Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:27:11.614Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Legislative Professionalism and Democratic Success: The Conditioning Effect of District Size

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

Nelson C. Dometrius  and
Joshua Ozymy
Nelson C. Dometrius
Affiliation:
Texas Tech University
Joshua Ozymy
Affiliation:
Sul Ross State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Fiorina (1992, 1994) argued that increased professionalism of state legislatures in the 1970s and 1980s increased Democratic control of those bodies. While some subsequent empirical studies have been consistent with this hypothesis, doubt remains about the causal connection of this relationship. Our review of Fiorina's theoretical argument leads us to add legislative district size as a conditioning element to the model. Using data from state legislatures in 1960-98, we find that such a model supports the claim that the empirical connection between legislative professionalism and Democratic electoral success is causal and not spurious.

Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , Spring 2006 , pp. 73 - 87
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Berry, William D., Ringquist, Evan J., Fording, Richard C., and Hanson, Russell L.. 1998. “Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the American States, 1960-93.” American Journal of Political Science 42:327–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council of State Governments. Various years. The Book of the States. Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments.Google Scholar
Dye, Thomas R. 1971. “State Legislative Politics.” In Politics in the American States, eds. Jacobs, Herbert and Vines, Kenneth N.. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1992. Divided Government. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1994. “Divided Government in the American States: A Byproduct of Legislative Professionalism.” American Political Science Review 88:304–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1997. “Professionalism, Realignment, and Representation.” American Political Science Review 91:156–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1999. “Further Evidence of the Partisan Consequences of Legislative Professionalism.” American Journal of Political Science 43:974–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. 1992. State Legislative Election Returns in the United States, 1968-1989. [computer file] (Study # 8907). Fifth ICPSR version. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [producer and distributor], 1992.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 1989. “Strategic Politicians and the Dynamics of U.S. House Elections, 1946-1986.” American Political Science Review 83:773–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S. 1980. Applied Regression. Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-022. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meinke, Scott R., and Hasecke, Edward B.. 2003. “Term Limits, Professionalization, and Partisan Control in U.S. State Legislatures.” Journal of Politics 65:898–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stonecash, Jeffrey M., and Agathangelou, Anna M.. 1997. “Trends in the Partisan Composition of State Legislatures: A Response to Fiorina.” American Political Science Review 91:148–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dunk, Emily. 1997. “Challenger Quality in State Legislative Elections.” Political Research Quarterly 50:793–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar