- Aug 2016
-
link.springer.com.ezproxy2.library.colostate.edu:2048 link.springer.com.ezproxy2.library.colostate.edu:2048
-
This study began by asking whether the minority party has any electoral incentive to act responsibly in Congress. The short answer is: yes. Americans do hold meaningfully different evaluations of each party’s performance in Congress. To a significant degree, these evaluations are formed on the basis of criteria logically related to legislative performance. In turn, Americans use the evaluations of both parties when casting their votes in House elections. Importantly, the electoral impact of minority party performance ratings appears to be just as large, on average, as the impact of majority party performance ratings.
I can use this in my paper as a counter argument against my own. He is arguing that, with the current two party system in America, both parties are held accountable for their actions, therefore the two party system is a fair way of electing politicians.
-
On its face, these findings would appear to support the one-party model of accountability for Congress. Specifically, they are consistent with a story in which everything a citizen learns or feels about Congress is automatically associated with a single party: the majority. But while it may be true that Americans closely associate approval of Congress with approval of the majority party, this does not rule out the possibility that Americans also evaluate the performance of the minority party in Congress and use that evaluation when voting. No existing studies offer or test this alternative hypothesis.
In this section, Jones brings up specific, credible research that backs up the one party model. He adds that although these findings are legitimate given the assumptions they make, he argues that different research needs to be done to account for Americans that take the minority party into consideration when voting. Once again, his mention of a legitimate study from the opposing side serves to strengthen his credibility.
-
In particular, the frequent occurrence of divided government, as well as occasional friction between a president and his own party in Congress even during unified government, have necessitated additional theorizing about whether and how models of collective accountability should be more realistically adapted.
In this section, Jones introduces the two primary theories of accountability that have been established, providing background on the subject for the reader. At the end of this section, he states the main issue with these theories, and adds that more research needs to be done in this area to account for the fact that there is often no single party in power.
-
In both cases, the minority party appeared to believe that it could make the ruling party look bad by denying it bipartisan legislative victories, and that the public would respond at the polls by punishing the ruling party, not the minority. Also in both cases, the strategy seemed to pay dividends. The minority party experienced sweeping electoral successes two years later, regaining their majority status.
Jones is providing reasonably strong evidence that supports one of the opposing view points. He provides one example from each party in recent history in which political gridlock seemingly led to the shift of power away from the current majority. This is a legitimate counterpoint and Jones' choice to include it in the beginning gives more validity to his argument later on in the article.
-
Existing research suggests that to the extent that accountability for congressional performance occurs, it does so primarily through a referendum on the performance of the majority party. If true, this means that the minority party has no incentive to act responsibly, and may even have an incentive to polarize and obstruct.
Here, Jones is entering into the conversation by introducing the primary point that he opposes in this article. The opposition argues that the American public evaluates Congress as a whole, and the majority party is often blamed for political gridlock. Jones disputes this immediately by arguing that American's do in fact take party performance into consideration when deciding who to vote for in elections.
-
I argue that the ratings Americans give to each congressional party flow in part from the parties’ actual performances in Congress, reflecting factors such as policy stances, managerial effectiveness, and partisan tone. I also argue that when Americans cast ballots in elections, they take into account their evaluations of not only majority party performance, but also their separate evaluations of minority party performance. In this way, Americans hold both parties accountable for their respective performances.
Here, Jones articulates his main point in the article. He is arguing that Americans hold both parties in Congress accountable for their actions and accomplishments as a party, and that voters take into account their evaluation of both political parties when deciding who to vote for in elections.
-
Polity
Polity is the journal of the Northeastern Political Science Association. This journal was established in 1968 and is one of the more widely known political science journals. They are considered to be a credible publication.
-
David R Jones
Jones is a professor at Baruch College who specializes in American politics. He has written multiple books on politics in America, and his research has been included in many scholarly journals including The American Journal of Political Science.
-
A More Responsible Two-Party System? Accountability for Majority and Minority Party Performance in a Polarized Congress
Jones, David R. "A More Responsible Two-Party System? Accountability for Majority and Minority Performance in a Polarized Congress". Polity, 18 Aug. 2014. Web. 01 Aug. 2016.
-
In both cases, the minority party appeared to believe that it could make the ruling party look bad by denying it bipartisan legislative victories, and that the public would respond at the polls by punishing the ruling party, not the minority. Also in both cases, the strategy seemed to pay dividends. The minority party experienced sweeping electoral successes two years later, regaining their majority status.
Here, Jones is providing reasonably strong evidence that supports one of the opposing view points. He provides one example from each party in recent history in which political gridlock seemingly led to the shift of power away from the current majority. This is a legitimate counterpoint and Jones' choice to include it in the beginning gives more validity to his argument later on in the article.
-
Existing research suggests that to the extent that accountability for congressional performance occurs, it does so primarily through a referendum on the performance of the majority party. If true, this means that the minority party has no incentive to act responsibly, and may even have an incentive to polarize and obstruct.
Here, Jones is entering into the conversation by introducing the primary point that he opposes in this article. The opposition argues that the American public evaluates Congress as a whole, and the majority party is often blamed for political gridlock. Jones disputes this immediately by arguing that American's do in fact take party performance into consideration when deciding who to vote for in elections.
-
Polity
Polity is the journal of the Northeastern Political Science Association. This journal was established in 1968 and is one of the more widely known political science journals. They are considered to be a credible publication.
-
David R Jones
Jones is a professor at Baruch College who specializes in American politics. He has written multiple books on politics in America, and his research has been included in many scholarly journals including The American Journal of Political Science. http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/wsas/academics/political_science/djones.htm
-
A More Responsible Two-Party System? Accountability for Majority and Minority Party Performance in a Polarized Congress
Jones, David R. "A More Responsible Two-Party System? Accountability for Majority and Minority Performance in a Polarized Congress". Polity, 18 Aug. 2014. Web. 01 Aug. 2016.
-
I argue that the ratings Americans give to each congressional party flow in part from the parties’ actual performances in Congress, reflecting factors such as policy stances, managerial effectiveness, and partisan tone. I also argue that when Americans cast ballots in elections, they take into account their evaluations of not only majority party performance, but also their separate evaluations of minority party performance. In this way, Americans hold both parties accountable for their respective performances.
Here, Jones articulates his main point in the article. He is arguing that Americans hold both parties in Congress accountable for their actions and accomplishments as a party, and that voters take into account their evaluation of both political parties when deciding who to vote for in elections.
-