A cruise-and-crash model of the cost of ruling

Abstract

ABSTRACT Since the publication of Nannestad and Paldam ([1999]. “The Cost of Ruling. A Foundation Stone for Two Theories,” University of Aarhus, Denmark. Working Paper No. 1999-9. http://www.martin.paldam.dk/Papers/Gamle/Cost-of-ruling.PDF.) on the cost of ruling, their finding that incumbents lose votes in the order of 2 to 3 percentage points per term has gained the status of something like an “inductive law” of politics (Budge [2019]. Politics. A Unified Introduction to How Democracy Works. Abingdon/Oxon/New York: Routledge, 2019). We suggest that this generalization conjures up an inaccurate image, that of a gradual reduction of a ruling party’s vote over the course of an incumbency or “spell.” Our own analyses of national and state or provincial elections in Australia, Canada, Germany, and the United States demonstrate that this interpretation is not correct. Instead, while they remain in office the ruling party cruises along, averaging more or less the same share of the vote election after election, until they fail to win another term, at which point all or nearly all of the cost of ruling, like a balloon payment on a loan, comes due. Moreover, on average the magnitude of the loss is independent of the length of their stay in office. This means that a long incumbency confounds the expectations fostered by the “inductive law” because the overall loss – which we find to be reasonably constant across a wide spectrum of data sets – divided by a spell length exponentially distributed from one to many terms cannot be a constant. Nannestad and Paldam's assertion of 2.25 percentage points per term vote loss is at best a description of a mid-range value.