Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Jan 8, 2022
Abstract
The evidence used to claim that electoral performance is a function of incumbency advantage, campaign spending and electoral laws is based on elections can use their name recognition when competing for positions that people consider important. We assess if those determinants also affect lesser known candidates in low information elections. With data for 7823 candidates for local councilmember elections in Chile in 2008, we analyze the effect of incumbency, campaign spending and district magnitude on electoral performance. We report that, though incumbency and district magnitude affect the electoral performance and the probability of winning a seat, campaign spending only has a positive effect on the probability of winning a seat.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
ACEVEDO, S. y NAVIA, P. (2015). Un método no endógeno para medir el gasto electoral en Chile, 2005-2009. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales, Año LX, 225, septiembre-diciembre, 111-136. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/52068
AGOSTINI, C. (2011). Financiamiento de la Política en Chile: Campañas Electorales 2009-2010. Santiago de Chile: Centro de Estudios Públicos.
BENOIT, K. y MARSH, M. (2008). Incumbent and Challenger Campaign Spending Effects in Proportional Electoral Systems: The Irish Elections of 2002. Political Research Quarterly, 63(1), 159-173.
BUNKER, K. y NAVIA, P. (2015). Incumbency Advantage and Tenure Length in the Chilean Chamber of Deputies, 1989-2009. Revista de Ciencia Política, 35(2).
BRAMBOR, T. y CENEVIVA, R. (2011). Incumbency advantage in Brazilian mayoral elections. Paper presented at the 2011. American Political Science Association Conference. Seattle, Washington, Estados Unidos.
CAIN, B., FEREJOHN, J. y FIORINA, M. (1987). The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
CAREY, J. M. y SHUGART, M. S. (1995). Incentives to cultivate a personal vote: A rank ordering of electoral formulas. Electoral Studies, 14(4), 417-439.
CÓRDOVA AQUINO, B. P. y INCIO CORONADO, J. L. (2013). La ventaja del incumbente en el ámbito subnacional: un análisis de las dos últimas elecciones municipales en Perú. Papel Político, 18(2), julio-diciembre, 415-436.
COX, G. W. y KATZ, J. N. (1996). Why Did the Incumbency Advantage in US House Elections Grow? American Journal of Political Science, 40(2), 478-497.
DE MAGALHAES, L. (2015). Incumbency effects in a comparative perspective: Evidence from Brazilian mayoral elections. Political Analysis, 23(1), 113-126.
DESPOSATO, S. W. y PETROCIK, J. R. (2003). The variable incumbency advantage: New voters, redistricting, and the personal vote. American Journal of Political Science, 47(1), 18-32.
DÍAZ, D.; GIANNINI, P., LUNA, J.P y NUÑEZ, R. (2006). El secreto de mi éxito: Seis caminos para llegar y permanecer en Valparaíso. Revista de Ciencia Política, 26(1), 169-190.
DIX, R. H. (1984). Incumbency and electoral turnover in Latin America. Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 26(4), 435-448.
EDWARDS, S.; MORALES, M. y SCHUSTER, M. (2012). ¿El dinero hace la felicidad? Efecto del gasto en campañas sobre el desempeño electoral de los candidatos a alcalde en Chile, 2004-2008. En Morales y Navia (2012). Democracia Municipal en Chile, 1992-2012. Santiago de Chile: Ediciones UDP.
GELMAN, A. y KING, G. (1990). Estimating Incumbency Advantage Without Bias. American Journal of Political Science, 34(11), 42-64.
GREEN, D. y KRASNO, J. (1988). Salvation for the Spendthrift Incumbent: Reestimating the Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections. American Journal of Political Science, 32, 884-907.
JACOBSON, G. C. (1978). The effects of campaign spending in Congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 72(2), 469-491.
JACOBSON, G. C. (1981). Incumbents’ Advantages in the 1978 U.S. Congressional Elections. Legislative Studies Ouarterly, 6(2), 183-200.
JACOBSON, G. C. (1990). The effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections: New Evidence for Old Arguments. American Journal of Political Science, 34(2), 334-362.
KING, G. (1991). Constituency service and incumbency advantage. British Journal of Political Science, 21(1), 119-128.
LEVITT, S. (1994). Using Repeat Challengers to Estimate the effect of Campaign Spending on Elections Outcomes in the U.S. House. Journal of Political Economy, 102(4).
LEVITT, S. y WOLFRAM, C. (1994). A Panel-Data Approach to Measuring the Incumbency Advantage in the U.S House. Working paper, Departament of Economics, MIT. Boston, Estados Unidos.
MADDENS, B.; BRAUM, W., JO, N. y STEFAAN, F. (2006). Effects of campaign spending in an open list PR system: The 2003 legislative elections in Flanders/Belgium. West European Politics, 29(1), 161-68.
MORALES, M. y PIÑEIRO, R. (2010). Gasto en campaña y éxito de los candidatos a diputados en Chile 2005. Revista de Ciencia Política, 30(3), 645-667.
SAMUELS, D. (2001). Incumbents and challengers on a level playing field: assessing the impact of campaign finance in Brazil. Journal of Politics, 63(2), 569-584.
SHUGART, M. S.; VALDINI, M.E. y SUOMINEN, K. (2005). Looking for locals: voter information demands and personal vote‐earning attributes of legislators under proportional representation. American Journal of Political Science, 49(2), 437-449.
