PSCI 130 Final Long Answer

Question 1

1. a. What does the Constitution specify about who can be president and how he or she is to be elected?

Answer 1

(Thus) To be president, you must be:
1. A natural born citizen of the United States
2. 35 years-old plus
3. 14 years being a resident within the United States
(Thus) Presidents are elected by:
(How 1) Each state appoints a number of electors equal to the number of senators + representatives in Congress for their state.
(How 2) The electors vote for the president (what we call the Electoral College)
(How 3) If a candidate has the majority of the votes, that person wins. If not, the House chooses the president. Member from 2/3 of states and majority overall must approve.

Question 2

1. b. Donald Trump was elected president despite receiving fewer votes than Hillary Clinton. Drawing on Koza et al. explain how, without changing the Constitution, we could guarantee that the candidate who receives the most votes in a presidential election is certain to be elected president.

Answer 2

(Given) Koza talks about the National Popular Vote Compact.
(Thus) Without changing the Constitution, we could guarantee that the candidate who receives the most votes in a presidential election is certain to win by having states adopt the National Popular Vote Compact.

(How 1) The National Popular Vote Compact makes it so that states within the compact would have their members of the Electoral College select the state’s pick for president based on the winner of the national popular vote (overall national popular vote, not just the popular votes among the sates in the compact) rather than the vote in the state.
(For example) This Compact won’t start until there are enough states (270 votes) in the compact so that the winner can be decided absolutely through this compact. 270 votes guarantees the win.

(How 2) This is allowed without changing the Constitution because the Const. doesn’t specify about how electors must choose their vote for president. Instead, state laws choose how electoral votes are assigned.

Question 3

1. c. How would campaign strategy change under this alternative electoral system referenced in part b) relative to campaign strategy under the current system? Use your answer to help understand what Trump might have meant when he said “I would have done even better in the election, if that is possible, if the winner was based on popular vote – but would campaign differently.”

Answer 3

(Given) This change would make it based on the national popular vote, not individual state thru electoral college.
(Thus) Since the winner of the election would be determined by the popular vote, candidates would campaign toward larger states and different states than under the current system.

(How 1) Under the current system, using the electoral college, the winner of each state receives a certain amount of votes from that state’s Electoral College. However, many of the states have a clear winner before the election, so candidates don’t campaign there (for example, obviously Clinton will win California, a large Democrat state, so Trump doesn’t campaign there). It would be a waste of time and money to campaign in such clear cut states.

(How 2) The new system would make every vote count equally nationally, resulting in candidates campaigning in more states and bigger states.
(For example) Even if you lose a big state, getting 40% rather than 35% is a big difference in a big state. So, previously wouldn’t campaign in that state, but now do. Gets more states involved in the process as well, as most of the states, besides the key battleground states, have been ignored in current system.
(For example) Also, telling people to vote in these states because vote matters now
(How 3) President Trump quote—> If this had been the case, he would have campaigned differently.
(For example) Instead of targeting the key swing states (PA, FL, etc—13 swing states), Trump would target different states with larger populations. Trump won the popular vote in those 13 swing states which he heavily campaigned in, but he lost in the non swing states because didn’t try to win those—> those already decided without needing to campaign.
(For example) If this system had been in place, more TV ads, time, and money would be shifted from the swing states and to states in which the candidate deems important (more strategy in choosing which states to target— not just swing states anymore).
(For example) Increasing from 32% to 35% in Cali is a big deal even though don’t win if he campaigned there. So, if based on this, would get more votes, win even bigger.

Question 4

1. d. Make a prediction about whether the president will be elected based on which candidate receives the most popular votes in 2040. Make sure to justify your prediction.

Answer 4

(Thus) Yes, I think the president will be elected based on which candidate receives the most popular votes in 2040.
(How 1) The National Popular Vote Compact already has 11 states (165 votes) and has passed at least 1 house in 12 more states (96 votes) and approved by committee voters in 2 more states (27). This is enough to get 270 votes to have it enacted.

(How 2) The collective action problem has been partially eliminated as 11 states have already joined. Getting these 11 states is the hard part, as starting something like this requires a bold first mover.

