Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
Competitiveness in state executive elections, 2016
2017 →
← 2015
|
 |
November 8, 2016 |
Ballotpedia’s first annual study of competitiveness in state executive elections reveals that 2016 elections were more competitive than recent election cycles on average.
Competitiveness in state executive elections
Defining competitiveness
For the purposes of this analysis, Ballotpedia classifies an election as competitive if it is an open election—in other words, the incumbent officeholder is not a candidate in said election. Future analyses will incorporate the presence of a primary challenge into the assessment of competitiveness.
The advantage an incumbent holds over a challenger in a given election is frequently cited in political theory and its impetus frequently debated. A 2001 statistical model done by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that, since World War II, the advantage of incumbency in an election has continually increased across state executive and legislative offices nationwide. According to the model, incumbency accounted for 30 to 35 percent of the variance in vote shares in the 1980s and 1990s, compared to just 5 percent in the 1940s and 1950s.
The study further showed that incumbency has a greater effect than party affiliation on elections for top-ballot state executive offices; party affiliation becomes a greater factor in elections for state executive offices further down the ballot. "When incumbents run for statewide offices, the outparty will have a relatively difficult time. But, when incumbents are not running, either party may be able to win anywhere," concluded the researchers.[1]
Competitiveness, 2011-2016
From 2011 to 2016, incumbents ran for re-election to state executive offices in an average of 60.2 percent of the seats up for election. Of the 93 offices up for election in 2016, only 51 incumbents ran for re-election, or about 55 percent. Four years prior, when the same offices were up for election—94 seats were up in 2012—63 incumbents sought re-election, equal to 67 percent.
This means the 2016 state executive races were more competitive compared to both the recent average and the previous election cycle in which the same seats were up for re-election.
Effect of term limits on competitiveness
Ballotpedia's analysis found that more state executive officials are typically prevented from seeking re-election by term limits during presidential election cycles than during mid-presidential term elections. This is likely due in part to the fact that several of the states that hold state executive elections during presidential election years do not have term limits on down-ballot offices, including North Carolina, North Dakota, West Virginia, and Washington.
Though fewer incumbents ran for re-election in 2016 than in 2012—when the same seats were up for election—the rate of term-limited officials was similar. This indicated that more incumbents were choosing not to run for re-election in 2016 than in 2012—either retiring from their seats or seeking election to higher offices. Notable examples included Republican Governor of Indiana Mike Pence's bid for the vice presidency and Democratic Governor of New Hampshire Maggie Hassan's bid for the U.S. Senate.
Influence of presidential elections on partisan outcomes
State executive races across the country coincided with a highly competitive presidential race in 2016, which typically drives up voter turnout and attention for races down the ballot.[2] This increased turnout during presidential election years can significantly affect the partisan balance of state governments. In particular, elections for offices that take place during mid-presidential term elections disadvantage the party of the sitting president, a trend that has remained relatively constant since the Civil War. Presidential election years tend to see aggregate gains for the party of the winning presidential candidate.[3][2]
Accordingly, Ballotpedia found that Republicans and Democrats gained a similar number of state executive seats in 2012 when President Barack Obama (D) won re-election, each picking up about 10 percent of the total offices up for election—Democrats gained nine seats while Republicans picked up 10. In 2014, midway through President Obama's second term in office, Democrats gained only 12 seats compared to 21 Republican gains—a 9 percent gross gain for Republicans and a 5 percent gross gain for Democrats. The 2014 mid-presidential term elections for state executives therefore disadvantaged the Democratic Party, in keeping with the long-run national trend.
The following graphics show gross Democratic and Republican gains during each election cycle between 2011 and 2015.
See also
- State executive official elections, 2016
- State executive offices
- 2016 state legislative elections analyzed using a Competitiveness Index
Footnotes
- ↑ Ansolabehere, Stephen, and James M. Snyder Jr. "The Incumbency Advantage in U.S. Elections: An Analysis of State and Federal Offices, 1942-2000." Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy 1, 3. (2004): 315-338
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Campbell, J. E. "The Revised Theory of Surge and Decline." American Journal of Political Science 31, 4. (1987): 965-79.
- ↑ Pew Research Center, “Voter turnout always drops off for midterm elections, but why?” July 24, 2014
