How Parties?
PLS 324 5/27
Parties in the House – The Early Years
1880s to 1910 – strong parties
• Reed Rules
Speaker appointed committee chairs Speaker and chairs of Ways and Means and Appropriations ran rules committee
• Reed could discipline members to get outcomes • Cannon
Appointed all committee members Ran rules committee
• Power was centralized
Parties in the House – The Middle Years
1910 – members revolted Leaders lost power to appoint committee members and chairs Committee assignments based on seniority, not loyalty Committee chairs became powerful Power was decentralized
Parties in the House The “Modern Years”
Mayhew summary Members are single-minded seekers of reelection Parties do not matter
• • • Parties are local, not national Individuals must mobilize her own resources Congress does not need party cohesion to sustain a cabinet
Insulated from Party pressure due to the seniority system
Parties in the House – The “Modern Years”
Liberal members of Democratic party not getting their legislation passed Southern committee chairs played gatekeeper Solution – recentralize power to leadership
Reform
Three tracks Powers of Committee chairman
• Remove power from chairs
Strengthening Democratic Party and Leadership
• Increase power of the party and leadership in policy
Collective Control of Power
• Let the caucus vote on leadership
Powers of Committee chairman
Sub-committee positions and chairs based on seniority
• Specific jurisdiction for sub-committee • Guaranteed staff and budget
Secret ballot to approve committee chairs
• Some chairs were removed • End of seniority system
Strengthening Democratic Party and Leadership
Creation of Democratic Steering and Policy Committee
• Make policy recommendations • Make Committee assignments
Speaker appointed chair and members of rules committee Multiple Referral
Collective Control of Power
Make leaders responsible to rankand-file Caucus vote on committee chairs
• Secret Ballot • Appropriations sub-committee chairs
Committees could vote down subcommittee chairs More members on Ways and Means
Parties in the House – The “Modern Years”
Puzzle – If members are singleminded seekers of reelection, why would they change the rules of the game? Why would they cede power to the leadership? Answer – they are not single-minded seekers of reelection
An Alternative Theory Conditional Party Government (CPG)
Incorporate different goals
• Make Good Policy • Achieve and wield power in Congress • Win elections • Maintain the majority
Assuming everyone is centrally concerned with winning reelection does not mean they are only concerned with winning reelection
CPG
Assumptions
• Members will structure the rules in the House to achieve their goals
Different constituencies
• Geographic • Reelection • Primary • Personal
Importance of activists
CPG “Conditions”
1.
Preference agreement within the party
• Homogeneous within
2.
Preference conflict between the parties
• Heterogeneous between
If these two conditions hold, parties will be strong, otherwise weak
Evidence
Elements for conditions to hold Primary constituency changed over time
• Became homogeneous within the parties • Became heterogeneous between
Therefore, we should expect members to mimic these views
Ideology of Members
1969-1971 (91st Congress)
50
44 43 41 38 37 30 28 26 19 16 14 12 32 38
10
20
30
40
6 0 1 3
7
7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Democrats
Republicans
Ideology of Members
1997-1999 (105th Congress)
50
44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 45
40
35
20
30
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Democrats
Republicans
Ideology of Members
1969-1971 (91st Congress)
50
44 44 41 38 38
Ideology of Members
1997-1999 (105th Congress)
44 44 44 44 44 44 44 45
43 37 32 30
Number of Members
40
35
30
28 26
20
19 16 14
12
10
10 6 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7
0 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Democrats
Graphs by Congress
Republicans
Change in Party Unity in the House
1953-2001
.7 .3
1953 1957 1961 1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 Year
.4
.5
.6
CPG
Did members increase their chances for reelection by instituting changes? No Did members increase their chances of getting their preferred policy passed? Yes
Maintaining the Majority
Party as a brand name (the B term) Leaders have more to lose if no longer in majority
• Emphasize majority status in their actions
Want “public” record for party
• Both short and long term
National Parties and Local Elections
Mayhew – Candidate Centered Now – National Parties are important
• Campaign Funds • Management • Money brokers
Recruit candidates with same policy goals
Which is correct?
Does Mayhew explain the changes in the House? Why did members?
• Voluntarily remove electoral independence • Gave power to leadership to keep others in line
Committee assignment process Seniority system Rules committee
Answer – To achieve other goals
The Republican Era
Assignment Committee – 23 percent of votes to leadership Continue to bypass seniority on important committees
• Appropriations chair fifth in seniority
Leadership Choice
• Contrast with Democratic Reforms
The Republican Era
Abolish three full committees
• D.C., Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Post Office and Civil Service
Members on fewer committees, fewer subcommittees
• Fewer committee staff • No Proxy voting
Unable to build power base outside leadership
The Republican Era
Chairs control committees but leaders control chairs
• Committee chairs appoint sub-committee chairs
Task forces Speaker involved with committee work Appropriations members signed pledge Term limits on committee chairs
Republican Era
Again, why did the majority and leaders changed the rules? Answer – help them achieve their policy goals and maintain the majority