Skip to main content

Polarization in State Legislatures



What states are becoming more polarized?
States with more national agendas have more polarized sessions. A national issue means “a state legislative bill that is prominent in the national discourse” (Garlick, 10). And you’re seeing more and more states nowadays having trouble differentiating national concerns from state problems. Most people, if they do watch the news, watch national news channels like Fox or CNN. Constituents pay more attention to national issues because they are simply more focused on in the media. When voters focus their attention on national issues, federal issues start to become local issues. Constituents start to speak up about their new found knowledge of national issues to their state legislators and it adds pressure to members in Congress. It forces them to add national issues to their state political agendas in order to form their party brand. 



Why do people vote along party lines?
People respond to incentives and Congress’ incentive is to get re-elected (Mayhew). Voting along party lines helps secure your chances of re-election. Also, Congress wants influence in the chamber and to leave a legacy (Fenno). Voting with your ideological partners prepares you for a run at higher office. This applies to members in the United States Congress, but especially applies to those at the state level because their sights are always on the White House. If state Senators and state legislators want to get their name on the map, they must enact major legislation and do it to the tune of what the rest of the nation is talking about.
How State Agendas are Nationalized
Two features of national issues: The first is that they gain the support and attention from resource-rich inter groups, which helps aspiring politicians find their footing. Political Action Committees (PACS) can contribute tremendously to campaigns. Kall and Brockman say that if you are a politician, and you do not have a lot of time for meetings, you are more likely to take a meeting with a past donor and talk policy. PACS are always looking at the bigger picture, which means they have bigger than state goals, they are looking nationally. Second, legislators enjoy working on projects that are conspicuous and simple because their constituents are more likely to understand the issue and care about it. 

This definitively shows that there is an association between national policies and party differences when it comes to voting on the floor. Abortion, immigration and guns are the three concerns that I think will never be a non-partisan issue. People feel very strongly towards one of the two sides, so I do not see compromise in the future.
Column 3 displays that when both the political agenda and opinion polarization are used, the political agenda is still significantly correlated to party difference. Column 4 shows that there is undoubtedly a correlation between polarization and national policy and that is shown by the positive numbers for almost every category. If you think about it, the media directs what is on the political agenda, not the other way around. When the media is showing coverage of students fighting for stricter gun control laws, constituents are watching and informing their Congressmen and women to focus on gun control laws. Inevitably, states with more national agendas have more polarized sessions.

Comments

  1. Turner ChangOctober 23, 2019 at 8:25 PM

    I think that those charts greatly add to what you are trying to convey. When looking at the one about polarization on different topics was interesting as those are what are talked about the most in the current news climate.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Two-Party System: Possible Impacts on Polarization & Congressional Policy Making

Edward Baisley Prof. Matthew Hitt POLS 304 16 Oct. 2019 Blog Post 2 (Two Party System)             The two-party system in the United States of America has been an integral part of our political culture since the country’s inception in the 1700’s. Since then, our country has accepted this system as an inevitable part of how our nation’s leaders are chosen, nominated, and elected into office. Now days, when it comes to our contemporary national congress, both parties have spent an incredible amount of money and resources in an attempt to seize majority control in both the House and the Senate. This attempt to seize majority power in our legislative branch has led to a situation of heated competition. In fact, in recent history, we as citizens of this nation have seen our national Legislator become a partisan battle ground in which both parties and their members are seemingly polarized to an extent that the ...
2 comments
Read more

TABOR and Colorado Politics Post-CC

       One of the more contentious topics within Colorado politics is budgeting and funding for projects, education, and revenue intake. This came to a head in this year's election with Proposition CC. Despite failing at the ballot box, the Democratic Party is pushing ahead with the 2020 legislative agenda that includes drafts to eliminate the Tax Payer's Bill of Rights or amend it to ensure more accessible revenue for the party's policy objectives. What is critical to the debate is the increasing partisan divide within Colorado, the historical shift from Republican control to Democrat trifectas in state government, and the institutional mechanisms that have hampered strategy for the dominant party. Also, in the mix are interest groups that influence local politics which can help uncover party strategy from another perspective.        The Colorado Fiscal Institute (CFI) a left-leaning think tank, is a key player in this battle, authoring s everal...
6 comments
Read more

TABOR & Proposition CC: Providing Context to Colorado's Tax Problem

Edward Baisley Prof. Matthew Hitt POLS 304 Dec. 2019 Blog Post 3 (TABOR and Proposition CC) Colorado's tax system is very unique in comparison to pretty much every other state in the U.S. Arguably the biggest aspect of the tax system that is unique is the amendment to the Colorado Constitution known as TABOR or the Tax Payers Bill of Rights. This amendment which was drafted into law in 1992, has many implications for Colorado's state and local governments. One of the main implications is that TABOR requires the state and local governments of Colorado to acquire voter approval before any tax increase can be implemented. Some other more less known implications are detailed by Denver Post author Anna Staver, she explains that TABOR: “ Limits how many tax dollars governments can keep … It’s called the TABOR cap, anything a government collects above the cap gets returned as a TABOR tax refund … (TABOR) Limits when lawmakers can ask voters to raise taxe...
1 comment
Read more