dc.contributor.advisor Snyder, Jr, James M. en_US dc.contributor.advisor King, Gary en_US dc.contributor.advisor Shepsle, Kenneth A. en_US dc.contributor.author Hall, Andrew en_US dc.date.accessioned 2015-07-17T17:40:03Z dc.date.created 2015-05 en_US dc.date.issued 2015-04-30 en_US dc.date.submitted 2015 en_US dc.identifier.citation Hall, Andrew. 2015. The Candidate Supply: How the Costs and Benefits of Running for Office Shape the Democratic Process. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Graduate School of Arts & Sciences. en_US dc.identifier.uri http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:17467312 dc.description.abstract Dominant theories of U.S. elections focus on how candidates fluidly change positions based on the demands of voters. I argue instead that candidates' positions are more rigid. As a result, the supply of candidates, and not just the demands of voters, helps determine the ideological composition of the legislature. I describe a simple theory of the candidate supply, and I argue that when the costs of running for office are high, and/or the benefits of holding office are low, the supply of candidates will be more ideologically extreme. I then ground this theoretical argument empirically. First, using estimates of candidate positions based on campaign contributions, I show that candidates rarely change positions over time, and that incumbents do not change positions even when challenged by primary candidates with contrasting ideologies. Next, I validate the two key predictions of the theory. To investigate the varying costs of running for office, I compare state legislators who must give up their seat in order to run for the House to those who do not have to do so. Moderate state legislators are sensitive to this cost, while more extreme ones are not. To explore the expected benefits of holding office, I show how the candidate supply in one party becomes more ideologically extreme when the other party as-if" randomly takes office in a district. Having validated the theory, I then show descriptive evidence that the costs of running for the House have gone up over time, and the benefits down, thus helping to explain why polarization has risen in recent decades. Overall, the book points towards the importance of considering both the supply of candidates and the demands of voters, jointly, in order to understand the electoral process and the roots of polarization in our legislatures. en_US dc.description.sponsorship Government en_US dc.format.mimetype application/pdf en_US dc.language.iso en en_US dash.license LAA en_US dc.subject Political Science, General en_US dc.title The Candidate Supply: How the Costs and Benefits of Running for Office Shape the Democratic Process en_US dc.type Thesis or Dissertation en_US dash.depositing.author Hall, Andrew en_US dc.date.available 2015-07-17T17:40:03Z thesis.degree.date 2015 en_US thesis.degree.grantor Graduate School of Arts & Sciences en_US thesis.degree.level Doctoral en_US thesis.degree.name Doctor of Philosophy en_US dc.type.material text en_US thesis.degree.department Government en_US dash.identifier.vireo http://etds.lib.harvard.edu/gsas/admin/view/257 en_US dc.description.keywords congress, democracy en_US dash.author.email andrewbenjaminhall@gmail.com en_US dc.data.uri http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/WKG7XJ en_US dash.identifier.drs urn-3:HUL.DRS.OBJECT:25164591 en_US dash.contributor.affiliated Hall, Andrew
﻿