Click on the map above to go to a page where you can interact with it, and explore just how few House districts across the nation are competitive. It’s accompanied by various other charts that show graphically just how stacked the deck is across the country.
The dark red and dark blue districts are settled, foregone conclusions, thanks to the awful miracle of modern redistricting algorithms, which enable Legislatures to draw districts so that they are guaranteed to go for one party or the other — so that the only real contests are in primaries, which have the effect of pulling both parties farther and farther from the political center. The only thing most members of Congress fear is primary opponents who are more extreme than they are.
Of course, we know that there is no chance for the minority party in any of South Carolina’s seven congressional districts. That’s because ever since the redrawing that occurred after the 1990 census, the 6th District has been drawn as a super-extreme “majority-minority” district. I remember Jim Clyburn saying, way back in the 90s, that he didn’t really need his district to be gerrymandered to the extent that it was in order to win. Well, since then, if anything, our GOP Legislature has been even more generous with the state’s one Democratic congressman.
Why? because every black voter they can shove into Clyburn’s district makes the other six districts that much safer for Republicans.
This is, after all, how they came to power in the Legislature to start with. Black Democrats were unsatisfied with the number of majority-minority districts Speaker Bob Sheheen and the other white Democrats were willing to draw after the 1990 census. So they joined forces with the Republicans to pass a plan that created more of them — and consequently made the surrounding districts whiter, and more Republican.
And abracadabra — we had a Republican House, and Sheheen wasn’t speaker anymore. And a few years later, the Senate followed suit. And the Black Caucus got a few more members, but they were now all in the minority party, which meant the caucus had traded away much of its ability to get anything done once elected.
But I digress….
The larger issue nationally is that voters no longer have a viable choice in general elections for Congress. Which is a terrible thing to have happened to our representative democracy.
Related Posts
Brad, the Republichans and Democratich politicians brought the country to where it is today. Blaming one party is myopic. Flashing a prominently red map before a major election is, however, humorous. Well done!
On a related note, just how noncompetitive are the SC State Legislative elections?
Answer: Only 4% of our state legislative races are competitive.
Process: I looked at the results from 2008, 2010, and 2012 at scvotes.org and compared the top race to the state legislature races. SC is solid red, so any legislative race less competitive than the top race is a noncompetitive blowout without any real choice.
2008 Data: McCain got 53.87% to Obama’s 44.90%. Of the 46 SC State Senate races, only two winners (Mick Mulvaney – REP in 16, with 53.70%, and Floyd Nicholson – DEM in 10, with 51.36%) were in more competitive races, i.e. 44 out of 46 SC State Senate races were less competitive than the presidential race. Of the 124 SC State House races, only 5 winners (3 DEM and 2 REP) were in more competitive races, i.e. 119 out of 124 SC State House races were less competitive than the presidential race.
2010 Data: Haley got 51.37% to Sheheen’s 46.91%. Of the 123 [one was to be filled later with a special election] SC State House races, only one winner (Peter McCoy – REP in 115, with 47.01% [note <50% b/c 3rd candidate had 9.63%]) was in a more competitive race, i.e. 122 out of 123 SC State House races were less competitive than the governor's race.
2012 Data: Romney got 54.56% to Obama's 44.09%. Of the 46 SC State Senate races, only two winners (Floyd Nicholson – DEM in 10, with 53.50%, and Katrina Shealy – Petition in 23, with 51.06%) were in more competitive races, i.e. 44 out of 46 SC State Senate races were less competitive than the presidential race. Of the 124 SC State House races, nine winners (5 REP, 3 Petition, 1 DEM) were in more competitive races, i.e. 115 out of 124 SC State House races were less competitive than the presidential race.
Synthesis: That's 3 elections with 463 state legislative races, with only 19 competitive races, for a competitive race rate of about 4%. Only 4% of our state legislative races are competitive.
Yesterday’s election (scvotes.org — results still unofficial, not all counties have reported, no results reported in SC State House races 98, 40, 27):
Haley 55.96% to Sheheen 41.36%: Five (3 DEM, 2 REP) winners of SC State House races were in races more competitive than the governor’s race, i.e. 116 of 121 SC State House races were less competitive than the governor’s race. That brings the total in 4 elections to 24 competitive races out of 584, still about 4%.
Term limits. Term limits. Term limits.
I said 4% are competitive, which means 96% are not competitive. A similar analysis by the Statehouse Report says 94% (116 out of 124) of seats for the SC House of Representatives in the 2014 election are not competitive:
“Of the 116 seats, 53 Republican and 30 Democratic incumbents had no challengers. Six other seats had newcomers with no challengers. In the remaining seats, the victors won by a margin of 60 percent or more in all but eight seats.”
Doug’s suggestion of term limits won’t help this particular issue at all. We’ll just have more newcomers with no challengers.
Oh I’m absolutely for redrawing districts..but that won’t happen unless you get the current members out. Term limits would provide a better chance for that to happen.
“Term Limits” are supposedly black and white in clarity, while the geography of “competitive” defies easy fence building.
Melding oppositional sentiments to the status quo is what is needed here to advance an agenda of regaining political control by the electorate. That is a very tall order.