To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Congressional stagnation in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Congressional stagnation is an American political theory that attempts to explain the high rate of incumbency re-election to the United States House of Representatives. In recent years this rate has been well over 90 per cent, with rarely more than 5–10 incumbents losing their House seats every election cycle.[1] The theory has existed since the 1970s, when political commentators were beginning to notice the trend,[2] with political science author and professor David Mayhew first writing about the "vanishing marginals" theory in 1974.[3]

The term "congressional stagnation" originates from the theory that Congress has become stagnant through the continuous re-election of the majority of incumbents, preserving the status quo.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    Views:
    26 313
    571
    444
    726
    1 511
  • Neil deGrasse Tyson on Why Science Literacy Matters
  • LSE Events | Professor Riccardo Crescenzi & Martin Sandbu | The Multinational World
  • A History of the Federal Reserve and the Chairmanship of Alan Greenspan with Sebastian Mallaby
  • Sylvester James “Jim” Gates, Jr. ─ ​A Retrospective on Science & Evidence-Based Policy Formation
  • Policies to Improve Upward Mobility

Transcription

BILL MOYERS: This week on Moyers & Company we conclude our conversation with astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson on science and democracy. NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON: You have not fully expressed your power as a voter until you have a scientific literacy in topics that matter for future political issues. This requires a base level of science literacy that I don't think we have achieved yet. ANNOUNCER: Funding is provided by: Anne Gumowitz, encouraging the renewal of democracy. Carnegie Corporation of New York, celebrating 100 years of philanthropy, and committed to doing real and permanent good in the world. The Ford Foundation, working with visionaries on the front lines of social change worldwide. The Herb Alpert Foundation, supporting organizations whose mission is to promote compassion and creativity in our society. The John D. And Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, committed to building a more just, verdant, and peaceful world. More information at Macfound.Org. Park Foundation, dedicated to heightening public awareness of critical issues. The Kohlberg Foundation. Barbara G. Fleischman. And by our sole corporate sponsor, Mutual of America, designing customized individual and group retirement products. That’s why we’re your retirement company. BILL MOYERS: Welcome. For two weeks now the astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson and I have been soaring to the outer edges of the universe in pursuit of dark energy: NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON from Moyers & Company Show 301: We expected gravity to be slowing down the expanding universe. The opposite is happening. We don't know what's causing it. BILL MOYERS: And dark matter: NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON from Moyers & Company Show 301: We account for one sixth of the forces of gravity we see in the universe. There is no known objects accounting for most of the effect of gravity in the universe. Something is making stuff move that is not anything we have ever touched. BILL MOYERS: Up there, heavenly bodies collide creating spectacular displays of fire and light. But, down here, the collision of science and religion in the rough and tumble of democracy can create its own fireworks. Which brings me to the controversy Neil deGrasse Tyson triggered in the blogosphere when he said this to me in one of our earlier episodes: NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON from Moyers & Company Show 302: The problem arises is if you have a religious philosophy that is not based in objective realities that you then want to put in the science classroom, then I’m going stand there and say, “No, I’m not going to allow you in the science classroom.” BILL MOYERS: The proverbial alien from outer space must be scratching his bug-eyed head over that one. In 21st century America why should our most noted astrophysicist have to defend the science classroom against the intrusion of religion? Two reasons: Over the past few years, the number of Americans who question the science of evolution has gone up. Look at this Gallup Poll. Forty six percent of the country embraces the notion that “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years…” Perhaps less surprising, a Pew Research survey found that almost two thirds of white evangelical Protestants, the bedrock of the Republican Party, reject altogether the idea that humans have evolved. So while acceptance of evolution has increased among Democrats to 67 percent, among Republicans it’s fallen to 43 percent. That’s a huge partisan divide. Something else is happening, too, and no one is certain exactly why. Our Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, calls it “educational stagnation.” Consider this, PISA tests, tests that measure critical thinking in science, math, and reading among high school students in different countries, show that our students aren’t doing so well. In math, students in 33 other countries, including Ireland, Poland, Latvia, the United Kingdom and the Czech Republic, did better than American students. In science, students in 24 countries including Poland, Ireland, and the Czech Republic were ahead of ours. And in reading, our best subject, kids in 21 countries outdid the Americans. The hard truth, says Secretary Duncan, is that the United States is not among the top performing comparable countries in any subject tested by PISA. That’s bad news for our students and the country. All fodder for my last round with Neil deGrasse Tyson. He’s the director of the Hayden Planetarium at New York’s American Museum of Natural History, he’s also the narrator of a mesmerizing new show