Legislative scholars have investigated both the growth in the incumbency advantage since the early 1970s and its decline in recent decades, but there are several unanswered questions about this phenomenon. In this paper, we examine the incumbency advantage across a much wider swath of history to better understand its connection with changing levels of electoral nationalization. Based on an analysis of U.S. House elections extending back to the antebellum era, we find that the incumbency advantage fluctuates in predictable ways over time with changes in nationalization, which can be a product of both institutional and political conditions. We also demonstrate that the increased influence of local forces in congressional elections may not be strictly necessary nor sufficient for the existence of an incumbency advantage.
AbramowitzAlan I.1991. “Incumbency, Campaign Spending, and the Decline of Competition in U.S. House Elections.” The Journal of Politics53:34–56.
2.
AbramowitzAlan I.WebsterSteven. 2016. “The Rise of Negative Partisanship and the Nationalization of U.S. Elections in the 21st Century.” Electoral Studies41 (1): 12–22.
3.
AlfordJohn R.HibbingJohn H.1981. “Increased Incumbency Advantage in the House.” The Journal of Politics43:1042–61.
4.
AnsolabehereStephenSnyderJames M.StewartCharles. 2001. “Candidate Positioning in U.S. House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science45 (1): 136–59.
5.
BradyDavid W.D’OnofrioRobertFiorinaMorris P.2000. “The Nationalization of Electoral Forces Revisited.” In Continuity and Change in House Elections, edited by. BradyDavid W.CoganJohn F.FiorinaMorris P., 130–48. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
6.
BurnhamWalter Dean. 1965. “The Changing Sphere of the American Political Universe.” American Political Science Review59 (1): 7–28.
7.
CainBruceFerejohnJohnFiorinaMorris P.1987. The Personal Vote. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
8.
CarsonJamie L.RobertsJason M.2013. Ambition, Competition, and Electoral Reform: The Politics of Congressional Elections across Time. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
9.
CarsonJamie L.SievertJoel. 2017. “Congressional Candidates in the Era of Party Ballots.” Journal of Politics79 (2): 534–45.
10.
CarsonJamie L.SievertJoel. 2018. Electoral Incentives in Congress. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
11.
CoverAlbert D.BrumbergBruce S.1982. “Baby Books and Ballots: The Impact of Mail on Constituency Opinion.” American Political Science Review76:347–59.
12.
CoxGary W.KatzJonathan N.1996. “Why Did the Incumbency Advantage in U.S. House Elections Grow?” American Journal of Political Science40:478–97.
13.
DubinMichael J.1998. United States Congressional Elections, 1788-1997: the Official Results of the Elections of the 1st through 105th Congresses. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
14.
EngstromErik J.2012. “The Rise and Decline of Turnout in Congressional Elections: Electoral Institutions, Competition, and Strategic Mobilization.” American Journal of Political Science 56 (April): 373–86.
15.
EngstromErik J.KernellSamuel. 2005. “Manufactured Responsiveness: The Impact of State Electoral Laws on Unified Party Control of the Presidency and House of Representatives, 1840-1940.” American Journal of Political Science 49 (July): 531–49.
16.
EngstromErik J.KernellSamuel. 2014. Party Ballots, Reform, and the Transformation of America’s Electoral System. New York: Cambridge University Press.
17.
EriksonRobert S.1971. “The Advantage of Incumbency in Congressional Elections.” Polity3:395–405.
18.
EriksonRobert S.2016. “The Congressional Incumbency Advantage over Sixty Years: Measurement, Trends, and Implications.” In Governing in a Polarized Age: Elections, Parties, and Political Representation in America, edited by GerberAlan S.SchicklerEric, 65–89. New York: Cambridge University Press.
19.
EriksonRobert S.TitiunikRocio. 2015. “Using Regression Discontinuity to Uncover the Personal Incumbency Advantage.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science10 (1): 101–19.
20.
FennoRichard F.1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. New York: Longman.
21.
FinocchiaroCharles J.MacKenzieScott A.2018. “Making Washington Work: Legislative Entrepreneurship and the Personal Vote from the Gilded Age to the Great Depression.” American Journal of Political Science62 (1): 113–31.
22.
FiorinaMorris P.1977. “The Case of the Vanishing Marginals: The Bureaucracy Did It.” American Political Science Review71:177–81.
FiorinaMorris P.RohdeDavidWisselPeter. 1975. “Historical Change in House Turnover,” In Congress in Change, edited by OrnsteinNorman, 24–57. New York: Praeger.
25.
GarandJames C.GrossDonald A.1984. “Trends in the Vote Margins for Congressional Candidates: A Specification of Historical Trends.” American Political Science Review78 (1): 17–30.
26.
GelmanAndrewKingGary. 1990. “Estimating Incumbency Advantage without Bias.” American Journal of Political Science34:1142–64.
27.
GrossDonald A.GarandJames C.1984. “The Vanishing Marginals, 1824-1980.” Journal of Politics46 (1): 224–37.
28.
HopkinsDaniel J.2018. The Increasingly United States: How and Why American Political Behavior Nationalized. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29.
JacobsonGary C.1989. “Strategic Politicians and the Dynamics of U.S. House Elections, 1946-1986.” American Political Science Review 83 (September): 773–93.
30.
JacobsonGary C.2015. “It’s Nothing Personal: The Decline of the Incumbency Advantage in Congressional Elections.” Journal of Politics77 (July): 861–73.
31.
JacobsonGary C. 2017. “The Triumph of Polarized Partisanship in 2016: Donald Trump’s Improbable Victory.” Political Science Quarterly132 (1): 9–42.
32.
JacobsonGary C.2019. “Extreme Referendum: Donald Trump and the 2018 Midterm Elections.” Political Science Quarterly134 (1): 9–38.
33.
JacobsonGary C.CarsonJamie L.2020. The Politics of Congressional Elections. 10th ed.Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
34.
JacobsonGary C.KernellSamuel. 1983. Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.
35.
JohannesJohn R.McAdamsJohn C.1981. “The Congressional Incumbency Effect: Is It Casework, Policy Compatibility, or Something Else?” American Journal of Political Science25:520–42.
36.
LeVeckBrad L.NailStephanie A.2016. “Evidence for A Scale Invariant Relationship between the Incumbency Advantage and the Nationalization of US House Elections 1866-2014.” Research & Politics3 (4): 1–6.
37.
LevenduskyMatthew. 2009. The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
38.
MannThomas E.WolfingerRaymond E.1980. “Candidates and Parties in Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review74 (3): 617–32.
39.
MartisKenneth C.1989. The Historical Atlas of Political Parties in the United States Congress, 1789-1989. New York: Macmillan.
40.
MayhewDavid R.1974. “Congressional Elections: The Case of the Vanishing Marginals.” Polity6:295–317.
41.
McCartyNolanPooleKeith T.RosenthalHoward. 2016. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. 2nd ed.Boston: MIT Press.
42.
MorgensternScottSwingleStephen M.CastagnolaAndrea. 2009. “Party Nationalization and Institutions.” The Journal of Politics71 (4): 1322–41.
43.
NiemiRichardJackmanSimonWinskyLaura. 1991. “Candidacies and Competitiveness in Multimember Districts.” Legislative Studies Quarterly16:91–109.
44.
ParsonsStanley B.DubinMichael J.ParsonsKaren Toombs. 1990. United States Congressional Districts and Data, 1883-1913. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
45.
PriorMarkus. 2007. Post-broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.
46.
SievertJoelMcKeeSeth C.2019. “Nationalization in US Senate and Gubernatorial Elections.” American Politics Research47 (5): 1055–80.
47.
ThomsenDanielle M.2017. Opting Out of Congress: Partisan Polarization and the Decline of Moderate Candidates. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2017.
48.
WareAlan. 2002. The American Direct Primary: Party Institutionalization and Transformation in the North. New York: Cambridge University Press.
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.
