final Flashcards

Question

1. Sincere voting

Answer 1

Here a congressman votes for his favorite option no matter what.

Answer 2

Here he may vote against an option he likes in order to accomplish something further or to avoid a greater evil: he looks ahead and bases his choice of how to vote on the consequences rather than the content of alternative actions.

Answer 3

Here he makes a deal with others to trade votes, or logroll, and he sticks to the deal.

Answer 4

-deciding what the people think about?

Answer 5

(lecture 11-look in notes)

Answer 6

the bureaucracy – all the offices and civil servants who do most of the day-to-day work of regulating your behavior and providing you with services.

Answer 7

Article II of the Constitution establishes the executive. It is remarkably short but for the lengthy statement about presidential election. The President is made Commander in Chief and given the power to enforce the law, appoint top subordinates and judges, negotiate treaties, receive foreign diplomats, commission officers, convene Congress, and veto legislation. Article I of the Constitution establishes the Legislative branch. When making laws, this branch designs and finances the executive branch and delegates its own powers to that branch. Without such delegation, there would not be much of an executive branch.

Answer 8

Immediately below the President, the executive branch has 2 parts: the Executive Office of the President, and the Departments and Agencies. Apart from these two parts there is the somewhat strange office of the Vice President, constitutionally a legislative office unless the Presidency becomes vacant. Historically, the VP did very little. He did not attend Cabinet meetings until the 1920s, under President Harding, and he was not treated as an executive officer at all until the 1950s, under President Eisenhower.

Answer 9

This comprises people who work in or near the White House and have little or no legal authority but do have great proximity and access. They report directly to the president. Their role is advisory. They help the President do his job but have no operational authority: they cannot run the programs that provide you with services and regulate your lives. The different components of the Executive Office of the President are the following: - White House Staff - Chief of Staff (runs the White House and helps the President run the Executive Office) - Speech writers - Counsel - Legislative Liaison (helps the president coordinate relations with the legislative branch) - Press Secretary, etc., etc. Within the White House staff the top people are made “Counselors to the President.” Some of them sit in cabinet meetings, courtesy of the President. Some become more important than some cabinet members. - The Rest of the Executive Office - NSC (National Security Council), OMB (Office of Management and Budget), CEA (Council of Economic Advisors), The U.S. Trade Representative, etc., etc.

Answer 10

The NSC helps the President coordinate the work of the State and Defense Departments and intelligence agencies.

Answer 11

the OMB helps the President coordinate the budget requests of the various executive departments and prepare the comprehensive executive budget proposal. The head of the OMB is quite important, more important than the Secretary of Commerce, for example.

Answer 12

The CEA, despite its name, doesn’t really give the president advice on economic policy so much as measure and predict economic performance

Answer 13

the Trade Representative is also quite important. He negotiates trade agreements. Although an ambassador, he reports to the President, not the Secretary of State or Commerce.

Answer 14

-executive departments -independent executive agencies -All these units have operational authority, established (and limited) by Congress. The personnel, including the heads, of both the executive departments and of the independent executive agencies may be fired by the President. -two other sets of executive bodies whose personnel may not be fired by the President: Independent Regulatory Commissions and Government Corporations.

Answer 15

- (State, Defense, Treasury, etc.),-their heads make up the Cabinet. - Usually the President adds the OMB Director, the White House Chief of Staff, and maybe others to the Cabinet.

Answer 16

Examples include the GSA (General Service Administration), EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), CIA (Central Intelligence Agency), FDA (Food and Drug Administration), NSF (National Science Foundation). The heads of these agencies are appointed by the president. These agencies are not in any executive department but are like executive departments, only narrower in scope. Their heads normally are not in the cabinet.

Answer 17

the Federal Reserve Board (Central Bank) and the SEC (Securities Exchange Commission). These are more politically independent by design than the departments and executive agencies.

Answer 18

Postal Service (formerly a department) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. These are much like private corporations but are “owned” by Congress.

Answer 19

- Shift of Influence, cabinet → executive office - In the 19th century cabinet officers were powerful people enjoying great proximity and access to the president. Until the 1930s, the President’s staff consisted of little more than a personal secretary. After WWII, Presidents expanded their staffs and relied less and less on the cabinet for advice. Now the President meets daily with staff, while some cabinet officers have a hard time ever seeing the President.

Answer 20

H1: Bigger government has meant a greater need for coordination among cabinet departments; the executive needs a small team to direct the vast government structure. For example, the OMB helps the president coordinate and consolidate the different department’s budgets in one comprehensive proposal. In managing relations with any given foreign country, the president relies on the NSC to help coordinate the various departments’ policies toward that country. H2: Department heads (cabinet secretaries) are captured, by their clients and by civil service employees. For example, the Secretary of Defense speaks for the generals; the Secretary of Agriculture speaks for the farmers, etc. Therefore, the President cannot fully rely on cabinet secretaries to act on his agenda. H3: Cabinet secretaries are bound by law - - by the authorizations that created and empowered their offices - - and by Congress’s power of the purse. They are not so easily controlled by the President because of their special dependence on Congress. By contrast, Executive Office staff do not have a special relationship with Congress; they are beholden to the President alone and are motivated to advance his goals. It is hard to decide which of these three is the best explanation. They all have some validity. However, that the shift was gradual over a long period of time suggests that H1 provides the best explanation.

Answer 21

• Chief of State The president is in many ways like a king; he has ceremonial duties and is the figurehead embodying the state. • Head of Government The president is also like a prime minister in that he leads a government that administers acts of the legislature. • Chief Executive The president is like a corporate CEO too. He is the sole top executive: unlike a PM, he does not need to take a vote of the cabinet. In the US we often refer to the President, governors, and mayors as chief executives--a very American label--rather than heads of government. • Commander-in-Chief Though a civilian, the President is also like a general or flag officer. He commands all the armed forces, including state militias when in federal service. • Party Leader The President is like a Prime Minister in another way: he is the head of his party. But the President is weaker because he cannot always command a majority in Congress even if his party has a majority. In the US, parties are not so centralized or disciplined that the President can order party members to vote a particular way in the legislature. • National Political Leader The President leads the people and explains the government’s policies to them. Now we turn to consider the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.

Answer 22

-President's Powers: Commander in Chief. The exact meaning of this is not clear in the Constitution, but it is understood, partly from British usage. -Congress’s Checks: Congress • Raises forces, • Regulates forces, • Appropriates money to armed forces, • Declares war. Often Presidents have gone to war without really getting Congressional approval (e.g. Korea, Vietnam). In response Congress passed the War Powers Act (1973). Unless Congress has declared or otherwise authorized war, this requires that the President notify Congress within 48 hours of troop deployment overseas, and that after 60 days of troop deployment he either secure Congressional consent or bring the troops home. Absent consent, he has 30 days to bring them home. There are serious questions about the constitutionality of the War Powers Act. Both Bushes secured Congressional approval of their Middle East wars. Bush Sr. attacked Panama in 1990, and Clinton attacked Serbia in 1998, without Congressional authorization.

Answer 23

-president's powers: Chief Diplomat The president more or less runs the foreign relations of the country. -congress's checks: Congress has legislative authority over commerce. Senate confirms diplomatic appointments and ratifies treaties. It would be an exaggeration, but not too bad a one, to say that Congress mostly runs domestic affairs, “the inside stuff,” while the President mostly runs foreign affairs, “the outside stuff.” It would also not be wrong to say that most voters think that Republicans are more adept in managing foreign affairs while Democrats are more adept in managing domestic affairs. Some authors have used these two observations to explain voters’ preference historically for divided government in general and for a certain pattern of divided government in particular: since WWII, voters have often elected a Republican President and a Democratic Congress.

Answer 24

1. Treaty | 2. Executive Agreements

Answer 25

A treaty needs to be ratified by a 2/3 vote in the Senate and can be on any subject. It may even override state law. This last fact helps answer the question of why treaties require Senate approval and why they require such a high vote to pass. Those requirements are a safeguard against federal encroachment on states’ rights.

Answer 26

Executive agreements are of two kinds: pure and congressional-executive. Unlike a treaty, neither one of these can violate state laws, and neither requires a 2/3 Senate majority.

Answer 27

Pure: These are about issues within the President’s jurisdiction and, therefore, do not require a congressional vote. They are typically about things on which the President has to take quick action. An example is an armistice.

Answer 28

These are about any issue within the federal government’s jurisdiction, so they are subject to ordinary Congressional law and require a congressional (majority) vote. An example is a trade agreement (to reduce tariffs, or whatnot).

Answer 29

The Constitution, which mentions only treaties, does not say. Presidents have discretion in which route to take, depending on their needs. For example, in 1845, President Sam Houston wanted to rush Texas into the US. President John Tyler (who wanted to expand the US) found that he was short of the 2/3s Senate vote needed to ratify a treaty between the US and Texas. Instead, Tyler called the agreement between the US and Texas a law and got a simple majority in both the House and Senate to incorporate Texas into the Union. He invoked Congress’s power to admit new states.

Answer 30

President's Power-Chief Executive • Executes (enforces) the law • May demand the opinion of his cabinet • Appoints and fires executive branch employees, including cabinet members Congress's Checks and Balances • Authorize programs • Appropriates funds • Confirms executive appointments Oversight: Congress also monitors executive agencies’ performance.

Answer 31

President's Power-Head of State • Pardons • Commissions officers Congress's Checks and Balances -no checks • Confirms general and flag officers

Answer 32

President's Power-legislative • Convenes Congress (This is no big deal in modern times, since Congress stays in session for a long time.) • Adjourns Congress if need be • Recommends legislation (This too is no big deal.) • Vetoes bills (This is a significant power.) Apart from these formal powers the President has some more informal powers: • Leads party (The President coordinates his party’s legislative moves.) • Bargains with Capitol Hill (The President has considerable power to offer people inducements.) • Bully (awesome sauce) pulpit (The President can use the salience of his office to capture the public’s ear on a particular issue.) ``` Congress's Checks and Balances • Legislates • Overrides vetoes • Must follow for leadership to work. • A pulpit too, but less bully. ```

Answer 33

Lowi, Ginsberg, Shepsle, and Ansolabehere argue that the US President is the world’s most powerful person. What, we may ask, is the source of that power? H1: The President draws his power from the formal-legal structures of the US government. H2: The President is responsible for the direction of the government and is not easily replaced, so most of us wish him well and follow his lead even if we did not vote for him. H3: The President is the most salient policy coordinator. Potential coalition members face a coordination problem—they need the equivalent of a Santa Monica Pier where they can “meet.” The President is the equivalent of the Santa Monica Pier. There is no alternative to the President in terms of power and prominence: if circumstances make it desirable to follow someone’s lead, he becomes the focal leader. Also, thanks to this unique position, the President’s public pronouncements bind him to the commitments he makes. That makes his commitments especially credible. H1 and H2 are somewhat plausible. But legal powers are less than real power, and there has to be a reason why it is the President who is held responsible for so much. H3 brings out the incentive we have to follow his lead.

Answer 34

concerns how legislation translates into practice: --how, for example, the Department of Health and Human Services implements the Affordable Care Act. Earlier in the course we mentioned that the federal government (Congress) under the Articles of Confederation had this problem: it could not enforce its will.

Answer 35

A telling example of the problem of implementation is George Washington’s suggestion to Congress that cattle and grain be taken from the farmers in Long Island so that the British, who had just landed there, could not get them. Congress took his advice, but nothing happened: the farmers kept their cattle and grain. A couple of other examples are Lincoln’s ordering General McClellan to attack Richmond, and his ordering General Meade to pursue Lee after Gettysburg. They failed to carry out Lincoln’s orders. Similar examples involve Soviet leader Gorbachev’s initial efforts to reduce drinking and then to reform the economy in the USSR. His orders had scant effect. -These examples are instances of the agency problem. How does someone, a principal, get someone else, an agent, to do something?

Answer 36

Much of political theory is about how government should be organized to reach good decisions - - and what, for that matter, constitutes a good decision. Much of political science, in contrast, is about what policies are made and how. Our problem today is a third one: the problem of governance, or control - - the problem of how policies are enforced, or implemented, of how political decisions have effect.

Answer 37

This is not a trivial problem. Even Hobbes’s sovereign, the strongest guy around, cannot coerce everyone in society to obey him; physically it is not feasible. A bureaucracy big and strong enough to compel citizens to obey the law must itself be compelled to obey the law.

Answer 38

- Principal: This is someone who wishes to delegate power to someone else to do something, to implement some policy. Examples include a king, an employer, Congress. - Agent: This is someone who has been hired or charged by the principal to do something. Examples include lesser nobles, employees, the bureaucracy. - How, having delegated power, can a principal control his agent to get the job done? It is not feasible to monitor the agent(s) all the time-PD: - The agent can either work or shirk, either do the job or not. The principal can either monitor the agent’s behavior or not. For the principal, monitoring is costly: if you could monitor all your agents all the time, you could do most of this work yourself. His favorite outcome is for the agent to do the job without being monitored, while his least favored outcome is for the agent to shirk despite being monitored. If the principal knew for sure that the agent would shirk, he had rather not monitor. The agent’s preferences are obvious. - No matter what the agent does, the principal is better off not monitoring. The principal will always play “don’t monitor.” The agent knows this. So he will always play “shirk.” Thus the outcome consists of the principal not monitoring and the agent shirking. Both suffer. Both would have fared better had they played “monitor” and “work.” - The principal faces a choice of either delegating or not delegating power to an agent. In case the principal does delegate, the cost of doing so is that the principal must monitor the agent. If the principal does not delegate power, then the cost is that the principal must do the job himself. The principal’s problem is to minimize the cost while getting the job done.

Answer 39

1. One way to tell whether Congress is getting its way is to look for compliance. One might read the law and look at bureaucrats’ actions. In theory this is possible but in practice it is very hard to do. 2. to look for sanctions (Congressional punishment) as a measure of compliance. Presumably the greater the number of cases one observes of Congress punishing bureaucrats, the less bureaucratic compliance there is. But this logic is faulty. So it may seem we have no good way to evaluate whether the federal bureaucracy is doing a good job, whether Congress is getting its will enforced. This general problem is aggravated when there are multiple agents. Then it is hard to distinguish between shirkers and workers even when looking.

Answer 40

It is like driving into a town and looking to see if the jail is empty in order to evaluate the job the sheriff is doing. An empty jail is consistent with the sheriff’s doing a great job but also with the sheriff’s doing a terrible job. An empty jail represents the problem of observational equivalence. Two very different causes, a very good and a very bad sheriff (or very good monitoring and very bad monitoring), may give rise to the same outcome—an empty jail. Remember empty jails.

Answer 41

How to observe each agent’s contribution to a collective product? Example: Tug of war. How can you tell if an individual is actually pulling or just huffing and puffing? Example: (True story) A group of Chinese villagers had to pull barges up the Yangtse River with ropes. Because it is hard to tell how hard someone is pulling, everyone shirked a bit. As a result, all made less income than they could have. They solved this problem by hiring another villager to whip them. He whipped them all whenever the team fell short of some specified rate. (Oh, and the whipper himself was a reliable agent because he enjoyed the work. Or maybe the wives monitored him, but they enjoyed the show.) Another example: Suppose you have hired two people to row you to Catalina (each person manning one of the two oars). When you tell them that the boat is moving too slowly, each one blames the other and says that he is rowing slowly in order to adjust to the other’s slowness (to keep the boat from going in circles). How do you know who is telling the truth? How can you isolate any one individual’s contribution? Yet another example: Suppose, in a community’s school system, that test scores are declining. The teachers, administrators, and parents blame each other. It is hard to tell who is at fault.

Answer 42

Congress needs to delegate power to the bureaucracy, and it needs to control the bureaucracy. The problem is that Congress is one principal monitoring a great number of agents. Congress has some weapons it can use: appropriations and authorizations. Congress can cut funding to bureaucrats or rescind their legal authority. The difficulty is that, with so many agents, Congress has a hard time telling where to aim its weapons. Because it is hard to isolate individual agents’ contributions, Congress cannot use rewards and punishments effectively. Congress’s task is the oversight of the federal bureaucracy. Oversight refers to legislative efforts to ensure bureaucratic compliance with legislative goals.

Answer 43

There are two conventional impressions: One is that Congress has delegated much of its authority. The other is that Congress has neglected its oversight obligation because there is a paucity of oversight hearings and sanctions (an “empty jail”). The first impression is correct; the second is not. The second impression is based on faulty logic: the paucity of hearings and sanctions may or may not be the result of Congressional neglect. Remember that empty jail.

Answer 44

One can distinguish between two kinds of oversight: 1. Police Patrol 2. Fire Alarm

Answer 45

Akin to real police patrols, this kind of oversight involves Congress’s selecting and examining a sample of bureaucratic actions to look for violations. The aim, of course, is to punish and deter violations. Police patrol oversight is comparatively centralized, active, and direct. Congress itself initiates and carries out the monitoring of the bureaucracy.

Answer 46

Akin to real fire alarms, this kind of oversight involves Congress’s establishing rules and procedures for citizens to complain about the bureaucracy - - to ring an alarm - - and seek redress. It is less centralized, less active, and less direct than police patrol. Like the LAFD, Congress does not send out its hook-and-ladder looking for fires but waits for an alarm to ring. And except in the worst cases, alarms are usually answered by superior bureaucrats or courts or congressional staff, rarely by congressmen themselves (the book is wrong here). Fire-alarm oversight gives the power to monitor bureaucrats’ behavior to those who have the greatest incentive to monitor it: the victims (potential and actual) of bureaucratic noncompliance. As a matter of regular practice, Congress uses fire alarms quite a lot. Private citizens, corporations, labor unions, and interest groups become the monitors of bureaucratic agencies; they sound the fire alarms to which other bureaucratic agencies, courts, or Congress itself responds. It is important to note, however, that Congress cannot rely on the fire alarm model to monitor all government agencies. Some, such as the CIA, operate abroad and do not appear to have any domestic clients that can complain about their noncompliance - - except, of course, that we might all complain about the overall product.

Answer 47

Police patrols: - congress samples bureaucratic behavior - congress wastes time monitoring actions that turns out to be nonviolations - congressmen get little credit - misses many violations Fire Alarms: - Citizens and interest groups complain - There is no waste because olny violations are brought to notice - Congressmen jump at the chance to claim credit for helping citizens - rarely misses violations (although there are some "false alarms"

Answer 48

1. Subgovernments 2. Organization of Interests 3. Casework 4. Administrative Procedures Act of 1946 5. Direct Congressional Intervention

Answer 49

These are also known as iron triangles. A bureaucratic agency, its relevant congressional committee staff, and its clientele (industry, interest group, beneficiaries) work together. Example: The lumber industry, the Department of Agriculture, and the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Forestry. They are in constant touch and keep each other informed of problems.

