A Comparison of Incumbency Across Institutions: A Look at the House, Senate, and Governorships

Authors

  • Brad Lockerbie

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2374-7781.2004.25.0.287-303

Abstract

Using the American National Election Studies of 1990, 1994, and 1998, we can see that there is an incumbency advantage for governors, senators, and members of the House of Representatives. There is, however, some variability to the magnitude of the incumbency advantage. Moreover, it appears to follow a rather sensible pattern. It appears to be strongest for members of the House and weakest for Governors. When looking at House elections, we can see that incumbency is more powerful than is party identification. When we look at senatorial and gubernatorial elections, the items appear to be more evenly matched. When we look at evaluations of the national parties performance and expectations of performance, the picture becomes much more muddy. Gubernatorial candidates consistently avoid being held accountable for their national parties past economic performance. Candidates for the House and Senate are largely able to avoid responsibility for the past economic performance of their national parties. Economic expectations, however, are modestly more related to vote choice.

References

Abramowitz, Alan I. 1985. Economic Conditions, Presidential Popularity, and Voting Behavior in Midterm Congressional Elections. Journal of Politics 47:31-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2131064

Abramowitz, Alan I. 1988. Explaining Senate Election Outcomes. American Political Science Review 82:385-403. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1957392

Achen, Christopher H. 1989. Prospective Voting and the Theory of Party Identification. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association.

Aldrich, John H., and Forrest D. Nelson. 1986. Logit and Probit Models for Multivariate Analysis with Qualitative Dependent Variables. In New Tools for Social Scientists, eds. William D. Berry and Michael S. Lewis-Beck. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Aldrich, John H., John L. Sullivan, and Eugene Borgida. 1989. Foreign Affairs and Issue Voting: Do Presidential Candidates Waltz Before a Blind Audience. American Political Science Review 83:123-141. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1956437

Arnold, R. Douglas. 1979. Congress and the Bureaucracy: A Theory of Influence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Bibby, John F. 1983. Patterns in Midterm Gubernatorial and State Legislative Elections. Public Opinion, February/March, p. 41-46.

Burnham, Walter Dean. 1974. Communications. American Political Science Review 68:210.

Cain, Bruce, John Ferejohn, and Morris Fiorina. 1987. The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674493285

Campbell, Angus, Phillip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald R. Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.

Campbell, James E., and Joe A. Sumners. 1990. Presidential Coattails in Senate Elections. American Political Science Review 84:513-524. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1963532

Chubb, John E. 1988. Institutions, the Economy, and the Dynamics of State Elections. American Political Science Review 82:133-154. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1958062

Cowart, Andrew T. 1973. Electoral Choice in the American States: Incumbency Effects, Partisan Forces, and Divergent Partisan Majorities. American Political Science Review 67:835-853. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1958628

Erikson, Robert S. 1972. Malapportionment, Gerrymandering, and Party Fortunes in Congressional Elections. American Political Science Review 66:1234-1245. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1957176

Erikson, Robert S., and Gerald C. Wright. 1989. Voters, Candidates, and Issues in Congressional Elections. In Congress Reconsidered, eds. Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce I. Oppenheimer. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.

Feldman, Stanley. 1982. Economic Self-Interest and Political Behavior. American Journal of Political Science 26:446-466. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2110937

Feldman, Stanley. 1985. Economic Self-Interest and the Vote: Evidence and Meaning. In Electoral Conditions and Electoral Outcomes: The United States and Western Europe, eds. Heinz Eulau and Michael S. Lewis-Beck. New York: Agathon Press.

Fenno, Richard F., Jr. 1972. If as Ralph Nader Says, Congress is 'the Broken Branch,' How Come We Love our Congressmen So Much? In Congress in Change, ed. Norman J. Orienstein. New York: Praeger.

Ferejohn, John A. 1977. On the Decline of Competition in Congressional Elections. American Political Science Review 71:166-176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003055400259364 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1956960

Fiorina, Morris P. 1977. Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Fiorina, Morris P. 1981a. Some Problems in Studying the Effects of Resource Allocation in Congressional Elections. American Journal of Political Science 25:543-567. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2110818

Fiorina, Morris P. 1981b. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Holbrook-Provo, Thomas M. 1987. National Factors in Gubernatorial Elections. American Politics Quarterly 15:471-483. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1532673X8701500403

Jacobson, Gary C. 2001. The Politics of Congressional Elections, 5th ed. Boston: Longman.

Jewell, Malcolm. 1982. The Neglected World of State Politics. Journal of Politics 44: 638-657. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2130511

Jewell, Malcolm, and David Olson. 1988. Political Parties and Elections in the American States, 3d ed. Chicago: Dorsey Press.

Johannes, John R., and John C. McAdams. 1981. The Congressional Incumbency Effect: Is it Casework, Policy Compatibility, or Something Else? An Examination of the 1978 Election. American Journal of Political Science 25:512-542. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2110817

Jones, Charles O. 1981. New Directions in U.S. Congressional Research. Legislative Studies Quarterly 6:455-468. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/439485

Kennedy, Peter. 2003. A Guide to Econometrics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kenney, Patrick J. 1983. The Effect of State Economic Conditions on the Vote for Governor. Social Science Quarterly 64:154-162.

Kessel, John H. 1988. Presidential Campaign Politics: Coalition Strategies and Citizen Response. Chicago: Dorsey Press.

Kinder, Donald R., and D. Roderick Kiewiet. 1979. Economic Discontent and Political Behavior: The Role of Personal Grievances and Collective Economic Judgments in Congressional Voting. American Journal of Political Science 23:495-527. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111027

Kinder, Donald R., and D. Roderick Kiewiet. 1979. Sociotropic Politics: The American Case. British Journal of Political Science 11:129-161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400002544

King, Gary, Michael Tomz, and Jason Wittenberg. 2000. Making the Most of Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Presentation. American Journal of Political Science 44:347-361. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2669316

Kingston, M. Jean. 1989. Explaining Gubernatorial Election Outcomes, 1950-1985. Ph.D. diss., University of Georgia, Athens.

Kramer, Gerald H. 1971. Short-Term Fluctuations in U.S. Voting Behavior, 1896-1964. American Political Science Review 65:131-143. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1955049

Kramer, Gerald H. 1983. The Ecological Fallacy Revisited: Aggregate versus Individual level Findings on Economics and Elections. American Political Science Review 77:92-111. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1956013

Kuklinski, James, and Darrell West. 1981. Economic Expectations and Voting Behavior in the United States Senate and House Elections. American Political Science Review 75:436-447. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1961376

Lewis-Beck, Michael S. 1980. Applied Regression: An Introduction. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412983440

Lewis-Beck, Michael S. 1988a. Economics and the American Voter: Past, Present, Future. Political Behavior 10:5-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00989377

Lewis-Beck, Michael S. 1988b. Economics and Elections: The Major Western Democracies. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Lockerbie, Brad. 1989. Change in Party Identification: The Role of Prospective Economic Evaluations. American Politics Quarterly 17:291-311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1532673X8901700304

Lockerbie, Brad. 1991. Prospective Voting in U.S. House Elections, 1956-1988. Legislative Studies Quarterly 16:239-261. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/439980

Lockerbie, Brad. 1999. The Partisan Component to the Incumbency Advantage: 1956-1996. Political Research Quarterly 52:631-646. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591299905200308 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/449152

Long, J. Scott. 1997. Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

MacKuen, Michael B., Robert S. Erikson, and James E. Stimson. 1989. Macropartisanship. American Political Science Review 83:1125-1142. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1961661

Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Ornstein, Norman J., Thomas E. Mann, and Michael Malbin. 1987. Vital Statistics on Congress, 1987-1988. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.

Patterson, Samuel C. 1982. Campaign Spending in Contests for Governor. Western Political Quarterly 35:457-477. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/447335 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591298203500401

Pierson, James E. 1977. Sources of Success in Gubernatorial Elections, 1910-1970. Journal of Politics 39:939-958. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2129936

Seroka, James. 1980. Incumbency and Reelection: Governors versus U.S. Senators. State Government 53:161-165.

Sniderman, Paul, and Richard Brody. 1977. Coping: The Ethic of Self-Reliance. American Journal of Political Science 21:501-522. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2110579

Squire, Peverill. 1992. Challenger Profile and Gubernatorial Elections. Western Political Quarterly 45:125-142. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/448766 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591299204500109

Stein, Robert M. 1990. Economic Voting for Governor and U.S. Senator: The Electoral Consequences of Federalism. Journal of Politics 52:29-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2131418

Tompkins, Mark E. 1984. The Electoral Fortunes of Gubernatorial Incumbents: 1947-1981. Journal of Politics 46:520-543. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2130973

Tompkins, Mark E. 1988. Have Gubernatorial Elections Become More Distinctive Contests? Journal of Politics 50:192-205. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2131048

Tufte, Edward R. 1973. The Relationship Between Seats and Votes in Two-Party Systems. American Political Science Review 67:540-554. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1958782

Turret, J. Stephen. 1971. The Vulnerability of American Governors, 1900-1969. Midwest Journal of Political Science 15:108-132. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2110252

Yiannakis, Diana Evans. 1981. The Grateful Electorate: Casework and Congressional Elections. American Journal of Political Science 25:568-580. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2110819

Downloads

Published

2005-01-01

Issue

Vol. 25: Winter 2004

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with American Review of Politics agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.

  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.

  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:

    1. Attribution: other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;

    2. Non-Commercial: the materials may not be used for commercial purposes;

    3. Share Alike: If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.

  1. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

  2. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.

  3. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.

  1. The Author represents and warrants that:

    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;

    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;

    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;

    4. the Work has not previously been published;

    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and

    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.

  2. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.