No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Constituency Cleavages and Congressional Parties
Measuring Homogeneity and Polarization, 1857–1913
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 January 2016
Abstract
We analyze the constituency bases of the congressional parties from 1857 through 1913 by focusing on two key concepts: party homogeneity and party polarization. With a few notable exceptions, prior efforts to assess these concepts have relied upon measures based on members’ roll call votes. This is potentially problematic, as such measures are likely endogenous: They reflect the party’s actual level of success as much as the party’s underlying homogeneity. To address this problem, we construct measures for party homogeneity and polarization that are based on constituency characteristics, using economic-based census data and presidential voting data as proxies. We then examine how these “exogenous” measures compare to roll call-based measures. We find that changes in party unity on roll call votes track shifts in constituency characteristics fairly closely. Substantively, we find that the congressional parties went through three distinct phases during these 56 years: first, a period of extremely high overlap and low party homogeneity during the Civil War and Reconstruction, followed by a period of moderate polarization and homogeneity from the mid-1870s through the early 1890s, and concluding with a period of sharp polarization and high homogeneity, which coincided with the realignment of 1894–96. While the status of the 1894–96 elections as a critical turning point remains controversial in the historical and political science literatures, our results suggest that these elections did lead to a substantial change in the underlying characteristics of the congressional parties.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Social Science History Association 2004
References
Abramowitz, Alan I. (1991) “Incumbency, campaign spending, and the decline of competition in U.S. House elections.”Journal of Politics 53: 34–56.Google Scholar
Adler, E. Scott (2000) “Constituency characteristics and the ‘guardian’ model of appropriations subcommittees, 1959–1998.” American Journal of Political Science 44 : 104–14.Google Scholar
Adler, E. Scott, and Lapinski, John (1997) “Demand-side theory and congressional committee composition: A constituency characteristics approach.” American Journal of Political Science 41: 895–918.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John H. (1995) Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Party Politics in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John H., and Rohde, David W. (1998)“Measuring conditional party government.” Paper presented at theannual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, 23–25 April.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John H., and Rohde, David W. (2000) “The consequences of party organization in the House: The role of the majority and minority parties in conditional party government,” in Bond, Jon R. and Fleisher, Richard (eds.) Polarized Politics: Congress and the President in a Partisan Era. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press: 31–72.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John H., and Rohde, David W. (2001) “The logic of conditional party government: Revisiting the electoral connection,” in Dodd, Lawrence C. and Oppenheimer, Bruce I. (eds.) Congress Reconsidered. 7th ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press: 269–92.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John H., Berger, Mark M., and Rohde, David W. (2002) “The historical variability in conditional party government, 1877–1994,” in Brady, David W. and McCubbins, Mathew D. (eds.)Party, Process, and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press: 17–35.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Snyder, James M. Jr., and Stewart, Charles III (2000) “Old voters, new voters, and the personal vote: Using redistricting to measure the incumbency advantage.”American Journal of Political Science 44: 17–34.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Snyder, James M. Jr., and Stewart, Charles III (2001a) “Candidate positioning in U.S. House elections.” American Journal of Political Science 45: 136–59.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Snyder, James M. Jr., and Stewart, Charles III (2001b) “The effects of party and preferences on congressional roll call voting.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 26: 533–72.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry (1998) “Electoral continuity and change, 1868–1996.” Electoral Studies 17: 301–26.Google Scholar
Bensel, Richard Franklin (1984) Sectionalism and American Political Development, 1880–1980. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Bensel, Richard Franklin (1990) Yankee Leviathan: The Origins of Central State Authority in America, 1859–1877. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bensel, Richard Franklin (2000) The Political Economy of American Industrialization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Benson, Lee (1961) The Concept of Jacksonian Democracy: New York as a Test Case. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Binder, Sarah A. (1997) Minority Rights, Majority Rule: Partisanship and the Development of Congress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brady, David W. (1973) Congressional Voting in a Partisan Era: A Study of the McKinley Houses and a Comparison to the Modern House of Representatives. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
Brady, David W. (1988) Critical Elections and Congressional Policy Making. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Brady, David W., and Althoff, Phillip (1974) “Party voting in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1890–1910: Elements of a responsible party system.” Journal of Politics 36: 753–75.Google Scholar
Brady, David W., Brody, Richard, and Epstein, David (1989) “Heterogeneous parties and political organization: The U.S. Senate, 1880–1920.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 14: 205–23.Google Scholar
Brady, David W., Canes-Wrone, Brandice, and Cogan, John F. (2000) “Differences in legislative voting behavior between winning and losing House incumbents,” in Brady, David W., Cogan, John F., and Fiorina, Morris P. (eds.) Continuity and Change in House Elections. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press: 178–92.Google Scholar
Brady, David W., Cooper, Joseph, and Hurley, Patricia A. (1979) “The decline of party in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1887–1968.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 4: 381–409.Google Scholar
Brady, David W., and Epstein, David (1997) “Intra-party preferences, heterogeneity, and the origins of the modern Congress: Progressive reformers in the House and Senate, 1890–1920.”Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 13: 26–49.Google Scholar
Bugdor, Joel, Capell, Elizabeth, Flanders, David A., Polsby, Nelson W., Westlye, Mark C., and Zaller, John (1981) “The 1896 election and congressional modernization.” Social Science History 5: 53–90.Google Scholar
Burnham, Walter Dean (1967) “Party systems and the political process,” in Chambers, W. N. and Burnham, W. D. (eds.)The American Party Systems: Stages of Political Development. New York: Oxford University Press: 277–307.Google Scholar
Burnham, Walter Dean (1981) “The system of 1896: An analysis,” in Kleppner, Paul (ed.) The Evolution of American Electoral Systems. Westport, CT: Greenwood: 147–202.Google Scholar
Clinton, Joshua D. (2001) “Representation and the 106th Congress: The legislator-constituency relationship and a hierarchical bayesian simulation estimator.” Unpublished ms., Stanford University.Google Scholar
Clubb, Jerome M., and Traugott, Santa A. (1977) “Partisan cleavage and cohesion in the House of Representatives, 1861–1974.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 7: 375–401.Google Scholar
Cooper, Joseph, and Brady, David W. (1981) “Institutional context and leadership style: The House from Cannon to Rayburn.” American Political Science Review 75: 441–25.Google Scholar
Cooper, Joseph, and Young, Garry (1997) “Partisanship, bipartisanship, and crosspartisan-ship in Congress since the New Deal,” in Dodd, Lawrence C. and Oppenheimer, Bruce I. (eds.)Congress Reconsidered. 6th ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press: 246–73.Google Scholar
Cooper, Joseph, and Young, Garry (2002) “Party and preferences in congressional decision making: Roll call voting in the House of Representatives, 1889–1999,” in Brady, David W. and McCubbins, Mathew D. (eds.) Party, Process, and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press: 64–106.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Mathew D. (1993) Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and Poole, Keith T. (2002) “On measuring partisanship in roll call voting: The U.S. House of Representatives, 1877–1999.” American Journal of Political Science 46: 477–89.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., and Wright, Gerald C. (2000) “Representation of constituency ideology in Congress,” in Brady, David W., Cogan, John F., and Fiorina, Morris P. (eds.) Continuity and Change in House Elections. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press: 149–77.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., and Wright, Gerald C. (2001) “Voters, candidates, and issues in congressional elections,” in Dodd, Lawrence C. and Oppenheimer, Bruce I. (eds.) Congress Reconsidered. 7th ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press: 67–96.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. Jr. (1978) Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. New York: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Fink, Evelyn C. (2000) “Representation by deliberation: Changes in the rules of deliberation in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1789–1844.” Journal of Politics 62: 1109–25.Google Scholar
Fink, Evelyn C., and Humes, Brian D. (1999) “Party conflict and rules changes in the United States House of Representatives, 1st–104th Congress.” Unpublished ms., University of Nebraska.Google Scholar
Fleck, Robert K., and Kilby, Christopher (2002) “Reassessing the role of constituency in congressional voting.”Public Choice 112: 31–53.Google Scholar
Foner, Eric (1980) Politics and Ideology in the Age of the Civil War. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Formisano, Ronald (1971) The Birth of Mass Political Parties: Michigan, 1827–1861. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Formisano, Ronald (1999) “The party period revisited.”Journal of American History 86: 93–120.Google Scholar
Gamm, Gerald, and Smith, Steven (1998) “Emergence of Senate party leadership.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, 23–25 April.Google Scholar
Gilligan, Thomas W., Marshall, William, and Weingast, Barry R. (1989) “Regulation and the theory of legislative choice: The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887.” Journal of Law and Economics 32: 35–61.Google Scholar
Hays, Samuel P. (1965) “The social analysis of American political history, 1880–1920.” Political Science Quarterly 80: 373–94.Google Scholar
Holt, Michael (1999) “The primacy of party reasserted.” Journal of American History 86: 151–57.Google Scholar
Holt, Michael (2001) “Change and continuity in the party period: The substance and structure of American politics, 1835–1885,” in Shafer, Byron E. and Badger, Anthony J. (eds.) Contested Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775–2000. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas: 93–116.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. (2000) “Party polarization in national politics: The electoral connection,” in Bond, Jon R. and Fleisher, Richard (eds.) Polarized Politics: Congress and the President in a Partisan Era. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press: 9–30.Google Scholar
