Competition in Congressional Elections: Money versus Votes
Level 3 - non-randomized controlled study
Level 3 by design analogy (non-clinical longitudinal observational analysis of electoral data).
OpenAlex W4294710653 · doi:10.1017/s0003055422000764
What was done
The author analyzed a dataset of pre-election campaign receipts alongside vote shares across U.S. House primary elections from 1980 to 2020 to evaluate how alternative definitions of competition (fundraising versus votes) alter assessments of electoral competitiveness.
What was found
The abstract reports no numerical values or statistical estimates. Qualitatively, measuring competition using campaign receipts depicted markedly worse competition than vote-share measures indicated. This divergence was largest in open-seat primaries and was driven primarily by candidates with minimal chances of winning.
Why it matters
Electoral health is frequently evaluated through vote totals, which can mask severe resource imbalances. Demonstrating that financial metrics show far less primary competition than vote margins challenges standard assumptions regarding democratic contestation, especially in ostensibly open contests.
Limits
The abstract provides no sample size (total number of races or candidates analyzed) or numerical effect sizes. The findings are restricted to U.S. House primaries between 1980 and 2020 and do not evaluate general elections, outside spending, or non-monetary campaign resources.
Cited by
- context In 97% of elections, the political candidate who raises the most money gets reelected.