Skip to main content
×
Home

Ideological Signaling and Incumbency Advantage

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.

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: 11
Total number of PDF views: 72 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 677 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 8th May 2017 - 22nd November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.