James, Scott C. (1992) “A party system perspective on the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887.” Studies in American Political Development 6: 163–200.Google Scholar
James, Scott C. (1995) “Building a Democratic majority: The Progressive Party vote and the Federal Trade Commission.” Studies in American Political Development 9: 331–85.Google Scholar
Jenkins, Jeffery A., and Weidenmier, Marc (1999) “Ideology, economic interests, and congressional roll-call voting: Partisan instability and Bank of the United States legislation, 1811–1816.” Public Choice 100: 225–43.Google Scholar
Jensen, Richard (1971) The Winning of the Midwest: Social and Political Conflict, 1888-1896. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kleppner, Paul (1970) The Cross of Culture: A Social Analysis of Midwestern Politics. New York: Macmillan-Free Press.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith (1993a) “Constituency characteristics and legislative preferences.” Public Choice 76: 21–37.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith (1993b) “Where’s the party?”British Journal of Political Science 23: 235–66.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith (2000) “Party discipline and measures of partisanship.” American Journal of Political Science 44: 212–27.Google Scholar
Levitt, Steven D., and Snyder, James M. (1995) “Political parties and the distribution of federal outlays.”American Journal of Political Science 39: 958–80.Google Scholar
Lowell, A. Lawrence (1902) “The influence of party upon legislation in England and America.” Annual Report of the American Historical Association for 1901. 2 vols., 1: 321–544.Google Scholar
Martis, Kenneth C. (1989) The Historical Atlas of Political Parties in the United States, 1789-1989. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David (1974) Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David (2000) “Electoral realignments.”Annual Review of Political Science 3: 449–74.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard (2001) “The hunt for party discipline in Congress.”American Political Science Review 95: 673–87.Google Scholar
McCormick, Richard L. (1974) “Ethno-cultural interpretations of nineteenth-century American voting behavior.” Political Science Quarterly 89: 351–77.Google Scholar
McCormick, Richard L. (1986) The Party Period and Public Policy: American Politics from the Age of Jackson to the Progressive Era. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald (1963) “Constituency influence in Congress.” American Political Science Review 57: 45–56.Google Scholar
Parsons, Stanley B., Beach, William W., and Dubin, Michael J. (1986) United States Congressional Districts and Data, 1843–1883. New York: Greenwood.Google Scholar
Parsons, Stanley B., Dubin, Michael J., and Parsons, Karen Toombs (1990) United States Congressional Districts and Data, 1883–1913. New York: Greenwood.Google Scholar
Peltzman, Sam (1984) “Constituent interest and congressional voting.” Journal of Law and Economics 27: 181–210.Google Scholar
Peltzman, Sam (1985) “An economic interpretation of the history of congressional voting in the twentieth century.”American Economic Review 75: 656–75.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard (1997)Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard (2001) “D-Nominate after 10 years: A comparative update to Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 26: 5–29.Google Scholar
Price, H. Douglas (1975) “Congress and the evolution of legislative professionalism,” in Ornstein, Norman J. (ed.)Congress in Change. New York: Praeger: 2–23.Google Scholar
Richardson, Heather Cox (1997) The Greatest Nation of the Earth: Republican Economic Policies during the Civil War. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, Heather Cox (2001) The Death of Reconstruction: Race, Labor, and Politics in the Post-Civil War North, 1865–1901. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rohde, David W. (1991) Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sanders, Elizabeth (1999) Roots of Reform: Farmers, Workers, and the American State, 1877–1917. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, E. E. (1960) The Semisovereign People. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Schickler, Eric (2000) “Institutional change in the House of Representatives, 1867–1988: A test of partisan and ideological power balance models.” American Political Science Review 94: 269–88.Google Scholar
Schickler, Eric (2001) Disjointed Pluralism: Institutional Innovation and the Development of the U.S. Congress. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
Seip, Terry L. (1983) The South Returns to Congress: Men, Economic Measures, and Intersectional Relationships, 1868–1879. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
Silbey, Joel H. (1977) A Respectable Minority: The Democratic Party in the Civil War Era, 1860–1868. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Silbey, Joel H. (1991) The American Political Nation, 1838–1893. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Snyder, James M. Jr., and Groseclose, Tim (2000) “Estimating party influence in congressional roll call voting.”American Journal of Political Science 44: 193–211.Google Scholar
Sundquist, Eric (1983) Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Theriault, Sean (2003) “Patronage, the Pendleton Act, and the power of the people.” Journal of Politics 65: 50–68.Google Scholar
Wilson, Rick K. (1999) “Here’s the party: Group effects and partisan advantage.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago,23–25.Google Scholar