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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Legislative studies quarterly 2005-05, Vol.30 (2), p.193-217 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
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 |