at the planetarium called Dark Universe, and this spring he’ll appear as the host of a remake of the classic PBS series “Cosmos.” You can see it on the National Geographic Channel and Fox TV. Welcome. NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON: Thank you. BILL MOYERS: Let's talk politics for a moment. NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON: Go for it. BILL MOYERS: All right. According to the Pew Research Center, back in 2009, a comfortable majority of Republicans accepted human evolution as a fact. But now, a plurality rejects it. So I ask you, politics can trump science, can't it? NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON: Well, in a free, elected democracy, of course. You vote who you want on your school board. There is no provision in the constitution for the government to establish what's taught in schools. That's all relegated to the states. Hence, we speak state to state about what's in their science textbook versus another. And so that's the country we've all sort of bought into, if you will, or born into. I think it's a self-correcting phenomenon. Nobody wants to die, okay? So we all care about health. But above all else, among the Republicans I know, especially Republicans, nobody wants to die poor, okay? So educated Republicans know the value of innovations in science and technology for the thriving of an economy and business and industry. They know this. If you put something that is not science in a science classroom, pass it off as science, then you are undermining an entire enterprise that was responsible for creating the wealth that we have come to take for granted in this country. So we're already fading economically. If this, if that trend continues, some Republican is going to wake up and say, "Look guys, we got to split these two. We have to. Otherwise, we will doom ourselves to poverty." And so I see it as a self-correcting, I don't know when it'll happen, but they know. BILL MOYERS: So what do you think's at stake? What's at stake-- NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON: What's at-- BILL MOYERS: --for democracy? NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON: Oh no, it's not, the democracy will still be here. It's a matter of we're just voting into office people who don't understand how to make, how money gets generated. In, you know, since the Industrial Revolution and before, we have known the value of innovation in science and technology and its impact on an economy. If that begins to go away, it's a different country. We'll still call ourselves America, but we won't lead the world economically. And that's a choice we are making as an elective democracy. BILL MOYERS: How do you explain that no present-day scientist, present company excepted, is a household name, the way Thomas Edison or Einstein were. What does that suggest to you? NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON: If I had to pick, I'd rather they were scientifically literate and didn't know the name of any scientist. Because that's matters much more. It matters much more that you understand what it means to pull oil out of the ground or the energy content of oil versus wind versus sun versus-- that matters. It matters that you know that an asteroid has our name on it and how it might strike us and how we might deflect it. That matters. It matters what is happening to your health. This requires a base level of science literacy that I don't think we have achieved yet. You have not fully expressed your power as a voter until you have a scientific literacy in topics that matter for future political issues. BILL MOYERS: And that scientific literacy spares you tomfoolery from charlatans, right? NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON: Yes, exactly, science literacy is an inoculation against charlatans who would exploit your ignorance of scientific law to then take your money from you or your opportunity from you. So the world does respond and follow known laws of physics and chemistry and biology. We understand that. So yeah, I mean, so “Cosmos,” when it comes out, again, we're not beating you over the head. I'm not saying, here, learn this or else. It's an offering. It's like, here it is. And here's why it matters. Here's why your life can be transformed just by having some understanding of this. And then I go home. BILL MOYERS: Speaking of scientific literacy, I've brought along some disturbing statistics. As you know, American students are performing poorly on international tests for math and science. In science, just ahead of Russia, and on a similar level as Italy, Latvia, and Portugal. In math, fewer than 9 percent of our students scored advanced, compared to a whopping 55 percent in Shanghai, 40 percent in Singapore, and more than 16 percent in Canada. What’s going on? NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON: Yeah, welcome to the new world. Yeah. I mean, okay, there's that fact that you just read. Now look at the rising economies in the world. The rising and falling economies. It's going to track those numbers. The beginning of the end of what we thought of as America, as I grew up in an America that had as a priority leading the world in every metric you can assemble for yourself. So that's, this is the writing on the wall. Now how, why hasn't it happened sooner? Because a lot of these numbers have been around for decades. I have a hypothesis. But I didn't do the experiment. But it's not good enough to only be smart at something or to score high on an exam. At some point, you have to step away from the exam and say, I have a new thought that no one has had before. And it's not a thought that you told me to regurgitate on this exam that you just wrote, because it's a thought that no one has had before. And how do you get those thoughts? You get those in an, in irreverent cultures. Possibly, that has delayed our collapse, because it is out of the environment of not regurgitating what someone else has learned in their lifetime that allows you to make a discovery that no one else has made