0
Day 7 – Legislative Recruitment
July 8, 2013
In the News
 Congress Lets Student Loan Rates Double
 http://video.msnbc.msn.com/up/52406830#52406830
Gerrymandering
 “Not Gerrymandering, but Districting: More Evidence on
How Democrats Won the Popular Vote but Lost the
Co...
Where Have We Been?
 Constitutional Foundations & Design of Congress
 Constitution
 Federalist 51
 The Two Congresses ...
Where Are We Going?
 Who enters?
 Who wins?
 Who votes for them?
 What effect do elections have on governance?
Readings
 DOL (58-67)
 Maestas et al. (2006) “When to Risk It?
Institutions, Ambitions, and the Decision to Run for
the ...
Constitution
District
Features
Nominating
Procedures and
Primaries
General
Election
Barriers to entering
 Constitution
 What does the Constitution require of Congressional
candidates?
 District features
...
Maestas et al. (2006)
 Why are the authors concerned about analyzing the
decision model through a two-stage process?
 Wh...
PA National Congressional Districts
Source: http://www.redistricting.state.pa.us/Maps/House.cfm
Pennsylvania State House Map
Source:
http://aws.redistricting.state.pa.us/Redistricting/Resou
rces/GISData/Districts/Legis...
Pennsylvania State Senate Map
Source:
http://aws.redistricting.state.pa.us/Redistricting/Resources/GI
SData/Districts/Legi...
Running for Higher Office – Previous
Assumptions
 Expected utility of winning a higher office - E(Uh)
 E(Uh) = phBh – Ch...
Running for Higher Office – A Two-Stage
Decision Process
 Maestas and colleagues argue that there is a stable
disposition...
 f(E(UA)
 = pgenBmarg – Cmarg + M)
pgen Bmarg Cmarg M
Estimation of
winning the party
nomination.
Assessment of
prestige...
Results
What is this
model
predicting?
Moving to the Second Stage
 f(E(UA) = pgenBmarg – Cmarg + M)
 If f(E(UA)) > 0, then they are scored as „1‟ (i.e. ambitio...
Discussion
 How do the authors connect their findings to political
responsiveness?
 What are the implications for their ...
Day 7 - Legislative Recruitment for Office
Day 7 - Legislative Recruitment for Office
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Day 7 - Legislative Recruitment for Office

66

Published on

Please contact me at lee.hannah@psu.edu for original files.

Published in: Education, News & Politics
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
66
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Day 7 - Legislative Recruitment for Office"

  1. 1. Day 7 – Legislative Recruitment July 8, 2013
  2. 2. In the News  Congress Lets Student Loan Rates Double  http://video.msnbc.msn.com/up/52406830#52406830
  3. 3. Gerrymandering  “Not Gerrymandering, but Districting: More Evidence on How Democrats Won the Popular Vote but Lost the Congress  http://themonkeycage.org/2012/11/15/not-gerrymandering-but- districting-more-evidence-on-how-democrats-won-the-popular- vote-but-lost-the-congress/  “Unintentional Gerrymandering” Political Geography and the U.S. House Vote  Democrats are inefficiently concentrated in large cities and small industrial agglomerations.  http://themonkeycage.org/2012/11/10/political-geography-and- 2012-u-s-house-vote/  http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/house/big- board
  4. 4. Where Have We Been?  Constitutional Foundations & Design of Congress  Constitution  Federalist 51  The Two Congresses and the Representative- Constituent Linkage  Two Congresses:  Miller and Stokes (1963)  Institutionalization of Congress  Elections and the Rules of the Game  Districting Process
  5. 5. Where Are We Going?  Who enters?  Who wins?  Who votes for them?  What effect do elections have on governance?
  6. 6. Readings  DOL (58-67)  Maestas et al. (2006) “When to Risk It? Institutions, Ambitions, and the Decision to Run for the U.S. House” American Political Science Review 100(2): 195-208.
  7. 7. Constitution District Features Nominating Procedures and Primaries General Election
  8. 8. Barriers to entering  Constitution  What does the Constitution require of Congressional candidates?  District features  What must candidates consider about their districts?  Nominating procedures and primaries  How can this process change who decides to run?  General election prospects
  9. 9. Maestas et al. (2006)  Why are the authors concerned about analyzing the decision model through a two-stage process?  What method do they use to determine the ambition of state legislators?  Why might members of a professional legislature be more likely to run for Congress? Conversely, why might they be more likely to stay in their current office?  Finally, what do they find? What factors make legislators more or less ambitious? What factors make ambitious legislators more or less likely to run?
  10. 10. PA National Congressional Districts Source: http://www.redistricting.state.pa.us/Maps/House.cfm
  11. 11. Pennsylvania State House Map Source: http://aws.redistricting.state.pa.us/Redistricting/Resou rces/GISData/Districts/Legislative/House/2011- Revised-Final/PDF/2011-Revised-Final-Plan-Map- House.pdf
  12. 12. Pennsylvania State Senate Map Source: http://aws.redistricting.state.pa.us/Redistricting/Resources/GI SData/Districts/Legislative/Senate/2011-Revised- Final/PDF/2011-Revised-Final-Plan-Map-Senate.pdf
  13. 13. Running for Higher Office – Previous Assumptions  Expected utility of winning a higher office - E(Uh)  E(Uh) = phBh – Ch  Expected utility of retaining the current, lower office - E(Ul)  E(Ul) = plBl – Cl  Under this assumption, an ambitious politician will attempt to move to higher office when:  E(Uh) = phBh – Ch >E(Ul) = plBl – Cl  What is problematic about this assumption?
  14. 14. Running for Higher Office – A Two-Stage Decision Process  Maestas and colleagues argue that there is a stable disposition, or function, that each legislator holds.  Stage 1  Progressive Ambition = f(E(UA)  = pgenBmarg – Cmarg + M)  Where pgenis the long-run probability of winning office  Bmargis the expected gain from the target office  Cmargis the expected costs from running for the target office  M = personal motivations outside of the cost-benefit analysis  Those who enter Stage 2 have already crossed a threshold level of ambition.  Stage 2 Pr(Run | Progressive Ambition > 0 = f(Pt, pgen,Ct,)
  15. 15.  f(E(UA)  = pgenBmarg – Cmarg + M) pgen Bmarg Cmarg M Estimation of winning the party nomination. Assessment of prestige and effectiveness in U.S. House career. Family-cost index Desire to make social or business contacts Estimation of chances of winning the general election. Assessmentrelative to current position in state government. Campaign-cost index Perception of district partisan balance. Signals from party.
  16. 16. Results What is this model predicting?
  17. 17. Moving to the Second Stage  f(E(UA) = pgenBmarg – Cmarg + M)  If f(E(UA)) > 0, then they are scored as „1‟ (i.e. ambitious)  If f(E(UA)) ≤ 0, then then they are scored as „0‟ (i.e. not ambitious) Interviews N = 597 F(E(UA)) 1 0 N = 263 N = 334
  18. 18. Discussion  How do the authors connect their findings to political responsiveness?  What are the implications for their findings?  What can they not determine from this study?  How might this study be extended?
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×