Answer 50

Congress initiates the effort to organize an otherwise unorganized group of people or industries so that they can monitor the activities of the bureaucracy regulating them. Congress creates an agency to act as the organizing force. Remember that individuals who share some interest nevertheless face a prisoners’ - dilemma problem in organizing. Congress can help them solve that PD. For example, the Departments of Agriculture and Commerce were created to help farmers and business interests to organize

Answer 51

This, as I mentioned earlier, refers to Congressmen’s willingness to help their constituents deal with government bureaucracies. The system is set up so that everyone has an incentive to act in the right way: bureaucrats would like to please Congress (on which they depend for funding), Congressmen would like to take credit for having helped their constituents, and voters would like to have their problems solved. Example: A veteran who doesn’t receive his VA pension check calls his Congressman’s local office and the check arrives two days later.

Answer 52

This and later acts give citizens legal standing before agencies and courts to complain about noncompliance by government agencies. Congress has made it fairly easy for citizens or industries that are hurt by some bureaucrat’s action to complain to higher bureaucrats or to courts. Also Congress has required that before implementing new regulations or policies a federal agency must announce its intention to do so; this gives individuals and groups that expect to be affected by the new policy time to take action. With these acts, Congress has made various parts of government (courts etc.) more accessible to citizens’ fire alarms.

Answer 53

Finally, Congress has made itself accessible to citizens’ complaints by reserving the power to intervene directly and limit or rescind an agency’s jurisdiction. Example: The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) tried to regulate breakfast-cereal commercials aired during Saturday morning cartoon shows, and also funeral parlors. The industries involved complained to Congress. Congress agreed with the industries and said that the FTC could not regulate them. Another example: A federal agency was trying to help West Virginia attract new businesses. Other states complained that businesses located in their territories were being drawn away, contrary to the authorizing law. Congress agreed and closed the agency.

Answer 54

The discussion so far, centering around fire alarms, involves Congress’s delegation of power and its decentralized style of management. One can also identify a completely hands-off style. One can imagine situations in which it would suit Congress to delegate power completely. In one such situation Congress wants to shift responsibility for tough choices (e.g. on abortion, to the courts). In another, only a complete delegation of power can ensure that Congress will resist the temptation to engage in “bad” behavior. Knowing itself to be vulnerable to political pressure, Congress may decide to take itself out of decision processes that are best isolated from politics - ex: US money supply - That explains the independent status of the Federal Reserve Board (the US central bank). Congress has taken its hands completely off the Fed.

Answer 55

A good example is the management of the US money supply. Remember that under the Articles of Confederation irresponsible management of individual states’ currencies (printing excessive amounts) ultimately ruined their systems of credit and with it their exchange economies. It is not hard to see how political pressures may tempt Congress to manipulate money in a similar way, with terrible consequences.

Answer 56

The Fed’s task of controlling the money supply is critical to the economy’s health. Too much or too little money leads to trouble. Too much money in the system==>inflation (too many dollars chasing too few goods raises prices). Too little money in the system==>unemployment (too few dollars chasing too many goods lead companies to produce less).

Answer 57

1. Lends money to banks and sets interest rates. 2. Set Reserve Ratio 3. Conducts Open Market Operations

Answer 58

If it lowers interest rates or lends to banks liberally, then money becomes cheaper and is easier to find, and banks lend more to borrowers at lower rates. This generally spurs the economy but may create inflation. The reverse occurs if the Fed raises rates or cuts back on loans to banks.

Answer 59

The Fed can change the amount of money it requires banks to keep in cash reserves. Increasing this “reserve ratio” reduces the amount of money the banks can lend. That reduces the money supply in the system.

Answer 60

The Fed sells and buys government bonds. It thereby acts as a money sponge. By selling new bonds the Fed reduces the money supply (the purchasers give the Fed cash in exchange for a piece of paper; the Fed puts the cash in its vault). The Fed will sometimes wring itself out by buying back government bonds to increase the money supply. This they have been doing since 2008, calling it “quantitative easing.”

Answer 61

the citizenry-voters, parties, interest groups-we affect policy

Answer 62

There are many ways to participate in politics. One is to vote.

Answer 63

- Register to vote. This once was a hard step; now it is easy - Go to the polls. - Select a subject on which to vote – a particular office or ballot issue. - Make a choice - - pick one of the options - - and record it as instructed.

Answer 64

- Write to an office holder. - Speak publicly. - Persuade others privately. - Join associations (Sierra Club, trade organizations, labor unions, NRA, etc.). - Contribute money to political campaigns. (In most other countries campaigns are publicly financed.) - Join a party. - Work for a party or candidate organization. - Run for office.

Answer 65

It is hard to explain who votes and how, because it is hard to explain why people vote at all. The paradox of not voting is that one vote makes no difference, so why bother to vote? - - but people do. In other words, because a single vote never makes a difference, it is hard to explain voting the same way we explain other acts. The act of voting is a puzzle.

Answer 66

Compare this question with another: When is it rational to gamble? Is it rational to carry an umbrella? PD-lecture 15-3 diff - Judged as usual, it is rational for a voter to vote for f if and only if the probability that his vote will make a difference (p) multiplied by how much he stands to gain by f’s victory equals or exceeds the cost of voting, that is, p x value of f ≥ cost of voting Suppose that cost of voting = $1 value to voter of having f win = $90,000 and p = 1/100,000. With these values, which are unrealistically favorable to the voter’s calculus, the inequality is not satisfied. It is irrational to vote. At least according to this way of assessing the rationality of actions, voting seems irrational. If anything, the probability that a person’s vote will be pivotal or decisive is generally much smaller than 1/100,000. [Hitler was elected head of the Nazi Party by one vote, and President Andrew Johnson escaped impeachment conviction by one vote. But the voters were a small group, not a public electorate.]

Answer 67

the opportunity cost - - the value of forgone benefits, such as sleeping, watching T.V., or (best of all) studying political science.

Answer 68

Several hypotheses have been entertained: - - 1. the election is close 2. voters make a mistake 3. voting is not very costly 4. links voting to acts of charity-we are inclined to be altruistic 5. A better hypothesis is that we are disinclined to free ride 6. voting=duty 7. investment and consumption value

Answer 69

One is that the election is close. But not all elections are close, and even unusually close ones are never decided by one vote. It is true that a voter is more likely to be pivotal in a close election than in a not-so-close election. But that is like saying a tall man is more likely than a short man to bump his head on the moon.

Answer 70

Another hypothesis is that voters make a mistake, believing their act is efficacious although it really is not—a belief encouraged by turnout propaganda. But it is hard to believe that such a simple error would be so popular for so long.

Answer 71

A third hypothesis is that voting is not very costly - - or most people don’t find it so. True, we are a lazy species: we prize leisure. But for that very reason we forego little of value by voting. Besides, we are also a restless and gregarious species: sitting still in solitude often fails to please, however inconsequential the alternatives. Even so, this hypothesis identifies no positive payoff from voting. At most it helps explain voting.

Answer 72

A fourth hypothesis links voting to acts of charity: we are inclined to be altruistic, to help our fellows, to benefit society and not merely ourselves. True, but an inconsequential act benefits no one

Answer 73

5. A better hypothesis is that we are disinclined to free ride: we feel it is unfair to profit from the efforts of others (those who share our political ideals) without pitching in ourselves.

Answer 74

popular hypothesis is that citizens see voting as their duty and receive some gratification from doing their duty. This hypothesis modifies the above rationality condition to say that voting is rational if and only if p x value of winning + D ≥ cost, where D is the gratification that comes from doing one’s duty.

Answer 75

A more general hypothesis is that the act of voting has not only investment value but also consumption value. This means that the act of voting is important not only because it helps the voter further his aims but also because he finds the act itself gratifying. Most of our acts have both investment and consumption value. Think of eating, sleeping, drinking, and procreating. A good job has both kinds of value: it supports you but you enjoy it too. Still this is a weak hypothesis because D is hard to measure, because it is hard to predict in advance whether D is great enough to spur voting, and because it is hard to tell thereby why some people vote while others do not.

Answer 76

In response, one might focus on the consumption value of learning about politics. This would suggest that newspaper editors who are interested in increasing their publications’ readership often have to resort to including juicy tidbits of gossip in articles about politics. Sensationalism is often the only way of getting people to read. It gives the act of reading more consumption value.

Answer 77

One can also ask, Why contribute money? or Why join a party or interest group? In both of these problems the logic is similar. You have to choose between participating and not participating (contributing money, joining a group, etc.). Your payoff from participating depends on what everyone else does. You are playing a game with everyone else who shares your interests. The game is a multi-player PD. (see diagram-lecture 15) This prisoner’s dilemma is in essence the septic-tank problem discussed in Hunk One. The problem is that your action makes no difference. No matter what “everyone else” does – participate or not – you are always better off not participating, not contributing to the shared goal. Your incentive is to free-ride on the effort of others.

Answer 78

1. participation is not like most other behavior: a single vote makes no difference. Yet a good explanation cannot imply that no one votes. 2. participation varies: some people participate and others do not. A good explanation of participation has to be able to account for variation: it cannot imply that everyone votes.

