Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-qks25 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-18T02:40:34.642Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - The Trend in Incumbent Vote Percentages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2010

Jeffrey M. Stonecash
Affiliation:
Syracuse University, New York
Get access

Summary

One of the central pieces of evidence of an increased incumbency effect has been the increase in the vote percentage won by incumbents since 1946. Assuming that election results are recorded correctly, the important issue is whether an upward trend actually occurred. As noted before, Mayhew's (1974a) analysis prompted a focus on this indicator. He made four decisions in creating his trend analysis. First, he began the examination with a focus on incumbent vote percentages. Second, he calculated the percentage of the vote received as a percentage of the total major party vote. Third, he presented results in terms of the percentage of incumbent outcomes that were safe or marginal. Fourth, he included contested and uncontested races.

Mayhew's (1974a) first two decisions were quickly accepted for subsequent studies. Almost all the studies conducted since his analysis have focused on incumbents and their vote as a percentage of the major party vote. His latter two decisions, however, were set aside, and that has had significant consequences. Rather than use the percentage of marginal or safe seats, Born (1979) argued that with the presentation of outcomes by categories, small percentage changes could result in a shift of many cases between categories and the impression of a large change. He used the average vote percentage for incumbents (Born, 1979: 812–13), and almost all subsequent efforts to track the trend focused on average vote percentages or changes in them (Payne, 1980: 471–72; Alford and Hibbing, 1981: 1047–51; Garand and Gross, 1984: 21; Gross and Garand, 1984: 230; Jacobson, 1987: 127; Ansolabehere, Snyder, and Stewart, 2000: 24; Jacobson, 2001: 24–26).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

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.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×