Every Friday FairVote releases a new item in their series of 'Innovative Analysis', and today it was 'The People's House? Not When the Bums Aren't Afraid to Be Thrown Out', an insight into the politics of incumbency in the House of Representatives. The article outlines the Framers' thinking behind the institution and mechanics of the House of Representatives:

The House of Representatives is known as the "People's House," because the framers wanted it to be the body of the federal government that is most sensitive to voter opinion. With members representing individual localities rather than states at large, with terms limited to a quick two years, and with every vacancy requiring a special election to be filled rather than appointment, one would assume that the U.S. House, more than any other body, would shift control in sync with the political attitude of the national electorate. In the mean time, it would also follow that the presidency - where presides our head of state and the commander in chief of our armed forces - would be more stable, less prone to big shifts that could affect how our laws are executed.

However, as FairVote point out, things never turn out the way you expect them to.

In fact, rather than being the most accountable body, the House has changed hands only twice since 1954, in 1994 and 2006. In that same period, however, the party in control of the Oval Office has flipped six times. The "People's House" has shifted down Pennsylvania Avenue from the Capitol to the White House, in sharp contrast to the vision of our founders fearful of establishing too much executive power.

Most people are aware of the startlingly high rate of incumbency in US elections. But what makes FairVote's analysis particularly fascinating is a few choice anecdotes they throw in to really highlight the extent of the problem. Take a look at this particularly good example from Tennessee:

The state of Tennessee is a stark example of the immovability of incumbents in Congress. Since 1966, no Congressional incumbent from Tennessee's U.S. House delegation has ever lost a bid for re-election even once. Woe be unto prospective challengers in the Volunteer State.

To read the whole article, click here.

Another issue worth noting about the Lieberman-Lamont match.  Their race brings together two of the less popular archetypes in American public life: the incumbent creature of Washington and the guy with more money than God.

That's not a coincidence.

Under the "one dollar, one vote" system undergirded by the "money is speech" regime set forth in Buckley, the ability to raise and spend money ranks high on the already frightful list of institutional advantages held by incumbents.  The ability to raise money is the first mark of legitimacy in the eyes of the media and political establishments who too often serve as gatekeepers between  would-be challengers and the attention of the electorate.  Ostensibly liberal people pledge fealty to the doctrine that serious candidates should be able to raise serious money.

Some millionaire candidates, of course, fail spectacularly.  Some spend enough of their dough to leave the incumbent at a significant spending disadvantage.  Some do both.

But wherever one comes down on what we should or shouldn't assume about millionaires' character and suitability to represent us, the difficulty of unseating an incumbent without being one should concern us.

Josh

There's more...

Combine this with the new poll showing Esign under 50 against Carter, and we could have a real race on our hands--Chris

Cross-posted at the new Carter Blog at Carter for Nevada

Nevada has been the fastest growing state in the country for 19 years in a row, and will continue to grow (.xls).  This makes for a unique political situation that's much more volatile, and where incumbency isn't as valuable as it is elsewhere.  Most importantly for us, it will help Jack Carter negate his perceived disadvantages in the Senate race.

Let me break it down for you - I'm going to geek out a little bit and do some number crunching.

Chart source here

The big issue is that of incumbency.  John Ensign's advantage there is not as strong as he'd like.  In 2000, when he was elected, the population was 2 million (pdf).  By 2004, it was up to 2.41 million, and estimates predict that the population in 2006 should be about 2.5 million (pdf).  That means that half a million people, 20% of the population, have never seen Ensign on a ballot.  Looked at another way: in 2000, Ensign won with 55% of the vote.  Therefore, only about 44% of current voters in Nevada voted for him previously.

(You'll notice that I am conflating general population statistics with voter statistics.  I have no reason to believe that the percentage of people who vote has changed that much over this time period.  Between 2000 and 2004, the number of votes cast in Nevada increased 36%, while the population grew only 20%, so clearly, there was a substantial increase in the percentage of people who voted.  Then again, 2006 will be a mid-term election, so turnout is expected to be depressed compared with 2004.  It seems like a wash.  Regardless of exact numbers, the principle is sound.)

Usually, when running against an incumbent, there's a psychology you have to contend with - you're essentially trying to convince voters that they made a mistake the first time around.  This is why the best attacks on incumbents have to do with broken promises and why challengers charge that the incumbent has somehow changed since he/she was elected.  It gives people an excuse to vote against the incumbent without concluding that they were wrong to vote for him/her in the first place.

In Nevada, the population growth expands the options of what a challenger can do.  We've got a whole lot of fresh voters that don't have anything invested in Ensign.  It certainly brings a interesting aspect to this race, and one that most pundits seem to ignore.  

The other issue that is mitigated by the rapid population growth is my Dad's being labelled a "carpetbagger" (he has only lived in Nevada for about 3-4 years).  But, in 2000, only 24% of US citizens living in Nevada were born in the state, making it the most non-native state in the country.  With the further increase in population (the half a million in the last six years), that percentage can only be getting smaller.  As my Dad has said, if he only does well among carpetbaggers, he'll be in great shape.

Clearly, the rapidly growing population of Nevada will a factor in the Carter-Ensign Senate race.  In a future post, I'll look at who these newcomers are and where they're going, and I'll try to figure out how they can best be reached.

Sarah Carter
Carter for Nevada