Abstract
Oppenheimer, Stimson, and Waterman's exposure thesis of partisan change contends that shifts in the partisan composition of Congress are related to the long-term stability of the electoral system. Applying their exposure model to elections from 1962-1994 produces seat change estimates that generally follow the actual data pattern, but these estimates produce large predictive errors. When the exposure model is reestimated using data from 1962-1994, exposure is not significantly related to partisan seat swings. This article advances a seat change model that relies on an alter nate measure of exposure: the net exposure of the president's party in open seats. Open-seat exposure is significantly related to the partisan seat swing, and substantially improves on the economic evaluation/surge and-decline/ exposure model of seat change. In an era of high incumbent security and strategic retirement from Congress, the balance of open seats is a better indicator of partisan vulnerability, and better reflects the nature of partisan exposure.
Highlights
Oppenheimer, Stimson, and Waterman’s exposure thesis of partisan change contends that shifts in the partisan composition of Congress are related to the long-term stability of the electoral system
The advocates of the exposure thesis contend that, in addition to economic and political pulses that create a rhythm in congressional elections, the president’s party gains or loses seats relative to its &dquo;surplus&dquo; of seats, compared to the party’s equilibrium seat share
The exposure thesis was an insignificant predictor of congressional seat swings after 1962 because the nature of congressional elections changed during the postwar era
Summary
Oppenheimer, Stimson, and Waterman’s exposure thesis of partisan change contends that shifts in the partisan composition of Congress are related to the long-term stability of the electoral system. Applying their exposure model to elections from 1962-1994 produces seat change estimates that generally follow the actual data pattern, but these estimates produce large predictive errors. The existing literature has clearly found that there is a presidential pulse to congressional elections: the president’s party gains seats in accordance with the strength of the president’s victory, and subsequently loses seats in the midterm &dquo;decline&dquo; (Campbell 1997). The accuracy of the open-seat model is compared to the exposure models
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
