The Senatorial Courtesy Game: Explaining the Norm of Informal Vetoes in Advice and Consent Nominations

Despite the contentiousness of advice and consent nominations, the Senate usually rejects a candidate to whom a home senator objects. Using game theory, this article explains the persistence of senatorial courtesy and maps its effects on which candidates succeed. The greater salience of a home nomin...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Legislative studies quarterly 2005-05, Vol.30 (2), p.193-217
1. Verfasser: JACOBI, TONJA
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 217
container_issue 2
container_start_page 193
container_title Legislative studies quarterly
container_volume 30
creator JACOBI, TONJA
description Despite the contentiousness of advice and consent nominations, the Senate usually rejects a candidate to whom a home senator objects. Using game theory, this article explains the persistence of senatorial courtesy and maps its effects on which candidates succeed. The greater salience of a home nomination allows retaliation and reciprocity in a repeated game to elicit support for a veto, even under adverse conditions. Comparative statics indicate the range of the president's feasible nominees and show which players gain and lose from the practice. Most notably, the president can benefit from an exercise of senatorial courtesy.
doi_str_mv 10.3162/036298005X201518
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_60703276</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>3598669</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>3598669</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4259-747a263f32d3b52b2cb04c2c63f0f0e32c6906f38b2beb2da131369fcfb1d8c83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkD1PHDEQhi0UpFxI-hQUruiW2J5b75oOneBAOhFFfCqN5fWOg2HXe9h7Cffv49NGFGmoPJ7ned9iCPnK2TFwKb4xkELVjJUPgvGS13tkxhWoQmX4gcx2uMi8_Eg-pfTEGK9ULWbE3TwivcZgxiF609HFsIkjpi1dmh5P6NnrujM--PCLjlm8GmJPB0cvg8tT1u9wHDBRH-hp-9tbpCa0uSMkDGO2e5-Lff5-JvvOdAm__HsPyO352c3iolh9X14uTleFnYtSFdW8MkKCA9FCU4pG2IbNrbB5xRxDyJNi0kHdiAYb0RoOHKRy1jW8rW0NB-Ro6l3H4WWDadS9Txa7zgQcNklLVjEQlcwim0Qbh5QiOr2OvjdxqznTu4Pq_w-aI_Mp8sd3uH3X16vrHxxUjh1OsaeUb_wWg1LVUu5wMWGfRnx9wyY-a1lBVer7q6WGe7a6ePi51CX8BRgvkEo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>60703276</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Senatorial Courtesy Game: Explaining the Norm of Informal Vetoes in Advice and Consent Nominations</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Wiley Online Library - AutoHoldings Journals</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><creator>JACOBI, TONJA</creator><creatorcontrib>JACOBI, TONJA</creatorcontrib><description>Despite the contentiousness of advice and consent nominations, the Senate usually rejects a candidate to whom a home senator objects. Using game theory, this article explains the persistence of senatorial courtesy and maps its effects on which candidates succeed. The greater salience of a home nomination allows retaliation and reciprocity in a repeated game to elicit support for a veto, even under adverse conditions. Comparative statics indicate the range of the president's feasible nominees and show which players gain and lose from the practice. Most notably, the president can benefit from an exercise of senatorial courtesy.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0362-9805</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-9162</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3162/036298005X201518</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Ambivalence ; Appointment ; Decision Making ; Game theory ; Legislative Bodies ; Norms ; Political parties ; Presidents ; Retaliation ; Senators ; Spatial models ; Statistical median ; United States of America ; United States Senate ; Upper houses ; Veto ; Voting</subject><ispartof>Legislative studies quarterly, 2005-05, Vol.30 (2), p.193-217</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2005 Comparative Legislative Research Center</rights><rights>2005 Comparative Legislative Research Center at the University of Iowa</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4259-747a263f32d3b52b2cb04c2c63f0f0e32c6906f38b2beb2da131369fcfb1d8c83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4259-747a263f32d3b52b2cb04c2c63f0f0e32c6906f38b2beb2da131369fcfb1d8c83</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3598669$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/3598669$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551,57992,58225</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>JACOBI, TONJA</creatorcontrib><title>The Senatorial Courtesy Game: Explaining the Norm of Informal Vetoes in Advice and Consent Nominations</title><title>Legislative studies quarterly</title><description>Despite the contentiousness of advice and consent nominations, the Senate usually rejects a candidate to whom a home senator objects. Using game theory, this article explains the persistence of senatorial courtesy and maps its effects on which candidates succeed. The greater salience of a home nomination allows retaliation and reciprocity in a repeated game to elicit support for a veto, even under adverse conditions. Comparative statics indicate the range of the president's feasible nominees and show which players gain and lose from the practice. Most notably, the president can benefit from an exercise of senatorial courtesy.</description><subject>Ambivalence</subject><subject>Appointment</subject><subject>Decision Making</subject><subject>Game theory</subject><subject>Legislative Bodies</subject><subject>Norms</subject><subject>Political parties</subject><subject>Presidents</subject><subject>Retaliation</subject><subject>Senators</subject><subject>Spatial models</subject><subject>Statistical median</subject><subject>United States of America</subject><subject>United States Senate</subject><subject>Upper houses</subject><subject>Veto</subject><subject>Voting</subject><issn>0362-9805</issn><issn>1939-9162</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkD1PHDEQhi0UpFxI-hQUruiW2J5b75oOneBAOhFFfCqN5fWOg2HXe9h7Cffv49NGFGmoPJ7ned9iCPnK2TFwKb4xkELVjJUPgvGS13tkxhWoQmX4gcx2uMi8_Eg-pfTEGK9ULWbE3TwivcZgxiF609HFsIkjpi1dmh5P6NnrujM--PCLjlm8GmJPB0cvg8tT1u9wHDBRH-hp-9tbpCa0uSMkDGO2e5-Lff5-JvvOdAm__HsPyO352c3iolh9X14uTleFnYtSFdW8MkKCA9FCU4pG2IbNrbB5xRxDyJNi0kHdiAYb0RoOHKRy1jW8rW0NB-Ro6l3H4WWDadS9Txa7zgQcNklLVjEQlcwim0Qbh5QiOr2OvjdxqznTu4Pq_w-aI_Mp8sd3uH3X16vrHxxUjh1OsaeUb_wWg1LVUu5wMWGfRnx9wyY-a1lBVer7q6WGe7a6ePi51CX8BRgvkEo</recordid><startdate>200505</startdate><enddate>200505</enddate><creator>JACOBI, TONJA</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Comparative Legislative Research Center of the University of Iowa</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7UB</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200505</creationdate><title>The Senatorial Courtesy Game: Explaining the Norm of Informal Vetoes in Advice and Consent Nominations</title><author>JACOBI, TONJA</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4259-747a263f32d3b52b2cb04c2c63f0f0e32c6906f38b2beb2da131369fcfb1d8c83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Ambivalence</topic><topic>Appointment</topic><topic>Decision Making</topic><topic>Game theory</topic><topic>Legislative Bodies</topic><topic>Norms</topic><topic>Political parties</topic><topic>Presidents</topic><topic>Retaliation</topic><topic>Senators</topic><topic>Spatial models</topic><topic>Statistical median</topic><topic>United States of America</topic><topic>United States Senate</topic><topic>Upper houses</topic><topic>Veto</topic><topic>Voting</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>JACOBI, TONJA</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Legislative studies quarterly</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>JACOBI, TONJA</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Senatorial Courtesy Game: Explaining the Norm of Informal Vetoes in Advice and Consent Nominations</atitle><jtitle>Legislative studies quarterly</jtitle><date>2005-05</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>30</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>193</spage><epage>217</epage><pages>193-217</pages><issn>0362-9805</issn><eissn>1939-9162</eissn><abstract>Despite the contentiousness of advice and consent nominations, the Senate usually rejects a candidate to whom a home senator objects. Using game theory, this article explains the persistence of senatorial courtesy and maps its effects on which candidates succeed. The greater salience of a home nomination allows retaliation and reciprocity in a repeated game to elicit support for a veto, even under adverse conditions. Comparative statics indicate the range of the president's feasible nominees and show which players gain and lose from the practice. Most notably, the president can benefit from an exercise of senatorial courtesy.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.3162/036298005X201518</doi><tpages>25</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0362-9805
ispartof Legislative studies quarterly, 2005-05, Vol.30 (2), p.193-217
issn 0362-9805
1939-9162
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_60703276
source Jstor Complete Legacy; Wiley Online Library - AutoHoldings Journals; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; HeinOnline Law Journal Library
subjects Ambivalence
Appointment
Decision Making
Game theory
Legislative Bodies
Norms
Political parties
Presidents
Retaliation
Senators
Spatial models
Statistical median
United States of America
United States Senate
Upper houses
Veto
Voting
title The Senatorial Courtesy Game: Explaining the Norm of Informal Vetoes in Advice and Consent Nominations
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T20%3A26%3A09IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Senatorial%20Courtesy%20Game:%20Explaining%20the%20Norm%20of%20Informal%20Vetoes%20in%20Advice%20and%20Consent%20Nominations&rft.jtitle=Legislative%20studies%20quarterly&rft.au=JACOBI,%20TONJA&rft.date=2005-05&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=193&rft.epage=217&rft.pages=193-217&rft.issn=0362-9805&rft.eissn=1939-9162&rft_id=info:doi/10.3162/036298005X201518&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E3598669%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=60703276&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=3598669&rfr_iscdi=true