Answer 79

Let us now take a different tack. Instead of asking why, let us ask who and examine the variation just remarked. Initial studies of voting found that the rich were more likely to vote. Why would richer people vote more? Plausible reasons: • They are more knowledgeable about politics. • They have more time. • They are more likely to have personal acquaintances running for office. • They stand to lose more if election outcomes go against their preferences. • They are less likely than poor people to feel alienated from the system. • They feel more efficacious, or potent. All these reasons were suggested, at one time or another, by students. Note that none mentions cost. Maybe that is as it should be: voting is not that costly. People like going out and doing things. They are generally not so lazy that the act of voting proves too cumbersome. Instead, people are gregarious and restless. They also like to talk about having done things. This observation, in combination with the fact that people do have a sense of civic duty, is a nice potential explanation.

Answer 80

At first, political scientists thought along similar lines. They found that wealth or income was positively correlated with voting, thought that wealth drove (caused) voting, and considered some of the explanations just surveyed. They were wrong. It was education, not income, that was the real cause of voting. It turned out that the observed correlation between income and voting was spurious. Educated people voted more, and educated people tended to be richer. Therefore, income appeared to drive voting. In reality, when people with the same educational level were compared, their differences in income had scant effect on their likelihood of voting. Differences in income mattered only to the extent that they were associated with differences in education. But when people with the same income were compared, their likelihood of voting increased with their level of education.

Answer 81

When people wear warmer clothes, they catch more colds. Of course, it is not the wearing of warm clothes that’s causing the colds but of a third factor, cold weather, that’s causing both the colds and the wearing of warm clothes. Again, the more frequently people hire lawyers the more likely they are to go to prison. Are criminal suspects better off not hiring lawyers?

Answer 82

A spurious correlation arises when two factors (such as income and voting) appear to be causally related but in fact are both caused by a third factor (education). Although income may in some sense be an acceptable “explanation” – that is, knowing a persons’ income would help us to predict his likelihood of voting – education is a superior explanation. Education explains more of the variance we observe; if nothing else, it explains the differences we observe in the likelihood of voting among people who have the same income.

Answer 83

1. Income. We already discussed this. Greater income is associated with greater likelihood of voting. BUT: the correlation is spurious, or noncausal. 2. Education. More educated people vote more than less educated people. Someone who has completed grade school is about 8 percent more likely to vote someone who has not. Someone who has completed high school is about 22 percent more like to vote than someone who has not. The difference in the likelihood of voting for a college graduate and someone with a graduate degree is not so great. 3. Age. The likelihood of voting is highest for people around 40 to 50 years old. It declines on both sides of this peak: the very young and the very old are the least likely to vote. 4. Sex. When it comes to voting, men and women are similar until they reach 65 or so. After that, men are less likely to vote. Maybe men are less healthy - less mobile and more senile. 5. Marriage. Married people are more likely to vote than single people. 6. Mobility. The more mobile the person, the less likely he is to vote. This makes sense: someone who moves knows less than others about local office holders and issues and the jurisdiction in which he lives and must register, and every time he moves he cancels his previous registration. 7. At first blush, race appears to have an effect on voting, but when one controls for such other factors as education, its effect vanishes. A person’s race does not affect how likely he is to vote. 8. Employment in the Public Sector. This makes quite a difference for voting. Public employees are much more likely to vote than others, (83 vs. 65 percent). Maybe they know more about public issues. Maybe they have a bigger stake in electoral outcomes. Or maybe they more often get time off to vote.

Answer 84

: turnout (voting) is boosted by education, marriage, public | employment, and age, whereas race and income are spuriously correlated with voting.

Answer 85

Turnout varies, not only among population groups, but over time and space. Turnout is: - - • Lower since 1976. The onset of the decline in turnout coincides roughly with the time 18 year-olds were allowed to vote. (Test by looking at earlier expansions of the electorate.) It also coincides with the peak of disillusionment owing to Vietnam and Watergate. (Test by looking at earlier periods of turmoil.) • Lower in the South (less than 50 percent). The South was traditionally a one- party region: Democrats dominated elections. Incumbents were rarely challenged, so there was little incentive to vote. Also, blacks were discouraged by such means as the poll tax and threats of violence. Now the South is no longer a one – party region. Even so, turnout remains relatively low, possibly out of habit. Also education has historically been greater in other regions. • Lower in Congressional (“Midterm”) elections. These take place in the middle of the President’s term, when national awareness is lower and issues are not so salient. • Lower in the US than in Europe. US: 50-60 percent. Europe: 75-90 percent

Answer 86

* Longer intervals between elections in Europe makes people more excited about voting. * European countries usually have multiparty systems that make it easier for voters to find a party they like. * Europeans are more civic-minded, have a stronger sense of duty. * European countries have had a shorter experience with democracy, so they value it more. * European political systems are more social-democratic than ours: government provides a strong “social” safety net for citizens and in general plays a far greater role in their lives. Thus, Europeans have more at stake during elections. * Europeans pay more taxes and thus have a greater incentive to monitor their government.

Answer 87

1) Apathy 2) Hard to register. (Harder anyway than in Europe, where everyone is automatically registered. ) 3) Mobile voters. Compared to others, Americans move around a lot. Thus it is less likely that they know or care much about local issues. Also residency requirements make registering in new places a bit harder than in Europe. 4) Mobile districts. Every 10 years, and sometimes more often, congressional districts change. To make matters worse, there are a great number of different kinds of districts (county, local, school board, etc.) that cut across each other and are also changing over time. It is confusing: you stand still while the electoral communities to which you belong keep moving. 5) Americans vote much more frequently and on many more issues and candidates. In the US, within the course of four years a voter typically has an opportunity to vote in many elections covering hundreds of issues and candidates. By comparison, Europe has few elections, and typically each election is about one office. So comparing turnout per election is misleading. A fairer test of turnout would compare European turnout with the percentage of US citizens who vote at least once in 4 years. Such a test for the period 1972-76 reveals that the turnout in Europe and the US is about the same: roughly 75 percent of eligible voters (and 95 percent of registered voters). In other words, comparing U.S. and European turnout is like comparing the food-consumption of cops and firemen in a town where firemen eat one or two big meals a day (which they cook) while cops eat quite a few smaller meals (at doughnut shops): do we compare average meal sizes or average daily consumption?

Answer 88

* Parties are part of the legal apparatus of elections. Specifically, they are the legal vehicles for nomination. This is done either in primary elections (now the usual practice) or conventions (used in few states, but retained for presidential nominations). Of course, California now has the top-two system, based on nonpartisan primaries. Unlike European parties, US parties are decentralized, so that various party structures run the nomination processes at different levels: local candidates are nominated solely by local party members. * Parties help recruit candidates and supporters. * Parties raise money for campaigns. (Until the 1970s, US parties were the main source of campaign money.) * Parties organize the electorate. Parties gather information on the electorate and nag party members and sympathizers in the electorate to vote for their candidate. * Parties provide their members and aspiring candidates training and help with campaigns. * Parties provide platforms. These are statements of a party’s position on different issues. Compared with European ones, US party platforms are far less binding on party members and candidates. US candidates feel less obliged to stay loyal to their party platforms. In the US, parties cannot exercise much control over their candidates’ behavior. * Whipping. This refers to a party’s efforts in a legislature to coordinate information and direct action among members. * In Congress, parties assign their share of members to committees, and the majority party picks chairmen. That often happens in state legislatures, too. * The majority party pretty much controls the legislative agenda: nothing is voted on that the majority party solidly opposes.

Answer 89

Parties organize elections at different levels: national, state, county, congressional district, other types of constituency (e.g. city council districts), and even voting precincts. At each level there is a distinct party structure. Statewide party organizations have a lot of autonomy. In effect, the structure of US parties is federal: there is a national party organization sitting atop a pyramid of lower-level but mostly autonomous party units. At each of these levels there is pretty much the same set of actors: chairmen, committees, conventions (at national and state levels), and primary voters. (Depending on the state, voting in party primaries may be open only to a party’s registered members.) The National Chairman is appointed by the presidential nominee. The National Committee consists of a committee man and committee woman from each state (and territory), chosen by state convention.

Answer 90

At the legislative level parties have leaders, and caucuses. We turn now to consider a couple analytical questions: Why parties, and why only two?

Answer 91

One explanation is that state law usually recognizes only a Democratic and a Republican Party and gives them the right to hold publicly run and publicly financed primaries and conventions and to nominate candidates. To claim similar privileges a new party must first run candidates and secure a certain number of votes without enjoying those privileges: a high hurdle to jump. In effect, then, we have two parties because that is what state law encourages. For the most part, in the US, the law on the number of parties is very hard to change. Emerging parties are at a legal disadvantage.

Answer 92

? These questions seem even more appropriate if we remember that the Founders neither encouraged nor expected the emergence of parties. A popular explanation of why we have only 2 parties is Duverger’s Law.

Answer 93

- says that the combination of plurality rule and single-member districts (SMD) gives rise to a two-party system. Plurality rule, or the “first past-the-post” rule, says the candidate with the most votes (not necessarily a majority) wins. SMD means that only one person represents a district in a legislature. The combination of plurality rule and SMD supposedly leads to a two-party system because small parties have scant chance to get elected: acting strategically, voters are reluctant to waste their vote on new small parties that have almost no chance of winning. - Although the most famous “law” in political science, DL is not a great hypothesis. It fails to explain the cases of Canada and South Korea and, recently, Britain: each has Plurality Rule and SMD but three or four major parties - - though usually only two strong parties battling it out in each district. Reasonably enough: within any one district the number of major parties is not likely to exceed 2, but it does not follow that this adds up to just two national parties. Nevertheless, DL is pretty popular among political scientists.

Answer 94

H1: Parties are voting coalitions, big logrolls. We saw the meaning of logrolling in an earlier example on food stamps and agriculture subsidies. Maybe parties are collections of people who in effect trade votes. One problem is that voting coalitions are hard to maintain (remember the PD) and do not last long, but parties do last long. H2: Parties are long coalitions whose members roll the log for everything: they commit to voting together on every issue. Example: see lecture 16

Answer 95

a group that tries to stick together on most votes.

Answer 96

Generally US parties are Looser. 1. US parties are federal. In the US, parties are highly decentralized. Each state has its own party apparatus, officers, etc. 2. US parties have weak discipline. Their members do not always vote along party lines. This is due in part to the lack of centralization. However, over the past decade or two, our 2 parties have acted in a more disciplined way than in times past. 3. US parties have weak responsibility. This simply means that US parties are less accountable for their members’ actions in office. In the US (unlike Europe) party officials cannot say who may and may not join their party. US parties nominate candidates, but once in office those candidates often stray from the party line. 4. US parties have weak unifying ideologies. Often the most conservative Democrats take positions close to the most liberal Republicans. 5. In the US, there are only two major parties. Not so in continental Europe or much of Latin America.

Answer 97

Origins of US Parties Throughout most of our history we have had two major parties-left and right -"left": agrarian, populist, expansionist, pro-slave -"right": commercial, elitist, anti-expansionist, , anti-slave (or less pro-slave)

Answer 98

LEFT-1790s: Republicans (Jefferson)- (This is not the same as today’s Republicans.) They organized politicians and voters outside of Congress. They wrote letters to state legislators encouraging them to nominate candidates as Republicans RIGHT-1790s: Federalists (Hamilton): The base of their support was in Congress itself, but to some degree they emulated the opposition Republicans. -1820: The Federalists disappeared or were absorbed into an almost all-inclusive Republican Party. This was the Era of Good Feeling. Also the Missouri Compromise of 1820 took slavery out of party competition for a while. Then the old Republican Party split nationally, and started to split locally. LEFT-1828: “Democratic” Republicans (Jackson and Van Buren) RIGHT-1828: "National” Republicans (Adams and Clay) LEFT-1836: Democrats RIGHT-Whigs (National Republicans enamed to reflect opposition to the “monarchy” of Jackson) LEFT-1885-1960: Democrats split, North and South RIGHT-Republicans formed from Northern Whigs and some N.Dems plus Minor parties (Free Soil and Know Nothings) -1860s: civil war -1880s: south solidly democratic, promoting segregation and states' rights -1898: Republican realignment with election of McKinley. Republicans now a majority. -1932: F.D. Roosevelt gathers minorities in a coalition, among them white southerners, Catholics, more and more northern blacks, Jews, and blue- collar ethnics; Catholics had long been Democrats. FDR makes famous deal with the South. The federal government will not impose civil rights on the South but will give federal benefits to blacks. This deal married some northern blacks and the segregated South in one coalition. Previously blacks were overwhelmingly Republican. -1960s-2000: Mostly divided government: Congress one party (mostly Democrat), President the other (Republican). -1980s-1990s: South becomes a 2-party region, like the rest of the country. Polarization begins to increase: less positional overlap between parties

Answer 99

- The following are very rough, very old tendencies - Democrats: liberal, blue collar, black, catholic or jewish, east and south, labor, pro-protection, 40% of population, less educated - Republicans: conservative, white collar, white protestant, west, business, pro free trade, 30% of population, more educated - The word “old” is important. President Reagan made great inroads for the Republicans into blue-collar and Catholic votes, and in your lifetime the once solidly Democratic South has become, if anything, a Republican stronghold.

Answer 100

Try to recapture and win big among labor unions and Roman Catholics. Try not to lose too badly in the South. (Traditionally, successful Democratic candidates for President have had strong support from Catholics and in the South.)

Answer 101

Try to win big among white Southerners. Try to split the support for Democrats among labor unions and Catholics.

Answer 102

Since 2008, Democrats have made impressive inroads into young, Latino, and female voters and various Asian groups. Will that hold up? Besides “owning” different groups, Democrats and Republicans “own” different issues: voters see them as stronger on different issues. Note that issue ownership refers to issues, such as foreign policy or health care, not to positions on issues, such as favoring an aggressive foreign policy or opposing compulsory health insurance.

Answer 103

One way is to look, within any issue area, at the difference between the percent of the population who say Republicans are better at handling the issue and the percent who say Democrats are better. A positive difference would suggest Republican ownership while a negative number would suggest Democratic ownership of that issue. Also the greater the number, the more secure the ownership. Whether a party owns an issue does not necessarily depend on that party’s particular position on that issue. Rather, issue ownership means having a reputation for being better at handling an issue.

