Failure to take into account ‘strategic retirement’ leads to inflated estimates of the incumbent electoral advantage. The one attempt to address this issue in the context of US House elections implies that much of the supposed incumbency advantage and most of its presumed increase over time are illusory (Cox and Katz, 2002). This paper identifies possible problems with the Cox and Katz (2002) method and develops a new approach based on simulating the counterfactual condition of incumbents standing for re-election rather than retiring. The results show that when the bias induced by strategic retirement is removed, much of the apparent incumbency advantage and its increase over time remain evident.
Alford JR and Hibbing JR ( 1981) Increased incumbency advantage in the house. Journal of Politics43: 1042-1061.
2.
Ansolabehere S. and Snyder JM Jr ( 2004) Using term limits to estimate incumbency advantages when officeholders retire strategically. Legislative Studies Quarterly29(4): 487-515.
3.
Ansolabehere S., Snyder JM Jr and StewartC. III ( 2000) Old voters, new voters, and the personal vote: using redistricting to measure incumbency advantage . American Journal of Political Science44(1): 17-34.
4.
Brace P. ( 1985) A probabilistic approach to retirement from the US congress . Legislative Studies Quarterly10(1): 107-123.
5.
Cain B., Ferejohn J. and Fiorina M. ( 1987) The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6.
Cover AD ( 1977) One good term deserves another: the advantage of incumbency in congressional elections. American Journal of Political Science21(3): 523-541.
7.
Cox GW and Katz JN ( 1996) Why did the incumbency advantage grow? American Journal of Political Science40: 478-497.
8.
Cox GW and Katz JN ( 2002) Elbridge Gerry’s Salamander: The Electoral Consequences of the Reapportionment Revolution. New York : Cambridge University Press.
9.
Cox GW and Morgenstern S. ( 1993) The increasing advantage of incumbency in the US states . Legislative Studies Quarterly18(4): 495-514.
10.
Dahl RA ( 2005) What political institutions does large-scale democracy require? Political Science Quarterly120(2): 187-197.
11.
Engstrom EJ and Monroe NW ( 2006) Testing the basis of incumbency advantage: strategic candidates and term limits in the California legislature. State Politics and Policy Quarterly6(1): 1-20.
12.
Erikson RS ( 1971) The advantage of incumbency in congressional elections . Polity3: 395-405.
13.
Erikson RS ( 1972) Malapportionment, gerrymandering, and party fortunes in congressional elections. American Political Science Review66: 1234-1255.
14.
Fiorina MP ( 1981) Some problems in studying the effects of resource allocation in congressional elections. American Journal of Political Science25(3): 543-567.
15.
Gelman A. ( 2008) Rejoinder. Journal of the American Statistical Assocation103(482): 449-451.
16.
Gelman A. and King G. ( 1990) Estimating incumbency advantage without bias. American Journal of Political Science34: 1142-1164.
17.
Gelman A. and King G. ( 1994a) Enhancing democracy through legislative redistricting . American Political Science Review88(3): 541-559.
18.
Gelman A. and King G. ( 1994b) A unified method of evaluating electoral systems and redistricting plans. American Journal of Political Science38(2): 514-544.
19.
Groseclose T. and Krehbiel K. ( 1994) Golden parachutes, rubber checks, and strategic retirements from the 102nd House. American Journal of Political Science38(1): 75-99.
20.
Hall RL and Van Houweling RP ( 1995) Avarice and ambition in Congress: representatives’ decisions to run or retire from the US House. American Political Science Review89(1): 121-136.
21.
Highton B. ( 2000) Senate elections in the United States, 1920-1994 . British Journal of Political Science30: 483-506.
22.
Highton B. ( 2008) Job approval and Senate election outcomes in the United States. Legislative Studies Quarterly33(2): 245-262.
23.
Issacharoff S. ( 2002) Why Elections?Harvard Law Review116(2): 684-695.
24.
Jacobson GT ( 1978) The effects of campaign spending in congressional elections . American Political Science Review72: 769-783.
25.
Jacobson GC ( 2009) The Politics of Congressional Elections, 7th ed. New York, NY: Longman.
26.
Jacobson GC and Dimock MA ( 1994) Checking out: the effects of bank overdrafts on the 1992 House elections. American Journal of Political Science38(3): 601-624.
27.
Jacobson GC and Kernell S. ( 1983) Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections , 2nd ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
28.
Johannes JR and McAdams JC ( 1981) The congressional incumbency effect: is it casework, policy compatibility, or something else? An examination of the 1978 election . American Journal of Political Science25(3): 512-542.
29.
Katz JN ( 2008) Comment. Journal of the American Statistical Assocation103(482): 446-8.
30.
Kiewiet DR and Zeng L. ( 1993) An analysis of congressional career decisions, 1947-1986 . American Political Science Review87(December): 928-941.
31.
King G. ( 1989) Representation through legislative redistricting: a stochastic model. American Journal of Political Science33(4): 787-824.
32.
King G. ( 1991) Constituency service and incumbency advantage. British Journal of Political Science21(1): 118-1128.
33.
King G. and Gelman A. ( 1991) Systemic consequences of incumbency advantage in US House elections. American Journal of Political Science35(1): 110-138.
34.
King G., Tomz M. and Wittenberg J. ( 2000) Making the most of statistical analyses: improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science44(2): 347-362.
35.
Kostroski W. ( 1973) Party and incumbency in postwar Senate elections . American Journal of Political Science67: 1213-1234.
36.
Krasno JS and Green DP ( 1988) Preempting quality challengers in House elections . Journal of Politics50(4): 920-936.
37.
Krehbiel K. and Wright JR ( 1983) The incumbency effect in congressional elections: a test of two explanations. American Journal of Political Science27: 140-157.
38.
McAdams JC and Johannes JR ( 1981) Does casework matter? A reply to Professor Fiorina . American Journal of Political Science25(3): 581-604.
39.
Mondak JJ ( 1995) Competence, integrity, and the electoral success of congressional incumbents. Journal of Politics57(4): 1043-1069.
40.
Moore MK and Hibbing JR ( 1998) Situational dissatisfaction in Congress: explaining voluntary departures. Journal of Politics60(4): 1088-1107.
41.
Persily N. ( 2002) In defense of foxes guarding henhouses: the case for judicial acquiescence to incumbent-protecting gerrymanders. Harvard Law Review116(2): 649-683.
42.
Stanley HW and Niemi RG ( 2007) Vital Statistics on American Politics 2007-2008 . Washington, DC: CQ Press.
43.
Stone WJ, Fulton SA, Maestas CD and Maisel LS ( 2010) Incumbency reconsidered: prospects, strategic retirement, and incumbent quality in US House elections. Journal of Politics72(1): 178-190.
