![]() When it comes to the Senate, the majority and minority sides (or majority and minority parties) are, by definition, matched unevenly. Absent an even matchup, the actions of the stronger side will eventually overwhelm the actions of the weaker side. Yet opposing actions can only cancel each other out when they are evenly balanced. Specifically, it is premised on the idea that gridlock happens when the two sides in a legislative debate do not want to cooperate with each other and instead act in ways that effectively prevent each other from achieving their goals inside the Senate. Implicit in this understanding of gridlock is the assumption that it occurs when a minority’s actions cancel out the actions of the majority. Both phenomena increase the size of the gridlock region and, therefore, cause more issues to get stuck in it. Gridlock, therefore, is a function of “the preferences of members of Congress regarding particular policies” and “supermajority institutions – the Senate filibuster and the Presidential veto.” Scholars designate the theoretical distance between the preferences of the median senator and those of the “filibuster pivot” as the “gridlock region.” Legislative proposals that fall inside this abstract policy space are “nearly impossible to change.”Īccording to the conventional wisdom, ideological polarization and partisan competition cause gridlock to occur. Gridlock arises in such instances because the filibuster empowers a minority of senators to act in ways that prevent a majority of senators from working to achieve their goals. The Senate is frequently gridlocked given the minority’s ability to filibuster legislation favored by the majority. Each term evokes the image of a struggle between opposing interests that ends in legislative paralysis. This is evident in the common tendency to use the term gridlock interchangeably with stalemate and deadlock. In other words, gridlock is what happens when two opposing actions cancel each other out. One prominent political scientist, Keith Krehbiel, defines the phenomenon as “the absence of policy change in equilibrium in spite of the existence of a legislative majority that favors change.” Another leading Congress scholar, Sarah Binder, suggests that it occurs when “legislators and the president have been unable to reach a compromise that alters the policy status quo.”īoth definitions assume, albeit implicitly, that gridlock occurs when a minority acts in ways that prevent the majority from acting. Needless to say, this is not how scholars think about gridlock at present. That is, the phenomenon should arise only in those situations when senators on all sides of a debate are unwilling to expend the effort required to win it. ![]() This suggests that gridlock in the Senate should be rare, but not impossible. In such instances, the Senate is unable to pass legislation because its members are unwilling to act. Gridlock arises whenever senators choose not to act- to debate legislation in committee and on the floor, offer amendments, and vote. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |