The literature on seat change in U.S. House elections abounds with explanations regarding the factors contributing to the biennial change in the partisan balance of the body. While a number of theoretically and empirically appealing models have been presented, many base their explanations around presidential politics and a variety of factors independent of Congress. In this article, I argue that in developing models of congressional seat change, it is worthwhile to consider how the public image of the institution impacts the electoral success of its members. I describe and test a model that captures the influence of the public’s perception of Congress on party seat change. Encompassing tests suggest that this framework significantly improves upon existing models. The results underscore the importance of endogenous, Congress-specific factors in explaining aggregate seat change in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Achen, Christopher. 1982. Interpreting and Using Regression. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences 07-029. Beverly Hills: Sage.
2.
Akaike, H. 1973. “Information Theory and the Extension of the Maximum Likelihood Principle.” In B. N. Petrov and F. Caski, eds., Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Information. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado.
3.
Campbell, James E.1997a. “The Presidential Pulse and the 1994 Midterm Congressional Election.”Journal of Politics59: 830-857.
4.
Campbell, James E.1997b. The Presidential Pulse of Congressional Elections, 2nd ed.Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.
5.
Campbell, James E., and Steve J. Jurek. 2003. “The Decline of Competition and Change in Congressional Elections.” In Sunil Ahuja and Robert Dewhirst, eds., The United States Congress: A Century of Change. Columbus: Ohio State University Press. Forthcoming.
6.
Cook, R. Dennis, and Sanford Weisberg. 1983. “Diagnostics for Heteroscedasticity in Regression.”Biometrika70: 1-10.
7.
Cox, Gary W., and Mathew D. McCubbins. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley: University of California Press.
8.
De Boef, Suzanna, and James A. Stimson. 1995. “The Dynamic Structure of Congressional Elections.”Journal of Politics57: 630-648.
9.
Durbin, James, and Geoffrey S. Watson. 1950. “Testing for Serial Correlation in Least Squares Regression I.”Biometrika37: 409-428.
10.
Durbin, James, and Geoffrey S. Watson. 1951. “Testing for Serial Correlation in Least Squares Regression II.”Biometrika38: 159-178.
11.
Durr, Robert H., John B. Gilmour, and Christina Wolbrecht. 1997. “Explaining Congressional Approval.”American Journal of Political Science41: 175-207.
12.
Fenno, Richard F.1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston: Little, Brown.
13.
Gaddie, Ronald Keith. 1997. “Congressional Seat Swings: Revisiting Exposure in House Elections.”Political Research Quarterly50: 699-710.
14.
Granato, Jim. 1991. “An Agenda for Econometric Model Building.”Political Analysis3: 123-154.
15.
Granato, Jim, and Motoshi Suzuki. 1996. “The Use of the Encompassing Principle to Resolve Empirical Controversies in Voting Behavior: An Application to Voter Sophistication in Congressional Elections.”Electoral Studies15: 383-398.
16.
Hendry, David. 1995. Dynamic Econometrics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17.
Hibbing, John R., and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse. 1995. Congress as Public Enemy: Public Attitudes Toward American Political Institutions. New York: Cambridge University Press.
18.
Hibbing, John R., and Eric Tiritilli. 2000. “Public Disapproval of Congress Can Be Dangerous to Majority Party Candidates: The Case of 1994.” In David W. Brady, John F. Cogan, and Morris P. Fiorina, eds., Continuity and Change in House Elections. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
19.
Jacobson, Gary C.2000. “Reversal of Fortune: The Transformation of U.S. House Elections in the 1990s.” In David W. Brady, John F. Cogan, and Morris P. Fiorina, eds., Continuity and Change in House Elections. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
20.
Jacobson, Gary C., and Michael A. Dimock. 1994. “Checking Out: The Effects of Bank Overdrafts on the 1992 House Elections.”American Journal of Political Science38: 601-624.
21.
Jarque, Carlos M., and Anil K. Bera. 1980. “Efficient Tests for Normality, Homoskedasticity, and Serial Independence of Regression Residuals.”Economics Letters6: 255-259.
22.
King, Gary. 1986. “How Not to Lie with Statistics: Avoiding Common Mistakes in Quantitative Political Science.”American Journal of Political Science30: 666-687.
23.
Mayhew, David R.1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.
24.
McCurley, Carl, and Jeffery J. Mondak. 1995. “Inspected by #1184063113: The Influence of Incumbents’ Competence and Integrity in U.S. House Elections.”American Journal of Political Science39: 864-885.
25.
Mizon, Grayham E., and Jean-Francois Richard. 1986. “The Encompassing Principle and its Application to Testing Non-Nested Hypotheses.”Econometrica54: 657-678.
26.
Mondak, Jeffery J.1995. “Competence, Integrity, and the Electoral Success of Congressional Incumbents.”Journal of Politics57: 1043-1069.
27.
Mooney, Christopher, and Robert Duval. 1993. Bootstrapping: A Nonparametric Approach to Statistical Inference. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-095. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
28.
National Income and Product Accounts of the United States, 1929-94, v.1. 1998. Compiled by the Economics and Statistics Administration and the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
29.
Newman, Brian, and Charles Ostrom, Jr.2002. “Explaining Seat Changes in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1950-98.”Legislative Studies Quarterly27: 383-405.
30.
Oppenheimer, Bruce I., James A. Stimson, and Richard W. Waterman. 1986. “Interpreting U.S. Congressional Elections: The Exposure Thesis.”Legislative Studies Quarterly11: 227-247.
31.
Ramsey, J. B.1969. “Tests for Specification Error in Classical Linear Least Squares Analysis.”Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 31: 350-371.
32.
Rosenstone, Steven J., Warren E. Miller, Donald R. Kinder, and the National Election Studies. 1995. American National Election Study, 1994: Post-Election Survey [Enhanced with 1992 and 1993 Data] (computer file), conducted by University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies, 2nd ICPSR ed.Ann Arbor: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.
33.
Scammon, Richard M., Alice V. McGillivray, and Rhodes Cook. 1998. America Votes 22. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
34.
Schwarz, Gideon. 1978. “Estimating the Dimension of a Model.”Annals of Statistics6: 461-464.
35.
White, Halbert. 1980. “A Heteroskedasticity-consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity.”Econometrica48: 817-838.
