Evaluate the view that the main factors affecting voting behaviours in congress are the divisions
within and between the political parties.
Agree
● Parties tend to be composed of people of similar ideological views, so makes sense that
these individuals vote accordingly, and have become more polarised than before
● Will vote in line on major issues, such as gun control, financial stimulus packages,
budgets, etc even when doing so jeopardizes citizens
● E.g. The GOP in the House rejected Obama's final 4.1tn budget in 2014
● Federal shutdown in 2013 over ACA
Disagree
● Party leadership also dictates voting intention, a more polarised president may not
withhold his parties support and voting may be against leaders
39 democrats voted against ObamaCare
● So evenin unlikely scenario that party dominates both houses, unlikely to succeed as not
possible to please everyone with such a wide political spectrum
● Bipartisanship seen in the US such as the McCain Feingold act, and Abraham Lincoln
electing Democrat Andrew Johnson as VP
Agree
● Party coalitions are weak and often composed of many factions with differing ideals, e.g
Tea party faction which are much more right wing than most republicans
● Combined with increased partisanship due to greater polarising issues such as abortion
● 15 years ago, only 40% of votes along party lines, highest ever recorded in 2010 senate
at 78%
● So clear that parties do have influence on their members, with via ideological constraints
or via the use of whips
Disagree
● Party discipline has degraded over time as politicains have developed individual images
via social media rather than relying on the image of their party
● Patronage cannot be ‘bought’, committee chair based on seniority
● Campaign fought by self generated funds and many time dont mention candidates party
at all
● More dependent on interest and lobby groups which provide funding via representation
in congress, e.g Biden ‘the senator from MBNA’ voted to exempt credit card debt from
bankruptcy
● Employed Hunter Biden
● So pressure groups more influential as can provide funding to candidates which
ultimately is final in determining reeelction
,Agree
● The increased prominence of caucuses especially those which are bipartisan has
fractionalised the vote for parties of certain ideologies
● The Black caucus which although dominated by democrats contains some republicans
and is officially non partisan
● The congressional steel caucus which votes together based on bills that will benefit the
steel industry
● Criticised the acquisition of US steel by a foreign entity citing security concerns
● Freedom caucus recently voted against raising the debt ceiling
● So reps more likely to vote according to own according to caucus that is due to division
between parties
Disagree
● Folks back home most influential due to frequent elections in the House ‘all politics is
local’
● Lobby groups and party influence can lead to influence on voting via pork barreling, e.g
Alaska bridge
● Reps not afraid to defy the whip when in favour of constituents; republicans voting
against tax cuts that would've seen constituents tax increase due to no state cap
Undeniably, party loyalty and patronage play some role in influencing the intentions of congress
people such as the use of whips and the fact that [arty ideologies broadly line up. Furthermore,
the pressure from the administration and risk of financial and legislative exile satisfactory to
persuade reps to vote against their own judgment. However, it is overwhelmingly clear that
tensions between and within parties is the main influential factor for voting behavior in congress.
Use of lobby groups and pork barreling provide security to candidates by funding campaigns
and providing vital infrastructure to candidate constituencies, and may even result in
congresspeople defying their own ideologies for money, such as the senator for MBNA and can
result in reps defying the delegate and trustee model.
,Evaluate the view that the constitutional system of checks and balances is an obstacle to
effective government
Legislative gridlock
Agree:
● Different parties control chambers and the presidency E.g Clinton never had control of
either chamber
● Trump shutdown over $5.6Bn as Democrats refused to support mexico wall
● Led to shutdown with 9 departments and 800K fed employees working without pay
● Estimated cost at 11bn
● Congress has the power of the purse via article 1 section 9 clause 7 and not POTUS
● Hinders democracy as workers work for free and farmers unable to receive federal aid
and immigration delays
● Obama unable to pass many proposed legislation so violated democratic mandate and
legitimacy of POTUS
On the other hand:
● Gridlock can lead to greater scrutiny of bills and legislation, can act as a check on power
of the branch
● Congress override Nixon's veto of war powers act in 1973 so stop imperial presidency
● Trump accused of not following WPA in iran as war without congress, no war declared
formally since WWII
● Clinton did not flail to GOP blackmail in 1995 and 1996 shutdown which proposed tax
cuts against his parties manifesto, GOP compromised ad accepted due to public
pressure
Supreme court having too much power
● SCOTUS is unelected and holds too much power
● Able to use own politics influence rulings, e.g overturning of Roe V Wade
● Long term right to abortion for over 50 years overturned and diminished women's basic
fundamental right to abortion
● Can even diminish the direct vote of the public, e.g 2000 GE where SCOTUS decided
the results of the election
● Ruling of line item veto was unconstitutional
● Acts as a check on legislative bodies, although not elected not unbiased
● Nominated by president and unrepresentative of the electorate, mostly pale, male and
stale
, On the other hand
● As unelcted, not fearful of being voted out, life tenure means not fearful of acting against
their nominee, e.g Eisenhower nominated Earl Warren and called it biggest mistake as
was not conservative
● Rigorous nomination process where has to be approved by the senate, e.g 37
unsuccessful, Bush nominated Harriet Miers but withdrew as not qualified
● So although unelected are qualified to interpret laws to the constitution which is codified
so not great room for variety in interpretation
Failure to legislate
Agree
● Nature of US midterms and bicameral nature of both chambers means that not
uncommon for different parties to control congress, e.g Trump presidency
● Means that although presidential mandate may be strong, may not be able to fulfill
promises
● Congresspeople may invoke high levels of partisanship simply to stop functional
legislative processes, e.g partisan obstructionism where senate majority leader Mitch
McConnel stop debate for all ACA bills due to obama legislation
On the other hand
● Congress has frequent (every 2 years whole in House and ⅓ in Senate) elections which
are more constituent based, so reps able to voice view of their constituents more
(delegate model)
● May lead to compromises in legislation via Conference committee which creates a more
bipartisan bill that is more populist and pleases a higher proportion of americans
● Stops Presidents acting imperially, stops extravagant bills that may damage the
economy in the long term and may not be sensible, e.g Trump wall and Muslim ban
provision
● Congress can override vetoes so efficient balance that is not overly tyrannical
Examine the differences in checks and balances on US Congress and UK parliament
One difference between checks and balances in the UK in Parliament is that parliament is seen
as absolutely sovereign and the judiciary has no legal right to strike down legislation even when
declared unlawful or incompatible with the HRA. As such, MPs are instead held accountable by
the ministerial code. For example, Priti Patel and Suella Braverman were both held to have
broken the code and hence were removed from the cabinet under Johnson and Sunak
administrations. Furthermore, Parliament reserves the right to overrule the SC and eradicate it
as it first evolved via an act of parliament, so can be reduced via the same mechanism.
within and between the political parties.
Agree
● Parties tend to be composed of people of similar ideological views, so makes sense that
these individuals vote accordingly, and have become more polarised than before
● Will vote in line on major issues, such as gun control, financial stimulus packages,
budgets, etc even when doing so jeopardizes citizens
● E.g. The GOP in the House rejected Obama's final 4.1tn budget in 2014
● Federal shutdown in 2013 over ACA
Disagree
● Party leadership also dictates voting intention, a more polarised president may not
withhold his parties support and voting may be against leaders
39 democrats voted against ObamaCare
● So evenin unlikely scenario that party dominates both houses, unlikely to succeed as not
possible to please everyone with such a wide political spectrum
● Bipartisanship seen in the US such as the McCain Feingold act, and Abraham Lincoln
electing Democrat Andrew Johnson as VP
Agree
● Party coalitions are weak and often composed of many factions with differing ideals, e.g
Tea party faction which are much more right wing than most republicans
● Combined with increased partisanship due to greater polarising issues such as abortion
● 15 years ago, only 40% of votes along party lines, highest ever recorded in 2010 senate
at 78%
● So clear that parties do have influence on their members, with via ideological constraints
or via the use of whips
Disagree
● Party discipline has degraded over time as politicains have developed individual images
via social media rather than relying on the image of their party
● Patronage cannot be ‘bought’, committee chair based on seniority
● Campaign fought by self generated funds and many time dont mention candidates party
at all
● More dependent on interest and lobby groups which provide funding via representation
in congress, e.g Biden ‘the senator from MBNA’ voted to exempt credit card debt from
bankruptcy
● Employed Hunter Biden
● So pressure groups more influential as can provide funding to candidates which
ultimately is final in determining reeelction
,Agree
● The increased prominence of caucuses especially those which are bipartisan has
fractionalised the vote for parties of certain ideologies
● The Black caucus which although dominated by democrats contains some republicans
and is officially non partisan
● The congressional steel caucus which votes together based on bills that will benefit the
steel industry
● Criticised the acquisition of US steel by a foreign entity citing security concerns
● Freedom caucus recently voted against raising the debt ceiling
● So reps more likely to vote according to own according to caucus that is due to division
between parties
Disagree
● Folks back home most influential due to frequent elections in the House ‘all politics is
local’
● Lobby groups and party influence can lead to influence on voting via pork barreling, e.g
Alaska bridge
● Reps not afraid to defy the whip when in favour of constituents; republicans voting
against tax cuts that would've seen constituents tax increase due to no state cap
Undeniably, party loyalty and patronage play some role in influencing the intentions of congress
people such as the use of whips and the fact that [arty ideologies broadly line up. Furthermore,
the pressure from the administration and risk of financial and legislative exile satisfactory to
persuade reps to vote against their own judgment. However, it is overwhelmingly clear that
tensions between and within parties is the main influential factor for voting behavior in congress.
Use of lobby groups and pork barreling provide security to candidates by funding campaigns
and providing vital infrastructure to candidate constituencies, and may even result in
congresspeople defying their own ideologies for money, such as the senator for MBNA and can
result in reps defying the delegate and trustee model.
,Evaluate the view that the constitutional system of checks and balances is an obstacle to
effective government
Legislative gridlock
Agree:
● Different parties control chambers and the presidency E.g Clinton never had control of
either chamber
● Trump shutdown over $5.6Bn as Democrats refused to support mexico wall
● Led to shutdown with 9 departments and 800K fed employees working without pay
● Estimated cost at 11bn
● Congress has the power of the purse via article 1 section 9 clause 7 and not POTUS
● Hinders democracy as workers work for free and farmers unable to receive federal aid
and immigration delays
● Obama unable to pass many proposed legislation so violated democratic mandate and
legitimacy of POTUS
On the other hand:
● Gridlock can lead to greater scrutiny of bills and legislation, can act as a check on power
of the branch
● Congress override Nixon's veto of war powers act in 1973 so stop imperial presidency
● Trump accused of not following WPA in iran as war without congress, no war declared
formally since WWII
● Clinton did not flail to GOP blackmail in 1995 and 1996 shutdown which proposed tax
cuts against his parties manifesto, GOP compromised ad accepted due to public
pressure
Supreme court having too much power
● SCOTUS is unelected and holds too much power
● Able to use own politics influence rulings, e.g overturning of Roe V Wade
● Long term right to abortion for over 50 years overturned and diminished women's basic
fundamental right to abortion
● Can even diminish the direct vote of the public, e.g 2000 GE where SCOTUS decided
the results of the election
● Ruling of line item veto was unconstitutional
● Acts as a check on legislative bodies, although not elected not unbiased
● Nominated by president and unrepresentative of the electorate, mostly pale, male and
stale
, On the other hand
● As unelcted, not fearful of being voted out, life tenure means not fearful of acting against
their nominee, e.g Eisenhower nominated Earl Warren and called it biggest mistake as
was not conservative
● Rigorous nomination process where has to be approved by the senate, e.g 37
unsuccessful, Bush nominated Harriet Miers but withdrew as not qualified
● So although unelected are qualified to interpret laws to the constitution which is codified
so not great room for variety in interpretation
Failure to legislate
Agree
● Nature of US midterms and bicameral nature of both chambers means that not
uncommon for different parties to control congress, e.g Trump presidency
● Means that although presidential mandate may be strong, may not be able to fulfill
promises
● Congresspeople may invoke high levels of partisanship simply to stop functional
legislative processes, e.g partisan obstructionism where senate majority leader Mitch
McConnel stop debate for all ACA bills due to obama legislation
On the other hand
● Congress has frequent (every 2 years whole in House and ⅓ in Senate) elections which
are more constituent based, so reps able to voice view of their constituents more
(delegate model)
● May lead to compromises in legislation via Conference committee which creates a more
bipartisan bill that is more populist and pleases a higher proportion of americans
● Stops Presidents acting imperially, stops extravagant bills that may damage the
economy in the long term and may not be sensible, e.g Trump wall and Muslim ban
provision
● Congress can override vetoes so efficient balance that is not overly tyrannical
Examine the differences in checks and balances on US Congress and UK parliament
One difference between checks and balances in the UK in Parliament is that parliament is seen
as absolutely sovereign and the judiciary has no legal right to strike down legislation even when
declared unlawful or incompatible with the HRA. As such, MPs are instead held accountable by
the ministerial code. For example, Priti Patel and Suella Braverman were both held to have
broken the code and hence were removed from the cabinet under Johnson and Sunak
administrations. Furthermore, Parliament reserves the right to overrule the SC and eradicate it
as it first evolved via an act of parliament, so can be reduced via the same mechanism.
