Book review: Coalitional Presidentialism in Comparative Perspective. Minority Presidents in Multiparty Systems

Abstract

the Members of Congress leaving office voluntarily. The issue tackled by Carson and Sievert is just how different was the past. They provide an impressive analysis of whether the 19th century was really that different from a modern era in which the conditions exist for Members to worry about their careers and their relationship to their districts. This is an analysis that required considerable effort to assemble the necessary data. It is done carefully and thoroughly and calls into question the presumption that 19th century House elections were fundamentally different. The authors first review the four conditions that should contribute to an electoral connection. Members must have the ambition to pursue a career in politics. They must have some autonomy to act on that ambition. If party leaders can control who can pursue a congressional career, a candidate has less autonomy. Third, Members must be responsive to their constituents. Last, Members must be in a situation where they will be rewarded or punished for their performance on office. If the four conditions exist they will create accountability. They proceed to assess the presence of each of these conditions during the 19th century. With regard to ambition, they present the possibility that Members may well have been motivated, but more to pursue a career in politics than a career in the House. That is, the goal of ambition was to hold an office, which may have also been mayor, judge, state legislator, or governor. They assemble data on the biographies of former House Members and find that during the 19th century 80% of House freshmen had prior political experience and 50% had subsequent experience. They then cite evidence that Members had various means to influence their ability to secure a nomination. They also review numerous studies and evidence to suggest that Members were worried about being responsive to their districts. Voting by Members reflected party positions but also sensitivity to district variations. Members were held accountable. Votes on prominent legislation did affect subsequent electoral fortunes. There is evidence that the four conditions for an electoral connection existed in the past. There is also evidence that other patterns that we associate with the modern era existed in the 19th century. Quality candidates (with some prior elective success) were more likely to emerge in open-seat races rather than when an incumbent is running for reelection. Quality candidates for one party were more likely to emerge when it appeared a partisan swing to their party was present. Quality candidates won more often than inexperienced candidates. In short, this impressive assembly of data and presentation of analyses suggests that the 19th century was not fundamentally different from elections that have occurred since 1900. For students of US Congressional elections this is a study well worth reading carefully.