Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Ideological Signaling and Incumbency Advantage

  • Zachary Peskowitz
Abstract

This article develops a novel explanation for the incumbency advantage based on incumbents’ ability to signal positions that are ideologically distinct from those of their parties. Using voter-level data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study and controlling for unobserved district heterogeneity, the study finds that voters in US House elections primarily use information about the ideology of candidates’ parties to infer the location of challengers, while they instead rely on information about the individual candidates’ ideologies to place incumbents. In higher-profile Senate elections, the difference between challengers and incumbents is trivial. Decomposing the incumbency advantage into valence and signaling components, the study finds that the signaling mechanism explains 14 per cent of the incumbency advantage in House elections, but only 5 per cent of the advantage in Senate contests. It also finds that a 50 per cent increase in party polarization increases the incumbency advantage by 3 percentage points.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Ideological Signaling and Incumbency Advantage
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Ideological Signaling and Incumbency Advantage
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Ideological Signaling and Incumbency Advantage
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Footnotes
Hide All
*

Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Emory University (email: zachary.f.peskowitz@emory.edu). I thank seminar audiences at Illinois Ohio State, Yale, the Harris School and Cyrus Aghamolla, Steve Callander, Kyle Dropp, Nick Eubank, Morris Fiorina, Alex Frankel, Justin Grimmer, Wesley Hartmann, Alex Hirsch, Keith Krehbiel, Neil Malhotra, Greg Martin, Eleanor Powell, Chris Stanton, Ken Shotts and Jonathan Wand for many helpful comments. I thank Gary Jacobson for generously providing his data on candidate experience in US House elections. An earlier version of this article circulated under the title ‘Candidate Positioning, Partisan Brands, and Election Outcomes’. Data replication sets are available at http://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/BJPolS and online appendices are available at http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1017/S0007123416000557.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
Abramowitz, Alan I., Alexander, Brad, and Gunning, Matthew. 2006. Incumbency, Redistricting, and the Decline of Competition in U.S. House Elections. Journal of Politics 68 (1):7588.
Alford, John R., and Hibbing, John R.. 1981. Increased Incumbency Advantage in the House. Journal of Politics 43:10421061.
Ansolabehere, Stephen. 2006. CCES Common Content, 2006. Available from http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/14002 V3 [Version]. Accessed 13 November 2014.
Ansolabehere, Stephen. 2008. CCES Common Content, 2008. Available from http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/14003 V4 [Version]. Accessed November 13, 2014.
Ansolabehere, Stephen. 2010. CCES Common Content, 2010. Available from http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/17705 V3 [Version]. Accessed 13 November 2014.
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Schaffner, Brian. 2012. CCES Common Content, 2012. Available from http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/21447UNF:5:Eg5SQysFZaPiXc8tEbmmRA==CCES V7 [Version]. Accessed 13 November 2014.
Ansolabehere, Stephen, James M. Snyder, Jr., and Charles Stewart, III. 2000. Old Voters, New Voters, and the Personal Vote: Using Redistricting to Measure the Incumbency Advantage. American Journal of Political Science 44 (1):1734.
Arnold, R. Douglas. 1990. The Logic of Congressional Action. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press.
Ashworth, Scott. 2006. Campaign Finance and Voter Welfare with Entrenched Incumbents. American Political Science Review 100 (1):5568.
Ashworth, Scott, and Bueno de Mesquita, Ethan. 2008. Electoral Selection, Strategic Challenger Entry, and the Incumbency Advantage. Journal of Politics 70 (4):10061025.
Berinsky, Adam J., and Lewis, Jeffrey B.. 2007. An Estimate of Risk Aversion in the U.S. Electorate. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 2 (2):139154.
Bernhardt, Dan, Camara, Odilon, and Squintani, Francesco. 2011. Competence and Ideology. Review of Economic Studies 78 (2):487522.
Bonica, Adam. 2014. Mapping the Ideological Marketplace. American Journal of Political Science 58 (2):367386.
Burden, Barry C. 2004. Candidate Positioning in U.S. Congressional Elections. British Journal of Political Science 34 (2):211227.
Butler, Daniel M., and Powell, Eleanor Neff. 2014. Understanding the Party Brand: Experimental Evidence on the Role of Valence. Journal of Politics 76 (2):492505.
Carson, Jamie L., Koger, Gregory, Lebo, Matthew J., and Young, Everett. 2010. The Electoral Costs of Party Loyalty in Congress. American Journal of Political Science 54 (3):598616.
Conover, Pamela Johnston, and Feldman, Stanley. 1989. Candidate Perception in an Ambiguous World: Campaigns, Cues, and Inference Processes. American Journal of Political Science 33 (4):912940.
Cover, Albert D., and Brumberg, Bruce S.. 1982. Baby Books and Ballots: The Impact of Congressional Mail on Constituent Opinion. American Political Science Review 76 (2):347359.
Cox, Gary W., and Katz, Jonathan N.. 1996. Why Did the Incumbency Advantage in U.S. House Elections Grow? American Journal of Political Science 40 (2):478497.
Dropp, Kyle, and Peskowitz, Zachary. 2012. Electoral Security and the Provision of Constituency Service. Journal of Politics 74 (1):220234.
Duggan, John. 2000. Repeated Elections With Asymmetric Information. Economics and Politics 12 (2):109135.
Efron, Bradley, and Tibshirani, Robert J.. 1993. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. London: Chapman and Hall.
Erikson, Robert S. 1971. The Advantage of Incumbency in Congressional Elections. Polity 3 (3):395405.
Gelman, Andrew, and King, Gary. 1990. Estimating Incumbency Advantage Without Bias. American Journal of Political Science 34 (4):11421164.
Gersbach, Hans. 2010. On Higher Hurdles for Incumbents. Economics Bulletin 30 (1):774785.
Gowrisankaran, Gautam, Mitchell, Matthew F., and Moro, Andrea. 2008. Electoral Design and Voter Welfare from the US Senate: Evidence from a Dynamic Selection Model. Review of Economic Dynamics 11 (1):117.
Green, Donald Philip, and Krasno, Jonathan S.. 1988. Salvation for the Spendthrift Incumbent: Reestimating the Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections. American Journal of Political Science 32 (4):884907.
Griffin, John D. 2006. Electoral Competition and Democratic Responsiveness: A Defense of the Marginality Hypothesis. Journal of Politics 68 (4):911921.
Hall, Andrew B., and Snyder, James M. Jr. 2015. How Much of the Incumbency Advantage is Due to Scare Off? Political Science Research and Methods 3 (3):493514.
Hare, Christopher, Armstrong, David A., Bakker, Ryan, Carroll, Royce, and Poole, Keith T.. 2015. Using Bayesian Aldrich-McKelvey Scaling to Study Citizens’ Ideological Preferences and Perceptions. American Journal of Political Science 59 (3):759774.
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):292306.
Holbrook, Thomas M., and van Dunk, Emily. 1993. Electoral Competition in the American States. American Political Science Review 87 (4):955962.
Jacobson, Gary C. 1989. Strategic Politicians and the Dynamics of U.S. House Elections, 1946–86. American Political Science Review 83 (3):773793.
Jacobson, Gary C. 2015. It’s Nothing Personal: The Decline of the Incumbency Advantage in US House Elections. Journal of Politics 77 (3):861873.
Lee, David S. 2008. Randomized Experiments from Non-Random Selection in U.S. House Elections. Journal of Econometrics 142:675697.
Levitt, Steven D., and Wolfram, Catherine D.. 1997. Decomposing the Sources of Incumbency Advantage in the U.S. House. Legislative Studies Quarterly 22 (1):4560.
Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2006. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
McGhee, Eric. 2008. National Tides and Local Results in US House Elections. British Journal of Political Science 38 (4):719738.
McKelvey, Richard D., and Riezman, Raymond. 1992. Seniority in Legislatures. American Political Science Review 86 (4):951965.
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rahn, Wendy M. 1993. The Role of Partisan Stereotypes in Information Processing About Political Candidates. American Journal of Political Science 37 (2):472496.
Snyder, Jr., James M. and Stromberg, David. 2010. Press Coverage and Political Accountability. Journal of Political Economy 118 (2):355408.
Stokes, Donald E. 1963. Spatial Models of Party Competition. American Political Science Review 57 (2):368377.
Stone, Walter J., Fulton, Sarah A., Maestas, Cherie D., and Maisel, L. Sandy. 2010. Incumbency Reconsidered: Prospects, Strategic Retirement, and Incumbent Quality in U.S. House Elections. Journal of Politics 72 (1):178190.
Tausanovitch, Chris, and Warshaw, Christopher. 2013. Measuring Constituent Policy Preferences in Congress, State Legislatures, and Cities. Journal of Politics 75 (2):330342.
Wright, Jr., Gerald C., and Berkman, Michael B.. 1986. Candidates and Policy in United States Senate Elections. American Political Science Review 80 (2):567588.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

British Journal of Political Science
  • ISSN: 0007-1234
  • EISSN: 1469-2112
  • URL: /core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Type Description Title
PDF
Supplementary materials

Peskowitz supplementary material
Peskowitz supplementary material 1

 PDF (376 KB)
376 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 13
Total number of PDF views: 120 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 1033 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 8th May 2017 - 23rd June 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.