Section 3.2.2
3.2.2 Functions of Congress
US Congress
Congressional elections and the significance of incumbency
Importance of Incumbency
Incumbents often have better name recognition, access to resources, and a track record to campaign on. This can make it more difficult for challengers to unseat them. The fact that incumbency can create a "safe seat" phenomenon, where elections become less competitive, is a significant concern for those advocating for a more vibrant and representative democracy.
Benefits of Having a Track Record
A track record of previous accomplishments and actions in office can provide incumbents with several benefits:
- It demonstrates experience and a proven ability to get things done, which can improve credibility and trust among voters.
- Incumbents can highlight their achievements and highlight the positive impact they have made in their constituents' lives.
- They can point to specific legislation they have sponsored or supported, showing their commitment to certain issues.
- Having a track record also allows incumbents to establish relationships and networks with influential individuals and organizations, which can provide support during their re-election campaigns.
Case Study
Congressman Hal Rogers – "Prince of Pork"
Hal Rogers, a Republican congressman representing Kentucky's 5th district, is a prime example of a member of the House of Representatives who has consistently "brought home the bacon" for his constituents. Serving since 1981, Rogers has earned a reputation for securing significant federal funding and projects for his economically disadvantaged district, which is one of the poorest in the United States.
Rogers, often referred to as the "Prince of Pork," has used his position on the House Appropriations Committee, particularly when he served as its Chairman, to direct federal dollars to his district. He has secured funding for major infrastructure projects, including highways, schools, and health care facilities, contributing to job creation and economic development. One notable example is the establishment of the Center for Rural Development, a non-profit organisation aimed at improving education and economic opportunities in Kentucky. Through Rogers' influence, this centre received millions in federal funding.
How a track record helps raise money
A strong track record can be an asset when it comes to fundraising:
- Incumbents often have established donor networks from previous campaigns, making it easier to solicit contributions. Donors may be more willing to contribute to incumbents because they see them as a safer bet and a proven investment.
- Having a track record of accomplishments and legislative successes can be appealing to interest groups and political action committees (PACs), who may be more inclined to financially support incumbents.
Importance of name recognition
Name recognition is a powerful advantage for incumbents:
- Incumbents have already built a level of familiarity with their constituents through their previous campaigns and time in the office.
- Voters are more likely to choose a candidate they recognize and feel familiar with, as it provides a sense of trust and confidence.
- Incumbents often have the advantage of being able to leverage their name recognition in campaign messaging and advertising, which can help them stand out from their opponents.
Case Study
Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene and name recognition
In the 2022 midterm elections, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican representing Georgia's 14th district, demonstrated her significant fundraising abilities, raising vastly more money than her Democratic challenger, Marcus Flowers. Greene raised an impressive $12.5 million, compared to Flowers, who raised around $8.2 million. This stark difference in financial resources played a crucial role in her re-election campaign.
Greene, a polarising figure in US politics due to her outspoken views and alignment with the alt-right wing of the Republican Party, attracted substantial donations from across the country, particularly from small-dollar donors energised by her staunch support of former President Donald Trump (although she has now distanced herself from Trump due to his resistance to releasing the Epstein files) and her opposition to mainstream Republican and Democratic policies. Her significant war chest allowed her to dominate local media with advertisements, fund extensive grassroots operations, and secure a strong presence in the district.
Despite facing a well-funded opponent in Marcus Flowers, Greene won re-election comfortably, receiving 66.5% of the vote compared to Flowers' 33.5%.
Seats changing hands
Historically, a small number of seats change hands from one election to another. On average, around 90% of incumbents who seek re-election win their races. In recent years, the turnover rate for seats in the House of Representatives has been below 10% in most elections. In the Senate, the turnover rate is even lower, with only a handful of seats typically changing hands in each election cycle.
Being 'Primaried'
Being primaried refers to the process of facing a primary challenge from within one's own party. Incumbents can sometimes face competition from fellow party members who believe they can better represent the party's interests or who think the incumbent is not sufficiently aligned with party values.
Case Study
Representative Liz Cheney
In 2022, Representative Liz Cheney, a prominent Republican from Wyoming, lost her primary to Harriet Hageman, a candidate positioned further to the right. Cheney's vocal criticism of former President Donald Trump and her role on the January 6th Committee alienated many in her party. Hageman, endorsed by Trump, capitalised on this discontent, appealing to the party's conservative base, and securing the nomination. This defeat highlighted the significant influence of Trump within the GOP and the risks for incumbents perceived as out of alignment with the party's core supporters.
Differences in Running for the House vs The Senate
House
Senate
Term
Two-year terms, up for reelection every even-numbered year.
Six-year terms, elections for one-third of seats every two years.
Scope
Smaller, more localised districts representing specific geographic areas within a state.
Seats represent an entire state.
Competition
Tend to be more competitive and change party control more frequently.
Attract more attention and resources due to statewide significance.
Gerrymandering in the US
Gerrymandering is the manipulation of district boundaries for political advantage. The practice is named after Elbridge Gerry, who, as governor of Massachusetts in 1812, signed a bill that created a partisan district designed to benefit his party. The district was said to resemble a salamander, leading one critic to call it a "Gerry-mander".
Packing and Cracking
Packing and cracking are two techniques used in gerrymandering:
Packing
Drawing district boundaries so that as many supporters of the opposing party are included in a single district as possible. This makes it more difficult for the opposing party to win any seats outside of that district.
Cracking
Dividing supporters of the opposing party among multiple districts, diluting their voting power and making it more difficult for them to win in any of the districts.
Case Study
Cracking in North Carolina's 14th District
North Carolina Republicans employed a technique known as "cracking" to reshape the electoral boundaries in and around Charlotte, one of the state's largest cities and a Democratic stronghold. The goal of cracking was to dilute the voting power of urban Democratic voters by splitting them into several districts, each of which would be paired with more rural, Republican-leaning areas. This division weakened the ability of Democrats to win seats in the state, effectively ensuring more favourable outcomes for Republicans.
In Charlotte, the urban area had been concentrated into one or two districts where Democratic voters formed the majority. However, the 2021 redistricting split Charlotte into multiple districts, some of which were redrawn to include heavily Republican suburban and rural areas. This meant that instead of a cohesive Democratic bloc, Charlotte voters were scattered across districts where they became a minority. As a result, even though Charlotte itself remained a Democratic stronghold, the surrounding newly-drawn districts saw more Republican victories.
Lack of central regulation and Supreme Court Cases
There have been moves to centrally regulate electoral boundaries, but the Supreme Court has stuck quite rigidly to the principle that Constitution grants the power to regulate elections to the states. Each state has the authority to establish its own rules and procedures for redistricting.
However, the Supreme Court has addressed the issue of gerrymandering in several cases:
The Court ruled that congressional districts must have equal populations to ensure the principle of "one person, one vote".
The Court held that racial gerrymandering, where race is the predominant factor in drawing district lines, is unconstitutional.
The Court sidestepped ruling on the issue of partisan gerrymandering, stating that it was a political question best left for the states to address.
The Court rejected the claim that racial gerrymandering had taken place in South Carolina's 1st Congressional district.
Impact of Gerrymandering and safe seats
Gerrymandering and the existence of safe seats as a result of the practice, have contributed to the phenomenon of being 'primaried' as this has become one of the only ways to change the representative of that district.
- Gerrymandering allows the party in power to redraw district lines in a way that favours their own candidates, making it more difficult for challengers to gain traction.
- Both gerrymandering and safe seats can create a political environment where incumbents feel secure in their positions, leading to complacency and a reduced need to appeal to a broader range of voters.
- Challengers may be discouraged from running against incumbents in gerrymandered and safe seat districts due to the perceived difficulty of winning, further reducing competition within the district.
Major Case Study
What is behind the latest Texas gerrymandering controversy?
In August 2025, Republicans in Texas pushed through a mid-decade redistricting plan designed to secure up to five additional Republican-leaning seats in the House of Representatives ahead of the 2026 mid-term elections. This was highly unusual, as redistricting normally follows the ten-year census. Democrats in the Texas House attempted to block the move by leaving the state in large numbers, denying the chamber the quorum needed to vote. When many of them later returned, they faced new restrictions. Lawmakers were told they could only leave the Capitol with written authorisation and under police escort. Representative Nicole Collier refused to comply with these conditions and was effectively held inside the building for two nights before launching a legal challenge through a habeas corpus petition.
The controversy spread beyond Texas. In California, Governor Gavin Newsom supported a direct response aimed at countering Republican gains. The state legislature passed Proposition 50, a measure that would suspend the work of California's independent Citizens Redistricting Commission and hand the power back to politicians. If approved by voters, this could add five Democratic-leaning seats to the House and would remain in place from 2026 until 2030. Together, the events in Texas and California show how redistricting has become one of the most significant battlegrounds in American politics.
Gerrymandering has direct consequences for how representative Congress is. By carefully drawing safe Republican districts, the Texas plan allows one party to gain more seats than its share of the statewide vote would justify. California's Proposition 50 shows that Democrats are willing to do the same when control is at stake. The danger is that the House of Representatives no longer reflects the preferences of voters but instead the calculations of those drawing the district lines. This weakens public confidence in elections and undermines the legitimacy of Congress as an institution meant to embody the will of the people.
What Happened in 2025?
In a rare mid-decade special session, the Texas Legislature passed new congressional maps in August 2025. Governor Greg Abbott signed them into law on August 29, 2025.
The Goal
To give Republicans an advantage in the 2026 midterms, targeting five Democratic-held seats.
The Justification
A DOJ letter citing a court ruling that coalition districts (combined Black and Hispanic majorities) are not protected by the VRA.
The Lawsuit
The maps were immediately challenged in federal court as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
Packing
Concentrating Democratic voters (largely Black and Hispanic) into already-safe districts in Houston (CD-9, CD-18) and Dallas-Fort Worth (CD-32).
Impact: Drains Democratic voters from surrounding suburban areas, making swing districts like CD-24 significantly more Republican.
Cracking
Splitting voters of color in Tarrant County (DFW, CD-33) and the Austin-San Antonio corridor (CD-35), stitching parts to large rural areas.
Impact: Dismantles districts where minority voters previously had majority influence in DFW, Austin-San Antonio, and Houston.
What's Next?
The dispute has since entered a new phase following intervention by the U.S. Supreme Court and developments in California. In late 2025 the Supreme Court granted Texas an emergency stay, allowing the state to continue using its contested mid-decade congressional map for the 2026 midterm elections despite earlier lower-court findings that it likely discriminated against minority voters. This decision reflects the Court's broader reluctance to intervene in redistricting disputes, particularly where partisan advantage is involved. In California, voters responded politically by approving a statewide proposition authorising new congressional boundaries designed to offset the partisan effects of the Texas map. The measure passed with a clear majority, and California's revised district maps have now been finalised for use in 2026, potentially allowing Democratic gains in the state to counterbalance Republican advantages in Texas.
Representativeness of Congress
Representativeness within the US Congress is a crucial aspect that ensures legislators reflect the demographic, political, and ideological makeup of their constituents. This principle is foundational for incorporating diverse views and interests in the legislative process, thereby upholding the democratic ethos of the nation. As you can see in the table below, Congress has been successful in 'looking like America' in some cases, but has some work to do in others.
Descriptive Rep. of the 119th US Congress
| Group | 118th Congress | 119th Congress | National Average | Representative? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender (Female) | 28% | 27.5% | > 50% | No |
| Ethnicity – White, non-Hispanic | 75% | 72% | < 60% | No |
| Ethnicity – African American | 11% | 12% | 14% | Close but no |
| Ethnicity – Hispanic | 10% | 10% | 19% | No |
| Ethnicity – Asian or Pacific Islander | 3% | 4% | 6% | Close but no |
| Ethnicity – Multiracial | 1% | 1% | 12% | No |
| Ethnicity – Native American | 1% | 1% | 1% | Yes |
| Religion – Christian | 88% | 88% | 63% | No |
| Religion – Jewish | 6% | 6% | 2% | Yes |
| Religion – Unaffiliated | <1% | <1% | ~30% | No |
| Age (Average in House) | 58 | 58 | 38.1 | No |
| Age (Average in Senate) | 64 | 64 | 38.1 | No |
| Median Net Worth | Approx $1,000,000 | Approx $1,000,000 | $192,900 | No |
Sources: Statista / opensecrets.org
Substantive representativeness focuses on aligning the policy decisions and preferences of legislators with their constituents' interests. This alignment ensures that legislative outcomes resonate with the electorate's will, reinforcing democratic principles. For instance, when legislators champion policies that align with the preferences of their constituents, they exemplify substantive representativeness, displaying a Congress attuned to the populace's needs and aspirations.
