Nationalization and the Incumbency Advantage

Carson, Jamie L.; Sievert, Joel; Williamson, Ryan D.

doi:10.1177/1065912919883696

Cited by 34 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 41 publications

(87 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Party activists also ensure that the national parties include more extreme policy proposals across an ever-expanding set of issue areas, promoting "conflict extension" (59) in their platforms. At the same time, it is generally recognized that contests for the US Congress have become increasingly nationalized, so that the destiny of a candidate for federal office is tied to national political forces (52,(60)(61)(62). If candidates of a given party cannot stray far from the national party positions that are at the extremes, then a district's median voter cannot be courted in the idealized fashion described by formal theory (29).…”

Section: A Systems-driven Framework For Reformmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systems framework for remedying dysfunction in US democracy

Wang

Cervas

Grofman

et al. 2021

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Democracy often fails to meet its ideals, and these failures may be made worse by electoral institutions. Unwanted outcomes include elite polarization, unresponsive representatives, and the ability of a faction of voters to gain power at the expense of the majority. Various reforms have been proposed to address these problems, but their effectiveness is difficult to predict against a backdrop of complex interactions. Here we outline a path for systems-level modeling to help understand and optimize repairs to US democracy. Following the tradition of engineering and biology, models of systems include mechanisms with dynamical properties that include nonlinearities and amplification (voting rules), positive feedback mechanisms (single-party control, gerrymandering), negative feedback (checks and balances), integration over time (lifetime judicial appointments), and low dimensionality (polarization). To illustrate a systems-level approach, we analyze three emergent phenomena: low dimensionality, elite polarization, and antimajoritarianism in legislatures. In each case, long-standing rules now contribute to undesirable outcomes as a consequence of changes in the political environment. Theoretical understanding at a general level will also help evaluate whether a proposed reform’s benefits will materialize and be lasting, especially as conditions change again. In this way, rigorous modeling may not only shape new lines of research but aid in the design of effective and lasting reform.

show abstract

Section: A Systems-driven Framework For Reformmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systems framework for remedying dysfunction in US democracy

Wang

Cervas

Grofman

et al. 2021

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In sum, there is a feeling by many voters that it is not easy to change the person or party they vote for in each election. The incumbency advantage (Carson et al, 2019) is still an important part of the voter's decision making. That said, if messages can be created that say, "it is okay to change your mind," it would give permission for a segment of the population to engage in more critical thinking about their duty to vote.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most politicians are likely to run for office again, and they want the voter's continued support. Known as the incumbency advantage (e.g., Carson et al, 2019;Erikson, 1971;Mayhew, 1974), there is evidence that since the early 19th century, incumbents have an advantage over their challengers. Carson et al (2019) suggest that the size of this benefit fluctuates in predictable ways over time, but that the phenomenon of reelecting incumbents remains strong.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

It’s Okay to Change Your Mind: You Do Not Need to Vote the Same Way Twice

Levine

2021

American Behavioral Scientist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Voters make their decisions based on several factors; however, cognitive dissonance and ego-involvement are two forces that work to keep voters’ choices consistent over time. Despite these internal pressures, there are times when a particular candidate has disappointed a voter to such an extent that the voter considers voting for a different candidate in the next election. 170 young voters were asked about their feelings of regret and their need for permission to change their minds and vote differently in a future election. Findings suggest that women and Democrats are more likely to need permission to change their votes than men and Republicans. Furthermore, there is a significant relationship between regret and desire to change one’s vote with the need for permission to do so on election day. Lastly, the importance of having that permission will affect a voter’s feelings of obligation to cast a ballot for the same party. Open ended responses explore the idea of obligation versus making a change in more detail. Findings suggest that correct messaging about the ability one has to change one’s mind and also being granted permission to vote differently may be an effective campaign messaging strategy.

show abstract

“…But as Brown et al (2020) point out, federal legislation like the VRA has typically focused on individual’s rights and not on things like security or integrity. In the increasingly nationalized electoral environment currently characterizing the US (Carson et al, 2020), citizen attitudes are largely shaped by national figures and policies, instead of state and local affairs. Therefore, trust and confidence are dependent on election outcomes in other states.…”

Section: The Case For National Election Infrastructure Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Contours of a National Infrastructure Policy for the New Millennium

Morris

Williamson

Meiburg

2021

Public Works Management & Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As calls for renewed efforts to address the state of the nation’s infrastructure grow across both partisan and ideological lines, they raise pointed questions regarding the nature of such efforts. For example, how do we pay for needed infrastructure? How do we set priorities among the many and varied needs across the nation? Most critically, should the national government play the central role in such an effort or is this task more appropriately left to the states? With Netzer’s article in mind, we examine the core factors that a national infrastructure policy in the 21st century should consider. We illustrate these factors through the use of two exemplar cases: traditional wastewater infrastructure, and the infrastructure required to conduct free, safe, and fair elections. Contrary to Netzer, we contend that there are many advantages to employing a national policy in these areas.

show abstract

Nationalization and the Incumbency Advantage

Cited by 34 publications

References 41 publications

A systems framework for remedying dysfunction in US democracy

A systems framework for remedying dysfunction in US democracy

It’s Okay to Change Your Mind: You Do Not Need to Vote the Same Way Twice

Contours of a National Infrastructure Policy for the New Millennium

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About