Volume 33, Issue 2 p. 199-222

Agreeing to Disagree: Agenda Content and Senate Partisanship, 1981–2004

FRANCES E. LEE,

FRANCES E. LEE

University of Maryland

Frances E. Lee <[email protected]> is Associate Professor of Government and Politics, 3140 Tydings Hall, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742.

Search for more papers by this author

FRANCES E. LEE,

FRANCES E. LEE

University of Maryland

Frances E. Lee <[email protected]> is Associate Professor of Government and Politics, 3140 Tydings Hall, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742.

Search for more papers by this author

First published: 07 January 2011

https://doi.org/10.3162/036298008784311000

Citations: 28

About

PDF

Tools

Share a link

Email
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Reddit
Wechat

Abstract

This article presents evidence that the recent increase in partisanship in Senate roll-call voting is partly due to changes in the content of the Senate agenda. The analysis draws on an original dataset classifying Senate roll-call votes from 1981 to 2004 according to substantive issue content. Over the past two decades, the types of issues that were most divisive along partisan lines in earlier periods became progressively more prominent on the Senate roll-call agenda. Even when one controls for the effects of other electoral and institutional factors, one finds that the shifting agenda notably contributed to the rise in Senate partisanship.

References

Abramowitz, Alan I., Brad Alexander, and Matthew Gunning 2006. “Incumbency, Redistricting, and the Decline of Competition in U.S. House Elections. Journal of Politics 68: 75–88.
10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00371.x
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Adler, E. Scott, and John S. Lapinski 2006. “ The Substance of Representation: Studying Policy Content and Legislative Behavior.” In The Macropolitics of Congress, ed. E. Scott Adler and John S. Lapinski. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Google Scholar
Aldrich, John H. 1995. Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Party Politics in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
10.7208/chicago/9780226012773.001.0001
Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, James M. Snyder Jr., and Charles Stewart III 2001. “Candidate Positioning in U.S. House Elections. American Journal of Political Science 45: 136–59.
10.2307/2669364
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Bach, Stanley, and Steven S. Smith 1988. Managing Uncertainty in the House of Representatives: Adaptation and Innovation in Special Rules. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Google Scholar
Bachrach, Peter, and Morton S. Baratz 1962. “Two Faces of Power. American Political Science Review 56: 947–52.
10.2307/1952796
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Bachrach, Peter, and Morton S. Baratz 1963. “Decisions and Nondecisions: An Analytical Framework. American Political Science Review 57: 632–42.
10.2307/1952568
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Bryan D. Jones 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Google Scholar
Brady, David W., and Hahrie Han 2004. “ An Extended Historical View of Congressional Party Polarization.” Paper presented at Princeton University.

Google Scholar
Brewer, Mark D., Mack D. Mariana, and Jeffrey M. Stonecash 2002. “Northern Democrats and Party Polarization in the U.S. House. Legislative Studies Quarterly 27: 423–44.
10.2307/3598571
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Carmines, Edward G., and James A. Stimson 1989. Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Google Scholar
Carson, Jamie, Michael Crespin, Charles J. Finocchiaro, and David W. Rohde 2004. “ Linking Congressional Districts across Time: Redistricting and Party Polarization in Congress.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.

Google Scholar
Clausen, Aage R. 1973. How Congressmen Decide: A Policy Focus. New York: St. Martin's.

Google Scholar
Committee on Political Parties. American Political Science Association. 1950. “Summary of Conclusions and Proposals. American Political Science Review 44 (3, Part 2, Supplement): 1–14.
10.2307/1950998
Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and Mathew D. McCubbins 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and Mathew D. McCubbins 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives. New York: Cambridge University Press.
10.1017/CBO9780511791123
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and Keith T. Poole 2002. “On Measuring Partisanship in Roll-call Voting: The U.S. House of Representatives, 1877–1999. American Journal of Political Science 46: 477–89.
10.2307/3088393
PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
Den Hartog, Chris, and Nathan W. Monroe 2008. “The Value of Majority Status: The Effect of Jeffords's Switch on Asset Prices of Republican and Democratic Firms. Legislative Studies Quarterly 33: 63–84.
10.3162/036298008783743291
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Dwyer, Paul E. 2005. Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, RL32819, Legislative Branch: FY2006 Appropriations. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.

Google Scholar
Edwards, George C., III, and B. Dan Wood 1999. “Who Influences Whom? The President, Congress, and the Media. American Political Science Review 93: 327–44.
10.2307/2585399
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Fleisher, Richard, and Jon R. Bond 2004. “The Shrinking Middle in the U.S. Congress. British Journal of Political Science 34: 429–51.
10.1017/S0007123404000122
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Hood, M.V., III, Quentin Kidd, and Irwin L. Morris 1999. “Of Byrd[s] and Bumpers: Using Democratic Senators to Analyze Political Change in the South, 1960–1995. American Journal of Political Science 43: 465–87.
10.2307/2991802
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 2000. “ Party Polarization in National Politics: The Electoral Connection.” In Polarized Politics: Congress and the President in a Partisan Era, ed. Jon R. Bond and Richard Fleisher. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.

Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 2004. “ Explaining the Ideological Polarization of the Congressional Parties since the 1970s.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.

Google Scholar
Katznelson, Ira, and John S. Lapinski 2006. “ The Substance of Representation: Studying Policy Content and Legislative Behavior.” In The Macropolitics of Congress, ed. E. Scott Adler and John S. Lapinski. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Google Scholar
King, Gary, Michael Tomz, and Jason Wittenberg 2000. “Making the Most of Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Presentation. American Journal of Political Science 44: 347–61.
10.2307/2669316
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Lee, Frances E. 2006. “ Dividers, not Uniters: Presidential Leadership and Senate Partisanship, 1981–2004.” Paper presented at the Party Effects in the United States Senate II Conference, University of Minnesota, September 29–30.

Google Scholar
Lowry, William R., and Charles R. Shipan 2002. “Party Differentiation in Congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly 27: 33–60.
10.2307/3598518
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Matthews, Donald R., and James A. Stimson 1975. Yeas and Nays: Normal Decisionmaking in the U.S. House of Representatives. New York: Wiley.

Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1966. Party Loyalty among Congressmen: The Difference between Democrats and Republicans, 1947–1962. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.4159/harvard.9780674429826
Google Scholar
Miller, Gary, and Norman Schofield 2003. “Activists and Partisan Realignment in the United States. American Political Science Review 97: 245–60.
10.1017/S0003055403000650
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Oppenheimer, Bruce I. 2005. “ Deep Red and Blue Congressional Districts: The Causes and Consequences of Declining Party Competitiveness.” In Congress Reconsidered, ed. Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce I. Oppenheimer. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.

Google Scholar
Ornstein, Norman J., Thomas E. Mann, and Michael J. Malbin 2002. Vital Statistics on Congress, 2001–2002. Washington, DC: AEI.

Google Scholar
Patterson, Samuel C., and Gregory A. Caldeira 1988. “Party Voting in the United States Congress. British Journal of Political Science 18: 111–31.
10.1017/S000712340000497X
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Howard Rosenthal 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar
Roberts, Jason M., and Steven S. Smith 2003. “Procedural Contexts, Party Strategy, and Conditional Party Voting in the U.S. House of Representatives. American Journal of Political Science 47: 305–17.
10.1111/1540-5907.00021
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Rohde, David W. 1991. Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
10.7208/chicago/9780226724058.001.0001
Google Scholar
Rohde, David W. 1992. “ Electoral Forces, Political Agendas, and Partisanship in Congress.” In The Postreform Congress, ed. R.H. Davidson. New York: St. Martin's.

Google Scholar
Schattschneider, E.E. 1960. The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Google Scholar
Sinclair, Barbara 1982. Congressional Realignment, 1925–1978. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Google Scholar
Sinclair, Barbara 1995. Legislators, Leaders, and Lawmaking. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Google Scholar
Sinclair, Barbara 2000. Unorthodox Lawmaking: New Legislative Processes in the U.S. Congress, 2d ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.

Google Scholar
Sinclair, Barbara 2005. “ Parties and Leadership in the House.” In Institutions of American Democracy: The Legislative Branch, ed. P.J. Quirk and S.A. Binder. New York: Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar
Smith, Steven S. 2007. Party Influence in Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.
10.1017/CBO9780511812613
Google Scholar
Smith, Steven S., and Gerald Gamm 2002. “ Emergence of the Modern Senate: Party Organization, 1937–2002.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston.

Google Scholar
Stonecash, Jeffrey M., Mark D. Brewer, and Mark D. Mariani 2003. Diverging Parties: Social Change, Realignment, and Party Polarization. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Google Scholar
Sundquist, James L. 1983. Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Google Scholar
Theriault, Sean M. 2004. “ The Case of the Vanishing Moderates: Party Polarization in the Modern Congress.” University of Texas, Austin. Manuscript.

Google Scholar
Theriault, Sean M. 2006. “ Procedural Polarization in the U.S. Congress.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.

Google Scholar
Truman, David 1959. The Congressional Party: A Case Study. New York: Wiley.

Google Scholar
Van Houweling, Robert 2003. “ Legislators' Personal Policy Preferences and Partisan Legislative Organization.” Ph.D. diss. Harvard University.

Google Scholar
Walker, Jack L. 1977. “Setting the Agenda in the U.S. Senate: A Theory of Problem Selection. British Journal of Political Science 7: 423–45.
10.1017/S0007123400001101
Web of Science®Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume33, Issue2

May 2008

Pages 199-222

Agreeing to Disagree: Agenda Content and Senate Partisanship, 1981–2004

Abstract

References

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Agreeing to Disagree: Agenda Content and Senate Partisanship, 1981–2004

Abstract

References

Citing Literature

References

Related

Information