before. BILL MOYERS: You think there are too many tests? We give kids too many tests? NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON: I think we-- BILL MOYERS: Of regurgitation-- NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON: --put too much emphasis on what the meaning of the test is. I, test people, it's a way to find out what you know. But don't then say, if you don't know this, therefore the rest of your life is screwed. No, no, because go find people who are successful in this world. Find, you know, talk show hosts and comedians and novelists and attorneys and go get the politicians. Put them in a room, say, how many here got straight As throughout school? None of them are going to raise their hands. By the way, throw in inventors, throw in all these people, none of them are going to raise their hand, okay? Bill Gates dropped out of college. Michael Dell dropped out of college. Those people are not-- the success of those people is not measured by how they performed on the exam that you wrote as professor. Because they're thinking in ways that you have yet to think, because they're inventing tomorrow. And the only way you can invent tomorrow is if you break out of the enclosure that the school system has provided for you by the exams written by people who are trained in another generation. BILL MOYERS: There's something else to this. And, I mean, some people say this educational stagnation that we are experiencing, it's because we have one of the highest child poverty rates in the developed world. They point to the fact that high-poverty schools in America posted dismal scores on these tests, whereas wealthy schools did very well. In fact, students in the wealthiest schools scored so highly that if they were treated as a separate jurisdiction, they would have placed second only to Shanghai in science and reading and would have ranked sixth in the world in math. So inequality matters. NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON: Yes. That's, yeah. And your point is? That’s always been the case. BILL MOYERS: My, you-- NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON: By the way, my father was active in the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. And a lot of my cultural awareness and sensitivities, as I'm floating in the universe, were anchored by just that kind of awareness. The inequality of, the unequal distribution of wealth, but that's almost fundamental to a capitalist system, but you, what you don't want to have happen is to have unequal access, okay? People will sort themselves out by who works harder than the rest of us. I got that. I even embrace that. But if everyone does not have equal access, you are not getting the best people. Your country will falter. BILL MOYERS: And that's where inequality matters-- NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON: Because you have disenfranchised a whole community of people that might've been contributing, but no, because they never even saw the light of day. So, the light of the intellectual day. So yeah, that's bad. And it is not the sign of a healthy democracy. It's not even the sign of a healthy capitalist democracy. Being at the top of your game intellectually, philosophically, politically, is not a forever thing. I read history, I look at countries that rise up and contribute mightily to eradicating ignorance and to making discoveries about our place in the universe. And then by change of force, by change of vision, by change of, by shortsighted leadership, the entire operation collapses. Look at Islam a thousand years ago, Baghdad was the center of intellectual, it was the intellectual capital of the world, while Europe, they were disemboweling heretics, okay? That's why our numerals are called Arabic numerals, because they pioneered the use of these numerals and invented algebra, itself an Arabic word, and algorithm. Two-thirds of the stars in the night sky have Arabic names. How does that happen? Because they had navigating devices, astrolabes. That culture of discovery ended and has not arisen since. I look at America, post-war, 20th-century America and say, we were the top of our game. Investing in science and engineering, and education. And yeah, we had our inequalities and we had our problems, but culturally as a nation, we had our vision statement. We were thinking about our future. We weren't thinking about the now, we were thinking about the tomorrow. That's what the World's Fair was, inventing a tomorrow that doesn't yet exist today. When that's how you think about your country and run your country, you have policy that points in that direction. Innovative, inventive, creative policy that takes you from the present into the future. Without it, you live in the present and the rest of the world passes you by, you might as well physically be moving backwards. Because that's what you look like to the rest of the world. So as a scientist, I don't care who does the work next, if it's not America. I want to see good scientific results no matter where they're done. But as an American, I feel it. I feel the fading of our luster, the fading of our vision statement as a nation. BILL MOYERS: I saw a quote recently by the physicist, Jonathan Huebner, who says humans are running out of world-changing inventions. He says, "I think the major branches of discovery are behind us." Do you agree? NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON: Of course not. Oh my gosh. That is, we put-- I would say this to the man's face. The-- you can't be more, that's, let me be polite. Previous statements such as that made by physicists of the past have proven to be extremely shortsighted. How's that for polite? BILL MOYERS: That’ll do. That'll do. NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON: Okay? So, there was a physicist. One of these Nobel-prize-winning physicists at the, in the 1800s, going into the 1900s, the turn of that century, we were at the top of classical physics. Newton's laws were working, electricity was understood, this, we had the power of knowledge, of