Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS - THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT: US CONGRESS
GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS - THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT: US CONGRESS
TERMINOLOGY
Congress - the legislative branch of the federal government and its role is described in Article 1 of the Constitution - shows the clear intention of the framers of the constitution that Congress was to have a dominant role. The constitution gives all legislative power to Congress to make laws for the USA although today, because of vastly changed conditions, it tends to follow a presidential agenda
Congress may be the most powerful legislature in the world, but it operates under a codified constitution with separated powers from the other branches of government and checks and balances to limit its powers - its legislative powers are also constrained in the Bill of Rights, with the 1st amendment starting 'Congress shall make no law' as befits the framers' desire for limited government - has been described as policy-making rather than a policy-influencing legislature - unusual as most modern legislatures are executive dominated
Bicameralism - the framers deliberately created a Congress of two chambers with different terms of office, representation and powers, as additional checks and balances against the concentration of power and potential tyranny. Although they must mainly work together to get things done, they remain two different houses and the outcomes of their deliberations will be different as they represent different electorates, have different roles and exercise different powers
Presidential veto - a bill can be significantly amended by Congress before reaching the president's desk for signing into law, which may mean that the president will use his veto power to reject the entire bill - in conditions of divided government the veto may be used more frequently to kill legislation passed against the president's agenda and Congress may attempt to override the veto
Impeachment process - impeachment is a rare congressional procedure involving formal accusation of wrongdoing by the House, which draws up the Articles of impeachment (for personal not policy failures) with the Senate trying and convicting if a two-thirds majority agrees - impeachment is the only way a president can be removed from office by Congress
Advice and consent powers - the exclusive confirmation of power of the Senate gives it power over the president's choice of executive branch members, Supreme Court justices and the federal judiciary - the ratification power allows oversight of the president's foreign policy through acceptance or rejection of negotiated treaties - these powers can be highly politicised especially during periods of divided government
Pork barrelling - in the legislative process - members of Congress try to gain constituency advantage by gaining 'pork from the federal pork barrel through adding 'riders' or 'earmarks' to legislation, thus gaining federal funds for projects in their states and districts, such as road building or military bases - pork barrelling links with home-style activities and incumbency advantage but can lead to budget deficits and wasteful expenditure in the nations's economy
Filibuster - senate traditions allow filibuster tactics of 'talking out' a bill to force its death through delay - although filibusters can be ended with a 60-member cloture vote - this is rare and they are becoming more common in an increasingly partisan climate - if a party has fewer than 60 Senate seats the opposing party will use the filibuster to end or significantly delay legislation it dislikes
Gridlock - the separation of legislative and executive branches and associated checks and balances leads to difficulties in reaching agreed policy decisions - gridlock is especially common when there is both divided government and excessive partisanship, making compromise, bargaining and consensus difficult or even impossible - hence dysfunctional inaction seen in reaching an agreement of deficit reduction in 2011
WHY IS CONGRESS SO POWERFUL?
