The 1996 Margin of Victory for U.S. House Incumbents
In 1996, the American public reelected 357 members to the United States House of Representatives; of those running for reelection, 95% succeeded. Several congressmen received a large margin of victory over their political opponents, similar to election results of the past. Trends in American politics have been the overwhelming reelection rates of House incumbents as well as large margins of victory over challengers. The purpose of this paper is to examine the factors influencing incumbents’ margin of victory in the 1996 Congressional elections.
Literature Review
Most recent research concentrates on the increasing trend at all levels of American government toward high reelection success. Paul Jacob explains that today, challengers have an exceedingly difficult time trying to defeat an incumbent. For example, incumbents who sought reelection in the 1988 general election had a 96% success rate and 98% in 1990. Though the percentage decreased in 1992 because of House scandals, the general election rate for incumbents still remained high at 93% (Jacob, 1994: 30). This is not a new phenomenon as approximately 92% of all incumbent representatives have been reelected since World War II. Even in a year with a lower percentage such as 1992, Davidson and Oleszek emphasize that "turnover [in the House] resulted more from retirements (many involuntary) than from electoral defeats" (Davidson, 1994: 63).
Drawing upon existing literature, Alford and Brady in Congress Reconsidered have suggested four main reasons for this reelection phenomenon. The reasons are as follows: (1) congressional district lines drawn to favor incumbents; (2) increase resources of incumbent members; (3) weak congressional challengers; and (4) weak party identification of voters (150 and 151).
The latter three explanations are supported by current research; however, the first theory is not. By examining similar trends in the Senate, which does not use district lines, researchers have concluded that congressional district lines do not favor incumbents and are not an explanation for high incumbency reelection rates (151). However, much research has demonstrated that incumbents are usually rewarded on election days because of numerous factors. These factors include congressional perquisites such as campaign funding, franking privileges, and extensive media coverage. As a result, they often face weaker challengers because of such effective use of these perquisites (Erikson and Wright, 1993: 99, 101). Finally, American voters do not strongly identify with one party as in the past. More people are declaring themselves independent, and consequently, they are voting for the individual rather than for the party with whom they identify.