the laws of nature. And they said, but, there are a couple of things, there's still some unknowns. But that's just a matter of getting an extra decimal place in the measurement, but new ideas, we're done, we're done here. Just a few clouds on the horizon, we're good to go. Don't become a physicist. There's nothing left to discover. BILL MOYERS: Right. NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON: And what would happen in the next 20 years? Relativity would be discovered. Special relativity and general relativity, the expanding universe, quantum physics, all of classical physics would be turned on its ear because of the discoveries in the very two or three decades to follow the uttering of that statement. So of course he can't see the future. That's kind of what it means to not be in the future. Half of my library are old books because I like seeing how people thought about their world at their time. So that I don't get bigheaded about something we just discovered and I can be humble about where we might go next. Because you can see who got stuff right and most of the people who got stuff wrong. BILL MOYERS: What is the toughest question you would like to answer before you die? NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON: Oh. I hate to sound cliché about this, but my favorite questions are the ones, dare I use the word, yet to be divined, because there's a discovery yet to take place that will bring that question into the center of the table. I live for those questions. So that means I can't tell you what they are, because they derive from something yet to be discovered. BILL MOYERS: In dark matter? Influencing-- NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON: Or for example, if we discover what dark matter is, there's going to be some question about dark matter that will rise up out of the ground and say, I never even thought to ask that question. In 1920, no one thought to ask, how fast is the universe accelerating? Okay? How fast is the universe expanding? Because no one thought the universe was expanding at all. You can't ask questions about the movement of a universe that you don't even know is in motion. You can't ask questions about other galaxies if you don't even know there are other galaxies. So on my deathbed, I will relish in all of the questions that came up that I never thought to ask, because it was the discoveries of the future that enabled them. BILL MOYERS: Neil deGrasse Tyson, thank you for being with me. NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON: It's been great to be here. Thank you. BILL MOYERS: The battle never ends. And the choices we make in democracy often pit religious or partisan beliefs against scientific evidence that contradicts them. And beliefs can be stubborn, hard to give up. They even determine which facts we choose to accept. Partisans, especially – and who among us is not sometimes a partisan – will twist the facts to fit their preconceived notions. So, when people do stupid things, journalists and politicians included, cherished beliefs are often driving them, sometimes right over the cliff. As people in recovery say, denial is not just the name of a river in Egypt. And that’s what makes it dangerous. Right now, two powerful belief systems have converged to counter facts staring us right in the face. Just as the number of Americans who question the science of evolution has gone up, so too has the number who deny that global warming is happening, and that human activity is causing it. This, at a time when the global scientific community is more certain than ever that you and I, and everyone else, are helping to turn up the heat and seal our fate. And here’s the scary political reality: on both fronts, evolution and climate change, radical right Republicans have made denial a litmus test. You can see it embodied in this man, Paul Broun, Republican congressman from Georgia, and a physician with strong religious beliefs: PAUL BROUN: I've come to understand that all that stuff I was taught about evolution, and embryology, and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior. You see there are a lot of scientific data that I found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young earth. I don’t believe that the earth’s but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says. BILL MOYERS: And when he took on the science of global warming, his fellow Republicans in the House of Representatives enthusiastically applauded: PAUL BROUN on CSPAN: Now we hear all the time about global warming. Well, actually we’ve had a flat line temperatures globally for the last eight years. Scientists all over this world say that the idea of human-induced global climate change is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated out of the scientific community. It is a hoax. BILL MOYERS: Not true, simply not true. Up to a point, we might agree that Representative Broun’s personal beliefs are his own business, even when he is telling the extremist John Birch Society that this entire concept of man-made global warming is a conspiracy to, and I’m quoting, “destroy America.” But remember, this man is chairman of oversight and investigations for the Science, Space, and Technology Committee of the United States House of Representatives, passing judgment on public policy and science. God help us. BILL MOYERS: At our website, BillMoyers.com, join a group of citizens braving the dead of winter to march the length of New Hampshire, all to make candidates take a stand on the corruption of money in politics. LAWRENCE LESSIG: If you think about every single important issue America has to address; if you're on the right, and you care about tax reform or addressing the issues of the deficit. On the left, if you care about climate change, or real health care reform. Whatever the issue is, if you look at the way our system functions right now you have to see that there will be no sensible reform given the way we fund campaigns. BILL MOYERS: That’s at BillMoyers.com. I’ll see you there and I’ll see you here, next time.

Overview

In the 2000 Congressional Elections, out of the 435 Congressional districts in which there were elections, 359 were listed as "safe" by Congressional Quarterly.[4] In all of these 359, there was no uncertainty as to who would win. The results a week later confirmed that very few House races were competitive. The 2000 House election resulted in a net change of only four seats (+1 for the Democrats, −2 for the Republicans and the electing of an additional independent). In total, 98% of all incumbents were re-elected.[5]

Congressional elections are stagnant, and because of the high invincibility of House incumbents, very few districts are truly competitive, with elections shifting very few seats from one party to another. One of the most important reasons as to why incumbents are nearly unbeatable is because they normally have much better financed campaigns than their opponents. Other potential theories include the aggressive redrawing of congressional boundaries known as gerrymandering, from a more historical perspective the loss of party alignment, or the simple fact of being an incumbent.[6][7]

In recent years, legislators in the U.S. Senate and in the House, have been championing the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act as a tool to combat the growing stagnation of Congress, claiming that it would revitalize elections.[8]

History of electoral stagnation

Competition in house elections has been on the decline for several decades. As mentioned, it was more than 30 years ago when David Mayhew first commented on vanishing marginals, the decreasing number of congressional districts that were being won by close vote margins.[9] In typical election years between 1956 and 1964, about 94 districts were decided by a margin of 10 percentage points or fewer (55%-to-45% of the vote or closer). From 1966 to 1972, the number of marginal districts dropped to about 59.[10] Since Mayhew's observation, competition has eroded further and is now in very short supply.[11]

One important indicator of competition is the partisan turnover of districts – the number of districts won by candidates of different parties in consecutive election years. Turnover is not essential for competition, but one would expect serious competition to result in a substantial amount of turnover. While some elections have produced a great deal of turnover, other elections have produced next to none. In general, the amount of turnover declined in the second half of the 20th century, especially in the last few decades.[12]

The typical election in the first half of the 20th century resulted in a shift of about 55 seats between the parties (specifically the period 1900–1924 produced a median seat turnover of 53.9 seats and 1926–1950 produced a 56.1 change). Competitiveness, at least measured by the likelihood of an election changing the partisan outcome in a district, is now less than half it was throughout much of the 20th century.[13]

Without competition, the public at large can lose interest in the processes of elections. It might be expected that a large number of citizens would come to regard the process as unresponsive and crooked, grow cynical, and stay home on election day. This is seen as one of the many potential reasons as to why the United States has one of the lowest voter turnout rates in the western world.[14][15][16]

