Reelection Rates of Incumbents in the U. S. House

Transcription

1 Reelection Rates of Incumbents in e U. S. House By Congress and by State First rough 108 Congress Reelection Pursuits and Outcomes First rough 108 Congresses 100% % 60% 40% 20% 0% Ineligible for reelection Did not seek reelection (nominal) Sought reelection and lost (nominal) Sought reelection and won Unresolved Data Quantitative Historical Analysis #8 Contact: Quidam@ Published December 7, 2006

2 Table of Contents Section 1 Overview... 1 Explanation of analysis and data sources Section 2 Summary of e Data and Analytical Results... 5 Explanations and graphical illustrations Section 3 Percentage of Incumbent Candidates Reelected Nominal PICR by state and by Congress Appendices Appendix I Description of Data Appendix II Analysis Meodology Appendix III Comparison of e CRS and TTO Analyses Appendix IV Nominal Reelection Rates by Congress and by State Personal use of is material is permitted as long as it is attributed to. However, permission to reprint/republish is material for advertising or promotional purposes or for creating new collective works for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or to reuse any copyrighted component of is work in oer works must be obtained from. Thirty-ousand.org believes e data contained herein to be correct; however, we would greatly appreciate any errors being brought to our attention.

3 Section 1 Overview 1. OVERVIEW 1.1. Purpose A reliable analysis of historical reelection data is needed to inform evaluations of incumbency in e U. S. House of Representatives. In particular, high reelection rates are attributed to a collection of factors which comprise what is known as e incumbency advantage. 1 If reelection rates increase over time, at suggests a corresponding increase in e significance of incumbency advantage. For e first rough to e 108 Congresses is report evaluates e available data in order to calculate e following ree measures: Data Adequacy: for each Congress, what percentage of e data clearly indicates wheer or not e incumbent sought reelection? This enables us to evaluate e relative adequacy of e data over time. Sought-Reelection: for each Congress, what percentage of e Representatives attempted to be reelected to e subsequent Congress? This allows us to compare, over time, what percentage of Representatives aspired to be reelected. Reelection Rate: for each Congress, what percentage of incumbent Representatives who sought reelection succeeded? For is analysis, e reelection rates are called e Percentage of Incumbent Candidates Reelected or PICR. Furer, is analysis measures e extent to which inadequate data precludes drawing reliable conclusions. An estimation is proposed in order to resolve, if only hypoetically, e ambiguity at results from e inadequacy of e data. As is illustrated in Section 2, it is essential at e inadequacy of e underlying data be resolved prior to drawing any conclusions from e analysis ereof Data Source The data for is analysis is provided by e (TTO) database. 2 For e first 108 Congresses, e TTO database provides (for is analysis) 10,310 individual biographical data points at account for 35,589 election instances. The primary datasets used in is analysis are described in e table below. 1 Incumbency Advantage refers to ose inherent advantages held by incumbents when seeking reelection. This analysis does not attempt to identify or evaluate any of e factors which comprise e incumbency advantage. 2 The TTO database is described in e Biographical Compilation of U. S. House Representatives. The Compilation provides biographical data on all Representatives elected to e House since March of The Compilation was derived from e Biographical Directory of e U. S. Congress (as of March 2005). For additional information see Appendix I.

4 Section 1 Overview Reelection Pursuits and Outcomes (by Congress) Total Representatives e total number of Representatives elected to e House. Unresolved Data e number of incumbents whose decision wheer or not to seek reelection is not known. Sought Reelection (nominal) e number of incumbents who were identified as having sought reelection to e subsequent Congress. Won Reelection e number of incumbents who won reelection to e subsequent Congress. Lost Reelection (nominal) e number of incumbents who were identified as having sought reelection (but did not succeed). This includes ose who unsuccessfully sought renomination. Waived Reelection (nominal) e number of incumbents who were identified as having decided not to seek reelection. Ineligible incapable (e.g., due to dea) or ineligible (e.g., in prison) or oerwise involuntarily precluded from seeking reelection. For e areas identified above, e available data are relatively sufficient except for Sought Reelection, Lost Reelection, and Waived Reelection (in e shaded areas above). These ree areas are problematic for two reasons. The first limitation is at e individual biographies (from which e reelection data were extracted) are occasionally ambiguous wi respect to e Representatives reelection intent (and erefore subject to interpretation). The second, and far more significant, shortcoming is at e primary biographical information does not indicate, in many cases, wheer or not e incumbent sought to be reelected. In ese cases eier e incumbent s reelection decision is lost to history or, more likely, it simply was not included in e biographical summary from which e data are derived. For is analysis, ese undetermined instances are categorized as unresolved. Note at ese ree datasets sought, lost, waived are identified as nominal in order to differentiate em from actual. Nominal data is limited to ose instances where e Representative s reelection intent is explicitly indicated by e biographical material. Consequently, for e data identified above, e nominal values are also e minimal ones because ey do not include ose instances which are currently unresolved. This inadequacy of e reelection data is due to e incomplete biographies provided by e Biographical Directory of e United States Congress (BDUSC) 3 3 The BDUSC attributes ese omissions to several factors including a lack of primary historical records, varied research meodologies at

5 Section 1 Overview as ese biographies are ultimately e primary raw data for bo is analysis and e one published by e Congressional Research Service (CRS) which is described in more detail below. However, is omission should not be construed as a criticism of e BDUSC which is, in all oer respects, e pre-eminent compilation of biographical summaries of U. S. congresspersons and oer government officials. Over time, as e quality of e underlying data is improved by e BDUSC, e TTO database can be updated and is analysis can be revised to reflect e availability of more complete data. 4 It is because of e inadequacy of e sought-reelection data at is analysis of reelection rates was not included in e preceding report on e prevalence of reelected incumbents in office. 5 In contrast to e sought-reelection data, e data for e prevalence analysis is unambiguous. That is, wiin any given Congress, each Representative eier was or was not reelected to e subsequent Congress. Such a determination is fairly absolute and requires no interpretation of e incumbents biographies. Consequently, unlike an analysis of reelection rates, e prevalence analysis is not likely to change over time (except to e extent any errors are discovered in e historical record or e analysis ereof) Analysis Meodology The analysis meodology used for is report can most easily be explained by e example shown below. Reelection of incumbents from e 101st to e 102nd Congress Total elected to 101 st Congress Total who sought reelection to e 102 nd Congress (nominal) 368 Sought Reelection (as a percent of total Representatives) ( ) = 83.5% Total who won reelection to e 102 nd 325 Percentage of Incumbent Candidates Reelected (PICR) ( ) = 88.3% A more detailed description of e analysis meodology is provided in Appendix II. were employed by a number of editors during e 140 years of e BDUSC's history as well as changes, over time, to e style and form of e biographies. 4 The omission of reelection data referred to roughout is report is a reference only to e BDUSC itself (which was e provenance for e CRS and TTO datasets). Presumably, furer research of primary biographical information and oer historical records would resolve many of ese omissions. Such an effort would be considerable and is outside e scope of is analysis. 5 The Prevalence of Reelected Representatives in e U. S. House determined for each Congress from e second to e 109 e percentage of incumbents reelected from e preceding Congress (by state and in total). This report can be found at 6 Though e auorized size of e House was 435, as illustrated in Section 2.1, e number of Representatives elected to a Congress usually exceeds e auorized size of e House (due to turnover).

6 Section 1 Overview 1.4. CRS Report The most comprehensive analysis done previously on reelection rates is e Reelection Rates of Incumbents: which is cited herein as e CRS report. 7 The results of e CRS report and is analysis are compared in Appendix III. The CRS analysis is virtually identical to e nominal scenario presented in is report. The principal distinction between e TTO and CRS reports is at e latter did not include a determination of data adequacy. Despite noting e possibility of data inadequacy, e CRS report based its conclusions upon a prima facie analysis of e available reelection data. It concluded at incumbents who have sought reelection have always been relatively successful and at incumbent return rates exceeding 90 percent were experienced in e early Congresses. While it is possible at ese assertions are correct, ey can not be supported by e available data Conclusions Of e ree measures calculated for is report Data Adequacy, Sought- Reelection, and Won-Reelection e first one is probably e most significant wi respect to improving our understanding of House reelection rates because e adequacy of e data must be assayed prior to drawing conclusions erefrom. As is shown in Section 2 is report, e available historical data for e 18 and 19 centuries is far too incomplete to allow us to conclusively calculate reelection rates for at time. However, for e period between e 64 and 108 Congresses during which time e data is substantially complete e following trends are indicated: The sought-reelection rates were nearly constant, increasing imperceptibly The won-reelection rates have been trending upwards. Analysts of reelection data should bear in mind at, even if 100% of e data were available and accurate, reelection rates have sometimes been impacted significantly by external forces beyond at compelled by e electorate. In oer words, reelection rates can not be attributed entirely to e will of e people. These external factors, in conjunction wi e relatively small number of Representatives in each Congress, greatly limit e utility of reelection data relative to statistical analyses such as regression or correlation. These external factors are discussed in Section C of Appendix I. 7 Reelection Rates of Incumbents: , by David C. Huckabee, was published by e Congressional Research Service on March 8, The CRS report only provides reelection rates at e aggregate (U. S.) level rough A copy of e CRS report is available at

7 Section 2 Summary of e Data and Analytical Results 2. SUMMARY OF THE DATA AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS 2.1. Number of Representatives by Congress Auorized Size of e House The chart below illustrates e auorized size of e House of Representatives since its inception Total Size of e House of Representatives First rough 109 Congresses Number of Memberships The number of House seats auorized is shown by Congressional year (two years per Congress) and for each ten-year apportionment regime Chart 2-A e number of House memberships (by Congress) In e charts roughout is report, e primary (lower) X-axis indicates e Congress (1 108) along wi e prevailing decennial apportionment regime (1 22). The secondary (upper) X-axis indicates e calendar year. For example, e first apportionment regime runs from e ird to e seven Congress (or 1793 to 1802) Auorized Size and e Total Number Elected The number of Representatives who were elected to any particular Congress usually exceeded e auorized number of memberships due to turnover in office (e.g., dea, resignation, failure to qualify, etc.). 9 The following chart is similar to e one above, except at it also shows e number of Representatives actually elected. 8 The number of House memberships is determined by e decennial reapportionment process and furer adjusted to reflect e admission of new states. This chart is from The Size of e U. S. House of Representatives and its Constituent State Delegations Auorized Number of Memberships by Year and by Congress (1789 to 2012) which can be found at 9 The notable exception to is pattern occurred between 1860 and 1869 when e secessionist Confederate states did not send delegations to e U. S. Congress.

8 Section 2 Summary of e Data and Analytical Results Total Number of Representatives Elected to Each Congress (shaded area) Total Number of Representatives First rough 108 Congresses Chart 2-B total number elected to e House compared to auorized size (by Congress) The Total Number Elected The chart below shows only e total number of Representatives elected 10 (raer an e auorized size of e House). It is ese values which are e basis for is analysis Total Number of Representatives First rough 108 Congresses Total Number of Representatives Elected to Each Congress Chart 2-C total number of Representatives elected to e House (by Congress) 10 For is analysis, e total number elected to each Congress has been adjusted to eliminate extraneous election events. These adjustments are explained in Appendix II (Analysis Meodology).

9 Section 2 Summary of e Data and Analytical Results 2.2. Reelection Pursuits and Outcomes Unresolved Reelection Data The chart below shows e number and proportion of Representatives for whom ere is no indication wheer or not reelection was sought (relative to e total number of Representatives) Number and Percentage of instances where e Incumbent s Reelection Intent is not provided by e data (by Congress) Reelection Decision Unknown First rough 108 Congresses 100% 90% 80% 70% Total Number of Representatives Elected to Each Congress 60% 50% 40% Chart 2-D unresolved data as a percentage of total Representatives (by Congress) 30% 20% 10% 0% Nominal Analysis The proportional composition of e data is illustrated in e chart below. 100% Reelection Pursuits and Outcomes First rough 108 Congresses % 60% 40% 20% 0% Unresolved Chart 2-E reelection pursuits and outcomes as a percent of total (by Congress) Ineligible for reelection Did not seek reelection (nominal) Sought reelection and lost (nominal) Sought reelection and won Unresolved Data

10 Section 2 Summary of e Data and Analytical Results Because of e unresolved data, e chart above illustrates e nominal composition of e data. The importance of is is explained in e following section Significance of e Unresolved Data As shown in e two preceding charts, e total number of unresolved incumbents frequently exceeds 20% of e total number of Representatives during e first 37 Congresses. During at time, e minimum and maximum unresolved is 12% and 40%, respectively. After e 37 Congress e unresolved portion gradually declines until it falls (and remains) below 1% as of e 64 Congress. The portion unresolved is pivotal to e analysis of reelection rates. Consider e example provided by e 30 Congress for which ere are 56 unresolved instances (i.e., where e biographies do not indicate wheer or not e incumbent sought reelection). Because none of ese 56 is reflected in e oer data categories, is scenario is shown in e nominal column in e table below: 30 Congress (reelection to e 31st) Reelection Pursuits & Outcomes Nominal Scenarios Unresolved data 56 Portion of unresolved incumbents who sought reelection 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Sought reelection and won Sought reelection and lost Waived (did not seek) reelection Ineligible Total Representatives Total Seeking Reelection Sought Reelection % of Total 51.5% 51.5% 56.2% 60.9% 65.5% 70.2% 75.3% Reelection Rate (PICR) 80.2% 80.2% 73.5% 67.8% 63.0% 58.8% 54.8% The table also shows e result of distributing all e unresolved instances to sought reelection and waived reelection over a range of possibilities. For example, e 40% scenario assumes at 40% of e unresolved had actually sought reelection (and lost) while 60% decided not to seek reelection. In is case, e reelection rate would be 67.8% (raer an e nominal 80.2%). More generally, as e portion of unresolved incumbents who sought reelection increases, e reelection rate declines accordingly. Note at e 0% scenario returns e same results as e nominal case. This means at if none of e unresolved had in fact sought to be reelected en e nominal case would be historically accurate. In any case, e actual historical reelection rates are unknown because ey depend on e extent to which e unresolved incumbents had decided wheer or not to seek reelection.

11 Section 2 Summary of e Data and Analytical Results 2.3. Sought Reelection Nominal Scenario What percentage of incumbents decided to seek reelection? The line graph below illustrates e nominal scenario. 100% Percentage of Incumbents who Sought Reelection First rough 108 Congresses % 60% 40% Nominal Note: This is e number of incumbents who were identified as having sought reelection as a percentage of e total number of Representatives (by Congress). 20% Unresolved 0% Chart 2-F e percentage of total Representatives identified as having sought reelection (by Congress) The nominal sought-reelection graph in e chart above represents e minimal scenario because it does not include ose Representatives whose decision to seek reelection was omitted from e source biographies. (The proportion unresolved is indicated by e vertical bar graph.) However, it is possible to better understand e likely composition of e unresolved data. As can be seen in e chart, for ose Congresses where e portion unresolved happens to be relatively low (e.g., Congresses 8 and 23), e proportion who sought reelection is correspondingly higher. Inverse examples of same can be seen for Congresses where e proportion unresolved is relatively high (e.g., Congresses 14 and 27). Moreover, as e inadequacy of e data decreases over time e percentage who sought reelection tends to increase as well. As a result, e correlation between unresolved and sought-reelection is -.93 (for Congresses 1 108). This nearly perfect inverse relationship suggests at a significant portion of e unresolved Representatives are likely to have actually sought reelection Consistent wi is result, e correlation between e proportion unresolved and e proportion at declined to seek reelection is +.49.

12 Section 2 Summary of e Data and Analytical Results During e time when e data is substantially complete 64 to e 108 Congresses e chart above provides a dotted graph to indicate e underlying trend. 12 The sought-reelection rate appears to have been relatively flat during is time Sensitized Analysis If e unresolved data were fully resolved ey would be distributed between ose who sought reelection and ose who waived (or did not seek) reelection. 14 The chart below illustrates various scenarios based on e percentage of unresolved which may have sought reelection. The nominal analysis is identified as e 0% graph in e chart below. 100% 80% 60% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Maximal Percentage of Incumbents who Sought Reelection First rough 108 Congresses 40% Nominal (minimal) 20% 0% Chart 2-G Sought-Reelection scenarios Note at e nominal analysis is also e minimal one; it represents e unlikely scenario at none (i.e., 0%) of e unresolved had sought reelection. Equally unlikely is e maximal scenario which would result had all (i.e., 100%) of e unresolved sought reelection. What is certain is at e graph for e actual sought-reelection rates lies somewhere in between ese lower and upper limits. 12 This covers e time span from e 1918 election to e 65 Congress to e 2004 election to e 109 Congress. This time period is also of interest because e size of e House has remained constant at 435 ever since e 63rd Congress (except for a four year period from 1959 to 1962 when it was temporarily increased to 437 to accommodate e admission of Hawaii and Alaska). 13 The slope equals The unresolved data will tend to resolve to one of two categories: sought reelection and lost or waived reelection. All e oer categories are substantially self-evident from e available data.

13 Section 2 Summary of e Data and Analytical Results 2.4. Percentage of Incumbent Candidates Reelected Nominal Scenario For is analysis, e reelection rates are called e Percentage of Incumbent Candidates Reelected or PICR. PICR measures reelection success, which answers e question: for each Congress, what percentage of incumbents who sought reelection succeeded? 100% Percentage of Incumbent Candidates Reelected First rough 108 Congresses Nominal 80% 60% 40% 20% Note: This is e number reelected as a percentage of total Representatives identified as having sought reelection (by Congress). Unresolved 0% Chart 2-H nominal reelection rate (by Congress) Like e chart in 2.3.1, is chart represents e nominal scenario because it does not include ose Representatives whose decision to seek reelection was omitted from e source biographies. This nominal scenario is erefore also e maximal one. The chart above includes a dotted graph to indicate e underlying trend of reelection rates from e 64 to e 108 Congress during which time e data is largely complete and e size of e House constant. 12 Not surprising, is trend line indicates a gradual increase in reelection rates during is period. 15 This increase is consistent wi e view at e inherent advantages held by incumbents seeking reelection (vis-à-vis any challengers) may have increased over time. 15 The slope equals

14 Section 2 Summary of e Data and Analytical Results Sensitized Analysis The chart below illustrates various reelection-rate scenarios based on e percentage of unresolved who had decided to seek reelection. These scenarios parallel e sought-reelection chart in section % 0% Percentage of Incumbent Candidates Reelected First rough 108 Congresses Nominal (maximum) 80% 60% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Minimal 40% 20% 0% Chart 2-I PICR reelection rate Scenarios In is chart e nominal analysis is also e maximal one as it represents e unlikely scenario at none (i.e., 0%) of e unresolved had sought reelection. Equally unlikely is e minimal scenario which would result had all (i.e., 100%) of e unresolved sought reelection. What is certain is at e plot for e actual reelection rates lies somewhere in between ese upper and lower limits Estimated Reelection Pursuits and Outcomes Until e underlying data inadequacy is resolved, it will not be possible to accurately calculate e historical reelection rates. Because it could take several years for e biographical revisions to be completed and reflected in ese analyses, we should endeavor to develop an estimate which is more likely to approximate e actual (but unknown) data. Despite e data inadequacy, it is possible to generate a more realistic representation using e following guidelines: a) The actual values lie somewhere between e calculated upper and lower limits. b) The nearly perfect inverse correlation (-.93) between unresolved and soughtreelection suggests at a high proportion of e unresolved were likely to have sought reelection. This relationship is furer bolstered by e

15 Section 2 Summary of e Data and Analytical Results correlation (+.49) between e percentage unresolved and e percentage who declined to seek reelection. c) Because e data from e 64 to e 108 Congresses are substantially adequate ey may provide some useful statistical parameters. Taking all of e foregoing into account including a regressive extrapolation of e contemporary data (64 to 108 ) TTO believes at a better approximation of e historical reelection data can be generated by assuming at 68% of e unresolved had sought reelection (and lost) while e oer 32% had declined to seek reelection. Using is assumption to allocate (and eliminate) e unresolved data produces e result illustrated below. 100% Reelection Pursuits and Outcomes First rough 108 Congresses % 60% 40% 20% 0% 68% Scenario Ineligible for reelection Did not seek reelection (estimated) Sought reelection and lost (estimated) Sought reelection and won Unresolved Chart 2-J estimated pursuits and outcomes as a percent of total (by Congress) Of course, eliminating e unresolved data by applying a static allocation over e entire time frame is somewhat simplistic and arbitrary; however, it does provide a more plausible representation an at provided by eier e minimal or maximal scenarios. Based on is scenario, Chart 2-K (below) shows e percentage of Representatives at sought reelection to e subsequent Congress and Chart 2-L shows e resulting reelection rates (i.e., e number who won reelection as a percentage of e total incumbents who sought reelection).

16 Section 2 Summary of e Data and Analytical Results 100% 100% Percentage of Incumbents who Sought Reelection First rough 108 Congresses % 68% 60% 0% 40% Nominal 20% 0% 68% Scenario Chart 2-K estimated percentage of Representatives who sought reelection (by Congress) 100% 0% Percentage of Incumbent Candidates Reelected First rough 108 Congresses Nominal 80% 68% 60% 100% 40% 20% 0% 68% Scenario Chart 2-L estimated reelection rate (by Congress) The estimated aggregate reelection rates are provided in Appendix IV.

17 Section 3 Percentage of Incumbent Candidates Reelected 3. PERCENTAGE OF INCUMBENT CANDIDATES REELECTED The table below provides e nominal percentage, by Congress, of Incumbent Candidates Reelected to e subsequent Congress (or PICR ). Percentage of Incumbent Candidates Reelected (nominal) First rough 108 Congresses Apportionment Regimes (1-22) C Congress (year) 1 (1789) 2 (1791) PICR Reelection Rates 90.5% 97.6% 1 Congress (year) 3 (1793) 4 (1795) 5 (1797) 6 (1799) 7 (1801) PICR Reelection Rates 96.9% 93.7% 95.2% 98.1% 95.5% 2 Congress (year) 8 (1803) 9 (1805) 10 (1807) 11 (1809) 12 (1811) PICR Reelection Rates 95.0% 98.9% 93.5% 92.0% 84.7% 3 Congress (year) 13 (1813) 14 (1815) 15 (1817) 16 (1819) 17 (1821) PICR Reelection Rates 88.2% 84.5% 91.3% 82.4% 90.7% 4 Congress (year) 18 (1823) 19 (1825) 20 (1827) 21 (1829) 22 (1831) PICR Reelection Rates 89.0% 90.0% 80.5% 89.4% 79.7% 5 Congress (year) 23 (1833) 24 (1835) 25 (1837) 26 (1839) 27 (1841) PICR Reelection Rates 81.1% 81.7% 76.3% 82.9% 63.7% 6 Congress (year) 28 (1843) 29 (1845) 30 (1847) 31 (1849) 32 (1851) PICR Reelection Rates 79.3% 86.8% 80.2% 77.0% 71.3% 7 Congress (year) 33 (1853) 34 (1855) 35 (1857) 36 (1859) 37 (1861) PICR Reelection Rates 65.0% 75.9% 75.8% 76.9% 69.8% 8 Congress (year) 38 (1863) 39 (1865) 40 (1867) 41 (1869) 42 (1871) PICR Reelection Rates 71.9% 86.3% 86.0% 74.2% 76.2% 9 Congress (year) 43 (1873) 44 (1875) 45 (1877) 46 (1879) 47 (1881) PICR Reelection Rates 57.2% 73.9% 79.8% 81.9% 71.6% 10 Congress (year) 48 (1883) 49 (1885) 50 (1887) 51 (1889) 52 (1891) PICR Reelection Rates 78.6% 80.0% 81.3% 68.5% 79.0% 11 Congress (year) 53 (1893) 54 (1895) 55 (1897) 56 (1899) 57 (1901) PICR Reelection Rates 65.4% 75.0% 82.9% 89.2% 86.7% 12 Congress (year) 58 (1903) 59 (1905) 60 (1907) 61 (1909) 62 (1911) PICR Reelection Rates 89.3% 87.1% 87.4% 78.5% 82.0% 13 Congress (year) 63 (1913) 64 (1915) 65 (1917) 66 (1919) 67 (1921) PICR Reelection Rates 79.5% 87.8% 84.5% 81.5% 79.5% 14 Congress (year) 68 (1923) 69 (1925) 70 (1927) 71 (1929) 72 (1931) PICR Reelection Rates 88.8% 92.7% 89.8% 86.0% 68.8% 15 Congress (year) 73 (1933) 74 (1935) 75 (1937) 76 (1939) 77 (1941) PICR Reelection Rates 83.3% 87.6% 79.0% 88.5% 83.0% 16 Congress (year) 78 (1943) 79 (1945) 80 (1947) 81 (1949) 82 (1951) PICR Reelection Rates 88.1% 82.9% 79.3% 90.5% 90.8% 17 Congress (year) 83 (1953) 84 (1955) 85 (1957) 86 (1959) 87 (1961) PICR Reelection Rates 93.1% 94.9% 90.1% 92.4% 91.5% 18 Congress (year) 88 (1963) 89 (1965) 90 (1967) 91 (1969) 92 (1971) PICR Reelection Rates 86.4% 88.3% 96.8% 94.5% 93.6% 19 Congress (year) 93 (1973) 94 (1975) 95 (1977) 96 (1979) 97 (1981) PICR Reelection Rates 87.7% 96.1% 93.5% 91.1% 90.1% 20 Congress (year) 98 (1983) 99 (1985) 100 (1987) 101 (1989) 102 (1991) PICR Reelection Rates 95.4% 98.0% 98.3% 96.3% 88.3% 21 Congress (year) 103 (1993) 104 (1995) 105 (1997) 106 (1999) 107 (2001) PICR Reelection Rates 90.4% 94.3% 98.3% 97.8% 95.7% 22 Congress (year) 108 (2003) 109 (2005) 110 (2007) 111 (2009) 112 (2011) PICR Reelection Rates 97.8%

18 Section 3 Percentage of Incumbent Candidates Reelected In e table above, e five Congresses at comprise each apportionment regime (between e first and e 22 nd ) are listed by row (e.g., e first regime lasted from e ird Congress to e seven). For historical context, e initial year of each Congress is also provided. For example: e 108 Congress which began in 2003 is e first Congress of e 22 nd apportionment regime. Of at Congress, 97.8% of e Representatives were reelected from e preceding Congress. Because ese are nominal values ey represent e maximum reelection rates possible raer an e actual ones. The actual reelection rates can not be known until e undetermined data are resolved. Additional detail is provided in Appendix IV, which also provides e nominal PICR reelection rates by state for all Congresses.

19 Appendices

20 Appendix I Description of Data Appendix I Description of Data A) Biographical Compilation of U. S. House Representatives TTO s congressional database contains every instance of a Representative being elected to a Congress. This data can be aggregated to produce various statistical analyses such as e one summarized by is report. In e current data set, ere are 10,508 Representatives who account for 36,663 instances of an election to e House. 16 The content of TTO s congressional database is provided by e Biographical Compilation of U. S. House Representatives, 17 or Compilation. The Compilation is comprised of all persons who were elected to e U. S. House of Representatives between March of 1789 (e First Congress) and December 31, 2005 (midway rough e 109 Congress). The compilation was derived from e Biographical Directory of e United States Congress (data as of March 2005). For each House Representative, e Compilation provides a brief biography and e following data: The state from which each was elected The Congress(es) to which each was elected The political party affiliation at e time of election (if known) Dates of service for each Representative, also e reason for early termination of service (e.g., due to dea or resignation) when applicable When elected by a special election (in order to fill a prematurely vacated seat), e name of e predecessor is provided Nominal Tenure in office e number of consecutive Congresses to which a Representative has been elected Actual Tenure in office e cumulative number of days served consecutively wiout interruption For is analysis, e data was also encoded to indicate e reelection decision of and outcome for each incumbent (in each Congress from e first rough e 108 ). The table below provides e aggregate totals for e various possible reelection outcomes. 16 This is for e first 108 Congresses plus e 109 Congress rough Dec 31, Additional information on e Biographical Compilation of U. S. House Representatives can be found at:

21 Appendix I Description of Data Incumbent Reelection Intent Aggregate Data (Congresses 1-108) Code Description Total I Incapable (e.g., due to dea) or ineligible (e.g., in 732 prison) or oerwise involuntarily unable to pursue reelection. N Waived seeking reelection 4,314 U Unresolved (unknown or undetermined) 2,120 YW Sought Reelection en Won 24,612 YL Sought Reelection en Lost 3,009 YLN Sought Reelection en Lost Renomination 802 Total 35,589 Notes: The data is furer disaggregated into subsets by Congress and by state (and aggregate total). For e purposes of is analysis, YL and YLN were combined into Sought Reelection en Lost. The total at sought reelection is equal to YW + YL + YLN (or 28,423). B) Data Adequacy Issues Any analysis of reelection rates can be expected to change over time as e quality of e source data is improved. Listed below are several important factors which limit e quality of e data. a) Foremost is e incomplete historical record wi respect to identifying e incumbents reelection decision (especially prior to 1900). As is explained in e body of is report, e nominal reelection rates derived from e available data represents e maximum possible values. b) The second limitation is e accuracy of e BDUSC biographies wi respect to correctly identifying e incumbents reelection intent. c) The ird limitation is wheer or not each incumbent was correctly coded (in e TTO database) relative to at incumbent s biographical information (where such information was adequate). Like e biographies, e coding is a manual effort subject to error. Wi respect to e last two issues (accuracy of data and its coding), it is unlikely at any subsequent corrections would materially revise e analytical results since e basis for e analyses is e entire population (not a sampling ereof). In oer words, because is analysis is calculated from over 35,000 election instances, a relatively large number of data corrections would be necessary in order to materially affect e results.

22 Appendix I Description of Data The risk related to e ird issue (data coding) appears to be quite minimal due to e fact at e CRS data are nearly identical to TTO s nominal data wi respect to e total number of incumbents who sought reelection and e total number who won reelection. (The CRS and TTO analyses used two distinct datasets at were developed independently from each oer.) 18 C) External Factors Even if 100% of e data were available and accurate, ere are a variety of external factors, oer an electoral preference, which should be considered when evaluating aggregate reelection statistics. In conjunction wi e relatively small number of Representatives (for each Congress), ese external factors limit e utility of e data relative to statistical analyses. These external factors include e following: a) Reapportionment a relative decline in reelection rates usually occurs e first Congress of each new apportionment regime due to e abolishment of existing seats in various states in order to create new seats in oers (as a result of e decennial reapportionment). 19 The impact resulting from e mandated turnover may, in some cases, be greater an at compelled by e electorate. b) External Forces reelection rates are affected unpredictably by a myriad of factors ranging from institutional (e.g., state or federal election laws) to more capricious events such as incumbent mortality, career fatigue, transient political shifts and oer events which comprise e human experience. c) Asymptotical limits regardless of how e data may be trending e reelection rates will always lie between 0% and 100% (inclusive). Examples: 27 Congress due to e vagaries of apportionment maematics e consequence of reapportionment can be significant, especially when reallocating a relatively small number of House seats or, in e case of e 28 Congress, when e apportionment meod is changed. The 27 congress had e lowest ever percentage of incumbents reelected (or PIR ) wi only 22.7% reelected to e 28 (in 1842). The reason for is is at e six reapportionment, which was effected as of e 28 Congress, abolished 38 seats (a net reduction of 19 seats). 19 This decrease in memberships is e largest at 18 See Appendix III for a comparison of e two analyses. 19 The Size of e U. S. House of Representatives and its Constituent State Delegations Auorized Number of Memberships by Year and by Congress (1789 to 2012) Section 2.5 (Chart E) which can be found at

23 Appendix I Description of Data has ever occurred in e history of e House (in eier absolute or percentage terms), so it is easy to understand why it was accompanied by e lowest PIR. 14 Congress At 30.9%, e percentage of incumbents reelected from e 14 to e 15 Congress (in 1816) was e second smallest. Not coincidentally, e 14 Congress also experienced e second highest dea rate (in percentage terms). And perhaps not coincidentally, 1816 was known as e year wiout a summer due to e cataclysmic eruption of Mount Tambora in Indonesia in April of The most powerful eruption in recorded history, e resulting volcanic cloud lowered global temperatures and, even a year after e eruption, most of e norern hemisphere experienced sharply cooler temperatures during e spring and summer mons which resulted in a wide-scale crop loss. 36 and 37 Congresses The next two smallest PIR rates resulted in e 36 and 37 Congresses (34.4% and 34.2%, respectively). This can be attributed to e fact at e Confederate states did not send delegations to e U. S. Congress for various time spans during e War of Secession and its afterma (between 1860 and 1865). 20 In addition, e reelection from e 37 Congress would have been impacted by anoer large decennial reapportionment which was effected as of e 38 Congress. These examples illustrate macro influences significant enough to profoundly affect e aggregate results. A orough review of e historical record would reveal oer macro influences at broadly impact reelection rates (e.g., major economic cycles, wars, etc.). Less apparent, but just as significant, is e multitude of micro influences. These are e deas (natural causes, car accidents, duels), heal problems, ensuing ambitions to a higher office, political intrigues, military enlistments (during time of war) and oer personal dramas at are revealed by e individual biographies. Even ough ese factors are expected wiin e context of a social science, eir significance is can be greater here due to e relatively small number of Representatives elected to each Congress. 20 As a result, e final pre-secession Congresses for e Confederate states (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nor Carolina, Sou Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia) will usually show a zero percent reelection rate. This extraordinary event should not be overlooked when evaluating e historical data.

24 Appendix II Analysis Meodology Appendix II Analysis Meodology A) Computations The analysis meodology can easily be explained by e example shown in e table below. This is e data for e reelection of incumbents from e 101 st to e 102 nd Congress. Data Point Value Total number elected to 101 st Congress Total number who sought reelection to e 102 nd Congress 368 Percentage of total incumbents who sought reelection ( ) = 83.5% Total who won reelection to e 102 nd 325 Percentage of incumbent candidates reelected (PICR) ( ) = 88.3% B) Adjustments to e Data For e first 108 Congresses, e TTO database contains 10,468 Representatives across 36,224 instances of a Representative being elected to Congress. For is analysis, adjustments were made to e data to exclude null election instances and late-term special elections, as shown in e table below. TTO Data Total Less Nulls Less LTSEs Representatives 10,468 10,404 10, % 98.5% Instances 36,224 36,042 35, % 98.2% The first adjustment removed null election instances. Null instances occur when an elected person never actually serves in e Congress to which he/she had been elected (usually as a result of dea or resignation after e election but before e commencement of congress). As shown in e table below, excluding null instances eliminates.6% and.5% of Representatives and election events, respectively. 21 Though e auorized size of e House was 435, as illustrated in Section 2.1, e number of Representatives elected to a Congress usually exceeds e auorized size of e House (due to turnover).

