We propose a formal model that investigates the institutional cause of the expansion of the gridlock region in a legislative body under supermajority rule. We show that the interaction between a legislative election and the supermajority rule in the legislative policy-making process causes an expansion of the size of the gridlock region under certain circumstances. More specifically, if the position of the status quo is neither too moderate nor too extreme, then certain voters will be incentivized to elect a more extreme representative than themselves, and this sophisticated voting results in the expansion of the size of the gridlock region. As a result, our model demonstrates that the expansion of the gridlock region is caused in part by sophisticated voting independent of the voters’ ideological distribution.
CallanderS (2005) Electoral competition in heterogeneous districts. Journal of Political Economy113(5): 1116–1145.
11.
CallanderSKrehbielK (2014) Gridlock and delegation in a changing world. American Journal of Political Science58(4): 819–834.
12.
ChariVVJonesLEMarimonR (1997) The economics of split-ticket voting in representative democracies. American Economic Review87(5): 957–976.
13.
ChiouF-YRothenbergLS (2008) Comparing legislators and legislatures: The dynamics of legislative gridlock reconsidered. Political Analysis16(2): 197–212.
14.
ClintonJDLapinskiJS (2006) Measuring legislative accomplishment, 1877–1994. American Journal of Political Science50(1): 232–249.
15.
ColemanJJ (1999) Unified government, divided government, and party responsiveness. American Political Science Review93(4): 821–835.
16.
CoxGWMcCubbinsMD (2002) Agenda power in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1877–1986. In: BradyDWMcCubbinsMD (eds) Party, Process and Political Change in Congress. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 107–145.
17.
CoxGWMcCubbinsMD (2005) Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives. New York: Cambridge University Press.
18.
DoddLCSchraufnagelS (2009) Reconsidering party polarization and policy productivity: A curvilinear perspective. In: DoddLCOppenheimerBI (eds) Congress Reconsidered, 9th ed.Washington, DC: CQ press, pp. 393–418.
19.
EdwardsGCIIIBarrettAPeakeJ (1997) The legislative impact of divided government. American Journal of Political Science41(2): 545–563.
20.
EdwardsGCIII (2003) On Deaf Ears: The Limits of the Bully Pulpit. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
21.
EnelowJMHinichMJ (1984) The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.
22.
EstebanJRayD (2011) Linking conflict to inequality and polarization. American Economic Review101(4): 1345–1374.
23.
EthridgeME (2010) The Case for Gridlock: Democracy, Organized Power, and the Legal Foundations of American Government. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
24.
FennoRFJr (1977) U.S. House members in their constituencies: An exploration. American Political Science Review71(3): 883–917.
25.
FleisherRBondJR (2001) Evidence of increasing polarization among ordinary citizens. In: CohenJEFleisherRKantorP (eds) American Political Parties: Decline or Resurgence?Washington, DC: CQ Press, pp. 55–77.
26.
GlaeserEIPonzettoGAMShapiroJM. Strategic extremism: Why republicans and democrats divide on religious values. Quarterly Journal of Economics120(4): 1283–1330.
27.
HackerJSPiersonP (2010a) Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer – And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class. New York: Simon and Schuster.
28.
HackerJSPiersonP (2010b) Winner-take-all politics: Public policy, political organization, and the precipitous rise of top incomes in the United States. Politics and Society38(2): 152–204.
29.
HarstadB (2010) Strategic delegation and voting rules. Journal of Public Economics94(1–2): 102–113.
30.
HowellWGAdlerSCameronCet al. (2000) Divided government and the legislative productivity of congress, 1945–94. Legislative Studies Quarterly25(2): 285–312.
31.
HowellWGWoltonS (2015) The Politician’s province. Unpublished Manuscript.
32.
JacobsonGC (2000) Party polarization in National politics: The electoral connection. In: BondJRFleisherR (eds) Polarized Politics. Washington, DC: CQ Press, pp. 9–30.
33.
KahanD (2010) Fixing the communications failure. Nature463: 296–297.
34.
KellySQ (1993) Divided we govern? A reassessment. Polity25(3): 475–484.
35.
KlumppT (2010) Strategic voting and conservatism in legislative elections. Unpublished Manuscript.
36.
KrasaSPolbornM (2014) Social ideology and taxes in a differentiated candidates framework. American Economic Review104(1): 308–322.
37.
KrasaSPolbornM (2016) Political competition in legislative elections. Unpublished Manuscript.
38.
KrehbielK (1996) Institutional and partisan sources of gridlock: A theory of divided and unified government. Journal of Theoretical Politics8(1): 7–40.
39.
KrehbielK (1998) Pivotal Politics: A Theory of U.S Lawmaking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
40.
KrehbielKMeirowitzAWisemanAE (2015) A theory of competitive partisan lawmaking. Political Science Research and Methods3(3): 423–448.
41.
LevenduskyMS (2010) Clearer cues, more consistent voters: A benefit of elite polarization. Political Behavior32(1): 111–131.
42.
MayhewDR (1991) Divided We Govern: Party Control, Lawmaking, and Investigations, 1946–2002. New Haven: Yale University Press.
43.
MayhewDR (2005) Divided We Govern: Party Control, Lawmaking, and Investigations, 1946-2002. 2nd ed.New Haven: Yale University Press.
44.
MoeTMHowellWG (1999) The Presidential power of unilateral action. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization15(1): 132–179.
45.
NzelibeJOStephensonMC (2010) Complementary constraints: Separation of powers, rational voting, and constitutional design. Harvard Law Review123(3): 624–654.
46.
OrdeshookPCZengL (1997) Rational voters and strategic voting: Evidence from the 1968, 1980 and 1992 elections. Journal of Theoretical Politics9(2): 167–187.
47.
PageBIShapiroRY (1992) The Rational Public. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
48.
PalfreyTR (1984) Spatial equilibrium with entry. Review of Economic Studies51(1): 139–156.
49.
PennEM (2009) A model of farsighted voting. American Journal of Political Science53(1): 36–54.
50.
PfiffnerJP (2014) Dysfunctional politics in the United States: Origins and consequences. Papers on Parliament No. 60 (March2014). Canberra, Australia: Department of the Senate, Parliament House, pp. 17–37.
51.
PitkinHF (1967) The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
52.
PosnerEAVermeuleA (2007) The credible executive. The University of Chicago Law Review74: 865–913.
53.
SmithTW (1985a) The polls: America’s most important problems, part I: National and international. Public Opinion Quarterly49(2): 264–274.
54.
SmithTW (1985b) The polls: America’s most important problems, part II: Regional, community and personal. Public Opinion Quarterly49(3): 403–410.
55.
StephensonMCNzelibeJO (2010) Political accountability under alternative institutional regime. Journal of Theoretical Politics22(2): 139–167.
56.
WeingastBMarshallW (1988) The industrial organization of congress; or, why legislatures, like firms, are not organized as markets. Journal of Political Economy96(1): 132–163.
