Which of the following is NOT a reason for why many incumbents lose reelection

In 2012, Congressional approval averaged 15 percent, the lowest in nearly four decades of Gallup polling. And yet, 90 percent of House Members and 91 percent of Senators who sought re-election won last November.

The seeming paradox between the low regard with which people hold Congress and the high rate of re-election of incumbents is explained well by new data released by Gallup on Thursday that points to a simple reality: People hate Congress but (generally) like their Member of Congress.

Gallup found that 46 percent of respondents said they approved of "the way the representative from your congressional district is handling his or her job" while 41 percent disapproved.  That's in spite of the fact that overall Congressional approval was at just 16 percent in the same survey and hasn't been higher than 24 percent since the start of 2011.

Even more fascinating, Gallup asked a different set of respondents if they could name their Congressman and his/her party and then followed up with a question on whether they approved of the person.

Roughly one in three people (35 percent) could name their Member of Congress -- that was surprisingly high, at least to us -- and, of that group, 62 percent approve of how their Member of Congress is going about their job while 32 percent disapprove. "Americans who say they can name their congressional representative skew older, more highly educated and somewhat Republican," writes Gallup's Elizabeth Mendes.

The numbers tell a fascinating story.

First, they make clear that it's far easier to hate an institution -- like, say, FIFA -- than an individual, particularly an individual you sort-of, kind-of think you know. There's a natural tendency to assume your guy or gal isn't like everyone else -- how could they be bad since you voted for them? -- and they are doing everything they can to make things better up there/down there/out there in Washington.

Second, it's clear that the voters paying the most attention -- as in those who can, you know, name who represents them -- are far more positive about their Members' service than the average person in the district.  Voters paying more attention are, of course, much more likely to vote and, therefore, the sample of people actually turning out on election day tends to be favorably inclined toward their Member. That, in turn, makes the incumbent's re-election much more likely.

Those two factors help explain why Congressional approval is at record lows but re-election rates remain near or above 90 percent. Bloomberg's Greg Giroux notes that in 2010 84 percent of Senators and 85 percent of House members won re-election. But that appears to be the exception not the rule with 95 percent (or more) of House members typically winning re-election dating back four decades. (The last time -- aside from 2010 -- where less than 90 percent of House incumbents seeking re-election won was in 1974 when 89.6 percent did so.)

The message from voters to Congress? Throw the bums out. But not my bum.

Skip to main content

Which of the following is NOT a reason for why many incumbents lose reelection

Which of the following is NOT a reason for why many incumbents lose reelection

Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu

Home

  • Subscribe/renew
    • Institutions
    • Individual subscriptions
    • Individual renewals
  • Librarians
    • Rates, orders, and payments
    • Complete Chicago Package
    • Full run and content coverage
    • KBART files and RSS feeds
    • Permissions and reprints
    • Chicago Emerging Nations Initiative
    • Dispatch dates and claims
    • Librarian FAQ
  • Agents
    • Rates, orders, and payments
    • Complete Chicago Package
    • Full run and content coverage
    • Dispatch dates and claims
    • Agent FAQ
  • About us
    • About Chicago Journals
    • Open access at Chicago
    • Publish with us
    • Newly acquired journals
    • Publishing partners
  • Updates from the Press
    • Sign up for eTOC alerts
    • Press releases
    • Media

This is a preview. Log in through your library.

Abstract

After the appearance of scores of scholarly works attempting to explain why incumbent members of the House of Representatives became safer in the mid-1960s, Gary Jacobson, in a recent (February 1987) article in this journal, claims that "competition for House seats held by incumbents has not, in fact, declined." The crux of Jacobson's case rests on an alleged increase in the chances of an incumbent winning by a large margin in one election and then losing the seat two years later. Thus, Jacobson believes, "marginality" needs to be redefined rather than memorialized. In this response we raise some additional issues relevant to the matter of incumbent safety. Our analysis of the evidence suggests there may have been a slight, temporary increase in the late 1960s and early 1970s in the chances of big winners losing their next race, but clearly indicates that in the six elections since 1974 the proportion of big winners who lose the next election is virtually identical to the proportion in the 1950s and early 1960s. What is more, those who do lose almost always do so because of an adverse redistricting or a major, personal scandal. Thus, unlike Jacobson, we conclude that (1) there has been no meaningful increase in the chances of big winners subsequently losing and (2) in recent elections the chances of a scandal-free, unredistricted, previously safe incumbent losing are practically nil. The level of competition in congressional elections has declined and should be a source of concern to those who value electoral accountability.

Journal Information

The American Journal of Political Science (AJPS), published four times each year, is one of the most widely-read political science journals in the United States. AJPS is a general journal of political science open to all members of the profession and to all areas of the discipline of political science. JSTOR provides a digital archive of the print version of American Journal of Political Science. The electronic version of American Journal of Political Science is available at http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/servlet/useragent?func=showIssues&code;=ajps. Authorized users may be able to access the full text articles at this site.

Publisher Information

The Midwest Political Science Association, founded in 1939, is a national organization of more than 2,800 political science professors, researchers, students, and public administrators from throughout the United States and over 50 foreign countries. The association is dedicated to the advancement of scholarly communication in all areas of political science. Each year the association sponsors a three-day conference of political scientists in Chicago for the purpose of presenting and discussing the latest research in political science. More than 2,000 individuals participate in this conference, which features 300 panels and programs on politics. The MPSA is headquartered at Indiana University. For further information, contact William D. Morgan, Executive Director, email: .

Rights & Usage

This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions
American Journal of Political Science © 1989 Midwest Political Science Association
Request Permissions

What is one reason why incumbents have the advantage in elections quizlet?

The incumbent often has more name recognition because of their previous work in the office they occupy. Incumbents have easier access to campaign finance and government resources that can be indirectly used to boost a campaign. In general, incumbents have structural advantages over challengers during elections.

Why are incumbents elected at high rates quizlet?

Why do incumbents win at such high rates? 90% of incumbents are reelected because they have money and because of their name recognition. Why is voter turnout so low in the United States? A lot of Americans seem to feel that the election is clear as to who is going to win, so they don't vote.

What factors influence voters and election campaigns?

Moreover, key public influences include the role of emotions, political socialization, tolerance of diversity of political views and the media.

Who chooses the electors that are selected during each presidential election year?

Who selects the electors? Choosing each State's electors is a two-part process. First, the political parties in each State choose slates of potential electors sometime before the general election. Second, during the general election, the voters in each State select their State's electors by casting their ballots.