The importance of incumbent evaluations for voting and the existence of an incumbency effect are well-established. However, there is limited research on the effect incumbency has on voters’ engagement with election campaigns. This paper examines whether the use of incumbency as a cue when voting is associated with there being less interest in an election and whether campaign period attentiveness affects incumbent support. We consider these questions using data from the Toronto Election Study, a large-N, two-wave survey of Torontonians conducted around the time of the 2014 Toronto Municipal Election. We find that attentiveness, on its own, does not make voters more likely to support an incumbent or non-incumbent candidate. However, among individuals with high knowledge, attentiveness decreases the likelihood of supporting the incumbent, as opposed to a non-incumbent candidate.
AbramowitzAlan I (1991) Incumbency, Campaign Spending, and the Decline of Competition in U.S. House Elections. The Journal of Politics53(1): 34–56.
2.
AlfordJohn RHibbingJohn R (1981) Increased Incumbency Advantage in the House. Journal of Politics43(4): 1042–1061.
3.
AltmanDavidChasquettiDaniel (2005) Re-election and Political Career Paths in the Uruguayan Congress, 1985–1999. The Journal of Legislative Studies11(2): 235–253.
4.
BaumLawrence (1983) The Electoral Fates of Incumbent Judges in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas. Judicature66(9): 420–430.
5.
BlaisAndréGidengilElisabethDobrzynskaAgnieszkaNevitteNeilAdeauRichard (2003) Does the Local Candidate Matter? Candidate effects in the Canadian election of 2000. Canadian Journal of Political Science36(3): 657–664.
6.
BondJon RCovingtonCaryFleisherRichard (1985) Explaining Challenger Quality in Congressional Elections. The Journal of Politics47(2): 510–529.
7.
CareyJohn MNiemiRichard GPowellLynda W (2000) Incumbency and the Probability of reelection in State Legislative Elections. Journal of Politics62(3): 671–700.
8.
CarmichaelCalum M (1990) Economic Conditions and the Popularity of the Incumbent Party in Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science23(4): 713–726.
9.
CookTimothy E (1979) Legislature vs. Legislator: A note on the paradox of congressional support. Legislative Studies Quarterly4(1): 43–52.
10.
CoverAlbert D (1977) One Good Term Deserves Another: The advantage of incumbency in congressional elections. American Journal of Political Science21(3): 523–541.
11.
CoxGary WKatzJonathan N (1996) Why Did the Incumbency Advantage in U.S. House Elections Grow?American Journal of Political Science40(2): 478–497.
12.
EriksonRobert SPalfreyThomas R (1998) Campaign Spending and Incumbency: An alternative simultaneous equations approach. The Journal of Politics60(2): 355–373.
13.
FerejohnJohn A (1977) On the Decline of Competition in Congressional Elections. American Political Science Review71(1): 166–176
14.
FiorinaMorris (1977) The Case of the Vanishing Marginals: The bureaucracy did it. American Political Science Review71(1): 177–181.
15.
FiorinaMorris P (1981) Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
16.
FriedmanDanielWittmanDonald (1995) Why Voters Vote for Incumbents but Against Incumbency: A rational choice explanation. Journal of Public Economics57(1): 67–83.
GidengilElisabethNevitteNeilBlaisAndréEverittJoannaFournierPatrick (2012) Dominance & Decline: Making Sense of Recent Canadian Elections. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
19.
HajnalZoltan LLewisPaul GLouchHugh (2002) Municipal Elections in California: Turnout, Timing, and Competition. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.
20.
HappyJ R (1992) The Effect of Economic and Fiscal Performance on Incumbency Voting: The Canadian case. British Journal of Political Science22(1): 117–130.
21.
HinckleyBarbara (1980) The American Voter in Congressional Elections. American Political Science Review74(3): 641–650.
22.
HoganRobert E (2004) Challenger Emergence, Incumbent Success, and Electoral Accountability in State Legislative Elections. Journal of Politics66(4): 1283–1303.
