The congressional incumbency advantage reflects an inequity in competition—candidates receive an electoral edge simply because they hold office. Scholars have identified an array of factors that contribute to the incumbency advantage; however, the role of electoral campaigns has been largely ignored. We argue that campaigns are a mechanism through which the incumbency advantage works. All else constant, incumbents focus their campaigns on factors that reflect their standing position, such as their familiarity to voters and actions taken for their district/state. Voters consequently rely on such incumbency factors when making their decisions. The outcome is challengers are at an extreme disadvantage, and campaigns offer scant substantive engagement. We offer evidence for these dynamics with a large-scale content analysis of campaign websites and an experiment. In so doing, we highlight a challenge to theories of democratic representation that focus on equal competition and/or substantive campaign engagement.
AbramowitzA. I.AlexanderB.GunningM. (2006). Incumbency, redistricting, and the decline of competition in U.S. house elections. The Journal of Politics, 68, 75-88.
2.
AnsolabehereS.SnyderJ. N.Jr.StewartC.III. (2000). Old voters, new voters, and the personal vote: Using redistricting to measure the incumbency advantage. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 17-34.
3.
AshworthS.Bueno de MesquitaE. (2008). Electoral selection, strategic challenger entry, and the incumbency advantage. The Journal of Politics, 70, 1006-1025.
4.
AshworthS.Bueno de MesquitaE.FriedenbergA. (2018). Learning about voter rationality. American Journal of Political Science, 62, 37-54.
5.
BowlerS.DonovanT. (2011). Electoral competition and the voter. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75, 151-164.
6.
BrooksD. J. (2013). He runs, she runs: Why gender stereotypes do not harm women candidates. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7.
CarsonJ. L.EngstromE. J.RobertsJ. (2007). Candidate quality, the personal vote, and the incumbency advantage in congress. American Political Science Review, 101, 289-301.
8.
CarterJ.PattyJ. W. (2015). Valence and campaigns. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 825-840.
9.
ChongD.DruckmanJ. N. (2007). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101, 637-655.
10.
CoxG. W.KatzJ. N. (2002). Elbridge Gerry’s Salamander: The electoral consequences of the reapportionment revolution. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
11.
DischL. (2011). Toward a mobilization conception of democratic representation. American Political Science Review, 105, 100-114.
12.
DolanK. (2010). The impact of gender stereotyped evaluations on support for women candidates. Political Behavior, 32, 69-88.
13.
DruckmanJ. N. (2014). Pathologies of studying public opinion, political communication, and democratic responsiveness. Political Communication, 31, 467-492.
14.
DruckmanJ. N.HennessyC. L.KiferM. J.ParkinM. (2010). Issue engagement on congressional candidate web sites, 2002-2006. Social Science Computer Review, 28, 3-23.
15.
DruckmanJ. N.KiferM. J.ParkinM. (2009). Campaign communications in U.S. congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 103, 343-366.
16.
DruckmanJ. N.KiferM. J.ParkinM. (2010). Timeless strategy meets new medium: Going negative on congressional campaign websites, 2002-2006. Political Communication, 27, 88-103.
17.
DruckmanJ. N.KiferM. J.ParkinM. (2017). Resisting the opportunity for change: How congressional campaign insiders viewed and used the web in 2016. Social Science Computer Review, 36, 392-405.
18.
DruckmanJ. N.LeeperT. J. (2012). Learning more from political communication experiments: Pretreatment and its effects. American Journal of Political Science, 56, 875-896.
19.
DruckmanJ. N.McDermottR. (2008). Emotion and the framing of risky choice. Political Behavior, 30, 297-321.
20.
EcklesD. L.KamC. D.MaestasC. L.SchaffnerB. F. (2014). Risk attitudes and the incumbency advantage. Political Behavior, 36, 731-749.
21.
EnosR. D.HershE. D. (2017). Campaign perceptions of electoral closeness: Uncertainty, fear and over-confidence. British Journal of Political Science, 47, 501-519.
22.
FennoR. F. (1978). Home style: House members in their districts. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
23.
