~ What You Should Know about Congressional Elections ~
The Incumbency Advantage: The first, and most central, fact we should know about congressional elections is the incumbency advantage. Simply put, incumbent members of Congress are at a great advantage when running for reelection; over time, incumbents are reelected close to 95% of the time. Some years, this figure climbs as high as 98%; in 1998, for example, 395 out of 403 incumbents who sought reelection were successful (seven lost in the general election and one lost his primary). Thus, understanding congressional elections means first understanding the advantages of incumbency; the most important thing to know about any congressional contest is whether an incumbent is running or whether it is a race for an open seat.
The Importance of Name Recognition: The first generation of scholarship on congressional elections took two views of why incumbents possessed such an advantage. The first of these views focused on voter behavior. In this research, incumbents were said to win reelection so frequently because congressional voters were inordinately swayed by name recognition when casting their congressional votes. In a landmark article, John Ferejohn demonstrated that voters were likely to vote against the candidate from their party if the only name they recognized was that of the candidate for the other party. Thus, on average, a Democrat who recognizes only the name of the Republican on the ballot is more likely to vote Republican than Democrat. Since incumbents generally have higher name recognition than challengers, they become more likely to be reelected.
The Importance of Incumbent Behavior: The second view for why incumbents are more likely to be reelected comes from incumbent behavior. This theory, most associated with work by David Mayhew and Morris Fiorina, argues that incumbents take advantage of the benefits of office to enhance their electoral position over their challengers. Thus, the franking (free mailing) privilege incumbents get helps them maintain increased name recognition. Travel to the district helps incumbents as well. In addition, by performing casework for their constituents (such as by finding lost Social Security checks), incumbents can develop good will, which then translates into votes. Finally, incumbents can skillfully take positions that are in agreement with constituency opinion. They also advertise based on these positions and build a legislative record that the opinion leaders in the district can support. In short, incumbents are doing the things that help them get reelected.
The Strategic Politicians Theory: Weak Challengers: Linked to incumbency (and closely following from it) is the strategic politicians theory most associated with the work of Gary Jacobson and Sam Kernell. Jacobson and Kernell argue that the reason incumbents win so often is because they so often face weak challengers. Because incumbents can do things like advertising, casework and skillful position-taking, and because voters tend to vote based on name recognition, where incumbents dominate, strong challengers tend to avoid running. Why should a state legislator risk her seat to run a likely losing battle against an incumbent member of Congress? Thus, the field is left to the weak challengers, who are usually no match for incumbents. Congressional elections become self-fulfilling prophecies. Good challengers stay away because it seems incumbents will win; when they do, incumbents win.
The Strategic Politicians Theory: Money: The strategic politicians theory incorporates money as well. If there is one thing we know about money in congressional elections, it is that money matters most to the challengers. Incumbents already have gotten their name before the voters; things like casework and franking allow them to do so while in office. But challengers tend to be less known. Successful challengers must spend money. But strategic donors avoid giving money to those they perceive as weak; why donate money to a candidate who is likely to lose? Money accounts for even more of the incumbency advantage; most congressional challengers are perceived as so weak that they can't even get their hands on enough cash to run a campaign. Strategic donors also help make congressional elections self-fulfilling prophecies.
The Strategic Politicians Theory: The National Context of Elections: Finally, the strategic politicians theory accounts for national results in addition to local ones. On the national scale, national factors get linked to individual districts. For example, in 1994, Republicans looked primed to gain House seats. President Clinton was unpopular and the economy was not doing superbly. Thus, throughout the country, strong Republicans lined up to run against Democratic incumbents; while most of these incumbents were reelected, a significant number lost. Few strong Democrats challenged Republicans; that year, no Republican incumbents lost. Thus, although most congressional voters do not directly use national criteria in casting their votes, the strategic politician idea is how these factors get reflected in elections.
“Running Scared”: Despite all the incumbent advantages, members of Congress continue to "run scared." (The phrase is Gary Jacobson's.) Years ago, Richard Fenno argued that even though objective indicators may point to the fact that a member of Congress has little to fear in a reelection bid, all of them act as if they do. Members are always a little paranoid, as losing an election is the worst possible thing that could happen in their careers. Thus, even seemingly safe members are hyper-cautious about the next election. They visit the district all the time, closely monitor prevailing opinion back home, act carefully in their position-taking, and devote their attention to scaring off strong challengers for next time. It is true that in any year's election, very few incumbents lose. But, the fear that defeat may hit them leaves members constantly vigilant about the next election.
Four Central Facts about Incumbency
1. Incumbents win an overwhelming proportion of the time because they have significant advantages. These advantages include the ability to send free mail to their constituents and the ability to perform little favors for their constituents.
a. The Franking Privilege (incumbents’ ability to send free mail to constituents as long as the mail is not campaign-related). Most incumbents send something to all addresses in their district 2-4 times a year.
b. Credit Claiming – which involves enhancing their positions with their constituents through service to the voters and to the district as a whole.
Casework– helping individual constituents with their government related problems, such as sorting out a mix up in social security benefits. Incumbents have the staff resources to provide services to constituents, and are able to use the postal service for nothing in order to do this.
Pork Barrel – benefiting the district by bringing back federal projects, grants and contracts. This, of course, benefits the economy of the district by increasing jobs and cash flow.
c. Position Taking – the policy stands taken by incumbents can reinforce their popularity with their constituents. This could also mean their voting record in Congress.
c. Advertising – most congressional advertising takes place between elections in the form of contact with the members of their district. The more visible the congress person is, the better. In any given week most congress people spend some time in their home districts.
d. PAC Money – PACs give the majority of their money to the candidate they think has the best chance of winning. Since that is usually the incumbents, they have an automatic advantage when it comes to fundraising. For example, in 1997-1998 House incumbents received $157 million from Pacs, as compared to $21 million given to challengers.
2. Incumbents win reelection so often because congressional elections are usually poorly followed by media and by the voters. Voters in congressional elections often vote by simple cues such as party and/or name recognition (incumbents have the advantage because their names are more likely to be known). Issue positions or policy behavior while in office affect few people's votes.
3. Congress as a whole is unpopular, but incumbents can nicely weather the storm. An unpopular institution does not affect the reelection ambitions of its members. Individual members can portray themselves as reformers, or as working specifically for their district, (which does not necessarily mean they are working for the national good.)
4. Members of Congress "run scared." Even in the absence of any reason to fear for their electoral lives, they worry incessantly about losing the next election. This keeps them risk averse and keeps their behavior in line with what they perceive their constituents want. While defeat in any given year is rare, more members leave office due to electoral defeat than any other reason (such as retirement). It is true that most members are likely to win any given election, a long congressional career requires stringing along a large number of wins. This is not always easy.
Defeating Incumbents
- Incumbents may beat themselves – being associated by scandal, corruption or fiscal irresponsibility an incumbent becomes vulnerable.
- Redistricting – incumbents may be redistricted out of their home turf when district lines are adjusted after a census.
- Major Political Tidal Wave – when a movement sweeps the country, like the one led by Newt Gingrich in 1994 when 37 incumbents were voted out of Congress, incumbents may be caught up in the current.
- Money – the more money a challenger spends the more votes they will receive. Money buys name recognition and advertising which equates to a chance to be heard.
- Open Seat – in an open seat, a race where there are no incumbents, the candidate who spends the most money usually wins.
The National Electoral Context for the Congressional Elections
Congressional elections do not take place in isolation. Whereas what goes on in the district is clearly important, events taking place outside the district also matter. In this simulation, the national context is set to mirror what is actually happening in the real world. This will affect strategic decisions; for example, when President Bush was unpopular, Democrats attacked Republican candidates by linking them to Bush. Skillful congressional campaigning will involve incorporating the national context.Among the important national issues to consider:
1. People are frustrated with the Democrats.
2. The economy is doing poorly. This might put the Republicans somewhat on the defensive with regard to economic issues. It might also increase the importance of economic issues to voters and make economy-based appeals even more crucial during the campaign. Also, we are currently working our way toward a record-breaking deficit, due to the combination of a slowed economy, tax cuts, recent bailouts and the expenses associated with September 11th, Afghanistan and Iraq.
3. September 11 happened. Its political effects are ongoing, but the issues of national security, terrorism (which Republicans have traditionally been seen as strong on) and civil rights/civil liberties (which Democrats have traditionally been the guardians of) have been brought to the forefront.
4. Afghanistan and Iraq. Troops are still committed in both this countries and though a time line for withdrawal has been established an exit strategy remains unclear.
5. Health care is viewed by many as a national disaster. Though a bill has passed Congress, it remains confusing and unpopular.
Propaganda Techniques
Plain Folks: Pretend to be one of the common people. – “I’m the worker’s friend.”
Bandwagon: Follow the crowd; be with the majority – “A is voting for X, so are B, C, and D. Why not you, too?”
Name Calling: Do not discuss the facts; just give the opposition a bad name. -“Un-American.”
Glittering Generalities: Broad and vague statements. -“In the interest of peace and prosperity.”
Transfer:Use symbols to accomplish purposes for which they were not intended. -“Uncle Sam.”
Testimonial: Endorsement by a celebrity, group, or “common person”. -“Mr. Big says, ‘Vote for X, he’s my choice’.”
Card Stacking: Present only one side of an issue through the distortion of the facts. -“2+2=22”
Straw Man: The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. -“Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."
Slippery Slope: In order to show that a proposition is unacceptable, a sequence of increasingly unacceptable events is shown to follow from that proposition. -“If we pass laws against fully-automatic weapons, then it won't be long before we pass laws on all weapons, and then we will begin to restrict other rights, and finally we will end up living in a communist state. Thus, we should not ban fully-automatic weapons.”
Information comes to us from a number of sources, including the following: Government in America pgs. 358-364, MacGruder’s American Government.
1