{"title":"Too cool for school: Participatory shirking and U.S. House passage of proxy voting","authors":"Franklin G. Mixon Jr., Benno Torgler","doi":"10.1111/ajes.12594","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>A large portion of the American electorate holds contempt for elected representatives who skip floor votes. As a result, political challengers, and the national political media in the U.S., rarely miss a chance to inform the electorate of the shirking behavior of its representatives. New research suggests that, in 2020, the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives may have developed protection, albeit temporary, to legislators who engage in shirking behavior. That protection came via passage of <i>House Resolution 965</i>, which authorized “remote voting by proxy” in the U.S. House of Representatives due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This study extends the literature on proxy voting by empirically examining the factors that influenced the tendency of members of the U.S. House of Representatives to either shirk (i.e., skip) the vote on proxy voting (i.e., <i>HR 965</i>) or to vote in favor of the resolution (i.e., <i>HR 965</i>) allowing for the proxy vote. Econometric results suggest that Representatives' gender, age, legislative tenure, and past penchant for participatory shirking worked to determine parliamentary participation, and the direction of one's vote, on <i>HR 965</i>.</p>","PeriodicalId":47133,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Economics and Sociology","volume":"83 4","pages":"793-807"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Economics and Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajes.12594","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
A large portion of the American electorate holds contempt for elected representatives who skip floor votes. As a result, political challengers, and the national political media in the U.S., rarely miss a chance to inform the electorate of the shirking behavior of its representatives. New research suggests that, in 2020, the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives may have developed protection, albeit temporary, to legislators who engage in shirking behavior. That protection came via passage of House Resolution 965, which authorized “remote voting by proxy” in the U.S. House of Representatives due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This study extends the literature on proxy voting by empirically examining the factors that influenced the tendency of members of the U.S. House of Representatives to either shirk (i.e., skip) the vote on proxy voting (i.e., HR 965) or to vote in favor of the resolution (i.e., HR 965) allowing for the proxy vote. Econometric results suggest that Representatives' gender, age, legislative tenure, and past penchant for participatory shirking worked to determine parliamentary participation, and the direction of one's vote, on HR 965.
期刊介绍:
The American Journal of Economics and Sociology (AJES) was founded in 1941, with support from the Robert Schalkenbach Foundation, to encourage the development of transdisciplinary solutions to social problems. In the introduction to the first issue, John Dewey observed that “the hostile state of the world and the intellectual division that has been built up in so-called ‘social science,’ are … reflections and expressions of the same fundamental causes.” Dewey commended this journal for its intention to promote “synthesis in the social field.” Dewey wrote those words almost six decades after the social science associations split off from the American Historical Association in pursuit of value-free knowledge derived from specialized disciplines. Since he wrote them, academic or disciplinary specialization has become even more pronounced. Multi-disciplinary work is superficially extolled in major universities, but practices and incentives still favor highly specialized work. The result is that academia has become a bastion of analytic excellence, breaking phenomena into components for intensive investigation, but it contributes little synthetic or holistic understanding that can aid society in finding solutions to contemporary problems. Analytic work remains important, but in response to the current lop-sided emphasis on specialization, the board of AJES has decided to return to its roots by emphasizing a more integrated and practical approach to knowledge.