IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v7y2018i5p75-d144380.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Running in Someone Else’s Shoes: The Electoral Consequences of Running as an Appointed Senator

Author

Listed:
  • Carrie Eaves

    (Department of Political Science and Policy Studies, Elon University, Elon, NC 27244, USA)

Abstract

Over the past century, nearly two hundred times a governor has appointed an individual to fill a vacant Senate seat. This research seeks to understand the electoral fates of these appointed senators. First, I address the question of when and under what conditions an appointed senator will choose to run for reelection to the seat. Then, should they choose to run for that office in the next election, they are in the rare position of being an incumbent who has not previously won an election to that particular office. Although these appointed senators are not on equal footing as other first-term senators, they still provide a unique circumstance worthy of further examination. I find that those appointed senators who had previously held an elected office were more likely to run to maintain the Senate seat. I also find that appointed senators fare slightly worse than other first-term senators did when campaigning for reelection.

Suggested Citation

  • Carrie Eaves, 2018. "Running in Someone Else’s Shoes: The Electoral Consequences of Running as an Appointed Senator," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-12, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:7:y:2018:i:5:p:75-:d:144380
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/7/5/75/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/7/5/75/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fiorina, Morris P., 1977. "The Case of the Vanishing Marginals: The Bureaucracy Did It," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 71(1), pages 177-181, March.
    2. Cover, Albert D. & Brumberg, Bruce S., 1982. "Baby Books and Ballots: The Impact of Congressional Mail on Constituent Opinion," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 76(2), pages 347-359, June.
    3. Mann, Thomas E. & Wolfinger, Raymond E., 1980. "Candidates and Parties in Congressional Elections," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 74(3), pages 617-632, September.
    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. Michael Ensley & Scott Marchi & Michael Munger, 2007. "Candidate uncertainty, mental models, and complexity: Some experimental results," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 132(1), pages 231-246, July.
    2. Larry Samuelson, 1984. "Electoral equilibria with restricted strategies," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 307-327, January.
    3. Douglas Hart & Michael Munger, 1989. "Declining electoral competitiveness in the House of Representatives: The differential impact of improved transportation technology," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 61(3), pages 217-228, June.
    4. Larry Samuelson, 1987. "A test of the revealed-preference phenomenon in congressional elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 141-169, January.
    5. Donald P. Green & Alan S. Gerber, 2003. "The Underprovision of Experiments in Political Science," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 589(1), pages 94-112, September.
    6. Manzoni Elena & Penczynski Stefan P., 2018. "Last Minute Policies and the Incumbency Advantage," German Economic Review, De Gruyter, vol. 19(3), pages 280-308, August.
    7. Yogesh Uppal & Amihai Glazer, 2015. "Legislative Turnover, Fiscal Policy, And Economic Growth: Evidence From U.S. State Legislatures," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 53(1), pages 91-107, January.
    8. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:4:y:2008:i:2:p:1-12 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Regan, John, 2012. "Ballot order effects: an analysis of Irish general elections," MPRA Paper 38304, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Palguta, Ján & Pertold, Filip, 2021. "Political salaries, electoral selection and the incumbency advantage: Evidence from a wage reform," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(4), pages 1020-1047.
    11. Royce Carroll & Henry A. Kim, 2010. "Party Government and the “Cohesive Power of Public Plunder”," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(1), pages 34-44, January.
    12. Yogesh Uppal, 2010. "Estimating Incumbency Effects In U.S. State Legislatures: A Quasi‐Experimental Study," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(2), pages 180-199, July.
    13. Awojobi, Oladayo Nathaniel, 2016. "Electoral Verdicts: Incumbent President Defeated for Re-election in Nigeria," Noble International Journal of Social Sciences Research, Noble Academic Publsiher, vol. 1(1), pages 21-30, December.
    14. J. Zachary Klingensmith, 2019. "Using tax dollars for re-election: the impact of pork-barrel spending on electoral success," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 31-49, March.
    15. Fallucchi, Francesco & Ramalingam, Abhijit & Rockenbach, Bettina & Waligora, Marcin, 2021. "Inequality and competitive effort: The roles of asymmetric resources, opportunity and outcomes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 81-96.
    16. Stratmann, Thomas, 2013. "The effects of earmarks on the likelihood of reelection," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 341-355.
    17. Potters, Jan & Sloof, Randolph, 1996. "Interest groups: A survey of empirical models that try to assess their influence," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 403-442, November.
    18. Scott L. Feld & Bernard Grofman, 1991. "Incumbency Advantage, Voter Loyalty and the Benefit of the Doubt," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 3(2), pages 115-137, April.
    19. Jamie L. Carson & Gregory Koger & Matthew J. Lebo & Everett Young, 2010. "The Electoral Costs of Party Loyalty in Congress," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(3), pages 598-616, July.
    20. David Niven & Benjamin Plener Cover & Michael Solimine, 2021. "Are Individuals Harmed by Gerrymandering? Examining Access to Congressional District Offices," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(1), pages 29-46, January.
    21. Jamie L. Carson & Ryan D. Williamson, 2018. "Candidate ideology and electoral success in congressional elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 175-192, July.

    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:gam:jscscx:v:7:y:2018:i:5:p:75-:d:144380. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.