midterm Flashcards
novel aspects of the 2008 presidential-election campaign-why novelties?
- They help us learn history: novelties are a departure from patterns of the past, after all.
- They help us begin to predict and explain new directions.
- They are intellectually interesting – at bottom the only thing that motivates serious study of any subject.
- they serve as natural experiments to help us refute and thereby test hypotheses. For example, two novelties in that election could refute the hypothesis that American voters are not willing to elect a black to national office or the comparable hypothesis about a woman.
novel aspects of the 2008 presidential-election campaign-
- both candidates for president were mere senators – not current or former legislative leaders and not former executives of any sort. Rarely has a senator, mere or not, been elected president – only twice in the 20th century. The modal prior job of presidents has been governor. Why? Perhaps because governors have to lead and decide, appoint and delegate and take responsibility, whereas mere senators have to do naught but flap their jaws.
- one candidate was black. That never happened before. Would it make a difference? Consider the “Bradley effect” hypothesis. When Democratic LA mayor Tom Bradley ran for governor in 1982 against Republican George Deukmejian, polls wrongly predicted Bradley’s victory. The hypothesis is that some voters who were polled about gubernatorial or racial preferences lied in Bradley’s favor because they were embarrassed to express their racial prejudices. Can you think of a rival hypothesis? Maybe some nonprejudiced Republican voters told pollsters they liked Bradley lest they seem racially prejudiced.
- there was a woman on a ticket. Well, that did happen once before: in 1984 Democrat Walter Mondale tapped NY congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro, who recently died, as his running mate. They lost, of course, but against a very popular opponent.
- no member of the incumbent administration was running. The President was not, of course, but nor was the Vice President or any Cabinet secretary. The last time that happened was 1952.Yes, McCain was of the same party as President Bush, but those one¬time rivals were not close and had not always agreed on policy.
Retrospective Economic Voting Hypothesis
good or bad economic conditions help or hurt the incumbent
Problems with the Retrospective Economic Voting Hypothesis
- President Reagan won an easy victory in 1984 despite presiding over the deepest recession since the Great Depression. BUT: The economy was rapidly improving during the year before the election. So maybe it is only recent economic conditions that count.
- What constitute good and bad conditions? In the past, these have been reckoned in terms of historically abnormal inflation or unemployment and sometimes economic growth and worker productivity. But in Fall 2008, for all the news about a credit crisis, there was not yet a recession.
- Is it bad news or personal pain that influences a voter? We heard some dramatic bad news in fall 2008, but it was still pretty abstract. How many voters had been hurt by Wall Street failings? Credit was threatened, but for most voters it was not—or not yet —impaired.
- Is it the incumbent party or administration that draws praise or blame for economic conditions? We did not really know. Why? Because that was the very first election since 1952 in which no one from the incumbent administration was running.
Why so much attention to the president, not Congress? It is Congress that passes laws, gives the president much of his authority and all of his budget, and represents the full diversity of the country? 2 hypotheses:
- The president has some peculiar powers. (Think about what they are.)
- Presidential votes have considerable down-ballot influence: you are likely to support your presidential candidate’s fellow partisans for lower offices.
Can the candidate who wins the most primary votes or the most convention delegates but falls short of a majority be denied the nomination?
Consider the 2 rules?
a) Majority Rule: Pick the candidate who wins a majority of votes.
b) Plurality Rule: Pick the candidate who wins the most votes, even if less than a majority
In most states, Plurality Rule is used in congressional general elections. But because the candidates are almost always two, the plurality winner is almost always the majority winner.
-Nominations are another matter. Often the serious candidates are more than two. If none wins a majority of primary votes, a runoff is often held. Or in a convention, delegates keep voting and negotiating until a majority is reached.
-if no one has majority going in, some say best to pick plurality since closest to majority-but that’s not true
-the moderate candidate, who isn’t loved but least objectionable to both liberal and conservatives in the party, will get the majority-no majority opposes the moderate
First Continental Congress in 1774
Sam Adams counted-conciliatory conservatives outnumbered radical revolutionaries overall but revolutionaries were a majority in a majority of colonial delegations. He then proposed unit rule: each delegation would cast one vote. That sounded reasonable on its face. So a majority of delegates voted for it. But as a result, Congress encouraged revolution by passing a harsh rather than a conciliatory statement of grievances to the British government, although a majority of delegates preferred a conciliatory statement-majority of delegates favored C but a majority in a majority of colonies favored R, which passed thanks to unit rule
In American politics at all levels, often the most effective way to complain and seek redress is to call your elected representative (councilman, assemblyman, congressman). Why would he – or his staff – help you?-2 hypotheses
Hypothesis 1. It’s his duty.
Hypothesis 2. Every time he helps a constituent he picks up a vote.
Hypothesis 2 is based on an institutional incentive, but why, if that hypothesis is right, has our nice incentive system not ameliorated the problem of excess demand for classes at UCLA? Hypotheses:
H1. It has, to some degree, but the problem is huge.
H2. Legislators don’t directly run UCLA. Regents do.
H3. You have scant incentive to complain: You will finish your high-demand courses
before the problem can be cured, and then you no longer care.
two kinds of political theory
- normative theory
- positive theory
normative theory
examines how to justify or evaluate political institutions and policies (e.g., What kind of government should we have?).
positive theory
seeks to explain and predict political behavior, policies, and institutions (e.g., Why do we have the kind of government that we have?)
(sometimes what kind we should have and why we have it match)
Why have government?
Plato-The Republic-3 answers
- justice is simply the will of the stronger, hence that there is no transcendent standard of justice. The underlying assumption is that governments are put in place to serve the interests of the rulers - - who are few compared with their subjects. (To impose the rulers’ will. )
- government helps people achieve mutual security by protecting them from each other and also from foreign invaders: you are a net loser if you can prey on others but they in turn can prey on you, so you prefer protection from predators (murderers, rapists, thieves, frauds) to the chance to prey (to murder, rape, steal, defraud). More generally, government fosters mutual advantage, or mutual cooperation. That both justifies government and explains its existence. (To help subjects attain their own goals by solving cooperation problems. They arise when something is costly enough to the doer that no one wants to do it but beneficial enough to others that everyone wants it done. )
- A third answer to the question of why government exists is that government helps individuals to solve coordination problems (To help subjects attain their own goals by solving coordination problems. They arise when a common goal requires that all follow the same plan, but the feasible plans are more than one and incompatible. )
2-problem with government
Government coerces. It limits our liberty. It stops us from doing things we want to do. How can one benefit by being stopped from doing what one wants to do?
2-How can one benefit by being stopped from doing what one wants to do?
-The answer: Everyone benefits from having his liberties limited, provided everyone else has his liberties likewise limited. That way everyone is protected. Strictly speaking, what benefits you is not the limit on your own liberty but the limits on everyone else’s liberty
2-Prisoner’s Dilemma and gov.
- Prisoner’s Dilemma-gov. forces both to keep quiet-arrange not to confess-because otherwise better to confess so both will and not get good outcome overall
- a PD is a situation where two players would both be better off cooperating or helping each other (here both play “Don’t Confess”) but are led by their individual interests to defect (not to cooperate, here to play “Confess”).
- PDs are examples of cooperation problems-the purpose of government is to get people to cooperate. This requires that government be allowed to use coercion, including taxation, to ensure that individuals act in a socially preferred way.
3-coordination problems-cars example
Two people drive toward each other on the street. Each can stay either on the left or the right side of the road. This illustrates the need for some kind of rule to avoid crashing. Here government provides the arbitrary rule – the convention-that ensures coordination-the players do not particularly care which rule of the road is chosen, left or right, as long as they can be assured that all drivers abide by the same rule. This characteristic is the mark of a pure coordination problem.
-solved by convention
3-coordination problems-“Battle of the Sexes”
A husband and wife are trying to pick a place for the evening’s entertainment. Above all, each would like to be with the other, but each also has a preferred destination. The husband prefers a wrestling match; the wife, ballet.
This too is a coordination problem. It differs from the pure coordination problem of the “Rule of the Road” game because the players are not indifferent about how to coordinate - - about which coordinating solution is finally chosen.
-solved by communication and agreement
One of the greatest coordination problems, exemplified by the Biblical story of the Tower of Babel, is…..
is communication. If you and I speak different languages we cannot communicate. To communicate we must coordinate round a common language: we must both speak English or both speak Old Etruscan or whatnot.
Conventions
the (somewhat arbitrary) rules of coordination.
How do we succeed in coordinating what we do?
- communication and agreement
- conventions
- Sometimes one possible coordinating solution is especially salient: it stands out as the focal solution, the one everyone thinks of first.-when say meet in Santa Monica, assume the pier because landmark
difference between cooperation and coordination
- Cooperation and coordination differ in a notable way. In cooperation problems, even if someone knows that others will cooperate, he will not: force may be needed. But in coordination problems, if someone knows that others will coordinate in a certain way, he will too: force is not needed.
- another difference: Agreement between players can always solve coordination problems. If you agree to coordinate with others, you will keep your word because it is in your interest to follow the same plan they are following. But in a cooperation problem, if you agree to cooperate with others, you are better off breaking your word.
Social contract theory
propounded in the 17th and 18th centuries, notably by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The basic idea is that government is the creature of a unanimous agreement, a “social contract,” to solve cooperation problems by coercing us all to cooperate with each other-In its positive version the theory says: Government is the creature of a social contract. In its normative version the theory says: Government ought to be the creature of a social contract
How realistic is the social contract?
Apart from a few odd examples, such as the Mayflower Compact, have real governments ever been founded by social contracts? Locke thought that by doing such things as voting, not emigrating, etc., citizens implicitly endorsed the social contract. Alternatively, one could construe the contract as hypothetical and argue that citizens would consent if asked.
Hobbes saw the absence of government, or “state of nature,” as a prisoners’ dilemma (PD) to be solved by unanimously contracting to obey a king, or “sovereign.” But this approach to cooperation spawns a coordination problem:
cooperation is fully secured only if we somehow coordinate by obeying the same king. That problem we would solve by singling out the most salient pretender to sovereignty, the strongest warlord around – the Santa Monica Pier among candidates for king. But the contract itself was a simple agreement among citizens to surrender their freedom to the same sovereign.
Government (or good government)=
= obedience to the will of the stronger (Thrasymachus)
or mutual cooperation (Glaucon and all the contractarians)
= or obedience to one sovereign (Hobbes)
= coordination round one candidate for sovereignty
= obedience to the “will of the stronger” after all, or obedience to the Santa Pier
Monica Pier of royal pretenders.
Representative:
: Governed by officers responsible to an electorate. That electorate may be small: not necessarily all the people get to vote. Opposite: Authoritarian (government’s will is imposed on people; it is not responsible to those it governs).
Democratic:
Ultimate power held by the mass of people. In this comparatively narrow sense, democracy is not a bundle of all possible virtues, just this one. Opposite: Autocratic (one-man rule), oligarchic (self-perpetuating ruling clique), or aristocratic (rule by nobility based on birth).
two types of democracy:
direct and indirect/representative
direct democracy
People vote directly on all questions of policy. Example: New England towns run by town meetings. This is rare in pure form, but some democracies, notably Switzerland and California, are partly direct: many important decisions are made by referendum, and in California many referenda are initiated by voters through petition.
indirect/representative democracy
People vote for representatives who decide policy. Most modern democracies are of this sort.
limited/liberal
Power of government is limited. People have rights (e.g., the US Bill of Rights) that the government does not grant but must respect. Opposite: Totalitarian government has complete power over every aspect of a citizen’s life, as in Nazi Germany, USSR. Limited governments are also constitutional, in the following sense: there is a recognized written document, or at least a clear, exact, widely shared understanding that specifies the powers and limits of government.
The US is…
limited, representative, and democratic
South Africa was (before the end of apartheid) ….
representative (of whites) but not very limited or democratic.
France under revolutionary mob rule was…
only democratic
Monarchs in medieval Europe were….
of limited powers, but their rule was not representative or democratic.
Pennsylvania after the American Revolution was…
representative and democratic but not very limited.
Great Britain before the expansion of the franchise (1883) was…
limited and representative but not democratic.
New England Town government is…
limited and democratic but not representative.
Modern Iran is…
somewhat democratic and representative but not so limited.
relationship between limited, representative, and democratic
There is a nice connection between these attributes. Sometimes the want of democracy or representation comes not from narrow suffrage or the absence of elections but from obstacles to electoral competition, or free electoral choice, and that is a mark of unlimited government.
Republic
State with no king. Opposite: monarchy. Madison used the term “Republic” to mean representative democracy; he couldn’t conceive of representation with a king, as in modern “constitutional monarchies,” where the king’s role is mostly ceremonial.
Presidential or Separated Powers:
There is a chief executive independent of the legislature. Opposite: parliamentary, where parliament can hire and fire the executive (which, in parliamentary systems, is called either the cabinet or the ministry or the government, and is headed by a prime minister).
Semi-Presidential
-new type-Here the elected president appoints a cabinet that must be approved and can be fired by parliament. If the president has a majority in parliament, he runs the government – much as in the US when President and Congress are of the same party. But if not, then he is forced to appoint a prime minister and cabinet from opposition parties. In that case the system is more or less parliamentary (the President has some “reserved powers”). Best example: France.
Federal
A union of territorial polities (states, provinces) that divide sovereignty (ultimate power) with a central government. We can imagine a continuum on which to place different systems according to the degree of relative power the national government possesses
Confederal (Cantonment):
Independent units have near total authority over their internal affairs. Best current example: Switzerland. Older example: the U.S. before 1789.
Federal
Both central government and lower units (states) exercise direct power on citizens (e.g., US, Canada, Germany).
Unitary
Lower units don’t exercise much power (e.g., France).
Confederal (Cantonment), Federal, and Unitaru
-exist on spectrum
Odd Types -Socialist:
Government owns major industries and maybe other enterprises and more or less directly runs the economy (e.g., Cuba).
Odd Types-Social Democracy
Government is responsible for providing a comparatively high level welfare benefits to all its citizens (e.g., Sweden, Britain).
Odd Types-Semi-Authoritarian:
A king or president not freely elected by the citizenry tolerates a popularly elected parliament (e.g. Morocco).
The Founders’ baggage/set of experiences
-comes in 4 parts: British history, intellectual resources (principles), early American history, and problems of federation
17th Century England.
A Civil War toppled King Charles I, along with his head, and established a republic, called the Commonwealth, under Oliver Cromwell. After Ollie died, Parliament restored the monarchy under Charles II. The Glorious Revolution then kicked out Charles’s Catholic successor, James II, made William III (the Dutch ruler) and Mary (his wife and James’s daughter) co-monarchs, and in effect established parliamentary sovereignty.
Whigs vs. Tories
- In the English Civil War, Roundheads (Cromwell supporters) were pitted against Cavaliers (monarchy supporters). The Roundheads became Whigs; the Cavaliers, Tories. These were England’s first two parties.
- Whigs sought representative government; Locke’s Second Treatise on Government
- Tories believed in the divine right of kings; Hobbes had argued in effect for the unchecked power of a king or other “sovereign” separate from and not beholden to his subjects.
- The Whigs won-US Founders were ardent Whigs.
Intellectual Resources on the founders
- The social contract theory of Locke
- The Baron de Montesquieu.
- Intellectual Climate of the Day: the Scottish Enlightenment
- The Pattern of English Government.
- Colonial Government
- The Iroquois League
- Locke and Social Contract
Locke believed in government by consent, where government is bound by an implicit contract to protect the people’s “natural right” to “life, liberty, and estate.” There is a dual contract: one, among the governed, to set up a government, and another, between the governed and the government. Locke envisioned a limited government – a trustee for the people’s sovereignty - - and did not accept Hobbes’s idea that the king should be all powerful.
- The Baron de Montesquieu.
Montesquieu celebrated the English (later British) system of government as resting on a separation of powers, where the executive (King) is separate from the legislature (Parliament), itself separated into Lords and Commons. He argued that separation protected each part from abuse by others: none could dominate. The Founders admired this idea. Note that the Founders largely ignored—they did not appreciate—the role of the prime minister; they thought the king was the real chief executive.
- Intellectual Climate of the Day: the Scottish Enlightenment
The great Scots philosopher David Hume argued that there wasn’t in reality a social contract. He thought government always came from conquest or usurpation. He proposed as a criterion for evaluating the justice of a government its ability to protect property and the common good. Even so, a just government would be one that resolved the PD effectively, for the common good is comparable to the mutual advantage of contract. Like Hume, the Founders thought it was important to protect property, not only for the good of the rich, but for everyone. Another towering figure of the Scottish Enlightenment, Hume’s great friend Adam Smith, did not come to exert influence until later: The Wealth of Nations was published in 1776.
- The Pattern of English Government
English government had three parts: the King, Parliament (Lords & Commons), and Ministers (chosen by the King). Or it had four parts if you add the English tradition of politically independent courts. The Founders admired the English system and tried in some ways to emulate it.
- Colonial Government
The Founders were familiar, of course, with the written charters (constitutions) of the state governments (which also, in large part, mimicked the English system).
A typical charter created an office of governor (appointed by the King in most colonies but elected in Connecticut and Rhode Island). It also featured an elected legislature, usually a bicameral one with a lower house chosen by a comparatively broad electorate. These charters generally mandated a plural executive, as in California today, where several independent executive officers (such as the attorney general and the secretary of state) divide executive power. Most states also had Councils to advise the Governor and to consent to his acts, as an additional check on executive power.
- The Iroquois League
This is the confederation of five, later six, American Indian tribes that had the most advanced republican government of the time and for a while was the dominant power (or hegemon) of North America. The League was founded in the 14th century by Hiawatha and Deganawida, who wrote an elaborate constitution.
The League solved a fundamental cooperation problem. The cooperation problem among individuals is a prisoner’s dilemma, of course. Government might solve it by forcing cooperation among them. But that can cause PDs to bubble up to a higher level. Governments that resolve the PD among their citizenry often find themselves in a PD among governments. Wars, trade barriers, and other cooperation problems abound.
Deganawida’s insight was to force cooperation among the tribes by forming a confederation, and then to make it open: any tribe could join and receive the benefits of membership. That helped prevent a further PD among confederations.
- The Iroquois League-The resulting system was…
confederal, republican, and representative, it had some direct democracy, it had a sort of female suffrage (males served in office but could not vote), and it had racial and religious equality.
- The Iroquois League-The Constitution of the League Included:
A Council,
Unequal representation (larger tribes are over-represented),
A Semi-hereditary matrilineal system for choosing council members,
Initiative and referendum,
Unit rule (small tribes have veto protection),
Open membership (other tribes are welcomed to join).
. Early American History
Great Britain gave written charters (constitutions) to the colonies. Colonial governments were mostly “republican,” with a (usually crown-appointed) governor and an elected legislature.
Now a very brief review of events you have heard about before: –
1754 At Iroquoi request, British government calls the Albany Convention to coordinate policy and defense among the colonies against France. Benjamin Franklin and others attempt unsuccessfully to create a confederation of all colonies.
1757-1763 Seven Years (French and Indian) War against France.
1765-1770 Britain imposes tax and trade restrictions on the colonies to recoup war expenses and assert its authority (e.g., the Stamp Act and the Quartering Act, which forced colonists to house English soldiers). Most were rescinded in 1770, leaving only a duty on tea.
1773 British Coercive Acts and Boston Tea Party (Sam Adams led American rioters).
1774 Quebec Act bars westward migration (to protect Iroquois) and establishes Catholic Church in Canada. Both items offended many colonists. 1st Continental Congress called to coordinate defense. Battles of Lexington and Concord: Revolutionary War begun. British trade embargo. King formally “withdraws his protection” from Americans.
1775 Battle of Bunker Hill: American militias almost win. 2nd Continental Congress convened, sets up Continental Army. Washington made Commander-in-Chief.
1775-1781 Revolutionary War
1776 July 2nd, Congress votes independence.
1777 Articles of Confederation proposed. They were our first national constitution (with lower-case “c”).
1781 Victory at Yorktown. Articles ratified.
1783 Treaty of Paris – Britain recognizes US independence.
1786 Annapolis Convention: A few states along the Potomac send delegates to a convention to solve interstate trade problems. This becomes the model for the Federal Convention.
1787 Shays’s Rebellion in Massachusetts: Shays, a Revolutionary War army captain, leads farmers in revolt against mortgages. Congress looks weak in its failure to defend Massachusetts. In the end, Massachusetts has a strong enough militia that put down the rebellion.
Northwest Ordinance: Congress divides up new (western) territories.
Federal Convention: Congress calls meeting to revise Articles. Convention writes brand new Constitution instead.
1788 Constitution ratified; first election.
1789 President Washington and First Congress take office.
Problems of Rebellion
A great problem of political science is to explain revolutions. Childlike textbooks typically cite British policies that irritated otherwise loyal Anglo-Americans: the Crown reduced American autonomy, enacted external taxes and trade restrictions, and imposed the Quebec Act. True enough.
But two explanatory problems remain:
(1) The complaints are not obviously great enough to justify or motivate the extreme act of rebellion, in effect a civil war between lately loyal subjects and their king – not to mention their transatlantic kith and kin.
(2) Potential revolutionaries always face problems of collective action, or the achievement of shared goals – how to coordinate strategy, and then how to enforce cooperation among people who must bear quite a cost. Those problems are usually solved by the established government. But how is that a possibility among rebels?
Potential rebels face two dual problems of collective action:
- Dual problem of cooperation: (a) Government has means to compel cooperation. (b) Rebels lack the means to compel cooperation among themselves.
- Dual problem of coordination: (a) Most people wish to follow a common government (the alternative being anarchy or civil war), and the de facto government is the focal solution to their coordination problem of whom to follow—like the Santa Monica Pier. (b) Rebels usually lack a focal solution to their own problem of whom to follow: they have no Santa Monica Pier.
The solution to the collective-action problem (1) is…
is that Americans then, unlike potential rebels at many other times and places, were already well organized for coordination and cooperation: they already had long experience of self-government, with 13 full-fledged governments and a more recent practice of inter-government coordination by committees of correspondence and Continental Congresses. Those 13 governments were run by elected representatives more than by appointed officers of the Crown. There lay Britain’s undoing: the governments of England and (after 1707) Britain had delegated too much power for too long to American voters and their elected representatives down to the local level, putting in place no sheriffs or judges, no tax collectors, and no one authorized to spend money on the militia who was beholden to the Crown rather than the colonists.
The solution to the second problem:
the fact that a few taxes and trade restrictions hardly qualified as a casus belli, especially for a population that regarded itself as British and had lately welcomed British military protection, is that the Americans may have protested against some Crown policies (most of which were rescinded in response) but did not start the Revolutionary War and did not declare independence until the conflict had grown. Britain first revolutionized colonial government by asserting powers previously allowed the colonists. Then it militarily assaulted and occupied Boston and imposed martial law. Next it initiated the clash of arms by attacking Lexington and Concord. It also extended its armed assault by imposing a naval blockade, by itself a major act of war. And to top it all off, the King effectively declared his independence, before the colonists declared theirs, by “withdrawing our protection” from the American colonies.
How did the Americans do it?
Because the British let them do it by giving them self-government
Why did the Americans do it?
At first they didn’t. The British did.
Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union
the first US constitution. The only constitutionally established organ of government was Congress. Each state could send two to seven members, who could be recalled and were paid by their states. Each state had one vote.
Congress had quite a bit of nominal power but scant means of executing its directives. It taxed the states directly (not the people). It could borrow and coin money, appoint high officials, run a post office, manage Indian and foreign relations, declare war, and resolve maritime and territorial disputes.
Humdrum legislation required 9 of 13 states’ votes. Changes in the Articles required 13 out of 13 states. The president was elected for one year. Congress didn’t meet very often. A small committee ran the government and appointed executives (secretaries of War and Foreign Relations, Postmaster, Sup. of Public Finance) and other committees, including ad hoc courts to resolve interstate and maritime disputes.
Under the Articles, the U.S. did some things: it maintained a tiny army, borrowed money, collected some money from the states, sent diplomats abroad to negotiate with Britain, France, the Netherlands, and Spain, created and maintained a postal service, and established courts that resolved maritime and territorial disputes between states.
Problems with the Articles at the State level:
There was a surfeit of democracy. All-powerful legislatures emerged. For example, the Pennsylvania legislature did not respect individual rights. North Carolina and Rhode Island virtually wiped out debt obligations. Such actions undermined confidence in money, credit, and contracts, harming the prospects for economic development. Also defense appeared weak. Shays’s rebellion was seen as a failure of Congress: there was no army to protect states from rebels, Indians, the British, and the Spanish. Last, interstate tariffs caused trade between states to decline.
Problems with the Articles at the National level:
The federal government could not compel states to pay taxes. Also it had no standing army. Congress had little international clout. For example, Minister John Adams couldn’t negotiate a trade treaty with Britain because Congress lacked credibility. The British preferred to negotiate directly with each state. Also the British still had troops in the American Northwest though they had promised to withdraw them.
the benefits of federation:
- A federation facilities cooperation and coordination among states.
- Local autonomy expands benefits to all by comparison with a unitary
system. This is illustrated by the following example. Suppose our class is a country with three states-one has 80 democrats, next has 60 dems and 100 reps, the third has 80 reps-if the country is unitary, republicans would win because they outnumber democrats 180 to 60-and 180 people would be pleased with the outcome-if our country were federal, the democrats would win in state 1, the republicans in state 2 and the republicans again in state 3, making 260 pleased with the outcome
costs of the federation:
- threats to states by the central government and by big states
- founders worried about both
solution to the threat to states by central gov.
write a constitution that protected the states.
solution to the threat to states by big states
- Require the approval of a super-majority of states to make significant changes. That makes it hard to do anything drastic without an overwhelming amount of support from the states. This was Deganawida’s scheme and also the way things were under the Articles of Confederation, which gave each state one vote.
- Create new states. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 divided up the western territories conquered by Virginia during the Revolution into units that could petition to become states. Virginia gave land to the United States, and that kept one state from being all powerful.
compare this strategy with that of the leaders in the USSR and Yugoslavia trying to prevent disintegration
They did not pursue a similar strategy and ended up with severe problems. Smaller units in their federations feared domination by one very large state (Russia in USSR, Serbia in Yugoslavia). The key difference is between Clintonites, like Gov. George Clinton of N.Y. (along with Pres. Yeltsin of Russia and Pres. Milosovic of Serbia), who did not want to be dominated by any strong federation, and Jeffersonians, like Gov. Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, who conquered the Northwest, then gave it to the U.S.: The former seek to hold onto power in a narrow domain, whereas the latter are willing to accept subordination to a greater nation.
The Founding Fathers took these steps to create our Constitution:
1777 The Articles of Confederation are proposed.
1781 The Articles of Confederation are ratified.
1786 The Annapolis Convention settles water problems among Potomac states and
asks Congress to call a wider convention of states to address problems of governance under the Articles.
1787 Congress does four things:
1. A Congressional committee under Charles W. Pickney III starts revision
of the A of C.
2. Congress enacts the Northwest Ordinance.
3. Congress calls a Federal Convention to revise the A of C.
4. Congress submits the new constitution to the states for ratification.
1787-1788 The states ratify the Constitution (now with a capital C).
Eventually 27 amendments are added. But apart from them the U.S. Constitution consists of a Preamble (We the people …) and seven articles:
Article I - Congress
Congress, the national legislature, consists of a House of Representatives, with state representation proportionate to state population, and a Senate, in which each state has two votes. The House is popularly elected for two-year terms. The Senate was elected by state legislatures (no longer) for six-year terms, staggered so one-third is chosen every two years. Congress has the power to tax the people directly and to spend and borrow.
Congress can also regulate commerce and provide for national defense. Article I is most of the Constitution.
Article II-Executive
There is a President, a chief executive, who has the power to command the armed forces, appoint federal officers, and veto legislation. The President is chosen by an electoral college (as it has come to be called) whose members are elected by the states, each state choosing as many electors as it has Representatives and Senators. State law says how electors are chosen - - nowadays by popular vote.
Article III-Judiciary
Federal judges have life tenure. The Constitution establishes a Supreme Court. Lower-level courts are left for Congress to authorize.
Article IV-Interstate Comity
Provides for states to get along with each other; for example, they must recognize each others’ contracts and other legal acts and extradite fugitives and escaped slaves.
Article V-Amendments
An amendment to the Constitution must be proposed by a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress, or by a convention called by Congress at the behest of two-thirds of the states. It must then be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or ratifying conventions.
Article VI-Federal Supremacy
Whenever state and federal laws conflict, federal laws take precedence.
Article VII-Procedure for ratification
The Constitution takes effect when ratified by a majority of votes in the elected ratifying conventions of nine states.
The Federal Convention wrote the Constitution.
Process of writing the constitution
Members agreed to secrecy. Although it was summer in Philadelphia, they hid behind closed windows and thick curtains, garbed in layers of wool and linen, for 5 months.
James Madison of Virginia is considered the Father of the Constitution. Most of our knowledge of the convention comes from his posthumously published Notes.
