首页> 外文学位 >Partisan differences and managing the legislative process in the post-reform House.
【24h】

Partisan differences and managing the legislative process in the post-reform House.

机译:改革后的众议院的党派分歧和立法程序的管理。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Conventional scholarship on majority parties does not differentiate between how Democratic and Republican parties will exercise power once they win control of the government. Simultaneously, we know that Democrats and Republicans differ in very apparent ways. Such a puzzle begets the central question of my dissertation: do Democratic and Republican House majorities differ in how they manage the legislative process? More specifically, do Republican majorities more frequently employ procedures that limit debate and amendments on bills as compared with Democratic ones? If so, then what is it about Republicans that would make them more likely to do so, relative to earlier Democratic majorities? If not, then what makes Democratic majorities more likely to place restrictive procedures on bills than Republicans?; I argue that Republicans are more likely to employ restrictive procedures on bills because this party has historically been a top-down party, relative to the Democrats. Top-down parties have four features that make them more likely to employ such procedures. These parties: (1) have clearly defined command structures in which leaders can bind policies and norms to their subordinates; (2) can effectively employ the "whip" system and apply party discipline to disobedient members; (3) view the other party in adversarial terms and identify the other party as a threat; and (4) can more effectively resolve collection action problems than bottom-up parties.; I test whether these majorities differ on the uses of restrictive rules, the Suspension of the Rules procedure, and the conditions under which floor managers are more likely to offer amendments to bills during the post-reform period. I find that these House majorities differ in three ways. First, Republican majorities are more likely to direct the Rules Committee to place rules which restrict debate and disallow most amendments on bills. Further, Republican majorities are more likely to consider bills on the floor under the Suspension of the Rules procedure, which allows only 40 minutes of floor debate and no amendments when invoked. Finally, Republican majorities are more likely to direct floor managers to amend bills to stave off amendments from those who want to alter their bills.
机译:关于多数党的传统奖学金并未区分民主党和共和党一旦赢得政府控制权后将如何行使权力。同时,我们知道民主党人和共和党人之间存在非常明显的差异。这种困惑使我成为论文的中心问题:民主党和共和党众议院的大多数在立法程序管理上是否有所不同?更具体地说,与民主党相比,共和党多数派是否更频繁地采用限制辩论和修正法案的程序?如果是这样,那么相对于早期的民主党多数派,共和党人有什么可能使他们更有可能这样做呢?如果不是,那么是什么使民主党多数派比共和党人更有可能对法案实行限制性程序?我认为共和党人更有可能对法案采用限制性程序,因为相对于民主党,该党历来是自上而下的政党。自上而下的当事人具有四个特征,使他们更有可能采用这种程序。这些政党:(1)具有明确定义的指挥结构,领导者可以在其中将政策和规范约束于其下属; (2)可以有效地运用“鞭打”制度,对不听话的成员实行党纪; (3)以对抗性方式查看对方,并将对方视为威胁; (4)比自下而上的政党更有效地解决托收诉讼问题。我测试了这些多数因素是否在限制性规则的使用,规则的暂停程序以及在改革后的时期内楼层管理人员更有可能对法案进行修改的条件上有所不同。我发现这些众议院多数派在三个方面有所不同。首先,共和党多数派更有可能指示规则委员会制定限制辩论的规则,并禁止对法案进行大多数修改。此外,共和党多数人更有可能根据《规则中止》程序审议议案,该议案仅允许进行40分钟的场内辩论,而援引时则无修正案。最后,共和党多数派人士更可能指示楼层管理人员修改法案,以防止那些想修改法案的人采取修正案。

著录项

  • 作者

    Moffett, Ken Wayne.;

  • 作者单位

    The University of Iowa.;

  • 授予单位 The University of Iowa.;
  • 学科 Political Science General.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2006
  • 页码 172 p.
  • 总页数 172
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 政治理论;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号