Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T07:44:09.227Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Constituency Service Basis of the Personal Vote for U.S. Representatives and British Members of Parliament

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Bruce E. Cain ,
John A. Ferejohn  and
Morris P. Fiorina
Bruce E. Cain
Affiliation:
California Institute of Technology
John A. Ferejohn
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Morris P. Fiorina
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Under the guise of the “incumbency advantage,” American research of the past decade has devoted heavy emphasis to what may be termed the “personal vote” in congressional elections. Is this phenomenon purely American, or is it susceptible to comparative treatment? This article contrasts the personal vote in the 1980 U.S. House elections with that in the 1979 British general election. The analysis utilizes data from surveys conducted by the Center for Political Studies and British Gallup in combination with interviews of congressional administrative assistants (AAs) and British MPs and party agents whose constituencies fall in the sampling frames of the mass surveys. The analysis finds an incumbency advantage or personal vote in Britain which is much weaker than that in the United States but of somewhat greater importance than is commonly believed. As in the United States, constituency service appears to be an important component of the personal vote.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 78 , Issue 1 , March 1984 , pp. 110 - 125
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1984

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

Barker, A., & Rush, M.The member of Parliament and his information. London: Allen and Unwin, 1970.Google Scholar
Burnham, W. D.Insulation and responsiveness in congressional elections. Political Science Quarterly, 1975, 90, 411–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, D., & Kavanagh, D.The British general election of 1979. New York: Holmes and Meier, 1980.Google Scholar
Butt, R.The power of Parliament. London: Constable, 1967.Google Scholar
Cain, B. Blessed be the tie than unbinds: constituency pressures and national party forces in Great Britain. Political Studies, in press.Google Scholar
Cain, B., Ferejohn, J., & Fiorina, M. Casework service in Great Britain and the United States. Comparative Political Studies, in press.Google Scholar
Chester, D.N. & Bowring, N.Questions in Parliament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962.Google Scholar
Converse, P.Information flow and the stability of partisan attitudes. In Campbell, A.et al. (Eds.), Elections and the political order. New York: Wiley, 1966.Google Scholar
Cover, A. D.One good term deserves another: the advantage of incumbency in congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 1977, 71, 523–542.Google Scholar
Cover, D. & Brumberg, B.S.Baby books and ballots: the impact of congressional mail on constituent opinion. American Political Science Review, 1982, 76, 347–359.Google Scholar
Crewe, I.Do Butler and Stokes really explain political change in Britain? European Journal of Political Research, 1974, 43–100.Google Scholar
Crewe, I.The voting surveyed. In Times Guide to the House of Commons. London: Times Books Limited, 1979.Google Scholar
Crick, B.The reform of Parliament (2nd ed., rev.) London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1970.Google Scholar
Curtice, J., & Steed, M.Appendix 2: an analysis of the voting. In Butler, D., & Kavanagh, D. (Eds.), The British general election of 1979. London: Macmillan, 1980, pp. 390–431.Google Scholar
Curtice, J., & Steed, M.Electoral choice and the production of government: the changing operation of the electoral system in the United Kingdom since 1955. British Journal of Political Science, 1982, 12, 249–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowse, R. E.The MP and his surgery. Political Studies II: 1963, 333–341.Google Scholar
Erikson, R.Malapportionment, gerrymandering and party fortunes in congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 1972, 66, 1234–1245.Google Scholar
Fenno, R.Home style: House members in their districts. Boston: Little, Brown, 1978.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, J.A.On the decline of competition in congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 1977, 71, 166–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, M.P.Congress—keystone of the Washington establishment. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1977.Google Scholar
Fiorina, M.P.The decline of collective responsibility in American politics. Daedalus, 1980, 109, 25–45.Google Scholar
Fiorina, M.P.Congressmen and their constituencies: 1958 and 1978. In Hale, D. (Ed.) Proceedings of the Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Symposium on the U.S. Congress. Boston: Eusey Press, 1982, 1, 33–64.Google Scholar
Hartley-Brewer, M.The importance of being a good constituency man. The Guardian, 1976, 17.Google Scholar
Hinckley, B.House re-elections and Senate defeats: the role of the challenger. British Journal of Political Science, 1980, 10, 441–460.Google Scholar
Hinckley, B.Congressional elections. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1981.Google Scholar
Jacobson, C.Money in congressional elections. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
Jacobson, C.The politics of congressional elections. Boston: Little Brown, 1982.Google Scholar
Kavanagh, D.Constituency electioneering in Britain. London: Longmans, 1970.Google Scholar
King, A.British members of Parliament: A selfportrait. London: Macmillan, 1974.Google Scholar
King, A.The rise of the career politician in Britain— and its consequences. British Journal of Political Science, 1982, 11, 249–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, A., & Sloman, A.Westminister and beyond. London: Macmillan, 1973.Google Scholar
Mann, E.Unsafe at any margin: interpreting congressional elections. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute, 1978.Google Scholar
Mayhew, D.R.Congressional elections: the case of the vanishing marginals. Polity, 1974, 6, 295–317. (a)Google Scholar
Mayhew, D. R.Congress: the electoral connection. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1974. (b)Google Scholar
Munroe, R.The member of Parliament as representative: the view from the constituency. Political Studies, 1977, 25, 577–587.Google Scholar
Norton, P.The changing face of the British House of Commons in the 1970s. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 1980, 5, 333–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, G.R.The advantage of incumbency in House elections. American Politics Quarterly, 1980, 8, 449–464. (a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, G.R.Sources of change in congressional district attentiveness. American Journal of Political Science, 1980, 24, 115–124. (b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, R.Interpreting candidate awareness in U.S. congressional elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 1981, 6, 219–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, R., & Converse, P.Candidate visibility in France and the United States. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 1981, 6, 339–371.Google Scholar
Pinto-Duschinsky, M.Financing the British general election of 1979. In Penniman, H. (Ed.), Britain at the polls. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute, 1980, pp. 210–240.Google Scholar
Richards, P. G.The backbencher. London: Faber, 1972.Google Scholar
Schwartz, J.E.Exploring a new role in policy making: The British House of Commons in the 1970s. American Political Science Review, 1980, 74, 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokes, D.Parties and the nationalization of electoral forces. In Chambers, W. N. & Burnham, W. D. (Eds.), The American party systems. New York: Oxford University Press, 1967, 182–202.Google Scholar
Tufte, E.R.The relationship between seats and vote in two-party systems. American Political Science Review, 1973, 67, 540–554.Google Scholar
Williams, P.M.The M.P.'s personal vote. Parliamentary Affairs, 1966–1967, 24–30.Google Scholar