A New Look at Turnover in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1789-1998

Abstract

Despite concern with turnover in the U.S. House of Representatives, few scholars have attempted to view turnover in historical perspective or in all its forms. Confusion over the basic facts has impeded attempts to explain and evaluate levels of turnover. We present a broad descriptive overview of turnover over the entire history of the U.S. House in terms of the levels of overall turnover, forms thereof, and patterns, particularly within party periods. The findings include that turnover has declined over the years but not in a continuous fashion and not evenly among the different forms, that general election defeat is not the primary form of turnover, that common methods of reporting turnover magnify the apparent importance of electorally based turnover, and that turnover varies systematically by party period. A research agenda is proposed for explanatory work on turnover including strategic retirement and the impact of partisan realignments on levels and forms of turnover.

Determinants of legislative turnover in Western Europe, 1945–2015

“…This is in line with past findings from descriptive research, according to which much of the turnover happens before elections (Katz ; Swain et al. ; Gouglas & Maddens ).…”

Legislative turnover and its sources: It’s the selection

“…According to the first and most common approach, ‘gross’ or ‘total’ turnover can be decomposed into various forms of incumbent exit. In what could be regarded as a landmark descriptive study on the topic, Swain et al (2000: 437) divide turnover into four forms of incumbent exit: death, retirement, failure to gain nomination and general election defeat. They then collect data for both ‘total’ turnover and its forms for the US House of Representatives in the period 1789–1998.…”

“…In his study of turnover in the Indiana House for the period 1954–1984, Crawly (1986) discerns between those incumbents who leave electoral politics, those who run for higher office and those who are defeated in re-election. Jackson JS (1994) decomposes US House turnover into essentially the same forms as Swain et al (2000) for the period 1945–1994. Ysmal (1994) decomposes turnover in the French Assemblée Nationale for the same period into three categories: died in office, stopped running and defeated in elections.…”

“…A first explanation as to why selection springs up as a leading source of newcomer entry into parliament could be the fact that large number of incumbents consistently do not stand for re-election across country and across time. Past studies reveal that a principal source of turnover is the ‘failure’ of incumbent members to stand for re-election (Blair and Henry, 1981; Crawly, 1986; Jackson JS, 1994, Jackson K (1994), 1994b; Katz, 1986; Moncrief, 1998; Ray, 1976; Swain et al, 2000). In this respect, what we may be observing here is the mirror reflection of incumbent exits at the pre-electoral stage.…”

Future employment promises as rent seeking in representative government

“…Further, there appears to be evidence that legislators have been more likely over the last few decades to exit office for reasons other than electoral defeat, which is precisely what the ensuing theory would predict. As Swain et al (2000, p. 447) report, “[t]he share of those [House members] turning over due to general election defeat exceeds 25 percent in the 1970s and 1990s, which are the lowest levels since the 1860s”.…”