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

Proposition DD: Let the Bets Flow

On November 5 th , 2019, one of the two measures placed on the ballot in Colorado was Proposition DD, giving the electorate a referendum on the legality of sports betting within the state; it also would impose a tax upon the net revenue of those establishments accepting such bets, the majority of which would provide funding for the Colorado Water Plan and the remainder of which would be used to regulate sports betting and provide services for gambling addiction. Since 1992, gambling on the outcome of most sporting events had been outlawed nationally under the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, or PASPA, though with the Supreme Court’s decision in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association , this Act was deemed unconstitutional, and state legislatures became free to legislate regarding sports betting and its legality. Proposition DD was put to a public ballot under the provisions of the TABOR amendment to the Colorado Constitution, a ‘Taxpayer Bill of Rights’ ...
2 comments
Read more

The Proponents of Proposition DD

Proposition DD and its proponents One of the most significant and noteworthy results of the recent elections in Colorado was the passing of Proposition DD. A legislative proposition is a proposal placed on the ballot by the state legislature itself. The legislature in Denver referred the measure with House Bill 1327 during the spring season, with easy bipartisan support. [1] The proposition however did not receive such widespread support from the public, only narrowly passing, and being too close to call on election night. This is illustrated below. [2] The passage of Proposition DD legalised gambling on sports events, beginning in six months’ time; making Colorado the nineteenth state to legalise sports betting. Colorado’s seventeen casino operators will be eligible to apply for licenses for both physical and online sportsbooks, with the Colorado Division of Gaming being tasked to regulate the market. [3] ‘Yes on Proposition DD’ raised about $2.83 million for ca...
Post a Comment
Read more

Immigration Visas and Polarization

Megan King  The story I decided to investigate in National News is , “ Federal Judges Block Trump Policy Targeting Legal Immigrants on Public Benefits ” by Claire Hansen demonstrates how difficult the policymaking procedure can be. In regard to the separations of powers, this ideology does give each branch equal representation, which in this case was to block a new policy. In this situation, three judges filed lawsuits because the new policy the Government was going to implement that visas could be denied if they think that immigrants who are going to use public benefits. It is known as the “public charge” policy which is basically, “any individual who is deemed likely to accept a benefit is considered a public charger” which was just another attempt from the Trump Administration desiring to stop immigration (Hansen). There has already been policies in place that set up circumstances that Immigration Courts and the Government have set up to deny immigration residence just in...
2 comments
Read more