Pol-Sci492WI
Spring 2014
Annotated Bibliography
Save this document to your Q-folder. Using two references in your references folder, type up the citation information and summarize each reference. In summarizing the references, please refer to the Annotated Bibliography handout.
Citation:
Edwards III, George, Andrew Barrett, and Jeffrey Peake. "The Legislative Impact of Divided Government." American Journal of Political Science. 41.2 (1997): 545-563. Web. 11 Feb. 2014.
Summary:
The authors of this article look at a theory and look at important legislation and whether it passed within a divided government compared to a unified government. The hypothesis of this article is that "important legislation is more likely to fail to pass under divided government". The results of this article show the following conclusion. If the government is divided than it is more likely that the president will oppose more legislation than when the government is unified. Also important legislation will fail to pass more often under divided government.
Citation:
Thorson, Gregory. "Divided Government and the Passage of Partisan Legislation, 1947-1990." Political Research Quarterly. 51.3 (1998): 751-764. Web. 11 Feb. 2014.
Summary:
In this article Thorson is arguing against Mayhew and his argument that a divided government does not impact the amount of significant legislation that is passed and enacted. Thorson argues that Mayhew may be correct in that there is no difference between the number of bills passed, but a divided government does effect the formation of coalitions. Thorson specific argument is that party unity votes that favor the dominant party are more likely to form on final votes of passage during periods of unified government....
... middle of paper ...
...preferences of veto players have a substantial impact on gridlock in the United States compared to party control of the government.
Citation:
Barrett, Andrew, and Matthew Eshbaugh-Soha. "Presidential Success on the Substance of Legislation." Political Research Quarterly. 60.1 (2007): 100-112. Web. 13 Feb. 2014.
Summary:
In this article the authors are focused on looking at success of a president regarding the shaping of legislation. For the research for this article the authors studied 191 statutes from 1965 to 2000. The hypothesis of the authors is "the higher his level of approval, the more a final statute will reflect the presidents polity preferences". Some of the conclusions of the authors were that presidents legislative success can increase during phases of unified government and also gridlock, but also when the president's approval rating is high.
Goren, Paul. "The Two-Party System." Lecture, POL 4737W, Blegen Hall 425, Minneapolis, January 28, 2010.
These desires interact with one another in different ways, giving rise to the need for different strategies employed by members of House and Senate. When members' reelection needs and personal policy preferences are similar within the party and differ substantially between parties, as we see in a highly polarized Congress, it makes sense for them to organize their parties and endow their leaders with the resources necessary to facilitate the achievement of their goals. Scholars have argued that the contemporary parties are elaborately organized so as to facilitate joint action toward collective goals, while also providing members with much-prized opportunities to participate in the legislative process. An increased reliance over the past three decades on special rules in the House to achieve legislative goals rather than compromise and negotiation has become the norm, rather than the
middle of paper ... ... ersial terror bills, showing that a biased chamber can always rebel on issues they feel strongly about, such as fundamental humanitarian issues. Finally the tradition of expectation that the Government should dominate the system, as they have been elected to do so is although trivial key to maintaining the power of the executive. This expectation is simply because the party in power have been elected by the electorate to do so, and therefore they are the party with the authority to rule in the manner that the people elected them to rule.
The United States of America has engaged in the battle known as political polarization since before its foundation in 1776. From the uprising against the powerful British nation to the political issues of today, Americans continue to debate about proper ideology and attempt to choose a side that closely aligns with their personal beliefs. From decade to decade, Americans struggle to determine a proper course of action regarding the country as a whole and will often become divided on important issues. Conflicts between supporters of slavery and abolitionists, between agriculturalists and industrialists, and between industrial workers and capitalists have fueled the divide. At the Congressional level there tends to be a more prevalent display of polarization and is often the blame of Congress’ inefficiency. James Madison intentionally designed Congress to be inefficient by instating a bicameral legislation. Ambition would counter ambition and prevent majority tyranny. George Washington advised against political parties that would contribute to polarization and misrepresentation in his Farewell Address of 1796. Washington warns, “One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts.” Today, the struggle to increase power between political parties results in techniques to gain even the smallest marginal gains. To truly understand political polarization, we must examine data collected through a variety of means, the effects of rapidly changing technology, and observe what techniques are used to create such a polarized political system.
Passing legislation through Congress is a challenge by itself, but for a president acting as chief legislator it can prove to be even harder such as attempting to pass legislation and Congress. For instance, the president of the United States has several significant occupations to conduct while in office, which include the formal roles of Chief of State, Chief Executive, Commander in Chief, Chief Diplomat, and Chief legislator. In modern society, having an understanding of what goes on between the United States Congress and the current president, Barack Obama, acting as chief legislator is crucial to American citizens because although it may not change one’s views of politics, it will aid in having a better understanding of what is going on
Political scientists have continually searched for methods that explain presidential power and success derived from using that power effectively. Five different approaches have been argued including the legal approach, presidential roles approach, Neustadtian approach, institutional approach, and presidential decision-making approach. The legal approach says that all power is derived from a legal authority (U.S. Constitution). The presidential roles approach contends that a president’s success is derived from balancing their role as head of state and head of government. The Neustadtian approach contends that “presidential power is the power to persuade“ (Neustadt, p. 11). The institutional approach contends that political climate and institutional relations are what determines presidential power. The last approach, decision-making, provides a more psychological outlook that delves into background, management styles, and psychological dispositions to determine where a president’s idea of power comes from. From all of these, it is essential to study one at a time in order to analyze the major components of each approach for major strengths and weaknesses.