Reasons for stagnation

Incumbent quality

The fact that incumbents have won at least one previous election means that they have some qualities that appeal to voters. So re-election rates greater than fifty percent are not surprising. This effect can explain the re-election rates in the US Senate from 1946 to 1978, but has difficulty explaining the increase in the re-election rates from 1980 to 2010.[17]

Incumbency financial advantage

One of the main reasons incumbents seem to have such a complete advantage over challengers is because of their significantly better financed campaigns. In the 1990s the typical incumbent in a contested election had somewhere between 83 and 93 percent of what was spent by all the candidates in the district, and these incumbents typically captured about 64 to 67 percent of the vote.[18]

The figures should be used with discretion, however, as half the incumbents dominated spending in their area to an even greater extent. If anything, this analysis may even understate how great the incumbency campaign finance advantage predetermines the election outcome, as the analysis examines only contested elections. For instance, in the 2000 election cycle, 64 incumbents ran for reelection unchallenged because the opposition party did not even mount a nominal challenge.[19]

Specifically for the 2000 election, incumbents spent 92.8 percent of total money and received 67.3 percent of the vote.[20] In the elections from 1992 to 2000, there were 1,643 contested House seats in which there was a challenged incumbent. In 905 of these (55 percent of the total), the incumbents spent 84% or more of the total spending. These elections resulted in 904 victories for the incumbents, and one loss.[21]

The single exception was the defeat of Democratic Congressman Dan Rostenkowski in the Fifth Congressional District of Illinois. Rostenkowski had already served 18 terms as a Congressman, and spent close to $2.5 million on the election compared to the $133,000 spent by his Republican opponent. Nevertheless, this financing advantage of 22:1 was unable to save him from a 52–46 percent defeat.[22] The advantage that opponent Michael Flanagan had over Rostenkowski in this case was that he wasn't involved in a 17-count federal investigation in "misuse of personal and congressional funds, extortion of gifts and cash, and obstruction of justice."[23] The Rostenkowski example is frequently cited in claims that money does not buy elections.[24][verification needed]

While there is a correlation between money raised and winning elections, there are some who argue there may not be a direct causation: or more simply, you cannot buy an election.[25] A different hypothesis explaining this correlation is that someone donating money to a political candidate often gives that money to whomever they believe will win. They might do this for future special considerations from the politician, or just to be on the winning team. This person, then, would never give money to a sure loser, and this way a candidate with small lead in the polls can quickly develop an insurmountable lead in campaign spending.[citation needed]

Gerrymandering

Gerrymandering is a widely used, and often legal, tactic in the United States.[26] In the U.S., gerrymandering typically involves the "packing and cracking" method, but other tactics have also been used. [27] While most incumbents have had success in having district lines drawn to their liking, few have had the opposite experience.[28] A potential theory against gerrymandering being a significant factor in electoral stagnation can be summed up by the statement that all incumbents were elected to serve for a Congressional district before the boundaries were redrawn, and that redrawing them does not make a great difference to any potential future outcome.[citation needed]

Loss of party alignment

Loss of party alignment (that voters lose their strong dedication to a specific party) was one of the first theories formulated to explain the stagnating congress, and was widely accepted to be the main cause for electoral stagnation in the 1970s.[29][30] This was a theory devised following a slight lapse in party alignment of the American voters, following the Watergate Scandal, however it did not weaken very much and rebounded in the 1980s.[31][32][33] If dealignment had been one of the major contributing factors to the growth of incumbency advantage, the effects of incumbency should have[according to whom?] declined after the 1980s, as partisanship rebounded; however, time has proven that this is not the case.[citation needed]

Advantages of incumbency

Incumbency itself

There are advantages that come with being an incumbent (in addition to being, for example, the representative from the majority party in the district, or having greater access to campaign finances). Being an incumbent lends both greater name recognition and attracts votes that would not be gained by a challenger or running in an open seat race. Various estimates have been made to sift through the, data and discern how many votes incumbency itself is worth, and although various methodologies have yielded varied results it has been estimated that prior to the mid-1960s incumbency added only a few percentage points to the incumbents' column.[34][35][36][37][38][39][40]

