Addition, Constituents May Hold Members Accountable For

Therefore elections every two years in the House mean representatives have to stay in touch to remain electable. Also high rates of incumbency success, typically over 90% in the House and 80% in the Senate, suggests a high level of voter satisfaction with the members of congress themselves. Therefore if the people felt out of touch with the members of congress that represent them they would simple not vote for them in the following election. Therefore high incumbency rates displays the satisfaction with the members of congress suggesting that they are in touch with the people.

This point is backed up even more by the time members have before they face re-elections, as in the Senate this period is every six years but only every two in the house. Consequently displaying the implication of House members being less important than that of Senators who have a longer period to make themselves known to their people and carry out their work without the hindrance of elections.

This written report is appertaining to the book How Congress Works and Why You Should Care, written by Lee H. Hamilton. This book is published by Indiana University Press in Bloomington, IL, it was copyrighted in 2004 by the publisher.

Today, career politicians are constantly looking for what will aid them in getting reelected. They become more loyal to their campaign fund contributers than to the people whom they represent. This increases the likelihood of having corrupted politicians in office, as they use the government as a vehicle to further their own career (Kurfirst, 1996, p. 123, 129). George Will, a well-known political journalist, was quoted as saying “[The] worst feature of professionalism in politics is that it obliterates the proper distance between the representatives and the represented” (Kurfirst, 1996, p. 125). Even James Madison agreed that legislators were meant to represent the people, not hold office as a career. In The Federalist No. 57 (1788), he wrote, “From this change of men must proceed a change of opinions; and from a change of opinions, a change of measures.” The lack of new faces in Congress today symbolizes that the American legislative branch is straying from its intended purpose.

More convincing than the fact that the majority of incumbents retained their seats by overwhelming margins is the shocking statistic that a quarter of the incumbents were uncontested.13 These politicians were so successful at arranging favorable districts that it was futile to even attempt a challenge. The author continued to examine particularly egregious cases of gerrymandering in New York, including that of Senator Guy Vellela, who once selected voters for his district by individual city blocks.14 Senator Guy Vellela, as well as the other state senators of New York, are prime examples of politicians exploiting gerrymandering to manipulate the outcome of elections and improve their outcomes.

     The third factor that seems to have an influence on the operations of Congress is the public opinion. Logically, if the public thinks that a certain congressman doesn’t know how to do his job, then he won’t get elected. That’s why the public opinion has a major influence the operations of Congress because the public has say if that Congressman or Congressmen will get elected again.

The inter workings of Congress have been studied extensively by Richard Fenno and David R. Mayhew. Mayhew’s study of Congress took place in Washington, while Richard Fenno conducted his research by following politicians within their congressional district. Mayhew attributes three primary goals to congressmen- getting reelected, achieving influence within Congress and making “good Policy”. Fenno also attributes three basic goals, having influence inside the House than other congressmen. Second, helping their constituents and thereby insuring their reelection, and lastly helping make good policy. The purpose of this paper is to research a member of Congress and to make a direct connection between his activity in Washington and his home district. The paper will answer whether the congressmen is a delegate or trustee. Are the actions a pursuit for reelection? Are the committee assignments a path for movement within the House or outside? What legislation has he/she sponsored or co-sponsored and does it directly reflect his/her districts political view. And finally, do major industries and interest groups within his/she district affect the way he/she votes.

“ Congress: The Electoral Connection”, the article is written by David R. Mayhew. Mayhew represents his view about Congressmen activities. These politicians discuss certain issues going on within the country and to emphasize people to focus on their listed issues and get attention of public in order to take position in House.

This means they will likely raise money in any way possible to increase their chances of winning. This leads many members of Congress to give less consideration to the needs of low-income individuals when developing legislation. Since these low-income individuals do not have the means to give large amounts of money to re-election campaigns, their views are often ignored. Many members of Congress endorse legislation that would benefit their largest donors. This leads to a Congress that is not a true representative of the broad interests across the United States (Flavin 2015).

The congressional behaviors of Representative Maxine Waters, a Democratic representative for the 43rd district of California, and that of Democratic Representative Darren Soto are both inspired by the goal of reelection. This common goal of reelection coined by David Mayhew is achieved differently by each representative depending on the demographics, political leaning, and incumbency of the district. When comparing the legislative behavior of Darren Soto, the representative of Florida’s newly drawn 9th congressional district, and that of Representative Maxine Waters from California’s 43rd Congressional district, this holding becomes evident. This paper will argue that while both Rep. Waters, and Rep. Soto are inspired by the common goal of

Assess the extent to which incumbents have an adage over challengers in congressional elections. (25marks)

Congressional members are influenced by their subjective experiences as well as their intellectual and psychological dispositions in dealing with the variability of global politics. Foreign policies, such as declarations of war, are conceived with the intent to defend congressional interests to protect the powers of Congress. Senators and Representatives frequently determine their stance on an issue by determining how it would impact their appointment to higher office, chances for reelection, and improving their influence and legacy. Once Members of Congress have established their interests, the United States Constitution provides the framework of how Congressional interests are conveyed into laws. The lawmaking process, however, may be a tedious

Candidates for the House of Representatives, both incumbents and challengers, work hard to raise public awareness of their intentions of running for Congress. Trying to inform voters of themselves is important for candidates to potentially increase their opportunity of election. However, incumbent candidates may differ from challengers based on the level of knowledge voters have on each. Such as, if voters are capable of recalling the name of the House candidate, whether it be the incumbent or the challenger, can demonstrate the voter’s knowledge. Furthermore, voter’s capability to recall a name may be affected by how much they care about who wins the election for the House from their congressional district.

In my opinion, I feel that constituents have power over congress members because they have the power to vote them in or out of office. On the other hand, I feel that voting constituents have the least amount of influence over congress members, who strive for money contributions in order to, run their political campaigns, compared to donors and PACs.

Essentially, the author found statistically significant and substantial evidence that supported all three of his hypotheses. For the first hypothesis, in the Farm subsidy study, participants viewed legislators whom sided with their district 3.69 units more favorable than those whom did not, while in the Nuclear Energy study, the comparable effect was 1.69 units (246). On the second hypothesis highlighted in the nuclear study, the support for the legislators were 0.83 when they were presented as from the participants own state, while the