Hi, everyone! This thread will serve as a review for exam #2 (I'll go over this review in class on Monday as well). Exam #2 takes place in class on Wednesday, February 26. It will be of similar format to exam #1. You simply need to bring pen and photo ID. You will have 75 minutes to complete the exam, but you probably won't need that long.
To prepare for the exam, you should read through the blog assignment on legislative elections. You should be familiar with my post, the articles I link to, and the comments of your colleagues. In terms of material covered in class, you should be familiar with all of the material on interest groups and political parties (all of lecture notes #2), plus the material on political participation (the start of lecture notes #3) Both sets of lecture notes were/will be distributed in class and are also on the blog. Specifically, from class, you should be familiar with:
Why some interest groups are more likely to form than others (the "Free Rider" problem).
The reasons for the decline of political parties in the states.
The difficulties facing third parties (with perhaps extra emphasis on single member plurality).
Why third parties sometimes overcome these difficulties.
Why voter turnout is higher in some states than it is in others.
I will have my usual office hours on Monday and Wednesday, from 1:45 to 3:20, in case you want to ask questions. You can also email them to me at the email address on the syllabus (berchnorto@msn.com). Finally, you can use the comments section on this thread for questions. You'll then be able to ask your questions on the blog and read my answers to questions from other students in the class. Email and online questions must be asked by 9 pm on Tuesday, February 25. Good luck!
Thursday, February 20, 2014
Lecture Notes #3
POLS 220
N BERCH
SPRING 2014
Political Participation
I.
Introduction
A.
Voter
participation in the US is quite low—50% or so for presidential elections, 35%
for midterms, down to 10% for school elections.
This compares to about 80% in European countries
B.
Other forms of participation: US is at the top of the list. This includes a lot of local politics. The importance of interest groups versus
parties is a factor.
C.
Even within the US, there is great variation in
voter turnout between states.
II.
Why is
there so much variation between the US states?
A.
political
culture
B.
party competition
C.
ease of registration
1.
used to
be used to exclude
2.
Motor Voter applies to all states, but makes
little difference
D.
ease of
voting: absentee ballots, early voting,
mail-in ballots, Saturday voting
E.
level of education
F.
election cycle
G.
West Coast effect
H.
direct democracy
III.
How could WV improve voter participation?
Legislatures
I.
Introduction:
why would anyone want to be in the legislature?
II. How the legislature has changed: greater professionalism.
A.
more lawyers—1/6 vs. ½ in Congress; WV is about
average.
B.
more pay--$100 in NH, over $100,000 in NY and
CA; $15,000 in WV
C.
longer sessions—WV extended to 60-60 in 1973;
still below average but often goes beyond limits.
D.
more
staff; WV uses lots of in-session staff
E.
better facilities
F.
still great variation from state to state
III.
How legislatures work
A.
Committees
1.
typical
House and Senate members serve on three committees each
2.
WV House members serve on about 3; Senators
about 6.
3.
WV has its experience concentrated on Finance
and Judiciary Committees
B.
Norms
1.
specialization
2.
courtesy
3.
apprenticeship/seniority
4.
reciprocity
C.
cue
voting
1.
why?
2.
party
3.
region
IV.
What do
we expect from our representatives?
A.
policy
representation—hard to evaluate
B.
pork barrel representation—Daniel Flood
C.
casework representation—John Miller
D.
symbolic representation—George Hansen
V.
Electing
legislators
A.
Apportionment
1.
gerrymandering—protecting incumbents, party
2.
the odd effects of race and party
3.
multimember districts—WV uses more than almost
every other state, but less than it once did
B.
Cost
1.
highest
for CA Senate—up to $2 million
2.
WV is about average
C.
turnover
1.
related
to resources, prestige, staffing
2.
WV among highest in nation
D.
Do we
really want citizen legislators?
E.
What if WV raised the salary to $40,000 and made
it a full-time job?
Governors
I.
Increase in formal powers, stature,
professionalism
A.
Goodbye
to Goodtime Charlie
B.
Especially strong in the Northeast—MD, MA, WV,
NY
C.
increase in tenure potential, budget power
D.
Veto power (now in all states)—what about the
line item veto?
1.
variation
in power: regular line item veto in 43
states, reduction item veto in 11, and Wisconsin extreme version—Vanna White
veto
2.
argument for
3.
argument against
4.
findings—only small effect on pork barrel if
reduction item veto is available
5.
implications for national level
a.
more effect—unbalanced budgets
b.
less effect—mandatory spending
c.
constitutional amendment required
II. Increased prominence=increased risk
A.
25% lose
reelection bids—higher than Congress
B.
easy to find 1 opponent
C.
reelection tied to state economy
D.
interaction with feds, other states, business is
key
E.
hard to please an entire state
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Lecture Notes #2
POLS 220
Berch
Spring 2014
Interest Groups
Review: Two Major Ways For Citizens to Influence
Government
A.
Elections
B.
Interest Groups
C.
US emphasizes interest groups; weak parties.
D.
Within US, party strength and competition
influence interest group importance
Interest
Groups
A.
Where
there’s an interest, there may or may not be an interest group
1.
Demonstrate free rider
2.
Implication:
not all groups form; there’s a class bias—free rider has major effect
3.
Contradicts pluralist theory
B.
So, level
of interest group strength is unimportant unless we know which groups are
strong
C.
Banking, insurance, and legal interest groups
tend to exert quiet power
Parties and Elections
Decline of
Parties
A.
Campaign
styles—labor intensive vs. capital intensive
B.
Open primaries (two senses)
1.
Open vs.
smoke-filled rooms
2.
Closed vs. open vs. blanket (Supreme Court
intervenes)
C.
Patronage
reduced in importance (most places)
D.
Welfare function reduced in importance
E.
Non-partisan local elections
1.
Maybe
not—Seattle story
2.
Not much of a factor in the Northeast
What about
third parties?
A.
Problems
1.
Money
2.
Publicity
3.
Single-member plurality
4.
Election laws and administration
B.
BUT: 1990 may have changed things
1.
Hickel
2.
Sanders (and reelected)
3.
Weicker
4.
Can they govern?
C.
1994 was
a good year, too
1.
Sanders
reelected again
2.
Connecticut and Alaska parties put up good
efforts
3.
Independent governor elected in Maine
4.
Third parties and independents had major effects
in NM (Greens), OK (Gov. race), UT (Cong), NY (Gov)
5.
1996—scattered victories in local elections
6.
1998—another good year (THE MIND, and King
reelected)
7.
2000—some local successes, but lesser evil
problem arises, too.
8.
2002—third parties held their own
9.
2004—less impact (due to 2000)
10.
2006—interesting twist (Lieberman)
11.
2008—not a big year for third parties
12.
2010—Rhode Island win, other close calls
13.
2012—King is back!
14.
2014—too early to tell, but Chafee isn’t running
for reelection
Lecture Notes #1
POLS 220
Berch
Spring 2014
Introduction
Overview of
Course
A.
Setting/Rules of Game/Context/Federalism
B.
How
Citizens Try to Influence Government:
Parties and Elections
C.
Who They
Influence: Institutions
D.
Policy
Outcomes
Why Study
State and Local Politics?
A.
Look at
Newspapers
B.
Look at WVU tuition, admissions
standards—demographics, geography matter
C.
Why are welfare payments higher in Connecticut
than Mississippi? Wealth and ideology
D.
Why does Idaho have a higher percentage of women
in the state legislature than New York?
Rules matter, and so does culture.
E.
Why does New York’s legislature make fewer
technical mistakes than West Virginia’s?
F.
Why is voter turnout higher in Maine than in
Missouri? Political culture, rules.
G.
States make a great laboratory; similar but not
the same.
Why Have
States Anyway?
Political
Culture—Elazar
A.
Individualistic—politics as marketplace
B.
Moralistic—politics to improve society
C.
Traditionalistic—politics to maintain the
existing order
Federalism
A History of
Federalism
A.
Origins
1.
Problems
with Articles of Confederation
a.
Lack of
national unity
b.
Lack of coordination
2.
Options
a.
Unitary
system
b.
Confederation
c.
Federalism
B.
10th
Amendment
C.
Federalists vs. anti-Federalists
1.
Alien and
Sedition Acts
2.
Interposition and Nullification—VA and KY
Resolutions
D.
Marbury
v. Madison
E.
Louisiana Purchase
F.
McCulloch v. Maryland
G.
Civil War
H.
13th Amendment
I.
14th Amendment
J.
15th Amendment
K.
16th Amendment
L.
Government Assumes Welfare Role
M.
Civil Rights Decisions
Fiscal
Federalism
A.
Major
source of money for states and localities
B.
Two ways of classifying different types
1.
Level of
discretion
a.
Categorical grants—least discretion, very
specific purposes
b.
Block grants—moderate discretion—general
areas—most money in these
c.
General Revenue Sharing—total state or local
discretion—good points and bad points.
Abolished in mid 1980s
2.
Method of
allocation
a.
Project—many categorical grants but not much
money—application process, class bias
b.
Formula grants—virtually all block grants, some
categorical, and (before abolition) all revenue sharing
C.
Conditions of aid allow policy control that
cannot be mandated
1.
Speed
limit enforcement
2.
Drinking age
3.
Blood Alcohol level
4.
No Child Left Behind
5.
Extortion?
Or good public policy?
The Reagan
Years
A.
Irony:
let states do more, but give them less money
B.
Some movement from categorical to block grants
C.
Elimination of Revenue sharing
D.
Reduction in overall grant money—largely
restored in Bush (Papa) administration.
E.
Consequences
1.
States
and localities do more with less
2.
Fiscal crises
3.
Governors are blamed
4.
Attempts at creativity
a.
WV higher
education
b.
Oregon health care
c.
Not likely to be enough to compensate
Some States
Do Better Than Others
A.
Huge
variation from state to state
B.
Some is obvious—AK, WY highways
C.
Small states did better in early 1980s—ganged up
on California
D.
Large states did better in mid 1980s—critical
mass
E.
Not California—homogeneity, unity important
F.
Lobbying offices
G.
Governor in Congress—knows ropes, sees potential
(governor is growing in importance)
H.
Did Byrd matter?
1.
Committee
assignments, seniority don’t figure in model
2.
We notice project grants, but money is in
formula grants
3.
Byrd didn’t do grants so much as federal
expenditures
4.
Maybe Byrd was the exception that proved the
rule
Summary of
History
A.
Shift
from state to national control
B.
Shift from layer cake (dual) to marble cake
(cooperative) federalism
Larger and
Smaller Governments
A.
Regional
Bodies
1.
Relates
to question of why states
2.
Examples:
a.
NW Power
Supply
b.
Port Authority of NY and NJ
c.
Appalachian Regional Commission
3.
Is this a
trend?
B.
Localities
1.
Dillon’s
Rule
2.
Home Rule
3.
Lots of state-to-state variation--$ is often key
4.
Most centralized states: DE, NM, WV, HI
5.
Least centralized states: CO, OR, TX, NY, NH
6.
Why? Not
sure, perhaps homogeneity
7.
WV: Caperton
tried to change through amendment, voters turned down
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)