ABSTRACT
In theory, electoral competition is the hallmark of a vibrant democracy. Without competitive elections there is little keeping elected officials from doing what they want as opposed to representing the needs of their constituents. Elections, in other words, hold elected officials’ feet to the fire. In practice, however, incumbents get re-elected at alarmingly high rates at all levels, even in local contests where one might expect that voters could keep a closer eye on them and where one might expect challengers to have an easier time overcoming incumbents’ electoral advantages. While often linked together, studies of state and local politics are essentially distinct fields of study. The emphasis in the urban literature is on the role of institutions, population demographics, and descriptive representation. There is often a big city bias and a case study orientation to the research. Cities are significantly different than states, especially in terms of their institutional arrangements. Institutionally at least, states are more like mini-versions of the federal government with bicameral legislatures in 49 of the 50 states, governors, and independent judicial systems. By contrast, cities do not employ bicameral legislatures or independent judiciaries, and may or may not have a directly elected mayor. The effect of variation in these factors has been the focal point of state and local elections research. We begin this chapter by discussing electoral competition in cities, before moving on to a discussion of electoral competition in states. The differences between elections at the city and state level are readily apparent, as are the methodological approaches employed by scholars in each area. From a scholarly standpoint there is one clear similarity, though: both areas of research offer scholars numerous opportunities to examine both old questions as well as new questions. In other words, there is much work to be done.
