¹ Even Adolph Sabath (d. 1952), dean of the House and Chairman of its Rules Committee, was not immune to political attack by various party factions. On several occasions high-ranking national leaders, acting through Mayors Kelly and Kennelley, had to intervene to save his seat from ward committeemen anxious to displace him in the name of their own ethnic communities. Even within the well disciplined Democratic party, only strong leadership could maintain unity.

² For a summary of the relevant literature see, Polsby, Nelson W. and Wildavsky, Aaron B., Presidential Elections (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1964)Google Scholar, chs. i and iii.

³ A general discussion of the effects of the primary on the party system is found in Key, V. O. Jr., American State Politics: An Introduction (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1956)Google Scholar, chs. iv–vi. The social bases of party organization in Los Angeles are analyzed in Marvick, Dwaine and Nixon, Charles R., “Recruitment Contrasts in Rival Campaign Groups,” in Marvick, Dwaine (ed.), Political Decision-Makers (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1961)Google Scholar, ch. v.

⁴ The effects of material and non-material resources upon organizations are treated in Clark, Peter B. and Wilson, James Q., “Incentive Systems: A Theory of Organizations,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 6 (09, 1961), 129–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵ Ibid.; Wilson, James Q., The Amateur Democrat (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962)Google Scholar; Wilson, James Q., “The Economy of Patronage,” The Journal of Political Economy, 69 (08, 1961), 360–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶ The early formation and contemporary operation of the Democratic organization in Chicago have been described and analyzed so often elsewhere, that the analysis here need not go beyond a few summary remarks. For detailed treatments see: Banfield, Edward C., Political Influence (Glencoe: The Free Press, (1961)Google Scholar; Banfield, Edward C. and Wilson, James Q., City Politics (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963)Google Scholar, ch ix; Gosnell, Harold F., Machine Politics, Chicago Model (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1937)Google Scholar; Meyerson, Martin and Banfield, Edward C., Politics, Planning and the Public Interest (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1955)Google Scholar, chs. iii and xi; Wilson, James Q., Negro Politics (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1960)Google Scholar, ch. iii.

⁷ The fifteen men who have represented the inner city between 1932 and 1964 have owed much to the local organization. Seven of the congressmen had been slated by the organization and elected to legislative positions (in the State Assembly or the City Council) before going to Congress and two others had been elected to local executive offices. Four of the others had held high patronage positions in Chicago. Six of the fifteen were ward committeemen.

⁸ For comparative data, see Tables 3 and 4, below. Even the youngest man ever elected to Congress from an inner city district, Dan Rostenkowski, had considerable experience within the organization. His father was a Democratic committeeman. Mr. Rostenkowski grew up in the organization, served two terms in the State General Assembly, was elected Treasurer of the Cook County Young Democrats, and was elected to Congress in 1958 at the age of thirty. He became a party committeeman when his father was appointed to a federal job in 1961.

⁹ Only four Democratic candidates received as much as 45 per cent of the vote in individual suburban districts between 1948 and 1964. No Republican candidate for Congress has received a comparable percentage of the inner city vote during this period.

¹⁰ District densities vary from 1,556 (4th C.D.) to 5,164 (10th C.D.) persons per square mile. In the city of Chicago, densities range from 9,880 (2nd C.D.) to 30,600 (9th C.D.). Source: U. S., Bureau of the Census, Congressional District Data Book (Districts of the 88th Congress)—A Statistical Abstract Supplement (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963), pp. 128 and 135Google Scholar.

¹¹ For an extensive treatment of the use of patronage in suburban Cook County, see McCoy, David, “Patronage in Suburbia” (Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Political Science, University of Chicago, 1963)Google Scholar.

¹² Since the creation of the three suburban districts in 1947, only one of the seven Republicans elected had previously held a party organization position of any consequence. Given the uncertainty of the primaries, few committeemen have sought the nomination.

¹³ In some cases personal organizations have been exceptionally large. This has been particularly true of the 13th C. D., where the last two representatives could rely on well over 1,000 volunteers in primary or general elections.

¹⁴ Speeches and insertions in the Congressional Record are a helpful (albeit inadequate) index to the differences between the two groups in this regard. On the whole, suburban Republicans have shown a greater propensity for oratory and on a wider range of issues than have the inner city Democrats.

¹⁵ During the post-war period under study, Illinois Republican congressmen have not caucused with anything approaching the regularity of the Democratic delegation, which has consciously sought to maintain high cohesion on roll call votes. Unity among Illinois Republicans is much less deliberately cultivated.

¹⁶ The nine outer city Republicans who have served in Congress during this same period have averaged fifty-three years of age when first elected. No Republicans have been elected from inner city districts since 1934. Although Republican candidates are nominated in all five inner city districts, the action is perfunctory because the election is viewed almost invariably as an impossible cause by party officials and nominees alike. Moreover, since the Republicans are patronage-poor, the nomination cannot even be used as a qualification for obtaining some other office. The analysis of recruitment is not an especially fruit-ful enterprise under these circumstances.

¹⁷ Since, with a single exception, these candidates were not elected, it was not possible to ascertain their orientation toward party unity and the utilization of particular skills in concrete legislative situations. Issue-orientation and personality politics were evident in their campaigns and in interviews. Not infrequently, these propensities among suburban Democratic candidates created strains between them and the non-issue-oriented organizations which nominated them.

