Electoral competitiveness in California, 1912-2014

Competitiveness in state legislatures
Navigation
Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

Published in April 2015

The 2014 national election continued the decline in U.S. electoral competitiveness that has occurred since 1972. The decline of electoral competitiveness that has been seen on the national stage, has also been seen in states. Even California, which had a historically low percentage of uncontested races from 1968 to 2014, saw a decline in the percentage of uncontested U.S. House elections, from 43.5 percent to 18.9 percent.

This page contains electoral competitiveness information at various levels of government in this state up to 2014. For more recent information about state legislative competitiveness nationwide, click here.

The data presented below are part of a larger project on electoral competitiveness, the full report is available in the table to the right. The images below illustrate the changes in the competitiveness of elections in California from 1912 through 2014. The data used to generate these graphs is available in the tables below those images.

Background

Since 1972, electoral competitiveness has tended to decrease across the United States. During that time, people who are members of the same political party have become more likely to live in the same area as one another than in the past. Nationally, the rate at which incumbents won reelection is also close to an all-time high. However, this does not have to do with incumbents deriving more advantages from holding office than before. It is because they are more likely to be in safe districts for their party. In contrast to the high incumbency reelection rate, the rate at which incumbents run for reelection has gone down over time.

Competitiveness is declining. On the national level, the percentage of state legislative elections won by 5 percent or less was nearly the lowest in the 1972 to 2014 period. In an absolute sense, the incidence of such elections was very low. Only 4.9 percent of U.S. residents in districts with elections saw their election won by 5 percent or less. Similarly, more Americans lived in areas with uncontested elections than ever before in the time period studied: 36.7 percent. State legislative primaries were often found to be won by wide margins or not contested at all. The rate at which incumbents won reelection is also close to an all-time high. However, this does not have to do with incumbents deriving more advantages from holding office than before. It is because they are more likely to be in safe districts for their party. In contrast to the high incumbency reelection rate, the rate at which incumbents run for reelection has gone down over time.

Competitiveness in elections in California

• 

  [Ballot_StateGraph01_Marg_Stateno5California2015_04_23.png|Marginal Elections]

• 

  [Ballot_StateGraph02_Uncont_Stateno5California2015_04_23.png|Uncontested Elections]

• 

  [Ballot_StateGraph03_Inc_Stateno5California2015_04_23.png|Incumbent Win Rates]

• 

  [Ballot_StateGraph04_US_HS_Stateno5California2015_04_23.png|Competitiveness in U.S. House Seats]

• 

  [Ballot_StateGraph05_UpBallot_Stateno5California2015_04_23.png|Margin of Victory in Up Ballot Elections]

Table explanation

The columns in the tables below for both state senates and state houses are as follow:

• Seats: number of seats in the state legislative chamber.
• Percent Seats Up: percent of seats in the state legislative chamber that are up in a particular year for the November election.
• Percent Won By Dem: the percent of seats in the state legislature that were won by a Democrat.
• Percent Unusable: percent of seats for the state legislative chamber that weren’t usable to compute whether a race was marginal or not for this chamber in this year because of missing data. This column usually says “0.”
• Percent with 5% margin: percent of seats for a state chamber in a year that were won by 5% or less.
• Percent with 10% margin: percent of seats for a state chamber in a year that were won by 10% or less.
• Percent Unusable Other: percent of seats that have missing data that prevent the computation of whether an incumbent won or lost, whether an incumbent ran or not, or whether a race was uncontested. This column usually says “0.”
• Percent Uncontested: percent of races in a chamber that are uncontested.
• Percent Incumbent Win: percent of incumbents who ran for a state chamber in a particular year who won.
• Percent With Incumbent: number of incumbents running for reelection for a state-chamber in one year, divided by the number of seats that are up for election for that state-chamber, multiplied by 100.

The columns for the “Up ballot” tab are as follows:

• U.S. House Seats: number of U.S. House Seats that a state was apportioned in the year in question.
• Percent Not Usable: percent of U.S. House Seats in the state and year that aren’t usable to compute marginality or contestation, because of something unusual about the race.
• Percent With 5% Margin: percent of U.S. House races in the state and year that were won by 5% or less.
• Percent With 10% Margin: percent of U.S. House races in the state and year that were won by 10% or less.
• Percent Uncontested: percent of U.S. House races that were uncontested in the state and year.
• U.S. Senate 1 Margin: difference between the percent obtained by the winner of the U.S. Senate election with the U.S. Senate candidate receiving the second most votes.
• U.S. Senate 2 Margin: This is only recorded when a second election to the U.S. Senate was held because of a Senator not completing their term. For such elections, this is the difference between the percent obtained by the winner of the U.S. Senate election with the U.S. Senate candidate receiving the second most votes.
• President margin: difference between the percent of votes obtained by the presidential candidate receiving the most votes in a state minus the percent of votes obtained by the presidential candidate receiving the second most votes in a state.
• Governor margin: difference between the percent obtained by the winner of the gubernatorial election in a state with the gubernatorial candidate receiving the second most votes.

State Senate

State Senate competitiveness, California
Year	Seats	% Seats up	% Won by Dem	% Unusable	% With 5% margin	% With 10% margin	% Unusuable other	% Uncontested	% Incumbent win	% With incumbent	% of Dem inc winning	% of Repub inc winning
1968	40	50	50	0	0	5	0	5	95	100	100	90
1970	40	50	60	0	10	30	0	5	93.8	80	100	85.7
1972	40	50	40	0	10	10	0	0	100	85	100	100
1974	40	50	85	0	5	10	0	5	91.7	60	100	66.7
1976	40	50	45	0	25	40	0	5	75	60	66.7	83.3
1978	40	50	80	0	10	20	0	5	84.6	65	84.6
1980	40	50	45	0	10	15	0	5	93.3	75	87.5	100
1982	40	50	80	0	10	20	0	10	91.7	60	100	66.7
1984	40	50	45	0	5	15	0	0	94.4	90	100	100
1986	40	50	70	0	10	10	0	10	100	90	100	100
1988	40	50	50	0	5	10	0	5	100	85	100	100
1990	40	50	75	0	10	25	0	10	94.7	95	100	80
1992	40	50	45	0	5	10	0	10	100	55	100	100
1994	40	50	65	0	15	30	0	0	91.7	60	88.9	100
1996	40	50	50	0	15	25	0	0	100	35	100	100
1998	40	50	75	0	5	15	0	10	88.9	45	100	75
2000	40	50	55	0	10	10	0	0	90	50	100	80
2002	40	50	70	0	5	5	0	25	100	55	100	100
2004	40	50	55	0	5	5	0	5	100	50	100	100
2006	40	50	70	0	5	5	0	15	100	40	100	100
2008	40	50	55	0	5	15	0	0	100	40	100	100
2010	40	50	70	0	5	5	0	10	100	40	100	100
2012	40	50	75	0	5	10	0	10	100	45	100	100
2014	40	50	55	0	5	25	0	0	100	30	100	100

State House

State House competitiveness, California
Year	Seats	% Seats up	% Won by Dem	% Unusable	% With 5% margin	% With 10% margin	% Unusuable other	% Uncontested	% Incumbent win	% With incumbent	% of Dem inc winning	% of Repub inc winning
1968	80	100	48.8	0	7.5	12.5	0	2.5	96	93.8	92.3	100
1970	80	100	53.8	0	7.5	15	0	1.3	94.4	90	100	88.6
1972	80	100	63.8	0	8.8	20	0	5	95.5	82.5	100	89.3
1974	80	100	68.8	0	10	21.3	0	2.5	92.9	70	94.3	90.5
1976	80	100	71.3	0	8.8	22.5	0	8.8	96.7	75	100	88.9
1978	80	100	62.5	0	3.8	15	0	8.8	90.2	76.3	87.2	100
1980	80	100	60	0	8.8	15	0	8.8	93.8	81.3	95.1	91.7
1982	80	100	60	0	5	11.3	0	12.5	96.6	72.5	94.1	100
1984	80	100	58.8	0	5	7.5	0	15	100	96.3	100	100
1986	80	100	55	0	5	8.8	0	3.8	100	85	100	100
1988	80	100	58.8	0	5	7.5	0	7.5	96	93.8	100	90.9
1990	80	100	60	0	5	11.3	0	11.3	95.7	86.3	97.6	92.9
1992	80	100	60	0	7.5	12.5	0	7.5	96	62.5	100	88.2
1994	80	100	48.8	0	8.8	13.8	0	5	90.4	65	84.4	100
1996	80	100	53.8	0	11.3	16.3	0	5	97.7	55	100	96
1998	80	100	60	0	3.8	11.3	0	6.3	96.3	67.5	100	91.3
2000	80	100	62.5	0	2.5	10	0	2.5	100	60	100	100
2002	80	100	60	0	3.8	6.3	0	8.8	100	57.5	100	100
2004	80	100	60	0	2.5	6.3	0	5	100	70	100	100
2006	80	100	60	0	2.5	5	0	7.5	100	53.8	100	100
2008	80	100	63.8	0	7.5	15	0	10	100	62.5	100	100
2010	80	100	65	0	1.3	6.3	0	6.3	100	61.3	100	100
2012	80	100	68.8	0	13.8	21.3	0	3.8	93.3	56.3	93.3	93.3
2014	80	100	65	0	7.5	15	0	5	92.5	66.3	89.2	100

Up ballot

Up ballot competitiveness, California
Year	U.S. House Seats	% Not usable	% With 5% margin	% With 10% margin	% Uncontested	U.S. Senate 1 margin	U.S. Senate 2 margin	President margin	Governor margin
1912								0
1916								0.4
1920								46.3
1924								26.7
1928								30.8
1932								21.9
1936								35.7
1938									8.6
1940								16.3
1942									15.5
1944						4.6		13.6
1946	23	0	4.3	30.4	43.5	10.1			85.7
1948	23	4.3	13.6	27.3	47.8			0.5
1950	23	0	17.4	26.1	47.8	18.5			29.7
1952	30	0	13.3	23.3	46.7	100		13.7
1954	30	0	3.3	20	6.7	7.8			13.7
1956	30	0	3.3	16.7	10	8.4		11.2
1958	30	0	16.7	23.3	16.7	14.1			19.6
1960	30	0	10	13.3	6.7			0.5
1962	38	0	10.5	15.8	0	12.9			5.1
1964	38	0	7.9	13.2	2.6	3.1		18.3
1966	38	0	2.6	13.2	0				15.3
1968	38	0	7.9	10.5	2.6	5		3.3
1970	38	0	2.6	5.3	0	9.7			7.9
1972	43	0	2.3	7	2.3			13.9
1974	43	0	9.3	11.6	11.6	25.1			2.9
1976	43	0	4.7	11.6	2.3	3.4		1.8
1978	43	0	2.3	11.6	4.7				21.1
1980	43	0	7	16.3	0	20.7		18.9
1982	45	2.2	2.3	13.6	4.4	7			1.2
1984	45	0	0	4.4	6.7			16.4
1986	45	0	0	0	2.2	1.5			23.7
1988	45	0	2.2	4.4	6.7	9.1		3.6
1990	45	0	6.7	15.6	6.7				3.6
1992	52	0	11.5	19.2	5.8	5.4	17.7	17
1994	52	0	11.5	15.4	3.8	2.1			15.2
1996	52	0	7.7	15.4	0			14.4
1998	52	0	5.8	9.6	17.3	10.5			20.3
2000	52	0	5.8	13.5	7.7	20.8		12.4
2002	53	0	0	1.9	3.8				5.4
2004	53	0	0	1.9	9.4	20.8		10.1
2006	53	0	1.9	5.7	15.1	25.9			17.9
2008	53	0	3.8	9.4	17			24.6
2010	53	0	3.8	7.5	3.8	10.6			13.6
2012	53	17	4.5	15.9	7.5	25		23.7
2014	53	1.9	13.5	17.3	18.9				19.9

Navigation map

Click on a different state below for more detailed data on electoral competitiveness.

Choose your state...AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWashington, D.C.West VirginiaWisconsinWyoming

http://ballotpedia.org/Competitiveness in STATE state legislative elections

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

---

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Frank Festa • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond
External Relations: Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

---

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams. Managing Editor of Events • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Victoria Edwards • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Jimmy McAllister • Brandon McCauley • Ellie Mikus • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox