The Vice Presidential Home State Advantage Reconsidered: Analyzing the Interactive Effect of Home State Population and Political Experience, 1884‐2008

Abstract

Previous research has found that presidential tickets perform particularly well in a vice presidential candidate's home state when that state is relatively low in population. In this article, we argue that selecting a vice presidential candidate from a small state is not sufficient to produce a large vice presidential home state advantage; rather, state population should matter only insofar as the vice presidential candidate has extensive experience within that state's political system. Analysis of presidential election returns from 1884 through 2008 demonstrates the statistically significant interactive effect of home state population and political experience on the size of the vice presidential home state advantage. The models presented in the article perform much better than models that do not account for this interactive effect.

Presidential Versus Vice Presidential Home State Advantage: A Comparative Analysis of Electoral Significance, Causes, and Processes, 1884‐2008

“…To measure home state advantage, we use the Lewis‐Beck and Rice () equation. The only modification we make is to quantify electoral performance using two‐party vote share rather than raw vote percentage (see also Devine and Kopko ; Dudley and Rapoport ; Mixon and Tyrone )…”

“…Dudley and Rapoport estimated the average vice presidential home state advantage to be only 0.3%, and not statistically different from zero. Using the same methods as Dudley and Rapoport and a data set updated to include elections through 2008, Devine and Kopko () have since estimated the average vice presidential advantage to be slightly higher, at 0.69%, but still not statistically significant.…”

“…Devine and Kopko (), however, demonstrated that population's effect on the vice presidential home state advantage is conditional. After testing the Dudley and Rapoport model in their updated data set and finding the same substantive effects for each variable as before, Devine and Kopko tested a separate model adding state experience and its interaction with population.…”

“…Likewise, party leaders and presidential nominees have tended to select vice presidential running mates from large states (Sigelman and Wahlbeck ), although seemingly less so in recent decades (Hiller and Kriner ; see also Baumgartner ). Today, the prospect of a home state advantage influences popular discussion of vice presidential selection and even presidential campaign strategy (see Devine and Kopko ).…”

Warm Springs Ran Deep: Friends-and-Neighbors Voting in the U.S. Presidential Elections of 1940 and 1944

“…For example, Aspin and Hall (1989) find support for friends-and-neighbors voting in judicial elections, while Devine and Kopko (2011) find support for friends-and-neighbors voting for vice presidential candidacies. Support also extends to studies of elections occurring outside of the United States (Malcová, 2012), and to those using Geographical Information System (GIS) data to find nonlinearities in the home-state phenomenon (Gimpel, Karnes, McTague and Pearson-Merkowitz, 2008).…”