The Punctuated Origins of Senate Polarization

This article uses a new dynamic ideal‐point estimation method that incorporates smoothing techniques to construct a more detailed account of Senate polarization. The results reveal that the Senate polarized in two distinct phases. Member replacement accounts for nearly all of the increase from the early 1970s through the mid‐1990s after which ideological adaptation emerges as the dominant force behind polarization. In addition, I find that a few brief periods of intensified partisanship account for most of the increase in polarization since the mid‐1990s, suggesting that these episodes have had significant and lasting effects.     

Circumventing Legislative Committees: The US Senate

Committees have been established to improve legislation and make expert recommendations. However, many bills do not appear in committees, and how they reach the Senate floor varies in style and strategy. We develop and test expectations for when, as well as how, bills bypass Senate committee proceedings. The procedures legislators use to circumvent committees and what makes committee bypassing more probable are explored. The findings clearly demonstrate that bills introduced by ideologically extreme minority-party members are more likely to bypass committees. We also show a clear shift in the procedural choices senators make as the Senate becomes increasingly polarized. This article highlights the procedural choices members make, how these choices produce differing outcomes, and suggests evidence of positive agenda power for individual minority-party senators.     

Explicating the Australian Senate

This article is a revised version of a paper outlining the role and performance of the Australian Senate originally prepared for the seminar in March 2002 on House of Lords Reform organised by the Constitution Unit, University College London and the Centre for Legislative Studies, University of Hull. For the most part, the article follows the original conference form of brief answers to questions identified by the conference organisers. The article argues that the Senate provides an important working model of an elective upper house in a Westminster-derived parliamentary system. It does not pretend to be a comprehensive account of the Australian Senate. Rather, the main aim is to examine the Senate's evolving place in the Australian system of responsible parliamentary government.     

The Calculus of Cosponsorship in the U.S. Senate

We investigated why a legislator would be willing to vote “yea” on final passage of a bill but would choose not to cosponsor that bill. We tested a series of hypotheses regarding the cosponsorship decisions of individual senators, using a dataset that includes every major initiative that was introduced and received a floor vote in the Senate between 1975 and 2000. We found that senators are more likely to cosponsor bills when their preferences diverge from the Senate median but are closer to those of the bill's sponsor. Also, senators are more likely to cosponsor bills when they sponsor a higher number of bills overall, when they become more connected with colleagues, and when their constituents increase demand for legislation within particular policy areas. Senators are less likely to cosponsor bills if they received a higher percentage of the general election vote in their most recent election.     

The Italian torpedo is dead: long live the Italian torpedo

A recently published decision of the Milan Court of First Instancenot only confirms that a cross-border claim for a declarationof non-infringement of a European patent is unlikely to succeedbefore an Italian court unless it is brought against an Italiandomiciled party, but also shows that the longstanding traditionof Italian torpedoes is not yet defunct, contrary to predictionsafter a landmark decision of the Italian Supreme Court in 2003.     

Iraq Casualties and the 2006 Senate Elections

Prior scholarship on the effects of war casualties on U.S. elections has focused on large‐scale conflicts. For this article, we examined whether or not the much‐smaller casualty totals incurred in Iraq had a similar influence on the 2006 Senate contests. We found that the change in vote share from 2000 to 2006 for Republican Senate candidates at both the state and county level was significantly and negatively related to local casualty tallies and rates. These results provide compelling evidence for the existence of a democratic brake on military adventurism, even in small‐scale wars, but one that is strongest in communities that have disproportionately shouldered a war's costs.     

