Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Incumbency Advantage, Voter Loyalty and the Benefit of the Doubt

Bibliographic Data

ID6297585
AuthorsL Feld (0000-0003-4820-1365), Scott L Feld, B Grofman (0000-0002-2801-3351)
Year1991
Volume3
Issue2
Pages115-137
Publication date1991-04-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Theoretical Politics (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0951-6298 • E-ISSN: 1460-3667
PublisherSAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1177/0951692891003002001
OpenAlexW2067793931
LanguageEN
Citations received34
References cited26

The standard Downsian model of two-party competition cannot account for the well-known fact that incumbents rarely lose elections. This paper modifies the model to take account of the tendency for voters to give the incumbent the `benefit of the doubt'; i.e. voters may vote for an incumbent even when they prefer the policies of the challenger. We show that if all of the voters give the incumbent a very small benefit of the doubt, or if only a few voters give a larger benefit of the doubt, the incumbent may become invulnerable to defeat by any challenger, especially if his position is a relatively central one relative to voter ideal points. We also show that taking account of voter willingness to give some form of benefit of the doubt to incumbents also helps us to understand why politics deviates from the standard Downsian model in two other ways: (1) tweedledum-tweedledee politics is uncommon, and (2) incumbents often win by much larger than bare majorities. Data on attitudes toward government jobs policy and on US involvement in Central America, as reported in the 1984 NES survey, are used to illustrate that the more centrally located the incumbent, the smaller the benefits of the doubt that are required to ensure re-election. In an Appendix we present a number of new and useful theorems about the stability properties of situations in which voters provide incumbents with some form of benefit of the doubt. Our results show how voter willingness to give incumbents benefit of the doubt can make incumbents, especially centrally located ones, virtually impossible to defeat. Thus, `benefits of the doubt' serve to reduce competition and deter entry

Competition (biology · Economics · Government (linguistics · Law and economics · Loyalty · Microeconomics · Political science · Politics · Positive economics · Game Theory and Voting Systems · Law · Merger and Competition Analysis · Politics, Economics, and Education Policy

  • Candidates and Voters

    Open Access•Walter J Stone•Candidates and Voters•2017

  • Rhetoric and rationality

    Open Access•Richard D Anderson, B Grofman•Public Choice•1997

  • How voters choose one out of many

    Open Access•Henrik Serup Christensen, Theodora Järvi et al.•Political Research Exchange•2021

  • On status quo bias and the existence of Condorcet cycles in binary voting situations

    Open Access•Tommy Andersson•Journal of Theoretical Politics•2025

  • The instability of instability of centered distributions

    Open Access•Craig A Tovey•Mathematical Social Sciences•2010

  • A finite exact algorithm for epsilon-core membership in two dimensions

    Open Access•Craig A Tovey•Mathematical Social Sciences•2010

  • Policy divergence in multicandidate probabilistic spatial voting

    Open Access•James Adams•Public Choice•1999

  • Party policy change. Exploring the limits of ideological flexibility in Belgium

    Open Access•Nicolas Bouteca, Carl Devos•Acta Politica•2016

  • Understanding Parties’ Policy Shifts in Western Europe

    Open Access•Michael Clark•British Journal of Political…•2014

  • Expanding Constituency Support Through Shared Local Roots in U.S. House Primaries

    Open Access•Charles R Hunt•American Politics Research•2021

  • Proximity voting in the 2010 U.S. House elections

    Elizabeth N Simas•Electoral Studies•2013

  • Candidate Valence and Ideological Positions in U.S. House Elections

    Open Access•Walter J Stone, Elizabeth N Simas•American Journal of Political…•2010

  • Issue ownership attack

    Henrik B Seeberg•West European Politics•2020

  • Voter Turnout and Candidate Strategies in American Elections

    James Adams, Samuel Merrill•The Journal of Politics•2003

  • Polarization of What? A Model of Elections with Endogenous Valence

    Gilles Serra•The Journal of Politics•2010

  • Candidates Matter

    Matthew K Buttice, Walter J Stone•The Journal of Politics•2012

  • Simulation Analysis of the Effect of Party Identification on Finnish Parties' Optimal Positions

    Open Access•Alexandros Papageorgiou, Achillefs Papageorgiou•Scandinavian Political Studies•2010

  • Finding the One

    Open Access•Theodora Järvi, Mikko Mattila et al.•Scandinavian Political Studies•2021

  • Partisan Voting and Multiparty Spatial Competition

    Open Access•James Adams, James E Adams•Journal of Theoretical Politics•1998

  • The finagle point and the epsilon-core

    Open Access•Craig A Tovey•Journal of Theoretical Politics•2011

  • The Downsian Model Predicts Divergence

    Open Access•Mark M Berger, Michael C Munger et al.•Journal of Theoretical Politics•2000

