[From Clem McGowan (981227.2030) EDT]
Below is an article from the e-zine Slate that suggests -- relative to
the recent impeachment vote -- what Republicans (and Democrats) might
have been controlling for.
···
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are Republicans Ignoring the Voters?
By Bruce Gottlieb
The Republican-controlled House impeached President Clinton, and most
Republicans in the Senate seem eager to throw him out, despite polls
showing that Americans overwhelmingly do not want this to happen. It
is unusual for politicians of either party to go against such a clear
expression of the popular will. Are pro-impeachment pols courageously
acting on their own deeply held convictions, irrespective of the
political consequences? Or is there some more plausible explanation?
There are two such explanations. One is that the politics of
individual districts is different from that of the country as a
whole. The other is that, to get elected, a politician must win the
party primary as well as the general election.
In a constituency system like the U.S. Congress, it is theoretically
possible for every representative to follow the wishes of the majority
in her district and nevertheless produce a result that is against the
wishes of the majority of all voters.
Example: Suppose there are 10 congressional districts of 10 voters
each. In four districts, all ten voters are against impeachment. In
the other six districts, four voters are anti-impeachment and six are
pro. A referendum would show that 36 voters support impeachment while
64 oppose it. But if Congress members obey the majority in their
individual districts, then six will vote for impeachment and four will
vote against.
Professor Morris Fiorina of Stanford University estimates that 180 of
the 228 Republican Congressional districts favor impeachment. Assuming
that none of the Democratic districts favor impeachment, that means
180 out of 435 or 41 percent of all congressional districts have a
pro-impeachment majority. Among voters generally, only 33 percent or
so approve of Clinton's impeachment. So the constituency effect
created more districts with a pro-impeachment majority than the
pro-impeachment share of voters generally. But even if 41 percent of
all members of Congress were just slavishly following the wishes of
their own voters in supporting impeachment, what about the other 11
percent? (Fifty-two percent of the House voted for impeachment.)
That's where the primary effect comes in.Winning the primary means
appealing to the members of one's own party. Not only is the average
Republican to the right of the average voter (just as the average
Democrat is to the left), but the average Republican primary voter is
further right still. And party activists (of both parties), who are
needed to give money and help in the campaign, tend to be even more
extreme.
Politicians usually try to shift emphasis-if not make entirely
different sets of promises-between the primary and the general
election. But it is hard to shade or slice'n'dice impeachment: you're
either for it or against it. (Four Republican congressmen are already
feeling the wrath of voters after announcing the other day that they
weren't in favor of removing Clinton from office even though they had
voted for an impeachment resolution calling for just that.) Fear of a
primary challenge could cause a member of congress to vote for
impeachment even if a majority of voters in her district opposed
it. And added to the constituency factor, this could explain why a
majority of Congress voted for impeachment-against the wishes of a
majority of voters-without resort to the terrifying possibility they
were acting on principle.