Legislative Rank in the United States

[Beet]

How does one become "Senate Majority Leader" or "Speaker of the House" or "Minority Leader"? I know it's some combination between seniority and fundraising, and that you must get a majority of your caucus to vote for you. For example, one would think that a stint heading a campaign committee helps boost a member to the leadership, because in your role running a campaign committee you collect lots of money and distribute it to grateful members up for reelection. Being close to a big US donation center also seems to help. For example, one would think Charles Schumer's career was boosted by his cultivation of Wall Street bankers, who helped him raise money for the DSCC. Similarly, my own Congressman, Chris Van Hollen, can tap into a relatively large, affluent and political aware district and metropolitan area.

But these are all gross generalities. Not all heads of campaign committees come from these privileged regions. Nor do all legislative leaders. Perhaps these generalities aren't even correct.

What are the details? How intensely competitive is this? How many members are competing at any one time in each chamber, for the half dozen or so leadership roles? Is this like a slow-burning campaign that is always running, only to heat up at key moments? What are the real factors and criteria that determine which members are more successful?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If it was just seniority, we'd only ever have someone in a leadership position for 2 years in California because of term limits. That's not the case. There seems to be a deal where the Senate Majority leader is from NorCal and the Assembly leader is from SoCal.

[jimrtex]

How does one become "Senate Majority Leader" or "Speaker of the House" or "Minority Leader"? I know it's some combination between seniority and fundraising, and that you must get a majority of your caucus to vote for you. For example, one would think that a stint heading a campaign committee helps boost a member to the leadership, because in your role running a campaign committee you collect lots of money and distribute it to grateful members up for reelection. Being close to a big US donation center also seems to help. For example, one would think Charles Schumer's career was boosted by his cultivation of Wall Street bankers, who helped him raise money for the DSCC. Similarly, my own Congressman, Chris Van Hollen, can tap into a relatively large, affluent and political aware district and metropolitan area.

But these are all gross generalities. Not all heads of campaign committees come from these privileged regions. Nor do all legislative leaders. Perhaps these generalities aren't even correct.

What are the details? How intensely competitive is this? How many members are competing at any one time in each chamber, for the half dozen or so leadership roles? Is this like a slow-burning campaign that is always running, only to heat up at key moments? What are the real factors and criteria that determine which members are more successful?

Texas doesn't have majority and minority leaders.  The Lieutenant Governor really is the presiding officer of the Senate, in fact, and not just according to the Constitution.  The senate is small (31 members) so there is a lot more collegiality.  Legislators are paid $7600 a year, and only meet in session for about 4 months every other year.  It is harder to be partisan hack for a part-time position.

The Speaker of the House is chosen by the House as whole.  Joe Straus, the current speaker was really chosen by the Democrats.   They announced their support of Straus, which meant that only a few Republicans had to voter for him to be elected.   The speaker makes most committee assignments, but traditionally does so on a bi-partisan basis.  Partisanship may be rising - the Democrats made a practice of picking off Craddick D's who cooperated wth Tom Craddick, who was the first Republican speaker in modern times, and all the WD40s have retired, switched parties, or not been re-elected.

[Bacon King]

Ideological and personality-based factionalism plays a significant role of course, as does the caucus' perception of a potential floor leader's management style. They usually have to be a bit of a compromiser/negotiator: it can take a lot of called-in favors to win these types of elections. It takes a degree of clout to be well-known and trusted enough for the job; that's where seniority comes in to play. Fundraising ability isn't all that important in itself, even on the Federal level. Anyone with clout is going to be on an important committee already, and when you're on a big committee you're expected to raise big money or risk losing your seat. Besides, anyone in a leadership role will pretty much be getting huge donations by default anyway.

[tpfkaw]

I just realized that the Democratic and Republican House and Senate leaders both come from pairs of states that border each other.  Any special significance to that?

[Joe Republic]

I just realized that the Democratic and Republican House and Senate leaders both come from pairs of states that border each other.  Any special significance to that?

No...  Look at all the leaders throughout history - there's never been any kind of connective pattern.