25 Appendix II Analysis Meodology The second adjustment removed instances of late-term special elections; ese are elections to an existing Congress which is already nearing its final adjournment. For example, an election on November 30, 2002, to e 107 Congress (which concluded 34 days later on January 3) is a late-term special election (LTSE). LTSEs are excluded on e presumption at a minimum amount of time should elapse between elections so at e subsequent one is truly a reelection. It is reasonable to assume at e more time which elapses between elections, e more likely are e voters to revise eir perceptions of e incumbent. In e context of an analysis of reelection data, evaluating LTSEs can be problematic. In many cases ere is a simultaneous election (to e remainder of e current Congress as well as to e subsequent one) which should be construed as a single election event. In oer cases, a late term special election occurs after anoer person has already been elected to e subsequent term, ereby precluding e new current-term Representative from seeking reelection. In a few oer cases, a non-incumbent who was already elected to e subsequent Congress may later be elected to fill e remainder of e current one. So how much time should elapse between two successive elections so at e second one is truly a reelection? That question is conveniently dodged by is analysis as it would be impractical to evaluate all such instances in e data (due to varying election dates and circumstances across jurisdictions and time). Instead, any elections to e coincident Congress which occur after e final November 1 (of at Congress) were excluded from is analysis. As a result of eliminating all election events which occur after November 1 (of e final year of e coincident Congress), e number of Representatives and election events were furer reduced by.9% and 1.3%, respectively. Consequently, even if e adjustments described above were ought to be unwarranted or arbitrary, e practical result is a sample dataset which, wi 35,589 election events, represents 98.2% of e total population data.

26 Appendix III Comparison of e CRS and TTO Analyses Appendix III Comparison of e CRS and TTO Analyses A) Introduction Prior to is analysis, e CRS report 22 was e only comprehensive analysis of e history of reelection rates in e U. S. House. Consequently, a detailed comparison of ese two analyses is in order. The CRS report was produced in March of It covers e period from e first to e 102 nd Congresses. The data in e CRS report is aggregated by election year and corresponds to e Congressional periods as follows: CRS Election Year Election Corresponding TTO Reference 1790 From e first to e second Congress Congress #1 ( ) 1792 From e second to e ird Congress Congress #2 ( ) 1794 From e ird to e four Congress Congress #1 ( ) Though e CRS and TTO analyses rely upon two entirely different databases, e original provenance for bo datasets is e same: e Biographical Directory of e U. S. Congress 23 (BDUSC). As shown in is appendix, e common origin for e raw data explains e overall similarity between e CRS analysis and e nominal analysis provided by is report. The primary distinction between e two reports is at is one measures e extent to which e data is inadequate. B) CRS Report Conclusions are Unsupportable The CRS report did not attempt to analyze e adequacy of e data (presumably because eir dataset would not permit such an analysis). However, e issue of data adequacy was correctly identified in eir report as follows: The main risk in using e Roster file as a source for information on e fate of incumbents seeking reelection is at e biographical information upon which e file is based may be incomplete or written in such a way as to make involuntary retirements appear to be voluntary. Thus, e data on retirements and persons not renominated are possibly flawed by systematic errors based on incomplete sources of information about why Members left Congress. Unfortunately, despite identifying is issue, e CRS report proceeds to draw sweeping conclusions from eir analysis. The general conclusion proposed by e CRS report is at incumbents who have sought reelection have always been relatively successful and at incumbent return rates exceeding 90 percent were 22 Reelection Rates of Incumbents: , by David C. Huckabee, was published by e Congressional Research Service on March 8, The CRS report only provides reelection rates at e aggregate (U. S.) level rough A copy of e CRS report is available at 23 Additional information regarding e BDUSC can be found at

27 Appendix III Comparison of e CRS and TTO Analyses experienced in e early Congresses. While it is possible at ese assertions are correct, ey can not be substantiated given e material incompleteness of e historical record. C) The Biographical Directory of e United States Congress The Roster file used as e basis for e CRS analysis is e Roster of United States Congressional Officeholders and Biographical Characteristics of Members of e United States Congress, Merged Data. 24 Bo e ICPSR Roster file and e TTO database derive eir original source data from e same place: e Biographical Directory of e United States Congress (BDUSC). The only material distinction is at e Roster file (used by e CRS study) was derived from e 1980 edition of e BDUSC whereas e TTO data base is derived from e data set which was available on-line as of March of Consequently, e TTO analysis also includes post-1994 data as well as any corrections or updates made by e BDUSC to eir database (after 1980). D) Graphical Illustrations of e Data and Analytical Results The CRS and TTO analyses are derived from two entirely different data sources. Despite at, e CRS analysis is nearly identical to TTO s nominal scenario and, consequently, e two analyses corroborate one anoer quite well. 25 The charts below compare e data and analytical results of e CRS and TTO analyses as follows: Chart III-A total number of Representatives Chart III-B total number of Representatives who sought reelection Chart III-C percentage of Representatives who sought reelection Chart III-D total number of Representatives Chart III-E percentage of incumbent candidates reelected (PICR) 24 The citation in e CRS Report attributes e Roster to Carroll McKibbin and e Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR), ICPSR study number The data reflected in e charts below is provided in a supplement to is report: Summary and Comparison of e Data Used by e TTO and CRS Analyses, which can be found at