Congressional ElectionsPaul E. Peterson

Key Fact about Congressional Elections: Incumbency Advantage

• Definition: the electoral advantage a candidate enjoys by virtue of being an incumbent, over and above his or her personal and political characteristics

• Advantage is very strong

Incumbent Re-election Rates

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Per

cen

tage

Ree

lect

ed

Senate IncumbentHouse Incumbent

Signs of Incumbency Advantage

• Sophomore Surge – freshmen do better next time

• Retirement Slump – produces open seat. Party vote slumps when incumbent not running again

• Considered together: Slurge

The History of the Slurge

Large Incumbency Advantage in Cong. Elections

• Voters have less info about candidates– 1/3 know name, 10% know vote on major issue

• Lower turnout• Smaller constituencies • Media coverage less• Much depends on whether election is competitive, whereas all

presidential elections are

Niki Tsongas (D – MA 3rd District)

Mike Capuano(D – MA 7th district)

Stephen Lynch(D – MA 8th district)

Sources of Incumbency Advantage

1. Institutional characteristics of Congress:

– Decentralized committee structure

– Pork barrel and Christmas tree legislation

– Resources-staff, frank worth $1 mil

Now more than ever – 18 staff, 40% in district

2. Nonpartisan constituency service

3. Redistricting

4. Fund-raising ability

New Dangers to Incumbents

• Primary elections• Challenges from the extreme

Part 2 Congressional Districts and Campaigns

Reapportionment and Redistricting

• House: – The 435 seats in House are apportioned among the states

according to their populations as measured in census taken every 10 years. This is called reapportionment.

– Creates opportunities to draw new congressional district lines – redistricting

• Senate: representation simple, never changes

Gerrymandering

ElbridgeGerry

Politics of Redistricting• Fair – one vote, one value; every district must have

same number of constituents

• But – within fairness rule,– Partisanship: Packing and splitting– Incumbency protection: Legislators want things

from members of Congress– Majority minority district: sounds great, but is it

desirable?

Money and Success

• Elections increasingly expensive

• Fundraising easier for incumbents– $ predicts success for challengers, not incumbents

• Contributions increasingly concentrated in competitive districts

• In less prominent races, a few interests may dominate

• Money today being raised nationally; then given to key campaigns

19741976

19781980

19821984

19861988

19901992

19941996

19982000

20022004

20062008

20102012

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

Average ChallengerAverage IncumbentD

olla

rs S

pent

Elections Increasingly ExpensiveHouse of Representatives

The Scare-off Advantage

• Quality challengers are deterred from running if have little chance of winning

• Consequence: less competitive race:– Less media coverage– Public less informed– Voter decision making less sophisticated– So, incumbent has more legislative leeway– Uses leeway to vote with party – contributes to

nationalization

Challenger Strategies

• Strategic ambition: desire to get elected, but assess the opportunities presented by a given political context

• To win, challenger must find vulnerability in incumbent:

– Personal scandal– Incumbent out of touch with district– Guilt by association – with national party (if out of step

with district opinion)

All Politics Local? • Congressional races increasingly nationalized, especially

in presidential years

– But also in 2010

• Coat tail effects: Presidential race influences lower level races (especially open seat races)

• Obama had coat tails in 2008 but won’t be on 2014 ballot

Presidential v. Midterm Turnout

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Election Year

Per

cent

age

Tur

nout

Presidential YearMidterm Year

– Without party labels, confusing for voters

– Use other voting cues. Among most notable:

Occupation labels, name characteristics (gender, ethnicity)

– Low turnout

Nonpartisan Elections

Nonpartisan Elections: Boston Mayoral Election

John Connolly (D) – 12%

Martin Walsh (D) – 11% Rob Consalvo (D) – 8%

Daniel Conley (D) – 9%

Poll (n=600) Margin of error = 4%

Next Lecture: The Presidency