Walter M. Simon The American Political Science Review , Vol. 45, No. 2 (Jun., 1951), pp. 386-399
Our current political system is run by political competition to further each sides own political agendas and at times, there is a split within the political parties. When there is new legislation, it requires either approval in both the Senate and the House of Representatives along with the president’s signature or, in the case of a presidential veto, approval by two-thirds majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Problems arise when a political party within the Senate uses what they call a filibuster to impede policy change and in addition, congressional committees have considerable power that allow them to structure or hinder legislation as well. Notably, when a House committee has jurisdiction over a bill and wants to block it, it could be crucial to obtain a two-thirds vote for a discharge petition that would bring the bill to the floor (Rosenthal, 6). The power of multi-national corporations and Liberal-Conservative interest groups seem to shape the moral fiber of the change in policy when it does take place maintenance with the status quo of inequality currently in society. They do this by pushing for “reforms” that will allow weaker unions, deregulation, free trade, and privatization to continue their economic prosperity. The polarization of American politics is suggested in the growth of the incomes and
One negative effect of a divided government is the amount of bickering and undermining that is created between the two sides. While it may
Newell, Charldean. "Inflexibility, Traditionalism, and Partisanship: The Texas Response to New Federalism." Review. Annual Review of American Federalism 12 (1981 (1983): 185-95. Publius. Oxford University Press. Web. 23 Mar. 2011.
Picking and choosing battles to fight is very important for the executive if they hope to cause real change for the people. In Rudalevige’s book, he gives advice to future presidents and said, “Too few priorities may be better than too many, usually, presidents should choice the targeted “refile” approach over firing a less focused “shotgun” blast legislative proposals at congress” (Rudalevige, 437 – 438). A ‘refile approach’ offers more emphasis on certain subjects of importance and can sometimes lead to more congressional approval. The executive branch must continuously evaluate which issues will most likely to get greenlighted fight harder for and note policies to give up on temporarily. Today, we have learned there are more powers to the executive branch than previously known to battle against congressional
Richard E. Neustadt, the author of Presidential Power, addresses the politics of leadership and how the citizens of the United States rate the performance of the president's term. We measure his leadership by saying that he is either "weak or "strong" and Neustadt argues that we have the right to do so, because his office has become the focal point of politics and policy in our political system. Neustadt brings to light three main points: how we measure the president, his strategy of presidential influence, and how to study them both. Today we deal with the President himself and his influence on government action. The president now includes about 2000 men and women, the president is only one of them, but his performance can not be measured without focusing on himself.
Who has the greater legitimacy to represent the people? The president or the legislatures. In comparing the Chilean 1970 Presidential Election to 1979 Spanish appointment of Adolfo Suirez as Prime Minister, Linz notes “Allende received a six-year mandate for controlling the government even with much less than a majority of the popular vote, while Suirez, with a plurality of roughly the same size, found it necessary to work with other parties to sustain a minority government”. Linz supports the fusion of the executive and legislative branches because it forces a sense of cooperation. He points out that “presidential systems may be more or less dependent on the cooperation of the legislature; the balance between executive and legislative power in such systems can thus vary considerably” Linz admits that “presidential elections do offer the indisputable advantage of allowing the people to choose their chief executive openly, directly, and for a predictable span rather than leaving that decision to the backstage maneuvering of the politicians.” but qualifies it by stating that it is only and beneficial if the majority of the people of spoken. In Scott Mainwaring and Matthew Shugart’s critical appraisal of “The Perils of Presidentialism” they offer counter arguments when they suggest that a bicameral parliament can just as easily have dual legitimacy issues as a President and legislative body. It should be recognized that Linz does not address the checks and balances that allows for a more regulated government ensuring that power is not concentrated in the hands of one group. Nor does he address that elections
Light, Paul C., and Christine L. Nemacheck. "Chapter 7 Congress." Government by the People, Brief 2012 Election Edition, Books a La Carte New Mypoliscilab With Etext Access Card Package. By David B. Magleby. 2012 Election Edition ed. N.p.: Pearson College Div, 2013. N. pag. Print.
Smaller nations and most parliaments follow unicameralism which consists of a single chamber. For example, New Zealand, Nordic countries such as Denmark, Iceland and Finland are unicamerals as well. [Arter 1984, 16-22 and Damgard 1992 ](Patterson, S. C., & Mughan, A. (1999) 3). This is most likely due to the fact that balance of political conflict is prevalent in smaller countries. Thus, it’s relatively more efficient to solve political issues thereby choosing unicameralism. (Mahler, Gregory S. 2008) Examples of unicameralism can be found in China, South Korea, Greece, Israel, Kenya and New Zealand. (Danziger, J. N. (1996)) (163)