Factors affecting the voting behaviour of members in Congress
Congressional members must heed their constituents' needs and preferences, as neglecting them might risk re-election chances. As a result, they often align their votes with what will most benefit or appeal to the people in their districts or states.
How the constituency grabs attention
- Letter writing campaigns – if a group organise a letter writing campaign and inundate the congressional offices, it will become exceedingly difficult for a member of Congress or their staff to ignore their complaints.
- Opinion Polls – Members of Congress will often poll their own constituents. If they can feel opinion shifting on an issue, they may need to respond.
- Meeting requests – A member of the constituency can always request a one to one meeting with their representative or senator. If they have large local support, they will often be granted an audience.
How members gain favour with constituents
- 'Bringing home the bacon' – Often referred to as 'pork barrel' politics, if a member of Congress can say they have brought jobs, money, or opportunity to the locality, this is often seen as a vote winner.
- Casework – Constituents that have a legal issue or complaint with the government can put individual requests into their member of Congress who will often work hard to get a resolution.
Case Study: Constituency
MTG and the 2025 Government Shutdown
During the ongoing 2025 government shutdown, Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene has taken the unusual step of siding with Democrats on the renewal of Affordable Care Act tax credits. In a lengthy post on social media she admitted that, while she had always opposed "Obamacare," the reality facing her constituents could not be ignored. "Premiums will double if tax credits expire for many Americans," she wrote, before criticising her own leadership: "Not a single Republican in leadership … has given us a plan to help Americans deal with their health insurance premiums DOUBLING!!!"
Her comments are significant because Greene has built her political profile on unwavering loyalty to conservative causes. By highlighting her constituents' concerns, she positioned herself as a representative acting directly in response to local needs rather than national party direction. The episode illustrates the dual role of members of Congress. On one hand, they are expected to act as party representatives within a highly partisan system. On the other, they must fulfil their representative function by addressing the practical concerns of their districts. Greene's decision shows that constituent pressures can, at times, outweigh ideological consistency.
Case Study: Pork Barrel
One Big Beautiful Bill and 'bringing home the bacon'
President Trump's One Big Beautiful Act faced large scale criticism for what Elon Musk branded as "full of pork", with both Republicans and Democrats accusing the bill of being stuffed with spending that benefits narrow local interests rather than serving broader fiscal responsibility.
At the heart of these criticisms are a range of provisions clearly designed to deliver for specific congressional districts. The bill contains $60 billion in new agricultural subsidies, a move that has drawn particular attention to a number of Republican representatives from rural districts who have backed the legislation. These include Glenn "GT" Thompson of Pennsylvania, Chair of the House Agriculture Committee, who has been central in shaping the bill's farm spending provisions. Thompson has argued that the package will "boost farm programmes and extend key tax breaks" for rural America. Others such as James Comer of Kentucky, Mike Simpson of Idaho, Doug LaMalfa of California, and Rick Crawford of Arkansas have also thrown their weight behind the bill, citing its benefits to their farming constituencies.
But the agriculture funding is just one part of a far wider package of targeted spending. The bill also includes $150 billion for defence enhancements, including major investments in drone technology, and a further $46.5 billion dedicated to border security infrastructure. Perhaps most eye-catching is the expansion of the state and local tax (SALT) deduction, now projected to cost $787 billion over the next decade.
All of this comes despite projections that the act adds between $2.4 trillion and $3.8 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. Critics from both sides of the aisle argue that while the spending may bring short-term local benefits, it directly contradicts any sense of long-term fiscal discipline. As Musk put it bluntly, "this is a disgusting abomination."
The inclusion of these so-called pork barrel measures underlines the continuing importance of constituency politics in Congress. For many members, securing highly visible financial wins for their districts remains a critical part of their re-election strategies.
The political party to which a member of Congress belongs significantly shapes their voting behaviour. Parties provide a unified stance on issues and often expect loyalty to party agendas when making legislative decisions.
Why members show loyalty to the party
- Name – Being the Democratic or Republican candidate is something the RNC or DNC cannot take away from you, but there is a certain amount of loyalty expected if you run under their name.
- Campaign Support and Funding – Organisations like the DCCC can raise campaign funds, provide polling and analysis which helps members in seeking re-election.
- Promotions and roles – Majority leaders can have a say over who gets roles like chairing committees. The party will also organise support for powerful roles such as Speaker of the House.
Caucuses in the US Congress are informal groups formed by members to pursue common legislative objectives or focus on specific issues. They shape policy and give voice to diverse perspectives. Caucuses can also straddle the political divide, allowing members from both parties to come together in a bipartisan way, although some caucuses have recently split over partisan differences (the Congressional Black Caucus has no Republicans in it as of 2019).
Caucuses can create a tension with the party and constituency interests, as caucuses are often issue or identity based, meaning it can make members feel genuinely torn between ideology, background, and the success of their political careers.
Types of Caucuses
- Issue-Based Caucuses: Focus on specific policy areas to influence related legislation.
- Identity-Based Caucuses: Represent members based on shared identity or background.
- Ideological Caucuses: Unite members around shared political ideologies.
Examples
- Congressional Hispanic Caucus: Advocates for Hispanic Americans' issues.
- Republican Study Committee: Advocates for conservative policies.
- Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus: Focuses on wildlife, conservation, and outdoor recreation.
Interest groups wield considerable influence, working to sway congressional votes in favour of interests or policy proposals. They use a variety of tactics:
Interest groups conduct advocacy and informational campaigns to raise awareness, educate the public, and persuade legislators. These include public relations efforts, media outreach, and grassroots mobilisation.
Case Study: Advocacy
The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
In 2021, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) launched a major advocacy and informational campaign aimed at reducing methane emissions, a potent greenhouse gas. The campaign was focused on influencing the passage of provisions in President Biden's Build Back Better plan that targeted methane reductions in the oil and gas sectors. EDF utilised a multi-faceted approach that included public relations efforts, media outreach, and grassroots mobilisation. They released detailed reports showing the environmental and economic benefits of curbing methane emissions. EDF also mobilised local communities to pressure members of Congress, particularly in states reliant on the fossil fuel industry, such as Texas and Pennsylvania. This campaign successfully influenced key lawmakers to support methane-related provisions in the bill, contributing to the passage of the Methane Emissions Reduction Program.
