CONGRESSIONAL
ELECTIONS
2014 Before
and Beyond
EXAM NEXT MONDAY (NOV 10 TH )
  Reading last week
  Lowi Chpt 12, (Interest Groups)
  Part of Chpt 9 (274-300)
  Ellis & Nelson Chpt 5
  Reading this week
  Lowi Chpt 10 (Elections)
  Lowi Chpt 5 (Congress)
VOTING & ELECTIONS
 Voting and Elections
 Q: what affects how people decide?
 Q: how do we interpret the meaning of elections
results?
 Q: What might happen tomorrow
 90%+ of incumbents in US House will win
 Dems will lose seats
FACTORS AFFECTING THE VOTE DECISION
 Conventional wisdom (overstated)
 voters deliberate
 Debates, follow media
 vote based on candidate
 not party
 Commercials, ads...
FACTORS AFFECTING THE VOTE DECISION
 Partisanship
 store of political information
 long term socialization to politics
 what if no party label on ballot?
FACTORS AFFECTING THE VOTE DECISION
 Incumbency
 name recognition
 incumbents have self-promotion advantage
 the devil you know vs. devil you don’t know
 incumbents get 90% of PAC $$
 few “credible” challengers
FACTORS AFFECTING THE VOTE DECISION
 Economic conditions (the Issue)
 a form of issue voting
 reward incumbents when times are good
 punish incumbents when times are bad
 this assumes folks know economic conditions
 this assume folks know who to blame
FACTORS AFFECTING THE VOTE DECISION
 Economic conditions (the Issue)
 Prospective voting
 Retrospective voting
FACTORS AFFECTING THE VOTE DECISION
 Candidate traits
 Background
 Views
 Demographics
 Personality
FACTORS AFFECTING THE VOTE DECISION
 Campaigns
 Compare presidential campaign to congressional
  Few people exposed to congressional campaigns
  Few competitive races
  Little / no spending in most districts
  Limited media attention if not competitive
CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION PUZZLES
  1) Why does president’s party lose seats in midterms?
  2) Why does party with most votes not have most seats
  3) Why is Congress so polarized?
  4) What effects of all that campaign spending?
  5) How can Congress have 10% approval, and 95% re-election
rate?
WHAT WE’VE KNOWN FOR YEARS
 2/3 of people won’t vote in this election
 Nearly (90%+) all incumbents will get re-elected
 The opposition party (Republicans) will gain seats
 House, 2014 Dem loss will be less than ‘normal’
 Senate -> probably a Rep majority (2014 - 6 = 2008)
MIDTERM ELECTION
  Today, 2014
 4 35 seats in US House, all up for reelection
 2 34 Republican
 2 01 Democratic
WHY DOES THE PRESIDENT’S PART Y
LOSE HOUSE SEATS IN MIDTERMS
 Reagan 1982
 GOP lost 26 seats
  4.6% swing against
 Clinton 1994
 Dems lost 54 seats
  5.3% swing against
 Obama 2010
 Dems lost 63 seats
  8.3% swing against
 How many House
seats will Democrats
lose?
 why was 1994, 2010
such a wipeout for
Dems?
  1994 GOP trend
  2010 surge & decline
Seat Gain/Loss For President's Party in US House
100
80
60
40
20
0
-40
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
1990
1988
1986
1984
1982
1980
1978
1976
1974
1972
1970
1968
1966
1964
1962
1960
1958
1956
1954
1952
1950
1948
1946
1944
1942
1940
1938
1936
1934
1932
1930
-20
-60
-80
Surge and Decline: President’s party gain ‘on year,’
Lose in midterm.
Avg= 24 seat loss in midterm
It Takes Seats to Lose Seats: 2010 looks like 1994, 1974,
1946, 1938…. (but worse)
2010 MIDTERM
 W hy surge and
decline?
 Presidential
elections MUCH
higher turnout
 Voters mobilized
by presidential
elections stay
home 2 years later
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2014
2012
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
-> ??
->58%
->40%
->62%
->40%
->60%
->40%
->54%
->38%
130
88
133
86
124
80
107
75
million
million
million
million
million
million
million
million
  Not many voters changing
their votes…it’s who
shows up
50 million who voted in 2012
will stay home tomorrow
HOW COME PART Y WITH MOST VOTES
DOESN’T HAVE MOST SEATS?
 2 012
 Dems
 S ingle Member
Districts
  48.8% votes
  46.2% seats
 GOP
 N ot that simple
  47.6% votes
  54.8% seats
 Dems have inefficient
distribution of seats
  1.3 million fewer votes
 Some candidates run
unopposed
HOW COME PART Y WITH MOST VOTES
DOESN’T HAVE MOST SEATS?
 Single-member winner take all
 Plurality elections do not translate votes into seats
well
 Even if just 2 parties
SO, TOMORROW US HOUSE
 Swing against the Democrats will be _____ % votes
 Swing against the Democrats will be _____ # seats
 Average loss for president’s party in 2 nd term 24
seats
 More safe one-party districts mean it takes a larger swing
in votes to move seats
  1% swing against party = about 6 seats
POLARIZATION IN CONGRESS
 Democrats and Republicans farther apart now than…
 ever (since Civil War)
 Why?
 Does this reflect polarization of public opinion?
 Do congressional election results represent us?
 Or something else?
POLARIZATION, US HOUSE (FLOOR VOTING)
MORE POLARIZED THAN EVER (FLOOR
VOTING)
NO MORE (GOP) MODERATES IN HOUSE
SYMPTOMS
Rare for a district
to s p l i t D e m f o r
one office, GOP
for another
Greater par ty line
voting (unity) in
Congress
President’s party
more power if
control Congress
Less gets done if
divided
government
 $ 4 billion spent
 i n just a few states/districts
 G OP now Senate majority
 G OP gains in House
 + 12 (?)
 P ot, minimum wage, gun
control
LAST NIGHT
POLARIZATION IN CONGRESS: USUAL
SUSPECTS
Electoral Institutions
 Primary elections
 Gerrymandering
 Campaign finance rules
Behavioral
 Public opinion /
partisanship
  We want it, so elect it
 Media
 And….sorting
POLARIZATION -> PART Y DISCIPLINE
  Most Democrats vote one way
  Most Republicans vote the other way
  Discipline stronger than ever
  Why? Are elections producing like-minded partisans?
  What effects on public?
PART Y UNIT Y / DISCIPLINE
POLARIZATION: PRIMARIES?
 P rimary election
logic
 Closed = extreme
voters
  November choices
reflect this
 Open = moderates
  Blanket / top two = ??
This guy would never
win a closed GOP
primary in California ->
POLARIZATION: PRIMARIES?
 Evidence
 Hard to tell
 Gerber & Morton, Open = representatives more like
median voter (cross-sectional)
  Others say not much effect
 Changes in rules do not correspond with increased
polarization
 But who votes in primaries?
POLARIZATION: PRIMARIES?
  General Election
 Risky for nominees to move to center
 partisan promises in primaries
 Choices for independents in November reflect primary
selections of polarized partisans
 Primaries centrifugal force
POLARIZATION: GERRYMANDERING
 Logic
 Partisan legislators +
GIS = safe seats
  One party gerrymanders
  Bi-partisan gerrymanders
 Safe seat = rewards
extremist candidates
 Safe seat = No fear of
defeat in election
POLARIZATION: GERRYMANDERING
  It isn't easy to gerrymander
 Try this at home:
 Dave’s Redistricting app. 2.2
 How many competitive seats can we carve out out
Washington State?
