FairVote's Monopoly Politics report series presents in-depth analysis of U.S. House elections and the structural origins of the polarization, partisan bias, and striking lack of competition that plague Congressional politics. The report also lays out a detailed national reform plan to illustrate how adoption of the RCV Act would address these problems and empower all voters to have their voices heard on Election Day.
Accompanying the report are projections for 2014 and 2016 U.S. House races made at least a year before election day, illustrating the consistent absence of meaningful competition in nearly all districts.
The following interactive map presents a wealth of data on representation and competition from the 2014 Monopoly Politics report.
Elections are not competitive. More than 85% of U.S. House districts are completely safe for the party that holds them, and only 4% will be true toss-ups in 2016. As a result, millions of Americans are perpetually represented by politicians they oppose, with little hope of changing things at the polls.
For a national overview of these problems see out Monopoly Politics 2016 fact sheet.
The introduction to Monopoly Politics 2016 can be downloaded here.
Our interactive spreadsheet is available here.
Click on the analyses in the outline below to open sections of the Monopoly Politics 2014 report in PDF.
Part 1: The Power of Monopoly Politics
Part 2: The Problems of Monopoly Politics
Part 3: The Solution to Monopoly Politics
Since 1997, FairVote has released projections for U.S. House elections using a model that relies only on previous election results. These projections have been remarkably accurate. Months before the 2014 election, we projected outcomes in 368 U.S. House races, and were correct in 367. Two days after the 2014 election, we made projections for 373 2016 U.S. House races, and expect a similar level of success.
Our 2016 projections reveal:
While the model’s accuracy could likely be improved by incorporating data from public opinion polls, on the candidates, or on their campaigns, the accuracy of our projections in the absence of such information illustrates an important truth about elections under our current system: In the vast majority of cases, the particulars of candidates and campaigns have little impact on the end result. Uncompetitive races mean that outcomes are essentially predetermined, leaving voters without meaningful choices or a compelling reason to go to the polls.
The full projections can be found in the spreadsheets linked above. Users also can also use these sheets to make their own projections, by adjusting the values for the national preference between the major parties (we use a 50-50 projection), and the average advantage earned by incumbents (we give an average "incumbency bump" of 2.77%).
Click on your state to find out how uncompetitive your U.S. House election will be in 2016.
|Alabama||Hawaii||Massachusetts||New Mexico||South Dakota|
|Florida||Maine||New Hampshire||Rhode Island||Wisconsin|
|Georgia||Maryland||New Jersey||South Carolina||Wyoming|
Follow the links below for previous editions of the Monopoly Politics report. While the projection methodology has been refined over the years, it has remained remarkably accurate since its inception, with near perfect accuracy in the 75% to 85% of House races projected in each election.
The projections are based on the innovative "district partisanship" metric introduced in the first Monopoly Politics report in 1997. District partisanship measures the partisan lean of each congressional district by comparing their vote in the most recent presidential election to the national result.