THE INCUMBENCY ADVANTAGE
I.
Scope
of incumbency advantage.
A.
Average reelection rate in House: —90%.
(In 2004- 5 incumbents, 3 Democrats and 2 Republicans, were defeated
and in 2006, 22 incumbents were defeated and they were all Republicans)
B.
Average reelection rate in Senate: —80%.
(In 2004- 1 Democratic Senator was defeated and in 2006, 6
incumbents were defeated and they were all Republicans)
C. Relatively few seats are
seriously contested, and some are not contested at all!
D. Charges of a “Permanent
Congress.”
E. Election of 1994 may seem to have
reduced this advantage, but they were more a statement about the Democratic
Party than against incumbency per se: not a single incumbent Republican
congressman or senator lost in that election.
Now, the election of 2006 may
also seem to have reduced this advantage, but that
may be more of a statement about the
Republican Party and the scandals
leading up to the election than against incumbency per se: not a single incumbent
Democratic congressman or senator lost in the
2006 election.
F. The counter to this argument is
that reelection rates take into account only those incumbents who run for
reelection. Retirements open up quite a few seats each year to new members.
II.
Advantages
of incumbency.
A. Franking privilege.
B. Staffers.
C. Patronage.
D. Name recognition.
E. Casework.
F. Money, especially from
PACs.
III. A special incumbency advantage
for House members: gerrymandering.
A. To understand gerrymandering,
you first need to understand reapportionment: the redistribution of the 435
seats in the House on the basis of changes in state populations.
1.
The number of Representatives per state is determined by population.
2. The census
is conducted every 10 years.
3. The census
will show population changes in states. These
changes must be
reflected in state representation in the House; if a state gains significantly
in population, it will probably gain some seats; if a state loses population or
does not gain as much as other states, it will probably lose some seats.
B.
If a state has a change in the number of seats, its district boundaries
must change. This is known as redistricting, and is carried out by the party in
power of the state legislature.
1.
Gains and losses after the 2000
census.
C. A form of redistricting is called gerrymandering (redrawing boundaries to favor the party in power of the state legislature)
1.
Origin of the term: from 19th century Mass. governor Elbridge Gerry, who
drew
district
lines himself. Some of his districts had such strange shapes that they looked
like
salamanders,
prompting one person to instead refer to them as “gerrymanders.”
2. The party
in power can get a majority of seats in the House by:
a. “packing:” drawing the
district lines in such a way as to concentrate the opposing party in a few
districts, thus preserving a majority of seats for itself.
b. “cracking:” drawing the district lines in such a way as to
disperse the opposing party throughout the state and thus dilute that party’s
strength in order to preserve a majority of seats for the majority party.
3.
Effects of gerrymandering:
a. The party in power STAYS in
power.
b. “Safe” seats are
created for incumbents, leading to further difficulties for challengers.
c. Strangely-shaped districts.
D.
Redistricting requirements
1.
Districts must be as near equal in
population as possible.
a.
Baker v. Carr, 1962:
“one man, one vote” principle applied to state legislative districts to
correct overrepresentation (malapportionment)
of rural areas.
b.
Wesberry
v. Sanders, 1964: applied the same principle to House districts.
c. Even if the number of representatives a state is entitled to does not
change, it redistricts anyway because of geographic shifts in
population that
might have occurred since the last census.
2.
District lines must be contiguous.
3. Racial gerrymandering is
prohibited (Shaw v. Reno, 1993).
4.
Race may not be the
primary factor in drawing district lines.
(
Miller v.
Johnson, 1995)