Answer 104

``` Northern white Protestants favor Republicans overall but say that Democrats are indeed better in social and welfare policy. Roman Catholics agree with others that Republicans are better than Democrats in foreign and defense matters but say that Democrats are much better than Republicans in social and welfare policy. Similarly, white unionists agree that Republicans are better than Democrats in foreign and defense matters but say that Democrats are much much better than Republicans in social and welfare policy. White Southerners (traditionally Democratic, now Republican) give Republicans particularly high grades on most issues but admit that Democrats are better than Republicans in social and welfare policy. Jews generally give Republicans low grades on most issues, including the economy, but even they generally agree that Republicans are a better (if not by much) than Democrats in managing foreign and defense affairs. Among blacks the perception that Republicans are better than Democrats in managing foreign and defense policy is less widespread; nevertheless, they agree that Republicans are much better than Democrats at fighting crime and drugs, and they rate Republicans better on foreign and defense issues than on most other issues. ```

Answer 105

the public’s perceptions and not necessarily to real differences in the two parties’ capabilities.

Answer 106

during the Cold War voters generally opted for a Republican president and a Democratic Congress. The President, after all, is commander-in-chief and chief diplomat, whereas Congress dictates social and welfare policy.

Answer 107

in campaigns each party tries to make salient the issues that it owns. In other words, candidates emphasize the issues in which their party is thought to excel. Even if a candidate has some very good ideas, it does not serve his interests to emphasize an issue area that his party does not own. Emphasizing it makes it more salient, and that is likely to help the other party. Advice to candidate: If your party owns an issue, strive to make it salient, to get it in the news and in debate with your opponent. If his party owns an issue, shut up about it (even if you have some good ideas).

Answer 108

They are bundles of issue positions thought to go together, usually with a rationale. We normally think that conservatives are against abortion, for gun rights, and against higher taxes. The fact that we sometimes refer to liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats shows that ideology is different from party.

Answer 109

a. Politicians/Parties b. Intellectuals c. Interest Groups

Answer 110

Politicians create ideology to say where a party stands. They bundle issues into an ideology to form winning coalitions. Danger: if circumstances change and it no longer serves your interest to favor a particular issue position, you can look stupid or lacking in integrity for changing your position.

Answer 111

They decide what issues go together by finding a common rationale. Politicians and voters follow their reasoning.

Answer 112

-Small groups who feel strongly, they shape ideology and parties. Example: unions and blacks joined unionism and civil rights together as an ideology out of their group interests. Interest groups bundle issues before politicians can.

Answer 113

it helps congeal preferences. A party almost forces members to stick together on all issues. But one can easily be a liberal on one issue, a conservative on another, and a moderate on yet a third, and some partisans are more liberal (or conservative) than others. Even so, conservatives (or liberals) on one issue are more likely than average to be pretty conservative (or liberal) on other issues.

Answer 114

The Senate has, as you know, two members from each state, elected for staggered six-year terms. But state representation in the House is proportional to a state’s population. For example, California, the largest state in population, has 53 representatives. House members - - Congressmen, as they are officially known - - are elected for two-year terms. Every 10 years, after the national census, representation in the House is evaluated and, if necessary, changed: the House is reapportioned.

Answer 115

1. States pick the voting rule, including such things as whether or not there are party primaries, how residents can register to vote, etc. Nomination is usually in party primaries, although some states (e.g. Connecticut) have conventions and some (e.g. Louisiana and now California) forego partisan nomination altogether. California’s new system is a hybrid, the Top 2 System: a primary nominates the 2 candidates with the most votes, regardless of party label, even if one of the two has an out-and-out majority. This is a semi-partisan system: candidates can (and normally would) have party labels, and the top two face off in a general election even if one of them has received a majority of primary votes. By contrast, in a non-partisan California election, e.g. for mayor, there are no party labels, and a candidate receiving a majority at the first round of voting immediately wins the election: this is a second round, or runoff, only when no one wins the first round. 2. Congress picks the exact method of apportioning House seats among the states. 3. States decide their district maps – how they are to be divided into districts.

Answer 116

Usually party primaries take place to nominate the candidates, and then there is a general election. Each district elects one representative: we have (as we say) single-member districts. Usually the voting rule is Plurality Rule, or “first past the post”: the candidate with the most votes (not necessarily a majority) wins. Some states in the South are exceptions: if no one gets more than 50 percent they hold runoff elections. That applies to party primaries as well as general elections.

Answer 117

party-list proportional representation, or List PR, which represents parties in proportion to their votes. Compared with legislators in other countries, U.S. congressmen rely less on their party affiliations and more on their personal records of service to their districts. In other words, in the US the vote for representatives is often more a personal vote than a partisan vote.

Answer 118

The process by which the President and VP are elected is an arcane one, which many Americans do not understand well. Officially, the President and VP are not directly elected by the voters. Instead, voters vote for presidential electors (members of the “electoral college”), who then vote for the President and VP. Each state chooses (in any way it wishes) electors equal in number to the number of its House seats plus two. Up until the 1820s electors were chosen mostly by state legislatures; now all are chosen by popular vote. Every state but Main and Nebraska has adopted the winner-take-all rule: whichever presidential candidate (or slate of pledged electors) receives the most votes wins all of that state’s electoral votes. For example, in California if the Democrats get 40 percent of the popular vote, the Republicans 35 percent, the Tree Huggers 17, the Creationists 5, and the Flat Earth Party 2, then the Democrats get all 55 of California’s electoral votes. Although states are free to choose any rule, with two exceptions all have opted for the winner-take-all rule, no doubt because this makes each state a greater prize for the candidates and encourages candidates to promise it more - - though it also encourages candidates to ignore states that already have a clear partisan majority (as the Democrats do in California). Electors are pledged to vote for their party’s candidate. In each state each party picks its own slate of electors at its state convention. For example, in California the Democratic and Republican Parties each nominates 55 electors. Even though their names are not on the ballot, these are the people for whom voters actually vote on election day. A vote for Obama (Romney) was really a vote for the 55 Democratic (Republican) elector candidates who pledged, if elected, to vote for Obama (Romney). Whichever candidate has the greatest number of votes, his party’s electors are elected. They then cast their votes for him. If there is a nation-wide majority among the electors for a candidate, then that candidate wins. If, however, there is no majority, then the House elects the President (from among the top three vote getters). Each state delegation casts one vote, so a candidate needs a majority of states to win. This occurred once, in 1824. If there is no majority, then the Senate elects the VP from the top two vote getters. This too occurred once, in 1836. It is possible for a presidential candidate to get the most popular votes and still lose for want of a majority of electoral votes. That happened in 1888, 2000, and probably 1960.

Answer 119

1. The U.S. Constitution - - which creates the electoral-college system. 2. State law - - which says how electors are chosen, and, in particular, institutes both popular voting for electors and the winner-take-all rule. 3. Party rules combined with state law - - These require nomination by national convention and set up the primary or caucus system for choosing convention delegates pledged to particular candidates. Nowadays primaries and caucuses pretty much decide the outcome before the conventions, which are mostly formalities.

Answer 120

FECA and later amendments and court decisions are the framework for the role of money. The Federal Election Commission (created by FECA) polices money contributions in Federal campaigns; Individual limits: • $1000 to candidate • $2000 to party • $5000 to any political action committee, or PAC • no limit on candidate giving to self • no limit on “unaffiliated” groups (now including corporations and unions) supporting a candidate if they are independent: they cannot coordinate with the candidate’s own organization. To be tax-exempt they cannot focus their budgets too narrowly on campaigns. Who benefits most from money? Incumbents. They can most easily create PACs and shake down big donors.

Answer 121

1) Money plays a big role. This is true but its negative effects are almost certainly exaggerated. Over time, contribution limits have mostly helped incumbents of both parties. 2) Gerrymandering. This is the practice of drawing district lines to help the incumbent party maintain or increase its power. In most states (CA is now an exception) the party that controls the state legislature can draw lines so that the supporters of the other party are packed into one or few districts. They end up controlling those districts but waste a lot of votes in the process. (diagram in lecture 17) 3) Plurality Rule. Electing to office the candidate with the most votes, regardless of whether he has a majority of votes, may lead to anti-majoritarian outcomes. (example/diagram in lecture 17)

Answer 122

intimately related. A good explanation is a retrospective prediction; a good prediction is a prospective explanation. It is hard to predict something without understanding the process driving it—the very thing we expect of a good explanation.

Answer 123

a simplification of reality, or of the processes, mechanisms, and motivations underlying reality. It is an hypothesis that often oversimplifies things in order to get at the heart of how something works.

Answer 124

1. Personal Characteristics of the Candidates 2. Party-Relative Advantages 3. Economy (retrospective voting) 4. Ideology (one-dimensional or median-voter model) 5. Electoral College Arithmetic

Answer 125

. Ideally one could look at the personal characteristics of candidates to predict electoral advantages. No one has really been able to do this particularly well. Still it is important. At an impressionistic level it is obvious that voters who are not especially tied to a party look for an effective leader and problem solver, and for that they seek charisma and a record of success. It is not surprising that the modal prior job of our presidents has been governor—in a way the most similar job. Not counting vice presidents who succeeded on the death or resignation of a president, other presidents have mostly been generals and (in the early days) cabinet officers. Only four successful presidential candidates have lacked any executive experience, and three of them--Lincoln, Kennedy, and Obama- -were famously charismatic. At any rate, this model portrays voters (or a notable number of them) as personnel (or "human resource") managers who are more pragmatic than ideological in their measures of candidate competence.

Answer 126

. Different parties enjoy different groups’ support and “own” different issues. Because voters use candidates’ party labels as informational cues about what to expect from them while in office, one can use the electorate’s party composition as a way of predicting election outcomes. Traditional group assets support the following advice: Democrats: Win big among labor unions and Catholics-- two of your very biggest traditional support groups, which have been drifting away as of late. Try not to lose too badly in the South -- once your very biggest support group. Republicans: Win big among white Southerners and in the West (your traditional region of strength). Try to split Catholic and union vote. In general, parties must retain the groups they traditionally “own” and try to make inroads into the other party’s supporters. Warning: Simple categories are too simple, and they change over time. Once virtually 100 percent Republican, blacks are now overwhelmingly Democratic. Among Latinos, Puerto Ricans tend to vote Democrat while Cubans consistently vote Republican. Among East Asians (the current liberal neologism “Asian” for people of the Mongoloid race evinces ignorance of geography), the Chinese were traditionally Republican, the Japanese Democratic. No more -- though the Vietnamese are heavily Republican. The issue assets reviewed earlier are these: -- Democrats “own” social and welfare issues, e.g. health care, education, the environment. Republicans “own” foreign and defense issues, morality, and crime. Generally, a party will do well when the issues it owns are the most salient issues of the day and it is able to hold on to its traditional supporters’ support.

Answer 127

The rough idea is that the current state of the economy affects the approval rating of the President and the victory or defeat of the incumbent White House Party. Voters look back at economic performance under the President to form their opinions of him and, if he is not running for reelection, of his party’s candidate. Gallup finds that presidential popularity moves with economic performance (however measured). When the economy is doing well, the President’s approval rating goes up, and when the economy is doing poorly, the President’s approval rating goes down. For example, in 1980 and 1984 Reagan enjoyed high approval ratings; but between those years the economy were in a deep recession and his approval ratings tanked. When the economy began to recover in 1984, his popularity soared in time for his reelection. Obama started off the same way. Did he end up in a similar position? Presidents understand this connection well and hope to have recessions, if one is unavoidable, early in their terms so that they are over before the next election rolls around. (diagram-lecture 18) the connection between economic performance during a president’s four-year term and his party’s electoral success is weak. There is no uniform pattern. However, when we look at the connection between economic performance during the 9 months prior to the election and the incumbent party’s success, we see a strong relationship. The state of the economy in the 9 months leading up to an election explains (or predicts) all the election outcomes for the years considered here except 1960 and 2000. But in those two years the popular and electoral votes were both very close— virtual ties—and the incumbent party actually won the most popular votes in 2000 and probably in 1960 (when both parties were defeated by an insurgent “Democratic” slate in Alabama). Textbook writers and journalists carelessly assume that Kennedy won Alabama and with it the nationwide vote. So the state of the economy during the half year or so before the election does a remarkably good job predicting the popular vote. If we go back before WWII, the only clear exception is 1936, when FDR was reelected at the height (or depth?) of the Great Depression.

Answer 128

It is as if voters are voting in a referendum on the current direction (not the state) of the economy

Answer 129

The answer is that there may be a pivotal or swing group of voters (a few million) who are voting as if in a referendum on the direction of the economy. Probably most voters stick with their long-standing party preferences. The swing voters can magnify their efficacy.

Answer 130

We don’t quite know the answer to this question

Answer 131

The evidence presented in the table above suggests there is not much that can be done. Romney may have campaigned poorly compared with Obama, but the weak economy was (slowly) recovering.

Answer 132

In 1992 both the US and Britain were in an economic recession. In the US, the incumbent, Bush the Elder, lost, while in Britain the incumbent, Conservative Prime Minister John Major, won, if not by much. How do we explain this? Why are US voters more likely than their British counterparts to vote on the economy? One answer may be that in the US, because of the separation of powers and the fragmented nature of government, the President cannot dictate policy and voters know that. Because there are so many actors on the stage, it is hard for voters to judge policy or attribute responsibility. But in Britain the PM has the power and responsibility (accountability) virtually to dictate policy. So British voters can more easily vote on policy while Americans must fall back on retrospective referendum voting - - on following the simple norm of cheering or booing the way things are. In 1994 House Speaker Newt Gingrich ran like a PM. He drew up a “Contract with America” in which, much like a PM, he outlined the policies which he was committed to implementing. He made the election a referendum on those policies. The Republicans captured Congress for the first time since the 1920s. If US presidents were to run for office as PMs do in Britain, they would put together a package of policies that they would promise to implement if elected and make the election a referendum on those policies rather than the state of the economy. FDR did this, but it hasn’t been done much since then because Republican presidents and presidential candidates have been able to use their reputation as good foreign policy managers and Cold Warriors to win office. They have not had to make the kinds of extensive commitments to the voters that a PM has to make. “Nine Eleven” may have reinforced that pattern. But as the war on terrorism fades into history, presidential candidates may start to run like PMs. Such a trend would bring with it greater partisan behavior and greater accountability. The President would need greater party discipline to deliver on his promises and would assume greater responsibility in the eyes of voters for carrying out his proposed program. The partisan polarization we see and flap our jaws about today may be a step in the direction of more responsible government.

Answer 133

According to this model, every voter has a favorite point on the liberal-conservative continuum and votes for the candidate closest to that point. In a two-party or two-candidate election under majority rule, the two parties would race to match the policy preferences of the median voter. That is to say, they would try to align their policies with the preferences of the voter whose place on the one-dimensional spectrum is such that no more than a half of the voters are on either side of him. Suppose candidate Libby is closer to the median voter than candidate Conny. Then Libby is closer to a majority - - to the median plus those on the right. So they would vote for Libby unless Conny moved closer. The result: a race to the center - - the median voter’s position.

Answer 134

Each candidate tries to get closer to the median than the other candidate. The median tends to be “fair’ in the sense that it is preferred to every other policy by a majority. No majority has a favorite spot on either side of the median. The median is a Condorcet winner.

Answer 135

1) Mobility: move toward the median. (Clinton did this after 1994, and to some extent so did Obama in 2012.) Problems: • Conscience: The candidate may not want to change his positions. • Commitment: The candidate may have won his party’s primary by committing himself to certain policy positions, and he cannot drop them at general-election time. • Credibility: The candidate may not want to harm his reputation for keeping his word and sticking to his principles by appearing fickle. 2) Persuasion: Pull the median towards you: get voters to change their minds. 3) Sling mud: Push your opponent away from the median.

Answer 136

1) Candidates will tend to end up close together. 2) Candidates who cannot or will not move (like Barry Goldwater in 1964) will probably lose. 3) US parties move together.

Answer 137

an appearance of no real competition: candidates take similar positions, near the median voter. But remember: it was competition that made them race to the median--much as competition makes producers in any market race to charge the same (rather low) price.

Answer 138

The Ideological or Median Voter Model works well for two candidates, but not for three. A third-party candidate on the left hurts Democrats, as Ralph Nader hurt Al Gore in 2000. One on the right hurts Republicans, as Ross Perot hurt George H. W. Bush in 1992. Even so, a clever enough candidate can exploit the one-dimensional structure by breaking my simple “rules,” remaining immobile, and luring a third candidate into the race. In the 1858 Illinois Senate race, Lincoln (Republican) exposed Douglas (Democrat) to be more anti-slavery than he had admitted by asking him repeatedly during their still-famous debates whether Western settlers could somehow ban slavery despite Dred Scott. Yes, Douglas conceded, in effect moving leftward. That infuriated the South, which split the Democratic party in 1860 by nominating John C. Breckenridge for President, in opposition to Lincoln and Douglas. That split, so cleverly engineered by Lincoln, made Lincoln the victor.

Answer 139

