Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Constituency Cleavages and Congressional Parties: Measuring Homogeneity and Polarization, 1857–1913

  • Jeffery A. Jenkins, Eric Schickler and Jamie L. Carson

Abstract

We analyze the constituency bases of the congressional parties from 1857 through 1913 by focusing on two key concepts: party homogeneity and party polarization. With a few notable exceptions, prior efforts to assess these concepts have relied upon measures based on members’ roll call votes. This is potentially problematic, as such measures are likely endogenous: They reflect the party’s actual level of success as much as the party’s underlying homogeneity. To address this problem, we construct measures for party homogeneity and polarization that are based on constituency characteristics, using economic-based census data and presidential voting data as proxies. We then examine how these “exogenous” measures compare to roll call-based measures. We find that changes in party unity on roll call votes track shifts in constituency characteristics fairly closely. Substantively, we find that the congressional parties went through three distinct phases during these 56 years: first, a period of extremely high overlap and low party homogeneity during the Civil War and Reconstruction, followed by a period of moderate polarization and homogeneity from the mid-1870s through the early 1890s, and concluding with a period of sharp polarization and high homogeneity, which coincided with the realignment of 1894–96. While the status of the 1894–96 elections as a critical turning point remains controversial in the historical and political science literatures, our results suggest that these elections did lead to a substantial change in the underlying characteristics of the congressional parties.

