|
Overview: Dubious
Democracy 2003-2004
June 2003
Generally, the first year after redistricting results in the most competitive
House elections of the decade. After the most recent redistricting, there
were fewer competitive races than in the least competitive year of the decade
from 1992-2000.
This problem -- a lack of competitive elections -- is only going to get worse
from 2004 to 2010.
Back to report:
In 2002, over 80% of US House races were won by landslide
margins of at least 20%. Fewer than
one in ten races were by less than a 10% margin.
This year’s elections were the least competitive races since 1988.
The first year after redistricting is generally the most
competitive year of the decade. For
example, in 1992 there were 84 competitive races, and 61% of the races were won
by landslides. As incumbents settle
into their districts throughout the course of the decade, elections generally
become less competitive. In 2000,
there were only 42 competitive races, half as many as in 1992, and 77% were won
by landslide margins of at least 20%.
This has a chilling implication for the decade ahead of us:
It’s likely that the most
competitive year of 2002-2010 will be less competitive
than the least competitive year of 1992-2000.
If you’re dismayed that growing numbers of eligible
Americans are choosing not to vote, you may not want to continue reading,
because it’s only going to get worse unless we start making fundamental
changes in the way we hold elections and elect our representatives.
Over 90% of Americans live in congressional districts that
are essentially one-party monopolies. This
means that most voters are faced with unappealing choices: ratify the incumbent party, waste their
vote on a candidate who is sure to lose, or sit out the race. Not surprisingly, increasing numbers of
American are opting for the latter option.
So much for a healthy two-party system, where issues
ignored by one major party can be meaningfully addressed by the other one. And if you’d like to hear about the
policy ideas of independent and third party candidates, you’re even more out
of luck.
Instead, we’ve got to face a very troubling electoral
landscape:
- The average victory margin in U.S. House races was
39% -- meaning winners on average won more than 69% of votes cast in their
race. Only 38, fewer than one in ten races, were won by competitive margins
of less than 10%.
- The landslide index increased to 81%, meaning more
than four out of five races were won by more than 20%. Since 1960, only one year, 1988, had
a higher landslide index.
- Only 4 out of 386 incumbents lost to facing
non-incumbent challengers. That’s
the highest re-election rates since 1954 (and possibly earlier), at a time
when public opinion of the Congress is not very flattering.
- Nearly three out of five seats (254) are held by
incumbents who have won their last two elections by “landslide” margins
of least 20% (earning our "untouchable" tag).
- Less than 39% of eligible Americans cast a vote in
2000; only one in four adults voted for the U.S. House member who
represents them.
- Republican candidates for the House in 1992 won 45%
of votes around the country, but only 41% of seats. In 2000, they won 48% of
votes, but 51% of seats. Such swings and distortions are often magnified in
particular states.
It’s time to stop blaming the victims of the American
electoral system – the voters – and start addressing the root causes of
feelings of alienation and lack of representation.
The Center for Voting and Democracy advocates for full representation, instant runoff voting and public interest redistricting methods to improve
representation and accountability, increase competition, enhance debate of
issues and ultimately improve public policy and national unity.
Read the rest of the Dubious Democracy 2003
report for disturbing information about the state of our democracy.
|
