Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-mmrw7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T23:39:26.455Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Drawing Your Senator from a Jar:Term Length and Legislative Behavior*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2015

Rocío Titiunik
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper studies the effects of term duration on legislative behavior using field experiments that occur in the Arkansas, Illinois, and Texas Senates in the United States. After mandatory changes in senate district boundaries, state senators are randomly assigned to serve either two-year or four-year terms, providing a rare opportunity to study legislative behavior experimentally. Despite important differences across states, when considered together, the results show that senators serving two years abstain more often, introduce fewer bills, and do not seem to be more responsive to their constituents than senators serving four years. In addition, senators serving shorter terms raise and spend significantly more money, although in those states where funds can be raised continuously during the legislative term, the differences arise only when the election is imminent.

Information

Type
Original Articles
Information
Political Science Research and Methods , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , May 2016 , pp. 293 - 316
Copyright
© The European Political Science Association 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

Rocío Titiunik is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science, University of Michigan, 5700 Haven Hall, 505 South State Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1045 (titiunik@umich.edu, http://www.umich.edu/~titiunik). The author thanks the Associate Editor Kenneth Benoit and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. The author also thanks Henry Brady, Matías Cattaneo, Andrew Feher, Don Green, Rick Hall, John Jackson, Luke Keele, Walter Mebane, Eric Schickler, Jas Sekhon, Rob Van Houweling, Radoslaw Zubek, and seminar participants at U.C. Berkeley, the University of Michigan, and the Workshop on Heterotemporal Parliamentarism at Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München for valuable comments and discussions, Brad Kent for excellent research assistance, Jerry Wright and the Representation in America’s Legislatures project for providing data, and Steve Cook at the Arkansas Senate for his generous assistance. The author is am grateful for the generous support of the Myke Synar Research Fellowship at the Institute of Governmental Studies, U.C. Berkeley, and the Dissertation Research Award, at the Institute for Business and Economic Research, U.C. Berkeley. All errors are the author’s responsibility. To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2015.20

References

Ahuja, Sunil. 1994. ‘Electoral Status and Representation in the United States Senate’. American Politics Quarterly 22(1):104–118.Google Scholar
Amacher, Ryan C., and Boyes, William J.. 1978. ‘Cycles in Senatorial Voting Behavior: Implications for the Optimal Frequency of Elections’. Public Choice 33(3):5–13.Google Scholar
Bernhard, William, and Sala, Brian R.. 2006. ‘The Remaking of an American Senate: The 17th Amendment and Ideological Responsiveness’. Journal of Politics 68(2):345–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, Robert A. 1991. ‘Strategic Shifts: Safeguarding the Public Interest? U.S. Senators, 1971-86’. Legislative Studies Quarterly 16(2):263–280.Google Scholar
Brauninger, Thomas, and Debus, Marc. 2009. ‘Legislative Agenda-Setting in Parliamentary Democracies’. European Journal of Political Research 48(6):804–839.Google Scholar
Campbell, James E. 1982. ‘Cosponsoring Legislation in the U.S. Congress’. Legislative Studies Quarterly 7(3):415–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castiglione, Dario, and Warren, Mark E.. 2006. ‘Rethinking Democratic Representation: Eight Theoretical Issues’. Working Paper, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.Google Scholar
Dal Bo, Ernesto, and Rossi, Martn. 2011. ‘Term Length and the Effort of Politicians’. Review of Economic Studies 78(4):1237–1263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dovi, Suzanne. 2014. ‘Political Representation’. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring edition, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/political-representation/.Google Scholar
Elling, Richard C. 1982. ‘Ideological Change in the US Senate: Time and Electoral Responsiveness’. Legislative Studies Quarterly 7(1):75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert, Wright, Gerald C., and McIver, John P.. 1993. Statehouse Democracy: Public Opinion and Policy in the American States. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D. 1999. ‘Electoral Accountability and the Control of Politicians: Selecting Good Types Versus Sanctioning Poor Performance’. In B. Manin, A. Przeworski and S. Stokes (eds), Democracy, Accountability, and Representation, 55–97. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. 1982. The United States Senate: A Bicameral Perspective. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
Glazer, A., and Robbins, M.. 1985. ‘How Elections Matter: A Study of U.S. Senators’. Public Choice 46(2):163–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goetz, Klaus H., and Meyer-Sahling, Jan-Hinrik. 2009. ‘Political Time in the EU: Dimensions, Perspectives, Theories’. Journal of European Public Policy 16(2):180–201.Google Scholar
Hamilton, A., Madison, J., and Jay, J.. 2003. ‘Federalist No’. In C. Rossiter (ed.), The Federalist Papers. New York: Signet Classics.Google Scholar
Inter-Parliamentary Union. 2014. ‘Parline Database on National Parliaments’. Available at http://www.ipu.org/, accessed 15 May 2014.Google Scholar
Kernell, Georgia. 2009. ‘Giving Order to Districts: Estimating Voter Distributions with National Election Returns’. Political Analysis 17(3):215–235.Google Scholar
Kovats, Laszlo. 2009. ‘Do Elections Set the Pace? A Quantitative Assessment of the Timing of European Legislation’. Journal of European Public Policy 16(2):239–255.Google Scholar
Kuklinski, James H. 1978. ‘Representativeness and Elections: A Policy Analysis’. American Political Science Review 72(1):165–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, Steven D. 1996. ‘How Do Senators Vote? Disentangling the Role of Voter Preferences, Party Affiliation, and Senator Ideology’. American Economic Review 86(3):425–441.Google Scholar
Lindstadt, Rene, Slapin, Jonathan B., and Vander Wielen, Ryan J.. 2011. ‘Balancing Competing Demands: Position Taking and Election Proximity in the European Parliament’. Legislative Studies Quarterly 36(1):37–70.Google Scholar
Manin, Bernard. 1997. The Principles of Representative Government. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 2003. ‘Rethinking Representation’. American Political Science Review 97(4):515–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane.. 2009. ‘A Selection Model of Representation’. Journal of Political Philosophy 17(4):369–398.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane.. 2011. ‘Clarifying the Concept of Representation’. American Political Science Review 105(3):621–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Lanny W. 2004. ‘The Government Agenda in Parliamentary Democracies’. American Journal of Political Science 48(3):445–461.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974. ‘Congressional Elections: The Case of the Vanishing Marginals’. Polity 6(3):295–317.Google Scholar
Muthoo, Abhinay, and Shepsle, Keneth A.. 2010. ‘Information, Institutions and Constitutional Arrangements’. Public Choice 144(1):1–36.Google Scholar
Patty, John W., and Weber, Roberto A.. 2007. ‘Letting the Good Times Roll: A Theory of Voter Inference and Experimental Evidence’. Public Choice 130(3–4):293–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, Rick, and Biesk, Joe. 2001. ‘Legislators Seeking to Lengthen Their Terms, Constitutional Change Touted as Campaign Reform’, Chicago Tribune, 24 March. Available at http://www.chicagotribune.com, accessed 26 May 2014.Google Scholar
Pitkin, Hanna F. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Polity IV Dataset. 2013. ‘Polity IV Project’. Available at http://www.systemicpeace.org/polityproject.html, accessed 15 May 2014.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith, Lewis, Jerey, Lo, James, and Carroll, Royce. 2011. ‘Scaling Roll Call Votes with WNOMINATE in R’. Journal of Statistical Software 42(14):1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Przeworski, Adam, Stokes, Susan, and Manin, Bernard. 1999. ‘Democracy, Accountability, and Representation’. Cambridge, MA. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schiller, Wendy J. 1995. ‘Senators as Political Entrepreneurs: Using Bill Sponsorship to Shape Legislative Agendas’. American Journal of Political Science 39(1):186–203.Google Scholar
Segall, Elli. 2009. ‘NJ Lawmakers Delay Vote on Longer Terms, 1st Ld-Writethru, NJ’, The Associated Press News Service, 2 February. Available at NewsBank online database (Access World News), accessed 26 May 2014.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Keneth A., Van Houweling, Robert P., Abrams, Samuel J., and Hanson, Peter C.. 2009. ‘The Senate Electoral Cycle and Bicameral Appropriations Politics’. American Journal of Political Science 53(2):343–359.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Squire, Peverill. 2007. ‘Measuring state legislative professionalism: The Squire index revisited’. State Politics & Policy Quarterly 7(2):211–227.Google Scholar
Thomas, Martin. 1985. ‘Election proximity and senatorial roll call voting’. American Journal of Political Science 29(1):96–111.Google Scholar
Urbinati, Nadia, and Warren, Mark E.. 2008. ‘The concept of representation in contemporary democratic theory’. Annual Review of Political Science 11:387–412.Google Scholar
Weingast, Barry R., Shepsle, Keneth A., and Johnsen, Christopher. 1981. ‘The political economy of benefits and costs: A neoclassical approach to distributive politics’. Journal of Political Economy 89(1):642–664.Google Scholar
Wright, Gerald Jr., and Berkman, Michael B.. 1986. ‘Candidates and Policy in the United States Senate Elections’. American Political Science Review 80(2):567–588.Google Scholar
Zink, Janet. 2011. ‘Bipartisan Proposal Would Lengthen Florida’s Legislative Terms’, St. Petersburg Times: Web Edition Articles (FL), 18 January. Available at NewsBank online database (Access World News), accessed 27 May 2014.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Titiunik Dataset

Dataset

http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/26253
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Titiunik supplementary material

Titiunik supplementary material 1

Download Titiunik supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 233.4 KB
Supplementary material: File

Titiunik supplementary material

Titiunik supplementary material 2

Download Titiunik supplementary material(File)
File 22.3 KB