Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2026
Open Seats,Incumbency,Campaign Spending and Electoral Success in Legislative Elections: Evidence from Chile’s Open-List Proportional Representation System
Incumbency and campaign spending are key determinants of electoral success in legislative elections. In open-list proportional representation systems, their impact might be contingent on the number of open seats in each district. When there are more open seats, incumbents seeking re-election and those who spend more should have higher chances of success. Using data from 2216 candidates in the 2017 and 2021 Chamber of Deputies elections in Chile’s 28 districts, we assess the presence of the mediating effect of open seats. We confirm the importance of incumbency and campaign spending, but the interaction effects of open seats with incumbency and campaign spending are not significant for the chances of winning a seat. The presence of open seats might induce more competitive challengers to enter the race, diluting the expected positive interaction of open seats with incumbency and campaign spending on electoral success.
AbarcaTNaviaP (2024) El efecto del gasto en campaña en candidaturas de partidos institucionalizados y de grupos emergentes: convencionales constituyentes en Chile en 2021. Revista de Estudios Políticos205: 221–247.
2.
AcevedoSNaviaP (2015) Un método no endógeno para medir el gasto electoral en Chile, 2005-2009. Revista mexicana de ciencias políticas y sociales60 (225): 103–131.
3.
AgostiniC (2012) Financiamiento de la política en Chile. Campañas electorales de 2009-2010. In: DíazFJSierraL (eds) Democracia con Partidos. Informe para la reforma de los partidos políticos en Chile. Santiago: CEP/CIEPLAN, pp.269–319.
4.
Álvarez MartínezANaviaPD (2024) Candidaturas independientes, gasto en campaña y desempeño electoral en las elecciones de convencionales constituyentes en Chile en 2021. Política y gobierno31 (1).
5.
AnsolabehereSSnyderJMStewartC (2000) Old Voters, New Voters, and the Personal Vote: Using Redistricting to Measure the Incumbency Advantage. American Journal of Political Science44 (1): 17–34.
6.
ArgoteP (2020) Incumbency Advantage and Shocks in the Electorate: The Adoption of Voluntary Voting. European Political Science Review12 (2): 173–197.
7.
BargstedMAMaldonadoL (2018) Party Identification in an Encapsulated Party System: The Case of Postauthoritarian Chile. Journal of Politics in Latin America10 (1): 29–68.
8.
BunkerK (2018) La elección de 2017 y el fraccionamiento del sistema de partidos en Chile. Revista Chilena de Derecho y Ciencia Política9 (2): 204–229.
9.
BunkerKNaviaP (2015) Incumbency Advantage and Tenure Length in the Chilean Chamber of Deputies, 1989-2009. Revista de Ciencia Política35 (2): 251–271.
10.
ButlerDM (2009) A Regression Discontinuity Design Analysis of the Incumbency Advantage and Tenure in the US House. Electoral Studies28 (1): 123–128.
11.
CabezasJMJofréHNaviaP (2023) The Effect of Campaign Spending, District Magnitude and Incumbency When Electoral Rules Create Districts with Old and New Voters: The Case of Chile in 2017. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties33 (2): 258–277.
12.
CampbellA (1960) Surge and Decline: A Study of Electoral Change. Public Opinion Quarterly24 (3): 397–418.
13.
CoxGWMorgensternS (1995) The Incumbency Advantage in Multimember Districts: Evidence from the US States. Legislative Studies Quarterly20 (3): 329–349.
14.
CoxGWThiesMF (2000) How Much Does Money Matter? “Buying” Votes in Japan, 1967-1990. Comparative Political Studies33 (1): 37–57.
15.
DahlgaardJO (2016) You Just Made It: Individual Incumbency Advantage Under Proportional Representation. Electoral Studies44: 319–328.
16.
DemirkayaBSilvaPCCrispBF (2022) The Logic of Campaign Spending in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems. Electoral Studies79: 102496.
17.
DettmanSPepinskyTBPierskallaJH (2017) Incumbency Advantage and Candidate Characteristics in Open-List Proportional Representation Systems: Evidence from Indonesia. Electoral Studies48: 111–120.
18.
EriksonRS (1971) The Advantage of Incumbency in Congressional Elections. Polity3: 395–405.
19.
FivaJHSmithDM (2018) Political Dynasties and the Incumbency Advantage in Party-Centered Environments. American Political Science Review112 (3): 706–712.
20.
FuentesC (2018) Cortándose las alas. Factores que explican la reforma al financiamiento electoral en Chile. Colombia Internacional95:109–136.
21.
GaddieRKBullockCS (2000) Elections to Open Seats in the US House: Where the Action Is. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
22.
Gamboa ValenzuelaRMoralesM (2016) Chile’s 2015 Electoral Reform: Changing the Rules of the Game. Latin American Politics and Society58 (4): 126–144.
23.
GelmanAKingG (1990) Estimating Incumbency Advantage Without Bias. American Journal of Political Science34 (11): 42–64.
24.
GoldenMAPicciL (2015) Incumbency Effects Under Proportional Representation: Leaders and Backbenchers in the Postwar Italian Chamber of Deputies. Legislative Studies Quarterly40 (4): 509–538.
25.
GreenDPKrasnoJS (1988) Salvation for the Spendthrift Incumbent: Reestimating the Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections. American Journal of Political Science32 (4): 884–907.
26.
HiranoSJr SnyderJM (2009) Using Multimember District Elections to Estimate the Sources of the Incumbency Advantage. American Journal of Political Science53 (2): 292–306.
27.
JacobsonGC (1978) The Effects of Campaign Spending in Congressional Elections. The American Political Science Review72 (2): 469–491.
28.
JohnsonJW (2011) Incumbents without a Campaign Finance Advantage: Competition and Money in Chile’s Congressional Elections. Journal of Politics in Latin America3 (3): 3–33.
29.
JohnsonJW (2013) Campaign Spending in Proportional Electoral Systems: Incumbents Versus Challengers Revisited. Comparative Political Studies46 (8): 968–993.
30.
KenigOAtmorN (2021) Candidate Spending and Success in Israel’s Party Primaries: How Far Does Money Go?Party Politics27 (1): 125–136.
31.
KlašnjaMTitiunikR (2017) The Incumbency Curse: Weak Parties, Term Limits, and Unfulfilled Accountability. American Political Science Review111 (1): 129–148.
32.
LuceroNDanielPRodríguezIP (2016) Los determinantes de los componentes del gasto electoral en elecciones municipales en Chile, 2008-2012. Revista Chilena de Derecho y Ciencia Política7 (3): 57–90.
33.
MagarERosenblumMRSamuelsD (1998) On the Absence of Centripetal Incentives in Double—Member Districts—The Case of Chile. Comparative Political Studies31 (6): 714–739.
34.
MiguielesJBelmarFMonaresR, et al. (2024) Unpacking Electoral Competition: Campaign Spending, Vote Distribution and Turnout in Chilean Mayoral Elections. Policy Studies47 (1): 1–26.
35.
MoralMOzenHETokdemirE (2015) Bringing the Incumbency Advantage into Question for Proportional Representation. Electoral Studies40: 56–65.
36.
MoralesMPiñeiroR (2010) Gasto en campaña y éxito electoral de los candidatos a diputados en Chile 2005. Revista de Ciencia Política30 (3): 645–667.
37.
PiscopoJMHinojosaMThomasG, et al. (2022) Follow the Money: Gender, Incumbency, and Campaign Funding in Chile. Comparative Political Studies55 (2): 222–253.
38.
RicardoGMauricioM (2016) Chile’s 2015 Electoral Reform: Changing the Rules of the Game. Latin American Politics and Society58 (4): 126–144.
39.
SalasC (2016) Incumbency Advantage in Multi-member Districts: Evidence from Congressional Elections in Chile. Electoral Studies42: 213–221.
40.
SamuelsD (2001) Does Money Matter? Credible Commitments and Campaign Finance in New Democracies: Theory and Evidence from Brazil. Comparative Politics34 (1): 23–42.
41.
SiavelisP (1997) Continuity and Change in the Chilean Party System—On the Transformational Effects of Electoral Reform. Comparative Political Studies30 (6): 651–674.
42.
SmrekM (2020) Do Female Legislators Benefit from Incumbency Advantage? Incumbent Renomination in a Flexible-List PR System. Electoral Studies66: 102189.
43.
UppalY (2009) The Disadvantaged Incumbents: Estimating Incumbency Effects in Indian State Legislatures. Public Choice138 (1): 9–27.
44.
ValenzuelaJSSommaNScullyTR (2018) Resilience and Change: The Party System in Redemocratized Chile. In: MainwaringS (ed.) Party Systems in Latin America: Institutionalization, Decay, and Collapse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.135–163.
