The incumbency advantage and its cause(s) is a question that political scientists have addressed for several years. This article looks at one piece of the puzzle: the sophomore surge. Using the American National Election Panel Studies of 1956-1960 and 1972-1976, I examine three possible scenarios for the sophomore surge: conversion, mobilization, and absten tion. The evidence presented herein supports the argument that first-term incumbents are able to win the votes of those who had supported the losing candidate in the previous election. It would appear that the source of the incumbency advantage is what the incumbents do in office, not the actions of their potential opponents.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alford, John R., and David W. Brady.1989. "Personal and Partisan Advantage in U.S. Congressional Elections, 1846-1986." In Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce I. Oppenheimer , eds., Congress Reconsidered, 4th ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
2.
Bullock, Charles S. III, and Brad Lockerbie.1992. "The Incumbency Advantage: A Micro- and Macro-Level Phenomenon." Paper presented at the 1992 annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association.
3.
Burnham, Walter Dean.1974. "Communications." American Political Science Review68: 210.
4.
Cain, Bruce, John Ferejohn, and Morris Fiorina.1987. The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
5.
Cover, Albert D., and David R. Mayhew. 1981. "Congressional Dynamics and the Decline of Competitive Congressional Elections." In Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce I. Oppenheimer , eds., Congress Reconsidered, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
6.
Eulau, Heinz, and Paul D. Karps.1978. "The Puzzle of Representation: Specifying Components of Responsiveness." In Heinz Eulau and John C. Wahlke, eds., The Politics of Representation: Continuities in Theory and Research . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
7.
Fenno, Richard F, Jr.1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts . Boston: Little, Brown .
8.
Ferejohn, John A.1977. "On the Decline of Competition in Congressional Elections ." American Journal of Political Science71: 166-76.
9.
Fiorina, Morris P1981. "Some Problems in Studying the Effects of Resource Allocation in Congressional Elections." American Journal of Political Science25: 543-67. _. 1989 . Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment, 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press.
10.
Gelman, Andrew, and Gary King.1990. "Estimating the Incumbency Advantage Without Bias." American Journal of Political Science34: 1142-64.
11.
Jacobson, Gary C.1990. The Electoral Origins of Divided Government: Competition in US. House Elections, 1946-1988. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
12.
Johannes, John R., and John C. McAdams .1981. "The Congressional Incumbency Effect: Is It Casework, Policy Compatibility, or Something Else?" American Journal of Political Science25: 512-42.
13.
Mayhew, David.1974. "Congressional Elections: The Case of the Vanishing Marginals ." Polity6: 295-317.
14.
Mann, Thomas E., and Raymond E. Wolfinger .1980. "Candidates and Parties in Congressional Elections." American Political Science Review74: 617-32.
15.
Tufte, Edward R.1973. "The Relationship Between Seats and Votes in Two-Party Systems." American Political Science Review67: 540-54.
16.
Yiannakis, Diana Evans.1981. "The Grateful Electorate: Casework and Congressional Elections ." American Journal of Political Science25: 568-80.