is independent from the executive branch of government and cannot be controlled by it - Congress can and does ignore or over-rule presidential policies
it controls the purse-strings a particular function of the House of Representatives
It is the representative assembly of the USA - the voice of the people
It has many constitutional powers both enumerated and implied
BICAMERALISM
congress is made up of two different but equally powerful house, the House of Representatives and the Senate - the constitution deliberately created two houses that would check and balance each other and respond in different ways to different constituencies and pressures - known as bicameralism
Difference in representation between the House and the Senate
House of Representatives
There are 435 districts and they are apportioned according to the population of the state - the more populous the state, the greater the number of districts within it - California the state with the largest population has 53 districts - in small states with low populations e.g. south dakota, the whole state is one district
the allocation of districts to states may alter after every census (the last was in 2010) as states can gain or lose districts according to population change - known as re-apportionment - this in turn leads to the need to redraw the boundaries of districts - this re-districting is usually done by partisan state legislatures and is often controversial because of gerrymandering (altering the boundaries for party advantage)
House of Representatives represent districts within states
Senate
the Senate represents whole states
Because of the Connecticut compromise, there is equal representation of the states, with two senators per state regardless of size or population - however this representation has been criticized as unfair because e.g. Wyoming (population around 580 000) has the same Senate representation as California (population over 38 million)
Different terms of office
House of Representatives is elected for 2-year terms of office - intention was to keep representatives highly responsive to the wishes of the people and the effect of these very short terms does make re-election their prime motivating force
the House is a more parochial chamber than the Senate, dominated by the constituency interests of 'folks back home' and the voting record of more House members reflects the views and interests of their district
Senators are elected for 6-year terms but elections for the Senate are staggered with a third of the senators up for re-election every 2 years in both mid-term and presidential elections
intention was that senators would be more like national statesmen above the fray with a more long-term view on political issues compared to their more populist counterparts in the House
The longer terms of the senators protect them from the populist 'whims of the day' and the fact that they represent states with a huge diversity of interests within them means that they are less parochial than the House Representatives in their voting
Different status and prestige
generally held that the Senate is the more prestigious and sought-after chamber - reasons for this:
being a senator involves being part of a more elite and select group, and with only 100 members there is more opportunity to sit on and even chair important committees - a congressman/woman is only one of 435 members
a senators term is longer, meaning that there is less of a focus on re-election and greater job security
Congressmen/women can be threatened by partisan re-districting (gerrymandering) every 10 years
Senate has more exclusive powers
a senator is likely to have a higher profile within a state and possibly nationally
Senate is a much better 'talent pool' for executive office - many presidents and vice-presidents have come up from the Senate e.g. Obama and Biden - by contrast very few have reached the White House directly from the House
Many senators have previously served as congressmen/women but virtually none have made the journey the other way
The constitutional powers of the House and the Senate
The House and the Senate share some powers - these are termed concurrent powers - but in other areas one chamber may exercise sole powers - these are known as exclusive powers
Examples of concurrent powers constitution gives both houses
legislative power including the power to override the presidents vet - the approval of both chambers is necessary for a bill to become law provided the president does not veto it
a role if the Electoral College is deadlocked after a presidential election
scrutiny and oversight of the executive
the power to declare war
the power to propose and pass constitutional amendments with a two-thirds majority
A role in the impeachment process for 'high crimes and misdemeanors' - The House draws up the Articles of Impeachment and the Senate conducts the trial - Clinton was found guilty at his impeachment trial in 1998 for perjury and obstruction of justice and Nixon resigned before his likely impeachment in 1974 over Watergate
Examples of exclusive powers
The House of Representatives has the power to originate all money bills - e.g. taxation is considered first in the House and then in the Senate - this gives the House the power to set the financial agenda and to control the purse strings of government through its powerful ways and means and appropriations committees
The Senate has advice and consent powers which means it has the power to confirm both presidential appointments and to ratify treaties
Confirmation - requires a simple majority vote for presidential appointments such as Supreme Court justices, cabinet secretaries and ambassadors - the Senate has occasionally used these powers to deny a president's chosen nominee e.g. the rejection of Reagan's choice of Bork for the Supreme Court in 1987 - most recent case was over 20 years ago when the Senate rejected George Bush seniors choice of John Tower as defense secretary in 1989
Ratification - requires a two-thirds majority for treaties that have been negotiated by the president, who is chief diplomat e.g. the start treaty ratified 71-26 in 2010 - gives the Senate some power over US foreign policy although presidents have often resorted to the use of executive agreements to avoid the need for Senate ratification as it has rejected several negotiated treaties such as Versailles in 1919 and SALTII in 1979 - most recently in 2012 the Senate rejected a UN treaty on the rights of the disabled as conservative Republicans felt it could impinge on US sovereignty - treaty fell 5 votes short of the necessary two thirds majority
Internal workings/procedures of the two houses
the House chaired by the speaker operates in a more formal and procedural way with rules and limits on debate as befits a chamber of 435 members
the smaller Senate chaired by the vice-president who can vote only to break a tied vote has procedures that are more informal and less rule-bound - the Senate has a tradition of unlimited debate which gives rise to the infamous Senate filibuster
Both House and Senate members are involved in
committees and subcommittees both permanent and ad hoc
pork barrelling or 'bringing home the bacon' on spending bills
'log rolling' - vote trading on bills
coalition building to gain a majority of votes
party congressional caucuses
party ties are still looser than they are at Westminster but have strengthened over past 30 years - in part due to the two parties becoming more polarised and there are fewer moderates or centrists in both houses of congress
increasingly legislators have to make sure their voting record accords with the views of the 'core' back home - is local party activists who often play a big part in bringing about a defeat in the state primaries of a legislator they feel has been too 'moderate' - happened in 2010 to Bob Bennett a long-serving Republican senator for Utah who had displeased local Tea Party supporters in his state
CONGRESS AND LEGISLATION
the legislative process in Congress is frequently described as an obstacle course - words associated with it are often negative e.d. block, pigeon hole, veto - only a small fraction of bills introduced by Congress actually pass - usually less than 10% and their failure is often unrelated to their merits as in the case of healthcare reform in the 1990's or civil rights in the 1950's - bills are especially vulnerable to defeat if they are controversial or opposed by powerful special interests - bills can be so significantly amended during the process that they become unrecognisable
are circumstances where bills have passed easily without being mired in the legislative labyrinth e.g. the Patriot Act passed on a wave of patriotism and deference to the commander-in-chief after 9/11
How is legislation initiated in the USA?
legislation can only be initiated by a member of Congress (all members have legislative initiative) although most legislation today originates from a presidential agenda with policy goals outlined in the president's state of the union address in January - is followed by the Presidential budget which must be passed by both houses
however although 'the Presidential proposes, Congress disposes' all legislative proposals have to be introduced by a member of each house and must pass through both houses concurrently - is no guarantee that legislation or the budget will pass in the way the president wishes it to especially if there is divided government and presidential-congressional relations are poor or if the houses have different party majorities as seen after the 2010 mid-term elections
Why is the legislative process so difficult?
main reason for legislative failure is the number of veto points in both the House and the Senate where a bill may fail
House standing committee stage - most bills die here as they are pigeon-holed by the chair thus taken off the committees agenda for the session
House subcommittee stage - here the bill is examined in detail in hearings with evidence taken from interested parties such as lobbyists or executive branch officials - the bill can be significantly amended at this stage as pork barrelling occurs with numerous amendments or riders added to the bill to benefit constituents or special interests - bill can fail at this stage
House rules committee - powerful committee decides whether to give time to the bill on the floor of the House for debate - if this is not given the bill dies
floor debate - the amended bill is debated by the whole chamber - log rolling, the exchange of votes and trading of favours by the representatives may occur - although there are whips and some ideological voting there is relatively little party discipline and most members are more mindful of the folks back home or special interests in the roll-call voting at the end of the debate - the bill may fail on this floor vote
the bill follows similar stages in the Senate - it may fail in debate here due to a filibuster the classic legislative delaying tactic whereby senators can individually or collectively 'talk out' a bill to defeat it - the filibuster is used because of the unlimited debate that is allowed and is a jealousy guarded tactic employed by both parties when they are in a minority position in the Senate - since 1975 it has been possible to end a filibuster through 'cloture' but this needs 60 votes which are hard to gain so defeat can come here - the bill can also fail in a vote at the end of Senate debate
