The U.S. apportions congressional districts both across states and within states based upon population. Scholars have long focused on the electoral implications of redistricting within states, but there has been less consideration of the electoral implications of apportionment across states. In this paper, I analyze congressional elections from 2002 to 2014 and theorize that the limited number of political opportunities in states with few congressional districts will lead to higher levels of quality candidate emergence and electoral competition in these states. I find support for this theory; specifically, as the number of political opportunities in a state increases, the number of quality candidates running for office decreases.
AbramowitzAlan I.AlexanderBradGunningMatthew. 2006. “Incumbency, Redistricting, and the Decline of Competition in U.S. House Elections.” The Journal of Politics68 (1): 75–88.
2.
BerkmanMichaelEisensteinJames. 1999. “State Legislators as Congressional Candidates: The Effects of Prior Experience on Legislative Recruitment and Fundraising.” Political Research Quarterly52 (3): 481–98.
BowenDaniel C.GreeneZachary. 2014b. “Should We Measure Professionalism with an Index? A Note on Theory and Practice in State Legislative Professionalism Research.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly14 (3): 277–96.
5.
BracePaul. 1984. “Progressive Ambition in the House: A Probabilistic Approach.” The Journal of Politics46 (2): 556–71.
CarsonJamie L.2005. “Strategy, Selection, and Candidate Competition in U.S. House and Senate Elections.” The Journal of Politics67 (1): 1–29.
8.
CarsonJamie L.CrespinMichael H.EavesCarrie P.WanlessEmily O.2011. “Constituency Congruency and Candidate Competition in U.S. House Elections.” Legislative Studies Quarterly36 (3): 461–82.
9.
CarsonJamie L.CrespinMichael H.EavesCarrie P.WanlessEmily O.2012. “Constituency Congruency and Candidate Competition in Primary Elections for the U.S. House.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly12 (2): 127–45.
10.
CarsonJamie L.EngstromErik J.RobertsJason M.2007. “Candidate Quality, the Personal Vote, and the Incumbency Advantage in Congress.” American Political Science Review101 (2): 289–301.
11.
DavidsonRoger H.OleszekWalter J.LeeFrances E.SchicklerEric. 2014. Congress and Its Members. 14th ed.Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
12.
FennoRichard F.1978. Home Style: House Members in Their District. Boston: Little, Brown.
13.
FoxRichard L.LawlessJennifer L.2011. “Gaining and Losing Interest in Running for Public Office: The Concept of Dynamic Political Ambition.” The Journal of Politics73 (2): 443–62.
14.
HerrnsonPaul.2012. Congressional Elections: Campaigning at Home and in Washington. 6th ed.Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
15.
HibbingJohn R.BrandesSara L.1983. “State Population and the Electoral Success of U.S. Senators.” American Journal of Political Science27 (4): 808–19.
16.
JacobsonGary C.1980. Money in Congressional Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.
17.
JacobsonGary C.2013. The Politics of Congressional Elections. 8th ed.New York: Pearson.
18.
JacobsonGary C.KernellSamuel. 1981. Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.
19.
KazeeThomas. 1980. “The Decision to Run for the U.S. Congress: Challenger Attitudes in the 1970s.” Legislative Studies Quarterly5 (1): 79–100.
20.
KazeeThomasThornberryMary. 1990. “Where’s the Party? Congressional Candidate Recruitment and American Party Organizations.” Western Political Quarterly43 (1): 61–80.
21.
LawlessJenniferFoxRichard. 2010. It Still Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office. New York: Cambridge University Press.
22.
LazarusJeffrey. 2008. “Buying In: Testing the Rational Model of Candidate Entry.” The Journal of Politics70 (3): 837–50.
23.
MaestasCherie D.FultonSarahMaiselL. SandyStoneWalter J.2006. “When to Risk It? Institutions, Ambitions, and the Decision to Run for the U.S. House.” American Political Science Review100 (2): 195–208.
24.
MaiselL. SandyStoneWalter J.1997. “Determinants of Candidate Emergence in U.S. House Elections: An Exploratory Study.” Legislative Studies Quarterly22 (1): 79–96.
25.
MaiselL. SandyStoneWalter J.2014. “Candidate Emergence Revisited: The Lingering Effects of Recruitment, Ambition, and Successful Prospects among House Candidates.” Political Science Quarterly129 (3): 429–47.
26.
RohdeDavid W.1979. “Risk-Bearing and Progressive Ambition: The Case of Members of the United States House of Representatives.” American Journal of Political Science23 (1): 1–26.
27.
SchlesingerJoseph A.1966. Ambition and Politics: Political Careers in the United States. American Politics Research Series. Chicago: Rand McNally.
28.
SquirePeverill. 1989a. “Challengers in U.S. Senate Elections.” Legislative Studies Quarterly14 (4): 531–47.
29.
SquirePeverill. 1989b. “Competition and Uncontested Seats in U.S. House Elections.” Legislative Studies Quarterly14 (2): 281–95.
30.
SquirePeverill. 2007. “Measuring State Legislative Professionalism: The Squire Index Revisited.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly7 (2): 211–27.
31.
SteenJennifer. 2006. “The Impact of State Legislative Term Limits on the Supply of Congressional Candidates.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly6:430–47.
32.
StoneWalter J.MaiselL. Sandy. 2003. “The Not-So-Simple Calculus of Winning: Potential U.S. House Candidates’ Nominations and General Election Prospects.” The Journal of Politics65 (4): 951–77.
33.
StoneWalter J.MaiselL. SandyMaestasCherie D.2004. “Quality Counts: Extending the Strategic Politician Model of Incumbent Deterrence.” American Journal of Political Science48 (3): 479–95.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
