Welcome to Congressional Behavior!

Ever wonder why members of Congress sometimes vote for things their voters hate, or why it seems like the two parties can never agree on anything? In this chapter, we explore Congressional Behavior. We will look at how representatives decide to vote, how political parties influence their choices, and how the drawing of district lines can change the entire balance of power in Washington D.C.

Think of this chapter as the "psychology" of Congress—we are looking at the motivations and pressures that drive our lawmakers.

1. Three Models of Representation

When a member of Congress has to vote on a bill, they usually follow one of three "models" or roles. Don't worry if these sound like jargon; they are actually very simple ways of looking at a representative's job.

A. The Delegate Model

The member of Congress acts as the voice of their constituents (the people back home). They vote exactly how the majority of their voters want, even if the representative personally disagrees.
Analogy: Think of a delegate like a waiter at a restaurant. They don't choose what you eat; they just deliver exactly what you ordered to the kitchen.

B. The Trustee Model

The member of Congress uses their own best judgment. They believe the voters "trusted" them to make the right decisions based on their expertise and access to information. They might vote against what the voters want if they believe it's better for the country in the long run.
Analogy: Think of a trustee like a doctor. You tell them your symptoms, but you "trust" them to use their medical degree to pick the right medicine, even if you don't like the taste.

C. The Politico Model

This is a hybrid of the first two. A politico acts as a delegate when the voters back home have very strong feelings about an issue (like a major local factory closing), but acts as a trustee on complex or boring issues that the public isn't paying attention to.

Key Takeaway: Lawmakers switch roles based on political pressure and the importance of the issue to their "home" district.

2. Partisanship and Gridlock

Congress is often shaped by ideological polarization—this means the two parties are moving further apart from each other. Democrats are moving more to the left, and Republicans are moving more to the right, leaving very little "middle ground."

Divided Government

This occurs when the White House (the President) is controlled by one party, and at least one house of Congress is controlled by the other party.
Example: A Republican President facing a Democratic-controlled House of Representatives.

The Consequences of Polarization

  • Gridlock: A "traffic jam" in lawmaking where nothing gets done because the parties cannot agree on anything.
  • Lame-Duck Period: This is the time between the November election and the January inauguration. During this time, an outgoing official (who lost or is retiring) has less influence because everyone is waiting for the "new person" to take over.
  • Tension in Appointments: Polarization makes it much harder for the President to get their judicial nominees (judges) confirmed by the Senate.

3. Redistricting and Gerrymandering

Every \(10\) years, the U.S. Census counts the population. This leads to reapportionment (changing the number of seats each state gets in the House). After that, state legislatures must redraw the boundaries of their congressional districts. This is called redistricting.

What is Gerrymandering?

Gerrymandering is when the party in power draws district lines in weird shapes to give their party an unfair advantage in future elections. They try to "pack" all the opposing voters into one district or "crack" them into many districts so they never have a majority.

Did you know? The term comes from a governor named Elbridge Gerry, who drew a district that looked so much like a salamander that a newspaper called it a "Gerry-mander!"

4. Required Supreme Court Cases

Because redistricting can be used to treat people unfairly, the Supreme Court has had to step in. You must know these two cases for the AP Exam.

Baker v. Carr (1962)

  • The Facts: Tennessee had not redrawn its legislative districts in decades. Urban areas had grown massive populations, while rural areas had very few people, yet both had the same amount of representation.
  • The Issue: Does the Supreme Court have the power to rule on legislative districts, or is that a "political question" for Congress to handle?
  • The Holding: The Court ruled that redistricting is not a "political question." Federal courts can hear these cases.
  • The Reasoning: Under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, every citizen's vote should carry roughly the same weight. This led to the famous principle of "one person, one vote."

Shaw v. Reno (1993)

  • The Facts: North Carolina created a very oddly shaped district (it was thin and stretched along a highway) specifically to create a "majority-minority" district so a Black representative could be elected.
  • The Issue: Can a state use race as the only factor when drawing district lines?
  • The Holding: The Court ruled that while the intentions were good, the district was so bizarre that it could only be explained as racial gerrymandering.
  • The Reasoning: Drawing districts based only on race violates the Equal Protection Clause because it treats voters as members of a racial group rather than as individuals.

5. Quick Review & Common Mistakes

Quick Review Box:
- Delegate: Votes the way voters want.
- Trustee: Votes based on personal judgment.
- Politico: Switches between both.
- Baker v. Carr (1962): "One person, one vote" (districts must be equal in population).
- Shaw v. Reno (1993): No racial gerrymandering (race can't be the only factor).

Common Mistakes to Avoid:
- Don't confuse the two cases! Remember: Baker is about Balance (population size), and Shaw is about Skin color (race-based districts).
- Don't think redistricting happens in the Senate. Only the House of Representatives has districts. Senators represent the entire state, so their "lines" (the state borders) never change!

Don't worry if this seems tricky at first! Just remember that members of Congress are always balancing the needs of their party, their own beliefs, and the people back home who have the power to vote them out.