Interest groups use polling data to demonstrate public opinion on specific issues, strengthening their case for or against policies and helping target efforts more effectively.
Case Study: Polling
The NRA and Opposition to Gun Control (2021)
In 2021, during discussions around gun control legislation, particularly the Bipartisan Background Checks Act, the National Rifle Association (NRA) utilised polling data to bolster its opposition. The NRA commissioned polls in key swing states, showing that a significant portion of voters opposed certain forms of expanded background checks, particularly in rural areas and among gun owners. The NRA presented this data to lawmakers, particularly targeting moderate Republicans and Democrats in states like West Virginia and Arizona, showing that voter opposition could harm their re-election prospects.
Through Political Action Committees (PACs), interest groups contribute to election campaigns of sympathetic candidates. These contributions help secure access to legislators and increase support for the group's agenda.
Case Study: Campaign Contributions
PhRMA and Drug Pricing Legislation (2022)
In 2022, as Congress debated drug pricing reforms within the Inflation Reduction Act, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) leveraged its PAC to influence key lawmakers. PhRMA's PAC contributed millions to campaigns of members from both parties, particularly targeting those in swing states and influential committee positions. PhRMA donated substantial sums to senators like Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ), both of whom expressed reservations about certain aspects of the reforms. While the final bill included some drug pricing provisions, PhRMA's contributions and lobbying efforts helped water down key elements of the legislation.
Interest groups often draft model legislation or specific policy proposals, providing ready-made legislative language that can expedite the process and ensure bills reflect the group's priorities.
Case Study: Drafting Legislation
The National Association of Realtors (NAR) and the First-Time Homebuyer Tax Credit (2021)
In 2021, the NAR played a pivotal role in shaping housing-related legislation by drafting key elements of the First-Time Homebuyer Tax Credit Act. NAR worked closely with Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) to draft language that would provide a tax credit of up to $15,000 for first-time homebuyers. NAR provided detailed policy recommendations, economic analysis, and legislative text to make the bill more viable. By offering a ready-made policy solution, NAR expedited the legislative process and positioned themselves as a key stakeholder in future housing policy discussions.
Historically, some interest groups offered personal gifts or benefits to legislators. Strict ethics rules have been put in place to limit this practice and reduce the potential for corruption.
Case Study: Personal Benefits
AIPAC's Congressional Trips to Israel (2022)
In 2022, AIPAC continued its long-standing practice of organising fully funded trips to Israel for members of Congress. In August 2022, AIPAC organised a trip for a bipartisan delegation including House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD). These trips are designed to strengthen US-Israel relations and encourage legislators to adopt a more favourable stance toward Israeli policies. While AIPAC follows the necessary legal guidelines, these fully funded visits provide personal benefits that help cultivate goodwill between the interest group and the legislators.
The "revolving door" refers to the movement between roles as legislators and positions in affected industries. Interest groups may promise lucrative employment opportunities after public service, creating potential conflicts of interest.
Case Study: Revolving Door
The Pharmaceutical Industry and Former Senator Orrin Hatch (2020)
In 2020, shortly after his retirement from the Senate, Orrin Hatch (R-UT), a long-time advocate for the pharmaceutical industry during his time as Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, joined the board of directors at Amgen, one of the largest biopharmaceutical companies in the world. During his tenure in Congress, Hatch had been a key player in shaping legislation affecting drug pricing and intellectual property protections, including the Hatch-Waxman Act that extended patent protections for drug manufacturers. Hatch's appointment to Amgen's board raised questions about the "revolving door" between public service and private sector roles, and how the promise of post-Congressional employment can create a potential conflict of interest.
Moral considerations can also impact voting behaviour, as members of Congress may prioritise their personal values and ethical beliefs in decision-making. This can have a significant impact on issues such as a member of Congress' views on abortion, school prayer, contraception, and gay marriage.
The President of the United States can exert influence on congressional voting behaviour through various means, such as lobbying, persuasion, and leveraging executive powers.
Is Congress effective in its representative function?
Theme
Congress is good at representing
Congress is poor at representing
Constituency
Congress represents constituent interests
+In 2025, Congress passed the HALT Fentanyl Act, addressing the national opioid crisis by strengthening controls on fentanyl-related substances, but have particularly hit rural districts and states in the Virginian/Appalachian region. This legislation directly addressed the needs of constituents struggling with drug dependency in specific areas, with the local representative being aware of this enough to do something about it. This example demonstrates that Congress can respond effectively to the immediate needs of the public during a crisis.
Role of interest groups
+Congress is influenced by special interest groups. In 2025, the reversal of Medicare's authority to negotiate drug prices, a long-standing pharmaceutical industry goal, is expected to cost taxpayers $5 billion over a decade. This example shows how the legislative process can be swayed by the interests of powerful lobbying groups, indicating a potential misalignment with broader constituent needs.
Diversity
Reflects diversity of the nation
+The 119th Congress is the most demographically diverse in US history. 139 voting members (26 percent) identify as Black, Hispanic, Asian American, or Native American. Black representation in the House now stands at 14 percent, closely matching the Black share of the US population. The Senate includes two Black women for the first time: Lisa Blunt Rochester (Delaware) and Angela Alsobrooks (Maryland). This demonstrates progress towards a more representative body that mirrors the diverse demographics of the country.
Some way to go on diversity
+Despite progress, Congress still falls short: Hispanic Americans account for 20 percent of the population but only 11 percent of voting members of Congress. Female representation remains at 28 percent, well below population parity. Immigrants make up 15 percent of the population but only 4 percent of Congress. Only three members identify as religiously unaffiliated, despite 29 percent of American adults reporting no religious affiliation. These disparities highlight that there is still a long way to go before Congress can fully mirror the diverse American electorate.
Pluralism
Diversity of opinion
+Congress provides a forum for diverse voices and ideas. The Democrats have 'The Squad', led unofficially by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who are a group of social democrat progressives. On the right, there are members such as Marjorie Taylor-Greene, who sits on the pro-Trump, alt-right spectrum. This demonstrates Congress's role in fostering inclusive dialogue and addressing a wide array of perspectives, with active debate around legislation such as the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" serving as a flashpoint between two competing ideological camps.
