English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In recent years, the most bruising intraparty battles have pitted House leaders against their respective parties’ ideological extremes. While we know much about the resources and procedural powers leaders draw on in these confrontations, we know considerably less about the tactics of their hardline foes. What bargaining strategies do hardline members typically employ when negotiating with party leaders? Why do hardline groups favor some institutional arrangements over others? This paper argues that hardliners’ bargaining strategies and organizational choices are tightly linked and often path dependent. Members first choose how to generate leverage, sometimes resorting to collective defection, but more typically attempting to wrangle a party majority. This choice then dictates the organizational practices that structure their collaboration. But those organizational practices are often sticky, making it difficult for legislators to pivot from one strategy to another.

Organizing at the Extreme: Hardline Strategy and Institutional Design