These will lead to reauthorizations and minor policy tweaks. There will always be some existing policies that lie outside the interval and other laws will expire, effectively bringing them outside the interval, too. Well, that’s a bit of an overstatement, but it’s probably not too far off the mark. The projected interval for the 113 th is virtually identical to the interval for the 112 th, so we can expect Congress to do…ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! To see what we might expect over the next two years based on these fundamentals, I computed a projected gridlock interval for the 113 th Congress (using Keith Poole’s NOMINATE scores and the technique I used to predict lawmaking following 2008 election) and plotted it along with the gridlock intervals for the 110 th through the 112 th Congresses (2007-2012) for comparison. The more of the previous interval that is “freed up” by the election (i.e., does not overlap the subsequent interval), the more productive we can expect Congress to be. The key is how the interval shifts and shrinks (or stretches) over time. These requirements can be summarized graphically in the form of a gridlock interval-any proposal to move policy away from a position that lies within this interval can be expected lack the requisite supermajority coalition.īy looking at how elections affect these intervals, we can understand and form expectations about how productive Congress will be. Breaking gridlock means having supermajorities sufficiently large enough to ignore a veto threat or to invoke cloture in the Senate. In the realm of congressional politics, the fundamentals I’m referring to are the configurations of legislators’ preferences required to break gridlock, per the theory laid out by Keith Krehbiel in Pivotal Politics and David Brady and Craig Volden in Revolving Gridlock. Now that the excitement of the election is behind us and politicians face the task of governing, what might the fundamentals tell us about the next two years of lawmaking? Armed with knowledge of the economy and presidential approval, political scientists knew a few months ago that Obama had a (slightly) favorable chance of winning the election. There has been much discussion of “the fundamentals” lately. The following is a guest post from University of Pittsburgh political scientist Jonathan Woon.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |