The American Political Science Association has appointed a task force to study negotiating agreement in politics. A sub-group, charged with investigating the causes and consequences of polarization, has issued this 35-page report. It is authored by Michael Barber and Nolan McCarty.

The report examines various explanations for polarization, including: (1) a polarized electorate; (2) southern realignment; (3) gerrymandering; (4) primary elections; (5) economic inequality; (6) money in politics; (7) media environment; (8) changes internal to Congress, such as rules changes, majority party agenda control, party pressures, and the breakdown of bi-partisan norms.

Michael Barber and Nolan McCarty are both at Princeton University. Barber is a PhD candidate whose dissertation, “Political Ideology, Campaign Contributions, and Legislative Polarization” is in the process of becoming a book. McCarthy is a political science professor and has written the book, “Polarized America: the Dance of Political Ideology and Unequal Riches”. He is the author of several other books as well.

The conclusion to the APSA sub-group study includes this sentence: “The evidence undermines the common arguments that reforming legislative districting or primary elections will materially reduce polarization.” Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.

Roll Call has this Stuart Rothenberg article, which presents evidence that much TV advertising for candidates in the U.S. has no effect. In particular, ads run months before an election often has no effect at all. There is a period when voters are paying attention to congressional and state office campaigns, and it is close to the election, not a year before that election. Thanks to the Center for Competitive Politics for the link.

On January 7, the news was released that former New York city Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently gave $2,500,000 to a PAC that spends independently on behalf of Democratic nominees for the U.S. Senate. See this story. In a rational system, Bloomberg could have given the money directly to the Democratic Party, or its U.S. Senate nominees. Instead, this spending must be conducted independently of the Democratic Party and its various nominees.