Incumbency Advantage, Voter Loyalty and the Benefit of the Doubt

Journal of Theoretical Politics

Volumn 3, Issue 2, 1991, Pages 115-137

  Feld, Scott L ^a   Grofman, Bernard ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

benefit of the doubt; incumbency; rational choice; re election; voter loyalty

Indexed keywords

EID: 84970278639     PISSN: 09516298     EISSN: 14603667     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0951692891003002001     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Broder, David S. (1972) The Party's Over: The Failure of Politics in America. New York: Harper and Row.
2. Budge, Ian and Dennis Fairlie (1977) Voting and Party Competition. New York: John Wiley.
3. Burnham, Walter Dean (1975) ‘Insulation and Responsiveness in Congressional Elections’, Political Science Quarterly 90(3): 411-436.
4. Chapman, David (1967) ‘Models of the Working of Two-Party Electoral System, I’, Papers on Non-Market Decision-Making: 19-38.
5. Chapman, David (1968) ‘Models of the Working of a Two-Party Electoral System, II’, Public Choice 1: 19-38.
6. Cox, Gary W. (1986) ‘On the Rationality of the Incumbency Cue’. Unpublished manuscript, University of Texas, Austin.
7. Cox, Gary W. (1987) ‘Electoral Equilibrium under Alternative Voting Institutions’, American Journal of Political Science 31(1): 82-108.
8. Downs, Anthony (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.
9. Feld, Scott L. and Bernard Grofman (1988) ‘Majority Rule Outcomes and the Structure of Debate in One-Issue-at-a-Time Decision Making’, Public Choice 59: 167-176.
10. Feld, Scott L., Bernard Grofman, Richard Hartley, Mark O. Kilgour and Nicholas Miller (1987) ‘The Uncovered Set in Spatial Voting Games’, Theory and Decision 23: 129-156.
11. Feld, Scott L., Bernard Grofman and Nicholas Miller (1988) ‘Centripetal Forces in Spatial Voting: On the Size of the Yolk’, Public Choice 59: 37-50.
12. Ferejohn, J.A., R.D. McKelvey and E.W. Packel (1984) ‘Limiting Distributions for Continuous State Markov Models’, Social Choice and Welfare 1: 45-67.
13. Fiorina, Morris (1977) ‘The Case of the Vanishing Marginals: The Bureaucracy Did It’, American Political Science Review 71: 177-181.
14. Fiorina, Morris and Roger Noll (1979) ‘Majority Rule Models and Legislative Elections’, Journal of Politics 41: 1081-1104.
15. Fiorina, Morris and Charles Plott (1978) ‘Committee Decisions Under Majority Rule: An Experimental Study’, American Political Science Review 72: 575-598.
16. Grofman, Bernard, Robert Griffin and Amihai Glazer (forthcoming) ‘Identical Geography, Different Parties: See What a Difference Party Makes’, in R.J. Johnston, F. Shelley and P. Taylor (eds) Developments in Electoral Geography (title tent.). London: Routledge.
17. Grofman, Bernard, Guillermo Owen, Nicholas Noviello and Amihai Glazer (1987) ‘Stability and Centrality of Legislative Choice in the Spatial Context’, American Political Science Review 81(2): 539-553.
18. Grofman, Bernard and Carole Uhlaner (1985) ‘Metapreferences and Reasons for Stability in Social Choice: Thoughts on Broadening and Clarifying the Debate’, Theory and Decision 19: 31-50.
19. Hardin, Russell (1987) ‘Rational Choice Theories’, in Terence Ball (Ed.) Idioms of Inquiry: Critique and Renewal in Political Science. New York: SUNY Press.
20. Hoffman, Elizabeth and Edward Packel (1980) ‘A Stochastic Model of Voting with Exogenous Costs: Theory and Experiments’, Behavioral Science 27: 43-56.
21. Kamlet, Mark, Jack Citrin and Frank Levy (1985) ‘Satisficing Behavior in Spatial Voting Models’, Political Methodology 11: 19-41.
22. Markus, Gregory B. and Philip E. Converse (1979) ‘A Dynamic Simultaneous Equation Model of Electoral Choice’, American Political Science Review 73(4): 1055-1070.
23. Mayhew, David R. (1974) ‘Congressional Elections: The Case of Vanishing Marginals’, Polity 6: 295-315.
24. McKelvey, Richard D. (1976) ‘Intransitivities in Multidimensional Voting Models and Some Implications for Agenda Control’, Journal of Economic Theory 12: 472-482.
25. McKelvey, Richard D. (1979) ‘General Conditions for Global Intransitivities in Formal Voting Models’, Econometrica 47: 1085-1112.
26. McKelvey, Richard D. (1986) ‘Covering, Dominance, and Institution Free Properties of Social Choice’, American Journal of Political Science 30(2): 283-315.
27. McKelvey, Richard D. and Peter C. Ordeshook (1987) ‘A Decade of Experimental Research on Spatial Models of Elections and Committees’, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Social Science Working Paper No. 657, Pasadena, October.
28. Norrander, Barbara (1988) ‘The Role of Ideology in Presidential Nominations’, Paper presented at Midwest Political Science Association Convention, Chicago, 14-16 April.
29. Owen, Guillermo (1988) ‘Spatial Voting Games’, Paper presented at the Conference on Game Theory, Marseilles, France, April 1988.
30. Page, Benjamin and Calvin C. Jones (1979) ‘Reciprocal Effects of Policy Preferences, Party Loyalties and the Vote’, American Political Science Review 73(4): 1071-1089.
31. Plott, Charles R. (1967) ‘A Notion of Equilibrium and Its Possibility Under Majority Rule’, American Economic Review 57: 787-806.
32. Simon, Herbert (1955) ‘A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 69: 99-118.
33. Sloss, Judith (1973) ‘Stable Outcomes in Majority Rule Voting Games’, Public Choice 15: 19-48.
34. Sullivan, John L. and Eric M. Uslaner (1978) ‘Congressional Behavior and Electoral Marginality’, American Journal of Political Science 22: 536-553.
35. Tufte, Edward (1973) ‘Determinants of Midterm Congressional Elections’, American Political Science Review 69: 812-826.
36. Wattenberg, Martin (1986) Decline of American Political Parties 1952-1984. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
37. Wilson, Rick K. and Roberta Q. Herzberg (1984) ‘Voting is Only a Block Away: Theory and Experiments on Blocking Coalitions’, Prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Public Choice Society, Phoenix, Arizona, 28-31 March.
38. Wilson, Rick K. and Roberta Q. Herzberg (1988) ‘Effects of Agenda Access Costs in a Spatial Committee Setting’, Prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Public Choice Society, Tucson, Arizona, 27-29 March 1988.
39. Wittman, Donald (1983) ‘Candidate Motivation: A Synthesis of Alternative Theories’, American Political Science Review 77: 142-157.
40. Wuffle, A., Scott L. Feld, Guillermo Owen and Bernard Grofman (1989) ‘Finagle's Law and the Finagle Point, a New Solution Concept for Two-Candidate Competition in Spatial Voting Games’, American Journal of Political Science 33(2): 348-375.