Copyright

References

Hide All
Abramowitz, Alan I. (1991) “Incumbency, campaign spending, and the decline of competition in U.S. House elections.”Journal of Politics 53: 3456.
Adler, E. Scott (2000) “Constituency characteristics and the ‘guardian’ model of appropriations subcommittees, 1959–1998.” American Journal of Political Science 44 : 104–14.
Adler, E. Scott, and Lapinski, John (1997) “Demand-side theory and congressional committee composition: A constituency characteristics approach.” American Journal of Political Science 41: 895918.
Aldrich, John H. (1995) Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Party Politics in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Aldrich, John H., and Rohde, David W. (1998)“Measuring conditional party government.” Paper presented at theannual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, 23–25 April.
Aldrich, John H., and Rohde, David W. (2000) “The consequences of party organization in the House: The role of the majority and minority parties in conditional party government,” in Bond, Jon R. and Fleisher, Richard (eds.) Polarized Politics: Congress and the President in a Partisan Era. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press: 3172.
Aldrich, John H., and Rohde, David W. (2001) “The logic of conditional party government: Revisiting the electoral connection,” in Dodd, Lawrence C. and Oppenheimer, Bruce I. (eds.) Congress Reconsidered. 7th ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press: 269–92.
Aldrich, John H., Berger, Mark M., and Rohde, David W. (2002) “The historical variability in conditional party government, 1877–1994,” in Brady, David W. and McCubbins, Mathew D. (eds.)Party, Process, and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press: 1735.
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Snyder, James M. Jr., and Stewart, Charles III (2000) “Old voters, new voters, and the personal vote: Using redistricting to measure the incumbency advantage.”American Journal of Political Science 44: 1734.
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Snyder, James M. Jr., and Stewart, Charles III (2001a) “Candidate positioning in U.S. House elections.” American Journal of Political Science 45: 136–59.
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Snyder, James M. Jr., and Stewart, Charles III (2001b) “The effects of party and preferences on congressional roll call voting.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 26: 533–72.
Bartels, Larry (1998) “Electoral continuity and change, 1868–1996.” Electoral Studies 17: 301–26.
Bensel, Richard Franklin (1984) Sectionalism and American Political Development, 1880–1980. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Bensel, Richard Franklin (1990) Yankee Leviathan: The Origins of Central State Authority in America, 1859–1877. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bensel, Richard Franklin (2000) The Political Economy of American Industrialization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Benson, Lee (1961) The Concept of Jacksonian Democracy: New York as a Test Case. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Binder, Sarah A. (1997) Minority Rights, Majority Rule: Partisanship and the Development of Congress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brady, David W. (1973) Congressional Voting in a Partisan Era: A Study of the McKinley Houses and a Comparison to the Modern House of Representatives. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
Brady, David W. (1988) Critical Elections and Congressional Policy Making. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Brady, David W., and Althoff, Phillip (1974) “Party voting in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1890–1910: Elements of a responsible party system.” Journal of Politics 36: 753–75.
Brady, David W., Brody, Richard, and Epstein, David (1989) “Heterogeneous parties and political organization: The U.S. Senate, 1880–1920.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 14: 205–23.
Brady, David W., Canes-Wrone, Brandice, and Cogan, John F. (2000) “Differences in legislative voting behavior between winning and losing House incumbents,” in Brady, David W., Cogan, John F., and Fiorina, Morris P. (eds.) Continuity and Change in House Elections. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press: 178–92.
Brady, David W., Cooper, Joseph, and Hurley, Patricia A. (1979) “The decline of party in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1887–1968.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 4: 381409.
Brady, David W., and Epstein, David (1997) “Intra-party preferences, heterogeneity, and the origins of the modern Congress: Progressive reformers in the House and Senate, 1890–1920.”Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 13: 2649.
Bugdor, Joel, Capell, Elizabeth, Flanders, David A., Polsby, Nelson W., Westlye, Mark C., and Zaller, John (1981) “The 1896 election and congressional modernization.” Social Science History 5: 5390.
Burnham, Walter Dean (1967) “Party systems and the political process,” in Chambers, W. N. and Burnham, W. D. (eds.)The American Party Systems: Stages of Political Development. New York: Oxford University Press: 277307.
Burnham, Walter Dean (1981) “The system of 1896: An analysis,” in Kleppner, Paul (ed.) The Evolution of American Electoral Systems. Westport, CT: Greenwood: 147202.
Clinton, Joshua D. (2001) “Representation and the 106th Congress: The legislator-constituency relationship and a hierarchical bayesian simulation estimator.” Unpublished ms., Stanford University.
Clubb, Jerome M., and Traugott, Santa A. (1977) “Partisan cleavage and cohesion in the House of Representatives, 1861–1974.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 7: 375401.
Cooper, Joseph, and Brady, David W. (1981) “Institutional context and leadership style: The House from Cannon to Rayburn.” American Political Science Review 75: 441–25.
Cooper, Joseph, and Young, Garry (1997) “Partisanship, bipartisanship, and crosspartisan-ship in Congress since the New Deal,” in Dodd, Lawrence C. and Oppenheimer, Bruce I. (eds.)Congress Reconsidered. 6th ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press: 246–73.
Cooper, Joseph, and Young, Garry (2002) “Party and preferences in congressional decision making: Roll call voting in the House of Representatives, 1889–1999,” in Brady, David W. and McCubbins, Mathew D. (eds.) Party, Process, and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press: 64106.
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Mathew D. (1993) Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Cox, Gary W., and Poole, Keith T. (2002) “On measuring partisanship in roll call voting: The U.S. House of Representatives, 1877–1999.” American Journal of Political Science 46: 477–89.
Erikson, Robert S., and Wright, Gerald C. (2000) “Representation of constituency ideology in Congress,” in Brady, David W., Cogan, John F., and Fiorina, Morris P. (eds.) Continuity and Change in House Elections. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press: 149–77.
Erikson, Robert S., and Wright, Gerald C. (2001) “Voters, candidates, and issues in congressional elections,” in Dodd, Lawrence C. and Oppenheimer, Bruce I. (eds.) Congress Reconsidered. 7th ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press: 6796.
Fenno, Richard F. Jr. (1978) Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Fink, Evelyn C. (2000) “Representation by deliberation: Changes in the rules of deliberation in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1789–1844.” Journal of Politics 62: 1109–25.
Fink, Evelyn C., and Humes, Brian D. (1999) “Party conflict and rules changes in the United States House of Representatives, 1st–104th Congress.” Unpublished ms., University of Nebraska.
Fleck, Robert K., and Kilby, Christopher (2002) “Reassessing the role of constituency in congressional voting.”Public Choice 112: 3153.
Foner, Eric (1980) Politics and Ideology in the Age of the Civil War. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Formisano, Ronald (1971) The Birth of Mass Political Parties: Michigan, 1827–1861. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Formisano, Ronald (1999) “The party period revisited.”Journal of American History 86: 93120.
Gamm, Gerald, and Smith, Steven (1998) “Emergence of Senate party leadership.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, 23–25 April.
Gilligan, Thomas W., Marshall, William, and Weingast, Barry R. (1989) “Regulation and the theory of legislative choice: The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887.” Journal of Law and Economics 32: 3561.
Hays, Samuel P. (1965) “The social analysis of American political history, 1880–1920.” Political Science Quarterly 80: 373–94.
Holt, Michael (1999) “The primacy of party reasserted.” Journal of American History 86: 151–57.
Holt, Michael (2001) “Change and continuity in the party period: The substance and structure of American politics, 1835–1885,” in Shafer, Byron E. and Badger, Anthony J. (eds.) Contested Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775–2000. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas: 93116.
Jacobson, Gary C. (2000) “Party polarization in national politics: The electoral connection,” in Bond, Jon R. and Fleisher, Richard (eds.) Polarized Politics: Congress and the President in a Partisan Era. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press: 930.
James, Scott C. (1992) “A party system perspective on the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887.” Studies in American Political Development 6: 163200.
James, Scott C. (1995) “Building a Democratic majority: The Progressive Party vote and the Federal Trade Commission.” Studies in American Political Development 9: 331–85.
Jenkins, Jeffery A., and Weidenmier, Marc (1999) “Ideology, economic interests, and congressional roll-call voting: Partisan instability and Bank of the United States legislation, 1811–1816.” Public Choice 100: 225–43.
Jensen, Richard (1971) The Winning of the Midwest: Social and Political Conflict, 1888-1896. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kleppner, Paul (1970) The Cross of Culture: A Social Analysis of Midwestern Politics. New York: Macmillan-Free Press.
Krehbiel, Keith (1993a) “Constituency characteristics and legislative preferences.” Public Choice 76: 2137.
Krehbiel, Keith (1993b) “Where’s the party?British Journal of Political Science 23: 235–66.
Krehbiel, Keith (2000) “Party discipline and measures of partisanship.” American Journal of Political Science 44: 212–27.
Levitt, Steven D., and Snyder, James M. (1995) “Political parties and the distribution of federal outlays.”American Journal of Political Science 39: 958–80.
Lowell, A. Lawrence (1902) “The influence of party upon legislation in England and America.” Annual Report of the American Historical Association for 1901. 2 vols.,1: 321544.
Martis, Kenneth C. (1989) The Historical Atlas of Political Parties in the United States, 1789-1989. New York: Macmillan.
Mayhew, David (1974) Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Mayhew, David (2000) “Electoral realignments.”Annual Review of Political Science 3: 449–74.
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard (2001) “The hunt for party discipline in Congress.”American Political Science Review 95: 673–87.
McCormick, Richard L. (1974) “Ethno-cultural interpretations of nineteenth-century American voting behavior.” Political Science Quarterly 89: 351–77.
McCormick, Richard L. (1986) The Party Period and Public Policy: American Politics from the Age of Jackson to the Progressive Era. New York: Oxford University Press.
Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald (1963) “Constituency influence in Congress.” American Political Science Review 57: 4556.
Parsons, Stanley B., Beach, William W., and Dubin, Michael J. (1986) United States Congressional Districts and Data, 1843–1883. New York: Greenwood.
Parsons, Stanley B., Dubin, Michael J., and Parsons, Karen Toombs (1990) United States Congressional Districts and Data, 1883–1913. New York: Greenwood.
Peltzman, Sam (1984) “Constituent interest and congressional voting.” Journal of Law and Economics 27: 181210.
Peltzman, Sam (1985) “An economic interpretation of the history of congressional voting in the twentieth century.”American Economic Review 75: 656–75.
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard (1997)Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard (2001) “D-Nominate after 10 years: A comparative update to Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 26: 529.
Price, H. Douglas (1975) “Congress and the evolution of legislative professionalism,” in Ornstein, Norman J. (ed.)Congress in Change. New York: Praeger: 223.
Rice, Stuart (1928) Quantitative Methods in Politics. New York: Knopf.
Richardson, Heather Cox (1997) The Greatest Nation of the Earth: Republican Economic Policies during the Civil War. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Richardson, Heather Cox (2001) The Death of Reconstruction: Race, Labor, and Politics in the Post-Civil War North, 1865–1901. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Rohde, David W. (1991) Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sanders, Elizabeth (1999) Roots of Reform: Farmers, Workers, and the American State, 1877–1917. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Schattschneider, E. E. (1960) The Semisovereign People. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Schickler, Eric (2000) “Institutional change in the House of Representatives, 1867–1988: A test of partisan and ideological power balance models.” American Political Science Review 94: 269–88.
Schickler, Eric (2001) Disjointed Pluralism: Institutional Innovation and the Development of the U.S. Congress. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
Seip, Terry L. (1983) The South Returns to Congress: Men, Economic Measures, and Intersectional Relationships, 1868–1879. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.
Silbey, Joel H. (1977) A Respectable Minority: The Democratic Party in the Civil War Era, 1860–1868. New York: Norton.
Silbey, Joel H. (1991) The American Political Nation, 1838–1893. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Snyder, James M. Jr., and Groseclose, Tim (2000) “Estimating party influence in congressional roll call voting.”American Journal of Political Science 44: 193211.
Sundquist, Eric (1983) Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Theriault, Sean (2003) “Patronage, the Pendleton Act, and the power of the people.” Journal of Politics 65: 5068.
Wiebe, Robert H. (1967) The Search for Order, 1877–1920. New York: Hill and Wang.
Wilson, Rick K. (1999) “Here’s the party: Group effects and partisan advantage.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago,2325.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

Constituency Cleavages and Congressional Parties: Measuring Homogeneity and Polarization, 1857–1913

  • Jeffery A. Jenkins, Eric Schickler and Jamie L. Carson

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.