What are some reasons that members of congress have an electoral advantage over their challengers?

In November of 1998, 401 of the 435 sitting members of the U.S. House of Representatives sought reelection. Of those 401, all but six were reelected. In other words, incumbents seeking reelection to the House had a better than 98% success rate. U.S. Senators seeking reelection were only slightly less fortunate–slightly less than 90% of the Senate incumbents who sought reelection in 1996 held on to their seats.

What is it about sitting members of Congress that makes them so hard to beat? Are incumbents just better candidates (on average) or is the deck somehow stacked against challengers?

For years, political scientists have researched and written about the “incumbent advantage” in congressional elections. In an attempt to explain the overwhelming success of members of Congress seeking reelection, researchers have identified several factors which make sitting members of Congress hard to beat. These factors include:

The “Perks” of Office

Each member of Congress has a office budget allotment which provides enough money to hire a sizable staff both in Washington, D.C. and back home in their states or districts. These staffers assist members in their efforts to be effective, well-liked representatives. In addition to money for staff, members of Congress also have travel allowances for trips between Washington and their constituencies as well as for trips inside their states or districts. One of the most widely recognized “perks” of House members and Senators is the ability to send postage-free informational letters or announcements to their constituents on a regular basis.

Time

Sitting members of Congress are on the job full-time—that is what they are paid to do. In fact, many of the things a candidate would do to win an election, such as meeting and talking with voters, attending special events, appearing on television or radio talk shows, etc., are part of the job description of a member of Congress. In contrast, a candidate challenging an incumbent must generally figure out how to pay his or her bills while running for office. Many candidates are forced to go into debt, especially in the early stages of a campaign before he or she has raised much money.

Visibility

Sitting members of Congress are almost universally recognized in their districts. Having waged at least one previous campaign, and a successful one at that, and then serving in Congress for two years (House members) or six years (Senators) makes a sitting member of Congress something of a household name among his or her constituents. Moreover, members of the U.S. House and Senate have easy and ready access to the news media and make regular appearances on television and radio programs and are frequently mentioned in newspaper articles and editorials.

Campaign Organization

As noted, every sitting member of Congress has run at least one successful election campaign for the seat he or she holds. This means, among other things, that a sitting House member or Senator has invaluable experience with creating and managing a campaign organization. It also means that incumbents generally have an effective volunteer organization in place and ready go when it is time to campaign.

Money

By far the most widely recognized and probably the most significant advantage enjoyed by sitting members of Congress is the large amounts of campaign contributions they are able to raise, especially in comparison to those who run against them. The table below summarizes the average campaign resources available to various groups of candidates in House and Senate races in 1998:

On average, a candidate challenging an incumbent House member was outspent by nearly $565,000 and Senate challengers were outspent by an average of $3.13 million. While, open-seat candidates (those competing for a seat vacated by a sitting member’s retirement or death) did not raise as much as incumbents, the disparity between candidates in particular open-seat races tends to be much less pronounced than it is in incumbent-challenger contests.

In sum, incumbents tend to win because they enjoy significant advantages over their challengers. The widely-accepted conventional wisdom about these advantages is that they make congressional elections unfair. It is true that it is difficult to beat an incumbent, but that is generally the case not simply because the incumbent enjoys the perks of office and has a large campaign bank account. Members of Congress are reelected because their constituents have not been provided with a compelling reason to vote for someone else. True, an under-funded candidate is limited in his or her ability to provide voters with such a reason, but when a member of Congress strays too far from the opinions and values of his or her constituents or becomes embroiled in controversy, challengers will find that they are able to raise more than enough money to make sure the voters know about such things.

In reality, incumbents leave office with fair amount of regularity. Each election year, a handful of House members and Senators retire for a variety of reasons–sometimes because they are not confident they could keep their seat if they ran again. And there are a handful of members that are defeated by challengers each campaign cycle. In any given election the number may seem small, but some elections produce relatively large numbers of new members. Over the course of three or four elections a large portion of the Congress may turn-over in spite of high incumbent success rates in particular election years. Ultimately, the degree to which the people are effectively represented by their members of Congress must be determined at the individual-level.

Note: The content of this web page is republished on the Internet by kind permission of Common Cause, March 2005, and is not a copyright of Citizens for United States Direct Initiatives.

Published Thu, Apr 26 2018 10:09 AM EDTUpdated Thu, Apr 26 2018 10:09 AM EDT

• Democrats are hoping to capitalize on widespread voter dissatisfaction to oust their GOP opponents and win control of Congress this fall.
• If history is a guide, it won't be easy. A look at past election cycles helps explain why.
• Since 1964, voters have sent their incumbent House representative back to Washington 93 percent of the time. Senators enjoy only slightly less job security — 82 percent.

The U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, D.C.

Adam Jeffery | CNBC

It's being billed as one of the most consequential midterm elections in decades, with a wave of Democrats hoping to capitalize on widespread voter dissatisfaction to oust their GOP opponents and win control of Congress.

They have their work cut out for them.

Thirty-five senators and all 435 House members face the prospect of losing their jobs in November. But political analysts tracking the races say that only a relatively small number of races — fewer than 50 House seats and just a handful of Senate races — are truly competitive.

A look at past election cycles helps explain why. Since 1964, voters have sent their incumbent House representative back to Washington 93 percent of the time. Senators enjoy only slightly less job security — 82 percent.

Academics have speculated on the multiple reasons that congressional incumbents have enjoyed an advantage over the years. Incumbents have traditionally used their positions to win favor with voters by offering a variety of constituent services or by pointing to increased funding they've captured for the home state or district. More recently, some have argued that redistricting has created politically lopsided seats that strongly favor one party over another.

Moreover, as the cost of mounting a political campaign has risen, incumbency in Congress has created an important financial advantage in attracting the money needed to win.

Since 1990, the cost of a winning a House seat has roughly doubled, adjusted for inflation, to about $1.5 million. If you're looking to win a seat in the Senate, expect to raise more than $10 million.

This time, Democrats are hoping to win control of the House by picking up 23 seats from the GOP. Based on the amount of campaign cash both sides have raised so far, Republicans are in a better position to defend their majority in the House than the Democrats are in taking it away.

As of the end of the first quarter, 221 House Republican incumbents had raised a total of about $262 million, or nearly $1.2 million each. Democratic incumbents had raised just under $950,000 each.

And Democratic challengers had raised significantly less.

In the Senate, Democrats face an even tougher job trying to win control.

If the Senate's two independents continue to caucus with them, Democrats only need to pick up two seats to win a 51-49 majority. But of the 35 Senate seats up for grabs in November, Democrats are defending 26 of them from GOP challengers.

And five of the eight seats that are considered "toss-ups" by one or more of the political pundits rating the races are currently held by Democrats. That may be why Democrats in those races have been busy fundraising. So far, they've collected nearly $289 million, or about $11.6 million each, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. That's far more than the roughly $6.1 million raised, on average, by GOP incumbents. But Democratic challengers have also raised far less than the $10 million it has traditionally taken to win. More than 100 Democrats have entered races for open seats or to challenge an incumbent in Senate races. As a group, they've raised about $105 million, or a little over $1 million each.

Based on past races, that's not even enough to win the average House seat.

Watch our live stream for all you need to know to invest smarter.