Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T09:47:22.997Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dynamic Elite Partisanship: Party Loyalty and Agenda Setting in the US House

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2013

René Lindstädt  and
Ryan J. Vander Wielen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Legislators and legislative parties must strike a balance between collective and member-level goals. While there are legislative and reputational returns to co-ordinated behavior, partisan loyalty has a detrimental effect on members’ electoral success. This article argues that members and parties navigate these competing forces by pursuing partisan legislation when the threat of electoral repercussions is relatively low – when elections are distant. This study tests our theory by examining US House members’ likelihood of voting with their party on both partisan and non-divisive votes during the course of the election cycle in order to assess whether members strategically alter their levels of party loyalty as elections approach. It also explores whether majority parties strategically structure the agenda according to variation in members’ electoral constraints. This approach allows elite partisanship to follow a dynamic process, which is referred to here as dynamic elite partisanship. The results demonstrate that as elections approach, members are less likely to cast party votes, and parties are less inclined to schedule votes that divide the parties. At the same time, the study finds no evidence of strategic variation in members’ voting behavior on broadly consensual votes with election proximity.

Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 44 , Issue 4 , October 2014 , pp. 741 - 772
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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.)

Footnotes

*

René Lindstädt is Professor, Department of Government, University of Essex (email: [email protected]); Ryan J. Vander Wielen is Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Temple University (email: [email protected]). The authors wish to thank Jamie Carson, Gregory Koger, Matthew Lebo and Everett Young for sharing the data used for some control variables in the member-level models, as well as John Aldrich, Kevin Arceneaux, David Rohde, the BJPolS editor, three anonymous reviewers and participants of the 2012 Philadelphia-Area American Politics Workshop, Philadelphia, PA, USA. An online appendix with supplementary materials is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007123413000173. The data used in this article, which is part of a larger, ongoing project on dynamic elite partisanship, will be made available at http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=JPS within two years of the date of publication.

