Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T01:35:49.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Seniority in Legislatures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Richard D. McKelvey  and
Raymond Riezman
Richard D. McKelvey
Affiliation:
California Institute of Technology
Raymond Riezman
Affiliation:
University of Iowa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We construct a stochastic model of a legislature with an endogenously determined seniority system. We model the behavior of the legislators as well as their constituents as an infinitely repeated divide-the-dollar game. The game has a stationary equilibrium with the property that the legislature imposes on itself a non-trivial seniority system, and that incumbent legislators are always reelected.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 86 , Issue 4 , December 1992 , pp. 951 - 965
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Austen-Smith, David, and Banks, Jeffrey. 1988. “Elections, Coalitions, and Legislative Outcomes.” American Political Science Review 82:405–22.Google Scholar
Baron, David. 1989. “A Noncooperative Theory of Legislative Coalitions.” American Journal of Political Science 33:1048–84.Google Scholar
Baron, David, and Ferejohn, John. 1989. “Bargaining in Legislatures.” American Political Science Review 83:1181–1206.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S. 1972. “Malaportionment, Gerrymandering, and Party Fortunes in Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 66:1234–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferejohn, John. 1977. “On the Decline of Competition in Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 71:166–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1977a. “The Case of the Vanishing Marginals: The Bureaucracy Did It.” American Political Science Review 71:177–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1977b. Congress: Keystone of the Washington Extablishment. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Gilligan, Thomas W., and Krehbiel, Keith. 1990. “Organization of Informative Committees by a Rational Legislature.” American Journal of Political Science 34:531–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary. 1983. The Politics of Congressional Elections. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Kramer, Gerald H. 1977. “A Dynamic Model of Political Equilibrium.” Journal of Economic Theory 16:310–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKelvey, Richard D., and Riezman, Raymond. N.d. “Initial Versus Continuing Proposal Power in Legislative Seniority Systems.” In Political Economy: Institutions, Information, Competition, and Representation, ed. Barnett, William, Hinich, Mel, Schofield, Norman, and Rosenthal, Howard. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974a. “Congressional Elections: The Case of the Vanishing Marginals.” Polity 6:295–317.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974b. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Rubinstein, Ariel. 1982. “Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model.” Econmetrka 50:97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepsle, Keneth A. 1979. “Institutional Arrangements and Equilibrium in Multidimensional Voting Models.” American Journal of Political Science 23:23–59.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A., and Nalebuff, Barry. 1990. “The Committment to Seniority in Self-Governing Groups.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 6:45–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sobel, Matthew J. 1971. “Noncooperative Stochastic Games.” Annals of Mathematical Statistics 42:1930–35.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.