This article uses a new dataset of nearly 2,000 municipal elections from 1874 to 2018 to estimate the size of municipal incumbency advantage in Canada for the first time. Incumbency increases the probability that a candidate will win the next election by more than 30 percentage points and accounts for well over half of overall incumbent success. Incumbency advantage varies modestly by institutional context but varies substantially over time, with a distinct decrease during a period of partisan elections in the mid-twentieth century. These findings represent one of the first estimates of municipal incumbency advantage in an advanced democracy outside the United States and provide a new approach to estimating and comparing incumbency advantage in multi-member and single-member districts. The findings suggest important similarities between Canadian and American municipal elections, demonstrate that incumbency advantage has varied significantly at the municipal level over time, and illustrate the value of historical election data for scholars of urban electoral politics.
AnsolabehereStephenHiranoShigeoSnyderJames M.UedaMichiko. 2006. “Party and Incumbency Cues in Voting: Are They Substitutes?”Quarterly Journal of Political Science1 (2): 119–37. doi:10.1561/100.00000008.
2.
AnsolabehereStephenSnyderJames M.StewartCharles. 2000. “Old Voters, New Voters, and the Personal Vote: Using Redistricting to Measure the Incumbency Advantage.” American Journal of Political Science44 (1): 17–34. doi:10.2307/2669290.
BrightDavid. 1998. The Limits of Labour: Class Formation and the Labour Movement in Calgary, 1883-1929. Vancouver: Univ. of British Columbia Press.
5.
CalonicoSebastianCattaneoMatias D.FarrellMax H.TitiunikRocío. 2017. “Rdrobust: Software for Regression-Discontinuity Designs.” The Stata Journal17 (2): 372–404.
6.
CalonicoSebastianCattaneoMatias D.TitiunikRocío. 2014. “Robust Data-Driven Inference in the Regression-Discontinuity Design.” Stata Journal14 (4): 909–46.
7.
CarsonJamie L.EngstromErik J.Roberts.Jason M.2007. “Candidate Quality, the Personal Vote, and the Incumbency Advantage in Congress.” American Political Science Review101 (2): 289–301.
8.
CaugheyDevinSekhonJasjeet S.2011. “Elections and the Regression Discontinuity Design: Lessons from Close U.S. House Races, 1942-2008.” Political Analysis19 (4): 385–408. doi:10.1093/pan/mpr052.
9.
CoxGary W.MorgensternScott. 1993. “The Increasing Advantage of Incumbency in the U.S. States.” Legislative Studies Quarterly18 (4): 495–514. doi:10.2307/439852.
10.
CoxGary W.MorgensternScott. 1995. “The Incumbency Advantage in Multimember Districts: Evidence from the U.S. States.” Legislative Studies Quarterly20 (3): 329–49. doi:10.2307/440224.
11.
CutlerFredMatthewsJ. Scott. 2005. “The Challenge of Municipal Voting: Vancouver 2002.” Canadian Journal of Political Science38 (2): 359–82. doi:10.1017/s0008423905040151.
12.
DassonnevilleRuth. 2018. “Accountability and Responsiveness at the Municipal Level: Limitations and Opportunities.” In Accountability and Responsiveness at the Municipal Level: Views from Canada, edited by BreuxSandraCoutureJerome, 249–65. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Univ. Press.
13.
de Benedictis-KessnerJustin. 2017. “Off-Cycle and Out of Office: Election Timing and the Incumbency Advantage.” Journal of Politics80 (1): 119–32. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2841925.
14.
De MagalhaesLeandro. 2015. “Incumbency Effects in a Comparative Perspective: Evidence from Brazilian Mayoral Elections.” Political Analysis23 (1): 113–26. doi:10.1093/pan/mpu012.
15.
DesposatoScott W.PetrocikJohn R.2003. “The Variable Incumbency Advantage: New Voters, Redistricting, and the Personal Vote.” American Journal of Political Science47 (1): 18–32. doi:10.1111/1540-5907.00002.
EggersAndrew C.FowlerAnthonyHainmuellerJensHallAndrew B.SnyderJames M.2015. “On the Validity of the Regression Discontinuity Design for Estimating Electoral Effects: New Evidence from over 40,000 Close Races.” American Journal of Political Science59 (1): 259–74. doi:10.1111/ajps.12127.
18.
EggersAndrew C.SpirlingArthur. 2017. “Incumbency Effects and the Strength of Party Preferences: Evidence from Multiparty Elections in the United Kingdom.” The Journal of Politics79 (3): 903–20. doi:10.1086/690617.
19.
EinsteinKatherine LevineKoganVladimir. 2016. “Pushing the City Limits: Policy Responsiveness in Municipal Government.” Urban Affairs Review52 (1): 3–32. doi:10.1177/1078087414568027.
20.
Epp-KoopStefan. 2015. We’re Going to Run This City: Winnipeg’s Political Left after the General Strike. Winnipeg: Univ. of Manitoba Press.
21.
EriksonRobert S.1971. “The Advantage of Incumbency in Congressional Elections.” Polity3 (3): 395–405.
22.
EriksonRobert S.TitiunikRocío. 2015. “Using Regression Discontinuity to Uncover the Personal Incumbency Advantage.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science10 (1): 101–19.
23.
FerreiraFernandoGyourkoJoseph. 2009. “Do Political Parties Matter? Evidence from U.S. Cities.” Quarterly Journal of Economics124 (1): 399–422.
24.
FowlerAnthony. 2016. “What Explains Incumbent Success? Disentangling Selection on Party, Selection on Candidate Characteristics, and Office-Holding Benefits.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science11 (3): 313–38. doi:10.1561/100.00015108.
25.
FowlerAnthony. 2018. “A Bayesian Explanation for the Effect of Incumbency.” Electoral Studies53:66–78. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2018.03.005.
26.
GelmanAndrewHuangZaiying. 2008. “Estimating Incumbency Advantage and Its Variation, as an Example of a before-after Study.” Journal of the American Statistical Association103 (482): 437–46. doi:10.1198/016214507000000626.
27.
GelmanAndrewKingGary. 1990. “Estimating Incumbency Advantage without Bias.” American Journal of Political Science34 (4): 1142–64.
HajnalZoltanTrounstineJessica. 2014. “What Underlies Urban Politics? Race, Class, Ideology, Partisanship, and the Urban Vote.” Urban Affairs Review50 (1): 63–99. doi:10.1177/1078087413485216.
30.
HallAndrew B.SnyderJames M.2015. “How Much of the Incumbency Advantage Is Due to Scare-Off?”Political Science Research and Methods3 (3): 493–514. doi:10.1017/psrm.2014.43.
31.
HiranoShigeoSnyderJames M.2009. “Using Multimember District Elections to Estimate the Sources of the Incumbency Advantage.” American Journal of Political Science53 (2): 292–306.
32.
HoodM. V.McKee.Seth C.2010. “Stranger Danger: Redistricting, Incumbent Recognition, and Vote Choice.” Social Science Quarterly91 (2): 344–58.
33.
KendallChadRekkasMarie. 2012. “Incumbency Advantages in the Canadian Parliament.” Canadian Journal of Economics45 (4): 1560–85.
34.
KingGary. 1991. “Constituency Service and Incumbency Advantage.” Politics21:119–28.
35.
KlašnjaMarkoTitiunikRocío. 2017. “The Incumbency Curse: Weak Parties, Term Limits, and Unfulfilled Accountability.” American Political Science Review111 (1): 129–48. doi:10.1017/S0003055416000575.
36.
KoopRoyceKraemerJohn. 2016. “Wards, At-large Systems and the Focus of Representation in Canadian Cities.” Canadian Journal of Political Science49 (03): 433–48. doi:10.1017/S0008423916000512.
37.
KrebsTimothy B.1998. “The Determinants of Candidates’ Vote Share and the Advantages of Incumbency in City Council Elections.” American Journal of Political Science42 (3): 921–35.
38.
KushnerJosephSiegelDavid. 1997. “Ontario Municipal Elections Voting Trends and Determinants of Electoral Success in a Canadian Province.” Canadian Journal of Political Science30 (3): 539–53.
39.
LeeDavid S.2008. “Randomized Experiments from Non-random Selection in U.S. House Elections.” Journal of Econometrics142 (2): 675–97. doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.004.
40.
LevittSteven D.WolframCatherine D.1997. “Decomposing the Sources of Incumbency Advantage in the U.S. House.” Legislative Studies Quarterly22 (1): 45–60. doi:10.2307/440290.
LucasJackSayersAnthony. 2018. “Responsiveness, Accountability, and the Long-Term Development of Local Political Careers in Calgary and Edmonton.” In Accountability and Responsiveness at the Municipal Level: Views from Canada, edited by BreuxSandraCoutureJerome, 107–31. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Univ. Press.
43.
MassonJackLeSageEdward C.1994. Alberta’s Local Governments: Politics and Democracy. Edmonton: Univ. of Alberta Press.
44.
McGregorR. Michael. 2018. “Voters Who Abstain: Explaining Abstention and Ballot Roll-off in the 2014 Toronto Municipal Election.” Urban Affairs Review54:1081–106.
45.
McGregorR. MichaelLucasJack. 2019. “Who Has School Spirit? Explaining Voter Participation in School Board Elections.” Canadian Journal of Political Science52 (4), 923–936.
MooreAaron A., R.McGregorMichaelStephensonLaura B.2017. “Paying Attention and the Incumbency Effect: Voting Behavior in the 2014 Toronto Municipal Election.” International Political Science Review38 (1): 85–98. doi:10.1177/0192512115616268.
48.
OliverJ. Eric. 2012. Local Elections and the Politics of Small-Scale Democracy. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
49.
PetersonPaul. 1981. City Limits. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
50.
SalasChristian. 2016. “Incumbency Advantage in Multi-Member Districts: Evidence from Congressional Elections in Chile.” Electoral Studies42:213–21. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2016.03.002.
51.
SchaffnerBrian F.StrebMatthewWrightGerald. 2001. “Teams without Uniforms : The Nonpartisan Ballot in State and Local Elections.” Political Research Quarterly54 (1): 7–30.
52.
StephensonLaura B.McGregorR. MichaelMooreAaron A.2018. “Sins of the Brother: Partisanship and Accountability in Toronto, 2014.” In Accountability and Responsiveness at the Municipal Level: Views from Canada, edited by BreuxSandraCoutureJérôme, 23–48. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
53.
TausanovitchChrisWarshawChristopher. 2014. “Representation in Municipal Government.” American Political Science Review108 (3): 605–41. doi:10.1017/S0003055414000318.
54.
TaylorZackMcEleneySandra. 2019. “Do Institutions and Rules Influence Electoral Accessibility and Competitiveness? Considering the 2014 Toronto Ward Elections.” Urban Affairs Review55:210–30. doi:10.1177/1078087417703753.
55.
TennantPaul. 1980. “Vancouver Civic Politics, 1929-1980.” BC Studies46:3–27.
56.
TrounstineJessica. 2010. “Representation and Accountability in Cities.” Annual Review of Political Science13:407–23. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.032808.150414.
57.
TrounstineJessica. 2011. “Evidence of a Local Incumbency Advantage.” Legislative Studies Quarterly36 (6): 255–80.
58.
TrounstineJessica. 2012. “Turnout and Incumbency in Local Elections.” Urban Affairs Review49 (2): 167–89.
59.
TrounstineJessica L.ValdiniMelody Ellis. 2008. “The Context Matters: The Effect of Single Member versus At-large Districts on City Council Diversity.” American Journal of Political Science68 (4): 554–69. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00329.x.
60.
WarshawChristopher. 2019. “Local Elections and Representation in the United States.” Annual Review of Political Science22 (1): 1–19. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-050317-071108.
61.
WelchSusanBledsoeTimothy. 1990. Urban Reform and Its Consequences. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago 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.
