- Each department has a will of it's own and it should be constituted that the members of the dept.'s should have little say so in the appointment of the members of the other dept.'s.
- First enable the government to control the governed. Second make sure the gov't controls itself.
-Two considerations applicable to the federal system of U.S. :
    1. In a single republic, power of the citizens is surrendered to the administration of a single gov't.  In America, the power of gov't is divided according to what issues each division will deal with.  The gov't controls the people and the divisions of gov't control each other.

    2. The society must be guarded against the oppression of dominating rulers. However, a large society is naturally going to have different interests.  The gov't cannot ignore needs of one group while meeting the needs of another.  This is a complex situation with no sure solutions.

-Constituency control opposite to the conception of representation associated with Edmund Burke. Burke desired representatives to serve the constituency’s interest but not its will
-The people of the responsible two-party system are conceived in terms of a national constituency as opposed to a local constituency.  Candidates appeal to the electorate in terms of a national party program and leadership. 
-Many Congressman keep their tenure of office secure with district benefits and federal projects, not with reacting to and acting on public opinion of their constituency.
-Congressman may try and understand policy preferences of constituents by responding to issues in terms of fairly broad evaluative dimensions. While specialized committees and executive agencies closely examine criteria that is specific to policies at hand, when proposals come before the House they are judged on more general evaluative dimensions
-Advocates of popular sovereignty regard the citizen as a kibitzer who looks over the shoulder of their legislator. 
-While kibitzer and legislator may disagree over some policy, they are thought to understand what the alternatives are.
-Most Americans, though, are nearly totally uninformed about legislative issues in Washington. 
-At best, the average citizen may have some general ideas about how the country should be run, which he or she is able to use when responding to surveys.
-Constituency can control the policy actions of the Representative in two alternative ways:
-One, the district chooses a Representative that so share their views that in following his own convictions he does his constituents will. 
-The second involves the Representative’s following constituency attitude in order to win re-election. 

• Founding fathers wanted constituency influence over Congress.
• Representatives serve in the constituency’s will instead of just the interests. This idea is contrary to Edmund Burke.
• Representations have strayed away from the doctrine of a two-party system
• The representatives, in some cases, sacrifice or skew their own agenda to fit constituency’s will to which they feel a duty for either gender issue or racial.
• Problem: issues, and views, and politics are always changing

In the Civil Right Period
 Trustee/ Burkean (Foreign Affair)
• Looking after the interest of the people
• Virtual representation
• May not vote the way the people want

Delegate/ Instructed (Civil Rights)
• Constituency tell the representatives the way they want them to vote

Responsible Party Model (Social Welfare)
• People vote for the party
• Members of the party influence representation and make them vote in interest of the people
• Vote as the party orders you to
 
 

Five questions concerning unified control, rather than divided control 
   1. Is it important that a law win enactment under conditions of divided party control?
    Under divided control, coalitions emerge, which results in legislation often without clear ends or efficient means in statutes; the effect of laws might also be lessened (i.e. 1975 Energy Policy & Conservation Act).
 Coalitions emerge, regardless of party, as regional politics is a factor (i.e. “demonstration cities” Act of 1966).
 Unified control can birth a frenzied policy, as shown by LBJ’s Great Society; the Pres. Rushed bills into law, while his Democratic Congress lasted, before fully thinking out the effects of each article of legislation.
 Divided party control does not lessen statute quality.

    2.Even if an important statute passes under divided control, what about programmatic coherence across statutes?
To understand this, there are two types of coherence:  ideological & budgetary
  A. Ideological coherence
large collections of laws that have the same ideological purpose. This has happened under both unified and divided governments (i.e. LBJ & Reagan).
  B. Budgetary coherence 
A match between revenue and expenditure across all government programs. Regarding deficits of the1980s, some argue that unified party leadership would have eliminated monetary problems, but that is hopeful at best. Deficits are exempt to partisan leadership.

    3. Doesn’t government administration suffer as a result of divided party control? 
  Some argue that the implication of divided party control has increased “micro-managing.”
 Both President & Congress monitor the other, by increasing staff to watch daily actions.
  Whether divided or unified, Presidency and Congress know much about each other, bringing them closer through facts, but sometimes polarizing them by being at varying ends on policy.

    4.  Does the conduct of foreign policy suffer under divided party  control?
Deadlocks are more likely to occur in divided control.
Foreign policy control can be a domestic conflict.

    5.  Are the country’s lower-income strata served less well under 
divided party control ?
Both parties attempt to benefit, whether it is long-term scale or immediate government involvement.
Rich can prosper when the government does nothing, but poorer are hurt w/o government participation.

