i< M m # # # # a M lM rity
of W n w a t i e lesl®lstorw.
w a r the roll mil#.
^eeffielwate of a @l#iflam@e varied widely
Totes m m m i g h t # eqmliy fee # * a # # # W *
%e
fsM lis are show in SfSsare 4* p* %?.
I eo ap arle# of Figws % with rigmre I is the p reriw e chapter
#a*S*# th a t the re su lts wee# quite sim ilar i s p reo tleally a l l r# # # c ta .
mm sonoltieloRs *boet farsw # md OeAWliee
W idm A ioel, Again*
i t i s stgttlfiow it to not# th a t the ties serve# IM lm tlnn devSatls# trm
party lin e run In appea&te dlrsotioo# a t ah#t the mem ra te of W l l m
and Waiist** w m rtbel*##, damp&t# the f # t th at m o# o1k# .# i# cobM he
Distribution of Deviation
From Party Majority (TwentyEight Roll Calls)
Per Cent
of
Deviation
50-55
Democrats
Republicans
70-75
W
m
4** * frost Figure 4 that amid not be drawn from Figwe % two Important
observations are in order.
Applying BacRa*'* measure to either Figaro 3 or 4, the lower indices
of owner occupancy would presussably reflect districts which are typically
Democratic and atypically l^epuKLican*
If this is true, this account* for
ih© steadily increasing deviation of the Democmte a* they approach Republicaa type districts and the steadily increasing deviation of the Republi­
can legislators as they approach typically democratic districts.
Bcwwer#
so Sttoh attempt to label districts should be made at this time, or possibly
at any time for the reasons cited in earlier chapters.
Secondly, examination of the data revealed that abstentions tended
to be clustered.
Th* chronic absentees w r e not difficult to locate.
Although every legislator voted on about one-half of the roll calls, and
although each legislators score was determined in terms of the number of
times ha actually voted# there is a good possibility that some future In­
vestigator might obtain Speeinua results and conclusions from the employ­
ment of the method used here.
distributed raises problem*.
Bs short# absenteeism that is not randomly
Furthermore# why should an investigator go
to the laborious task of tabulating a large number of roll calls and in­
dividual responses when it la shown# tdjaa after time, that use of the co­
efficient of significance will give# not only similar, but more reliable
results?
One final question about Figures 3 and 4 should bo answered.
Hot?
did the person* from the highest per cent owner occupancy districts ( W
for the iJamecrataj 7§f> for the Republicans) behave?
The number ef
til
cs&sffi sss m mall that yeliaMe
f^tolnW for thee*
% % ## W
aea&d sot be
Foy what ymbably are the am# M # w w *
to a m r M s gmgk# Sfc eft f tlt& tm y p e l s t ,
l r t . m e t «afe*w
tw ts te ly , he .failed to note whftt m s tmp|iiil1ltt beyamd him
SKJlatw. Im the Itietam tiwtimm. M t h mrty*a mAears tiesM to M e # #
mMmtetiF nor* ooMalee.
Bare wre eu few legislators, however# that
m#ti^ am M
tM» sw»r§e*
said
w 53 <»
CHAPTER VIX
z-imyrHsrsxs m
a)
OA y#U
Ctalls
Immlvinr
labor
iggusts tItose
representa­
tives elected under Baxaooratle Party SXtiploea who cose £rm
eoniitltwtoies with Mgfoer ormer eesepeney Indices will* as
a group., abov a greater tendency to cross party lines than
these Brooerattc representative!; elected from constituencies
with lower owner occupancy indices.
b) On roll calls involving labor losues those representa­
tives elected, under Republican Party auspices who c c m from
constituencies with lower owner .>ecupsmey indices idll, as a
grcttp, show a greater tendency to cross party lines than
will these Republican legislators elected fron constituencies
with M t^her owner occupancy indices*
It is frequently contended that roll calls on Issues involving sub­
ject matter and content that affects labor and labor problem constitute
a basis for discriminating amng various legislative behavior patterns*
For owe thing, roll calls with labor content are pmswably indicators
of just hot? legislators allocate values. 13
IbrMng M t h the above hypothesis taught the investigator that
enthusiastic ondoraement on M s part of a "tried and true" formula does
not always turn out as ejected When the glib conclusion is put to a
test.
Seedless to say, aaay nwspaper editorials on legislative voting
records an labor issues tend to evaluate Individualo and assign motive an
the above assumption.
The assumption m y be correct in a great many in­
stances, but it is likely to be spacious in others.
.IOGaorro T T
iS s s a t ia a m i a l
" i l W t o d for Analysing Legislative 'behavior,'9
seienc*. v o i, i x . 1955, pp. 377^ 2.
W $1 *
B*
#b@*t
VffKjertald!!?;, r a il aalls Wrolvt^: eotttent issues
## mXL m
and W m *
WaB cmWcWL
pang### *f*Wtto|E letoer is If13
$n ewh e$ee# the W y other ertterU aqpleyed wee that
s e W m l « W W #f
Cf vet*s) be eest # # « # ttoe M t M m *
Tim
#Kto MMnm were W W W (:* IS# tS t 8. %* 68; W w te g m a# & #1*
s* & 1)3$ %. .3#
W
YAW «* 9# A, 166* 3# 3. 2fb* 0# B, 204).
AG attempt- *## md# to #c#&# W W tes Rcserdiag ta tbe ssttaa*
tasW ^as*1 '
M # GseM.
SsweHW tgr IseeU M trtm a W t I W m#
WMagnd S$i SSs W d ltla m l ##*# aecwdtead t* the typstaflter w t W of
s M la g In erdhr Se IW rW m ite ewm* voting blocs,
e n tire a t t e s t *#s W s a c lu sire resp ite.
TW opstoat of Hw
Tb* veeffloteat of
ilF# # SHttHim W M fo r W W tia # the percent## a f error# Sn tb# to ta l
Hmtoer of
f a r a ll patterns ###W» m s below #9000000. W e b
Iw B s ite i W t the aaal# m s not # relia b le ln stm m n t.
W W W W mmdmWm of ttoe r o ll m il# W E sbW that labor b ills
wim not W %
W
W W W
####%*
#%#&%## # end osrtMttl
of W S
W # tow a fans Mkw W e s&ttoer wttsig for the Mils t-wb of the
t i m or ebemUmc ttoeW W s ,
A oerW n nucleus of fepetoUmna m in te lW
« # W # antWatoor mepmss, as d W * wall W d M
of Dmxnmts. OtiHr
s a W W i sm ttsm d Sn W t s a w e d # b# # m ther n m W m m * r.
tew
m lly s tto# e e s f f W w W # W W w n # m s rszy W fo r m a t m w #
Ms
W M
W E m t s W t mil # # * m latosr tpmstWa w e not M U * o w
tested W W Eyw I t alee W ld W im te W low
W t many
" -IsemmK akmf^er. a&pQBemMBMt sad f m d i a t w . Prlneetqm P K m W e
Uutmmttar rm*a, 1930.
f
W
W
#wmm#e m t W W
W*.
a -tarhad to mzh m i l W l ? .
riu& tlm LtndsXMa W
#@#s#3y the
W * «Ef#et#d tbs W i t m p W
JhaAaver tha maiea, tabor rail rail# did & ?t prow* % r be
Imtebas fa-itows tii th$5 HesNrn
this msearohar # # W ( W o W m #
«f
m far aa
m n m vm
m m a m ts v
a) Tham $m m «i eleated under the a w si^ a -of the
ir'firty ay * Wide mrg&e (5?*^ *f U» popular vote) i4 U tend
u> isw » ^arfcy lin es j@aa «1 m il ea lls involving party competit&m than thou© Dmotmim # W W by & eloae margin <l6$s
than 5?»5 of t w popular re*#>»
fe) rhea# p w m m elected wder the enepiae# of the
Nr a e l # w s L e C3?*5; or more ef Uie popular vote) #*11
t W # WMM party lias# Mm <*» r o ll ^ U # I e w e M i w ^arty
eem petitw then thee# MepeK iem * eieete* by a clone uem*#
Clews than 57*5' o f the pepnl&r vote)*
^ W e e » e study the above hgrpoteais mew home enft in the yeere
^ 31 W 15%U DWtns these yearn the %aa#&ch*wtt# IegW atere elected
Ir Mlde m r$in$ tended U
area# party lloea less then did those I e g W a W w
*&* w e # elected Iy clone mu#&a*.
At awe paint ef high per cent ow%er
eseqpmcy wide m # g i» nepuhlicene deviated slightly o w e than close ner*
sW^bH'isene*
i3ftNtvior*
% o % e points aat that t w f w W % m y have asmsei aooh
Cl) individual conscience, or (a) infInence of ******** groep*
IsM lahhfistg*
It aAgtet also be e d k W that In the years of alight KepiA*
U*s®i deviation, the Wpehlieene w $ * in control of the MBeeadaiaette Manas
ef Aepmnwtativ##.
Sa 3$S the BemereMc Perty gained eamtral of the %em@haeett*
ioiise.
IWlftE WMe m m W the Demomtic legislators elected by #We mr#
# * * deviated more than eloee @m#n mmm&m*
At am point # the omer
ft^omemy Mttge Dm m mtW deviation m § m xp»
A MMler situation aeeam
Md in the legielalare under oonMAmmtian here. Within the 53»5»,9 per
W l Mttge ef am$r
the Mde M rsla DemottH# deviated fern
* 3% *
tbs&r imrtiy
to * ereater mttont #W% dtd th e ir clo»e m rg ia
party e o S ilg w s .
me$m.
# #
(Mot# M # a* 5» P* S5)* # th$ athacr Iwk-I6 tb» w&d#
wbw w e part a f the?
party, depleted Sssa
tha&r @ W e W 8 & 0 br^4wrs»
it appoara that V m nesntts of the lmeetlgetloe p e w M o a n%atlvo
tapper to the stated hypethw**#4A %met # part«
w m s.
Heto skmld A «w %
After a l l , negative re s a lts fr*#M*Uy *#* me stgeW toeet ea
positive mem.
W k e er I t s vain# f« r # # # » reeeereh* m e e W # # # # demerpea
to he eoted,
3e#h the 1993 mitf&m md the l$% MeeemeWette lm see
rntwAmoW ohesgea In party QenM U
I r both eaeee i t m # wWe m r # a
Vmmombii she dasiate.-;? mere then- slose margin "W sew ts, whOs ^Ade « # l a
Aepehlimee humd m ro <tiLe#ely to th e ir party lie# than AW the a t e # asarglt$ meebam of the BspWSlom fwdly*^vwAn$3y a emmet
of W W M r#
p e ttsm
—
•
-
55Wide-Cloee MErgln Sttet
Deviation
DEMOCRATS
20_
■
70-75
35 — i
75-80
:y?
15
55U°
Wide Margin Legislators
__
__
__ Narrow Margin Legislators
-‘m a m m m
Tlwm seem,
S m thlfi
iag*
thm m m & m i m p
m m i r m m r n tm*
wd*rt&k»
Sb m m y rwpect* tb» ###&%* W # Imm m a m too gmtify.
f« t* SS W h» tM t the s m W bmkan here # 1 1 prmrld* # W a W
a$$l
fm* those i* e foU>wi
# # m S of # « W W w # # # # » just w
the M atsriea4 She #@a&*S*eS#t# She
W w seted pwem#
the feUeeSmc
em sW & ew m m & M m fro* t h is s t W WWSSteSe but « small M w m e w
e f the r a tte r bmed # b j * e t oMSed IegleleSSve r o ll m i l W w # a %
tteleee# hope # # % # eternal Sn the fmm. breeeS.