There is wide agreement that since the mid-1960s, the advantage of incumbency has grown significantly. Estimates have indicated that it has increased to roughly 7 to 10 percentage points of the vote, depending on the methodology used.[41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48] This indicates that the advantage of incumbency has close to quadrupled while competition and seat changes have sharply decreased. Districts have been made safer for incumbents and this has buffered these districts from the tides of national politics.[49]

Pork barrel spending

"Pork barrel spending" is a term in American politics used to refer to congressmen or senators who use their position on Committees in the Senate or House to appropriate federal money to their own district or state, and therefore bring increased business and investment to their home area. This process is referred to as "bringing home the pork." This can be used to build up a stronger base of support, thereby solidifying their hold on the sensibilities of their constituents, using the job to secure its own continuation.[50][51][52] Allocation of these funds is often achieved through attaching amendments providing the "pork" to bills that are not related to financial appropriations, and that are likely to be passed, thereby guaranteeing the allocation. Political commentator Michael J. Malbin has commented that Congress suffers from an "I'll support your pork if you support mine" syndrome[53] and that it would be difficult to eliminate pork without fundamentally changing the way in which Congress appropriates funds. Some politicians take a hard-line stance against pork[54] and have worked to eliminate pork from Congress.[citation needed]

An early-21st-century example of attempted pork barrel spending was the Gravina Island Bridge, a proposed Alaska bridge which attracted so much national attention as a "bridge to nowhere" that the earmark for it was removed.

Proposed solutions to the increased incumbency advantage

Congressional term limits

Applying term limits to Congressmen was proposed in the "Citizen Legislature Act" (H.J.Res. 73) during the 104th Congress as an amendment to the Constitution that would limit Congressmen to 6 two-year terms. This act was defeated in the House by a 227–204 margin: the 227 votes in favor were insufficient, as a proposed Constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds majority of 290 votes to be passed. Since the failure of the Citizen Legislature Act to be passed, there has been no new legislation proposed advocating the imposing of term limits.[citation needed]

The introduction of term limits on members of Congress would prevent the electoral advantage in the long run; however, it is not certain how well it would have aided in reducing electoral advantage in House races involving an incumbent who was still eligible to run for re-election.[55]

Term limits in the United States are not unheard of; several states have amended their own constitutions to limit terms on elected statewide officials as high as the Governor's office (most notably the Commonwealth of Virginia, which limits its governors to unlimited four-year non-sequential terms).[citation needed] However, on a federal level only the Office of the Presidency has term limits imposed on it (by the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution).

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act

Prior to BCRA, the last major piece of campaign finance legislation was the Federal Election Campaign Act, which had been ratified in 1971 and amended several times, most recently in 1979.[citation needed]

BCRA was enacted with the pledge that it would break the stranglehold of money on the political process, make huge sums of money from limited donors the exception rather than the rule, and eliminate the corruption influence (whether real or only perceived) of such donations. From one standpoint it can be argued that the situation had already hit rock bottom in terms of stagnation, and that any reform would improve the current situation. However, there is an equally strong argument that BCRA will do very little to affect the congressional deadlock.[citation needed]

Having been tailored to focus on issue advocacy and big businesses, BCRA forfeited its chance to focus more on congressional stagnation. BCRA was more tailored to combat the seemingly irresistible rise of political soft money, whereas the structural problems in congressional stagnation lie elsewhere. The problems of an enlarged incumbency advantage are the results of a severe imbalance in hard money contributions to the candidates and is not a consequence of a sizable influx of soft money, or third-party issue advocacy. Given the huge advantages that incumbents have, some might say that political tools like soft money and issue advocacy would benefit the underdog challenger, as it could be potentially helpful to them, and could lessen the competition. It follows that any impediment to these alternative sources might prove to work contrary to the revitalization of the political process.[56] BCRA can be seen as such an impediment, and this was why some opponents of BCRA had labeled it as an "incumbency protection act".[57]

Congressional Apportionment Amendment

Another possible solution would be the ratification of the original first amendment proposed to the U.S. Constitution. The Congressional Apportionment Amendment was originally proposed as the first of twelve amendments to the Constitution, and came within one state ratification of being passed in 1789–1791, but has not been ratified by any state since.

