Content area
Full Text
The percentage of state legislative seats won by Democrats in nonsouthern states has increased steadily since World War II. Fiorina (1994) argues that this is because of the professionalization of state legislatures: Legislatures now meet longer and pay higher salaries; legislative positions which require more time are less attractive to Republicans, who can make more money elsewhere; higher salaries attract Democrats, who make less in the private sector. That analysis has several serious flaws. First, nonsouthern states have gradually become more Democratic at all levels as part of a long-term regional political realignment. The rise in Democrats in legislatures outside the South is due more to this realignment than to legislative professionalization. Second, trends in southern states contradict his hypothesis. Professionalization has increased, but state legislatures are becoming more Republican. Finally, Fiorina's analysis is worth careful reconsideration because it suggests that there is little connection between constituencies and partisan outcomes.
Morris Fiorina (1994) proposes an interesting hypothesis about the trend in the partisan composition of state legislatures since 1946, namely, the increased proportion of Democrats in legislatures outside the South. He argues that the increase is due to legislative professionalization: Longer sessions make these positions less attractive to Republicans, and higher salaries make the positions more attractive to Democrats.
While the analysis seems plausible, it has serious flaws. First, Fiorina ignores the regional secular political realignments occurring in the country and thus misses a more plausible explanation of partisan trends in nonsouthern states. Although there is a relationship between salary and partisanship, it is a classic case of covariation without a causal connection. Second, his pooled analysis misses the fact that trends in many nonsouthern states contradict his hypothesis. Third, Fiorina excludes states in which the trend directly contradicts his argument. These flaws in and of themselves are reasons to be skeptical of his argument, but perhaps the more important reason is his implicit renewal of an old argument that there is little connection between constituencies and partisan outcomes. This implication is important in thinking about U.S. politics and will be addressed after reviewing the other issues. The primary goal of our analysis is to question the validity of Fiorina's interpretation of change and suggest the plausibility of another perspective.
FIORINA'S ARGUMENT Fiorina's goal...