Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
Formal models of politics regularly combine assumptions about a variety of actors and institutions to produce equilibrium expectations, which serve as the primary target for empirical testing. Yet the underlying assumptions can vary in their accuracy among actors and across time and context. We focus on the pivotal politics model of lawmaking and argue that a full evaluation of the theory requires a granular analysis of its two primary components: the filibuster and veto “pivots” in Congress. We show that both types of pivots contribute to the success of pivotal politics in explaining postwar lawmaking, but that the relevance of each varies based on institution-specific contexts. Specifically, the filibuster pivot has little explanatory power before the 1970s, when norms of filibuster use were quite restrictive, while the veto pivot’s explanatory power is limited to situations in which the president has sufficient public backing to be a force in the legislative process.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Brunell, T., Grofman, B., & Merrill, S., III. (2016). The volatility of median and supermajoritarian pivots in the U.S. Congress and the effects of party polarization. Public Choice, 166(1), 183–204. CrossRef
Cameron, C., & McCarty, N. (2004). Models of vetoes and veto bargaining. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 409–435. CrossRef
Carroll, R., Lewis, R., Lo, J., McCarty, N., Poole, K., & Rosenthal, H. (2015). Common space DW- NOMINATE scores with bootstrapped standard errors (joint House and Senate scaling). http://www.voteview.com/dwnomin_joint_house_and_senate.htm.
Chiou, F., & Rothenberg, L. (2003). When pivotal politics meets partisan politics. American Journal of Political Science, 47(3), 503–522. CrossRef
Gray, T., & Jenkins, J. (2016). Pivotal politics and the ideological content of significant laws. Presented at the 2016 annual meeting of the southern political science association. San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Groseclose, T., & McCarty, N. (2001). The politics of blame: Bargaining before an audience. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 100–119. CrossRef
Howell, W., Adler, E. S., Cameron, C., & Riemann, C. (2000). Divided government and the legislative productivity of Congress, 1945–94. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 25(2), 285–312. CrossRef
Krehbiel, K. (1998). Pivotal politics: A theory of U.S. lawmaking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossRef
Lee, F. E. (2009). Beyond ideology: Politics, principles, and partisanship in the US Senate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossRef
Mayhew, D. R. (1991) . Divided we govern: Party control, lawmaking and investigations, 1946– 2002, Second Edition. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Mayhew, D. R. (2003). Supermajority rule in the U.S. Senate. Political Science and Politics, 36(1), 31–36. CrossRef
Poole, K., & Rosenthal, H. (2007). Ideology and Congress. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Press.
Richman, J. (2011). Parties, pivots, and policy: The status quo test. American Political Science Review, 105(1), 151–165. CrossRef
Sinclair, B. (2002). The ‘60-vote Senate’: Strategies, process, and outcomes. In B. I. Oppenheimer (Ed.), U.S. Senate exceptionalism. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press.
Sinclair, B. (2006). Party wars: Polarization and the politics of national policy making. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Stimson, J. A. (1991). Public opinion in America: Moods, cycles, and swings. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Wawro, G. J. (2010). The filibuster and filibuster reform in the U.S. Senate, 1917– 1975. Testimony prepared for the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, April 22, 2010. http://www.columbia.edu/~gjw10/rules_committee_statement_final.pdf.
Wawro, G., & Schickler, E. (2006). Filibuster: Obstruction and lawmaking in the US Senate. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Woon, J., & Cook, I. (2015). Competing gridlock models and status quo policies. Political Analysis, 23(3), 385–399. CrossRef
- Unpacking pivotal politics: exploring the differential effects of the filibuster and veto pivots
Thomas R. Gray
Jeffery A. Jenkins
- Springer US
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© BBL, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta, Neuer Inhalt/© hww, So bewältigen Sie Stress im Fernstudium/© granata68 | stock.adobe.com | AdobeStock