Elections and the regression discontinuity design: Lessons from close U.S. House Races, 1942-2008

Political Analysis

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 385-408

  Caughey, Devin ^a   Sekhon, Jasjeet S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84857002657     PISSN: 10471987     EISSN: 14764989     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/pan/mpr032     Document Type: Article

References (99)

1. Albouy, David. 2009. Partisan representation in Congress and the geographic distribution of federal funds. Working paper no. 15224. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. http://www.nber.org/papers/w15224.
2. Alvarez, R. Michael, and Thad E. Hall. 2010. Voting technology. In The Oxford handbook of American elections and political behavior, ed. Jan E. Leighley, 219-36. New York: Oxford University Press
3. Angrist, Joshua David, and Jörn-Steffen Pischke. 2009. Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist's companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
4. Angrist, Joshua David, and Jörn-Steffen Pischke. 2010. The credibility revolution in empirical economics: How better research design is taking the con out of econometrics. Journal of Economic Perspectives 24:3-30.
5. Ansolabehere, Stephen, and James M. Snyder, Jr. 2000. Soft money, hard money, strong parties. Columbia Law Review 100:598-619.
6. Ansolabehere, Stephen, and James M. Snyder, Jr. 2004. Using term limits to estimate incumbency advantages when officeholders retire strategically. Legislative Studies Quarterly 29:488-515.
7. Basinger, Scott J., and Howard Lavine. 2005. Ambivalence, information, and electoral choice. American Political Science Review 99:169-84.
8. Beam, Christopher. 2006. What's 'Street Money'? Or 'walking-around money'? Or 'get-out-the-vote money'? Slate. 2008. http://www.slate.com/id/2202955/(accessed 8 May 2011).
9. Benenson, Bob. 2010. Recount. In Elections A to Z. 3rd ed.Washington, DC: CQ Press. http://library.cqpress.com/elections/elaz3d_s472.2.
10. Benjamini, Y, and Y. Hochberg. 1995. The control of the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 57:289-300.
11. Brady, Henry E., Richard Johnston, and John Sides. 2006. The study of political campaigns. In Capturing campaign effects, ed. Henry E. Brady and Richard Johnston, 1-26. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press
12. Brollo, Fernanda, and Tommaso Nannicini. 2010. Tying your enemy's hands in close races: The politics of federal transfers in Brazil. Working paper no. 358, Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research, Universit`a Bocconi. http://www.igier.unibocconi.it/folder.php?vedi=4756&tbn=albero&id_folder=182.
13. Broockman, David E. 2009. Do congressional candidates have reverse coattails? Evidence from a regression discontinuity design. Political Analysis 17:418-34.
14. Butler, Daniel Mark. 2009. A regression discontinuity design analysis of the incumbency advantage and tenure in the U.S. House. Electoral Studies 28:123-8.
15. Butler, Matthew J., and Daniel M. Butler. 2006. Splitting the difference? Causal inference and theories of split-party delegations. Political Analysis 14:439-55.
16. Cain, Bruce, John Ferejohn, and Morris Fiorina. 1987. The personal vote: Constituency service and electoral independence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
17. Campbell, Donald T., and Julian C. Stanley. 1963. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. New York: Houghton-Mifflin.
18. Campbell, Tracy. 2005. Deliver the vote: A history of election fraud, an American political tradition-1742-2004. New York: Carroll & Graf.
19. Caro, Robert A. 1990. Means of ascent. The Years of Lyndon Johnson. New York: Vintage Books.
20. Cellini, Stephanie Riegg, Fernando Ferreira, and Jesse Rothstein. 2010. The value of school facility investments: Evidence from a dynamic regression discontinuity design. Quarterly Journal of Economics 125:215-61.
21. Cheng, Ming-Yen, Jianqing Fan, and J. S. Marron. 1997. On automatic boundary corrections. The Annals of Statistics 25:1691-708.
22. Clarke, Peter, and Susan H. Evans. 1983. Covering campaigns: Journalism in congressional elections. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press
23. Cook, Thomas D. 2008. 'Waiting for Life to Arrive': A history of the regression-discontinuity design in psychology, statistics and economics. Journal of Econometrics 142:636-54.
24. Cook, Thomas D., William R. Shadish, and Vivian C. Wong. 2008. Three conditions under which experiments and observational studies produce comparable causal estimates: New findings from within-study comparisons. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 27:724-50.
25. Cox, Gary W., and Jonathan N. Katz. 1996. Why did the incumbency advantage in U.S. House elections grow? American Journal of Political Science 40:478-97.
26. Cox, Gary W., and Jonathan N. Katz. 2002. Elbridge Gerry's salamander: The electoral consequences of the reapportionment revolution. New York: Cambridge University Press
27. Cox, Gary W., and Mathew D. McCubbins. 2005. Setting the agenda: Responsible party government in the U.S. House of Representatives. New York: Cambridge University Press
28. Cox, Gary W., and Michael C. Munger. 1989. Closeness, expenditures, and turnout in the 1982 U.S. House Elections. American Political Science Review 83:217-31.
29. DiNardo, John, and David S. Lee. 2004. Economic impacts of new unionization on private sector employers: 1984-2001. Quarterly Journal of Economics 119:1383-441.
30. Downs, Timothy, Chris Sautter, and John Hardin Young. 1994. The Recount Primer. Sautter Communications. http://www.thekingofsteeltown.com/index.html.
31. Drucker, David M. 2010. Baucus Sent Staff to Aid Reid in Nevada. Roll Call, November 5, 2010. http://www.rollcall.com/news/-200258-1.html.
32. Dunning, Thad. 2008. Improving causal inference: Strengths and limitations of natural experiments. Political Research Quarterly 61:282-93.
33. Eggers, Andrew C., and Jens Hainmueller. 2009. MPs for sale? Returns to office in postwar British politics. American Political Science Review 103:513-33.
34. Erikson, Robert S. 1971. The advantage of incumbency in congressional elections. Polity 3:395-405.
35. Erikson, Robert, and Thomas Palfrey. 2000. Equilibria in campaign spending games: Theory and data. American Political Science Review 94:595-609.
36. Erikson, Robert, and Rocío Titiunik. 2011. Using regression discontinuity to uncover the personal incumbency advantage. Paper presented at the Research Workshop on American Politics, Institute of Governmental Studies, UC Berkeley, May 10, 2011.
37. Fearon, James D. 1999. Electoral accountability and the control of politicians: Selecting good types versus sanctioning poor performance. In Democracy, accountability, and representation, ed. Adam Przeworski, Susan Carol Stokes, and Bernard Manin. New York: Cambridge University Press
38. Feddersen, Timothy, Sean Gailmard, and Alvaro Sandroni. 2009. Moral bias in large elections: Theory and experimental evidence. American Political Science Review 103:175-92.
39. Ferejohn, John A. 1977. On the decline of competition in congressional elections. American Political Science Review 71:166-76.
40. Ferreira, Fernando, and Joseph Gyourko. 2009. Do political parties matter? Evidence from U.S. cities. Quarterly Journal of Economics 124:399-422.
41. Fuji, Daisuke, Guido W. Imbens, and Karthik Kalyanaraman. 2009. Notes for Matlab and Stata Regression Discontinuity Software. http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/imbens/files/rd_software_09aug4.pdf. Software (rdob, version 10.0).
42. Gelman, Andrew. 2011. Regression discontinuity designs: looking for the keys under the lamppost? Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science (blog), January 15, 2011, http://andrewgelman.com/2011/01/regression disc/.
43. Gelman, Andrew, and Gary King. 1990. Estimating incumbency advantage without bias. American Journal of Political Science 34:1142-64.
44. Gelman, Andrew, and Zaiying Huang. 2008. Estimating incumbency advantage and its variation, as an example of a before-after study. Journal of the American Statistical Association 103:437-46.
45. Gerber, Elisabeth R., and Daniel J. Hopkins. 2011. When mayors matter: Estimating the impact of mayoral partisanship on city policy. American Journal of Political Science 55:326-39.
46. Geys, Benny. 2006. Explaining voter turnout: A review of aggregate-level research. Electoral Studies 25:637-63.
47. Glasgow, Garrett. 2002. The efficiency of congressional campaign committee contributions in House elections. Party Politics 8: 657-72.