References

Abramowitz, Alan I., Alexander, Brad Gunning, Matthew. 2006. Incumbency, Redistricting, and the Decline of Competition in U.S. House Elections. Journal of Politics 68 (1):75–88.Google Scholar
Ahuja, Sunil. 1994. Electoral Status and Representation in the United States Senate: Does Temporal Proximity to Election Matter? American Politics Quarterly 22 (1):104–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, John Rohde, David. 2000. The Consequences of Party Organization in the House: The Role of the Majority and Minority Parties in Conditional Party Government. In Polarized Politics: Congress and the President in a Partisan Era, edited by Jon R. Bond and Richard Fleisher, 31–72. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John H. 1995. Why Parties?: The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Snyder, James M. Jr. Stewart,, III, Charles. 2001. Candidate Positioning in U.S House Elections. American Journal of Political Science 45 (1):136–159.Google Scholar
Bafumi, Joseph, Erikson, Robert S. Wlezien, Christopher. 2010. Balancing, Generic Polls and Midterm Congressional Elections. Journal of Politics 72 (3):705–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Michael A. 2007. Comparable Preference Estimates across Time and Institutions for the Court, Congress, and Presidency. American Journal of Political Science 51 (3):433–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bednar, Jenna. 2006. Is Full Compliance Possible? Conditions for Shirking with Imperfect Monitoring and Continuous Action Spaces. Journal of Theoretical Politics 18 (3):347–375.Google Scholar
Berry, William D., DeMeritt, Jacqueline H.R. Esarey, Justin. 2010. Testing for Interaction in Binary Logit and Probit Models: Is a Product Term Essential? American Journal of Political Science 54 (1):248–266.Google Scholar
Binder, Sarah A. 1997. Minority Rights, Majority Rule: Partisanship and the Development of Congress. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, Farrell, David M. Katz, Richard, eds. 1999. Party Discipline and Party Government. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Canes-Wrone, Brandice, Brady, David W. Cogan, John F.. 2002. Out of Step, Out of Office: Electoral Accountability and House Members’ Voting. American Political Science Review 96 (1):127–140.Google Scholar
Carey, John M. 2007. Competing Principals, Political Institutions, and Party Unity in Legislative Voting. American Journal of Political Science 51 (1):92–107.Google Scholar
Carey, John M. 2008. Legislative Voting and Accountability. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carr, Thomas. 2005. Suspension of the Rules in the House of Representatives. Congressional Research Services Report (RL32474).Google Scholar
Carson, Jamie L. 2005. Strategy, Selection, and Candidate Competition in U.S. House and Senate Elections. Journal of Politics 67 (1):1–28.Google Scholar
Carson, Jamie L., Koger, Gregory, Lebo, Matthew J. Young, Everett. 2010. The Electoral Costs of Party Loyalty in Congress. American Journal of Political Science 54 (3):598–616.Google Scholar
Coker, David C.W. Crain, Mark. 1994. Legislative Committees as Loyalty-generating Institutions. Public Choice 81 (3/4):195–221.Google Scholar
Cooper, Joseph Brady, David W.. 1981. Institutional Context and Leadership Style: The House from Cannon to Rayburn. American Political Science Review 75 (2):411–425.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary McCubbins, Mathew. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the US House of Representatives. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary McCubbins, Mathew. 2007. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crespin, Michael H., Rohde, David W. Vander Wielen, Ryan J.. 2013. Measuring Variations in Party Unity Voting: An Assessment of Agenda Effects. Party Politics 19 (3):432–457.Google Scholar
Desposato, Scott W. 2006. Parties for Rent? Ambition, Ideology, and Party Switching in Brazil's Chamber of Deputies. American Journal of Political Science 50 (1):62–80.Google Scholar
Dixon, Kim Cornwell, Susan. 2010. No Tax Cut Vote before Election: Democrat. Reuters. 23 September.Google Scholar
Elling, Richard C. 1982. Ideological Change in the U.S. Senate: Time and Electoral Responsiveness. Legislative Studies Quarterly 7 (1):775–792.Google Scholar
Finocchiaro, Charles J. Rohde, David W.. 2008. War for the Floor: Partisan Theory and Agenda Control in the U.S. House of Representatives. Legislative Studies Quarterly 33 (1):35–61.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew King, Gary. 1993. Why Are American Presidential Election Campaign Polls So Variable When Votes Are So Predictable? British Journal of Political Science 23 (4):409–451.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Harvey Healy, Michael J.R.. 1995. The Graphical Presentation of a Collection of Means. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A 158:175–177.Google Scholar
Heller, William B. Mershon, Carol. 2005. Party Switching in the Italian Chamber of Deputies, 1996–2001. Journal of Politics 67 (2):536–559.Google Scholar
Heller, William B. Mershon, Carol. 2008. Dealing in Discipline: Party Switching and Legislative Voting in the Italian Chamber of Deputies, 1988–2000. American Journal of Political Science 52 (4):910–925.Google Scholar
Hinich, Melvin J. Munger, Michael C.. 1989. Political Investment, Voter Perceptions, and Candidate Strategy: An Equilibrium Spatial Analysis. In Models of Strategic Choice in Politics, edited by Peter C. Ordeshook, 49–68. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Hurley, Patricia, Brady, David Cooper, Joseph. 1977. Measuring Legislative Potential for Policy Change. Legislative Studies Quarterly 2 (4):385–398.Google Scholar
Imai, Kosuke, King, Gary Lau, Olivia. 2008. Toward a Common Framework for Statistical Analysis and Development. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 17 (4):892–913.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 1980. Money in Congressional Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 1989. Strategic Politicians and the Dynamics of U.S. House Elections, 1946–86. American Political Science Review 83 (3):773–793.Google Scholar
Jones, David R. McDermott, Monika L.. 2009. Americans, Congress, and Democratic Responsiveness: Public Evaluations of Congress and Electoral Consequences. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Kalt, Joseph P. Zupan, Mark A.. 1990. The Apparent Ideological Behavior of Legislators: Testing Principal-agent Slack in Political Institutions. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 33 (1):103–131.Google Scholar
Karp, Jeffrey A. Bowler, Shaun. 2001. Coalition Government and Satisfaction with Democracy: An Analysis of New Zealand's Reaction to Proportional Representation. European Journal of Political Research 40 (1):57–79.Google Scholar
King, Gary, Tomz, Michael Wittenberg, Jason. 2000. Making the Most of Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Presentation. American Journal of Political Science 44 (2):347–361.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1998. Pivotal Politics: A Theory of U.S. Lawmaking. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1999. Paradoxes of Parties in Congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly 24 (1):31–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laver, Michael Benoit, Kenneth. 2003. The Evolution of Party Systems between Elections. American Journal of Political Science 47 (2):215–233.Google Scholar
Lebo, Matthew J., McGlynn, Adam J. Koger, Gregory. 2007. Strategic Party Government: Party Influence in Congress, 1789–2000. American Journal of Political Science 51 (3):464–481.Google Scholar
Lee, Frances E. 2008. Agreeing to Disagree: Agenda Content and Senate Partisanship, 1981–2004. Legislative Studies Quarterly 33 (2):199–222.Google Scholar
Lindstädt, René Vander Wielen, Ryan J.. 2011. Timely Shirking: Time-dependent Monitoring and its Effects on Legislative Behavior in the U.S. Senate, 1981–2002. Public Choice 148 (1/2):119–148.Google Scholar
Lott, John R. Bronars, Stephen G.. 1993. Time-Series Evidence on Shirking in the United States House of Representatives. Public Choice 76 (1/2):125–149.Google Scholar
Maghsoodloo, Saeed Huang, Ching-Ying. 2010. Comparing the Overlapping of Two Independent Confidence Intervals with a Single Confidence Interval for Two Normal Population Parameters. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 140 (1):3295–3305.Google Scholar
Maltzman, Forrest. 1997. Competing Principals: Committees, Parties, and the Organization of Congress. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan University Press.Google Scholar
Markus, Gregory B. Converse, Philip E.. 1979. A Dynamic Simultaneous Equation Model of Electoral Choice. American Political Science Review 73 (4):1055–1070.Google Scholar
Mershon, Carol Shvetsova, Olga. 2008. Parliamentary Cycles and Party Switching in Legislatures. Comparative Political Studies 41 (1):99–127.Google Scholar
Moffett, Kenneth W. 2008. Suspended Rules in the Postreform House. Paper presented at the 2008 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA, 28–31 August.Google Scholar
Parsons, Craig Weber, Till. 2011. Cross-cutting Issues and Party Strategy in the European Union. Comparative Political Studies 44 (4):383–411.Google Scholar
Patty, John W. 2008. Equilibrium Party Government. American Journal of Political Science 52 (3):636–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payton, Mark E., Greenstone, Matthew H. Schenker, Nathaniel. 2003. Overlapping Confidence Intervals or Standard Error Intervals: What Do They Mean in Terms of Statistical Significance. Journal of Insect Science 3 (34).Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T. 2007. Changing Minds? Not in Congress! Public Choice 131 (3/4):435–451.Google Scholar
Poole, Keither T. Rosenthal, Howard. 2007. Ideology and Congress. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2012. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. R version 2.15.2.Google Scholar
Roberts, Jason M. Smith, Steven S.. 2003. Procedural Contexts, Party Strategy, and Conditional Party Voting in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1971–2000. American Journal of Political Science 47 (2):305–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohde, David. 1991. Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rothenberg, Lawrence S. Sanders, Mitchell S.. 2000. Severing the Electoral Connection: Shirking in the Contemporary Congress. American Journal of Political Science 44 (2):316–325.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Thomas. 1989. Why Parties? Research Memorandum, July.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A., Van Houweling, Robert P., Abrams, Samuel J. Hanson, Peter C.. 2009. The Senate Electoral Cycle and Bicameral Appropriations Politics. American Journal of Political Science 53 (2):343–359.Google Scholar
Sinclair, Barbara. 1998. Legislators, Leaders, and Lawmakers. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Steven S. 2007. Party Influence in Congress. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Snyder, James M. Jr. Groseclose, Tim. 2000. Estimating Party Influence in Congressional Roll-Call Voting. American Journal of Political Science 44 (2):187–205.Google Scholar
Soroka, Stuart N. Wlezien, Christopher. 2010. Degrees of Democracy: Politics, Public Opinion, and Policy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tavits, Margit. 2011. Power Within Parties: The Strength of the Local Party and MP Independence in Postcommunist Europe. American Journal of Political Science 55 (4):923–936.Google Scholar
Theriault, Sean M. 2008. Party Polarization in Congress. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tien, Charles. 2001. Representation, Voluntary Retirement, and Shirking in the Last Term. Public Choice 106 (1–2):117–130.Google Scholar
Vander Wielen, Ryan J. Smith, Steven S.. 2011. Majority Party Bias in U.S. Congressional Conference Committees. Congress and the Presidency 38 (3):271–300.Google Scholar
Weingast, Barry R., Shepsle, Kenneth A. Johnsen, Christopher. 1981. The Political Economy of Benefits and Costs: A Neoclassical Approach to Distributive Politics. Journal of Political Economy 89 (4):642–664.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Lindstädt Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material

Download Lindstädt Supplementary Material(PDF)
PDF 250.7 KB