Th* hep# hew Se th at
the fmmpdm: s e t of sew W & m e M i l t e o f samp value Se la te r Sm eetSa*#w@, m s e tte r # a t M # m # to be t t e t r field * sh e e tiv e , or method*,
logy,
I*
T W e are Ssmestiimss that m a w mwwp w a y m y be am W m
to
otrtite t o o W e e w w M * or other verStblee that :dll sM In M e e f W m t S #
bttewm UgSslttIfe MeSftets that are m m W m ly to e W t m # # l W # s
than De m e m t e and otter M e t r t M s that are a s m W l U a d Se elect Owomet# t h m W m W l o m # ,
(Ret#* Thmre Se *0 attaint to go as far as MaoRae
M d Sn 'mils# M s t M e t s typSeally DmmmatSo or typically fa^wMSosm),
2,
Them are e W
etr*# W t m t t o m s that m m r m w g w y W
he
#**#&# for eetWbllsM# # # # e t w y «e h w IegSsUtcm m y beteve m Mg*
Mfloroit roll callg.
%
Them Se the t M W # g g # # W faster that m a w eesupwiw may
be teed to d W r W h a t e a m # tteee MstMete %Mab #11 elect UgtMaltere
by f M » m r % W of the m M L a r fete Cmore than 5?»5:),
» 57 •*
fligwSitjh-smcw appear* t» mww#* at l#a@t m m
tW n m ia K M y . tb>a@mMUwW:*4ewa& of :bs&#&dk*# < * % * d k e a n a w * *
of roll 1*11».
5#
W flctm t «T StpKtftdsnw my ppwe. t@ be mmt&® m *
r^ir W#mW«g Ijbether them te m wrtml, W lelm ewewtog W tx« a
W l eall*
6« Tb?!* m il m ile $Meh haw a Mgh oW fistm t of atgnlfleanea
W ear te M ae uaaaM® as "mr&y owpeUMW fop amemAng dmW&m
fsw party IIsimmn S i feet, tbere am WWWWee that M # aW fleim t
m il W le are a ameubat batter nrnge.
7*
#W m $W
It appaera that m i l mile <* labor laglelatitm, althaea die.
factor, for m e a W e g
IaglslaMw mmssLom* m y W
party WwaAm Ie mm
leglelatum m d
be # aaaable meeewm Ie other IegtoUterea
or U g le U tle e seesUee*
TmUMwly, the eewme
setlce ef mpW W W ^wrW eeW y
a aWm of Ia W memree, lemee, or m il m ils as an index far **&».
esmWc c m iltia e a w attltwe# my not almy, be wm&*
% Sem&metlm of the M W fleaese of the party lin e votes mcgoeta
th a t wtitite J^srW lffttc- and #>11« eeeeeeeente In the s ta te e f nmimrn U
the m m th a t paarter ISeee mm v e # U t t U m y he W e U y In arm y.
This
U a m a tl^ W t S eeeeW t& m of the Amee ^ w m l e fo r 199) Mamwd that the
teOh of M W fU w t Tstee m re party Mne ro te# ,
.Um w tee had h e # seU eted, M thm t w
fm M & M m m * the
ay the Mbw th at party
eeeedae* e f tw t to &mm there
sw jeeiSy o f # # # & # # rote# m # already te fc#*»
W* n # p e a m th a t <mm maaptmy Is n et elieye a m o m W al
m a a e m far
**B*et*Bqy @f bov l # e W a * a m A m m w&da aoe aaz**?
WMgton BWts i4.ll dOTtste iarom their party lines.
11. X# # * # -states # m # the rwge
1» mgrr-w mother mssora far w W W
W
that Affeet
Ie^-Qlatiw roll mils beiwiar ak*%W be lm@W.