One of the effects of this amendment, if ratified, would be to dramatically increase the size of the House of Representatives from 435 to a number determined by an algorithm within the amendment of approximately 600-6,000.[citation needed]

Increased incumbency advantage as a positive development

Some justifications that have been proffered, namely increased experience and stability in Congress. The long-term presence of legislators allows some to become experts in overseeing some of the highly technical aspects of government programs. Also, incumbents whose re-election is virtually guaranteed can arguably focus on actually passing productive legislation rather than on campaigning.

See also

References

Written sources

  • ^ Alford, John R., and David W. Brady. 1993. "Personal and Partisan Advantage in U.S. Congressional Elections, 1846–1990." In Congress Reconsidered, 5th ed., edited by Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce I. Oppenheimer. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly.
  • ^ Bartels, Larry M. 2000. "Partisanship and Voting Behavior, 1952–1996." American Journal of Political Science 44 (1): 35–50.
  • ^ Campbell, James E. 2003. "The 2002 Midterm Election: A Typical or an Atypical Midterm?" PS: Political Science and Politics 36 (2): 203–207.
  • ^ Campbell, James E., and Steve J. Jurek. 2003. "The Decline of Competition and Change in Congressional Elections." In The United States Congress: A Century of Change, edited by Sunil Ahuja and Robert Dewhirst. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
  • ^ Cover, Albert D., and David R. Mayhew. 1981. "Congressional Dynamics and the Decline of Competitive Elections." In Congress Reconsidered, edited by Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce I. Oppenheimer. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly.
  • ^ Duncan, Philip D., and Christine C. Lawrence. 1995. Politics in America 1996: The 104th Congress. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly.
  • ^ Erikson, Robert S. 1971. "The Advantage of Incumbency in Congressional Elections." Polity 3:395–405.
  • ^ Gelman, Andrew, and Gary King. 1990. "Estimating Incumbency Advantage without Bias." American Journal of Political Science 34 (4): 1142–64.
  • ^ Henderson, Harry. 2004. Campaign and Election Reform. New York, NY.: Facts on File.
  • ^ Ferejohn, John A. 1977. "On the Decline of Competition in Congressional Elections." American Political Science Review 71 (1): 166–76.
  • ^ Fiorina, Morris P. 1977. "The Case of the Vanishing Marginals: The Bureaucracy Did It." American Political Science Review 71 (1): 177–181.
  • ^ Jacobson, Gary C. 2000. "Reversal of Fortune: The Transformation of U.S. House Elections in the 1990s." In Continuity and Change in House Elections, edited by David W. Brady, John F. Cogan, and Morris P. Fiorina. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
  • ^ Keith, Bruce E., David B. Magelby, Candice J. Nelson et al. 1992. The Myth of the Independent Voter. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • ^ Levitt, Steven, and Catherline Wolfram. 1997. "Decomposing the Sources of Incumbency Advantages in the U.S.House." Legislative Studies Quarterly 22: 45–60.
  • ^ Malbin, Michael J., Anne H. Bedlington, Robert G. Boatright et al. 2003. Life After Reform: When the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act meets politics. Lanham, Md.: Rowland & Littlefield.
  • ^ Mayhew, David R. 1974. "Congressional Elections: The Case of the Vanishing Marginals." Polity. 6:295–317.
  • ^ Pastine, Ivan, Tuvana Pastine and Paul Redmond. 2012. "Incumbent-Quality Advantage and Counterfactual Electoral Stagnation in the U.S. Senate." University College Dublin Economics Working Paper WP12/18.
  • ^ Payne, James L. 1980. "The Personal Electoral Advantage of House Incumbents 1936–1976." American Politics Quarterly 8: 465–82.
  • ^ Smith, Bradley A. 2001. Unfree Speech: The Folly of Campaign Finance Reform. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
  • ^ Levitt, Steven D. (1994). "Using Repeat Challengers to Estimate the Effect of Campaign Spending on Election Outcomes in the U.S. House". Journal of Political Economy. 102 (4): 777–798. JSTOR 2138764.

Online sources

External links

This page was last edited on 17 February 2024, at 20:36
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.