Institutional Development and Participation on House Roll-Call Votes, 1819–1921

• Author: John Baughman,Timothy P. Nokken
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/10659129211017991
• Published date: 01 September 2022
• Date: 01 September 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129211017991

Political Research Quarterly

© 2021 University of Utah

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/10659129211017991

journals.sagepub.com/home/prq

We argue in this article that the calculus of roll-call par-

ticipation is shaped and influenced by changes in legisla-

tive and electoral institutions and practices and that this

is observable in the variation in abstention rates across

representatives and over time.1 Specifically, we seek to

assess the causal significance of electoral, legislative,

and partisan institutions across multiple periods of sig-

nificant institutional development in the U.S. House of

Representatives. Although some nonvoting in the 19th

century House arose due to idiosyncratic and nonpoliti-

cal factors like illness, drunkenness, and apathy, differ-

ences across members and over time suggest systematic

patterns of nonparticipation associated with those peri-

ods of development.

The article proceeds as follows. First, we consider

institutional changes in the 19th century House of

Representatives that likely affected the calculus of vot-

ing for members. The list, though not exhaustive, does

suggest three broad eras for considering their participa-

tion choices. Second, we provide an overview of the

contours of House roll-call participation from 1819 to

1921. Third, we model individual-level roll-call partici-

pation rates across the century to understand the magni-

tude of the systematic components of nonvoting.2

Together, the results suggest that members were respon-

sive to institutional change, but that the standard mark-

ers of modernizing House institutions—notably the

adoption of the Reed Rules and the emergence of the

Australian ballot—resulted only in modest shifts in the

roll-call participation of Representatives.

Institutional Development and

Legislative Behavior

Between the late 1810s and 1910, the U.S. House of

Representatives adopted most of the institutional features

that define it today. By around 1820, the House moved

decisively to rely on standing committees as engines of

policymaking (Jenkins 1998). In 1837, members were

able to introduce bills under their own names (Cooper

and Young 1989), opening the door to the kind of position

0

17991PRQXXX10.1177/10659129211017991Political Research QuarterlyBaughman and Nokken

2

021

1Bates College, Lewiston, ME, USA

2Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA

Corresponding Author:

Timothy P. Nokken, Department of Political Science, Texas Tech

University, Lubbock, TX 79409-1015, USA.

Email: timothy.nokken@ttu.edu

Institutional Development and

Participation on House Roll-Call Votes,

1819–1921

John Baughman1 and Timothy P. Nokken2

Abstract

An emerging body of literature seeks to understand the determinants of roll-call participation in the early U.S. House

of Representatives. A multitude of factors—electoral, institutional, and partisan—exerted significant influence over

members’ participation decisions during the time we analyze. We analyze roll-call abstention rates from the 16th to

66th Congress (1819 to 1921) to determine whether electorally at-risk members differed in their attentiveness to

their congressional responsibilities than members who faced less or no risk. By examining a century of congresses, we

compare both the post-Civil War era immediately prior to adoption of the Australian ballot as well as the pre-Civil

War congresses to identify those factors that affected members’ decision to participate on roll-call votes. The time

series encompasses important electoral and institutional reforms, including the emergence of strong party caucuses

and the enhanced agenda setting prerogatives of the majority party. Our results show that members responded to

changes in the political environment, including to electoral concerns, and this effect is present prior to the Civil War.

We also find that during the era of the strong Speaker, majority party members significantly increased their roll-call

participation rates.

Keywords

legislative politics, roll-call voting, roll-call participation

2022, Vol. 75(3) 646–660

Article