I’ve always read about the incumbent advantage, but I don’t understand why that would exist. Wouldn’t an incumbent have to demonstrate what s/he has accomplished in office versus a newcomer who could make any claim since the burden of proof won’t be on them?
In: Other
Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t.
We are predisposed to choose the status quo versus an unknown risk because, well, we’re still alive in the status quo. If we know the consequences of a choice, we’re more comfortable than if we don’t know.
You just gave the answer you’re looking for.
The incumbent Prime Minister/President has the record of their term to fall back on when urging voters to vote (again) for them, an whether voters feel that whatever bills/laws were passed are enough to keep them in office, where as the newcomer has to pursuade the people that they will do their best to stick to their campaigne promises for their term(s).
Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t. The incumbent is a known quantity, you know what you’ll get. The challenger is more of a wildcard, they can talk all they want but it’s not really known what they will actually do in office and that uncertainty works against them.
Name recognition is huge. That’s why lawn signs are carpet bombed everywhere. Incumbent has had 4 years of a name being mentioned, being interviewed on the news etc. New entrants have to break through somehow.
Most people don’t follow politics very closely. I’d wager a good number of people can’t even name their own incumbent. But when they get to the ballot, the name is still recognizable because they heard it somewhere before. So right away it’s mentally moved to the top of the list because they’ve already won once and so they have a chance of winning again.
Also the incumbent has a real record and actual accomplishments they can tout to voters who are paying attention. So the only way a new individual is going to unseat an incumbent is if they’ve really pissed off the whole voting base to such an extent that even the apolitical ones want a change.
Counterpoint: an incumbent can point to what they’ve done as proof they are capable of “doing the job”, and the challenger must prove they, too, have what it takes, but cant point to actual experience in the job as proof.
Also, in many cases, the simple name recognition is a big help. Like them or loathe them, the fact they are in the news, being talked about, is effectively giving them literally *millions* in free advertisement. It can be really hard to overcome this.
case in point: can you, without going to google, name ANY of the other Republican or Democrat candidates in the presidential primary? if you can name one, how many others can you name?
There’s no fundamental reason why this has to be true. It’s not always true: some politicians lose popularity because their track record is terrible or looks terrible.
The rule is just an observation: incumbents seem to have an edge in elections. Explaining why is a bunch of different things that add up to usually having that edge.
name recognition is important because a) people don’t read platforms people run on and b)being in office gives you an advantage of getting your name out there and a higher operating budget.
I believe the term often used for the advantage is bully pulpit. In other words, the idea that because you are already president you have the advantage because you have a greater opportunity for your speech to be listened to.
Most humans are risk averse. Imagine I allow you to select one of two boxes. I open the first box to show you it has $20 inside. The second box remains closed. But I tell you that it either has $1000, or a thousand angry wasps. Which would you pick? If I assign percentages, how low does the wasp percent have to be to make it a reasonable choice for you?
The selection of someone to pass laws for or administer your nation/community is a big deal. Even if the current officeholder is mediocre, you might prefer mediocre to the risk of wasps.
When someone wins an election, they’ve already spent a lot of time and money promoting themself and their name to the public, using campaign funds.
Then as an elected official they can use government money to set up their legislative office.
Legislative money has restrictions on how it can be spent, you can’t use legislative office money to encourage people to vote for you, or at least not directly. You can however buy a big sign with your name on it for your office, and buy official stationery and sometimes giveaways and swag, also with your name on it, as long as it has a “legislative” purpose. So letterhead, envelopes, sometimes calendars, and booklets such as copies of the constitution or leaflets about government services.
You also get a teamed of legislative staff who answer calls and respond to letters and emails, and help solve problems for constituents. This is all done to help people, but also has the added bonus of promoting your name.
At the same time that your legislative team is working to help people and send out thousands of government related letters with your name on them, you can also continue to hire a campaign team using campaign money to continue to get the word out about your name and what you’re doing. Campaign money CAN of course be used to tell people to vote for you.
There should legally be no coordination between your legislative team and your campaign team, but you essentially have two teams of people and two separate budgets that are able to promote your work in different ways.
The other advantages and incumbent has is data collected over time. A good campaign collects solid data about where people live, what party they’re registered to, how receptive they were to mailers, calls, door knocks, polling, etc. A new candidate can collect this data but an incumbent has more of it and can target campaign resources more effectively to swing votes and to drive turnout.
Any new candidate doesn’t have the benefit of two full campaign cycles and a legislative cycle behind them, hence the incumbent usually has an advantage in terms of name recognition and resources at their disposal.
Latest Answers