Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T16:11:01.127Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Candidate Quality, the Personal Vote, and the Incumbency Advantage in Congress

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2007

JAMIE L. CARSON ,
ERIK J. ENGSTROM  and
JASON M. ROBERTS
JAMIE L. CARSON
Affiliation:
The University of Georgia
ERIK J. ENGSTROM
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
JASON M. ROBERTS
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Most political observers agree that incumbent legislators have a considerable advantage over nonincumbents in modern congressional elections. Yet there is still disagreement over the exact source of this advantage and the explanation for its growth over time. To address this debate we utilize a unique set of historical elections data to test for the presence of an incumbency advantage in late-nineteenth-century House elections (1872–1900). We find a modest direct effect of incumbency and a substantial candidate quality effect. Moreover, the cartel-like control of ballot access by nineteenth century political parties created competition in races that the modern market-like system simply does not sustain. Our results suggest that candidate quality is a fundamental piece of the puzzle in understanding the historical development of the incumbency advantage in American politics.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 101 , Issue 2 , May 2007 , pp. 289 - 301
Copyright
© 2007 by the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramowitz Alan I. 1991. “Incumbency, Campaign Spending, and the Decline of Competition in U.S. House Elections.” The Journal of Politics 53 (February): 34– 56.Google Scholar
Alchian Armen A., and Harold Demsetz. 1972. “Production, Information Costs, and Economic Organization.” The American Economic Review 62 (December): 777– 95.Google Scholar
Aldrich John H. 1995. Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Alford John R., and David W. Brady. 1989. “Personal and Partisan Advantage in U.S. Congressional Elections, 1846–1986.” In Congress Reconsidered, 4th edition, ed. Lawrence Dodd and Bruce Oppenheimer. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Alston Lee J., Kara Gorski, Jeffery A. Jenkins, and Tomas Nonnenmacher. 2006. “Who Should Govern Congress? Access to Power and the Salary Grab of 1873.” The Journal of Economic History 66 (September): 674– 706.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere Stephen, James M. Snyder Jr., and Charles Stewart, III. 2000. “Old Voters, New Voters, and the Personal Vote: Using Redistricting to Measure the Incumbency Advantage.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (January): 17– 34.Google Scholar
Argersinger Peter H. 1985–1986. “New Perspectives on Election Fraud in the Gilded Age.” Political Science Quarterly 100 (Winter): 669–87.Google Scholar
Bensel Richard. 2004. The American Ballot Box in the Mid-Nineteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brady David W. 1988. Critical Elections and Congressional Policy Making. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Brady David W., and Bernard Grofman. 1991. “Sectional Differences in Partisan Bias and Electoral Responsiveness in U.S. House Elections, 1850–1980.” British Journal of Political Science 21 (April): 247– 56.Google Scholar
Brady David, Kara Buckley, and Douglas Rivers. 1999. “The Roots of Careerism in the U.S. House of Representatives.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 24 (November): 489– 510.Google Scholar
Carson Jamie L., Erik J. Engstrom, and Jason M. Roberts. 2006. “Redistricting, Candidate Entry, and the Politics of Nineteenth-Century U.S. House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (April): 283– 93.Google Scholar
Carson Jamie L., and Jason M. Roberts. 2005. “Strategic Politicians and U.S. House Elections, 1874–1914.” Journal of Politics 67 (May): 474– 96.Google Scholar
Cover Albert D., and Bruce S. Brumberg. 1982. “Baby Books and Ballots: The Impact of Congressional Mail on Constituency Opinion.” American Political Science Review 76 (June): 347– 59.Google Scholar
Cox Gary W., and Jonathan N. Katz. 1996. “Why Did the Incumbency Advantage in U.S. House Elections Grow? American Journal of Political Science 40 (May): 478–97.Google Scholar
Cox Gary W., and Jonathan N. Katz. 2002. Elbridge Gerry's Salamander: The Electoral Consequences of the Reapportionment Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cox Gary W., and J. Morgan Kousser. 1981. “Turnout and Rural Corruption: New York as a Test Case.” American Journal of Political Science 25 (November): 646– 63.Google Scholar
Cox Gary W., and Mathew D. McCubbins. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Dallinger Frederick W. 1897. Nomination for Elective Office. Harvard Historical Studies.
Dubin Michael J. 1998. United States Congressional Elections, 1788–1997: The Official Results of the Elections of the 1st Through 105th Congresses. Jefferson: McFarland.
Engstrom Erik J., and Samuel Kernell. 2005. “Manufactured Responsiveness: The Impact of State Electoral Laws on Unified Party Control of the Presidency and U.S. House of Representatives, 1840–1940.” American Journal of Political Science 49 (July): 547– 65.Google Scholar
Erikson Robert S. 1971. “The Advantage of Incumbency in Congressional Elections.” Polity 3 (July): 395– 405.Google Scholar
Erikson Robert S. 1972. “Malapportionment, Gerrymandering, and Party Fortunes.” American Political Science Review 66 (December): 1234– 45.Google Scholar
Fiorina Morris P. 1977. “The Case of the Vanishing Marginals: The Bureaucracy Did It.” American Political Science Review 71 (March): 177– 81.Google Scholar
Fiorina Morris P. 1989. Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment. 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Garand James C., and Donald A. Gross. 1984. “Changes in the Vote Margins for Congressional Candidates: A Specification of Historical Trends.” American Political Science Review 78 (March): 17– 30.Google Scholar
Gelman Andrew, and Gary King. 1990. “Estimating Incumbency Advantage Without Bias.” American Journal of Political Science 34 (November): 1142– 64.Google Scholar
Jacobson Gary C. 1989. “Strategic Politicians and the Dynamics of U.S. House Elections, 1946–1986.” American Political Science Review 83 (September): 773– 93.Google Scholar
Jacobson Gary C. 2004. The Politics of Congressional Elections. 6th ed. New York: Longman.
Jacobson Gary C., and Samuel Kernell. 1981. Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Kernell Samuel. 2003. “To Stay, To Quit or To Move Up: Explaining the Growth of Careerism in the House of Representatives, 1878–1940.” Typescript. UCSD.
Kernell Samuel. 1977. “Toward Understanding 19th Century Congressional Careers: Ambition, Competition, and Rotation.” American Journal of Political Science 21 (November): 669– 93.Google Scholar
King Gary, James Honaker, Anne Joseph, and Kenneth Scheve. 2001. “Analyzing Incomplete Political Science Data: An Alternative Algorithm for Multiple Imputation.” American Political Science Review 95 (March): 49– 70.Google Scholar
Kleppner Paul. 1983. “Voters and Parties in the West, 1876–1900.” Western Historical Quarterly 14 (January): 49– 68.Google Scholar
Martis Kenneth C. 1989. The Historical Atlas of Political Parties in the United States, 1789–1989. New York: Macmillan.
Mayhew David R. 1974. “Congressional Elections: The Case of the Vanishing Marginals.” Polity 6 (July): 295– 317.Google Scholar
Ostrogorski Moisei. 1964. Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties. Volume II. New Brunswick: Transaction Books.
Polsby Nelson. 1968. “The Institutionalization of the U.S. House of Representatives.” American Political Science Review 62 (March): 144– 68.Google Scholar
Rusk Jerrold G. 1970. “The Effect of the Australian Ballot Reform on Split Ticket Voting: 1876–1908.” American Political Science Review 64 (December): 1220– 38.Google Scholar
Silbey Joel H. 1991. The American Political Nation, 1838–1893. Stanford University Press.
Summers Mark Wahlgren. 2004. Party Games: Getting, Keeping, and Using Power in Gilded Age Politics. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.
Swenson Peter. 1982. “The Influence of Recruitment on the Structure of Power in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1870–1940.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 7 (February): 7– 36.Google Scholar
Zaller John. 1998. “Politicians as Prize Fighters: Electoral Selection and the Incumbency Advantage.” In Politicians and Party Politics. ed. John G. Geer, 125–85. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.