Elections: The Home State Effect in Presidential Elections: Advances in the Study of Localism

Abstract

History shows that presidential candidates often win their home states by large margins. This phenomenon, which is sometimes called localism, has attracted the attention of scholars for decades. In this study, we improve upon previous localism research in several significant ways. Most important, we challenge the traditional conceptualization of the home state effect, arguing that a candidate's national showing is best thought of as a determinant of the effect instead of part of it, as has often been the case. We also devise three other new hypotheses to account for variation in the home state effect. All of these hypotheses find support in our empirical analyses, providing the most complete understanding of the home state effect to date.

Presidential Versus Vice Presidential Home State Advantage: A Comparative Analysis of Electoral Significance, Causes, and Processes, 1884‐2008

“…Also, justifications for including the party identification variable in home state advantage models are framed in such a way as to suggest mobilization. DiSarro, Barber, and Rice (), for example, explain, “Democrats turn out to vote at lower rates than Republicans, so there are more Democrats available to be mobilized by the emotional appeal of a home state candidate on the ballot” (562).…”

“…Subsequent studies of the presidential home state advantage have estimated the average advantage to be lower (Garand ), virtually identical (DiSarro, Barber, and Rice ), or much higher (Mixon and Tyrone ) than 4.0%. The discrepant estimates are largely due to differences in methodological approaches; Garand () used a modified version of the Lewis‐Beck and Rice equation that captured raw party vote share, and Mixon and Tyrone examined only eight presidential candidacies between 1972 and 2000.…”

“…Results from other home state advantage studies are mixed on the effect of population. Mixon and Tyrone () found it to be a significant predictor of presidential home state advantage, Garand () found it to be significant only for Democratic presidential candidates, and for DiSarro, Barber, and Rice () it was the only predictor not to reach statistical significance (however, a county‐to‐state population ratio variable was significant and moderately correlated with the state population variable).…”

Efeito contextual de “amigos e vizinhos” nas eleições presidenciais brasileiras: o caso da votação do candidato Aécio Neves no estado de Minas Gerais

“…Estudos eleitorais na literatura norte-americana (LEWIS-BECK e RICE 1983; DISARRO et al, 2007) indicam que, na maioria das vezes, os candidatos à presidência nos EUA se beneficiam do efeito de "amigos e vizinhos" e que os dois grandes partidos do país estão conscientes dessa vantagem. Assim, observa-se que de 1884 até 1980, 54% dos candidatos presidenciais vieram dos seis estados mais populosos (como a eleição presidencial americana é indireta, os partidos procuram nomear candidatos dos estados mais populosos e, portanto, com um maior número de delegados).…”

Glass Houses and Friends-and-Neighbors Voting: An Exploratory Analysis of the Impact of Political Scandal on Localism

“…Given the political intrigue that accompanied the campaign, during which Moore faced accusations of sexual improprieties, the process and results of this particular 2017 election provide an opportunity to explore the impact of political scandal on friends-and-neighbors voting (or localism) in election contests. More specifically, the present study fills a void in the public choice literature on localism (e.g., see Lewis-Beck and Rice 1983;Rice and Macht 1987;Kjar and Laband 2002;Disarro et al 2007;Mixon 2013) by exploring how political scandal impacts the friends-and-neighbors advantage that typically accrues to local candidates in situations not involving political scandal.…”