Using Term Limits to Estimate Incumbency Advantages When Officeholders Retire Strategically

Empirical study of U.S. elections over the last 50 years has documented a strong electoral advantage to incumbency in state and federal elections. Recently, however, critics have argued that traditional estimates of the incumbency advantage may overstate the advantage by as much as 100% because the estimates fail to consider strategic retirements. This article directly examines whether or not strategic retirement biases conventional regression estimates of incumbency advantages. We use term limits in state executive and legislative elections as instrumental variables to correct for strategic retirement. We find that, as an empirical matter, strategic retirement is not substantively important. Estimates of incumbency advantages that take account of strategic retirement actually are marginally larger than estimates that do not.

[1]  B. Grofman,et al.  Two plus Two plus Two Equals Six: Tenure in Office of Senators and Representatives, 1953-1983 , 1987 .

[2]  Stephen Ansolabehere,et al.  The Incumbency Advantage in U.S. Elections: An Analysis of State and Federal Offices, 1942–2000 , 2002 .

[3]  Richard L. Hall,et al.  Avarice and Ambition in Congress: Representatives' Decisions to Run or Retire from the U.S. House , 1995, American Political Science Review.

[4]  Jeffrey S. Banks,et al.  Explaining Patterns of Candidate Competition in Congressional Elections , 1989 .

[5]  John R. Lott,et al.  Time series evidence on shirking in the U.S. House of Representatives , 1993 .

[6]  Steven D. Levitt,et al.  Decomposing the Sources of Incumbency Advantage in the U. S. House , 1997 .

[7]  Albert D. Cover.  One Good Term Deserves Another. The Advantage of Incumbency in Congressional Elections , 1977 .

[8]  G. Jacobson,et al.  Strategy and choice in congressional elections , 1981 .

[9]  Gary W. Cox,et al.  Why Did The Incumbency Advantage In U.S. House Elections Grow , 1996 .

[10]  G. Cox,et al.  The Incumbency Advantage in Multimember Districts: Evidence from the U. S. States , 1995 .

[11]  J. Heckman.  Sample selection bias as a specification error , 1979 .

[12]  M. G. Kendall,et al.  The Law of the Cubic Proportion in Election Results , 1950 .

[13]  Robert S. Erikson.  The Advantage of Incumbency in Congressional Elections , 1971, Polity.

[14]  Gary W. Cox,et al.  The Increasing Advantage of Incumbency in the U. S. States , 1993 .

[15]  A. Gelman,et al.  Estimating Incumbency Advantage Without Bias , 1990 .

[16]  S. Ansolabehere,et al.  Old Voters, New Voters, and the Personal Vote , 2000 .

[17]  M. Dubin.  United States Congressional elections, 1788-1994 : the official results of the elections of the 1st through 105th Congresses , 1998 .

[18]  Thomas M. Holbrook,et al.  Sophomore Surge in State Legislative Elections, 1968-86 , 1991 .

[19]  Robert S. Erikson,et al.  Statehouse Democracy: Public Opinion and Policy in the American States , 1994 .

[20]  Robert S. Erikson,et al.  Malapportionment, Gerrymandering, and Party Fortunes in Congressional Elections , 1972, American Political Science Review.

[21]  Iain McLean,et al.  Elbridge Gerry's salamander: the electoral consequences of the reapportionment revolution , 2002 .

[22]  Joshua D. Angrist,et al.  Identification of Causal Effects Using Instrumental Variables , 1993 .

[23]  L. Rothenberg,et al.  Severing the Electoral Connection: Shirking in the Contemporary Congress , 2000 .

[24]  Paul Brace.  Progressive Ambition in the House: A Probabilistic Approach , 1984, The Journal of Politics.

[25]  G. Jacobson.  Money in congressional elections , 1980 .

[26]  G. King,et al.  Constituency Service and Incumbency Advantage , 1991, British Journal of Political Science.

[27]  Langche Zeng,et al.  An Analysis of Congressional Career Decisions, 1947–1986 , 1993, American Political Science Review.