Incumbent

Last updated

The incumbent is the current holder of an office or position, usually in relation to an election. For example, in an election for president, the incumbent is the person holding or acting in the office of president before the election, whether seeking re-election or not. In some situations, there may not be an incumbent at time of an election for that office or position (for example, when a new electoral division is created), in which case the office or position is regarded as vacant or open. In the United States, an election without an incumbent is referred to as an open seat or open contest.

Contents

Etymology

The word "incumbent" is derived from the Latin verb incumbere, literally meaning "to lean or lay upon" with the present participle stem incumbent-, "leaning a variant of encumber, [1] while encumber is derived from the root cumber, [2] most appropriately defined: "To occupy obstructively or inconveniently; to block fill up with what hinders freedom of motion or action; to burden, load." [3]

Incumbency advantage

In general, an incumbent has a political advantage over challengers at elections. Except when the timing of elections is determined by a constitution or by legislation, the incumbent may have the right to determine the date of an election.

For most political offices, the incumbent often has more name recognition due to their previous work in the office. Incumbents also have easier access to campaign finance, as well as government resources (such as the franking privilege) that can be indirectly used to boost the incumbent’s re-election campaign.

In the United States, an election (especially for a single-member constituency in a legislature) in which an incumbent is not seeking re-election is often called an open seat; because of the lack of incumbency advantage, these are often amongst the most hotly contested races in any election.[ citation needed ] Also, an open contest is created when the term of office is limited, as in the case of terms of the U.S. president being restricted to two four-year terms, and the incumbent is prohibited from recontesting.

When newcomers look to fill an open office, voters tend to compare and contrast the candidates' qualifications, positions on political issues, and personal characteristics in a relatively straightforward way. Elections featuring an incumbent, on the other hand, are, as Guy Molyneux puts it, "fundamentally a referendum on the incumbent." [4] Voters will first grapple with the record of the incumbent. Only if they decide to "fire" the incumbent do they begin to evaluate whether each of the challengers is an acceptable alternative.

A 2017 study in the British Journal of Political Science argues that the incumbency advantage stems from the fact that voters evaluate the incumbent's ideology individually whereas they assume that any challenger shares his party's ideology. [5] This means that the incumbency advantage gets more significant as political polarization increases. [5] A 2017 study in the Journal of Politics found that incumbents have "a far larger advantage" in on-cycle elections than in off-cycle elections. [6]

Sophomore surge

Political analysts in the United States and United Kingdom have noted the existence of a sophomore surge (not known as such in the United Kingdom) in which first term representatives see an increase in votes in their first election. This phenomenon is said to bring an advantage of up to 10% for first term representatives, which increases the incumbency advantage.

Anti-incumbency

However, there exist scenarios in which the incumbency factor itself leads to the downfall of the incumbent. Popularly known as the anti-incumbency factor, situations of this kind occur when the incumbent has proven himself not worthy of office during his tenure and the challengers demonstrate this to the voters. An anti-incumbency factor can also be responsible for bringing down incumbents who have been in office for many successive terms despite performance indicators, simply because the voters are convinced by the challengers of a need for change. It is also argued that the holders of extensively powerful offices are subject to immense pressure which leaves them politically impotent and unable to command enough public confidence for re-election; such is the case, for example, with the Presidency of France. [7]

Nick Panagakis, a pollster, coined what he dubbed the incumbent rule in 1989—that any voter who claims to be undecided towards the end of the election will probably end up voting for a challenger. [8]

In France, the phenomenon is known by the catchphrase "Sortez les sortants" (get out the outgoing [representatives]!) which was the slogan of the Poujadist movement in the 1956 French legislative election.

See also

Related Research Articles

Elections in the United States Political elections for public offices in the United States

Elections in the United States are held for government officials at the federal, state, and local levels. At the federal level, the nation's head of state, the president, is elected indirectly by the people of each state, through an Electoral College. Today, these electors almost always vote with the popular vote of their state. All members of the federal legislature, the Congress, are directly elected by the people of each state. There are many elected offices at state level, each state having at least an elective governor and legislature. There are also elected offices at the local level, in counties, cities, towns, townships, boroughs, and villages; as well as for special districts and school districts which may transcend county and municipal boundaries. According to a study by political scientist Jennifer Lawless, there were 519,682 elected officials in the United States as of 2012.