``` There were (and probably will be in 2016) ten battleground (or swing) states. For 2016, I would exclude 2 and 6: 1. Florida (29) 2. Pennsylvania (20)? 3. Ohio (18) 4. Virginia (13)? 5. Colorado (9) 6. North Carolina (15)? 7. Wisconsin (10) 8. Iowa (6) 9. Nevada (6) 10. New Hampshire (4) They yield 130 electoral votes. The rest were solidly of one party, giving Romney 191 votes and Obama 217. Thus Romney needed 78 of those contested votes, Obama only 52. Better yet for Obama: all 10 of those states had voted for him in 2008. ``` Also, one must retail one’s campaign pitch.

Answer 140

- politicians are primarily motivated by electoral incentives-everything works to advance their reelection chances - some actions they take to improve chances at reelection - credit claiming - members of congress try to convey the idea they they're fighting for their district in particular-and they have the political power to help improve the life of their constituents - announce and celebrate federal legislation directed towards their district - other legislative engagement within district - commencement speeches, speeches to diff orgs - case work (aka constituency services/work-this is in some ways its own category, sometimes considered under credit claiming) - Resolve problems of constituents with some form or object of the bureaucracy-especially for the 10% of voters that are true independents-if get personally helped by a candidate (and party?), will likely vote for them in all future campaigns - position taking - in speeches, e-newsletter - sometimes members of congress say different things to different groups - advertising: reelection campaign - a little different because explicitly campaigning-the others take place on a daily basis to try to improve their vote-targets all constituents and special focus on swing voters-while reelection campaigns often targets diff types of people - these all work to build a personal vote for a representative - personal vote: when a politician expands the vote that they receive beyond the loyal party supporters-get people who are politically dependent, not tuned into politics, loosely identified with another party

Answer 141

- diff types of constituents within a district - model laid out based on concentric rings of supporters within a district - the entire circle is the electoral district - center: personal staffers - next ring: party supporters - will support the party candidate in all general elections - but in primary-may not if lost support of a good amount of their party supporters by not matching their party-so incentive to introduce bills, vote for things know won’t pass, just to please base-incentive to follow party - next ring: general supporters - aim for these to build personal vote-people vote for candidate as person and not just party member - expand their support to include loose party identifiers and independents - if have a majority of these, almost always enough to win for however long they want to be in Congress - outer ring: non-supporters - only way to get their support is to lose the last 2 rings-so often can’t do this, ignore for primary

Answer 142

- how do electoral incentives influence level of partisanship in congress - 2 results: - classic tradeoff see a lot in polisci-trade-off in what the public say they want at macro level vs micro level-what they want in general and what they want in their specific situation - macro: public wants compromise between 2 parties in congress-want them to work together to pass legislation-tired of the gridlock - micro: but people less likely to vote for representative for reelection if compromising on legislation for other party - so want Congress to compromise in general but don’t want own member of congress to compromise - Congress responding more to these micro needs-not much of an incentive to ever compromise-because want to be reelected - all these micro decisions lead to macro effect of no one compromising

Answer 143

- recommendations on what someone who is designing a bureaucracy would do-not important for the test - the main point of the rest of it is: people love to complain about how the bureaucracy is slow to update rules, unresponsive to both congress and general public in terms of how they feel about it-a lot of independents in terms of agencies-congress and president kind of have control over these bureaucratic orgs, but not a lot - yes, that’s bad-but if going to design a bureaucracy that didn’t have those elements, would create a system that was worse - don’t want bureaucracy where every time new power in president or congress, completely changes rules, structure, mission-would change to extreme instability in business, politics - good that there is inertia, lag in how public opinion vs bureaucracy changes

Answer 144

(memorize chart)

Answer 145

(memorize chart)

Answer 146

Republican. a. Avoid talking about Foreign Policy. b. Economics,education, social issues.

Answer 147

1. The bill goes to the House-Senate conference committee, where it is consolidated into one bill that both chambers approve of. 2. It is then put to an up-or-down vote

Answer 148

The % of votes a party receives determines how many seats that party gets.

Answer 149

It would receive political pressure to manipulate the system, like printing money out in an unregulated manner and causing inflation a. Congress took a hands-off approach and gave the power of regulating money to the Federal Reserve.

Answer 150

No Congressional action required

Answer 151

3/5 majority

Answer 152

Committees are smaller than the total house so each vote matters more. Committees are experts in their assignments, at least theoretically.

Answer 153

a. Republicans, Federalists b. mostly just 1 big party-All-Inclusive REPUBLICAN party. c. Democrats, Whigs d. Democrats, Republicans e. Democrats, Republicans f. Democrats, Republicans

Answer 154

Logrolling

Answer 155

decides which bills to debate and how long the debate should be.

Answer 156

The Senate Majority leader decides which bills to debate but can’t dictate how long debate should run a. Senate Majority leader.

Answer 157

Police Patrolling Oversight

Answer 158

2/3 vote by both houses of Congress.

Answer 159

Republicans.

Answer 160

Moderate-because gets support of party and some of other

Answer 161

In 1977 Congress tied food stamps and farming subsidies to the same Congressional committee and to the same bill, enforcing cooperation.

Answer 162

A program that provides cash, commodities or services to all qualifying low-income individuals or households. ex: social security. It is immune from the annual budget appropriations

Answer 163

Appropriations, authorization, Tax or Borrow

Answer 164

(memorize tree)

Answer 165

It is better correlated with education, which is also correlated with wealth.

Answer 166

Case-work, and credit claiming.

Answer 167

Treaties and Cabinet appointments.

Answer 168

They combine the House and Senate versions of a bill and then send them back to both houses for up or down vote.

Answer 169

They could be voting strategically, avoiding a greater evil or towards a greater good.

Answer 170

Hillary Clinton.

Answer 171

It is hard to explain as a rational gain because there is a very, very small percentage of that one vote making a difference.

Answer 172

No, both parties try to get the median votes so both candidates become extremely moderate.

Answer 173

Police Patrolling Oversight | a. Fire Alarm Oversight

Answer 174

First concurrent second concurrent continuing resolutions

Answer 175

October 1 st

Answer 176

A temporary budget to keep the government running past October 1 st . when congress keeps passing new budget resolutions when the official budget isn't ready yet in order to have guidelines for revenue, authorization, and appropriation bills

Answer 177

Decides which bills will be debated and how long debate will be. a. The majority leader decides which bill will be debated but there is no limit to debate or amendments in the Senate.

Answer 178

Authorization bills establish executive units, their actions and powers. Appropriation bills allot money, decide which funding executive units will receive, and must be renewed each year.

Answer 179

1. He signs it. 2. He doesn’t sign it for 10 days. 3. He vetoes and then it is overridden by 2/3 in both houses.

Answer 180

There must be a conference committee, and then both houses must pass it again through an up or down vote.

Answer 181

All members of a party in that house of Congress meet once a year to elect party leaders, appoint committee on committees, appoint policy committee, and decide ranking chairmens.

Answer 182

A President must notify congress with 48 hours of sending troops overseas. He then has 60 days to gain congressional authorization, and sans that he must return the troops within 30 days.

Answer 183

A speech given in the Senate in order to delay discussion or a vote on a particular topic. a. 3/5 of the Senate, or cloture (60 votes).

Answer 184

No. This is the observational equivalence problem. When congress isn't penalizing agencies frequently, it could mean that they are finding no mistakes and doing a good job, or missing mistakes and doing a bad job. Ex. Empty jail cell

Answer 185

A district in which one representative serves in the legislative body (as in the US House of Reprsesentatives).

Answer 186

married, less than 24 years old, college graduate. | underline married and college grad!!!!

Answer 187

a. Speaker of the House b. Speaker of the House c. Senate Majority Leader d. President of the Senate (VP or Pro Tem)

Answer 188

Must pass through a Joint Conference Committee, and then pass both Houses of Congress through an up or down vote. a. 2/3 Majority in both houses.

Answer 189

Agencies and Executive branches.

Answer 190

State laws determine how electors are chosen (typically by popular vote) to create the Electoral College. Chosen electors are pledged to vote for the presidential candidate whom the majority of the state wants.

Answer 191

He can fire the Attorney General.

Answer 192

If the economy is strong, the party in power will stay in power.

Answer 193

Parties, Intellectuals, Interest-groups.

Answer 194

House is the grand jury, Senate is the petit jury. a. The House. b. Senate

Answer 195

the person who gets the most votes, not necessarily the majority of votes, out of all the candidates wins

Answer 196

Social Security.

Answer 197

when congress keeps passing new budget resolutions when the official budget isn't ready yet in order to have guidelines for revenue, authorization, and appropriation bills

Answer 198

In the House, the rules committee limits debate and amendments. In the Senate, the Majority leader can limit.

Answer 199

If he doesn’t think he can get 2/3 of the Senate vote but he thinks he can get a majority in both houses.

Answer 200

1. Submit 1st concurrent budget resolution 2. Pass authorization and appropriation bills 3. pass 2nd concurrent budget resolution act 4. if needed- will do a reconciliation act- if there is a new proposal

Answer 201

A government where Congress is run by one party and the President is from a different party.

Answer 202

During the general election, candidates pivot to the middle in order to appeal to more voters in the middle of the aisle.

Answer 203

Nine months before the election.

Answer 204

Winner take all.

Answer 205

their number of representatives plus 2.

Answer 206

part 1) Congressional committees are smaller so each vote matters more. part 2) & also because the Congressmen of these committees are experts in what they do and therefore are given power to do whatever they deem best.

Answer 207

1. Economy 2. Foreign Affairs and Defense 3. Fighting Crime 4. Promoting “Morality”

Answer 208

1. Social and Welfare Issues 2. Education 3. Healthcare 4. Environment

Answer 209

19th Century: Congress strong! President weak! Committees created! Late 19th Century: Congress, and House especially, run by one strong leader who controlled committee assignments and legislative agendas! ABSOLUTE MONARCHY. 1910: This, obviously, led to a revolt. People in America are not about that monarchy life. Created a more decentralized system with more power to committee chairmen. FEUDALSYSTEM. 1970s: “Subcommittee Bill of Rights” – more power to subcommittees. DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. House and Party caucuses gained control over chairmanships and scheduling. 1994: Republicans further decentralized shit, limited the terms of chairman. SENATE HAS NO RULES COMMITTEE OR LIMIT ON DEBATES OR AMENDMENTS

Answer 210

January: Acting for POTUS, the OMB prepares a comprehensive executive budget proposal. February 15 th : The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) prepares a report on POTUS’ proposal. Questions the assumptions about economic growth, unemployment, etc. Supposed to be nonpartisan and designed by economists. February 25 th : The legislation-writing committees can make reports about the relevant areas of the budget. April 1: House and Senate Budget Committees then make a report that tweaks POTUS’ original proposal. April 15: First Concurrent Budget Resolution is supposed to pass Congress. NOT A BILL, only a resolution that won’t be submitted to POTUS for signature. It’s a guide for the subsequent revenue, authorization, and appropriation bills. September: Second Concurrent Budget Resolution, reflects all of the new appropriation and revenue bills passed over the summer. The comprehensive budget is revised. Reconciliation bill typically must be passed in order to conform the new budget resolution. Addresses everything in one fell swoop, and are not subject to new amendments or filibuster. October 1 st : Start of the new fiscal year. This is what is supposed to happen. It never does. Things change, deadlines are missed,continuing resolutions are passed, and sometimes we just never get a budget. In 1980, Reagan enhanced Presidential power by refusing to accept the budget of the previous fiscal year and drafted a sweeping new budget, demanding the Congress pass it as a “reconciliation act”. Obama did a similar thing with his healthcare bill.

Answer 211

Takes credit for anything the government does for his district.

Answer 212

Will vote symbolically just to prove he’s on the right side of an issue.

Answer 213

Congressmen help their constituents in two important ways: they advocate for pork, or money allocated to their district’s improvement projects, and casework, which are typical constituent services.

Answer 214

Shared incentive among Congressmen, or “scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”.

Answer 215

Sincere Voting: Votes the way he feels no matter what. Strategic Voting: He may vote against an option he likes in order to accomplish something further or to avoid a greater evil: he looks ahead and bases his choice of how to vote on the consequences rather than the content of alternative votes. Cooperative Voting: Here he makes a deal with others to trade votes or logroll, and he sticks with the deal.

Answer 216

– without Congressional authorization, President must notify Congress within 48 hours of troop deployment overseas, and after that he has 60 days to secure Congressional authorization or bring the troops home. Without consent, he has 30 days to bring them home. There are some serious constitutionality questions because every President basically ignores it (Bush I, Bush II, Clinton, Obama).

Answer 217

1. Lends money to banks and sets interest rates a. If it lowers interest rates or lends to banks liberally, then money becomes cheaper, 2. Sets reserve ratio a. Changes the amount of money it requires banks to keep in cash reserves, spurring the economy but creating inflation. Increasing this “reserve ratio” reduces the amount of money the banks can lend. That reduces the money supply in the system. 3. Conducts Open market operations a. Buys and sells government bonds.

Answer 218

plurality rule and SMD gives rise to the two party system

Answer 219

revenue, authorization, appropriation

Answer 220

because of the "winner-takes-all" rules, democrats get all the electoral votes since they win the popular vote

Answer 221

1. decides what bills will be discussed 2. decides how long bills will be discussed a. The majority of the leader decide what bills to discuss but there is no time limit

Answer 222

There was a coalition with urban congressmen, who promised they would vote for agricultural subsidies. This was a cooperative vote between the 2, called logrolling, which avoided a cooperation problem

Answer 223

Republican (they are the house majority)

Answer 224

1. A House-Senate Conference Committee is held in order to reach an agreement among the 2 houses. 2. It it put on an up-or-down vote

Answer 225

1. First Concurrent budget 2. Second concurrent budget 3. modification are made by a reconciliation act

Answer 226

1. congressional committees are smaller and each individual vote counts more and then influences policy more in their jurisdiction. 2. committee members are experts in their jurisdictions so others defer to that expertise, giving them power

Answer 227

Departments and agencies

Answer 228

Democrat (committee chairman belong to the majority party)

Answer 229

``` House impeaches House elects President when Electoral College fails Senate ratifies treaties Both pass laws Senate confirms judicial appointments ```

Answer 230

1. political parties 2. intellectuals 3. interest groups

Answer 231

Those who were hurt by the wrongdoings of a bureaucracy can complain and then congress will rectify it, instead of doing police patrol oversight

Answer 232

when congress takes a sample of bureaucratic actions and sees if they are doing their job or not. If not, there is punishment and correction

Answer 233

a. Rules committee b. Majority and minority leaders c. House

Answer 234

Most people follow their parents' voting preferences. Also, the probability that a single vote affects the is small (1/100000). The cost of voting outweighs the benefit of a candidate winning because of your one vote

Answer 235

- An authorization bill creates administrative and executive units, its programs, and its powers - An appropriation bill gives the administrative units money to do their job. It is renewed annually and can be cut to end a certain program

Answer 236

Attorney General

Answer 237

This actually happens because of competition. The 2 candidates are trying to get median votes to help them win so they try to make their policies appeal to this group and end up offering the same policies

final Flashcards

(270 cards)