Congressional Elections


While congressional elections may not capture the national imagination in same way that presidential elections do, they are just as important. These elections should determine the membership and direction of Congress, which was intended to be the branch "first among equals" in our national government. Too often, however, congressional elections are  uncompetitive, leaving voters disenchanted, with little power too choose their representation, and few reasons to turn out to vote. 

Click on a topic to begin.

Monopoly Politics

FairVote’s Monopoly Politics reports present 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 US House races, which illustrate the absence of meaningful competition in nearly all of these elections.

Dubious Democracy

First issued in 1994 and then every two years thereafter, Dubious Democracy provides a comprehensive quantitative assessment of the level of competition, rate of voter participation, and share of votes cast for losing candidates in elections to the U.S. House of Representatives in all 50 states. With analysis of data since 1982, the report ranks each state on a "democracy index" based on average margin of victory, percentage of seats to votes, how many voters elect candidates and number of House races won by overwhelming landslides.

Dubious Democracy provides one overriding insight: Although our constitutional framers gave the House of Representatives extraordinary powers and, of all the branches of government, the clearest accountability to the American people, that accountability has been destroyed beyond recognition by winner-take-all election rules that magnify the incumbency advantage and redistricting.


Dubious Democracy 2018

Dubious Democracy 2018 highlights the chronic lack of competition and accountability in U.S. House elections across the nation. Of the 435 total U.S. House races in 2018, one in 11 were uncontested by a major party and three in five were decided by at least 20 points. Only one-fifth of all races were decided by less than 10 points. On average, the margin of victory between the winner and the runner-up for a U.S. House seat was 32 points. 

In addition to being uncompetitive, election results have also been far from fair. Under a fair, proportional system, a party should earn roughly as many seats as votes cast for them across each state. In 2018, however, the states that elect at least three Representatives had a median seats-to-votes distortion of over 20 percentage points. That means that in half of those states, one of the two major parties received at least 20 percent more seats than they earned by their vote share. For instance, Democrats in California received 20.2% more seats than they earned by their share of votes while Republicans in Ohio received 22.6% more seats than they earned by their share of votes.  

Dubious Democracy 2018 breaks down the disparity between seats won and votes cast for each party in all 50 states. Click the link below to see how each state scores on crucial measures affecting American democracy.


infogram_0_de5877b0-0d74-4cc2-b9cf-e65f0f7dd280Dubious Democracy 2018


Click the links below to find our past Dubious Democracy datasets.

Dubious Democracy 2018

Dubious Democracy 2016

Dubious Democracy 2014

Dubious Democracy 2012

Dubious Democracy 2010

Dubious Democracy 2008


Click the link below to see 1982-2010 data presented state-by-state.
Our eighth installment of Dubious Democracy in 2010 provided a comprehensive overview of the level of competition and accuracy of representation in U.S. House elections in all 50 states from 1982 to 2010. Read it on our former website in a user-friendly format:

Read the Report: Dubious Democracy 1982-2010



U.S. Senate Vacancy Elections

The authority of our government is grounded in the power of the people to choose their representatives. No Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, "The People's House," has ever taken office without an election. However, though the 17th Amendment to the Constitution requires election of all senators, it also gives states the option to fill vacancies by gubernatorial appointment. No federal mechanism exists to guarantee that all U.S. Senators – just as is the case for all U.S. House Members – serve via democratic processes. Since the passage of the 17th amendment, almost a quarter of all U.S. Senators who have ever served were originally appointed.

FairVote believes that all Members of Congress, in both houses, should be solely accountable to the voters of their states and districts, not to a sole individual with his or her own personal and political agenda. Instead of filling vacancies through shady backroom deals, seats in the U.S. Senate should be filled, in all circumstances, by direct election.

infogram_0_state_by_state_senate_vacancy_proceduresSTATE-BY-STATE SENATE VACANCY PROCEDURES//

FairVote Resources on Elections for Senate Vacancies

FairVote op-eds and commentary

Press releases

Other resources

  • Text of SJ 7, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to the election of Senators.

Join Us Today to Help Create a More Perfect Union