The Party Whip Organizations in the United States House of Representatives

Abstract

In the literature on political parties in the United States Congress two points are usually stressed. First, it is said that the political party label lacks a precise programmatic content because “party government” in the British sense is absent in the American Congress. Second, however, it is contended that the party label is the single most important and reliable attribute in predicting the voting behavior of a Senator or Representative.Between these two contentions lies a sizeable area of unexplored territory. If party is the best predictive device in analyzing voting behavior in Congress then, despite the lack of “party government,” the party machinery in both houses must have effects that deserve study. Professor Huitt has suggested the necessity and importance of this kind of study: “… the preoccupation with reform has obscured the fact that we have no really adequate model of party leadership as it exists in Congress, and that none can be constructed because we lack simple descriptions of many of the basic working parts of the present system.” Huitt himself and a few others have filled some of these gaps.

Preferences, Partisanship, and Whip Activity in the U.S. House of Representatives

“…These counts are usually conducted on behalf of a committee chair or the leadership and ask members how they plan to vote on an upcoming piece of legislation. Although the whip system was heavily studied early in its development (Dodd and Sullivan 1981;Froman and Ripley 1965;Ripley 1964), it has been all but abandoned by the literature since then (cf. Evans et al 2003;Sinclair 1981Sinclair , 1983Sinclair , 1995.…”

“…10 A more specific measure, Snyder and Groseclose's (2000) measure of party pressure, reached its 1971-98 low point in the very time period we are analyzing. 11 Partly in reaction to the fragmentation in the majority, the modern whip system of counting and influencing roll-call votes was in its infancy in the early 1970s (Ripley 1964;Sinclair 1981Sinclair , 1983. The fledgling nature of the whip system further reduced the power of leaders to pressure reluctants among the rank and file.…”

“…The final whip count produced before the vote represents the accumulation of party influence that accompanies the survey of members. The scholarly literature verifies that counting is itself a form of lobbying because it indicates that the leadership has an interest in the vote (Ripley 1964;Sinclair 1995; cf. Sullivan 1990b on presidential counts).…”

A New Theory of Congressional Compromise

“…Several points can be made about the information provided to the leadership by whip counts. First, as Ripley's (1964) study of party whip organizations points out, whip counts are partisan affairs. Information about the voting intentions of members of the other party must be obtained indirectly through lobbyists, executive branch officials, and other sources.…”

Divided Government and Democratic Presidents: Truman and Clinton Compared

“… PRESIDENTIAL STUDIES QUARTERLY / June 2000 12. On the development of the Democratic whip system, seeRipley (1964),Dodd (1979), andSinclair (1992a). 13.…”