Presidential Mandates Research Articles

Comparing Competing Theories on the Causes of Mandate Perceptions

The discussion of presidential mandates is as certain as a presidential election itself. Journalists inevitably discuss whether the president-elect has a popular mandate. Because they see elections as too complex to allow the public to send a unitary signal, political scientists are more skeptical of mandates. Mandates, however, have received new attention by scholars asking whether perceptions of mandate arise and lead representatives to act as if voters sent a policy directive. Two explanations have emerged to account for why elected officials might react to such perceptions. One focuses on the president's strategic decision to declare a mandate, the second on how members of Congress read signals of changing preferences in the electorate from their own election results. We test these competing views to see which more accurately explains how members of Congress act in support of a perceived mandate. The results indicate that members respond more to messages about changing preferences than to the president's mandate declaration.

Comparing Competing Theories on the Causes of Mandate Perceptions

The discussion of presidential mandates is as certain as a presidential election itself. Journalists inevitably discuss whether the president‐elect has a popular mandate. Because they see elections as too complex to allow the public to send a unitary signal, political scientists are more skeptical of mandates. Mandates, however, have received new attention by scholars asking whether perceptions of mandate arise and lead representatives to act as if voters sent a policy directive. Two explanations have emerged to account for why elected officials might react to such perceptions. One focuses on the president's strategic decision to declare a mandate, the second on how members of Congress read signals of changing preferences in the electorate from their own election results. We test these competing views to see which more accurately explains how members of Congress act in support of a perceived mandate. The results indicate that members respond more to messages about changing preferences than to the president's mandate declaration.

Presidential Mandates and the Dynamics of Senate Advice and Consent, 1885-1996

We examine the dynamics of Senate advice and consent for executive branch nominations from 1885 to 1996 using multinomial logit and hazard analysis. We add to the literature by considering the importance of elections on the process. In particular, we assess how presidential mandates might influence the duration and success of nominations to the executive branch. The analysis captures political nuances previously unconsidered that follow from the different ways that nominations terminate, whether through confirmation, rejection or withdrawal by the president, or expiration. As shown previously, divided government matters, especially during periods of ideological polarization in the Senate. Nominations fail more of ten and take longer. However, perceptions of electoral mandate strengthen the president’s position vis-à-vis the Senate, smoothing the president’s path to a more effective transition and staffing of the federal bureaucracy.

Presidential Mandates: How Elections Shape the National Agenda. By Patricia Heidotting Conley. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001. 220p. $40.00 cloth, $17.50 paper

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Presidential Mandates: How Elections Shape the National Agenda

Presidential Mandates: How Elections Shape the National Agenda

Presidential Mandates in the Nineteenth Century: Conceptual Change and Institutional Development

A central paradox of the modern American presidency is that citizens regularly call for strong presidential leadership while at the same time their political culture predisposes them to be reluctant followers.1 One of the ways contemporary presidents resolve this paradox is by invoking an electoral mandate. By persuading others that he possesses a mandate from the voters to pursue a particular policy agenda, a president can disguise his leadership under the pretense of simply carrying out “the will of the people.” The presidential mandate thus enables presidents to lead while seeming to follow, to exercise power over people under the guise of empowering the people.