Book contents
- Governing in a Polarized Age
- Governing in a Polarized Age
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Political Representation and Democratic Accountability
- 2 The Electoral Connection, Age 40
- 3 The Electoral Connection, Then and Now
- 4 The Congressional Incumbency Advantage over Sixty Years
- 5 A Baseline for Incumbency Effects
- Part II Continuity and Change in Party Organizations
- Part III Partisanship and Governmental Performance
- Part IV Conclusions
- Index
- References
4 - The Congressional Incumbency Advantage over Sixty Years
Measurement, Trends, and Implications
from Part I - Political Representation and Democratic Accountability
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 October 2016
Book contents
- Governing in a Polarized Age
- Governing in a Polarized Age
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Political Representation and Democratic Accountability
- 2 The Electoral Connection, Age 40
- 3 The Electoral Connection, Then and Now
- 4 The Congressional Incumbency Advantage over Sixty Years
- 5 A Baseline for Incumbency Effects
- Part II Continuity and Change in Party Organizations
- Part III Partisanship and Governmental Performance
- Part IV Conclusions
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Governing in a Polarized AgeElections, Parties, and Political Representation in America, pp. 65 - 89Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2016
References
Alford, John R. and Hibbing, John R.. 1981. “Increased Incumbency Advantage in the House.” Journal of Politics 43: 1052–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alford, John R. and Brady, David W.. 1993. “Personal and Partisan Advantage in US Congressional Elections.” In Dodd, Lawrence C. and Oppenheimer, Bruce I., eds., Congress Reconsidered, 5th ed. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Ansolahebere, Stephen and Snyder, James M. Jr. 2000. “Money and Office: The Source of the Incumbency Advantage in Campaign Finance.” In Brady, David, Cogan, John, and Fiorina, Morris P., eds., Continuity and Change in House Elections. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Ansolahebere, Stephen, Brady, David W., and Fiorina, Morris P.. 1988. “The Vanishing Marginals and Electoral Responsiveness.” British Journal of Political Science 22: 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolahebere, Stephen, Snyder, James M. Jr., and Stewart, Charles III. 2000. “Old Voters, New Voters, and the Personal Vote: Using Redistricting to Measure the Incumbency Advantage.” American Journal of Political Science 44: 17–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Phillip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Phillip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1966. Elections and the Political Order. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cover, Albert D. and Mayhew, David. 1977. “Congressional Dynamics and the Decline of Competitive Congressional Elections.” In Dodd, Lawrence C. and Oppenheimer, Bruce I., eds., Congress Reconsidered. New York: Praeger.Google 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: 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: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert. 1971. “The Incumbency Advantage in Congressional Elections.” Polity 3: Spring, pp. 395–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert. 1972. “Malapportionment, Gerrymandering and Party Fortunes in Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 65: December, pp. 1234–1245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S. and Wright, Gerald C.. 2000. “Representation of Constituency Ideology in Congress.” In Brady, David, Cogan, John, and Fiorina, Morris, eds., Continuity and Change in Congressional Elections. Stanford: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S. and Titiunik, Rocio. 2015. “Using Regression Discontinuity to Uncover the Personal Incumbency Advantage.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 10: 101–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S. and Palfrey, Thomas R.. 1998. “Campaign Spending Effects and Incumbency: An Alternative Simultaneous Equations Approach.” Journal of Politics 60: May, pp. 355–373.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, John. 1977. “On the Decline in Competition in Congressional Elections. American Political Science Review 71: 166–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris. 1977. “The Case of the Vanishing Marginals: The Bureaucracy Did It.” American Political Science Review 71: 177–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, Anthony and Hall, Andrew B.. 2014. “Disentangling the Personal and Partisan Incumbency Advantages: Evidence from Close Elections and Term Limits.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 9: 501–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew and King, Gary. 1990. “Estimating Incumbency Advantage without Bias.” American Journal of Political Science 34(4): 1142–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew and King, Gary. 1991. “Systemic Consequences of Incumbency Advantage in US House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 35: 110–138.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 1987. “The Marginals Never Vanished: Incumbency and Competition in Elections to the U.S. House of Representatives, 1952–1982. American Journal of Poltiical Science 31: 126–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 2015. “ Its Nothing Personal: The Decline of the Incumbency Advantage in US House Elections.” Journal of Politics: 77: 861–873.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 U.S. House.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 22(1): 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974a. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974b. “Congressional Elections: The Case of the Vanishing Marginals.” Polity 6: 3295–3317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodden, Jonathan. 2010. “The Geographic Distribution of Political Preferences.” Annual Review of Political Science 13: 297–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tufte, Edward R. 1973. “The Relationship between Seats and Votes in Two-Party Systems.” American Political Science Review 67: 549–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, John. 1998. “Politicians as Prize Fighters: Electoral Selection and Incumbency Advantage.” In Geer, John, ed., Party Politics and Politicians. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
- 3
- Cited by