  • Centrifugal Incentives in Multi-Candidate Elections

    Open Access•Samuel Merrill, James Adams et al.•Journal of Theoretical Politics•2002

  • Seizing the mantle of change

    Open Access•Michael K Miller•Journal of Theoretical Politics•2011

  • Social choice and popular control

    Open Access•Ingham, Sean Ingham•Journal of Theoretical Politics•2016

  • Downs and Two-Party Convergence

    B Grofman•Annual Review of Political Science•2004

  • Valence and Campaigns

    Open Access•Jennifer Carter, John W Patty•American Journal of Political…•2015

  • A Model of Candidate Location When One Candidate Has a Valence Advantage

    Tim Groseclose•American Journal of Political…•2001

  • Policy-Seeking Parties in a Parliamentary Democracy with Proportional Representation

    Open Access•James Adams, Samuel Merrill et al.•British Journal of Political…•2009

  • Demographic Moderation of Spatial Voting in Presidential Elections

    Open Access•Lindsay Dun, Steve Jessee•American Politics Research•2020

  • Coping with complexity

    Open Access•Peter Söderlund, Åsa Von Schoultz et al.•Electoral Studies•2021

  • Positional effects of partisan attachments on candidate position taking

    Open Access•Woojin Moon•Electoral Studies•2015

  • Testing sincere versus strategic split-ticket voting at the aggregate level

    Open Access•Thomas L Brunell, B Grofman•Electoral Studies•2009

  • Issue Yield

    Open Access•Lorenzo De Sio, Till Weber•American Political Science Review•2014

  • The Winning Party Platform

    Open Access•Eun Kyung Kim, Hye-Sung Kim•Africa Spectrum•2021

  • Intransitivities in multidimensional voting models and some implications for agenda control

    Open Access•Richard D Mckelvey•Journal of Economic Theory•1976

  • General Conditions for Global Intransitivities in Formal Voting Models

    Richard D Mckelvey•Econometrica•1979

  • An economic theory of democracy

    Anthony Downs•An economic theory of democracy•1985

  • Centripetal forces in spatial voting

    Open Access•L Feld, Scott L Feld et al.•Public Choice•1988

  • Models of the working of a two-party electoral system Part II

    Open Access•David Chapman•Public Choice•1968

  • Stable outcomes in majority rule voting games

    Open Access•Judith Sloss•Public Choice•1973

  • The Borda count in n-dimensional issue space

    Open Access•L Feld, Scott L Feld et al.•Public Choice•1988

  • Covering, Dominance, and Institution-Free Properties of Social Choice

    Richard D Mckelvey•American Journal of Political…•1986

  • A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice

    Herbert A Simon•The Quarterly Journal of Economics•1955

  • Majority Rule Models and Legislative Elections

    Morris P Fiorina, Roger G Noll•The Journal of Politics•1979

  • Congressional Elections

    David R Mayhew•Polity•1974

  • Finagle's Law and the Finagle Point, a New Solution Concept for Two-Candidate Competition in Spatial Voting Games Without a Core

    A Wuffle, L Feld et al.•American Journal of Political…•1989

  • Electoral Equilibrium under Alternative Voting Institutions

    Gary W Cox•American Journal of Political…•1987

  • Congressional Behavior and Electoral Marginality

    John L Sullivan, Eric M Uslaner•American Journal of Political…•1978

  • Insulation and Responsiveness in Congressional Elections

    Open Access•Walter Dean Burnham•Political Science Quarterly•1975

  • A Dynamic Simultaneous Equation Model of Electoral Choice

    Open Access•Gregory B Markus, Philip E Converse•American Political Science Review•1979

  • Determinants of the Outcomes of Midterm Congressional Elections

    Open Access•Edward R Tufte•American Political Science Review•1975

  • Candidate Motivation

    Open Access•Donald Wittman•American Political Science Review•1983

  • Reciprocal Effects of Policy Preferences, Party Loyalties and the Vote

    Open Access•Benjamin I Page, Calvin C Jones et al.•American Political Science Review•1979

  • Committee Decisions under Majority Rule

    Open Access•Morris P Fiorina, Charles R Plott•American Political Science Review•1978

  • Stability and Centrality of Legislative Choice in the Spatial Context

    Open Access•B Grofman, Guillermo Owens et al.•American Political Science Review•1987

Unique citing works34
Citations per year1.17
Citation span1997 - 2025 (29)
Citation velocityrecent
Highly citedNo
Citation typesNeutral: 34

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae