Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-01T21:23:16.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When to Risk It? Institutions, Ambitions, and the Decision to Run for the U.S. House

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 May 2006

CHERIE D. MAESTAS ,
SARAH FULTON ,
L. SANDY MAISEL  and
WALTER J. STONE
CHERIE D. MAESTAS
Affiliation:
Florida State University
SARAH FULTON
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis
L. SANDY MAISEL
Affiliation:
Colby College
WALTER J. STONE
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The health of any democratic system depends on political ambition to generate a steady supply of quality candidates for office. Because most models of candidate entry assume ambition rather than model it, previous research fails to understand its roots in individual and institutional characteristics. We develop a two-stage model of progressive behavior that distinguishes between the formation of ambition for higher office and the decision to enter a particular race. Using data from a survey of state legislators, we demonstrate that the intrinsic costs and benefits associated with running for and holding higher office shape ambitions but do not influence the decision to run. For progressively ambitious legislators, the second-stage decision is a strategic choice about when to run rather than whether to run. Our research highlights how institutional characteristics that foster progressive ambition also increase the likelihood that national or local political conditions will be translated into meaningful choices at the ballot box.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 100 , Issue 2 , May 2006 , pp. 195 - 208
Copyright
© 2006 by the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Banks Jeffrey S., and D. Roderick Kiewiet. 1989. “Explaining Patterns of Candidate Competition in Congressional Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 33 (November): 997– 1015.Google Scholar
Berkman Michael B. 1993. “Former State Legislators in the U.S. House of Representatives.” American Journal of Political Science 18 (February): 77– 104.Google Scholar
Berkman Michael B. 1994. “State Legislators in Congress: Strategic Politicians, Professional Legislatures and the Party Nexus.” American Journal of Political Science 38 (November): 1025– 55.Google Scholar
Berkman Michael B., and James Eisenstein. 1999. “State Legislators as Congressional Candidates: The Effects of Prior Experience on Legislative Recruitment and Fundraising.” Political Research Quarterly 52 (September): 481– 98.Google Scholar
Berry William D., Michael B. Berkman, and Stuart Schneiderman. 2000. “Legislative Professionalism and Incumbent Reelection: The Development of Institutional Boundaries.” American Political Science Review 94 (December): 859– 74.Google Scholar
Bianco William T. 1984. “Strategic Considerations on Candidacy in U.S. Congressional Districts.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 2 (May): 351– 64.Google Scholar
Black Gordon S. 1972. “A Theory of Political Ambition: Career Choices and the Role of Structural Incentives.” American Political Science Review 66 (March): 144– 59.Google Scholar
Bond Jon R., Gary Covington, and Richard Fleisher. 1985. “Explaining Challenger Quality in Congressional Elections.” Journal of Politics 47 (June): 510– 29.Google Scholar
Canon David T. 1990. Actors, Athletes, and Astronauts: Political Amateurs in the United States Congress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Canon David T., and David J. Sousa. 1992. “Party System Change and Political Career Structures in the U.S. Congress.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 17 (August): 347– 63.Google Scholar
Carey John M., Richard Neimi, and Lynda W. Powell. 2000b. Term Limits in the State Legislatures. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Clarke Harold D., and Richard G. Price. 1981. “Parliamentary Experience and Representational Role Orientations in Canada.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 6 (August): 373– 90.Google Scholar
Cox Gary W., and Scott Morgenstern. 1993. “The Increasing Advantage of Incumbency in the U.S. States.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 18 (November): 495– 514.Google Scholar
Cox Gary W., Frances M. Rosenbluth, and Michael F. Theis. 2000. “Electoral Rules, Career Ambitions, and Party Structure: Comparing Factions in Japan's Upper and Lower Houses.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (January): 115– 22.Google Scholar
Epstein David, David Brady, Sadafumi Kawato, and Sharyn O'Halloran. 1997. “A Comparative Approach to Legislative Organization: Careerism and Seniority in the United States and Japan.” American Journal of Political Science 41 (July): 965– 98.Google Scholar
Fiorina Morris P. 1994. “Divided Government in the American States: A Byproduct of Legislative Professionalism?” American Political Science Review 88 (June): 304– 16.Google Scholar
Fowler Linda L. 1993. Candidates, Congress, and the American Democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Fowler Linda, and Robert McClure. 1989. Political Ambition: Who Decides to Run for Congress. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Francis Wayne L., and Lawrence W. Kenny. 2000. Up the Political Ladder Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fulton Sarah, Cherie Maestas, L. Sandy Maisel, and Walter J. Stone. 2006. “The Sense of a Woman: Gender and Congressional Ambition.” Political Research Quarterly. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Herrick Rebekah, and Michael K. Moore. 1993. “Political Ambition's Effect on Legislative Behavior: Schlesinger's Typology Reconsidered and Revisited.” Journal of Politics 55 (August): 765– 76.Google Scholar
Hogan Robert E. 2001. “Campaign War Chests and Challenger Emergence in State Legislative Elections.” Political Research Quarterly 54 (December): 815– 30.Google Scholar
Jacobson Gary C. 1989. “Strategic Politicians and the Dynamics of U.S. House Elections, 1946–1986.” American Political Science Review 83 (September): 773– 93.Google Scholar
Jacobson Gary, and Samuel Kernell. 1981. (1983). Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections. 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Jones Mark Pl, Sebastian Saiegh, Pable T. Spiller, and Mariano Tommasi. 2002. “Amateur Legislators—Professional Politicians: The Consequences of Party-Centered Electoral Rules in a Federal System.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (July): 656– 69.Google Scholar
Kazee Thomas A. 1994. Who Runs for Congress? Ambition, Context, and Candidate Emergence. Washington: CQ Press.
Krasno Jonathon S., and Donald Philip Green. 1988. “Preempting Quality Challengers in House Elections.” Journal of Politics 50 (November): 920– 36.Google Scholar
Lazarus Jeffrey. 2004. Strategic Entry in U.S. House Elections: Assessing the Causes and Effects of Interaction Among Incumbents and Challengers. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
Maestas Cherie D. 2000. “Professional Legislatures and Ambitious Politicians: Policy Responsiveness of Individuals and Institutions.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 25 (November): 663– 90.Google Scholar
Maestas Cherie D. 2003. “The Incentive to Listen: Progressive Ambition, Resources, and Opinion Monitoring Among State Legislators.” Journal of Politics 65 (May): 439– 56.Google Scholar
Moncrief Gary, and Joel Thompson. 1997. Campaign Finance in State Legislative Elections. Washington: CQ Press.
Powell Richard. 2000. “The Impact of Term Limits on the Candidacy Decisions of State Legislators in U.S. House Elections.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 25 (November): 645– 61.Google Scholar
Rohde David. 1979. “Risk Bearing and Progressive Ambition: The Case of Members of the United State House of Representatives.” American Journal of Political Science 23 (February): 1– 26.Google Scholar
Rosenthal Alan. 1998. The Decline of Representative Democracy. Washington DC: CQ Press.
Santos Fabiano. 1999. “Recruitment and Retention of Legislators in Brazil.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 24 (May): 209– 37.Google Scholar
Schlesinger Joseph A. 1966. Ambition and Politics: Political Careers in the United States. Rand McNally.
Squire Peverill. 1988a. “Member Career Opportunities and the Internal Organization of Legislatures.” Journal of Politics 50 (August): 726– 44.Google Scholar
Squire Peverill. 1988b. “Career Opportunities and Member Stability in Legislatures.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 13 (February): 65– 82.Google Scholar
Squire Peverill. 2000. “Uncontested Seats in State Legislative Elections.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 25 (February): 131– 46.Google Scholar
Stone Walter J., and L. Sandy Maisel. 2003. “The Not-So-Simple Calculus of Winning: Potential U.S. House Candidates—Nomination and General Election Chances.” Journal of Politics (November): 951– 77.Google Scholar
Thompson Joel A., and Gary F. Moncrief. 1998. Campaign Finance in State Legislative Elections Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.