(How 3) While these states are all states won by Democrats, I think it’ll pass in Republican states as well because:
(For example) It is good for voters in non-swing states, the vast majority of states, because it would give them a say that they previously didn’t have.
(For example) Republicans are trying in the other states and also eventually, a Democrat will win an election despite Republican winning popular vote just by the law of averages. Even if the map doesn’t really look like this could happen, voters could come out in support more in red states than blue but the blue take the swing. Kind of a reverse of this year’s election. That would push Republican states to approve such a plan.

Question 5

2. a. What does the Constitution specify about who can be a member of the House of 
Representatives and how the House of Representatives is to be organized?

Answer 5

(Thus) The Constitution says that to be eligible as a member of the US House, you must:
1. Be 25 years-old or above
2. 7 years as a US citizen,
3. Live in the state you are chosen from
(Thus) The Constitution lacks a lot of specifics about how the House is to be organized.
(How 1) Reelection every 2 years by the people
(How 2) House determines the rules of its proceedings (sets its own rules), chooses their own Speaker and officers.

Question 6

2. b. One way Congress organizes itself is into committees. Explain one way in which 
the committee system increases the personal incumbency advantage – the tendency for a sitting member of Congress to receive a larger vote share when running for reelection than a similarly situated non-incumbent. Identify the broader point about Congressional organization that this highlights.

Answer 6

(Thus) The committee system helps incumbents so they can have a casework of things they have done to address constituent needs when running for reelection that non-incumbents don’t have.
(How 1) Weingast and Marshall—> Committees exist to serve legislatures reelection interests.
(For example) Legislators sort onto committees that focus on issues constituents care about so they can get a seat at the table when legislation is drafted.
(For example) Already have casework on the issue (If in an agriculture district, on an agriculture committee and having already done things makes you better than the alternative)

(How 2) Seniority system.
(For example) The ranking member on the committee is the most important and has the greatest ability to shape legislation in a positive way. You become a ranking member based on seniority, so move up the ladder longer you’re in office. If incumbent loses, then don’t have as much a say. But, committee helps incumbent because if he wins, then he is the one writing the bills as the ranking member, as opposed to starting at square one.
(For example) This helps incumbents because longer in office, greater ability to shape legislation

(Thus) The broader point about Congressional organization that this highlights is that Congress is organized for reelection, especially for the incumbents of the majority party.
(How 1) The majority party decides how many members of a party each committee gets and assigns specific Congressmen to each committee.
(For example) Since a congressman can lose their committee assignment if they go against the party, and committees and committee assignments are so important in drafting legislation and having a body of work to help reelection, the committee system enforces the idea that Congress is organized to benefit the incumbents of the majority party.

Question 7

2. c. Cox and McCubbins argue that committees benefit the majority party (i.e., the party with the most seats in Congress). Use their theory to explain why, in particular, the Rules Committee provides the majority party with a substantial amount of power. Provide an example from Chapter 6 of Showdown at Gucci Gulch that highlights why the Rules Committee is so important.

Answer 7

(Given) Cox and McCubbins’ theory is that Congressional committees benefit the majority party because parties act like cartels. The parties maximize the combined profits of all the firms in the cartel (the party as a whole, not the individual politician). So, members of Congress maximize the party brand even when it makes the legislator worse off. The place in which they can most effectively do this is with committees, as this is where they control the agenda and the Hasert Rule.

(Thus) The Rules Committee provides the majority party with a substantial amount of power because of their ability to shape the agenda.
(How 1) Agenda control and Hasert Rule
(For example) Positive agenda control is the ability to get party’s preferred policies on the agenda and negative agenda control is the ability to keep policies they don’t like off the agenda
(For example) The Hasert Rule is a great way to help the majority party, as only bills and amendments with the majority of the majority party support wind up on the floor.

(How 2) The Rules committee has significant power in enforcing the Hasert Rule and shaping agenda control.
(For example) The bills that get approved from their committees go to the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee decides for how long and under what rules the full Congress will debate the bill. Also, control the amount of speaking time and amount of amendments allowed for a bill. And also schedules when the bill is on the floor. A gatekeeper—> decides which bills are voted on and how they can be altered.
(For example) The Rules Committee is often disproportionally shaped to favor the majority party.
(For example) This is so important because they have a lot of control in shaping the agenda and controlling when the bill gets voted on and how the bill can be changed when on the floor.

(How 3) Rostenkowski giving Claude Pepper (D-FL) transition rule benefits shows how important the Rules Committee is.
(For example) Pepper is the Rules Committee chairman.
(For example) Rosty wants a closed rule on debate, meaning he wants few amendments to the bill. Pepper, as Rules Committee chairman, can control how many amendments are allowed.
(For example) So, Rosty gives Pepper favors, transition rules, which basically are just favors for Pepper so he allows few amendments to the bill. Rosty gives Pepper:
(For example) Exceptions to tax-empty bonds limits for a new Dolphins stadium, a convention center in Miami Beach, a midtown Miami redevelopment project, and two new heating and cooling systems for the Florida region.

(Therefore) Since Rosty gives Pepper so many transition rule benefits, clearly the Rules Committee is important, as they have such a great say in shaping the bill.

Question 8

2. d. Congress has come under fire recently amidst reports that it has spent up to $17 million to secretly settle claims of sexual harassment (a comprehensive explainer is available here https://goo.gl/jDTH6C). Use material from the course to explain why Congress might be organized to settle sexual harassment claims in this way.

Answer 8

(Given) Congress has been secretly handling sexual harassment claims, making it impossible to know how much money taxpayers are paying to victims and also who the abusers are. There are strict secrecy rules.
(Thus) Congress is organized to settle sexual harassment claims in such a way (in secret and with taxpayer money) because of their desire to protect incumbents, especially from the majority party.

(How 1) Cartel.
(For example) This theory says that Congress is designed to protect the party.
(For example) Protects the party by not disclosing who is harassing. If member is accused of sexual harassment, hurts the entire party.

(How 2) Designed to protect incumbents.
(For example) With the committee system, Congress designed to protect incumbents, as incumbents have a body of work already done to help constituents on the committee and seniority system where you rise up.

(For example) If this process were public, would hurt the incumbent, forcing them to resign and lose committee spot. That hurts the party as well, going back to the cartel theory too.
(How 3) Taxpayer money is used because Congress is organized so that all their funds are from taxpayers.

Question 9

3. a. Generally, what does someone with a middling amount of political knowledge 
know about politics? Speculate about what someone with an average amount of political knowledge is likely to know about the repeal of the state and local tax deduction that currently is included in the tax bill.

Answer 9

(Thus) In general, people with a middling amount of political knowledge are likely to not know much about politics.
(How 1) They are likely to know the name of the President.
(How 2) They may or may not know that there are 2 senators per state.
(How 3) Very few people can name their own representatives/senators.
(Therefore) There is a collective ignorance surrounding political knowledge.

(Thus) Someone with an average amount of political knowledge is likely to not know much about the repeal of the state and local tax deduction that is currently included in the bill.
(How 1) Middling people likely to not know much about the repeal of state and local tax deduction.
(For example) What they do know will be based on partisanship and whether it is good or bad.
(For example) Likely to know that this is a Republican bill, so that will influence it.
(For example) If Republican, then if hearing anything, it’s from Republicans who likely won’t talk about negatives like this.
(For example) If Democrat then possible they overhear something where it says something bad about their state. So, then if they hear their state mentioned in a negative way, then yes, they could know about it. Although unlikely to hear something like this, as probably don’t get much political news.

Question 10

3. b. Describe Zaller’s theory of survey response. Apply Zaller’s theory to explain how a survey respondent with a middling amount of political knowledge, who identifies as an Independent, and leans Republican would approach answering the survey question “from what you have heard or read, do you approve or disapprove of the Republican tax plan”? Make sure to justify your answer.