 These five questions are not the only additional ones that might be asked about unified as opposed to divided party control. 
 Political parties can be a powerful instrument, but in the United States 
they seem to play more of a role as policy factions than in Britain, where they’re a governing instrument.
 American politicians at the legislative and executive levels have managed to navigate the last two centuries without becoming minions of party leaders. 
 

- For a political system to be viable it must be institutionalized 

•   Organizations must be created and sustained that are specialized to political activity,       or the political system is unstable 
• Also must be in some sense free and democratic 

• It is well bounded
• It is complex
• The organization tends to use universalistic rather than particularistic criteria

• Growth of autonomy
• Importance of committees
• Growth of specialized agencies of party leadership
• Growth of office space, salaries, allowances, staff aid, and committee staffs

• Floor leaders in the 20th century are officially designated, while in the 19th century they were informally designated
• 20th century floor leaders are separated from the committee system, while in the 19th century they were prominent committees leaders
• 20th century  floor leaders rely on the whip system

1. for a political system to be viable
        must be institutionalized
2. for it to be free and democratic
       found for institutional representatives with diversity
3. Characteristics of institutionalize
       1. well bounded
       2. complex
       3. use of universal rather than particular criteria
             automatic rather than discretionary methods of conducting internal business 
4. merit system replace favoritism and nepotism
5. as an organization institutionalizes it stabilizes membership, entry is more difficult, turnover is less frequent
example: House of Representatives
       18th-19th centuries it had a 50% turnover in 15 elections
       20th century it has much less of a turnover
       1st 27 men to be speaker of the House never died while serving
       presently, of the past 10, 6 have died while serving
6.internal complexity: 
       1. growth of autonomy
       2. importance of committees
       3. growth specialized agencies of party leadership
       4. growth of office space, salaries, allowances, staff aid, and committee staffs
7. Hamilton era: no committees
8. Jefferson era: introduction to committees
9. influence of committees has increased in 20th century
10. Henry Clay election 1810 increased committee influence/ speaker
11. Seniority becomes more important and influential within the House as the years pass between the 19th and the 20th century
12. differences:
       1. floor leaders 20th century are officially designated, 19th based on presidential favor and personal prestige
       2. 20th floor leaders are separated from committees, 19th prominent committee leaders
       3. 20th floor leaders rely on whip system
13. growth of resources has caused increase complexity 
14. Increased division of labor within the House allows rep. to be specialized and influential on key policy or committee issues
15. process develops professional norms 
 

Appropriations; Ways and Means; Interior; Post Office; Education and Labor; and Foreign Affairs.

• The six committees were examined and categorized according to orientation: 
• mostly influence oriented (App. & W and M), 
• mostly reelection oriented (Int. & P.O.), and 
• mostly policy oriented (Ed. and L & For. Aff.).
•  Fenno also found that committee patterns based upon members’ goals correspond to patterns based on environmental constraints.
• App. & W and W (influence-oriented): parent chamber served as most prominent environmental element; partisan
• Int. & P.O. (reelection-oriented): clientele groups were most prominent environmental element; pluralistic
• Ed. and L & For. Aff. (policy-oriented): virtually nothing in common with difficult behavior to describe; complex
•  “Policy coalition” is defined as the interaction of policy subjects and characteristics.  This term provides another aspect to a committee’s environment besides member’s goals and involves active participation and constraints.
•  Fenno’s research concluded that members of committees try to accommodate their personal goals to environmental expectations by using broad guidelines for decision-making.
•  Fenno later sorted the six committees into two groups based upon decision-making: 
• App./W and M/Int.- consensus on decision rules led to success.
• Ed. and L/For. Aff./P.O.- unable to formulate consensus and resulted in dissatisfaction.
•  Success on the House floor depended upon an agreement between committee members on an operative set of decision rules, and successful decision rules tended to reflect a consensus among committee members.
•  Fenno analyzed committee’s internal decision-making processes and noted three factors:
• Members’ goals.
• Pressure from outside or interest groups.
• Strategy to balance personal goals with environmental constraints.
•  Decision-making autonomy assumed high levels of committee member’s influence.
•  App./W and M/Int.- committee autonomy successful due to similar sources and results.
•  Ed. and L/For. Aff./P.O.- committee autonomy questionable because of emphasis on environmental impact.
•  Fenno explored external issues in regards to committee members and discovered that success resulted from agreement over decision-making rules, autonomy, consistency in House floor operations, and independence.
•  Fenno kept the two groups of three committees each to define corporate and permeable aspects: 
• App./W and M/Int.- corporate type of model with more influence; independence appeared most important, strengthening the feeling of group identity; corporate pride and identity; high levels of activity also were essential.
•   Ed. and L/For. Aff./P.O.- permeable type of model with a quicker response; committee activity and consensual goals led to member satisfaction; greater environmental interest and influence.
•  (All Senate committees fall under the permeable/responsive type of model.)