Lack of consensus
+Congress is mired in gridlock and partisanship. With slim majorities – 220 to 215 in the House and 53 to 47 in the Senate, the 119th Congress has operated under constant pressure. Bipartisan compromise is rare, especially on large-scale issues such as tax reform and public spending. This shows how partisanship can obstruct legislative progress and prevent the resolution of critical issues.
Electoral Legitimacy
Regular election and mandate renewal
+Congress is accountable to the people through regular elections. Every two years, the entire House of Representatives and a third of the Senate are up for re-election. The 119th Congress was elected in 2024, giving Republicans a narrow but legitimate mandate to govern. President Trump was re-elected, and Republicans gained control of both chambers – 220 to 215 in the House, and 53 to 47 in the Senate.
Distorting of electoral boundaries
+Gerrymandering can undermine democratic process by distorting true representation. In states like North Carolina, partisan gerrymandering has allowed political parties to draw boundaries that favour one party, often creating "safe" seats less responsive to voter preferences. In the 2021 redistricting, North Carolina's map was drawn to dilute Democratic voters by "cracking" urban areas like Charlotte. This manipulation has resulted in a congressional delegation that does not accurately reflect the state's political balance.
AO3: Possible judgements on whether Congress is effective in its role of representation
Congress is effective at representing people
Whilst there is undoubtedly a range of lobbying interests that influence congressional bills, Congress is still able to pass bills that directly help and benefit their constituent needs. This is a superior point due to the fact that primarily members of Congress want to stay in office, and this means paying close attention to the needs of their constituents, meaning they will often ignore special interests' groups in their favour. Whilst the economic position of members of Congress far outstrips that of the average American, a lot of this wealth comes after they join. A vastly stronger point is that Congress is undoubtedly improving its descriptive representativeness, with far superior ethnic, gender, and religious diversity than previous congresses.
Congress has been accused of being unproductive in recent years, it could be argued that the diversity of voices in the legislature is evidence of democracy in action and pluralist in its ideals. This is the superior point, as, albeit at the cost of effective legislating, it means that those in Congress are representing the genuine positions many Americans hold. There is undoubtedly a lot of, and perhaps too much, money in US politics. However, the regular federal elections, not to mention the more state and local one's people participate in, is good evidence of how the representative function of Congress is alive and well. This is a superior point due to the fact that Congressional composition can dramatically change every two years, showing the dynamic and representative nature of the legislative branch.
Congress is not effective at representing people
It could be argued that Congress can still important laws passed that benefit their constituents, this can be tempered by the need to be campaign fundraising almost immediately after their previous elections. This gives credence to the concept of it being a 'Coin operated Congress,' showing the clear pressure of placating these organisations, a lot of time in direct opposition to the interests of their constituents. There is little doubt that descriptive representativeness of Congress has improved over the years, but there is a feeling that Washington DC has become 'elitist' and detached from mainstream US citizenry. This is to a point that politicians such as Donald Trump and others have made political gains by highlighting this detachment. The wealth members of Congress accrue whilst in office only feeds this narrative, making it a superior point as the increased representativeness and pluralism of Congress as a message does not connect with the public at large as much as the 'elitism' one. So, whilst various voices and opinions are heard, this can be the very thing that stops Congress from getting things done.
Factionalism within the parties can provide such oppositional views that it makes it hard to get much needed legislation through. This is a superior point as often the range of ideological positions make it incredibly difficult to get enough of a consensus together to pass meaningful laws. Finally, regular elections are a positive feature of Congressional legitimacy, when you look behind the simple regularity of the elections, there are many problems with how they are conducted. The gerrymandering and eye-watering sums of money means that genuine, grass-roots representation is not achievable, a superior point since true representativeness has been scuppered by financial power and inconsistent boundaries.
The Legislative Process
The journey of a bill through Congress is a multi-stage process that involves drafting, committee review, amendments, and debates in both chambers before reaching the President's desk. The complexity of this process allows for thorough scrutiny and revision of proposed laws but can also lead to significant delays and the occasional stalling of legislation.
Each chamber has its procedures and traditions that affect the legislative process: the House is ruled by stricter time limits for debate, while the Senate allows for more open deliberation and tactics such as the filibuster, which can block legislation unless a supermajority is reached.
Leadership roles in Congress
Congress has a few positions within it that can have a genuine impact on the passage of legislation and its ability to provide oversight of the executive branch.
Vice President as Leader of the Senate
The Vice President's legislative role as leader of the Senate has declined over time, with more executive responsibilities being assigned to the office. The Vice-President is the only position that has a constitutional role in both the executive and legislative branch.
Traditionally, the VP's main function in the Senate was to cast tie-breaking votes and oversee proceedings, but as the executive branch's demands grew, their direct involvement in legislative matters diminished. However, during Kamala Harris's term as Vice President, this role gained renewed importance. With the Senate often split 50-50, Harris cast a record-breaking 31 tie-breaking votes (as of 2023), making her a pivotal participant in legislative decision-making. This is the most any Vice President has cast since the early 19th century. As of January 2026, VP JD Vance has cast 8 tie-breaking votes.
The Line of Succession
If the President dies or is unable to fulfil their functions, there is an established protocol for who takes on the role of chief executive. This protocol is a combination of the original constitution, legislation and the 25th Amendment. This is particularly important as the role does not stay in the executive branch, jumping to congressional leadership if the Vice-President is not able to fulfil their role.
The policy significance of Congress
There is a prevailing sentiment that Congress has had limited impact through the policy it has enacted in recent years. This stems from a range of systemic, cultural, and political reasons:
The productivity of Congress has declined, with fewer bills being passed. For instance, the 116th Congress (2019-2021) enacted only 344 public laws, continuing a downward trend during the Trump era and into the early Biden administration.
Bills have become increasingly complex and lengthy. The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, signed into law by President Biden, was about 242 pages long and included various elements perceived as unrelated to the immediate COVID-19 crisis.
Substantive legislation changes laws and impacts governance, while ceremonial legislation includes resolutions with no legal impact. During Trump's presidency, numerous bills were primarily ceremonial, such as those naming post offices.
Many bills fail due to lack of support, strong opposition, or insufficient prioritisation. Attempts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act during Trump's term failed despite multiple efforts in 2017.
A slim majority can give disproportionate influence to a small number of lawmakers, often stalling legislation. In the 117th Congress, even a small number of Democratic lawmakers had significant sway due to their slim majority.
Amendments that make a bill unattractive to pass are used strategically by opponents. During debates over infrastructure and budget reconciliation bills in 2021, various amendments challenged the passage of key Biden priorities.
Congress members spending less time in Washington reduces opportunities for cross-party discussions, contributing to inefficiencies and increased partisanship. The Congressional calendar has shown a trend with fewer session days.
Increased partisan divisions make it difficult to pass legislation requiring bipartisan support. The ongoing debates over voting rights legislation during the Biden administration highlight these difficulties.
The strengths and weaknesses of the legislative process
Theme
Strengths
Weaknesses
Scrutiny
Detailed scrutiny of potential legislation
+The legislative process allows for extensive scrutiny, providing opportunities for amendments, debate and refinement before a bill becomes law. For instance, the Secure Our Ports Act of 2025 was introduced in January and underwent committee mark-ups in April before passing the House in June. This structured process enabled legislators to adjust the bill in response to stakeholder concerns, demonstrating how scrutiny enhances legislative quality.
Long and arduous process
+The process can be slow and cumbersome, even when rapid action is required. The One Big Beautiful Bill, which included significant economic reforms, took over two months to pass through reconciliation between May and July 2025. This illustrates how lengthy negotiations and procedural hurdles can delay urgent policy action.
Transparency
Transparency
+Congressional debates are accessible to the public, allowing citizens to witness the legislative process in action. During discussions on the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in 2021, debates were broadcast live on C-SPAN, encouraging public scrutiny and reinforcing democratic accountability.
Elitist influence
+The principle of transparency is frequently undermined by the outsized influence of elite actors. The One Big Beautiful Bill contained tax and healthcare provisions which, while technically public, were heavily shaped by corporate lobbying. For example, the rollback of Medicare's negotiating power on drug pricing aligns closely with pharmaceutical interests.
Collaboration
Range of views
+The bicameral system encourages collaboration across party lines. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 brought together Republicans and Democrats to deliver a wide-ranging economic plan. The bipartisan negotiations underpinning this legislation illustrate how the legislative process can reconcile diverse views in the national interest.
'Ping-pong'
+The bicameral structure can lead to disjointed and diluted policy. The reconciliation process for the One Big Beautiful Bill in 2025 saw very different versions, forcing back-and-forth revisions that compromised clarity and coherence. This 'ping-pong' effect checks rash legislation, but also hinders clarity and cohesion in final outcomes.
Adaptability
Flexibility of areas
+Congress has broad authority to legislate across a range of areas. A clear example is the First Step Act, passed in 2018, which introduced reforms to mandatory sentencing and focused on rehabilitation, highlighting how Congress can address long-standing issues through reformist legislation.
Partisanship
+Congress often experiences gridlock. The 35-day government shutdown (2019) occurred due to gridlock over government funding, particularly disagreements on border wall funding. This led to significant delays in federal operations and services, demonstrating the limitations of Congressional efficacy.
Checks
Check and balance
+Congress is empowered to check the executive branch, including overriding a presidential veto. This was demonstrated in 2021 when both chambers overrode President Trump's veto of the National Defense Authorization Act, highlighting the legislature's ability to assert authority in the face of executive resistance.
Filibuster
+The Senate filibuster rule allows a minority to block legislation. The HEROES Act (2020) aimed at providing additional COVID-19 relief was blocked by a Republican filibuster. Despite passing in the House, it failed to advance in the Senate, highlighting how minority party obstruction can prevent critical legislation from moving forward.
Process
Committee scrutiny
+Legislation often undergoes significant revision in committee, ensuring policies are workable and fiscally responsible. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act was revised extensively in committee to address funding sources and cost control, resulting in a more balanced and feasible final bill.
Role of money
+The influence of money in politics can lead to legislation favouring wealthy individuals and corporations. The Tax reform bill (2017) primarily benefited wealthy individuals and corporations, despite public opposition. While framed as a middle-class tax cut, the largest benefits went to the highest income earners.
Responsiveness
Responsive to public needs
+Congress can act swiftly in times of emergency. In March 2020, the CARES Act was passed within days to provide $2.2 trillion in economic relief at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. This rapid legislative response demonstrated the system's capacity to deliver meaningful support when most urgently needed.
No direct weakness on this theme
AO3: Possible judgements on whether Congress is effective at legislating
Congress is effective at passing laws
Whilst there can be delays to important pieces of legislation, the strict scrutiny and layers of the legislative process are far more important to ensure any bills are held to the highest standard at every stage, ensuring that the bill is of the highest quality. The open and publicised nature of the legislative process means that the public is made aware at every stage of the contents of the legislation.
Whilst there is a large degree of lobbying influence on legislative matters, it could be argued that the process itself is a matter of public record and that things like pork-barrel politics and campaign contributions by lobbying firms are the grease that keeps the gears of legislation moving.
There are clearly examples of partisan gridlock in the congressional legislative process; however, even in recent times with a large amount of hyper-partisanship, it has been shown that the Republicans and Democrats can act in a bicameral way for the good of the American people. This is a superior point since when it really matters, common ground can be found between competing political parties.
Congress is not effective at passing laws
A strong degree of vetting and scrutiny is important; however, there are instances when legislation is desperately needed for a short-term issue, and the politicised nature of the process, combined with the power of certain individuals within the process, can be a genuine roadblock to quick and effective lawmaking.
Although it could be argued the process is transparent at all stages, most legislating does not take place on the Senate or the House of Representatives floor. It is done through conversations and interactions with lobbying groups, nonprofit organisations, and leaders of industry in the offices, bars, and restaurants of Washington DC. This takes a lot of the legislative process out of the public realm, making this a significantly stronger argument since backroom deals in 'smoke-filled rooms' are certainly not a matter of public record.
While there are some examples of bipartisanship in recent years, a lot of legislation falls due to a lack of it. The political benefit of being against a piece of legislation introduced by the opposite party often outweighs any national benefit of said bill. Re-election is the most important factor in a member of Congress's voting behaviour, and if they see an opportunity to shore up their vote for the next election, they will often take the position that most benefits them.
Case Study
Congress and the 'power of the purse'
The 119th Congress has struggled to assert its authority over federal spending, highlighting serious dysfunction in the appropriations process. Traditionally, congressional appropriators played a key role in negotiating government funding and maintaining a balance of power between the branches of government. However, under President Trump's administration, figures such as Elon Musk, who led the Department of Government Efficiency, and budget director Russ Vought took control over budgetary decisions, sidelining the usual congressional process. This led to a reliance on stopgap funding bills, further limiting bipartisan cooperation and reducing the influence of lawmakers over financial decisions.
Internal divisions, particularly among Democrats, only added to the legislative gridlock, making it difficult to mount an effective challenge to Republican-led funding measures.
This failure of Congress to uphold its power over federal spending raised broader concerns about its role as a check on executive authority. The inability to effectively legislate and oversee financial decisions risked turning Congress into little more than a rubber stamp for presidential actions. The rise of executive actions further marginalised the legislative process. The Trump administration's aggressive restructuring of federal agencies and budgetary cuts went ahead with little congressional oversight, leaving legislators in a reactive position rather than setting the agenda.
Oversight: The checks on the other branches of government
Congressional oversight is a fundamental aspect of the United States' system of checks and balances. It refers to the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation by the United States Congress. Congress has a number of tools they can use to fulfil this role.
Case Study
Power of Subpoena in the House Epstein Investigation – September 2025
The House Oversight Committee issued a subpoena to the estate of Jeffrey Epstein, requiring the release of documents and communications linked to his financial activities and personal network. A subpoena is a legally binding order from Congress which compels an individual, organisation or estate to provide evidence. Failure to comply can lead to contempt proceedings.
This week, the committee released a tranche of documents from the estate into the public domain. These included correspondence with prominent business figures, records of private financial transfers and details of visits to Epstein's properties. Among the most notable disclosures were exchanges between Epstein and Donald Trump, with emails showing arrangements for social meetings in the early 2000s and discussions of mutual acquaintances. While these do not amount to evidence of criminal activity, they do suggest a closer social connection than has been publicly acknowledged, and they have already become a focal point in both media coverage and political debate.
The publication of these documents reinforces the influential role that the committee system plays in scrutinising the executive. The power of subpoena is not only a means of investigating potential illegality but also a tool that can embarrass or politically weaken a sitting president by exposing connections, contradictions or lapses in judgment.
Case Study
The Epstein Files Transparency Act
The decision by Congress to press ahead with the release of the Epstein files that were held by the Department of Justice had become one of the most significant oversight moments of 2025. The House had voted overwhelmingly in favour, passing the measure by 427 to 1, before the Senate cleared it by unanimous consent the following day. The scale of the support reflected both public pressure and a growing recognition that continued obstruction would damage confidence in the institutions responsible for accountability.
Donald Trump's shift on the issue was striking. For weeks he had dismissed attempts to release the files as a political stunt. Yet as it became clear that well over one hundred Republicans were prepared to back disclosure, the President reversed his position and confirmed he would sign the legislation. His u-turn avoided an open split within the party but underlined how sensitive the issue had become. It also demonstrated that congressional pressure, when bipartisan, could still force the executive to adjust course.
Nevertheless, signing the bill did not guarantee full transparency. The executive retained several mechanisms that could limit what reached the public. The Department of Justice could redact material, classify sections of the files or delay publication through parallel investigations. In other words, although Congress had insisted on disclosure, the White House still had considerable influence over how that disclosure unfolded.
Role of Congressional Committees
Committees are an essential part of the legislative process in Congress. They serve to divide the workload of Congress, allowing for more efficient and thorough consideration of bills, oversight of government agencies, and investigation of critical issues.
Types of Committees
These are permanent committees in both chambers that deal with policy areas requiring continuous attention, such as defence, education and finance. Their primary role is to examine and develop legislation. Most bills introduced are referred to a relevant standing committee, which considers the proposal in detail and decides whether it should progress. Standing committees also hold hearings and carry out oversight of the executive branch by monitoring how federal departments implement laws passed by Congress.
Select or special committees are temporary committees created for a specific and limited purpose. Unlike standing committees, they are not permanent and are usually dissolved once they have completed their task. Their main function is to investigate particular issues, problems or events that require focused attention. A well known recent example is the House Select Committee established to investigate the January 6th attack on the US Capitol.
Joint committees are made up of members from both chambers, bringing together legislators to work on shared issues. Their main role is to promote coordination and cooperation between the House and the Senate. Most joint committees do not have the power to draft or formally consider legislation. Instead, they produce reports or recommendations that inform the work of standing committees.
Conference committees are temporary joint committees formed when the House and Senate pass different versions of the same bill. They negotiate compromises on disputed provisions. Once agreement is reached, the committee produces a conference report which must then be approved by both chambers without further amendment before being sent to the president.
Role of the Committee Chair
The chair of a committee holds significant power. Appointed by the majority party, the committee chair sets the agenda, deciding which bills are brought up for discussion and which witnesses are called. Chairs also play a crucial role in shaping investigations and oversight functions and have the authority to schedule meetings and manage operations.
Powers of Committees
- Legislative powers: Committees review, amend, and approve bills before they reach the floor. Most bills that are introduced never make it out of committee, giving these bodies significant control.
- Oversight powers: Committees hold hearings, call witnesses, and conduct investigations to ensure that laws are followed and government agencies are functioning effectively.
- Subpoena power: Committees can issue subpoenas to compel testimony or documents, often used during investigations into government misconduct.
- Approval of appointments: Some committees, particularly in the Senate, review and approve presidential appointments to key positions.
Case Study
The Senate Armed Services Committee
As of 2025, the Chairperson is Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS). The committee is composed of 27 members: 14 Republicans, 12 Democrats, and 1 Independent. Members include Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).
Subcommittees
- Airland: Army, Air Force, and land warfare matters.
- Cybersecurity: Cyber threats and Pentagon cyber operations.
- Emerging Threats and Capabilities: Cutting-edge technologies and new threats.
- Personnel: Military pay, benefits, and healthcare.
- Readiness and Management Support: Training and infrastructure.
- Seapower: Naval matters and shipbuilding.
Role in Investigating the Afghanistan Withdrawal (2021)
The committee launched a series of hearings aimed at understanding what led to the rapid takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban, the failure of the Afghan security forces, and the execution of the evacuation. Key aspects included: assessing planning and execution (questioning Secretary Austin and General Milley); investigating intelligence failures; addressing the humanitarian crisis (13 U.S. service members killed at Kabul airport); and evaluating the impact on U.S. credibility and alliances.
Challenges and limitations of Congressional Oversight
When political parties are deeply divided, oversight activities can become more about scoring political points than about ensuring effective governance. Investigations may be launched with more zeal against opposing party administrations, potentially overlooking critical issues within one's own party.
The executive branch often cites executive privilege and national security concerns as reasons to withhold information. During the investigation into the 2012 Benghazi attack, the Obama administration's invocation of executive privilege raised debates about the balance between oversight and executive confidentiality.
Disputes between Congress and the executive can end up in the judiciary. While judicial intervention can provide resolution, it can also lead to prolonged legal battles, delaying the oversight process and introducing additional complexity.
Case Study
Partisanship in Congressional Oversight – Pam Bondi and the Senate Judiciary Committee October 2025
Attorney General Pam Bondi was called before the Senate Judiciary Committee to answer questions about her role in controversies surrounding the Department of Justice. Senators focused on her involvement in convening a grand jury relating to former FBI Director James Comey, and pressed her on the handling of the Epstein files. Bondi refused to give a clear response, stating: "I am not going to discuss that with you."
Senators challenged the legality of deploying National Guard troops across state lines without local approval. Bondi defended the President's authority: "If you're not going to protect your citizens, President Trump will." This hearing underlined the strengths of legislative oversight while also showing its limits. By refusing to answer questions, Bondi highlighted how executive officials can avoid meaningful scrutiny.
Case Study
Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack
The inquiry was carried out by the House Select Committee, established in July 2021 and chaired by Democratic Representative Bennie Thompson, with Republican Representative Liz Cheney as vice chair. The committee held high-profile public hearings in 2022 that were nationally televised.
The committee made extensive use of subpoenas to compel testimony, including subpoenas to Steve Bannon, Mark Meadows and Peter Navarro. Some witnesses cooperated, while others refused, leading to contempt of Congress referrals and criminal consequences.
In its final report (December 2022), the committee concluded that Donald Trump had engaged in a multi-step effort to overturn the election result and had incited the violence at the Capitol. It recommended reforms to electoral law and security and made criminal referrals to the Department of Justice.
The inquiry also demonstrated the limits of congressional investigatory power. The Trump White House refused to comply with certain subpoenas, citing executive privilege, illustrating how executive resistance and legal delays can constrain Congress's ability to secure information.
Is Congress an effective overseer of the Executive branch?
Theme
Strengths
Weaknesses
Investigative Power
Range of oversight tools
+Congress has the power of oversight. In 2025, the House Committee on Oversight issued a subpoena to former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales following a unanimous vote in the Subcommittee on Federal Law Enforcement, indicating bipartisan support for action in response to public concern. This illustrates how oversight persists even under unified government.
Executive non-compliance
+In 2020, the Trump administration refused to cooperate with congressional subpoenas during the impeachment inquiry. This illustrates the limitations of Congressional oversight when the executive branch refuses to comply, thereby impeding effective scrutiny and accountability.
Financial Control
Money powers
+In 2025, the Senate passed the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act with strong bipartisan support (87–9), reaffirming congressional control over how and where money is spent.
Executive leeway
+In 2019, President Trump declared a national emergency to bypass Congress and divert funding to build the border wall. This shows how the executive branch can override Congressional control of the budget, undermining Congress's power of the purse.
Appointments
Power of confirmation
+The Senate's rejection of Matt Gaetz as Attorney General serves as a clear example of robust oversight. Despite the President's backing, the Senate acted decisively to block the nomination, citing concerns over Gaetz's suitability, partisanship, and ethical record.
Recess appointments
+In 2020, President Trump appointed officials to key positions during a Senate recess, bypassing the confirmation process. This illustrates the executive branch's ability to circumvent Congressional approval for appointments.
Accountability
Impeachment powers
+In 2019, the House impeached President Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. This demonstrates Congress's capacity to take significant actions against the executive for misconduct, reinforcing its oversight role.
No success in removing a sitting President
+In 2020, the Senate acquitted President Trump despite evidence of wrongdoing. This shows the high threshold required for removal, which can make it challenging for Congress to effectively hold the executive branch accountable.
AO3: Possible judgements on whether Congress is effective at overseeing the Executive branch
Congress is effective as a 'watchdog' of the Executive
The executive branch can often be uncooperative with investigations launched by Congress. However, the damage an investigation can do to a presidency does not necessarily require extensive evidence to hold the president accountable. This is a superior point, as even if the executive branch is non-compliant, Congress still has a range of public and media levers they can pull to scrutinise and expose any shortcomings of the president.
The president has attempted to use executive powers to advance their legislative agenda, but any significant project or policy that requires funding must ultimately be approved by Congress. This is a stronger point, as the power of the purse is a crucial lever in bringing the president to heel and forcing them into a more conciliatory position. While there are examples of partisan support for a president's nominations during a united government, if someone is genuinely unsuited for a role, Congress is willing to reject the nomination under strict scrutiny.
Congress is ineffective and is a 'lapdog' of the executive
Congress can deploy its oversight powers to scrutinise the president. However, a stronger view is that the president in recent years has shown a willingness to invoke executive privilege and general non-compliance to hinder any deep investigation into executive behaviour. This means that while Congress might seek to oversee the executive branch, the executive has become adept at deflecting forensic analysis.
Congress has strong oversight powers as the controller of government spending. However, the president has securitised many policies to ensure their agenda can be implemented. If they can justify their policy as a matter of national security, their power as commander-in-chief can come into play, giving them more flexibility in deploying federal funds. This is a superior point, as recent presidents have increasingly used this power.
Although there is good evidence of strict scrutiny of presidential nominations, there are facilities that allow the president to appoint whomever they want. Recess appointments bypass Congress's oversight. However, in a united government where the party controlling Congress is the same as the president's party, the chances of a nomination rejection are slim. This is the superior point, as in reality, very few nominations are rejected due to the high level of partisanship in a united government.