The incumbency advantage makes it difficult to increase diversity in congress.

Abstract

This paper uses a regression discontinuity design to estimate the degree to which incumbents scare off challengers with previous officeholder experience. The estimates indicate a surprisingly small amount of scare-off, at least in cases where the previous election was nearly tied. As Lee and others have shown (and as we confirm for our samples) the estimated party incumbency advantage in these same cases is quite large—in fact, it is about as large as the average incumbency advantage for all races found using other approaches. Drawing from previous estimates of the electoral value of officeholder experience, we thus calculate that scare-off in these cases accounts for only about 5–7 percent of the party incumbency advantage. We show that these patterns are similar in elections for US House seats, statewide offices and US senate seats, and state legislative seats.

References

Abramowitz, Alan I., and Segal, Jeffrey A.. 1992. Senate Elections. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Angrist, Josuha D., and Pischke, Jorn-Steffen. 2009. Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400829828CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Snyder, James M. Jr. 2002. ‘The Incumbency Advantage in US Elections: An Analysis of State and Federal Offces, 1942–2000’. Election Law Journal 1(3):315–338.10.1089/153312902760137578CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ashworth, Scott, and Bueno de Mesquita, Ethan. 2008. ‘Electoral Selection, Strategic Challenger Entry, and the Incumbency Advantage’. The Journal of Politics 70(4):1006–1025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Banks, Jeffrey S., and Kiewiet, D. Roderick. 1989. ‘Explaining Patterns of Candidate Competition in Congressional Elections’. American Journal of Political Science 33(4):997–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baumgartner, Jody C., and Francia, Peter L.. 2010. Conventional Wisdom and American Elections: Exploding Myths, Exploring Misconceptions. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar

Bianco, William T. 1984. ‘Strategic Decisions on Candidacy in U.S. Congressional Districts’. Legislative Studies Quarterly 9(2):351–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bond, Jon R, Covington, Cary, and Fleisher, Richard. 1985. ‘Explaining Challenger Quality in Congressional Elections’. The Journal of Politics 47(2):510–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Canes-Wrone, Brandice, Brady, David W., and Cogan, John F.. 2002. ‘Out of Step, Out of Office: Electoral Accountability and House Members’ Voting’. American Political Science Review 96(01):127–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Canon, David T. 1990. Actors, Athletes, and Astronauts: Political Amateurs in the United States Congress. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Carson, Jamie, and Roberts, Jason. 2011. ‘House and Senate Elections’. In Francis Lee and Eric Schickler (eds), Oxford Handbook of Congress, 141–168. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Carson, Jamie L., Engstrom, Erik J., and Roberts, Jason M.. 2007. ‘Candidate Quality, the Personal Vote, and the Incumbency Advantage in Congress’. American Political Science Review 101(2):289–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carson, Jamie L., and Roberts, Jason M.. 2013. Ambition, Competition, and Electoral Reform: The Politics of Congressional Elections Across Time. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Caughey, Devin M., and Sekhon, Jasjeet S.. 2011. ‘Elections and the Regression Discontinuity Design: Lessons from Close US House Races, 1942–2008’. Political Analysis 19(4):385–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cox, Gary W, and Katz, Jonathan N.. 1996. ‘Why Did the Incumbency Advantage in US House Elections Grow?’ American Journal of Political Science 40(2):478–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cox, Gary W., and Katz, Jonathan N.. 2002. Elbridge Gerry’s Salamander: The Electoral Consequences of the Reapportionment Revolution. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dubin, Michael J. 1998. United States Congressional Elections, 1788–1997: The Official Results of the Elections of the 1st through 105th Congresses. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.Google Scholar

Eggers, Andrew, Fowler, Anthony, Hainmueller, Jens, Hall, Andrew B., Snyder, James M. Jr. N.d. ‘On the Validity of the Regression Discontinuity Design for Estimating Electoral Effects: Evidence From Over 40,000 Close Races’. American Journal of Political Science, Forthcoming.Google Scholar

Epstein, David, and Zemsky, Peter. 1995. ‘Money Talks: Deterring Quality Challengers in Congressional Elections’. The American Political Science Review 89(2):295–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Erikson, Robert S. 1971. ‘The Advantage of Incumbency in Congressional Elections’. Polity 3(3):395–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Erikson, Robert S., and Titiunik, Rocío. 2015. ‘Using Regression Discontinuity to Uncover the Personal Incumbency Advantage’. forthcoming, Quarterly Journal of Political Science.Google Scholar

Fowler, Anthony, and Hall, Andrew B.. 2015. ‘Disentangling the Personal and Partisan Incumbency Advantages: Evidence from Close Elections and Term Limits’. forthcoming, Quarterly Journal of Political Science.Google Scholar

Gordon, Sanford C., Huber, Gregory A., and Landa, Dimitri. 2007. ‘Challenger Entry and Voter Learning’. American Political Science Review 101(2):303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grimmer, Justin, Hirsh, Eitan, Feinstein, Brian, and Carpenter, Daniel. 2012. ‘Are Close Elections Random?’ Working Paper, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar

Heckman, James J., and Pinto, Rodrigo. 2013. ‘Econometric Mediation Analyses: Identifying the Sources of Treatment Effects from Experimentally Estimated Production Technologies with Unmeasured and Mismeasured Inputs’. NBER Working Paper 19314, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar

Hirano, Shigeo, and Snyder, James M. Jr. 2009. ‘Using Multimember District Elections to Estimate the Sources of the Incumbency Advantage’. American Journal of Political Science 53(2):292–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Imai, Kosuke, Keele, Luke, Tingley, Dustin, and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2011. ‘Unpacking the Black Box of Causality: Learning About Causal Mechanisms from Experimental and Observational Studies’. American Political Science Review 105(04):765–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jacobson, Gary C. 1989. ‘Strategic Politicians and the Dynamics of US House elections, 1946–86’. The American Political Science Review 83(3):773–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jacobson, Gary C. 2009. The Politics of Congressional Elections. New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar

Jacobson, Gary C., and Kernell, Samuel. 1983. Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Kiewiet, D. Roderick, and Zeng, Langche. 1993. ‘An Analysis of Congressional Career Decisions, 1947–1986’. The American Political Science Review 87(4):928–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Krasno, Jonathan S., and Green, Donald Philip. 1988. ‘Preempting Quality Challengers in House Elections’. The Journal of Politics 50(4):920–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lee, David S. 2008. ‘Randomized Experiments From Non-Random Selection in U.S. House Elections’. Journal of Econometrics 142(2):675–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levitt, Steven D., and Wolfram, Catherine D.. 1997. ‘Decomposing the Sources of Incumbency Advantage in the US House’. Legislative Studies Quarterly 22(1):45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lublin, David Ian. 1994. ‘Quality, not Quantity: Strategic Politicians in US Senate Elections, 1952–1990’. Journal of Politics 56(1):228–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sidman, Andrew H. 2008. ‘Challengers to Incumbents’. In Kenneth F. Warren (ed.), Encyclopedia of US Campaigns, Elections, and Electoral Behavior. 117–119. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Snyder, Jason. 2005. ‘Detecting Manipulation in U.S. House Elections’. Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar

Squire, Peverill. 1992. ‘Legislative Professionalization and Membership Diversity in State Legislatures’. Legislative Studies Quarterly 17(1):69–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stone, Walter J., Maisel, L. Sandy, and Maestas, Cherie D.. 2004. ‘Quality Counts: Extending the Strategic Politician Model of Incumbent Deterrence’. American Journal of Political Science 48(3):479–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stone, Walter J., Fulton, Sarah A., Maestas, Cherie D., and Sandy Maisel, L.. 2010. ‘Incumbency Reconsidered: Prospects, Strategic Retirement, and Incumbent Quality in Us House Elections’. Journal of Politics 72(1):178–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

What is the advantage of being an incumbent in Congress?

How does incumbency affect congressional elections quizlet?

What are the consequences of the incumbency advantage quizlet?

What is the incumbency advantage quizlet?