How Gerrymandering and Polarization are Stifling Democracy

The Death of Competition in Elections

Competition in legislative elections is on the brink of extinction. A New York Times analysis of nearly 6,000 congressional and state legislative elections in November paints a stark picture of how few races were truly competitive.

The vast majority of races were either dominated by an incumbent or played out in a district heavily skewed towards one party. This resulted in a landslide of uncontested victories, even in a nation deeply divided on political issues.

A mere 8% of congressional races (36 out of 435) and a meager 7% of state legislative races (400 out of 5,465) were decided by a margin of less than five percentage points, according to The Times's analysis.

The consequences of this decline in competition are evident. Roughly 90% of races are now effectively decided not by voters in the general election, but by the partisan voters who participate in primaries months earlier. This favors candidates who cater to ideological voters and lawmakers who are less inclined to compromise. It further exacerbates the polarization that has led to gridlock in Congress and state legislatures.

"Because of partisan and racial gerrymandering, you end up with these skewed results and legislative bodies that don’t necessarily reflect the political makeup of either the states or, writ large, the House of Representatives representing the political desires of the American people," said Eric H. Holder Jr., the attorney general in the Obama administration. As chair of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, Holder has criticized the mapmaking process and even called out his own party's redistricting practices.