Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T16:34:29.261Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Incumbency and Competitiveness in City Council Elections: How Accurate Are Voter Perceptions?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2020

Cameron D. Anderson Open the ORCID record for Cameron D. Anderson [Opens in a new window] ,
R. Michael McGregor  and
Scott Pruysers
Cameron D. Anderson*
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Room 4154, Social Science Centre, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2
R. Michael McGregor
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Politics and Public Administration, 350 Victoria Street JOR700, Ryerson University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5B 2K3
Scott Pruysers
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Room 301 Henry Hicks Building, 6299 South Street, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H 4R2
*
*Corresponding author. Email: cander54@uwo.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Incumbent city councillors have an almost insurmountable advantage in Canadian municipal elections. This article aims to improve our understanding of the municipal incumbency advantage by considering the ability of electors to correctly identify the two most competitive candidates in one's ward and the factors associated with being able to do so. Using survey data from the Canadian Municipal Election Study (CMES), we consider the case of the 2018 elections in Mississauga, a city with typically high rates of incumbent re-election. Survey respondents were asked to identify the two most competitive candidates in their local ward races. We find that comparatively few electors are able to recognize which challenger serves as the strongest threat to a sitting councillor, a finding that suggests that coordination problems may help to contribute to high rates of incumbent success. We identify several individual-level and ward-level correlates of correctly identifying the first-place and second-place finishers. We do note, however, that there is a significant amount of variation among the thousands of municipalities in Canada, so findings from this case should be tested in other settings, including larger or smaller cities where levels of information might be different.

Résumé

Résumé

Les conseillers municipaux sortants ont un avantage presque insurmontable dans les élections municipales canadiennes. Ce document vise à améliorer notre compréhension d'une telle prééminence - en examinant la capacité des électeurs à identifier correctement les deux candidats les plus compétitifs dans leur quartier, et les facteurs qui y sont associés. À l'aide des données de l'Étude sur les élections municipales canadiennes, nous examinons le cas des élections de 2018 à Mississauga, une ville où le taux de réélection des candidats sortants est généralement élevé. Les répondants à l'enquête ont été invités à identifier les deux candidats les plus compétitifs dans les courses de leur quartier local. Nous avons constaté que relativement peu d'électeurs sont capables de reconnaître quel candidat représente la plus grande menace pour l’élu en poste, ce qui laisse penser que les problèmes de coordination peuvent contribuer à des taux élevés de succès de son titulaire. Nous avons identifié plusieurs corrélats au niveau individuel et à celui du quartier pour identifier correctement les premiers et les seconds. Nous constatons cependant qu'il existe des variations importantes parmi les milliers de municipalités du Canada, et les résultats de ce cas devraient donc être testés dans d'autres contextes, y compris dans des villes de taille plus ou moins grande où les niveaux d'information peuvent différer.

Keywords

municipal electionscandidate competitivenessincumbency advantageCanadaélections municipalescompétitivité des candidatsavantage du titulaireCanada
Type
Research Article/Étude originale
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 53 , Issue 4 , December 2020 , pp. 853 - 871
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 2020

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.)

Footnotes

This article underwent review and was accepted for publication prior to Cameron Anderson assuming the role of English-language co-editor of the Canadian Journal of Political Science on July 1, 2020.

References

Alvarez, R. Michael and Nagler, Jonathan. 2000. “A New Approach for Modelling Strategic Voting in Multiparty Elections.” British Journal of Political Science 30 (1): 57–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, Hall, Thad E. and Levin, Ines. 2018. “Low-Information Voting: Evidence From Instant-Runoff Elections.” American Politics Research 46 (6): 1012–1038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Snyder, James M. and Stewart, Charles. 2000. “Old Voters, New Voters, and the Personal Vote: Using Redistricting to Measure the Incumbency Advantage.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (1): 17–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antonakis, John and Dalgas, Olaf. 2009. “Predicting Elections: Child's Play!” Science 323 (5918): 1183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Banducci, Susan. A., Karp, Jeffrey A., Thrasher, Michael and Rallings, Colin. 2008. “Ballot Photographs as Cues in Low-Information Elections.” Political Psychology 29 (6): 903–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1988. Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Blais, André. 2002. “Why Is There So Little Strategic Voting in Canadian Plurality Rule Elections?” Political Studies 50 (3): 445–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, André and Bodet, Marc. 2006. “How Do Voters Form Expectations about the Parties’ Chances of Winning the Election?” Social Science Quarterly 87 (3): 477–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, André, Gidengil, Elisabeth, Fournier, Patrick, Nevitte, Neil and Hicks, Bruce M.. 2008. “Measuring Expectations: Comparing Alternative Approaches.” Electoral Studies 27 (2): 337–43.Google Scholar
Blais, André and Nadeau, Richard. 1996. “Measuring Strategic Voting: A Two-Step Procedure.” Electoral Studies 15 (1): 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, André and Turgeon, Mathieu. 2004. “How Good Are Voters at Sorting Out the Weakest Candidate in Their Constituency?” Electoral Studies 23 (3): 455–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyne, George, James, Oliver, John, Peter and Petrovsky, Nicolai. 2009. “Democracy and Government Performance: Holding Incumbents Accountable in English Local Government.” Journal of Politics 71 (4): 1273‒1284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E. and Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Carbert, Louise. 2012. “The Hidden Rise of New Women Candidates Seeking Election to the House of Commons, 2000–2008.” Canadian Political Science Review 6 (2–3): 143–57.Google Scholar
Caruana, Nicholas J., McGregor, R. Michael, Moore, Aaron and Stephenson, Laura B.. 2018. “Voting ‘Ford’ or Against: Understanding Strategic Voting in the 2014 Toronto Municipal Election.” Social Science Quarterly 99 (1): 231–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CBC. 2017. “Incumbents Have the Advantage in Municipal Politics, but Not Always.” https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/ward-8-voters-incumbent-1.4311322.Google Scholar
City of Mississauga. 2018. Official Election Results. https://mississaugavotes.ca/Download/Elections2018/2018_Election_Official_Results_City_of_Mississauga.pdf (May 14, 2019).Google Scholar
City of Mississauga. 2019. Financial Statements of Election Candidates: 2018 Municipal Elections. https://mississaugavotes.ca/infoforvoters/whosrunning (June 27, 2019).Google Scholar
Clough, Emily. 2007. “Talking Locally and Voting Globally.” Political Research Quarterly 60 (3): 531–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W. 1997. Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral Systems. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W. and Katz, Jonathan N.. 1996. “Why Did the Incumbency Advantage in U.S. House Elections Grow?” American Journal of Political Science 40 (2): 478–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, William and Young, Lisa. 2011. “Explaining Local Campaign Intensity: The Canadian General Election of 2008.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 44 (3): 553–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Benedictis-Kessner, Justin. 2018. “Off-Cycle and Out of Office: Election Timing and the Incumbency Advantage.” Journal of Politics 80 (1): 119–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpini, Delli, Michael X. and Keeter, Scott. 1997. What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
DeSantis, Victor S. and Renner, Tari. 1994. “Term Limits and Turnover among Local Officials.” In The Municipal Year Book 1994. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Eggers, Andrew C. and Spirling, Arthur. 2017. “Incumbency Effects and the Strength of Party Preferences: Evidence from Multiparty Elections in the United Kingdom.” Journal of Politics 79 (3): 903–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. Jr. 1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Fowler, Anthony. 2018. “A Bayesian Explanation for the Effect of Incumbency.” Electoral Studies 53: 66–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, John and Holden, Richard. 2009. “The Rising Incumbent Reelection Rate: What's Gerrymandering Got to Do with It?” Journal of Politics 71 (2): 593–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hajnal, Zoltan L., Lewis, Paul G. and Louch, Hugh. 2002. Municipal Elections in California: Turnout, Timing, and Competition. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.Google Scholar
Hall, Andrew B. and Snyder, James M.. 2015. “How Much of the Incumbency Advantage Is Due to Scare-Off?” Political Science Research and Methods 3 (3): 493–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddy, Leonie and Terkildsen, Nayda. 1993. “Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of Male and Female Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science 37 (1): 119–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kam, Cindy D. and Zechmeister, Elizabeth J.. 2013. “Name Recognition and Candidate Support.” American Journal of Political Science 57 (4): 971–86.Google Scholar
Kendall, Chad and Rekkas, Marie. 2012. “Incumbency Advantages in the Canadian Parliament.” Canadian Journal of Economics 45 (4): 1560–1585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary and Gelman, Andrew. 1991. “Systemic Consequences of Incumbency Advantage in U.S. House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 35 (1): 110–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashinsky, Michael and Milne, William J.. 1985. “Additional Evidence on the Effect of Incumbency in Canadian Elections.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 18 (1): 155–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krebs, Timothy B. 1998. “The Determinants of Candidates’ Vote Share and the Advantage of Incumbency in City Council Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 42 (3): 921–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kushner, Joseph, Siegel, David and Stanwick, Hannah. 1997. “Ontario Municipal Elections: Voting Trends and Determinants of Electoral Success in a Canadian Province.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 30 (3): 539–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kushner, Joseph, Siegel, David and Stanwick, Hannah. 2001. “Canadian Mayors: A Profile and Determinants of Electoral Success.” Canadian Journal of Urban Research 10 (1): 5–22.Google Scholar
Lazarsfeld, Paul F., Berelson, Bernard and Gaudet, Hazel. 1944. The People's Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce.Google Scholar
Leiter, Debra, Murr, Andreas, Ramirez, Ericka Rascon and Stegmaier, Mary. 2018. “Social Networks and Citizen Election Forecasting: The More Friends the Better.” International Journal of Forecasting 34 (2): 235–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S. and Stegmaier, Mary. 2011. “Citizen Forecasting: Can UK Voters See the Future?” Electoral Studies 30 (2): 264–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., and Tien, Charles. 1999. “Voters as Forecasters: A Micromodel of Election Prediction.” International Journal of Forecasting 15 (2): 175–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, Jack. 2019. “The Size and Sources of Municipal Incumbency Advantage in Canada.” Urban Affairs Review. Advance online publication. DOI: 1078087419879234Google Scholar
McDermott, Monika L. 1998. “Race and Gender Cues in Low-Information Elections.” Political Research Quarterly 51 (4): 895–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGregor, R. Michael. 2012. “Voter Sincerity and the Time-of-Voting Decision.” Electoral Studies 31 (4): 715–25.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Michael K., Wang, Guanchun, Kulkarni, Sanjeev R., Poor, H. Vincent, and Osherson, Daniel N.. 2012. “Citizen Forecasts of the 2008 US Presidential Election.” Politics & Policy 40 (6): 1019–1052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, Aaron, McGregor, Michael and Stephenson, Laura. 2015. “Paying Attention and the Incumbency Effect: Voting Behaviour in the 2014 Toronto Municipal Election.” International Political Science Review 38 (1): 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murr, Andreas Erwin. 2011. ““Wisdom of Crowds”? A Decentralised Election Forecasting Model That Uses Citizens’ Local Expectations.” Electoral Studies 30 (4): 771–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Barbara and Simon, Dennis, 2001. “The Political Glass Ceiling.” Women and Politics 23 (1–2): 59–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popkin, Samuel L. 1991. The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pruysers, Scott, and Blais, Julie. 2014. “Anything Women Can Do Men Can Do Better: An Experiment Examining the Effects of Stereotype Threat on Political Knowledge and Efficacy.” The Social Science Journal 51 (3): 341–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffner, Brian F., Streb, Matthew and Wright, Gerald. 2001. “Teams without Uniforms: The Nonpartisan Ballot in State and Local Elections.” Political Research Quarterly 54 (1): 7–30.Google Scholar
Sidman, Andrew H. 2008. “Challengers to Incumbents.” In Encyclopedia of US Campaigns, Elections, and Electoral Behavior, ed. Warren, Kenneth F.. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Simon, Herbert A. 1954. “Bandwagon and Underdog Effects and the Possibility of Election Predictions.” Public Opinion Quarterly 18 (1): 245–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spicer, Zac, McGregor, Michael and Alcantara, Christopher. 2017. “Political Opportunity Structures and the Representation of Women and Visible Minorities in Municipal Elections.” Electoral Studies 48: 10–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanwick, Hannah. 2000. “A Megamayor for All People? Voting Behaviour and Electoral Success in the 1997 Toronto Municipal Election.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 33 (3): 549–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Zack and McEleney, Sandra. 2017. “Do Institutions and Rules Influence Electoral Accessibility and Competitiveness? Considering the 2014 Toronto Ward Elections.” Urban Affairs Review 55 (1): 210–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Temporão, Mikael, Dufresne, Yannick, Savoie, Justin and van der Linden, Clifton. 2019. “Crowdsourcing the Vote: New Horizons in Citizen Forecasting.” International Journal of Forecasting 35 (1): 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todorov, Alexander, Mandisodza, Anesu N., Goren, Amir and Hall, Crystal C.. 2005. “Inferences of Competence from Faces Predict Election Outcomes.” Science 308 (5728): 1623–1626.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trounstine, Jessica. 2008. Political Monopolies in American Cities: The Rise and Fall of Bosses and Reformers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trounstine, Jessica. 2011. “Evidence of a Local Incumbency Advantage.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 36 (2): 255–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uhlaner, Carole J. and Grofman, Bernard. 1986. “The Race May Be Close but My Horse Is Going to Win: Wish Fulfilment in the Presidential Election.” Political Behavior 8 (2): 101–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urbaniak, Tom. 2009. Her Worship: Hazel McCallion and the Development of Mississauga. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warshaw, Christopher. 2019. “Local Elections and Representation in the United States.” Annual Review of Political Science 22 (1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Anderson et al. supplementary material

Appendices S1-S2

Download Anderson et al. supplementary material(File)
File 16.3 KB