Search results

Introduction -- Marginalizing the middle-a theory of how centrists have moderate influence -- Floor action: proposing amendments and speeches -- Legislative decision-making: final voting strategy for potentially pivotal players -- Behind the scenes: priorities, time, and overall satisfaction on the legislative process -- Behind the scenes: measuring influence on legislation -- Conclusion.

In 'Life in the Middle', Neilan S. Chaturvedi argues that the belief in the powerful, pivotal moderate neglects their electoral circumstances and overestimates their legislative power. Using unique interview data with legislative directors, retired United States Senators, and data compiled from the Congressional Record, Chaturvedi shows that, because of their precarious electoral circumstances, moderate senators must avoid active participation on bills and pushing controversial legislation. The book also demonstrates that mainstream concerns about polarization and its negative effects of increased gridlock and ideological legislation are true.

Harry Reid is often lauded by fellow Democrats as one of the most powerful Senate Majority leaders in modern history. One tactic that he used to usher in legislation was a parliamentary procedure known as "Filling the Amendment Tree." Amendment trees are diagrams that demonstrate the amendment process for legislation, but Reid often limited the number of amendments that could be offered on a piece of legislation using this procedure. From the majority's perspective, this procedure helps usher in legislation and protects vulnerable moderates from having to vote on controversial legislation. Still, others argue that the restrictive procedure limited the ability of moderate Democrats to distinguish themselves from their party leadership, making them vulnerable to attacks. In this article, I find that filling the amendment tree did not limit moderate Democrats from proposing amendments. In fact, although moderate Republicans shied away from the process of filing amendments in protest, there was no statistical relationship between ideology and the number of amendments filed for Democrats. Still, upon examination of voting data, the use of the procedure homogenized the voting records of moderate Democrats in the 112th and 113th Congresses. Furthermore, it forced moderate Republicans to vote more often with the Democrats in each of the Congresses in which Reid employed the procedure.

ObjectivesSpatial voting literature on Congress indicates that the most powerful members are the ones who sit in the ideological center. This study examines how pivotal voters use that power in their participation in Congress.MethodsThis study examines two modes of congressional participation on two highly salient health‐care bills—the filing of amendments and the delivery of floor speeches.ResultsThis study finds that pivotal voters shy away from the legislative limelight. Pivotal voters choose to avoid the public eye by rarely proposing amendments or delivering floor speeches on these bills.ConclusionsWhile theoretically pivotal, centrists who play the role of pivotal voters are more concerned about their electoral prospects than their legislative prowess and, as a result, defer congressional participation to party and committee leaders so as to avoid the ire of constituents.

It is axiomatic that India requires to self sufficient in the design, development and production of aircraft both for civil and military use, and not, as she is at present, remains entirely dependent on foreign sources. This requirement is keenly felt in the field of defence, since it is appreciated .that the growth of the Armed Forces of a country, in fact their very existence in peace and war, is in modern times directly related to the industrial potential of that country to produce weapons of war. If the two are not properly balanced the Armed Forces would be quite ineffective in fulfilling their role of defending their country in time of emergency.

Presidential candidates provide a boost to their congressional candidate counterparts, in which congressional candidates should ride the proverbial coattails into office (Campbell and Sumners 1990; Stewart 1989). The 2016 election, however, provides an instance in which the presidential coattails were less than desirable. In this article, we argue that state politics determines the optimal strategy for how candidates should position themselves vis‐à‐vis a controversial presidential candidate. Based on our findings, voters rewarded candidates at varying levels for distancing themselves from then candidate Trump. Specifically, the disloyal strategy, in which candidates completely disavowed Trump, worked best in swing states and among Democrats, liberals, and Clinton voters. The ambiguous strategy, in which candidates took an unclear position on Trump, was less effective, but still received gains in appeal among independents and liberals.

Presidential candidates provide a boost to their congressional candidate counterparts, in which congressional candidates should ride the proverbial coattails into office (Campbell and Sumners 1990; Stewart 1989). The 2016 election, however, provides an instance in which the presidential coattails were less than desirable. In this article, we argue that state politics determines the optimal strategy for how candidates should position themselves vis‐à‐vis a controversial presidential candidate. Based on our findings, voters rewarded candidates at varying levels for distancing themselves from then candidate Trump. Specifically, the disloyal strategy, in which candidates completely disavowed Trump, worked best in swing states and among Democrats, liberals, and Clinton voters. The ambiguous strategy, in which candidates took an unclear position on Trump, was less effective, but still received gains in appeal among independents and liberals.