Majority Party Reliability
Error Types: The above description of engine failure is analogous to the situation a
majority party faces in seeking to enhance the reliable operation of committees.
The
reliability of a committee may be thought of in terms of type I and type II errors. Type I
and type II errors have relevance only in relation to a null hypothesis, so we posit a null
hypothesis from the majority party’s perspective. It is a well-known fact that the vast
majority of bills introduced in the House never leave the committee to which they were
referred. A reasonable null hypothesis, then, is that the legislation should die in
committee. This leaves the alternative hypothesis that the legislation should be approved
by the committee.
Under these hypotheses, a type I error is defined by the committee approving legislation
that it should not have approved (from the perspective of the
majority party). Such a
situation might occur if the minority party were able to approve legislation in committee
that would shift policy closer to the position of their median caucus member. A type II
error occurs when the null hypothesis is inappropriately rejected. That is, the committee
kills a bill that it should not have killed (again according to the
majority perspective).
Such
type II errors could be construed as
missed opportunities as the majority party fails
to forward an agenda item.
Just as there are two ways for committees to fail from the majority perspective, there are
also two ways that they can operate successfully. The first occurs when a committee kills
a bill that should have been killed. The second occurs when a committee passes a bill
Convention