[EL] California top-two effect on number of Republicans running for US House

[Richard Winger]

I think most neutral political observers predict that 2012 will be a good year for Republican candidates for US House.  Very few people are predicting that Republicans will lose the US House.

There is certainly lots of evidence that minor party morale is higher when the minor party has lots of candidates for Congress, even though the minor party candidates also "have their clock cleaned" in those congressional races.  I can't easily quantify it, but I am aware of the morale of the Green Party in each state, and I am aware of the morale of the Libertarian Party in each state, and I am aware of the morale of the Constitution Party in each state.  There is an overwhelming correlation between the number of candidates and the party's morale within a state.

Richard Winger

415-922-9779

PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

--- On Fri, 9/28/12, Kogan, Vladimir <kogan.18 at osu.edu> wrote:

From: Kogan, Vladimir <kogan.18 at osu.edu>
Subject: RE: [EL] California top-two effect on number of Republicans running for US House
To: "richardwinger at yahoo.com" <richardwinger at yahoo.com>, "Jack Santucci" <jms346 at georgetown.edu>
Cc: "law-election at uci.edu" <law-election at uci.edu>
Date: Friday, September 28, 2012, 9:06 AM



 
 




2010 is a bad baseline, since everyone expected it to be a strong Republican year. If we believe that challengers are strategic about their entry (and incumbents
 are strategic about their retirements), we would expect 2010 to be a year with a lot of Republican candidates who would not be running in a different year. 
   
2008 was very different: California had six congressional districts with no Republicans running (18th, 28th, 30th, 31st,
 32nd, 38th). It also had two districts with no Democrats running, if you exclude the write-in Democrat in the 19th. See
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2008_general/23_34_us_reps.pdf 
   
If 2012 is more like 2008, the playing field this year may not look all that different. 
   
I think strategic entry is important in another respect: If only “low-quality”/placeholder/gadflies-with-no-chance-of-winning candidates run against strong incumbents, and “high-quality” challengers enter only when there is a good year
 for their party, the we should not be surprised that the top-two party would prevent some of these low-quality candidates from making it to the runoff. 
   
Is there empirical evidence showing that: “The absence of a congressional candidate is bad for the morale of the local party in that area”? In particular, is no candidate really worse for party morale than a candidate who gets his/her clock
 cleaned at the polls? 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120928/2f175ad0/attachment.html>