BiblioVault - Books about Parliamentary practice

DOING THE RIGHT THING

COLLECTIVE ACTION & PROCEDURAL CHOICE IN NEW LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

LAWRENCE A BECKER

The Ohio State University Press, 2005

Doing the Right Thing examines the use of extraordinary legislative procedures in four cases in the U.S. Congress to accomplish policy objectives that many political scientists would argue are impossible to achieve. It not only shows that Congress is capable of imposing parochial costs in favor of general benefits but it argues that Congress is able to do so in a variety of policy areas through the use of very different kinds of procedural mechanisms that are underappreciated.

The book opens by developing a theory of procedural choice to explain why Congress chooses to delegate in differing degrees in dealing with similar kinds of policy problems. The theory is then applied to four narrative case studies—military base closures, the Yucca Mountain Project, NAFTA, and the Tax Reform Act of 1986—that both show the variety of factors that impact procedural choice and highlight how our national legislature was able to “do the right thing.”

The book concludes by pointing to the variety of ways in which Congress will be confronted with similar policy problems in the coming years and offering some lessons from these cases about what kinds of procedures and policy outcomes we might expect. In short, Congress is remarkably adept at “doing the right thing,” even under difficult circumstances, but only when legislators are willing to manipulate procedures in all the necessary ways.

[more]

The Floor in Congressional Life

Andrew J. Taylor

University of Michigan Press, 2013

The House and the Senate floors are the only legislative forums where all members of the U.S. Congress participate and each has a vote. Andrew J. Taylor explores why floor power and floor rights in the House are more restricted than in the Senate and how these restrictions affect the legislative process. After tracing the historical development of floor rules, Taylor assesses how well they facilitate a democratic legislative process—that is, how well they facilitate deliberation, transparency, and widespread participation.

Taylor not only compares floor proceedings between the Senate and the House in recent decades; he also compares recent congressional proceedings with antebellum proceedings. This unique, systematic analysis reveals that the Senate is generally more democratic than the House—a somewhat surprising result, given that the House is usually considered the more representative and responsive of the two. Taylor concludes with recommendations for practical reforms designed to make floor debates more robust and foster representative democracy.

[more]

Notes and Comments on Robert's Rules, 3rd Edition

Jon L. Ericson

Southern Illinois University Press, 2004

This third edition of Jon Ericson’s Notes and Comments on Robert’s Rules updates all references and page numbers to the tenth edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, published in 2000. Ericson’s guide to the authoritative parliamentary resource clarifies many of the concepts and rules that intimidate or confuse the members of organizations who use it, stressing that they have a choice in—and may, in fact, modify—the rules by which they are bound.

Ericson begins with the Order of Precedence, which he defines as the key concept in understanding and utilizing parliamentary procedure. He then uses a question-and-answer format in which a logical progression of essential parliamentary questions is explicitly answered, with a rationale for each rule. Throughout, he provides specific page references to Robert’s Rules. Through these three elements, he makes classic doctrine intelligible and workable, leading the reader step-by-step through the rules and their applications and, in the process, encouraging people to feel more positive about parliamentary procedure and their ability to use it.

“Far too many members, armed—or more accurately disarmed—with a misconception of parliamentary procedure, choose to spend a lifetime wondering what is going on and lamenting or blaming others when things fail to go their way,” writes Ericson in the Introduction. “Understanding parliamentary procedure also allows a person to have more fun—not just the fun of socializing outside the business meeting—but the fun of performing in the public arena.”

A popular, concise, and clear handbook, Notes and Comments on Robert’s Rules emphasizes the simple machinery of the system, relates its concepts to the procedures most commonly used in meetings and conventions, and encourages members to obtain and study, rather than shy away from Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised. This new edition also expands the number of question-and-answer sections and surveys the research in and commentary on the field since 1991. A laminated, removable card featuring simplified charts of parliamentary motions serves as an additional resource and is included with the volume.

[more]

Notes and Comments on Robert's Rules, Fourth Edition

Jim Slaughter, Gaut Ragsdale, Jon Ericson

Southern Illinois University Press, 2012

While Robert’s Rules of Order has long been the standard guide to parliamentary procedure, many readers find the manual too daunting and complex to utilize its full potential. In Notes and Comments on "Robert’s Rules", fourth edition, authors Jim Slaughter, Gaut Ragsdale, and Jon Ericson skillfully guide users through the intricate pathways of the latest edition of Robert’s Rules, transforming the often intimidating parliamentary guidebook into an easy-to-use tool. Notes and Comments explains in simple terms the individual motions found in Robert’s Rules, presents extensive tips and suggestions regarding possible modifications to Robert’s practices; allows readers to witness the vigorous debate about the rules within the notes section; and compares major parliamentary authorities. A reader-friendly question-and-answer format provides immediate solutions to the most common quandaries that arise during the meeting process, and a card featuring simplified charts of parliamentary motions is available for the user’s quick reference.

An essential volume for members of nonprofits, voluntary associations, unions, condo and homeowner associations, student organizations, and government bodies, Notes and Comments on “Robert’s Rules” makes parliamentary procedure accessible to meeting participants as never before. Each section of this authoritative, straightforward guide is designed to empower participants with the confidence and knowledge necessary to navigate any meeting, large or small, with the utmost efficiency.

2013 Winner of the Phifer Award from the National Communication Association

[more]

On Parliamentary War

Partisan Conflict and Procedural Change in the U.S. Senate

James I. Wallner

University of Michigan Press, 2017

Dysfunction in the contemporary Senate is driven by the deteriorating relationship between the majority and minority parties in the institution. In this environment, regular order is virtually nonexistent and unorthodox parliamentary procedures are frequently needed to pass important legislation. This is because Democrats and Republicans are now fighting a parliamentary war in the Senate to help steer the future direction of the country. James Wallner presents a new, bargaining model of procedural change to better explain the persistence of the filibuster in the current polarized environment, and focuses on the dynamics ultimately responsible for the nature and direction of contested procedural change. Wallner’s model explains why Senate majorities have historically tolerated the filibuster, even when it has been used to defeat their agenda, despite having the power to eliminate it unilaterally at any point. It also improves understanding of why the then-Democratic majority chose to depart from past practice when they utilized the nuclear option to eliminate the filibuster for one of President Barack Obama’s judicial nominees in 2013. On Parliamentary War’s game-theoretic approach provides a more accurate understanding of the relationship between partisan conflict and procedural change in the contemporary Senate.

[more]

Politics Over Process

Partisan Conflict and Post-Passage Processes in the U.S. Congress

Hong Min Park, Steven S. Smith, and Ryan J. Vander Wielen

University of Michigan Press, 2018

Although the U.S. Constitution requires that the House of Representatives and the Senate pass legislation in identical form before it can be sent to the president for final approval, the process of resolving differences between the chambers has received surprisingly little scholarly attention. Hong Min Park, Steven S. Smith, and Ryan J. Vander Wielen document the dramatic changes in intercameral resolution that have occurred over recent decades, and examine the various considerations made by the chambers when determining the manner in which the House and Senate pursue conciliation. Politics Over Process demonstrates that partisan competition, increasing party polarization, and institutional reforms have encouraged the majority party to more creatively restructure post-passage processes, often avoiding the traditional standing committee and conference processes altogether.

[more]

The Power of Politicians

Tessa Jowell and Frances D’Souza

Haus Publishing, 2018

The Power of Politicians takes readers inside the workings of Parliament via an autobiographical account of Tessa Jowell’s own experience of entering politics as an MP. Jowell offers fascinating insights into the workings of Parliament and sheds light on the successful pathways for developing policy into final legislation. The details of the inner workings of politics are interwoven with a powerful personal narrative, as Jowell offers a firsthand account of the role of women in contemporary political life.

With former Lord Speaker Frances D’Souza serving as Jowell’s interlocutor, this book provides a passionate and inspiring interpretation on moral duty. Ultimately, The Power of Politicians offers not just a case study of the life and everyday work of a politician, but also attends to deeper questions about what is demanded from the political class. The overall result is a nothing less than a master class in how to be a good politician.

[more]

Reforming Legislatures

American Voters and State Ballot Measures, 1792-2020

Peverill Squire

University of Missouri Press, 2024

Legislatures are ubiquitous in the American political experience. First created in Virginia in 1619, they have existed continuously ever since. Indeed, they were established in even the most unlikely of places, notably in sparsely populated frontier settlements, and functioned as the focal point of every governing system devised.

Despite the ubiquity of state legislatures, we know remarkably little about how Americans have viewed them as organizations, in terms of their structures, rules, and procedures. But with the rise of modern public opinion surveys in the twentieth century, we now have extensive data on how Americans have gauged legislative performance throughout the many years. That said, the responses to the questions pollsters typically pose reflect partisanship, policy, and personality. Generally, respondents respond favorably to legislatures controlled by their own political party and those in power during good economic times. Incumbent lawmakers get ratings boosts from having personalities, “home styles” that mesh with those of their constituents. These relationships are important indicators of people’s thoughts regarding the current performance of their legislatures and legislators, but they tell us nothing about attitudes toward the institution and its organizational characteristics.

This study offers a unique perspective on what American voters have historically thought about legislatures as organizations and legislators as representatives. Rather than focusing on responses to surveys that ask respondents how they rate the current performance of lawmakers and legislatures, this study leverages the most significant difference between national and state politics: the existence of ballot propositions in the latter. At the national level Americans have never had any say over Congress’s structure, rules, or procedures. In contrast, at the state level they have had ample opportunities over the course of more than two centuries to shape their state legislatures. The data examined here look at how people have voted on more than 1,500 state ballot propositions targeting a wide array of legislative organizational and parliamentary features. By linking the votes on these measures with the public debates preceding them, this study documents not only how American viewed various aspects of their legislatures, but also whether their opinions held constant or shifted over time. The findings reported paint a more nuanced picture of Americans’ attitudes toward legislatures than the prevailing one derived from survey research. When presented with legislative reform measures on which concrete choices were offered and decisions on them had to be made, the analyses presented here reveal that, counter to the conventional wisdom that people loved their representatives but hated the legislature, voters usually took charitable positions toward the institution while harboring skeptical attitudes about lawmakers’ motives and behaviors.

[more]

Rule Breaking and Political Imagination

Kenneth A. Shepsle

University of Chicago Press, 2017

“Imagination may be thought of as a ‘work-around.’ It is a resourceful tactic to ‘undo’ a rule by creating a path around it without necessarily defying it. . . . Transgression, on the other hand, is rule breaking. There is no pretense of reinterpretation; it is defiance pure and simple. Whether imagination or disobedience is the source, constraints need not constrain, ties need not bind.”

So writes Kenneth A. Shepsle in his introduction to Rule Breaking and Political Imagination. Institutions are thought to channel the choices of individual actors. But what about when they do not? Throughout history, leaders and politicians have used imagination and transgression to break with constraints upon their agency. Shepsle ranges from ancient Rome to the United States Senate, and from Lyndon B. Johnson to the British House of Commons. He also explores rule breaking in less formal contexts, such as vigilantism in the Old West and the CIA’s actions in the wake of 9/11. Entertaining and thought-provoking, Rule Breaking and Political Imagination will prompt a reassessment of the nature of institutions and remind us of the critical role of political mavericks.

[more]

Turning the Legislative Thumbscrew

Minority Rights and Procedural Change in Legislative Politics

Douglas Dion

University of Michigan Press, 2001

The use of filibusters in the U.S. Senate by small numbers of members to prevent legislative action apparently desired by a majority of the members--as evidenced by the battles over civil rights legislation in the 1950s and 1960s--is legendary. Similar situations have existed in other legislative bodies over time. The fear that they will at some time be in the minority has inhibited actions by the majority groups to control the right of minority groups to block legislative action. And yet from time to time the majority in a legislative body has forced a change in the rules to control the rights of the minority. When does the majority seek to limit minority rights to obstruct legislation? Douglas Dion, in a unique study, develops a formal model to set out the conditions under which majorities will limit minority rights. He finds that when majorities are small, they will be more cohesive. This majority cohesion leads to minority obstruction, which in turn leads to majority efforts to force procedural change to control the ability of the minority to obstruct legislation. Dion then tests his findings in a rich consideration of historical cases from the nineteenth-century U.S. House of Representatives, the nineteenth- and twentieth-century U.S. Senate, the British House of Commons, and an account of the Austro-Hungarian Parliament written by Mark Twain.
Turning the Legislative Thumbscrew is a work that combines formal analysis with extensive historical evidence to address an important problem in democratic theory. Specialists in legislative politics and American political development, as well as those more broadly interested in the relationship between democratic theory and institutional structure, will find the work of great interest.
Douglas Dion is Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Michigan.

[more]