48. Green, Donald P., Terence Y. Leong, Holger L. Kern, Alan S. Gerber, and Christopher W. Larimer. 2009. Testing the accuracy of regression discontinuity analysis using experimental benchmarks. Political Analysis 17:400-17.
49. Grimmer, Justin, Eitan Hersh, Brian Feinstein, and Daniel Carpenter. 2011. Are close elections random? Working paper
50. Hahn, Jinyong, Petra Todd, and Wilbert Van der Klaauw. 2001. Identification and estimation of treatment effects with a regression discontinuity design. Econometrica 69:201-9.
51. Hainmueller, Jens, and Holger Lutz Kern. 2008. Incumbency as a source of spillover effects in mixed electoral systems: Evidence from a regression-discontinuity design. Electoral Studies 27:213-27.
52. Harris, Bernard. 1988. Election recounting. The American Statistician 42:66-8.
53. Hauser, Christine, and John Holusha. 2006. Problems lead 8 states to extend some voting hours. International Herald Tribune, November 7, 2006. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/08/world/americas/08iht-web.1108day.3441243.html?emc=eta1.
54. Hays, Jude C., and Robert J. Franzese, Jr. 2007. Estimating the cost of social-democratic government by regression-discontinuity analysis of close elections. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Political Economy Society, Stanford University, November 2007.
55. Herzberg, Roberta. 1986. McCloskey versus McIntyre: Implications of contested elections in a federal democracy. Publius 16: 93-109.
56. Horiuchi, Yusaku, and Andrew Leigh. 2009. Estimating incumbency advantage: Evidence from three natural experiments. Paper prepared for presentation at the University of New SouthWales, October 2009. http://wwwdocs.fce.unsw.edu.au/economics/news/VisitorSeminar/091014 YusakuHoriuchi.pdf.
57. ICPSR. 1995. Candidate and constituency statistics of elections in the United States, 1788-1990 computer file, 5th ICPSR edition. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR), producer and distributor.
58. Imbens, Guido W., and Karthik Kalyanaraman. 2009. Optimal bandwidth choice for the regression discontinuity estimator. NBER working paper no. 14726. http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/imbens/files/rd_09feb3.pdf.
59. Imbens, Guido W., and Thomas Lemieux. 2008. Regression discontinuity designs: A guide to practice. Journal of Econometrics 142:615-35.
60. Jackson, Robert A. 1996. The mobilization of congressional electorates. Legislative Studies Quarterly 21:425-45.
61. Jacob, Suraj, and Naveen Singhal. 2010. Does women's electoral victory increase political participation and success in future elections? Evidence from India. Working paper. http://www.uic.edu/depts/econ/seminar_papers/singhal.pdf.
62. Jenkins, Jeffery A. 2004. Partisanship and contested election cases in the House of Representatives, 1789-2002. Studies in American Political Development 18:112-35.
63. Katz, Jonathan N. 2008. Comment on 'Estimating Incumbency Advantage and Its Variation, as an Example of a Before-After Study'. Journal of the American Statistical Association 103:446-8.
64. Kimball, David C, Martha Kropf, and Lindsay Battles. 2006. Helping America vote? Election administration, partisanship, and provisional voting in the 2004 election. Election Law Journal 5:447-61.
65. Krasno, Jonathan S. 1994. Challengers, competition, and reelection: Comparing Senate and House elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press
66. Lee, David S. 2001. The electoral advantage to incumbency and voters' valuation of politicians' experience: A regression discontinuity analysis of elections to the U.S. House. Working paper no. W8441, National Bureau of Economic Research. http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/cle/wp/wp31.pdf.
67. Lee, David S. 2008. Randomized experiments from non-random selection in U.S. House elections. Journal of Econometrics 142: 675-97.
68. Lee, David S., and Thomas Lemieux. 2010. Regression discontinuity designs in economics. Journal of Economic Literature 48: 281-355.
69. Lee, David S., Enrico Moretti, and Matthew J. Butler. 2004. Do voters affect or elect policies? Evidence from the U.S. House. Quarterly Journal of Economics 119:807-59.
70. Lehoucq, Fabrice. 2003. Electoral fraud: Causes, types, and consequences. Annual Review of Political Science 6:233-56.
71. Leigh, Andrew. 2008. Estimating the impact of gubernatorial partisanship on policy settings and economic outcomes: A regression discontinuity approach. European Journal of Political Economy 24:256-68.
72. Listokin, Yair. 2008. Management always wins the close ones. American Law and Economics Review 10:159-84.
73. Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congressional elections: The case of the vanishing marginals. Polity 6:295-317.
74. McCrary, Justin. 2008. Manipulation of the running variable in the regression discontinuity design: A density test. Journal of Econometrics 142:698-714.
75. Minnite, Lorraine C. 2010. The myth of voter fraud. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press
76. Pettersson-Lidbom, Per. 2001. Do parties matter for fiscal policy choices? A regression-discontinuity approach. Working paper. http://courses.gov.harvard.edu/gov3009/fall01/Partyeffects.pdf.
77. Pettersson-Lidbom, Per. 2008. Do parties matter for economic outcomes? A regression-discontinuity approach. Journal of the European Economic Association 6:1037-56.
78. Potholm, Christian P. 2003. This splendid game: Maine campaigns and elections, 1940-2002. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
79. Riker, William H. 1962. The theory of political coalitions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press
80. Riker, William H., and Peter C. Ordeshook. 1968. A theory of the calculus of voting. American Political Science Review 62:25-42.
81. Robinson, Gregory, John E. McNulty, and Jonathan S. Krasno. 2009. Observing the counterfactual? The search for political experiments in nature. Political Analysis 17:341-57.
82. Rosenbaum, Paul R. 2002. Observational studies. 2nd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag.
83. Rosenstone, Steven J., and John Mark Hansen. 2003. Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New York: Longman.
84. Rubin, Donald B. 1974. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology 66:688-701.
85. Schickler, Eric, Kathryn Pearson, and Brian D. Feinstein. 2010. Congressional parties and civil rights politics from 1933 to 1972. Journal of Politics 72:672-89.
86. Shadish, William R., Rodolfo Galindo, Vivian C. Wong, Peter M. Steiner, and Thomas D. Cook. 2011. A randomized experiment comparing random and cutoff-based assignment. Psychological Methods 16:179-91.
87. Shapiro, Margaret, and Dan Balz. 1985. House seats McCloskey. Washington Post, May 2, 1985, A1.
88. Snyder, Jason. 2005. Detecting manipulation in U.S. House elections. Working paper. Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley.
89. Snyder, Jr., James M. 1990. Campaign contributions as investments: The U.S. House of Representatives, 1980-1986. Journal of Political Economy 98:1195-227.
90. Splawa-Neyman, Jerzy, D. M. Dabrowska, and T. P. Speed. 1923/1990. On the application of probability theory to agricultural experiments. Essay on principles. Section 9. Statistical Science 5:465-72.
91. Thistlethwaite, Donald L., and Donald T. Campbell. 1960. Regression-discontinuity analysis: An alternative to the ex post facto experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology 51:309-17.
92. Titiunik, Rocío. 2009. Incumbency advantage in Brazil: Evidence from municipal Mayor Elections. Working paper. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~titiunik/papers/Titiunik_IABrazil.pdf.
93. Tokaji, Dan, and Samuel Stoller. 2004. Election Law@Moritz. Part 5: Voting procedures. Section 5.3-Recounts and ther remedies. http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/ebook/part5/procedures_recount04.html (accessed September 16, 2009).
94. Trounstine, Jessica. 2011. Evidence of a local incumbency advantage. Legislative Studies Quarterly 36:255-80.
95. Uppal, Yogesh. 2009. The disadvantaged incumbents: Estimating incumbency effects in Indian state legislatures. Public Choice 138:9-27.
96. Uppal, Yogesh. 2010. Estimating incumbency effects in U.S. State Legislatures: A quasi-experimental study. Economics and Politics 22:180-99.
97. Wand, Jonathan. 2007. The allocation of campaign contributions by interest groups and the rise of elite polarization. Working paper. http://wand.stanford.edu/research/mixedmotives.pdf.
98. Weiner, Jay. 2010. This is not Florida: How Al Franken won the Minnesota Senate recount. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press
99. Zaller, John. 1998. Politicians as prize fighters: Electoral selection and incumbency advantage. In Party politics and politicians, ed. John Geer. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.