The Incumbency Advantage in the US Congress: A Roller-Coaster Relationship

Politics ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 220-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Stockemer ◽  
Rodrigo Praino

While every student in American politics knows that the incumbency advantage grew post-1965, it is less clear as to whether or not this growth has been sustainable throughout the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. Focusing on the last three decades, we show that the electoral margins of sitting members of the House of Representatives have not linearly grown over the past 60 years. On the contrary, the constant increase in incumbents' vote shares between the 1960s and 1980s could not be sustained in the 1990s. In fact, in the 1990s, the incumbency advantage dropped sharply to levels experienced in the 1960s. In recent years, the electoral margin of sitting House members seems to have grown again to levels comparable to those in the 1970s.

1991 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary King

Numerous scholars have documented a dramatic increase in incumbency advantage in US congressional elections and also state legislative elections over the past four decades. For example, Gelman and King show that incumbents in the House of Representatives now receive about twelve extra percentage points solely as a result of holding congressional office during the campaign; the comparable figure for most of the first half of this century was only 2 per cent. This advantage of incumbency has made members of the US House and many state legislators nearly invulnerable to electoral defeat.


Author(s):  
Yaroslav Senyk

The article examines activities of the Ukrainian community in Washington in the 1950s and the 1960s. The relevant historical materials kept in the archives of Omelan and Tetiana Antonovych are submitted for scientific circulation for the first time. The papers relate to the activities of the Association of Ukrainians in Washington, headed by O. Antonovych, and of the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America, headed by L. Dobriansky, as well as to their cooperation with the US Congress in support of the Ukrainian cause. The Ruthenians (Ukrainians) were already mentioned in the Senate document of the 61st US Congress in 1911. After the Second World War, the Ukrainian question came up on the agenda in connection with the formation of the United Nations. The center of Ukrainian political emigration has moved to the US. At that time L. Dobriansky kept continuous contacts with members of the Congress. In 1959 both Houses of the Congress passed the Captive Nations Week Resolution submitted by L. Dobryansky. On June 7, 1960 the House of Representatives decided to issue the brochure known as “Europe’s Freedom Fighter. Taras Shevchenko. 1814–1861 as an official House document”. On June 27, 1964 President D. Eisenhower inaugurated the monument to Taras Shevchenko in Washington, DC. The US Congress celebrated the anniversary of the proclamation of Ukraine’s independence on January 22, 1918 on annual ceremonial meetings with prayers for free Ukraine delivered by the Ukrainian priests. The US Senators and Representatives regularly included statements and letters from the Ukrainian organizations in the Congress Records.


Author(s):  
Halyna Shchyhelska

2018 marks the 100th anniversary of the proclamation of Ukrainian independence. OnJanuary 22, 1918, the Ukrainian People’s Republic proclaimed its independence by adopting the IV Universal of the Ukrainian Central Rada, although this significant event was «wiped out» from the public consciousness on the territory of Ukraine during the years of the Soviet totalitarian regime. At the same time, January 22 was a crucial event for the Ukrainian diaspora in the USA. This article examines how American Ukrainians interacted with the USA Government institutions regarding the celebration and recognition of the Ukrainian Independence day on January 22. The attention is focused on the activities of ethnic Ukrainians in the United States, directed at the organization of the special celebration of the Ukrainian Independence anniversaries in the US Congress and cities. Drawing from the diaspora press and Congressional Records, this article argues that many members of Congress participated in the observed celebration and expressed kind feelings to the Ukrainian people, recognised their fight for freedom, during the House of Representatives and Senate sessions. Several Congressmen submitted the resolutions in the US Congress urging the President of United States to designate January 22 as «Ukrainian lndependence Day». January 22 was proclaimed Ukrainian Day by the governors of fifteen States and mayors of many cities. Keywords: January 22, Ukrainian independence day, Ukrainian diaspora, USA, interaction, Congress


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Andrew Mukuka Mulenga

In recent years, select African visual artists practising on the continent as well as in its diaspora have increasingly been attracted to themes that explore, portray or grapple with Africa’s future. Along with this increasing popularity of the ‘future’ or indeed ‘African futuristic’ themes by visual artists, such themes have also attracted academic consideration among various scholars, resulting primarily in topics described as ‘African Futurism’ or Afrofuturism. These are topics that may be used to disrupt what some scholars – across disciplines and in various contexts – have highlighted as the persistent presumptive notions that portray Africa as a hinterland (Hassan 1999; Sefa Dei, Hall and Goldin Rosenberg 2000; Simbao 2007; Soyinka-Airewele and Edozie 2010; Moyo 2013; Keita, L. 2014; Green 2014; Serpell 2016). This study makes an effort to critique certain aspects of ‘African Art History’ with regard to the representation of Africa, and raises the following question: How can an analysis of artistic portrayals of ‘the future’ portrayed in the works of select contemporary Zambian artists be used to critique the positioning of Africa as ‘backward’, an occurrence at the intersection of a dualistic framing of tradition versus modern. Furthermore, how can this be used to break down this dichotomy in order to challenge lingering perceptions of African belatedness? The study analyses ways in which this belatedness is challenged by the juxtaposition of traditional, contemporary and futuristic elements by discussing a series of topics and debates associated to African cultures and technology that may be deemed disconnected from the contemporary lived experiences of Africans based on the continent. The study acknowledges that there is no singular ‘African Art History’ that one can talk of and there have been various shifts in how it has been perceived. I argue that while currently the African art history that is written in the West does not simplistically position Africa as backward as it may have done in the past, there appear to be moments of a hangover of this perception (Lamp 1999:4). What started out as a largely Western scholarly discourse of African art history occurred in about the 1950s and the journal African Arts started in the 1960s. Even before contemporary African art became a big thing in the 1990s for the largely US- and Europe-based discourses there were many discussions in the US about how the ‘old’ art history tended to freeze time and that this was not appropriate (Drewal 1991 et al). In order to advance the discourse on contemporary African visual arts I present critical analyses of the select works of Zambian artists to develop interpretations of the broader uses of the aforementioned themes. The evidence that supports the core argument of this research is embedded in the images discussed throughout this dissertation. The artists featured in the study span several decades including artists who were active from the 1960s to the 1980s, such as Henry Tayali and Akwila Simpasa, as well as artists who have been practising since the 1980s, such as Chishimba Chansa and William Miko and those that are more current and have been producing work from the early 1990s and 2000s, such as Zenzele Chulu, Milumbe Haimbe, Stary Mwaba, Isaac Kalambata and Roy Jethro Phiri.


2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 403-408
Author(s):  
Thomas Zimmer

Polarization is everywhere. It is, according to the Pew Research Center, “a defining feature of American politics today.” Elected officials, journalists, and political pundits seem to agree that it is a severe problem in urgent need of fixing, maybe even the root of all evil that plagues the United States, from dysfunction in Congress to the decay of social and cultural norms. Many historians, too, have embraced the concept of polarization for its explanatory power: It has emerged as the closest thing to a master narrative for recent American history. In this interpretation, the “liberal consensus” that had dominated mid-twentieth-century American politics and intellectual life—the widely shared acceptance of New Deal philosophy and broad agreement on the desirable contours of society and the pursuit of certain kinds of public good—gave way after the 1960s to an age of heightened tension, dividing Americans into two camps that since then have regarded each other with deepening distrust. Yet too few historians have reflected on the limits and potential pitfalls of using polarization as a governing historical paradigm. It is high time, therefore, to pause to consider the larger implications of approaching the past through the prism of polarization.


2015 ◽  
Vol 105 (4) ◽  
pp. 1408-1438 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Philippon

A quantitative investigation of financial intermediation in the United States over the past 130 years yields the following results: (i) the finance industry's share of gross domestic product (GDP) is high in the 1920s, low in the 1960s, and high again after 1980; (ii) most of these variations can be explained by corresponding changes in the quantity of intermediated assets (equity, household and corporate debt, liquidity); (iii) intermediation has constant returns to scale and an annual cost of 1.5–2 percent of intermediated assets; (iv) secular changes in the characteristics of firms and households are quantitatively important. (JEL D24, E44, G21, G32, N22)


2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip L. Martin

Migration was the major relationship between Mexico and the US and Turkey and Western Europe for most of the past half century. Changes in both migrant-sending and –receiving countries aimed to substitute trade for migration. Mexico and Turkey have had roller-coaster economic growth trajectories, sometimes growing faster than other OECD countries and sometimes shrinking faster. There have been significant changes in Mexico and Turkey but, until more formal-sector jobs are created, especially young people leaving agriculture or joining the labour market may be candidates for migration.


Diagnosis ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 133-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonard Berlin

Abstract For the first 180 years following the founding of the US, physicians occasionally were sued for medical malpractice. Allegations of negligence were errors of commission – i.e. the physician made a mistake by doing something wrong, usually mistreatment of a fracture or dislocation, a complication or death following a surgical procedure, prescribing the wrong medication, and after the discovery of the X-ray by Roentgen in 1895, causing radiation burns. In the mid twentieth century malpractice allegations slowly changed from errors of commission to errors of omission – i.e. the physician failed to do something right: almost always, failed to make a diagnosis. The number of malpractice lawsuits increased at a geometric rate beginning in the 1960s, and in the 1970s physicians began practicing defensive medicine, which lead physicians to order unnecessary radiology exams and tests. In the past 20 years the number of malpractice lawsuits has been decreasing, but the practice of defensive medicine has continued. Unnecessary exams and tests increase the likelihood of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, i.e. a new kind of error of commission.


2015 ◽  
Vol 112 (21) ◽  
pp. 6591-6594 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy A. Frimer ◽  
Karl Aquino ◽  
Jochen E. Gebauer ◽  
Luke (Lei) Zhu ◽  
Harrison Oakes

Talking about helping others makes a person seem warm and leads to social approval. This work examines the real world consequences of this basic, social-cognitive phenomenon by examining whether record-low levels of public approval of the US Congress may, in part, be a product of declining use of prosocial language during Congressional debates. A text analysis of all 124 million words spoken in the House of Representatives between 1996 and 2014 found that declining levels of prosocial language strongly predicted public disapproval of Congress 6 mo later. Warm, prosocial language still predicted public approval when removing the effects of societal and global factors (e.g., the September 11 attacks) and Congressional efficacy (e.g., passing bills), suggesting that prosocial language has an independent, direct effect on social approval.


Author(s):  
Larry M. Bartels ◽  
Joshua D. Clinton ◽  
John G. Geer

We examine the history of political representation in the United States using a multi-stage statistical analysis of the changing relationship between roll call votes in the US House of Representatives and the preferences of citizens (as measured by presidential votes). We show that members of Congress have become considerably more responsive to constituents’ preferences over the past 40 years, reversing a half-century drought in responsiveness stemming from the South’s one-party Jim Crow era. However, the House as a whole has become less representative, veering too far left when Democrats are in the majority and too far right when Republicans are.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document