The Convention started with Madison’s draft, called the Virginia Plan. The delegates agreed to use it as a framework. Then they altered it beyond recognition. At first there was debate and piecemeal change. Then came the appointment of the Committee on Detail headed by John Rutledge of South Carolina, who had written many state constitutions. (His claim to fame and his prosperity as a lawyer came originally from the fact that he had successfully prosecuted a white man for murdering a black man, something that didn’t happen again in South Carolina until my lifetime.) This committee wrote a new draft, which was close in content to the final version. Then came more debate and change. Finally, the Committee on Style headed by Gouverneur Morris produced the final draft of the Constitution. The words we read are ole’ Gouverneur’s. (Note the spelling.)
Sources of the Constitution
There are three distinct sources.
- Background problems, or deficiencies in the Articles of Confederation that led to the call for a Federal Convention: these are the problems they met to solve.
- Familiar Practice, or constitutional features the Founders had gotten used to, from Britain and the individual states: these were the more or less uncontroversial ways they had always done things.
- Conflict, Compromise, and Strategy, the differences among delegates and how they were resolved: here lay the hard, pivotal decisions that could easily have been made otherwise.
- Background Problems
The national government had formal authority but not the effective power to tax. As a result, it did not have the power to defend the US. It also could not effectively regulate commerce. For example, some states instituted tariffs and other barriers to trade between them. And some states made baseless paper money and required that it be accepted in payment of debts. Neither did the Confederation Congress manifest any ability to mount a military defense when needed.
- Familiar Practice
These included an elected, bicameral (two-house) legislature; the executive appointment of some high officials subject to Senate confirmation, the VP presiding over the Senate, similar to the Lord Chancellor of England, who chaired the House of Lords, and similar to state lieutenant governors.
Familiar practice also had the President as chief of state receive diplomats, issue pardons, and commission officers. These acts fell in the traditional domain of the British chief of state, the King.
Federalism of a weak sort was already in place. Constitutional rights were found in state constitutions, and there was an English Declaration of Rights. Independent courts were found in Britain and (to a degree) in the states. 3/5 of slaves were already counted for direct taxation.
To understand how issues were resolved, let us look first at how the Founders proceeded.
The Virginia Plan
-At the outset of the convention the delegates agreed to rely on the Virginia Plan as the point of departure for further debate. It was proposed by Governor Randolph of Virginia, but was drafted by James Madison. He wrote it as a shell for a constitution: it had many blanks which were to be filled in by the delegates.
-The Virginia Plan proposed the following:
1. Legislature. The lower house would by popular elected. The upper house would
be chosen by the lower house from state nominees. In both houses, states would be represented in proportion to their populations.
2. Executive. The executive would be chosen by the legislature (given the perceived impracticality of direct popular election in so large a country). It was left unspecified if the executive would be a single person or a council.
3. Council of Revision. A council was proposed that would oversee laws and their constitutionality. It could alter or veto laws.
4. Courts. The plan left the structure and jurisdiction of the court system unspecified.
5. Powers of the National Government. The plan did not lay out a list of national powers but gave the national government plenary power when the states were incompetent or harmony among them was interrupted. Also the central government had the authority to coerce states and to veto state legislation. Despite the trappings of federalism, the VA plan contained seed and soil of a unitary system of government.
Madison is generally considered to be the father of the Constitution, but…
he was on the losing side of virtually every key vote. By the end of the Convention the Virginia Plan was pretty much thrown out. Still, Madison ended up being the most prominent and articulate proponent of the final document (especially in the Federalist Papers), and his Notes is the chief record of what happened.
The New Jersey Plan
An alternative proposal, the New Jersey Plan, was preferred by the smaller states. The Articles of Confederation with a shot of Viagra, it proposed the following:
The legislature had only one chamber, in which each state had a single vote.
The executive was a board that was removable by state governors.
The plan envisioned a Supreme Court but left the rest of the court system unspecified.
Above and beyond the powers the national government possessed under the
AofC, under the NJ Plan it could also set tariffs, tax the people directly, and use force against states and individuals to compel compliance with the law.
Six Divisive Issues at the Federal Convention
- National Government Power
- Legislative Representation
- The Specific Limits of the National Government’s Power
- Counting Slaves
- Is There a Need for Federal Courts?
- Presidential Elections
- National Government Power
Nationalists (Virginia, Pennsylvania) vs. Confederationalists (New Jersey)
The issue: How much power should the federal government have? Larger states, such as Virginia and Pennsylvania, wanted a strong national government that could unite the people as a single nation. Smaller states feared national power.
Solution: (Charles W. Pickney III, who had drafted a Congressional revision of the Articles of Confederation) The principle of enumerated powers ensured that everything the federal government could do was specifically listed, chiefly in Article I, Section 8. Also the inclusion in Article VI of a Supremacy Clause ensured that if there was ever a conflict between state and federal law, federal law would take precedence.
- Legislative Representation
Large states favored proportional representation of states (number of seats proportional to population). Small states favored equal representation, as under the Articles.
Solution: The Connecticut Compromise, or Great Compromise (proposed by Sherman & Rutledge), was that the states would be represented proportionally in the House, but equally in the Senate.
There were other solutions offered. Sherman and others thought about having one chamber only with proportional representation, but requiring a majority of both representatives and state delegations to pass legislation. Pickney suggested that big states have three representatives, medium states two, and small states just one. Madison opposed all these proposals and stalled compromise for a long time because he thought that proportional representation alone was fair. It did not seem to occur to him – or anyone else, as far as I can see – that bicameralism made it impossible for a majority of states to outvote a majority of people.
- The Specific Limits of the National Government’s Power
Debate arose over whether a simple majority of Congress could pass navigation acts restricting maritime commerce to US ships. Northern states, the home of shippers and ship builders, wanted Congress to have such powers; states in the South, which sought foreign markets for its agricultural products, did not.
Debate arose also over whether the slave trade should be allowed to continue. Virginia (a tobacco growing state, less dependent on slaves) along with most of the North opposed the slave trade. (At the time, chiefly because the cotton gin had not yet been invented, everyone thought slavery would soon end.)
The solution was a compromise suggested by Rutledge that would allow the slave trade to continue until 1808 but would also accommodate the North by allowing a simple majority in Congress to legislate navigation acts.
- Counting Slaves
The North didn’t think slaves should be counted for the purposes of determining state representation, while the South did.
The North opposed the practice for moral and political reasons. Counting slaves would over-represent the South in the national government.
Solution: The three-fifths compromise said 3/5 of slaves would be counted for legislative representation but also for direct taxation of the states by the Federal Government.
The exact choice of fraction comes from a law passed by the Confederation
Congress for taxation of states and was not the subject of debate. It was a focal point (like the Santa Monica Pier) that was available then as customary practice under the AofC.
To us it seems natural to count all and only citizens eligible to vote. But remember: states varied in their property qualifications for voting, and none let women or children vote. Note that even today, representation depends on number of inhabitants, not number of citizens.
side remark on this 3/5 rule and who it benefited:
So illegal immigrants count, but they usually live in heavily Democratic districts. So which party is likely to be the more tolerant of them?
It has become common in recent years to denigrate the Founders as odious racists for counting blacks as only 3/5 of a person. BUT: those who would enforce their bondage wanted to count them as whole persons, whereas those who hated slavery and thought blacks equal to whites wanted to count slaves as zero persons. Why? Because it gave the South more seats in Congress and more electoral votes for President. For example, Thomas Jefferson would not have come close to being elected President without the extra 3/5th.
- Is There a Need for Federal Courts?
The Nationalists (those favoring a strong national government) wanted them. Others feared they would aggrandize too much power. Under the AofC there were ad hoc federal courts that did a good job resolving disputes between states but had no enforcement capability. Opponents of establishing federal courts at the Convention suggested that the Federal Government should rely on state courts to enforce federal laws. Rutledge concocted a compromise that left most of the decision about court organization to Congress. Article III said there should be a Supreme Court and that Federal judges should have life tenure but said little more. Congress was left free to rely heavily on state courts, and for a while it did. By keeping Article III short on specifics, Rutledge skirted controversy and in the long run got what he wanted: a strong, separate system of federal courts.
- Presidential Elections
- whether the president could succeed himself-Opponents of succession pointed to the dangers of intrigue and cabal. Proponents suggested that the reelection incentive was necessary for good performance.
- how the president would be chosen, by Congress or independently. -Opponents of Congressional choice (like Pennsylvania) raised objections based on the violation of the separation of powers principle and also on the danger of corrupt deals between President and Congress.
- whether states should have a proportionate or an equal voice in the selection of the president. The large and small states were predictably split.
- whether the president should be elected in one place (the national capital) or in several places (state capitals).
- almost everyone at the Convention wanted Congress to choose the President. Delegates thought the country was too big to allow direct popular vote and also that Congressional selection would protect states. However, the presidential system won. How do we explain this?
Perhaps the biggest innovation of the Convention was the…
presidential system of government. The chief alternative is the parliamentary system.
Presidential vs. Parliamentary systems
- In a parliamentary system the executive serves at the pleasure of the legislative branch. In a presidential system the executive is independently elected for a fixed term and cannot be dismissed during good behavior.
- In a presidential system the majority coalition is assembled at the time the president is elected. In a parliamentary system, if there are more than two parties, the electoral bargain is made after the election.
- In the two systems, the powers to propose, veto, and specify the details of legislation lie with different branches of government:
How Manipulation Led to the Adoption of the Presidential System
Gouverneur Morris forced the adoption of an independently chosen executive by
creating a dilemma for the delegates.
Suppose that Congress chooses the President.
If the president can succeed himself, you get intrigue and cabal, as the president offers favors for legislative votes - - something King George III did all the time.
If the president cannot succeed himself, then the president has no incentive to do a good job.
Because either outcome is bad, Gouverneur was able to convince an initially hostile convention to require an independently chosen president.
Ratification of the Constitution
According to the Constitution itself (Article VII), ratification required 9 of 13 states’ approval.
The strategy of the winners (the Federalists) was a combination of deal, delay, and argument.