 Preserving communities of interest
 Contiguous
 No bizarre shapes
 Equal population
COMMISSION WA MAP, 2012 (6-4)
COMMISSION MAP (2012 #S = % OBAMA)
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
Lyn/Bel
Sno/SJ
SW WA
Ea WA
Ea WA
54%
59%
48%
38%
44%
D
D
D*
D*
D*
 6 Oly Pn
 7 Sea
 8 E King E,
 9 King, Prc
 10 Prc Oly
 6 Dems, 4 GOP
  3 ‘marginal’ seats
  * = GOP seat
56% D
79% D
49.7 D*
68% D
56% D
GERRYMANDERED WA MAP (9-1)
MY MAP
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
Sea 1
Oly Pn
Bhm/Evt
‘Yak’
E. Wa
70%
53%
56%
55%
38%
D
D
D
D
D*
 6
 7
 8
 9
 10
Rivers
Sea 2
Sea/Wen
Sea/Lev
Oly/Van
52%
60%
58%
75%
53%
 9 Dem, 1 GOP
  3 marginal districts
D
D
D
D
D
GERRYMANDERING
 Evidence
 Look at Massachusetts
 9 districts, all Dem
 GOP governors, Senator
 Or Texas, Florida, Illinois...
POLARIZATION: GERRYMANDERING
 Evidence
 There are fewer competitive House districts
 Less than 10% of 435
 States legislatures with non-partisan plans might be
slightly less polarized
POLARIZATION: GERRYMANDERING
 BUT:
 US Senate is polarizing too
  Senate not districted
  Look at GOP & Dem Senators from same state
 2 reps from same House seat extremely different
  ‘Swing’ district send extreme reps too
FLORIDA: NELSON & RUBIO
77th most conservative
17th most conservative
IOWA: HARKIN & GRASSLEY/ERNST
74th most conservative
Grassley 11th most conservative
MONTANA: WALSH/TESTER & DAINES
53rd most
conservative
Baucus was
55th
This guy will be in top 25
NOT GERRYMANDERING
 N orth Dakota
 Heidi Heitkamp D
  50 th most conservative
 John Hoeven R
  30 th most conservative
 Nevada (21 st & 79 th ),
Ohio (85 th & 28 th ),
 S outh Dakota
 Tim Johnson D
  70 th most conservative
 John Thune R
  17 th most conservative
POLARIZATION: GERRYMANDERING
 Have things changed in districting practices to
explain change in polarization?
 If anything, more non-partisan commissions
 Problem of geography
 Increasingly hard to gerrymander US House even if
you try
POLARIZATION: CAMPAIGN FINANCE
 Follow the money
 Massive increases (even before Citizen’s United)
 Donors are polarized
POLARIZATION: CAMPAIGN FINANCE
 Fewer places to spend money
 See gerrymandering
 More money than ever for negative ads
  See WA 42 nd State Senate race
 In the few districts left that are competitive
 Competitive should = centrists
POLARIZATION: CAMPAIGN FINANCE
 Post 1970s, Interest group activity
 FEC & PACs  independent expenditures
 Candidates, issue groups replacing old parties
 TV costs
 Nominations, issue ads
 Post 2000s, Billionaires, etc. playing games
POLARIZATION: CAMPAIGN FINANCE
  ‘Extreme’ voices given disproportionate influence in candidate
selection, recruitment
  Consider Connecticut, 2006 (or any year)
  Nancy Johnson (4 th least conservative GOP -> $7.6m) Lost
  Rob Simmons, (5 th least conservative GOP ->$5.6m)
Lost
  Chris Shays, (9 th least conservative GOP ->$6.8m) 6k votes, lost in
’08
EFFECTS OF THE ADS?
  Awareness of Congress up
  Less approval of Congress
  Candidate’s ideology seen as extreme
  Members of Congress & candidates seen as having
no integrity
  Campaign spending -> people see Congress as
corrupt
SO, WHY SO MUCH POLARIZATION?
  Part of the problem is us
  Voters who show up are partisans
  Primaries, gerrymandering
  Also part of problem
  Money, media & partisan sorting
  Larger part of the problem
ELECTORAL REFORMS
  What goals?
  What is broken that needs fixing?
ELECTORAL REFORMS
  Primaries
  Top Two
  Open
  Closed
ELECTORAL REFORMS
  Non partisan redistricting
  California model
  Washington model
  Texas model
ELECTORAL REFORMS
  Term Limits
  Proportional representation
  Campaign finance
CONGRESSIONAL REFORMS
  Discharge petition
  Filibuster