Careerism, Status Quo Bias, and the Politics of Congressional Apportionment
In: Journal of historical political economy: JHPE, Band 2, Heft 3, S. 391-414
ISSN: 2693-9304
54 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Journal of historical political economy: JHPE, Band 2, Heft 3, S. 391-414
ISSN: 2693-9304
In: Political science quarterly: a nonpartisan journal devoted to the study and analysis of government, politics and international affairs ; PSQ, Band 135, Heft 1, S. 142-144
ISSN: 1538-165X
In: Perspectives on politics, Band 17, Heft 1, S. 251-252
ISSN: 1541-0986
In: Congress & the presidency, Band 38, Heft 2, S. 245-247
ISSN: 1944-1053
In: Political science quarterly: a nonpartisan journal devoted to the study and analysis of government, politics and international affairs ; PSQ, Band 126, Heft 1, S. 137-138
ISSN: 1538-165X
In: Congress and the presidency: an interdisciplinary journal of political science and history, Band 38, Heft 2, S. 245-247
ISSN: 0734-3469
In: Political science quarterly: PSQ ; the journal public and international affairs, Band 126, Heft 1, S. 137-139
ISSN: 0032-3195
In: Legislative studies quarterly, Band 35, Heft 3, S. 307-336
ISSN: 1939-9162
The modern Committee on Rules plays a critical role in structuring the agenda of the U.S. House of Representatives. In fact, resolutions from the Committee on Rules are the primary means through which controversial legislation reaches the House floor. But the Committee on Rules did not play a role in shaping the floor agenda until the 1880s and, despite intense scrutiny of episodes such as the institution of the Reed rules and the revolt against Speaker Cannon, our understanding of the role of the Committee on Rules is limited and skewed heavily toward the post‐World War II era. This limitation is unfortunate, because special rules play a starring role in major theories of legislative organization. In this article, I present analysis of the usage and historical development of special rules in the House, and I offer findings from my empirical analysis of the determinants of rule choice from 1881 to 1937. A nuanced interrogation of new data on special rules in this era reveals support for committee specialization and conditional party government as motives for rule choice in this era.
In: Legislative studies quarterly, Band 32, Heft 3, S. 341-360
ISSN: 1939-9162
Roll‐call voting and congressional procedures are two of the most heavily studied aspects of the U.S. Congress. To date, little work has focused on the effect of procedures on the composition of the roll‐call record. This article takes a step in this direction by demonstrating the effect of chamber rules and institutional constraints on House and Senate roll‐call data, as well as on the inferences that scholars have drawn from the roll‐call record. More specifically, I focus on recent efforts to measure party effects and ideological alignments, and I demonstrate that the composition of the roll‐call record can affect these measures.
In: Legislative studies quarterly, Band 32, Heft 3, S. 341-360
ISSN: 0362-9805
In: Legislative studies quarterly, Band 30, Heft 2, S. 219-234
ISSN: 1939-9162
In: Legislative studies quarterly, Band 30, Heft 2, S. 219-234
ISSN: 0362-9805
In: Journal of policy history: JPH, Band 28, Heft 2, S. 318-341
ISSN: 1528-4190
US federalism grants state legislators the authority to design many aspects of election administration, including ballot features that mediate how citizens understand and engage with the choices available to them when casting their votes. Seemingly innocuous features in the physical design of ballots, such as the option to cast a straight ticket with a single checkmark, can have significant aggregate effects. Drawing on theoretical insights from behavioral economics and extensive data on state ballot laws from 1888 to the present, as well as in-depth case studies, this book shows how strategic politicians use ballot design to influence voting and elections, drawing comparisons across different periods in American history with varying levels of partisanship and contention. Engstrom and Roberts demonstrate the sweeping impact of ballot design on voting, elections, and democratic representation.