because the bill passes through both houses concurrently it is likely that a different bill will emerge from both - the two different bills will need to be reconciled so an agreed bill can be sent to the White House - this is done through a Conference Committee where senators and representatives try to reach a consensus through bargaining and compromise - if this cannot be done then the bill dies
if reconciled the bill needs to go back to both chambers for a final simple majority vote - it can still die here in either chamber
because of the separation of powers and checks and balances the bill has to be signed by the president to become federal law - president may veto the whole bill (he has no 'line item veto' to turn down just parts he doesn't like as this was declared unconstitutional in 1998)
if veto is not overridden by a two-thirds vote in both houses and the veto is sustained then the bill fails
During his first term Obama vetoed two bills in an all-time low - neither veto was overridden
a president may 'pocket veto' a bill which means he ignores it - if near the end of a congressional session then the bill will die
even if the bill becomes law it can still be challenged in the courts, and the Supreme Court using its power of judicial review can declare it (or parts of it) unconstitutional and therefore void
the government shutdown in October 2013 was essentially because the House and Senate (controlled by different parties) could not agree on the budget - was an example of the problems that can arise when the two parts of Congress (and the President) cannot agree
legislative process in congress
the separation of powers and numerous checks and balances make the process of law making difficult
the built-in tensions between the two houses and between Congress and president as they are elected separately with few shared mandates, often lead to gridlock
the absence of strong party loyalty or effective party discipline of the sort seen in the UK Parliament, may lead to a lack of party unity on votes - Clinton's healthcare bill was defeated in 1994 even with a Democratic Congress - Obama struggled to gain support from conservative members of his own party for healthcare reform in 2009
coalitions have to be built on each separate bill to construct a majority of votes - the President has only the power to persuade through his congressional liaison office
congress blocks legislation on the president's agenda more effectively than it provides an alternative agenda of its own - hence why congress is sometimes known as the 'bastion of negation'
members of congress pork barrel in order to provide projects in their districts or states to help their re-election - they are less effective in providing a long-term or national perspective on policy or agreed solutions unless there is a major event such as 9/11 or the 2008 banking crisis
all of these factors below lead to criticisms of the legislative process in the US congress
does avoid the criticisms of executive dominance and elective dictatorship found in the UK - the process means there is a constant need to compromise and bargain to try to reach a consensus before the successful passage of federal law - although some may argue that such compromise eventually pleases no one
CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT
the power of congress to scrutinise and check the activities of the executive branch of government and hold it to account - although the constitution does not explicitly give this power to Congress it is through
the legislative process
congress's control of the purse strings of government through taxation and spending
the Senate's advice and consent powes
the impeachment process
when the federal government was small, oversight was relatively unimportant - however it is now one of the main functions of congress in conditions of big and complex government
Congressional committees
oversight done through powerful permanent standing committees and is made even more effective by the huge number of congressional staff and resources devoted to oversight on Capitol Hill such as the Congressional Budget Office
all legislatures have committee systems within them - drawn from the larger body and with specific responsibilities - often said that the floors of the chambers are for debating while the smaller committees are for working - Woodrow Wilson 1884 - 'congressional government is committee government: Congress in its committee rooms is Congress at work.'
Why are congressional committees so powerful?
congressional committees have a key role in the legislative process, reviewing all bills in their area with the power to pigeon-hole, amend or block
their permanence and huge committee staffs mean that they develop policy specialisation and expertise which balances that of the executive branch
they conduct public hearings and have extensive oversight powers over cabinet secretaries or agency heads with power to subpoena witnesses
they have close links with the federal departments and agencies that they oversee and finance and also with pressure groups - these links are called 'iron triangles' and can dominate areas of policy making e.g. the relationship between the 'military-industrial complex' of the Pentagon - the armed services committees and defence contractors
the 'blue ribbon' committees are especially important - e.g. those dealing with taxation (ways and means) and spending (appropriations or senate finance) and those with influence in foreign policy such as Senate foreign relations - the judiciary committee conducts confirmation hearings for Supreme court justices - the House Rules Committee cab block legislation
How is membership of congressional committees decided?
members of committees are chosen by the party committees and membership is according to party strength
the chairs of the committees are very powerful and always come from the majority party
most members of Congress want committee assignments affecting their constituency interests where they can effectively pork-barrel
those from farming districts and states will want to be on the agriculture committee while those representing urban districts will want to be a member of a committee dealing with urban affairs
members 'claim credit' for their committee activities in their re-election campaigns (which their challengers cannot do)
How important is the role of party in congress?
congress has a relatively weak party system within it and members of congress are relatively independent of strong party ties
one reason being the way members of congress are elected - although all are elected with a party label (apart from a few independents such as Bernie Sauders from Vermont) they will generally raise their own campaign finance - will also run their own personalised election campaigns based on their individual views and the views prevalent in their districts or states
have been described as 'independent political entrepreneurs' - when they achieve success through their own personal efforts they do not feel beholden to their party for their election - as a result until recently there has been relatively little party cohesion with each House member and senator more attuned to their voters' wishes than to their party ties
many members of Congress do have their own ideological views on issues and this influences the way they vote - does not necessarily coincide with voting with their party
USA used to have no equivalent of manifestos or clear mandates - this perhaps hampered the development of the sort of party cohesion found in the UK
in 1994 mid-term elections however House Republicans ran on a de facto manifesto called the 'contract with America' containing a clear reform agenda of conservative policies such as a balanced budget that they were all committed to support - partly in response to this in 2006 the Democrats ran on a platform called 'six for 06' outlining six broad legislative goals such as healthcare reform
is some degree of party linkage found in both houses with the majority of Republicans voting against a majority of Democrats on most issues
party influence
apart from the leadership role in congress of the committee chairs there are also majority and minority party leaders in both houses who organise party business - is also the house speaker who is in effect a leader of the party caucus and the link between the power centres in Congress - all serve to provide some degree of party unity and organisation which is increasing although not to the levels found in in the UK Parliament
are whips who try to achieve party cohesion in votes by persuasion and bargaining - however they are limited in their efforts as there are no carrots of office that can be used to influence members' behaviour and no sticks of discipline to use against rebels voting against their party - there is some evidence of attempts to influence party voting such as increasing party control through allocation of committee assignments
to some extent legislative success depends on the persuasion skills of the party brokers e.g. famous 'Johnson treatment' applied by LBJ to fellow senators when he was Senate majority leader in 1950s - success can also depend on the variable persuasion skills of the white house incumbent on different issues at different time G W Bush had support from a House Republican majority in passing his legislative agenda between 2001 and 2006 although Obama struggled to pass his agenda after 2009 without making huge compromises such as those on healthcare reform
in effect there is little that can be done to persuade members to vote with their party if they do not wish to - most voters are bi-partisan and there are 'shifting coalitions' of votes on different issues e.g. eight moderate Republican senators including Susan Collins from Maine and Mark Krik from Illinois (obama's home state) voted with the Democrats in 2010 to repeal the Don't ask Don't tell policy which had previously banned gays from serving in the armed forces
however, although lacking the party loyalty, discipline and leadership of UK House of Commons party membership still provides the best predictor of the vote in both houses of Congress
Growing party cohesion/partisanship in Congress
there is strong evidence of growing party cohesion as a result of the more ideological politics of the Reagan era and its legacy of more coherent ideological conservatism - since the capture of the House in 2010 under the influence of the Tea Party - Republican party in Congress has become more conservative and very cohesive in voting against the Obama agenda especially on tax cuts and spending and reducing the deficit
democrat party also became ideologically more liberal and cohesive helped by its loss of its southern conservative wing through electoral defeats or by defections in congress - led to more party voting and party unity on votes - nowhere near the level seen in the House of Commons - is some evidence that the Democrat party has become more ideologically cohesive and liberal under the influence of Nancy Pelosi in the House and Harry Reid in the Senate
some members of Congress will vote with their party over 90% of the time - others much less so - in general members of Congress will vote with their party unless there are significant local pressures on them not to do so - otherwise the folk back home in the district or state are the most important influence on roll-call votes which are recorded and can be published back in the district or used by pressure groups
Pressure Groups
pressure groups and their lobbyists seek access to members of Congress and become active on all issues affecting their interests e.g. NRA on gun law reform
can gain access and influence by helping to fund campaigns or providing specialised advice to congressional committees or because they are representing millions of voters who members of Congress don't want to alienate
members of congress also wish to avoid being targeted for electoral defeat if they speak out against powerful lobbies in the USA
The White House
influence of the White House and the president's congressional liaison team - presidential persuasion may be effective or not
may be helpful party linkages e.g Obama had democrat majorities in both the House and Senate between 2009 and 2011 and is an ex-senator and therefore a Washington insider - used to the ways of Congress - President Bush = ex-governor struggled in his last two lame-duck years to get any agreement from Congress for his political agenda as did Obama after the Republican takeover of the House in 2011
The congressional caucuses
are cross-party coalitions of members of Congress who share the same or similar ideology, ethnicity or regional interests - e.g. black caucus (all democrat) who vote and act together on issues relating to the specific interests of black americans such as affirmative action, and the Hispanic caucus uniting on issues such as immigration policy - has been a tea party caucus in the House and Senate since 2009
CONGRESS AND REPRESENTATION
in addition to its legislative and oversight functions, Congress is the representative assembly for the USA - both houses of Congress have a function of representation of the views and interests of the people in their districts and states - is given the highest priority by members of Congress who take their role as 'representatives of the people' more seriously than most other democratically elected representatives
Congressional elections
take place every 2 years when all the Representatives and one-third of the Senate are elected - elections tend to be fought around local issues rather than national ones and there is a 'locality rule' that those standing for election should be residents of the state or district they represent thus strengthening the idea that 'all politics is local'
in elections members of congress stress their commitment to constituency service rather than loyalty to party - usually leading to a very high re-election rate (over 90%) - argued that the incumbency advantage is now so great that congressional elections are no longer competitive in very 'safe' districts and states although members may now be more likely to face primary challenges as some Republicans did in 2010 from Tea Party challengers to their right
Why are incumbents re-elected?
their huge resources such as staffs in the state or district as well as washington and free mailing for publicity called the 'franking privilege'
their name and face recognition and 'visibility' in the district or state thanks to constant local media coverage
their opportunities to serve their constituents' interests such as 'bringing home the bacon' to their districts or states and then 'credit claiming' for all they have done for their constituents while in Washington
their huge campaign war chests from special interests and political action committees who wish to gain access to them - in 2012 congressional elections senate incumbents raised average of over $4.6 million each while the average challenger could only muster around 320 000 dollars
the gerrymandering of districts by partisan state legislatures redrawing boundaries to make them even more 'safe' though that hostile re-districting by the other party can pose a significant threat to an incumbent
the difficulties faced by any challengers of showing that they could provide a better service to constituents
is still possible for challengers to beat incumbents with e.g.
an anti-washington 'kick the bums out' mood in the country as in 2008 and 2010 when Tea Party Movement influence was evident in many districts and states
a particular unpopular member of Congress targeted for defeat usually because of some ethics scandal e.g. 2008 William Jefferson from a very safe Democrat district in Louisiana failed to be re-elected following allegations of racketeering and bribery - FBI apparently found $900 000 stashed in one of his freezers
a huge campaign war chest to outspend the incumbent e.g. 2012 Democrat challenger Elizabeth Warren outspent and defeated the Republican incumbent Scott Brown in the Massachusetts senate race
these circumstances have been rare and only 'open' seats have provided real competition - is paradoxical that Congress as an institution is highly unpopular in the USA - approval ratings shrank to 10% according to a poll in September 2013 - but most Americans support and vote for their incumbent representative or senator
Members of congress and constituency service
first congress established that representatives should act as trustees for the whole nation not as mere delegates of their constitutions
however today the majority of members of Congress spend time of constituency rather than national service through their successful pork-barrelling which pleases their constituents but does little to reduce budget deficit or the national debt
members of congress are the link between their constituents and the huge and impersonal bureaucracies based in Washington and they help their constituents with problems such as Medicare, veteran's programmes and tax or employment issues - is these 'home-style' activities that members of Congress can claim credit for that normally secures their re-election
criticisms made of members who appear too concerned with providing benefits to their home state or district to the detriment of the national interest of the USA as a whole
however when they get pork-barrel federally funded projects for their districts they are representing their constituents just as they are when they oppose progressive income taxes if they represent a wealthy district
re-election is the true test of democracy as this is the major check that voters have over their representatives and their behaviour in Congress
Who should a representative represent?