Answer 10

(Thus) Zaller’s theory states that voters vary in the way they are receptive to information based on how much they know about politics.
(How 1) Their model is based on: P(Liberal response) = L/(L+C) where L and C are the number of liberal and conservative considerations available in your mind.
(How 2) If you don’t know much about politics, then you are more likely to mistakenly accept information going against your predispositions. More politically aware people can reject such information easier.
(How 3) What is easily accessible at the top of your head is important. More aware you are, more exposed to political communications, more selective in choosing what to internalize, so more is consistent with one another. Less aware, internalize less and less consistent with what you internalize. So, more aware means more likely to state opinions consistent with predispositions.
(How 4) Where they get their news and information from is important in deciding which considerations are on top.

(Thus) I am uncertain in how someone with a middling amount of political knowledge, who identifies as Independent and leans Republican would answer such a question.
(How 1) Zaller’s theory explains that their answer is based on what is salient that day, which is often based on where they live, who they talked to, what they did that day.
(For example) Since they have middling knowledge, they won’t know as much, and most of what they do know will be at odds with each other (information opposing one another)
(For example) So, one day they may be watching Fox News and hear something they think they like. That is on top of their mind, they like it.
(For example) Or, one day they just paid taxes and thought it was expensive, so they would like it.
(For example) Or just heard from a friend who opposed it, they internalized that and so therefore opposed it.
(Therefore) Ultimately, whatever is on their mind at the time when the question is asked will affect their decision. And this may and probably will be different depending on the time.

Question 11

3. c. A CBS News Poll asked “from what you have heard or read, do you approve or disapprove of the Republican tax plan” to a representative population of the general population on 12/3 – 12/5. They estimate that 35% of the population approved of the bill (16% strongly), 53% of the population disapproved of the bill (40% strongly), and 12% didn’t know or didn’t answer (see graph below for more details). Apply a theory from class to argue how such public opinion information will affect how members of Congress vote on the final bill that is currently being negotiated between members of the House and Senate.

Answer 11

(Thus) Based off of Mayhew’s theory of reelection being the first priority for Congressmen and Cox and McCubbins’ theory that party’s act as a cartel and persuade members to vote a certain direction, I expect Democrats to overwhelming oppose the bill while Republicans would support it.
(How 1) First off, this poll is misleading. A Congressman doesn’t represent the entire population, but just their state/district. So, this public opinion info specifically probably won’t mean much. However, Democrats clearly disapprove of it and fully introduced by Republicans, so Democrats definitely will oppose. Let’s discuss Republicans.
(How 2) Republicans will vote in favor of the bill because of the Cox/McCubbins party cartel theory.
(For example) Their goal, according to the theory, is to maximize the combined profits of all the firms in the cartel (the party, not just the individual) and that Congressmen work to maximize the party brand even when it hurts the individual legislator. So, to maintain the majority status, their fundraising money, their committee seniority position, I expect Republicans to ignore public opinion and vote with their party in favor of the bill.
(For example) Voting with the bill will help get their individual preferences in the bill, which will help their constituents (tax breaks for them).
(For example) Saw this in the 80’s, with adding/removing preferred tax breaks depending on how they viewed the bill.

(How 3) Mayhew that reelection is the main priority for Congressmen.
(For example) The one exception is if in a Republican district and the constituents in that district strongly oppose/are seriously hurt by the bill eliminating deductions. This national poll doesn’t show that, but I think the one exception is that.
(Therefore) Republicans likely to still vote in favor unless really hurts district.

Question 12

3. d. The Senate’s version of the tax bill was passed by the Senate Budget Committee 12-11. All of the Republicans on the committee, including Bob Corker, voted for having the full chamber consider the bill and all of the Democrats on the committee voted against having the full chamber consider the bill. When the Senate passed the bill 51-49 a few days later, Corker joined the 48 Democrats in opposing the bill. Apply Procedural Cartel Theory from class to explain why Corker would cast the pivotal vote allowing the full chamber to consider the bill, only to oppose the passage of the bill a few days later.