23.
HuckabeeDavid C (1995) Reelection Rates of House Incumbents: 1790–1994. CRS Report for Congress. Report No. 95–361. Washington DC: US Library of Congress.
24.
JacobsonGary C (1987) The Marginals Never Vanished: Incumbency and competition in elections to the U.S. House of Representatives, 1952–82. American Journal of Political Science31(1): 126–141.
25.
KendallChadRekkasMarie (2012) Incumbency Advantages in the Canadian Parliament. Canadian Journal of Economics45(4): 1560–1585.
26.
KeyV O (1966) Politics, Parties & Pressure Groups. 5th ed.New York: Thomas Y. Cromwell.
27.
KingGary (1991) Constituency Service and Incumbency Advantage. British Journal of Political Science21(1): 119–128.
28.
KrashinskyMichaelMilneWilliam J (1985) Additional Evidence on the Effect of Incumbency in Canadian Elections. Canadian Journal of Political Science18(1): 155–165.
29.
KrashinskyMichaelMilneWilliam J (1986) The Effect of Incumbency in the 1984 and 1985 Ontario Elections. Canadian Journal of Political Science19(2): 337–343.
30.
KrashinskyMichaelMilneWilliam J (1993) The Effects of Incumbency in U.S. Congressional Elections, 1950–1988. Legislative Studies Quarterly18(3): 321–344.
31.
KrasnoJonathan SGreenDonald PhilipCowdenJonathan A (1994) The Dynamics of Campaign Fundraising in House Elections. The Journal of Politics56(2): 459–474.
32.
KrebsTimothy B (1998) The Determinants of Candidates’ Vote Share and the Advantage of Incumbency in City Council Elections. American Journal of Political Science42(3): 921–935.
33.
KushnerJosephSiegelDavidStanwickHannah (1997) Ontario Municipal Elections: Voting trends and determinants of electoral success in a Canadian province. Canadian Journal of Political Science30(3): 539–553.
34.
LevittSteven DWolframCatherine D (1997) Decomposing the Sources of Incumbency Advantage in the U.S. House. Legislative Studies Quarterly22(1): 45–60.
35.
MannThomas EWolfingerRaymond E (1980) Candidates and Parties in Congressional Elections. American Political Science Review74(3): 617–632.
36.
MartinussenPål E (2004) Government Performance and Political Accountability at Subnational Level: The electoral fate of local incumbents in Norway. Scandinavian Political Studies27(3): 227–259.
37.
MayhewDavid R (1974) Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
38.
MondakJeffrey (1995) Competence, Integrity, and the Electoral Success of Congressional Incumbents. The Journal of Politics57(4): 1043–1069.
39.
OliverJ EricHaShang E (2007) Vote Choice in Suburban Elections. American Political Science Review101(3): 393–408.
40.
RoyJason (2009) Voter Heterogeneity: Informational differences in voting. Canadian Journal of Political Science42(1): 117–137.
41.
SamuelsDavid (2000) Ambition and Competition: Explaining legislative turnover in Brazil. Legislative Studies Quarterly25(3): 481–497.
42.
SchaffnerBrian FStrebMatthewWrightGerald (2001) Teams without Uniforms: The nonpartisan ballot in state and local elections. Political Research Quarterly54(1): 7–30.
43.
StanwickHannah (2000) A Megamayor for All People? Voting behaviour and electoral success in the 1997 Toronto Municipal Election. Canadian Journal of Political Science33(3): 549–568.
44.
TomkinsMark E (1984) The Electoral Fortunes of Gubernatorial Incumbents: 1947–1981. Journal of Politics46(2): 520–543.
45.
TrounstineJessica (2011) Evidence of a Local Incumbency Advantage. Legislative Studies Quarterly36(2): 255–280.
46.
WhitbyKenny JBledsoeTimothy (1986) The Impact of Policy Voting on the Electoral Fortunes of Senate Incumbents. The Western Political Quarterly39(4): 690–700.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