WMt e w w w m # W
ostaoms msd
M a de&aiWf W W W
to #e .'Hwle of Mcataam for the dea&d# 199&W0,
12. Ths m^msrn
** # % m
W yelltWl dboerwm la
tbe .state of Mtaae to the effect that Omcemte are mere IaaSlwei to da*
vis&e from t W r party Ilm then ImtMtibAmm bee been OtftfltftlsM fw t^e
nembere af the MWWWW Srmee of #«####&### of 1833 Wymi all imscm*
able ckWht. IMs appeared in #re%y A w W t l m cede. @m$ those #* # # »
Wflw mt reparwi la this #%%»
I).
Accariii^ ta NfcolWs fawwli* the area of m & l a r M n m t party
cetepetlWM earn# to flcm* In the owner eeWWWWf *ms# of 55 tc W *
It
is in them dWrioW that the met owswtU party ieeistion oeew# # th#
port of both parties.
14. M W
the I W tmslma# Dmmmtta ism SsglsOatars n m
l&mting part? eahwlee w M M urfom W W W
wre adding to it*
%5. The deflbt* ami problem* sBcoemtersd M tn g th is W o s ti^ tla n
W lW
s need f w t w s s t s # an th e # # # W fl# W m # ##flw m w flw W W W
HiwwW' of S ir W SflgisWom* as m i l m m m fasUmfam study # the
Jed af ahawteel#*.
Another M p o # of this # W y m s to block out or### for fatcw* re*
MFflhw The folladflc mrs^lms are the IflW af «M. an attempt*
1« # # atmcEos ssfaWmtoalm and its #ffflct* W W W be W W W w *
«* 59 «
a*
m m mimSm
tW lyyothA*!# th&t poHUoflO. p a r t l y In :*smtem 9m
# W % W m » th e n W f i ^ r p e rty *WM be bem eflaW end m »
S* A fWBw W W W ### ef all passive W W # ef parts' #*&*
a#w* end a#v&et&«m is ###W.
4« A M i w i # # # i # t W »f the. * # W p ee# easp etltW ## #
mans af meewmW
of
l^tsleM w IMwviwr end m il oall seleetim 1# e
need eltk %m%%m- merit.
5» # W 8 # epoiaweeamonlo d*te an the W lviA m l Ie^ slstS ve ms«
here SbadW be eogp&eted t# see i f w i g * # eesSa.*aoaam&a groqpe beve any
#ff#et m th e cnheeivmeee e f pertien.
1508G3
* So **
ITBLtmRAPllX
TolATi* B H h b . at al, PoUtiaal BobaviorOleicsei Tba Free Press#
1955.
Haoae Jgw w l s£ j^e
Houso
owaal gg ^
Wdlslativ# Asjgmbly0 Beleigi State
TatraoNinazv O&ssioo M.
^sacnbT?. Helmai
Stats of
'Bmaty-ThW Legislative
HP*
"Comhauaer* 'JlUie^ % e Politias gg 'tos Jooloty. Olencoec The Free
Press* 1959. Y-Vl* 25^ pp.
MacRee* Duncan* "The Belaiioti Hlwett Roll Call Vote and Constituewties
In the Maeattohtteetta Eouae of Representatives*"* Tbe ABertcaa PolltlttM
Ewifli
M* Vole 46* BgottAw 1952* pp. 1W5-1055.
PBittiwyg* Donald* ^gl L??namlcs of Voting Behavior In Uatimal Lmlalatarns.
CbAswos paper delivered at the Amriean PoUtloaOHirose Associa­
tion Meeting, SW Tortc Pity)* 195?«
®r» Sawwil,
StoaftWi
and ^w^otjoR. Prlnoetens Prlnwtw fJnivor-
sity Press* 1950.
Tumor* 'uliuso "Party and ^onatituencys Preearrea on Congress", Johns
Eookin? Studjj^ Jg ITLatori-^aI and Political SdLmce. VoU 49*
Hahlkee Vohn
ot al, Lqeislatlve Ba^avlor. Olenooes Ihe Frw Press, 1/56«
Bas\fc.-r au a CTATF IiMTVERSITY LIBRARIES
1762 10015151 I