¹⁸ Population trends since the apportionment of 1947 have contributed greatly to the increasing outer city Democratic pluralities shown in Table 2. The principal sources of the trend have been the expansion of the Negro ghetto, especially into a few wards in the 2nd and 3rd congressional districts, and the outmigration of Jews from the west side into some wards in the 2nd, 9th, and old 12th congressional districts.

¹⁹ The permeability of the Republican party organization has admitted a number of liberal Republican committeemen, many of them Jewish. This is particularly true in the northern Lake Shore wards, where the largest numbers of Jewish people have moved in the last decade. With only one exception, the highly structured Democratic organizations in these same wards have remained in the hands of Irish Catholics.

²⁰ In the 3rd C. D., for example, the seat was marginal during the 1940's and early 1950's, moving with national trends. But a large influx of Negroes gradually changed the partisan balance and, in 1958, an organization committeeman, William Murphy, decided the time was ripe to send himself to Congress and did so.

²¹ Two of the four (James Murray [3rd C. D.] and Chester Chesney [11th C. D.]) were defeated after one term. A third, Sidney R. Yates (9th C. D.), retired temporarily in 1962 and ran unsuccessfully for the United States Senate.

²² The problem has been especially noticeable since the death of Mr. Sabath in 1952. Generally speaking, by the time Chicago Democrats have begun to accumulate seniority and committee rank, they have been too old to enjoy the fruits of power for any length of time, if at all.

²³ These habits are at least in part necessitated by the close electoral situation in these districts and the consequent need to rely on perssonal followings, the press, and non-party organizations for supplementary electoral help. But the marginality of the districts is also part of the original recruitment process which tends to funnel non-organization types to Congress in the first place.

²⁴ For more detailed comparisons of big cities, see the following: Gilbert, Charles E., “National Political Alignments and the Politics of Big Cities,” Political Science Quarterly, 79 (03, 1964), 25–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Greenstone, J. David, “Labor Politics in Three Cities: Political Action in Detroit, Chicago, and Los Angeles,” (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Political Science, University of Chicago, 1963)Google Scholar; Wilson, James Q., “Politics and Reform in American Cities,” in Hinderaker, Ivan (ed.), American Government Annual (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1962)Google Scholar; Wilson, The Amateur Democrat; Banfield, Edward C. and Wilson, James Q., City Politics (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963)Google Scholar; “City Bosses and Political Machines,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (05, 1964)Google Scholar, entire issue. The most detailed studies are found in the series edited by Banfield, Edward C., “City Politics Reports” (Cambridge: Joint Center for Urban Studies of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, 1959–1963)Google Scholar.

²⁵ Wilson, , Amateur Democrat, p. 101Google Scholar.

²⁶ Ibid., pp. 110–111, 118–120, 248.

²⁷ Ibid., pp. 125, 149, 162.

²⁸ Greenstone, op. cit., ch. ii; The Annala of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (05, 1964), pp. 47–48Google Scholar; Banfield, and Wilson, , City Politics, pp. 286ff.Google Scholar

²⁹ See Greenstone's discussion of the nominations of Charles Diggs, Jr. (Thirteenth), Harold Ryan (Fourteenth), John Dingell, Jr. (Fifteenth), John Lesinski, Jr. (Sixteenth), and Martha Griffiths (Seventeenth).

³⁰ For a detailed account of the Democratic organization in Philadelphia, see Freedman, Robert L., A Report on Politics in Philadelphia (Cambridge: Joint Center for Urban Studies of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, 1963)Google Scholar. See also Reichley, James, The Art of Government: Reform and Organization Politics in Philadelphia (New York: The Fund for the Republic, 1959)Google Scholar.

³¹ Wilson, , American Government Annual (1962), p. 38Google Scholar.

³² Ibid., p. 40; Banfield, and Wilson, , City Politics, pp. 116, 136, 152, 161, and 230Google Scholar.

³³ This is particularly true of Queens and, lately, of Manhatten, where Tammany Hall has steadily lost control. The Bronx organization has also deteriorated.

³⁴ Banfield, and Wilson, , City Politics, pp. 285–289Google Scholar.

³⁵ Mark Ferber lists 27 M.C.'s whom he calls the “inner core” of leaders in the DSG when it was organized formally during the 86th Congress. Only three were from big cities having political machines in the traditional sense of the term, while seven were from non-machine urban districts, which had a total of only 27 Democratic representatives at that time. There were nearly twice that number of machine congressmen. For the list of DSG leaders and members during the 86th Congress, see Feber, Mark F., “The Democratic Study Group: A Study of Intra-Party Organization in the House of Representatives” (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Political Science, University of California, Los Angeles, 1964)Google Scholar. A DSG official has estimated that in the 88th Congress only one-third of the machine Democrats in the House actually belonged to the DSG and that many who did were there at the request of the leadership.

³⁶ Wolfinger, Raymond E. and Heifetz, Joan, “Safe Seats, Seniority, and Power in Congress,” this Review, 59 (June, 1965), 337–349Google Scholar. See also, Jones, Charles O., “Inter-Party Competition for Congressional Seats,” Western Political Quarterly, 17 (09, 1964), 461–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar.