Albert D. Cover

Baby Books and Ballots: The Impact of Congressional Mail on Constituent Opinion

Studies have shown that members of the U.S. Congress attempt to exploit many of the perquisites of office for their electoral advantage, but the actual impact of this exploitation has never been clear. Thus a potentially significant part of the advantage of incumbency has been subject to more speculation than analysis. This study develops a simple model that can be used to determine the electoral significance of perquisite use by officeholders. It begins by examining a particular perquisite, the franking privilege, to determine how it affects incumbent saliency and reputation among constituents. Within the context of an appropriate research design, the study finds that the distribution of government pamphlets does boost an incumbents saliency while also creating a more positive evaluation of the incumbent. The saliency and evaluation effects erode over time, but this erosion can be mitigated through follow-up mailings. These results are incorporated into a model that is used to predict the electoral consequences of perquisite use. The model suggests that perquisites have their greatest impact in constituencies with a relatively small proportion of voters who identify with the incumbents party.

The Electoral Consequences of Perquisite Use: The Casework Case

The belief is widespread that incumbents have enhanced their bid for reelection by using the perquisites of office skillfully. The evidence supporting this belief is mixed, however. This study begins by examining how a particular perquisite, casework, affects incumbent saliency and reputation among constituents. Within an appropriate research design, the study finds that an incumbents ombudsman service creates a more positive evaluation of the incumbent and increases the incumbents saliency among constituents. These results are incorporated into a model used to predict the electoral consequences of perquisite use. The model suggests that perquisites have most impact in constituencies in which a relatively small proportion of voters identify with incumbents party.

Contacting Congressional Constituents: Some Patterns of Perquisite Use

Over the past several decades, and especially since the mid-sixties, there has been a growing flood of mass mailings sent out by members of Congress. Efforts have been made to use aggregate data on congressional mailings to explain the increased electoral advantage of incumbency. These data mask enormous variation, however, in the aggressiveness with which members use mailings as a communications tool. In an effort to understand this variation better, a survey was conducted of mass mailings from a sample of House offices. On average, the most active members were those who were electorally insecure and those who were relatively new to Congress. One possible explanation for the relationship between seniority and mail output focused on changing communications styles of congressional cohorts. A second survey was conducted several years later to help determine whether this explanation was valid. The results of the second survey were quite similar to those of the earlier analysis, suggesting that the proposed link between seniority and output was not a spurious product of changing communications styles.

The electoral impact of casework

Abstract There is no doubt that legislators assume casework has an important political impact, but the evidence that such service can be used to win electoral support from grateful constituents is mixed. The research reported here offers a model to assess the overall electoral impact of casework. The model suggests that while the impact does benefit the incumbent, it varies as a function of voter partisanship. In particular, the recognition effect of casework is the dominant one for incumbent partisans, while improved incumbent evaluation accounts for more of the overall impact among challenger partisans and Independents.

Ideological cohesion between congress and the president: Does the road to the white house matter?

This study examines the impact of US presidential nomination politics on congressional‐executive relations. In particular, we pose the critical question of whether nomination reforms have had any systematic effect on the inter‐branch ideological gap. Using an indicator of liberal voting in Congress and a derived liberalism score for presidents, we analyse the ideological disparity between the branches over a 40‐year period from 1949 to 1993. Results do not support the view offered by Polsby and others that a shift toward more open and participatory decision making in the post‐reform nomination process has increased the probability that presidents will be ideologically distant from their fellow partisans in Congress. Indeed, the situation is quite the opposite, with post‐reform presidents being closer to the ideological centre of gravity of their parties in Congress than are presidents who reached the White House in the pre‐reform era.