should they represent their state or district and local interests or the party label they were elected on - the party interests or the national interest
in reality they have to balance all three - often competing pressures as best they can
one theory put forward by Edmund Burke - state that elected representatives are trustees of their constituents and the nation - burkean notion is that representatives are elected to exercise their judgement on behalf of those they represent and they are not merely delegates of their constituents mandated to speak for their interests alone - is more to representative democracy than serving the immediate whims of volatile constituents who have very different views on issues anyway - representatives of the people should speak and vote for the good of the whole nation - according to Burke a Congress full of representatives concerned with narrow constituency interests is not doing what a representative assembly should be doing
this is increasingly difficult as many legislators especially in the House are worries about upsetting the 'core' in their area who are the most likely to vote in a party primary and may work to defeat a representative they feel is not sufficiently in tune with their own views - problem is that their views are often more extreme than those of the ordinary voter - so a legislator must also be wary of alienating more moderate and independent voters - must also of course be aware of the national interest and their wider responsibilites
How representative are members of Congress?
elected representatives in Congress do not accurately reflect the social make-up of America - despite the huge social, economic, ethnic, racial and religious diversity of the American people congress does not 'look like them' - does not fit in with the resemblance model of representation as Congress is largely 'white, male, middle class and middle aged' and dominated by lawyers and other educated professionals
following elections to the 113th Congress in 2012 it heralded the most diverse make-up
record number of women election - yet still only 20% of the Senate and 10% of the House
just 10% of the House and 1% of the Senate African-American who compromise roughly 12.5% of the population
only 32 members of Congress from a Hispanic background while Hispanics compromise roughly 16% of the US population
first openly gay senator - Tammy Baldwin from Wisconsin - elected
new congress more religiously diverse including first openly atheist member - though 20% of Americans now describe themselves as non-religious, first Buddhist and Hindu Congressman
around 40% of Congress are millionaires and the net worth of all its members is over $2 billion
the average age in the House is 58 and in the Senate it is 61 - median age in the USA as a whole is just under 38
however anyone can in theory stand for Congress if they fulfill the constitutional age, citizenship and residence requirements - are no formal barriers to a more socially representative Congress - despite figures shown it is more diverse now than in the past - with more women and ethnic minority members due to factors such as:
the changing role of women generally and the growth of political action committees (PACs) supporting women candidates such as Emily's list
growing black and Hispanic activism and political involvement
the impact of majority-minority districts (districts with a black or Hispanic majority) shaped to gain greater representation for minority populations - following re-districting after the 2010 census there were 27 districts with an African-American majority and 30 with a Hispanic majority
Why is Congress still socially unrepresentative?
'ordinary people' or women, young or minority candidates do not seem to want to be representatives and are reluctant to put themselves forward even if they did
the perceived need for high levels of education and skills for a political career acts as a disincentive as does the adversarial nature of politics as portrayed in the media
the need for large campaign war chests excludes those that are millionaires or those without access to the money needed to run
there is perception that politics is an occupation for rich, white males, or for political dynasties such as the Kennedy's Bushes and Clintons
however questions arise as to whether a legislature has to be socially representative as well as politically representative