[A lot, says one prominent political scientist. But most of all,
they aren’t accountable to anyone. ]
[[link removed]]

WHAT’S THE MATTER WITH LEGISLATURES?  
[[link removed]]


 

Alan Ehrenhalt
September 25, 2023
Governing
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ A lot, says one prominent political scientist. But most of all,
they aren’t accountable to anyone. _

The Utah House of Representatives in session. , Matthew Thomas
Allen/Shutterstock

 

American democracy rests on quite a few fragile foundations, but one
of the most important is the idea that when voters go to the polls,
they more or less know what they are doing. But do they? Scholars and
journalists have been arguing about this for the past century.

The legendary pundit Walter Lippmann essentially touched off the
debate in the 1920s, when he wrote
[[link removed]]
that “the average voter has been saddled with an impossible task and
… he is asked to practice an unattainable ideal.” A few decades
later, rigorous research at the University of Michigan came to the
same conclusion.

The opposite point of view boasted its own big names. The eminent
political scientist V.O. Key Jr. famously declared
[[link removed]]
in the 1960s that “voters are not fools.” He argued that while
they might not know the details of what a candidate was proposing,
they were perfectly capable of judging the quality of government that
they had been getting. Key wrote that “the electorate behaves about
as rationally and responsibly as we should expect, given the clarity
of the alternatives presented to it.” In the decades after that, the
late political writer David Broder (a particular hero of mine)
repeatedly asserted that the voters were ahead of the politicians —
that they knew more about what they needed than those who served in
office did.

And so it went. If there was any consensus view, it was that voters
knew a fair amount about what the president was up to and a smaller
but still significant amount about what was going on in Congress. But
when it came to states and their legislatures, the skeptics appeared
to have the upper hand. One of the Michigan studies found that 30
percent of the electorate couldn’t come up with something they liked
or disliked about their elected leaders, and that 70 percent
couldn’t name anything their legislators had done for their
district. Philip Converse, one of the Michigan researchers, proclaimed
[[link removed]] that
when surveyed about state politics, most voters offered “meaningless
opinions that vary randomly in direction.”

Now the doubters have been given reinforcement by Steven Rogers, a
political scientist at St. Louis University. In a new book called
_Accountability in State Legislatures
[[link removed]]_,
Rogers argues that the reality is worse than even the die-hard
skeptics have thought: The voters are uniformly ignorant about state
politics, and the result is legislatures whose members essentially
answer to nobody. “Voters are not fools,” he concedes, echoing
V.O. Key, “but are asked to do too much in a democracy where federal
politics is king.”

THIS IS A SERIOUS FLAW IN AMERICAN GOVERNMENT because legislatures are
a crucial component of the political system. A typical legislature
considers twice as many important bills as Congress does. Legislatures
have primary responsibilities in health care, taxation, regulation of
guns and now abortion as well. And yet four-fifths of American voters
do not know who their elected state legislators are, and 40 percent
are not sure which party is in control. In Rogers’ words, “The
evidence of electoral accountability in state legislatures is meager
at best.” The legislators seem to agree. In one survey, only 15
percent of them said voters know whom to blame when something goes
wrong. “How does someone reward or punish those in power,” Rogers
asks, “if they rarely know who is in charge?”

The absence of accountability shows up in many different ways. One is
the overwhelming number of state legislative elections in which there
is little or no competition. At least one-third of the legislators
face no primary or general election opposition at all. “A staggering
number,” Rogers concludes, “win re-election by just signing up for
another term.”

This creates a state of affairs that can legitimately be described as
moral hazard, the common-sense idea that if people know they won’t
be punished for their misdeeds or mistakes, they won’t make much of
an effort to avoid them. Moral hazard is most commonly invoked as a
criticism of public policy: If corporations know they will be bailed
out in times of jeopardy, or investors know their large bank accounts
are protected, they will be tempted to take imprudent risks.

ogers creatively but rather plausibly applies the idea to electoral
politics. If state legislators know their seats are safe, and if
voters have little knowledge of what representatives are doing, what
is there to guard against mischief in the legislative chamber? Not
very much. “Why,” Rogers asks, “should a legislator work to
stimulate the economy or gain his constituents’ approval if a
voter’s election day decision is not based on his own
performance?”

