Many scholars in contemporary society have tried to analyze the American congressional elections, laying much of their basis on the theoretical arguments posed by Antony Downs (1957). Downs is renowned for his stand that any party has the motive and objective to win an election, but assuming that the two parties in the competition can converge in the middle of the electoral contest. However, the authors of this article argue that, as time passed by, different scholars developed a different perspective towards the methods that motivate vying for a particular political post as distinct but attached to winning the competition.
This is achieved by the amplification of a range of electoral considerations other than electoral motives. The authors have clearly stated their objectives in the article, saying that the research aims to develop a conclusion by amplifying the two types of Downsian perspectives to help provide an insight into the factors that influence a median voter on the choices to make during an electoral process. From the assumptions by many scholars that political candidates only have electoral interests at heart any time they are vying for a political position, and the fact that their behaviour is as derived from the median voters in their district, Crispian et al., (2006) categorically choose the republican house of 1994. this is based on the idea that the house had many members who have had a high survival rate in office, thus impacting the house operations. This house’s advantage is that most members had a firm policy commitment, thus providing an essential study arena. The authors choose the topic to research so that their results would positively contribute to the grasp of the congressional behaviour. That is, the results would determine if the Neo-Downsians theory was better than the simple Downsian model in capturing the realities of congressional voting behaviour.
Any literature review aims to give an insight into the theory of the research project under testing. The authors use other scholars’ works to demonstrate the importance of the approach. For instance, Crespin et al., (2006) comment on the results from a study by Jacobson (2000), saying that the survey provided an idea which demonstrated that there was a significant difference between the activists from the democratic and republican parties, based on the average liberal-conservative on self-identification. There was a positive correlation between the ideology presented in all the voters and party identification during house elections, with a substantial increase. In addition, Crespin et al., (2006) uses the data from a study by Fiorina (1999) and elaborate on Fiorina’s methods to develop the results. Fiorina had to examine the ideas of all the activists and compare them to those of the voters. In his conclusion, he observed that the party activists increased in numbers between 1970 and 1998, more than the party voters’ corresponding difference. Based on the author’s perspective, Crespin et al., (2006) believe that most members vying for an electoral post usually have policy goals that are more personal oriented, thus influencing the members’ choice during the voting process. The authors have categorically straightforwardly subdivided their work to help elaborate the hypothesis in reference to the literature review. The first step involved in discussing the theoretical and empirical results has been founded from the initial Down’s analysis.
This helps deliver the theoretical expectations concerning the house class of 1994. Later, the authors then provide an elaborative prediction of what they aspire to regard the position taken by the members of the said class. Finally, from the theoretical and empirical review, the authors can develop a conclusion connected to the results they obtained after data analysis. Therefore, the literature review has been well developed and stated transparently, demonstrating the connection to the hypothesis being tested. This also provides a good background on the theory being tested. This can be seen in the literature being reviewed since most of the studies examined in relation to the idea at research has conclusive support to the view that there might be a chance that the party leaders sometimes conspire with the electoral representatives to limit the ability of a member to vote on specific options.
The study results demonstrate that the members vying for an electoral post have their behaviours influenced by both the urge for re-election and their personal preferences or slightly the importance of the primary constituent. In connection with the Downsian model’s prediction, the district median has a considerable influence on voting behaviour. However, Crispian et al., (2006) demonstrate a wide range of other factors that can influence voting behaviour, should the district median be held constant. Besides, the members who are seen to have the most substantial devotion to conservative positions are more likely to be conservative in the real sense; thus, it’s expected that they would be voted in. in contrast, the authors believes that the house class of 1994 was primarily on the influence form personal desires, contrary to what would be expected with regards to general elections. In his conclusion, Crespin et al., (2006) reference all the above results as conclusive evidence that Fenno’s theory (1973) and Neo-Downsians have a better explanation in capturing the realities associated with the behaviour exhibited in congressional voting, as compared to the simple Downsians theory.
Concerning the continued congress impact, which moved from the 104th congress up to the 107th, Crespin et al., (2006) demonstrates that this was the reason why there was increased partisan conflict tied to the polarization of the house during the republican control era. Therefore, the results from the research have been well articulated in conclusion by the author. From a personal perspective, there is a good flow of ideas from the results derived from the study and the ending made; thus, the article’s readers stand better to clearly understand the authors’ aim in the research and the results obtained.
The purpose of understanding politics is to create a more profound knowledge to help us understand one of the most complicated but powerful forces in operation among people and communities. Understanding politics and having a clear understanding of its happening is valuable information to any nation’s citizens. Crispin et al., (2006) help uncover the issues that happen in a house’s operations. The article also gives a hint of future research that could further open American citizens’ eyes, thus helping the Americans and the citizens in the world at larger to make an informed decision during voting. In as much as someone can enjoy analyzing what the author depicted in this article, the article itself helps one develop quantitative reasoning skills, equipping one with the ability to assess statistical arguments and thus come up with a conclusive decision.
Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row
Fenno, R. F., Jr. (1973). Congressmen in committees. Boston: Little, Brown.
Jacobson, G. J. (2000). Party polarization in national politics: The electoral connection. In J. Bond & R. Fleisher (Eds.), Polarized politics: Congress and the president in a partisan era (pp. 9-30). Washington, DC: CQ Press.Order Now