Abstract
The dramatic Democratic victories in the 2021 Georgia U.S. Senate runoffs handed Democrats their first majority since 2015 and, with this, unified Democratic control of Washington for the first time since 2011. While Democratic Leaders and President Joe Biden crafted their agenda, any hope of policy passage rested on complete unity in a 50–50 Senate and a narrow majority in the U.S. House. Against this backdrop, the 117th Senate is the most polarized since direct-election began in 1914 and, by popular accounts, the least deliberative in a generation. In this article, we examine the implications of partisan polarization for policymaking in the U.S. Senate throughout the direct-election era. First, we show that greater polarization coincides with more partisan Senate election outcomes, congruent with recent trends in the House. Today, over 90% of Senators represent states carried by their party’s presidential nominee. Secondly, we show that polarization coincides with higher levels of observable obstruction, conflict, partisan unity, and narrower majorities. Lastly, we show that this polarization coincides with lower levels of deliberation in the form of consideration of floor amendments and committee meetings. Taken together, we paint a picture of a polarized Senate that is more partisan, more obstructionist, and less deliberative.
The Increasing Explanatory Power of Partisanship in Congressional Election Outcomes.
Lack of Deviation in Partisan Electoral Performance As Congress Polarizes.
Greater Congruence in Constituency & Legislator Partisanship as Congress Polarizes.
Shrinking Partisan Majorities As Congress Polarizes.
Great Polarization & Partisan Votes in the U.S. Senate.
Great Polarization & Party Unity in the U.S. Senate.
Great Polarization & Majority Unity in the U.S. Senate.
Great Polarization & Obstruction in the U.S. Senate.
Great Polarization & Lower Amendment Consideration in the U.S. Senate.
Lower Committee Deliberation as the U.S. Senate Polarizes.
References
Abramowitz, A. I., and S. Webster. 2016. “The Rise of Negative Partisanship and the Nationalization of U.S. Elections in the 21st Century.” Electoral Studies 41 (1): 12–22, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2015.11.001.Search in Google Scholar
Adams, G. D. 1997. “Abortion: Evidence of an Issue Evolution.” American Journal of Political Science 41 (3): 718–37, https://doi.org/10.2307/2111673.Search in Google Scholar
Algara, C. 2019. “The Conditioning Role of Polarization in U.S. Senate Election Outcomes: A Direct-Election Voter-Level Analysis.” Electoral Studies 59: 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2019.02.006.Search in Google Scholar
Algara, C. 2021. “The Collective “Congress” on the Ballot? A Voter & Aggregate Level Analysis of Collective Responsibility in Congressional Elections.” Congress and the Presidency 48 (2): 219–64, https://doi.org/10.1080/07343469.2020.1814903.Search in Google Scholar
Algara, C., I. Hale & C. L. Struthers. 2021. “Do Voters Balance Partisan Control of the Federal Government during the Partisan Era? Assessing the Case of the 2021 Georgia U.S. Senate Runoffs.”.Search in Google Scholar
American Political Science Association 1950. “Summary of Conclusions and Proposals.” American Political Science Review 44 (3, Part 2 Suppl.): 1–14.10.2307/1950998Search in Google Scholar
Amlani, S., and C. Algara. 2021. “Partisanship Nationalization in American Elections: Evidence from Presidential, Senatorial, Gubernatorial Elections in the U.S. Counties, 1872 – 2020.” Electoral Studies 73 (July): 102387, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2021.102387.Search in Google Scholar
Bartels, L. M. 2000. “Partisanship and Voting Behavior, 1952-1996.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (1): 35–50, https://doi.org/10.2307/2669291.Search in Google Scholar
Binder, S. 2011. “Through the Looking Glass, Darkly: What Has Become of the Senate?” Forum 9 (4), https://doi.org/10.2202/1540-8884.1484.Search in Google Scholar
Carmines, E. G., and J. A. Stimson. 1989. Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9780691218250Search in Google Scholar
Chaturvedi, N. S. 2018. “Filling the Amendment Tree: Majority Party Control, Procedures, and Polarization in the U.S. Senate.” American Politics Research 46 (4): 724–47, https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x17744173.Search in Google Scholar
Cox, G. W., and M. D. McCubbins. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511791123Search in Google Scholar
Den Hartog, C., and N. W. Monroe. 2011. Agenda Setting in the U.S. Senate: Costly Consideration and Majority Party Advantage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511851957Search in Google Scholar
DiSalvo, D. 2011. “Legislative Coalitions, Polarization, and the U.S. Senate.” Forum 9 (4), https://doi.org/10.2202/1540-8884.1481.Search in Google Scholar
Evans, C. L. 2011. “Congressional Committees.” In The Oxford Handbook of the American Congress, edited by G. C. EdwardsIII, F. E. Lee, and E. Shickler. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199559947.003.0018Search in Google Scholar
Fenno, R. F. 1989. “The Senate through the Looking Glass: The Debate over Television.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 14 (3): 313, https://doi.org/10.2307/439883.Search in Google Scholar
Gailmard, S., and J. A. Jenkins. 2007. “Negative Agenda Control in the Senate and House: Fingerprints of Majority Party Power.” Journal of Politics 69 (3): 689–700, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00568.x.Search in Google Scholar
Gronke, P. 2001. The Electorate, the Campaign, and the Office. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.10.3998/mpub.16668Search in Google Scholar
Hetherington, M. J. 2001. “Resurgent Mass Partisanship: The Role of Elite Polarization.” American Political Science Review 95 (3): 619–31, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055401003045.Search in Google Scholar
Hopkins, D. J. 2018. The Increasingly United States: How and Why American Political Behavior Nationalized. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226530406.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Howard, N. O., and M. E. Owens. 2020. “Circumventing Legislative Committees: The US Senate.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 45 (3): 495–526, https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12269.Search in Google Scholar
Jacobson, G. C. 2015. “It’s Nothing Personal: The Decline of the Incumbency Advantage in U.S. House Elections.” The Journal of Politics 77 (1): 235–48, https://doi.org/10.1086/681670.Search in Google Scholar
Koger, G. 2010. Filibustering: A Political History of Obstruction in the House and Senate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226449661.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Koger, G. 2011. “The Past and Future of the Supermajority Senate.” Forum 9 (4), https://doi.org/10.2202/1540-8884.1486.Search in Google Scholar
Krehbiel, K. 1991. Information and Legislative Organization. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.10.3998/mpub.8850Search in Google Scholar
Lee, F. E. 2011. “Making Laws and Making Points: Senate Governance in an Era of Uncertain Majorities.” Forum 9 (4), https://doi.org/10.2202/1540-8884.1488.Search in Google Scholar
Lee, F. E. 2016. Insecure Majorities: Congress and the Perpetual Campaign. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226409184.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Matthews, D. R. 1959. “The Folkways of the United States Senate: Conformity to Group Norms and Legislative Effectiveness.” American Political Science Review 53 (4): 1064–89, https://doi.org/10.2307/1952075.Search in Google Scholar
Mayhew, D. R. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Search in Google Scholar
McCarty, N., K. T. Poole, and H. Rosenthal. 2006. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge: MIT Press Books.Search in Google Scholar
Oleszek, W. J., M. J. Oleszek, E. Rybicki, and B. HeniffJr. 2016. Congressional Procedures the Policy Process, 10th ed. Washington: CQ Press.Search in Google Scholar
Roberts, J. M., and S. S. Smith. 2003. “Procedural Contexts, Party Strategy, and Conditional Party Voting in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1971-2000.” American Journal of Political Science 47 (2): 305–17, https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5907.00021.Search in Google Scholar
Rodden, J. 2010. “The Geographic Distribution of Political Preferences.” Annual Review of Political Science 13 (1): 321–40, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.12.031607.092945.Search in Google Scholar
Rohde, D. W. 1991. Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226724058.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Sievert, J., and S. C. McKee. 2019. “Nationalization in U.S. Senate and Gubernatorial Elections.” American Politics Research 47 (5): 1055–80, https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x18792694.Search in Google Scholar
Smith, S. S. 1989. Call to Order: Floor Politics in the House and Senate. Washington: Brookings Institute Press.Search in Google Scholar
Smith, S. S. 2007. Party Influence in Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511812613Search in Google Scholar
Smith, S. S. 2010. “The Senate Syndrome.” Issue in Governance Studies: Governance Studies at Brookings (35): 1–30.10.4135/9781483349459.n8Search in Google Scholar
Smith, S. S., I. Ostrander, and C. M. Pope. 2013. “Majority Party Power and Procedural Motions in the U.S. Senate.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 38 (2): 205–36, https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12011.Search in Google Scholar
Stokes, D. E., and W. E. Miller. 1962. “Party Government and the Salience of Congress.” Public Opinion Quarterly 26 (4): 531–46, https://doi.org/10.1086/267126.Search in Google Scholar
Stone, W. J. 2017. Candidates and Voters: Ideology, Valence, and Representation in US Elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108225021Search in Google Scholar
Stone, W. J., and J. A. McCann. 2020. Republic at Risk: Self-interest in American Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108767897Search in Google Scholar
Theriault, S. M. 2008. Party Polarization in Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511790652Search in Google Scholar
Theriault, S. M., and D. W. Rohde. 2011. “The Gingrich Senators and Party Polarization in the U.S. Senate.” The Journal of Politics 73 (4): 1011–24, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381611000752.Search in Google Scholar
Wawro, G. J., and E. Shickler. 2004. “Where’s the Pivot? Obstruction and Lawmaking in the Pre-cloture Senate.” American Journal of Political Science 48 (4): 758–74, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00100.x.Search in Google Scholar
Wilson, W. 1885. Congressional Government. New York: Meridan Books.Search in Google Scholar
© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
