The author argues that direct election intensified existing electoral incentives in the early-twentieth-century Senate, shifting the audience for senators' reelection efforts with measurable behavioral consequences. The author examines patterns of bill sponsorship, roll-call participation, and party voting in the decades surrounding the Seventeenth Amendment's ratification, a time when originally elected and originally selected senators served side by side. The author finds evidence of increased sponsorship and participation among originally elected senators. Comparing behavioral patterns before and after the constitutional amendment also reveals other important behavioral shifts toward a mass audience in the post-amendment period, including a tendency to increase constituency bill sponsorship immediately before reelection and a strengthening of the link between state partisanship and senators' party support voting.
Aldrich, John H., and David W. Rohde .2001. The logic of conditional party government: Revisiting the electoral connection. In Congress reconsidered, 7th ed., ed. Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce I. Oppenheimer.Washington, DC: CQ Press.
2.
Arnold, R. Douglas.1990. The logic of congressional action. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
3.
Bernhard, William, and Brian R. Sala .2006. The remaking of an American Senate: The 17th Amendment and ideological responsiveness. Journal of Politics68:345-57.
4.
Canon, David, Garrison Nelson, and Charles Stewart .2002. Committees in the U.S. Congress, 1789-1946. Washington, DC: CQ Press .
Canon, David, and Charles Stewart .2002. Parties and hierarchies in Senate committees, 1789-1946. In U.S. Senate exceptionalism , ed. Bruce I. Oppenheimer.Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.
7.
Carson, Jamie L., and Jeffery A. Jenkins .2007. Examining the electoral connection across time. Paper presented at the 2007 meetings of theMidwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
8.
Cohen, Linda R., and Roger G. Noll .1991. How to vote, whether to vote: Strategies for voting and abstaining on congressional roll calls. Political Behavior13:97-127.
9.
Cooper, Joseph, and Elizabeth Rybicki .2002. Analyzing institutional change: Bill introduction in the nineteenth-century Senate. In U.S. Senate exceptionalism, ed. Bruce I. Oppenheimer.Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.
10.
Crook, Sara Brandes, and John R. Hibbing .1997. A not-so-distant mirror: The 17th Amendment and institutional change. American Political Science Review91:845-54.
11.
Daynes, Byron W.1971. The impact of the direct election of senators on the political system. Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago.
12.
Elling, Richard.1982. Ideological change in the U.S. Senate: Time and electoral responsiveness. Legislative Studies Quarterly7:75-92.
13.
Fenno, Richard F., Jr.1978. Home style: House members in their districts . Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman .
14.
Forgette, Richard, and Brian R. Sala .1999. Conditional party government and member turnout on Senate recorded votes, 1873-1935. Journal of Politics61:467-84.
15.
Gailmard, Sean, and Jeffrey A. Jenkins .2006. Agency problems and electoral institutions: The 17th Amendment and representation in the Senate. Typescript , Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
16.
Haynes, George H.1938. The Senate of the United States: Its history and practice . Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
17.
Hibbing, John R.1984. The liberal hour: Electoral pressures and transfer payment voting in the United States Congress. Journal of Politics46:846-65.
18.
Hill, Jeffrey S., and Kenneth C. Williams .1993. The decline of private bills: Resource allocation, credit claiming, and the decision to delegate. American Journal of Political Science37:1008-31.
19.
Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR), and Carroll McKibbin.1997. Roster of United States congressional officeholders and biographical characteristics of members of the United States Congress, 1789-1996: Merged data. 10th ICPSR ed. Ann Arbor, MI: ICPSR [Producer and Distributor].
20.
King, Ronald F., and Susan Ellis.1996. Partisan advantage and constitutional change: The case of the Seventeenth Amendment. Studies in American Political Development10:69-102.
21.
---. 1999. Inter-party advantage and intra-party diversity: A response to Wirls. Studies in American Political Development13:31-45.
22.
Kyvig, David E.2004. Redesigning Congress: The Seventeenth and Twentieth Amendments to the Constitution. In The American Congress: The building of democracy, ed. Julian E. Zelizer.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
23.
Lapinski, John S.2004. Direct election and the emergence of the modern Senate. Typescript, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
24.
Mayhew, David.1974. Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
25.
Peltzman, Sam.1984. Constituent interest and congressional voting. Journal of Law and Economics27:181-210.
26.
Poole, Keith T., and Howard Rosenthal .1997. Congress: A political-economic history of roll-call voting. NewYork: Oxford University Press.
27.
Riker, William H.1955. The Senate and American federalism. American Political Science Review49:452-69.
28.
Schiller, Wendy J.1995. Senators as political entrepreneurs: Using bill sponsorship to shape legislative agendas. American Journal of Political Science39:186-203.
29.
---. 2006. Building careers and courting constituents: U.S. Senate representation 1889-1924. Studies in American Political Development20:185-97.
30.
Sinclair, Barbara.1989. The transformation of the U.S. Senate. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
31.
Stewart, Charles, III.1992. Responsiveness in the upper chamber: The Constitution and the institutional development of the Senate. In The Constitution and American political development: An institutional perspective, ed. Peter F. Nardulli.Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
32.
Stewart, Charles, III , and Wendy Schiller.2004. Party control and legislator loyalty in Senate elections before the adoption of the 17th Amendment . Paper presented at the 2004 meetings of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.
33.
Wawro, Gregory J., and Eric Schickler.2006. Filibuster: Obstruction and lawmaking in the U.S. Senate. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
34.
Wirls, Daniel.1999. Regionalism, rotten boroughs, race, and realignment: The Seventeenth Amendment and the politics of representation. Studies in American Political Development13:1-30.
35.
Wright, Gerald C.1976. Linear models for evaluating conditional relationships . American Journal of Political Science20:349-73.
36.
Zorn, Christopher J. W.2001. Generalized estimating equation models for correlated data: A review with applications. American Journal of Political Science45:470-90.
