Suchergebnisse

STUDY CONFIRMS FIORINA'S SPECULATION THAT INCREASED OVERALL SAFETY OF INCUMBENTS RESULTS FROM RECENT FRESHMEN'S GREATER ELECTORAL STRENGTH, THE GENERATIONAL REPLACEMENT HYPOTHESIS. THE ANALYSIS SHOWS THAT MUCH GREATER VOTE GAINS HAVE RESULTED FOR THE FRESHMEN TERM OF INCUMBENCE, SINCE 1966-68, WHILE FOR VETERANS HAS NOT INCREASED.

In this study of redistricting from 1992 to 2012, we develop an integrative path analysis model that links together the two parts of the congressional redistricting process: the impact of political and environmental antecedent variables on district partisan change and constituency intactness, and the subsequent impact that partisan chance and intactness have on incumbent reelection margin. Environmental factors, most notably the extent of a district's overor under-population prior to redistricting, are found to ultimately make more difference on safety than does party control of the redistricting plan. Furthermore, the pathways extending through partisan change are more important for members' reelection margin than are the pathways extending through intactness. Since members typically end up with a sizable share of new constituents, however, whereas a fairly even balance exists between districts left with pro-incumbent or anti-incumbent partisan change, the average member actually has somewhat more to fear from the former product of the redistricting process.

Disputing the conventional wisdom of congressional scholars, Thomas Brunell has proposed that drafters of congressional district lines should strive to create the maximum number of safe partisan seats. One major reason, to which he devotes considerable attention, is that more votes will be cast for incumbent winners in more homogeneous districts and, because voting for a winning candidate arguably elevates the esteem in which the incumbent is held, district opinion of safer incumbents should therefore be higher. In my own study, I find that district homogeneity, in fact, only modestly improves incumbent positivity. Part of the explanation seems to be that opposition party identifiers, while less abundant in safer districts, have disproportionately critical views of safer members, likely because of these member's ideological extremity. Moreover, I uncover only mixed evidence supporting Brunellís assertion that the act of voting for a victorious incumbent has an independent effect in raising post-election popularity.

Most explanations for the increased effect of partisanship on voting for the U.S. House focus on the polarization of parties at the elite levels of politics. It remains unclear, however, just how the two phenomena are connected. In this study, we find that partisans near the extreme of their respective party's prevailing ideology have largely been responsible for the change in voting behavior, because it is these voters who have experienced the greatest increase in relative ideological closeness to the party at the same time that the ideological component of party identification has become a more powerful determinant of electoral choice. There is little support, however, for the idea that partisan realignment by moderately liberal Republicans and moderately conservative Democrats in response to perceptions of growing divergence between the parties has been the mechanism behind elevated party-based voting. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc., copyright 2008.]

Most explanations for the increased effect of partisanship on voting for the U.S. House focus on the polarization of parties at the elite levels of politics. It remains unclear, however, just how the two phenomena are connected. In this study, we find that partisans near the extreme of their respective party's prevailing ideology have largely been responsible for the change in voting behavior, because it is these voters who have experienced the greatest increase in relative ideological closeness to the party at the same time that the ideological component of party identification has become a more powerful determinant of electoral choice. There is little support, however, for the idea that partisan realignment by moderately liberal Republicans and moderately conservative Democrats in response to perceptions of growing divergence between the parties has been the mechanism behind elevated party-based voting.

Freshman House Republicans running for reelection in 1996 outperformed predictions of vulnerability that were based upon their conservative roll call records and reputed lack of attentiveness to traditional constituency concerns. In this study, we find that perceptions of these freshmen's ideology and ability to keep in touch with constituents were not, in fact, out of line with analogous perceptions of veterans in 1996 or of freshmen or veterans in other elections. Members of the class of 1994 did stand out, however, in how the determinants of voting behavior in their races compared with the determinants in races of these other groups. Constituent evaluations of the job performance of Congress were closely linked to ballot choice, whereas ideological proximity to the member made no difference. Thus, it seems that the Republican freshmen succeeded in shifting the 1996 reelection battle to electorally favorable terrain, because Congress evaluations that year had rebounded from the low levels existing earlier in the 1990s.