1994 United States Senate elections

The 1994 United States Senate elections were elections held November 8, 1994, in which the Republican Party was able to take control of the Senate from the Democrats. In a midterm election, the opposition Republicans held the traditional advantage. Congressional Republicans campaigned against the early presidency of Bill Clinton, including his unsuccessful health care plan. The Republicans successfully defended all of their seats and won eight from the Democrats, defeating incumbent Senators Harris Wofford (Pennsylvania) and Jim Sasser (Tennessee), in addition to picking up six open seats in Arizona, Maine, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. Notably, since Sasser's defeat coincided with a Republican victory in the special election to replace Al Gore, Tennessee's Senate delegation switched from entirely Democratic to entirely Republican in a single election.

1996 United States Senate elections

The 1996 United States Senate elections coincided with the presidential election, in which Democrat Bill Clinton was re-elected President.

1990 United States Senate elections United States Senate elections in 1990

The 1990 United States Senate elections were held on Tuesday, November 6, 1990. The Democratic Party increased its majority with a net gain of one seat from the Republican Party. The election took place in the middle of President George H. W. Bush's term, and, as with most other midterm elections, the party not holding the presidency gained seats in Congress.

1986 United States Senate elections

The 1986 United States Senate elections was an election for the United States Senate in the middle of Ronald Reagan's second presidential term. The Republicans had to defend an unusually large number of freshman Senate incumbents who had been elected on President Ronald Reagan's coattails in 1980. Democrats won a net of eight seats, defeating seven freshman incumbents, picking up two Republican-held open seats and regaining control of the Senate for the first time since January 1981. The party not controlling the presidency gained seats, as usually occurs in mid-term elections.

2006 United States Senate elections elections held for seats in the United States Senate

The 2006 United States Senate elections were held on November 7, 2006, with all 33 Class 1 Senate seats being contested. The term of office for those elected in 2006 ran from January 3, 2007, to January 3, 2013. Prior to the election, the Republican Party controlled 55 of the 100 Senate seats.

Congressional stagnation is an American political theory that attempts to explain the high rate of incumbency re-election to the United States House of Representatives. In recent years this rate has been well over 90 per cent, with rarely more than 5-10 incumbents losing their House seats every election cycle. The theory has existed since the 1970s, when political commentators were beginning to notice the trend, with political science author and professor David Mayhew first writing about the "vanishing marginals" theory in 1974.

1997 New York City mayoral election

The New York City mayoral election of 1997 occurred on Tuesday November 4, 1997, with incumbent Republican mayor Rudy Giuliani soundly defeating Democratic Manhattan Borough President Ruth Messinger and several third-party candidates.

2008 Massachusetts general election

The Massachusetts general election, 2008 were held on November 4, 2008 throughout Massachusetts. Among the elections which took place were those for the office of President of the United States, John Kerry's seat in the Senate, all ten seats in the Massachusetts delegation to the House of Representatives, all eight seats in the Massachusetts Governor's Council, and all of the seats of the Massachusetts Senate and Massachusetts House of Representatives. There were also three ballot questions: to eliminate the commonwealth's income tax; to decriminalize possession of a small amount of marijuana; and to prohibit greyhound racing. Numerous local elections also took place throughout the state.

The strategy of assumed incumbency is based on a recognition of the value of incumbency in a political campaign. A high correlation between election and incumbency has been demonstrated in congressional races. The success rate of incumbent members of the U.S. House of Representatives seeking re-election averaged 93.5 percent during the 1960s and 1970s. Statistically, the initial edge for the incumbent candidate is 2-4 percent of the vote.

1990 Michigan gubernatorial election Gubenatorial election held in Michigan

The 1990 Michigan gubernatorial election was held on November 6, 1990, to elect the Governor and Lieutenant Governor of the state of Michigan. John Engler, a member of the Republican Party and State Senate majority leader, was elected over Democratic Party nominee James Blanchard, who was seeking his third term. In what turned out to be one of the closest elections in recent Michigan history, Engler won by a 17,000 vote margin. The voter turnout was 38.6%. As of 2020, this is the most recent gubernatorial election in Michigan in which the winner of the election was of the same party of the incumbent president.

1989 Pittsburgh mayoral election

The mayoral election of 1989 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania was held on Tuesday, November 7, 1989. The incumbent mayor, Sophie Masloff of the Democratic Party chose to run for her first full term after having ascended the mayor's office from the position of President of City Council upon the death of long-time mayor Richard Caliguiri. While she met challengers in the Democratic primary, she was uncontested in the general election.

2010 United States House of Representatives elections in New Mexico

The 2010 congressional elections in New Mexico were held on November 2, 2010 and determined New Mexico's representation in the United States House of Representatives. Representatives are elected for two-year terms; the winners of the election served in the 111th Congress, which began on January 4, 2009 ended on January 3, 2011.

Elections for state and federal offices for the 2010 election cycle in Connecticut were held on Tuesday, November 2, 2010. Any necessary primary elections for the Republican and Democratic parties were held on Tuesday, August 10, 2010.

Incumbency is one of the most researched and debated topics within the realm of political science. However, the research regarding appointed U.S. senators and the incumbency advantage is not nearly as vast. In this research, the relationship between the number of months served as an appointed U.S. senator and the percentage of vote that appointed senator receives in their initial election is studied. It is hypothesized that the longer an appointee has served before an election, the higher percentage of vote that appointee will receive. To do this, data was compiled from the United States congressional archives consisting of appointed U.S. senators, the percentage of vote those appointed senators won in their election after their appointment, as well as the number of months served between their appointment and election. Discovering a relationship between months served and the vote percentages received will add to the scholarship of incumbency, and more specifically, how the discipline of political science views appointed U.S. senators.

The elections in 2012 were scheduled for seven Vidhan Sabhas and several local elections were also conducted. The 14th presidential election to elect the 13th president of the republic was also held in 2012. The tenure of the legislative assemblies of Goa, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand were to expire during the year. The Election Commission of India issued the dates for the elections in Manipur, Punjab, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh and Goa to take place in the first quarter of the year. Whereas the elections were held in Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat in the last quarter of the year.

Historical polling for United States presidential elections

Gallup was the first polling organization to conduct accurate opinion polling for United States presidential elections. Gallup polling has often been accurate in predicting the outcome of presidential elections and the margin of victory for the election winner. However, there were some close elections that it missed, such as 1948, 1976 and 2004, the popular vote in 2000 and 2016, and the likely voter numbers in 2012. The month section in the tables represents the month that the opinion poll was conducted in. D stands for the Democratic Party while R stands for the Republican Party. There were also some third parties included in some of these polls, such as the Dixiecrats and the Reform Party.

2020 United States gubernatorial elections

United States gubernatorial elections will be held on November 3, 2020, in 11 states and two territories. In addition, special elections may take place if other gubernatorial seats are vacated. The last regular gubernatorial elections for nine of the eleven states took place in 2016. The last gubernatorial elections for New Hampshire and Vermont took place in 2018, as the governors of both states serve two-year terms. All state governors will be eligible for reelection except for Steve Bullock of Montana, although other governors may choose to retire. The 2020 gubernatorial elections will take place concurrently with several other federal, state, and local elections, including the presidential election.

The 2015 presidential and parliamentary election was held in the Autonomous Region of Bougainville between 11 May and 25 May 2015.

2020 Wisconsin elections 2020 Wisconsin elections for U.S. President, U.S. House, State Supreme Court, State Legislature, and others.

Two major elections will be held in the U.S. state of Wisconsin in 2020. The largest will be the general and presidential election, scheduled to be held on November 3, 2020, as part of the 2020 United States elections in which all 50 states plus the District of Columbia will participate. All of the state's eight seats in the United States House of Representatives are up for election, as well as sixteen seats in the Wisconsin Senate and all seats in the Wisconsin Assembly. Voters will also choose ten electors to represent them in the Electoral College, which will then participate in selecting the president of the United States. There will be a primary election held for these offices on August 11, 2020.

References

  1. OED (1989), p. 834
  2. OED (1989), p. 218
  3. OED (1989), p. 124
  4. Guy Molyneux, The Big Five-Oh, The American Prospect, 1 October 2004.
  5. 1 2 Peskowitz, Zachary (2017-05-01). "Ideological Signaling and Incumbency Advantage". British Journal of Political Science: 1–24. doi:10.1017/S0007123416000557. ISSN   0007-1234.
  6. de Benedictis-Kessner, Justin (2017-12-07). "Off-Cycle and Out of Office: Election Timing and the Incumbency Advantage". The Journal of Politics. 80: 119–132. doi:10.1086/694396. ISSN   0022-3816.
  7. Robert Tombs (May 2, 2017). "France's Presidency Is Too Powerful to Work". Polling Report. Retrieved December 3, 2017.
  8. Nick Panagakis (February 27, 1989). "Incumbent Rule". Polling Report. Retrieved February 5, 2016.

Sources

Further reading