IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v104y2023i2p125-139.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dueling incumbent primaries in U.S. House elections

Author

Listed:
  • H. Benjamin Ashton
  • Michael H. Crespin
  • Seth C. McKee

Abstract

Objective Reapportionment and the attendant process of redistricting cause instances where incumbents are faced with the decision to retire or run against a congressional colleague. We investigate two major questions surrounding the previously understudied population of dueling incumbent primaries: First, under what conditions is a dueling incumbent primary likely to manifest? Second, how are dueling incumbent primaries different from the typical primary featuring a single incumbent? Methods We address these questions using a novel dataset aggregating descriptive congressional district information on these contests from 1962 to 2016, and separately for 2022. Results Our findings show these contests primarily emerge via electoral retrenchment, meaning a state loses representation in reapportionment. Dueling incumbent primaries also arise from the strategic calculations of partisan line drawers. Conclusions Not only do dueling incumbent primaries comprise a disproportionate share of incumbent defeats, but compared to single incumbent contests, primary duels feature very high redrawn constituencies, voters new to these incumbents, and this reality contributes to the high‐risk/reward nature of these rare but electorally consequential contests.

Suggested Citation

  • H. Benjamin Ashton & Michael H. Crespin & Seth C. McKee, 2023. "Dueling incumbent primaries in U.S. House elections," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 104(2), pages 125-139, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:104:y:2023:i:2:p:125-139
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.13253
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13253
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.13253?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Danny Hayes & Seth C. McKee, 2009. "The Participatory Effects of Redistricting," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(4), pages 1006-1023, October.
    2. Crespin, Michael H., 2005. "Using Geographic Information Systems to Measure District Change, 2000–2002," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(3), pages 253-260, July.
    3. M. V. Hood & Seth C. McKee, 2008. "Gerrymandering on Georgia's Mind: The Effects of Redistricting on Vote Choice in the 2006 Midterm Election," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 89(1), pages 60-77, March.
    4. M. V. Hood & Seth C. McKee, 2010. "Stranger Danger: Redistricting, Incumbent Recognition, and Vote Choice," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 91(2), pages 344-358, June.
    5. Cain, Bruce E., 1985. "Assessing the Partisan Effects of Redistricting," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 79(2), pages 320-333, June.
    6. M. V. Hood & Seth C. McKee, 2019. "Why Georgia, Why? Peach State Residents’ Perceptions of Voting‐Related Improprieties and Their Impact on the 2018 Gubernatorial Election," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 100(5), pages 1828-1847, August.
    7. Seth C. McKee & Jeremy M. Teigen & Mathieu Turgeon, 2006. "The Partisan Impact of Congressional Redistricting: The Case of Texas, 2001–2003," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 87(2), pages 308-317, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christian Haas & Lee Hachadoorian & Steven O Kimbrough & Peter Miller & Frederic Murphy, 2020. "Seed-Fill-Shift-Repair: A redistricting heuristic for civic deliberation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-34, September.
    2. Christopher N. Lawrence & Scott H. Huffmon, 2015. "Keeping Up with the Congressmen: Evaluating Constituents’ Awareness of Redistricting," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 96(1), pages 65-75, March.
    3. Saarimaa, Tuukka & Tukiainen, Janne, 2016. "Local representation and strategic voting: Evidence from electoral boundary reforms," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 31-45.
    4. Gérard P. Cachon & Dawson Kaaua, 2022. "Serving Democracy: Evidence of Voting Resource Disparity in Florida," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(9), pages 6687-6696, September.
    5. Kai Hao Yang & Alexander K. Zentefis, 2022. "Gerrymandering and the Limits of Representative Democracy," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2328, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    6. Selcuk Eren & Andrew W. Nutting, 2020. "Political Environment and US Domestic Migration," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 46(4), pages 525-556, October.
    7. Matthew P. Dube & Jesse T. Clark & Richard J. Powell, 2022. "Graphical metrics for analyzing district maps," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 449-475, May.
    8. Hean Wei Koay & Salwa Mokhtar Khairiah, 2022. "The role of political marketing and its importance in Barisan Nasional at Malaysia general election," Technium Social Sciences Journal, Technium Science, vol. 29(1), pages 548-560, March.
    9. M. V. Hood & Seth C. McKee, 2008. "Gerrymandering on Georgia's Mind: The Effects of Redistricting on Vote Choice in the 2006 Midterm Election," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 89(1), pages 60-77, March.
    10. Anton Kolotilin & Alexander Wolitzky, 2020. "The Economics of Partisan Gerrymandering," Discussion Papers 2020-12, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    11. Thomas Gilligan & John Matsusaka, 2006. "Public choice principles of redistricting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 129(3), pages 381-398, December.
    12. David Niven & Barbara Harris Combs & Carolette Norwood & Kalyn E. Rossiter & Michael E. Solimine, 2022. "The boundaries of confusion: Gerrymandering and racial disparities in state House and congressional district line congruity," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(6), pages 1507-1518, November.
    13. Hideo Konishi & Chen‐Yu Pan, 2020. "Partisan and bipartisan gerrymandering," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 22(5), pages 1183-1212, September.
    14. Chatterji, Aaron K. & Kim, Joowon & McDevitt, Ryan C., 2018. "School spirit: Legislator school ties and state funding for higher education," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 254-269.
    15. Balázs R Sziklai & Károly Héberger, 2020. "Apportionment and districting by Sum of Ranking Differences," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-20, March.
    16. Artés, Joaquín & Richter, Brian Kelleher & Timmons, Jeffrey F., 2019. "The Value of Political Geography: Evidence from the Redistricting of Firms," Working Papers 291, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business, George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State.
    17. Samuel Merrill & Bernard Grofman & Thomas Brunell & William Koetzle, 1999. "The Power of Ideologically Concentrated Minorities," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 11(1), pages 57-74, January.
    18. SunAh An & Michael Anderson & Cary Deck, 2023. "Gerrymandering in the laboratory," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 90(1), pages 182-213, July.
    19. Larry Samuelson, 1987. "A test of the revealed-preference phenomenon in congressional elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 141-169, January.
    20. Corbett A. Grainger, 2010. "Redistricting and Polarization: Who Draws the Lines in California?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(3), pages 545-567.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:104:y:2023:i:2:p:125-139. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.