FiorinaM. P. (1989). Congress: Keystone of the Washington establishment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
24.
FowlerA. (2016). What explains incumbent success? Disentangling selection on party, selection on candidate characteristics, and office-holding benefits. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 11, 313-338.
25.
FowlerA. (2018). A Bayesian explanation for the effect of incumbency. Electoral Studies, 53, 66-78.
26.
FowlerA.HallA. B. (2014). Disentangling the personal and partisan incumbency advantages: Evidence from close elections and term limits (SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2120743). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.
27.
GarstenB. (2009). Representative government and popular sovereignty. In ShapiroI.StokesS. C.WoodE. J.KirshnerA. S. (Eds.), Political representation (pp. 90-110). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
28.
GelmanA.KingG. (1990). Estimating incumbency advantage without bias. American Journal of Political Science, 34, 1142-1164.
29.
GrimmerJ. (2013). Representational style in congress: What legislators say and why it matters. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
30.
GrimmerJ. (2016). Measuring representational style in the house: The tea party, Obama and legislators’ changing expressed priorities. In AlvarezR. M. (Ed.), Computational social science: Discovery and prediction (pp. 225-245). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
31.
GronkeP. (2001). The electorate, the campaign, and the office: A unified approach to senate and house elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
32.
HallA. B. (2014). Partisan effects of legislative term limits. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 39, 407-429.
33.
HallA. B.SnyderJ. M.Jr. (2015). How much of the incumbency advantage is due to scare-off?Political Science Research and Methods, 3, 493-514.
34.
HartA.MiddletonJ. A. (2014). Priming under fire: Reverse causality and the classic media priming hypothesis. The Journal of Politics, 76, 581-592.
35.
HayesD. (2005). Candidate qualities through a partisan lens: A theory of trait ownership. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 908-923.
36.
HuddyL.TerkildsenN. (1993). Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 119-147.
37.
JacobsonG. C. (2013). The politics of congressional elections (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
38.
JacobsonG. C. (2015). It’s nothing personal: The decline of the incumbency advantage in us house elections. The Journal of Politics, 77, 861-873.
39.
KelleyS.Jr. (1960). Political campaigning: Problems in creating an informed electorate. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
40.
KingG.TomzM.WittenbergJ. (2000). Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 347-361.
41.
LeeD. S. (2008). Randomized experiments from non-random selection in U.S. House elections. Journal of Econometrics, 142, 675-697.
42.
LenzG. S. (2013). Follow the leader? How voters respond to politicians’ policies and performance. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
43.
LevittS. D.WolframC. D. (1997). Decomposing the sources of incumbency advantage in the U.S. House. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 22, 45-60.
44.
LupiaA. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review, 88, 63-76.
45.
MannT. E.WolfingerR. (1980). Candidates and parties in congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 74, 617-632.
46.
MansbridgeJ. (2004). Representation revisited: Introduction to the case against electoral accountability. Democracy and Society, 2(1), 12-13.
47.
MarcusG. E.NeumanW. R.MacKuenM. (2000). Affective intelligence and political judgment. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
48.
MayhewD. R. (1974). Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
49.
McDonaldM. P.TolbertC. J. (2012). Perceptions vs. actual exposure to electoral competition and effects on political participation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76, 538-554.
50.
PriorM. (2006). The incumbent in the living room: The rise of television and the incumbency advantage in U.S. House elections. The Journal of Politics, 68, 657-673.
51.
RikerW. H. (1996). The strategy of rhetoric: Campaigning for the American constitution (CalvertR. L.MuellerJ.WilsonR. K., Eds.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
52.
StoneW. J.FultonS. A.MaestasC. D.MaiselL. S. (2010). Incumbency reconsidered: Prospects, strategic retirement, and incumbent quality in U.S. House elections. The Journal of Politics, 72, 178-190.
53.
ZallerJ. (1998). Politicians as prize fighters: Electoral selection and incumbency advantage. In GeerJ. G. (Ed.), Politicians and party politics (pp. 125-185). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins 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.