THE LATE HOUSE SPEAKER TIP O’NEILL was fond of saying that all
politics is local, based on the advice of his father, and most people
who follow elections seem to accept that piece of wisdom. But when it
comes to legislative elections in the 21st century, the wisdom isn’t
so wise. “All politics are not local at the state legislative ballot
box,” Rogers tells us. “Fatherly advice is not always right.”

Politics can’t very well be local if the voters don’t know what
their representatives are doing. And so we get contests that are
supposed to turn on the successes and failures of local legislators,
but in fact merely reflect the national mood. We get election years
like 1974 and 2006, when hundreds of legislative seats changed parties
due to resentment against Watergate in one instance and the Iraq War
in the other. Or years like 1994 or 2010, when voters turned out
Democratic lawmakers at the state level not on the basis of anything
the legislature had done but because they had lost confidence in the
Democratic administration in Washington. That isn’t the way things
were designed to work.

Some political scientists respond with something we might call “the
miracle of aggregation.” The individual voter might not be
well-informed or might be mistaken, they argue, but the errors and the
ignorance balance each other out, and the result is usually a
reasonable decision. This is akin to the belief that individual jurors
in a criminal case might be prone to mistakes, but the aggregate
decision of 12 of them strikes a fair balance. Or more prosaically,
the well-documented finding that when hundreds of people are asked to
estimate the number of jelly beans in a huge jar, most of the
individual guesses will be off, but if you put them all together, you
generally arrive at a pretty accurate guess. My only quarrel with this
doctrine is that, in politics at least, there doesn’t seem to be any
evidence in its favor. When you multiply individual political
ignorance by a large number, you don’t get wisdom. What you get is
more ignorance.

ONE WAY TO UNDERSTAND OUR CURRENT PREDICAMENT is to think about the
state legislative history of the past 70 years or so. When it comes to
accountability, the climate has shifted more than once. In the 1950s,
most state legislators were accountable — in a way. They tended to
be local lawyers, merchants and insurance brokers who answered to a
business elite that had backed them. It wasn’t exactly popular
democracy, but it wasn’t moral hazard, either.

That changed in the 1970s. Ambitious young activists, mostly
Democrats, began running for legislative seats on their own, bypassing
the establishment that had chosen their predecessors. When they won,
they could do pretty much what they wanted. But they had to be careful
to work their districts and cultivate the constituents who had placed
them in office.

The 1990s saw a resurgence of party control, based initially on the
centralization of campaign funding. In the decades since then, party
dominance has increased dramatically, due in large part to
gerrymandering but also to the lockstep ideologies of those who wish
to seek legislative office. State legislators, Rogers says, are now
disproportionately a collection of ideologues and party hacks. One
might call this accountability of a sort, but it is not accountability
to the voters who keep returning them to office. The voters, contrary
to Key and Broder, don’t really know what they are doing.

Rogers offers a few modest proposals for how we might escape this
quagmire. He would like to see higher salaries and, as a more drastic
measure, an experiment with unicameral legislative bodies
[[link removed]].
But he is not optimistic. “I do not think my current judgment about
state legislatures is wrong,” he says in an outburst of candor,
“but I hope it is.”

I hope so, too. In the years since World War II, we have seen enough
changes in the makeup of state legislatures to justify a belief that
things can change again, possibly for the better. Voters are not, in
fact, fools. As we all know, it is perfectly possible to be
intelligent and ignorant at the same time. In a democracy, even one as
shaky as ours, there are moments when intelligence triumphs over
ignorance. We can all hope that one of them is coming.

Alan Ehrenhalt is a contributing editor for _Governing_. He served for
19 years as executive editor of _Governing _Magazine. He can be
reached at [email protected].

===

* state legislatures
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]

Manage subscription
[[link removed]]

Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]