Hostname: page-component-669899f699-chc8l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T04:43:49.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Changes in the Vote Margins for Congressional Candidates: A Specification of Historical Trends

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

James C. Garand  and
Donald A. Gross
James C. Garand
Affiliation:
Georgia State University
Donald A. Gross
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent research on House elections has focused on the decline in congressional competition since the mid-1960s. However, this body of research suffers from three major problems: 1) an imprecise specification of the nature of change in the degree of congressional competition, 2) its exclusive reliance on a limited time frame, which calls into question the generalizability and adequacy of its explanations, and 3) its overemphasis on incumbency-oriented explanations. Using a Multiple Interrupted Time Series (MITS) analysis of trends in aggregate electoral data from 1824 to 1980, we find that current low levels of congressional competition are not historically unique, but instead constitute a continuation of a long-term trend established in the mid-1890s. In addition, and in contrast to the general thrust described in the literature, there appears to be a post-1965 trend toward greater competition, although the absolute level of competition is lower after the mid-1960s. Finally, a disaggregation of electoral results by incumbency status suggests a growth in the incumbency advantage since the mid-1890s, but that lower post-1965 levels of congressional competition are the result of a winners' and not an incumbency, advantage. Such findings cast doubt on the adequacy of explanations that focus on post-1965, incumbency-oriented factors.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 78 , Issue 1 , March 1984 , pp. 17 - 30
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Albritton, R.Measuring public policy: Impacts of the Supplemental Social Security Income program. American Journal of Political Science, 1979, 23, 559–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alford, J., & Hibbing, J.Increased incumbency advantage in the House. Journal of Politics, 1981, 43, 1042–1061.Google Scholar
Born, R.House incumbents and inter-election vote change. Journal of Politics, 1977, 39, 1008–1034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Born, R.Generational replacement and the growth of incumbent reelection margins in the U.S. House. American Political Science Review, 1979, 73, 811–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnham, W. D.Critical elections and the mainsprings of American politics. New York: W.W. Norton, 1970.Google Scholar
Burnham, W. D.Theory and voting research: Some reflections on Converse's “change in the American electorate.” American Political Science Review, 1974, 68, 1002–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnham, W. D.Insulation and responsiveness in congressional elections. Political Science Quarterly, 1975, 90, 411–435. (a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnham, W. D.American politics in the 1970s. In Burnham, W. D. & Chambers, W. N. (Eds.), The American party systems. New York: Oxford University Press, 1975. (b)Google Scholar
Campbell, D., & Stanley, J. C.Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966.Google Scholar
Clubb, J., Flanigan, W., & Zingale, N.Partisan realignment: voters, parties and government in American history. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1980.Google Scholar
Collie, M.Incumbency, electoral safety, and turnover in the House of Representatives. American Political Science Review, 1981, 75, 119–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, T., & Campbell, D.Quasi-experimentation: design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1979.Google Scholar
Cooper, J., & Brady, D.Toward a diachronic analysis of Congress. American Political Science Review, 1981, 75, 988–1006.Google Scholar
Erikson, R.The advantage of incumbency in congressional elections. Polity 1971, 3, 395–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, R.Is there such a thing as a safe seat? Polity, 1976, 8, 623–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferejohn, J.On the decline of competition in congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 1977, 71, 166–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, M.The case of the vanishing marginals: The bureaucracy did it. American Political Science Review, 1977, 71, 177–181. (a)Google Scholar
Fiorina, M.Congress: keystone of the Washington establishment. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1977. (b)Google Scholar
Gross, D., & Garand, J. The vanishing marginals, 1824–1980. Presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, April 28 to May 1, 1982.Google Scholar
Hibbs, D.Political parties and macroeconomic policy.American Political Science Review, 1977, 71, 1467–1487.Google Scholar
Hinckley, B.The American voter in congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 1981, 75, 641–650.Google Scholar
Jacobson, G.Incumbents and voters in the 1978 congressional elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 1981, 6, 183–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenson, R. American electoral campaigns: A theoretical and historical typology. Presented at the 1968 annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, 1968.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, M.Some economic effects of revolution: models, measurement, and the Cuban evidence. American Journal of Sociology, 1979, 85, 1127–1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis-Beck, M., & Alford, J.Can government regulate safety? The coal mine example. American Political Science Review, 1980, 74, 745–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDowall, D., McCleary, R., Meidinger, E., & Hay, R.Interrupted time series analysis. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1980.Google Scholar
Mann, T., & Wolfinger, R.Candidates and parties in congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 1980, 74, 617–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, D.Congressional elections: The case of the vanishing marginals. Polity, 1974, 6, 295–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moe, T.Regulatory performance and presidential administration. American Journal of Political Science, 1982, 26, 197–224.Google Scholar
Ostrom, C. W.Time series analysis: regression techniques. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1978.Google Scholar
Polsby, N.The institutionalization of the U.S. House of Representatives. American Political Science Review, 1968, 62, 144–168.Google Scholar
Price, H. D.Congress and the evolution of legislative professionalism. In Ornstein, N. (Ed.), Congress in change: evolution and reform. New York: Praeger, 1975.Google Scholar
Tufte, E.Determinants of the outcome of midterm congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 1975, 69, 812–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.