Partisan Patterns of House Leadership Change, 1789—1977

Abstract

This study of 364 leadership selections in the U.S. House from 1789 through 1977 discovered that Democrats have a higher proportion of appointed leaders than Republicans; their leaders move between posts in an ordered succession; their appointed leaders are often “removed from above” by their elected ones; and their leaders are subjected to infrequent and unsuccessful caucus challenges. Republicans rely upon election to choose their leaders; their leaders' rate of interpositional mobility is very low; their appointed leaders were never removed by their elected ones; and their leaders face the contests at the same rate as the Democrats do, but the incidence of successful challenges is much greater. They are “removed from below.”Majority vs. minority status had little statistically significant impact upon leadership contests and what variation appeared indicated that challenges were more frequent in the majority party where the stakes are higher and the rewards are greater than in the minority. Regardless of electoral consequences, however, Republican leaders are more vulnerable to caucus defeat than Democratic ones, which lends further support to the contention that party identity is more important than party status.

Congressional Parties and the Mobilization of Leadership PAC Contributions

“…Additionally, as the political environment changes, the attributes parties look for in leaders change (Loomis, 1984;Nelson, 1977;Peabody, 1976). As parties mobilized to contest the battle for majority control, they placed greater emphasis on their members' abilities to serve the party's collective electoral good, making the provision of campaign funds a de facto criterion for advancement in committee and party hierarchies (Heberlig et al, 2006).…”

“…How the parties define their collective interests and translate them into intra-institutional advancement structures depends on both the politics of the caucus and the external political environment (Aldrich, 1995;Nelson, 1977). If the majority party caucus is ideologically heterogeneous, for example, the caucus delegates limited (mostly negative) agenda-setting powers to its leaders and promotes leaders who will facilitate individual members' goal achievement and work to bridge the factional divisions within the party (Aldrich, 1995;Cooper and Brady, 1980;McCubbins, 1993, 2005).…”

McCormack Versus Udall

“…10 Ultimately, Udall won a sizable number of votes in the party caucus. Although the 58 votes he received were fewer than the 85 he had expected, it was still the largest number of recorded votes ever cast against an incumbent speaker in the party caucus in the 20th century (Nelson, 1977;Peabody, 1976, p. 164). Although McCormack won the vote, it weakened him politically and signaled the growing influence of younger party liberals over Democratic policymaking in the House.…”

Leadership Choice and Party Performance: The Democratic Takeover of the 110th Congress—Editor's Introduction

“…Indeed, for some time after the classic studies of legislative leadership choice~Peabody 1967;1976;Polsby 1969;Nelson 1977! Indeed, for some time after the classic studies of legislative leadership choice~Peabody 1967;1976;Polsby 1969;Nelson 1977!…”