Parliamentary Rule: The US Senate Parliamentarian and Institutional Constraints on Legislator Behaviour

This article analyses the extent to which institutional rules constrain member behaviour in the United States Senate by examining the evolution of its parliamentarian. Interestingly, the US Senate parliamentarian has received surprisingly little scholarly attention given the important role she performs in the legislative process. The subsequent analysis thus provides a new understanding of the parliamentarian's role in the legislative process and the interplay between institutional rules and member behaviour in the Senate. To this end, the following analysis is situated within the context of the two primary theoretical approaches to understanding how institutional rules constrain member behaviour: path dependency and majoritarianism. These contrasting approaches provide expectations about the extent to which members will defer to the parliamentarian's interpretation of Senate rules rather than exercising their own discretionary control over those rules. Examining the evolving relationship between the parliamentarian and individual members affirms the centrality of institutional rules as a constraint on member behaviour over the past several decades. Yet such an examination also yields two surprising, and potentially contradictory, observations. First, individual senators in both parties have increasingly deferred to the parliamentarian to interpret the Senate's rules. This is surprising given that the Senate has simultaneously become more individualistic, partisan, and ideological over the same period. Second, the majority party has recently disregarded the norm of parliamentary constraint reflected in past practice and demonstrated a willingness to ignore Senate rules when doing so was necessary to achieve legislative success. This could signify a potential shift in how majorities view the constraints imposed by Senate rules if current trends of legislative dysfunction continue.     

Senate Apportionment as a Source of Political Inequality

Political scientists have long known that the equal representation of states in the U.S. Senate and the placement of state lines might disadvantage politically relevant groups, granting some citizens greater voting weight in the chamber. Yet we lack systematic, longitudinal evidence that identifies the groups disadvantaged by Senate malapportionment, the sources of this disadvantage, and probes the policy consequences. In this article, I compare each state's liberalism and racial composition with its relative voting weight in the Senate over time. Additionally, I examine whether roll‐call coalitions in the Senate map onto these patterns of state ideology and racial composition.     

The Politics of Obstruction: Republican Holds in the U.S. Senate

A defining feature of the modern US Senate is obstruction. Almost all pieces of legislation considered in the Senate are affected either directly or indirectly by obstruction. Obstruction takes many forms in the modern Senate, but one of the most prevalent, yet least studied, is the hold. Using a newly created dataset on Republican Senate holds, we cast light on this important practice. Our results suggest that a variety of factors including timing, party status, and a senator's voting record are related to both the prevalence of holds and the success of legislation subject to holds in the Senate.     

Campaign War Chests and Challenger Quality in Senate Elections

This article presents the first comprehensive analysis of the role of war chests in U.S. Senate elections. Using data on races from 1980 to 2000, I demonstrate the effect of an incumbent senator's war chest on a campaign. War chests do not deter strong general‐election challengers and have an insubstantial or insignificant effect on primary elections, challenger spending, and other electoral variables. Also, war chests are not raised in anticipation of a tough electoral battle but are instead the result of money left over from the previous campaign.     

State-based Representation and National Policymaking: The Evolution of the Australian Senate and the Federation

Ostensibly, Australia's constitutional framers designed the upper house as the ‘guardian of states' interests', ensuring that the smaller states were adequately represented in the federation. In recent decades the Senate has positively reinvented itself as a guardian of democracy, and is commonly known as the ‘house of review’. This study examines the changing representative role of senators and the Senate through surveys and interviews of current and former senators. The Senate has also become more of a guardian of the national interest, with proportional representation, larger constituencies and longer terms being the key institutional factors.     

The Canadian Senate: Chamber of Sober Reflection or Loony Cousin Best Not Talked About

The Canadian Senate has been the object of much debate and scorn. An appointed body, the Senate has never successfully fulfilled its original purposes, namely to be a voice for regional and propertied interests. Its anti-democratic foundations have made the Senate easy prey for public cynicism, despite the fact that its appointed members are more reflective of the Canadian population than the elected members of House of Commons. There have been many attempts at Senate reform in the past quarter-century, none of which have been implemented. This article argues that most attempts at Senate reform have failed because they have been linked to larger constitutional reform packages. The best hope for change to the structure of the Senate lies in smaller, incremental moves that do not require amending the Canadian constitution.