Answer 12

(Thus) Corker would vote with his party for the bill on the committee and against the party and the bill on the floor because the Procedural Cartel Theory explains the majority party has a lot of control when setting the agenda as opposed to voting for something already on the agenda.
(How 1) On the committee, setting the agenda.
(For example) Parties main tools are through committees. The Procedural Cartel Theory explains that the party is a cartel to maximize the profits of all the firms in the cartel (the entire party), not just the individual member. They can do this through committees, with their agenda setting control. Can control the agenda through only putting bills on that they support and removing bills the majority of the majority party doesn’t support. Hasert Rule to do this, only put bills on that the majority of the party supports.
(For example) Because of this power, Corker influenced to vote for it. If he doesn’t, party will heavily punish, remove from committee, lose his preferred tax breaks in the bill. The party’s interest outweighs his own because of the party’s control of the committee system.

(How 2) Once it is already on the agenda, then the party has less of a say because it doesn’t harm the party as much, as overcoming the committee is more important.
(For example) Cartel really works with the committee, less they can do to punish Corker. Don’t need to incentive him to vote for it since already has enough votes anyway.
(For example) On the agenda already, less party control in it. Can vote based on how he wants (party still has a say, but not as much according to this theory that stressed the party importance in committees).

Question 13

4. a. Contrast Aldrich’s account of parties with that of Cohen et al. Which political 
actors are more and less powerful within parties in Cohen et al.’s view of the 
world versus Aldrich’s?

Answer 13

(Thus) Aldrich states that parties are designed to serve the needs of ambitious politicians.
(How 1) Parties are driven by these politicians seeking public office.
(For example) Politicians turn to parties to serve the interest to get reelected.
(For example) Politicians are the backbone of the party, the most powerful component.

(Thus) Cohen states that parties are driven by the activists within the party who seek certain policy goals.
(For example) Activists are the collection of interest groups that politicians respond to, someone who influences the policies of the party.
(How 1) Activists determine which candidate runs under the party label and thus shapes policy direction of the party.
(For example) Ambitious politicians seek the approval of these activists and they need that approval before they can seek approval of voters.

(Thus) The ambitious politicians are more powerful in Aldrich’s view. The activists within the party are more powerful according to Cohen.

Question 14

b. In class, I argued that Trump’s victory in the 2016 Republican primary was an 
example of a party’s inability to mange its common-pool problem. Describe the common-pool problem, as it applies to a political party. Would Aldrich or Cohen et al be more surprised that a party’s inability to manage its common-pool problem would result in Trump winning the nomination?

Answer 14

(Thus) The common-pool problem as it applies to a political party is the common problem of the party elites to come to a common agreement about who to nominate/back in the presidential primary. Their inability to organize and come together and elect a single person describes this problem specifically.
(For example) They have a common problem that they want an established candidate from their party running on their lines, and yet their inability to back a single one describes this problem.

(Thus) Cohen would be more surprised.
(How 1) In Cohen’s view, he thinks that parties are driven by the activists within the party who seek certain policy goals. Activists are the collection of interest groups that politicians respond to, and they can influence which candidate runs under the party label and thus shapes policy direction of the party.
(For example) Cohen suspects that the Republican party activists drive the party.
(For example) So, the Republican establishment should be able to come together and back a single person for the primary.
(For example) However, the activists are unable to do this here. It results in someone from outside of the party’s establishment, not backed by such activists, winning the primary.
(Therefore) The activists don’t have that much power, since they are unable to influence who they want to run for the primary.
(How 2) Instead, the ambitious politician drives the party.
(For example) This is Aldrich’s view, the party is driven by the needs of ambitious politicians.
(For example) Trump uses the Republican party to advance his personal goals rather than relying on the established party ideas (activists). This completely backs Aldrich’s idea.
(Therefore) Cohen is more surprised.

Question 15

4. c. In Campbell et al’s account of voters, what is the most important variable determining which candidate a voter selects? Why would Campbell et al. expect that Trump was able to overcome issues like the Access Hollywood tape and win the general election?

Answer 15

(Thus) According to Campbell’s account of voters, the most important variable in determining which candidate a voter selects is the voter’s partisanship.
(How 1) Campbell talks about the deep psychological attachment to a party that is etched in stone and determines individual voting decisions and how people see policies and politicians.
(For example) This partisanship is a deep tie from their socialization, or how they grew up. Who they interacting with before they grew up influences forming this voter ID.
(For example) Stable partisanship, not changing your party even if ideas within the party do.

(Thus) Since the partisanship is such a deep tie, the attachment to a party overcomes such a scandal.
(How 1) The psychological tie to the party remains strong despite adversity.
(For example) So, even though there’s a scandal, my attachment to my party is so strong that I remain voting along my party line anyway.

Question 16

4. d. One reason why Trump won the presidency is that he performed much better than expected in the Midwest. One reason why this was unexpected was that Trump did not perform well in the region during the Republican primary elections (Cruz won Iowa and Wisconsin, Rubio won Minnesota). Apply Cramer’s insights to explain why Trump underperformed in the region during the primary, but over performed in the region during the general election.

Answer 16

(Thus) Trump underperformed in the region during the primary because the region was not a big priority of his during the primary but became important during the general election.
(How 1) Cramer used focus groups to talk to different people in the rural Wisconsin countryside.
(For example) She found that they felt alienated from government and shut out of the national and state conversations about the future direction of the country.
(For example) They feel their attitudes are mostly simplified, ridiculed, and ignored. They feel forgotten.
(For example) But, if they find an appealing candidate, important in such swing states in the Midwest.
(For example) An appealing candidate is one who focuses on them, goes on the ground and appeals to people like them. Ideally, someone who isn’t a career politician, wants rural resources, not like the typical Madison politician focused on urban areas.

(How 2) Trump underperformed in the primary because of his lack of knowledge of how to appeal to such voters.
(For example) Career Republican politicians realized how to appeal to them by having face to face contact with their staffers. Go to them, shake their hands. Trump didn’t know this at first, unlike Cruz and Rubio.
(For example) Also, these states weren’t as important in the primary, as not necessary to win these states to win the primary since the primary every state is important, not just swing states.
(For example) This resulted in them not having a politician that really appealed to them, less of a say in the primary as a result.

(How 3) Trump dominated in the region in the general election because of his serious campaign tactics and his appeal to “Drain the Swamp.”
(For example) Trump shifts during the general election campaigning. These swing states become increasingly important to winning, and he needs this rural support. So, he starts seriously campaigning there.
(For example) Policies appeal based on Cramer’s reading. Drain the Swamp appeals to getting rid of the corrupt Washington politicians who don’t help such rural people. Also a big supporter of the forgotten rural middle class that he kept harping on. 
(For example) Trump the ideal candidate for such people that are important, get them to vote.

Question 17

5. a. Define a principal-agent problem. Who is the principal and who is the agent, 
when Congress passes a law that delegates the ability to regulate gas emission standards to the Environmental Protection Agency? Describe an agency problem that we might expect to emerge in this principal-agent relationship.

Answer 17

(Given) A principal-agent relationship is when one party delegates power to another party.
(Given) The principal is who originally has the power and delegates it off to someone else. That is Congress in this example.
(Given) The agent is who the power is delegated to. They are hired to carry out the decisions. That is the EPA in this example.
(Given) A principal-agent problem is when there the principal wants one thing and the agent wants something else. The two parties have different goals and incentives. Even though the principal delegates the power, they can still oversee how the agent handles the power. When they disagree, this is a principal-agent problem.
(Thus) An agency problem that we might expect to emerge in this principal-agent relationship could be the Republican controlled Congress disagreeing with the EPA about the extent to regulate gas emissions.
(How 1) Congress may want less regulation of gas emissions while the EPA wants more regulations.
(For example) Best interest of the EPA to make air as clean as possible, too strict regulations. Acting in self interest, but hurts the businesses. Congress doesn’t want this.

Question 18

5. b. Explain the distinction between Congress using fire alarm and police patrol oversight to manage its principal-agent relationship with the bureaucracy. Do McCubbins and Schwartz argue that Congress will prefer fire alarm or police patrols? Provide three reasons why one is preferred to the other.

Answer 18

(Given) Police patrol oversight is where Congress undergoes direct oversight of the bureaucracy. They examine a sample of executive-agency activities to detect and find violations of legislative goals, and by surveillance, discourage such violations.
(Given) Fire alarm oversight is when Congress establishes a set of rules allowing individual citizens and organized interest groups to examine such administrative decisions and sound a fire alarm (alert a member of Congress) if they are involved with something and there is something that is not allowed/goes against their interest. Congress waits for such complaints before investigating.

(Thus) The main difference is that in police patrol Congress undergoes direct oversight while in fire alarm, interest groups and individuals know there is something wrong through their interaction with the bureaucracy and alert Congress.
(Thus) McCubbins and Schwartz argue that Congress prefers fire alarm oversight
(How 1) Serves their reelection interests
(For example) It increases the chances Congressmen will be spending their time detecting and remedying arguable violations (because the fire alarm sounded)—> which they can claim credit about when running for reelection.

(How 2) Some of the costs of monitoring can be transferred to citizens and interest groups who sound alarms.
(For example) Congressmen don’t need to do as much work monitoring as with police patrol, as the citizens and interest groups detect the problems. This makes it easier and less time consuming for Congressmen.
(How 3) Allows for Congress to define their legislative goals more clearly.
(For example) Legislative goals are often stated in such a vague way that it is hard to decide whether any violation has occurred unless citizens of groups register complaints.
(For example) These specific complaints allow Congress to spell out its goals more clearly and provide for improved government to show their constituents and the interest groups they are assisting.

Question 19

5. c. Cameron talks about the second-face-of-power with respect to presidency. Define what is meant by the second-face-of-power, and apply it to talk about the potential power of either fire alarm or police patrol oversight to keep the bureaucracy in check.

Answer 19

(Given) The second-face-of-power is the power operating through anticipated response. For example, if Congress anticipates the presidential veto, then they will act to trim down the legislation to allow it to pass and prevent the veto.
(Thus) The second-face-of-power helps keep the bureaucracy in check through both police patrol and fire alarm oversight.

(How 1) Police patrol oversight.
(For example) This is when Congress has direct oversight on the bureaucracy. They examine a sample of the executive-agency activities with a goal of detecting and remedying any violations of legislative goals, and by surveillance, discouraging such violations.
(For example) This is the second-face-of-power, as the threat of Congress cracking down on the bureaucracy through their direct observation is enough to constrain the executive agencies from getting too far out of line. Being constantly monitored reduces the likelihood of a violation.
(How 2) Fire alarm oversight.
(For example) Fire alarm oversight is when Congress establishes a set of rules allowing individual citizens and organized interest groups to examine administrative decisions and sound a fire alarm (alert a member of Congress) if there is something that is not allowed/goes against their interest. Congress waits for such complaints before investigating.
(For example) The threat of such a fire alarm sounding means that the bureaucratic organization would anticipate such a fire alarm and act accordingly (not having such strict regulations that would hurt the constituents/interest groups)

Question 20

5. d. What did the Hatch Act outlaw? Find an example from Boss of something that would have been outlawed at the federal level by the Hatch Act, and use this example to highlight why parties lost power as the patronage system was replaced by the civil service.

Answer 20

(Thus) The Hatch Act made it illegal for federal civil service employees to take an active part in political management or political campaigns. It prohibits employees of executive branch, besides high-level designated officials, from engaging in political activity.
Results in more civil servants (only removed for malfeasance) and less political appointees (chosen for political beliefs and loyalties).
(Thus) An example from Boss of something that would be outlawed at the federal level by the Hatch Act was seen with an example they use with Hawk.
(How 1) Hawk was a government employee in Chicago who guarded the treasurer’s office.
(For example) He was appointed by the machine, Mayor Daley’s dominant party, in Chicago
(For example) Hawk helped keep the party in power by giving some of his pay (2% of so per month) to the machine and getting friends/family to attend campaign fundraisers.
(For example) There are enough Hawk’s out there to keep Daley and the machine in government.
(For example) Hatch Act would outlaw this at federal level b/c Hawk is appointed by patronage not civil service.
(How 2) When the civil service system replaces the patronage system, Hawk wouldn’t be allowed to be fired if a new party came in.
(For example) So, he wouldn’t need to give money to Daley and the machine. Less money for Daley/power for the machine if the Hatch Act outlawed something like this at the city level.