Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T20:02:04.767Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part I - Political Representation and Democratic Accountability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2016

Edited by
Alan S. Gerber  and
Eric Schickler
Alan S. Gerber
Affiliation:
Yale University, Connecticut
Eric Schickler
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Governing in a Polarized Age
Elections, Parties, and Political Representation in America
 , pp. 13 - 112
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

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.)

References

References

Adler, E. Scott, and Wilkerson, John D.. 2012. Congress and the Politics of Problem Solving. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John H., and Rohde, David W.. 2001. “The Logic of Conditional Party Government: Revisiting the Electoral Connection.” In Congress Reconsidered, 7th edition, eds. Dodd, Lawrence C. and Oppenheimer, Bruce I.. Washington: CQ Press, 269–292.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John H., and Rohde, David W.. 2010. “Consequences of Electoral and Institutional Change: The Evolution of Conditional Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives.” In New Directions in American Political Parties, ed. Stonecash, Jeffrey M.. New York: Routledge, 234–250.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Snyder, James M. Jr., and Stewart, Charles III. 2001. “The Effects of Party and Preferences on Congressional Roll-Call Voting.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 26 (4): 533–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Hansen, John Mark, Hirano, Shigeo, and Snyder, James M. Jr. 2006. The Decline of Competition in U.S. Primary Elections, 1908–2004.” In The Marketplace of Democracy: Electoral Competition and American Politics, ed. McDonald, Michael P. and Samples, John. Washington: Brookings, 74–101.Google Scholar
Arnold, R. Douglas. 1979. Congress and the Bureaucracy: A Theory of Influence. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Arnold, R. Douglas. 1990. The Logic of Congressional Action. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Arnold, R. Douglas. 2004. “Foreword.” In Congress: The Electoral Connection, 2nd edition, ed. Mayhew, David R.. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Boatright, Robert G. 2013. Getting Primaried: The Changing Politics of Congressional Primary Challenges. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmines, Edward G., and Stimson, James A.. 1989. Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, Jamie L., and Jenkins, Jeffery A.. 2011. “Examining the Electoral Connection Across Time.” Annual Review of Political Science 14: 25–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, Joseph, and Brady, David W.. 1981. “Institutional Context and Leadership Style: The House from Cannon to Rayburn.” American Political Science Review 75 (2): 411–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dionne, E. J. 2013. “Peter King Accuses House Republicans of Putting a ‘Knife’ in the Back of New Yorkers and New Jerseyans.” Washington Post. 2 January.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1967. Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Diana. 2004. Greasing the Wheels: Using Pork Barrel Projects to Build Majority Coalitions in Congress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fahrenthold, David A. 2013. “State of the Union Squatters: Lawmakers Wait Hours on Aisle for Seconds with President.” Washington Post. 11 February.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. Jr. 1966. The Power of the Purse: Appropriations Politics in Congress. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. Jr. 1973. Congressmen in Committees. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. Jr. 1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1977. Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hager, Gregory L., and Talbert, Jeffery C.. 2000. “Look for the Party Label: Party Influences on Voting in the U.S. House.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 25 (1): 75–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Richard L. 1996. Participation in Congress. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hansen, John Mark. 1991. Gaining Access: Congress and the Farm Lobby, 1919–1981. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heberlig, Eric S., and Larson, Bruce A.. 2013. Congressional Parties, Institutional Ambition, and the Financing of Majority Control. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 2013. The Politics of Congressional Elections, 8th edition. New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
Kiewiet, D. Roderick, and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 1991. The Logic of Delegation: Congressional Parties and the Appropriations Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kingdon, John W. 1973. Congressmen’s Voting Decisions. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1991. Information and Legislative Organization. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1993. “Where’s the Party?” British Journal of Political Science 23 (2): 235–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1998. Pivotal Politics: A Theory of U.S. Lawmaking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Frances E. 2009. Beyond Ideology: Politics, Principles, and Partisanship in the U.S. Senate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonnig, Carol D. 2013. “Senate’s Filibuster Decision Could Reshape Influential D.C. Federal Appeals Court.” Washington Post. 21 November.Google Scholar
Levendusky, Mathew. 2009. The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manley, John F. 1970. The Politics of Finance: The House Committee on Ways and Means. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Matthews, Donald R., and Stimson, James A.. 1975. Yeas and Nays: Normal Decision-Making in the U.S. House of Representatives. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McCubbins, Mathew D., Noll, Roger G., and Weingast, Barry R.. 1987. “Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 3 (2): 243–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCubbins, Mathew D., and Schwartz, Thomas. 1984. “Congressional Oversight Overlooked: Police Patrols versus Fire Alarms.” American Journal of Political Science 28 (1): 165–179.Google Scholar
Moe, Terry M. 1987. “An Assessment of the Positive Theory of Congressional Dominance.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 12 (4): 475–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niskanen, William A. Jr. 1971. Bureaucracy and Representative Government. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
Nixon, Ron. 2012. “Congress Appears to be Trying to Get Around Earmark Ban.” New York Times. 6 February.Google Scholar
Nokken, Timothy P., and Poole, Keith T.. 2004. “Congressional Party Defection in American History.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 29 (4): 545–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ornstein, Norman J., Mann, Thomas E., Malbin, Michael J., and Rugg, Andrew. 2014. Vital Statistics on Congress. Washington: Brookings. Online. Tables 6.1, 6.2, 6.4.Google Scholar
Patashnik, Eric M. 2008. Reforms at Risk: What Happens After Major Policy Changes Are Enacted. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Pear, Robert. 2015. “House G.O.P. Again Votes to Repeal Health Care Law.” New York Times. 3 February.Google Scholar
Rohde, David W. 1991. Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schickler, Eric. 2001. Disjointed Pluralism: Institutional Development of the U.S. Congress. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1978. The Giant Jigsaw Puzzle: Democratic Committee Assignments in the Modern House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1979. “Institutional Arrangements and Equilibrium in Multidimensional Voting Models.” American Journal of Political Science 23 (1): 27–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A., and Weingast, Barry R.. 1981. “Structure Induced Equilibrium and Legislative Choice.” Public Choice 37 (3): 503–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Steven S. 2007. Party Influence in Congress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wawro, Gregory. 2000. Legislative Entrepreneurship in the U.S. House of Representatives. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weingast, Barry R., Shepsle, Kenneth A., and Johnsen, Christopher. 1981. “The Political Economy of Benefits and Costs: A Neoclassical Approach to Distributive Politics.” Journal of Political Economy 89 (4): 642–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weingast, Barry R., and Moran, Mark J.. 1983. “Bureaucratic Discretion or Congressional Control: Regulatory Policymaking by the Federal Trade Commission.” Journal of Political Economy 91 (5): 765–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisman, Jonathan. 2012. “Fight Over Ferry on Lake Michigan Prompts Questions of Definition of Earmarks.” New York Times. 30 November.Google Scholar
Weisman, Jonathan. 2013. “Senate Democrats Offer a Budget, Then the Amendments Fly.” New York Times. 23 March.Google Scholar

References

Abramowitz, Alan I. 2010. The Disappearing Center: Engaged Citizens, Polarization, and American Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen. 2013. Cooperative Congressional Election Study, 2012: Common Content [Computer File]. Release 1: March 13, 2013. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University [producer].Google Scholar
Bafumi, Joseph, and Shapiro, Robert Y.. 2009. “A New Partisan Voter.” Journal of Politics 71:1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cain, Bruce, Ferejohn, John, and Fiorina, Morris P.. 1987. The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence. Boston: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Michael. 2012. “Did Republicans Deliberately Crash the U.S. Economy?” Guardian, June 12, at www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/09/did-republicans-deliberately-crash-us-economy.Google Scholar
Currinder, Marian. 2003. “Leadership PAC Contribution Strategies and House Member Ambitions.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 28:551–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Currinder, Marian. 2008. Money in the House: Campaign Funds and Congressional Party Politics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S. 1971. “The Advantage of Incumbency in Congressional Elections.” Polity 3:395–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. Jr. 1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and King, Gary. 1990. “Measuring Incumbency without Bias.” American Journal of Political Science 34:1142–1164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greeley, Brendan. 2013. “Earmarks: The Reluctant Case for Ending the Ban.” Business Week, January 10, at www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-10/earmarks-the-reluctant-case-for-ending-the-ban.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 1996. “The 1994 House Elections in Perspective.” Political Science Quarterly 111:203–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 2000. “Party Polarization in National Politics: The Electoral Connection.” In Polarized Politics: Congress and the President in a Partisan Era, ed. Bond, Jon R. and Fleisher, Richard. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 9–30.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 2003. “Partisan Polarization in Presidential Support: The Electoral Connection.” Congress and the Presidency 30:1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 2006. “The Polls: Polarized Opinion in the States: Partisan Differences in the Approval Ratings of Governors, Senators, and George W. Bush.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 36:732–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 2010. “A Collective Dilemma Solved: The Distribution of Party Campaign Resources in the 2006 and 2008 Congressional Elections.” Election Law Journal 9:381–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 2011a. A Divider, Not a Uniter: George W. Bush and the American People, 2nd ed. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 2011b. “Legislative Success and Political Failure: The Public’s Reaction to Barack Obama’s Early Presidency.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 41:219–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 2011c. “The Republican Resurgence in 2010.” Political Science Quarterly 126:27–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 2013a. “Congress: Partisanship and Polarization.” In The Elections of 2012, ed. Nelson, Michael. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 2013b. “The Economy and Partisanship in the 2012 Presidential and Congressional Elections.” Political Science Quarterly 128:1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 2013c. “No Compromise: The Electoral Origins of Legislative Gridlock.” In Principles and Practice in American Politics, 5th ed., ed. Kernell, Samuel and Smith, Steven. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 2013d. “Partisanship, Money, and Competition: Elections and the Transformation of Congress since the 1970s.” In Congress Reconsidered, 10th ed., ed. Dodd, Lawrence C. and Oppenheimer, Bruce I.. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 2013e. The Politics of Congressional Elections, 8th ed. New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 2015a. “It’s Nothing Personal: The Decline of the Incumbency Advantage in U.S. House Elections,” Journal of Politics 77:861–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 2015b. “Obama and Nationalized Electoral Politics in the 2014 Midterm,” Political Science Quarterly 130:1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kostroski, Warren Lee. 1973. “Party and Incumbency in Postwar Senate Elections: Trends, Patterns, and Models.” American Political Science Review 67:1213–1234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koszczuk, Jackie. 1995. “Freshmen: New Powerful Voice.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 53 (October 28):3251.Google Scholar
Levendusky, Matthew. 2009. The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malecha, Gary Lee, and Reagan, Daniel J.. 2012. The Public Congress: Congressional Deliberation in a New Media Age. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974a. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974b. “Congressional Elections: The Case of the Vanishing Marginals.” Polity 6:295–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, Ashley. 2013. “Republicans, Led by Rand Paul, Finally End Filibuster.” New York Times, March 6, at http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/rand-paul-does-not-go-quietly-into-the-night/.Google Scholar
Steinhauer, Jennifer. 2013. “Divided House Passes Tax Deal to End Latest Fiscal Standoff.” New York Times, January 1, at www.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/us/politics/house-takes-on-fiscal-cliff.html?pagewanted=all.Google Scholar
Theriault, Sean M., and Rohde, David. 2011. “The Gingrich Senators and Party Polarization in the U.S. Senate.” Journal of Politics 73:1011–1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ungar, Rick. 2012. “Why Congress Cannot Operate Without the Bribing Power of Earmarks.” Forbes, December 12, at www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/12/29/why-congress-cannot-operate-without-the-bribing-power-of-earmarks/.Google Scholar
Wasserman, David. 2012. “House Overview: How House Democrats Beat the Point Spread.” Cook Political Report, November 8, at http://cookpolitical.com/house.Google Scholar
Young, Kerry. 2010. “An Earmark by Any Other Name.” CQ Weekly, November 22, 2698– 2700.Google Scholar

References

Alford, John R. and Hibbing, John R.. 1981. “Increased Incumbency Advantage in the House.” Journal of Politics 43: 1052–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alford, John R. and Brady, David W.. 1993. “Personal and Partisan Advantage in US Congressional Elections.” In Dodd, Lawrence C. and Oppenheimer, Bruce I., eds., Congress Reconsidered, 5th ed. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Ansolahebere, Stephen and Snyder, James M. Jr. 2000. “Money and Office: The Source of the Incumbency Advantage in Campaign Finance.” In Brady, David, Cogan, John, and Fiorina, Morris P., eds., Continuity and Change in House Elections. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Ansolahebere, Stephen, Brady, David W., and Fiorina, Morris P.. 1988. “The Vanishing Marginals and Electoral Responsiveness.” British Journal of Political Science 22: 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolahebere, Stephen, Snyder, James M. Jr., and Stewart, Charles III. 2000. “Old Voters, New Voters, and the Personal Vote: Using Redistricting to Measure the Incumbency Advantage.” American Journal of Political Science 44: 17–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Phillip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Phillip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1966. Elections and the Political Order. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cover, Albert D. and Mayhew, David. 1977. “Congressional Dynamics and the Decline of Competitive Congressional Elections.” In Dodd, Lawrence C. and Oppenheimer, Bruce I., eds., Congress Reconsidered. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W. and Katz, Jonathan N.. 1996. “Why Did the Incumbency Advantage in US House Elections Grow?” American Journal of Political Science 40: 478–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W. and Katz, Jonathan N.. 2002. Elbridge Gerry’s Salamander: The Electoral Consequences of the Reapportionment Revolution. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert. 1971. “The Incumbency Advantage in Congressional Elections.” Polity 3: Spring, pp. 395–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert. 1972. “Malapportionment, Gerrymandering and Party Fortunes in Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 65: December, pp. 1234–1245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S. and Wright, Gerald C.. 2000. “Representation of Constituency Ideology in Congress.” In Brady, David, Cogan, John, and Fiorina, Morris, eds., Continuity and Change in Congressional Elections. Stanford: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S. and Titiunik, Rocio. 2015. “Using Regression Discontinuity to Uncover the Personal Incumbency Advantage.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 10: 101–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S. and Palfrey, Thomas R.. 1998. “Campaign Spending Effects and Incumbency: An Alternative Simultaneous Equations Approach.” Journal of Politics 60: May, pp. 355–373.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, John. 1977. “On the Decline in Competition in Congressional Elections. American Political Science Review 71: 166–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris. 1977. “The Case of the Vanishing Marginals: The Bureaucracy Did It.” American Political Science Review 71: 177–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, Anthony and Hall, Andrew B.. 2014. “Disentangling the Personal and Partisan Incumbency Advantages: Evidence from Close Elections and Term Limits.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 9: 501–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew and King, Gary. 1990. “Estimating Incumbency Advantage without Bias.” American Journal of Political Science 34(4): 1142–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew and King, Gary. 1991. “Systemic Consequences of Incumbency Advantage in US House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 35: 110–138.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 1987. “The Marginals Never Vanished: Incumbency and Competition in Elections to the U.S. House of Representatives, 1952–1982. American Journal of Poltiical Science 31: 126–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 2015. “ Its Nothing Personal: The Decline of the Incumbency Advantage in US House Elections.” Journal of Politics: 77: 861–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, David S. 2008. “Randomized Experiments from Non-random Selection in U.S. House Elections.” Journal of Econometrics 142(2): 675–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, Steven D. and Wolfram, Catherine D.. 1997. “Decomposing the Sources of Incumbency Advantage in the U.S. House.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 22(1): 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974a. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974b. “Congressional Elections: The Case of the Vanishing Marginals.” Polity 6: 3295–3317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodden, Jonathan. 2010. “The Geographic Distribution of Political Preferences.” Annual Review of Political Science 13: 297–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tufte, Edward R. 1973. “The Relationship between Seats and Votes in Two-Party Systems.” American Political Science Review 67: 549–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, John. 1998. “Politicians as Prize Fighters: Electoral Selection and Incumbency Advantage.” In Geer, John, ed., Party Politics and Politicians. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar

References

Arrow, Kenneth. 1951. Social Choice and Individual Values. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Ashworth, Scott, and de Mesquita, Ethan Bueno. 2008. Electoral Selection, Strategic Challenger Entry, and the Incumbency Advantage. Journal of Politics 70, 4 (Oct.): 1006–1025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M., and Zaller, John. 2001. Presidential Vote Models: A Recount. PS: Political Science and Politics 34, 1 (Mar.): 8–20.Google Scholar
Brady, Henry E. 1990. Dimensional Analysis of Ranking Data. American Journal of Political Science 34: 1017–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bullock, Charles S. III, and Johnson, Loch K.. 1985. Runoff Elections in Georgia. The Journal of Politics 47: 937–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cramer, Harald. 1946. Mathematical Methods of Statistics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
DeMeyer, Frank, and Plott, Charles R.. 1970. The Probability of a Cyclical Majority. Econometrica 38: 345–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert. 1971. The Advantage of Incumbency in Congressional Elections. Polity 3: 395–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ewing, Cortez A. M. 1953. Primary Elections in the South. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Gaines, Brian J. 2001. Popular Myths about Popular Vote-Electoral College Splits. PS: Political Science and Politics 34, 1 (Mar.): 70–75.Google Scholar
Lamis, Alexander P. 1984. The Runoff Primary Controversy: Implications for Southern Politics. PS: Political Science and Politics 17: 782–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Londregan, John, and Romer, Thomas. 1993. Polarization, Incumbency, and the Personal Vote. In Barnett, W. A. et al., eds., Political Economy: Institutions, Competition, and Representation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 355–377.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congressional Elections: The Case of the Vanishing Marginals. Polity 6: 295–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 2008. Incumbency Advantage in U.S. Presidential Elections: The Historical Record. Political Science Quarterly 123, 2: 201–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Bureau of Economic Research. 2010. US Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions, www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html, accessed March 23, 2014.Google Scholar
Rivers, Douglas. 1988. Partisan Representation in Congress. Paper presented at the Seminar on Congressional Elections, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Roberts, Alasdair. 2013. America’s First Great Depression. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisberg, Herbert F., and Niemi, Richard G.. 1982. Probability Calculations for Cyclical Majorities in Congressional Voting. In Niemi, Richard G. and Weisberg, Herbert F., eds., Probability Models of Collective Decision Making, Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing, pp. 204–231.Google Scholar
Zaller, John. 1998. Politicians as Prize Fighters: Electoral Selection and Incumbency Advantage. In Geer, John G., ed., Politicians and Party Politics, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 125–185.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] 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
×