A sharp increase in partisan rigidity in Americans’ voting patterns has led to less competitive state and national elections and more predictable outcomes based on which party is in the majority. Fewer legislators fear losing in general elections, and fewer still can win in the other party’s “turf.” Third parties and independents are shut out almost entirely.
These factors combine to mean elections are largely in the hands of primary voters, who are decreasing in number and increasing in hardcore partisan views. The result is more legislative bodies with perfect partisan polarization: every Democrat is rated as more liberal than every Republican, and being a “bridgebuilder” — that is, engaging in high-profile cooperation with representatives of the other party — can lead directly to a primary challenge. America’s constitutional system of governance is based on compromise. When polarization causes that to break down, policymaking can grind to a halt or swing wildly based on which party has majority control.
The key to addressing polarization at a state and national level requires changes to key statutory laws for how elections are held and the structural rules for legislative chambers. Check out our resources:
Near-perfect partisan polarization in Georgia: The state legislature had 236 seats up for election in 2014. All but two seats were won by candidates of the same party whose presidential nominee carried the district in 2012.
Winner-take-all domination in Arizona: Arizona has public financing and independent redistricting; however, all but three of its 90 state legislators elected in 2014 are of the same party as the presidential nominee who carried the district in 2012. Only two districts were won by a presidential candidate by less than 8%.
Uncontested elections: More than one in three state legislative elections were won by a candidate who did not face a single opponent. In November 2014, more than two years before the November 2016 congressional elections, FairVote made its final projections for U.S. House winners in six out of every seven districts.
Vanishing moderates and “crossover” Members of Congress: In 1992, 116 House Members represented districts carried by the other major party’s nominee. That declined to 26 after 2012. It is no accident the number of House Members classified as having moderate voting behaviors declined from 129 in 1992 to only 12 in 2012.
The polarization crisis can be resolved without resorting to constitutional changes. FairVote’s proposals that most directly speak to this problem zero in on key statutory laws for how we hold elections and how we structure rules in legislative chambers:
U.S. House Elections and State Legislatures: We are building support for the Ranked Choice Voting Act. It would make three key changes:
State legislatures also would benefit from ranked choice voting, ideally in multi-winner districts or in combination with reforms to primaries such as the Top Four primary.
Elections for Governor and U.S. Senate: We support ranked choice voting in these elections.
Legislative Rules: We support rules that give every legislator a voice, such as ensuring every bill gets a committee hearing, every bill with a basic level of support gets a floor vote, and every chamber leader is elected in a secret ballot by the whole chamber, not just one party’s caucus.
Not only are crossover representatives disappearing, but the number of districts that are at all competitive has also drastically declined. In over 80% of congressional districts there is essentially no chance of victory for a candidate from the party in the minority in 2014. This lack of competition not only prevents the election of crossover legislators, but ensures that the candidates who are elected need only be concerned with the views of their partisan primary voters, who become the de facto electorate.
Though declining competition in U.S. House races is often blamed on redistricting and partisan gerrymandering, it has more to do with demographic forces and the self-sorting of Americans into pockets of like-minded voters than with partisan attempts to manipulate the electoral landscape. More than ever before, Democratic voters are concentrated in urban areas, while conservatives are in the majority outside of cities. This divide means that no matter how district lines are drawn, winner-take-all House elections will remain uncompetitive and generate an artificially polarized chamber. That is why half-measures like independent redistricting are insufficient for addressing the underlying forces that have broken Congress and led to the shutdown.
As part of its Monopoly Politics 2014 analysis on polarization in Congress, FairVote found that two key factors figure prominently into how Members of Congress vote: their party and the partisanship of their districts. More specifically, the vast majority of Members tend to vote with their party on key votes. Only those who represent “swing districts” – that is, districts with a partisanship favoring their party by less than 53% – or those who represent districts that favor the other party (“crossover representatives”) have any incentive to reach across the aisle and vote with the other side. Despite their crucial role, these legislators are on the decline in Congress: now, crossover representatives comprise just 6% in the House, and only 11% of congressional districts are “swing.”
State legislatures, overall, have similarly low percentages of crossover and swing representatives. The state in the Daily Kos data with the median proportion of swing districts is Virginia, with 12%, and the state with the median proportion of crossover representatives is Hawaii, with 9%. In all 29 states surveyed, 11.6% of districts had crossover representatives.