Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-09T13:19:28.339Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Generational Replacement and the Growth of Incumbent Reelection Margins in the U.S. House*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Richard Born*
Affiliation:
Vassar College

Abstract

Virtually all congressional scholars investigating the rise of incumbent safety in the U.S. House have assumed that the responsible cause, regardless of its specific nature, is one which has affected incumbents generally. The sole exception is Fiorina, who speculates that increased overall safety results from recent freshmen's greater electoral strength. The analysis performed here confirms this generational replacement hypothesis. Much greater vote gains have resulted from the freshman term of incumbency since 1966–68, while no pro-incumbent trend for veterans has surfaced.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1979

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.)

Footnotes

*

I am indebted to Peter G. Stillman and the anonymous referees for their helpful comments.

References

Bullock, Charles S. III (1975). “Redistricting and Congressional Stability, 1962–72.” Journal of Politics 37:569–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnham, Walter D. (1974). “Communication.” American Political Science Review 68:212.Google Scholar
Burnham, Walter D. (1975). “Insulation and Responsiveness in Congressional Elections.” Political Science Quarterly 90:411–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cover, Albert D. (1977). “One Good Term Deserves Another: The Advantage of Incumbency in Congressional Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 21:523–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnham, Walter D., and Mayhew, David R. (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
Erikson, Robert S. (1972). “Malapportionment, Gerrymandering, and Party Fortunes in Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 66:1234–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferejohn, John A. (1977). “On the Decline of Competition in Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 71:166–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. (1977a). “The Case of the Vanishing Marginals: The Bureaucracy Did It.” American Political Science Review 71:177–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. (1977b). Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. (1974). “Congressional Elections: The Case of the Vanishing Marginals.” Polity 6:295317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Candice J. (19781979). “The Effect of Incumbency on Voting in Congressional Elections, 1964–1974.” Political Science Quarterly 93:665–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scammon, Richard M. (1956, 1958), America Votes, Vols. 1–2. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Scammon, Richard M. (1959, 1962, 1964). America Votes, Vols. 3–5. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Scammon, Richard M.. (1966, 1968, 1970, 1972, 1973, 1975). America Votes, Vols. 6–11. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Scammon, Richard M., and McGilvray, Alice V. (1977). America Votes, Vol. 12. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Tufte, Edward R. (1973). “The Relationship between Seats and Votes in Two-Party Systems.” American Political Science Review 67:540–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tufte, Edward R. (1974). “Communication.” American Political Science Review 68:211–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.