Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Winning Coalition Formation in the U.S. Senate

The Effects of Legislative Decision Rules and Agenda Change

Bibliographic Data

ID13828343
AuthorsAnthony J Madonna (corresponding author)
Year2011
Volume55
Issue2
Pages276-288
Publication date2011-01-13
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueAmerican Journal of Political Science (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0092-5853 • E-ISSN: 1540-5907
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00491.x
OpenAlexW2123565796
LanguageEN
Citations received18
References cited38

Recent empirical work has brought a renewed attention to the effect congressional rules of procedure have on the size of winning coalitions. Specifically, scholars have posited that legislative success hinges on the support of legislators identified by institutionally defined decision rules. Under these theories, supermajority decision rules in the U.S. Senate lead to larger, more inclusive coalitions on final passage. In this article, I reevaluate these claims by controlling for changes in the legislative agenda and the roll-call voting record. I find that the aggregate size of winning coalitions is highly responsive to the underlying legislative agenda, the size of the Senate's majority party, and the manner in which researchers treat unrecorded votes. Further, my findings suggest that any connection between changes in the Senate's voting rules and the size of winning coalitions is spurious. Eric Schickler and Gregory J. Wawro have authored a response to this article, and Anthony J. Madonna has authored a rejoinder to this response. Both are available as Supporting Information

Law and economics · Legislature · Majority rule · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Spurious relationship · Voting · Computer Science · Electoral Systems and Political Participation · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law · Legal and Constitutional Studies · Public Administration

  • Lawmaking

    Open Access•Jamie L Carson, Mark E Owens et al.•Emerging Trends in the Social and…•2015

  • Measuring legislative collaboration

    Open Access•Bruce A Desmarais, Bruce Desmarais et al.•Social Networks•2014

  • The Purpose of Senatorial Grandstanding during Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings

    Open Access•Jessica A Schoenherr, Elizabeth A Lane et al.•Journal of Law and Courts•2020

  • Interbranch Warfare

    Open Access•Anthony J Madonna, Ryan D Williamson•Political Research Quarterly•2022

  • Tariff politics and congressional elections

    Open Access•Andrew J Clarke, J A Jenkins et al.•Journal of Theoretical Politics•2017

  • How we (should?) study Congress and history

    Open Access•Sarah Binder•Public Choice•2020

  • Viva Voce

    Open Access•Michael S Lynch, Anthony J Madonna•Social Science Quarterly•2013

  • The Establishment of Party Policy Committees in the U.S. Senate

    Open Access•Michael H Crespin, Anthony Madonna et al.•Social Science Quarterly•2015

  • Conference Committee Proposal Rights and Policy Outcomes in the States

    James M Ryan•The Journal of Politics•2014

  • Coalition Formation in the House and Senate

    Jamie L Carson, Michael S Lynch et al.•The Journal of Politics•2011

  • Party Calls and Reelection in the US Senate

    Ethan Hershberger, Ethan B Hershberger et al.•The Journal of Politics•2018

  • Veto Override Requirements and Executive Success

    Open Access•Robert J Mcgrath, Jon C Rogowski et al.•Political Science Research and…•2018

  • Veto-Proof Majorities, Legislative Procedures, and Presidential Decisions, 1981–2008

    Open Access•Linda L Fowler, Bryan W Marshall•Political Research Quarterly•2017

  • Confirmation Wars, Legislative Time, and Collateral Damage

    Open Access•Anthony J Madonna, James E Monogan et al.•Political Research Quarterly•2016

  • Partisan Governance and Minority Party Vetoes

    Open Access•Robert L Oldham, Robert Oldham•Legislative Studies Quarterly•2024

  • Pivotal Politics and the ideological content of Landmark Laws

    Open Access•Thomas Gray, Thomas R Gray et al.•Journal of Public Policy•2019

  • Regulating the Floor

    Open Access•Jamie L Carson, Anthony J Madonna et al.•American Politics Research•2016

  • New Directions in Legislative Research

    Open Access•Michael H Crespin, Anthony J Madonna•PS Political Science & Politics•2016

  • The tariff history of the United States

    F W Taussig•The tariff history of the United…•1910

  • The theory of political coalitions.

    William H Riker•The theory of political coalitions.•1962

  • Positive Theories of Congressional Institutions

    Kenneth Shepsle, Barry Weingast•Positive theories of congressional…•1995

  • Filibustering

    Gregory Koger•Filibustering•2010

  • The Political Economy of American Industrialization, 1877–1900

    Open Access•Richard Franklin Bensel•Political Economy of American…•2000

  • Veto Bargaining

    Open Access•Charles M Cameron•Veto Bargaining•2000

  • Party Influence in Congress

    Open Access•Stephanie S Smith, Steven S Smith•Party Influence in Congress•2007

  • Constituent Interest and Congressional Voting

    Sam Peltzman•The Journal of Law and Economics•1984

  • Divided we govern

    David R Mayhew•Divided we govern•1991

  • Filibuster

    Gregory J Wawro, Eric Schickler•Filibuster•2013

  • Pivotal Politics

    Keith Krehbiel•Pivotal Politics•1998

  • Pork Barrel Politics

    Eric Schickler, Diana Evans et al.•The Oxford handbook of the…•2011

  • Stacking the Senate, Changing the Nation

    Open Access•Charles Stewart, Barry R Weingast•Studies in American Political…•1992

  • Congress, The Electoral Connection

    Michael J Ross, David R Mayhew•The Western Political Quarterly•1975

  • Congress

    Open Access•Benjamin I Page•Political Science Quarterly•1975

  • The Political Economy of Benefits and Costs

    Barry R Weingast, Kenneth A Shepsle et al.•Journal of Political Economy•1981

  • Laws and Roll Calls in the U.S. Congress, 1891–1994

    Open Access•Joshua D Clinton, John S Lapinski et al.•Legislative Studies Quarterly•2008

  • The partisan paradox and the U.S. tariff, 1877–1934

    Open Access•David Epstein, Sharyn O’halloran et al.•International Organization•1996

  • American Business, Public Policy, Case-Studies, and Political Theory

    Open Access•Theodore J Lowi•World Politics•1964

  • The Evolution of Legislative Jurisdictions

    F R Baumgartner, Bryan D Jones et al.•The Journal of Politics•2000

  • Negative Agenda Control in the Senate and House

    Sean Gailmard, J A Jenkins•The Journal of Politics•2007

  • Going Nuclear, Senate Style

    Sarah A Binder, Sarah Binder et al.•Perspectives on Politics•2007

  • Legislative Voting Behavior, Seen and Unseen

    Open Access•Clifford J Carrubba, Clifford Carrubba et al.•Legislative Studies Quarterly•2008

  • Positive Theories of Congressional Institutions

    Open Access•Kenneth A Shepsle, Barry R Weingast•Legislative Studies Quarterly•1994

  • The Statistical Analysis Of Roll‐Call Data

    Open Access•Jason M Roberts•Legislative Studies Quarterly•2007

  • Taxation and the political economy of the tariff

    Open Access•John Mark Hansen•International Organization•1990

  • Measuring Legislative Accomplishment, 1877–1994

    Open Access•Joshua D Clinton, John S Lapinski•American Journal of Political…•2006

  • Political Preferences for the Pork Barrel

    Kenneth A Shepsle, Barry R Weingast•American Journal of Political…•1981

  • Where's the Pivot? Obstruction and Lawmaking in the Pre‐cloture Senate

    Open Access•Gregory J Wawro, Eric Schickler•American Journal of Political…•2004

  • A Rational Choice Perspective on Congressional Norms

    Barry R Weingast•American Journal of Political…•1979

  • Off the Record

    Open Access•Clifford J Carrubba, Matthew Gabel et al.•British Journal of Political…•2006

  • Preferences, Parties, and Legislative Productivity

    Open Access•Fang-Yi Chiou, Fang‐yi Chiou et al.•American Politics Research•2006

  • A Theory of the Calculus of Voting

    Open Access•William H Riker, Peter C Ordeshook•American Political Science Review•1968

Unique citing works18
Citations per year1,2
Citation span2011 - 2024 (14)
Citation velocityrecent
Highly citedNo
Citation typesNeutral: 18

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae