Voter choice, competition and American democracy

It’s no secret Americans are unhappy with our elected officials. Poll after poll says so. But somehow we keep re-electing them. Incumbents won 99% of their races for the U.S. House in 2004. Senate incumbents won 96% of theirs. Americans may be dissatisfied, but we almost never vote for change on Election Day.

Instead, fewer and fewer Americans bother to vote. Turnout in the United States has been dropping for decades, and is now among the lowest of any western democracy. Roughly half of those eligible will vote in the next presidential election. Even fewer will vote in the next congressional election. But that’s not because Americans are lazy. Our electoral system is failing us.

Most Americans live in Red or Blue “safe” states, where one party is guaranteed to win the presidential election. In 1964 there were 26 safe states. In 2004 there were 37, and there will likely be more in 2008. As campaigns increasingly focus on the remaining few battleground states, the candidates take more and more voters for granted. Candidates have no incentive to compete for safe state voters, much less respond to their concerns.

Over 90% of Americans also live in safe congressional districts. Candidates in these districts often run unopposed, giving voters no choice at the polls. In 2004, 172 House candidates ran unopposed or won in landslides. Only 22 of 435 total races were even close. Many career Senators never face an opponent either. And in some states, nearly 75% of the candidates for state legislature run unopposed.

For the majority of Americans who live in safe districts and states, the only choice Election Day presents is whether to bother voting at all. But why vote if one candidate is guaranteed to win?

Imagine if two firms controlled the nation’s beverage supply, and Americans could choose only between Coke and Pepsi. We would never stand for it, even if we liked those choices. Americans believe in the value of free market competition. Yet when it comes to elections, we allow private political parties to control our supply of candidates. We let Republicans and Democrats decide who we can vote for.

This wouldn’t be so bad if the major parties provided Americans with a choice. But they don’t. In more and more safe districts and states, Republicans and Democrats don’t even compete against each other. And they have made it nearly impossible for anyone to challenge them by enacting discriminatory regulations that apply only to their competition. Anyone who does challenge them needs millions of dollars to do it. So fewer Americans vote, and almost no one ever runs for office.

Competition is what drives our political system. Competition makes candidates responsive to voters, and competition enables voters to hold candidates accountable when they aren't. History is filled with examples: the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, the minimum wage, the graduated income tax and many other social advances began as grassroots movements that the major parties adopted only after minor parties popularized them. Thus competition between all candidates – not just major party candidates – is what makes our two-party system work.  

Private political parties shouldn’t be allowed to monopolize that system. Republicans and Democrats have limited Americans’ choices for so long that millions of voters now have no choice at all. But what good is our right to vote without a choice of candidates to vote for? If the American people are to decide our elections instead of politicians, competition must be restored to the system.

The Center for Competitive Democracy is a non-partisan, non-profit 501(c)(3) organization founded in 2005 to strengthen American democracy by increasing electoral competition. The Center works to identify and eliminate barriers to political participation and to secure free, open and competitive elections by fostering active civic engagement in the political process. To support us with a contribution, please Donate Online.