Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:01:54.042Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Testing Theories of Congressional—Presidential Interaction with Veto Override Rates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Gregory J. Martin
Gregory J. Martin*
Affiliation:
Stanford Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, 655 Knight Way, Stanford, CA 94305. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The ability to veto legislation is the most important formal power of the presidency in the legislative process, and presidents' veto behavior has thus attracted a great deal of theoretical interest. Game-theoretic models of congressional—presidential interactions explain vetoes by incorporating incomplete information over the distribution of presidential or congressional types. In this article, I examine two prominent such theories, as well as a simple “noisy” extension of a complete information theory. I show that each makes strong predictions not only about vetoes themselves but also about the resulting override votes; given that overrides are so closely connected with vetoes, any valid theory of the latter must be able to successfully explain the former. I test these predictions empirically and show that support for each of these theories in presidential veto and override data from 1973 to 2008 is quite weak. This negative result suggests that current models of the veto are incomplete; I sketch some possibilities for extension in the conclusion.

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , Autumn 2012 , pp. 501 - 519
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Cameron, Charles M. 2000. Veto bargaining: Presidents and the politics of negative power. Cambridge, MA/England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Canes-Wrone, Brandice 2001. The president's legislative influence from public appeals. American Journal of Political Science 45(2): 313–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, Royce, Lewis, Jeffrey B., Lo, James, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2009. Measuring bias and uncertainty in DW-NOMINATE ideal point estimates via the parametric bootstrap. Political Analysis 17(3): 261–75.Google Scholar
Casella, George, and Berger, Roger L. 2001. Statistical inference, 2nd ed. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Press.Google Scholar
Clinton, Joshua D. 2007. Lawmaking and roll calls. Journal of Politics 69(2): 455–67.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, John, and Shipan, Charles. 1990. Congressional influence on the bureaucracy. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 6 (Special Issue): 1–20.Google Scholar
Gilmour, John B. 2011. Political theater or bargaining failure: why presidents veto. Presidential Studies Quarterly 41(3): 471–87.Google Scholar
Groseclose, Tim, and McCarty, Nolan. 2001. The politics of blame: bargaining before an audience. American Journal of Political Science 45(1): 100–19.Google Scholar
Hirsch, Alexander V. 2011. Theory driven bias in ideal point estimates: a Monte Carlo study. Political Analysis 19(1): 87–102.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1998. Pivotal politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Martin, Gregory. 2012. Replication data for: testing theories of congressional-presidential interaction with veto override rates. http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/17923 (accessed April 17, 2012).Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 2005. Divided we govern, 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Moe, Terry, and Howell, William. 1999. The presidential power of unilateral action. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 15: 132–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neustadt, Richard. 1980. Presidential power. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar