Electoral stability: how long? - On the Record - Brief Article

To get an idea of where we're going, it usually makes sense to understand where we've been. To put this year's congressional elections into perspective, let's look at what history tells us about midterm contests -- or, more specifically, what the data in the newly released edition of Vital Statistics on Congress, edited by Norman Ornstein, Thomas Mann and Michael Malbin, tell us.

Voter turnout. Midterm election turnout has declined over the past four decades. From a peak of 45.4 percent of voting age population voting in both the 1962 and 1966 elections, participation fell to 33.1 percent in 1990. It perked up in 1994 to 36.6 percent -- the year Republicans took control of Congress away from the Democrats. But in 1998, it dropped to a low point of 32.9 percent. Don't expect it to be much better this year.

House competition stability. Despite -- or, perhaps, because of -- the massive campaigns that have been waged in recent years to win swing districts, U.S. House politics have been remarkably stable since the 1994 control shift. Throughout the last three election cycles, the GOP has won between 48 percent and 50.4 percent of House votes cast nationwide compared to the Democratic range of 47.1 percent to 48.5 percent. During this time, an average net shift of only five seats per election has occurred (Democrats picked up nine seats in 1996, four seats in 1998 and two seats in 2000).

Compare that to the three elections held after the 1946 House power shift, when the average net gain averaged a robust 41 seats per election.

Defeating incumbents vs. winning open seats. The Democratic House gains won in the 1996-2000 period came about by beating incumbents, not by winning open seats. Democrats have knocked off 27 incumbents while Republicans have toppled only six rival party "ins."

In terms of open seat gains since 1996, it's been close between the parties: While Democrats have gained 12 seats in races without incumbents, Republicans have gained 11.

On the Senate side, the pattern has been similar but with a twist. In the last three elections, Republicans have defeated only two sitting Democratic senators while Democrats have defeated eight sitting Republican senators. Republicans have done much better with open Senate seats, though, gaining six of them while Democrats have picked up only two.

Fewer retirements. Sixty-five U.S. House members didn't seek re-election in 1992, which was a modern record. The number of congressional retirements remained high in both 1994 (48) and 1996 (49), but has steadily fallen since then: to 33 in 1998, 22 in 2000, and this year, to only 18.

The big year for Senate retirements was 1996, when 13 incumbents stepped down. That was a modern record. In 1998 and 2000, five senators retired each time. This year, four senators aren't seeking re-election.

Incumbents who lose. Elections held right after reapportionment usually produce a bumper crop of House incumbents who get defeated in primaries. Remaps often place members in new districts, sometimes pitting one against the other, and that causes additional bloodshed.

In the post-reapportionment election of 1982, 10 House incumbents lost primaries, and in 1992, thanks also to economic unrest and anger over the bounced check scandal in the House, the body count rose to 19. Contrast that to the eight non-post-reapportionment elections since 1984, in which only about two congressmen, on average, were "primaried" each time.

So far this year, eight House incumbents have lost primaries (Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney of Georgia; Lynn Rivers of Michigan; Gary Condit of California; Tom Sawyer of Ohio; Brian Kerns of Indiana; Frank Mascara of Pennsylvania and Earl Hilliard of Alabama).

In each of the last two cycles, stability prevailed, with only six House incumbents losing general elections. That was far fewer than in the preceding three cycles: in 1992, 24 incumbents bit the dust; in 1994, it was 34 (all Democrats); in 1996, it was 21.

Few Senate members lose primaries. Only one elected senator (Alan Dixon of Illinois, 1992) was "primaried" between 1982 and 2000.

But the senatorial casualty rate is more significant in general elections. Although only one senator lost re-election in 1996, three lost in 1998 and six lost in 2000.

The big question after the congressional votes are counted on November 5 will be whether the 2002 election fits the 1996-2000 pattern of relative electoral stability, or whether something happens that tips the scale in one clear direction. In the end, that will be the story.

Ron Faucheux is editor-in-chief of Campaigns & Elections magazine. For his ongoing handicapping of elections across the nation, see The Political Oddsmaker, available on the Web at www.campaignline.com.

COPYRIGHT 2002 Campaigns & Elections, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2002 Gale Group