ABSTRACT
We explore why reformers make the proposals that they do and the factors that lead to their success or failure. Common areas of disaffection that lead to potential reforms are dissatisfaction with legislative outcomes and inefficiency in legislative procedure. However, reforms are usually framed as being in the public interest of Congress and the country by promoting representativeness. We examine reformers and their proposals in the 115th and 116th House. We find that institutionally limited members, such as junior members or ideological extremists, are those most dissatisfied with their influence and thus most likely to foment reforms. As reformers are dissatisfied with their power, party leaders stave off more radical reforms by giving reformers party and committee positions, though it is difficult for these groups to gain serious leverage over the leaders. This chapter contributes to the literature on congressional reform by analyzing offered proposals in an arena of gridlock, polarization, and the increasing role of party.
