The effect of campaign spending, district magnitude and incumbency when electoral rules create districts with old and new voters: the case of Chile in 2017

References

• Abramowitz, A. I. 1991. “Incumbency, Campaign Spending, and the Decline of Competition in U.S. House Elections.” The Journal of Politics 53 (1): 34–56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Acevedo, Sergio, and Patricio Navia. 2015. “Un Método no Endógeno Para Medir el Gasto Electoral en Chile, 2005-2009.” Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales 60 (225): 103–131.
   Google Scholar
• Alexander, Herbert E, and Joel Federman. 1989. Comparative Political Finance in the 1980s. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Alan Gerber. 1994. “The Mismeasure of Campaign Spending: Evidence from the 1990 U.S. House Elections.” The Journal of Politics 56 (4): 1106–1118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ansolabehere, Stephen, James M. Snyder Jr, and Charles StewartIII. 2000. “Old Voters, new Voters, and the Personal Vote: Using Redistricting to Measure the Incumbency Advantage.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (1): 17–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ben-Bassat, Avi, Momi Dahan, and Esteban F Klor. 2015. “Does Campaign Spending Affect Electoral Outcomes?” Electoral Studies 40: 102–114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benoit, Kenneth, and Michael Marsh. 2010. “Incumbent and Challenger Campaign Spending Effects in Proportional Electoral Systems.” Political Research Quarterly 63 (1): 159–173.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cain, Bruce E, John Ferejohn, and Morris P. Fiorina. 1987. The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cam, Cindy C, & Zeichmeister E. 2013. “Name recognition and candidate support” American Journal of Political Science 57 (4): 971–986.
   Google Scholar
• Carey, John M. 2016. “Malapportionment and Ideological Bias in Chilean Electoral Districts.” Latin American Politics and Society 58 (3): 123–133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cinelli, Carlos, and Chad Hazlett. 2020. “Making Sense of Sensitivity: Extending Omitted Variable Bias.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) (1): 39–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox, Gary W. 1997. Making Votes Count. Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cox, G. W., and J. N. Katz. 1996. “Why Did the Incumbency Advantage in U.S. House Elections Grow?” American Journal of Political Science 40 (2): 478–497.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox, G. W., and M. F. Thies. 2000. “How Much Does Money Matter?.” Comparative Political Studies 33 (1): 37–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curry, James M, Paul S Herrnson, and Jeffrey A Taylor. 2013. “The Impact of District Magnitude on Campaign Fundraising.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 38 (4): 517–543.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duverger, Maurice. 1954. Political Parties. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Erikson, R. S. 1971. “The Advantage of Incumbency in Congressional Elections.” Polity 3 (3): 395–405.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erikson, R. S., and T. R. Palfrey. 1998. “Campaign Spending and Incumbency: An Alternative Simultaneous Equations Approach.” The Journal of Politics 60 (02): 355–373.
   Google Scholar
• Gamboa, Ricardo, and Mauricio Morales. 2016. “Chile's 2015 Electoral Reform: Changing the Rules of the Game.” Latin American Politics and Society 58 (4): 126–144.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golden, Miriam A., and Lucio Picci. 2015. “Incumbency Effects Under Proportional Representation: Leaders and Backbenchers in the Postwar Italian Chamber of Deputies.” Legislative Studies Quarterly (4): 509–538.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, Donald P., and Jonathan S. Krasno. 1988. “Salvation for the Spendthrift Incumbent: Reestimating the Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 32 (4): 884–907.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobson, Gary C. 1978. “The Effects of Campaign Spending in Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 72 (2): 469–491.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobson, Gary C. 1985. “Money and Votes Reconsidered: Congressional Elections, 1972?1982.” Public Choice 47 (1): 7–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobson, Gary C. 2015. “How do Campaigns Matter?” Annual Review of Political Science 18: 31–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lachat, Romain, André Blais, and Ignacio Lago. 2015. “Assessing the Mechanical and Psychological Effects of District Magnitude.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 25 (3): 284–299.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lau, Richard R, and Ivy Brown Rovner. 2009. “Negative Campaigning.” Annual Review of Political Science 12: 285–306.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levitt, Steven D. 1994. “Using Repeat Challengers to Estimate the Effect of Campaign Spending on Election Outcomes in the U.S. House.” Journal of Political Economy 102 (4): 777–798.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maddens, Bart, Bram Wauters, Jo Noppe, and Stefaan Fiers. 2006. “Effects of Campaign Spending in an Open List PR System: The 2003 Legislative Elections in Flanders/Belgium.” West European Politics 29 (1): 161–168.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magar, Eric, Marc. R Rosenblum, and David Samuels. 1998. “On the Absence of Centripetal Incentives in Double-Member Districts.” Comparative Political Studies 31 (6): 714–739.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morales, Mauricio, and Rafael Piñeiro. 2010. “Gasto en Campaña y éxito Electoral de los Candidatos a Diputados en Chile 2005.” Revista de Ciencia Política 30 (3): 645–667.
   Google Scholar
• Prior, M. 2006. “The Incumbent in the Living Room: The Rise of Television and the Incumbency Advantage in U.S. House Elections.” The Journal of Politics 68 (3): 657–673.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rae, Douglas. 1995. “Using District Magnitude to Regulate Political Party Competition.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 9 (1): 65–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riker, William H. 1982. “The Two-Party System and Duverger’s Law: An Essay on the History of Political Science.” American Political Science Review 76 (4): 753–766.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salas, C. 2016. “Incumbency Advantage in Multi-Member Districts: Evidence from Congressional Elections in Chile.” Electoral Studies 42 (June): 213–221.
   Google Scholar
• Samuels, David. 2001a. “Does Money Matter? Credible Commitments and Campaign Finance in new Democracies: Theory and Evidence from Brazil.” Comparative Politics 34 (1): 23–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samuels, David. 2001b. “Incumbents and Challengers on a Level Playing Field: Assessing the Impact of Campaign Finance in Brazil.” The Journal of Politics 63 (2): 569–584.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samuels, David. 2001c. “When Does Every Penny Count?.” Party Politics 7 (1): 89–102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, Jeffrey A, Paul S Herrnson, and James M Curry. 2018. “The Impact of District Magnitude on the Legislative Behavior of State Representatives.” Political Research Quarterly 71 (2): 302–317.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Treisman, Daniel. 1998. “Dollars and Democratization: The Role and Power of Money in Russia's Transitional Elections.” Comparative Politics 31 (1): 1–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar