多数党的劣势:立法组织理论的修正

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Quarterly Journal of Political Science Pub Date : 2017-10-24 DOI:10.1561/100.00015112
J. Feigenbaum, Alexander Fouirnaies, Andrew B. Hall
{"title":"多数党的劣势:立法组织理论的修正","authors":"J. Feigenbaum, Alexander Fouirnaies, Andrew B. Hall","doi":"10.1561/100.00015112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Dominant theories of legislative organization in the U.S. rest on the notion that the majority party arranges legislative matters to enhance its electoral fortunes. Yet, we find little evidence for a short-term electoral advantage for the majority party in U.S. state legislatures. Furthermore, there appears to be a pronounced downstream majority-party disadvantage . To establish these findings, we propose a technique for aggregating the results of close elections to obtain as-if random variation in majority-party status. We argue that the results from this approach are consistent with a phenomenon of inter-temporal balancing, which we link to other forms of partisan balancing in U.S. elections. The article thus necessitates revisions to our theories of legislative organization, offers new arguments for balancing theories, and lays out an empirical technique for studying the effects of majority-party status in legislative contexts.","PeriodicalId":51622,"journal":{"name":"Quarterly Journal of Political Science","volume":"12 1","pages":"269-300"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2017-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1561/100.00015112","citationCount":"40","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Majority-Party Disadvantage: Revising Theories of Legislative Organization\",\"authors\":\"J. Feigenbaum, Alexander Fouirnaies, Andrew B. Hall\",\"doi\":\"10.1561/100.00015112\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Dominant theories of legislative organization in the U.S. rest on the notion that the majority party arranges legislative matters to enhance its electoral fortunes. Yet, we find little evidence for a short-term electoral advantage for the majority party in U.S. state legislatures. Furthermore, there appears to be a pronounced downstream majority-party disadvantage . To establish these findings, we propose a technique for aggregating the results of close elections to obtain as-if random variation in majority-party status. We argue that the results from this approach are consistent with a phenomenon of inter-temporal balancing, which we link to other forms of partisan balancing in U.S. elections. The article thus necessitates revisions to our theories of legislative organization, offers new arguments for balancing theories, and lays out an empirical technique for studying the effects of majority-party status in legislative contexts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51622,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quarterly Journal of Political Science\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"269-300\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-10-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1561/100.00015112\",\"citationCount\":\"40\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quarterly Journal of Political Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00015112\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quarterly Journal of Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00015112","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 40

摘要

美国立法组织的主流理论基于这样一种观念,即多数党安排立法事务以增加其在选举中的胜算。然而,我们发现很少有证据表明美国州立法机构的多数党在短期内具有选举优势。此外,似乎存在明显的下游多数党劣势。为了建立这些发现,我们提出了一种技术,用于汇总势均力敌的选举结果,以获得多数党地位的随机变化。我们认为,这种方法的结果与跨期平衡现象是一致的,我们将其与美国选举中其他形式的党派平衡联系起来。因此,本文有必要修正我们的立法组织理论,为平衡理论提供新的论据,并为研究多数党地位在立法背景下的影响提供一种实证技术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Majority-Party Disadvantage: Revising Theories of Legislative Organization
Dominant theories of legislative organization in the U.S. rest on the notion that the majority party arranges legislative matters to enhance its electoral fortunes. Yet, we find little evidence for a short-term electoral advantage for the majority party in U.S. state legislatures. Furthermore, there appears to be a pronounced downstream majority-party disadvantage . To establish these findings, we propose a technique for aggregating the results of close elections to obtain as-if random variation in majority-party status. We argue that the results from this approach are consistent with a phenomenon of inter-temporal balancing, which we link to other forms of partisan balancing in U.S. elections. The article thus necessitates revisions to our theories of legislative organization, offers new arguments for balancing theories, and lays out an empirical technique for studying the effects of majority-party status in legislative contexts.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
5.90%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: In the last half-century, social scientists have engaged in a methodologically focused and substantively far-reaching mission to make the study of politics scientific. The mutually reinforcing components in this pursuit are the development of positive theories and the testing of their empirical implications. Although this paradigm has been associated with many advances in the understanding of politics, no leading journal of political science is dedicated primarily to the publication of positive political science.
期刊最新文献
The Reputation Politics of the Filibuster A Letter from the Editors-in-Chief Social Conflict and the Predatory State Overreacting and Posturing: How Accountability and Ideology Shape Executive Policies A Gap in Our Understanding? Reconsidering the Evidence for Partisan Knowledge Gaps
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1