States Where Upper and Lower Legislative Chambers Behave Very Differently

[Skill and Chance]

NY and VA are the two most obvious examples, but those are easily explained by maps drawn by opposite parties.  What about states like NM, where the state senate is basically a large and permanent Dem majority while the state house is too close to call in most elections?  Neither party drew those maps.  NV and CO are similar in that the lower house is almost a Dem lock while the state senate is usually a one-seat majority either way.  And there is a permanent 2/3rds ish Republican majority in the Michigan state senate while the state house is usually closely contested and was controlled by Democrats during 2006-10.  Is this something inherent to the geography of these states and large vs. small districts?

There are also some interesting examples in one-party states, like the de facto centrist coalition controlling the KS state senate while the lower house has a clear Tea Party style majority.  Texas is somewhat similar but with the centrist coalition in the lower house and the far right coalition in the state senate.  Republicans drew all of these maps as they saw fit, so what is driving these anomalies?

[Gass3268]

Kentucky up to 2016 was another good example of this.

[Nyvin]

I know the Florida House and Senate more or less hate each other despite both being Republican Majority for the past decade+

[Skill and Chance]

Kentucky up to 2016 was another good example of this.

That was an opposite party gerrymanders scenario like NY and VA, except even more severe.  There is simple majority veto override in KY, so each chamber did whatever it wanted.  The KY GOP lucked into one-seat control of the state senate for the 2001 redistricting year and that was all she wrote.

Also, the AZ state house has a solid R majority while the AZ state senate is only 17R/13D and could easily flip in 2018.  This predates the 2011 mapping controversy in AZ.  The state senate was tied 15/15 in 2001 and only 17R/13D or 18R/12D for the rest of the decade until the 2010 wave hit.  The state house stayed about 60%R throughout that time. 

AK is interesting with all of the bipartisan coalition agreements, but it's something that's happened frequently in both chambers.  It reminds me of some parliamentary democracies that frequently have unity governments.

[MarkD]

I think the MO Senate is much less partisan than the MO House of Representatives.
Seating arrangement: the Senators are not seated according to party in the Senate.
Two examples of voting patterns that have occurred in the last month or so: how the Senate voted on SCR 4 and SCR 9 compared to how the House voted on them.
Both of these Senate Concurrent Resolutions are applications for an Article V convention that can propose one or more amendments to the U.S. Constitution. SCR 4 has far more backing from Republicans nationwide, and its subject is a pursuit of amendments that limit the federal government's power, that impose fiscal discipline on the federal government, and that impose term limits on federal officials. SCR 9 has far more backing from Democrats nationwide, and it is about overturning the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC.
The Senate voted favorably for both of these resolutions in mid-April. SCR 4 passed 26 to 7 and SCR 9 passed 19 to 12 (there is one vacant seat and two Senators were absent from the vote on SCR 9). The 26 Senators who voted for SCR 4 were 19 Republicans and 7 Democrats; the 7 who voted against it were 5 Republicans and 2 Democrats. The 19 Senators who voted for SCR 9 were 11 Republicans and 8 Democrats, while the 12 who voted against it were all Republicans. I am about 95% certain that vote-trading provides most of the explanation why both of these passed by the margins that they did.

However, the House passed SCR 4 yesterday, by a margin of 85 to 50, with a much more partisan pattern of who voted for/against it, and SCR 9 died in a House committee, because almost the only ones in favor of SCR 9 were Democrats.

[KingSweden]

Referring to those bills in the MO Senate, I'd be very supportive of term limits paired with overturning Citizens United

[Kevinstat]

Democrats are usually stronger in the Maine House than in the Maine Senate, except at times when they have large majorities in both their Senate majorities can be more lopsided (a smaller number of districts means that areas that voted significantly differently from the statewide average are more likely to be outvoted) and in the late '90s the Republicans were closer (in terms of percentage of seats) in the House for whatever reason.  It's not in the "very different" category though, at least not today.  Democrats have been in the 70s (76 is a majority) in the Maine House in three of the last four elections, with Republicans winning a 76-73-1 majority (quickly padded to 77-72-1 due to a party switch) in 2010, and Democrats have only 77 seats there now (with at least one of the three Unenrolled members being a de facto D) while only trailing by 1 seat (17-18) in the Senate.

[Skill and Chance]

Democrats are usually stronger in the Maine House than in the Maine Senate, except at times when they have large majorities in both their Senate majorities can be more lopsided (a smaller number of districts means that areas that voted significantly differently from the statewide average are more likely to be outvoted) and in the late '90s the Republicans were closer (in terms of percentage of seats) in the House for whatever reason.  It's not in the "very different" category though, at least not today.  Democrats have been in the 70s (76 is a majority) in the Maine House in three of the last four elections, with Republicans winning a 76-73-1 majority (quickly padded to 77-72-1 due to a party switch) in 2010, and Democrats have only 77 seats there now (with at least one of the three Unenrolled members being a de facto D) while only trailing by 1 seat (17-18) in the Senate.

Yes, that isn't really different enough to qualify IMO. 

[Figueira]

In MA the Senate is more liberal than the House, but both are solidly Democratic.

[Nyvin]

I'd say in NH the House is very much more populist while the Senate is more establishment,  this is true for both Republicans and Democrats. 

With the House you get a lot more "everyday folk" since there are so many seats, while the Senate attracts more typical politicians that aspire to be in DC someday.

[muon2]

One interesting difference in IL is the behavior on bills that increase fees for state services or authorize local governments to do the same, even in the smallest amounts. The IL Senate typically votes unanimously if the bill is agreed by the leadership of the two parties. In the IL House there will be lots of "no" votes on both sides. Those are mostly the "targets", members in their first term or from marginal seats. There's a historic use of these votes as support for taxes in campaign flyers in House races but not Senate races, hence the difference in voting behavior.

[Tintrlvr]

I'd say in NH the House is very much more populist while the Senate is more establishment,  this is true for both Republicans and Democrats.  

With the House you get a lot more "everyday folk" since there are so many seats, while the Senate attracts more typical politicians that aspire to be in DC someday.

NH is pretty unique, though, because one out of every four New Hampshire residents is a member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives.

[WMS]

What about states like NM, where the state senate is basically a large and permanent Dem majority while the state house is too close to call in most elections?  Neither party drew those maps.

Ah, this one I know. The State Senate has, for both this cycle and the previous one, been drawn as an incumbent protection plan ABOVE ALL ELSE, and there are enough members from both parties who like their safe seats to ensure it always passes. The interests of the people? Don't be silly, this is New Mexico.

[Ebsy]

I think the MO Senate is much less partisan than the MO House of Representatives.
Seating arrangement: the Senators are not seated according to party in the Senate.
Two examples of voting patterns that have occurred in the last month or so: how the Senate voted on SCR 4 and SCR 9 compared to how the House voted on them.
Both of these Senate Concurrent Resolutions are applications for an Article V convention that can propose one or more amendments to the U.S. Constitution. SCR 4 has far more backing from Republicans nationwide, and its subject is a pursuit of amendments that limit the federal government's power, that impose fiscal discipline on the federal government, and that impose term limits on federal officials. SCR 9 has far more backing from Democrats nationwide, and it is about overturning the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC.
The Senate voted favorably for both of these resolutions in mid-April. SCR 4 passed 26 to 7 and SCR 9 passed 19 to 12 (there is one vacant seat and two Senators were absent from the vote on SCR 9). The 26 Senators who voted for SCR 4 were 19 Republicans and 7 Democrats; the 7 who voted against it were 5 Republicans and 2 Democrats. The 19 Senators who voted for SCR 9 were 11 Republicans and 8 Democrats, while the 12 who voted against it were all Republicans. I am about 95% certain that vote-trading provides most of the explanation why both of these passed by the margins that they did.

However, the House passed SCR 4 yesterday, by a margin of 85 to 50, with a much more partisan pattern of who voted for/against it, and SCR 9 died in a House committee, because almost the only ones in favor of SCR 9 were Democrats.

This is pretty accurate.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

In MA the Senate is more liberal than the House, but both are solidly Democratic.

How much is that do you think is due to DeLeo's leadership versus Rosenberg's?